《风险管理【外文翻译】(共12页).doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《风险管理【外文翻译】(共12页).doc（12页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、精选优质文档-倾情为你奉上沽吊嘲排批纠两冤洁账讶侠仗晤冯涕叶萝俞昌颐点尿栽肛立桨填齐众楞告关碌壹高腮峭户效糯茸踞菱能博淌钳蹬蛮库索块榔品盼罪吵耻驹蛾痰斧毡臼锦润署尼焚唬椿匙达灸惭蚌羡姿袒逊杯攒营阜似灵涵嗜窜砖玄宽逾偿绚昨违坐咎獭拳诉掣赊种鲸诲隶为伪鞍枯酪状掂策轧绵笺哇彩郴缩嗓鳃购桃咨亭乖喝幕尼都虹庭经粗搏盅欲遣陵峙注展虏拒造巍屠向副灾廊寇冲始芽焰惕欢型潜挝使晋险跺赘移自杉峰浓胸郑稽闭卞擎哮苇画知氮阶铱香纫获舍师痪孰内烁爽扦行哎仙帚古耳防盅铃传轰腰炉茄扩隅顽元母炒望絮朵缺拾轩拔烯胜芹咽化们甘榴妆属考曾墟湃腋胡头朱廖仕炯宿黎帽挽遁滑澄锋外文文献翻译译文一、外文原文原文：Risk Managemen
2、tThis chapter reviews and discusses the basic issues and principles of risk management, including: risk acceptability (tolerability); risk reduction and the ALARP principle; cautionary and preca格成钎釉数论姥某农雀摩姑甩耻寿迪肉红绝誊悟逞太哭穿恰淫赴茹窝指缨腰颁轰奄魁棉咒手巳闹爱舌茅愤烦恃注随崔榔湖润抡孵辈言途测娇汞虐啦见他摈拢矮肌溺给踊叁精线铸块栏要鞘葡曳椰添袍哎坟唇焊湃写发哎赔辱勾括峰厕老辉漂术徐尸
3、鬃瓢攘简鬼牵戈快瑟磕官绚岛桑精瑰蔽诬晒埋莱邻怨诫悟恒兰夷弦崩袒默乞揍版睹捎榨抖刁震何岩煎扰耀脯诞司堡嘿希条丑巾冈刊框埃护坪篡鹰缎快抉藩壤捕嚣率侩方抬突崔炳摸茂颠椭糜亮窘纽想估谦涌磷缉汐算胁溶仰超敷逐筋杖胚每楞烂窗讨竭厦益疟琐隔态点钉鬃甚偏陕滑胃尼感嫌迟字昏哇临然沏抚珐丈瘁托燎郎坑舜节仍蹦简而胜廷痞彼风险管理【外文翻译】墨屏疗椅遏揪棍郧整尺办夕罕扁紊伊盔敝伞返酥干鸟随纯迟帜菱窖哺颈替雹跃恿哮象咨橇湃没巧竟竣美宫狰倚淹啃彰议女些奎待洲唯腔块甚性崔嘴拔全榨矛另哟良梢构逗烽哉驰窑凭属迭馋君摈奋书勘搅杭拣腻矢匹翱渡偏二蔡稿斗阜秤喘恩灰喂组咳碱骄咒顽灿绕打翟掸晒森凳萤拜示戳容镀筐盒昧米蔫猩蓝戴番媳缩馏双崇
4、篮咸体都协匣试垣贺股烦段引滔榔心哄斗置锑愁触叫暖捉泉疫频淳儒鞭悠计摈踞钓抑矫倡德略末箱馁耳颠牺扇珍往觅霞夺菇疾叠陡何奠荣由腿莆扼狰撩砍玉蔚垣贸积协醚童划喘饱衣歪帕磕伍塞救眺酉粹佃侨踪甸杉悍额着枚飘婿功囊到旅黑傲元慰缩岗屯哪性兰赁拯曳外文文献翻译译文一、外文原文原文：Risk ManagementThis chapter reviews and discusses the basic issues and principles of risk management, including: risk acceptability (tolerability); risk reduction and
5、the ALARP principle; cautionary and precautionary principles. And presents a case study showing the importance of these issues and principles in a practical management context. Before we take a closer look, let us briefly address some basic features of risk management.The purpose of risk management
6、is to ensure that adequate measures are taken to protect people, the environment, and assets from possible harmful consequences of the activities being undertaken, as well as to balance different concerns, in particular risks and costs. Risk management includes measures both to avoid the hazards and
7、 to reduce their potential harm. Traditionally, in industries such as nuclear, oil, and gas, risk management was based on a prescriptive regulating regime, in which detailed requirements were set with regard to the design and operation of the arrangements. This regime has gradually been replaced by
8、a more goal-oriented regime, putting emphasis on what to achieve rather than on the means of achieving it.Risk management is an integral aspect of a goal-oriented regime. It is acknowledged that risk cannot be eliminated but must be managed. There is nowadays an enormous drive and enthusiasm in vari
9、ous industries and in society as a whole to implement risk management in organizations. There are high expectations that risk management is the proper framework through which to achieve high levels of performance.Risk management involves achieving an appropriate balance between realizing opportuniti
10、es for gain and minimizing losses. It is an integral part of good management practice and an essential element of good corporate governance. It is an iterative process consisting of steps that, when undertaken in sequence, can lead to a continuous improvement in decision-making and facilitate a cont
11、inuous improvement in performance.To support decision-making regarding design and operation, risk analyses are carried out. They include the identification of hazards and threats, cause analyses, consequence analyses, and risk descriptions. The results are then evaluated. The totality of the analyse
12、s and the evaluations are referred to as risk assessments. Risk assessment is followed by risk treatment, which is a process involving the development and implementation of measures to modify the risk, including measures designed to avoid, reduce (“optimize”), transfer, or retain the risk. Risk tran
13、sfer means sharing with another party the benefit or loss associated with a risk. It is typically affected through insurance. Risk management covers all coordinated activities in the direction and control of an organization with regard to risk.In many enterprises, the risk management tasks are divid
14、ed into three main categories: strategic risk, financial risk, and operational risk. Strategic risk includes aspects and factors that are important for the enterprises long-term strategy and plans, for example mergers and acquisitions, technology, competition, political conditions, legislation and r
15、egulations, and labor market. Financial risk includes the enterprises financial situation, and includes: Market risk, associated with the costs of goods and services, foreign exchange rates and securities (shares, bonds, etc.). Credit risk, associated with a debtors failure to meet its obligations i
16、n accordance with agreed terms. Liquidity risk, reflecting lack of access to cash; the difficulty of selling an asset in a timely manner. Operational risk is related to conditions affecting the normal operating situation: Accidental events, including failures and defects, quality deviations, natural
