Page 537 - COSO Guidance

6 | COSO’s 2010 Report on ERM | Thought Leadership in ERM

particular framework more than others…” To the extent often were that the concepts were simpler to understand or
that an organization looked to another framework as their that the alternative guidance was simpler, more concise and
primary source of guidance, the two reasons cited most easier to implement.
Framework Used for ERM Guidance
Framework Used for ERM Guidance

COSO's ERM Framework 54.6%
No One Framework 16.9%
Not Applicable 13%

Other Framework 5.8%
Don't Know 5.1%
ISO 1.9%
Turnbull Guidance 1.7%

Joint Australia New Zealand 1.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Perceptions of COSO’s ERM Framework

Respondents were very positive about a number of positive perceptions include moderate to significant beliefs
characteristics of COSO’s ERM Framework. The most positive that the COSO ERM Framework demonstrates effectively
characteristic, the theoretical soundness of the framework, how ERM can add value, enables management to better
was rated high with almost two-thirds of all respondents assess how much risk the organization accepts relative to
(66.6%) and 68.8 percent of only those representing public stated objectives and provides clear and practical guidance
companies agreeing with that perception as “Significant” for the implementation of ERM. Overall responses and
or “A Great Deal.” The framework also had very positive responses for the sub-sample of public companies were
perceptions that it provides a common language for ERM almost identical on these dimensions. See table below
and that it clearly describes the key elements of ERM. Other reflecting the full sample results.

Percentages
Perceptions about COSO’s ERM “not at All “Moderate” “Significant or
Framework Positive Statements or Minimal” A Great Deal”

Provides theoretically sound principles 8.4% 25.0% 66.6%
and guidance for ERM
Provides a common language for ERM that is widely 20.2% 33.4% 46.4%
accepted by organizations and their stakeholders
Clearly describes the key elements of a robust ERM process 17.8% 36.4% 45.8%
Demonstrates that ERM can add value to an organization 29.5% 32.5% 38.0%
Enables management to better assess how much risk 26.8% 37.0% 36.2%
the organization accepts relative to stated objectives
Provides clear and practical direction and 35.8% 39.5% 24.7%
guidance for the implementation of ERM

When it came to perceptions regarding statements that were percent of respondents at public companies only indicating
critical of COSO’s ERM Framework, there is some cause for this perception was “significant” or “a great deal.” As shown
concern over respondents’ views on whether the framework in the table below, results for the full sample were somewhat
was overly theoretical, with 44.6% of all respondents and 45.1 mixed on whether the framework might be perceived as

w w w . c o s o . o r g