The document provides details from the 2016 Federation of European Risk Management Associations (FERMA) European Risk and Insurance Survey. Some key details:
- The survey had 634 respondents from 24 FERMA member associations and other contacts.
- It covered three parts: risk management profession and practices, European risk management insights, and insurance management.
- The sample represented a variety of company sizes, industries, and regions across Europe. Most respondents were male, aged 36-55, and earned over €100k.
- Risk management departments varied in size from less than 5 FTEs to over 10 FTEs. About a third of companies used a captive insurance arrangement.
- The total estimated cost of risk
FERMA RISK MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKING SURVEY 2014 - European Risk and Insurance ...FERMA
7th biennal benchmarking survey conducted by the Federation of European Risk Management Associations (FERMA) in collaboration with XL Group, Zurich, EY, Marsh and AXA Corporate Solutions.
- 76% Vietnamese have their own motorbike.
- Honda Wave is the most popular motorbike
- 80% of teens' and 71% of 20’s motorbikes are paid by their parents.
- Brand (44%), after service (43%) and price (39%) are 3 main factors as the purchase factors.
- 49% ask their friend’s advice before the purchase. The ratio is higher with female (58%)
- Bad driving behaviours of motorbike/car drivers (44%) is the main dissatisfaction among male while gasoline (57%) is what female cares about.
- 49% have had motorbike accident with other motorbike before.
Mr. Ali AlMuwaijei, Board Member of the UAE IAA, delivered the opening remarks with presentation titled "Why auditors DO NOT discover Fraud" where he discussed the fraud triangle and the role of internal auditors in looking for the red flags and provided many statistical data about the fraud globally,
FERMA RISK MANAGEMENT BENCHMARKING SURVEY 2014 - European Risk and Insurance ...FERMA
7th biennal benchmarking survey conducted by the Federation of European Risk Management Associations (FERMA) in collaboration with XL Group, Zurich, EY, Marsh and AXA Corporate Solutions.
- 76% Vietnamese have their own motorbike.
- Honda Wave is the most popular motorbike
- 80% of teens' and 71% of 20’s motorbikes are paid by their parents.
- Brand (44%), after service (43%) and price (39%) are 3 main factors as the purchase factors.
- 49% ask their friend’s advice before the purchase. The ratio is higher with female (58%)
- Bad driving behaviours of motorbike/car drivers (44%) is the main dissatisfaction among male while gasoline (57%) is what female cares about.
- 49% have had motorbike accident with other motorbike before.
Mr. Ali AlMuwaijei, Board Member of the UAE IAA, delivered the opening remarks with presentation titled "Why auditors DO NOT discover Fraud" where he discussed the fraud triangle and the role of internal auditors in looking for the red flags and provided many statistical data about the fraud globally,
Entrevista ao Prof. Artur Ferreira da Silva
(Professor no Instituto Superior Técnico e Presidente do Open Space Institute of Portugal)
No âmbito do Mestrado em Gestão Estratégica de Recursos Humanos
Law of robots and AIs - Future of Lawyers - Lecture 3Nicolas Petit
Lecture on the future of lawyers in a world driven by robotics and AIs: quantitative legal prediction, big data, AI based problem solving, etc. I also discuss Susskind's work.
Slides usados na apresentação realizada nas quartas "Conversas IN" organizadas pela ADRAT (Chaves, 19 e 20 março 2015). Nela se descreve o percurso do projeto Cidadania 2.0 bem como o conhecimento adquirido neste projeto voluntário está agora a ser usado para criar uma nova linha de serviços na Knowman.
Full Course - Law and Regulation of Machine Intelligence - Bar Ilan Universit...Nicolas Petit
Discussions over the regulation of machine intelligence (“MI”) are all the rage as artificial intelligence (“AI”) and robotic technologies are introduced in society. Computer engineers’ fears that overly rigid regulations might stifle innovation have fueled proposals to create regimes of selective immunity for research on certain types of robotic applications. At the same time, ethical concerns have prompted calls for an all-out ban on research in relation to automated weapons. Some scholars even claim that robots will become so important to mankind that “a new branch of the law” is needed, “to grant their race and its individual members the benefits of legal protection”, much like society did with the environment.
In the legal scholarship, several approaches are emerging. First, in virtually each and every specialist field of the law, experts in the trenches ponder how the rise of MI necessitates upgrades, revisions or adjustments to their legal discipline. Second, an alternative approach uses a functional methodology which identifies outstanding legal issues by class of technological applications (for instance, driverless vehicles, robotic prostheses (and exoskeletons), surgical robots, and robot companions). Third, an often used dichotomy is that between roboethics and robolaw, which distinguishes between the instruments of regulation, ie the ex ante incorporation of norms in intelligent machines (for instance, the three Asimov laws) versus the ex post setting of rules to regulate the execution of robotic technology in society.
With this background, the overall ambition of this course is to map the potential regulatory needs created by MIs. More specifically, the goals of the course are to: (i) provide an overview of the state of play in relation to the introduction of MI in society; (ii) set out the main regulatory options discussed in the scholarship in relation to MI (disciplinary, functional and instrumental); (iii) envision the issue in terms of the consequences of the introduction of MI technology in society, and proceed on this basis to explore alternative consequentialist regulatory responses; (iv) understand the implications of those distinct regulatory approaches in dedicated fields of the law, ie liability law and the law of warfare.
Students who follow this course will gain a good understanding of the prospective regulatory issues related to MI as well as of the theories of regulation.
This presentation gives description of new suspension system designed by Mercedes benz . This system is named as Magic body control or Active Body control.
This Ppt also explains about types of suspension and working.
FERMA European risk and insurance report 2016 - full set of resultsFERMA
FERMA's 2016 European Risk and Insurance Report is designed to serve as a high-level overview for risk
and insurance managers and other executives. Our analysis includes benchmarking information drawn from
respondents across a variety of industries and companies. The data, therefore, reflects general trends about
the profession.
