MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415446007 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v16n3p63

Strengthening ERM Independence: A Conceptual Governance and Oversight Framework

2025· article· W4415446007 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Shaharin Abdul Samad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicERP Systems Implementation and Impact
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceSophisticationEnterprise risk managementPrincipal–agent problemConceptual frameworkRisk managementIndependence (probability theory)Function (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the rapidly evolving and increasingly volatile global business landscape, robust governance mechanisms are no longer a matter of best practice but are essential for organizational sustainability, resilience, and long-term value creation. At the heart of effective enterprise risk management (ERM) lies not only the sophistication of risk identification and mitigation processes, but also, critically, the unfettered structural independence of the risk management function. This conceptual paper examines the structural and behavioral impediments to ERM independence under prevailing corporate governance models. It analyzes three common reporting structures for the ERM function: reporting to senior management, reporting to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and a hybrid model of reporting to the Board of Directors with a “dotted line” to the CEO. This study contends that each paradigm, based on agency theory and corporate governance principles, harbors intrinsic conflicts of interest that undermine the impartiality, authority, and overall efficacy of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). The CEO's impact on performance evaluations and compensation, even in a dotted-line relationship, is seen as a substantial threat to behavioral independence. Consequently, this paper develops a conceptual framework for an optimal reporting structure. It posits that true independence is only achievable when the ERM function reports directly and exclusively to the Board of Directors or a dedicated Board Risk Committee. Furthermore, the framework asserts that the remuneration, budget, and resources of the ERM function must be determined at the Board level, completely insulated from management’s influence. This proposed model, termed the “Unfettered Guardian” framework, is designed to align the ERM function with the Board’s oversight duty, ensuring it serves its primary purpose as an objective guardian of shareholder value and long-term organizational sustainability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.025
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicERP Systems Implementation and ImpactFrench-language works237,207