Operational Risk Governance:
Sound Practices for the Management and Supervision of Operational Risk BIS June 2011

Context In the last few days, several businesses, including aviation and banking sectors, experienced significant disruptions due to issues with Microsoft services. This outage affected various cloud-based services, including Microsoft 365, Azure, and Teams. The interruptions were caused by a combination of network configuration changes and infrastructure issues within Microsoft's global network (https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2024/02/business-interruption-claims-in-2024-a-global-perspective) (https://status.cloud.microsoft/#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fstatus,100). The outage highlighted the increasing reliance of global industries on cloud services and the significant impact such disruptions can have on business operations, from communication breakdowns to halted transactions (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240116375142/en/Allianz-Risk-Barometer-A-Cyber-Event-Is-the-Top-Global-Business-Risk-for-2024). While Microsoft worked to resolve the issues, it underscored the importance of robust cyber risk management and contingency planning in mitigating the effects of such outages (https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/20530078/the-cyber-risks-faced-by-the-aviation-industry---ten-things-to-know). The recent Microsoft outages, which disrupted services like Microsoft 365, Teams, and Outlook, were primarily caused by a series of technical and security issues. Initially, Microsoft identified that a "wide-area networking (WAN) routing change" led to connectivity problems. This change triggered issues with network latency and timeouts, affecting how packets were forwarded across Microsoft's global network. This impacted users' ability to access various cloud services, including Azure, SharePoint, and OneDrive (https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/microsoft-365-cloud-service-outage-disrupts-users-worldwide-a-21017) (https://www.techradar.com/news/this-is-what-caused-the-recent-huge-microsoft-365-and-teams-outage). Additionally, Microsoft faced cyber risks, particularly distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. These attacks, launched by a group known as Storm-1359, aimed to disrupt services by overwhelming Microsoft's infrastructure with malicious traffic. The DDoS attacks targeted layer 7 of the OSI model, affecting HTTP(S) traffic and causing resource exhaustion and slowdowns (https://msrc.microsoft.com/blog/2023/06/microsoft-response-to-layer-7-distributed-denial-of-service-ddos-attacks/). To mitigate these issues, Microsoft rolled back the problematic network changes and implemented additional protections to prevent similar disruptions in the future. These measures included enhancing their Web Application Firewall (WAF) and adding stricter controls on network command executions to avoid unintended consequences from network changes (https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/microsoft-experiences-second-major-cloud-outage-in-2-weeks-a-21134) (https://www.techradar.com/news/this-is-what-caused-the-recent-huge-microsoft-365-and-teams-outage). In recent days, significant disruptions in Microsoft services have caused major headaches for businesses worldwide. Industries ranging from aviation to banking found themselves grappling with unexpected downtime, impacting critical operations and highlighting a growing reliance on cloud-based services. This article explores whether Microsoft should be held legally accountable for failing to ensure business continuity for its global customers. The Outage and Its Impacts The recent Microsoft outages affected a range of cloud services, including Microsoft 365, Azure, and Teams. These disruptions were triggered by a combination of network configuration changes and infrastructure issues within Microsoft’s global network. Specifically, a "wide-area networking (WAN) routing change" led to severe connectivity problems. This change caused network latency and timeouts, disrupting the forwarding of data packets across Microsoft's global network. As a result, users experienced significant issues accessing cloud services such as Azure, SharePoint, and OneDrive. In addition to technical glitches, Microsoft also faced cyber threats, particularly distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. A group known as Storm-1359 targeted Microsoft’s infrastructure with malicious traffic, aiming to exhaust resources and slow down services. These attacks impacted layer 7 of the OSI model, affecting HTTP(S) traffic and causing further disruptions. The Importance of Business Continuity These outages underscore the critical role that cloud services play in modern business operations. From communication breakdowns to halted transactions, the ripple effects of such disruptions can be severe. The aviation and banking sectors, in particular, experienced significant operational impacts, illustrating the high stakes involved. As businesses increasingly rely on cloud