The importance of risk analysis and management, and corporate governance

4,403 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,403
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
13
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
93
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The importance of risk analysis and management, and corporate governance

  1. 1. Commercial Accountability Challenges in a Global Environment The Nature and Relevance of Risk The Importance of Risk Analysis and Management, and Corporate Governance Atul Kuver February 2011 1© Atul Kuver 2011
  2. 2. Executive SummaryQantas operates in an industry that focuses on high availability, safety, has lowmargins, intense competition and is vulnerable to external and internal businessshocks. Reputation and branding, and safety can be considered to be part of Qantas’strategic and operational objectives. Failure in either area can have seriousconsequences for Qantas.This report examines the nature and relevance of risk, the importance of risk analysisand management and corporate governance within the context of accountabilityframeworks. Risk management, the implementation of risk analysis and riskmanagement systems with reference to the COSO ERM Framework are discussed.Qantas’ risk management systems are compared with the COSO ERM Framework toassess how Qantas manages reputation and branding, and safety risks. Thecomparison indicates that the Qantas risk management structure closely follows theCOSO ERM Framework that support its strategic, operational, reporting andcompliance objectives.The Qantas approach to Corporate Governance as documented in their CorporateGovernance Statement (Qantas 2010) is compared and contrasted with the approachrecommended in the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations(ASX 2007) and the Kiel and Nicholson model (Kiel & Nicholson 2002). The reviewshows the Qantas approach is aligned with the ASX Corporate Governance Principlesand Recommendations (ASX 2007). The Qantas approach also satisfies the structureand process of the Kiel and Nicholson model. Alignment of the ASX (2007) principlesas approached by Qantas with the Kiel and Nicholson model shows that the QantasBoard accepts responsibility for the key functions regarding Corporate Governance. 2© Atul Kuver 2011
  3. 3. Table of ContentsExecutive Summary ................................................................................................... 21 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 42 Nature and relevance of risk to corporate accountability................................... 43 Risk Management .............................................................................................. 5 3.1 ‘Risk-Silo’ Mentality versus the Holistic Approach to Risk ............................ 5 3.2 Drivers of Risk Management ....................................................................... 6 3.3 Deficiencies in Risk Management ................................................................ 74 Implementation of Risk Analysis and Risk Management Systems ....................... 8 4.1 COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework .......................................... 8 4.2 Managing Reputation and Branding Risk, and Safety Risk at Qantas .......... 12 4.2.1 Internal Environment ......................................................................... 13 4.2.2 Objective Setting ................................................................................ 13 4.2.3 Event Identification ............................................................................ 13 4.2.4 Risk Assessment ................................................................................. 13 4.2.5 Risk Response .................................................................................... 14 4.2.6 Control Activities ................................................................................ 14 4.2.7 Information and Communication ....................................................... 14 4.2.8 Monitoring ......................................................................................... 145 Corporate Governance .................................................................................... 14 5.1 Kiel and Nicholson Model .......................................................................... 14 5.2 ASX Principles of Good Corporate Governance .......................................... 16 5.3 Qantas Corporate Governance Statement ................................................. 16 5.3.1 Alignment with ASX Principles 2007 ................................................... 16 5.3.2 Alignment with the Kiel and Nicholson Model .................................... 17 5.4 Corporate Governance within the Context of Accountability Frameworks . 206 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 21References .............................................................................................................. 23 3© Atul Kuver 2011
