Prepare A Research Paper On Various Issues, Prot ✓ Solved
Prepare a research paper on some of the various issues, protocols,
Prepare a research paper on some of the various issues, protocols, methods, frameworks you found and discuss how – if possible – organizations can use ERM as strategy. It is perfectly acceptable if you deem ERM cannot be used as strategy, just back up your claim with scholarly research and justifications.
Your paper should meet these requirements: Be approximately four to six pages in length, not including the required cover page and reference page. Follow APA 7 guidelines. Your paper should include an introduction, a body with fully developed content, and a conclusion. Support your answers with the readings from the course and at least two scholarly journal articles to support your positions, claims, and observations, in addition to your textbook. Be clearly and well-written, concise, and logical, using excellent grammar and style techniques. You are being graded in part on the quality of your writing.
Paper For Above Instructions
Introduction. Enterprise risk management (ERM) has evolved from a defensively oriented risk function into a strategic capability aimed at aligning risk-taking with organizational objectives. The central question this paper asks is whether ERM can be used as a strategic device, not merely as a compliance or governance mechanism. To answer this, I synthesize classic ERM frameworks, contemporary scholarship on risk-informed strategy, and practitioner guidance. The discussion notes that ERM’s value lies in its ability to connect strategy, governance, and performance through structured risk identification, assessment, and response. As such, ERM can contribute to strategic planning when embedded in decision processes and performance measurement, but success depends on governance, culture, and disciplined execution (COSO, 2017; ISO, 2018; Power, 2007). (COSO, 2017; ISO, 2018; Power, 2007)
Frameworks, issues, and methods. The COSO ERM Integrated Framework emphasizes strategy-setting and performance as core components, urging organizations to consider events, risks, and opportunities when formulating strategy and allocating resources. This approach suggests that ERM should be embedded in both planning and execution rather than kept separate as an afterthought (COSO, 2017). ISO 31000 provides principles, a framework, and a process that support risk management across contexts, enabling organizations to tailor practices to strategy while maintaining consistency and ongoing improvement (ISO, 2018). The literature also highlights practical methods such as risk appetite articulation, scenario planning, and risk-adjusted performance metrics to ensure that risk considerations influence resource allocation and strategic choices (Lam, 2003; Fraser & Simkins, 2016). Aven (2012) cautions that risk definition and communication matter in strategy, as mischaracterizing risk can distort strategic choices. Taken together, these sources imply that ERM can serve as an organizational lens for strategy when it is adaptive, well-governed, and integrated into decision processes (COSO, 2017; Lam, 2003; Power, 2007). (COSO, 2017; ISO, 2018; Lam, 2003; Power, 2007; Aven, 2012)
Can ERM be used as strategy? Proponents argue that ERM fosters resilience by linking risk capacity to strategic choices, enabling leaders to pursue opportunities while maintaining control over downside risks. When ERM is connected to strategic planning, it helps identify strategic risks—risks that threaten value creation—and align risk responses with organizational objectives. In this view, ERM acts as a strategic governance instrument by informing capital allocation, project prioritization, and organizational design. Hoyt and Liebenberg (2011) document the measurable value of ERM in reducing volatility and potentially improving firm value, suggesting financial performance benefits when ERM is properly implemented. However, critics warn that ERM can become a compliance-driven exercise if senior leadership fails to integrate it with strategic decision-making, leading to misalignment and perfunctory risk reporting (Power, 2007). The literature also notes that ERM success hinges on culture, information quality, and the courage to act on risk insights even when they contradict prevailing plans (Beasley et al., 2005; Fraser & Simkins, 2016). (Hoyt & Liebenberg, 2011; Power, 2007; Beasley, Clune, & Hermanson, 2005)
Strategic integration and governance. A core condition for ERM-as-strategy is governance that elevates risk discussions to the strategic table. This means risk committees, executive sponsorship, and a risk language that permeates strategy documents, performance dashboards, and incentive systems. When risk appetite is explicit and aligned with strategic objectives, ERM informs investment decisions and portfolio management rather than merely reporting risk exposure. The COSO framework emphasizes governance integration, encouraging boards and executives to consider risk and opportunity in strategy development and performance monitoring (COSO, 2017). The literature also suggests that ERM should be iterative: risk identification and assessment should influence ongoing strategy refinement, and learning from near-misses should shape future planning cycles (Lam, 2003). (COSO, 2017; Lam, 2003)
Roadmap for implementation. A practical path to ERM-driven strategy begins with leadership commitment and a formal mapping of strategic objectives to risk registers. Organizations should establish risk governance structures (risk committees, C-suite sponsorship), adopt an ERM process aligned with the strategy cycle, and implement risk-informed decision rules. Scenario planning and stress testing support robust strategic choices under uncertainty, while risk-adjusted performance metrics translate risk outcomes into financial and strategic consequences. Communication and training help cultivate a risk-aware culture, ensuring that the organization acts on insights rather than merely documenting them. As ISO 31000 and COSO suggest, continuous improvement, monitoring, and adaptation are essential components of durable ERM integration with strategy (ISO, 2018; COSO, 2017). (ISO, 2018; COSO, 2017; Fraser & Simkins, 2016)
Implications and cautions. When ERM is aligned with strategy, organizations can improve resilience, capital allocation, and value creation. Yet gaps remain: risk information must be timely, accurate, and actionable; governance must avoid overburdening executives with excessive reporting; and the organization must maintain a risk culture that supports proactive risk-taking within bounds. Strategic ERM also requires a balance between risk appetite and growth objectives; overly conservative risk governance can stifle opportunity, while excessive risk-taking without discipline can erode value. The scholarly literature underscores the importance of integrating ERM with performance management, governance, and strategy processes to realize its strategic potential (Hoyt & Liebenberg, 2011; Beasley et al., 2005; Fraser & Simkins, 2016). (Hoyt & Liebenberg, 2011; Beasley, Clune, & Hermanson, 2005; Fraser & Simkins, 2016)
Conclusion. ERM has the potential to function as a strategic instrument rather than a standalone governance tool, provided it is embedded in strategy design, decision processes, and performance measurement. The most persuasive arguments for ERM as strategy emphasize governance, explicit risk appetite, scenario-based planning, and risk-informed capital allocation. Realizing this potential requires organizational changes, including board engagement, executive sponsorship, a common risk language, and a culture that values proactive risk management as part of strategic choice. When these conditions are in place, ERM can serve not only as risk mitigation but also as a driver of strategic resilience and value creation (COSO, 2017; ISO, 2018; Lam, 2003; Power, 2007). (COSO, 2017; ISO, 2018; Lam, 2003; Power, 2007)