services for their day-to-day operations, the importance of robust cyber risk management and contingency planning becomes more apparent. Legal and Ethical Considerations Given the scale and impact of these disruptions, the question arises: should Microsoft be sued for not ensuring business continuity? On one hand, businesses rely on service level agreements (SLAs) with cloud providers like Microsoft to guarantee a certain level of uptime and reliability. When these expectations are not met, it can lead to substantial financial losses and operational challenges. Businesses may argue that Microsoft failed to uphold its end of the agreement, warranting legal action to recover damages. On the other hand, the complexity of managing a global cloud infrastructure means that occasional outages are inevitable. Microsoft did take immediate steps to mitigate the issues, rolling back problematic network changes and enhancing protections against future disruptions. These efforts demonstrate a commitment to resolving the issues and improving service reliability. Cyber Risk Management and Contingency Planning The outages highlight the need for businesses to adopt comprehensive cyber risk management strategies and contingency plans. Relying solely on a single cloud provider can expose businesses to significant risks. Diversifying cloud services and implementing robust backup systems can help mitigate the impact of such outages. Additionally, regular testing and updating of contingency plans can ensure that businesses are better prepared to handle unexpected disruptions. Conclusion While the recent Microsoft outages have caused significant disruptions, suing the tech giant may not be the most effective solution. Instead, businesses should focus on enhancing their own cyber risk management and contingency planning efforts. By diversifying cloud services and implementing robust backup systems, businesses can better protect themselves against future outages. At the same time, cloud providers like Microsoft must continue to improve their infrastructure and security measures to minimize the risk of such disruptions and maintain customer trust. The recent events serve as a stark reminder of the interconnected nature of modern business operations and the importance of resilience in the face of unexpected challenges. References https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2024/02/business-interruption-claims-in-2024-a-global-perspective https://status.cloud.microsoft/#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fstatus,100). (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240116375142/en/Allianz-Risk-Barometer-A-Cyber-Event-Is-the-Top-Global-Business-Risk-for-2024 https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/20530078/the-cyber-risks-faced-by-the-aviation-industry---ten-things-to-know https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/microsoft-365-cloud-service-outage-disrupts-users-worldwide-a-21017 https://www.techradar.com/news/this-is-what-caused-the-recent-huge-microsoft-365-and-teams-outage https://msrc.microsoft.com/blog/2023/06/microsoft-response-to-layer-7-distributed-denial-of-service-ddos-attacks/

Contents 1 Abstract.. 4 2 Introduction.. 4 3 Objective: 5 4 Plan of the paper: 5 5 Chapter 1: Risk History and definitions. 5 5.1 Introduction: 5 5.2 Section I: Risk Management History: 6 5.3 Section 2: Definitions of Risk Management: 7 5.3.1 Market Risk: 8 5.3.2 Credit Risk. 8 5.3.3 Liquidity Risk: 8 5.3.4 Operational Risk: 9 6 Chapter 2: Evolvement of Risk Management: Basel I, II and III. 10 6.1 Introduction: 10 6.2 Section I: Basel I and its shortcomings: 11 6.3 Section 2: Basel II 12 6.4 Section 3: Basel III 13 6.4.1 Summary OF changes. 13 7 Chapter 3: Risk in Islamic Finance Institutions. 14 7.1 Introduction: 14 7.2 Section 1: Islamic Finance Institutions are unique. 16 7.3 Section 2: Types of Risks in the IFIs: 17 8 Chapter 4: Islamic Finance Products, Risks and the key challenges. 19 8.1 Introduction: 19 8.2 Section 1: Risks in Islamic Finance Products: 19 8.2.1 Risks in Musharakah Contracts: 21 8.2.2 Risks in Mudarabah contract: 22 8.2.3 Risks in Murabahah Contract: 24 8.2.4 Risks in Salam Contract: 24 8.2.5 Risks in Istisnaa Contract 25 8.2.6 Risks in Iajrah Contract: 26 8.3 Section 2: Challenges of Risk Management in Islamic Finance Products. 27 9 Chapter 5: Operational Risk in Islamic Finance Institutions. 28 9.1 Introduction: 28 9.2 Section 1: Operational Risk in Musharakah contract: 28 9.3 Section 2: Operational Risk in Mudarabah contract. 29 9.4 Section 3: Operational Risk in Murabahah contract. 29 9.5 Operational Risk in Salam contract. 30 9.6 Operational Risk in Istisnaa contract: 30 9.7 Operational Risk in Ijarah contract: 30 10 Conclusion.. 30 10.1 Findings. 30 10.2 Recommendations. 31 11 References. 