Suchergebnisse

Our society is fascinated with risk in many different areas and disciplines. One of the main ways to describe and communicate the level of risk is through risk indices, which summarize risk using numbers or categories such as words, letters, or colors. These indices are used to communicate risks to the public, understand how risk is changing over time, compare among different risks, and support decision making. Given the different methods to construct risk indices, including flawed methods such as risk matrices, this article develops specific steps that analysts can follow to create a risk index. This article emphasizes the importance of describing risk with a probability distribution, developing a numerical risk measure that summarizes the probability distribution, and finally translating the risk measure to an index. Measuring the risk is the most difficult part and requires the analyst to summarize a probability distribution into one or possibly a few numbers. The risk measure can then be transformed to a numerical or categorical index. I apply the method outlined in this article to construct a risk index that compares the risk of fatalities in aviation and highway transportation.

GARP's Foundations of Financial Risk creates a comprehensive understanding of financial risk and the regulatory environment under which institutions operate. It focuses on core financial risks: market, credit, and operational--and how international regulation, including the Basel Accords, affect the management of these risks. (Back cover)

Systemische Risiken sind das Produkt tiefgreifender und rasanter technologischer, ökonomischer und sozialer Veränderungen, welche die moderne Welt jeden Tag erlebt. Sie sind durch hohe Komplexität, Ungewissheit, Ambiguität und sich allmählich ausbreitende Wirkungen charakterisiert. Aufgrund dieser Eigenschaften überfordern systemische Risiken das etablierte Risikomanagement and erzeugen neue ungelőste Herausforderungen für die Politikgestaltung in der Risikosteuerung. Ihre negativen Auswirkungen sind häufig durchdringend und beeinträchtigen Bereiche jenseits der direkt ersichtlichen Schadensbereiche. Der Artikel bezieht sich auf ein integratives Risikokonzept zur Bewältigung systemischer Risiken, das Bewertungskriterien, unterschiedliche Risikoklassen und entsprechende Managementstrategien berücksichtigt. Wir argumentieren, dass es eines deliberativen Ansatzes im Risikomanagement und in der Politikgestaltung in der Risikosteuerung bedarf, um systemische Risiken vermeiden, mildern oder kontrollieren zu können.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent establishment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), considerable efforts have been made to estimate the risks of terrorism and the cost effectiveness of security policies to reduce these risks. DHS, industry, and the academic risk analysis communities have all invested heavily in the development of tools and approaches that can assist decisionmakers in effectively allocating limited resources across the vast array of potential investments that could mitigate risks from terrorism and other threats to the homeland. Decisionmakers demand models, analyses, and decision support that are useful for this task and based on the state of the art. Since terrorism risk analysis is new, no single method is likely to meet this challenge. In this article we explore a number of existing and potential approaches for terrorism risk analysis, focusing particularly on recent discussions regarding the applicability of probabilistic and decision analytic approaches to bioterrorism risks and the Bioterrorism Risk Assessment methodology used by the DHS and criticized by the National Academies and others.

AbstractIn assessing environmental health risks, the risk characterization step synthesizes information gathered in evaluating exposures to stressors together with dose–response relationships, characteristics of the exposed population, and external environmental conditions. This article summarizes key steps of a cumulative risk assessment (CRA) followed by a discussion of considerations for characterizing cumulative risks. Cumulative risk characterizations differ considerably from single chemical‐ or single source‐based risk characterization. CRAs typically focus on a specific population instead of a pollutant or pollutant source and should include an evaluation of all relevant sources contributing to the exposures in the population and other factors that influence dose–response relationships. Second, CRAs may include influential environmental and population‐specific conditions, involving multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors. Third, a CRA could examine multiple health effects, reflecting joint toxicity and the potential for toxicological interactions. Fourth, the complexities often necessitate simplifying methods, including judgment‐based and semi‐quantitative indices that collapse disparate data into numerical scores. Fifth, because of the higher dimensionality and potentially large number of interactions, information needed to quantify risk is typically incomplete, necessitating an uncertainty analysis. Three approaches that could be used for characterizing risks in a CRA are presented: the multiroute hazard index, stressor grouping by exposure and toxicity, and indices for screening multiple factors and conditions. Other key roles of the risk characterization in CRAs are also described, mainly the translational aspect of including a characterization summary for lay readers (in addition to the technical analysis), and placing the results in the context of the likely risk‐based decisions.

PurposeLabeling women as risk‐averse limits the positive benefits both women and organizations can gain from their risk taking. The purpose of this paper is to explore women's risk taking and reasons for stereotype persistence in order to inform human resource practice and women's career development.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on literature about gender and organizations to identify reasons for the persisting stereotype of women's risk aversion. Utilizing literature and concepts about risk appetite and decision making, the paper evaluates results of the Simmons Gender and Risk Survey database of 661 female managers.FindingsThe paper finds evidence of gender neutrality in risk propensity and decision making in specific managerial contexts other than portfolio allocation.Research limitations/implicationsMore in‐depth research is needed to explore the gender‐neutral motivators of risk decision making and to explore risk taking in a more diverse sample population.Practical implicationsThe paper explores why women's risk taking remains invisible even as they take risks and offers suggestions on how women and organizations may benefit from their risk‐taking activities.Originality/valueThe paper synthesizes evidence on risk taking and gender, and the evidence of female risk taking is an important antidote to persisting stereotypes. The paper outlines reasons for this stereotype persistence and implications for human resource development.