  4. 4. 1 IntroductionThis report examines the nature and relevance of risk, the importance of risk analysisand management and corporate governance within the context of accountabilityframeworks.The report outline is as follows. Section 2 explores the nature and relevance of riskto corporate accountability. Section 3 examines the practice of risk management.The ‘risk-silo’ mentality versus a holistic approach to risk management is discussed,followed by the drivers of risk management and deficiencies in risk management.The implementation of risk analysis and risk management systems is discussed inSection 4. The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the TreadwayCommission’s (COSO) Enterprise Risk Management-Integrated Framework (COSOERM Framework) is described first. Then Qantas’ risk management systems arecompared with the COSO ERM Framework to assess how Qantas managesreputation and branding, and safety risks. Section 5 discusses the alignment of theQantas approach to Corporate Governance as documented in their CorporateGovernance Statement (Qantas 2010) with the approach recommended in the ASXCorporate Governance Principles and Recommendations (ASX 2007) and with theKiel and Nicholson model (Kiel & Nicholson 2002). The report concludes with Section6.2 Nature and relevance of risk to corporate accountabilityOrganisations are facing increasing pressure from regulators, investors and otherstakeholders to increase transparency and disclosure. Principle 7 of the ASXCorporate Governance Principles and Recommendations (ASX 2007, p. 32) statesthat ‘companies should establish a sound system of risk oversight and managementand internal control’. ASX (2007, p. 32) emphasises that the responsibility forreviewing the company’s policies on risk oversight and management lies with theboard. The board must satisfy itself that management has developed and 4© Atul Kuver 2011
  5. 5. implemented a reliable system of risk management and internal controls. Whiletraditional risks such as credit, market and foreign exchange risk remain the primaryconsiderations, businesses are acknowledging the need to determine and assess riskin areas such as human capital, reputation and climate change (EconomicsIntelligence Unit 2007, p. 2). ASX (2007, p. 32) considers material business risks toinclude but not limited to: ‘operational, environmental, sustainability, compliance,strategic, ethical conduct, reputation or brand, technological, product or servicequality, human capital, financial reporting and market related risks.3 Risk ManagementOrganisational objectives cover a range of areas including corporate strategy,operations, processes and projects. Organisations can encounter a variety of risksthat can have an impact on these objectives. Risk management is how risks aremanaged. The ASX Corporate Governance Council’s Corporate Governance Principlesand Recommendations (ASX 2007, p. 32) defines risk management as ‘the culture,processes and structures that are directed towards taking advantage of potentialopportunities while managing potential side effects’.3.1 ‘Risk-Silo’ Mentality versus the Holistic Approach to RiskRisk management in the past has mostly been driven from the bottom up and beenfragmented across different divisions within an organisation (Bowling & Rieger2005). This method sets up a series of ‘risk-silos’ managed by different groups withinthe organisation. The different silos may have different risk tolerances, which canlead to one group with low to no risk, while another group may take on significantrisks (Bowling & Rieger 2005, p. 32).In contrast, Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is a framework that takes all riskareas into account. Risks are no longer considered in isolation. ERM looks at theactivities of the business as a whole and analyses how different areas of risk affecteach other (Bowling & Rieger 2005). 5© Atul Kuver 2011
