International Journal of Economic Studies and Management (IJESM)

ISSN 2789-049X
Int. J. Econ. Stud. Manag. 2, No.2 (JUNE-2022)

A glocalization lens to integrated risk management: the

actor as key factor

Saida AMANSOU

Research Laboratory in Territorial, Integrated and Functional Management "LARMATIF"

National School of Business and Management. University Mohamed First, Oujda – Morocco

Abstract: Changes in the environment have enacted salient parallel changes in business management
methods, including those related to risk management. Indeed, the latter, which was so far based on risk
splitting, is currently called into question. Hence, the concept of integrated risk management bulges out.
This concept is actually an outgrowth of the "traditional" approach which used to deal with risk
management from a functional perspective. Obviously, succeeding integrated risk management is
predicated on organizational factors, such as communication, learning, and coordination whereby the risk
is perceived as transversal and transcending the local functional level to a more global and strategic arena
of interaction. But it is equally true that neither risk management nor integrated risk management can
exist if actors in the companies do not perceive the risk to communicate about in first place. In this paper,
we defend the idea that the actor is the most important key in the process of risk management and
integrated risk management. Then we propose a new dimensioning of risk through a glocalized approach
and including the actor as central to that process.

Keywords: Integrated risk management; glocalization; systemic approach; actor; measurement.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6700339

1. Introduction
Companies are constantly evolving in a universe of risks, which is often complex, dynamic and hostile.
To deal with this, a large number of tools for assessing risks and facilitating their coverage have been
developed.
Companies are faced with a universe of highly diversified risks to such an extent that Barthélémy (2002)
describes it as a "risk machine". "Whatever its size, its age, its sector, its competitive situation, this leads
it to integrate, to varying degrees, risk management in its strategic, organizational or operational
reflection, or even to build its reflections around this last" . According to him, it is therefore essential
that it conducts a systematic approach to the diagnosis and a comprehensive and coherent treatment of
its risks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0

International License. 196
http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm
 Int. J. Econ. Stud. Manag. 2, No.2, 196-208 (June-2022)

Indeed, faced with complexity, uncertainty, dynamism and turbulence, risk management must move
towards approaches that allow it to integrate the principles of transversality, flexibility and collective
knowledge. Kessler (2001) thus emphasizes the importance of the notion of change in risk management.
According to this author, the change in the universe of risks also implies a change in the way of
managing them.
Changes in the environment have given rise to changes in business management methods, including
those relating to risk management. Indeed, the latter, which was based on risk splitting, was called into
question in favor of a new concept. This is how the concept of integrated risk management developed.
This is the result of the evolution of the "traditional" approach which deals with risk management in its
functional aspect. It should be noted, however, that these two approaches are not contradictory, but
rather complementary. In the sense that risk management in its functional aspect is an essential element
for integrated risk management. This for its part must be based on the results of the first mode which
remains dependent on it.
However, the keys to success a transversal approach are, among other things, coordination and
communication. Therefore, in this work we defend the idea that the glocalization of risk management is
at the center of integrated risk management. It plays in aligning risk management with strategy to
implement a transversal approach. This urges a reflection on the resizing of risk. Of course, the two
dimensions recognized by the literature of risk, namely the probability of occurrence and the severity,
are sine qua non for its measurement. However, risk detection is the responsibility of the actor. Thus,
before moving on to quantitative risk measurement, it is important to consider the actor who detected
the risk, where it was detected, and when it was detected. This is actually the purpose behind this article.
In that regard, we will first define the concepts of risk and risk management. Then, we will argue for the
need for integrated risk management and we will explain how glocalization of risk management can
develop integrated risk management. Finally, we will highlight the importance of the articulation
between local and global in risk management. The main factor to success this articulation is the actor.
Afterwards, we should proceed into redimensionning the concept of risk.
1. Risk management: a functional approach

Risk management is an activity which is practiced every day by the Company and its actors (François
Beaume, 2021). It can be a set of banal or sophisticated activities. Sometimes, risk management is
carried out instinctively (for example when we put pictograms as a smoking ban). The most imposing
question is how to define it. For that purpose, we have to define the concept of risk in the first place.
Barthélemy (2002) defines risk as "a situation (i,e., a set of simultaneous or consecutive events) whose
occurrence is uncertain and whose achievement affects the objectives of the company which is subjected
to it". The risk is represented in function of the probability (chance, possibility) that an unfavorable or
unintended event occurs; and of the severity or magnitude of the consequences of that event. Demeestère
and Lorino (2000) defines “risk” as a failure to achieve a goal, and its cause as a factor that can influence
the failure to achieve a goal.

