Melco Management Accounting Research
Discussion Paper Series
No.MDP2018-002
Enterprise Risk Management in Accounting Research: A Literature
Review

August 2018
Shiho Fujita*
Graduate School of Business and Commerce, Keio University
2-15-45 Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8345 Japane-mail: fujita.shiho@keio.jp
Keita Iwasawa
Graduate School of Business and Commerce, Keio University
2-15-45 Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8345 Japane-mail: atk.m@keio.jp
Eisuke Yoshida
Professor, Keio University, Faculty of Business and Commerce
2-15-45 Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-8345 Japane-mail: eyoshida@fbc.keio.ac.jp*Corresponding author

The Melco Foundation
Nagoya, Japan
Discussion Paper Series of the Melco Management Accounting Research, in order to promote
the study of management accounting, has published this unfinished paper onto the Web. Pleaseobtain the permission of the author when citing this paper.

Enterprise Risk Management in Accounting Research: A Literature
Review

Shiho Fujitaa*, Keita Iwasawab,, Eisuke YoshidacaGraduate School of Business and Commerce, Keio University, Japan* Corresponding author. E-mail address: fujita.shiho@keio.jpbGraduate School of Business and Commerce, Keio University, Japan
E-mail address: atk.m@keio.jpcFaculty of Business and Commerce, Keio University, Japan
E-mail address: eyoshida@fbc.keio.ac.jp

Abstract
This study aims to clarify the characteristics of studies on Enterprise Risk
Management (ERM) in accounting and present future research subjects through aliterature review. There are few review studies in accounting, compared to adjacent
fields such as management and finance. We selected 25 academic papers from theEBSCO database, and conducted a systematic review from three points of view: (1)ERM frameworks, (2) factors that promote or obstruct the introduction of ERM, and(3) the impact of ERM. We find that (1) there are the conflicting results for ERM
frameworks, (2) research on ERM frameworks is one of the features in accounting, and(3) accounting and finance journals follow different topics of interest related to ERM.
In addition, this study contributes to the development of ERM research in accounting
by clarifying and organizing the research on the introduction of ERM from theperspective of accounting, clarifying the characteristics of ERM research in accounting
through a comparison with studies in adjacent fields, and identifying the conflicting
findings on the impact of introducing ERM.

Keywords: Accounting, Risk management, ERM, Systematic review

1. Introduction
In recent years, the subject of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) has attracted a1

great deal of attention. Risks can have serious effects on companies, as is evident fromthe Enron case in 2000 and the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008. Under thesecircumstances, some authors pointed out the limitations of Traditional Risk
Management (TRM). Olson and Wu (2015) used the term TRM to refer to risk
management design for departments with specialized risks. According to Nielson et al.
(2005), from 1955 to the 1990s, firms implemented TRM in “silos” with different risks
in different divisions managed by different individuals. They show two problems with
TRM. First, firms might neglect risks if they do not decide upon which department willdeal with the risks in advance. Second, it may lead to erroneous decision-making: aseach department deals with risk, perhaps even the same set of risks, it is difficult formangers to compare reports on these risks and make consistent decisions. ERM
emerged in the late 1990s to address these problems. The Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) developed the Enterprise Risk
Management-Integrated Framework (COSO’s ERM-IF), which defines ERM as
follows: “Enterprise risk management is a process, effected by an entity’s board of
directors, management and other personnel, applied in a strategy setting and across theenterprise, designed to identify potential events that many affect the entity, and manage
risk to be within its risk appetite, to provide reasonable assurance regarding theachievement of the entity’s objectives” (COSO, 2004).
Many researchers in various fields also focus on ERM (Choi et al., 2016). In
management and finance, research focuses on the factors that promote or obstruct the
introduction and impacts of ERM1 (Andersen, 2008; Bromiley et al., 2015; Gatzert
and Martin, 2015; Grace et al., 2015; Hoyt and Liebenberg, 2008, 2011; Kommunuri etal., 2016; Pagach and Warr, 2011; Thair and Razali, 2011; Zhao et al., 2014). ERM
research places excessive emphasis on firm performance. For example, employing a
Chief Risk Officer (CRO) increases shareholder value (Hoyt and Liebenberg, 2011),
while transitioning from TRM to ERM does not (Thair and Razali, 2011). Others
confirm that introducing ERM has a positive effect on firm performance (Andersen,
2008; Farrell and Gallagher, 2015; Grace et al., 2015). These studies highlight theusefulness and challenges in introducing ERM. Literature review papers were
published (Bromiley et al., 2015; Gatzert and Martin, 2015) in business management
and finance journals that clarified the interests and features of ERM research in thesefields.
Researchers in the accounting field have shown renewed interest in ERM. For
1