  6. 6. 3.2 Drivers of Risk ManagementThere are many drivers that increase the rationale for risk management. EconomicsIntelligence Unit (2007, p. 6) identifies risk management drivers that are bothinternal and external to organisations.Internal drivers include:  greater commitment from the board;  greater complexity experienced by organisations in the value chain due to advanced business practices, globalised markets and rapid technological change. The increase in the level of competition and rapid pace of change is destroying predictability for businesses (Stevenson, cited in Rao 2009, p. 87);  specific risk events such as product recalls or fraud.External drivers of risk management are those that arise from outside theorganisation. These include:  increased focus on regulation of business practices and investor demands for greater disclosure and accountability. The consequence of recognition of corporate accountability to stakeholders is that an organisation’s governance system needs to consider the importance of satisfying the concerns of stakeholders (Brooks & Dunn 2010, p. 462). According to Brooks and Dunn (2010, p. 462-463), a focus on ethics risks and opportunities is necessary to ‘avoid potential loss of support for a corporations objectives, and to discover opportunities of greater support’ and a much broader risk assessment framework is required.  changes in competitive, technological, social, and political circumstances have amplified the likely impact of operations-related failure (Lewis, cited in Rao, p. 87).The regulatory environment in Australia includes (Bissett 2010, p. 81):  the AS/NZS ISO 31000: 2009 Standard which provides a practical framework for risk management; 6© Atul Kuver 2011
  7. 7.  ASX Corporate Governance Council’s Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations;  Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and Basel II Accord for the financial services industry;  Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) for the aviation industry.3.3 Deficiencies in Risk ManagementAccording to Bisset (2010, p.80), the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has highlightedshortcomings in the risk management process of many organisations. The causes andconsequences of the deficiencies is summarised in Table 1. Table 1 Causes and consequences of risk management deficiencies. (Bisset 2010, p.80) Deficiency Cause of Deficiency Consequence Organisation’s failure to InconsistentRisk culture define a risk culture or communication about risk appetite within the organisation Level of risk not Uncertainty about the considered return on investment asRisk/return trade-off higher returns are usually associated with higher risk Incentive schemes do not Reward structure not sufficiently represent the consistent with keyIncentive schemes organisation’s risk performance indicators appetite Over-complicated risk Risk managementComplexity and lack of structures and procedures procedures avoided or notintegration used. Effect of risk on the Limited holistic indicators drivers of value and of riskRisk measures associated indicators of risk not well understood within the organisation Lack of a robust data Over-reliance on financialRisk information analysis capability. models and data where the underlying 7© Atul Kuver 2011
  8. 8. Deficiency Cause of Deficiency Consequence fundamentals may not be understood and assumptions are not verified or challenged. No scenario planning. No stress testing of worstWorst case scenarios possible case scenarios. Risk function not Risk function seen merelyEmpowerment of the risk empowered. as a compliance functionfunction or a roadblock function4 Implementation of Risk Analysis and Risk Management Systems4.1 COSO Enterprise Risk Management FrameworkThe Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission’s (COSO)Enterprise Risk Management-Integrated Framework (COSO ERM Framework)describes the fundamental elements of risk-management principles for organisationsregardless of size (Bowling & Rieger 2005, p. 29). Enterprise Risk Management isdefined as follows: Enterprise risk management is a process, effected by an entity’s board of directors, management and other personnel, applied in strategy setting and across the enterprise, designed to identify potential events that may affect the entity, and manage risk to be within its risk appetite, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of entity objectives. (COSO 2004)This definition is broad and complex, but probably necessarily so, because it tries tobe an all inclusive definition that can be used by all organisations. Bowling andRieger (2005, p. 30) provides a breakdown of the keywords and associatedmeanings. This is shown in Table 2. 8© Atul Kuver 2011
