McShane et al. wrote this article in 2011 after the financial crisis of 2008. What are the main aims of the article?
They seem to be the following:

1. to point out to how important the implementation of ERM is in the latest years, as the complexity of scenarios increases and silo-based traditional risk management (TRM) approach seems to be no longer enough
   
   
2. to point out that the choice of a CRO as a proxy for ERM implementation does not seem to be satisfactory, like many others, because it does not explain the degree of ERM implementation. In this respect the authors say that in their research the adoption of S&P ERM rating has solved the problem of finding a suitable proxy for ERM implementation, as S&P ERM rating (1 = weak,2 = adequante, 3 = adequate with a positive trend, 4 = strong, 5 = excellent) is based on the assessment of the risk management culture, systems, processes, and practices. Therefore, companies with a higher ERM rating should benefit from lower volatility of earnings, and greater ability to obtain higher returns by risk management
   
   
3. to point out to the fact that this research has used 82 publicly traded insurance firms as a sample, which seems to be a reliable one, as this type of industry deals with very high risks and implements very sophisticated risk management programmes. Besides, due to the 2008 financial world wide crisis, a superior risk management programme should add value and provide competitive advantage
   
   
4. to point out the different views between TRM and EMR: TRM scholars say that risks given by the imperfection of the financial markets impose real costs on companies and the management of these risks can increase firm value because it reduces the overall risks and volatility. Each risk would be managed by the department in charge with a view to decrease total risk and consequently increase firm value, as this practically means a reduction in some expected costs related to tax payments, financial distress, underinvestment, asymmetric information, undiversifiable stakeholders. On the other side, ERM focuses on the global and systematic investigation of the correlations among risks, whether they are related to HR, IT, supply chain, distribution systems, corporate governance or auditing. As the portfolio theory states, if ERM aggregates risks, the management of the residual risk should be more efficient than managing each risk independently from the others and it should add value to the firm. In the same way, the goal of ERM should not be that of decreasing total risk but that of allocating risks in those areas where the company has comparative information advantage, such as core-business activities, and hedging risks in those areas where the company has not got it. This means that total risk might even increase with ERM implementation
   
   
5. to point out that, as the companies’ tendency is to adopt a more complete risk management approach, for the same reason, scholars should collaborate across disciplines in order to get a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between ERM and firm value

In conclusion, these seem to be the reasons why ERM-oriented practice is strongly advised in companies nowaways