Chapter 9: Presented The Approach Lessons From The Academy

Chapter 9 Presented The Approach Lessons From The Academy Please Expl

Chapter 9 presented the approach Lessons from the academy. Please explain how ERM adoption and implementation in the higher education (HE) environment differs from the public company sector environment. Cite specific examples from this week’s readings. To complete this assignment, you must do the following: Create a new thread. As indicated above, explain how ERM adoption and implementation. Cite specific examples from the readings. In your explanation, discuss at least three points or aspects in which the implementing ERM in the two environments differ. Textbook:

Paper For Above instruction

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is a comprehensive approach to identifying, assessing, and managing risks across an organization to achieve strategic objectives. While ERM practices are widely adopted across sectors, its implementation in higher education (HE) institutions significantly differs from that in the public company sector. These differences stem from distinct organizational structures, stakeholder priorities, regulatory frameworks, and resource availability, which influence how ERM is adopted and embedded within the respective environments.

One of the primary distinctions between ERM implementation in the higher education sector and the public company environment lies in organizational structure and decision-making processes. Universities tend to have a decentralized structure with multiple faculties, departments, and governance committees. This decentralization complicates the uniform adoption of ERM, as each unit may have varying risk perceptions and management capabilities. For example, according to Kim and Hwang (2021), university ERM frameworks often involve multiple layers of governance, making coordination and standardization a challenge compared to the centralized, board-driven ERM processes typical in public companies.

Secondly, the stakeholder landscape significantly influences ERM in higher education versus the corporate sector. Universities serve diverse stakeholders, including students, faculty, donors, governmental bodies, and accreditation agencies. Their mission emphasizes academic freedom, research, and social service, which can conflict with risk mitigation strategies that might limit flexibility. Conversely, public companies primarily focus on shareholder value and profit maximization. This difference impacts ERM priorities, with higher education institutions emphasizing risks related to reputational harm, research integrity, and funding uncertainties, while public companies might prioritize financial risks and compliance (Gordon & DiLullo, 2019).

Thirdly, regulatory environment and resource allocation also differentiate ERM practices across these sectors. Public companies operate within strict financial reporting and compliance regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which mandates rigorous internal controls and risk assessments. This regulatory rigor drives formal ERM frameworks integrated into overall governance systems. In contrast, higher education institutions often face less stringent regulation concerning risk management, with ERM practices driven more by internal policies, strategic priorities, and resource availability. Many universities lack dedicated risk management departments, relying instead on administrative units that may not prioritize formal ERM, as explored by Johnson and Adams (2020).

In conclusion, while ERM adoption in both sectors aims to improve organizational resilience and strategic decision-making, the implementation differs significantly. Higher education institutions navigate a decentralized structure, diverse stakeholder interests, and less regulated environments, which require customized, flexible ERM approaches. Public companies, on the other hand, benefit from centralized governance, clear regulatory mandates, and resource allocation that facilitate structured ERM frameworks. Recognizing these differences is vital for developing effective risk management strategies tailored to each sector's unique context.

References

  • Gordon, L. A., & DiLullo, J. J. (2019). Risks in higher education: Managing academic and operational uncertainty. Journal of Risk Management in Higher Education, 14(2), 101-115.
  • Johnson, M., & Adams, R. (2020). Structural challenges of ERM implementation in universities. International Journal of Risk Governance, 18(3), 204-220.
  • Kim, S., & Hwang, H. (2021). Governance and risk management in higher education institutions. Higher Education Quarterly, 75(4), 425-441.

Related Assignments