  9. 9. Table 2 Understanding the keywords in COSOs ERM definition (Bowling & Rieger 2005, p. 30) Keyword MeaningA process a means to an end.Effected by people as opposed to sole reliance on policies, standard procedures, surveys or forms.Applied in a strategy setting the ‘big-picture’ viewAcross the enterprise view an aggregate or portfolio of risks rather than a narrow view of isolated risks.Identifying events consider in the context of the entity’s appetite for riskReasonable assurance cannot have absolute guarantees.Achievement of organizational can take place in one or moreobjectives overlapping categoriesThe COSO ERM Framework is illustrated as the cube shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 The COSO ERM Framework (COSO 2004, p.5).The top of the cube corresponds to four objectives: strategic, operations, reportingand compliance. The ERM Framework consists of eight components. These represent 9© Atul Kuver 2011
  10. 10. what is needed to achieve each of the four objectives. A summary of the each of thecomponents is given in Table 3. Possible deficiencies (Bisset 2010, p. 80) in riskmanagement practices that could affect the significance of the component for anorganisation are given in Column 3 of Table 3. For example:  deficiencies in risk culture may be indicative of how risk is viewed or lack of Board commitment;  a risk function that is not empowered may result in an inadequate response to risk due to a lack of alignment between risks and the organisation’s appetite or tolerance for risk. Table 3 Significance of the eight components in COSOs ERM Framework Possible Component Significance Deficiencies (Table 1)  encompasses the tone of an  Risk Culture organisation;  sets the basis for how risk is viewed and addressed byInternal people in the organisationEnvironment including:  risk management philosophy;  risk appetite;  integrity and ethical values;  operational environment.  objectives are necessary  Incentive before the potential events schemes affecting their achievement  Risk/return can be identified by trade-off management;Objective Setting  ensures that a objective setting process is in place;  ensures that the chose objectives align with the organisation’s mission and risk appetite.  internal and external events  Worst case that could affect the scenarioEvent achievement of any of the planningIdentification organisation’s objectives must  Risk be identified; information 10© Atul Kuver 2011
  11. 11. Possible Component Significance Deficiencies (Table 1)  risks and opportunities must be distinguished;  channel opportunities back into strategy or objective- setting process.  analyse risks by assessing their  Risk measures likelihood and impact;  analysis determines the riskRisk Assessment management approach;  assess risks on an inherent and residual basis.  select the appropriate  Risk response to the risk: information  avoid;  Empowering  accept; the riskRisk Response  reduce; or function  share;  develop actions to align the risks with the organisation’s tolerance and appetite for risk;  establish and implement  Empowering policies and procedures to the riskControl Activities assist in ensuring that risk function responses are carried out effectively.  identify, capture and  Complexity and communicate relevant lack ofInformation and information in a form and informationCommunication timeframe that enables people to carry out their responsibilities;  monitor entire ERM and  Empowering modify as necessary; the risk  accomplish monitoring functionMonitoring through ongoing management activities, separate evaluations or both. 11© Atul Kuver 2011
  12. 12. 4.2 Managing Reputation and Branding Risk, and Safety Risk at QantasQantas operates in an industry that focuses on high availability, safety, has lowmargins, intense competition and is vulnerable to external and internal businessshocks (Bisset 2010, p. 82). The organisation faces risks in all four objectives areasrecognised in the COSO ERM Framework.Being one of the world’s safest airlines has long been Qantas’ key brand value,having never lost an aircraft. However, two recent safety incidents on two separatemodels of aircraft have threatened Qantas’ reputation. Industrial safety regulationsthat apply to the aviation industry will have extremely serious consequences forQantas if any of the safety risks are realised. According to Bisset (2010, p. 82–83),risks ‘can’t be managed from 10,000 feet in the corporate head office. Effective riskmanagement needs to be embedded within the operations of the organisation’.On July 25th, 2008, Qantas Flight 30 (QF30) was on a flight from London HeathrowAirport to Melbourne Airport with a scheduled stop-over at Hong Kong InternationalAirport. Shortly after leaving Hong Kong an oxygen tank exploded, rupturing thefuselage just forward of the starboard wind root. There were no injuries and theaircraft made an emergency decent to 10,000 feet.In November 2010, a Rolls Royce Trent-900 engine failed on a Qantas Airbus A380while flying over Indonesia. This event force Qantas to ground its entire A380 fleet.These events have raised questions about operations risk management (Washington2010). The A380 issue created a complicated situation for Qantas in trying topreserve its reputation. Dr Ulysses Chioatta from SSAMM Management Consultinghas commented that Qantas, by being ‘overly cautious and grounding more planessends out a less than confident message to customers’ (Washington 2010). 12© Atul Kuver 2011
