Share

Wake up to risk

Wake up to risk
Strategy

Wake up to risk

Governance | Ian Allsop | 5 Dec 2007

Ian Allsop explains why risk management is an ongoing process.

Risk management has moved on a great deal since Sorp 2000 first required trustees to make a risk statement, and is now embedded into the day-to-day running of most charities. Or is it?

New research from PKF and CFDG reveals that in reality, a lot of charities are concerned that their risk management is not as effective as it should be, being seen as no more than a paper exercise in some cases.

Other revealing statistics include the fact that a quarter of charities have experienced adverse publicity in the past two years and yet only 43 per cent have a response plan in place. And a startling 34 per cent claim that their premises had experienced an attempted break in over the same period, with over half experiencing theft or damage. This would leave a cynic to suggest that insurance fraud is being used as a new source of funding if it wasn’t for the fact we are talking about charities.

If something is worth doing it’s worth doing properly and such findings should come as a wake-up call to those charities that have become too comfortable with the concept of risk assessment as a tick-box exercise rather than a constructive and positive contributor to their organisation. It has to be an ongoing process to maintain momentum, rather than a once-a-year obligation, and has to be driven from the very top. Only 12 per cent of charities responding to the survey highlighted financial sustainability as their major worry compared with 59 per cent citing embedding risk management. Yet, if risk isn’t taken seriously and managed well, it is possible that financial sustainability could well become a headache for more charities, whether they are currently worried about it or not.

Ian Allsop is the editor of Charity Finance magazine

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close ยป

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.