Entrevista ao Prof. Artur Ferreira da Silva
(Professor no Instituto Superior Técnico e Presidente do Open Space Institute of Portugal)
No âmbito do Mestrado em Gestão Estratégica de Recursos Humanos
Law of robots and AIs - Future of Lawyers - Lecture 3Nicolas Petit
Lecture on the future of lawyers in a world driven by robotics and AIs: quantitative legal prediction, big data, AI based problem solving, etc. I also discuss Susskind's work.
Slides usados na apresentação realizada nas quartas "Conversas IN" organizadas pela ADRAT (Chaves, 19 e 20 março 2015). Nela se descreve o percurso do projeto Cidadania 2.0 bem como o conhecimento adquirido neste projeto voluntário está agora a ser usado para criar uma nova linha de serviços na Knowman.
Full Course - Law and Regulation of Machine Intelligence - Bar Ilan Universit...Nicolas Petit
Discussions over the regulation of machine intelligence (“MI”) are all the rage as artificial intelligence (“AI”) and robotic technologies are introduced in society. Computer engineers’ fears that overly rigid regulations might stifle innovation have fueled proposals to create regimes of selective immunity for research on certain types of robotic applications. At the same time, ethical concerns have prompted calls for an all-out ban on research in relation to automated weapons. Some scholars even claim that robots will become so important to mankind that “a new branch of the law” is needed, “to grant their race and its individual members the benefits of legal protection”, much like society did with the environment.
In the legal scholarship, several approaches are emerging. First, in virtually each and every specialist field of the law, experts in the trenches ponder how the rise of MI necessitates upgrades, revisions or adjustments to their legal discipline. Second, an alternative approach uses a functional methodology which identifies outstanding legal issues by class of technological applications (for instance, driverless vehicles, robotic prostheses (and exoskeletons), surgical robots, and robot companions). Third, an often used dichotomy is that between roboethics and robolaw, which distinguishes between the instruments of regulation, ie the ex ante incorporation of norms in intelligent machines (for instance, the three Asimov laws) versus the ex post setting of rules to regulate the execution of robotic technology in society.
With this background, the overall ambition of this course is to map the potential regulatory needs created by MIs. More specifically, the goals of the course are to: (i) provide an overview of the state of play in relation to the introduction of MI in society; (ii) set out the main regulatory options discussed in the scholarship in relation to MI (disciplinary, functional and instrumental); (iii) envision the issue in terms of the consequences of the introduction of MI technology in society, and proceed on this basis to explore alternative consequentialist regulatory responses; (iv) understand the implications of those distinct regulatory approaches in dedicated fields of the law, ie liability law and the law of warfare.
Students who follow this course will gain a good understanding of the prospective regulatory issues related to MI as well as of the theories of regulation.
This presentation gives description of new suspension system designed by Mercedes benz . This system is named as Magic body control or Active Body control.
This Ppt also explains about types of suspension and working.
FERMA European risk and insurance report 2016 - full set of resultsFERMA
FERMA's 2016 European Risk and Insurance Report is designed to serve as a high-level overview for risk
and insurance managers and other executives. Our analysis includes benchmarking information drawn from
respondents across a variety of industries and companies. The data, therefore, reflects general trends about
the profession.
The European risk manager report 2020: webinar presentationFERMA
This 2020 edition is the opportunity to deepen four challenges that the Risk Manager is facing today:
his growing role in digital transformation
his contribution to sustainability
tougher insurance market conditions
education and skills evolution
The objective of this report is to launch the discussion on the new challenges posed by the European transition to climate neutrality and digital leadership for Risk Managers. How are the roles and responsibilities of European Risk Managers evolving in the face of this new reality? Are Risk Managers equipped to support their organizations in achieving this double transformation?
Our live webinar was scheduled on Monday 29 June 2020: risk managers from different backgrounds shared their experiences on the below themes and reacted to the results of the survey, in particular before and after the Covid-19 crisis.
The speakers were:
Adriana Cavaliere : Corporate Risk Manager at Skeyes, Belgium
Oliver Wild: Group Chief Risk, Insurance and Internal Control Coordination Officer at Veolia, France
Charlotte Hedemark: Chairman of the 2020 FERMA Survey Committee and Board Member of FERMA
Françoise Bergé: PwC Partner
GDPR & corporate governance: the role of risk management and internal audit o...FERMA
The webinar discussed the full results and recommendations of a joint project between FERMA and the European Confederation of Institutes of Internal Auditing (ECIIA), to assess how the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) impacted our professions, one year after its enforcement. This webinar helped to know:
- To which extent the risk manager and the internal auditor are involved in the GDPR corporate implementation
- How GDPR has affected the interactions between risk management, internal audit and Data Protection Officer (DPO)
- What are the best practices and recommendations to embed personal data protection in the risk and audit governance of your organisation
After one year of GDPR implementation, FERMA and ECIIA sent in May a common basis of five questions to their risk and internal audit members.
The objectives were to:
- Evaluate the roles of the risk management and internal audit functions regarding the GDPR and personal data related risks
- Provide a unique insight into the implementation of the GDPR by companies to the European policymakers
Ferma PwC European Risk Manager Report_ full set results 2018FERMA
Risk Manager, a career central to corporate strategy
The job of Risk Manager is becoming increasingly cross-disciplinary and digital in response to a fast-changing economic and regulatory environment.
Andrew Kakabadse, Paul Moore and Dominic Carter gave this presentation on a risk survey they conducted at Risk Minds, the world's largest risk management conference on 8th December 2009.
Findings include:
- executives to blame for financial crisis
- cultural problem at banks NOT a regulatory problem (the cost to benefit of risk taking is not weighted correctly;
- remuneration too high; culture does not encourage effective change management
- Executives should have a right to tell their side of the story though
- full report due in Jan 2010 so check back at http://www.kakabadse.com
Experts from the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), the European Commission (EC), the Committee of European Audit Oversight Bodies (CEAOB), assurance service providers, investors and the business community met to discuss the regulatory, policy and standard-setting path toward high-quality sustainability assurance.