Researchers use seven variables as drivers for the introduction of ERM: enterprise size, diversified management,
institution ownership, company growth, profitability, leverage, and stock price (Gatzert and Martin, 2015).

2

example, Management Accounting Research, the Journal of Accounting and Public
Policy, and British Accounting Review, among others, published special issues on
ERM in 2009 and 2013, 2015, and 2017, respectively. Traditionally, such scholars
emphasized the contribution of management accounting to risk management. Simons(1999) shows that the firm performance evaluation system and incentives for
management accounting influence managers’ risk-taking behavior. Processes related to“management, analysis, reporting of financial and nonfinancial information” inmanagement accounting are closely related to ERM as ways to minimize managers’
erroneous decision making (Barton and MacArthur, 2015).
However, it is difficult to know what and how accounting research on ERM has
clarified. Prior ERM research in accounting is fragmentary, and there is little in theway of literature reviews. Therefore, in contrast to adjacent fields, the characteristics of
ERM research in accounting are unclear. This study attempts to address this gap andsuggest future research subjects. We conduct a systematic review to investigate thedifferent interests and features from other fields, and the limitations of ERM researchin accounting.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we describe
the research method. Section 3 describes the results and discusses the literature review.
Finally, we draw conclusions from this study and comment on future research.

2. Method
To clarify the characteristics of ERM research in accounting and suggest avenues for
future research, we conduct a systematic review. A systematic review is a well-definedand uniform approach to identify all relevant studies, report the results of eligible
studies, and, when appropriate, calculate a summary estimate of the overall results(Hulley et al., 2007). According to Fink (2013), a systematic review has seven tasks: 1)
selecting research questions, 2) selecting bibliographic or article databases, 3) choosing
search terms, 4) applying practical screening criteria, 5) applying methodologicalscreening criteria, 6) doing the review, and 7) synthesizing the results.
Following Fink (2013), we apply the following process. First, we conducted a
keyword search of the EBSCO database to select academic papers containing thewords “enterprise risk management” or “ERM” in their title and the word “accounting”
in the journal name. We excluded some papers that seemed unrelated to theintroduction of ERM. 2 This process yielded 25 papers (Reference 1). 3 Figure 1
2
3

We did not select by research method but targeted all papers.
The target period of the literature search extends up to October 2017, as at the time of writing this paper.

3

illustrates the recent increase in ERM research in accounting journals.

Figure 1. Trends in the number of ERM papers
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

3. Review and Discussion
Literature reviews of ERM in adjacent research fields clearly focuses on factors that
promote or obstruct the introduction of ERM. We therefore review the literature fromthree points of view: (1) ERM frameworks, (2) factors that promote or obstruct the
introduction of ERM, and (3) the impacts of ERM. ERM frameworks are an importantfactor in clarifying the characteristics of ERM research in accounting. Manyaccounting studies focus on ERM frameworks, which do not attract attention in
adjacent fields (Olson and Wu, 2015). In addition, we compare the research on thelatter two views following the review frameworks of adjacent fields, to determine thecharacteristics of ERM research in accounting.
3.1

