Page 1 of 2
European companies have been using Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) to varying degrees as part of an ongoing effort to raise awareness and promote appropriate risk management responses and deliver value for stakeholders. More recently rating agencies have added to the clamour for increased transparency of risk management, providing senior management with an increased incentive to revise and improve ERM processes.
Some European companies, including RTL Group (RTLG), have decided to embrace Standard & Poor’s (S&P) initiative to assess ERM processes of non-financial companies as being an opportunity to revise and improve their existing practice.
In November 2007, S&P consulted users of their rating services in order to validate their approach to benchmarking ERM processes across non-financial institutions. S&P have subsequently developed their ERM assessment - the outcome of which is a rating of a company’s ERM competency as being either ‘weak’, ‘adequate’, ‘strong’, or ‘excellent’. It appears the S&P assessment will concentrate on the culture of risk management and governance concentrating on specific examples to demonstrate how this works on a day-to-day basis. The adoption of a recognised unifying standard such as COSO ERM Framework or the Australian and New Zealand Standard on risk management (AS/NZS4360/2004) is helpful but is not a pre-requisite nor sufficient proof of having adopted good practices1.
RTLG has used the pending S&P assessment to review existing practice in order to be able then to revise internal control processes to make them more effective and efficient. This step was taken as part of a continuous process of improvement initiative.
It was decided at the outset to undertake a review of existing risk management capabilities to determine where improvement effort should be focused. There was a strong desire to build a business case for improvement in ERM but without having to resort to using a myriad consultants. Further, a strong emphasis was put on having practical and pragmatic solutions for improvement.
A decision was made to work with Avantage Capita2, whose methodology and approach based on comparison (benchmarking) was found to be fairly unique in execution in that the output is presented on ‘one page’ which was useful when discussing risk with senior stakeholders who had little time to read a detailed analysis. A long form report on suggestions for improvement was discussed with those of us more heavily involved in the improvement effort. The outcome of the joint effort was to identify any weaknesses or gaps and to define a roadmap with priorities for improvement for the next two years.
Avantage Capita’s IRPM (Integrated Risk & Performance Management) approach, adapted for RTLG, is shown in Figure 1.
The approach enabled the weaknesses in the current risk infrastructure and capabilities to be identified and compared to good practice in peer organisations. The listing of actions to address weaknesses served as the basis for the business case aimed at defining the prioritised improvement initiatives.
More in Risk Management
Treasury Management International showcases topical, pragmatic solutions and strategic insights on treasury, cash management, foreign exchange and other issues affecting treasury and financial professionals, together with treasury and finance news, education and opinion. With real-life treasury management experiences and case studies at its core, TMI provides valuable material for all practitioners - from experienced treasurers and CFOs to those new to the profession.
While all reasonable care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the publication, the publishers cannot accept responsibility for any errors or omissions. All rights reserved. No paragraph or other part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, including photocopying and recording, without the written permission of Treasury Management International Ltd or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1956 (as amended). Such written permission must also be obtained before any paragraph or other part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any kind.
© P4 Publishing Ltd
Registered in England and Wales Number: 05838515