IFAC and the World Bank Centre for Financial Reporting Reform hosted a joint Regional Small- and Medium-sized Practices (SMP) Forum for Europe and Central Asia on May 31 in Vienna, Austria.
The Forum provided the opportunity to discuss addressing the challenges and opportunities SMPs and medium-sized entities (SMEs) face. This presentation is by Mats Olsson, Deputy Chair, IFAC SMP Committee.
Market Risk And Return PowerPoint Presentation Slides SlideTeam
Presenting this set of slides with name - Market Risk And Return Powerpoint Presentation Slides. Our topic specific Market Risk And Return Powerpoint Presentation Slides presentation deck contains twenty eight slides to formulate the topic with a sound understanding. This PPT deck is what you can bank upon. With diverse and professional slides at your side, worry the least for a powerpack presentation. A range of editable and ready to use slides with all sorts of relevant charts and graphs, overviews, topics subtopics templates, and analysis templates makes it all the more worth. This deck displays creative and professional looking slides of all sorts. Whether you are a member of an assigned team or a designated official on the look out for impacting slides, it caters to every professional field.
Ratio analysis on Pharmaceutical Companies: A study of BangladeshAL Babur Rahman
In this study, we analyzed 7 Pharmaceutical companies of Bangladesh to Measure their profitability, liquidity to Indicate overall efficiency and Determine financial solvency.
As Europe's leading economic powerhouse and the fourth-largest hashtag#economy globally, Germany stands at the forefront of innovation and industrial might. Renowned for its precision engineering and high-tech sectors, Germany's economic structure is heavily supported by a robust service industry, accounting for approximately 68% of its GDP. This economic clout and strategic geopolitical stance position Germany as a focal point in the global cyber threat landscape.
In the face of escalating global tensions, particularly those emanating from geopolitical disputes with nations like hashtag#Russia and hashtag#China, hashtag#Germany has witnessed a significant uptick in targeted cyber operations. Our analysis indicates a marked increase in hashtag#cyberattack sophistication aimed at critical infrastructure and key industrial sectors. These attacks range from ransomware campaigns to hashtag#AdvancedPersistentThreats (hashtag#APTs), threatening national security and business integrity.
🔑 Key findings include:
🔍 Increased frequency and complexity of cyber threats.
🔍 Escalation of state-sponsored and criminally motivated cyber operations.
🔍 Active dark web exchanges of malicious tools and tactics.
Our comprehensive report delves into these challenges, using a blend of open-source and proprietary data collection techniques. By monitoring activity on critical networks and analyzing attack patterns, our team provides a detailed overview of the threats facing German entities.
This report aims to equip stakeholders across public and private sectors with the knowledge to enhance their defensive strategies, reduce exposure to cyber risks, and reinforce Germany's resilience against cyber threats.
Techniques to optimize the pagerank algorithm usually fall in two categories. One is to try reducing the work per iteration, and the other is to try reducing the number of iterations. These goals are often at odds with one another. Skipping computation on vertices which have already converged has the potential to save iteration time. Skipping in-identical vertices, with the same in-links, helps reduce duplicate computations and thus could help reduce iteration time. Road networks often have chains which can be short-circuited before pagerank computation to improve performance. Final ranks of chain nodes can be easily calculated. This could reduce both the iteration time, and the number of iterations. If a graph has no dangling nodes, pagerank of each strongly connected component can be computed in topological order. This could help reduce the iteration time, no. of iterations, and also enable multi-iteration concurrency in pagerank computation. The combination of all of the above methods is the STICD algorithm. [sticd] For dynamic graphs, unchanged components whose ranks are unaffected can be skipped altogether.
2. In collaboration
with:
8th biennal survey conducted by the Federation of
European Risk Management Associations (FERMA)
In collaboration with:
AIG, CHUBB, EY, MARSH and XL CATLIN.
Presentation of the survey:
3. In collaboration
with:
39 questions
Survey Conducted from 8th April to 10thJune 2016
24 national associations members of FERMA
1 contact list : others (25 contact list in total)
634 Respondents
Based on FERMA standard
Key Facts:
4. In collaboration
with:
Content: Questionnaire
The survey comprises three parts:
PART 1: RISK MANAGEMENT PROFESSION AND PRACTICES IN EUROPE: from S1 to Q16
This part is seeking to reinforce the understanding and positioning of the risk and insurance management
role.
Support the development of the risk and insurance management function.
PART 2: EUROPEAN INSIGHTS ON RISK MANAGEMENT: from Q17 to Q20NEW
This part is seeking to identify the main priorities for EU risk and insurance managers to ensure that
FERMA supports its members’ needs and expectations as regards the risk and insurance management
function.
PART 3: Insurance Management : from Q30 to Q39
This part is seeking to provide EU insight on the evolution of the insurance market and risk managers’
expectations.
6. In collaboration
with:
Sample - 1st,2nd and 3rd Part completed
Long Completes
A respondent is considered
Long Complete if he
answered for all three parts
of the questionnaire.
Associations Long Completes Total invited Response Rate
AGERS 6 50 12%
ALRIM 7 200 3,50%
ASPAR CZ 3 50 6%
BFV 1 1 100%
DVS 6 90 6,67%
FINNRIMA 13 104 12,50%
SI.RISK 4 11 36,36%
POLRISK 10 100 10%
AIRMIC 38 1063 3,57%
AMRAE 57 748 7,62%
ANRA 37 227 16,30%
APOGERIS 5 58 8,62%
BELRIM 20 122 16,39%
BRIMA 6 11 54,55%
ERMA 13 99 13,13%
DARIM 30 71 42,25%
IGREA 10 41 24,39%
MARM 2 31 6,45%
NARIM 32 158 20,25%
RUSRISK 9 56 16,07%
SIRM 17 106 16,04%
SWERMA 15 226 6,64%
NORIMA 8 55 14,55%
AIG 44 686 6,41%
Others 13 43 30,23%
Total 406 4407 9,21%
7. In collaboration
with:
Sample – 1st and 2nd Part completed
Short Completes
A respondent is considered
Short Complete if he
answered for first two
parts of the questionnaire.