ERM frameworks

COSO’s updated ERM-IF is a widely known ERM framework published in 2004.
The original 1992 framework includes three objectives (Operations, Reporting,Compliance) and five components (Internal environment, Risk assessment, Control
activities, Information and Communication, Monitoring). The 2004 revision added
Strategic as an objective and Objective setting, Event identification, Risk response ascomponents (COSO, 2004). Today, risk is not simply a problem to be addressed, but isalso recognized as a source of competitiveness (Bromiley et al., 2015). While theoriginal component was Risk Assessment, the revision introduced Risk Response as anadditional component. In 2009, ISO 31000 was published as an international standard
4

for ERM.
Many studies discuss the advantages and disadvantages of ERM frameworks (Arena
et al., 2010; Beasley et al., 2005; Choo and Goh, 2016; Hayne and Free, 2014; Karanja,
2016; Paape and Spakle, 2012; Tekathen and Dechow, 2013), and many agree with theusefulness of COSO’s ERM-IF. In Fraser et al.’s (2008) survey, 74% of respondents
had read COSO’s ERM-IF, making it the most widely-read publication about risk. In
COSO’s (2010) survey, 65% of the respondents stated that COSO’s ERM-IF was “veryfamiliar” or “fairly familiar.” In addition, Power (2009) argues that COSO’s ERM-IF
spread globally and was the best way to implement ERM in a short period compared torisk management standards from other countries. Based on these surveys, Hayne andFree (2014) conduct an interview survey and identify COSO’s ERM-IF as theoverwhelming choice as the basis for implementing ERM.
On the other hand, there is some skepticism about COSO’s ERM-IF. Arena et al.
(2010), Paape and Spaklé (2012), and Tekathen and Dechow (2013) argue that COSO’s
ERM-IF cannot manage risks specific to company attributes because it provides verybroad guidance and leaves the details to each organization. Arena et al. (2010) find thatfirms do not necessarily execute ERM the way the COSO’s ERM-IF assumes, based oninterviews with three non-financial companies in Italy. Although the three companies
adopted ERM based on COSO’s ERM-IF, communication between administrators andmanagers sometimes failed. Additionally, Paape and Spaklé (2012) find that COSO’s
ERM-IF did not contribute to effective risk management; in a questionnaire rolled out
to 193 ERM adopters in the Netherlands, only 43% of them actually applied COSO’s
ERM-IF and 66% of them did not quantify the risk tolerances that the COSO ERM-IF
emphasizes. COSO’s ERM-IF is undergoing a revision to overcome problems such as
the measurement and evaluation of risks. Some studies claim that management
accounting tools such as balanced scorecards (BSC) are effective methods to solve thisproblem in accounting (Arena et al., 2010; Jordan et al., 2013; Beasley et al., 2006;
Olson and Wu, 2015). Therefore, accounting has great potential to contribute to thediscussion of the merits and demerits of ERM frameworks, and this topic warrants
future research.
3.2

Factors that promote or obstruct the introduction of ERM

First, studies show that ERM frameworks such as the COSO ERM-IF and ISO
31000 are factors that promote the introduction of ERM (Beasley et al., 2005; Chooand Goh, 2016; Karanja, 2016). Beasley et al. (2005) shows that COSO’s ERM-IF wasa key factor in the ERM introduction stage statically. Choo and Goh (2015) show that5

