| Key Takeaways |
| Strategic risk management is the discipline of identifying, assessing, and responding to risks that threaten an organization’s ability to achieve its strategic objectives. Unlike operational risk management, which addresses day-to-day process failures, strategic risk management focuses on the threats and opportunities that can fundamentally alter the organization’s competitive position, business model, or long-term viability. |
| 63% of global CEOs and board directors report that their organization’s risk exposure has increased in the past 12 months alone (Korn Ferry 2025 CEO and Board Survey). The pressure comes from multiple directions simultaneously: AI reshaping business models, geopolitical conflicts turning supply chains into strategic vulnerabilities, and talent gaps widening as organizations need new capabilities most. |
| Only 11% of senior finance leaders view their ERM process as a strategic tool that delivers competitive advantage (AICPA/NC State 2025 State of Risk Oversight, 16th Edition). 64% say risk management provides no or minimal strategic advantage. 61% acknowledge rising risk complexity, yet only 32% rate their risk oversight as mature. |
| The WEF Global Risks Report 2025, based on input from over 900 experts, identifies state-based armed conflict as the most pressing immediate risk, with misinformation/disinformation as the top two-year risk for the second consecutive year. Nearly two-thirds of respondents anticipate a turbulent or stormy global landscape by 2035. |
| Strategic risk management requires board-level ownership, integration with strategic planning, scenario analysis as a primary tool, and key risk indicators (KRIs) linked to strategic objectives. Only 12% of S&P 500 companies have a standing risk committee (Spencer Stuart 2024), and only 30% integrate risk exposure into capital allocation decisions. |
| The four treatment strategies for strategic risk are: accept (operate within risk appetite), mitigate (reduce likelihood or impact through controls and diversification), transfer (share risk through insurance, hedging, or partnerships), and avoid (exit markets, divest, or abandon strategies where risk exceeds appetite). |
Sixty-three percent of global CEOs and board directors say their organization’s risk exposure has jumped in the past 12 months (Korn Ferry 2025 CEO and Board Survey). That figure alone signals a problem.
But the deeper issue is that most organizations still cannot connect risk management to strategic decision-making in any meaningful way. The 2025 AICPA/NC State State of Risk Oversight report found that only 11% of senior finance leaders view their enterprise risk management process as a strategic tool that delivers competitive advantage. Sixty-four percent say it provides no or minimal advantage.
The gap between rising risk exposure and the ability to use risk intelligence strategically is where strategic risk management lives.
Strategic risk management is not a separate discipline from ERM. It is ERM done properly: connected to strategy, owned by leadership, and focused on the risks that determine whether the organization achieves its objectives or falls short.
This article provides a practitioner’s guide to strategic risk management, covering what it is, how it differs from operational risk management, how to build a strategic risk assessment process, and how to embed risk intelligence into strategic planning and board oversight.
The frameworks draw on ISO 31000, COSO ERM, and current research on board risk governance.
What Strategic Risk Actually Is
Strategic risks are uncertainties and events that can affect an organization’s ability to achieve its strategic objectives. They operate at a different level than operational risks. A server outage is an operational risk.
The decision to enter a new market, the emergence of a disruptive competitor, a geopolitical shift that invalidates your supply chain strategy, or a regulatory change that eliminates a product line: these are strategic risks. They affect not what you do every day but whether your strategy will work at all.
Strategic risks share several characteristics that distinguish them from other risk categories.
They are typically external or at the intersection of external and internal factors. They often involve uncertainty about future conditions rather than measurable historical frequencies.
They tend to be high-impact and low-frequency, making them difficult to model with traditional actuarial methods. And they are inherently tied to strategic choices: the risks an organization faces are partly a function of the strategies it has chosen to pursue.
Strategic Risk vs. Operational Risk vs. Compliance Risk
| Dimension | Strategic Risk | Operational Risk | Compliance Risk |
| Definition | Risks to the organization’s ability to achieve its strategic objectives; threats to the business model, competitive position, and long-term viability | Risks to the efficiency and effectiveness of day-to-day operations; process failures, system breakdowns, and human error | Risks from failure to comply with laws, regulations, standards, and contractual obligations |
| Examples | Market disruption by new technology; geopolitical trade restrictions; failed M&A integration; loss of key competitive advantage; demographic shifts eroding demand | IT system outage; supply chain disruption; quality control failure; data entry error; employee safety incident | Regulatory fine; license revocation; breach of data protection law; failure to meet reporting requirements; sanctions violation |
| Time horizon | Medium to long term (1–10 years); aligned with strategic planning cycle | Short term (days to months); aligned with operational cycles | Varies; compliance deadlines and regulatory cycles |
| Ownership | CEO, board, strategy team, with CRO/risk function providing analysis and challenge | Business unit managers and process owners, with second-line risk oversight | Compliance function, legal, with management accountability for implementation |
| Primary tools | Scenario analysis, stress testing, strategic risk assessment workshops, competitive intelligence, KRIs linked to strategic objectives | Process controls, operational KRIs, incident management, internal audit, control self-assessment | Regulatory monitoring, compliance testing, policy management, regulatory change management |
| ISO 31000 alignment | Risk criteria linked to strategic objectives; risk appetite defined at the strategic level | Risk criteria linked to operational performance; tolerances defined at the process level | Risk criteria linked to regulatory requirements; zero-tolerance for certain compliance obligations |
The Strategic Risk Landscape in 2025
The WEF Global Risks Report 2025, based on input from over 900 experts, paints a picture of compounding strategic risks. State-based armed conflict is the most pressing immediate risk, with nearly one-quarter of respondents identifying it as the most severe concern for 2025. Misinformation and disinformation remains the top two-year risk for the second consecutive year.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents anticipate a turbulent or stormy global landscape by 2035, driven by environmental, technological, and societal challenges. For organizations, these global risks translate into specific strategic threats: supply chain reconfiguration driven by geopolitical fragmentation, AI disruption of business models, regulatory divergence across markets, and erosion of customer and stakeholder trust.
Top Strategic Risks by Time Horizon (WEF 2025)
| Time Horizon | Top Risks | Strategic Implication | Risk Management Response |
| Current (2025) | State-based armed conflict (#1); Extreme weather events (#2); Geoeconomic confrontation (#3); Societal polarization (#4); Cyber espionage and warfare (#5) | Supply chain disruption; trade restriction; insurance cost escalation; workforce division; technology infrastructure vulnerability | Scenario analysis for geopolitical disruption; supply chain diversification and nearshoring assessment; cyber resilience investment; stakeholder trust strategy |
| Two-year (2027) | Misinformation/disinformation (#1); Extreme weather events (#2); State-based armed conflict (#3); Societal polarization (#4); Cyber espionage and warfare (#5) | Brand and reputation risk from deepfakes and AI-generated content; physical asset exposure to climate events; geopolitical uncertainty in strategic planning; market fragmentation | AI-powered misinformation detection; climate risk integration into capital planning; geopolitical intelligence capability; market diversification strategy |
| Ten-year (2035) | Extreme weather events (#1); Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse (#2); Critical change to Earth systems (#3); Pollution (#4); Natural resource crises (#5) | Business model viability in a resource-constrained environment; regulatory burden from environmental compliance; stranded assets; transition risk from decarbonization requirements | Long-term strategic resilience planning; environmental risk integration into business model assessment; regulatory horizon scanning; transition scenario planning |
The Strategic Risk Management Process
Strategic risk management follows the same identify-analyze-evaluate-treat-monitor cycle as any risk management process, but it is calibrated differently.
The inputs are strategic rather than operational. The analysis uses scenarios rather than historical frequencies. The evaluation is against strategic objectives and risk appetite rather than operational tolerances. And the treatment options include strategic choices (market entry, exit, diversification, M&A) rather than just operational controls.
Step 1: Strategic Context and Risk Appetite
Begin by establishing the strategic context: what are the organization’s strategic objectives, what assumptions underpin the current strategy, and what is the board’s appetite for risks that could affect strategic outcomes?
The risk appetite statement should address strategic risk explicitly, not just financial or operational risk thresholds. For example:
‘We accept moderate uncertainty in revenue growth from new market entry but have zero appetite for risks that could result in loss of our core market license.’ This step connects directly to risk appetite frameworks and COSO ERM’s emphasis on aligning risk appetite with strategy.
Step 2: Strategic Risk Identification
Identify risks to strategic objectives through structured workshops with the executive team, competitive intelligence analysis, regulatory horizon scanning, and external environment assessment.
The WEF Global Risks Report, Protiviti/NC State Top Risks surveys, and industry-specific risk reports provide external inputs. Internally, challenge the assumptions underpinning the current strategy: what has to remain true for the strategy to succeed?
Where are the single points of failure? What emerging trends could invalidate key assumptions? Document identified risks in a strategic risk register that links each risk to the specific strategic objective it threatens.
