Concepts of Risk Attitudes

Do individuals jump at the chance to go for a risk, and would that be something to be thankful for, or rather not? Counseling the shrewdness of maxims gives an entire scope of “yes” and “no” demeanors: “Nothing wandered, nothing picked up”, “It’s ideal to be sheltered than sorry”, “When luck grins, grasp her”, “Look before you jump”, “Who challenges wins”, “A flying creature in the hand beats two in the shrubbery” … Truth be told, ideas, for example, risk inclination, risk-chasing versus risk-aversive, risk-taker et cetera are generally utilized and seen as existing by most laypeople and many risk specialists.

They are hypothesized – verifiably or unequivocally – as an identity trait(s) by a few creators however not (yet?) convincingly approved accordingly. Nonetheless, it appears that these develops are conflictingly and now and then nonsensically characterized in the writing.

While risk conduct has been contemplated strongly and an extensive number of risk recognition studies are accessible, far less research exists with respect to individuals’ mentalities towards risk-taking, i.e., risk states of mind, for example, risk penchant and risk repugnance. In any case, this issue is exceptionally pertinent to risk inquire about: if methodical individual contrasts in risk states of mind exist, then this should be considered in risk discernment look into and also in risk correspondence going for changing the risk conduct of specific individuals or gatherings.

Given the uncertainty of numerous ideas managed in risk investigate, it appears to be critical to clear up the fundamental thoughts. The meaning of risk inclination and repugnance proposed above implies that develops are comprehended as dispositions (in accordance with how this term is utilized as a part of social brain science) and are to be measured likewise. It is additionally critical to be clear about what a scale really catches: most “risk” surveys, even those named “risk-taking” or “risk conduct poll”, don’t quantify conduct; rather, perceptions which go before the genuine conduct.

Investigate into the state of mind individuals hold towards going out on a limb for the most part developed in three settings: choice procedures, social brain science, and identity models. Mentalities, for example, risk-chasing are a center consider models of decision and choice. A fundamental enthusiasm for early reviews on risky conduct was the manner by which people manage risk in a gathering circumstance, and whether “risky movements” happen or not. There is likewise a long-standing level headed discussion inside identity analysts whether risk inclination ought to be dealt with as an identity attribute and how risk introductions differ crosswise over peril sorts and spaces.

Research on Attitudes towards Risk-Taking

Inside financial brain research, risk mentalities got significant consideration also. From a clinical perspective, specialists investigated whether strange practices can be connected to risk states of mind. The identity of bikers” is a pleasant case of this profession. All the more as of late, sexual orientation contrasts in risk demeanors have been taken a gander at, instigated by multifold perceptions that ladies indicate high-risk conduct less frequently than men. Besides, there is extraordinary writing on “risk” as something engaging and charming, that examines why a few people in a few conditions are pulled in as opposed to terrified by risk circumstances. Some of these specialists created tests for risk inclination or related ideas.

In the course of the most recent decade, “risk” has turned into a noticeable issue of political/societal talk and in addition of social-logical research. At work or in their private lives people appear to be presented to various, to additional, and to more serious risks than in prior circumstances (e.g., auto collisions, smoking, drugs, AIDS, atomic energy, climatic changes), and the evaluation of these risks has turned out to be extremely intricate. A few calamities, for example, the mishaps in Chernobyl or Bophal, the quakes in Armenia or San Francisco, or the current oil calamity in Kuwait, have additionally expanded the consciousness of risks (Aroon et al, 2015). The risk is likewise a questionable issue.

In numerous social orders, serious clashes about the assessment of risks have developed, especially as for expansive scale innovations, for example, substance enterprises, atomic energy, and hereditary building. Profound worry about natural effects of human exercises assumes a critical part in this circumstance.

