The Association of
Accountants and
Financial Professionals
in Business
ima
Statement on Management Accounting
Enterprise Risk Management:
Tools and Techniques for Eective Implementation
About IMA
®
IMA
®
, the association of accountants and nancial
professionals in business, is one of the largest and
most respected associations focused exclusively on
advancing the management accounting profession.
Globally, IMA supports the profession through research,
the CMA
®
(Certied Management Accountant) program,
continuing education,networking, and advocacy of the
highest ethical business practices. IMA has a global
network of more than 70,000 members in 120 countries
and 300 professional and student chapters. Headquartered
in Montvale, N.J., IMA provides localized services through
its four global regions: The Americas; Asia/Pacic, Europe
and Middle East/Africa. For more information about IMA,
please visit www.imanet.org.
© 2007
Institute of Management Accountants
10 Paragon Drive, Suite 1
Montvale, NJ, 07645
www.imanet.org
About the Author
IMA
®
would like to acknowledge the work of William
G. Shenkir, Ph.D., CPA, and Paul L. Walker, Ph.D., CPA,
both of the McIntire School of Commerce, University of
Virginia, who were the authors of this SMA. Thanks also
go to Tim Leech of Paisley Consulting and COSO board
member Jeff Thomson, CMA, CAE, of IMA, who served
as reviewers and Raef Lawson, Ph.D., CMA, CPA, of IMA,
who serves as series editor.
Transforming the Finance Function
IMA Research
This research area focuses on the various stakeholders
that play a role in directing and controlling organizations,
including governing and regulatory bodies, public
accounting rms, and organizations’ board of directors
and senior management. Beyond focusing on the rights
and responsibilities of these stakeholders, research in
this area includes additional topics such as executive
compensation and enterprise risk management (ERM).
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...............................................................................................................7
Introduction..........................................................................................................................7
Scope.....................................................................................................................................8
Risk Identication Techniques...............................................................................................9
Brainstorming.....................................................................................................................11
Event Inventories and Loss Event Data.......................................................................................12
Interviews and Self-Assessment...............................................................................................13
Facilitated Workshops...........................................................................................................14
SWOT Analysis...................................................................................................................14
Risk Questionnaires and Surveys...............................................................................................15
Scenario Analysis.................................................................................................................15
Using Technology................................................................................................................16
Other Techniques................................................................................................................17
Analysis of Risk by Drivers...................................................................................................17
Risk Assessment Tools.........................................................................................................19
Categories..........................................................................................................................20
Qualitative vs. Quantitative.....................................................................................................20
Risk Rankings......................................................................................................................21
Impact and Probability.........................................................................................................21
Keys to Risk Maps ................................................................................................................22
Link to Objectives at Risk or Divisions at Risk...............................................................................24
Residual Risk................................................................................................................................24
Validating the Impact and Probability.........................................................................................25
Gain/Loss Curves................................................................................................................25
Tornado Charts.................................................................................................................... 26
Enterprise Risk Management: Tools and Techniques for Eective Implementation
Table of Contents, Cont’d
Risk-Adjusted Revenues.........................................................................................................27
A Common Sense Approach to Risk Assessment..........................................................................29
Probabilistic Models..............................................................................................................29
Seemingly Nonquantiable Risks.............................................................................................32
Practical Implementation Considerations...........................................................................33
ERM Infrastructure ...............................................................................................................33
ERM Maturity Models............................................................................................................34
Staging ERM Adoption for Early Wins........................................................................................36
The Role of the Management Accountant.................................................................................36
ERM Education and Training....................................................................................................36
Technology.........................................................................................................................37
Aligning Corporate Culture..............................................................................................................37
Building a Case for ERM.........................................................................................................38
The ROI of ERM..................................................................................................................38
Conclusion..........................................................................................................................39
Glossary.............................................................................................................................40
Reference List......................................................................................................................40
Additional Resources.......................................................................................................... 41
Table of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: A Continuous Risk Management Process............................................................ 9
Exhibit 2: Industry Portfolio of Risks ..................................................................................12
Exhibit 3A-D: Risk Identication Template....................................................................13-14
Exhibit 4: Inuence Diagram..............................................................................................18
Exhibit 5: Quantifying Risk: Determine the Drivers............................................................19
Exhibit 6: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Risk Assessment..........................20
Exhibit 7: Risk Map.............................................................................................................22
Exhibit 8: Risk Map Model................................................................................................23
Exhibit 9: Gain/Loss Probability Curve.............................................................................. 26
Exhibit 10: Tornado Chart: Earnings Variability by Sample Risks...................................... 27
Exhibit 11: Actual Revenue vs. Risk-Corrected Revenue...................................................28
Exhibit 12: Goals of Risk Management..............................................................................28
Exhibit 13: Earnings at Risk by Risk Factor.......................................................................30
Exhibit 14: Earnings at Risk Hedge Effectiveness Comparisons........................................30
Exhibit 15: Expected Earnings and EaR............................................................................ 31
Exhibit 16: Probability Assessment of Earnings Outcome.................................................31
Exhibit 17: ERM Maturity Model......................................................................................35
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
7
Enterprise risk management (ERM) takes a broad perspective on identifying the risks that could cause an
organization to fail to meet its strategies and objectives. In this Statement on Management Accounting
(SMA), several techniques for identifying risks are discussed and illustrated with examples from company
experiences. Once risks are identied, the next issue is to determine the root causes or what drives the risks.
A suggested approach is described and followed by a discussion of several qualitative and quantitative
procedures for assessing risks. Some practical ERM implementation considerations are also explored, including
infrastructure and maturity models, staging adoption, the role of the management accountant, education
and training, technology, aligning corporate culture, building a case for ERM, and the return on investment
(ROI) of ERM. Any organization—large or small; public, private, or not-for-prot; U.S.-based or global—that
has a stakeholder with expectations for business success can benet from the tools and techniques provided
in this SMA.
Executive Summary
In the economic landscape of the 21st Century, an organization’s business model is challenged constantly by
competitors and events that could give rise to substantial risks. An organization must strive to nd creative
ways to continuously reinvent its business model in order to sustain growth and create value for stakeholders.
Companies make money and increase stakeholder value by engaging in activities that have some risk, yet
stakeholders also tend to appreciate and reward some level of stability in their expected returns. Failure
to identify, assess, and manage the major risks facing the organization’s business model, however, may
unexpectedly result in signicant loss of stakeholder value. Thus senior leadership must implement processes
to effectively manage any substantial risks confronting the organization. This dual responsibility of growing
the business and managing risk has been noted by Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and CEO of General Electric
Co., when he described his position at GE as follows: “My job is to gure out how to grow and manage risk
and volatility at the same time.”
1
While leaders of successful organizations have always had some focus on managing risks, it typically has
been from a reactive exposure-by-exposure standpoint or a silo approach rather than a proactive, integrated,
across-the-organization perspective. Under a silo approach, individual organizational units deal with their
own risks, and often no single group or person in the organization has a grasp of the entire exposure confronting
the company (especially the overall organization’s “reputation” risk). To correct such a situation, enterprise
risk management (ERM) has emerged in recent years and takes an integrated and holistic view of the risks
facing the organization.
Introduction
1
Diane Brady, “General Electric, the Immelt Way,” Business Week, September, 2006, p. 33.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
8
2
The authors acknowledge that the ideas in this paragraph about the changing role of nancial professionals were taken from a presentation heard
some years ago (uncertain as to the date and place) and given by Jim Smith of The Marmon Group, Inc. While the original remarks were not given in
the context of ERM, they have been adapted accordingly.
This SMA is the second one to address enterprise risk management. The rst, Enterprise Risk Management:
Frameworks, Elements, and Integration, serves as the foundation for understanding and implementing ERM.
It highlights the various risk frameworks and statements that professional organizations around the world
have published. In addition, it discusses and illustrates through company experiences the core components
of a generic ERM framework. It also points out some entrepreneurial opportunities for change within an
organization (with specic leadership roles for the management accountant articulated) when ERM is incorporated
in such ongoing management activities such as strategic planning, the balanced scorecard, budgeting,
business continuity planning, and corporate governance. Finally, it takes up the issue of transitioning from
compliance under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), where the focus is on risks related to nancial reporting,
to an enterprise-wide perspective on risks, including strategic risks.
This SMA is addressed to management accounting and nance professionals who serve as strategic business
partners with management in the implementation of ERM in their organization. Others within the organization
responsible for risk management, information technology, and internal audit will also nd this SMA useful.
Like many other change initiatives going on within dynamic organizations, ERM provides an opportunity
for management accounting and nance professionals to alter how they are perceived by others in
the organization. By becoming a strategic partner in ERM implementation, they can be seen as “bean
sprouters” of new management initiatives rather than merely “bean counters.” They also can move from
being the historians and custodians of accounts to futuristic thinkers. They can become coaches and
players in a new management initiative important to the future overall well-being of the company rather
than merely scorekeepers on what has or has not been accomplished.
2
The focus of this SMA is on core tools and techniques to facilitate successful ERM implementation. While
other tools and techniques can be found in the Additional Resources section, this document emphasizes
those that are critical for most ERM initiatives. Since all organizations have stakeholders with ever-increasing
expectations, the tools and techniques discussed here are generally relevant to:
• Large and small organizations,
• Enterprises in the manufacturing and services sectors,
• Public and private organizations, and
• For-prot and not-for-prot organizations.
