International Open Access Journal Platform

1 Introduction

Since 2012, central government policy has re-focused on strengthening the oversight of state-owned assets, shifting from micro-management to capital-centric supervision, and the new mission and new tasks shouldered by state-owned enterprises in the new era have given them a new social responsibility. In order to achieve common prosperity, the distribution system is the basic system, and the third distribution is an important part of the social responsibility of state-owned enterprises. In the past few years, natural disasters have occurred frequently, such as Hongxing Erke, Guirenniao, Huiyuan and other state-owned enterprises despite facing operational difficulties and other problems, but still insist on donating money and materials to the damaged areas, the public has widely praised these performance of state-owned enterprise social responsibility, but it needs to be faced up to the fact that this increases the risk of state-owned enterprise operation at the same time, but also produces the risk of loss of state-owned assets.

From a normative point of view, China’s “State-owned Assets Law”, “Interim Measures for the Management of Major Legal Dispute Cases of Central Enterprises”, “Interim Measures for the Management of State-owned Assets of Administrative Units” and the management measures promulgated by provincial and municipal governments have made relatively detailed provisions on the prevention of the loss of state-owned assets (Jiang, 2023; Liu, 2023; Long, 2023).

From a practical point of view, the causes of the loss of state-owned assets have the characteristics of comprehensiveness and complexity. The prevention of its loss involves multi-departmental cooperation and other problems. The main reasons for the loss of state-owned assets can be divided into the imperfect employment system, financial management system and supervision system within the enterprise, and the imperfect laws and regulations outside the enterprise (Lu, 2023; Zhu, 2022). At the same time, based on the state-owned asset management report released by the State Council every year, some scholars also start from the construction of Chinese-style modernization, and actively look for reform countermeasures. Effective governance of SOEs requires a state-asset oversight framework tailored to China’s institutional context, which emphasizes capital-operation supervision rather than micro-management. So as to promote the new development pattern of domestic and international dual circulation.

Throughout the existing research literature, scholars mostly start from the defects of state-owned enterprises to study the causes and solutions of the loss of state-owned assets, but few studies have studied the impact of the risk control of state-owned enterprises on the loss of state-owned assets (Duan, 2022; Huang, 2022; Jiang, 2022; Zhang & Yu, 2017). In fact, state-owned enterprises face many risks in public donations, such as transnational donations, reselling donated materials, etc. Charity, as an important means to achieve common prosperity and for state-owned enterprises to achieve social responsibility, is bound to strengthen the risk control of state-owned enterprises’ own public welfare donations. Based on this, this paper starts from the risk control of public welfare donations of state-owned enterprises, sorts out and summarizes the current situation and problems of preventing the loss of state-owned assets in China, and systematically constructs the prevention of the loss of state-owned assets in the risk control of public welfare donations of state-owned enterprises, in order to improve the governance system for preventing the loss of state-owned assets.

In 2021, the news that Hongxing Erke donated 100 million yuan to the Fujian Provincial Foundation for the Disabled under the condition of poor cash flow rushed to the hot search, but this is not the first time that they have made a large donation under the operating condition of net loss, as early as 2010, Hongxing Erke withdrew from the Singapore securities market due to an inflated revenue of 1.14 billion yuan. According to Hongxing Erke’s public financial report, the company lost 220 million yuan in 2020, 60 million yuan in the first half of 2021, and donated more than 300 million yuan to the Disabled Persons’ Foundation and the national natural disaster severely affected areas from 2020 to 2023. The use of loopholes in the fair value assessment system of in-kind donations has greatly increased the risk of loss of state-owned assets. Charity, as an important means to achieve common prosperity and state-owned enterprises to achieve social responsibility, is bound to strengthen the risk control of public welfare donations by state-owned enterprises. Based on this, this paper starts from the risk control of public welfare donations of state-owned enterprises, sorts out and summarizes the current situation and problems of preventing the loss of state-owned assets in China, and systematically constructs the prevention of the loss of state-owned assets in the risk control of public welfare donations of state-owned enterprises, in order to improve the governance system for preventing the loss of state-owned assets.

2 State-owned corporate social responsibility commitment and the risk of asset loss of its public welfare donations

2.1 State-owned corporate social responsibility and its advantages of accountability

In order to understand the similarities and differences between the social responsibilities of state-owned enterprises and ordinary enterprises and other social organizations, and to explore the impact of state-owned enterprises on their public welfare donation behaviors due to their social responsibilities, this paper analyzes the social responsibility of state-owned enterprises to clarify the behavior of state-owned enterprises in public welfare donations and the risk of loss of state-owned assets.

