The board of directors, executives and risk knowledge management

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) and Knowledge Management (KM) both encompass top-down and bottom-up approaches developing and embedding risk knowledge concepts and processes in strategy, policies, risk appetite definition, the decision-making process and business processes. The capacity to transfer risk knowledge affects all stakeholders and understanding of the risk knowledge about the enterprise's value is a key requirement in order to identify protection strategies for business sustainability. There are various factors that affect this capacity for transferring and understanding. Previous work has established that there is a difference between the influence of KM variables on Risk Control and on the perceived value of ERM. Communication among groups appears as a significant variable in improving Risk Control but only as a weak factor in improving the perceived value of ERM. However, the ERM mandate requires for its implementation a clear understanding, of risk management (RM) policies, actions and results, and the use of the integral view of RM as a governance and compliance program to support the value driven management of the organization. Furthermore, ERM implementation demands better capabilities for unification of the criteria of risk analysis, alignment of policies and protection guidelines across the organization. These capabilities can be affected by risk knowledge sharing between the RM group and the Board of Directors and other executives in the organization. This research presents an exploratory analysis of risk knowledge transfer variables used in risk management practice. A survey to risk management executives from 65 firms in various industries was undertaken and 108 answers were analyzed. Potential relationships among the variables are investigated using descriptive statistics and multivariate statistical models. The level of understanding of risk management policies and reports by the board is related to the quality of the flow of communication in the firm and perceived level of integration of the risk policy in the business processes.

Corporate governance and the central factors influencing the roles of public and private sector board directors in the United Kingdom

DUE TO COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AT ASTON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES WITH PRIOR ARRANGEMENT

UK and US board director perceptions of the significance of gender and racial diversity on board governance

This mixed-methods study examines the perceptions and opinions of United Kingdom FTSE 350, and US Fortune 500 board of director members regarding the significance of gender and racial diversity on board governance. Perceptions were gathered from eighty-two directors using self-reported surveys and semi-structured interviews. This thesis provides: (1) an opportunity to investigate the perceptions (opinions) of directors regarding the effects of board gender and racial diversity on new board appointments and on the dynamics of board decision making (2) an opportunity to investigate the perception (opinions) of directors regarding the effects of social capital, new board appointments and the dynamics of board decision making, and (3) an opportunity to investigate comparatively the differences between UK and US director perceptions regarding the effects of board gender and racial diversity on new board appointments and board decision making. My findings indicate that directors believe that expertise and experience are by far the most important attributes when decisions on the selection of new directors are being considered. While US directors report observing tangible benefits to gender and racial diversity, for their firms, as well as a willingness to consider diversity as an attribute in the selection process; most UK directors were strongly opposed to positive discrimination measures.1 A majority of directors do not believe that their own demographic characteristics, such as race or gender were attributes to their being selected to a board position; however white males perceive that these attributes were considered attributes to the appointment of diverse directors. Moreover, in the United Kingdom, male directors reported that they may be at a disadvantage for board selection when compared to their female counterparts, hence advocating for a selection process with minimal considerations of the demographic characteristics of new directors. Directors do not seem to consider diverse social capital of directors when making board appointments. Instead, US directors were more likely to be assisted in board appointments by their having similar social capital, and UK directors indicated that they only consider director expertise, and that expertise is considered to ensure a broad mix of skills and professional experience on the board.