管理學作業-企業風險管理實踐

管理學essay-企業風險管理實踐

　　本次調查的數據，我們會提供給一個研究聯盟，這個聯盟由普華永道會計師事務所、荷蘭皇家特許會計師協會，荷蘭格羅寧根大學，奈耶諾德商業大學的代表參加。這個聯盟的研究目的是分析荷蘭企業風險管理的實施和存在的問題。本次問卷因為沒有被特別設計，所以有了某些方面的限制。因此我們會做一些實施的評估工作。但是，這些數據仍然是有價值的，因為它們至少可以為我們的企業風險管理提供一些設計和實施效果方面的信息。

　　The survey data we rely on in this paper have been made available to us by a research consortium involving representatives from PricewaterhouseCoopers, Royal NIVRA (the Dutch Institute of Chartered Public Accountants), the University of Groningen, and Nyenrode Business University2. The aim of this consortium was to map current ERM practices and issues in the Netherlands. The questionnaire has not been designed with the specific purposes of the current study in mind, which poses some limitations to what we can do qua variable construction and measurement. However, the data are still valuable, as they provide at least an informative insight into ERM adoption, design choices, and effectiveness.

　　有些已經獲得廣泛接受的觀點認為，企業風險管理是有效管理企業的一個重要組成部分。無論如何，企業一定在某種程度上產生了變化。一些公司已經開始實施先進的企業風險管理系統，而其他公司則變得比較保守。在這篇文章中，我們將探討一些因素，這有助于解釋跨行業的企業風險管理實施的發展水平。在先前研究的基礎上，我們確定了五個因素，我們希望這能對企業風險管理實施有價值。

　　The idea that ERM is a key component of effective governance has gained widespread acceptance. Nevertheless, organizations vary in the extent to which they have adopted it. Some organizations have invested in sophisticated ERM systems, whereas others rely on rather ad hoc responses to risks as they become manifest. In this section of the paper, we explore a number of factors that may help to explain the level of development of ERM practices across organizations. Building on previous studies, we identify five broad groups of factors that we expect to be associated with the extent of ERM implementation: regulatory influences; internal influences; ownership; auditor influence; and firm and industry-related characteristics.

　　The consortium identified organizations located in the Netherlands with annual revenues of more than EUR 10 million and more than 30 employees, using information from company.info. 9,579 organization appeared to fit these cumulative criteria. The survey was mailed to the Board of these organizations in May, 2009. 240 questionnaires were undeliverable. Of the remaining 9,339 surveys, 928 were returned, resulting in an overall response rate of 9.9%. Upon closer examination, however, 103 responses were found not to match the initial selection criteria after all, leaving a final sample of 825 observations. Respondents are board members, CFOs, or staff members in high organizational positions. We have no data to examine representativeness. The sample, however, is relatively large, and varied in terms of organizational size and industry. Table 1 gives a general description of the dataset. 

　　In many countries, regulators are pressing firms to improve risk management and risk reporting (Collier, Berry & Burke, 2006; Kleffner et al., 2003). Examples of regulatory pressure include the NYSE Corporate Governance Rules and the Sarbanes Oxley Act in the US, and the Combined Code on Corporate Governance in the UK. Adoption of the principles of these codes is typically mandatory for publicly traded firms. In the Netherlands, firms listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange are required to submit to the Dutch Corporate Governance Code, also known as the Tabaksblat Code. This code holds general provisions as to the maintenance of a sound risk management system. It has often been argued that ERM initiatives within organizations arise in response to regulatory pressure (e.g. Collier et al., 2006). Because this pressure is largest for publicly listed firms, we expect such firms to be more likely to adopt ERM (cf. also Kleffner et al., 2003):

　　Publicly traded companies, however, are not the only organizations that have been subjected to governance regulation. Governance rules are also fairly common in parts of the public and not-for-profit sector. In addition, some trade organizations have adopted governance codes as a membership requirement. We expect such organizations to have more elaborate ERM systems than organizations that need not conform to explicit governance expectations:

　　The decision to implement ERM is rather consequential, affecting the entire organization and implying major organizational change. Such far-reaching decisions require strong support from senior management. To emphasize their commitment to ERM, many organizations choose to locate ultimate responsibility for risk management explicitly at the senior executive level by appointing a Chief Risk Officer (CRO). Presumably, senior executive leadership is a powerful catalyst for organizational change, and may significantly speed up the process of ERM implementation (Beasley et al., 2005; Beasley et al., 2008):#p#分頁標題#e#

　　Another internal factor to influence ERM development is the presence of an audit committee. Audit committees play an important role in the oversight of risk management practices. In this monitoring role, they can exert influence on the board to ensure that ERM gets sufficient management attention, and that sufficient resources are being invested to further ERM development:

　　Liebenberg & Hoyt (2003) argue that pressure from shareholders is an important driving force behind ERM adoption (cf. also Mikes, 2009). As institutional block holders are typically more powerful than individual shareholders (Kane & Velury, 2004), Liebenberg & Hoyt (2003) suggest that a higher degree of institutional ownership is positively associated with the extent of ERM adoption:

　　Arguably, insider owners have even more influence over management than institutional owners, especially if these insiders hold a controlling share in the firm. This is the case in owner-managed firms. However, owner-managers have less incentive to press for ERM. Because agency problems between owners and management are absent in owner-managed firms, the value of ERM is lower in such firms, ceteris paribus. Also, owner-managers tend to rely less on formal control systems (Lovata & Costigan, 2002), which makes them unlikely sponsors of ERM. Therefore: 

　　For some firms, the value of ERM is larger than for others. Liebenberg & Hoyt (2003) hypothesize that ERM is especially important for firms that experience significant growth (cf. also Beasley et al., 2008; Gordon et al., 2009). Such firms face more uncertainties and require better risk management to control the risks that arise in the process, but also to include the risk profile of various growth opportunities in organizational decision making.

　　The size of the organization is also likely to affect the extent of ERM adoption (Beasley et al., 2003; Kleffner et al., 2003). Presumably, there are considerable economies of scale involved in operating an ERM system, and it may well be the case that only larger organizations can afford a fully functional ERM system:

　　Several studies have proposed the existence of industry effects. Quite commonly, it is assumed that firms in the financial services industry are more likely to embrace ERM (Beasley et al., 2005; Kleffner et al., 2003; Liebenberg & Hoyt, 2003). Since the release of Basel II, banks experience strong incentives to adopt ERM, as that may help to reduce capital requirements (Liebenberg & Hoyt, 2003; Wahlström, 2009; cf. also Mikes, 2009). In addition, ERM may serve as a valuable commitment device in the banking industry, lowering the cost of capital (Liebenberg & Hoyt, 2003). 

　　Another sector that seems more prone to ERM adoption is the energy industry. Kleffner et al. (2003) report that energy firms are relatively heavy ERM users, which they ascribe to the volatile markets in which these firms operate. Because ERM may reduce earnings volatility (Hoyt & Liebenberg, 2003), firms in such markets may value ERM more than firms that face stable market conditions. Accordingly: