Risk Management Culture, Structure, and Process – Theoretical Insights and Empirical Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the contemporary business environment, companies face a wide range of risks that necessitate effective risk management strategies. Risk management can be approached through either a traditional or integrated concept, which hinges on a company's ability to avoid, reduce, and transform risks into opportunities. This research aims to investigate the risk management practices employed by joint-stock companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The study will focus on evaluating the risk management culture, structure, and processes implemented by these companies. The research was conducted using a questionnaire distributed to a sample of 141 companies listed on two stock exchanges in B&H. The survey included 31 identified risk management components related to culture, processes, and organizational structure. To enhance accuracy, the survey responses were improved using a Likert scale, replacing the previous "Yes – No" dummy approach. Before administering the survey, all components were validated by a group of experts. The findings revealed that companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) have inadequately developed components of an integrated risk management concept. The research results suggest that B&H companies primarily rely on traditional risk management approaches, failing to keep up with the global trend of implementing risk management standards. This situation may lead to adverse implications for BH companies and its economy.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".