Scope
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
9
Exhibit 1 shows the generic ERM framework presented in Enterprise Risk Management: Frameworks,
Elements, and Integration. The initial focus is on clarity of strategies and objectives. The focal point for
risk identication may be at any level, such as the overall company, a strategic business unit, function,
project, process, or activity. Without clear objectives it is impossible to identify events that might give
rise to risks that could impede the accomplishment of a particular strategy or objective—regardless of
the scope of the inquiry. Assuming those involved in identifying risks have a clear understanding of the
strategies and objectives, the appropriate questions to ask, as suggested by one company’s senior
enterprise risk manager, are: “What could stop us from reaching our top goals and objectives?” and
“What would materially damage our ability to survive?” These questions can be modied for the
appropriate level of inquiry.
Risk Identication Techniques
Exhibit 1. A Continuous Risk Management Process
SET STRATEGY/
OBJECTIVES
TREAT
RISKS
IDENTIFY
RISKS
ASSESS
RISKS
COMMUNICATE
& MONITOR
CONTROL
RISKS
Source: Adapted from Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, No Surprises: The Case For Better Risk Reporting, ICAEW, London, U.K.,
1999, p. 47.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
10
Those involved in the risk identication process, should recognize that it is a misperception to think of a risk
“as a sudden event.”
3
Identifying an issue that is facing the organization and discussing it in advance can
potentially lead to the risk being mitigated. Two benets are possible:
“One, if you mitigate the risk and your peers do not—in a catastrophic, continuity-destroying event that
hits an industry—say a nancial scandal—you get what is called the survivor’s bonus. Two, if you survive
or survive better than others, then you have an upside after the fact, and this should be part of the
board’s strategic thinking.”
4
Before considering some of the specic techniques available for organizations to identify risks, several important
factors should be noted about this process:
• The end result of the process should be a risk language specic to the company or the unit, function,
activity, or process (whatever is the focal point).
• Using a combination of techniques may produce a more comprehensive list of risks than would
reliance on a single method.
• The techniques used should encourage open and frank discussion, and individuals should not fear
reprisal for expressing their concerns about potential events that would give rise to risks
resulting in major loss to the company.
• The process should involve a cross-functional and diverse team both for the perspectives that such
a group provides and to build commitment to ERM.
• Finally, the process will probably generate a lengthy list of risks, and the key is to focus on the
“vital few” rather than the “trivial many.”
Some techniques for identifying risk are:
• Brainstorming
• Event inventories and loss event data
• Interviews and self-assessment
• Facilitated workshops
• SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis
• Risk questionnaires and surveys
• Scenario analysis
• Using technology
• Other techniques
3
Corporate Board Member, 2006 Academic Council Supplement: Emerging Trends in Corporate Governance, Board Member, Inc., Brentwood, Tenn., p. 20.
4
Ibid.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
11
Brainstorming
When objectives are stated clearly and understood by the participants, a brainstorming session drawing
on the creativity of the participants can be used to generate a list of risks. In a well-facilitated brainstorming
session, the participants are collaborators, comprising a team that works together to articulate the risks
that may be known by some in the group. In the session, risks that are known unknowns may emerge,
and perhaps even some risks that were previously unknown unknowns may become known. Facilitating a
brainstorming session takes special leadership skills, and, in some organizations, members of the internal
audit and ERM staff have been trained and certied to conduct risk brainstorming sessions. In addition to
well-trained facilitators, the participants need to understand the ERM framework and how the brainstorming
session ts into the ERM process. The participants may very well be required to do some preparation prior
to the session.
In using this technique, one company familiar to the authors noted that because the objectives were unclear
to some of the participants, the process had to back up and clarify the objectives before proceeding.
Using a cross-functional team of employees greatly increases the value of the process because it sheds
light on how risks and objectives are correlated and how they can impact business units differently. Often in
brainstorming sessions focused on risk identication, a participant may mention a risk only to have another
person say: “Come to think of it, my area has that risk, and I have never thought of it before.” With the team
sharing experiences, coming from different backgrounds, and having different perspectives, brainstorming
can be successful in identifying risk. It is also powerful when used at the executive level or with the audit
committee and/or board of directors.
In a brainstorming session, the participants must have assurance that their ideas will not result in humiliation
or demotion. Otherwise, they may feel inhibited in expressing what they believe are major risks facing the
organization. As an example, a set of often overlooked risks are “people risks” vs. environmental risks, nancial
risks, and other more technical risks. People risks include succession planning (What if our very competent
leader departs the organization?) and competency and skills building (What if we continue with a team
that does not have the requisite skills for success?). Once a list of risks is generated, reducing the risks to
what the group considers the top few can be accomplished using group software to enable participants to
anonymously vote on the objectives and risks. Anonymity is believed to increase the veracity of the rankings.
Some of the interactive voting software that could be used in the risk identication process include Sharpe
Decisions, Resolver*Ballot, OptionFinder, and FacilitatePro. With the availability of interactive voting software
and Web polling, the brainstorming session might be conducted as a virtual meeting with participants working
from their ofce location, also enabling them to identify and rank the risks anonymously.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
12
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
12
Exhibit 2. Industry Portfolio of Risks
ENTERPRISE
RISKS
FINANCIAL
RISKS
STRATEGIC
RISKS
HAZARD
RISKS
OPERATIONAL
RISKS
Credit
Default
Adverse
Changes
In Industry
Regulators
Shareholder
Activism
Fuel Prices
Counterparty
Risk
Interest Rate
Fluctuations
Currency & Foreign
Exchange Rate
Fluctuations
Financial
Markets
Instability
Economic
Recession
Currency
Inconvertability
Equip., Facilities, Business
Acquisitions & Divestitures
Asset Valuation
Asbestos Exposure
Accounting /
Tax Law
Changes
Uncompetitive
Cost Structure
Revenue
Management
Debt & Credit
Rating
Healthcare &
Pension Costs
Liquidity / Cash
Mold Exposure
Cargo Losses
Geopolitical Risks
Severe Hot /
Cold Weather
Hurricane /
Typhoon
Earthquake
Flooding
Terrorism / Sabotage
Wildfire
Disease / Epidemic
Animal / Insect Infestation
Blizzard / Ice Storm
Hail Damage
Tornados
Wind Damage
Tsunami
Volcano Eruption
Heavy Rain /
Thunderstorms
New or Foreign
Comepetitors
Transaction
Processing Errors
Adverse
Changes In
Environmental
Regulators
Inadequate /
Inaccurate
Financial Controls
& Reporting
3rd Party
Liability
General
Liability
Product
Liability
Directors &
Owners Liability
Property Damage
Bldg. or Equip. Fire
Loss of Key Facility
Workers Compensation
Boiler or Machinery
Explosion
Building
Collapse
Building
Subsidence &
Sinkholes
Land, Water,
Atmospheric
Pollution
Lightning Strikes
Public Boycott
& Condemnation
Offensive
Advertising
Corporate
Culture
Timing of Business
Decisions & Moves
Negative Media
Coverage
Market Share Battles
Loss of Intel.
Property
Pricing & Incentive Wars
Foreign Market Protectionism
Attacks on Brand Loyalty
Product-Market Alignment
Customer
Relations
Supplier Relations
Dealer Relations
“Gotta Have Products”
Program Launch
Mergers &
Industry Consolidation
Ineffective
Planning
Inadequate Mgmt. Oversight
Customer Demand
Seasonality & Variability
Technology Decisions
Budget Overruns /
Unplanned Expenses
Ethics Violations
Joint Venture / Alliance Relations
Perceived
Quality
Union Relations, Labor
Disagreements &
Contract Frustrations
Product Development Process
Product Design & Engineering
Restriction of
Access / Egress
Loss of Key
Equipment
Theft
Embezzlement
Vandalism
Arson
Dealer Distribution
Network Failures
Info. Mgmt. Problems
Kidnapping
Extortion
Logistics Provider Failures
Logistics Route or
Mode Disruptions
Loss of Key Personnel
Accounting or Internal
Controls Failures
Health & Safety
Violations
IT System Failure (Hardware,
Software, LAN, WAN)
Service Provider Failures
Computer Virus / Denial
of Service Attacks
Gov’t Inquiries
Workplace Violence
Supplier Bus.
Interruption
Tier 1, 2, 3...n
Supplier Problems
Financial Trouble,
Quality “Spills,”
Failure to Deliver
Materials, etc.
HR Risks - Key Skill Shortage, Personnel Turnovers
Harassment &
Discrimination
Warranty / Product
Recall Campaigns
Loss of Key Supplier
Operator Errors /
Accidental Damage
Utilities Failures
Communications,
Electricity, Water,
Power, etc.
Deductible
Limits
Source: Debra Elkins, “Managing Enterprise Risks in Global Automatic Manufacturing Operations,” presentation at the University of Virginia, January 23,
2006. Permission granted for use.
Event Inventories and Loss Event Data
Seeding or providing participants with some form of stimulation on risks is very important in a brainstorming
session. One possibility is to provide an event inventory for the industry (see Exhibit 2) or a generic inventory
of risks. Examples of the latter are readily available from various consulting rms and publications.