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 197
AMANSOU: A glocalization lens to integrated risk management: the actor as key factor

J. Pignault and J. Magne (2014) for its part considers that a risk consists of a feared situation (danger),
a hoped-for situation (wish), a target (whose situation will be impacted, improved or degraded, a trigger
(or cause), which would launch the dynamic of change or evolution, as well as the interactive elements
that lead to, favor or prevent the evolution of the initial situation towards one of the two alternatives:
being feared or hoped for”.
However, according to Marchesnay and Rudel (1985), “there is obviously not a 'risk' but risks, whatever
the size of the company and the nature of the activity, especially when they are analyzed. According to
major Fayolian functions, but notwithstanding, there is only one fundamental risk: the death of the
company”.
To B. C. Stahl et al (2003), the risk is not absolute but local and particular. In other words, each risk is
specific to the context in which it was raised. It is defined by the situation itself and accepted by the
stakeholders of that situation. In this sense F. Cordel (2013) explains this divergence by citing the
example of the construction of a dam, “For the worker working on the construction of a dam, the risk is
above all a question of physical integrity (we will then speak more of security than risk). For the financier
who has invested in this same dam, the risk is above all expressed in terms of profitability and volatility.
For the engineers who designed the latter, the risk will be synonymous with (calculation) error. "
We would like to note that there is a tendency to define risk as a social construct. In this regard, we draw
on the work of R. Kmiec and C. Roland-Lévy (2014). Risk as a social construct is based on the concept
of perception, an essential concept in our opinion for the very detection of risk. Indeed, this tends to
position the individual and the risk in a social framework in which a group of people intervene and
where social and cultural forms as well as the value system plays an important role. "The idea is that
individuals can never be arbitrarily separated from their social and cultural environment."
We retain from all of these definitions that the risk has, on one hand, a double connotation: a negative
connotation which raises the probable loss in the event of the risk occurring and a positive connotation
which confers on the risk, if it is optimally managed, the opportunity to benefit from it. On the other
hand, there is the role of the individual in risk detection. A risk that is not detected by the actor will
therefore not be subject to management.
The concept of risk management was coined in the United States after the Second World War. In the
first inaugural work on this subject, Mehr and Hedges (1963) confused risk management with insurance,
which resulted in the consideration of "pure risks" only. “The distinction between pure risk and
speculative risks leads to the view that only pure risks, that is to say of loss (downside risks), exogenous
and for which stable frequencies were accepted by all (formerly “insurable” risks) came under risk
management”.
Risk management in this case was presented as: "the management of risks to which it is possible to apply
the organization, principles and techniques of insurance management".

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 198
 Int. J. Econ. Stud. Manag. 2, No.2, 196-208 (June-2022)

According to Barthélemy (2002), "managing your risks means conducting a process in three successive
stages: Identifying the risks, economically reducing the risks (quantifying the risks) and financing the
residual seriousness of the risks".
Risk management, as defined above, is based on a division of all the risks run and incurred by the
company according to the function, activity and where the task to which they are linked; something that
has been criticized in the literature. By relying on a Cartesian mode treating each risk in isolation, the
traditional approach, which consists in making partial choices in a non-integrated series, has failed and
the authors testify to this failure by relying on the ENRON case, the Internet “bubble”, the ERIKA
disaster, etc...
On the one hand, this approach appears as a defensive strategy which consists in the treatment of each
risk in a functional way as well as the reduction of risks, by transferring them to insurers and consulting
firms, to process them. Such an approach can be, according to Barthélemy (2002), dangerous and costly
for the company.
It can be dangerous in the sense that certain risks escape the field of insurance. These are only a
compensation for a measurable financial loss which only aims to replace the company in the situation it
was in before the disaster, and neglects the dynamic nature of the company.
1. Integrated risk management: A transversal approach

