Personnel Audit as a Risk-Based Corporate Governance Instrument: A Conceptual Framework for Human Capital Risk Integration

Oksana Motuzenko

doi:10.36690/2674-5208-2026-1-102-115

Authors

Oksana Motuzenko PJSC "Insurance Company "INGO" https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3434-9553

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36690/2674-5208-2026-1-102-115

Keywords:

personnel audit, human capital risk, corporate governance, enterprise risk management, PARI framework, risk taxonomy, Solvency II, human capital governance, risk integration, board oversight, governance oversight, organizational resilience

Abstract

This study addresses a significant gap in contemporary corporate governance research, specifically the insufficient integration of human capital risks into enterprise risk management (ERM) frameworks. Although Solvency II, ISO 31000:2018, and COSO ERM 2017 establish comprehensive architectures for risk governance, they do not adequately position personnel audit as a structured mechanism for identifying, assessing, and communicating human capital risks. The study aims to reconceptualize personnel audit as a risk-based corporate governance instrument and to develop a framework that integrates human capital risks into ERM systems. The paper adopts a conceptual research design grounded in agency theory, stakeholder theory, and systems thinking. Through conceptual synthesis, systems analysis, and comparative regulatory review, it develops the Personnel Audit Risk Integration (PARI) framework as a three-tier model operating at operational, tactical, and strategic levels of governance. The study proposes a structured taxonomy of human capital vulnerabilities across five interrelated domains: competency risk, behavioral integrity risk, succession risk, compliance risk, and organizational culture risk. It further establishes theoretical and regulatory linkages between personnel audit outputs, board-level risk oversight, and Solvency Capital Requirement calculations in regulated industries. The PARI framework demonstrates both conceptual originality and practical relevance for boards of directors, chief risk officers, and HR governance practitioners seeking to strengthen resilience and governance quality. Future studies should empirically validate the framework and explore methodologies for quantifying human capital risks across different industries and regulatory contexts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Oksana Motuzenko, PJSC "Insurance Company "INGO"

Ph.D. (Management), Risk Manager, PJSC "Insurance Company "INGO", Financial Analyst, Rating Agency "MIRA", Kyiv

References

Armstrong, M. (2006). A handbook of human resource management practice (10th ed.). Kogan Page. https://shorturl.at/SMuy8

Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo3684031.html

Cascio, W. F. (2006). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin. https://shorturl.at/LJNl0

Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2017). Enterprise risk management: Integrating with strategy and performance. COSO. https://www.coso.org/enterprise-risk-management

Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II). (2009). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32009L0138

Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1086/467037

Financial Reporting Council. (2018). The UK Corporate Governance Code. https://shorturl.at/sJyGo

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. https://shorturl.at/4qIaz

Institute of Internal Auditors. (2020). The IIA’s three lines model: An update of the three lines of defense. The IIA. https://shorturl.at/t0OQY

International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 31000:2018 risk management: Guidelines. ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html

Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

Lam, J. (2014). Enterprise risk management: From incentives to controls (2nd ed.). Wiley.

MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136

Monks, R. A. G., & Minow, N. (2011). Corporate governance (5th ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207238

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). G20/OECD principles of corporate governance. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264236882-en

Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x

Stacey, R. D. (2011). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity (6th ed.). Pearson.

Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Harvard Business School Press. https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/7196-HBK-ENG

Walker, J. W. (1980). Human resource planning. McGraw-Hill. https://search.worldcat.org/title/Human-resource-planning/oclc/5447454

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371

World Economic Forum. (2024). The global risks report 2024 (19th ed.). World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/