Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the systemic mismatch between the goals, incentives, and processes within companies, particularly regarding the disconnection between spot and futures departments, which leads to ineffective hedging and increased risks [2][3][4]. Group A: Issues in Current Practices - Companies face increased macroeconomic volatility and geopolitical conflicts, leading to uncertainty in commodity prices, which has become a core variable for business operations [2]. - There is a frequent occurrence of hedging failures due to a lack of collaboration between the spot and futures departments, often resulting in speculative behavior rather than effective risk management [2][3]. - The traditional governance logic prioritizes cost control and supply chain stability for spot departments, while futures teams focus on independent profit and loss, creating conflicting decision-making processes [3][4]. Group B: Importance of Organizational Structure - The lack of a unified risk and return assessment framework leads to departments acting based on isolated information and goals, resulting in a "local optimum, overall suboptimal" dilemma [3]. - The design of performance evaluation systems significantly influences decision-making preferences, with futures teams often incentivized to pursue short-term trading profits rather than long-term risk hedging [4][10]. Group C: Need for Systemic Reforms - To resolve structural conflicts between spot and futures teams, it is essential to return to the theoretical foundation of hedging, which focuses on mitigating cash flow volatility rather than generating profits [6]. - Establishing a "combined accounting framework" for spot and futures operations is crucial, where procurement costs and sales profits consider the comprehensive impact of futures trading [6]. Group D: Pathways for Integration - Achieving deep integration between spot and futures operations requires a reorganization of capabilities across three dimensions: organization, processes, and performance evaluation [8][9]. - A "Commodity Risk Management Committee" led by senior management should be established to unify risk preferences and ensure alignment between futures operations and core business decisions [8]. - Institutionalizing collaborative processes is vital, such as integrating futures decision-making into key operational stages like procurement and sales pricing [9]. Group E: Role of Professional Service Institutions - Professional service institutions, such as futures companies, should evolve from traditional intermediary roles to strategic enablers, focusing on enhancing clients' hedging effectiveness and operational stability [12]. - The shift from a product-oriented to a solution-oriented approach in service delivery is essential for improving clients' risk management capabilities [12]. Group F: Performance Evaluation Metrics - Key performance indicators should reflect the contributions of risk management, focusing on overall profit predictability rather than isolated profit and loss from futures trading [10][13]. - Metrics such as virtual settlement prices, adjusted gross profit margins, and basis coverage rates are critical for assessing the effectiveness of hedging strategies [13]. Group G: Conclusion - Companies that break down internal barriers and integrate risk management into their core operations are likely to achieve greater stability and resilience in uncertain market conditions [14].