Step 3: Strategic Risk Analysis
Analyze strategic risks using scenario analysis rather than (or in addition to) traditional likelihood-impact matrices. Scenario analysis is the primary tool for strategic risk because strategic risks involve deep uncertainty, not just measurable probability.
Develop 3–4 plausible scenarios (not predictions) that explore how key uncertainties could play out. For each scenario, assess the impact on strategic objectives, revenue, market position, and organizational capabilities.
Use Monte Carlo simulation where quantitative data supports it, and sensitivity analysis to identify which variables have the greatest impact on strategic outcomes. The Korn Ferry 2025 survey found that boards meeting only quarterly for strategy discussions allow three months to pass between formal discussions, even as AI breakthroughs and geopolitical events reshape industries within weeks.
Scenario Planning Framework for Strategic Risk
| Scenario Element | Scenario A: Accelerated Disruption | Scenario B: Regulatory Tightening | Scenario C: Geopolitical Fragmentation | Scenario D: Status Quo Plus |
| Key assumption | AI and new entrants disrupt core market within 2 years; 30% revenue displacement | New regulations increase compliance cost by 25%; eliminate one product line; extend time-to-market by 12 months | Trade restrictions fragment supply chain; 40% cost increase on key inputs; market access restricted in two major regions | Current trends continue with gradual change; no single disruptive event but cumulative pressure from all risk categories |
| Impact on strategic objectives | Revenue growth target missed by 15–30%; market share loss in core segments; need for business model pivot | Profitability reduced 10–15%; compliance investment diverts capital from growth; competitive disadvantage vs. less-regulated competitors | Revenue concentration risk increases; supply chain resilience becomes primary strategic priority; new market entry blocked or delayed | Growth targets met but margins compress 5–10%; incremental erosion rather than acute disruption; boiling frog risk |
| Strategic response required | Accelerate innovation investment; consider acquisition of disruptive technology; diversify revenue streams; scenario-specific contingency budget | Build regulatory capability as competitive advantage; redesign products for compliance-by-design; lobby strategy; exit non-viable product lines | Dual-source critical inputs; nearshore/reshore key manufacturing; develop regional market strategies; hedge currency and commodity exposure | Maintain strategic flexibility; build optionality into investments; avoid overcommitting to single strategic bet; strengthen monitoring for scenario triggers |
| KRI trigger for activation | Competitor product launch; patent filing in adjacent space; 10%+ decline in core segment revenue; customer churn rate exceeds threshold | Draft regulation published; enforcement action against peer; compliance cost estimate exceeds budget allocation; regulatory consultation opened | Tariff announcement affecting key inputs; trade sanctions on target market; supplier force majeure notification; logistics cost spike >20% | Combined KRI dashboard showing 3+ indicators trending adverse simultaneously; cumulative margin compression exceeding 3 consecutive quarters |
Step 4: Strategic Risk Evaluation and Treatment
Evaluate analyzed risks against the organization’s risk appetite to determine which require treatment and what form that treatment should take.
Strategic risk treatment options go beyond the traditional operational control framework. The four fundamental strategies apply, but the implementation is different at the strategic level.
Strategic Risk Treatment Options
| Strategy | When to Apply | Examples | Cost/Benefit Consideration |
| Accept | Risk is within appetite; cost of mitigation exceeds potential impact; risk is inherent to the chosen strategy and cannot be eliminated without abandoning the strategy | Accept moderate currency risk from international expansion because the growth opportunity justifies the exposure; accept technology disruption risk while monitoring KRI triggers | Accepting risk requires monitoring and contingency planning; acceptance without monitoring is negligence, not strategy |
| Mitigate | Risk exceeds appetite but the strategic opportunity is worth pursuing with controls; risk can be reduced to acceptable levels through diversification, capability building, or structural changes | Diversify supply chain to reduce single-source dependency; build internal AI capability to reduce disruption vulnerability; develop succession plans for key strategic roles | Mitigation investment must be proportionate to risk reduction achieved; track cost of mitigation vs. residual risk exposure |
| Transfer | Risk is quantifiable and transferable through financial instruments, insurance, or partnerships; organization lacks the expertise or capital to manage the risk internally | Hedge commodity price exposure; purchase business interruption insurance for key facilities; form joint ventures to share market entry risk; outsource non-core activities to specialist partners | Transfer has a cost (premium, margin sharing); counterparty risk replaces the original risk; not all strategic risks are transferable |
| Avoid | Risk exceeds appetite and cannot be mitigated or transferred to acceptable levels; the strategic opportunity does not justify the residual risk; the risk threatens organizational survival | Exit a market where regulatory risk makes profitability impossible; divest a business unit with unacceptable environmental liability; decline an acquisition where integration risk exceeds synergy value | Avoidance eliminates the risk but also eliminates the associated opportunity; opportunity cost must be weighed against risk reduction |
Step 5: Strategic Risk Monitoring and Board Reporting
Establish key risk indicators linked to each strategic risk, with thresholds that trigger escalation and response.
