Risk
Blindness – a Roadblock to Sustainability
Introduction
If you want senior management
to pay attention give them something that challenges their focus - and
understand that their focus is on the growth and sustainability of their
business; not necessarily on compliance issues.
It is on business survivability – will we be in business tomorrow given
the issues that we face today? What is
more important to your organization’s compliance with the myriad of regulations
faced or where your competition will be coming from in the next five years?
Some definitions will help to
form the basis for why we face a roadblock to sustainability and the potential crisis
that leadership faces:
Risk Blindness: Looking
at the parts not the whole, resulting in less precise measurement of risks. This includes not recognizing risk,
discounting risk and the influence of bias that precludes acknowledging risk.
Situational Compliance: Complying with
regulatory standards, but not addressing the impact of risks.
Risk
Velocity: how quickly one goes from the onset of the
risk to the impact of the risk. Understand
the probability of loss, adjusted for the severity of its impact, and you have
a sure-fire method for measuring risk. "Risk
Velocity" how quickly risks create loss events think about the concept is
in terms of "time to impact" a military phrase.
Risk Parity: is
an approach that focuses on the allocation of risk, usually defined by
exposure, velocity and volatility rather than allocation of assets to the risk. The risk parity approach asserts that when
asset allocations are adjusted (leveraged or deleveraged) to the same risk
level, risk parity is created resulting in more resistance to discontinuity
events. The principles of risk parity
will be applied differently according to the risk appetite, goals and
objectives of the organization and can yield different results for each
organization over time.
Transparent Vulnerabilities: Transparent
vulnerabilities are so obvious that they are easily overlooked; they are the
ones we:
q see
when they are pointed out;
q recognize
when we are made aware of them;
q often
fail to acknowledge — leading to potentially significant consequences when the
vulnerability is realized.
Examples of “transparent
vulnerabilities” include:
q
Lack
of depth in skill-sets within an organization. This can lead to the realization of hidden
chokepoints that create failure points within the business and/or governmental
system.
q
Planning
assumptions that are not validated. Work-at-home,
for example, is predicated on the assumption that the infrastructure is there
to support work-at-home and often overlooks the fact that everyone is
developing a work-at-home strategy.
q
Human
reactions affecting decision-making. Under
stressful conditions, humans react differently, which affects decision-making.
Sustainability: the ability to add value to
stakeholders today in such a way that one would also in the future add value to
stakeholders, continuing relevance.
The thinking behind this
definition is that sustainability requires reconciling current needs with
future needs. This ties in with the particular competence of business leaders
to design value creation to stakeholders in a systemic and evolving way.
The conflict between compliance and profitability can create
upheaval in an organization, leading to reactive responses and diversion of
attention instead of focusing on achieving the goals and objectives of the
organization. We can see the effect of
this with organizations that are in compliance with the regulations for a given
area, i.e., diesel fuel formulated for African standards that is out of
compliance with European Union Standards, being manufactured in Europe and
shipped to Africa. Clearly compliance
has been achieved, albeit selectively.
However, the question remains to what extent compliance? Does compliance
cover the whole range of issues? Probably not.
Our colleague Horst Simon writes in a recent LinkedIn post,
entitled: “Clarity from Chaos: Money, Change
& Risk”
published 19 January 2017:
“Regulations, Cyber Crime, “The drop
in the oil price” and Global Climate Change—paranoia in a world that is still
just a spinning ball with an increasing population; a place where businesses
exist today and are gone or “acquired” by tomorrow evening. This is the world
of disruption in which risk managers must advise and support business managers
to survive and build competitive advantage over peers and over future
competitors that do not even exist in the marketplace today. Getting clarity
from chaos is the key to success in this new world.”
How does one get “clarity” when we are faced with risk blindness? How can we assess the risks created by selective
compliance? Is this an area for
leadership focus? Is this a threat that risk
management should consider? How does one
ensure that the organization is getting valid information and that it can
respond to compliance requirements when compliance requirements may not be
uniform?
Leadership
Challenge
How does one lead in times of uncertainty? Let us first define
“leadership”, as follows: the ability to achieve results through involving
other people. While the literature distinguishes a range of leadership models,
the bottom line is this: it involves engaging people and it does that with an
eye on intended results.