Besides, there is a significant crevice between how specialists consider risks and how nonprofessional individuals judge and assess risks. Contingent upon the hidden definitions and criteria, extremely heterogeneous risk appraisals are given by various groups. Many of the risks most conspicuous in the perspective of the general population are not those which – as indicated by factual information – have the most astounding mishap figures, death rates, wellbeing effects, et cetera. Clearly, numerous more viewpoints impact risk observation, risk conduct, and risk administration, counting an assortment of social, mental and moral viewpoints.

Hence political basic leadership about risk issues turned out to be increasingly confused. Under these conditions, it appeared to be important to supplement “specialized” risk look into (as done in characteristic sciences or financial matters) by social-logical methodologies keeping in mind the end goal to grow the risk idea and to comprehend the “risk psychology” (Barry et al, 2011).

The Complexity of Risk Perception

Inside this unique circumstance, therapists have managed the significance of risk, the subjective comprehension, and assessment of risk sources and the determinants of risk acknowledgment. Risk observation has been seriously contemplated, utilizing transcendently psychometric strategies. The so-called psychometric approach depends on four aims:

– To build up “risk” as a subjective, as opposed to a goal idea;

– To incorporate technical and physical and social/mental angles as risk criteria;

– To acknowledge assessments of “people in general” (i.e., laypeople, not specialists) as the matter of intrigue;

– To break down the intellectual structure of risk judgments, utilizing multivariate measurable methodology, for example, calculate examination, multi-dimensional scaling or different relapse.

This line of research was started by Benita & Lynne (2010). A significant number of studies took after, chiefly in the Netherlands, USA, and Germany.

In endeavoring to find how individuals see risks and dangers, Paul Slovic and his partners created what has been called ‘the psychometric worldview’. This worldview inspires quantitative judgments of riskiness for assorted dangers, in a path like certain sorts of psychophysical scaling. These judgments are then contrasted and judgments of similar risks on various scales reflecting risk qualities, for example, intentionality, controllability, freshness, et cetera. Some of these qualities have been observed to be exceedingly associated with each other.

Figure investigation has uncovered that these various attributes are reducible to a few elements. Investigations of different gatherings and studies utilizing an alternate scope of dangers (diverse exercises, advancements, substances) have uncovered a similar arrangement of components: Factor 1 — called ‘obscure risk’ — has been made out of scales, for example, obscure to those uncovered, obscure to science, new, and automatic. Factor 2—called ‘fear risk’ — has incorporated the attributes: the seriousness of results, fear, and calamitous potential. This two-dimensional arrangement has been found to represent around 65% of the aggregate difference in the measures (Calandro, 2011).

Later replications of the 1978 review, in which a bigger arrangement of dangers and an incredible number of risk attributes for assessing these perils were utilized, uncovered the general soundness of the variable structure for American examples. In any case, the request of these two variables was turned around; that is, the component clarifying the best measure of change was the ‘fear risk’ figure, while the second element was ‘obscure risk.’ These reviews likewise showed the third element, relating to the number of people presented to the danger.

The Relevance of Attitudes towards Risk-Taking in Risk Research

A few intercultural relative investigations of risk discernment utilizing a similar worldview have been attempted. One of these reviews was directed in Hungary, and another in Norway. These reviews looked at risk appraisals for a similar arrangement of 90 dangers (with minor increases in the Norwegian review) and furthermore thought about the perils on a similar arrangement of nine risk attributes (Chimwemwe & Chera, 2016).

The fundamental discoveries can be summed up as a variable investigation of thirty perils assessed on nine risk qualities demonstrated a somewhat comparable, however not indistinguishable, figure structure Hungary, Norway, and the United States. All the more absolutely, in the Hungarian specimen, a two-consider arrangement represented around 58% of the difference, with elements deciphered in an indistinguishable path from in the American example, however now and again with various element loadings. In the Norwegian specimen, the two essential elements (representing around 74% of fluctuation) were deciphered as ‘sure to be deadly’ and ‘automatic and uncontrolled perils.’ Owing to the stacking of individual scales, the main component was the ‘fear risk’ figure the American and Hungarian examples.