5
In the
rst SMA on ERM, a general risk classication scheme is given that could also be used to “seed” the discussion.
In a brainstorming session or facilitated workshop (discussed later), the goal is to reduce the event inventory
to those relevant to the company and dene each risk specic to the company. The risk identication process
can also be seeded by available loss-event data. A database on relevant loss events for a specic industry
can stimulate a “fact-based discussion.”
6
5
Economist Intelligence Unit, Managing Business Risks—An Integrated Approach, The Economist Intelligent Unit, New York, N.Y., 1995.
6
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), Enterprise Risk Management—Integrated Framework: Application
Techniques, AICPA, New York, N.Y., 2004, p. 28.
Source: Debra Elkins, “Managing Enterprise Risks in Global Automatic Manufacturing Operations,” presentation at the University of Virginia, January 23,
2006. Permission granted for use.
Event Inventories and Loss Event Data
Seeding or providing participants with some form of stimulation on risks is very important in a brainstorming
session. One possibility is to provide an event inventory for the industry (see Exhibit 2) or a generic inventory
of risks. Examples of the latter are readily available from various consulting rms and publications.
5
In the
rst SMA on ERM, a general risk classication scheme is given that could also be used to “seed” the discussion.
In a brainstorming session or facilitated workshop (discussed later), the goal is to reduce the event inventory
to those relevant to the company and dene each risk specic to the company. The risk identication process
can also be seeded by available loss-event data. A database on relevant loss events for a specic industry
can stimulate a “fact-based discussion.”
6
5
Economist Intelligence Unit, Managing Business Risks—An Integrated Approach, The Economist Intelligent Unit, New York, N.Y., 1995.
6
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), Enterprise Risk Management—Integrated Framework: Application
Techniques, AICPA, New York, N.Y., 2004, p. 28.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
13
Exhibit 3A. Risk Identication Template
Please list the major strategies and/or objectives for your area of responsibility.
Please list the major risks your unit faces in achieving its objectives. List no more than 10 risks.
Please assess the overall risk management capability within your area of responsibility to seize opportunities
and manage the risks you have identied.
Exhibit 3B. Major Strategies/Objectives For Your Unit
Please list the major strategies/objectives for your unit.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Exhibit 3C. Major Risks For Your Unit
Please list the major risks your unit faces in achieving your objectives. List no more than 10 risks.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interviews and Self-Assessment
This technique combines two different processes. First, each individual of the organizational or operating
unit is given a template with instructions to list the key strategies and/or objectives within his or her area of
responsibility and the risks that could impede the achievement of the objectives. Each unit is also asked to
assess its risk management capability using practical framework categories such as those contained in the
ERM framework from the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). A
sample template is presented in Exhibits 3A-D. The completed documents are submitted to the ERM staff or
coordinator, which could be the CFO, controller, COO, or CRO (chief risk ofcer). That group follows up with
interviews to clarify issues. Eventually, the risks for the unit are identied and dened, and a risk management
capability score can be determined from a ve-point scale, as used in Exhibit 3D. This technique might also
be used in conjunction with a facilitated workshop.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
14
Exhibit 3D. Risk Management Capability
Internal Environment
Objective Setting
Event Identification
Risk Assessment
Risk Response
Control Activities
Information/Communication
Monitoring
VL
VL
VL
VL
VL
VL
VL
VL
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
VH
VH
VH
VH
VH
VH
VH
VH
Use the following categories* to assess the overall risk management capability within your area of responsibility to seize
opportunities and manage risks using the scale at the bottom of the page.
What is your level of concern with respect to the overall risk management capability
of your area of responsibility to seize opportunities and manage risks?
Please circle the most appropriate response:
VL = Very Low L = Low M = Medium H = High VH = Very High
* The categories are taken from COSO, Enterprise Risk Management—Integrated Framework:
Executive Summary, AICPA, New York, N.Y., 2004.
Facilitated Workshops
After the information is completed and collected, a cross-functional management team from the unit or several
units might participate in a facilitated workshop to discuss it. Again, by using voting software the various risks
can be ranked to arrive at a consensus of the top ve to 10, for example. As noted previously, using interactive
voting software allows the individuals to identify and rank the risks anonymously without fear of reprisal
should their superior be a member of the group.
SWOT Analysis
SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis is a technique often used in the formulation
of strategy. The strengths and weaknesses are internal to the company and include the company’s culture,
structure, and nancial and human resources. The major strengths of the company combine to form the core
competencies that provide the basis for the company to achieve a competitive advantage. The opportunities
and threats consist of variables outside the company and typically are not under the control of senior management
in the short run, such as the broad spectrum of political, societal, environmental, and industry risks.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
15
For SWOT analysis to be effective in risk identication, the appropriate time and effort must be spent on
seriously thinking about the organization’s weaknesses and threats. The tendency is to devote more time to
strengths and opportunities and give the discussion of weaknesses and threats short shrift. Taking the latter
discussion further and developing a risk map based on consensus will ensure that this side of the discussion
gets a robust analysis. In a possible acquisition or merger consideration, a company familiar to the authors
uses a SWOT analysis that includes explicit identication of risks. The written business case presented to the
board for the proposed acquisition includes a discussion of the top risks together with a risk map.
Risk Questionnaires and Surveys
A risk questionnaire that includes a series of questions on both internal and external events can also be used
effectively to identify risks. For the external area, questions might be directed at political and social risk,
regulatory risks, industry risk, economic risk, environmental risk, competition risk, and so forth. Questions on
the internal perspective might address risks relating to customers, creditors/investors, suppliers, operations,
products, production processes, facilities, information systems, and so on. Questionnaires are valuable
because they can help a company think through its own risks by providing a list of questions around certain
risks. The disadvantage of questionnaires is that they usually are not linked to strategy.
Rather than a lengthy questionnaire, a risk survey can be used. In one company, surveys were sent to both
lower- and senior-level management. The survey for lower management asked respondents to “List the ve
most important risks to achieving your unit’s goals/objectives.” The survey to senior management asked
participants to “List the ve most important risks to achieving the company’s strategic objectives.” The survey
instruments included a column for respondents to rank the effectiveness of management for each of the ve
risks listed, using a range of one (ineffective) to 10 (highly effective).Whether using a questionnaire or survey,
the consolidated information can be used in conjunction with a facilitated workshop. In that session, the
risks are discussed and dened further. Then interactive voting software is used to narrow that risk list to the
vital few.
Scenario Analysis
Scenario analysis is a particularly useful technique in identifying strategic risks where the situation is less
dened and “what-if” questions should be explored. Essentially, this technique is one way to uncover risks
where the event is high impact/low probability.
7
In this process:
“Managers invent and then consider, in depth, several varied stories of equally plausible futures.
The stories are carefully researched, full of relevant detail, oriented toward real-life decisions, and
designed (one hopes) to bring forward surprises and unexpected leaps of understanding.”
8
7
Deloitte & Touche LLP, The Risk Intelligent Enterprise: ERM Done Right, Deloitte Development LLC, 2006, p. 4.
8
Peter Schwartz, The Art of the Long View, Currency Doubleday, New York, N.Y.,1991, p. xiii.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
16
Using this technique, a cross-functional team could consider the long-term effects resulting from a loss of
reputation or customers or from the lack of capability to meet demand. Another relevant question to ask is,
“What paradigm shifts in the industry could occur, and how would they impact the business?”
The risk management group of one company uses scenario analysis to identify some of its major business
risks.
9
One risk for this company is an earthquake. Its campus of more than 50 buildings is located in the
area of a geological fault. From a holistic perspective, the loss from an earthquake is not so much the loss
of the buildings but the business interruption in the product development cycle and the inability to serve
customers. The company’s risk management group analyzed this disaster scenario with its outside advisors
and attempted to quantify the real cost of such a disaster, taking into account how risks are correlated. In
the process, the group identied many risks in addition to property damage, including:
• “Director and ofcer liability if some people think management was not properly prepared,
• Key personnel risk,
• Capital market risk because of the rm’s inability to trade,
• Worker compensation or employee benet risk,
• Supplier risks for those in the area of the earthquake,
• Risk related to loss of market share because the business is interrupted,
• Research and development risks because those activities are interrupted and product delays occur, and
• Product support risks because the company cannot respond to customer inquiries.”
10
This example reveals the value of using scenario analysis: A number of risks are potentially present within a
single event, and the total impact could be very large. Another scenario that this company’s risk management
group analyzed was a stock market downturn (or bear market). The group also dened ve or six other scenarios.
Under each one, it identied as many material risks as could be related to the scenario and developed white
papers on each one for executive management and the board.
11
Using Technology
The risk identication process can also utilize the company’s existing technology infrastructure. For example,
most organizations utilize an intranet in their management processes. The group responsible for a company’s
ERM process can encourage units to place their best risk practices on the ERM site. Risk checklists, anecdotes,
and best practices on the intranet serve as stimulation and motivation for operating management to think
seriously about risks in their unit. Also, tools that have been found particularly useful to various units can be
catalogued. As new projects are launched, business managers are encouraged to consult the risk management
group’s intranet site.
9
Thomas L. Barton, William G. Shenkir, and Paul L. Walker, Making Enterprise Risk Management Pay Off, Financial Executives Research Foundation, Upper
Saddle River, N.J., 2001, pp. 132-135.
