Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

Widening Wealth Gap Is Biggest Global Risk, World Economic Forum Predicts

Wealth Disparity

According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks 2014 report, the chronic gap between the incomes of the richest and poorest citizens is the risk most likely to cause serious global damage in the next decade. Looking forward, the 700 experts queried emphasized that the next generation will only feel this disparity more acutely if current conditions continue. Those presently coming of age face “twin challenges” of reduced employment opportunity and rising education costs, prompting the World Economic Forum to consider the impact on political and social stability as well as economic development.

“Many young people today face an uphill battle,” explained David Cole, group chief risk officer of Swiss Re. “As a result of the financial crisis and globalization, the younger generation in the mature markets struggle with ever fewer job opportunities and the need to support an aging population. While in the emerging markets there are more jobs to be had, the workforce does not yet possess the broad based skill-sets necessary to satisfy demand. It’s vital we sit down with young people now and begin planning solutions aimed at creating fit-for-purpose educational systems, functional job-markets, efficient skills exchanges and the sustainable future we all depend on.”

After a widening global wealth gap, experts predicted that extreme weather events will be the global risk next most likely to cause systemic shock on a global scale. They identified fiscal crises as the global risk with the potential to have the biggest impact over the next 10 years.

The top five most likely and most potentially impactful global risks are:

Most Likely Risks

1. Income disparity (societal risk)

2. Extreme weather events (environmental risk)

3. Unemployment and underemployment (economic risk)

4. Climate change (environmental risk)

5. Cyberattacks (technological risk)

 

Most Potentially Impactful Risks

1. Fiscal crises (economic risk)

2. Climate change (environmental risk)

3. Water crises (environmental risk)

4. Unemployment and underemployment (economic risk)

5. Critical information infrastructure breakdown(technological risk)

Executives Explore Strategic Risk

Quickly made business decisions and innovations in technology—such as big data and social media—can throw a curve to a company’s strategic risk management, according to a survey by Deloitte. As a result, risk managers need to be prepared to act quickly to avoid disruptions that can follow.

buy stendra online cphia2023.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/jpg/stendra.html no prescription pharmacy

The study, Exploring Strategic Risk: 300 Executives around the World Say Their View of Strategic Risk is Changing, found that 81% of companies surveyed manage strategic risk explicitly, focusing on major risks that could impact the long-term performance of their organization.

Strategic risk management is also more of a board level priority, with 67% saying the CEO and board have oversight in managing strategic risk. They also say reputation risk is now their biggest risk concern.

buy lexapro online cphia2023.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/jpg/lexapro.html no prescription pharmacy

Much of this concern is due to the instantaneous aspects of social media globally, which can impact a company’s perception in the marketplace.

While reputation was already the top risk identified by financial services three years ago, and still is today, the energy sector didn’t see reputation as a top-five risk. Today, however, they see it as their number-one risk.

Respondents said they expect human capital and innovation to be the top strategic assets for companies to invest in three years from now, according to the study.

buy isofair online cphia2023.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/jpg/isofair.html no prescription pharmacy

Illustrations: Deloitte

RMORSA Part 5: Risk Reporting & Communication

Having standardized risk assessments and well documented mitigation and monitoring activities will equip your organization with a lot of risk intelligence. The question becomes: how do you report all of this information to your board and communicate it to your commissioner in a way that demonstrates the value of your ERM program? First, risk managers must be able to demonstrate how risks across the organization roll-up to impact the board’s strategic objectives; and second, ERM functions must track key metrics to validate the effectiveness of a formalized risk management approach.

Reporting on Critical Risks

Due to the limitations of spreadsheets, risk managers often have to choose between presenting actionable data that is too granular for the board, or presenting a high level summary, such as a top 10 risk report, which lacks the context of how risk within business process activities relate to the objectives that senior leadership and the board require.  However, a common risk taxonomy allows organizations to gather risk intelligence at the business process level, and aggregate it to a high level for senior leadership.

For the top risks across the organization, often risk managers must provide the more detailed underlying data, such as which business areas are involved, their individual profile of the risk, their mitigation strategy and how the risk is being monitored.

The most commonly used method to determine top key risks is to rank risks based on the score from their assessment. This aggregate will depict which risks pose the most immediate danger to the enterprise, and should be reported on regularly. The second method uses your common language, root cause library to identify systemic risks. These are risks that have been identified by multiple departments, and may be more easily addressed with corporate wide policies or procedures rather than point solutions. And now that you have a complete and transparent mitigation library, you can publish effective controls from one department to another, reducing overlapping activities in your organization and leveraging the practices in departments that are the most effective in managing risk.

The State of ERM

When demonstrating the value of your ERM program, take a step back to evaluate just how many risks have been identified, and how well risks are being evaluated and mitigated. The common standards established by an ERM program will significantly enhance your risk identification process by allowing you to prioritize efforts to the most important risks that have the least assurance of control effectiveness.

You might find that over the past several quarters, the gap between the number of risks identified and those that have been addressed has grown. This isn’t a concern, but rather a sign that your organization has a clear path forward and is beginning to understand its entire risk universe.

You can also track your progress with the ERM guidelines outlined in the RIMS Risk Maturity Model. Providing your executives, board or commissioner with a bi-annual report on the maturity of your ERM program will show which areas you’ve improved upon and what areas need focus going forward. The model provides a repeatable process that enables internal audit to validate its quality and effectiveness. This same model also has the benefit of enabling you to benchmark your program against others in your industry, providing a transparent, third party evaluation of where your organization stands.

This concludes Steven’s series on ORSA Compliance. Looking for more ERM best practices and the latest industry trends? Subscribe to Steve’s Blog or visit www.logicmanager.com.

Risk Managers Gain Foothold as ERM Program Drivers

Fewer boards of directors are seen as their company’s top ERM program drivers, dropping to 26% in 2013 from 34% in 2011, according to the 2013 RIMS Enterprise Risk Management Survey, released today. This year risk managers came in as the second driver at 17%. By comparison, the second highest category in the 2011 report, which did not include risk management as an option, was “other” at 19%. Commenting on the 2011 report, Carol Fox, RIMS director of strategic & enterprise risk practice confirmed that many respondents wrote in their comments, that “other” was a risk management department initiative. “While I can’t do a direct comparison to this year’s 17%, I’d say it may be a shift as risk professionals take more of a leadership role in instituting ERM programs,” she said.

In 2011, in fact, part of the survey’s response was that “risk managers needed to take more of a leadership role with ERM. And since board leadership showed a drop [in 2013], risk managers may have taken up the slack,” she said.

Fox observed that concerns about rating agency requirements resulting from the financial crisis of 2008—that were some of the drivers for ERM in 2011—were also lower. “In 2013 ‘regulatory drivers’ for implementing ERM was 14%, dropping from 18% in 2011—so it is a shift,” she said.

What this means, she explained, is that more organizations understand the value of ERM. “It’s no longer about compliance with regulations or pressure from the rating agencies. They’re seeing the value in ERM itself.”

The board is still the largest driver, however. “That hasn’t changed, ERM is still very much top of mind for the board. As you look at the types of risk that can affect the objectives of the organization, they are mostly strategic. They are still the primary driver, but they were a higher driver in years past,” she said, adding, “This doesn’t say the board is less interested. The primary driver is the leadership role the risk professional is bringing.”

The 2013 RIMS ERM Survey was produced with Advisen LTD as a follow up to previous surveys in 2009 and 2011. The survey is free for both RIMS members and non-members and can be downloaded in RIMS newly revamped Risk Knowledge library at www.rims.org/RiskKnowledge.