The second Norwegian component related all the more nearly to the ‘obscure risk’ consider. For this situation, too, the area of dangers in the element space likewise concurred with their area in the American specimen. (One contrast was the trademark ‘sure to be deadly.’ which was related to high scores on the ‘fear risk’ consider the American space however which moved toward becoming related with ‘known risks’ in the Hungarian space).

A well-documented disaster is found in Chernobyl; here is the link https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

The specialized evaluation of risk ordinarily models the effects of an occasion or human action regarding direct damages, including passing, wounds, malady, and natural harms (Durlauf, 2012). After some time, the act of portraying risk by likelihood and extent of mischief has drawn fire for disregarding value issues in connection to time (who and what is to come), space (the supposed LULU or NIMBY issue), or social gatherings (the working class, the very helpless, fare of peril to creating nations). It additionally has turned out to be clear that the outcomes of risk occasions stretch out long ways past direct damages to incorporate huge backhanded effects (e.g., obligation, protection costs, the misfortune of trust in organizations, or distance from group issues).

The circumstance turns out to be much more mind boggling when the examination additionally addresses the basic leadership, what’s more, risk-administration handle. Often, roundabout effects give off an impression of being needy less on the immediate results (i.e., harm or passing) of the risk occasion than on judgments of the sufficiency of institutional plans to control or deal with the risk, the likelihood of doling out fault to one of the real members, and the apparent reasonableness of the risk-administration preparation (Elangovan et al, 2011).

The Psychometric Approach to Risk Perception

The mishap at the Three Mile Island (TMI) atomic reactor in 1979 showed drastically that variables other than harm, demise, and property harm can force genuine expenses and social repercussions. Nobody is probably going to kick the bucket from the arrival of radioactivity at TMI, however, a couple of mischances in U.S. history have fashioned such exorbitant societal effects. The mishap crushed the utility that possessed and worked the plant and forced gigantic expenses as stricter directions, decreased operation of reactors around the world, more noteworthy open restriction to atomic power and a less feasible part for one of the major long haul energy sources on the whole atomic industry and on society all in all. This accident at an atomic power plant may even have expanded open worries about other complex advancements, for example, compound assembling and hereditary designing (genetic engineering).

The fact of the matter is that conventional money saving advantage and risk investigations disregard these higher-arrange effects and subsequently enormously belittle the assortment of antagonistic impacts chaperon on certain risk occasions (and in this manner disparage the general risk from the occasion). In this sense, social intensification gives a remedial instrument by which society acts to align the specialized evaluation of risk more with a full assurance of risk (Fabbri, 2016). At the flip side of the range, the moderately low levels of enthusiasm by the open in the risks exhibited by such all-around archived and huge perils as indoor radon, smoking, driving without safety belts, or exceptionally cancer-causing aflatoxins in nutty spread fill in as cases of the social lessening of risk. While constriction of risk is key in that it enables people to adapt to a large number of risks and risk occasions experienced every day, it additionally may prompt possibly genuine antagonistic results from underestimation and under reaction. In this manner both social intensification and lessening, through genuine disjuncture amongst master and open appraisals of risk and fluctuating reactions among various publics, puzzle traditional risk investigation.

At times, the societal setting may, through its impacts on the risk assessor, change the concentration and extent of risk appraisal. A valid example is the arrangement of moves made in 1984 by the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to a dirt and grain fumigant, ethylene dibromide (EDB). An environment accused of extreme societal worry about ensuring the country’s sustenance and groundwater supplies from concoction contaminants invited the Agency to concentrate essentially on these two pathways of populace presentation to EDB, despite the fact that it was very much aware that discharges of EDB from leaded fuel were a critical wellspring of populace presentation. Therefore, the main line collectors of the risk data the risk administrators, the broad communications, the legislators, and the overall population has gotten notification from the begin about disease risks from polluted water and nourishment, be that as it may, not from the surrounding air.

Factors Influencing Risk Perception

This case shows how the separating of data about dangers may begin as right on time as in the risk evaluation itself and may significantly change the frame and substance of the risk data delivered and passed on by specialized specialists (Fred & Henry, 2013).

