Only 7 percent of the professionals surveyed rated themselves at the “advanced” level, while 58 percent reported ERM implementation at the “defined” or “operational” levels. Thirty-five percent categorized the maturity of their ERM programs as “initial/lacking” and “basic.”

Consequently, Aon concluded that 93 percent of the organizations surveyed have the opportunity to increase the impact of their ERM programs.

The data identified nine hallmarks of top-performing ERM programs:

o Board-level commitment to ERM is a critical framework for successful decision making and driving value.

o A dedicated risk executive in a senior-level position, driving and facilitating the ERM process.

o An ERM culture that encourages full engagement and accountability at all levels of the organization.

o Engagement of stakeholders in risk management strategy development and policy setting.

o Transparency of risk communication.

o Integration of financial and operational risk information into decision-making.

o Use of sophisticated quantification methods to understand risk and demonstrate added value through risk management.

o Identification of new and emerging risks using internal data as well as information from external providers.

o A move from focusing on risk avoidance and mitigation to leveraging risk and risk management options that extract value.

“Board-level commitment”–the first hallmark of ERM success identified in the survey (see infographic for the full list)–is a key factor in establishing and maintaining an appropriate risk culture and embedding ERM throughout the chain of command, Aon said. However, having board directors grasp the value of good risk management practices and how to execute them takes time and commitment, Aon noted.

Of the respondents considered to be at the “advanced” ERM maturity stage, Aon reported, 100 percent said their boards understand and support ERM objectives, versus only 4 percent of organizations in the early stages of their programs.

As organizations move up the maturity scale, however, they reported their boards are more able to grasp and support the concepts of ERM, according to the survey.

The survey found the position of chief risk officer most often cited as the leader of ERM efforts globally–more so for those with advanced ERM efforts, at 50 percent. By sector, the study found, 42 percent of respondents in financial services said the chief risk officer is the ERM sponsor.

Of the 2010 respondents, 39 percent in the initial stages of ERM said they do not have an identified champion for ERM. Aon said anecdotal evidence finds that ERM programs falter or fail without clear executive leadership.

The most cited barriers to ERM, according to the study, are:

o Lack of tangible benefits (40 percent).

o Lack of skills to imbed a program (34 percent).

o Lack of senior management sponsorship (31 percent).

o Lack of a clear implementation plan (28 percent).

o Failure to communicate the case for change (27 percent).

“The ERM journey is organic in nature and unique for each organization–it cannot be completed with a cookie-cutter approach,” Laura Taylor, global leader of ERM for Aon Global Risk Consulting, said in a statement.

“The objective is to have ERM rooted in an organization's culture, management processes and strategy to enhance risk-based decision-making and add to their continuity and profitability,” she added.