On July 1, 2024, Boeing announced a $4.7 billion all-stock acquisition of Spirit AeroSystems with a total transaction value of about $8.3 billion including assumed debt.
Boeing was reintegrating its largest supplier 20 years after spinning it out, after years of quality control failures and Spirit financial distress that had culminated in the January 5, 2024 door-plug blowout on a 737 MAX 9.
The board-level Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams that would have flagged the trajectory (single-source critical-spend exposure, supplier going-concern flags, supplier on-time delivery rate, supplier-quality defect rate, and supplier financial-health rating) tracked downhill for years before the $8.3 billion remedy. Spirit reported $2.1 billion in net losses in 2024 before the deal closed in 2025.
| Key Takeaways |
| A 2026 program of Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams covers six categories: supplier risk and financial health, supplier performance and quality, contract lifecycle and compliance, sourcing / spend and maverick compliance, supply chain disruption and resilience, and third-party risk (ESG, cyber, sanctions, modern slavery). |
| Boeing announced the $4.7 billion equity acquisition of Spirit AeroSystems on July 1, 2024 ($8.3 billion total transaction value with assumed debt). Spirit had reported $2.1 billion in losses in 2024 and going-concern pressure. Boeing reintegrated its largest supplier 20 years after spinning it out, citing quality and supply chain stability. |
| The CDK Global ransomware attack on June 19, 2024 took the dealer-management-system platform offline for nearly two weeks. About 15,000 US auto dealerships ran on pen and paper. Industry losses ran approximately $1 billion. CDK paid roughly $25 million in cryptocurrency to the BlackSuit ransomware group. |
| The US average effective tariff rate jumped from 2.5% in January 2025 to roughly 27% by April 2025, the highest level in over a century. Per supply-chain surveys, 89% of procurement respondents reported order cancellations and 61% planned to relocate sourcing to lower-tariffed countries rather than back to the US. |
| Maverick spend (off-contract, off-process buying) typically erodes 10 to 20% of negotiated savings per a Basware study. Most US Fortune-500 procurement organizations now track maverick spend as a leading-indicator KRI alongside contract-coverage rate and tail-spend concentration. |
| Standards: ISO 31000:2018, ISO 28000:2022 supply chain security, ISO 20400:2017 sustainable procurement, ISO 37001:2016 anti-bribery, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the US Federal Acquisition Regulation, and the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act anchor the program. |
| Most US Fortune-500 procurement organizations run 40 to 55 Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams, with 8 to 12 elevated to the audit-and-risk committee or full board each quarter. Tracking fewer than 25 leaves blind spots; tracking more than 70 dilutes attention. |
Boeing-Spirit was the loudest 2024 procurement story, not the only one. The CDK Global ransomware attack on June 19, 2024 took roughly 15,000 US auto dealerships offline for nearly two weeks at a cost of about $1 billion to the industry.
Through the first quarter of 2025, the average US effective tariff rate climbed from 2.5% to 27%, the highest level in a century, on the back of the February through April 2025 China, Mexico, Canada, steel / aluminum, and reciprocal tariffs.
Six categories anchor the dashboard below: supplier risk and financial health, supplier performance and quality, contract lifecycle and compliance, sourcing / spend and maverick compliance, supply chain disruption and resilience, and third-party risk.
Each set of Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams ties to ISO 28000:2022, ISO 20400:2017, or ISO 31000:2018. A US chief procurement officer can pull the thresholds straight into the next quarterly board paper.
Figure 1. Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams distributed across six categories used in US chief procurement officer organizations.
What Are Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams?
A procurement Key Risk Indicator is a leading metric that flags a supplier failure, a contract breach, an off-contract leak, a tariff shock, or an ESG / sanctions exposure before the audit committee, the customer, or the regulator finds out first.
Procurement risk covers the loss exposure tied to supplier solvency, supplier performance, contract obligations, sourcing decisions, supply-chain continuity, and the broader third-party regulatory environment.
KPIs measure progress against the procurement plan. Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams measure exposure against a documented tolerance.
