Search results

In the evolution process of building construction accidents, there are key nodes of risk change. This paper aims to quickly identify the key nodes and quantitatively assess the node risk. Furthermore, it is essential to propose risk accumulation assessment method of building construction.

Authors analyzed 419 accidents investigation reports on building construction. In total, 39 risk factors were identified by accidents analysis. These risk factors were combined with 245 risk evolution chains. Based on those, Gephi software was used to draw the risk evolution network model for building construction. Topological parameters were applied to interpret the risk evolution network characteristic.

Combining complex network with risk matrix, the standard of quantitative classification of node risk level is formulated. After quantitative analysis of node risk, 7 items of medium-risk node, 3 items of high-risk node and 2 items of higher-risk nodes are determined. The application results show that the system risk of the project is 44.67%, which is the high risk level. It can reflect the actual safety conditions of the project in a more comprehensive way.

This paper determined the level of node risk only using the node degree and risk matrix. In future research, more node topological parameters that could be applied to node risk, such as clustering coefficients, mesoscopic numbers, centrality, PageRank, etc.

This article can quantitatively assess the risk accumulation of building construction. It would help safety managers could clarify the system risk status. Moreover, it also contributes to reveal the correspondence between risk accumulation and accident evolution.

This study comprehensively considers the likelihood, consequences and correlation to assess node risk. Based on this, single-node risk and system risk assessment methods of building construction systems were proposed. It provided a promising method and idea for the risk accumulation assessment method of building construction. Moreover, evolution process of node risk is explained from the perspective of risk accumulation.

Using the case of the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, I argue that the catastrophe was less an example of a low probability-high catastrophe event than an instance of socially produced risks and insecurities associated with deepwater oil and gas production during the neoliberal period after 1980. The disaster exposes the deadly intersection of the aggressive enclosure of a new technologically risky resource frontier (the deepwater continental shelf) with what I call a frontier of neoliberalized risk, a lethal product of cut-throat corporate cost-cutting, the collapse of government oversight and regulatory authority and the deepening financialization and securitization of the oil market. These two local pockets of socially produced risk and wrecklessness have come to exceed the capabilities of what passes as risk management and energy security. In this sense, the Deepwater Horizon disaster was produced by a set of structural conditions, a sort of rogue capitalism, not unlike those which precipitated the financial meltdown of 2008. The forms of accumulation unleashed in the Gulf of Mexico over three decades rendered a high-risk enterprise yet more risky, all the while accumulating insecurities and radical uncertainties which made the likelihood of a Deepwater Horizon type disaster highly overdetermined.

Existing studies have paid less attention to the impact of knowledge accumulation on digital transformation and its boundary conditions. Hence, this study aims to investigate the effects of ambidextrous knowledge accumulation on manufacturing digital transformation under the moderation of dynamic capability.

This study divides knowledge accumulation into exploratory and exploitative knowledge accumulation and divides dynamic capability into alliance management capability and new product development capability. To clarify the relationship among ambidextrous knowledge accumulation, dynamic capability and manufacturing digital transformation, the authors collect data from 421 Chinese listed manufacturing enterprises from 2016 to 2020 and perform analysis by multiple hierarchical regression method, heterogeneity test and robustness analysis.

The empirical results show that both exploratory and exploitative knowledge accumulation can significantly promote manufacturing digital transformation. Keeping ambidextrous knowledge accumulation in parallel is more conducive than keeping single-dimensional knowledge accumulation. Besides, dynamic capability positively moderates the relationship between ambidextrous knowledge accumulation and manufacturing digital transformation. Moreover, the heterogeneity test shows that the impact of ambidextrous knowledge accumulation and dynamic capabilities on manufacturing digital transformation varies widely across different industry segments or different regions.

