Organizational Risk-Management Perspectives from the General Systems Theory Point of View

The purpose of this work is to identify possible ways of organizational risk management development as part of the evolution of the planetary socio-ecological system (socio-ecosystem). For this purpose, the planetary socio-ecosystem was considered as an object from the point of view of the general theory of systems. It was shown that the deviation of this system from the stationary state, which is accompanied by sharp fluctuations and bifurcations, leads to the need to adapt the risk management activity in organizations to external conditions. As a result of the analysis, two perspective directions for the development of risk management in organizations where identifi ed. The first direction is based on the method of reducing external risks by controlled influence on the parameters of the planetary system. The general theory of systems states that a controlled approximation of a system to a stationary state is possible by self-organization of system`s elements. Based on research on the economy of common resources and the representation of organizations as elements of the planetary socio-ecosystem, as well as on the analysis of recent international trends in achieving sustainable development, a conclusion about the relevance of organizations ‘ participation in cooperative activities and self-organization in terms of external risk management was made. In order to assist organizations in conducting activities in the bifurcation area the second perspective direction of the risk management development — the concept of resilience — was considered and proposed for practical usage. Expanding the current practice of risk management in organizations to the proposed areas will ensure the appropriate level of adaptability and stability of organizations in relation to the high dynamics of external risks.

risk management, sustainable development, non-stationary system, self-organization, common pool resources, resilience

1. Bykov A. A. Effective risk management involves monitoring the system properties of the world // Issues of Risk Analysis. Vol. 13. 2016. № 2. P. 4—5 (Russia). https://doi.org/10.32686/1812-5220-2016-13-2-4-5

2. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. 1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_441

3. Selivanov A. I. The Vital Approach in Methodological Bases of Ensuring National Economic Security in Russia // Business safety. 2019. No. 4. P. 3 (Russia).

4. Makhutov Nikolay A., Gadenin Mihail M., Yudina Olga N. The scientific analysis of risks in life-support of a person, a society and the state // Issues of Risk Analysis. Vol. 16. 2019. No. 2. P. 70—86 (Russia). https://doi.org/10.32686/1812-5220-2019-16-2-70-86

5. Sokolov Y. I. Problems of the risks of modern society // Issues of Risk Analysis. Vol. 13. 2016. No. 2. P. 6—23 (Russia). https://doi.org/10.32686/1812-5220-2016-13-2-6-23

6. Bertalanffy L. von. General System Theory // General Systems. 1965. Vol. 1. P. 1.

7. Prigogine I., Stengers I. Order out of Chaos. Man's new dialogue with nature. M.: Progress, 1986 (Russia).

8. Haken H. Synergetics. M.: Mir, 1980 (Russia).

9. Moiseev N. Universal evolutionism. (Position and consequences) // Questions of philosophy. 1991. Vol. 3. Moscow (Russia).

10. Ostrom E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423936

11. Olson M. The Logic of collective action: public goods and group theory / Under the editorship of P. M. Nureev. M.: Fund of economic initiative, 1995. Moscow (Russia).

12. Chandler D. Beyond neoliberalism: resilience, the new art of governing complexity, Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses. 2014. 2:1. P. 47—63. DOI: 10.1080/21693293.2013.878544

13. Lengnick-Hall C. A., Beck T. E., Lengnick-Hall M. L. Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management // Human Resource Management Review 21 (2011). P. 243—255. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001

14. Proag V. The concept of vulnerability and resilience // Procedia Economics and Finance 18 (2014). P. 369—376. DOI: 10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00952-6

15. Xiao L., Cao H. Organizational Resilience: The Theoretical Model and Research Implication // ITM Web of Conferences. 12, 04021 (2017). DOI: 10.1051/ 7120

16. Eisenberg D. A., Linkov I., Park J., Bates M. E., Fox-Lent C., Seager T. P. Resilience Metrics: Lessons from Military Doctrines // Solutions for a sustainable and desirable future. 2014. Vol. 5. No. 5.

17. Park J., Seager T., Rao P. S. C., Convertino M., & Linkov I. (2013). Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk Analysis, 33 (3). P. 356—367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01885

18. Rose A., Krausmann E. An economic framework for the development of a resilience index for business recovery // International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 5 (2013). P. 73—83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2013.08.003

19. Kuznets S. Economic Growth and Income Inequality // The American Economic Review. 1955. Vol. 45. P. 1—28.

20. Weizsäcker von E. U., Wijkman A. Come On! Capitalism, Short-termism, Population and the Destructionof the Planet — A Report to the Club of Rome. Springer Science+Busi ness Media LLC. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-7419-1, 2018

21. Rockström J., Steffen W., Noone K. et al. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating // Ecology and Society 14 (2): 32 [online]. 2009. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/ (Дата обращения: 09.06.2020).

22. Steffen W., Richardson K., Rockström J. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development // Science 347(6223): 736—747. 2015. DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855. P. 736—747.

23. Raworth K. A Safe and Just Space for Humanity // Oxfam Discussion Paper. February 2012.

24. Raworth K. Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist // Chelsea Green Publishing. March 2018. ISBN 9781603587969. P. 1—320.

25. Baumol W. J. On Taxation and the Control of Externalities // American Economic Review. 1972. Vol. 62. No. 3. P. 307—322.

26. Nordhaus W. Traditional productivity estimates are asleep at the (technological) switch // Economic Journal. 1997. Vol. 107. No. 444. P. 1548—59.

27. Alexander D. E. Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey // Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013. Vol. 13. P. 2707—2716. doi:10.5194/nhess-13-2707-2013

28. Kotsur G. V. Inclusion and Implementation of the Dynamic Dimension in the Process of StrengtheningResilience of Society: the Case of the London Terrorist Attacks of 2005 and 2017 // Science Journal of Volgograd State University. History. Area Studies. International Relations. 2018. Vol. 23. No. 6. P. 154—163 (Russia). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2018.6.12

29. Bruneau M., Chang S. E. et al. A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities // Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 19. No. 4 (2003). P. 733—752. DOI: 10.1193/1.1623497.