The following report is presented from the perspective of a risk consultant appointed for recognizing the approaches that could be followed in the construction project for the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) in Scotland. The construction of an offshore wind test and demonstration facility would be subject to various risks primarily identified in the aspects of environmental, socio-political as well as health and safety. The report emphasized comprehensively the demarcation of the various risks as well as the description of prevalent standards such as ISO 14001, ISO 31000 and OHSAS 18001 which can be considered as the basis for the formulation of policies and practices for risk management. The identification of critical challenges encountered by the construction project with respect to the distinct risk areas facilitates an impression of the possible measures that can be implemented for addressing the risks in an integrated or independent approach. The report thus recommends the implementation of a common and integrated risk management system that could identify and classify the hazards for the project. Risk management has been illustrated in the report with supporting evidence regarding corporate social responsibility, business impact analysis and ethical perspectives. This factor highlighted in the report focuses on the possibilities for assuming risk management as an ethical initiative, CSR obligations for the organization or a measure for compensating or resolving the disruptions caused due to business impact. Another significant element which could be found in the report refers to the concerns for business continuity planning that emphasizes on the possibilities for recovering from disruptions caused due to the risks in the three concerned areas. The report aimed at highlighting the relationship between risk management and business continuity leading to the identification of the interdependence between them as risk management is crucial for business continuity while business continuity planning could lead to productive insights for addressing risk management strategically. The final section of the report illustrates the recommendations that should be followed by Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm Limited based on the inferences drawn from other sections of the report.
The necessity of risk management in a large-scale project is perceived on the grounds of potential hazards, especially in construction sites (Adam & Nain, 2013). The construction of a wind testing and deployment facility in Scotland i.e. European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre could be assumed as a large-scale project which has to be reviewed for risks.
The following report would be presented as a consultation on the risk management infrastructure required for the construction project which would comprise of a clear illustration of risk management systems for environmental, health and safety and socio-political risks (Agarwal & Ansell, 2016).
The aim of the report is to present a clear identification of the critical hazards that could be faced by the construction project so that appropriate risk management approaches could be presented for Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm Limited (Arnold, et al., 2015).
The objectives of the report include a critical reflection on literature related to risk management, business continuity, business impact analysis, corporate social responsibility, ethics and integration of methods for risk management. Therefore, risk management could be perceived as a crucial entity for construction projects especially due to the higher frequency of workplace accidents responsible for fatalities and loss of competent workforce.
On a general basis, the risk management approach for a construction site should be aligned with the objectives of process modification, elimination of risks, imposing precautions and reducing exposure. This approach could be considered as the outline for framing the recommendations for addressing the risks identified in the domains such as health and safety, socio-political and environmental risk areas for the EOWDC construction site in Scotland and the appropriate risk management systems according to UK standards (Boyson, 2014).
The primary approach for developing a risk management strategy would be vested in a comprehensive interpretation of the individual risk management systems. First of all, health and safety risks have to be identified clearly in order to define feasible approaches for the management of the risks. As per Bromiley, Rau & McShane (2014), the estimates of annual fatalities amounting to more than a hundred and the counts of accidental injury at the workplace ranging up to 629,000 in the UK imply the necessity for a strategy for addressing construction workplace health and safety risks (Bromiley, Rau & McShane, 2014).
One of the notable disadvantages presented by health and safety risks is identified in the form of absenteeism which considerably hampers the productivity of a project. The impact of various workplace activities on the health of employees is overlooked in the majority of cases which leads to complicated costs in terms of human as well as societal resources (Calandro, 2015).
The definition of potential health and safety risks could be identified as any entity that is liable to affect the workers through injuries, fatalities or long-term health conditions. The likelihood of harm to the health and safety of workers at an energy harnessing and distribution construction site could be termed as risks.
The common health and safety risks that can be identified for the construction industry in the UK include respiratory disease, musculoskeletal disorder, dermatitis, stress and noise. As per Cano, et al (2014), respiratory diseases are commonly observed in the case of construction workers which are caused primarily due to inhalation of hazardous substances which could damage the lungs. Therefore, the common respiratory diseases which could be identified in the construction industry include asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and silicosis (Cano, et al., 2014).
