The Significance of Policy and Guidelines on Risk Management Implementation and Development in Malaysian and United Kingdom Public Sector
Journal of Finance and Accounting
Volume 8, Issue 2, March 2020, Pages: 83-89
Received: Mar. 11, 2020; Accepted: Apr. 3, 2020; Published: Apr. 17, 2020
Views 82      Downloads 56
Authors
Ahmad Shukri Abdul Gani, Tunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accounting, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia
Basariah Salim, Tunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accounting, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia
Noraza Mat Udin, Tunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accounting, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to identify the significance of the policy and guidelines on risk management implementation and development in the public sector. Specifically, this paper compared the risk management implementation in the Malaysian and United Kingdom public sector by emphasizing the significance of policy and guidelines. Archival documents from government websites and relevant government agencies in Malaysia and United Kingdom were collected and critically analyzed. This study found that policy and guidelines are significant in risk management implementation and development in the public sector context. The central government policy is classified as the most powerful element as compliance with regulation is the dominant factor driving risk control systems in many organizations. In addition, suitable guidelines ensure organizations have good risk management practices and not just a one-off exercise, to facilitate the development of sustainable processes of risk management. The Malaysian government needs to decide to adopt a more formal and structured approach to risk management by incorporating the best practices from the private sector and benchmarks from a variety of public sector organizations around the world, such as the United Kingdom. The relevant guides and reports should be prepared by adopting various methods to contribute toward the development of risk management in Malaysian public sector.
Keywords
Central Government, Malaysia, Public Sector, Risk Management, United Kingdom
To cite this article
Ahmad Shukri Abdul Gani, Basariah Salim, Noraza Mat Udin, The Significance of Policy and Guidelines on Risk Management Implementation and Development in Malaysian and United Kingdom Public Sector, Journal of Finance and Accounting. Vol. 8, No. 2, 2020, pp. 83-89. doi: 10.11648/j.jfa.20200802.14
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
ISO. (2009). ISO 31000: Risk Management - Principles and Guidelines (Vol. 2009).
[2]
Ow, P. (2008). Embedding Risk Management Practices for Improved Organisational Performance. Accountant Today, (April), 26–30.
[3]
Chapman, R. J. (2011). Simple Tools and Techniques For Enterprise Risk Management (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
[4]
Cadbury Committee. (1992). Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. London.
[5]
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales, (ICAEW). (1999). Internal Control: Guidance for Directors on the Combined Code. London.
[6]
COSO. (2004). Enterprise Risk Management - Integrated Framework.
[7]
Hood, J., & Smith, T. (2013). Perceptions of Quantifiable Benefits of Local Authority Risk Management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26 (4), 309–319.
[8]
Vinnari, E., & Skærbæk, P. (2014). The uncertainties of risk management: A field study on risk management internal audit Practices in a Finnish municipality. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27 (3), 489–526.
[9]
Audit Commission. (2001). Worth the Risk: Improving Risk Management in Local Government. London
[10]
Broadbent, J., & Guthrie, J. (2008). Public sector to public services: 20 years of “contextual” accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21 (2), 129–169.
[11]
Woods, M. (2009). A Contingency Theory Perspective on The Risk Management Control System Within Birmingham City Council. Management Accounting Research, 20 (1), 69–81.
[12]
McPhee, I. (2005). Risk and Risk Management in the Public Sector. Public Sector Governance and Risk Forum.
[13]
Vincent, J. (1996). Managing Risk In Public Services: A Review of The International Literature. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 9 (2), 57–64.
[14]
Cuganesan, S., Dunford, R., & Palmer, I. (2012). Strategic Management Accounting and Strategy Practices Within a Public Sector Agency. Management Accounting Research, 23 (4), 245–260.
[15]
Chen, C., & Bozeman, B. (2012). Organizational Risk Aversion: Comparing the Public and Non-Profit Sectors. Public Management Review, 14 (3), 377–403.
[16]
Collier, P. M., & Woods, M. (2011). A Comparison of the Local Authority Adoption of Risk Management in England and Australia. Australian Accounting Review, 21 (2), 111–123.
[17]
Crawford, M., & Stein, W. (2004). Risk Management in UK Local Authorities: The Effectivness of Current Guidance and Practice. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17 (6), 498–512.
[18]
Bakar, N. B. A., & Saleh, Z. (2011). Public Sector Accounting Research In Malaysia: Identifying Gaps and Opportunities. IPN Journal of Research and Practice in Public Sector Accounting and Management, 1, 23–42.
[19]
Collier, P. M., Berry, A. J., & Burke, G. T. (2006). Risk and Management Accounting: Best Practice Guidelines For Enterprise-Wide Internal Control Procedures. CIMA Research Executive Summaries Series, 2 (11).
[20]
Xavier, J. A. (1998). Budget Reform in Malaysia and Australia Compared. Public Budgeting & Finance, (Spring), 99–118.
[21]
The Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU). (2005). The Public Sector Information Security Risk Assessment Guideline. Putrajaya, Malaysia.
[22]
Prime Minister’s Department. (2009). An Initiative To Consolidate The Integrity Management System Of Malaysian Government Administration. Putrajaya, Malaysia.
[23]
Prime Minister’s Department. (2014). Prime Minister Directive No. 1 of 2014: Strengthening the Integrity of the Malaysian Government's Administrative Management System. Putrajaya, Malaysia.
[24]
Auditor-General. (2013). Auditor-General’s Report: Activities of Ministries / Departments and Management of Federal Government Companies. Putrajaya, Malaysia.
[25]
Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (1997). Project Risk Management: Process, Techniques and Insights (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.
[26]
National Audit Office. (2000). Supporting Innovation: Managing Risk in Government Departments. London.
[27]
Cabinet Office. (2002). Risk: Improving Government ’ s Capability to Handle Risk and Uncertainty. London.
[28]
HM Treasury. (2004). The Orange Book: Management of Risk - Principles and Concepts. London.
[29]
National Audit Office. (2004a). Managing Risks to Improve Public Services. London.
[30]
National Audit Office. (2004b). Case Studies: Managing Risks to Improve Public Services. London.
[31]
HM Treasury. (2011). The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government.
[32]
National Audit Office. (2011). Managing Risks in Government. London.
[33]
Ashby, S., Bryce, C., & Ring, P. (2019). Risk and performance: Embedding Risk Management.
[34]
Miccolis, J. (2003). Implementing Enterprise Risk Management: Getting the Fundamentals Right. In International Risk Management Institute, Inc.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186