when firms adopt the Six Sigma Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control (DMAIC)
system, they could smoothly introduce ERM. Karanja (2016) reveals that 95 out of 122
US companies developed ERM in accordance with COSO’s ERM-IF and ISO 31000.
This result differs from that of Paape and Spaklé (2012), and whether or not firms
introduce ERM by applying COSO’s ERM-IF or ISO 31000 may depend on the
country.
We next discuss the variables that some studies use to clarify the factors that
promote or obstruct the introduction of ERM by applying multivariate analysis. We canclassify these factors into corporate governance, corporate characteristics, andcorporate finance.
Several corporate governance factors are positively associated with a firm’s ERM
deployment stage, including the presence of a CRO (Baxter et al., 2013; Beasley et al.,2005, 2015; Paape and Spaklé, 2012 ) and explicit calls from the Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) or Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for internal audit involvement in ERM(Beasley, 2005). However, no study reports that the simple presence of a CEO canpromote ERM introduction, though the CEO’s position on the Board of Directors andthe separation of the Chairperson and CEO leads firms to adopt more sophisticatedERM (Lundqvist, 2014; 2015). In addition, board independence in terms of having
many outside board members is key (Beasley et al., 2005; Baxter et al., 2013).
Top management is also important (Arnold et al., 2011; Barton and MacArthur,
2015; Lundqvist, 2014; 2015; Meidell and Kaarbøe, 2017; Tekathen and Dechow,
2013; Viscelli et al., 2017). Top management affects the formation of risk cultures
because it influences the adoption of specific risk management procedures (Meidell
and Kaarbøe, 2017), accountability within the organization (Cohen et al., 2017), andorganizational flexibility (Arnold et al., 2011; 2015). Cohen et al. (2017) find a strong
relationship between ERM implementation and the financial reporting process basedon a survey of CFOs, audit partners, and audit committee members of US companies.
In terms of auditing by the Big-4 audit firms (Ernst & Young, Deloitte & Touche,
KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers), the research returns conflicting results. For
example, Beasley et al. (2015) shows that auditing by the Big-4 firms promotes theintroduction of ERM, because large auditing firms improve audit quality andstrengthen corporate governance. This interpretation differs from that of Paape andSpaklé (2012) and Lundqvist (2014; 2015). Paape and Spaklé (2012) find nodifferences between the Big-4 firms and other audit firms in introducing high quality
ERM in the Netherlands. Lundqvist (2014; 2015) also shows that the implementationof risk governance is not motivated by public pressure from the Big-4 audit firms in6the three Scandinavian countries and Finland.
In terms of corporate characteristics, many studies focus on financial institutions(Jabbour and Abdel-Kader, 2016; Paape and Spaklé, 2012). Baxter et al. (2013) showthat companies with high Standard & Poor’s (S&P) ratings had higher average market
responses than did companies with low ratings, which improved ERM quality andgovernance. According to Paape and Spaklé (2012), financial institutions are likely toadopt ERM compared to other industries because the Basel Ⅱ regulations and ratings
encourage the introduction of ERM. In addition, the timing of the introduction of ERM
may affect the pressure on such regulations and ratings. For example, early adopters of
ERM did so due to internal factors such as enhancing financial health and external
factors such as improving their ratings (Jabbour and Abdel-Kader, 2016).
Moreover, the results for non-profit organizations and US companies are notconsistent. Non-profit organizations have lower rates of ERM implementationcompared to general corporations (Paape and Spaklé, 2012). However, the results
regarding the factors that promote or obstruct the introduction of ERM are inconsistent.
In US companies, Beasley et al. (2005) show that 46% of CROs in the Asia-Pacificregion recognize that ERM is a top priority, while US CROs are 26% less interested,according to a PWC (2004) survey. By contrast, Beasley et al. (2015) show that US
companies had better ERM processes than did foreign companies.
Concerning corporate finance, while highly profitable companies intend to introduce
ERM, companies with high financial leverage tend not to do so (Baxter et al., 2013;
Beasley et al., 2005; Lundqvist, 2015; Paape and Spaklé, 2012).
We next compare the above factors to reviews in adjacent fields. We can identify
some features of accounting studies on ERM by comparing them to Gatzert and Martin(2015), who review ERM literature in financial journals. First, finance and accounting
studies use only two variables in common, revenue and leverage, while the remaining
variables differ.

Second, while several accounting studies adopt variables such as the

CRO and CEO’s requirements, Big-4 audit firms, credit ratings, financial institutions,non-profit status, and US-based companies, they did not attract much attention in
financial journals. Third, while several finance studies adopt variables such ascompany size, diversity management, institutional ownership, and company growth
status, they attracted little attention in accounting journals.
There are some potential avenues for further research. First, many prior studies
examine the top management, but there is little research on the lower organizational
levels. Studying lower levels of the organization will allow researchers to evaluate
ERM adoption centering on the CRO, as COSO (2004) assumes. Second, it is7necessary to observe trends in various industries. Many studies target financial
institutions, while few studies occur within non-financial firms. Many industries, suchas education and energy are adopting ERM (Beasley, 2005). Third, it is necessary to
clarify not only the macro view, such as the organization’s context, but also the micro
view inside the organization. Many prior studies on the factors that promote or obstruct
the introduction of ERM focus on the organizational structure. However, Zhao et al.
(2014) point out the importance of factors such as risk information quality and quantity,human resources with risk consciousness, and so on.
3.3