The job requirements in the construction industry are directed towards higher physical effort which could be responsible for inducing musculoskeletal disorders that can affect the tendons, joints, spinal discs and muscles of a worker. According to Fan & Yuan (2016), a noticeable highlight, in this case, could be recognized in the form of a higher share of physical risks for the health and safety of individual workers in the construction industry as compared to intangible risks (Fan & Yuan, 2016). One of the significant elements to be considered as information in this context is the higher rate of fatal injuries in the construction sector as compared to other industries. The references to The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 could provide a clear interpretation of the health and safety risks that could emerge in the case of construction of the energy harnessing and distribution facility of EOWDC.
As per Gatzert & Schmit (2016), the Construction industry also implies formidable risks for the environment owing to the consumption of almost half of non-renewable energy sources in the industry. The degrees of sustainability in the construction industry are lower as compared to other sectors and this factor has not been able to depreciate the fact that manipulation of natural resources for personal benefits is aggravating continuously (Gatzert & Schmit, 2016). The utilization of energy in the construction industry in the UK is estimated to account for almost half of the national energy usage.
The processes implemented in the construction involved the use of fossil-fuel-driven energy especially in production and by the users or occupants of the building. This factor is responsible for the creation of carbon dioxide in higher quantities thereby creating concerns regarding the environment. The UK should fulfil its role as a developing country to restrict its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions thereby implying the requirement of major reforms in construction practices. Resource usage can be identified as a formidable environmental risk in the context of the construction project of the energy distribution facility (Giarola, Bezzo & Shah, 2013).
The materials obtained from a variety of suppliers and sources alongside limited prospects for waste management in the construction industry can be assumed as explicit characteristics of the sector. The fragmented nature of development has been considered a profound barrier to the practical realization of recycling objectives despite the common materials available for different construction sites. The construction site of EOWDC would require a critical reflection on the consumption of resources and the implications of depletion due to the lack of recycling initiatives (Goncharenko, Filin & Nalesnaya, 2016).
The environmental risks for the project could therefore be recognized in the form of damage to the surrounding landscape, loss of the ecosystem and habitat-based issues. Consumption of energy could also be observed in the transport of materials and production thereby leading to the production of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and acid gases. The environmental risks for the construction industry could also be identified with respect to the requisites for waste management throughout the course of the construction process. The risks of waste management could be assumed as the resultant of limited attention to details in the construction design, late variations and the use of inappropriate materials and dimensions in the construction project (Harris, 2017). One of the significant environmental risks is recognized as pollution which could be derived from manufacturing processes of products and materials, operational activities related to construction and handling and use of materials. The various processes involved in construction such as material specification and the utilization of the technological infrastructure are responsible for introducing pollutants or disturbances in the existing environment.
The construction of EOWDC at Aberdeen Bay also creates environmental risks in the domain of planning as well as land use and conservation. The construction project could be a major threat to the natural biodiversity existing in that particular location thereby implying environmental risk (Jha & Stanton-Geddes, 2013). On the other hand, the lack of land use planning could be assumed as a noticeable environmental threat as it limits the probability for coordinating the energy consumption levels.
The social and political risks for the construction project of EOWDC in Scotland could be identified in the form of the different changes in laws and regulations, implications of bribery and corruption, law and order, requirements for permits, pollution and safety rules and Law and order. The risks could be largely related to government interventions, social events and political activities (Kohnke, Sigler & Shoemaker, 2016). However, political risks have been highly undermined compared to other risks relevant to the construction industry. The interpretation of the role of political factors as risks for a construction project can be realized through the unique perspectives of the project and contractor.
The specific aspects of a project are considered responsible for complicating the political risks and could be identified clearly in the project-specific variables. First of all, the size, location, complexity and duration of the project, conditions for financial contracts and arrangements as well as public attitude towards a project are recognized as underlying implications of political risks for a construction project.
The introduction of revised legislation such as The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDMR) also implies the proliferation of major social and political risks owing to the creation of new job responsibilities and obligations for contractors, clients and designers. The UK’s law on the construction industry in the EU is followed, reflecting on the construction framework legislation such as the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act1996. Legislations for the health and safety of employees at the workplace could be ensured through references to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 leading to prominent improvements such as the introduction of sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences (Korableva, & Kalimullina, 2016). The limited tolerance for risk in construction premises could therefore be identified as a major social risk for the construction industry due to the requirements for a wide assortment of permits for health and safety (McConnell, 2016).