According to the literature, risk management in its functional aspect has proved insufficient, hence the
need for transversal management that exploits the existing synergies between risks, which were
neglected by the first management mode. The goal of integrated risk management is to create harmony
between risks. G. J. G. Lawrie, D. C. Kalff and H. V. Anderson (2003) argues that the big problem with
risk management is to answer the question of how to measure a whole set of risks in terms of probability;
of gravity; their correlations as well as their perceptions. Risk management must go beyond the
quantitative aspect alone, because on its own it can be ineffective.
The common argument in favor of integrated business risk management is that related to the potential
that such management has to create value.
For Müller (1999), the main argument in favor of such an approach is the criterion of effectiveness or
cost-effectiveness. Indeed, risk management usually requires offsets, which sometimes involve
comparing the costs of reducing a particular risk with the benefits it brings. By linking risk management
to value creation, Lawrie et al (2003), for their part, gives it an important role in managing the
performance of the company.
Managers must therefore manage risks simultaneously, identify the correlations and interactions
between them, eliminate risks; the elimination of which is the least expensive and which consequently
allows them to seize a positive value in their activity. But, when the cost of this elimination is high,
managers have to assess whether the benefit of elimination justifies its costs.
Such an analysis requires managers to estimate and understand the relationships that may exist between
risks and their impacts on the value of the company, hence a transversal approach. This approach

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 199
AMANSOU: A glocalization lens to integrated risk management: the actor as key factor

supports the idea that the whole is more than the sum of the parts, and therefore a systems approach to
risk management is paramount. The sum of everything in the enterprise is at the strategic level.
Integrated risk management must ensure that risks are not confined in their management to the service
in which they were detected, hence the need to combine the local and the global.
Integrated risk management is supposed to transcend the traditional form of analysis based on the
separability of functions towards a transversal approach, in order to be able to remedy the various
criticisms that have been addressed to it.
Indeed, Kloman (2003) describes risks as the keys of a piano between which there is a correlation that
requires harmonization, hence the need for a transition to integrated management of these risks. The
transversality of this new risk management method is based on a systemic approach.
The systemic vision is based on the idea that "the whole is more than the sum of the parts"; which means,
as Morin (1995) demonstrates, that there are emerging qualities that arise from the organization of a
whole, which can be retroactive. He adds that the whole can also be less than the sum of the parts because
the parts can have qualities that are inhibited by the organization of the whole.
Integrated risk management, based on this approach, seems to remedy the shortcomings that a
functional approach may present. Indeed, according to Kervern (1995), "a systemic approach to safety
issues should be implemented. An accident is generally not due to a single cause but to a combination
of factors, among which are also the competence operators that the quality of the organization charts,
and even the health of the company, competition, the choice of patents, compliance with regulations ".
Thus, according to proponents of the systems approach to risk management, the functional approach has
proven to be reductive because the correlations and interrelationships between risks are neglected.
Managing each risk in isolation is a risk in itself, as any correlations and offsets that may exist between
them will be omitted. If two risks, for example, cancel each other out or reduce their impacts on each
other, given the existence of an inverse linear dependence, it could be advantageous to assume them,
hence the interest of a global management or even integrated management of the risk.
Recommending the same vision of risk management, Geiben and Nasset (1998) argue that: “it is by
starting from this approach, thanks to a 'systemic' representation of the danger, that they tried to define
a method allowing to 'integrate all the risk factors included in safety and security and determine,
according to each item, their levels of vulnerability in relation to the organization studied”.
The systemic approach according to C. Chauvin (2003) consists in showing how the “functional
objectives” of the socio-technical system are integrated and translated by the operators during decision-
making. It also helps to detect unforeseen risks, i.e. risks created by another risk and which cannot be
detected during a functional approach and to understand how the different components and actions exert
an influence on the whole system.
2. The glocalization of risk management : articulation between local et global

