Under the CAPM and other theories, a widely held corporation should be averse only to systematic risk, correlated with other investments in the economy, not idiosyncratic risk like a CEO dying or a fire which are special to the firm and which shareholders could diversify away. Yet there do exist a number of reasons why firms might be averse to idiosyncratic risk. I'm working on a paper on one of them,and I wonder whether we economists ever think about it. I think it would come up in non-economists' minds, but I pretty quickly but I haven't seen it mentioned by economists.
So I am curious as to what reasons you readers think of for firms to be risk averse. Why would a firm require a higher return from a project, a policy, or a contract with more risk uncorrelated with other risks? I won't list even the four or so standard ones, because I am curious as to what might be mentioned.