The particular standards which are considered benchmarks for the management of risks in the construction projects have to be aligned with particular references towards the resolution of environmental risks, health and safety risks and socio-political risks in the EOWDC Project. The standards include references to ISO 14001 for management of environmental risks, OHSAS 18001:2007 for addressing concerns of occupational health and safety and ISO 3100 for management of socio-political risks. These standards are also liable for presenting notable implications for the policy and relevant documentation required for risk management in a construction project. These standards are chosen because they are comprehensive, internationally used, and follow a similar framework of “Plan-Do-Check-Act” which make it easy to integrate. Zeng et al 2010).
Although the implementation of these chosen standards could have significant costs for the company, it is assumed that for this project, there is a ring-fenced budget available for this purpose, thus there will be sufficient funds for necessary ISO accreditations.
Construction of the energy distribution plant of EOWDC is associated with formidable indications towards the environmental risks such as that identified in air pollution, noise, soil pollution, possibilities for gas leaks and vibration. ISO 14001:2015 is considered a globally accepted standard for developing an environmental management system that could assist an organization to obtain viable insights into the identification, management, monitoring and control of environmental issues through a holistic approach. The references to this standard for the construction of EOWDC would be helpful for ensuring productive utilization of resources, reduction of waste and control over the potential impact of environmental pollution identified in the form of gas leaks or noise. The implementation of the standard would reflect the commitment of the top management to comply with regulations, consistent improvement through policy modifications, planning for environmental protection and implementing the relevant planning dimensions in reality. The standard implies the requirement of definitions for structure and responsibility alongside recognizing the necessity of training. The definition is also supported by references to the documentation of environmental management systems as well as the plans and procedures for document control. Performance management and monitoring are specified according to the standard through periodic internal audits of the system in place for the management of environmental risks.
Social and political risks that could arise for the project construction of EOWDC could include references to the possibilities of worker strikes, policy reforms introduced by industry regulators and the ceasing of work due to protests from local communities. The management of socio-political risks in this project would be based on ISO 31000 which could facilitate viable opportunities in the form of improving the prospects for accomplishing objectives, effective allocation and use of resources and the improved recognition of opportunities within the domain of risk treatment. The standard lays the foundation for the initial stage wherein the management has to recognise the requirement for a risk management system followed by allocation of roles and responsibilities according to a strategic framework. The standard also reflects on adopting a system for assessment and classification of risks which could be followed by the realization of the functionality of existing controls and induction of a risk safety culture for addressing risk management flexibly. The final stage of the risk management system specified in accordance with ISO 31000 involves the risk performance of the system in accordance with the obligations for continuous improvement in the frameworks as well as the legal obligations pertaining to risk management systems.
The construction of EOWDC could be associated with notable health and safety risks that can arise in the form of electrocution from welding activities, falling objects, crane accidents and scaffolding accidents. OHSAS 18001 has been framed for compatibility and ease of integration with relevant ISO standards for risk management such as ISO 31000 and ISO 14001. The standard implies the imperative requirement of an occupational health and safety management system which could perform the tasks of hazard identification, risk assessment and establishing controls in the workplace. The standard presents guidelines for establishing, implementing and maintenance of the occupational health and safety management system. The certification obtained with this standard is responsible for improving corporate image on the grounds of improving priorities for the health and safety of sub-contractors and employees in the construction project thereby limiting concerns of socio-political risks to a certain extent. For the EOWDC, the planning stage for H&S risk management will be characterized by the development of controls for hazard identification and risk assessment using tools such as Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA). The OHSAS 18001 also specifies action terms while emphasizing communication, documentation, competency, emergency responsiveness, documentation and precise allocation of defined roles and responsibilities.
The individual methods include risk identification, risk assessment, response and review which have to be reviewed for obtaining feasible outcomes for addressing the risk management approaches for the case of the EOWDC construction site in Scotland. The independent methods should be included in an integral framework with specific references towards addressing the environmental, health and safety risks, and social and political risks. The approaches for risk identification include brainstorming, expert opinions, interviews and surveys, past experience and checklists which could serve unique outcomes in different cases of risks (Ramadan, 2015). Political and social risks could be identified through the use of expert opinion and past experience (Schroeder, 2014).
Social risks could be identified on the basis of comparing expert opinions and past experience with similar projects that facilitate a clear impression of the common characteristics involved in each project thereby reflecting on the probabilities for precise identification of social factors that could pose threats to the project (Shaw & Andersen, 2016).