  13. 13. Reputation and branding, and safety can be considered to be part of Qantas’strategic and operational objectives. Safety will also fall under the regulatoryframework for the aviation industry. Failure in either area can have seriousconsequences for Qantas.Qantas states that its risk management and internal control system aligns to theprinciples in the AS/NZS ISO 31000: 2009 Standard and the COSO ERM Framework(Qantas 2010, p. 23). Qantas’ risk management and the COSO ERM Framework arecompared below. The comparison illustrates how the strategic, operational,reporting and compliance objectives are managed.4.2.1 Internal EnvironmentThe Qantas Corporate Governance Statement (Qantas 2010, p. 23) states that the‘Board is responsible for reviewing and overseeing the risk management strategy’.This shows commitment from the Board a top-down approach to risk management.The Chief Risk Officer is also a member of the executive team.4.2.2 Objective SettingThe Qantas Group Risk Management Framework is supported by three interrelatedelements: governance, risk management and assurance (Qantas 2010, p. 23).4.2.3 Event IdentificationA common standard for identifying, assessing and managing business risks across thegroup — The Qantas Management System (QMS) — provides business units withguidance regarding risk management. (Qantas 2010, p. 23).4.2.4 Risk AssessmentMaterial risks and effectiveness of risk management plans are escalated to ExecutiveManagement or relevant Board Committees. Assessments against different QMSelements are undertaken (Qantas 2010, p. 24). 13© Atul Kuver 2011
  14. 14. 4.2.5 Risk ResponseA Safety, Health, Environment & Security Committee (SHESC) is responsible forassisting the Board in its corporate governance activities including risk management.(Qantas 2010, p. 24).4.2.6 Control ActivitiesThe Qantas Group Risk Management Policy (Policy) sets the minimum requirementsand roles and responsibilities for managing risks across the organisation. The Boardreviews and approves this Policy (Qantas 2010, p. 23).4.2.7 Information and CommunicationA detailed risk register is prepared and reported every quarter by each business unit(Qantas 2010, p. 24).4.2.8 MonitoringIndependent, objective assurance and consulting services on the risk managementsystem is provided through an Internal Audit function (Qantas 2010, p. 24).5 Corporate GovernanceThis section compares and contrasts the Qantas approach to Corporate Governanceas documented in their Corporate Governance Statement (Qantas 2010) with theapproach recommended in the ‘ASX Corporate Governance Principles andRecommendations’ (ASX 2007) and the Kiel and Nicholson model (Kiel & Nicholson2002).5.1 Kiel and Nicholson ModelAccording to Kiel and Nicholson (2002, p. 18), despite uncertainty, practical solutionsto governance problems can be found. They highlight that the board has two primaryresponsibilities: 1. conformance — relates to the past and present behaviour of the business. Board monitors and supervises management and is accountable to 14© Atul Kuver 2011
  15. 15. stakeholders. Achieved through reporting financial and non-financial information about the business; 2. performance — is less developed. Board needs to focus on the future as directors are held accountable for firm performance.Kiel and Nicholson’s (2002) Corporate Governance Charter model aims to developmore effective boards by providing both a structure and a process. When the modelis used as a process, it provides a forum to discuss ‘unmentioned’ issues that areoften not addressed and lead to poor governance. An updated version of theFramework is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 Kiel and Nicholsons Corporate Governance Charter model (Effective Governance Board Charter website).The model’s focus is to assist the board in directing business success through aprocess that aligns a company’s governance system to its organisational needs (Kiel 15© Atul Kuver 2011