2.2 Social responsibility of state-owned enterprises

The proposition of social responsibility is not unique to state-owned enterprises, and at the same time, state-owned enterprises do not bear the same social responsibilities as ordinary enterprises and other non-enterprise social organizations. It is wrong to require state-owned enterprises to perform the same social responsibilities on an equal footing with the requirements of general enterprises and general social organizations. The social responsibilities that state-owned enterprises need to bear are more complex than those of ordinary enterprises and general social organizations.

According to the “pyramid” of corporate social responsibility, the economic foundation, superstructure and free decision of the period in which the corporate social responsibility society is located are closely related. The general corporate social responsibility is mainly determined and derived from the core (and in many cases the only) goal of profit-seeking, so whether it is from the micro level or the macro level, the social responsibility of the general enterprise itself is unified. However, when an enterprise develops to a certain scale, society will have non-economic expectations for it, such as environmental protection and charitable donations, but even if it is a non-economic expectation, for the general enterprise, it is inevitable to rely on the realization of the enterprise’s own economic goals. Therefore, the state-owned nature of state-owned enterprises with more special organizational forms also determines the particularity of the social responsibilities that state-owned enterprises need to undertake.

State-owned enterprises are consistent with general enterprises in China, at different stages of development in China, need to assume different social responsibilities, in general, mainly divided into economic goals and non-economic goals of two categories, of which non-economic goals are also divided into political responsibility and social responsibility, the origin of the definition of these two types of goals is China’s social and economic system (Huang & Yu, 2006). China’s social and economic system is a socialist market economic system; the origin of this goal determines that China’s state-owned enterprises are an organic part of China’s state finance when fulfilling social responsibilities. However, state-owned enterprises themselves also have economic goals and non-economic goals, but different from general enterprises, their focus is not to achieve their own economic goals after the realization of their own economic goals. Still, to a large extent, it is one of the means of national macroeconomic intervention in the economy, and more attention will be paid to the realization of non-economic goals.

The earnest fulfillment of social responsibilities by state-owned enterprises not only contributes to their development but also further improves the economic foundation and superstructure of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In recent years, China’s development situation has undergone tremendous changes, and under the new situation, the fulfillment of state-owned corporate social responsibility has become more and more normal and long-term, and the realization carrier on which it relies has become increasingly perfect. Recent national policy documents (e.g., the 2022 Party Congress policy paper) outline a strategic shift toward high-quality development and technological self-reliance for Chinese SOEs. Secondly, these non-commercial objectives include aligning with national carbon-neutrality targets and participating in global sustainability initiatives, reflecting China’s external policy agenda. In this regard, what state-owned enterprises need to do is to accelerate the research and development and application of carbon-neutral technologies, lead by example to achieve a green lifestyle, and actively help disadvantaged countries in international business undertakings, such as sharing experiences and achievements, so as to effectively enhance the economic strength and soft power of the helping countries. Finally, social responsibility in non-economic goals refers to improving people’s livelihood and well-being. Through the third distribution, that is, charity and public welfare, state-owned enterprises can help poor or disaster-stricken areas, special or vulnerable groups such as women and children, science, education, culture and health and other public health undertakings within their capacity, take the initiative to shoulder the cause of promoting common prosperity, and strive to realize a Chinese-style modern country.

2.3 The responsibility advantage of state-owned enterprises

State-owned enterprises are one of the important entities of China’s economy, and compared with general enterprises and general social organizations, SOEs have the following three advantages in undertaking social responsibility:

Adhere to the party’s leadership (Jiang, 2023). One of the unique advantages of state-owned enterprises over ordinary enterprises and ordinary social organizations is that they adhere to the party’s leadership. State-owned enterprises are important participants in the country’s reform and opening up, and state-owned enterprises have always been committed to transforming this unique advantage into market competitiveness and becoming an inexhaustible driving force for the development of enterprises (Wei, 2017). State-owned enterprises keep up with the pace of the party, the belief in the party into the development of positive energy, listen to the party’s command, adhere to the people-oriented, “to the same should change”, the report of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China also made arrangements for the deepening of the reform of state-owned enterprises, to break the conformist mode of thinking, for the next step of the development of state-owned enterprises and the improvement of the core competitiveness of the direction of the direction. Under the guidance of the party, state-owned enterprises in the face of the new situation and new challenges also have a clear development path, from passive arrangements to active difficulties, and further stimulate the determination of enterprises to dare to try, so as to seize market development opportunities ahead of general enterprises and general social organizations, so as to promote social development through their development.

Larger funding scale. State-owned enterprises have a large amount of capital investment from the state, making it easier for state-owned enterprises to form scale advantages than ordinary enterprises. Today, innovation has become the core competitiveness of enterprises, and enterprise innovation depends on capital, so this scale advantage from national investment is conducive to state-owned enterprises to invest more resources in technological innovation, maintain enterprise vitality, and also contribute to technological breakthroughs. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) also recognizes that “state-owned enterprises can be used as a tool for development policy to promote economic growth”.

A more solid foundation for market credit. At the same time, the most important foundation of the modern market economy is credit, as China enters a new era, state-owned enterprises have also gotten rid of low efficiency, the economic efficiency of some state-owned enterprises even surpasses large private enterprises, on the whole, the gap between the economic efficiency of state-owned enterprises and general enterprises is narrowing, and the state has made state-owned enterprises form a stronger market credit than the individual ownership of general enterprises, so the biggest advantage of state-owned enterprises compared with general enterprises and general organizations is market credit. In the case of information asymmetry between supply and demand, the market credit indexation and transparency of the enterprise show the dynamic information and operating conditions of the enterprise. The demand side excludes the moral hazard of the enterprise, which is usually caused by the uncertainty of production costs and operating profits, and the “state-owned” enterprises. This, along with the country’s large-scale financial flows, significantly reduces this risk, giving state-owned enterprises an advantage in terms of market credit.

3 The risk of loss of state-owned assets due to public welfare donations by state-owned enterprises

State-owned assets are the common wealth of all the people, and must be guarded and developed well. Charitable behavior is not only the embodiment of state-owned enterprises to assume social responsibility, but also a way to allocate state-owned assets in a more efficient way. The Charity Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that charitable donations by state-owned enterprises should comply with the regulations and procedures for the management of state-owned assets (State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission Statistics and Evaluation Bureau, 2003). The potential risk of loss of state-owned assets due to non-compliant public welfare donations by Chinese state-owned enterprises is as follows:

3.1 Losses caused by the imperfect external environment of state-owned enterprises

The external environment of state-owned enterprises mainly refers to the institutional (Anonymous, 2016) and social environment in which state-owned enterprises are located, and in terms of charitable donations, it mainly refers to the valuation procedure of donated materials, and China’s current donation valuation procedures are not perfect, when state-owned enterprises choose to purchase materials for donation, their fair value assessment is based on the payment traces of the state-owned enterprises or relevant invoices. In terms of value supervision, only the price of similar products in the market is used. When no similar products are active, the “reasonable method” is used. Without elaborating on the rational methodology, this procedural omission can lead to loopholes, and China’s charity regulatory system is not perfect, with Chinese state-owned enterprises audited at least once every five years, and SOEs’ charitable accounts are only randomly checked during audits (General Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee & General Office of the State Council, 2017). The actual donated materials are higher than their recorded value, and when the donated materials reach a certain scale, the loss of enterprise assets will be more serious. When this situation occurs in the process of charitable donations of state-owned enterprises, it will cause a huge loss of state-owned assets.

3.2 Losses caused by weak internal management capabilities of state-owned enterprises

In addition to the deficiencies in the external environment of state-owned enterprises, the imperfect asset supervision system of state-owned enterprises is also one of the important reasons for the loss of state-owned assets. At this stage, in the case of an imperfect external institutional environment, the internal finance and management of state-owned enterprises are also more or less affected and produce problems, and at the same time, the state-owned enterprises themselves will aggravate this problem due to recruitment, imperfect systems and other reasons. The problems of the internal asset supervision system of state-owned enterprises mainly arise from inadequate financial management and asset supervision. Due to the imperfection of the financial system or the lack of professional qualifications of financial personnel, the assets of state-owned enterprises will not be depreciated in a timely manner, and the losses will be reported, so that the situation of occupying state-owned assets can not be truly reflected, and before charitable donations are made, the donated assets are not evaluated, incomplete appraised or artificially interfered with the evaluation procedures, so that the transfer of state-owned assets to non-national individuals or units and corruption can take advantage of the opportunity, resulting in the loss of state-owned assets; In terms of asset supervision, when the management and finance of state-owned enterprises formulate budgets and financial approvals without strict investigation and review, so that the actual value of donated materials exceeds the limit that enterprises can afford, and even blindly donate when the flow of funds is not very good, these behaviors will increase the risk of bankruptcy of state-owned enterprises and lead to a large loss of state-owned assets.

