Cost-benefit risk analysis modeling for corporate compliance: evidence from Italy obtained through investment and industry 4.0 tax credit data analysis

David Barilla (), Giuseppe Caristi () and Tiziana Ciano ()
Additional contact information
David Barilla: University of Messina
Giuseppe Caristi: University of Messina
Tiziana Ciano: University of Aosta Valley

Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 2024, vol. 58, issue 5, No 20, 4459-4478

Abstract: Abstract Modern industrial systems are typically characterised by their multiple elements (technological, communicational, physical, etc.). These elements are interconnected and structured in such a way as to make them “immune” to, or only marginally affected by, any harmful events. On the basis of this assertion, the traditional bimodal definition (which only considers functional and failure states) is inadequate for understanding the behaviour of complex systems. It is in this context that the concept of resilience has caught on in both the academic and corporate fields because it is capable of taking into account all the ways a system may behave following a harmful event, from the so-called “reaction and absorption” of shocks, to recovery and adaptation of the system to new operating conditions. In a previous paper (Ventura in Eur Bus Law Rev 34(2):239–268, 2023) introduced a model set within a wider system of corporate compliance management drawn up in accordance with the NIST and ISO international standards. This model is based on the joint use of Erik Hollnagel’s Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) and Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). After defining its properties, from a purely methodological viewpoint, the proposed model was then applied to a very common case study in the Italian industrial context: the acquisition of a plant with features making it eligible for tax credit both for Investments in the South and for Industry 4.0. This paper sets out to go further by evaluating the validity of this model also from a cost-benefit analysis point of view. The three possible situations will be analysed (without any risk assessment, risk assessment using the FRAM method, risk assessment using the FRAM/AHP method), establishing which of the three is most useful for corporate management.

Keywords: Risk analysis; Cost-benefit; FRAM/AHP method; Corporate compliance (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-024-01865-2 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s11135-024-01865-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11135

DOI: 10.1007/s11135-024-01865-2

Access Statistics for this article

Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology is currently edited by Vittorio Capecchi

More articles in Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().