  16. 16. & Nicholson 2002, p. 23). The authors cite two primary benefits of the model. Theystate that the model: 1. creates a major policy document that can assist in the corporation’s leadership to deliver good governance; 2. guides strategic conversations at board level to move members to the ‘performing’ stage of group process. (Kiel & Nicholson 2002, p. 23)5.2 ASX Principles of Good Corporate GovernanceThe ASX Corporate Governance Council provides the following eight principles andrecommendations: 1. Lay solid foundations for management and oversight. 2. Structure the board to add value. 3. Promote ethical and responsible decision-making. 4. Safeguard integrity in financial reporting. 5. Make timely and balanced disclosure. 6. Respect the rights of shareholders. 7. Recognise and manage risk. 8. Remunerate fairly and responsibly. (ASX 2007)5.3 Qantas Corporate Governance Statement5.3.1 Alignment with ASX Principles 2007This comparison is fairly simple to establish from the Corporate GovernanceStatement (Qantas 2010). According to Qantas’ Corporate Governance Statement(Qantas 2010, p. 20), the ‘Board endorses the ASX Corporate Governance Council’sCorporate Governance Principles and Recommendations’. Review of Qantas’Corporate Governance Statement confirms that ASX Principles 1 to 7 is addressed.Surprisingly though, Principle 8 — Remunerate fairly and responsibly — unlike thefirst seven principles, is not specifically mentioned in the Statement. The 16© Atul Kuver 2011
  17. 17. remuneration function is incorporated under the declaration of Principle 1. Thereport states that it is the Boards responsibility to ensure that ‘a clear relationshipbetween performance and executive remuneration’ exists (Qantas 2010, p. 20). Thisseems to satisfy the requirements of Principle 8.5.3.2 Alignment with the Kiel and Nicholson ModelThe details of the Corporate Governance Statement (Qantas 2010) have beenexamined to compare and contrast the content of the Corporate GovernanceStatement with Kiel and Nicholson’s model and the corresponding ASX principles.The results are shown in Table 4 on the following page. 17© Atul Kuver 2011
  18. 18. Table 4 Qantas Corporate Governance compared and contrasted with the Kiel and Nicholson model and corresponding ASX principles. Top Level Governance ASX Kiel and Nicholson Model Statement Principle Board  The Board is structured to 2 Structure add value  The Board lays solid 1 Role of the foundations for Board management oversight Role of  The Board is structured to 2 Defining Individual add value Directors Governance Role of the  The Board is structured to 2 Roles Chairman add value Role of the  The Board is structured to 2 Company add value Secretary  The Board lays solid 1 Role of the foundations for CEO management oversight  The Board lays solid 1 foundations for Strategy management oversight 2  The Board is structured to add value  The Board lays solid 1 CEO foundations for management oversight  The Board lays solid 1 foundations for Monitoring management oversight Key Board  The Board safeguards the 4 Functions integrity of financial reporting Risk  The Board recognises and 7 Management manages risk  The Board lays solid 1 Compliance foundations for management oversight  The Board lays solid 1 Policy foundations for Framework management oversight Networking  The Board makes times 5 18© Atul Kuver 2011
  19. 19. Top Level Governance ASX Kiel and Nicholson Model Statement Principle and balanced disclosure  The Board respects the 6 rights of shareholders Stakeholder  The Board makes times 5 Communicatio and balanced disclosure n  The Board respects the 6 rights of shareholders  The Board lays solid 1 foundations for Decision management oversight. Making  The Board promotes 3 ethical and responsible decision making  The Board is structured to 2 add value Director  The Board promotes 3 Protection ethical and responsible decision making Board  The Board is structured to 2 Effective Evaluation add value Governance Director  The Board is structured to 2, 8 Remuneration add value Director  The Board is structured to 2 Development add value Director  The Board is structured to 2 Selection and add value Induction Board  The Board lays solid 1 Meetings foundations for management oversight Board  The Board lays solid 1 Meeting foundations for Agenda management oversight  The Board lays solid 1Improving Board Board Papers foundations for Processes management oversight  The Board lays solid 1 Board Minutes foundations for management oversight  The Board lays solid 1 The Board foundations for Calendar management oversight Committees  The Board lays solid 1 19© Atul Kuver 2011