Throughout the diversity in leadership models, certain
characteristics of leaders are usually mentioned. Those characteristics
contribute to the bottom line given above, in that they explain how leaders
engage others towards results. One
characteristic is that leaders play a role in designing strategy and initiating
change. An important part of that is formulating a vision. Typically the leader
does this in communicating with others in the company, in reading market
conditions, in responding to new challenges in markets and technologies
(depending on the followed leadership style, he or she relies on a trusted
circle, or engages in dialogues within a much wider circle). Gathering
information for a vision is typically the initial phase of a change process, as
the information requires a response once the picture is complete. An effective
leader knows how to formulate the vision in such a way that others are both
inspired in it and encouraged by it.
Related to the role of formulating the vision is that of being a role
model. One could say that a change process is only a success if and when it
leads to behaviors that stakeholders, and especially clients, appreciate, in
the sense that more and better business is done. What such behavior looks like
is up to the leader to demonstrate and teach.
Essential to leadership is the attention paid to relationships and
the communication-processes that allow relationships to be mobilized.
Obviously, this is not the same for all leadership styles, as servant
leadership is much more characterized by it than authoritarian leadership, but
it plays some role in all kinds of leadership.
A characteristic that is also typically found in all styles of
leadership is the ability to deal with risk. This may have something to do with
a higher degree of intelligence, allowing the leader to understand risks and
the options for dealing with it better. It also has something to do with
courage or the ability to manage stress.
A recent article in RHR International Executive Insight newsletter
states:
“In uncertain times, it is
essential to bridge the conceptual difference between “leading” and
“managing.” Organizations need leaders
to show the way forward and instill a sense of energy and inspiration.”
The article cites four key concepts for leading people during
times of uncertainty; Inform, Connect, Guide and Unite.
When faced with the challenge of risk blindness, how does one
achieve compliance that serves to inform, connect, guide and unite? Consider that leaders are often focused on
achieving goals and objectives, that may be short term in nature and carry with
them tremendous pressures to attain them.
The pressure to produce results can often times override close scrutiny
of the risks that are created. This
creates stress; and stress causes people to react in unanticipated ways, often not
realizing the consequences of their actions.
This can lead to a crisis situation that has the potential to mushroom
into negative consequences for the organization.
It is becoming clear that senior management has to pay close
attention to what is being presented in the news, social media, etc. There is a lot at stake; an organization’s
reputation, potential loss of revenue, customers, share price, etc. Senior management needs to incorporate an
intelligence function into the strategy of the organization. An intelligence function can be defined as an
information gathering, analysis and vetting function. Many organizations have Competitive
Intelligence functions that assess competitor information and seek leverage for
the organization’s products or services.
This function needs to be expanded in focus to include a broader
assessment of information that has potential to impact (either positively or
negatively) the organization and its “Value Chain” (Customers, Suppliers,
Vendors, etc.).
Systems
Thinking
The Titanic was warned 4 times by other vessels about dangerous
icebergs. These warnings (information) were
ignored, because the Captain, crew and passengers believed the mighty ship was
unsinkable.
Management of risks is the same as the navigating or the steering
of a ship. When a captain prepares his
seagoing voyage he will endeavor to gather as much information as he can. He needs information about wind speed, wind
direction, tide, strength of currents or weather reports and will use the
latest maritime charts to learn how deep the waters will be on route. Then he will need to know how fast his ship
can sail in rougher waters, whether his cargo could move and destabilize his
vessel, the competency of his crew, etc. In short he will need to use ‘all’ available
information, his experience and knowledge to arrive at the port of destination
safely.
When we fast forward this and use the metaphor of ‘captain’ of
industries, we can observe a difference between leaders in several industrial
and financial sectors and our ships’ master. Captains of Industry do not always gather all
information to steer their organization with. They often select only that
information which confirms their purpose. Such purposes can be; growth, profit,
achieving pre-planned goals or pursuit of success. Information such as potential environmental,
social or economic impact is sometimes not welcomed, because it could interfere
with their pre-set goals. This is a
fundamental cause of risk and results in vulnerability of the whole network
related to the enterprise. By this
comparison, using metaphors, we can easily understand what is happening to our
world and why the World Economic Forum reports on Global Risks. The WEF does not offer a solution, however.