Associations Long Completes Total invited Response Rate
AGERS 7 50 14%
ALRIM 30 200 15%
ASPAR CZ 2 50 4%
BFV 0 1 0%
DVS 1 90 1,11%
FINNRIMA 7 104 6,73%
SI.RISK 1 11 9,09%
POLRISK 7 100 7%
AIRMIC 21 1063 1,98%
AMRAE 37 748 4,95%
ANRA 20 227 8,81%
APOGERIS 1 58 1,72%
BELRIM 10 122 8,20%
BRIMA 2 11 18,18%
ERMA 19 99 19,19%
DARIM 11 71 15,49%
IGREA 1 41 2,44%
MARM 3 31 9,68%
NARIM 7 158 4,43%
RUSRISK 16 56 28,57%
SIRM 3 106 2,83%
SWERMA 11 226 4,87%
NORIMA 4 55 7,27%
AIG 5 686 0,73%
Others 2 43 4,65%
Total 228 4407 5,17%
8. In collaboration
with:
406 406 406
228 228
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
PART 1 - RISK MANAGEMENT
PROFESSION AND PRACTICES IN EUROPE
PART 2 - EUROPEAN INSIGHTS ON RISK
MANAGEMENT
PART 3 - Insurance Management
Total number of respondents for each part
(Long Complete + Short Complete)
Long Completes Short Completes
SAMPLE
9. In collaboration
with:
Part 1 :RISK MANAGEMENT PROFESSION AND PRACTICES IN
EUROPE
634 634
406
PART 1 - RISK MANAGEMENT PROFESSION
AND PRACTICES IN EUROPE
PART 2 - EUROPEAN INSIGHTS ON RISK
MANAGEMENT
PART 3 - Insurance Management
Total completes for each part
10. In collaboration
with:
Sample - 1st Part
A representative sample of European companies
Female
27%
Male
73%
S1: Are you?
0.3%
3.5%
7.6%
35.5%
36.1%
11.0%
6.0%
Less than 25 years old
Between 25 and 30…
Between 31 and 35…
Between 36 and 45…
Between 46 and 55…
Between 56 and 60…
60+ years old
S2 - What is your age ?
Basis: 634
11. In collaboration
with:
Sample - 1st Part
18.5%
17.5%
18.0%
15.5%
11.7%
11.7%
7.3%
Less than €60k
Between €60k - €80k
Between €81k - €100k
Between €101k - €120k
Between €121k - €150k
Between €151k - €200k
More than €200k
S3 - What is your total annual remuneration (including
bonus and all compensations) ?
Basis: 634
A representative sample of European companies
13. In collaboration
with:
10.1%
3.3%
13.6%
10.9%
31.2%
30.9%
Less than €50 million
Between € 50 million and less
than € 100 million
Between € 100 million and less
than € 500 million
Between € 500 million and less
than € 1 billion
Between € 1 billion and €5
billion
More than € 5 billion
13.2%
9.6%
21.6%
11.8%
12.8%
30.9%
Less than 250
Between 250 and less than
1,000
Between 1,000 and 5,000
Between 5,001 and 10,000
Between 10,001 and 20,000
More than 20,000
Q2.1 - Organization’s turnover: Q2.2 - Organization’s total number of employees:
A representative sample of European companies
Sample - 1st Part
Basis: 634
14. In collaboration
with:
44.0%
8.0%
22.2%
12.3%
8.8%
4.6%
Don't know
Negative
Between 0% and 5%
Between 5.1% and 10%
Between 10.1% and 20%
More than 20%
Q2.3 - Organization’s average growth rate (EBITDA - Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization) over the last five years.
A representative sample of European companies
Sample - 1st Part
Basis: 634
15. In collaboration
with:
0.0%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
2.4%
95.3%
Latin America
Middle East
Africa
Asia / Pacific
North America
Europe
A representative sample of European companies
Sample - 1st Part
Q3.1 - Where are your organization’s
headquarters ?
5.5%
5.8%
88.6%
National or Country
Division or Regional
Corporate (Head Office)
Q3.3 - Which part of the organization do you work in ?
Basis: 634
16. In collaboration
with:
Yes
47%No
53%
Q4 - Is your organization listed on the stock market ?
A representative sample of European companies
Sample - 1st Part
Basis: 634
17. In collaboration
with:
13.4%
0.0%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.5%
0.6%
0.8%
0.9%
1.4%
1.6%
1.6%
2.7%
2.8%
4.7%
12.6%
22.9%
32.6%
Other
Security Director / Manager
Health and safety Director / Manager
General / Company Secretary
Compliance Director / Manager
Chief Operating Officer
Business Continuity Director / Manager
Head of Treasury / Treasury manager
President, Chairman
Captive Director / Manager
Chief Financial Officer / Finance Manager
Head of Internal Audit / Audit Manager
Legal Counsel / Head of Legal Department
Chief Executive Officer / Managing Director
Operational Risk Director / Manager
Chief Risk Officer
Risk Director / Manager
Insurance Director / Manager
Q5.1 - Respondent primary position.
A representative sample of European companies
Sample - 1st Part
Less than 5 years
12%
Between 5 and
10 years
25%
More than
10 years
62%
Q5.1 Quater – Respondent relevant professional
experience in risk management and/or insurance.
Basis: 634
18. In collaboration
with:
Yes
54%
No
46%
Q5.1 Ter - Do you have a specific qualification in risk
and/or insurance management ?
A representative sample of European companies
Sample - 1st Part
Q5.2 - Where is your specific qualification in Risk Management or
Insurance from ? (Multiple Answer)
19.5%
27.9%
35.8%
38.7%
Business School
A national risk management association
which is a member of FERMA
University
Professional Institute – please specify the
name of the organisation awarding the
qualification and the level of the
qualification :
Basis: 344Basis: 634
19. In collaboration
with:
Yes
39%
No
61%
Q5.6 - Is your qualification subject to
Continuous Professional Development (CPD)?