10
Ibid., p. 133.
11
Ibid., p. 133.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
17
Another use of technology is to recognize the company’s potential risk that resides with the Internet. For
example, a company’s products, services, and overall reputation are vulnerable to Internet-based new media
like blogs, message boards, e-mailing lists, chat rooms, and independent news websites. Some companies
devote information technology resources to scan the blogosphere continuously for risks related to the company’s
products, services, and reputation.
Other Techniques
Other possible approaches for identifying risks include value chain analysis, system design review, process
analysis, and benchmarking with other similar as well as dissimilar organizations. Also, external consultants
can add value in the risk identication process by bringing in knowledge from other companies and industries
and by challenging the company’s list of identied risks.
After a risk is identied, avoid the temptation to quantify it before further analysis is completed. Additional
understanding of the risk’s potential causes is required by the ERM team and management before its
impact can be quantied. Working with the various units of the organization that own parts of the risk,
the ERM team should drill into the risk to uncover what is beneath the surface and to get a better
understanding of the potential risk drivers. An inuence diagram or root cause analysis can be developed
using scenario analysis. This can be done by using supporting documentation and interviewing those
who own parts of the risk. Exhibit 4 presents an inuence diagram for a strategic risk provided by a senior
manager of ERM at a major company. In this exhibit, a chain of likely events within a given scenario is
spelled out where a strategic risk—revenue target not met—has been identied.
Studying Exhibit 4, the inquiry to determine the likely drivers in a scenario for the risk of not meeting the
revenue target could include:
• Failure to sell a new product.
• The new machinery and equipment purchased for making the new product was not selected properly
because of a process breakdown in the acquisition. This led to manufacturing failures attributed to
product design problems, which led to a high rate of product defect.
• Failure in the supply chain impacted the ability to meet the revenue target. A catastrophic event
occurred at a major supplier, and the business continuity plan recognized this event too late to nd
alternative suppliers.
• Together, the above events would result in losing some top customers because high-quality products
could not be delivered when required. Furthermore, in digging deeper, some misalignment of specic
goals might exist in the silos involved. For example, manufacturing might have a goal of cutting
cost, customer service naturally will want low defects in the products, the pricing function will be
seeking high margins for the products, and the sales force is motivated to generate revenue.
Analysis of Risk by Drivers
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
18
Exhibit 4. Influence Diagram
Revenue target
not met
Failure to
sell new
product
Supply
chain
failure
Loss of top
customer(s)
Capital
expense
Catastrophic
event
Decrease in
inventory
Mfg. failure
Error in product
planning or
design
Misalignment
of BUs
Mfg.
selection
mistake
Failure to have
BCP plan
Breakdown in
goal process
Process
breakdown
High defect
rate
= a key risk driver
Develop Influence Diagram and
Quantify the Risk Drivers:
Define root causes and main drivers
of the risks. Define the chain of
events in likely scenario. Drivers
should be small enough in scope
that they can be quantified.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
19
Risk Assessment Tools
Risks must be identied correctly before an organization can take the next step. Assessing the wrong list of
risks or an incomplete list of risks is futile. Organizations should make every possible effort to ensure they have
identied their risks correctly using some or all of the approaches discussed. The act of identifying risks is itself
a step on the risk assessment road. Any risks identied, almost by default, have some probability of inuencing
the organization.
Exhibit 5. Quantifying Risk: Determine the Drivers
Do NOT try
to quantify at
these levels
Quantify risks
at this level
or below
Driver of
Risk #1
Driver of
Risk #1
Main Goals and
Objectives
(revenue missed)
Driver of
Risk #2
Driver of
Risk #2
Driver of
Risk #3
Driver of
Risk #3
Risk #2
to acheiving
goals and
objectives
Risk #1
to acheiving
goals and
objectives
(failure to sell)
Risk #3
to acheiving
goals and
objectives
With an in-depth understanding of how the strategic risk could occur, more information is now available to
assist in quantifying the risk. This information can be framed as noted in Exhibit 5 in order to begin estimating
the impact. The point of this analysis is to understand the level at which quantication can best occur. If the
risk is quantied at too high a level, it could end to be too broad or not actionable. Using a building block
approach around risk drivers facilitates the quantication process. At the end of the process, however,
quantication is still an estimate and should be viewed as merely providing an “order of magnitude” of
the impact.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
20
Categories
Once risks are identied, some organizations nd it helpful to categorize them. This may be a necessity if
the risk identication process produces hundreds of risks, which can be overwhelming and seem unmanageable.
Risk categories include hazard, operational, nancial, and strategic. Other categories are controllable or
noncontrollable and external or internal. Categorizing risk requires an internal risk language or vocabulary
that is common or unique to the organization in total, not just to a particular subunit or silo. Studies have
shown that an inconsistent language dening risks across an organization is an impediment to an effective
ERM strategy. Risk terms would certainly vary between a pharmaceutical company and a technology company
or between a nonprot and an energy company. Several risks could be grouped around a broader risk,
such as reputation risk. Other methods for categorizing risk can be nancial or nonnancial and insurable
or noninsurable. Some companies also categorize risks as quantiable or nonquantiable.
Qualitative vs. Quantitative
As Exhibit 6 shows, risk assessment techniques can vary from qualitative to quantitative. The qualitative
techniques can be a simple list of all risks, risk rankings, or risk maps. A list of risks is a good starting point.
Even though no quantitative analysis or formal assessment has been applied to the initial list of risks, the list
and accompanying knowledge is valuable. Some risks on the list may not be quantiable. For these risks,
identifying them and adding them to a priority list may be the only quantication possible. Organizations
should not be concerned that they cannot apply sophisticated modeling to every risk.
Exhibit 6. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Risk Assessment
• Risk identification
• Risk rankings
• Risk maps
• Risk maps with
impact and likelihood
• Risks mapped to
objectives or divisions
• Identification of risk
correlations
• Validation of risk
impact
• Validation of risk
likelihood
• Validation of
correlations
• Risk-corrected
revenues
• Gain/loss curves
• Tornado charts
• Scenario analysis
• Benchmarking
• Net present value
• Traditional measures
Probablistic techniques
• Cash flow at risk
• Earnings at risk
• Earnings distributions
• EPS distributions
Qualitative Qualitative /
Quantitative
Quantitative
Level of difficulty and amount of data required
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
21
Risk Rankings
Once an organization has created its list of risks, it can begin to rank them. Ranking requires the ERM team
to prioritize the risks on a scale of importance, such as low, moderate, and high. Although this seems
unsophisticated, the results can be dramatic. Organizations nd considerable value in having conversations
about the importance of a risk. The conversations usually lead to questions about why one group believes
the risk is important and why others disagree. Again, this process should use a cross-functional risk team
so that perspectives from across the entire organization are factored into the rankings. This is a critical task
requiring open debate, candid discussion, and data (e.g., tracking, recording, and analysis of historical error
rates on a business process) where possible.
Impact and Probability
The importance of an event considers not just its impact but also its likelihood of occurring. Therefore, many
ERM organizations generate risk maps using impact and probability. In ERM implementation, companies not
only generate risk maps to capture impact and likelihood but also to demonstrate how risks look when put
together in one place. The value of the map is that it reects the collective wisdom of the parties involved.
Furthermore, risk maps capture considerable risk information in one place that is easily reviewed. A basic
risk map, such as in Exhibit 7, captures both impact and likelihood.
When assessing likelihood or probability, the ERM team can use a variety of scales:
• Low, medium, or high;
• Improbable, possible, probably, or near certainty; and
• Slight, not likely, likely, highly likely, or expected.
The same is true for assessing impact:
• Low, medium, or high impact;
• Minor, moderate, critical, or survival; and
• Dollar levels, such as $1 million, $5 million, etc.
When qualitatively assessing these risks, it is also possible to estimate ranges. For example, a company
might determine that there is a low probability of a customer-related risk having an impact of $100 million, a
moderate probability (or best guess) of a $50 million impact, and a high probability of a $10 million impact.
For example, when Apple announced its entrance into the cell phone market, other cell phone makers likely
began making calculations to gauge the risk of the new entrant into their market.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
22
Risk maps can help an organization determine how to respond to a risk. As organizations see the greater
risks, they can plan a response. For example, one risk map approach used by a company is shown in Exhibit
8. For risks that are in the lower levels of impact and probability—the green zone on the map—a company
should respond with high-level monitoring. For risks with higher levels of impact and probability—the
red zone on the map—a company should take a stronger response and a higher level of commitment to
managing them.
Keys to Risk Maps
Several keys need to be considered when generating risk maps: condentiality, denitions, timeframe,
direction, and correlations. Organizations may want to consider doing impact and probability in a condential
manner. As noted previously, software tools are available to facilitate condential sharing. On the other
hand, some companies nd that openly sharing assessments within the group is acceptable. Even with
condentiality, good risk facilitators can bring out the risk source and root problems.
Denitions used during the risk map generation are critical. What is “important” to one work unit or individual
may not seem “important” to another. If organizations measure impact in dollars, the dollars must be without
ambiguity. Does the risk inuence dollars on one product, dollars for a certain division, or earnings per share?
Similarly, “improbable” might be interpreted by some to be 1% while others could think it means 15%. These
denitions and terms should be clearly established before the risk map sessions are conducted.