3.3 Losses caused by violations of laws and crimes by some management or related personnel

This category is a relatively common risk of loss of state-owned assets, which can be divided into corruption and bribery, such as embezzlement of public funds; malfeasance, such as abuse of power; Obstructing the order of the enterprise, such as the crime of illegally making profits for relatives and friends. First, some management or relevant personnel embezzle, corrupt, or bribe intermediaries with asset appraisal qualifications to make false reports or provide false supporting materials, and transfer state-owned assets into private property and overseas assets in the name of charity through black-box operations and related party transactions; Second, due to regional interests, major decision-making is not democratic enough, the preliminary investigation is not perfect and other reasons, the management personnel make mistakes, misestimate their strength or the materials required by the donors, donate too many materials, resulting in material waste, and provide conditions for a small number of people to encroach on and embezzle state-owned assets (Supreme People’s Procuratorate, 2006; Supreme People’s Procuratorate & Ministry of Public Security, 2012), which will not only directly lead to the loss of state-owned assets and encroach on all the rights and interests of the state, but also put state-owned assets at the risk of loss.

4 Selection and improvement of risk prevention and control mechanisms for public welfare and charity within state-owned enterprises

In order to effectively prevent and control the risk of loss of public welfare donation assets of state-owned enterprises, as summarized above, state-owned enterprises need to build a risk prevention and control system. Based on the study of literature and management bibliography, this paper summarizes the risk management system model from a macro perspective. It combines the PDCA model from a micro perspective, so as to build a comprehensive risk prevention and control mechanism for state-owned enterprises.

4.1 Construction of macro risk prevention and control framework

In order to solve this problem, analyze the risk management system. A reasonable risk management system will help enterprises better plan their finances, reduce the risk of asset loss, and correspondingly improve the profits and value of enterprises. According to this management system, it lays the foundation for the establishment of a follow-up risk prevention and control system.

(1) Risk management planning (Special Advisory Committee on Internal Control, 1949). This stage is the stage of comprehensive analysis of the risk of enterprise management decision-making, and all risk decisions and work of the enterprise should be completed on the basis of this plan. At this stage, the enterprise needs to identify the internal and external risk sources that may be caused by various violations in the public welfare donation behavior to be made, combine the previous lessons and lessons, use risk identification tools such as cost estimation, WBS, employee planning and other risk identification tools to check and analyze these risk sources one by one, and characterize the risk based on the probability of occurrence, the possible impact after the occurrence, as well as the resources related to the risk, the time and skills required, etc., and classify, grade, and classify them according to the above qualitative results. Prioritize them and tailor their risk management plan accordingly.

(2) Risk Organizational Framework (Bateson, 1955). After the risk management plan is completed, it is necessary to organize a comprehensive and complete solution framework for the risks that need to be addressed. First, risk management objectives need to be determined. This element refers to the risk that needs to be avoided and the risk management goal that needs to be achieved after the enterprise fully considers the social responsibility, mission and maximum risk that the enterprise can bear in public welfare and charity, which is a strategic choice made at both the macro and micro levels. The risk management goal is not only the starting point for building a risk organizational framework, but also the core of all risk prevention and control of the enterprise. The second is to clarify the subject of risk responsibility and the basis of risk management. The subject of risk responsibility is the implementer or person in charge of the risk behavior, this subject must be a person with subjective initiative, and is generally the core personnel of the enterprise in the enterprise, such as directors, shareholders, board of supervisors, managers, etc., these personnel are the highest level of the enterprise in all aspects, and naturally bear the responsibility of managing the company’s finances, ensuring the operation of the enterprise, making rational decisions, and controlling the risk to the minimum. The basis of risk management usually refers to the internal management resources and environment of the enterprise, and any risk prevention and control behavior cannot be separated from the actual basis; otherwise, this prevention and control behavior will increase the risk. Finally, it is necessary to determine the risk prevention and control procedures and the follow-up assurance system. These two are a collection of procedures and behaviors that should be followed by the responsible entity for risk prevention and control, a bridge connecting the responsible entity and the results of risk prevention and control, and a means to ensure the smooth implementation of risk prevention and control behaviors. Without a clear process and assurance system, no risk prevention and control behavior can be realized, and the risk organization framework cannot be established, which is why it is crucial.