Q5.7 - Do you plan to apply for Ferma Certification (Rimap)?
A representative sample of European companies
Sample - 1st Part
Yes
33%
No
67%
Basis: 634
20. In collaboration
with:
A representative sample of European companies
Sample - 1st Part
Basis: 634
7.1%
0.3%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.9%
0.9%
1.9%
2.4%
2.4%
2.5%
2.8%
3.3%
3.5%
3.6%
3.6%
3.8%
4.4%
4.7%
5.8%
5.8%
6.5%
7.1%
9.3%
10.9%
16.2%
Other, please specify
PARIMA, Asia Pacific
ASPAR CZ, Czech Republic
MARM, Malta
SI.RISK, Slovenia
APOGERIS, Portugal
BRIMA, Bulgaria
NORIMA, Norway
BFV, Germany
POLRISK, Poland
RIMS, United States
IGREA, Spain
FINNRIMA, Finland
AGERS, Spain
RUSRISK, Russia
SIRM, Switzerland
ERMA, Turkey
SWERMA, Sweden
DVS, Germany
ALRIM, Luxembourg
BELRIM, Belgium
NARIM, Netherlands
DARIM, Denmark
ANRA, Italy
AIRMIC, UK
AMRAE, France
Q5.3 - Are you or your organization a member of one of the following Risk Management associations?
(Multiple Answer)
21. In collaboration
with:
52.0% 51.4%
29.4%
16.7%
18.7%
31.9%
Risk Management Insurance
Up to 3
Between 4 to 10
More than 10
Q6.1 - Full time equivalent people working for Risk Management or Insurance
Risk Management Function - 1st Part
Filter on Q3.3
Basis: 562 Basis: 72
22. In collaboration
with:
Risk Management Function - 1st Part
Q7 - Does your organization use (own or rent) a
captive ?
Yes
34%
No
66%
29.4%
44.4%
61.2%
37.9%
9.3%
17.8%
Traditional Lines of Cover Non-traditional Lines of
Cover
More important Identical Less important
Q7.1 - Involvement of the captive in over the next 2
years.
Basis: 634
Basis: 214
Q7.2 - Strategy in regards to risks which are difficult
to place on the insurance market
6.0%
17.4%
42.4%
34.3%
Create a captive insurance
/ re-insurance company
Use alternative risk transfer
vehicles (Rent-a-captives,
protected cell companies,…
Risk retention
Lobby the insurance
market to develop more
innovative solutions
Basis: 420
23. In collaboration
with:
A representative sample of European companies
Risk Management Function - 1st Part
Basis: 634
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
Total Insurance premium Outside services TOTAL INSURANCE TOTAL RISK TOTAL COST OF RISK 2015
Q8x2W2016 - Total Cost of Risk in 2015 (in Euros).
25. In collaboration
with:
2.2%
3.5%
3.5%
4.9%
4.9%
5.0%
5.8%
6.9%
10.3%
10.7%
15.9%
26.3%
Chief Operating Officer
General / Company Secretary
Head of Internal Audit
Audit Committee
Head of Treasury
Chief Risk Officer
General Counsel / Head of Legal Department
Risk Committee
President / Chairman
Board of Directors / Supervisory Board
Chief Executive Officer / Managing Director
Chief Financial Officer
Risk Management report - 1st Part
Basis: 634Q9.1 - To whom does your organization’s Head of Risk Management report?
26. In collaboration
with:
Insurance report - 1st Part
Q9.2 - To whom does your organization’s Head of Insurance report?
0.5%
1.3%
2.1%
2.1%
4.3%
6.0%
7.6%
8.8%
9.3%
10.7%
12.0%
35.5%
Head of Internal Audit
Audit Committee
Chief Operating Officer
Risk Committee
General / Company Secretary
Chief Risk Officer
Board of Directors / Supervisory Board
President / Chairman
General Counsel / Head of Legal Department
Head of Treasury
Chief Executive Officer / Managing Director
Chief Financial Officer
Basis: 634
27. In collaboration
with:
Risk management/insurance leader
responsibility - 1st Part
Q10A - In your organization, which of the following activities are the responsibility of the risk management or insurance leader
– and are they already embedded or planned?
RM’s or IM’s Responsibility - Yes
31.7%
40.9%
47.5%
53.9%
61.8%
62.9%
65.5%
67.7%
68.0%
73.5%
74.8%
Analysis of capital projects and delivering business plans
Definition of compliance (Management, Framework, embedding and assurance)
Design and implementation of risk financing strategy and association solutions
Development and embedding of Business Continuity Management / Emergency
Management / Crisis Management / Incident response programes and solutions
Alignment and integration of risk management as part of business strategy
Define a risk appetite strategy / statement
Assistance to other functional areas in contract negotiation, project management,
acquisitions and investments
Development and implementation of Risk Culture across the organization
Design and implementation of risk controls/prevention
Insurance management and claims handling / insurable loss prevention
Development of map of risks: risk identification, analysis, evaluation, prioritization and
reporting
Basis: 634
104 Respondents skipped the
question (16,4%)– not mandatory-
28. In collaboration
with:
Risk management/insurance leader
responsibility - 1st Part
Q10B - In your organization, which of the following activities are the responsibility of the risk
management or insurance leader – and are they already embedded or planned?
