Search results

The vulnerability of the tourism industry to an array of risks, encompassing family-related, small- and medium-sized enterprise-specific, strategic, tourism-specific and external factors, highlights the landscape within which small and medium family enterprises (SMFEs) operate. Although SMFEs are an important stakeholder in the dynamic tourism sector, they are not one homogenous group of firms, but have different strategic orientations. This study aims to investigate the interplay between strategic orientation and risk perception to better understand SMFEs risk perception as it is impacting their decision-making processes, resilience and long-term survival. The authors investigate how different strategic orientations contribute to different perspectives on risk among owner-managers.

Based on a qualitative data corpus of 119 face-to-face interviews, the authors apply various coding rounds to better understand the relationship between strategic orientations and the perceptions of risks. Firstly, the authors analysed the owner–manager interviews and identified three groups of different strategic orientations: proactive and sustainability-oriented SMFE, destination-affirmative and resilience-oriented SMFE and passive SMFE. Secondly, the authors coded the interviews for different risks identified. The authors identified that the three groups show differences in the risk perceptions.

The data unveil that the three groups of SMFEs have several differences in how they perceive risks. Proactive and sustainability-oriented SMFEs prioritize business risks, demonstrating a penchant for innovation and sustainability. Destination-affirmative and resilience-oriented SMFEs perceive a broader range of risks, tying their investments to destination development, emphasizing family and health risks and navigating competitive pressures. Passive SMFEs, primarily concerned with external risks, exhibit limited awareness of internal and strategic risks, resist change and often defer decision-making to successors. The findings underscore how different strategic orientations influence risk perceptions and decision-making processes within SMFEs in the tourism industry.

The authors contribute to existing knowledge include offering a comprehensive status quo of perceived risks for different strategic orientations, a notably underexplored area. In addition, the differences with respect to risk perception shown in the paper suggest that simplified models ignoring risk perception may be insufficient for policy recommendations and for understanding the dynamics of the tourism sector. For future research, the authors propose to focus on exploring the possible directions in which strategic orientation and risk perception influence one another, which might be a limitation of this study due to its qualitative nature.

Varying strategic orientations and risk perceptions highlight the diversity within the stakeholder group of SMFE. Recognizing differences allows for more targeted interventions that address the unique concerns and opportunities of each group and can thus improve the firm’s resilience (Memili et al., 2023) and therefore leading to sustainability destinations development. The authors suggest practical support for destination management organizations and regional policymakers, aimed especially at enhancing the risk management of passive SMFEs. Proactive SMFE could be encouraged to perceive more family risks.

Viewing tourism destinations as a complex stakeholder network, unveiling distinct risk landscapes for various strategic orientations of one stakeholder has the potential to benefit the overall destination development. The proactive and sustainability-oriented SMFEs are highly pertinent as they might lead destinations to further development and create competitive advantage through innovative business models. Passive SMFEs might hinder the further development of the destination, e.g. through missing innovation efforts or succession.

Although different studies explore business risks (Forgacs and Dimanche, 2016), risks from climate change (Demiroglu et al., 2019), natural disasters (Zhang et al., 2023) or shocks such as COVID-19 (Teeroovengadum et al., 2021), this study shows that it does not imply that SMFE as active stakeholder perceive such risk. Rather, different strategic orientations are in relation to perceiving risks differently. The authors therefore open up an interesting new field for further studies, as risk perception influences the decision-making of tourism actors, and therefore resilience.

Organizational technologies can be classified according to the roles they play as either commodity or strategic. Commodity technologies support common operations, while strategic technologies address perceived threats to competitiveness, often identified by strategic foresight. These must go through an adoption process before playing an effective role in strategy execution. The adoption process includes known activities, ranging from sourcing (itself from in-house development to turn-key acquisition) to operational integration. This paper aims to reveal strategic technology adoption risks that arise during strategy execution.

A gradually developed causal loop diagram model, supported by general literature, introduces three general classes of technology adoption risks: mismatched requirements, supplier dependence and unmanaged life cycles.

Rather than managed, these risks are incurred or avoided depending on decisions made during the adoption process.

Despite the scarce literature coverage for the approach, examples revealing the presence of adoption risks are nevertheless available in the well-documented history of enterprise resource planning (ERP).

Although ERP is presented as a general-purpose strategic technology, the unique business features of maritime container terminals pose serious challenges to its adoption, which provides additional support to the discussion and reinforces the conclusions.

The approach to identifying risks in strategic technology adoption departs from the current risk paradigm in two significant ways. First, it emphasizes policy decision-making rather than external events. Second, it views risks as systemic rather than occurring independently.