Exhibit 7. Risk Map
High
High Impact
Low Likelihood
Low Impact
Low Likelihood
Impact
HighLow
Likelihood of Occurrence
Low Impact
High Likelihood
High Impact
High Likelihood
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
23
Exhibit 8. Risk Map Model
Criticality of Achievement
Actual/Potential Performance Variability Around Targets
Process/Business
Level Impact
Segment/Intersegment
Level Impact
Level Impact
Low
(Consistently
within tolerable
variance in key
metric improvement
or target)
Moderate
(Sometimes
within tolerable
variance in key
metric improvement
or target)
High
(Mostly outside of
tolerable
variance in key
metric improvement
or target)
Achievement of Objective/Execution of Process/
Implementation of Change/Management of Risk
6 Yellow (Level III)
Close monitoring
for increased
impact and/or
variability
3 Green (Level II)
High-level
monitoring for
increased impact
and/or variablity
5 Yellow (Level III)
Close monitoring
for increased
impact and/or
variability
1 Green (Level I)
High-level
monitoring for
increased impact
and/or variablity
4 Yellow (Level III)
Close monitoring
for increased
impact and/or
variability
2 Green (Level II)
High-level
monitoring for
increased impact
and/or variablity
• Segment
Commitment
• Reported to
Segment
Leadership
• Close monitoring
of risk action plan
8 Red (Level IV)
• Segment
Commitment
• Reported to Audit
Committee
• Reported to
Segment Leadership
• Close monitoring of
risk action plan
9 Red (Level V)
• Segment
Commitment
• Reported to Segment
Leadership
• Close monitoring
of risk action plan
7 Red (Level IV)
Closely related to denitions are timeframes, which need to be established up front so that any understanding
of the risk and its impact is clear as to when it will affect the organization. An assessment of risk at one point
in time has the same failings as strategic plans and objectives, which do not take a longer-term perspective
on market trends, customer needs, competitors, etc. What seems important today or this week may not seem
important in ve years. Similarly, although some longer-range risks may not seem important today, these risks
could threaten the organization’s survival if left unmanaged.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
24
Some organizations nd it valuable to capture the direction of the risk. This can be labeled on the risk map
or communicated separately. Direction of risk can be captured using terms such as “increasing,” “stable,” or
“decreasing.” Related to the risk direction is the risk trend. Knowing the direction and trend of a risk as well
as its dollar impact and likelihood can be crucial to managing that risk. For example, risk trends can reveal
that the risk was decreasing over the last several years but has increased recently.
One weakness in risk maps (and in silo risk management) is that maps do not capture any risk correlations.
Ignoring risk correlations can lead to ineffective and inefcient risk management. Risk correlations can
be considered for nancial risks or nonnancial risks. Clearly, how some companies manage one foreign
currency exposure should be considered with how they manage another foreign currency exposure. Managing
these in silos (without an enterprise-wide approach) can be inefcient because dollar exposures to only the
yen or euro ignore that the yen and euro are correlated. Similarly, silo risk management would ignore the
fact that the movement of interest rates could inuence an organization’s pension obligations and debt
obligations differently. As another example, how an organization manages commodity exposure today
should be factored in with how it plans to change its long-term strategy to manage that same exposure.
Short-term solutions of foreign currency risk management are different from long-term solutions of building
plants in other countries. As is evident, correlations among risks and an enterprise-wide approach is critical.
Link to Objectives at Risk or Divisions at Risk
Identifying risks by objective gives an organization the option to map risks by objectives. For nonprot
organizations, this may be more important because earnings per share is not the biggest concern. A risk
map by objective captures all the risks related to a single objective, helping the organization understand
the broad spectrum of risks facing that objective. For example, the objective of maintaining the corporate
reputation at a certain level could have many risks to be mapped. Using such a map, the organization can
see the biggest risks to reputation. Similarly, risks can also be identied by division, which may be more
informative for division managers. Organizations can generate risk maps for each division and for the
organization overall.
Residual Risk
After organizations assess risks, they should also consider any related controls so that the residual risk is
known. A residual risk is the remaining risk after mitigation efforts and controls are in place to address the
initially identied inherent risks that threaten the achievement of objectives. Risk maps can show overall
risks, or they can be shown with just residual risks. Understanding residual risk can provide major benets
because companies do not want to over- or under-manage a risk that may be deemed by management and
stakeholders to be “tolerable” or acceptable relative to stated business objectives. This is a major reason
why some companies adopt ERM and try to understand, even qualitatively, the return on investment (ROI)
of an ERM program. In the process of identifying risks and controls, the management team/process owners
clearly play a leadership role, but there is a system of “checks and balances” in the control environment. For
example, the control environment for internal controls over nancial reporting includes the audit committee
as well as internal and external auditors.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
25
Validating the Impact and Probability
Organizations can validate the qualitative assessments of initial impact and probability by examining historical
data to determine the frequency of events or the impact such events have had in the past. Events that have
happened to other organizations can be used to understand how a similar event might impact your own
organization. Gathering such data can be time consuming, but it has certain advantages. Knowing the real
frequency or likelihood of a major drop in sales, for example, can provide an organization with the information
necessary to make informed cost-benet decisions about potential solutions.
Gain/Loss Curves
Gain/loss curves are useful tools because they help an organization see how a risk can inuence its nancial
statements and result in a gain or a loss. Furthermore, gain/loss curves also reveal the distribution of potential
gains and losses. Gain/loss curves do not show correlations between risks, however, and they do not show all
the risks in one place. A gain/loss curve is presented in Exhibit 9. The curve shows how much money the company
loses or gains from a specic risk. The horizontal axis represents dollars, and the vertical axis represents prob-
ability. The sample curve in Exhibit 9 shows that the organization loses $1.15 million dollars on average (at
50% probability in this illustration) as a result of this risk. Moving along the probability scale shows that, 90% of
the time, this organization loses $300,000 because of this risk. The organization believes it loses $4.28 million
about 10% of the time. Knowing how big of an impact a risk causes over a distribution of probabilities provides
management with the information necessary to decide how much money to spend managing the risk. Gain/
loss curves can also reveal that some risks occasionally generate gains instead of losses. Developing gain/loss
curves can require substantial data collection, and a company has to balance the data collection efforts with
the benets obtained.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
26
Exhibit 9. Gain/Loss Probabillity Curve
Probability
that Annual
Loss will
Exceed Amount
Shown
$0.00
Annual Loss Amount
$6.18
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Note: All loss amounts are in millions of dollars.
90% - $0.30
80% - $0.48
70% - $0.68
60% - $1.13
50% - $1.15
40% - $1.50
30% - $1.98
20% - $2.73
10% - $4.28
Tornado Charts
Similar to gain/loss curves, tornado charts attempt to capture how much of an impact a risk has on a particular
metric such as revenue, net income, or earnings per share. Exhibit 10 shows an example of a tornado chart.
Tornado charts do not show correlations or distributions, but they are valuable because executives can see, in
one place, the biggest risks in terms of a single performance metric.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
27
Exhibit 10. Tornado Chart: Earnings Variability by Sample Risks
Risk 1
(Cents per share)
Risk 2
Risk 3
Risk 4
Risk 5
Risk 6
Risk 7
Risk 8
Risk 9
-0.90
-0.70 -0.50 -0.30 -0.10
0.00
0.900.700.500.300.10
1.00
Risk-Adjusted Revenues
Risk-adjusted (or risk-corrected) revenues allow management to see how revenues could look if risks were
managed better. As Exhibit 11 shows, risk-corrected revenues are smoother and more controllable. On a
broader scale, Exhibit 12 shows one company’s view of how better risk management affects the distributions
of earnings. A tighter distribution of earnings could potentially lead to improved performance of its stock
price. The two types of analysis shown in Exhibits 11 and 12 are why some companies want to implement
ERM. While stakeholders (e.g., investors) appreciate growth in earnings, they also appreciate some level of
stability and predictability and are often willing to pay a premium for these attributes.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
28
Exhibit 11. Actual Revenue vs. Risk-Corrected Revenue
Risk-Corrected
Revenues
Actual
Revenues
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2001
2000
2002
2003
1999
2004
Exhibit 12. Goals of Risk Management
Inherent
Distribution
Distribution
after Risk
Management
Earnings
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
29
A Common Sense Approach to Risk Assessment
While some of these risk metrics and tools may seem difcult, a simple approach can yield equally good
results. One approach is to measure where the company stands today on a risk issue. After implementing
risk mitigation techniques, the company can reassess the risk issue. Of course, not all of the improvement
related to a risk can be traced to the risk mitigation techniques, but improvement is still valuable. One major
retailer uses this approach to gauge the value added from their ERM efforts in addition to other value-added
metrics. This retailer identied inventory in-stock rates as a risk. Measuring in-stock rates over time gave
the company a good feel for the historical levels of in-stock rates. Next, after implementing risk mitigation
efforts, current inventory in-stock rates were captured. Improvements in in-stock rates are traced to improvements
in sales and, ultimately, to value added from the ERM process.