Systems thinking suggests a way out as follows:
To
drive a car, to navigate a tanker, to fly an airplane; these activities can
only be performed with the lowest exposure to risk if ALL information and knowledge is accepted and used. Nature works the same way. It operates with so called information
feedback loops. We observe two types of
information feedback; positive, with an amplifying effect (for example: a
vessel’s speed) and negative, with a dampening effect (for example: ocean
currents). If a vessel needs to arrive
within a certain date at a next port, it cannot just increase speed (positive
feedback) without allowing for opposing ocean currents (negative feedback),
because only by balancing speed with those currents can it sail safely. Therefore, the same principle applies to businesses
and organizations; they can only thrive and prevent risks when they use and
balance all information feedback loops and navigate within natural boundaries
of environmental and social functionality. It was Fritjof Capra who wrote: ‘Sometimes the
situation needs positive feedback of a harmful disturbance, leading to a crisis
and then to the emergence of a new healthier state.’ (in our metaphor: safer
vessels, better communication, improved awareness or caution).
Risks
can be prevented when a captain of industry or any leader understands that
everything is interconnected, interrelated and interdependent. A tanker, a cruise liner or an organization’s
course has to be constantly corrected by a continuous flow of updated
information, like navigating a ship. A
destination cannot be reached without this perception and acceptance. Nature will simply not allow it as the Titanic
drama confirms. Therefore it is not only
Risk Blindness, but also the refusal to see. Because organizations and their leaders are
not always aware of the nature and impact of certain risks, they are not
inclined to want to know more about it.
Part of the risk situation is the threat of overlooking certain
responsibilities. This is often the
result of risk blindness, in the sense that someone does not realize that one or
more of his stakeholders associate him with certain responsibilities and expect
him to honor them. Not all managers are
inclined to think in terms of the Law of Unintended Consequences. This principle is widely accepted these days in
medical ethics and holds that if a medical professional plans a certain
procedure, e.g. surgery, then he or she is not only responsible for the
procedure, but also for impacts surrounding it, e.g. the impact of anesthetics.
The same should hold for managers, if
they want to successfully manage risk. If
a manager plans a certain development, e.g. reorganization, then he or she is
also responsible for the side effects, e.g. confusion with clients or
demotivation with the staff. If he does
not accept such responsibility, then those affected by those side-effects may
respond in ways that constitute risk.
One cause of the lack of acceptance of the Law of Unintended
Consequences is what in the literature is called “agency problem”. This problem entails that sometimes governance
policies and processes emphasize that a manager, or other professional, is not
more than an agent of the owners of the organization and has to restrict his
sense of responsibility to what the owners have put in his or her job
description. This may lead to situations
that are deemed unacceptable by many of the stakeholders; for instance, most of
the professionals who contributed to Volkswagens’ “dieselgate” have probably
done good work within the definitions in their job descriptions, but in doing
so have put Volkwagen, and its owners, employees and clients, at risk, which by
now has materialized in costs of up to billions of dollars.
The figure below depicts a typical system with feedback loops
(internal and external):
Sustainability
Sustainability came on the agenda when a UN committee, led by the
Norwegian former prime minister Emma Brundtland, issued a report in 1987,
entitled Our Common Future. It described
the issues we now know as “sustainability” and coined the following definition:
“sustainability
means taking care of the needs of today in such a way that future generations
are not deprived of their means to take care of their own needs”.
This definition implied that at the time, societies, governments
and business communities were depriving future generations of what they need to
live. A harsh, albeit justified,
accusation.
A revised definition, builds on the Brundtland definition – the ability to add value
to stakeholders today in such a way that one would also in the future add value
to stakeholders, continuing relevance – while rephrasing it in
terms more familiar to the business realities of today. After all, it is part of the essence of
business endeavors to add value to stakeholders. From that perspective, it is not hard to
extrapolate into the future and set as a goal that the business should also in
the future continue to add value (to stakeholders and non-stakeholders). How to do that is not always easy to
determine, but by itself it is not very different from determining how to
satisfy needs when entering a new market. It should well be within the competences of
the business community.
The latest development was the establishing in 2015 of the UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) comprising 17 distinct goals; together
encompassing sustainability, accomplished by 2030. The goals vary from goals on the use of
resources and the avoidance of pollution to goals about fighting poverty and illiteracy
to accomplishing reliable governmental institutions.
The SDGs suffer from two difficulties: 1) they are designed for
use by governments, leaving the business world with the problem of translating
them to their realities, and 2) it will be an enormous challenge for all
governments to make the SDGs operational.
The risk with the new systemic understanding of sustainability is
again twofold: 1) companies respond by “cherry picking”, selecting the one item
in the SDGs that they think they can get under control, and 2) some managers
and entrepreneurs become so overwhelmed by the enormity of the new face of
identity that they shy away or resort to a “boiling the frog” behavior. Both of these behaviors bring risks with them.
