Charting the evolving role and authority of the CRO : 2016 North American insurance CRO survey

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<rdf:Description>
<dc:creator>Ernst & Young</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2016</dc:date>
<dc:description xml:lang="es">Sumario: Results from EY¿s sixth annual survey of North American insurance CROs provide an overview of current ERM capabilities, practices and organizations. They also provide a view into the variety of ERM frameworks across the insurance sector. This year¿s survey revealed a spectrum of maturity levels of ERM programs  with some very impressive frameworks that are integral to and influential in how the business is run, to others that are limited in scope and formality. To a degree, this variety reflects the inclusion of a broader and more diverse group of participants in the 2016 survey compared with past years.
The survey also clarifies the role that companies expect CROs to perform. Where ERM structures are advanced, CROs are very senior officers and participate in decision-making at the highest levels of the organization. At the other end of the continuum, the survey included several insurers that do not have a single, titled CRO role, though there may be an officer leading ERM efforts. More robust ERM programs have typically been in place for a few years and are now fully embedded as part of routine business operations, while late adopters struggle to define the ideal role, structure and prominence of their risk teams.
Interestingly, despite the varying levels of sophistication and formality, all survey respondents felt their organizations have adequate processes to manage the risks to their business. In some cases, EY analysis reveals a degree of complacency where risk management capabilities do not seem sufficiently developed. There are just as many examples, however, where risks are very effectively monitored, controlled and mitigated without the recognizable or formalized superstructure that is often associated with modern ERM.</dc:description>
<dc:identifier>https://documentacion.fundacionmapfre.org/documentacion/publico/es/bib/160521.do</dc:identifier>
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
<dc:publisher>Ernst & Young LLP</dc:publisher>
<dc:rights xml:lang="es">InC - http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</dc:rights>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Encuestas</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Gerencia de riesgos</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Gerentes de riesgos</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Cibernética</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Empresas de seguros</dc:subject>
<dc:subject xml:lang="es">Norteamérica</dc:subject>
<dc:type xml:lang="es">Libros</dc:type>
<dc:title xml:lang="es">Charting the evolving role and authority of the CRO : 2016 North American insurance CRO survey</dc:title>
<dc:format xml:lang="es">26 p.</dc:format>
<dc:coverage xml:lang="es">Norteamérica</dc:coverage>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>