Probabilistic Models
Some organizations use quantitative approaches in ERM that are built on traditional statistical and probabilistic
models and techniques. The disadvantage to these approaches is that they require more time, data, and analysis
and are built on assumptions. Furthermore, using the past to predict the future has limitations even before
other “explanatory” variables are included in the statistical prediction process. But some organizations still nd
these models very useful as a tool in their solutions toolkit when approaching risk.
One technique focuses on earnings at risk, which are determined by examining how earnings vary around
expected earnings. In this approach, variables are examined to see how they inuence earnings, such as
determining the inuence that a one-point movement in interest rates would have on earnings. Similarly,
expected or budgeted cash ows can be determined and then tested for sensitivity to certain risks, yielding
a cash-ow-at-risk number. As Exhibit 13 shows, some companies trace the earnings-at-risk to individual risk
sources. Knowing the actual root cause or source of the risk helps manage it more efciently. Companies
can also trace the earnings at risk to business units to help gauge the hedge effectiveness of each business
unit (see Exhibit 14). Knowing which business units have the greatest risk is valuable information. With this
knowledge, a company could compare a business unit’s earnings level to the earnings at risk. Those units
that generate low earnings and high levels of risk may not be desirable business units. Having earnings at
risk in the aggregate allows an organization to see which months have the greatest risk (see Exhibit 15).
Also, distributions can be created that estimate the probability of meeting earnings targets (see Exhibit 16).
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
30
Exhibit 13. Earnings at Risk by Risk Factor
Commodity Contribution to
EaR by Major Commodity
(100% = $16 million)
Foreign Exchange Contribution to
EaR for Major Currency
(100% = $26 million)
Total EaR by Risk Category (100% = $35 million)
Interest Rates
17%
Commodity Prices
32%
Foreign Exchange
51%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Chemicals Precious
Metals
Natural
Gas
Agriculture Other
Commodities
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Euro Yen Mexican
Peso
Canadian
$
Other
Currencies
Exhibit 14. Earnings at Risk Hedge Effectiveness Comparisons
Earnings
at Risk
Contribution
(millions of
dollars)
“Natural” Earnings at Risk
-$30
-$20
-$10
0$
$10
$20
$30
$40
Business
Unit 1
-$40
Business
Unit 2
Business
Unit 3
Business
Unit 4
TOTAL Diversification
Benefit
With Hedging Earnings at Risk
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
31
Exhibit 15. Expected Earnings and EaR
Expected Earnings Earnings at Risk
Summary By Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
$ Millions
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
Distribution or Annualized
Earnings Outcomes
$125
EaR
equals the
difference
$545
Equals the
earnings
corresponding
to the 95% CI
$670
Equals
the expected
or budgeted
earnings
Earnings
($ millions)
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Exhibit 16. Probability Assessment of Earning Outcome
Interpretation: There is a 30% chance
that due to all risks earnings will
fall below $640 million for the year.
Probability
of a Specific
Outcome
Cumulative
Probability
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
$545
Level of
earnings
corresponding
with EaR
$640 Earnings
($ millions)
80%
90%
100%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
$670
Expected or
budgeted
earnings
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
32
Seemingly Nonquantiable Risks
Some risks seem to defy acceptable quantication, but a deeper look can reveal valuable information.
Reputation is a risk that has become increasingly important in today’s business environment, and it must be
managed. At rst glance, some executives would say you cannot quantify it, but it can be in some ways. In
academia, for example, a university’s reputation is a prodigious risk. Tracking a drop in contributions after a
scandal can provide preliminary data that could lead to the ability to quantify reputation risk. Ranges of
decreases in contributions could also be developed, with the maximum risk being a major decrease in donations.
Gathering data from universities or other nonprot organizations that have experienced a drop in contributions
can provide valuable external data that could assist in quantifying this risk. For public companies, the impact
of reputation risk could be examined by studying decreases in stock prices surrounding an event that damaged
an organization’s reputation. It is important to note that while this might capture and provide a quantiable
risk, it still partially ignores the damage that reputation events have on supplier or vendor relations. It also
ignores how future customers might be inuenced by the reputation event. Although these related risks
might not be quantiable, they highlight the importance of having an ERM team study and analyze risks very
closely so that conversations about the risks are focused on managing the risk and not just on identication
and measurement.
Another example of a risk that appears nonquantiable is a breach in IT security. Examining the movement
in stock price around the event, however, can help a company gather a preliminary estimate of how share-
holders view the event. Additionally, talking to other companies that have experienced IT security breaches
can help the company understand the potential impact. Finally, understanding the organization’s unique
method of creating value for its customers can also offer critical insights regarding the impact of the breach.
Companies that have customers who value trust and condentiality, such as nancial institutions, should
estimate a greater impact from a potential IT security breach.
A major electronic retailer may determine that a key risk to sales is a change in gas prices. The retailer relies
on consumers having discretionary income, and higher gas prices lower discretionary income and decrease
the retailer’s sales. The effect of gas prices on sales can be calculated and potentially planned for in advance.
Another example is the risk of weather related to a snow machine company’s sales. Guaranteeing a rebate
to customers if the amount of snowfall is below a certain level can increase sales in years with low snow
fall.
12
These examples show that while not all risks can be quantied with a sophisticated technique, valuable
risk assessment and management can still be applied.
12
Stephen W. Bodine, Anthony Pugliese, and Paul L. Walker, “A Road Map to Risk Management,” Journal of Accountancy, December 2001, pp. 65-70.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
33
Practical Implementation Considerations
The implementation of ERM depends on a number of organizational variables, and no specic recipe is
available to assure successful implementation in any organization. In this section, however, a number of
practical considerations are discussed that may provide helpful insights in the implementation process.
These include ERM infrastructure, ERM maturity models, staging ERM adoption for early wins, the role of
the management accountant, ERM education and training, technology, aligning corporate culture, building
a case for ERM, and the ROI of ERM.
ERM Infrastructure
Implementing ERM can take many shapes. Some organizations have only one person in charge of risk,
while others employ a large team. Both approaches have advantages. With a large team, more resources
and people are focused on the effort. Having a small ERM staff, however, encourages the organizational
units, management, and employees to become highly involved and share responsibility for ERM. A common
approach is to have a moderate number of people on the ERM team to facilitate risk workshops, help executives
and business units understand their risks, gather data across the organization, and assist in reporting risks
upward to senior executives and the board. Broad representation, objectivity, and a look to “the big picture”
are keys.
Although many approaches to ERM are found in practice, common elements include:
• CEO commitment (tone and messaging from the top);
• Risk policies and/or mission statements, including adapting any company risk or audit committee
charter to incorporate ERM;
• Reporting to business units, executives, and the board;
• Adoption or development of a risk framework;
• Adoption or development of a common risk language;
• Techniques for identifying risk;
• Tools for assessing risks;
• Tools for reporting and monitoring risk;
• Incorporating risk into appropriate employees’ job descriptions and responsibilities;
• Incorporating risk into the budgeting function; and
• Integrating risk identication and assessment into the strategy of the organization.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
34
ERM Maturity Models
Once an organization has implemented ERM, an appropriate question arises about the progress being
made in ERM. As a result, a number of ERM maturity models have been developed. One organization
categorizes ERM development into three phases: (1) building a foundation, (2) segment-level ERM, and (3)
enterprise-level ERM. Each phase is broken down into three stages, shown in Exhibit 17. Phase one involves
building executive support, building the core model, aligning expectations, and developing segment-level
risk management commitments. Phase two covers executing a consistent risk framework, engagement in
specic areas and by segment-level personnel, and demonstrating the tangible value of a disciplined process.
Phase three includes connecting segment risks, enhancing coordination and integration, and deepening risk
management focus. While described for a multi-billion-dollar entity, this approach is scalable to organizations
of any size.
