The General Administration of Market Regulation approved the publication of the “Guidelines for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Enterprise Risk Management”, which cross-verifies the five dimensions of “looking at history, looking at systems, looking at exposure, looking at ability, and looking at feelings”, so that the effectiveness of enterprise risk management can be measured and compared. In terms of historical performance, the standard suggests that the effectiveness of an enterprise's risk management should be evaluated based on the performance of a continuous historical period or multiple samples. Generally, no less than 5 historical cycles or 5 projects are selected to improve the credibility of the evaluation. In terms of system soundness, it is necessary to comprehensively evaluate the soundness of the enterprise risk management system from the dimensions of risk-based enterprise system process design and implementation, risk management function of risk management departments, design and application of risk appetite, risk management ability and motivation in key positions, accumulation and sharing of risk management knowledge, and supervision mechanisms. In terms of risk exposure, the focus is on evaluating the company's current holdings of stocks that may cause losses in the future. These include asset-based risk exposures such as receivables, inventory and contract assets, prepayments, goodwill and significant intangible assets, high-risk investments, mortgages, frozen or sealed assets, liabilities such as large foreign currency loans or floating interest rate debts, and contingent exposures such as external guarantees, off-balance sheet contingent liabilities, major outstanding litigation and arbitration, and regulatory penalties. In terms of resilience to risk, the enterprise's resilience to risk is assessed in a multi-dimensional system by comprehensively considering the enterprise's business management capabilities such as procurement, production and sales models, product and service competitiveness, R&D capabilities, financial strength, insurance coverage matching, information system disaster recovery, etc., as well as organizational management capabilities such as key personnel and core team stability and crisis management capabilities. In terms of subjective perception, the focus on evaluating the “confidence” of relevant parties in the enterprise's operation and management process and “confidence” in the future development of the enterprise is cross-confirmed by the evaluation results in the other four dimensions. The standard applies to all types of enterprises, and the evaluation results are classified into three levels from highest to lowest: effective, basically effective, and ineffective. The publication and implementation of this standard will provide a uniform yardstick for enterprises to evaluate the effectiveness of risk management, and is of positive significance in improving the resilience of enterprises to risks and helping prevent and mitigate major risks.

The General Administration of Market Regulation approved the publication of the “Guidelines for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Enterprise Risk Management”, which cross-verifies the five dimensions of “looking at history, looking at systems, looking at exposure, looking at ability, and looking at feelings”, so that the effectiveness of enterprise risk management can be measured and compared. In terms of historical performance, the standard suggests that the effectiveness of an enterprise's risk management should be evaluated based on the performance of a continuous historical period or multiple samples. Generally, no less than 5 historical cycles or 5 projects are selected to improve the credibility of the evaluation. In terms of system soundness, it is necessary to comprehensively evaluate the soundness of the enterprise risk management system from the dimensions of risk-based enterprise system process design and implementation, risk management function of risk management departments, design and application of risk appetite, risk management ability and motivation in key positions, accumulation and sharing of risk management knowledge, and supervision mechanisms. In terms of risk exposure, the focus is on evaluating the company's current holdings of stocks that may cause losses in the future. These include asset-based risk exposures such as receivables, inventory and contract assets, prepayments, goodwill and significant intangible assets, high-risk investments, mortgages, frozen or sealed assets, liabilities such as large foreign currency loans or floating interest rate debts, and contingent exposures such as external guarantees, off-balance sheet contingent liabilities, major outstanding litigation and arbitration, and regulatory penalties. In terms of resilience to risk, the enterprise's resilience to risk is assessed in a multi-dimensional system by comprehensively considering the enterprise's business management capabilities such as procurement, production and sales models, product and service competitiveness, R&D capabilities, financial strength, insurance coverage matching, information system disaster recovery, etc., as well as organizational management capabilities such as key personnel and core team stability and crisis management capabilities. In terms of subjective perception, the focus on evaluating the “confidence” of relevant parties in the enterprise's operation and management process and “confidence” in the future development of the enterprise is cross-confirmed by the evaluation results in the other four dimensions. The standard applies to all types of enterprises, and the evaluation results are classified into three levels from highest to lowest: effective, basically effective, and ineffective. The publication and implementation of this standard will provide a uniform yardstick for enterprises to evaluate the effectiveness of risk management, and is of positive significance in improving the resilience of enterprises to risks and helping prevent and mitigate major risks.