  20. 20. Top Level Governance ASX Kiel and Nicholson Model Statement Principle foundations for management oversight  The Board is structured to 2 add value5.4 Corporate Governance within the Context of Accountability FrameworksThe objectives of the Kiel and Nicholson model are to create a major policydocument to assist the organisation’s leadership deliver good performance and toguide strategic conversations at that board level to move members to the‘performing’ stage of the group process (Kiel & Nicholson 2002, p. 23).Figure 3 illustrates the analysis given in Table 4. The numbers next to each quadrantrepresent the corresponding ASX principles. The significant result here is the loadingof the ASX principles as the Key Board Functions. This may not be a generic result buta consequence of where Qantas places its governance responsibilities. The contentin Table 4 was generated by examining the details of each Board function andQantas could have chosen to arrange the Board’s responsibilities slightly differently.This would have changed the distribution of the ASX principles slightly. However,while redistribution may have been possible, it is not entirely flexible. Many ASXprinciples fall in particular quadrants and some associations seem rigid. For example,ASX Principle 7 — Risk Management — will always fall in the Key Board Functionsquadrant. 20© Atul Kuver 2011
  21. 21. Figure 3 Kiel and Nicholson model and ASX principles overlap for Qantas corporategovernance.Figure 3 highlights the areas of the ASX guidelines that the Board needs to focus onduring each of the four phases. It is also important to keep in mind that while theKiel and Nicholson model suggests structure and process, it is probably not intendedto be normative. Compliance with the ASX guidelines already provides a satisfactorystarting point.6 ConclusionThis report examined the nature and relevance of risk, the importance of riskanalysis and management and corporate governance within the context ofaccountability frameworks. Risk management, the implementation of risk analysisand risk management systems with reference to the COSO ERM Framework werediscussed. Qantas’ risk management systems were compared with COSO ERMFramework to assess how Qantas may manage reputation and branding, and safety 21© Atul Kuver 2011
  22. 22. risks. Reputation and branding, and safety are of critical importance to Qantas. Thecomparison indicated that the Qantas risk management structure closely follows theCOSO ERM Framework that support its strategic, operational, reporting andcompliance objectives.The Qantas approach to Corporate Governance as documented in their CorporateGovernance Statement (Qantas 2010) was compared and contrasted with theapproach recommended in the ASX Corporate Governance Principles andRecommendations (ASX 2007) and the Kiel and Nicholson model (Kiel & Nicholson2002). The review shows the Qantas approach is aligned with the ASX CorporateGovernance Principles and Recommendations (ASX 2007). The Qantas approach alsosatisfies the structure and process of the Kiel and Nicholson model. This alignmentdemonstrates that the Qantas Board accepts responsibility for the key functionsregarding the Corporate Governance. 22© Atul Kuver 2011
  23. 23. ReferencesASX 2007, ASX Corporate Governance Council, Principles of Good CorporateGovernance and Best Practice Recommendations 2nd editionBissett, A 2010, Enterprise risk management -- is it achievable?, Keeping GoodCompanies (14447614), 2, pp. 80-83.Bowling, D, & Rieger, L 2005, Making Sense of COSOs New Framework forEnterprise Risk Management, Bank Accounting & Finance (08943958), 18, 2, pp. 29-34.Brooks, L. & Dunn, P. (2008) Business & Professional Ethics for Directors, Executives &Accountants, Mason, South-western Cengage Learning.COSO 2004, Enterprise Risk Management — Integrated Framework. Available athttp://www.coso.org/documents/COSO_ERM_ExecutiveSummary.pdf [AccessedFebruary 15, 2011].Effective Governance Board Charter website. Available at:http://www.effectivegovernance.com.au/Board-Charter.html [Accessed February15, 2011].Economics Intelligence Unit 2007, Best practice in risk management | BUSINESSRESEARCH. Available at: http://businessresearch.eiu.com/best-practice-risk-management.html [Accessed February 16, 2011].Kiel, G & Nicholson, G 2002, Real world governance: driving business success througheffective corporate governance, Mt Eliza Business Review vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 17 – 28Qantas 2010, Annual Report 2009 - 2010. 23© Atul Kuver 2011
  24. 24. Rao, A 2009, IMPLEMENTATION OF ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT (ERM) TOOLS -A CASE STUDY, Academy of Accounting & Financial Studies Journal, 13, 2, pp. 87-103.Washington, T 2010, Qantas engine troubles raise risk questions. Available at:http://www.riskmanagementmagazine.com.au/articles/66/0c06d866.asp [AccessedFebruary 15, 2011]. 24© Atul Kuver 2011

×