Strategic KRIs should be leading indicators wherever possible, providing early warning rather than confirming what has already happened. Report strategic risks to the board in a format that connects risk data to strategic decisions.
The board’s role is not to manage strategic risks directly but to ensure that management has identified them, is monitoring them, and has credible plans to respond when KRI triggers are breached.
Strategic KRI Dashboard Example
| Strategic Objective | Strategic Risk | KRI | Green Threshold | Amber Threshold | Red Threshold |
| Grow revenue 15% in new markets | Market entry blocked by trade restrictions | Tariff/restriction announcements affecting target markets; regulatory approval timeline | No new restrictions; approvals on track | Restrictions announced but not yet enacted; approval delays >3 months | Restrictions enacted; approvals blocked or indefinitely delayed |
| Maintain technology leadership | AI disruption of core product/service | Competitor patent filings in adjacent space; customer adoption of alternative solutions; internal R&D pipeline milestone delivery | <5 competitor filings/quarter; <2% customer trial of alternatives | 5–10 competitor filings; 2–5% customer trial; 1+ R&D milestones delayed | 10+ competitor filings; >5% customer adoption of alternatives; R&D pipeline gap >6 months |
| Achieve 20% EBITDA margin | Regulatory cost escalation | Draft regulations published; peer enforcement actions; compliance cost forecasts vs. budget | No material regulatory changes; costs within budget | Draft regulation published; costs forecast 5–15% above budget | Regulation enacted; costs >15% above budget; product viability threatened |
| Retain and develop key talent | Critical skills gap widens | Voluntary turnover in strategic roles; time-to-fill for critical positions; competitor talent acquisition activity | Turnover <8%; fill time <60 days; no unusual competitor activity | Turnover 8–15%; fill time 60–90 days; competitor poaching attempts observed | Turnover >15%; fill time >90 days; loss of >2 critical-role individuals in same quarter |
| Expand digital revenue to 40% of total | Cybersecurity breach erodes trust | Attempted intrusions per month; mean time to detect; customer data incident rate; cyber insurance renewal terms | Attempts within normal range; MTTD <24 hours; zero incidents; renewal terms stable | Attempted intrusions 2x normal; MTTD 24–72 hours; 1 minor incident; premium increase >10% | Successful breach; MTTD >72 hours; customer data compromised; insurance coverage restricted |
Integrating Strategic Risk into Board Governance
The Korn Ferry 2025 survey found that a mere 6% of boards have shifted to weekly meetings to keep pace with how fast strategic risks evolve.
Most boards discuss strategy quarterly at best. The 2024 Spencer Stuart survey found that only 12% of S&P 500 companies have a standing risk committee. EY’s 2025 analysis of Fortune 100 filings found that 48% now cite AI as part of the board’s risk oversight responsibilities (triple the prior year), and 58% report undertaking cyber preparedness exercises. These numbers show movement but also reveal how far most boards have to go.
