Fewer Sleepless Nights for Compliance Executives

Improved compliance programs, sufficient resources and board access have meant fewer concerns about personal liability for compliance executives, according to a study by DLA Piper.

In its 2017 Global Compliance & Risk Report, DLA Piper found that 67% of chief compliance officers surveyed said they were at least somewhat concerned about their personal liability and that of their CEOs, which was down from 81% in 2016. And 71% said they made changes to their compliance programs based on recent regulatory events, up from just 21% a year earlier. The study found that globally the compliance function is becoming more independent and prominent in large organizations.

There still remains room for improvement, however, most notably in compliance’s relationship with boards of directors. Directors, surveyed for the first time, were more uneasy, with 82% expressing at least some concern about personal liability. “This is likely related to other findings that show lingering kinks in communications channels and a persistent lack of training for directors. Together, these findings indicate that the relationship between the compliance function and boards needs work—despite efforts taken by organizations to upgrade their compliance program,” DLA Piper said.

In 2016, 77% of compliance executives said they had sufficient resources, clout and board access to support their ability to effectively perform their jobs. This year the number rose to 84% who said they felt that way. The improvement is possibly a reflection of the increased percentage of respondents who had the resources to make changes to their compliance program, compared to 2016, according to the survey.

While more respondents said they are increasingly able to affect change, obtain the resources they need and access senior leadership, however, a larger number said their budget was not high enough to accomplish their goals, from 28% in 2016 to 38%.

Boards had a different view, with 53% of directors agreeing strongly that their compliance group had sufficient resources, clout and board access. This was compared to just 29% of CCOs, which could indicate that CCOs are not effectively communicating their needs, the company said.

Of concern was that many directors appear to be receiving inadequate reporting and training on compliance matters. About a quarter of both CCOs and board members said the compliance function at their organization reports to the board less than once per quarter.

Of training, the report said that in light of a perceived heightened liability exposure for directors, it is puzzling that 44% of director respondents said they hadn’t received any training on compliance issues. Given evolving compliance standards and regulations—such as new Securities and Exchange Commission guidance on conflict minerals and updated DOJ guidance on corporate fraud—it’s arguable that training is more important than ever. Failure to engage in training could amount to a breach of fiduciary duty.

Almost half of respondents, 46%, identified monitoring as the weakest part of their compliance program. Monitoring, however, is particularly important in managing third-party risk, as regulators remain focused on violations related to third parties and as companies struggle to manage sprawling global organizations, DLA Piper said.

Top tools companies use to rate their compliance program:

In a Changing World, Questions For the CRO

Before the financial crisis in 2008-2009, many businesses didn’t think of risk as something to be proactively managed. After the crisis, however, that paradigm shifted. Companies began perceiving risk management as a way to protect both their reputations and their stakeholders.

Today, risk management is not just recommended, it is considered crucial to successful operations and is required by federal and state law. The SEC’s Proxy Disclosure Enhancements, enacted in 2010, mandate that organizations provide information regarding board leadership structure and the company’s risk management practices. Company leadership is required to have a direct role in risk oversight, and any risk management ineffectiveness must be disclosed.

The CRO’s role

Volatility in the current business environment—a confluence of factors including transfers of power, the world economy and individual markets—is nothing new. Political transitions have always been accompanied by new agendas and shifting regulations, economies have always experienced bull and bear markets, and the evolution of technology constantly changes our processes.

Even so, recent events like Brexit, the uncertainty of a new administration’s regulatory initiatives, and thousands of annual data breaches have contributed to an unprecedented atmosphere of fear and doubt. To navigate this environment, the chief risk officer needs to adopt a proactive risk management approach. Enterprise-wide risk assessments grant the visibility and insight needed to present an accurate picture of the company’s greatest risks. This visibility is what the board needs to safely recognize opportunity for innovation and expansion into new markets.

To grow a business safely—by innovating and adding to products/services and expanding into new markets—risk professionals should not focus on identifying risk by individual country. This approach naturally leads to a prioritization of “large-dollar” countries, which aren’t necessarily correlated with greater risk. Countries that contribute a small percentage of overall revenue can still cause major, systemic risk management failures and scandals.

A better approach is to look at risk across certain regions; how might expanding the business into Europe, for example, create new challenges for senior management? Are there sufficient controls in place to mitigate the risks that have been identified?

When regional risks are aggregated to create a holistic picture, it becomes possible for the board to make sure expansion efforts are aligned with strategic goals.

Three processes that require ERM

Risk management is an objective process, and best practices, such as pushing risk assessments down to front-line process owners who are closest to operational risk, should be adhered to regardless of the current state of the international business arena.

While today’s political climate has generated a significant amount of media strife, it’s important not to let emotion influence decision-making. By providing the host organization with a standardized framework and centralized data location, enterprise risk management enables managers to apply the same basic approach across departments and levels.

This is particularly important when an organization expands internationally, which involves compliance with new sets of regulations and staying competitive. Performing due diligence on an ad hoc basis is neither effective nor sustainable. Instead, the process should follow the same best-practice process as domestic risk management efforts:

  1. Identify and assess. Make risk assessments a standard part of every budget, project or initiative. This involves front-line risk assessments from subject matter experts, revealing key risks and processes/departments likely to be affected by those risks. For example, financial scrutiny is no longer a concern just for banks. Increased attempts to fight terrorism mean transactions of all kinds are becoming subject to more review. Anti-bribery and anti-corruption processes estimate and quantify both vulnerability and liability.
  2. Mitigate key risks. Connect mitigation activities to the resources they depend on and the processes they’re associated with. ERM creates transparency into this information, eliminating inefficiency associated with updating/tracking risks managed by another department. Control evaluation is the most expensive part of operations. Use risk management to prioritize this work and reduce expenses and liability.
  3. Monitor the effectiveness of controls with tests, metrics, and incident collection for risks and controls alike. This ensures performance standards are maintained as operations and the business environment evolve. Evidence of an effective control environment prevents penalties and lawsuits for negligence. The bar for negligence is getting lower; technology is pulling the curtain back not only internally but (through social media and news) to the public as well.