First, this paper shifts attention to the role of ambidextrous knowledge accumulation in manufacturing digital transformation and expands the connotation and extension of knowledge accumulation. Second, this study reveals that dynamic capability is a vital driver of digital transformation, which corroborates the previous findings of dynamic capability as an important driver and contributes to enriching the knowledge management literature. Third, this paper provides a comprehensive micro measurement of ambidextrous knowledge accumulation and digital transformation based on the development characteristics of the digital economy era, which provides a theoretical basis for subsequent research.

Low cost financing in establishing economical development is very important. At this point, financial intermediaries provide great contributions to economic development by eliminating asymetrical information problem between lender and borrower. It is possible to see capital market in anglo‐saxon countries and banking system in Europe and Japan mostly from historical dimension. However, long term financing is done through capital market in most developed countries at present. It is a common characteristic in countries such as Turkey, Chile and Mexico whose economies are financed by banking system. Singh and Weisse (1998), suggests that it is because of late industrialisation 1. Developing countries are generally those where there is less capital. Therefore attracting both internal and external savings into the banking system (for these countries) is very important from economical development point. At this point, powerful banks are preferred by the investors. Because the possibilty of failure is low (for these banks) 2. The most important factor that effects banks risk structure is public’s role. Because public can effect banks risk structure both at macro and micro level. Public’s influence on bank’s risk structure at macro economic level is due to general economical structure. If the general economic structure has high volatility and is away from consistency, this situation will increase the risk for banking sector. On the other hand, fiscal dominance is one of the main problems especially in developing countries. Fiscal dominance caused by lack of enough public revenue affects banking sector negatively. Thus, a goverment which can not prepare the macro economic environment where banks can function at high productivity will increase banks’ risks. In addition, banks require strict regulations and controlling as its structure is open to fraud. That these regulations are ignored or not prepared will lead to risk accumulation in the sector. It becomes a social responsibility of the state to take necessary cautions as these kinds of issues change a large cost on the society. Within this framework, the aim of our study is to examine public’s role on fragilities in banking sector. These examinations will be conducted for Turkey which experienced a collapse in banking sector in the recent period. In the first and second part of our study, public’s influence on the sector at macro and micro level will be examined. Experiences gained through Turkey example will be presented in the conclusion.

The purpose of this paper is to present an integrated leapfrogging mode of technological innovation for developing countries or latecomer enterprises in a certain industrial innovation field. Furthermore, this paper discusses the basic paradigm of the integrated leapfrogging innovation, analyzes the risk in the integrated leapfrogging mode, and describes the risk map of the integrated leapfrogging mode. Finally, taking the example of the integrated leapfrogging mode of technological innovation in developing China High‐speed Railway, this paper carries out the simulation analysis by employing system dynamics model.

In order to examine the impact of the integrated leapfrogging innovation risk on innovative achievements, main risk variables need to be extracted from the process of the integrated leapfrogging innovation, based on the system simulation, relationships among different variables and the impact on innovative achievements can be obtained.

To prevent the risk of the integrated leapfrogging innovation across the innovation, the first thing we need to improve is the contractual relationship, which is to be fair and reasonable, according to the symmetry principles of risks and benefits, and to achieve risk‐sharing and revenue sharing, in addition, all parties must be clear about their responsibilities and interests. The second is the reasonable position of the government's behavior, and it hints that the government cannot interfere too much, and its function is to provide service and support instead of ordering. The third is that enterprises should effectively prevent the risk of the integrated leapfrogging innovation through risk identification and risk early warning and risk pre‐control approach.

A new concept of integrated leapfrogging mode of technological innovation has been put forward, and the risk map of the integrated leapfrogging mode has been described. In addition, this paper proposes some suggestions to prevent the risks of the integrated leapfrogging innovation for enterprises as a reference.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the main research topics in the emerging fields of cyber risk and cyber risk insurance. The paper also illustrates future research directions, from both academic and practical points of view.

The authors conduct a literature review on cyber risk and cyber risk insurance using a standardized search and identification process that has been used in various academic articles. Based upon this selection process, a database of 209 papers is created. The main research results findings are extracted and organized in seven clusters.