(3) Risk management controls (Fayol, 1949). Risk management control is the behavior of specific management and prevention and control of summarized risks after the organization is based on the above risk management planning and risk organization framework, which is divided into external management control and internal management control. In terms of public welfare and charity, the risks from outside the enterprise mainly include changes in the policy environment, public opinion in the social environment, and the impact of donor risks and the decision-making of other stakeholders. In contrast, the internal management theory of enterprise risk has evolved in three stages. The theory is now more complete and comprehensive, mainly referring to the decisions made by internal responsible personnel on risk prevention and control, whether it is external management control or internal management control; in fact, it is a means to help enterprises complete risk prevention and control more comprehensively.

4.2 Micro risk prevention and control steps and strategies are sorted out

The risk management system model focuses on the overall planning of risk prevention and control from the macro level. In contrast, the risk management cycle model focuses on the planning of risk prevention and control at the micro level. Through the four steps of the PDCA cycle model, combined with the eight elements (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, 1992) proposed in the “Internal Control - Overall Framework” in enterprise risk management, a dynamic cycle state-owned assets loss risk prevention and control system is constructed, and the corresponding prevention and control strategies are proposed for each element of the cycle.

As shown in Figure 1, the PDCA cycle model is divided into four stages: P-Plan, D-Do, Check, and Act. In these four phases, the model requires to make a plan for the work that needs to be done according to the sequence and implement it according to the plan, check the results after the results are obtained, and finally incorporate the successful parts of the results into the risk management model, and put the remaining unsuccessful results into the next cycle. This model is the basic method and law of quality control of enterprise production and daily work, so this model is also applicable to state-owned enterprises to prevent the loss of state-owned assets in public welfare and charity work.

(1) Plan, planning stage. Planning is the premise of all the work activities of the enterprise, enterprises to ensure smooth work actions, first of all, the upcoming implementation of the behavior combined with the relevant policies and market environment for detailed strategic planning, which is also the basis and fundamental to guide the risk prevention and control mechanism of state-owned assets loss, enterprises to establish public welfare charity due to various violations caused by the risk of loss of state-owned assets risk prevention mechanism, only around this stage of all the planning in a step-by-step manner, in order to achieve the ideal effect of risk prevention. In order to ensure the implementation of the plan, the plan should analyze the objectives themselves, carefully stratify them into phased goals from top to bottom, clarify the responsible subjects, responsibilities and obligations in each phased goal, and correspond them one by one. Before an enterprise makes a public welfare donation, it should clearly look for the donation target group in the value chain that is beneficial to its development, carefully investigate the actual situation of the donation target group as much as possible when conditions permit, and clarify its actual business conditions, cooperate with the enterprise's strategic plan, focus on the vertical field based on the core development and operation elements of the enterprise, achieve the optimal allocation of charitable resources in the planning, clarify the context of corporate charity, and systematize the first step of donation action.

(2) Do the action phase. The action stage is the core part of the state-owned assets loss risk prevention and control mechanism. It is also the specific prevention and control behavior that will be put into practice under the guidance of the results of the planning stage. This stage has a decisive role in the realization of the plan, and it is also the link that connects the plan with the results. Minimize risk. In the process of public donation, it is also necessary to focus on the core development elements and value chain of the enterprise, find a good starting point for the implementation of the enterprise, based on the research and understanding of the donation target group and industry in the planning stage, combined with the core interests of the enterprise itself, and focus the action on the objects that have been investigated and have donation value, so as to determine the goal, through the operation of the professional team within the enterprise, and actively cooperate with the outside to find high-quality resources, and gradually realize the steady implementation of the charity plan.

(3) Check the verification stage. The verification stage is the guarantee part of the risk prevention and control mechanism for the loss of state-owned assets, and at this stage, the relevant person in charge needs to verify the results of the action stage and classify the results according to whether they are successful or not. The significance of this stage is to ensure the effective operation of the risk prevention and control mechanism, and only by comprehensively and objectively verifying the activities and causal links of planning, actions and results, and drawing lessons from them to prevent similar situations from making the same mistakes, can enterprises steadily achieve each step of strategic planning. For example, which charitable assets have not been used optimally in the previous action phase, which donors can have better choices for the donated materials, which corporate assets can be further converted into charitable assets, which charitable assets have not brought benefits or even losses to the enterprise, which donation processes or actions are not compliant that may lead to the loss of assets, and which missing documents can hinder the progress of the whole process, etc. Review the problems, retain the successful experience, and achieve a win-win situation of corporate philanthropic value and state-owned asset protection under the premise of stable appreciation of wealth assets.