Maturity models do more than inform a company of its progress in ERM. They can inuence a company’s
rating from rating agencies, too. Standard & Poor’s now applies an ERM maturity model to certain companies
and industries, such as the insurance and banking industries as well as some energy companies. Consequently,
ERM implementation could eventually impact a company’s cost of capital and capital adequacy. For example,
Standard & Poor’s evaluates an insurer’s ERM practices by considering the risk management culture, risk
controls, emerging risk management, risk and capital models, and strategic risk management. These lead
to an ERM score of weak, adequate, strong, or excellent.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
35
Exhibit 17. ERM Maturity Model
Phase III:
Enterprise-Level
Business Risk Management
• Evolve to an Enterprise Risk
Commitment and accountability
model by “connecting” the
Segment Risk Commitments to
consider cross-segment risk
issues and interdependencies
• Enhance coordination and
integration among Segment
Business Risk Services (BRS)
teams to help the enterprise
remediate significant risk issues
and fulfill the Enterprise Risk
Commitment
• Deepen risk management focus
on potential risk issues applicable
to all business segments
• Enhance coordination with other
components of the Enterprise
Risk Management Operating
Model that focus on specific
areas of risk exposure
Stage Objectives
Stage 1
Awareness
Build Risk
Management
Vision, Strategy
and Awareness
Stage 4
Engagement
Engage in
Specific Risk
Issues to Help
Fulfill the Risk
Management
Commitment
Stage 7
Collaborate
Enhance BRM
Collaboration
Across Other
Segment Teams
to Consider
Cross-Segment
Risk Issues and
Interdependences
Stage 2
Capability
Build Initial Risk
Management
Foundation of
Structure,
Resources, and
Operating Model
Stage 5
Value
Demonstrate
Tangible Value
from a
Disciplined Risk
Management
Process
Stage 8
Coordinate
Enhance BRM
Coordination with
Other Areas
Stage 3
Alignment
Align
Expectations
through a Risk
Management
Commitment
Stage 6
Operationalize
Segment-Level
Personnel at All
Levels Fully-
Engaged in and
Operationalizing
the Risk
Management
Process
Stage 9
Integrate
BRM is Fully-
Integrated with
Business
Planning,
Performance
Management,
Quality, and Other
Key Management
Processes
Phase II:
Segment-Level
Business Risk Management
• Execution of a consistent
risk management approach
across all segments
• Engagement in specific areas
to help the business remediate
significant risk issues and fulfill
their segment risk management
commitment
• Segment-level personnel at
appropriate levels engaged in
the risk management process
• Demonstrating the tangible
value of a disciplined risk
management process within
each segment
Phase Objectives
• Build executive-level support
• Strengthen core team and
operating model
• Align expectations through a
risk management commitment
process
• Develop segment-level risk
management commitments
Phase I:
Building a Foundation for
Business Risk Management
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
36
Staging ERM Adoption for Early Wins
ERM implementation is a change management project in which an organization moves to risk-informed decision
making. The goal is to improve the condence of decision makers through a more explicit understanding of
the risks facing the unit. ERM is a journey that takes continuous commitment from C-level executives and where
implementation cannot be achieved overnight—it should proceed in incremental steps. At the same time, an
organization embarking on ERM implementation needs to recognize that bad things can happen to a good
project if results are not forthcoming. Consequently, striving for early wins in the ERM implementation project is
important. For example, a major company (after developing its approach to ERM) chose to implement ERM in a
strategic business unit that was mature and tightly controlled. In this instance, the company preferred not to roll
out ERM in a unit that it knew in advance had many problems. The roll out was successful, and the unit was used
as a model to help build momentum for ERM implementation in other units.
In another company, the decision was to initially implement ERM with the senior-level executives. This group
went through the process of identifying and assessing risks at the enterprise level and developing mitigation
strategies. Once members of this group were sold on the benets of ERM, they became ERM champions and
supported its roll out to the various operating units. See Exhibit 17 for an example of staging an implementation.
The Role of the Management Accountant
As noted in the rst SMA on ERM, the management accountant and nance professional can play a major
role in ERM implementation by championing the process, providing expertise on the process, serving on
cross-functional ERM teams, and providing thought leadership. Other key roles include assisting with the
quantication of risks, analyzing the risk correlations, developing the range and distribution of a risk’s impact,
determining the reasonableness of likelihood estimates, benchmarking impact and likelihood against historical
events and other organizations, setting and understanding risk tolerances and appetites, assessing and
quantifying various alternative risk mitigation strategies, and quantifying the benets of ERM.
ERM Education and Training
Some control frameworks outside the United States mention the possibility of mandating ERM training. Although
formal training on nancial risks is more common, ERM education and training is being developed. Training
needs can include:
• Understanding the nature of risk—this is not as easy as it rst appears if a true enterprise-wide approach
is implemented,
• Understanding the legal and regulatory requirements related to risk management,
• Knowledge of ERM frameworks,
• Facilitation skills,
• Expertise in identifying risks,
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
37
• Knowledge for building risk maps,
• Reporting structures and options (what to report to the CEO, board, and audit committee),
• Software training,
• Financial risk training (options, hedging strategies, insurance options, derivatives, etc.),
• Refocused strategy training and how risk interacts with strategy,
• Building and understanding control solutions,
• Developing and monitoring performance metrics related to risks, and
• Change management.
Technology
Some technology tools are available to assist in the facilitation/identication phase. Additionally, software is
available to assist an organization with the entire ERM process. Gartner Inc. recently reviewed ERM software
vendors on two aspects: completeness of vision and ability to execute.
13
Some organizations choose to
either develop their own ERM processes tailored to their needs or hire consultants to help with the process.
Technology products not only help with the process but also assist with data gathering, modeling, or
reporting. One risk software tool, for example, helps with capital optimization and data management.
Other technology products are designed to help with issues such as time-series modeling, correlations,
and other advanced modeling techniques. Finally, certain industries have software tailored to companies in
that industry, such as the online maturity model available for insurance companies.
14
Aligning Corporate Culture
Many organizations will notice a change in the company culture as ERM implementation progresses. One
noticeable difference is a proactive focus on risks rather than a reactive approach. Other changes are related
to improved accountability and responsibility. With ERM in place, managers are more responsible for risk
management and controls because they helped identify the risks and controls. As solutions and metrics are
developed to better manage a risk, management can also be held more accountable for it. One nonprot
organization mandates management action plans for any risk more than a certain amount. This increase in
accountability and responsibility can ow down to lower levels in the organization. An additional change
may be from a “we need to comply” perspective to “we need to manage this risk to achieve better results.”
One software company tries to build a risk management thought process into the development of all new
products. This effort has resulted in a shift in the culture and thinking about the role of risk management.
Other cultural changes could occur, such as a shift from “blaming” to “identify and managing,” a change in
“do not report bad news” to “report as early as possible” (so the risk can be managed), and, nally, from a
“how does this affect my area or unit” to “how does this affect the risks of the entire organization.” Some
consultants have developed cultural diagnostic tools to enable organizations to assess this cultural change.
13
French Caldwell and Tom Eid, Magic Quadrant for Finance Governance, Risk and Compliance Management Software, 2007, Gartner, February 1, 2007,
www.gartner.com/doc/500595/magic-quadrant-nance-governance-risk.
14
See www.rims.org.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
38
Building a Case for ERM
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) has incorporated elements of risk assessment and management into
its listing requirements. For registrants with the Securities & Exchange Commission, item 1A Form 10-K
mandates “risk factor disclosures.” These certainly support a case for ERM implementation, yet a company’s
executive management may argue that compliance with these requirements can occur without full-scale
ERM implementation. In those situations, the board of directors may have to ask the tough questions about
the company’s risk identication, assessment, and management process to get executive management to
implement ERM. Certainly, when executive management presents the company’s strategy to the board or
seeks approval of a merger, the board has an opening to ask questions about the company’s risk identication,
assessment, and management process. ERM should engage and educate the board because the board
members clearly have a stake in the reputation and sustainable success of the organizations they serve.
As more companies adopt ERM and disclose its adoption in their annual reports and as Standard & Poor’s
incorporates a company’s ERM practices in its ratings, other companies may begin to feel pressure to implement
ERM. The executive management of one company has noted that it will discuss the company’s ERM process
whenever meeting with nancial analysts. The goal is to inform analysts that the company is serious about
risk management, and, ideally, the market will recognize this management capability in its assessment of the
company’s future.
The ROI of ERM
When a company has adopted ERM, the case for benets vs. the cost and effort expended can be made
by pointing to specic experiences where managing a risk added value to the bottom line. A major retailer
uses metrics to track the results of its risk management initiatives. For example, the company will open many
new stores in the year and must have capable store managers. From experience, the company knows that
one risk is the turnover of store managers—it has historical data on turnover rates and knows the cost of
recruiting and training a store manager. The human resources group adopted risk mitigation activities for
the turnover risk, established targets for improvement, and monitored the results. In time, it was able to
show that managing this risk reduced costs and, thus, improved the company’s bottom line. The leadership
of the human resources group could report to the CEO that they had indeed created shareholder value by
managing this risk. In many cases, it does not take a rocket scientist to select appropriate metrics to monitor
the effectiveness of risk mitigation initiatives, and, in turn, the impact on the bottom line. While it would be
desirable to calculate an ROI for the ERM effort, such a measurement would be based on many assumptions.
Focusing on the benets of managing a specic risk may offer the most persuasive evidence of how ERM
creates value for the company.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
39
Conclusion
This Statement on Management Accounting on ERM, along with the earlier one published by IMA, provides
guidance for the leaders of organizations to identify, assess, and manage risk while at the same time growing the
business. Because the risks in the global economy constantly change and evolve, ERM is a never-ending journey.
ERM requires strong commitment from C-level executives and an effective process tailored to each organization’s
unique culture. A company’s implementation can benet from the ERM knowledge that Certied Management
Accountants (CMAs) and other nance professionals can bring to the process. In their quest to “drive business
performance,” management accounting and nance professionals should seize the opportunity to become partners
with senior management and the board in ERM implementation.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
40
Glossary
Impact—The signicance of a risk to an organization. Impact captures the importance of the risk. It can be
measured quantitatively or qualitatively.
Inherent Risk—The level of risk that resides with an event or process prior to management taking mitigation
action.
Likelihood—An estimate of the chance or probability of the risk event occurring.
Opportunity—The upside of risks.
Residual Risk—The level of risk that remains after management has taken action to mitigate the risk.
Risk—Any event or action that can keep an organization from achieving its objectives.
Risk Appetite—The overall level of risk an organization is willing to accept given its capabilities and the
expectations of its stakeholders.
Risk Tolerance—The level of risk an organization is willing to accept around specic objectives. Risk
tolerance is a narrower level than risk appetite.
Reference List
Thomas L. Barton, William G. Shenkir, and Paul L. Walker, Making Enterprise Risk Management Pay Off,
Financial Executives Research Foundation, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2001.
