Abstract
The psychological dimension of managing risk is huge. Those with an understanding of the underlying psychology and the skills to recognize its manifestation in practice, have the opportunity to address its implications in a systematic fashion. Those without the understanding and the skills are destined to be more hit and miss in their approach to managing risk.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See John Coates (2012), The Hour between Dog and Wolf: How Risk Taking Transforms Us, Body, and Mind (New York: Penguin).
The consensus among climate scientists about global warming contrasts with the lack of consensus about social policy, at what rate to discount future outcomes, and how to assess the probabilities associated with new technologies that will counter greenhouse gas emissions. See Robert Pindyck (2013). “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell U’s?” Journal of Economic Literature, 51(3), 860–872;
and Richard Tol (2013), “Targets for Global Climate Policy: An Overview.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 37 (5), 911–928. The moral dimension of the climate change debate took on a new complexion with the publication of Pope Francis’s encyclical on the issue: see Pope Francis (2015). Laudato Si’: On Care of Our Common Home.” Encyclical Letter, Vatican: Vatican Press. The encyclical only briefly touches on the role played by human population growth, which is controversial in light of Church doctrine concerning that topic. Indeed, concerns about population growth that were expressed during the second half of the twentieth century turned out to be much exaggerated. See Andrew Revkin (2015), “The Population Bomb, Then and Now,” New York Times, June 1. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/the-population-bomb-then-and-now/.
See the 2004 report by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), 2004. Enterprise Risk Management Integrated Framework. In May 2013, COSO released an updated version of its Internal Control-Integrated Framework. See the COSO of the Treadway Commission (2013), Internal Control-Integrated Framework. For a discussion of the update, see J. Stephen McNally (2013), “The 2013 COSO Framework & SOX Compliance,” Strategic Finance, June, 1–8. For references that cover enterprise risk management from a variety of perspectives, see the following: John Fraser and Betty Simkins, eds. (2010), Enterprise Risk Management: Today’s leading Research and Best Practices for Tomorrow’s Executives (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley);
John Fraser, Betty Simkins, and Kristina Narvaez, eds. (2014), Implementing Enterprise Risk Management: Case Studies and Best Practices, Robert W. Kolb Series. Edited by (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley).
Bob Hirth (2015), “COSO 2013: What Happened?” in COSO lessons learned: The Evolution of Controls Assurance, Webinar by Blackline, FEI, August 11.
Copyright information
© 2016 Hersh Shefrin
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shefrin, H. (2016). Introduction. In: Behavioral Risk Management. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137445629_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137445629_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-55420-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-44562-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)