May 21, 2012

Board-Level Enterprise Risk Management "ERM" Is Still Lacking

In the aftermath of the worst recession since the Great Depression, one would think corporate boards would fully embrace enterprise risk management and a board risk oversight process. A new study has found differently, however. A report by consulting and internal audit firm Protiviti and the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) entitled, "Board Risk Oversight-A Progress Report: Where Boards of Directors Currently Stand in Executing Their Risk Oversight Responsibilities," found that board members were divided  regarding risk oversight.

While 53% of participants rated the process in their organization as "effective" or "highly effective," more than 70% indicated that their boards are not formally executing mature and robust risk oversight processes. "Risk oversight is a high priority on most boards of directors' agendas," said Jim DeLoach, a managing director with Protiviti. "Our survey findings provide valuable insights on how a board can advance to a more mature stage-a critical issue as new legislation and regulations force boards to rethink their structure and mission as it relates to risk oversight."

Findings such as this make one question what, if not a severe recession, it will take for boards to realize the importance of risk oversight.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Editor

Emily Holbrook is the editor of Risk Management magazine and the Risk Management Monitor blog.

212-655-5915

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.