Risk assessment methods could also be implemented in the risk management system for three risk areas of health and safety, society and politics and the environment for the construction site of EOWDC. The primary advantage of risk assessment is identified in the flexibility for selection from qualitative and quantitative methods. Quantitative methods such as scenario analysis could be implemented for identifying the extent of the impact of environmental as well as health and safety risks. Scenario analysis provides reasonable opportunities for reflecting on the influence of a different scenario or risk on the project which would enable project managers to prefer a course of action that would be characterized with minimal losses as possible (Speed, et al., 2016). Social and political risks could be evaluated using the Monte Carlo simulation since it involves feasible approaches for determining the impact of risks on the basis of the uncertainties associated with each risk (Kohnke, Sigler & Shoemaker, 2016).
The environmental risks which are prominently observed in the case of the EOWDC construction sites are waste management and deterioration of the nearby land resources as well as damage to the surrounding ecosystems (Goncharenko, Filin & Nalesnaya, 2016). The social risks are perceived to be minimal only with the implications of the unfavourable attitude of the public towards the construction project on the basis of its novelty and concerns of bribery and corruption involved in projects of similar scales (Gatzert & Schmit, 2016).
The construction of the energy distribution facility is also found to be associated with minimal social risks owing to the demands for employment in the nearby areas. However, this can be considered as one of the contributors to the corporate social responsibility of the organization thereby suggesting social risk. The political risks which are identified explicitly in the case of the construction project of EOWDC include references to the recent changes in the Construction Regulations in 2015 as well as the ambiguities regarding the exit of the UK from the European Union that can lead to uncertainties in the following respective legislation precedents in the construction industry (Arnold, et al., 2015).
The PHA is chosen for this project as it is a simple technique commonly used in the construction industry, thus it can be easily understood by stakeholders. Although it is used in the early life of the project and other hazards may be identified upon further analysis, it generally saves time and money to forestall obvious harm that would have been encountered otherwise (Speed, et al., 2016).
Table 1.1 below is a Preliminary Hazard Analysis of the project, which highlights the main hazards facing the project with respect to the three risk areas discussed, namely Health and safety, environmental, and socio-political risk, as well as suggested strategies for their mitigation or elimination where possible.
Figure 1.1 shows the risk assessment matrix which compares the impact and likelihood of each identified risk to determine an appropriate categorization according to (Zeng et al 2010)
Figure 1.1: Risk Assessment Matrix and Color Coding (Zeng et al 2010)
|Category.||Potential Hazard||Cause||Effect||Risk Score||Suggested Corrective or Preventive
|Residual Risk Impact|
|Health and Safety Risk||Plant movement||Employees could be hit or run over by equipment employed for clearing or delivering construction materials to the base station site.||Severe injuries with fatalities in certain cases and loss of project time.||9||Personal Protective Equipment training. Monitoring the site access by non-essential personnel||2|
|Health and Safety Risk||Construction debris: Slip, trips and falls||Construction debris is generated from the excavation and demolition works while slippery floor on the construction site could be caused due to rain or water spilling.||Worker injuries, fractures and fatal ailments for workers.||9||Use of appropriate safety signs and labels for informing about the danger of specific areas on the site||2|
|Health and Safety Risk||Working at Sea||The loss of balance from a helicopter during installation of Wind Turbines at sea.||Severe injuries or death of workers||9||Personal protective equipment and quality harnesses for employees working at heights. Training of workers for effective utilization of body harnesses.||4|
|Environmental Risk||Structure failure||A floating wind turbine failure is associated with malfunction and a possible topple, induced through the design failure or inappropriate installation.||The effects of structural failure are detrimental to the environment. As the huge structure could constitute litter on the ocean floor, and disturb sea life.||9||Appropriate testing of equipment models via computer simulations to ensure they can withstand waves and other offshore conditions. Ensure appropriate installation procedures are intended for each component.||4|
|Environmental Risk||Chemical Spill||The risk of turbine lubricating oil spills into the water body during the installation of the Wind turbines.||Severe water pollution offshore and adverse effects on sea life.||6||Appropriate procedures for chemical handling should be developed, and staff trained to implement them. A standby emergency spill response/containment unit should be available on the site.||3|