The impacts of introducing ERM

Most studies show that introducing ERM has a significant impact on a firm’s
performance (Arnold et al., 2015; Baxter et al., 2013; Beasley et al., 2008; Florio andLeoni, 2017; Gordon et al., 2009; McShane et al., 2011; Yap and Yap, 2016). Beasley
et al. (2008) show that ERM implementation helped firms prevent declines in stock
and achieve improved ratings. McShane et al. (2011) find that firm performance
improved as the risk management system evolved from TRM to ERM. However, incompanies with high ratings, moving from TRM to ERM does not increase company
value. Yap and Yap (2016) show that ERM implementation has a positive effect onfirm performance in small-medium sized enterprises, though many studies focus onlarge organizations.
Some studies discuss stock price fluctuation after ERM introduction (Baxter et al.,2013; Beasley et al., 2008; Paape and Spaklé, 2012). Baxter et al. (2013) show that the
average market reaction is higher for firms with excellent ERM ratings than for thosewith lower ratings, and the market reacts sensitively to changes in ERM ratings.
Furthermore, ERM quality is not related to returns during the financial crisis, but it isstrongly related to returns in the rebound period. Although markets react to theintroduction of ERM, they do not react when a firm hires a CRO (Beasley et al., 2008).
In this way, shareholders believe that enterprises will make risk-based decisions andincrease corporate value, and ERM will bring them profit. In contrast, Paape andSpaklé (2012) assume that investors may not emphasize ERM implementation.
Other studies evaluate risk information disclosures (Beasley, 2008; Hj et al., 2016).
Beasley (2008) finds no increase in risk-related disclosures after CRO announcements.
Hj et al. (2016) show that the amount of risk disclosure information in the company’s
annual report increased by 5% after the implementation of the Bursa Malaysia
Guidelines, and reveal that there are few mentions of the term CRO in the annual
reports. These results are similar to those of Beasley et al. (2008). They insist that8

because the chief internal auditor or CFO could fill the CRO’s role, the mentions of theterm CRO are low in Malaysia. Moreover, some studies find changes in capital
allocation after introducing ERM (Jabbour and Abdel-Kader, 2015) and changes in the
management decision-making process within oil and gas companies in the 18 years
since the introduction of ERM (Meidell and Kaarbøe, 2017).
However, these studies have some limitations. First, since the company’s risk
management process changes drastically by moving from TRM to ERM, it is necessary
to clarify why and how this change improves risk management behavior, and how
ERM affects firm performance. For example, Mikes (2009) divides enterprises mainly
into “ERM by the numbers” (i.e., a quantitative orientation) and “holistic ERM” (i.e., a
qualitative orientation), and indicates that the former embrace a calculative culture,
while the latter focus on qualitative information and manage quantifiable risks,
aggregate risks, and risks that cannot be quantified using BSC and risk dashboards,
while also measuring risk-based performance. Although this suggests the importanceof focusing on the ERM process, there is little research on this process. Second, it isnecessary to consider the magnitude of measuring ERM in depth. For example,
McShane (2011) and Farrell and Gallagher (2015) use different indices to measure
ERM maturity (S&P’s ERM rating, RIMS, and RRM, respectively). Inconsistent scales
to measure ERM can make it difficult to compare research results on the impact of
introducing ERM. Third, it is necessary to clarify the influence of management
accounting tools on the introduction of ERM. There are indications that management
accounting tools such as strategy maps and BSC, make ERM function more smoothly(Arena et al., 2010; Jordan et al., 2013; Beasley et al., 2006; Olson and Wu, 2015).
Therefore, we should theorize the advanced cases where firms introduce ERM
smoothly by applying management accounting tools.