Different analysts have noticed that risk sources make an intricate system of immediate and backhanded impacts that are defenseless to change through social reaction. But since of the multifaceted nature and the transdisciplinary way of the issue, a satisfactory reasonable structure for a hypothetically based and observationally operational examination is as yet absent. The absence of an integrative hypothesis that gives rules on the most proficient method to model and measure the mind-boggling connections among risk, risk investigation, social reaction, and financial impacts has brought about a reaffirmation of specialized risk appraisal, which at any rate gives unequivocal answers (however restricted or misdirecting) to earnest risk issues.

The idea of social enhancement of risk can, on a fundamental level, give the required hypothetical base to a more exhaustive and effective investigation of risk, what’s more, risk administration in current social orders (Gary & Jack, 2014). Now, some researchers don’t offer a completely created hypothesis of social intensification of risk, yet we do propose a juvenile applied system that may serve to manage continuous endeavors to create, test, and apply such a hypothesis to an expansive exhibit of squeezing risk issues. Since the illustration of enhancement attracts upon ideas correspondences hypothesis, we start with a short examination of its utilization in that unique circumstance.

While not denying or minimizing the hugeness of the idea of wrong to considering tort law, different scholars are slanted to express the centrality of it in torts as far as a more non-specific detailing: in particular, the obligation every us has in undertaking different exercises not to harm those our endeavors put at risk. On this view, the center obligation in torts is not to harm others (either outlandishly or full stop).

The general statements of Regulations and Codes of Practice in Norwich, UK regarding health and safety are in the HSW Act. The Act puts forward a range of regulatory tools at the disposal of the UK government in its role as guardian of health, safety and welfare. This includes making proposals to the Secretary of State for new legislation and issuing approved Codes of Practice (COPs) and guidance. The design takes the following form:

The Significance of Social-Psychological Approaches to Risk Perception

1. The general duties on employers, self-employed, and others in the HSW Act. They amount to a statutory (criminal law) enactment of common law duties of care.

2. Regulations, some of which clarify particular aspects of the general duties and are mandatory; others may introduce particular requirements for specific hazards or sectors. They don’t ass to the scope of general duties, but the regulations a higher standard of duty (‘reasonably practical’ or ’absolute requirements).

3. Guidance, which is not law but provides practical advice on measures available and the recommended practices.

In a clear sense, the two should dependably be considered as an associated tricky, and the objective (regularly undeclared) of all debacle and emergency specialists is to move from one to the next, from risk to well-being, from hierarchical powerlessness to versatility. Nonetheless, to see how powerlessness to disappointments and mishaps emerges does not consequently give prescient learning to avoid future calamities. For in making this intricate move one must neglect the recognizable ground of mischance examination and calamity improvement to enter much more challenging waters. It is no basic matter to determine how a hypothesis of institutional powerlessness may then be transposed into one of applied flexibility.

As noted over, the man-made catastrophes display defines calamity brooding regarding a disparity between some decaying yet not well-organized situation and the socially `taken for allowed’: or all the more specifically the social standards, suspicions, and convictions embraced by an association or industry for managing risk and threat. One ramification of this investigation is that both culture and institutional plan are situated at the heart of the security address. The current enthusiasm for the more specific term `safety culture’ can be followed to the mishap at Chernobyl and the reaction of the Western atomic businesses to the human preconditions to that occasion. The Chernobyl disaster is well documented and relevant to this study.

The mistakes and infringement of working techniques which contributed to some extent to the debacle were translated by a few, looking back, to be proof of a poor security culture at this plant and inside the previous Soviet atomic industry all the more for the most part. From that point forward enthusiasm for the theme has prospered, as designers, risk supervisors and security experts have endeavored to both define and operationalize the idea, to judge its centrality, and in various observational activities to scan for `it’. Nonetheless, the quick post-Chernobyl discourses of security culture can be studied for their diminishment to a blend of authoritative methodology and individual dispositions to wellbeing, to the detriment of the more extensive hierarchical issues. What is vitally absent is the common normal for all social association and culture.