51.1%
66.2%
49.1%
58.5%
71.8%
58.0%
34.5%
43.5%
50.8%
45.6%
42.0%
14.7%
10.3%
16.6%
8.4%
4.7%
14.0%
9.3%
10.4%
18.0%
21.5%
13.1%
17.5%
7.1%
18.0%
16.7%
7.1%
11.5%
39.7%
29.7%
14.8%
16.6%
28.5%
16.4%
16.4%
16.4%
16.4%
16.4%
16.4%
16.4%
16.4%
16.4%
16.4%
16.4%
Define a risk appetite strategy / statement
Development of map of risks: risk identification, analysis, evaluation,…
Alignment and integration of risk management as part of business…
Assistance to other functional areas in contract negotiation, project…
Insurance management and claims handling / insurable loss prevention
Design and implementation of risk controls/prevention
Analysis of capital projects and delivering business plans
Design and implementation of risk financing strategy and association…
Development and implementation of Risk Culture across the…
Development and embedding of Business Continuity Management /…
Definition of compliance (Management, Framework, embedding and…
Embedded Planned for 2015/16 Not planned Skip question
Basis: 634
104 Respondents skipped the question
(16,4%)– not mandatory-
30. In collaboration
with:
No
relationship
37.5%
Regular, close
collaboration
37.9%
Risk mgr's own
responsibility
11.8%
Not applicable
12.8%
Strategic planning business
No
relationship
18.5%
Regular, close
collaboration
58.0%
Risk mgr's
own
responsibility
15.5%
Not
applicable
8.0%
Ethics / Compliance / Legal
Risk management/insurance leader
interactions - 1st Part
Q12.1 - Please tell us the relation of your organization’s risk management / insurance
function with other areas / issues. (1/6) Basis: 634
31. In collaboration
with:
Risk management/insurance leader
interactions - 1st Part
Q12.1 - Please tell us the relation of your organization’s risk management / insurance
function with other areas / issues. (2/6)
No
relationship
39.0%
Regular,
close
collaboration
33.9%
Risk mgr's own
responsibility
10.6%
Not
applicable
16.6%
Corporate Social Responsibility
Sustainability / Sustainable
Development No
relationship
10.6%
Regular, close
collaboration
48.4%
Risk mgr's own
responsibility 30.8%
Not
applicable
10.3%
Business Continuity / Crisis Management
Basis: 634
32. In collaboration
with:
Risk management/insurance
leader interactions - 1st Part
Q12.1 - Please tell us the relation of your organization’s risk management / insurance
function with other areas / issues. (3/6)
No relationship
18.1%
Regular,
close
collaboratio
n 58.8%
Risk mgr's own
responsibility
13.7%
Not
applicable
9.3%
Internal Control / Internal Audit
No
relationship
37.5%
Regular,
close
collaboratio
n 40.7%
Risk mgr's own
responsibility 9.6%
Not
applicable
12.1%
IT- for major projects
Basis: 634
33. In collaboration
with:
Risk management/insurance leader
interactions - 1st Part
Q12.1 - Please tell us the relation of your organization’s risk management / insurance
function with other areas / issues. (4/6)
No
relationship
32.2%
Regular,
close
collaboration
42.3%
Risk mgr's own
responsibility
10.6%
Not
applicable
15.0%
Investments and investors relations
No
relationship
26.3%
Regular, close
collaboration
45.0%
Risk mgr's own
responsibility
9.8%
Not
applicable
18.9%
Mergers & Acquisitions – for acquisitions
/ transfers decisions
Basis: 634
34. In collaboration
with:
Risk management/insurance leader
interactions - 1st Part
Q12.1 - Please tell us the relation of your organization’s risk management / insurance
function with other areas / issues. (5/6)
No
relationship
31.5%
Regular,
close
collaboratio
n 45.7%
Risk mgr's own
responsibility 7.6%
Not
applicable
15.1%
Sourcing / Procurementted
No
relationship
25.4%
Regular, close
collaboration
47.2%
Risk mgr's own
responsibility
7.6%
Not applicable 19.9%
Manufacturing / Logistics / Distribution /
Quality
Basis: 634
35. In collaboration
with:
Risk management/insurance leader
interactions - 1st Part
Q12.1 - Please tell us the relation of your organization’s risk management / insurance
function with other areas / issues. (6/6)
No relationship
7.3%
Regular, close
collaboration 35.0%
Risk mgr's own
responsibility
49.5%
Not applicable 8.2%
Insurance Managementted
No
relationship
35.5%
Regular,
close
collaboration
44.2%
Risk mgr's own
responsibility 7.6%
Not
applicable
12.8%
HR - Employee Benefitsted
Basis: 634
36. In collaboration
with:
Risk management/insurance
Organization - 1st Part
Q13 - Which of the following organization forms most closely describes that of your
company ?
11.0%
23.8%
33.9%
7.7% 7.7%
15.8%
All functions
together in a
single
department
All functions
separate in four
different
departments
Risk and
Insurance
Management
together
Risk
Management and
Internal Control
together
Internal Audit
separate
Insurance
Management
separate
Basis: 634
37. In collaboration
with:
Risk management/insurance
Organization - 1st Part
Q14 - To what extent does your organization prioritize risks by mapping them ?
