Search results

Basel III regulations require banks to protect themselves against strategic risk. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive and measurable definition of this risk and proposes a framework to estimate economic capital requirements.

The paper studies the literature and solicits expert opinion in formulating a comprehensive and measurable definition of strategic risk. The paper postulates that the economic capital for a bank’s strategic risk should be estimated using the cost of equity as the profitability threshold, rather than zero and develops a simulation-based framework to estimate economic capital.

The framework closely matches the actual economic capital outlay for strategic risk from our case study of ABN AMRO. It is shown that a bank’s strategic growth plans can fall into one of two scenarios based on risk-return characteristics. In one scenario, the required economic capital outlay will increase, and decrease in the other.

This framework is generalizable and makes use of widely accepted and used practices in banks, making it readily implementable in practice. It does not introduce errors resulting from model selection, parameterizations or complex calculations.

Society would be worse off in the absence of banking and lending services. Banks need to take risks to grow and stay competitive. The framework facilitates better strategic risk management, protecting banks from collapse and reducing the need for taxpayer-funded bailouts.

The paper provides a measurable and practitioner-verified definition of strategic risk and proposes a simple framework to estimate economic capital requirements, a crucial topic, given the threats and increased levels of strategic risk facing banks.

This paper aims to explore the reporting challenges and related organisational mechanisms of change associated with disclosing corporate risks within integrated reports.

This paper adopts a Latourian performative approach to explore the organisational mechanisms of change in terms of networks of actors, both “human” and “non-human”, involved in the preparation of risk-related disclosure. Empirical evidence is collected by means of in-depth interviews with the preparers of an integrated reporting pioneer company.

Preparing disclosure on corporate risks in the context of integrated reporting demands close interaction among several actors. When disclosure shifts from listing key risks to providing information on how these risks are managed or connect with corporate strategy and value creation, departments not usually involved in corporate reporting play an active role and external stakeholders offer pertinent insights, benchmarks and feedback. Integrated reporting and risk management frameworks are the “non-human” actors that facilitate the engagement of diverse “human” actors.

Preparers should be aware that risk disclosure within integrated reports requires collaboration among (“human”) actors belonging to different departments and the engagement of external stakeholders. Preparers should consider the frameworks of integrated reporting and risk management as facilitators of cross-departmental discussions and dialogue, rather than mere contributors of guidelines and recommendations.

This study enriches the scant literature on organisational mechanisms of change made in response to integrated reporting challenges, showing subsequent advancements in the organisational process underlying the preparation of risk disclosure.

The purpose of this paper is to bridge the disciplinary divide between international finance and international business (IB) to realign academic research with business reality in which strategy and finance align to determine firms’ success or failures.

The authors discuss theoretical differences between the fields of international finance and IB strategy that caused the fields to develop in isolation with little fertilization across disciplines. The authors review scarce interdisciplinary contributions between the fields. Finally, the authors identify complementarities that suggest fruitful avenues for future research.

The authors find a persistent disconnect between finance and strategy/IB literature that can be explained by fundamentally different aims and assumptions about the markets. While finance theory seeks to explain typical effects under functioning markets, strategy and IB theories focus inherently on exceptional effects and market inefficiencies.

The fundamental theoretical differences that isolate finance and strategy/IB create avenues for interdisciplinary research that harness the complementarities of the two disciplines. These include strategic aspects of capital structure, internal capital market inefficiencies, corporate governance, capital market liability of foreignness and institutional aspects of financial management.

With this paper, the authors not only bring academic researchers in finance and strategy closer to corporate practice. The theoretical discussion also challenges the functional blind spots of practitioners and encourages more holistic decision-making.

Challenging market functioning and recognizing market inefficiencies using strategy and IB foundations connects financial economics with non-market topics such as environment, society and governance or impact investing.

The value and originality of the paper come from the qualitative, epistemological approach to study and analyse the divide between international finance and strategy/IB scholarship.