The same metric (savings achievement, on-time delivery, contract coverage) can play either role depending on whether it is reported against a plan target or a board-approved risk threshold.
Useful Key Risk Indicators examples on a procurement dashboard share four traits. They are measurable, owned by one named officer (CPO, head of category, head of supplier risk, contract management lead), calibrated to a green / amber / red threshold, and they move ahead of the supplier failure or sourcing crisis rather than after it.
How Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams Differ from KPIs
| Attribute | Key Performance Indicator (KPI) | Procurement Key Risk Indicator (KRI) |
| Direction | Measures progress against the procurement plan (savings achieved, contract coverage, P2P cycle time, supplier diversity %) | Measures exposure against tolerance (single-source critical-spend exposure, suppliers with going-concern flags, on-time delivery rate, contract expiry > 90 days unrenewed, maverick spend %, tariff exposure) |
| Time view | Lagging or current performance against the procurement scorecard | Leading early-warning signal of supplier failure, contract breach, sanctions / UFLPA exposure, or supply chain disruption |
| Trigger | Procurement leadership review, sourcing committee, weekly category review | Risk-committee paper, audit-committee paper, board reporting, 10-K supply-chain risk-factor disclosure |
| Owner | CPO, head of category, head of P2P, contract management lead | CPO and chief risk officer; reported to the audit committee or risk committee |
| Reference | Annual procurement plan, OKRs, savings target, category roadmap | ISO 31000:2018, ISO 28000:2022, ISO 20400:2017, ISO 37001:2016, OECD MNE Guidelines, US FAR, UFLPA, EU CSDDD |
Supplier Risk and Financial Health Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
Spirit AeroSystems reported $2.1 billion in 2024 losses and going-concern pressure long before Boeing announced the $8.3 billion reintegration.
Supplier-risk-and-financial-health KRIs read concentration, financial rating, going-concern flags, geographic exposure, and the sub-tier dependencies that decide whether the supplier survives the next quarter.
Top 10 Supplier Risk and Financial Health Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
| Supplier Risk / Financial KRI | Green threshold | Amber threshold | Red threshold |
| Single-source critical-spend exposure (%) | <15% | 15-30% | >30% |
| Top-1 supplier concentration (% of spend) | <20% | 20-35% | >35% |
| Suppliers with going-concern flags | 0 | 1-2 | >2 |
| Supplier financial-rating downgrades (qtr) | <3 | 3-7 | >7 |
| Suppliers w/ rating below investment grade | <5% | 5-15% | >15% |
| Supplier in high-risk-jurisdiction spend | <10% | 10-25% | >25% |
| Tariff-exposed spend share (%) | <10% | 10-25% | >25% |
| Sub-tier dependency mapping coverage | >=80% | 60-79% | <60% |
| Supplier days-payable variance vs. plan | +/-5 | 5-15 | >15 |
| Supplier disputes open >90d | <5 | 5-15 | >15 |
Single-source critical-spend exposure above 30% is the procurement KRI most US CPOs under-watch until a Boeing-Spirit-style event lands.
Track the metric per category (direct vs. indirect, raw materials vs. services) rather than as a single enterprise number; the granularity changes the action.
Supplier Performance and Quality Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
The 737 MAX door-plug originated as a Spirit AeroSystems quality failure inside a fuselage shipped to Boeing’s Renton plant.
Supplier-performance-and-quality KRIs read on-time delivery, fill rate, defect-per-million-opportunity volume, return rate, and the corrective-action-plan cycle that decides whether a supplier holds its place on the approved list.
Top 9 Supplier Performance and Quality Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
| Supplier Performance / Quality KRI | Green threshold | Amber threshold | Red threshold |
| Supplier on-time delivery rate | >=95% | 85-94% | <85% |
| Supplier fill rate vs. order | >=98% | 90-97% | <90% |
| Defect parts per million (DPPM) | <500 | 500-2000 | >2000 |
| First-pass yield on supplier deliveries | >=98% | 92-97% | <92% |
| Customer-reported defects from supplier | 0 | 1-3 | >3 |
| Supplier-corrective-action-plan aging (d) | <30 | 30-60 | >60 |
| Recall events tied to supplier (12 mo) | 0 | 1 | >1 |
| Supplier-driven production stoppages (qtr) | 0 | 1-2 | >2 |
| Supplier-audit findings open (high sev) | <3 | 3-7 | >7 |
Figure 2. US procurement risk data points 2024-2025 driving the Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams that belong on a 2026 audit-committee paper.