(4) Act, the resolution phase. This stage is the last stage of each PDCA cycle. It is also a deeper step in the verification stage, this stage will be based on the actual more detailed analysis of the conclusions drawn after the verification of the problems, respectively, the reasons and experience of success and failure, and the successful results into the risk prevention and control model, in the next planning can learn from the successful experience, and the unsuccessful results into the cycle of re-planning, with the support of more successful experience and new mechanisms and new measures obtained due to the development of the times, Find a better solution. At the same time, this stage is also the basic preparation for the planning stage of the next cycle, the prerequisite for supporting and building the next cycle, and the inevitable element of building a matrix closed loop for enterprise risk prevention and control.

5 Countermeasures and suggestions for preventing the loss of state-owned assets under the risk control of public welfare donations of state-owned enterprises

The public welfare donations of state-owned enterprises undoubtedly occupy a place in the operation of enterprises and the transfer of state-owned assets. The imperfect external appraisal procedures and supervision, the lack of internal risk mechanisms and the non-standard operation of personnel will affect the implementation of the donation behavior of state-owned enterprises, and even incur serious consequences such as the loss of state-owned assets, so the shortcomings in this aspect need to be improved urgently. It is suggested that the government and enterprises can start from the following aspects to integrate external forces and internal forces to reduce the risk of loss of state-owned assets. It also strives for the maximum public welfare benefits for the government and enterprises.

5.1 Speed up the establishment of rules and regulations to avoid losses caused by the imperfect external environment of state-owned enterprises

The establishment of a special regulatory agency (Liu, 2023) and a special charity supervision department can not only reduce the regulatory pressure of the government, but also focus more on the supervision of corporate charity and the supervision of the loss of state-owned assets, and on this basis, improve the state-owned assets disposal information disclosure system established by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, further standardize the disposal of state-owned assets, regularly conduct state-owned assets inventory and other opinion documents public, make the process transparent, and promote and encourage the voluntary supervision of the public. The gathering of social forces can better make up for the problems that government supervision cannot cover due to objective reasons, so as to more quickly discover the behaviors and risks that may lead to the loss of state-owned assets. Reduce the risk of loss of state-owned assets from the source, refine terms and regulations, combine charitable supervision with financial supervision, audit supervision, social supervision, etc., improve the supervision and punishment of public welfare donations of state-owned enterprises from a legal perspective, and add a gateway to the prevention and control of the loss of public welfare donation assets of state-owned enterprises.

5.2 Improve the level of risk control and avoid losses caused by weak internal management capabilities of state-owned enterprises

The enterprise self-constructs and improves the risk control model within the enterprise, and strengthens the awareness of risk prevention and control. Based on the PDCA model, supplemented by the internal risk control framework of American enterprises, combined with the actual situation of domestic enterprises, a new risk prevention and control mechanism more suitable for domestic enterprises can be constructed. Enterprises in different business stages will be based on the actual situation, the implementation of different public welfare donation strategic tasks, which determines that the same type of charitable behavior will face different risks, due to the objective conditions and subjective conditions are limited, can not solve all the risks at one time, and therefore there will be different risk residues, coupled with the inherent risks of the enterprise itself, resulting in the risks faced by the enterprise is complex and changeable. There is a very high uncontrollable risk, which may lead to the rupture of capital flow, the destruction of corporate image, and the decline of credit. Information asymmetry will greatly damage the operating ability and competitive advantage of enterprises, and even hinder the development of enterprises, leading to bankruptcy. In this case, it is very important for the internal management personnel of the enterprise to have the skills to grasp and predict the risk, so as to minimize the impact of the risk through the risk prevention and control system more effectively, and win more competitive advantages and benefits for the enterprise.

5.3 Strengthen the responsibility mechanism to avoid losses caused by violations of laws and crimes by some management or relevant personnel

Further strengthen the system of determining responsibility and pursuing responsibility for the loss of state-owned assets, increase the intensity of accountability and warning education for personnel in enterprises, improve the internal control system of self-examination of state-owned enterprises, and investigate the illegal acts of relevant personnel in the process of searching for clues and providing evidence. Implement information disclosure and strengthen social supervision. State-owned enterprises regularly carry out internal risk review meetings to sort out and investigate the risks that have been solved, mitigated but not solved, and unresolved within the enterprise one by one, aiming to review the problems and gain experience from past successes or failures, so as to grasp the risks that have not occurred but are predicted to occur, take precautions, and control the risks within the control range.