Board Strategic Risk Governance Framework
| Governance Element | Best Practice | Common Failure Mode |
| Risk committee structure | Dedicated board risk committee (or full board ownership of strategic risk) with a charter that defines strategic risk oversight responsibilities; quarterly deep-dive sessions on top strategic risks with scenario analysis | Delegating all risk oversight to the audit committee, which is already overloaded with financial reporting and compliance responsibilities; no dedicated time for strategic risk discussion |
| Risk appetite alignment | Board-approved risk appetite statement that explicitly addresses strategic risk categories (market, technology, geopolitical, regulatory, talent); reviewed annually and when strategy changes | Risk appetite statement that only covers financial metrics (VaR, credit limits) without addressing the strategic risks that actually threaten the business model |
| Strategic risk reporting | Monthly risk intelligence briefings connecting KRI data to strategic objectives; scenario analysis updates showing how the risk landscape has shifted since the last strategy discussion | Annual risk reports that present a static heat map disconnected from strategy; reporting that focuses on operational incidents rather than strategic threats and opportunities |
| Scenario exercises | Regular scenario simulations testing the board’s and management’s response to strategic risk events; after-action reviews that update assumptions and plans | No scenario exercises; or exercises that are scripted to confirm existing plans rather than genuinely testing assumptions and decision-making under uncertainty |
| Risk culture and tone | CEO and board consistently reinforcing that risk intelligence is a strategic input, not a compliance obligation; risk function has a seat at strategic planning discussions | Risk function excluded from strategic planning; risk treated as a brake on strategy rather than an enabler of informed strategic decisions; CRO reports to CFO rather than CEO or board |
| Emerging risk identification | Dedicated process for identifying risks beyond the current strategic planning horizon; regular external intelligence inputs (WEF, Protiviti/NC State, industry associations) | Relying exclusively on internal risk identification; no systematic process for scanning for risks that have not yet materialized but could reshape the strategic landscape |
Implementation Roadmap
| Phase | Actions | Deliverables | Success Metrics |
| Days 1–30: Foundation | Secure CEO and board sponsorship for strategic risk integration; review current risk appetite statement for strategic risk gaps; assemble strategic risk working group (CRO, CFO, CSO, business unit heads); conduct baseline assessment of current strategic risk practices against COSO ERM and ISO 31000; identify top 10 strategic assumptions underpinning current strategy | Executive charter for strategic risk program; gap assessment against COSO ERM/ISO 31000; strategic risk working group formed; strategic assumptions documented and validated | Sponsorship secured; gap assessment completed; working group operational; top 10 strategic assumptions documented |
| Days 31–60: Assessment and Analysis | Conduct strategic risk identification workshops with executive team; develop 3–4 scenarios for top strategic risks; perform scenario analysis with financial impact quantification; map strategic risks to strategic objectives in risk register; design strategic KRI dashboard with leading indicators and thresholds | Strategic risk register linked to objectives; 3–4 scenario analyses with financial impact estimates; strategic KRI dashboard design; initial risk treatment recommendations | All material strategic risks identified and analyzed; scenarios developed and stress-tested; KRI thresholds set; treatment options defined |
| Days 61–90: Integration and Governance | Present strategic risk assessment to board; update risk appetite statement to include strategic risk categories; integrate strategic KRIs into management and board reporting; establish quarterly strategic risk review cycle; define triggers for ad-hoc strategic risk reviews; connect strategic risk outputs to capital allocation and strategic planning processes | Board presentation and approval; updated risk appetite statement; strategic risk reporting integrated into existing governance; quarterly review schedule; connection to capital allocation documented | Board-approved strategic risk program; risk appetite updated; reporting operational; first quarterly review scheduled; strategic risk data influencing capital decisions |
Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
| Pitfall | Root Cause | Remedy |
| Treating strategic risk as a subset of operational risk | Risk function staffed primarily with operational risk and compliance expertise; no strategic analysis capability | Staff the risk function with analysts who understand strategy, competitive dynamics, and macroeconomic forces; ensure the CRO has strategic advisory capability, not just control expertise |
| Using heat maps as the primary strategic risk analysis tool | Simplicity and familiarity; boards accustomed to red/amber/green reporting; scenario analysis seen as too complex or time-consuming | Supplement heat maps with scenario analysis that explores how risks interact and compound; use heat maps for communication but scenarios for analysis and decision-making |
| Disconnecting risk management from strategic planning | Risk function operates in a parallel track to strategy; risk reports produced after strategic decisions are made rather than informing them | Require risk assessment of all major strategic initiatives before approval; include CRO in strategic planning sessions; present strategic risk analysis alongside strategy proposals to the board |
| Setting risk appetite too vaguely to be useful | Risk appetite expressed in abstract language (‘moderate risk tolerance’) rather than specific thresholds linked to strategic objectives | Define risk appetite in measurable terms for each strategic risk category: maximum acceptable revenue decline, market share loss, regulatory exposure, talent attrition rate |
| No leading indicators for strategic risk | KRIs focused on lagging operational metrics (incidents occurred, losses realized) rather than forward-looking strategic signals | Design KRIs that detect early signals of strategic risk materialization: competitor activity, regulatory proposals, technology developments, customer behavior shifts, macroeconomic indicators |
| Board receives risk reports but does not use them for decisions | Risk reporting is a compliance exercise; reports are received and filed without discussion or connection to agenda items on strategy, capital allocation, or M&A | Restructure board risk reporting to frame each risk in terms of strategic decisions required: what should we do differently given this risk information? What capital reallocation does this imply? |
Looking Ahead: Strategic Risk Trends for 2026–2028
The Korn Ferry 2025 survey identifies cultural resistance as the primary barrier to effective strategic risk management, particularly in large organizations with entrenched processes. Risk management strategies gather dust while internal politics and budget battles drag on.