4. Conclusion
This study aimed to clarify the characteristics of ERM research in the accounting
field. We conducted a systematic review of 25 accounting studies. Our results show
that: (1) there are conflicting findings related to ERM frameworks, (2) the research on
ERM frameworks is a feature in accounting studies, and (3) finance and accounting
journals follow different topics of interest related to ERM.
This study makes several academic contributions. First, we clarify and organize thecurrent accounting research on ERM introduction. We divide the prior research into
three main topics: ERM frameworks, the factors that promote or obstruct the
introduction of ERM, and the impact of introducing ERM. In addition, we present the9development and issues in each area, and clarify the characteristics of ERM research inaccounting by comparing it to reviews in adjacent fields. Specifically, only accounting
research discusses ERM frameworks. In addition, accounting and financial studies use
different variables to evaluate the factors that promote or obstruct the introduction of
ERM. Accounting studies emphasize corporate governance variables, with manystudies on financial institutions. Moreover, we highlight the conflicting findings on theimpact of introducing ERM.
However, this research also has several limitations. First, we used only one database,
EBSCO’s “Business Source Premier.” Although EBSCO includes major academic
journals from Europe and the US, it does not cover non-English speaking countries, so
expanding the scope of the journals included in a literature review may yield new
findings. Second, we searched only for those articles that had the keywords “enterpriserisk management” or “ERM” in the titles. Therefore, the literature review does notinclude studies that refer to ERM without including the term in the title. Third, we did
not review the literature on the ERM process because we focus on the introduction of
ERM, which is discussed mainly in adjacent fields. We made this choice because there
were few studies on the ERM process, while many studies focused on ERM
introduction.
Companies must nowadays manage various risks such as strategic risk, business risk,
credit risk, and so on. Many accounting studies combine ERM with budget
management (Barton and MacArthur, 2015; Hopwood, 1978) and management control(Soin and Collier, 2013) to minimize the damage from various risks. Therefore,
accounting can contribute to the development of ERM.

References 1: Selected ERM studies in accounting journals
Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M., and Azzone, G. (2010) “The organizational dynamics ofEnterprise Risk Management.” Accounting, Organizations & Society,Vol.35, No.7, pp.659-675.
Arnold, V., Benford T., Canada, J., and Sutton, S. G. (2011) “The role of strategic
enterprise risk management and organizational flexibility in easing new
regulatory compliance.” International Journal of accounting
Information Systems, Vol.12, No.3, pp.171-188
Arnold, V., Benford, T., Canada, J., and Sutton, S. G. (2015) “Leveraging integrated
information systems to enhance strategic flexibility and performance:
The enabling role of enterprise risk management.” International Journalof accounting Information Systems, Vol.19, pp.1-16.
10