Strategic decisions leaders make involving organizational changes such as mergers and acquisitions (M&A), divestitures, and downsizing, which can influence and/or interact with other organizational factors. For example, within the context of M&A, changes impact financial performance, firm behaviors, and organizational culture. In addition, strategic decisions for these types of change can also interrelate with other more intrapersonal factors, including both leaders’ and employees’ health and well-being. Employee stress, also referred to as “merger syndrome,” outlines individual negative impacts of the changes including, but not limited to, cynicism and distrust, change wariness, and burnout, all accumulating to psychological effects including increases in detachment to work, stress, and sick leave. In this chapter, the authors outline the different impacts M&A phases have on stress and well-being and how they interrelate with the strategic decisions leaders make. The authors also outline future research opportunities and practical implications for how leaders and employees could better manage future major changes such as M&A activities.

This study aims to verify the significance of Andersen (2008) corporate risk management (CRM) framework in Asian emerging markets (AEMs) to control firm risk and improve firm performance.

The cross-sectional analyses are performed on a sample of 4,609 firms across nine Asian emerging countries using 2SLS estimation technique.

The empirical findings show that the adoption of CRM not only enhances firm performance by increasing the firm ability to capitalize on the market opportunity but also plays a significant role in reducing firm risk. The findings of this study assert that by institutionalizing risk management practices into an integrated CRM framework, the firm can reap multiple benefits by maintaining better contractual agreements and strategic partnerships with key stakeholders.

The study shifts the focus of CRM away from Western countries toward AEMs, which has been afflicted by high risks and uncertainties. The effectiveness of CRM against firm risk is established by dividing firm risk into firm-specific risk and systematic risk. Furthermore, this study also establishes that CRM not only leads to high returns but also reduces firm operational and production costs. Overall, the study provides a compelling argument to implement CRM for improving organizational performance and managing risks in a strategic and integrated manner. The findings are also relevant to risk management practitioners, as well as to academicians interested in the broader fields of corporate finance and strategy.

Research has focused primarily on the antecedents that influence the risk taking of CEOs themselves. This study examines how an important event experienced by a CEO at a direct rival firm influences a CEO's risk-taking. It also examines how prior firm performance relative to aspirations moderates the relationship.

In order to test the hypothesis, the authors perform an a difference-in-differences methodology.

Using a difference-in-differences methodology, we find that when a CEO wins a prestigious CEO award, competitor CEOs increase their firm risk-taking in the post-award period. The proclivity becomes stronger when their prior firm performance relative to aspirations is better. These findings suggest that a CEO winning a prominent CEO award influences competitor CEOs' risk-taking.

This study contributes to the literature on managerial risk-taking by highlighting that a star CEO winning a prominent award may serve as a striving aspiration and induce competitor CEOs to take risks, and that two different types of aspirations – striving and competitive aspirations – interact to influence the competitor CEOs' risk-taking.

This study operationalizes risks in stakeholder dialog (SD). It conceptualizes SD as co-produced organizational discourse and examines the capacities of organizers' and stakeholders' practices to create a shared understanding of an organization’s risks to their mutual benefit. The meetings and online forum of a German public service media (PSM) organization were used as a case study.

The authors applied corpus-driven linguistic discourse analysis (topic modeling) to analyze citizens' (n = 2,452) forum posts (n = 14,744). Conversation analysis was used to examine video-recorded online meetings.

Organizers suspended actors' reciprocity in meetings. In the forums, topics emerged autonomously. Citizens' articulation of their identities was more diverse than the categories the organizer provided, and organizers did not respond to the autonomous emergence of contextualizations of citizens' perceptions of PSM performance in relation to their identities. The results suggest that risks arise from interactionally achieved occasions that prevent reasoned agreement and from actors' practices, which constituted autonomous discursive formations of topics and identities in the forums.

This study disentangles actors' practices, mutuality orientation and risk enactment during SD. It advances the methodological knowledge of strategic communication research on SD, utilizing social constructivist research methods to examine the contingencies of organization-stakeholder interaction in SD.

Based on the 5th wave/tomorrow age theory, we are living in the world that is in necessity to change. Rapid urbanization causes global challenges such as economic problems and recessions, environmental challenges, climate change, social instability, health diseases, biological attached, and crisis caused by technological dominations. These challenges threaten the world, humanity, and human beings. Therefore, it is vital to tackle and struggle with them in order to maintain the world and improve quality of livability and quality of life to achieve sustainability. Generally, modern Blue-Green urban areas and smart cities with high quality of livability and life are proposed to deal with urbanization challenges to maintain the world and improve quality of human life. Based on Prof. Doost's 5th wave theory, related theories, concepts and models like Doost Risk Mitigation Method (DRMM), and also his experience on sustainability as best practice such as cooperating with Danish Sustainable Platforms Company, working as an academic leader at IoE/EQ EU Erasmus Plus project in Germany during 2017–2020, cooperating with former mayor of Copenhagen, consulting the German MV State Minister of Energy, Digitalization, and Infrastructure to cooperate with Iran in 2016, more than 15 years holding lecture and research internationally about risk and risk management on mobility in different universities like (TU Berlin) Technical University of Berlin (EUREF Campus, Sustainable Mobility Management and Sustainability Building) and also achieving a honorary doctorate in sustainable development management, a practical model concerned on risk management in mobility to provide comprehensive global Blue-Green clean sustainable urban mobility risk mitigation strategic plan is given. Therefore, in this chapter, impact of risk management on mobility to provide sustainable global urban mobility plan in order to create modern Blue-Green sustainable urban area and future smart cities through the 5th wave theory are explored. Fundamentally, the main goal of the research is to have an applied study about mobility risk mitigation and utilize it as a key to create comprehensive global urban mobility risk mitigation plan toward Blue-Green sustainable clean mobility technologies to create modern sustainable smart cities through the tomorrow age theory in order to create livable urban area with high quality of livability and life. In addition, the risks in mobility through the DRMM are measured to analyze the risk and to do risk mitigation and mobility project improvement to move to sustainable mobility and high sustainability in future smart cities.