33 1 Abstract As IFIs are growing extensively and expected to grow up to 15% in the coming years, it is primordial that all the industry stakeholders start to invest their efforts to develop the Risk Management disciplines. The IFSB and AAOIFI are not sparing any effort to guide and participate in shaping the IF Risk Management, however, they tend to be inspired by the existing frameworks historically developed for Conventional Banks. Islamic Finance contracts are very different in nature and in substance from conventional banks, thus, the conventional Risk Management cannot cater for their uniqueness. This paper tried to highlight uniqueness of risk aspects within the IF contracts, and focused on Operational Risk, which is in my opinion in the major risk for IFI. 2 Introduction Risk Management have evolved since its first appearance after the World War II. The Bank of International Settlement have tried to adapt to the changes in the Finance industry and issued 3 version of the Basel Guidelines on Capital Requirements (Basel I, II and III). These guidelines have identified Capital Requirements for Credit Risk, Market Risk and Operational Risk. They also issued Sound Practices for Risk Management for each type of Risk. With the venue of the Islamic Finance Industry in the 1960s, Risk Management tools had to adapt to the uniqueness of their products. IFSB and AOIIFI have invested huge efforts in developing Risk Management guidelines for IFIs. Scholars and Islamic Finance practitioners issued multitude of papers attempting to circle aspects of Risk in the Islamic Finance Contracts. They have demonstrated that Islamic Finance encompasses other types of Risk that are unknown to conventional Banks (Fiduciary Risk, Sharia non-compliance Risk, Commercial Displaced Risk, etc.) Many of those scholars have also found out that the IFIs are more exposed to Operational Risk than the conventional banks, mainly due to the complexity of the contracts and their execution. This research is an attempt to add some more light on Risks faced by Islamic Finance Institution with a special focus on Operational Risk. 3 Objective: Risk Management in IFIs tends to be complex and least understood by the business and even by the Risk Management practitioners, in this research I will attempt to define Risks in IFIs and clarify its specifications by demonstrating its uniqueness, especially in the Islamic Finance contracts, where each contract can encompass more than one type of Risk. I will also try to cover some more details of Operational Risk aspects in the IF contracts and demonstrate its importance and complexity during the lifecycle. That being discussed I will propose some actions that can enhance the Operational Risk Management within the IFIs. 4 Plan of the paper: In this paper, I will be defining Risk Management in general in Financial Institutions and its degree of evolvement especially in conventional banking, how Risk is different in Islamic Financial Institutions from conventional banks, their instruments and what are the key challenges. Then I will be discussing the Operational Risk Management in Islamic Finance Institutions and its specifications. 5 Chapter 1: Risk History and definitions 5.1 Introduction: Risk Management emerged after the World War II, and began to be studied in universities as a discipline with the two academic books ( Mehr and Hedges (1963) and Williams and Hems (1964)[1]. Risk Management was, for a long time, the ultimate tool for Insurance Industry aiming to mitigate Risks related to individuals and companies from losses incurred from accidents[2] After 1950s, and due to the increasing costs of insurance, various Risk Management activities were introduced to the business (e.g. business continuity, self-insurance). Derivatives were introduced after 1970s to mitigate the faced risks. Market, Credit, and Operational Risk Management tools were introduced to manage the emerging risks from the intensified activities with insurance and Finance industries (consequently after 1980s for Market and Credit and 1990s for Operational Risk)[3] The objective of a financial institution (or for any kind of business) is to maximize shareholders’ profits by adding value and best usage of available resources. Financial institutions, in particular, have to manage Risks to achieve the aforesaid objective. Risk is defined as a possible adverse, one or more, outcomes, it is unknown for its intrinsic volatility and unpredictability. Financial institutions face different types of Risks. Business Risks, which “arises from the nature of a firm’s business. It relates to factors affecting the product market. Financial risk arises from possible losses in financial markets due to movements in financial variables [4]”. Oldfield and Santomero classifies Risk in three types: risks that can be eliminated, those that can be transferred to others, and the risks that can be managed by the institution. [5]” Besides the above given definitions, Risk can also be defined as Financial Risk, i.e. Credit Risk and Market Risk, and non-Financial Risk, i.e., among others, Operational Risk, Legal Risk, Reputational Risk and Strategic Risk.