The Perceived Relationship between Risk Culture and Operational Risk Management Practices of Ghanaian Banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Bank of Ghana (BoG) joined the Basel Consultative Group (BCG) of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) in 2021 and is proceeding with the implementation of the Basel III international regulatory framework for Ghanaian banks. The purpose of this study was to assess the perceived relationship between risk culture and aspects of operational risk management among Ghanaian banks. This study followed a positivist paradigm and made use of a survey among the risk management staff members of Ghanaian banks. The data were analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics, such as the Mann–Whitney U test and a multiple regression model. This study found significant perceived relationships (at the 5% level of significance) between risk culture and monitoring and reporting procedures, the three lines of defence (3LOD), compliance, internal auditing, disclosure of operational risk information, and guidance from the banking regulator. The respondents reported the following challenges with their banks’ risk culture (in order of priority): training and development, communication, reporting and disclosure, roles and responsibilities, performance appraisal, and technological and environmental barriers. Recommendations for addressing these challenges are provided.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".