|Environmental Risk||Noise/Dust/Vibration||The demolition of existing structures for the base station onshore, foundations and construction using mechanical apparatus.||Respirator disease, irritation of the eyes, hearing impairment and nausea.||9||The use of PPE such as safety shoes, ear muffs and goggles. Improving awareness of consequences among workers. Reducing the exposure periods for workers.||4|
|Socio-political Risks||Working environment disturbance||Primarily caused due to insufficiency in addressing the requirements of the workforce||The effects are observed in reduced productivity, especially through strikes.||9||Communication and consultation systems should be integrated into risk management infrastructure to obtain an effective resolution of such risks.||4|
|Socio-political risks||Consequences of changes in design.||The design changes are subject to the energy generation and distribution regulations followed in the UK.||Additional costs for the construction company for the unprecedented requirements for change in the design of the energy distribution plant||6||Implement effective contingency measures that should be aligned with legal precedents in order to compensate for the impact of political instability.||3|
|Socio-political risk||Activist groups intervention||The social and environmental impact of the construction project.||The effect would be identified in possible conflicts and halting of work procedures.||6||Implementing negotiating agreements with social activist groups on the grounds of consensual acceptance of demands on either side.||3|
The process of business impact analysis could be implemented in the case of the construction project for EOWDC in order to recognize the significance of individual processes that can provide sustainability for the project (Bromiley, Rau & McShane, 2014). The analysis outcomes also reflect possible outcomes that can be derived from the disruption of specific processes. The comprehensiveness of the business impact analysis for business continuity planning could be observed from the use of different factors such as internal operations, financial criteria, customer service and legal as well as regulatory precedents (Giarola, Bezzo & Shah, 2013).
Corporate social responsibility has been perceived as the set of activities pursued by an organization to improve its reputation and can be considered as an extension of the public relations activities of the company. On the other hand, the scope of CSR extends further with specific indications towards the application of CSR functionalities in the marketing activities of the organization (Korableva& Kalimullina, 2016). The mutual dependence between risk management and CSR has been derived from the changes in perception regarding CSR as an instrument for improving or repairing the reputation of an organization towards its capabilities for risk mitigation.
The application of CSR in contemporary management disciplines is reflective of the identification of specific risks, presenting the definition of individual risks and deriving suitable approaches for limiting the probabilities for risk and related consequences. CSR is directed towards the objectives of reducing the negative influence and since the process of risk management could not be realized through a single integrated system, the design of CSR frameworks in response to risk management have to be aligned with the use of appropriate instruments. Management of risk in the social, political, environmental and health and safety aspects could also be collated with the CSR approaches of a company which have to be associated with the aspects of operational risk management, reputational risk management and nonfinancial risk management (Jha & Stanton-Geddes, 2013). The reason for pursuing the implications of corporate social responsibility in a risk management framework could be identified in the proliferation of CSR risk from the risk areas identified for EOWDC.
The specific approaches which are used for implementing CSR include the involvement of international agencies and regulatory authorities in the design of CSR frameworks in risk management and the bottom-down approach signifying the generic nature of the same. Furthermore, it is also essential to focus on the scope of ethics in the construction project which could prove to be appropriate elements for resolving the case of risk areas identified for the construction project of EOWDC (Goncharenko, Filin & Nalesnaya, 2016). The ethics should be vested primarily in the project risk management consultants to communicate the identified errors and disadvantages to the client. The ethical precedents should also be identified from the perspective of the organization, especially in terms of the use of appropriate materials, design specifications for safety, measures for the health and safety of workers and potential occupants and the transparency of information for the public regarding the construction project (Cano, et al., 2014).
The prominence of business risks could not be undermined owing to the large-scale influence of these risks on the identification, evaluation and appropriate definition of the responses of organizations to different risks. Therefore, risk management has become a crucial determinant of business continuity which can be noted in the examples of organizations adopting enterprise risk management models which could able to provide a clear impression of the threats from varying avenues such as technological, social, legal, political or financial dimensions of the business (Bromiley, Rau & McShane, 2014).
