PhD Risk Management Research Title: Analysis of Enterprise Risk Management Adoption Readiness for a Mid Sized Private Higher Education Institution: A Case Study of Copperstone University

Abstract

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) has become an expected governance practice in higher
education, driven by accreditation requirements, enrolment volatility, cyber threats, financial
uncertainty, operational disruptions, and reputational risks. However, mid-sized higher
education institutions, typically enrolling between 3,000 and 10,000 students, often encounter
a “missing middle” challenge: they are too large to manage risk informally, yet too small to
afford the dedicated risk infrastructure commonly found in large research universities. Existing
ERM frameworks, including COSO and ISO 31000, and much of the empirical literature focus
predominantly on corporate settings and large higher education institutions, leaving mid-sized
institutions with limited guidance on what constitutes readiness for ERM adoption.
This study addresses that gap through a convergent mixed-methods single-institution case study
of Copperstone University, a purposively selected mid-sized, tuition-dependent private higher
education institution with 6,200 full-time equivalent students and no dedicated Chief Risk
Officer (CRO). The quantitative phase involved a survey of 98 faculty, staff, and administrators,
measuring five readiness dimensions: leadership commitment, risk culture, resource adequacy,
governance structure, and external pressure. These dimensions were examined in relation to
perceived ERM adoption readiness. The qualitative phase comprised semi-structured
interviews with 12 participants across institutional roles, analysed using thematic analysis.
Quantitative findings revealed that external pressure was perceived as high (M = 4.05), while
internal readiness was comparatively low, particularly resource adequacy (M = 2.18). A
significant perceptual gap existed between senior administrators and faculty regarding
leadership commitment (∆ = 1.23). Multiple regression showed that leadership commitment (β
= 0.38), resource adequacy (β = 0.31), and risk culture (β = 0.24) significantly predicted ERM
adoption readiness, explaining 52% of the variance. Governance structure and external pressure
were not statistically significant predictors. Qualitative findings explained these patterns
through four themes: the resource paradox, the leadership perception gap, decoupling, and
cascading failure.
The study makes four theoretical contributions. First, it refines Weiner’s (2009) organisational
readiness for change theory by demonstrating that change efficacy, particularly resource
adequacy, moderates change commitment in resource-constrained settings. Second, it
disaggregates the environment dimension of the TOE framework (Tornatzky and Fleischer,
1990), showing that coercive pressure, particularly accreditation pressure, may produce
symbolic decoupling rather than substantive adoption. Third, it extends institutional theory by
identifying involuntary decoupling driven by resource scarcity rather than strategic hypocrisy.
Fourth, it provides an initial empirical basis for a contingent and scaled ERM model tailored to
mid-sized higher education institutions.
Practical recommendations include conducting role-disaggregated readiness assessments;
allocating minimum viable resources, such as a 0.5 FTE risk coordinator and an annual ERM
budget of US$30,000 to US$50,000; embedding at least one risk metric into performance
systems; and moving from static risk policies to living risk registers. For accreditation bodies,
the study recommends shifting from policy-document requirements to capability-based
requirements, including evidence of dedicated resources, implementation responsibility, and
active risk monitoring.
The limitations of the study include its single-institution design, which limits generalisability,
and its cross-sectional data, which restrict causal inference. Future research should pursue
multiple-case studies, longitudinal designs, and cost-benefit analyses of ERM investments in
mid-sized higher education institutions.

Keywords

Cite this work