Contract Lifecycle and Compliance Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
Tariff and sanctions volatility through 2025 forced thousands of US contracts back open for change-in-law and force-majeure renegotiation.
Contract-lifecycle-and-compliance KRIs read whether the procurement team has line-of-sight on every clause that costs money when the world shifts: pricing escalators, change-in-law, audit rights, data security, ESG attestations, and termination terms.
Top 8 Contract Lifecycle and Compliance Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
| Contract / Compliance KRI | Green threshold | Amber threshold | Red threshold |
| Contract coverage on critical spend (%) | >=95% | 85-94% | <85% |
| Contracts expiring < 90d unrenewed | <5 | 5-15 | >15 |
| Evergreen / auto-renew contracts (count) | <5 | 5-15 | >15 |
| Right-to-audit clauses missing on critical | 0 | 1-3 | >3 |
| Change-in-law clauses missing on critical | 0 | 1-3 | >3 |
| Contract repository data-quality findings | <10 | 10-30 | >30 |
| Contract terms breached by supplier (qtr) | <3 | 3-7 | >7 |
| Contract-renewal cycle aging (days) | <60 | 60-120 | >120 |
Sourcing, Spend and Maverick Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
Maverick spend erodes 10 to 20% of negotiated savings per a Basware study, the highest leakage of any procurement metric.
Sourcing-spend-and-maverick KRIs read PO compliance, off-contract leakage, tail-spend concentration, savings achievement, and the share of spend running outside the procurement team’s line of sight.
Top 9 Sourcing, Spend and Maverick Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
| Sourcing / Spend / Maverick KRI | Green threshold | Amber threshold | Red threshold |
| Maverick spend (% of total spend) | <5% | 5-15% | >15% |
| PO compliance rate | >=95% | 85-94% | <85% |
| Tail-spend coverage (% under management) | >=80% | 60-79% | <60% |
| Sourcing savings vs. plan (% achieved) | >=95% | 80-94% | <80% |
| Inflation pass-through requests open | <5 | 5-15 | >15 |
| Single-bid awards (% of sourcing events) | <10% | 10-25% | >25% |
| Sourcing-event cycle time vs. plan (days) | <=plan | +10-25% | >+25% |
| Spend under contract (%) | >=85% | 70-84% | <70% |
| Off-contract critical-supplier spend (%) | <5% | 5-15% | >15% |
Figure 3. Illustrative threshold dashboard showing Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams across categories with green / amber / red bands.
Supply Chain Disruption and Resilience Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
CDK Global’s two-week ransomware outage gave the auto-dealer industry a $1 billion lesson in third-party-vendor concentration.
Supply-chain-disruption-and-resilience KRIs read inventory days, dual-source coverage, lead-time buffers, scenario-tested supplier-substitution time, and the geographic and modal redundancy that decide how fast operations recover from the next event.
Top 10 Supply Chain Disruption and Resilience Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
| Disruption / Resilience KRI | Green threshold | Amber threshold | Red threshold |
| Inventory days vs. plan (critical SKUs) | +/-3 | +/-10 | >+/-10 |
| Dual-source coverage on critical SKUs (%) | >=80% | 60-79% | <60% |
| Approved-alternate qualification aging (mo) | <6 | 6-12 | >12 |
| Lead-time variance vs. baseline (days) | <5 | 5-15 | >15 |
| Stock-out events (qtr) | <3 | 3-7 | >7 |
| Force-majeure / disruption events (12 mo) | <3 | 3-7 | >7 |
| Supply-chain scenario tests passed | >=80% | 60-79% | <60% |
| Modal / route concentration (top 1) | <35% | 35-60% | >60% |
| Logistics SLA compliance | >=95% | 85-94% | <85% |
| Recovery-time objective on disruption | <=plan | +1-3 d | >+3 d |
Third-Party Risk Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
Third-party risk on the procurement dashboard ties together cyber, ESG, sanctions, anti-bribery, and modern-slavery exposure. UFLPA enforcement, EU CSDDD readiness, and the broader sanctions ecosystem (OFAC, BIS, State) turned third-party screening from a periodic check into a quarterly KRI for any US procurement team running a global supply base.