This study aims to explore the adoption of enterprise risk management (ERM) in developing and developed countries. Is there a similarity or difference between the two contrasting institutional markets and the reasons behind them?

The adoption of ERM is analyzed on the basis of the institutional framework. The author draws empirical evidence by comparing the cases of a British and an Indian insurance company using evidence from multiple sources. This paper focuses on extra-organizational pressures exerted by economic, social and political situations across two countries that influenced the adoption decision of ERM.

The findings of this research revealed that early adopters of ERM in different institutional markets face coercive and normative pressure but not mimetic pressure. The adoption of ERM in India and the UK is dissimilar. Companies in the British insurance market encounter higher institutional forces than those in the Indian market because of higher coercive and normative pressure. The aspirations to adopt ERM in the Indian and UK markets included improved strategic decision-making to maintain stakeholder expectations and higher standards of corporate governance. In the UK, ERM was adopted to reduce surprises and fluctuations under flexible regulations but with stricter adoption and to improve credit ratings.

Previous literature has discussed ERM adoption in similar markets or within one market with similar institutional pressure. In contrast, this research is a comparative study that explains the analysis of institutional theory in two different institutional environments in the adoption of ERM.

The current paper studies how CEO attributes could influence corporate risk-taking. The authors examine the effects of CEO demographic attributes and CEO position's attributes on financial and strategic risk-taking.

This study is drawn on non-financial firms listed on the SBF120 index, between 2001 and 2013.

First, long-tenured CEOs are prone to decrease the total risk and the leverage ratio. Second, despite the many CEOs have political connections; they are not prone to engage in risky decisions not serving the business' interests. Third, old CEOs are likely to rely on debt to fund internal growth. Moreover, business and science-educated CEOs behave differently in terms of risk-taking. Finally, the authors show that CEOs' attributes have less influential effects in family firms than in non-family firms. Also, they seem to have more significant associations with risk-taking during and after the financial subprime crisis.

This paper examines how cognitive traits could shape investments decisions, in terms of risk preferences.

The purpose of this study is to examine how companies integrate cyber risk into their enterprise risk management practices. Data breaches have become commonplace, with thousands occurring each year, and some costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Consequently, cyber risk has become one of the gravest risks facing organizations, and has attracted boardroom-level attention. On the other hand, companies already manage many kinds of difficult and growing risks, and that firms lose less than 1% of annual revenues as a result of cyber incidents. Therefore, how should firms appropriately address cyber risk? Is it indeed a materially different kind of risk area, or is it simply just one more risk that can seamlessly be integrated into existing enterprise risk management (ERM) practices?

The authors performed thematic analysis based on semi-structured interviews, with non-probabilistic, purposive sampling, to answer two main questions. First, how do firms manage enterprise risks, generally? And second, how are they integrating cyber risk into these existing processes?

The authors find that there is considerable variation in the approach and sophistication in ERM practices, such as whether they are driven more like an auditing function, or as a risk champion. The authors also find that despite the novelty of cyber risk, it can be integrated like other enterprise risks, and that cyber risk is most often seen as an operational risk (similar to workplace accidents or fraud), rather than a strategic risk, emerging from, for example, technology innovation and R&D.

The generalization of the results is limited by the sample size and variation of firms interviewed. While the authors attempted to interview enterprise risk managers across a wide variation of firms, there were clear limitations in the scope. That being said, the authors were fortunate to be able to examine ERM and cyber risk practices across small and large, private and publicly traded companies, from a variety of business sectors.

The authors believe these finding are important because they present evidence that while cyber risk may be new, it does not require specialized handling or processes to track it at the enterprise level. While some firms may choose to provide special accommodations or attention because of their data collection or business practices, this approach is neither necessary nor required of all firms in all situations.

This research is one of the only papers that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, examines how cyber risk is integrated at an enterprise level.