Project managers could obtain details of incident-specific analysis and site-specific examination for highlighting the probable causes of disruptions in the project thereby ensuring the successful continuation of the project (Kohnke, Sigler & Shoemaker, 2016). The focus of risk management on minimizing the probabilities of event occurrence creates certain pitfalls such as the inability to restore the organization or project to its state prior to disruption. As per Korableva& Kalimullina (2016), the implementation of business continuity management is reflective of the opportunities to identify the impact of risks on access privileges to facilities, technology, the organization’s financial aspects and intellectual property rights and supply chain interruptions. Therefore, business continuity could be assumed as an extension of risk management for delivering productive outcomes to organizations for developing comprehensive risk management systems (Korableva& Kalimullina, 2016).
The recommendations that can provide appropriate results in the management of health and safety risks would have to be based on the short-term, as in a construction project. While the impact of the risks on social, political and environmental aspects could be related to long-term implications for the energy distribution facility. The following are thus recommended
Adam, T.R. and Nain, A., 2013. Strategic risk management and product market competition. Advances in Financial Risk Management, pp.3-29.
Agarwal, R. and Ansell, J., 2016. Strategic Change in Enterprise Risk Management. Strategic Change, 25(4), pp.427-439.
Arnold, V., Benford, T., Canada, J. and Sutton, S.G., 2015. Leveraging integrated information systems to enhance strategic flexibility and performance: The enabling role of enterprise risk management. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 19, pp.1-16.
Boyson, S., 2014. Cyber supply chain risk management: Revolutionizing the strategic control of critical IT systems. Technovation, 34(7), pp.342-353.
Bromiley, P., Rau, D. and McShane, M.K., 2014. Can strategic risk management contribute to enterprise risk management? A strategic management perspective.
Calandro, J., 2015. A leader’s guide to strategic risk management. Strategy & leadership, 43(1), pp.26-35.
Cano, E.L., Moguerza, J.M., Ermolieva, T. and Ermoliev, Y., 2014. Energy efficiency and risk management in public buildings: strategic model for robust planning. Computational Management Science, 11(1-2), pp.25-44.
Fan, B. and Yuan, Y., 2016. Constructing an assessment index system for strategic risk management in coal science and technology enterprises. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 26(4), pp.653-660.
Gatzert, N. and Schmit, J., 2016. Supporting strategic success through enterprise-wide reputation risk management. The Journal of Risk Finance, 17(1), pp.26-45.
Giarola, S., Bezzo, F. and Shah, N., 2013. A risk management approach to the economic and environmental strategic design of ethanol supply chains. Biomass and bioenergy, 58, pp.31-51.
Goncharenko, L.P., Filin, S.A. and Nalesnaya, E.E., 2016. Strategic risk management in innovative metallurgical investment. Steel in Translation, 46(1), pp.42-44.
Harris, E., 2017. Strategic project risk appraisal and management. Routledge.
Jha, A.K. and Stanton-Geddes, Z. eds., 2013. Strong, safe, and resilient: A strategic policy guide for disaster risk management in East Asia and the Pacific. World Bank Publications.
Kohnke, A., Sigler, K. and Shoemaker, D., 2016. Strategic Risk Management Using the NIST Risk Management Framework. EDPACS, 53(5), pp.1-6.
Korableva, O.L.G.A. and Kalimullina, O.L.G.A., 2016. An innovative approach to strategic risk management in banking: russian banks case study. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 13(25), pp.269-82.
McConnell, P.J., 2016. Strategic risk management: The failure of HBOS and its regulators. Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions, 9(2), pp.147-162.
Ramadan, M.A., 2015. The Assessment of Strategic Risk-Oriented Management (SROM) in Achieving Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Assessment, 1(1).
Schroeder, H., 2014. An art and science approach to strategic risk management. Strategic Direction, 30(4), pp.28-30.
Shaw, G.L. and Andersen, T.J., 2016. The Key to Sustainable Risk Governance: Strong Core Values, Delegation and Accountability. In Routledge Companion To Strategic Risk Management (pp. 70-82). Routledge.
Speed, R., Tickner, D., Gang, L., Sayers, P., Yu, W., Yuanyuan, L., Moncrieff, C., Pegram, G., Jianqiang, L., Xiangyu, X. and Aihua, L., 2016. Drought risk management: a strategic approach. UNESCO Publishing.
Zeng S. X., Tam C. M./, Tam V. W. Y., 2010. Integrating Safety, Environmental and Quality Risks for Project Management Using a FMEA Method Economics of Engineering Decisions, Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics 2010, 21(1) ISSN 1392 – 2785Order Now