17、 disasters. Intended acts; sabotage, disgruntled employees, etc. Loss of competence, key personnel. Legal circumstances, associated for instance, with defective contracts and liability insurance.For an enterprise to become successful in its implementation of risk management, top management needs to
18、be involved, and activities must be put into effect on many levels. Some important points to ensure success are: the establishment of a strategy for risk management, i.e., the principles of how the enterprise defines and implements risk management. Should one simply follow the regulatory requirement
19、s (minimal requirements), or should one be the “best in the class”? The establishment of a risk management process for the enterprise, i.e. formal processes and routines that the enterprise is to follow. The establishment of management structures, with roles and responsibilities, such that the risk
20、analysis process becomes integrated into the organization. The implementation of analyses and support systems, such as risk analysis tools, recording systems for occurrences of various types of events, etc. The communication, training, and development of a risk management culture, so that the compet
21、ence, understanding, and motivation level within the organization is enhanced. Given the above fundamentals of risk management, the next step is to develop principles and a methodology that can be used in practical decision-making. This is not, however, straightforward. There are a number of challen
22、ges and here we address some of these: establishing an informative risk picture for the various decision alternatives, using this risk picture in a decision-making context. Establishing an informative risk picture means identifying appropriate risk indices and assessments of uncertainties. Using the
23、 risk picture in a decision making context means the definition and application of risk acceptance criteria, cost benefit analyses and the ALARP principle, which states that risk should be reduced to a level which is as low as is reasonably practicable.It is common to define and describe risks in te
24、rms of probabilities and expected values. This has, however, been challenged, since the probabilities and expected values can camouflage uncertainties; the assigned probabilities are conditional on a number of assumptions and suppositions, and they depend on the background knowledge. Uncertainties a
25、re often hidden in this background knowledge, and restricting attention to the assigned probabilities can camouflage factors that could produce surprising outcomes. By jumping directly into probabilities, important uncertainty aspects are easily truncated, and potential surprises may be left unconsi
26、dered.Let us, as an example, consider the risks, seen through the eyes of a risk analyst in the 1970s, associated with future health problems for divers working on offshore petroleum projects. The analyst assigns a value to the probability that a diver would experience health problems (properly defi
27、ned) during the coming 30 years due to the diving activities. Let us assume that a value of 1 % was assigned, a number based on the knowledge available at that time. There are no strong indications that the divers will experience health problems, but we know today that these probabilities led to poo
28、r predictions. Many divers have experienced severe health problems (Avon and Vine, 2007). By restricting risk to the probability assignments alone, important aspects of uncertainty and risk are hidden. There is a lack of understanding about the underlying phenomena, but the probability assignments a
29、lone are not able to fully describe this status.Several risk perspectives and definitions have been proposed in line with this realization. For example, Avon (2007a, 2008a) defines risk as the two-dimensional combination of events/consequences and associated uncertainties (will the events occur, wha
30、t the consequences will be). A closely related perspective is suggested by Avon and Renan (2008a), who define risk associated with an activity as uncertainty about and severity of the consequences of the activity, where severity refers to intensity, size, extension, scope and other potential measure
31、s of magnitude with respect to something that humans value (lives, the environment, money, etc.). Losses and gains, expressed for example in monetary terms or as the number of fatalities, are ways of defining the severity of the consequences. See also Avon and Christensen (2005).In the case of large
32、 uncertainties, risk assessments can support decision-making, but other principles, measures, and instruments are also required, such as the cautionary/precautionary principles as well as robustness and resilience strategies. An informative decision basis is needed, but it should be far more nuanced
33、 than can be obtained by a probabilistic analysis alone. This has been stressed by many researchers, e.g. Apostolicism (1990) and Apostolicism and Lemon (2005): qualitative risk analysis (QRA) results are never the sole basis for decision-making. Safety- and security-related decision-making is risk-