Stephen W. Bodine, Anthony Pugliese, and Paul L. Walker, “A Road Map to Risk Management,” Journal of
Accountancy, December 2001, pp. 65-70.
Diane Brady, “General Electric, the Immelt Way,” Business Week, September 2006, p. 33.
Corporate Board Member, 2006 Academic Council Supplement: Emerging Trends in Corporate
Governance, Board Member, Inc., Brentwood, Tenn., p. 20.
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), Enterprise Risk
Management—Integrated Framework: Application Techniques, AICPA, New York, N.Y., 2004.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
41
Additional Resources
Norman R. Augustine, “Managing the Crisis You Tried to Prevent,” Harvard Business Review, November-
December 1995, pp. 147-158.
American Institute of Certied Public Accountants (AICPA) and Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
(CICA), Managing Risk in the New Economy, AICPA, New York, N.Y., 2000.
Thomas L. Barton, William G. Shenkir, and Paul L. Walker, “Managing Risk: An Enterprise-wide Approach,”
Financial Executive, March-April 2001, pp. 48-52.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital
Standards: Revised Framework, June 2004.
Peter L. Bernstein, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1996.
Carolyn K. Brancato, Enterprise Risk Management Systems: Beyond the Balanced Scorecard, The Conference
Board, June 2005.
J. Burns, “Everything You Need to Know About Corporate Governance,” The Wall Street Journal,
October 27, 2003, p. R6.
John A. Byrne, “Joseph Berardino’s Fall From Grace,” BusinessWeek, August 11, 2002.
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), Internal Control—Integrated
Framework: Executive Summary, AICPA, New York, N.Y., 1992.
COSO, Enterprise Risk Management—Integrated Framework: Executive Summary, AICPA, New York, N.Y., 2004.
Corporate Executive Board, Confronting Operational Risk: Toward an Integrated Management Approach,
Corporate Executive Board, Washington, D.C., 2000.
James W. DeLoach, Enterprise-wide Risk Management: Strategies for Linking Risk and Opportunity, Financial
Times, London, U.K., 2000.
Deloitte & Touche LLP, Perspectives on Risk for Boards of Directors, Audit Committees, and Management,
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu International, 1997.
Economist Intelligence Unit, Enterprise Risk Management: Implementing New Solutions, The Unit, New
York, N.Y., 2001.
Deborah Elkins, “Managing Enterprise Risks in Global Automotive Manufacturing Operations,” presentation
at the University of Virginia, January 23, 2006.
Deloitte & Touche LLP, The Risk Intelligent Enterprise: ERM Done Right, Deloitte Development LLC, 2006.
Economist Intelligence Unit, Managing Business Risks—An Integrated Approach, The Economist Intelligent
Unit, New York, N.Y., 1995.
French Caldwell and Tom Eid, Magic Quadrant for Finance Governance, Risk and Compliance
Management Software, 2007, Gartner, February 1, 2007,
www.gartner.com/doc/500595/magic-quadrant-nance-governance-risk.
Peter Schwartz, The Art of the Long View, Currency Doubleday, New York, N.Y., 1991, p. xiii.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
42
Michael S. Emen, “Corporate Governance: The View from NASDAQ,” NASDAQ, New York, N.Y., 2004.
Marc J. Epstein and Adriana Rejc, Identifying, Measuring + Managing Organizational Risk for Improved
Performance, Society of Management Accountants of Canada and AICPA, 2005.
Federation of European Risk Management Associations, A Risk Management Standard, 2003.
Financial and Management Accounting Committee of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC),
Enhancing Shareholder Wealth by Better Managing Business Risk, New York, N.Y., 1999.
Financial Reporting Council, The Combined Code on Corporate Governance, 2003.
Financial Reporting Council, Internal Control: Revised Guidance for Directors on the Combined Code, 2005.
Stephen Gates and Ellen Hexter, “From Risk Management to Risk Strategy,” The Conference Board, July 2005.
Everett Gibbs and Jim DeLoach, “Which Comes First…Managing Risk or Strategy-Setting? Both!” Financial
Executive, February 2006, pp. 35-39.
ACC Docket, “Risk Management Issues for Privately Held Companies,” Hands On, May 2006, pp. 76-88.
King Committee on Corporate Governance, King Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa, Institute
of Directors in Southern Africa, 2002.
Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), “IMA Announces Bold Steps to ‘Get it Right’ on Sarbanes-Oxley
Compliance,” press release, December 21, 2005.
IMA, “A Global Perspective on Assessing Internal Control over Financial Reporting (ICoFR),” Discussion
Draft for Comment, September 2006.
Joint Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand Committee, Risk Management, Standards Australia/
Standards New Zealand, 2004.
Joint Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand Committee, Risk Management Guidelines, Standards
Australia/Standards New Zealand, 2004.
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, “The Balanced Scorecard—Measures that Drive Performance,”
Harvard Business Review, January-February 1992, pp. 71-79.
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, “Putting the Balanced Scorecard to Work,” Harvard Business Review,
September-October 1993, pp. 134-147.
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
Mass., 1996.
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, The Strategy-Focused Organization, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, Mass., 2001.
Paul Kocourek, Reggie Van Lee, Chris Kelly, and Jim Newfrock, “Too Much SOX Can Kill You,” Strategy
+Business, January 2004, pp. 1-5.
David McNamee and Gerges M. Selim, Risk Management: Changing the Internal Auditor’s Paradigm, The
Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation, Altamonte Springs, Fla., 1998.
Jerry A. Miccolis, Kevin Hively, and Brian W. Merkley, Enterprise Risk Management: Trends and Emerging
Practices, The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation, Altamonte Springs, Fla., 2001.
Takehiko Nagumo, “Aligning Enterprise Risk Management with Strategy through the BSC: The Bank of
Tokyo-Mitsubishi Approach,” Balanced Scorecard Report, Harvard Business School Publishing,
September-October 2005, pp. 1-6.
GOVERNANCE
SYSTEMS
Enterprise Risk Mamagement:
Tools and Techniques for Effective Implementation
43
Takehiko Nagumo and Barnaby S. Donlon, “Integrating the Balanced Scorecard and COSO ERM Framework,”
Cost Management, July/August 2006, pp. 20-30.
National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission of Audit
Committees—A Practical Guide, 1999.
New York Stock Exchange, Final NYSE Corporate Governance Rules, November 4, 2003.
Lucy Nottingham, “A Conceptual Framework for Integrated Risk Management,” The Conference Board of
Canada, 1997.
Oversight Systems, “The 2006 Oversight Systems Financial Executive Report on Risk Management,” 2006.
Protiviti, U.S. Risk Barometer—Survey of C-Level Executives with the Nation’s Largest Companies, 2005.
Protiviti, “Guide to Enterprise Risk Management: Frequently Asked Questions. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
H.R. 3763,” 2006.
Helen Shaw, “The Trouble with COSO,” CFO, March 15, 2006, pp. 1-4.
William Shenkir and Paul L. Walker, “Enterprise Risk Management and the Strategy-Risk-Focused Organization,”
Cost Management, May-June 2006, pp. 32-38.
Robert L. Simons, “Control in an Age of Empowerment,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1995, pp. 80-88.
Robert L. Simons, “How Risky Is Your Company?” Harvard Business Review, May- June 1999, pp. 85-94.
Carl Smith, “Internal Controls,” Strategic Finance, March 2006, p. 6.
Wendy K. Smith, “James Burke: A Career in American Business [(A) & (B)],” Harvard Business School Case
9-389-177 and 9-390-030, Harvard Business School Publishing, 1989.
John Smutniak, “Living Dangerously: A Survey of Risk,” The Economist, January 24, 2004, pp. 1-15.
Adrian J. Slywotzky and John Drzik, “Countering the Biggest Risk of All,” Harvard Business Review,
April 2005, pp. 1-12.
Standard and Poor’s, Criteria: Assessing Enterprise Risk Management Practices of Financial Institutions:
Rating Criteria and Best Practices, September 22, 2006.
Standard and Poor’s, Insurance Criteria: Rening the Focus of Insurer Enterprise Risk Management Criteria,
June 2, 2006.
Patrick J. Stroh, “Enterprise Risk Management at UnitedHealth Group,” Strategic Finance, July 2005, pp. 27-35.
Emily Thornton, “A Yardstick for Corporate Risk,” BusinessWeek, August 26, 2002, pp. 106-108.
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Integrated Risk Management Framework, 2001.
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Integrated Risk Management Framework: A Report on Implementation
Progress, 2003.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), “Commission Guidance Regarding Management’s Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” Release No. 33-8350, December 19, 2003.
SEC, “Securities Offering Reform,” Release No. 33-8591, December 1, 2005.
Paul L. Walker, William G. Shenkir, and Thomas L. Barton, Enterprise Risk Management: Pulling It All Together,
The Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation, 2002.
Paul L. Walker, William G. Shenkir, and Thomas L. Barton, “ERM in Practice,” Internal Auditor, August 2003, pp. 51-55.
Paul L. Walker, William G. Shenkir, and Stephen Hunn, “Developing Risk Skills: An Investigation of Business
Risks and Controls at Prudential Insurance Company of America,” Issues in Accounting Education, May
2001, pp. 291-304
