Category Archives: Government@Risk – Jim Kline

#373 – ERM IN AUSTRALIAN STATES – JAMES KLINE PH.D.

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Several years ago, I co-authored an article describing the growth of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) in government globally. (1) With the advent of COVID – 19, that growth has slowed. However, COVID – 19 has raised the issue of risk beyond the abstract. It has made it part of the dialogue worldwide. How much does wearing a mask reduce the risk of catching COVID – 19?  How much risk is there to children if schools are reopened?  What is the long-term risk to the economy of keeping it locked down? Continue reading →

#372 – NEW ESG REPORTING REQUIREMENTS – JAMES KLINE PH.D.

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

In a previous CERM Insights I mention ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) Risk. The U.S. and European governments are starting to stress ESG risk management. This article looks at the proposed ESG requirements of the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the implication for quality management. Continue reading →

#369 – BIG DATA AND THE QUALITY PROFESSION – JAMES KLINE PH.D.

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

Dianna Deeney in her piece in CERM Insights #362 notes that big data may provide the quality profession with more professional opportunities. Dr Anil Maheshwari in his book Data Analytics: Made Accessible specifically indicates that quality management will benefit from big data. (1) Continue reading →

#367 – IS ERM THE SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE? – JAMES KLINE PH.D.

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

The 2022 Global Risk Report is the 17th risk assessment report. The preface to the report notes: “The 17th edition of the Global Risk Report identifies tensions that will results from diverging trajectories and approaches within and between countries and then examines the risk that could arise from such tensions.” (1) Continue reading →

#361 – ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISK – JAMES KLINE PH.D.

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

In CERM Risk Insights #354 I discussed the risk management study of local governments in New Zealand. One of the cases in the study was Environment Canterbury Regional Council. The regional council’s focus and the increasing concerns about environmental risks by both the public and private sector represents a challenge to the common approach used by most of the New Zealand local governments, ISO 31000:2018 and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) more generally. This piece discusses this challenge to ISO 31000:2018 and its implications. Continue reading →