Both of these two articles consider about corporate governance and the principles of sound corporate governance structures which are needed to minimize the agency problems (Christensen, Kent, & Stewart, 2010, p. 372; Rankin, Stanton, McGowan, Ferlauto, & Tilling, 2012, p. 187). However, Christensen (2010, p. 374) discusses four specific governance structures which are released by ASX recommendations(2003) via agency and stewardship theory, Rankin (2012, p. 193) illustrates different principles of good corporate governance from different countries.
Christensen(2010, p. 374) identifies that there are lots of researches to examine the relation between corporate governance structures and company performance, but findings of researches are diverse and conflicting. On the other hand, Rankin (2012, p. 198) highlights the problems in corporate governance that the insufficient risk control and management and the performance-based reward structures have led to the global financial crisis currently, resulting in increased regulations and legislations provided in respect with good corporate governance. Similarly, both articles explain that the problems in corporate governance are caused by the ‘separation of ownership and management’ using agency theory (Christensen et al., 2010, p. 373; Rankin et al., 2012, p. 190). The obvious difference between them is that Rankin (2012, p. 198) considers various corporate governance practices and procedures generally and evaluate two approaches to corporate governance, but Christensen (2010, p. 374) tests four corporate governance structures (ASX 2003) by archival approach.
When getting a chance to be a risk manager, I will intend to improve the efficient enterprise risk management, expanding the layer of risk management through the