Barton, T. L., and MacArthur J. B. (2015) “A need for a challenge culture inenterprise risk management.” Journal of Business & Accounting, Vol.8,
No.1, pp.117-126.
Baxter, R., Bedard, C. J., Holtash, R., and Yezegel, A. (2013) “Enterprise Risk
Management Program Quality: Determinants, Value Relevance, and the
Financial Crisis.” Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.30, No.4,
pp.1, 264-1, 295.
Beasley, S. M., Clune, R., and Hermanson, R. D. (2005) “Enterprise risk
management: An empirical analysis of factors associated with the extent
of implementation.” Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, Vol.24,
pp.521-531.
Beasley, S. M., Pagach, D., and Warr, R. (2008) “Information Conveyed in Hiring
Announcements of Senior Executives Overseeing Enterprise-Wide Risk
Management Processes.” Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance.
Vol.23, No.3, pp.311- 332.
Beasley, S. M., Branson, B., and Pagach, D. (2015) “An analysis of the maturity andstrategic impact of investments in ERM.” Journal of Accounting &Public Policy, Vol.34, pp.219-243.
Choo, B. S-Y., and Goh, J. C-L. (2015) “Pragmatic adaption of the ISO 31000: 2009
enterprise risk management framework in a high-tech organization using
Six Sigma.” International Journal of Accounting & Information
Management, Vol.23, No.4, pp.364-382.
Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., and Wright, A. (2017) “Enterprise Risk Management
and the Financial Reporting Process: The Experiences of Audit
Committee Members, CFOs, and External Auditors.” Contemporary
Accounting Research, Vol.34, No.2, pp.1, 178-1, 209.
Florio, C., and Leoni G. (2017) “Enterprise risk management and firm performance:
The Italian case.” The British Accounting Review, Vol.49, pp.56-74.
Gordon, A. L., Loeb, P. M., and Tseng C-Y. (2009) “Enterprise risk management andfirm performance: A contingency perspective.” Journal of Accounting &Public Policy, Vol.28, pp.301-327.
Hayne, C., and Free, C. (2014) “Hybridized professional groups and institutional
work: COSO and the rise of enterprise risk management.” Accounting,
Organizations & Society, Vol.39, pp.309-330.
Hj Togok, S., Isa, C. R., Zainuddin, S. (2016) “Enterprise Risk Management
Adoption in Malaysia: A Disclosure Approach.” Asian Journal ofBusiness & Accounting, Vol.9, No.1, pp.83-104.
Jabbour, M., and Abdel-Kader, M. (2015) “Changes in capital allocation practices –ERM and organizational change.” Accounting Forum, Vol.39, No.4,
pp.295-311.
Jabbour, M, and Abdel-Kader, M. (2016) “ERM adoption in the insurance sector.”
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol.13, No.4,
pp.472-510.
Karanja, E. (2017) “Does the hiring of chief risk officers align with the COSO/ISO
enterprise risk management frameworks?” International Journal of
Accounting & Information Management, Vol.25, No.3, pp.274-295.
Lundqvist, A. S. (2014) “An Exploratory Study of Enterprise Risk Management;
11

Pillars of ERM.” Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Vol.29,
No.3, pp.393-429.
Lundqvist, A. S. (2015) “Why firms inplement risk governance – Stepping beyond
traditional risk management to enterprise risk management.” Journal of
Accounting & Public Policy, Vol.34, pp.441-466.
McShane, K. M., Nair, A., and Rustambekov, E. (2011) “Does Enterprise Risk
Management Increase Firm Value?” Journal of Accounting, Auditing &Finance, Vol.26, No.4, pp641-658.
Meidell, A., and Kaarbøe, K. (2017) “How the enterprise risk management function
influences decision-making in the organization – A field study of a large,
global oil and gas company.” British Accounting Review, Vol.49, No.1,
pp.39-55.
Paape, L., and Speklé, R. F. (2012) “The Adoption and Design of Enterprise Risk
Management Practices: An Empirical Study.” European Accounting
Review, Vol.21, No.3, pp.533-564.
Tekathen, M., and Dechow, N. (2013) “Enterprise risk management and continuous
re-alignment in the pursuit of accountability: A German case.”
Managing Accounting Research, Vol.24, No.2, pp.100-121.
Viscelli R. T., Hermanson R. D., and Beasley S. M. (2017) “The Integration of ERM
and Strategy: Implications for Corporate Governance.” Accounting
Horizons, Vol. 31, No.2, pp.69-82.
Yap, K. H. A., and Yap, S. T. (2016) “Enterprise risk management: evidence fromsmall-medium enterprises.” Malaysian Accounting Review, Vol.15, No.2,
pp.151-170.

References 2: other studies
Andersen, J. T. (2008) “The performance relationship of effective risk management:
Exploring the firm-specific investment rationale.” Long Range Planning,
Vol.41, No.2, pp.155-176.
Beasley, M., Chen, A., Nunez, K., and Wright, L. (2006) “Working hand in hand:
Balanced scorecards and enterprise risk management.” Strategic Finance,
Vol.87, No.9, pp.49-55
Bromiley, P., McShane, M., Nair, A., and Rustambekov, E. (2015) “Enterprise risk
management: Review, critique, and research directions.” Long Range
Planning, Vol.48, No. 4, pp.265-276.
Choi, Y., Ye, X., Zhao, L., and Luo, C. A. (2016) “Optimizing enterprise risk
management: A literature review and critical analysis of the work of Wu
and Olson.” Annals of Operations Research, Vol.237, No,1-2, pp.281-300.
COSO (2004) Enterprise Risk Management – Integrated Framework. Committee ofSponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
COSO (2010) COSO’s 2010 report on ERM: Current state of enterprise risk oversightand market perceptions of COSO’s ERM framework by Mark S. Beasley,
Bruce C. Branson and Bonnie V. Hancock. Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
Farrell, M., and Gallagher, R. (2015) “The valuation implications of enterprise risk
management maturity.” Journal of Risk & Insurance, Vol.82, No.3,
pp.625-657.
12