[6] 5.2 Section I: Risk Management History: Risk Management historically was the main objective of the insurance industry. After the World War II, large companies started to mitigate their risks by introducing Self-Insurance techniques. It was largely applied to cover adverse financial impacts consequent of events of losses or Market volatility. After 1970s, Financial Risk Management emerges as a cornerstone for multitude of companies including banks. In Fact, Stock Market prices, exchange rates, commodity prices, were their main concerns. Table 1: Milestones in the History of Risk Management[7] In 1990s Risk Management took more momentum and became a high priority matter for corporates, Board of Director have now the responsibility of oversight and monitoring policies effected by the Board Audit and Risk Management Committees. Financial Institution, after 2000s are required to implement capital reserves for risks, especially after the major defaults and the Enron bankruptcy case. Basel II (2004) issued guidelines on more robust capital requirements on banks for Credit Risk, also introduced rules on managing Operational Risk. In 2010 Basel III came as a response to the 2008 subprime crisis, with more constraints on capital requirements and new Liquidity Risk Management guidelines. 5.3 Section 2: Definitions of Risk Management: According to Wikipedia, “Risk management is the identification, assessment, and prioritization of risks (defined in ISO 31000 as the effect of uncertainty on objectives) followed by coordinated and economical application of resources to minimize, monitor, and control the probability and/or impact of unfortunate events[8] or to maximize the realization of opportunities. Risk management’s objective is to assure uncertainty does not deflect the endeavor from the business goals.[9]” Financial Institutions face generally two types of Risk, Financial and Non-Financial[10] (Gleason 2000). Financial Risks are those due Market volatility (Market Risk), and those due customers’ defaults (Credit Risk). Non-Financial Risk includes, but not limited to, Operational Risk, Legal Risk, Reputational Risk, Regulatory Compliance Risk. 5.3.1 Market Risk: Market Risk is defined as the risk from adverse volatility of traded instruments and assets in a well-defined Market[11]. Market Risk can affect both banking and trading books. In the sense that it is originated from equity price risk, interest rate risk, currency risk, and commodity price risk. Market Risk is said systematic when it arises due to the general volatility of prices and overall changes in policies in the economy. When the price of a specific asset or instruments changes due to events inherent to it, it is categorized as unsystematic Risk. 5.3.2 Credit Risk “Credit risk is most simply defined as the potential that a bank borrower or counterparty will fail to meet its obligations in accordance with agreed terms. The goal of credit risk management is to maximize a bank's risk-adjusted rate of return by maintaining credit risk exposure within acceptable parameters. Banks need to manage the credit risk inherent in the entire portfolio as well as the risk in individual credits or transactions. Banks should also consider the relationships between credit risk and other risks. The effective management of credit risk is a critical component of a comprehensive approach to risk management and essential to the long-term success of any banking organization.”[12] Credit Risk is the risk that counterparty will fail to meet its obligations timely and fully in accordance with the agreed terms[13]. 5.3.3 Liquidity Risk: The Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision[14] (BCBS 2008) defines Liquidity as “the ability of a bank to fund increases in assets and meet obligations as they come due, without incurring unacceptable losses.” Liquidity Risk arises then from adverse circumstances that hurdles a bank to normally operate and meet its liabilities when due. Funding Liquidity Risk occurs when banks are unable to secure funds at a reasonable cost from borrowing, Asset Liquidity Risk arises when banks face difficulties to generate liquidity from sale of assets.[15] 5.3.4 Operational Risk: The BCBS Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk defines Operational Risk as the risk of loss resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people and systems or from external events. This definition includes legal risk, but excludes strategic and reputational risk.[16] Operational Risk was for a long time out of the radar of the corporates and scholars, it was not quite understood. Power writes: “Operational risk was conceived as a composite term for a wide variety of organizational and behavioural risk issues which were traditionally excluded from formal definitions of market and credit risk. The explosion of operational risk discourse gave new structure and rationality to what had traditionally been regarded as a risk management residual and negatively described as non-financial risk.”