The bottom line of sustainability may be formulated thus that we
in the present know, or should know, what is unsustainable and why we should
avoid what is unsustainable. We know
that pollution must be avoided and we even know how situations that in the past
lead to pollution have now resulted in new uses of materials and new production
lines. The bottom line is also that the
financials are available showing that operating sustainably leads to more profit
and more business continuity than ignoring the issues we categorize under the name
“sustainability”. Increasingly the
financial markets have come to notice those financials and start to regard
sustainable business as more secure investments than unsustainable investments.
Both aspects of the bottom line are associated with risk. The first is the most straight-forward:
ignoring the risks associated with what we all know to be unsustainable will at
some point and in varying degrees result in trouble, varying from legal
prosecution to actions by NGOs, to having more difficulty in hiring talent. The second is a bit less visible. The risk of losing the confidence of the
financial markets is less tangible, but it can have devastating effects. It may manifest itself in lower share prices
or in higher costs of capital, but it will come at a price.
A New
Challenge for Risk Managers
How do Risk Managers rise to meet the challenge?
Risk Managers need to understand the “information to intelligence”
cycle and to apply this to business continuity planning (this includes Crisis
Management, Contingency Planning, Emergency Preparedness Planning, Crisis
Communications Planning, stakeholder management, etc.). As depicted in the figure, entitled:
“Information to Intelligence Cycle” the process of turning information into
actionable intelligence is critical to decision making.
Planners perform risk assessments, business impact
assessments/analysis, SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)
analysis and other types of information gathering and analysis. Unfortunately, most of these efforts are
hampered by the time it takes to organize, conduct, analyze and report. Generally, by the time the assessment goes to
press (report), the information contained therein is dated at best and useless
at worst.
From systems science or systems thinking perspective we therefore
would have to change this ‘analytical’ approach into a so-called ‘synthesis’. Synthesis works in the reverse direction of
analysis. It means trying to understand
an entity through the context of its relations within the whole of which they
are a part. Synthesizing speeds up the
process of assessment and reporting by gathering information: could any
relationship with any stakeholder become a potential risk?
An essential element of risk management should be the ability to
provide critical intelligence from the most current available information. This requires “Active Analysis” a term that I created to describe the process of
constantly remaking the mosaic that we create as we conduct analysis and
develop plans. An “integrated”
approach to information capture and analysis is essential. The “integrated”
approach, as presented in my article, “FutureProofing”
the Process of Active Analysis” originally published in 2001 and rewritten
in 2015 is based on the concept of graceful degradation and agile
restoration. “Graceful degradation” refers to the ability of an organization to
identify the event, classify it into a level of severity, determine its
consequences, establish minimal
stable functionality, devolve to the most robust less functional configuration
available and to begin to direct initial efforts for rapid restoration
of services in a timely fashion.
“Active Analysis” is based on 17 analysis elements that can be
structured on three levels; strategic, operational and tactical. Each level of analysis becomes supportive of
the next level, either drilling down (from strategic to tactical) or escalating
up (tactical to strategic).
The traditional roles of the planner, the risk manager, the
disaster recovery specialist, etc. are becoming obsolete. These roles need to evolve with the times in
order to continue to provide value.
However, this evolution need not be painful; expansion of the
traditional roles into a merged, coordinated team that is focused on
information sharing, joint analysis and integrated planning to support the
organization’s strategic goals and objectives can be accomplished.
Overcoming
Risk Blindness
During
the cold war between the United States of America and the former Soviet Union,
there were thousands of nuclear warheads targeted at the antagonists and their
allies. The result, the concept of mutually assured destruction was created. The term was used to convey the idea that
neither side could win an all-out war; both sides would destroy each
other. The risks were high; there was a
constant effort to ensure that “Noise” was not mistaken for “Signal” triggering
an escalation of fear that could lead to a reactive response and
devastation. Those tense times have
largely subsided, however, we now find ourselves in the midst of global
competition and the need to ensure effective resilience in the face of
uncertainty. As depicted in the figure
below, Executing the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy one may
encounter transparent vulnerabilities (a form of risk blindness) that are only
readily seen in hindsight. When
implementing a CSR program there are execution risks that must be addressed: is
the action the right action or the wrong action? Can taking no action be the right thing to
do, or the wrong thing to do? What are
the outliers and variables that we need to track and take into
consideration? Are we dealing with
distorted maps of reality? How can we
overcome biases and linear thinking?
Jeffrey Cooper offers some perspective: "The problem of the Wrong Puzzle.
You rarely find what you are not looking for, and you usually do find
what you are looking for." In
many cases the result is irrelevant information.