Top 9 Third-Party Risk Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
| Third-Party Risk KRI | Green threshold | Amber threshold | Red threshold |
| UFLPA / forced-labor screen failures | 0 | 1-2 | >2 |
| Sanctions screening false-positive rate | <10% | 10-20% | >20% |
| OFAC / BIS list match events (qtr) | 0 | 1-2 | >2 |
| FCPA / anti-bribery red-flag events | 0 | 1-2 | >2 |
| Supplier cyber findings open >30 days | <5 | 5-15 | >15 |
| Third-party SOC 2 / ISO 27001 coverage | >=90% | 75-89% | <75% |
| Modern-slavery questionnaire coverage | >=95% | 85-94% | <85% |
| ESG-rating supplier downgrades (qtr) | <3 | 3-7 | >7 |
| EU CSDDD readiness (% complete) | >=90% | 75-89% | <75% |
UFLPA screen failures hold a single threshold at most US procurement organizations: zero is green, anything else is red. CBP’s UFLPA enforcement has detained shipments worth more than $3 billion since June 2022, with the cotton, apparel, polysilicon, and electronics categories drawing the most attention.
How to Implement Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
Standing up a procurement KRI program is a six-step exercise inside the wider enterprise risk management framework. The reference texts are ISO 28000:2022, ISO 20400:2017, ISO 31000:2018, and ISO 37001:2016 anti-bribery.
Six Steps to Deploy Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
- Step 1. Anchor in the procurement taxonomy: Tie each KRI to one of the six categories so dashboard movement maps to a treatable exposure rather than a category-review talking point.
- Step 2. Calibrate thresholds: Set green / amber / red bands using internal trend, peer benchmarks, and the audit-committee-approved risk appetite statement.
- Step 3. Assign owners: Every KRI gets one named officer. Supplier-risk KRIs go to the head of supplier risk; supplier-performance KRIs to the category manager; contract KRIs to the contract management lead; spend KRIs to the head of P2P; disruption KRIs to the head of supply-chain resilience; third-party-risk KRIs to TPRM.
- Step 4. Define escalation: Document what happens at each band: who is notified, the response window, the sourcing-committee trigger, the audit-committee trigger, and the full-board paper threshold.
- Step 5. Automate collection: Pull data from the source-to-pay platform, contract repository, supplier management system, GRC tool, sanctions-screening platform, ESG-rating feed, and ERP into a single procurement KRI workbench updated weekly.
- Step 6. Review monthly and quarterly: Procurement leadership reviews KRIs weekly for supplier and disruption signals, monthly at the procurement risk committee, and quarterly at the audit-and-risk committee. Recalibrate thresholds at each annual category-strategy refresh and after any major tariff, sanctions, or regulatory change.
Common Pitfalls in Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
Implementation failures around Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams repeat at every program size.
Fortune 500 manufacturers, $2 billion private-equity portfolio companies, and 200-person fast-growth firms alike, the traps below show up in audit-committee post-mortems and 10-K supply-chain risk-factor amendments.