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 200
 Int. J. Econ. Stud. Manag. 2, No.2, 196-208 (June-2022)

The transversal approach of integrated risk management needs an articulation between the local and the
global in risk management. Such glocalization stands for the articulation of strategic management and
operational risk management, or in other words, aligning risk management with strategy.
Derrouch (1984) and Paturel and Derrouch (1987) already insisted on the need for a synthetic approach
to risks in the company, and on the identification of its global risk, which had to be managed at the
strategic level. Diskinson (2001) speaks about enterprise risk management. Of course, the latter
stipulates the need for a systemic approach taking into account several risks at the same time. But this
approach only addresses insurable risks and financial risks.
According to G. Dionne (2013), the process of identifying, evaluating and managing risks is part of the
strategic development of the company and must be designed and planned at the highest level.
The practice of global risk management allows a local-global articulation of risks within in a strategic
vision. The fundamental idea is, according to Moreau (2002), "to consider risks as a central variable in
strategic and operational thinking and action". Indeed, "the state of the art seems to be at the hinge of
practices whose objective is to ensure the protection of business continuity and those which aim to
integrate risk management into strategic and operational management " (Barthélemy, 2002).
Haimes (2004), for his part, insists that risk assessment and management must be an integral part of the
overall decision-making process, which requires a systemic and holistic approach.
Other writers have worked along the same lines. These include Jay and Powers (2002) who advanced
the term global risk management, to which they assign two meanings: risk management within the
framework of a multinational company, and risk management within the framework of a coherent
program, within the company itself. In both cases, an articulation of the local and the global is
recommended. Kelly (1999) suggests practical solutions for managing risk in an integrated manner by
underpinning the firm's determination of what he calls "enterprise risk" or "global risk".
Integrated risk management should not be confined at the operational level, in exclusive reference to the
financial or commercial function, for example. Rather, it should be integrated into a global vision of the
company. Moreover, in order to be able to raise the interactions between risks, they must be managed
simultaneously. It would be insufficient if an integration perspective has not been taken into
consideration in the strategic management of the company. Indeed, according to B. Munier (2002), the
recent succession of tragic events such as the sinking of the ERIKA or the accident at the Toulouse
chemical center, as well as the economic setbacks such as the bursting of the Internet bubble or the
Enron business and Worldcom has actually made this classic approach to risk management obsolete.
Risk management is no longer restricted to choices in series of partial decisions, but has become a policy
that is fully integrated into the strategy of the company. Meulbroek (2002), for his part, argues that
integrated risk management is strategic by nature rather than tactical.
Thus, from the point of view of its overall implementation, a risk management policy must be aligned
at the highest level of the organization in order to be comprehensive and legitimate. Indeed, the global
approaches which aim to identify the risks at the company, to financially measure all the risks, to take

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 201
AMANSOU: A glocalization lens to integrated risk management: the actor as key factor

into account this measurement of the risk in the assessment of the performances of the activities, and to
put in place risk monitoring processes which are integrated into the management of operations go hand
in hand with the integration of risk management into the operational and strategic management of the
company. Aligning risk management with strategy requires, on the other hand, a coupling of the
technical and the social, as well as taking into account of “the long term”, that is to say to have a global
vision. However, according to Munier (2003), the main difficulty encountered in the decision-making
process at the level of the company is that of coordination:
• At the level of the company's production system, insofar as the risks depend on the decisions of
engineers and technicians but also of organizers as designers of work stations and their
interrelationships;
• At the overall level insofar as the risks depend on the decisions of top management or strategists,
engineers and organizers, but also financiers or risk managers.

