Risk Management Practices by South African Universities: An Annual Report Disclosure Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper assesses risk management practices at South African universities by analyzing the extent of risk management disclosure recommended by King IV and the level of risk governance maturity. This study was motivated by #Feesmustfall disruptions, which pointed to the lack of effective risk management, preparedness for volatility and increased scrutiny by stakeholders. A qualitative content analysis using a risk disclosure checklist was conducted on 18 annual reports and analyzed using an exploratory research design. The results revealed that over 80% of the sampled South African universities have disclosed most of their risk management practices, showing an improved disclosure due to King IV’s “apply and explain” philosophy as introduced in 2016. However, there were areas of improvement identified, such as: defining and approval of risk appetites and tolerance; development and implementation of business continuity plans; confirming the unpreparedness for volatility; annual revision of policies; and integration of risk management into the culture and daily activities of the university. This paper builds upon previous studies that highlighted a lack of detailed disclosures in South African organizations’ annual reports. This study also provides interesting insights into the impact of social events on organizational practices and supports the notion that legislative accounting practices should echo stakeholders and societal expectations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it