IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i2p659-d478907.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Management Maturity Model for Logistic Processes

Author

Listed:
  • Agnieszka A. Tubis

    (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-371 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Sylwia Werbińska-Wojciechowska

    (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-371 Wroclaw, Poland)

Abstract

Recently, the maturity models for risk management are attracting growing attention. The obtained maturity level defines an assessment of an organization’s management competence. Therefore, as a set of various tools and practices, the maturity model is critical for a company’s overall risk maintenance strategy development and implementation. Thus, the purpose of this article is to present a model for risk management maturity for logistic processes. We investigated the main defined assessment areas for risk maturity model implementation in logistic systems. Based on research findings, we introduced a new risk maturity assessment area based on participation in the supply chain—cooperation at risk. The proposed model constitutes the base for a two-stage assessment method implementation, where the global maturity index is introduced. Finally, we implement the proposed two-stage assessment method to verify the proposed model’s diagnostic function and determine its labor intensity. The study confirmed that the five defined maturity areas (knowledge, risk assessment, process risk management, cooperation at risk, and risk monitoring) provide a complex diagnostic tool for risk maturity level identification and, based on the obtained results, allows to define an appropriate development strategy for a given decision-making environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Agnieszka A. Tubis & Sylwia Werbińska-Wojciechowska, 2021. "Risk Management Maturity Model for Logistic Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:2:p:659-:d:478907
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/659/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/659/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    2. Elisabete Correia & Helena Carvalho & Susana G. Azevedo & Kannan Govindan, 2017. "Maturity Models in Supply Chain Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-26, January.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    4. Thi Huong Tran & Mario Dobrovnik & Sebastian Kummer, 2018. "Supply chain risk assessment: a content analysis-based literature review," International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 31(4), pages 562-591.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agnieszka Bekisz & Magdalena Kowacka & Michał Kruszyński & Dominika Dudziak-Gajowiak & Grzegorz Debita, 2022. "Risk Management Using Network Thinking Methodology on the Example of Rail Transport," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    2. Tomas Cherkos Kassaneh & Ettore Bolisani & Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, 2021. "Knowledge Management Practices for Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Challenge for Business Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Simon Ashby & Trevor Buck & Stephanie Nöth-Zahn & Thomas Peisl, 2018. "Emerging IT Risks: Insights from German Banking," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 43(2), pages 180-207, April.
    4. Yuan Yang, 2019. "Reforming Health, Safety, and Environmental Regulation for Offshore Operations in China: Risk and Resilience Approaches?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Jacob Taarup‐Esbensen, 2019. "Making Sense of Risk—A Sociological Perspective on the Management of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 749-760, April.
    6. Kefan Xie & Benbu Liang & Maxim A. Dulebenets & Yanlan Mei, 2020. "The Impact of Risk Perception on Social Distancing during the COVID-19 Pandemic in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-17, August.
    7. P. Pablo Poveda-Orjuela & J. Carlos García-Díaz & Alexander Pulido-Rojano & Germán Cañón-Zabala, 2020. "Parameterization, Analysis, and Risk Management in a Comprehensive Management System with Emphasis on Energy and Performance (ISO 50001: 2018)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-43, October.
    8. Paulina Golinska-Dawson & Karolina Werner-Lewandowska & Monika Kosacka-Olejnik, 2021. "Responsible Resource Management in Remanufacturing—Framework for Qualitative Assessment in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Antonín Korauš & Miroslav Gombár & Pavel Kelemen & Jozef Polák, 2019. "Analysis of respondents' opinions and attitudes toward the security of payment systems," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(4), pages 1987-2002, June.
    10. Inês A. Ferreira & Radu Godina & Helena Carvalho, 2020. "Waste Valorization through Additive Manufacturing in an Industrial Symbiosis Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, December.
    11. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    12. Marcela Tuzová & Martina Toulová & Lea Kubíčková, 2017. "The Specifics of the Internationalization Process of Czech SMEs in the Food Industry," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 1055-1064.
    13. Charles Sabel & Gary Herrigel & Peer Hull Kristensen, 2018. "Regulation under uncertainty: The coevolution of industry and regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 371-394, September.
    14. repec:arp:tjssrr:2019:p:69-75 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Mussard, Stéphane & Pi Alperin, María Noel, 2021. "Accounting for risk factors on health outcomes: The case of Luxembourg," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(3), pages 1180-1197.
    16. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    17. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    18. Mai Hisham Haroun Montasser & Islam El-Nakeeb, 2017. "Investigating Solid Waste Supply Chain: A Proposed Framework forAchieving the Environmental Sustainability Case study Alexandria,Egypt," International Journal of Business and Economic Affairs (IJBEA), Sana N. Maswadeh, vol. 2(3), pages 165-172.
    19. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    20. Aigner, Philipp & Schlütter, Sebastian, 2023. "Enhancing gradient capital allocation with orthogonal convexity scenarios," ICIR Working Paper Series 47/23, Goethe University Frankfurt, International Center for Insurance Regulation (ICIR).
    21. Mangirdas Morkunas & Gintaras Cernius & Gintare Giriuniene, 2019. "Assessing Business Risks of Natural Gas Trading Companies: Evidence from GET Baltic," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-14, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:2:p:659-:d:478907. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.