| Pitfall | Root cause | Remedy |
| Savings-only scorecard | Procurement reports negotiated savings as the sole metric | Track risk indicators (concentration, going-concern, on-time, maverick spend) on the same paper as savings achieved |
| Single-source blind spot | Concentration tracked only at enterprise level | Track per-category and per-region single-source exposure; flag any critical category above 30% |
| Static thresholds | Bands set at framework launch and never recalibrated as tariffs, sanctions, or regulations changed | Quarterly review tied to internal trend, peer data, and the active tariff / sanctions footprint |
| Sub-tier dependency unmapped | Tier-1 supplier reviewed; tier-2 / tier-3 unknown | Add sub-tier dependency mapping coverage as a standing KRI; target 80%+ for critical categories |
| Maverick spend ignored | Off-contract leakage tracked annually, not monthly | Track maverick spend monthly with a 5% green threshold; tie escalation to category manager and CFO |
| UFLPA / sanctions reactive | Screening run only at onboarding, not on changes | Add UFLPA screen failures and sanctions list match events as monthly KRIs; rerun screens on master-data changes |
| Vanity dashboards | Beautiful charts no committee acts on | Tie each amber / red band to a triggered action; track action closure as a meta-KRI |
Frequently Asked Questions About Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams
What are the most important Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams?
The seven most important Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams are single-source critical-spend exposure, suppliers with going-concern flags, supplier on-time delivery rate, contracts expiring < 90 days unrenewed, maverick spend as a percentage of total, tariff-exposed spend share, and UFLPA / forced-labor screen failures.
Together they cover the dominant 2026 procurement risk drivers across supplier risk, performance, contract, spend, disruption, and third-party. Add 30 to 45 more across the six categories for a complete CPO program.
How many Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams should an organization track?
Most US Fortune-500 procurement organizations run 40 to 55 Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams in total, with 8 to 12 elevated to the audit-and-risk committee or full board each quarter.
Tracking fewer than 25 leaves blind spots that surface in the next supplier failure or 10-K supply-chain risk-factor amendment.
Tracking more than 70 invites monitoring fatigue and dilutes board attention. The right number scales with spend volume, supply-base size, and regulatory tier (UFLPA, FCPA, CSDDD), not with the size of the source-to-pay platform catalog.
How do Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams differ from procurement KPIs?
Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams measure exposure against a tolerance, while procurement KPIs measure progress against a plan target. A KPI tells the category manager whether the savings target was hit. A KRI tells the audit committee whether the savings were earned at the cost of single-source concentration that creates a Boeing-Spirit-shaped exposure.
The same metric (savings achieved, supplier on-time delivery, contract coverage) can serve both purposes if its threshold (KRI) and target (KPI) are documented separately and reported side by side in the procurement risk-committee paper.
Which standards govern Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams?
The dominant references are ISO 31000:2018 risk management, ISO 28000:2022 supply chain security, ISO 20400:2017 sustainable procurement, ISO 37001:2016 anti-bribery, ISO 14001 environmental management, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, and the US Federal Acquisition Regulation.
US public companies add the SEC supply-chain risk-factor disclosure regime. Defense contractors add CMMC 2.0 and DFARS supplier flow-down. Apparel, electronics, polysilicon, and cotton industries add UFLPA enforcement. EU operations add the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and CSRD ESRS S2 supply-chain workforce disclosures.
How often should Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams be reviewed?
Procurement KRIs should be measured weekly where the source-to-pay platform, contract repository, and ERP permit. Procurement leadership reviews them weekly for supplier and disruption signals, monthly at the procurement risk committee, and quarterly at the audit-and-risk committee or full board.
Tariff, sanctions, and supplier going-concern KRIs warrant real-time alerts. Maverick-spend and PO-compliance KRIs run on monthly cycles. Sub-tier dependency-mapping and ESG-rating KRIs anchor on quarterly category-strategy reviews. Recalibrate thresholds after any major tariff change, sanctions update, or regulatory shift.
How does the Boeing-Spirit AeroSystems story change Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams?
The July 2024 Boeing announcement and 2025 close moved supplier going-concern flags, single-source critical-spend exposure, supplier financial-rating downgrades, and sub-tier dependency mapping coverage from generic risk-register entries to monthly board-paper KRIs across most US Fortune-500 procurement organizations. Vertical-integration scenario testing joined the standing question set in CFO and CPO joint reviews.
Spirit’s $2.1 billion 2024 net loss showed up in the supplier-financial-health KRI long before the deal landed. Procurement teams that read going-concern flags and rating downgrades early can move alternates, hedge inventory, or trigger supplier-rescue work before a $4.7 billion equity remedy lands on the parent’s balance sheet.
