企业风险管理中的风险沟通机制研究

ERM是当今企业风险管理的核心标准,风险沟通是风险管理的重要方法,但企业风险沟通的研究尚不完备。本文将社会公共领域的风险沟通理论与COSO框架下的企业风险管理相结合,提出了一个风险沟通的理论假说,以全面风险感知、相互信任、伙伴关系和双向沟通模式作为该假说的四大支柱,以全面综合的方法,从企业内部(纵向)和企业外部(横向)两个维度构建了企业风险沟通体系,期望能够为企业层面的风险沟通发挥积极的作用。     

Risk-risk tradeoffs: what should we do in Europe?

Risk-risk tradeoffs occur when a regulator focuses on decreasing one particular risk in one area which leads to another risk appearing elsewhere which was not originally considered. These risk-risk tradeoffs abound all around us and are frequently ignored by regulators. In this article we firstly, examine why risk-risk tradeoffs are often ignored. Secondly we summarize some of the criticisms to the use of risk-risk tradeoffs and then we look at the phenomenon via a number of European based case studies. In the final section of the paper we put forward a series of recommendations to help regulators to be better equipped in dealing with risk-risk tradeoffs.     

Looking back and going forward: what should the new European Commission do in order to promote evidence-based policy-making?

In this paper, we first give an overview of what has happened in Europe within the area of regulation over the past 5 years or so. We then examine where the new European Commission and the Parliament are with regard to evidence-based and risk-informed policy-making taking a specific look at the importance of transparency among European regulatory agencies, the calls for better regulation that were initiated by First Vice President Timmermans, and the continued mis-use of the precautionary principle. In the final section, we provide a number of recommendations on what the Commission and the Parliament should do going forward including moving away from fish bowl to science-based transparency, making the member states more receptive to science-based policy-making and strengthening the capacity of the European Commission to further promote evidence-based and risk-informed policy-making.     

Risk cultures and dominant approaches towards disasters in seven European countries

This paper builds upon the risk culture concept started with Mary Douglas’ and Aaron Wildavsky’s seminal work on risk and culture. Based upon the empirical results of a qualitative sociological study on sociocultural factors affecting risk perception and crisis communication in seven European countries, a theoretical model, illustrating how differences in disasters framing imply diverse approaches to risk and disaster management, is suggested. According to this framework, culturally bounded assumptions and conventions strongly influence how communities make sense of risks and hazards and how these communities consider some ways of dealing with disasters more appropriate than others. The framework suggested in this article distinguishes between risk cultures of a given society, which do not necessarily respond to nation states. In order to explain differences in how cultures deal with risks and disasters, and to define the main features of our typology, three main interrelated dimensions have been selected: disaster framing, trust in authorities and blaming. By analyzing differences and similarities in how people perceive and interpret disasters, as well as to whom the responsibility for risk prevention and crisis management is attributed, in seven European countries, three specific ideal types of risk cultures emerged: state-oriented risk culture, individual-oriented risk culture and fatalistic risk culture. Implications for crisis management and communication in case of a disaster will be addressed for each of these risk cultures.     

The action suited to the word? Use of the framework of risk information seeking to understand risk-related behaviors

Although a growing body of risk communication research focuses on how people process risk information, one question that is overlooked is how the seeking of information contributes to behavioral adaptation toward the risk issue. How are people’s behavioral responses to risks affected by the search for risk information? Building on the Framework of Risk Information Seeking (FRIS), this paper reports on two studies that focus on the experimental testing of several of the basic FRIS assumptions. In study 1, a 2 (involvement: high vs. low)?×?2 (risk perception: high vs. low) between-subjects experiment was conducted to test the assumption that higher levels of involvement and risk perception stimulate the intention to seek additional risk information as well as the actual risk information. Study 2 is a partial replication of study 1. In study 2, a 2 (involvement: high vs. low)?×?2 (fear appeal: present vs. absent)?×?2 (response efficacy: high vs. low) between-subjects experiment was conducted to test how varying the levels of involvement, risk perception, and response efficacy influence actual and intended information seeking, as well as the intention to adopt risk-mitigating actions. The results showed that the high-involvement, high-risk perception, high-response efficacy group was most likely to actually seek information and make behavioral changes. The results are in accordance with basic FRIS assumptions. Implications for risk communication are discussed.     

Helping behavior in a virtual crisis situation: effects of safety awareness and crisis communication

Incident evaluations show that bystanders tend to help: they do not wait for professionals to arrive, but act as required by the situation at hand. In the present study, we investigated how safety awareness (induced before an accident happened) and providing a course of action by emergency services affect helping behavior after witnessing a virtual accident with two victims. The main task of the participants was to arrive at a job interview in time. Safety awareness was manipulated by the specific organization they went to: either promoting safe traffic or healthy living. The results show that all participants were inclined to help. Participants who were primed towards safe traffic more often called the emergency number, but talked to the victim less often. Participants who had received specific courses of action moved the victim less often. In all, the results clearly indicate the value of effective risk communication (before an event occurs) and crisis communication (after an event has occurred), as both types of information improve the quality of actual helping behavior at the scene.