Two overlapping risk committees dispute ownership and no charter states an ERM mandate. What governance fix is most needed?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Two captains yelling different orders sinks the boat. ERM needs a clear mandate and structure so everyone knows who owns the enterprise view and how issues escalate.
Full Explanation
Effective ERM depends on defined governance: mandate, roles, and escalation. When two overlapping risk committees dispute ownership and no charter states an ERM mandate, the needed fix is a clear ERM governance mandate and structure so ownership and escalation paths are unambiguous. Civic organizations especially need charters that prevent duplicate forums from stalling decisions.
Adding more duplicate committees until one wins by attrition worsens ambiguity. Eliminating all risk committees because conflict proves ERM cannot work abandons governance instead of clarifying it. Letting insurers chair every internal meeting in place of organizational governance outsources accountability inappropriately.
Exam caveat: mandate and structure precede healthy committee performance. Conflict without charter is a design failure.
Operational check: draft or revise an ERM charter with mandate, membership, escalation, and decision rights; resolve overlapping committees; communicate the structure; test one escalation path end to end. Ratify a single ERM charter that names the accountable forum, dissolves or subordinates duplicates, and defines escalation. Reconfirm the mandate after each major organizational redesign.