Introducing risk management to the board (and executives)

Two blog post links, discussing introducing risk management to the board, and I added “and executives.”  The initial link is to a discussion by John Fraser; the second link is to a discussion by Norman Marks commenting about Mr. Fraser’s discussion.

Discussion by John Fraser, Click Here.

Discussion by Norman Marks, Click Here.

And a follow-up blog post by Norman, Why it makes sense to consider GRC, Click Here.

Also interesting, but not discussed in detail here, new guideline requirements enacted for offshore drilling operations: train/instruct employees and contractors about safety, injury and environmental risk/uncertainty management, risk/uncertainty management is ongoing all the time 24/7, all employees and contractors can/should report any situation that presents safety, injury or environmental risk or danger, evaluate risks (e.g., likelihood of occurrence and possible resulting injury or damage) and design and implement risk/uncertainty plans and processes, have those plans and processes audited to determine sufficiency and need to modify and improve, appoint people who are unilaterally authorized to stop operations at anytime when they deem appropriate, etc.  Sounds good to me.  I support drilling; I have also previously written about the need for improved risk/uncertainty management, and safety and risk/uncertainty management cooperation and collaboration between operators and operations.  Also good stuff for boards to oversee.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco)

In all categories – Law, Risk & Gov – Nuclear board warns of Hanford tank explosion risk . . . do we have a warm comfortable feeling about this?

The article reads, Board warns key US senator of explosion risk at nation’s most contaminated nuclear site. For interesting reading, Click Here For Article.

I don’t believe anyone really needs to say much about this topic.  We could go into great detail, but a couple of questions that I would want publicly answered if I was the Senator (actually the entire Congress and the President – somewhat like the people in charge, like a CEO or the Directors): what is the current state of the situation from a risk management perspective, what is being done, what will be done and when, how is all of this being monitored, and when will we be receiving future updates?

As the public, and if I was an elected representative, I would want to know these things at a minimum – don’t you want to have a warm and comfortable feeling that things are being taken care of?  Accidents or unforeseen events still do happen of course, and it isn’t always someone’s fault, but that is one area where risk management and leadership or governance can come into play.

Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco)