Posted: February 1st, 2022

Enterprise Risk Management

1-Assessment Brief
1.0. Case Study
Volkswagen
1.1. Questions
You have been asked to prepare a risk register which follows the format in section 2.3 for Volkswagen AG.
The risk register will require you to clarify organisational aims and objectives and identify risks (both threats and opportunities) that could impact on those aims. You should note any existing controls that are in place, which can be taken into account in relation to risk assessment. Critically assess the relative threat or opportunity it poses for the organisation and then score it. Take into account any controls you have noted to calculate residual risk scores. Define the acceptable risk threshold, and use it to prioritise risk actions. Propose mitigation actions for risks that are above the stated threshold utilising academic research and theories to support your suggestions.

1.2 Assessment Submission Structure
The research evidence you gather will be used to populate a standard format risk register, using the example provided below.

Risk Register for Company X
Risk Number Risk Description (include research references) Existing controls noted (include references to documents from organisation being studied) Likelihood (1-5) Impact
(1-5) Risk Rating (Likelihood x Impact) Above acceptable rating Mitigation actions (include references to academic texts

The following stages will assist in the completion of the risk register template.
a) What are the aims and objectives of the organisation (Note: ERM links risks to aims)
b) What problems has the organisation encountered in the past
c) What problems have other organisations in the same sector encountered in the past
d) What regulation is applicable to the organisation/sector and are there any planned changes. Are there differences in regulatory requirements in different locations in which the organisation operates
e) Are there any potential opportunities that could enhance company performance
f) Utilising the information gathered, identify risks (both threats and opportunities) to the organisation, describe, assess and score each risk.
g) Define the acceptable risk threshold
h) Identify mitigation actions for risks that are above the stated threshold.

You may include a short section on aims, but please ensure the majority of research material is presented in risk register format. Links to aims should be apparent within risk descriptions.

2.1. Assessment Marking Scheme (Student Version)
The assignment is marked out of 100. The following table shows the mark allocation and the approach required.
Assignment Part Mark Approach
Clarify organisational aims and objectives
5 Briefly and concisely enumerate the main aims and objectives that the organisation intends to achieve. In pursuit of such aims, the entity will encounter the uncertain events and conditions (risks), which will be managed in later sections.
Identify risks that could threaten or enhance the achievement of the aims of the organisation (ie: both threats and opportunities). Note any existing controls that are in place, which can be taken into account in relation to risk assessment.

30 Here you should briefly outline each risk, and provide evidence of sources of information used. The description should be full enough to support assessment of the risk. There is no set number of risks to aim for. Use ERM frameworks to gather risks across the enterprise, both internal and external, which should be evidenced.
Critically assess the relative threat or opportunity it poses for the organisation and then score it. Take into account any controls you have noted to calculate residual risk scores 25 Score each identified risk for likelihood (1 [low] 5 [high]) and impact (1-5) and multiply these ratings to provide a risk score. Include an explanation of the risk rating numbers or qualitative descriptions used in the register.
Define the acceptable risk threshold, and use it to prioritise risk actions. 10 Define likelihood and impact scales used to calculate risk scores. What is the unacceptable risk score
Propose mitigation actions for risks that are above the stated threshold 30 Where appropriate this should include academic references to support your suggestions.
Total 100

Appendix A – General Grading Criteria
Level 6 Assessment Criteria
PASS FAIL
Criterion 80-100% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 0-29%
Knowledge & Understanding
a) Systematic Understanding
b) Emerging Thought (a) Very deep knowledge of the topic, explicitly related to extremely comprehensive knowledge of the discipline(s). Evaluation and contribution to current knowledge
(b) Excellent usage of recent emerging thought and/or practices from a range of appropriate disciplines (a) Deep knowledge of the topic, explicitly related to comprehensive knowledge of the discipline(s). Evaluation of current knowledge
(b) Application of recent emerging thought or practices from the discipline (a) Very good, thorough and explicit knowledge & understanding of the topic.
An appreciation of and explicit links to a wider field.
(b) Some clear evidence of the application of thoughts and practices at the forefront of the discipline (a) Good knowledge and understanding of central topic issues, some explicitly identified.
Some appreciation of a wider field.
(b) Clear evidence of an understanding of thoughts and practices at the forefront of the discipline. (a) Some knowledge and understanding of central topic issues.
(b) Some evidence of the understanding of the thoughts and practices related to the discipline indicated. (a) Inadequate, poor or very poor knowledge or understanding of central topic issues.
(b) Not clear or precise understanding of thoughts and practices related to the required discipline indicated (a) Little or no knowledge or understanding of central topic issues.
(b) Significant gaps in the understanding of practices related to the discipline indicated
Argument
a) Analysis, Synthesis & Evaluation
b) Numerical Analysis
c) Argumentation
d) Independent Research (a) Consistently high levels of ability to analyse critically using a wide range of appropriate criteria, sources and perspectives. Excellent synthesis of elements of the argument including contrary views.

(b) Numeric analysis that is complete and free from errors with application of methods that may be insightful or original

(c) Extremely strong and consistent argument making a convincing whole with evidence of originality. Impressive ability in the use of information gathered to support the argument.

(d) Evidence of an innovative or original use of extensive personal research which has been thoroughly evaluated conceptually (a) A high level of ability to analyse critically using a range of perspectives. Excellent synthesis of elements of the argument including contrary views.

(b) Numeric analysis that is complete and mostly free from errors with fluent and appropriate application of methods.

(c) Extremely strong and consistent argument that convincingly addresses issues including uncertainties and conflicts. Excellent use of information gathered which to support and further the argument

(d) Substantial research and evidence of an innovative use of a wide range of personal research with clear and consistent evaluation conceptual (a) Presentation of a coherent critical argument demonstrating the ability to analyse, synthesise and evaluate to form a balanced and supportable judgement. Use of contrasting perspectives.

(b) Numeric analysis that is complete and mostly free from errors with relevant and effective application of methods.

(c) Evidence of an argument that is generally convincing with a good internal consistency and addresses most issues. Very good use of information gathered to support the argument.

(d) Clear evidence of considerable personal research and the use of a diverse range of appropriate sources but may contain problems with consistency in the conceptual evaluation (a) The development of a critical analysis without guidance. Some ability to synthesise concepts, theories and practice. Application of a range of analytical methods appropriate to the task.

(b) Numeric analysis that is complete and mostly free from significant or critical errors with appropriate application of methods.

(c) Evidence of an overall convincing argument but may have weaknesses, gaps or inconsistencies. Clear use of information gathered but may have some weaknesses in the integration into the argument.

(d) Appropriate use of a wide range of personal research which is critically evaluated for key conceptual issues although this may not be consistent throughout (a) Evidence of some critical awareness.
There is analysis which is structured within guidelines.
Some difficulty in balancing and substantiating points made.

(b) Numeric analysis that is mostly complete but contains errors with significant effect, or methods that are applied inappropriately

(c) Evidence of a consistent argument but may have weaknesses, significant gaps or be unconvincing. Clear use of information gathered but may not be sufficient to sustain the argument.
(d) Evidence of a consistent argument but may have weaknesses or be unconvincing. Clear use of information gathered but may not be sufficient to sustain (a) Work is descriptive and uncritical.
Generalisations, unsubstantiated assertions and exaggeration.

(b) Numeric analysis that is incomplete or contains errors which have critical effect, or methods that are applied inappropriately

(c) Lack of consistency or structure in the argument. Serious weaknesses in the integration of evidence and/or no awareness of the limitations or weaknesses of the research.

(d) Over reliance on very restricted range of personal or secondary research much of which may not be evaluated and may not be directly related to the question (a) Work is wholly descriptive and uncritical. Contains numerous generalisations, unsubstantiated assertions and exaggeration.

(b) Numeric analysis is almost non-existent and also incorrect

(c) Total lack of consistency or structure in the argument. Nil or limited integration of evidence and no awareness of the limitations or weakness of research

(d) Generally only a very restricted range of personal research which is not evaluated and is not directly related to the question

Check Price Discount

More Assignment Samples: Assessment Task – NAPLAN Exercise – Word count: 500 words »