Journal of Risk Research

Fraser, Jocelyn; Mello, Livia; Kunz, Nadja C.

doi: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2208121pmid: N/A

Abstract Infrastructure projects increasingly encounter delays due to non-technical risks (NTR), those risks arising from interactions between business and external stakeholders with the potential to create future negative impacts on society and the environment. One sector where NTR is having a significant adverse impact is the global mining sector, where industry leaders rank NTRs as the leading cause of business risk. We investigate how NTRs are assessed during project pre-feasibility using semi-structured interviews with 20 respondents from major mining companies. We find four main factors contribute to the problem of NTR assessment: there is lack of clarity about what constitutes a NTR; there are different interpretations of how NTR is defined and evaluated; there are disciplinary silos within project teams that impede a holistic assessment of risk; and there is conflation between risk and root cause. These factors contribute to striking differences in perceptions of non-technical risks between professionals in project management versus their sustainability colleagues. A four step process is proposed to improve non-technical risk assessment, align project and sustainability professionals, and identify opportunities for mitigation measures. This work seeks to improve NTR management within mining, a sector that is under-represented in existing literature, by adding empirical research examining how project teams identify and assess non-technical risk and contributes to theory at the nexus of project management and sustainability.

Glette-Iversen, Ingrid; Seif, Azadeh; Aven, Terje

doi: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2208128pmid: N/A

Abstract To handle the risks related to coronavirus and the COVID-19 disease, governments worldwide have adopted different policies and strategies. These policies and strategies build on various approaches and methods to assess and convey the risks. This paper looks more closely into these approaches and methods. We review and discuss practices in four countries (Norway, the UK, the US and Sweden), focusing on the approaches, methods and models used to assess and describe the risks related to COVID-19. The main aims are to present some current thinking, reveal differences and suggest areas for improvement. The paper concludes that current practices can be enhanced by incorporating ideas and approaches from contemporary risk science, particularly in relation to how to treat uncertainties and reflect degrees of knowledge.

Yuan, Meng; Yang, Yan; Yi, Hongtao

doi: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2208134pmid: N/A

Abstract Understanding public debates on environmental problems is critical for enhancing the effectiveness and social acceptance of environmental policies. This article aims to understand how factual environmental condition and culture influence the perceived severity of environmental problems in China. Relying on Cultural Theory and Cultural Cognitive Theory, we measure grid with an egalitarianism-hierarchy scale and group with an individualism–communitarianism scale. We use a large scale nationwide representative survey data——the Chinese General Social Survey——to identify Chinese political subcultures and find that environmental condition alone rarely play a role in Chinese environmental perceptions, and that as hypothesized, moving from egalitarianism to hierarchy, people perceive six of eight environmental problems to be less severe, whereas moving from individualism to communitarianism, people perceive five of eight environmental problems to be more severe. Meanwhile, the effect of environmental condition on the relationship between cultural worldview and perceived severity is very limited. This study has implications for environmental communication.

Horvey, Sylvester Senyo; Odei-Mensah, Jones

doi: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2208138pmid: N/A

Abstract Global economic crises and complexities in the business environment have flawed the traditional risk management system. These have provided lessons to business leaders and enhanced the popularity of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). ERM is the holistic approach to managing the overall risks of an organisation to achieve its strategic goals. Despite its relevance, the question about the appropriate measurement for ERM and the performance of ERM remains. This study provides a comprehensive and systematic literature review on the measurement and performance of ERM. Google Scholar was the primary search tool for ERM literature from 2001 to 2020, and papers listed in SCImago journal ranking were discussed. According to the review, there is no specific approach to measuring ERM; hence, scholars rely on different proxies. Most studies rely on secondary sources, particularly the Chief Risk Officer’s appointment as a simple ERM proxy. This approach is widely adopted in the literature due to the difficulty in assessing ERM information. This paper recommends that further studies on the empirical measurement of ERM should rely on both primary and secondary data as they complement each other. This will provide more insight and allow more factors to be considered for a robust ERM measurement. In terms of performance, the ERM literature reveals mixed findings; however, there is enough evidence to support the assertion that ERM enhances firm profitability and value. Also, an advanced level of ERM implementation significantly improves firm performance. We suggest that scholars consider examining the ERM-performance relationship in emerging economies, as most of these studies centred on the US and European economies. In addition, future studies should consider investigating the non-linear relationship and how moderating factors affect the ERM-performance relationship. Firms must also strengthen their ERM system, as a higher level of ERM implementation improves performance.

Dunn Cavelty, Myriam; Eriksen, Christine; Scharte, Benjamin

doi: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2208146pmid: N/A

Abstract How can a focus on socio-technical vulnerability and uncertainty make cyber security more resilient? In this article, we provide a conceptual discussion of how to increase cyber resilience. First, we show how cyber security and resilience thinking co-evolved through their connection to critical infrastructures, and how the ensuing dominant technical focus inevitably always falls short due to the diverse societal values that underpin their critical social functions. We argue that a sole focus on aggregate systems neglects the important differences in how cyber threats are experienced and dealt with by individuals. Second, we draw on insights from social resilience and disaster management literature to establish a better link between individuals and cyber systems. We focus on two key aspects of cyber security that highlight its social nature: vulnerability and uncertainty. Instead of thinking of cyber security as a “technical problem + humans,” we suggest cyber security should be conceptualized as a “social problem + technology.” We conclude by highlighting three ways forward for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners: interdisciplinary research, public debate about a set of normative questions, and the need for an uncertainty discourse in politics and policymaking.

Johnson, Branden B.; Mayorga, Marcus; Kim, Byungdoo

doi: 10.1080/13669877.2023.2208149pmid: N/A

Abstract Identifying and understanding risk perceptions—“how bad are the harms” to humans or to what they value that people see as potentially or actually arising from entities or events—has been critical for risk analysis, both for its own sake, and for expected associations between risk perceptions and subsequent outcomes, such as risky or protective behavior, or support for hazard management policies. Cross-sectional surveys have been the dominant method for identifying and understanding risk perceptions, yielding valuable data. However, cross-sectional surveys are unable to probe the dynamics of risk perceptions over time, which is critical to do while living in a dynamically hazardous world and to build causal understandings. Building upon earlier longitudinal panel studies of Americans’ Ebola and Zika risk perceptions using multi-level modeling to assess temporal changes in these views and inter-individual factors affecting them, we examined patterns in Americans’ COVID-19 risk perceptions in six waves across 14 months. The findings suggest that, in general, risk perceptions increased from February 2020 to April 2021, but with varying trends across different risk perception measures (personal, collective, affective, affect, severity, and duration). Factors in baseline risk perceptions (Wave 1) and inter-individual differences across waves differed even more: baseline ratings were associated with how immediate the threat is (temporal distance) and how likely the threat would affect people like oneself (social distance), and following the United States news about the pandemic. Inter-individual trend differences were shaped most by temporal distance, whether local coronavirus infections were accelerating their upward trend, and subjective knowledge about viral transmission. Associations of subjective knowledge and risk trend with risk perceptions could change signs (e.g. from positive to negative) over time. These findings hold theoretical implications for risk perception dynamics and taxonomies, and research design implications for studying risk perception dynamics and their comparison across hazards.