25.9%
49.1%
3.5%
10.9% 10.7%
On a global
corporate level only
(strategic, financial
and operational)
From corporate level
down to divisions
and business units
Only for certain
business units
Only for certain
categories of risks
No such approach
has been put in
place yet
Basis: 634
38. In collaboration
with:
Risk management/insurance
Organization - 1st Part
Q16 - Do you use IT / GRC (Governance, Risk and Compliance) tools to manage the
following Risk Management / insurance activities? (YES) Basis: 634
55.4%
52.1%
34.1%
45.6%
35.2%
44.6%
56.6%
49.2%
Risk mapping
Risk registers
Scenario Analysis
Risk quantification
Risk appetite and tolerance
Claims analysis
Risk reporting / Risk dashboards
Monitoring of risk mitigation actions / controls
39. In collaboration
with:
Part 2 : EUROPEAN INSIGHTS ON RISK
MANAGEMENT
634 634
406
PART 1 - RISK MANAGEMENT
PROFESSION AND PRACTICES IN
EUROPE
PART 2 - EUROPEAN INSIGHTS ON
RISK MANAGEMENT
PART 3 - Insurance Management
The number of Long Completes + Short Completes
40. In collaboration
with:
Top 10 risks and level of
mitigation - 2nd Part
Q17.1&2 - In terms of impact –
What are the top ten risks that threaten the successful achievement of your organization’s
strategic objectives? (Multiple Answer, list of 33 items)
38.2%
40.2%
45.4%
46.5%
48.3%
48.6%
55.5%
59.5%
60.4%
63.4%
Interest rate & Foreign exchange
IT systems and data centers
Market strategy, clients
Cyber-attack / data privacy
Reputation and brand
Competition
Noncompliance with regulation and legislation
Political, country instability (crisis, war,
regulatory changes)
Business continuity disruption
Economic growth/slowdown
Basis: 634
41. In collaboration
with:
Top 10 risks and level of mitigation -
2nd Part
Q17.3&4 - In terms of likelihood –
What are the top ten risks that threaten the successful achievement of your organization’s
strategic objectives? (Multiple Answer, list of 33 items)
39.9%
41.6%
42.6%
46.1%
47.5%
49.4%
55.8%
56.5%
57.7%
63.2%
Strategic project failures
Interest rate & Foreign exchange
IT systems and data centers
Cyber-attack / data privacy
Market strategy, clients
Noncompliance with regulation and legislation
Competition
Political, country instability (crisis, war, regulatory
changes)
Business continuity disruption
Economic growth/slowdown
Basis: 634
42. In collaboration
with:
Top 10 risks and level of
mitigation - 2nd Part
Q19.1 - Please assess the current level of mitigation for the areas risks you have previously identified:
Mitigation level
36.0%
32.5%
28.5%
30.8%
35.6%
23.4%
38.6%
12.2%
36.3%
13.9%
45.0%
52.9%
51.4%
47.1%
42.5%
54.9%
40.3%
36.1%
47.5%
45.0%
19.0%
14.5%
20.1%
22.0%
21.9%
21.8%
21.0%
51.7%
16.2%
41.0%
Interest rate & Foreign exchange
IT systems and data centers
Market strategy, clients
Cyber-attack / data privacy
Reputation and brand
Competition
Noncompliance with regulation and legislation
Political, country instability (crisis, war, regulatory…
Business continuity disruption
Economic growth/slowdown
High Mid Low
Basis: 402
Basis: 383
Basis: 377
Basis: 352
Basis: 308
Basis: 306
Basis: 295
Basis: 288
Basis: 255
Basis: 242
43. In collaboration
with:
Top 10 risks and level of
mitigation - 2nd Part
Q19.2 - Please assess the current level of mitigation for the areas risks you have previously identified:
Mitigation strategy
41.3%
60.8%
53.8%
59.7%
56.5%
49.0%
64.2%
23.6%
49.9%
26.9%
33.5%
17.6%
7.3%
19.3%
5.6%
2.9%
5.4%
10.6%
33.7%
3.7%
25.2%
21.6%
38.9%
21.0%
37.9%
48.1%
30.4%
65.8%
16.4%
69.4%
Interest rate & Foreign exchange
IT systems and data centers
Market strategy, clients
Cyber-attack / data privacy
Reputation and brand
Competition
Noncompliance with regulation and legislation
Political, country instability (crisis, war, regulatory…
Business continuity disruption
Economic growth/slowdown
Reduction Transfer Accepted
Basis: 402
Basis: 383
Basis: 377
Basis: 352
Basis: 308
Basis: 306
Basis: 295
Basis: 288
Basis: 255
Basis: 242
45. In collaboration
with:
FERMA priorities at EU level - 2nd Part
Q20NEW - Among the following current regulatory matters, what should be the first
3 priorities for FERMA at EU level?
Basis: 581
28.9%
32.9%
32.9%
41.5%
52.2%
54.7%
57.0%
Enforcement of Solvency 2 and impacts for
captives
The possibility of an EU-wide mandatory
financial security (bonds, letter of credit,…
A future EU regulation on the European cyber
insurance market
Standardisation of cybersecurity norms
Risks connected to the increased reporting
and transparency requirements (reputation,…
Data Protection Regulation implementation
Give a legal basis to the Risk Manager
profession
Optional for non-EU
organisations
46. In collaboration
with:
PART 3: EUROPEAN INSIGHTS ON
RISK MANAGEMENT
634 634
406
PART 1 - RISK MANAGEMENT
PROFESSION AND PRACTICES IN
EUROPE
PART 2 - EUROPEAN INSIGHTS ON
RISK MANAGEMENT
PART 3 - Insurance Management
The number of Long Completes - Part 3
47. In collaboration
with:
Changes of Insurance Program - 3rd Part
Q30 - Which of the following changes to your insurance program will you consider as a
result of the current financial and economic climate ? (Multiple Answer)
9.6%
24.1%
27.3%
30.5%
32.8%
42.9%
53.7%
Purchase of credit insurance
Implementation or further use of captive facilities
Selection of more financially robust insurers
Acceleration of claims settlement process
Insurance buying pattern
Negotiate long-term agreement or roll-over
Strengthen loss prevention activity
Basis: 406
48. In collaboration
with:
Changes of Insurance Program -
3rd Part
Q30.1 - Could you please define for each item below if it increases/decreases or stay identical?
Insurance
buying pattern:
33%
48.9% 45.9%
55.6%
11.3%
10.5%
3.8%
39.8% 43.6% 40.6%
Retention level Purchased limit Lines of cover
Identical
Decrease
Increase
Basis: 133
49. In collaboration
with:
Types of insurance - 3rd Part
Q31 - What overall limit does your organization benefit from per annual aggregate, independent of
sublimits, for the following types of insurance?
Basis: 406
26.8%
25.9%
38.9%
37.4%
43.1%
25.1%
17.5%
27.3%
22.2%
27.1%
14.0%
16.3%
6.7%
9.9%
21.4%
20.4%
20.0%
5.7%
11.1%
3.0%
22.7%
18.0%
16.3%
6.7%
4.2%
6.4%
1.7%
45.3%
6.4%
15.3%
7.4%
38.7%
23.2%
63.5%
4.7%
Public Liability
Product Liability
Directors' & Officers' Liability
Gradual Environmental impairment…
Errors & Omissions / Professional Liability
Cyber risk coverage
Property (including business interruption)
<50M EUR 50 – 100M EUR 101 –300M EUR >300M EUR No coverage
50. In collaboration
with:
Types of insurance - 3rd Part
Q32 - How do you select your purchased limit per types of insurance ? (Multiple Answer)
74.1%
54.9%
47.3%
23.2% 21.4% 20.0%
4.4%
Basis: 406
51. In collaboration
with:
Types of insurance - 3rd Part
Q33 - In your opinion, what is commonly the most efficient international insurance
program for the following risks?