It is essential that we gather as much information as possible to
facilitate better decision making.
However, we have to acknowledge that due to limitations of time and
human bias decisions are going to be flawed.
It is this factor, “Flawed Decision Making” that we have to be acutely
aware of. Once we have this awareness we
can begin to create a more flexible and resilient operating environment that
focuses on constant risk buffering (dynamic) rather than one off risk
mitigation that is static.
In a recent article, Norman Marks writes:
It
is easy to say that risk management should be embedded into business processes
such as strategic planning. But is it that easy to accomplish in practice? I think it’s fair to say that in most
organizations they are quite separate.
Marks states:
So,
none of these major management consulting companies mention risk
management. Is that because they don’t
understand its value and how it should be integrated or embedded into strategic
planning? Possibly so. So how does a risk officer get involved? How
can he or she ensure that risk is considered?
Well, to me it starts with the same point I have been making for a long
time now.
He provides a shared a link
to a series of 12 questions about strategic planning from the consultancy firm
of Bain & Company.
q What assumptions have been made in defining
the (internal and external) business environment and how it will change over
the next period? What is the level of confidence in them?
q What has and will be done to confirm,
monitor, and (to the extent possible) realize the assumptions? Can the
likelihood of realizing the assumptions be improved?
q How confident are you in the quality of the
information being used to understand the business environment and its future?
Can that be improved?
q How were the potential consequences of each
strategic option assessed? Were the likelihoods of each level of achievement
estimated with confidence? Is the likelihood of the desired set of consequences
at an acceptable level?
q Were potential adverse situations or events
considered? How were they assessed?
q How were potential adverse and positive
effects and outcomes assessed in aggregate?
q What is the level of confidence that the
strategies will be achieved to the level of the goals and targets that have
been set?
q Is that level of confidence acceptable?
What can and will be done to improve it?
q Will performance against targets be
measured in a way that incorporates changes in the potential for both positive
and adverse effects in the future?
q Can strategies and targets be modified as
conditions now and expected in the future change?
The above questions are similar to those developed by Michael Kami; presented
in his book, “Trigger Points: How to Make Decisions Three Times Faster”.
The key point here is not to follow any particular list, but rather to
use these questions as thought generators.
Recognize the effects of bias will influence your identification of
information, analysis of that information and decision making.
As the figure below depicts, we need to assess, not assume or, attempt to
predict, or speculate on. The spheres
below give a perspective on what we know, tend to think we know, tend to
speculate upon. We have to acknowledge
that what is unknown (the Unknown Unknowns) will remain so, until discovered
and labeled.
Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber would define this as a
Systemic Operational Design (SOD) problem - a "wicked problem" that
is a social problem that is difficult and confusing versus a "tame
problem" not trivial, but sufficiently understood that it lends itself to
established methods and solutions. I
think that we have a "wicked problem".
As Milo Jones and
Philippe Silberzahn in “Constructing Cassandra: Reframing Intelligence Failure at the CIA,
1947–2001” write, “Gresham's Law of Advice comes to mind: "Bad advice drives out good
advice precisely because it offers certainty where reality holds none"”
(page 249). False certainty may be worse than uncertainty.
Just because it is the right thing to
do, doesn't make it the easy thing to do.
But doing only the easy things is not a wise strategy. At least, the successful organizations we all
know did not get to be there by only doing easy things; rather, in those
companies success was achieved by having the guts to do what in other
organizations they were hesitant about.
Concluding
Thoughts
What
does the future look like? A Chinese proverb states that "Opportunity is always present in the midst
of crisis." Another one states:
“If you give the wrong man the right
means, the right means work in the wrong way.” Every crisis carries two
elements, danger and opportunity. No
matter the difficulty of the circumstances, no matter how dangerous the
situation… at the heart of each crisis lies a tremendous opportunity. Great blessings lie ahead for the one who
knows the secret of finding the opportunity within each crisis.
About the Authors
Geary Sikich – Management Advisor, author and business lecturer
Contact Information: E-mail:
G.Sikich@att.net or gsikich@logicalmanagement.com. Telephone: 1- 219-922-7718.
eary Sikich is a
seasoned risk management professional who advises private and public sector
executives to develop risk buffering strategies to protect their asset
base. With a M.Ed. in Counseling and
Guidance, Geary's focus is human capital: what people think, who they are, what
they need and how they communicate. With over 25 years in management consulting
as a trusted advisor, crisis manager, senior executive and educator, Geary
brings unprecedented value to clients worldwide.