How do Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams support the audit committee?
Procurement KRIs feed the quarterly audit-committee paper through a tiered rollup. Function dashboards (supplier risk, supplier performance, contract, spend, disruption, third-party) aggregate to the enterprise heat map, with the top 8 to 12 indicators reaching the audit committee on the same agenda as the ERM update and the third-party-risk report.
The committee paper should show trend, threshold breach history, owner, and remediation status, anchored to the audit committee’s documented risk appetite. Without that structure, the committee sees savings color rather than decision support, and the next 10-Q supply-chain risk-factor disclosure inherits the same blind spots.
Can private companies use the same Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams as Fortune 500?
Yes, with calibration. A private company can use the same Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams catalog but should narrow scope to 20 to 30 indicators that match the actual spend volume, supply-base size, and regulatory obligation.
Thresholds change with revenue scale, segment count, and lender requirements, but the metric definitions do not. Most growing procurement organizations adopt the catalog ahead of an IPO, sale, refinancing, or major insurance / supply-chain-finance facility renewal.
Looking Ahead: Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams in 2026 and 2027
Tariff and sanctions KRIs hold the top of the dashboard. The 2025 tariff regime changed monthly through April 2025 and continues to reshape category sourcing decisions through 2026. CPOs now read tariff-exposed spend share, sanctions list match events, and country-of-origin shift rate at the same cadence as savings achievement.
Supplier financial health gets sharper attention. After Spirit AeroSystems posted $2.1 billion in 2024 losses before the Boeing acquisition closed, procurement teams now read supplier financial-rating downgrades, going-concern flags, days-payable variance, and sub-tier dependency coverage as standing KRIs. Insurance and supply-chain-finance counterparties are reading the same numbers.
ESG and modern-slavery enforcement holds intensity. UFLPA detentions cumulatively exceeded $3 billion in shipment value by 2025. EU CSDDD takes phased effect through 2027 and 2028 and reaches US suppliers via in-scope EU buyers. Procurement teams add UFLPA screen failures, modern-slavery questionnaire coverage, and CSDDD readiness as standing KRIs.
A live KRI dashboard with quarterly recalibration and a clear integrated risk management approach is what holds up under audit-committee, rating-agency, customer-audit, and SEC supply-chain-disclosure scrutiny. Without it, the procurement organization rotates through the same concerns until the next Boeing-Spirit-scale event or CDK-style outage forces one of them to the top of the agenda.
Ready to Operationalize Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams?
At riskpublishing.com we help US chief procurement officers build Key Risk Indicators for Procurement Teams that hold up under audit-committee review and customer supply-chain audits.
The work usually includes the KRI catalog, a threshold-calibration workshop tied to peer benchmarks and the active tariff / sanctions footprint, a function-to-enterprise rollup model, and a quarterly audit-committee paper template anchored to ISO 31000:2018, ISO 28000:2022, ISO 20400:2017, ISO 37001:2016, the OECD MNE Guidelines, US FAR, and UFLPA.
Explore our risk advisory services, or contact us to scope a procurement KRI maturity review tailored to the spend portfolio, supply-base footprint, and 2026-2027 regulatory obligations.
Related reading on riskpublishing.com (KRI library): Key Risk Indicators examples, supply chain Key Risk Indicators, how to use Key Risk Indicators, Key Risk Indicators dashboard, and Key Risk Indicators in Enterprise Risk Management.
Related reading (supply chain and third-party): risk assessment in supply chain, managing supply chain risk, supply chain risk management plan, how to build a resilient supply chain, how to manage third party risk, and enterprise supplier risk management program.Related reading (ERM and frameworks): enterprise risk management framework, ISO 31000 vs COSO ERM Framework, integrated risk management approach, risk appetite statements examples, and operational risk management framework
Chris Ekai is a Risk Management expert with over 10 years of experience in the field. He has a Master’s(MSc) degree in Risk Management from University of Portsmouth and is a CPA and Finance professional. He currently works as a Content Manager at Risk Publishing, writing about Enterprise Risk Management, Business Continuity Management and Project Management.