Understanding Risk Behavior

Most likely it is not wrong to amass the prerequisites of carelessness into two, or three, or four components rather than five, for there is nothing outright in how the components ought to be numbered or characterized. At an existential level, what is most vital is not the number of components but rather their substance, how carelessness law is best considered. Be that as it may, at a level of useful seeing, how a tort is planned is of genuine significance, for it bunches and characterizes the limits of the substantive thoughts themselves. Carelessness accordingly is most conveniently expressed as the involved duty, breach, cause-in-fact.

1. Foresee-ability

The foresee-ability of destruction is a requirement for regaining injuries.  The foresee-ability of the risk begins the sense of duty.  The guideline of foresee-ability is the foundation for twisted accountability.  The exact nature of foresee-ability is that people ought to be accused of just that notice or knowledge of what a rational and normally judicious individual could have anticipated. For instance, the air hostess could have foreseen the intrusion into the cockpit of the airplane.

2. Control-ability

Controllability is a significant thing of regulator coordination, in addition, controllability performs an important part in various control difficulties, like steadiness of unbalanced structures via advice, or optimum control. Observability and controllability are two concepts of a similar issue.

3. Reasonableness

The word reasonableness is a broad and comparative term, it relates to what is appropriate for a certain state of affairs, e.g., in the cockpit. In regulation of Neglect, a rational individual regularly is the customary precaution which a rational and cautious individual notices in any situation.

The other component of the tort of carelessness is simply the unfortunate behavior, the litigant’s disgraceful demonstration or exclusion. Ordinarily alluded to as the respondent’s breach of duty, this component suggests the preexistence of a standard of legitimate conduct to abstain from forcing undue risks of mischief to different people and their property, which hovers back to duty. In early law, the standard of care forced on one individual for the security of another depended vigorously on the formal connection between the gatherings, for example, landlord visitor, specialist quiet, and so forth.

As society developed more mind boggling, a general standard of care wound up plainly important to administer the direct of people and undertakings who unavoidably force risks of harm each day on different people, frequently outsiders, on parkways or wherever. Thus carelessness law built up a standard for characterizing and surveying appropriate conduct in a swarmed world where everybody must move around to capacity, where periodic impacts are unavoidable.

Implications for Risk Management

A couple of issues is additionally captivating, with arrangements subtler than causation—the causes and impacts of sub-atomic activities, biologic movement, and human decisions to act and forgo acting in certain ways. The fascination of causes is as attractive for individuals as blazes are for creepy crawlies, and it is regularly as deadly. Before carelessness law doles out duty to a respondent for an offended party’s damage, it requests that the offended party sets up a cause-and-impact connection between the carelessness and the mischief. Causation along these lines gives the focal carelessness component that connections the litigant’s inappropriate to the offended party’s mischief. A large number of individuals consistently are harmed or slaughtered in auto crashes, slip-and-fall mischances, and horde different sorts of mischances.

Human presence includes the introduction to many risks. Catastrophic events, for example, surges and seismic tremors cost a large number of lives each year everywhere throughout the world. Since the modern transformation, specialized risks, for example, plane accidents, prepare crashes, burrow fires and mechanical mishaps likewise disturb society on a standard basis. Long prior, individuals attempted to monitor themselves against normal dangers with generally basic strategies, for instance by building their homes on high grounds to ensure them against surges. As society changed security frameworks were manufactured, for example, dams and barriers. Afterward, new mechanical creations, including atomic power and flying, and they’re going with dangers were presented. Different advancements, for example, populace development and developing levels of generation, utilization, and transportation, need to prompt an expansion of perils and of the outcomes of mischances. These days, a lot of cash are spent to ensure society against these catastrophes.