Fink, A. (2013) Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper,
4th ed. Sage.
Fraser, J. R. S., Schoening-Thiessen, K., and Simkins, B. J. (2008) “Who reads whatmost often? A survey of enterprise risk management literature read by risk
executives.” Journal of Applied Finance, Vol.18, No.1, pp.73–91.
Garcia, V. (2004) “Enterprise risk management in financial services: From vision tovalue.” Bank Accounting & Finance, Vol.18, No.1, pp.3-7.
Gatzert, N., and Martin, M. (2015) “Determinants and value of enterprise risk
management: Empirical evidence from the literature.” Risk Management& Insurance Review, Vol.18, No.1, pp.29-53.
Grace, F. M., Leverty, T. J., Phillips, D. R., and Shimpi, P. (2015) “The value ofinvesting in enterprise risk management.” Journal of Risk & Insurance,
Vol.82, No.2, pp.289-316.
Hopwood, A. G. (1978) “Towards an organizational perspective for the study ofaccounting and information systems.” Accounting, Organizations &Society. Vol.3, No.1, pp.3-13.
Hoyt, R. E., and Liebenberg, A. P. (2008) “The value of enterprise risk management:
Evidence from the U.S. insurance industry.” Society of Actuaries, ERM
Monograph Paper.
Hoyt, R. E., and Liebenberg, A. P. (2011) “The value of enterprise risk management.”
Journal of Risk & Insurance, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp.795-822.
Hulley, S. B., Cummings, S. R., Browner, W. S., Grady, D. G., and Newman, T. B.
(2007) Designing Clinical Research, 3rd ed. Lippincott Williams &Wilkins.
Jordan, S., Jørgensen, L., and Mitterhofer, H. (2013) “Performing risk and the project:
Risk maps as mediating instruments.” Management Accounting Research,
Vol.24, No.2, pp.156-174.
Kommunuri, J., Narayan, A., Wheaton, M., Jandug, L., and Gonugunta, S. (2016)“Firm performance and value effects of enterprise risk management.” New
Zealand Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol.14, No.2, pp.17-28.
Mikes, A. (2009) “Risk management and calculative cultures.” Management
Accounting Research, Vol.20, No.1, pp.18-40.
Nielson, N. L., Kleffner, A. E., Lee, R. B. (2005) “The evolution of the role of risk
communication in effective risk management.” Risk Management &Insurance Review, Vol.8, No.2, pp.279-289.
Olson, L. D., and Wu, D. D. (2015) Enterprise Risk Management 2nd ed. World
Scientific.
Pagach, D. P., and Warr, R. S. (2011) “The characteristics of firms that hire chief risk
officers.” Journal of Risk & Insurance, Vol.78, No.1, pp.185-211.
Power, M. (2009) “The risk management of nothing.” Accounting, Organizations &Society, Vol.34, No.6-7, pp.849-855.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC) (2004) Managing Risk: An Assessment of CEO
Perspectives. PwC, New York.
Simons, R. (1999) Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing
Strategy, 1st ed. Prentice Hall.
Soin, K., and Collier, P. (2013) “Risk and risk management in management accounting
and control.” Management Accounting Research, Vol.24, No.2, pp.82-87.
Thair, I. M., and Razali, A. R. (2011) “The relationship between enterprise risk
13

management and firm value: Evidence from malaysian public listedcompanies.” International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences,
Vol.1, No.2, pp.32-41.
Zhao, X., Hwang, B., and Low, S. P. (2014) “Enterprise risk management
implementation in construction firms: An organizational change
perspective.” Management Decision, Vol.52, No.5, pp.814-833.

14