The results illustrate the immense difficulties to insure cyber risk, especially due to a lack of data and modelling approaches, the risk of change and incalculable accumulation risks. The authors discuss various ways to overcome these insurability limitations, such as mandatory reporting requirements, pooling of data or public–private partnerships in which the government covers parts of the risk.

Despite its increasing relevance for businesses at present, research on cyber risk is limited. Many papers can be found in the IT domain, but relatively little research has been done in the business and economics literature. The authors illustrate where research stands currently and outline directions for future research.

This paper explores the building blocks of risk governance systems that are equipped to manage systemic risk in the 21st century. Whilst approaches to risk governance have been evolving for more than a decade, recent disasters have shown that conventional risk management solutions need to be complemented with a multidimensional risk approach to govern complex risks and prevent major, often simultaneous, crises with cascading and knock-on effects on multiple, interrelated systems at scale. The paper explores which risk governance innovations will be essential to provide the enabling environment for sustainable development that is resilient to interrelated shocks and risks.

This interdisciplinary literature review-based thought piece highlights how systemic risk is socially constructed and identifies guiding principles for systemic risk governance that could be actionable by and provide entry points for local and national governments, civil society and the private sector. particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), in a way that is relevant to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This considers preparedness, response and resilience, but more importantly prospective and corrective risk control and reduction strategies and mechanisms. Only when systemic risk is framed in a way that is relevant to the political agendas of countries will it be possible to begin a dialogue for its governance.

The paper identifies opportunities at the global, national and local levels, which together draw up a viable framework for systemic risk governance that (1) embraces the governance of sustainability and resilience through a strengthened holistic governance framework for social, economic, territorial and environmental development; (2) improves managing conventional risk to ultimately manage systemic risks; (3) fosters the understanding of vulnerability and exposure to gain insight into systemic risk; (4) places a greater focus on prospective risk management; (5) manages systemic risk in local infrastructure systems, supply chains and ecosystems; (6) shifts the focus from protecting privatized gains to managing socialized risk.

The choices and actions that societies take on the path of their development are contributing intentionally or unintentionally to the construction of systemic risks, which result in knock-on effects among interconnected social, environmental, political and economic systems. These risks are manifesting in major crises with cascading effects and a real potential to undermine the achievement of the SDGs, as COVID-19 is a stark reminder of. This paper offers the contours of a new risk governance paradigm that is able to navigate the new normal in a post-COVID world and is equipped to manage systemic risk.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the risks managers and individual supply chains perceive from e-business.

This research takes a long-term, staged view of the risks managers and individual supply chains perceive from e-business. By taking a two-stage approach, investigating four supply chains at a three year interval, the research considers perceived risks from e-business and the extent to which these risks obtained.

E-business has the potential to deliver substantial benefits, but it also involves new and different risks. This research finds that small firms (SMEs) adopted a “watching brief” rather than implemented e-business. Between the two studies it emerges that e-business can support rather than detract from inter-organisational relationships. Global forces are in evidence in terms of low cost competition, but low cost competitors are not e-enabled.

Limitations, pragmatism and opportunism in the sampling is acknowledged. For example, the work and concepts that led to the expectation of e-business dominating and decimating industrial supply chains may have been based in chains more open to external forces than the ones examined here. Further research is required that identifies the minimum critical mass necessary to retain national manufacturing capacity at a chain or sector level, and empirical work is needed on the suggested link between supply chain stability and certainty of payment. The cases here are based on four UK supply chains, so various chain forms are likely to have been excluded.

This research, by taking a staged approach and going back to the same chain and reviewing perceived risks, identifies how the build up of numerous – but small – events, for example factory closures, can aggregate over time to be just as significant as high profile, headline-worthy risks. Methods that produce a snapshot such as a one-off survey may be inadequate for fully exploring an area such as risk. Especially if the risks are hard to assess and are biased toward high profile events – catastrophic risks rather than accumulations of smaller, less noticeable risks.