Be that as it may, in choice and arrangement making these consumptions on security need to contend with other open interests, for example, general wellbeing and the improvement of the new framework. Realize that basic leadership with respect to risks is exceptionally perplexing and that specialized perspectives, as well as political, mental and social procedures all, assume a critical part. In this intricate basic leadership prepare, a reasonably recognizable proof of the risks and of the impacts of risk decrease measures is extremely valuable. From a specialized perspective, the degree of the risks and the impacts of risk lessening measures can be evaluated in a quantitative risk appraisal (QRA). Therefore, the QRA can give a premise to discerning basic leadership in regards to risks. For the most part, four stages are recognized in the writing on quantitative risk appraisal.

Conclusion

– Qualitative Analysis: Definition of the framework and the extension, distinguishing proof, and depiction of the risks, disappointment modes, and situations.

– Quantitative Analysis: Determination of the probabilities and results of the characterized occasions. Measurement of the risk in a risk number or a diagram as a component of probabilities and results.

– Risk assessment: Evaluation of the risk on grounds of the consequences of the previous examinations. In this stage, the choice is made regardless of whether the risk is fair.

– Risk control and risk lessening measures: Depending on the result of the risk assessment, measures may be gone out on a limb. It ought to likewise be resolved how the risks can be controlled (for instance by an investigation, support or cautioning frameworks).

Risk measures assume a critical part in imparting the entire risk evaluation handle. A risk measure is characterized as a numerical capacity of the likelihood of an occasion and the results of that occasion. This risk measure constitutes the reason for assessment of risks by the leaders. Cut-off points or benchmarks set an adequate risk level. At long last, the risk measure can be utilized as an instrument to demonstrate the impact of risk-decreasing activities.

Fred Lemke, Henry Petersen, 2013. Teaching reputational risk management in the supply chain. Supply Chains Management, An International Journal, 18(4), pp. 413-429.

Adamides, E., 2015. Linking operations strategy to the corporate strategy process: a practice perspective. Business Process Management Journal, 12(2), pp. 266-287.

Adi Alic , Emir Agic , Almir Pestek, 2013. Effects of Risk-Related Purchasing Factors on Private Label Quality Perceptions. In: i. S. R. ,. B. K. Bosnia and Herzegovina, ed. International Business and Management. s.l.:Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 137 – 154.

Alam, M. N., 2010. Cost minimisation through interest?free micro credit to micro entrepreneurs: A case of Bangladesh. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6(3), pp. 247-256.

Aroon Manoharan , James Melitski , Daniel Bromberg, 2015. State strategic information system plans: An assessment integrating strategy and operations through performance measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(3), pp. 240-253.

Barry Brunsman, Stacey DeVore, Andrew Houston, 2011. The corporate strategy function: improving its value and effectiveness. Journal of Business Strategy, 32(5), pp. 43-50.

Benita Steyn, Lynne Niemann, 2010. Enterprise strategy: A concept that explicates corporate communication’s strategic contribution at the macro?organisational level. Journal of Communication Management, 14(2), pp. 106-126.

Calandro, J., 2011. The margin of safety principle and corporate strategy. Strategy & Leadership, 38(5), pp. 38-45.

References

Chimwemwe Chipeta, Chera Deressa, 2016. Firm and country specific determinants of capital structure in Sub Saharan Africa. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 11(4), pp. 649-673.

Durlauf, S., 2012. Chapter 11 Model Uncertainty and Empirical Policy Analysis in Economics: A Selective Review. In: Experts and Epistemic Monopolies (Advances in Austrian Economics. s.l.:Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 203 – 226.

Elangovan, G. Sundararaj, S.R. Devadasan, P. Karuppuswamy, 2011. Development of futuristic supply chain risk management pilot strategies for achieving loss reduction in manufacturing organisations. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6(2), pp. 39-51.

Fabbri, E., 2016. Strategic planning and foresight: the case of Smart Specialisation Strategy in Tuscany. Foresight, 18(5), pp. 491-508.

Gary D. Holt, Jack S. Goulding, 2014. Conceptualisation of ambiguous-mixed-methods within building and construction research. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 12(2), pp. 244-262.