[17] The Bank of international Settlements (BIS) have categorized Operational Risk into four causal categories[18]: · Process · Business Process (lack of proper due diligence, inadequate/problematic account reconciliation, etc.) · Business Risks (merger risk, new product risk, etc.) · Errors and Omissions (inadequate/problematic security, inadequate/problematic quality control, etc.) · Specific Liabilities (employee benefits, employer, directors and officers, etc.) · People · Employee Errors (general transaction errors, incorrect routing of transaction, etc.) · Human Resource Issues (employee unavailability, hiring/firing, etc.) · Personal Injury – Physical Injury (bodily injury, health and safety, etc.) Personal Injury – Non–Physical Injury (libel/defamation/slander, discrimination/harassment, etc.) · Wrongful Acts (fraud, trading misdeeds, etc.) · Information Technology · General Technology Problems (operational error – technology related, unauthorized use/misuse of technology, etc.) · Hardware (equipment failure, inadequate/unavailable hardware, etc.) · Security (hacking, firewall failure, external disruption, etc.) · Software (computer virus, programming bug, etc.) · Systems (system failures, system maintenance, etc.) · Telecommunications (telephone, fax, etc.) · External Events · Disasters (natural disasters, non–natural disasters, etc.) · External Misdeeds (external fraud, external money laundering, etc.) · Litigation/Regulation (capital control, regulatory change, legal change, etc.) · Relationships · Legal/Contractual (securities law violations, legal liabilities, etc.) · Negligence (gross negligence, general negligence, etc.) · Sales Discrimination (lending discrimination, client Discrimination, etc.) · Sales Related Issues (churning, sales misrepresentation, high pressure sales tactics, etc.) · Specific Omissions (failure to pay proper fees, failure to file proper report, etc.) Gene Alvares attempted a mapping exercise between the Causal Categories and Basel Risk Types (Alvares, Global Association of Risk Professionals GARP studies. 2002). Mapping illustration between the Basel Committee’s proposed operational risk event classification scheme and Zurich IC2 format. (Alvarez, 2002)[19] References Georges Dionne, Risk Management: History and Critique, March 2013 Harrington and Neihaus, 2013, Georges Dionne, Risk Management: History and Critique, March 2013 Jorion and Khoury 1996, reference cited by Tariqullah Khan Habib Ahmed: Risk Management: An Analysis Of Issues In Islamic Financial Industry, 2001, Islamic Development Bank, Islamic Research and Training Institute Oldfield and Santomero (1997), reference cited by Tariqullah Khan Habib Ahmed: Risk Management: An Analysis Of Issues In Islamic Financial Industry, 2001, , Islamic Development Bank, Islamic Research and Training Institute Tariqullah Khan Habib Ahmed: Risk Management: An Analysis Of Issues In Islamic Financial Industry, 2001, Islamic Development Bank, Islamic Research and Training Institute Hubbard, Douglas (2009). The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It. John Wiley & Sons. (Wikipedia) Antunes, Ricardo; Gonzalez, Vicente (3 March 2015). "A Production Model for Construction: A Theoretical Framework". Buildings. 5 (1): 209–228. doi:10.3390/buildings5010209. (Wikipedia) BCBS - Principles for the Management of Credit Risk - final document, September 2000 BCBS - Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision - final document, September 2008 BCBS Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk, 2011 Power p. 103 Cited by Johannes Gaus aus Böblingen, The Risks of Financial Risk Management, Master-Thesis, Economics of Financial Institutions European Business School, Department Corporate Management & Economics, Zeppelin University Marinoiu Ana Maria, Bucharest University of Economics, Faculty of International Business and Economics, Operational Risk In International Business: Taxonomy And Assessment Methods, Federal Reserve Bulletin, September 2003, Capital Standards for Banks: The Evolving Basel Accord BCBS, Basel II: The New Basel Capital Accord - third consultative paper April 2003 and Revised international capital framework, June 2006 Basel III: international regulatory framework for banks Sean Kenny, To What Extent were the Limitations of the Previous Basel Accords (I & II) overlooked by Basel III?, Master programme in Economic History, Lund University, School of Economics and Management, June 2011 BCBS- Pillar 2 (Supervisory Review Process), the New Basel Capital Accord, Principal 2 Basel II, Tamer Bakiciol Nicolas Cojocaru-Durand DongxuLu, December 2008 BIS, BCSB, Basel III: international regulatory framework for banks Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Basel III: International Framework for Liquidity Risk Measurement, Standards and Monitoring, Dec 10, Bank for International Settlements. http://wwww.basel-ii-risk.com/basel-iii-guide-to-the-changes/ Ahmad Alharbi, Development of the Islamic Banking System, Journal of Islamic Banking and Finance June 2015, Vol. 3, No. 1 Syed Ehsan Ullah Agha, RISK MANAGEMENT IN ISLAMIC FINANCE: AN ANALYSIS FROM OBJECTIVES OF SHARI’AH PERSPECTIVE, International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 7, Issue 3 (Aug.) 2015 Specifics of Risk Management in Islamic Finance and Banking, with Emphasis on Bosnia and Herzegovina, E.Kozarević, M.Baraković Nurikić & N.Nuhanović, Bahar/Spring 2014, Volume 4, Issue 1, Çankırı Karatekin University, Journal of The Faculty of Economics, and Administrative Sciences. Ioannis Akkizidis and Sunil Kumar Khandelwal, Financial Risk Management for Islamic Banking and Finance, Palgrave Macmillan. Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC), Risk Management in Islamic Financial Instruments, COMCEC Coordination Office, September 2014. ISLAMIC FINANCIAL SERVICES BOARD, GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF RISK MANAGEMENT FOR INSTITUTIONS (OTHER THAN INSURANCE INSTITUTIONS) OFFERING ONLY ISLAMIC FINANCIAL SERVICES, December 2005. Nurhafiza Abdul Kader Malim PhD, Islamic Banking and Risk Management: Issues and Challenges, Journal of Islamic Banking and Finance Oct.- Dec. 2015. Hennie van Greuning Zamir Iqbal, Risk Analysis for Islamic Banks, THE WORLD BANK Washington, D.C., December 2008. Ahmad Mohamed Rahim, Operational Risks in Islamic Profit Sharing Contracts and Ways to Overcome Them, MSc in Islamic Finance, The Global University of Islamic Finance, October 2014 (http://www.inceif.org/research-bulletin/operational-risks-islamic-profit-sharing-contracts-ways-overcome/) [1] Georges Dionne, Risk Management: History and Critique, March 2013, p. 1 [2] Harrington and Neihaus, 2013, Georges Dionne, Risk Management: History and Critique, March 2013, p. 1 [3] Georges Dionne, Risk Management: History and Critique, March 2013, p. 1 [4] Jorion and Khoury 1996, p. 2, reference cited by Tariqullah Khan Habib Ahmed: Risk Management: An Analysis Of Issues In Islamic Financial Industry, 2001,p. 26, Islamic Development Bank, Islamic Research and Training Institute [5] Oldfield and Santomero (1997), reference cited by Tariqullah Khan Habib Ahmed: Risk Management: An Analysis Of Issues In Islamic Financial Industry, 2001,p. 27, Islamic Development Bank, Islamic Research and Training Institute [6] Tariqullah Khan Habib Ahmed: Risk Management: An Analysis Of Issues In Islamic Financial Industry, 2001,p. 28, Islamic Development Bank, Islamic Research and Training Institute [7] Georges Dionne, Risk Management: History and Critique, March 2013, p. 6 [8] Hubbard, Douglas (2009). The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It. John Wiley & Sons. p. 46. (Wikipedia) [9] Antunes, Ricardo; Gonzalez, Vicente (3 March 2015). "A Production Model for Construction: A Theoretical Framework". Buildings. 5 (1): 209–228. doi:10.3390/buildings5010209. (Wikipedia) [10] Tariqullah Khan Habib Ahmed: Risk Management: An Analysis of Issues in Islamic Financial Industry, 2001, p. 28, Islamic Development Bank, Islamic Research and Training Institute [11] Tariqullah Khan Habib Ahmed: Risk Management: An Analysis of Issues in Islamic Financial Industry, 2001, p. 28, Islamic Development Bank, Islamic Research and Training Institute [12] BCBS - Principles for the Management of Credit Risk - final document, September 2000 [13] Tariqullah Khan Habib Ahmed: Risk Management: An Analysis of Issues in Islamic Financial Industry, 2001, p. 29, Islamic Development Bank, Islamic Research and Training Institute [14] BCBS - Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision - final document, September 2008 [15] Tariqullah Khan Habib Ahmed: Risk Management: An Analysis of Issues in Islamic Financial Industry, 2001, p. 29, Islamic Development Bank, Islamic Research and Training Institute [16] BCBS Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk, 2011, p. 3 [17] Power p. 103 Cited by Johannes Gaus aus Böblingen, The Risks of Financial Risk Management, Master-Thesis, Economics of Financial Institutions European Business School, Department Corporate Management & Economics, Zeppelin University, p. 38 [18] Marinoiu Ana Maria, Bucharest University of Economics, Faculty of International Business and Economics, Operational Risk In International Business: Taxonomy And Assessment Methods, P. 196 [19] Marinoiu Ana Maria, Bucharest University of Economics, Faculty of International Business and Economics, Operational Risk in International Business: Taxonomy and Assessment Methods, P. 197

Dans le contexte conomique actuel, les petites et moyennes entreprises (PME) et les petites et moyennes industries (PMI) doivent naviguer dans un environnement de plus en plus complexe et comp titif. Pour survivre et prosp rer, il est crucial de mettre en place des strat gies de gestion des risques efficaces. Une approche prouv e et accessible pour les PME/PMI est le modèle des Trois Lignes de D fense (3 LoD). Cette m thode, simple et abordable, permet de renforcer le contrôle interne et de s curiser les op rations. Voici comment impl menter cette strat gie de manière pragmatique et efficiente, en soulignant en fin d'article l'expertise de M3T Consulting. Comprendre le Modèle des Trois Lignes de D fense Le modèle des 3 LoD distingue les responsabilit s de gestion des risques en trois niveaux distincts, assurant ainsi une r partition claire et efficace des rôles au sein de l'entreprise. Première Ligne de D fense (LoD1) : Gestion Op rationnelle Les quipes op rationnelles sont en première ligne pour