Geary is well-versed in contingency planning, risk management, human resource
development, “war gaming,” as well as competitive intelligence, issues
analysis, global strategy and identification of transparent
vulnerabilities. Geary has developed
more than 4,000 plans and conducted over 4,500 simulations from tabletops to
full scale integrated exercises. Geary
began his career as an officer in the U.S. Army after completing his BS in
Criminology. As a thought leader, Geary
leverages his skills in client attraction and the tools of LinkedIn, social
media and publishing to help executives in decision analysis, strategy
development and risk buffering. A
well-known author, his books and articles are readily available on Amazon,
Barnes & Noble and the Internet.
Joop Remmé
Ph.D. – lecturer, researcher, consultant
Contact information: remme@knowdialogue.nl
Joop Remmé has a long track-record
as a lecturer within MBA schools and as a consultant.
Joop Remmé has over the past 30 years been teaching and consulting on
management development, CSR/ sustainability, stakeholder management and
corruption/integrity. He has also published on these subjects in academic
journals and is a regular speaker at conferences. He recently authored a
webinar on Managing the Sustainability Agenda: https://www.execsense.com/c-suite/sustainability-agenda-how-to-manage
He has served on the Board of the Netherlands business Ethics Network and
currently is on the Board of the Netherlands chapter of Transparency
International. He is a visiting professor at the FOM Hochschule (https://www.fom.de/die-fom-hochschule.html)
Arend Van
Campen MA – Researcher, lecturer, author
Arend van Campen MA,
TankTerminalTraining & Creazene Institute, Switzerland
After
more than 30 years working in the Energy Industry, Arend earned a Master’s
degree in Business Ethics & Social Responsibility. He started TTT and
teaches that a safe and profitable business can thrive only when people choose
sustainably. He has set up ‘CREAZENE’, a research institute focusing on a
sustainable future, the protection of human and non-human life and the
preservation of the environment. Currently he integrates ‘Systems Theory’ in
his workshops as a scientific tool to enhance overall business performance
within environmental boundaries. He publishes research findings on his blog: www.arendvancampen.blogspot.nl His book ‘Safety of Ethics’
is available for free on www.creazene.org
REFERENCES
Apgar,
David, Risk Intelligence – Learning to Manage What We Don’t Know, Harvard
Business School Press, 2006.
Capra, Fritjof and Pier Luigi, Luisi,
‘Systems View of Life’, Cambridge University Press, 2014, ISBN 978-107-01136-6
Good Morning America, LISSETTE RODRIGUEZ,
Good Morning America
Kami, Michael J., “Trigger
Points: how to make decisions three times faster,” 1988, McGraw-Hill, ISBN
0-07-033219-3
Marks, Norman; Time for a leap
change in risk management guidance, November 5, 2016
Marks, Norman; Embedding risk into strategic planning
and more; February 25, 2017
RHR International Executive
Insight newsletter, “Leadership in Time of Uncertainty”, January 2017
Sikich,
Geary W., Graceful Degradation and Agile Restoration Synopsis, Disaster
Resource Guide, 2002
Sikich, Geary W.,
"Integrated Business Continuity: Maintaining Resilience in Times of
Uncertainty," PennWell Publishing, 2003
Sikich, Geary W., "Risk
and Compliance: Are you driving the car while looking in the rearview mirror?”
2013
Sikich, Geary W., “"Transparent
Vulnerabilities” How we overlook the obvious, because it is too clear that it
is there” 2008
Sikich, Geary W.,
"FutureProofing: The Process of Active Analysis” 2011, 2015
Sikich, Geary W., "Risk
and the Limitations of Knowledge” 2014
Simon, Horst, “Clarity from Chaos: Money,
Change & Risk” published 19 January 2017, LinkedIn
Tainter, Joseph, “The Collapse
of Complex Societies,” Cambridge University Press
(March 30, 1990), ISBN-10:
052138673X, ISBN-13:
978-0521386739
Taleb,
Nicholas Nassim, “Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder,” 2012, Random
House – ISBN 978-1-4000-6782-4
Van
Campen, Arend ‘A new study on Risk Management’, 2017
Van
Campen, Arend ‘Safety of Ethics’ 2013, ISBN 978-049-1014-314
Vogel, David, “The Market for
Virtue – The Potential and Limits on Corporate Social Responsibility”,
Washington (2005)
World Economic Forum, “Global
Risks 2015”, 10th edition, 2016 11th edition and 2017 12th edition