17% 10%
26%
4%
13% 14%
5% 10% 11% 8%
32%
14%
44%
11%
30% 34%
8%
36% 33% 39%
20%
12%
16%
17%
22% 19%
19%
35% 39% 40%
8%
12%
3%
35%
11% 7%
53%
3% 7% 3%23%
51%
11%
33% 25% 25%
16% 16% 10% 11% No opinion / don't know
Local standalone policies
only
Master policy & local policies
limited to selected countries
Master policy and local
policies in each country
where the insured is present
Basis: 406
52. In collaboration
with:
Types of insurance - 3rd Part
Q34 - What is your main reason for implementing local standalone policies in
certain countries ?
3.9%
12.8%
15.5%
4.9%
2.0%
54.4%
6.4%
Cost
implications
Service
proximity (of
insurers,
brokers, and
third parties)
Local risk
profile
(influenced by
level of
protection,
claims history
etc.)
Political and
economic
background of
the country
Pressure of
local entity to
remain out of
the program
Compliance to
local regulation
Other
Basis: 406
53. In collaboration
with:
Types of insurance - 3rd Part
Q36 - On average, at last renewal when were your policy documents issued in relation to
the policy inception date for …?
Basis: 406
Before inception
date
18%
Within 1
month of
inception
date
33%
Within 3
months of
inception
date
34%
Over 3 months of
inception date
15%
Master policy
Before inception date
15%
Within 1 month of
inception date
25%
Within 3
months of
inception
date
44%
Over 3 months of
inception date
16%
Local policy issuing
54. In collaboration
with:
Loss control services and claims
handling - 3rd Part
Q37A - What are the 3 main areas of improvement related to loss control services and claims handling? (Multiple Answer)
36.9%
25.9%
26.1%
11.1%
11.6%
9.4%
35.5%
18.2%
38.7%
13.5%
29.3%
20.7%
Policy wording tests
Set-up of claims handling procedure
Building relationships between insured, insurers and brokers
Pre-selection of lawyers and adjusters
Crisis management simulations
Return phone calls within 24 hours
Coordination between teams involved (in house, broker,…
Adequate and realistic reserve and evolution of reserve
Confirmation of position on coverage as quickly as reasonably…
30 days advanced payment once coverage is confirmed
Learnt lessons analysis
Automatic access to worldwide claims reporting
For your service providers (brokers, insurers, third parties) Basis: 406
55. In collaboration
with:
Loss control services and
claims handling - 3rd Part
Q37B - What are the 3 main areas of improvement related to loss control services and claims handling? (Multiple
Answer)
Within your own organization
20.2%
36.2%
22.7%
12.1%
45.6%
4.7%
29.8%
7.4%
11.1%
4.7%
53.9%
12.8%
Policy wording tests
Set-up of claims handling procedure
Building relationships between insured, insurers and…
Pre-selection of lawyers and adjusters
Crisis management simulations
Return phone calls within 24 hours
Coordination between teams involved (in house, broker,…
Adequate and realistic reserve and evolution of reserve
Confirmation of position on coverage as quickly as…
30 days advanced payment once coverage is confirmed
Learnt lessons analysis
Automatic access to worldwide claims reporting
Basis: 406
56. In collaboration
with:
Loss control services alongside
insurance policies - 3rd Part
Q37A.bis. What are the main areas of improvement related to loss control
services alongside insurance policies?
For your service providers (brokers, insurers, third parties) - YES
60.3%
61.1%
65.5%
48.0%
35.0%
Property
Liability (public,
products)
Cyber
D&O
Motor
Basis: 406
57. In collaboration
with:
Loss control services alongside
insurance policies - 3rd Part
Q37B.bis. What are the main areas of improvement related to loss control services
alongside insurance policies?
Within your own organization - Yes
Basis: 406
57.6%
66.0%
68.2%
46.1%
40.6%
Property
Liability (public, products)
Cyber
D&O
Motor
58. In collaboration
with:
Use(s) of claims - 3rd Part
Q38 - Please select among following items the 3 most significant use(s) of claims
related data. (Multiple Answer)
7.1%
17.0%
23.2%
27.8%
42.6%
44.6%
45.1%
66.3%
I do not conduct risk and insurance data analysis
Improve benchmarking abilities
Provide rationale for the risk management budget
Allow you to conduct captive optimization
Understand the company's risk appetite and tolerance
Assess the cost of uninsured risks
Allow you to conduct insurance program limit optimization
Allow you to conduct insurance program retention
optimization
Basis: 406
59. In collaboration
with:
Areas of improvement - 3rd Part
Q39A - What are the top 2 areas of improvement you expect from a risk and
insurance management IT platform / portal? (Multiple Answer)
Filter on Q16
Basis: 306
25.5%
19.6%
39.5%
23.2%
40.2%
21.2%
16.0%
24/7 access
Daily update of activity & documents
Claims management tools
Interactivity
Tailor-made and user-friendly reporting…
Technical information/ advice/ best…
Management schedules / planning
In-house IT tool
60. In collaboration
with:
Areas of improvement - 3rd Part
Q39A - What are the top 2 areas of improvement you expect from a risk and insurance
management IT platform / portal? (Multiple Answer)
External IT solution (broker or insurer-provided) Basis: 306
Filter on Q16
27.1%
21.9%
34.0%
28.8%
37.6%
27.5%
7.8%
24/7 access
Daily update of activity & documents
Claims management tools
Interactivity
Tailor-made and user-friendly…
Technical information/ advice/ best…
Management schedules / planning