identifier et g rer les risques au quotidien. Elles mettent en œuvre et appliquent les contrôles internes n cessaires pour pr venir les incidents et minimiser les impacts n gatifs sur l'entreprise. Cette première ligne est essentielle car elle est directement impliqu e dans les activit s quotidiennes de l'entreprise, ce qui lui permet de d tecter rapidement les anomalies et de r agir en cons quence. Deuxième Ligne de D fense (LoD2) : Fonctions de Surveillance Les fonctions de surveillance incluent les d partements de conformit et de gestion des risques. Ces quipes supervisent les activit s de la première ligne, fournissent des conseils et s'assurent que les contrôles internes sont ad quats et efficaces. Elles jouent un rôle crucial en valuant les politiques et en recommandant des am liorations pour renforcer le système de contrôle interne. La deuxième ligne agit comme un filet de s curit suppl mentaire, garantissant que les processus sont correctement suivis et que les risques sont g r s de manière proactive. Troisième Ligne de D fense (LoD3) : Audit Interne L'audit interne fournit une valuation ind pendante de l'efficacit globale du contrôle interne et des processus de gestion des risques. Cette troisième ligne de d fense v rifie que les deux premières lignes fonctionnent correctement et am liore en continu les pratiques de gestion des risques. En fournissant une perspective ind pendante, l'audit interne aide à identifier les faiblesses du système et à proposer des actions correctives pour am liorer la r silience de l'entreprise. Impl menter les Trois Lignes de D fense dans une PME/PMI D finir les Rôles et Responsabilit s Pour r ussir l'impl mentation des trois lignes de d fense, il est crucial de d finir clairement les rôles et responsabilit s de chaque employ . Chaque membre de l'organisation doit comprendre son rôle dans la gestion des risques et la mise en œuvre des contrôles internes. Cette clart permet de garantir que tous les niveaux de l'entreprise sont align s et travaillent ensemble pour atteindre les objectifs de gestion des risques. Former les Équipes La formation est essentielle pour s'assurer que tous les employ s sont conscients des risques potentiels et des meilleures pratiques pour les g rer. Des sessions r gulières de formation et de sensibilisation peuvent grandement am liorer l'efficacit des contrôles internes. En investissant dans la formation, les PME/PMI peuvent d velopper les comp tences n cessaires pour identifier et g rer les risques de manière proactive, renforçant ainsi leur r silience globale. Utiliser des Outils de Gestion des Risques Investir dans des outils de gestion des risques abordables peut aider à automatiser certains aspects du contrôle interne, tels que la surveillance continue et la g n ration de rapports de risques. De nombreux outils sont disponibles à des prix accessibles pour les PME/PMI, permettant ainsi de tirer parti des technologies modernes pour am liorer les processus de gestion des risques. Ces outils peuvent galement faciliter la communication et la collaboration entre les diff rentes lignes de d fense, assurant ainsi une gestion des risques plus coh rente et int gr e. Cr er une Fonction d'Audit Interne Proportionn e Pour la troisième ligne de d fense, les PME/PMI peuvent externaliser la fonction d'audit interne à des consultants sp cialis s si elles ne disposent pas des ressources n cessaires en interne. Cette approche permet de b n ficier d'une valuation ind pendante et objective des processus de contrôle interne. En externalisant l'audit interne, les PME/PMI peuvent galement acc der à des expertises sp cialis es et à des perspectives externes, ce qui peut être particulièrement b n fique pour identifier les opportunit s d'am lioration et de renforcement du système de contrôle interne. Encourager une Culture de Transparence et de Responsabilisation Une culture d'entreprise qui valorise la transparence et la responsabilisation est essentielle pour la r ussite de toute strat gie de gestion des risques. Les dirigeants doivent promouvoir une communication ouverte et un environnement où les employ s se sentent responsabilis s. En encourageant la transparence, les entreprises peuvent cr er un climat de confiance où les employ s sont plus enclins à signaler les anomalies et à proposer des solutions pour am liorer les processus internes. Cette culture de responsabilisation contribue galement à renforcer l'engagement des employ s envers les objectifs de gestion des risques. Les Avantages de l'Impl mentation des Trois Lignes de D fense Structure et Clart dans la Gestion des Risques L'impl mentation des trois lignes de d fense permet de d finir une structure claire pour la gestion des risques, facilitant ainsi la d tection et la r solution des problèmes potentiels. Chaque ligne de d fense joue un rôle sp cifique et compl mentaire, assurant une approche holistique de la gestion des risques. La première ligne, en tant directement impliqu e dans les op rations quotidiennes, permet une r action rapide aux incidents. La deuxième ligne apporte une surveillance et des conseils pour renforcer les