Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Strategic risk
Strategic risk is the risk that a business may fail to meet its primary business objectives. Strategic risk is often a major factor in determining a company's worth, particularly observable if the company experiences a sharp decline in a short period of time. Due to this and its influence on compliance risk, it is a leading factor in modern risk management.
The importance of strategic risk has risen along with both "regulatory and stakeholder expectations". In 2005, the Corporate Executive Board (CEB), now under Gartner, published a study of Fortune 1000 companies between the years 1998 and 2002, and the types of risks that affected them the most. These companies comprised the top 20% who faced the most drastic "market value declines", and the number one risk they had in common was strategic risk (the second and third being operational and financial risk, respectively).
Strategic risks may be contrasted with operational risks, such as production processes, data protection, and the employment and engagement of key members of staff. There are many possible kinds of strategic risk. For example, according to a different study by CEB, published 2010, companies whose cultures do not put a strong emphasis on integrity, have been found to be 10 times more likely to commit unethical acts than those who do. CEB's Dan Currell states that such a factor may seem obvious, but is difficult to enforce in reality. A firm must establish an environment in which employees feel comfortable in communicating with each other, both managers and subordinates alike. Not addressing the strategic risk—or simply changing one's corporate culture—is much more likely to incur compliance and other business risks. CEB's Matthew Dixon states several factors that are not wrong, but ineffective in today's most common customer service strategies—chiefly, the idea that a customer service worker should do everything they can to please the customer, or what many call "going the extra mile". Instead, Dixon claims a defensive approach, where the customer service worker is instead responsive, would be much less costly and require generally less resources, including "burn[ing] out" one's employees and improved concentration.
In 2004, James Lam Associates researched the main cause for financial distress at companies that publicly traded. The research question was: when a company faces a major market value decline which is a 30 percent relative decline, what was the main cause? The research team found that 76 S&P 500 companies had suffered a dramatic decline in market value in a month, after analyzing the market value data of S&P 500 companies from 1982 to 2003. The JLA research team determined the root cause of their market value decline by reviewing news reports, regulatory filings, and company statements. These 76 companies worked with a cross major industries such as energy, materials, industrials, telecommunications, consumer products, health care, utilities, and financials. Overall, the JLA's study found that 61 percent of occurrences were due to strategic risks (i.e. consumer demand, M&A, competitive threats), 30 percent were caused by operational risks, and 9 percent were due to financial risks. Yet, in practice, a lot of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) programs downplay or ignore strategic risks.
Deloitte & Touche LLP and Deloitte Research, a part of Deloitte Services LP, conducted research in 2005 and analyzed the major declines the shareholders experienced in market value.[citation needed] The Corporate Executive Board and James Lam & Associates research also did research on the same however they used different organizations and time frame.[citation needed]
Deloitte Research approached Thomson Financial Global 100 Companies from 1994 to 2003 to complete the research. Their discovery was astonishing as they noticed, compared to the Morgan Stanley Financial World Index, the stock price decrease just after one month.
The main conclusion to this research was that most of the companies that had large losses had more than one type of risk. Out of the 100 largest declines the most affected group was strategic risk management with an astonishing 66 companies involved.
The second largest decline involved 62 companies claim business decline due to external events. The third decline involved operational risk with 61 companies claiming operational risk. The last high percentage of risk would include 37 companies claiming financial risk. Most companies overall lacked intelligence to offer quick responses to developing problems.
Hub AI
Strategic risk AI simulator
(@Strategic risk_simulator)
Strategic risk
Strategic risk is the risk that a business may fail to meet its primary business objectives. Strategic risk is often a major factor in determining a company's worth, particularly observable if the company experiences a sharp decline in a short period of time. Due to this and its influence on compliance risk, it is a leading factor in modern risk management.
The importance of strategic risk has risen along with both "regulatory and stakeholder expectations". In 2005, the Corporate Executive Board (CEB), now under Gartner, published a study of Fortune 1000 companies between the years 1998 and 2002, and the types of risks that affected them the most. These companies comprised the top 20% who faced the most drastic "market value declines", and the number one risk they had in common was strategic risk (the second and third being operational and financial risk, respectively).
Strategic risks may be contrasted with operational risks, such as production processes, data protection, and the employment and engagement of key members of staff. There are many possible kinds of strategic risk. For example, according to a different study by CEB, published 2010, companies whose cultures do not put a strong emphasis on integrity, have been found to be 10 times more likely to commit unethical acts than those who do. CEB's Dan Currell states that such a factor may seem obvious, but is difficult to enforce in reality. A firm must establish an environment in which employees feel comfortable in communicating with each other, both managers and subordinates alike. Not addressing the strategic risk—or simply changing one's corporate culture—is much more likely to incur compliance and other business risks. CEB's Matthew Dixon states several factors that are not wrong, but ineffective in today's most common customer service strategies—chiefly, the idea that a customer service worker should do everything they can to please the customer, or what many call "going the extra mile". Instead, Dixon claims a defensive approach, where the customer service worker is instead responsive, would be much less costly and require generally less resources, including "burn[ing] out" one's employees and improved concentration.
In 2004, James Lam Associates researched the main cause for financial distress at companies that publicly traded. The research question was: when a company faces a major market value decline which is a 30 percent relative decline, what was the main cause? The research team found that 76 S&P 500 companies had suffered a dramatic decline in market value in a month, after analyzing the market value data of S&P 500 companies from 1982 to 2003. The JLA research team determined the root cause of their market value decline by reviewing news reports, regulatory filings, and company statements. These 76 companies worked with a cross major industries such as energy, materials, industrials, telecommunications, consumer products, health care, utilities, and financials. Overall, the JLA's study found that 61 percent of occurrences were due to strategic risks (i.e. consumer demand, M&A, competitive threats), 30 percent were caused by operational risks, and 9 percent were due to financial risks. Yet, in practice, a lot of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) programs downplay or ignore strategic risks.
Deloitte & Touche LLP and Deloitte Research, a part of Deloitte Services LP, conducted research in 2005 and analyzed the major declines the shareholders experienced in market value.[citation needed] The Corporate Executive Board and James Lam & Associates research also did research on the same however they used different organizations and time frame.[citation needed]
Deloitte Research approached Thomson Financial Global 100 Companies from 1994 to 2003 to complete the research. Their discovery was astonishing as they noticed, compared to the Morgan Stanley Financial World Index, the stock price decrease just after one month.
The main conclusion to this research was that most of the companies that had large losses had more than one type of risk. Out of the 100 largest declines the most affected group was strategic risk management with an astonishing 66 companies involved.
The second largest decline involved 62 companies claim business decline due to external events. The third decline involved operational risk with 61 companies claiming operational risk. The last high percentage of risk would include 37 companies claiming financial risk. Most companies overall lacked intelligence to offer quick responses to developing problems.