Turning Risk Reports into Action: A Critical Review of Behavioral Barriers to Effective Enterprise Risk Management

Tri Gunarsih; Muh Arief Effendi; Fran Sayekti

doi:10.46923/ijbhes.v8i1.683

Tri Gunarsih Universitas Teknologi Yogyakarta https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6827-2510
Muh Arief Effendi Trisakti School Of Management
Fran Sayekti Universitas Teknologi Yogyakarta https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7148-1451

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46923/ijbhes.v8i1.683

Keywords: Behavioral Finance, Cognitive Biases, Decoupling, Enterprise Risk Management, Risk Culture, Strategic Decision-Making

Abstract

This article provides a critical review of why enterprise risk management (ERM) often fails to turn risk reports into timely risk actions. Drawing on behavioral finance (prospect theory) and bounded rationality, we explain how cognitive biases and attention constraints distort risk appraisal (probability/impact estimation and prioritization) and risk response (mitigation execution and escalation), creating a persistent gap in risk reporting and action. Agency theory and upper echelons theory clarify how incentive misalignment and executive biases shape organizational risk-taking, while institutional theory highlights ERM decoupling between formal structures and actual decision practices. We synthesize these perspectives into an integrative framework that positions ERM maturity and risk culture as mechanisms that can either transmit or buffer the effects of bias. Finally, the review then outlines a toolkit of bias-aware risk controls, standardized scenario framing, pre-mortems, independent challenge, action triggers, and stop-loss/kill criteria to strengthen strategic decision discipline.

References

Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (2017). Enterprise Risk Management---Integrating with Strategy and Performance. https://www.coso.org/guidance-erm
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Dulin, S., Bredikhin, A., Bridges, N., Williams, L., Keisler, J., Russo, E., & Linkov, I. (2025). Civil works megaprojects: Cognitive biases and lessons for effective risk mitigation. Project Leadership and Society, 6, 100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2025.100198
Gleißner, W., & Berger, T. B. (2024). Enterprise risk management: Improving embedded risk management and risk governance. Risks, 12(12), 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks12120196
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2018). {ISO 31000:2018} Risk management---Guidelines. https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html
Jemaa, F. (2022). Recoupling work beyond COSO: A longitudinal case study of enterprise-wide risk management. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 103, 101369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2022.101369
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Mathisen, G. E., Tjora, T., & Bergh, L. I. V. (2022). Speaking up about safety concerns in high-risk industries: Correlates of safety voice in the offshore oil rig sector. Safety Science, 145, 105487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105487
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE ’14). https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268