Hence, the need for coordination at the management level, which is of prime importance because risk is
often the result of an ignored danger. The development of an integrated strategy, thus, involves
coordinating the activities of the various institutional entities that exist within the organization. Linking
the local to the global in risk management requires the involvement of all stakeholders in the
organization. Indeed, according to Hassid (2005), in advancing the concept of risk governance, it is
necessary to take into account the multitude of stakeholders involved in risk management and their
weight in this management, forcing them to collaborate and coordinate their actions. According to this
author, to talk about risk governance is to question the structure of interactions between the different
risk actors and its impact on risk management.
The local / global articulation, therefore, requires specific coordination mechanisms that take into
account the limited rationality of the agents in decision-making, as well as the dimensions of the
environment (uncertainty, complexity, etc.). Pucci (2002) speaks of "convention" to explain these
coordination mechanisms; he appeals to the theory of conventions obviously. This theory seeks to
understand how individuals who are confronted with situations that are marked by uncertainty decide
on the behaviors which they are going to adopt, and how, from these multiple individual decisions,
emerges a certain convergence and a certain adjustment of behaviors.
The founders of this theory suggest a model of social relations in response to the problem of the
coordination of individual actions, in order to understand how collective action is constituted. For Plane
(2003), the term “convention” is derived from the verbal form “to agree”. As this word indicates, it is
about making it possible to coordinate the interests of contradictory actors, coming from the logics of
opposing actions, but who need to be together to meet their specific needs. The convention does not
exist as such; it manifests itself during the implementation of the action by individuals who are part of
the company, of a group, of a community or more generally of an organization.
Indeed, risk management is based on sociological and psycho-sociological bases. It is primarilyl a
perception and an acceptance of risk at the individual level, which must subsequently be transformed

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 202
 Int. J. Econ. Stud. Manag. 2, No.2, 196-208 (June-2022)

into a possibility of communication on this subject with all the actors concerned. Conventions and
coordination mechanisms must be put in place to enable an overview, and therefore, an integrated risk
management.
3. Glocalization needs a redimensioning of risk

Integrated risk management introduces new logics of interactions and exchanges that are based on
several concepts such as trust, translation and joint action. The latter is based on learning and on values
that go beyond the mere logic of the situation or the position of the actor that is acquired in a given
system. The values and codes of beliefs, inherited from past experiences, continue to bear witness to the
social journeys of the actors who go beyond the interaction situation.
At this level, the theory of action can teach us some lessons. Indeed, this allows us to show that the
perception of risk depends on the structure of the institution in which the risks arise. Reference to the
situation is necessary in the analysis of acceptability and risk management because actions in this context
are always built around variable situations. The issue of risk is transversal to the interests and positioning
of the players.
Risk management can be understood as a system of interactions whose common references must be built
around the acceptability of risk in situations of varying configurations depending on the various
technical constraints. Concomitantly, the important role of the actor in risk modeling is justified. Indeed,
the hard core of the theory of joint action lies in the importance given to codes of interpretation put in
place by actors to deal with uncertainty. Thus, this theory has the merit of integrating values and trust
into risk management. Indeed, the risks, by their improvisational and unpredictable nature, can affect all
elements, all of the ties of the company, without taking into account their positions within the structure.
Withal, the reactions of individuals will be oriented towards shared values and interpretations.
However, we have noticed that the definitions of risk only raise its severity and likelihood of occurrence
to the surface, while they discard the fact that the very person who detects it is a determining factor.
This becomes clearer when moving from a local management level to a global management level, or in
other words, when moving from fractional risk management to integrated risk management. This implies
a new sizing that differs from the traditional sizing that is formulated in terms of severity and probability
of occurrence.
By calling on the work of G. Y. Kervern (1995) on the science of danger, we believe that a three-
dimensioning model of the concept of risk is possible, and even necessary. Thus, we distinguish three
dimensions of risk:
- Actor (s) dimension: the actor plays a decisive role in detecting risk. Risk is first of all a perception
that depends on the individual facing the situation. So, the risk depends on who is supposed to detect it
or who detected it. The actor in question can be one person or several persons. It depends on the context,
the expertise and the experience of this actor, the information system on which it is based, on the risk
analysis and on the dissemination of information to the whole company. This brings us particularly back
to the postulate of risk as a social construct, insofar as a risk, even if it is detected by a single person, is

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 203
AMANSOU: A glocalization lens to integrated risk management: the actor as key factor

influenced by the whole group. Risk as a psychometric model depends only on the actor or the individual
himself, yet we have seen that risk is more of a social construction. All actors must be taken into account,
especially since integrated risk management, in its traditional approach, requires taking into account all
the actors concerned. We note here that this is the transition from an actor to a network of actors /
interveners ("social map" in P. Lagadec’s nomenclature).
- Time dimension: the notion of time constitutes a determining element in the notion of risk. This is
when the probability of an event occurrence is detected. This is a critical element as any early detection
of risk leaves enough time for its actor to manage it. Any late detection of the risk, on the other hand,
constitutes the distinction between the risk and its transformation into a crisis. The notion of time
through the transmission of information from one actor to another, from one function to another and
from one hierarchical level to another makes it possible to explain the passage from one level to another,
as was underlined in the literature review on integrated risk management.
- Space dimension: evoking the following concerns: At what level is the risk identified? Is it a local
level or a global level?
 Local level: this is the precise level of the detection of a risk, for example, at the level of the product,
at the level of sales, at the level of loans granted by the bank, at the level of customer solvency and the
like.
 Global level: is the level of the company as a whole. This will allow us to see whether the impact of
taking this risk is positive or negative, and this risk will have an impact on other risks (compensation,
aggravation ...). Detection can be local, and then there is the flow of information to the global corporate
world. However, it should be noted here that we may be facing the opposite situation, where the risk can
be detected at a global level to go back to the source of the problem.
On the other hand, we assume a strong link between the moment of detection of risk and the fact of
generalizing it throughout the company, in parallel with other risks.
These three dimensions can be summarized in the following diagram:

Actors
+

+ Time
-
-
-

Space

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 204
 Int. J. Econ. Stud. Manag. 2, No.2, 196-208 (June-2022)

Figure 3: Tri-dimensionnality of the concept of Risk

The diagram is to be read as follows: the risk is detected by a person at a given time and in a given space,
which constitutes the point of intersection of the three vectors representing each dimension of the risk.
As we have already underlined, there is a strong link between the three dimensions insofar as the
transmission of a message from one actor to another can lead to the passage from one level to another,
and generate a difference in time because between detection and transmission, a certain time elapses,
whatever speed of this process is.
Limits and perspectives
What we blame this thinking for is that, despite everything, it only takes into account a single risk. The
question that arises is the following : how to analyze all the risks of the company at the same time by
integrating the human factor, i,e., the actor? We suppose that one has to think in the direction of a matrix
as the idea has been raised in some of the practical cases of integrated risk management that we have
studied earlier. It is this approach that led us to develop the following diagram, allowing the visualization
of all the risks and therefore highlighting the interactions between them :

Severity

R9 R5
R7
Important *
R2 R3

Moderate
R1

R11 R12
R4

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 205
AMANSOU: A glocalization lens to integrated risk management: the actor as key factor

Minor R14
R13

R8
R6 R10

Low Medium High

Probability
Figure 4: Proposal for a matrix gathering several risks (presentation of all the risks of the
company at the same time)

The arrows represent the existence of an interaction between the risks, whether it is about
compensations, degradations, aggravations or the creation of a new risk ... The diagram is read as
follows: the risk 1 which has moderate severity and low probability of occurrence is influenced by risk
8 which has high probability of occurrence but minor severity. At this point, we deem the integration of
the actor in this matrix to be a new prospective avenue of research, to which we must associate the
concept of risk perception, as undertaken by the said actor, as well as his level of aversion.

References
Articles
[1] Antoine, S. (2002). Transdisciplinary risk management in an integrated system of control approaches: case
of the social housing sector. Institute of Socio-Economics of Companies and Organizations University of
Lyon) and Organization Analysis Team (EAO) (University of Reunion). Available on the internet In:
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00582727/document. Date of consultation: 02.03.2018
[2] Bernard, J.G. et al. (2002). Risk: A Conceptual Model of Integration. Project report. Interuniversity
Research Center in Organizational Analysis -CIRANO-. Montreal, 2002. Available on the Internet In:
http://www.cirano.qc.ca/pdf/publication/2002RP-16.pdf. Date of consultation: 15.02.2018
[3] Beaume. F. (2021). Risk management in the time of Covid-19. Association for Risk Management and
Business Insurance. Available on the Internet in:
https://www.melchior.fr/sites/melchior/files/fichiers/Melchior%20-%20AMRAE%20Version%20finale.pdf
Date of consultation: 19/09/2021
[4] Bollecker, M. (2003). Control mechanisms in a context of differentiating information systems. Senior
Lecturer, University of Haute-Alsace. GREGORIAE Research Papers; JEL classification: M1902003-09
Available on Internet in: http://www.sietmanagement.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bollecker.pdf Date of
consultation: 20.04.2017
[5] Beaurain, P. et al. (2004). New perspectives for companies. Available on the Internet:
http://www.lesechos.fr/format/risques/art_risque.htm
[6] Chauvin, C. (2003). Risk management during decision-making in a dynamic interaction situation: systemic
and cognitive approaches. University of South Brittany. THE AM Research Center.Available on the internet
In:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228819781_Gestion_des_risques_lors_de_la_prise_de_decision_
en_situation_d'interaction_dynamique_approches_systemique_et_cognitive Date of consultation:
10.09.2017
[7] Demeestère, R. & Lorino, P. (2000). Risk management and strategic processes. XXI A.F.C. Angers, 18-20
May 2000. Available on Internet In: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00587451/document Date of
consultation: 12.06.2018
[8] Derrouch, B. (2005). Contribution to the development of self-diagnostic grids for the company's overall risk.
Research Paper 84-05. Center for Studies and Research Applied to Management. University of Grenoble II.

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 206
 Int. J. Econ. Stud. Manag. 2, No.2, 196-208 (June-2022)

[9] Diskinson, G. (2001). Enterprise Risk Management: its Origins and Conceptual foundation. The Geneva
papers on Risk and Insurance: Issues and practice. The Geneva notebooks. Vol.26. N°1. Available on the
Internet In: https://www.actuaries.org.uk/documents/enterprise-risk-management-its-origins-and-
conceptual-foundation-gerry-dickinson Date of consultation: 02.05.2018
[10] Dionne, G. (2013). Risk management: history, definition and criticism. Available on the Internet In:
http://chairegestiondesrisques.hec.ca/wp-content/uploads/pdf/cahiers-recherche/13-01.pdf date of
consultation: 10.01. 2019.
[11] Isaac, H. (1996). The contribution of convention theory to the analysis of quality management in services.
A.T.E.R; Research Paper N ° 35. CREPA.
[12] Kelly, W. (1999). Integrated and enterprise risk management solutions. International federation of risk and
insurance management. October 26; 1999. Available on Internet In: www.rims.org/ifrima Date of
consultation: 02.06.2017
[13] Kessler, D. (2001). Anticipating and Managing Risks in the 21st centur. The Geneva papers on Risk and
Insurance: Issues and practice. The Geneva notebooks. Vol. 26. No. Available on the Internet In:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5221513_Anticipating_and_Managing_Risks_in_the_21st_Centu
ry Date of consultation: 23.05.20110
[14] Kloman, H. F. (2003). Integrated risk assessment: current views of risk management. Editor: risk
management report of 2003. Available on the Internet In:
http://www.garp.com/library/Articles/RiskAsse.PDF Date of consultation: 09.06.2011
[15] Lawrie, G. J. G. et al. (2003). Risk Management and Performance management: a way to avoid duplication
of effort by combining both tools. 2GC Working Paper. International Workshop of performance
Measurement. Bergamo. Italy. June 2003. Available on the Internet In. Www.2gc.co.uk/pdf/2gc-mb0831.pdf
Date consulted: 09 .03.2004
[16] Müller, A. (1999). Integrated Risk Management: A holistic Risk Management Approach for the Insurance
Industry. Munich: 1999. Available on the Internet In: http://www.inriver.bwl.uni-
muenchen.de/download/publikationen/INRIVER-Mueller-Integrated-Risk-Management-English.PDF Date
of consultation: 01 .07.2005
[17] Meulbroek, L. (2002). Integrated risk management: for the firm: A senior Manager's guide. Working Paper:
Harvard Business School, Soldier Field Road. Boston, MA 02163. 2002. Available on the Internet:
http://www.huiszoon.com/Integrated%20Risk%20Mgr%20for%20the%20Firm_Meulbroek.pdf.
Consultation date: 04.05.2004
[18] Munier, B. (2003). Risk management: Decisions, governance and value of the firm. Available on Internet
In: www.grid.ensam.estp.fr/presentation/0603.pdf Date of consultation: 12 .06.2007
[19] Munier, B. (2002). Risk management: a global challenge. Cahiers français, n ° 306- January - February.
[20] Munier, B. (1998). Engineering the subjective, the real foundation of risk management. PCM-Le Pont, vol.
102.
[21] Marchesnay, M. & Rudel, S. (1985). Risk Management in the Very Small Business: Facts and Theories.
Management science journal. Notebooks of the E.RS.M.E.A. SG series. No. 6.
[22] Nuffelen, D. V. (2004). The social construction of risk. Scientific bulletin. Federal Agency for Nuclear
Control. Belgium. Available on the Internet In:
www.fanc.fgov.be/download/Construction%20sociale%20du%20risque.pdf Date of consultation:
11.02.2007
[23] Paturel, R. & Derrouch, B. Corporate risk and strategy. Research Paper 87-11. Center for Studies and
Research Applied to Management. University of Grenoble II.
[24] Rannane, M & Talbi, A. (2019). Risk evolution: From simple risk management to Risk management. ",
Review of control, accounting and audit" Number 8: March 2019 / Volume 3: number 4 "p: 175-189
[25] Stahl, B. C. & al. (2003). The limits of risk management- Asocial construction approach. Montfort
University. 2003. Available on the Internet In:
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~bstahl/publications/2003_Limits_of_Risk_Management.PDF Date of consultation:
09.07.2010
[26] Books
[27] Aubert, B. A. & Bernard, J. G. (2004). Integrated risk measurement in organizations. The presses of the
University of Montreal (CIRANO), 4th quarter. Canada.
[28] Amblard, M. (2003). Economics of conventions and management sciences. Conventions & management,
Editions De Boeck, p. 5-7
[29] Barthélemy, B. (2002). Risk Management: Global Optimization Methods. Paris: publications of
organizations, second printing.
[30] Bourdeau, S & Clément, E. (2004). Influence diagram. IN: Integrated risk measurement in organizations.
Edited by B. A. Aubert and J. G. Bernard. The University of Montreal editions.

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 207
AMANSOU: A glocalization lens to integrated risk management: the actor as key factor

[31] CORDEL, F. (2016). Risk management and internal control, Edition Vuibert.
[32] Geiben, B. & Nasset, J. J. (1998). Safety, Security: integrated risk management in organizations. Paris:
organizational editions.
[33] Haimes, Y.Y. (2004). Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management. Second Edition; To John Wiley &
Sons, INC., Publication.
[34] Hassid, O. (2005). Risk management. Paris: Edition Dunod.
[35] Kervern, G. Y. (1998). Chapter 1, part two. A historical and conceptual perspective on the sciences of
danger: the cindynics. In: Introduction to Cindynics. Collective works under the direction of Jean Luc
WYBO. ESKA edition. Paris.
[36] Mehr, R. I. & Hedges, B. A. (1963), In: Koenig, G. (1989). Risk management. In: Encyclopedia of
management. Paris: Economica edition.
[37] Moreau, F. (2002). Understand and manage risks. Organization editions.
[38] Pignault, J. & Magne J. (2014). Risk management and safety culture. Editions Dunod.
[39] Plane, J. M. (2003). Theories of organizations. Paris: Dunod edition. 2nd edition.
[40] RAY, J. LE. (2015). From risk management to risk management Why? How? 'Or' What ? AFNOR Editions.
[41] Theses
[42] Pucci, F. (2002). Organizational learning of risk management, a comparative analysis of the de Lyon and a
hospital in Montevideo. Doctoral thesis in Sociology and Social Sciences. 2002. Lumière Lyon II University.
Faculty of Anthropology and Sociology.

http://www.woasjournals.com/index.php/ijesm 208