READER VIEW TALKING POINTS What you have been saying about the risk profession and RMProfessional via letters, emails and other correspondence There is a plethora of papers, guidelines, frameworks not to mention a multitude of opinions on what effective risk management looks like across an organisation. The International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) has just added to the essential reading list with its excellent thought paper From Bolt-on to Built-in: Managing Risk as an Integral Part of Managing an Organization. One major obstacle is that many senior level executives believe they have achieved their position through an innate ability to effectively manage risks. Yet too many corporate crises or failures stand as evidence that some are obviously deluded. Human nature shows we generally assume the delusion lies with others. So, too much of the subsequent international guidance results in the creation of many stand-alone, poorly funded, and rarely appreciated risk management functions. The conclusions of the IFAC paper ring true, but how can we actually better integrate risk management? How can risk professionals engage, challenge and support management throughout their organisation, while getting the quality and quantity of risk information needed to add insight at the top table? I think this is an area where technology could help, but has so far struggled. What organisations really need is an IT solution that can be moulded to the various user types (and personalities), and allow users to do most of the work outside the central system in their natural working environment (MS Excel, MS Word, email, PDF, etc). If only this were possible, you may say. The best of both worlds! Light touch for management, and reams of information for the specialists. Im optimistic; technological developments are moving in the right direction, and I think that were very close to seeing the start of systems that deliver that best of both worlds scenario. It cant come soon enough. TIM JAMES SIRM, London SERGEY NIVENS / SHUTTETRSTOCK The best of both worlds? Deadly diesel The Sunday Times front-page headline Diesel tests reveal toxic truth (24 May 2015) should prompt prudent risk managers to re-evaluate their organisations preferred suppliers policies. Both big data from World Health Organization research and small data from real-world car emission studies, plus the availability of cleaner (if sometimes less CO2-efficient) alternatives warrant a change in transport policies to prevent avoidable health suffering and, indeed, to save lives. Yet, in the UK, diesel thrives under misguided tax incentives. I propose that diesels no longer represent the best available technology not entailing excessive cost (EU BATNEEC Directive 84/360/EEC). And that includes so-called Euro 6 compliant diesels, which in many models involves costly dependence on additives (at 5.50/litre according to Autocar magazine). Its now common knowledge that independent real world tests demonstrate that this latest technology often falls far short of official performance figures when faced with modern traffic and road conditions. Plus, the costs of running diesel may escalate rapidly in the not-too-distant future. Performance is one thing, the threats from diesel engines emissions to health are another and worse than was originally projected. Petrol engines and petro/electric hybrids can do the same job, more cleanly, and at similar cost. Future urban design could properly integrate walking, cycling and home/flexible working options to contribute to combating all emissions. Maybe we should go further. With the evidence mounting, perhaps diesel fuel pumps should now carry images of diseased lungs? CHARLES TOOMER FIRM, London We want your letters, comments on articles, opinions and viewpoints, so please send them to Sush Amar at sush.amar@theirm.org. We reserve the right to edit if necessary.