[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]建筑學(xué)外文翻譯—建筑企業(yè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理的推動(dòng)與障礙文獻(xiàn)綜述（原文）

1、 Procedia Engineering 164 ( 2016 ) 402 – 408 1877-7058 © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Peer-

2、review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.637 ScienceDirectAvailable online at www.sciencedirect.comCreative Construction Conferen

3、ce 2016, CCC 2016, 25-28 June 2016, Budapest, Hungary Drivers for and obstacles to enterprise risk management in construction firms: a literature review Berenger Y. Renaulta* , Justus N. Agumbaa, Balogun, O.Ab a*,a,bDep

4、t of Construction Management Science Direct, Taylor and Francis Online, and Emerald. Fifteen drivers and thirty-four obstacles were identified. The study revealed that proper ERM requires the board and senior manageme

5、nt to ensure that all potential threats to ERM are taken into account. They should also check the efficiency of the measures adopted at the enterprise level, document on the outcomes and review the assessment regularly

6、to keep it updated. Construction firms can use the drivers and obstacles revealed in this treatise to prepare their customized list of drivers and obstacles. This study contributes to global knowledge relating to ERM a

7、nd allows management to overcome the challenges posed by the significant obstacles. © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the Creative Cons

8、truction Conference 2016. Keywords: Construction Firms, Drivers, Entreprise Risk Management (ERM), Obstacles. 1. Introduction In recent years, changes in the business landscape have occurred in the way firms perceive ris

9、k management (RM), and the trend has moved toward a more integrated, comprehensive RM discipline, defined as ERM [1,2]. The * Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 73 101 6707; fax: +27 11 559 6630. E-mail address: renault08

10、@yahoo.fr © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing commi

11、ttee of the Creative Construction Conference 2016404 Berenger Y. Renault et al. / Procedia Engineering 164 ( 2016 ) 402 – 408 limited to: reduce costs and losses, reduced earnings volatility, improved decision m

12、aking, increased profitability and earnings, better risk reporting and communication, better resource allocation, increased management accountability; greater management consensus; competitive advantages, improved owne

13、rs’ satisfaction and improved control of an enterprise on its projects [15,16,17,11,18,19,20]. Moreover, a diversity of risks drives firms to adopt ERM as well. Liebenberg and Hoyt (2003) affirmed that the risks origin

14、ating from the globalization and market drove firms to adopt ERM. At the same time, Pagach and Warr [14] studies concluded that firms with more volatile operating cash flows and riskier stock returns were more probable

15、 to adopt ERM. Furthermore, the use of advanced information technology (IT) was perceived as a key external driver (Liebenberg and Hoyt, 2003) as ERM requires much computing power [21]. This breakthrough has enabled fir

16、ms to collect improved records for certain risks, model complex risks, measure risks more accurately, and improved understanding of the interdependencies across a firm [22]. The improved accessibility of outsourcing po

17、ssibilities for advanced IT modeling activities has made ERM available to firms that are in need of specialized risk related knowledge. Nevertheless, new studies evidence suggests that the implementation of ERM is slow

18、ed down by firms’ perceived lack of technological tools [4]. Additionally, the external driving influences would require the board as well as senior management to request for ERM implementation. Kleffner et al. [15] st

19、udies reported that 51 percent of Canadian firms viewed the encouragement from the board as the fundamental element underlying their ERM implementation. Simultaneously, Narvaez [19] asserted that top management should

20、drive ERM implementation as ERM necessitates the commitment of the entire enterprise. Table 1. Drivers for ERM-literature review. Authors, Year Objective Methods Liebenberg & Hoyt (2003) To identify the critical

21、determinants of ERM adoption Questionnaire, statistical analysis Manab et al., (2010) To measure the extent to which specific firms have implemented ERM programs Questionnaire Wu & Olson (2009) To explain the v

22、alue of business scorecards as a means to monitor organisational performance with respect to ERM. Review of literature Beasley et al., (2008) To examines equity market reactions to announcements of appointments of seni

23、or executive officers overseeing the ERM processes Questionnaire, regression analysis Pagach & Warr (2011) To identify parameters that can explain variation in the “ERM mix” adopted by firms. Interviews Gordon et

24、 al., (2009) To examine the relationship between Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) information content and firm performance Reviewed drivers for ERM Kleffner et al., (2003) To determine the effect of ERM on business pe

25、rformance Questionnaire KPMG (2010) To investigate the critical drivers for ERM implementation Questionnaire Liu et al., (2011) To investigate the influence of the drivers in the key areas of activities of an ERM p

26、rogram. statistical analysis Muralidhar (2010) To identify significant factors driven by ERM movement. Questionnaire Narvaez (2011) To identify the critical drivers for enterprise risk management (ERM) implementation

27、 Questionnaire survey Nocco & Stulz (2006) To determine the drivers for ERM program Questionnaire survey Segal (2001) To understand the link between the ERM implementation drivers with the RM practices Intervie

28、ws Jablonowski (2001) To develop an ERM framework for construction firms Review of Literature 2.2. Obstacles to ERM implementation Embracing an ERM approach brings about firm culture changes that, to ensure success, ne

29、cessitates support from executive management, including the board [23,24]. It is, therefore, the duty of the board to determine the risk appetite and develop the RM policy of the firm in guiding the firm’s risk activit

30、ies. Nevertheless, the board’s insufficient RM knowledge and its compromising attitude [25,24] may be a significant obstacle to ERM as it obstructs comprehensive and open risk discussions. Another potential obstacle t