In addition, it should be noted that this paper focuses on the selection and construction of risk prevention and control mechanisms and puts forward suggestions for solving them, with the internal support of state-owned enterprises as the core and the support of the government policy environment. In contrast, the problems of asset loss caused by imperfect external and internal action violations of public welfare donations need to be further compared in the future.

References

[1] Anonymous. (2016). Administrative Measures for the Supervision of State-Owned Enterprise Asset Transactions. Gazette of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, (28), 39-46. (in Chinese)

[2] Bateson, G. (1955). A Theory of Play and Fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports, 2, 39-51.

[3] Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (1992). Internal Control—Integrated Framework. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

[4] Duan, W. F. (2022). Problems and Improvement Strategies in State-Owned Enterprise Asset Management. China Circulation Economy, (17), 51-54. (in Chinese)

[5] Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management (Storrs, C., Trans.). Pitman. (Original work published 1916)

[6] General Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee & General Office of the State Council. (2017). Several Opinions on Deepening the Audit and Supervision of State-Owned Enterprises and State-Owned Capital. (in Chinese)

[7] Huang, S. J., & Yu, J. (2006). The Nature, Objectives and Social Responsibilities of State-Owned Enterprises. China Industrial Economics, (2), 68-76. (in Chinese)

[8] Huang, X. Y. (2022). Problems and Countermeasures in State-Owned Enterprise Asset Investment Management. Market Modernization, (11), 123-125. (in Chinese)

[9] Jiang, Q. (2022). Problems and Countermeasures in State-Owned Enterprise Asset Management. Market Modernization, (12), 133-135. (in Chinese)

[10] Jiang, Y. (2023). China’s Unique Advantages in State-Owned Assets Governance from a Global Perspective. State-Owned Assets Report, (8), 44-47. (in Chinese)

[11] Liu, Y. S. (2023). The Evolution and Implications of China’s Distinctive State-Owned Assets Supervision Model. State-Owned Assets Report, (8), 40-43. (in Chinese)

[12] Long, M. Y. (2023). Financial Management Approaches and Countermeasures for Deepening SOE Reform in the New Era. Auditing and Finance, (9), 33-35. (in Chinese)

[13] Lu, F. (2023). Research on the Problems and Improvement Countermeasures of State-Owned Enterprise Asset Loss. Modern Business, (16), 140-143.(in Chinese)

[14] Special Advisory Committee on Internal Control. (1949). Internal Control: Elements of a Coordinated System and Its Importance to Management and the Independent Auditor [Technical report]. Committee on Auditing Procedure, American Institute of Accountants.

[15] State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission Statistics and Evaluation Bureau. (2003, October 31). Notice on Issuing the Working Rules for the Identification of State-Owned Enterprise Asset Losses [Electronic document]. Retrieved August 2, 2025, from http://www.sasac.gov.cn/n2588035/n2588320/n2588335/c4259670/content.html.

[16] Supreme People’s Procuratorate & Ministry of Public Security. (2012). Notice on Issuing “Supplementary Provisions to the Standards for Filing and Prosecuting Criminal Cases Under the Jurisdiction of Public Security Organs (II)”. Gazette of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China, (2), 20-21. (in Chinese)

[17] Supreme People’s Procuratorate. (2006). Provisions on Standards for Filing Cases of Dereliction of Duty and Infringement of Rights. People’s Procuratorial Semimonthly, (16), 58-64. (in Chinese)

[18] Wei, M. X. (2017). On Transforming the Unique Advantages of Party Building in State-Owned Enterprises into Core Competitiveness. China Collective Economy, (22), 36-37. (in Chinese)

[19] Zhang, H., & Yu, W. C. (2017). The Impact of Internal Governance and Principal-Agent Factors on Overseas State-Owned Assets Loss. Reform of Economic System, (6), 161-165. (in Chinese)

[20] Zhu, Y. H. (2022). Demonstration of the Public Property Legal System Path to Solve the Problem of State-Owned Assets Loss. Journal of Tianshui College of Administration, 23(6), 102-108.(in Chinese)