Lastly, the CRO role is increasingly accountable for failures in managing risk along with other senior leaders and boards—look no further than Wells Fargo.

Total Cost of Risk Drops for Third Straight Year, RIMS Finds

Despite the challenges of a slowed economy in an election year, a shifting risk landscape as a result of technological advances, and a slow to negative growth rate in some sectors, 2016 saw the total cost of risk (TCOR) decline for the third consecutive year, according to the 2017 RIMS Benchmark Survey.

Even in the face of such uncertainties, the TCOR per $1,000 of revenue continued to drop, ending at $10.07 in 2016. The main drivers were declines in all lines excluding fidelity, surety and crime costs, according to the report. TCOR is defined in the survey as the cost of insurance, plus the costs of the losses retained and the administrative costs of the risk management department.

The survey encompasses industry data from 759 organizations and contains policy-level information from 10 coverage groups, subdivided into 90 lines of business.

Uncertainty around policies in the new presidential administration will continue to dominate in 2017, as the nation’s trade policy, regulatory reform and tax system could see changes, RIMS reported. The new political regime is also expected to reduce regulatory oversight at the state, federal and international levels.

Key findings from this year’s RIMS Benchmark Survey include:

  • Technological advances have caused a seismic shift in the risk landscape, creating new types of claims and forcing insurers to consider new products and solutions for customers.
  • Insurers ended 2016 with average capital and surplus at the highest level in 10 years. However, excess capacity is undermining profitability, as seen by falling net income and return on average equity.
  • The personal insurance space is in the midst of a consumer-centric revolution, offering customers new transaction platforms, better metrics and more flexible pricing and coverage options. Commercial insurance is expected to adopt a similar focus, transforming the way business is transacted.
  • Predicted rate increases for cyber, E&O and workers compensation failed to materialize across the board. Projections for 2017 are more moderate, with property and most liability lines flat to down 10%.
  • Emerging trends in the 2017 risk landscape include the tech revolution, security issues, natural catastrophes and political upheaval.

“The RIMS Benchmark Survey chronicles the evolution of corporate risk management costs over time. This year’s edition highlights how risk managers have effectively managed costs in a time of evolving risks and demands, enabling them to do more with less,” said Jim Blinn, executive vice president of client solutions at Advisen.

Disruptive Technologies Present Opportunities for Risk Managers, Study Finds

PHILADELPHIA–Disruptive technologies are used more and more by businesses, but those organizations appear to be unprepared. What’s more, companies seem to lack understanding of the technologies and many are not conducting risk assessments, according to the 14th annual Excellence in Risk Management report, released at the RIMS conference here.

The study found an apparent lack of awareness among risk professionals of their company’s use of existing and emerging technologies, including the Internet of Things (IoT), telematics, sensors, smart buildings, and robotics and their associated risks. When presented with 13 common disruptive technologies, 24% of respondents said their organizations are not currently using or planning to use any of them. This is surprising, as other studies have found that more than 90% of companies are either using or evaluating IoT technology or wearable technologies and that companies in the United States invested $230 billion on IoT in 2016.

Another finding was that despite the impact disruptive technology can have on an organization’s business strategy, model, and risk profile, 60% of respondents said they do not conduct risk assessments around disruptive technologies.

“Today’s disruptive technologies will soon be — and in many cases already are — the norm for doing business,” said Brian Elowe, Marsh’s U.S. client executive leader and co-author of the report said in a statement. “Such lack of understanding and attention being paid to the risks is alarming. Organizations cannot fully realize the rewards of using today’s innovative technology if the risks are not fully understood and managed.” According to the study:

Organizations generally, and risk management professionals in particular, need to adopt a more proactive approach to educate themselves about disruptive technologies — what is already in use, what is on the horizon, and what are the risks and rewards. Forward-leaning executives are able to properly identify, assess, and diagnose disruptive technology risks and their impact on business models and strategies.

This lack of clarity presents opportunity for risk professionals. In fact, previous Excellence reports have indicated that C-suite executives and boards of directors want to know what risks loom ahead for their organizations and increasingly rely on risk professionals to provide that insight.

“As organizations adapt to innovative technologies, risk professionals have the opportunity to lead the way in developing risk management capabilities and bringing insights to bear on business strategy decisions,” said Carol Fox, vice president of strategic initiatives for RIMS and co-author of the report. “As a first step, risk professionals are advised to proactively educate themselves about disruptive technologies, including what is already in use at their organizations, what technologies may be on the horizon, and the respective risks and rewards of using such technology.”

One thing companies can do to manage risks associated with disruptive technologies is facilitate discussions through cross-functional committees—yet fewer companies, only 48%, said they have one, a drop from 52% last year and 62% five years ago.

Whether discussed in weekly, monthly, or quarterly organization-wide committee meetings, emerging risks — including disruptive technologies — need to be examined regularly to anticipate and manage the acceleration of business model changes. When risk is siloed, too often the tendency can be toward an insurance-focused approach to risk transfer rather than an enterprise approach that may lead to pursuing untapped opportunities.

The Excellence survey, Ready or Not, Disruption is Here, is based on more than 700 responses to an online survey and a series of focus groups with leading risk executives in January and February 2017.

Findings from the survey were released today at the RIMS 2017 Annual Conference & Exhibition. Copies of the survey are available on www.marsh.com<http://www.marsh.com> and www.rims.org<http://www.rims.org>.