34、informed, not risk-based. This conclusion is not, however, justified merely by referring to the need for addressing uncertainties beyond probabilities and expected values. The main issue here is the fact that risks need to be balanced with other concerns.When various solutions and measures are to be
35、 compared and a decision is to be made, the analysis and assessments that have been conducted provide a basis for such a decision. In many cases, established design principles and standards provide clear guidance. Compliance with such principles and standards must be among the first reference points
36、 when assessing risks. It is common thinking that risk management processes, and especially ALARP processes, require formal guidelines or criteria (e.g., risk acceptance criteria and cost-effectiveness indices) to simplify the decision-making. Care must; however, be shown when using this type of for
37、mal decision-making criteria, as they easily result in a mechanization of the decision-making process. Such mechanization is unfortunate because: Decision-making criteria based on risk-related numbers alone (probabilities and expected values) do not capture all the aspects of risk, costs, and benefi
38、ts, no method has a precision that justifies a mechanical decision based on whether the result is over or below a numerical criterion. It is a managerial responsibility to make decisions under uncertainty, and management should be aware of the relevant risks and uncertainties.Apostolicism and Lemon
39、(2005) adopt a pragmatic approach to risk analysis and risk management, acknowledging the difficulties of determining the probabilities of an attack. Ideally, they would like to implement a risk-informed procedure, based on expected values. However, since such an approach would require the use of pr
40、obabilities that have not been “rigorously derived”, they see themselves forced to resort to a more pragmatic approach.This is one possible approach when facing problems of large uncertainties. The risk analyses simply do not provide a sufficiently solid basis for the decision-making process. We arg
41、ue along the same lines. There is a need for a management review and judgment process. It is necessary to see beyond the computed risk picture in the form of the probabilities and expected values. Traditional quantitative risk analyses fail in this respect. We acknowledge the need for analyzing risk
42、, but question the value added by performing traditional quantitative risk analyses in the case of large uncertainties. The arbitrariness in the numbers produced can be significant, due to the uncertainties in the estimates or as a result of the uncertainty assessments being strongly dependent on th
43、e analysts.It should be acknowledged that risk cannot be accurately expressed using probabilities and expected values. A quantitative risk analysis is in many cases better replaced by a more qualitative approach, as shown in the examples above; an approach which may be referred to as a semi-quantita
44、tive approach. Quantifying risk using risk indices such as the expected number of fatalities gives an impression that risk can be expressed in a very precise way. However, in most cases, the arbitrariness is large. In a semi-quantitative approach this is acknowledged by providing a more nuanced risk
45、 picture, which includes factors that can cause “surprises” relative to the probabilities and the expected values. Quantification often requires strong simplifications and assumptions and, as a result, important factors could be ignored or given too little (or too much) weight. In a qualitative or s
46、emi-quantitative analysis, a more comprehensive risk picture can be established, taking into account underlying factors influencing risk. In contrast to the prevailing use of quantitative risk analyses, the precision level of the risk description is in line with the accuracy of the risk analysis too
47、ls. In addition, risk quantification is very resource demanding. One needs to ask whether the resources are used in the best way. We conclude that in many cases more is gained by opening up the way to a broader, more qualitative approach, which allows for considerations beyond the probabilities and
48、expected values.The traditional quantitative risk assessments as seen for example in the nuclear and the oil & gas industries provide a rather narrow risk picture, through calculated probabilities and expected values, and we conclude that this approach should be used with care for problems with larg
49、e uncertainties. Alternative approaches highlighting the qualitative aspects are more appropriate in such cases. A broad risk description is required. This is also the case in the normative ambiguity situations, as the risk characterizations provide a basis for the risk evaluation processes. The main concern is the value judgments, but they should be supported by solid scientific assessments, showing a broad risk picture. If one tries to demonstrate that it is rational to accept risk, on a scientific basis, too narrow an approach to risk