contrôles. La troisième ligne, par son ind pendance, offre une valuation objective des systèmes en place. Accès à des Expertises et Technologies Modernes L'utilisation d'outils de gestion des risques et l'externalisation de l'audit interne permettent aux PME/PMI d'acc der à des expertises sp cialis es et à des technologies modernes, sans n cessiter des investissements importants. Les outils de gestion des risques peuvent automatiser la surveillance continue et la g n ration de rapports, facilitant ainsi la d tection pr coce des anomalies et la prise de d cisions inform es. En externalisant l'audit interne, les PME/PMI b n ficient de perspectives externes et d' valuations ind pendantes, ce qui est essentiel pour am liorer constamment le système de contrôle interne. Renforcement de la R silience Organisationnelle En mettant en œuvre les trois lignes de d fense, les PME/PMI peuvent renforcer leur r silience face aux risques op rationnels. Cette approche permet de s curiser les op rations quotidiennes et de promouvoir une culture de transparence et de responsabilisation au sein de l'organisation. Une gestion proactive des risques r duit non seulement les incidents, mais am liore galement la capacit de l'entreprise à r agir efficacement en cas de crise. La r silience organisationnelle est renforc e par une meilleure anticipation des risques et une r ponse rapide et coordonn e aux d fis. Am lioration de la Confiance des Parties Prenantes La mise en place des trois lignes de d fense peut galement am liorer la confiance des parties prenantes, y compris les clients, les investisseurs et les r gulateurs. Une gestion efficace des risques d montre l'engagement de l'entreprise à maintenir des standards lev s de gouvernance et de conformit . Les clients sont plus enclins à faire confiance à une entreprise qui prend des mesures proactives pour s curiser ses op rations. Les investisseurs, de leur côt , voient dans une gestion rigoureuse des risques un indicateur de stabilit et de durabilit de l'entreprise. Enfin, les r gulateurs appr cient les efforts des entreprises qui s'alignent sur les meilleures pratiques en matière de gestion des risques. Cas Pratiques et Retours d'Exp rience Exemple 1 : Digitalisation des Processus chez XYZ Manufacturing XYZ Manufacturing, une PME sp cialis e dans la production de composants m caniques, a r cemment mis en œuvre les trois lignes de d fense pour am liorer la gestion des risques op rationnels. Grâce à la digitalisation de ses processus, XYZ a pu automatiser la surveillance des lignes de production et la g n ration de rapports de performance. Les quipes op rationnelles ont t form es à l'utilisation de nouveaux outils technologiques, permettant une d tection rapide des anomalies. La fonction de conformit a jou un rôle cl en fournissant des conseils et des recommandations pour am liorer les contrôles internes. Enfin, l'audit interne, externalis à M3T Consulting, a r alis une valuation ind pendante des systèmes en place, permettant d'identifier des opportunit s d'am lioration et de renforcer la r silience de l'entreprise. Exemple 2 : Gestion des Risques dans une Banque R gionale Une banque r gionale a adopt le modèle des trois lignes de d fense pour am liorer sa gestion des risques financiers et op rationnels. La première ligne, constitu e des d partements op rationnels, a t form e à la d tection des risques et à la mise en place de contrôles appropri s. La deuxième ligne, incluant les d partements de conformit et de gestion des risques, a d velopp des politiques et des proc dures pour renforcer les contrôles internes. L'audit interne, men par un cabinet externe, a valu l'efficacit des contrôles et propos des actions correctives pour am liorer le système de gestion des risques. Cette approche int gr e a permis à la banque de renforcer sa r silience face aux risques et d'am liorer la confiance des clients et des r gulateurs. Conclusion L'impl mentation d'un dispositif de contrôle interne bas sur le modèle des Trois Lignes de D fense est une strat gie accessible et efficace pour les PME/PMI. En adoptant cette approche structur e, les entreprises peuvent renforcer leur r silience face aux risques op rationnels et s curiser leurs op rations quotidiennes. Cette strat gie permet galement de promouvoir une culture de transparence et de responsabilisation, essentielle pour une gestion proactive des risques. M3T Consulting : Votre Partenaire de Confiance pour la Gestion des Risques Chez M3T Consulting, nous sommes sp cialis s dans l'accompagnement des entreprises dans leur transition num rique et la mise en place de dispositifs de contrôle interne. Notre expertise en gestion des risques nous permet de proposer des solutions adapt es aux besoins sp cifiques de chaque organisation, en assurant une impl mentation efficace des trois lignes de d fense. Pour en savoir plus sur nos services, consultez nos publications sur LinkedIn et notre site web M3T Consulting. Commencez dès aujourd'hui à mettre en place les trois lignes de d fense dans votre entreprise et voyez la diff rence qu'une gestion proactive des risques peut apporter !