Ignatius Srianta, Catharina Yayuk Trisnawati, 2011. Implementation of business planning project with experiential approach: A case study of entrepreneurship teaching to non?business students. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6(4), pp. 325-333.

Ingrid Bonn, Jonn Fisher, 2011. Sustainability: the missing ingredient in strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 32(1), pp. 5-14.

Jung Eun Lee , Leslie Stoel, 2014. High versus low online price discounts: effects on customers’ perception of risks. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(6), pp. 401-412.

Laura Davidson, Walter Block, 2016. A critique of definitions in economics from an Austrian perspective: macroeconomics. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, pp. 2-19.

Lawrence W. Judge, David Bellar, Jeffrey Petersen, Elizabeth Wanless, 2010. Perception of risk in track and field venue management: are hammer facilities overlooked?. Kybernetes, 39(5), pp. 786-799.

Matthias Kruehler, Ulrich Pidun, Harald Rubner, 2012. How to assess the corporate parenting strategy? A conceptual answer. Journal of Business Strategy, 33(4), pp. 4-17.

Maureen Bourassa , Kelton Doraty , Loleen Berdahl , Jana Fried , Scott Bell, 2016. Support, opposition, emotion and contentious issue risk perception. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), pp. 201-216.

Michael C. Brand, Philip Davenport, 2011. Proposal for a “Dual Scheme” model of statutory adjudication for the Australian building and construction industry. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 3(3), pp. 252-268.

Mysen, T., 2012. Sustainability as corporate mission and strategy. European Business Review, 24(6), pp. 496-509.

Nassr Saleh Mohamad Ahmad, Fathi Ramadan Mousa, 2011. Corporate environmental disclosure in Libya: A little improvement. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6(1), pp. 149-159.

Nicolas Kachaner , Kermit King , Sam Stewart, 2016. Four best practices for strategic planning. Strategy & Leadership, 44(4), pp. 26-31.

Oluikpe, P., 2012. Developing a corporate knowledge management strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(6), pp. 862-878.

Ranjit Singh, Amalesh Bhowal, 2011. Development of marketing?driven measure of risk perception. The Journal of Risk Finance, 12(2), pp. 140-152.

Rao Tummala, Tobias Schoenherr, 2011. Assessing and managing risks using the Supply Chain Risk Management Process (SCRMP). Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(6), pp. 474-483.

Richardson, J., 2016. Forethought in designing corporate strategy. Foresight, 18(4), pp. 444-446.

Robert Allio, Robert Randal, 2010. “Kiechel’s history of corporate strategy. Strategy & Leadership, 38(3), pp. 29-34.

Ruben Bartelink , Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek , Pauline van den Berg , Ellen Gehner, 2015. Corporate real estate risks: A survey on risk perception amongst corporate real estate practitioners. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 17(4), pp. 301-322.

Stan?Maduka, E., 2010. The impact of risk management practice on the development of African businesses. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6(3), pp. 213-219.

Stephen Liddle, Siham El?Kafafi, 2010. Drivers of sustainable innovation push, pull or policy. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6(4), pp. 293-305.

Tingting Lin , Riitta Hekkala, 2016. Governance structures in IToutsourcing: a network perspective. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal, 9(1), pp. 38-59.

Xuanwei Cao , Ali Quazi, 2017. Does an institutional factor influence corporate environmental strategy?: Looking through the Guanxi lens. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(1), pp. 94-112.

Yang Liu , Charlene Xie , Shengxiang She, 2014. Perception of delayed environmental risks: beyond time discounting. Disaster Prevention and Management, 23(2), pp. 112-122.

Yury Blagov, Anastasia Petrova?Savchenko, 2012. Corporate philanthropy in Russia: evidence from a national awards competition. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 12(4), pp. 534-547.

Zhongqi Jin, Jyoti Navare, 2011. Exploring the relationship between risk management and adoptive innovation: A case study approach. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6(2), pp. 29-37.