Change fatigue sets in before changes are implemented. Competitive advantages slip away while more agile competitors implement solutions faster.
The organizations that break through this barrier are those where the CEO treats risk intelligence as a strategic input with the same weight as financial forecasts and market research.
AI governance is emerging as a first-order strategic risk. EY’s 2025 analysis found that 48% of Fortune 100 companies now cite AI as part of the board’s risk oversight responsibilities, triple the prior year.
About 40% have at least one board committee charged with AI oversight. This rapid escalation reflects the speed at which AI is moving from an innovation opportunity to a governance and risk management priority.
Organizations without AI risk governance frameworks will find themselves managing AI risks reactively, which is exactly the opposite of strategic risk management.
The AICPA/NC State data shows a slow but steady embrace of ERM over 16 years of their study, but the gap between adoption and strategic value remains wide. The organizations closing that gap share common characteristics:
board-level ownership of strategic risk, integration of risk analysis into strategic planning, scenario-based analysis rather than compliance-driven checklists, and KRI dashboards that connect risk signals to strategic decisions. For practitioners, the path forward is clear: stop treating risk management as a compliance function and start using it as the strategic intelligence capability that the current risk environment demands.
The WEF’s 10-year outlook, dominated by environmental and technological risks, signals that strategic risk management must extend beyond the current planning horizon. Organizations that can analyze how climate risk, resource constraints, and technology disruption interact over a decade, not just a budget cycle, will make better strategic bets today.
The tools exist: scenario analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, and enterprise risk management frameworks provide the analytical foundation. What is missing in most organizations is the will to use them as strategic instruments rather than compliance artifacts.
Turn risk management into strategic advantage. Visit riskpublishing.com for ERM frameworks, strategic risk tools, and practitioner guides. Need hands-on support? Contact our consulting team for tailored strategic risk assessment and board advisory services.
References
1. Korn Ferry – 2025 CEO and Board Survey: Risky Business – 63% report increased risk exposure; 6% of boards meet weekly; cultural resistance as primary barrier
2. AICPA/NC State – 2025 State of Risk Oversight Report (16th Edition) – 11% see ERM as strategic tool; 32% rate oversight as mature; 30% integrate risk into capital allocation
3. WEF – Global Risks Report 2025 – 900+ experts; state-based armed conflict #1 current risk; misinformation #1 two-year risk; environmental risks dominate 10-year outlook
4. Harvard Law School Forum – Risk Management and the Board of Directors (Wachtell Lipton 2025) – Only 12% of S&P 500 have standing risk committees; 77% of boards discussed cyber incident implications
5. NC State/AICPA – 2025 State of Risk Oversight Press Release – 273 U.S. organizations surveyed; 35% have comprehensive ERM; 64% say risk provides no strategic advantage
6. EY/CPA Practice Advisor – Audit Committees Rethink Risk Oversight (2026) – 48% Fortune 100 cite AI in board risk oversight (3x prior year); 40% have committee AI oversight; 58% conduct cyber exercises
7. McKinsey – Global Risk Productivity Survey (2025) – 10% increase in ERM spending; CRO remit expanding; scenario analysis and stress testing as focus areas
8. Forrester – 2025 WEF Risk Report Analysis – Geopolitical and technology risk analysis; technology resilience underrepresentation warning
9. WEF – Global Risks 2025: A World of Growing Divisions – Top risk rankings by time horizon; 71% of CROs concerned about cyber impact; inequality as most interconnected risk
10. AuditBoard – Five Insights from 2025 Risk in Focus Report – Digital disruption rose from #6 to #3; cybersecurity and human capital as top internal audit risks
11. FAIR Institute – 2025 State of Cyber Risk Management Report – 72% automated CRM systems; 48% use AI for risk management; 95% report growing internal demand for risk quantification
12. AICPA/CIMA – 2025 State of Risk Oversight Report Download – Full 16th edition report; 273 U.S. organizations; methodology and detailed findings
13. WEF – Three Surprising Findings in Global Risks Report 2025 – AI risk underestimated in short term; intrastate violence declining in rankings; economic risks interconnected with societal tensions
14. WEF – Global Risks 2035: The Point of No Return – 10-year risk outlook; environmental dominance; biodiversity loss rising from #37 (2009) to #2 (2025)
15. ISO – ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management Guidelines – Universal risk management framework for strategic risk integration
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.