TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................. 3
The OnRisk Approach ............................................................................. 4
Top Risks, 2021 ....................................................................................... 5
Key Observations ................................................................................... 6
Key Observations Explained ................................................................. 7
Pandemic Response Drives Relevance Ratings on Risks ..................... 8
Priorities for Organizational Improvement .......................................... 9
Management Not Aligned on Risk Relevance .................................. 11
Greater Overall Alignment on Capability ......................................... 12
Misalignment on Organizatonal Governance Risk ............................ 13
COVID-19’s Impact on Risk Management ........................................... 15
Risk Assurance and The Three Lines Model ....................................... 16
The Risks ................................................................................................ 19
Cybersecurity .................................................................................... 20
Third Party ......................................................................................... 22
Board Information ............................................................................. 23
Sustainability ..................................................................................... 24
Disruptive Innovation ........................................................................ 26
Economic and Political Volatility ....................................................... 27
Organizational Governance .............................................................. 28
Data Governance .............................................................................. 29
Talent Management .......................................................................... 31
Culture ............................................................................................... 32
Business Continuity and Crisis Management .................................... 33
Methodology ........................................................................................ 35
How to Use This Report ....................................................................... 36
Leveraging the Methodology .............................................................. 37
The Stages of Risk ................................................................................ 38
Figures ................................................................................................... 39
INTRODUCTION
Risk
The possibility of an event occurring that will have
an impact on the achievement of objectives.
— IIA International Professional Practices Framework (IPPF)
Risk is part and parcel to modern economic theory. Indeed, nearly from the beginning of organized society, the
push to recognize, leverage, and manage risk has driven humankind to excel. As social, business, and government
institutions have become more complex, global, and entwined, mastering the art and science of risk management
has become ever-more imperative — and elusive.
Last year, The Institute of Internal Auditors published OnRisk 2020: A Guide to Understanding, Aligning, and
Optimizing Risk, which for the first time brought together essential perspectives of boards, management, and chief
audit executives (CAEs) — the three key players in risk management. Through a series of interviews with members
of all three groups, along with a survey of CAEs, OnRisk 2020 offered a unique and insightful examination of the
interactions and views of those who most directly affect risk management. The inaugural guide was designed to
improve alignment among these three risk management players by measuring their views on top risks, based on
personal knowledge and organizational capability to manage those risks. OnRisk 2021 adds key players’ views
on organizational risk relevance as a factor in measuring alignment.
Observations gleaned this year show improved alignment on key risk knowledge and capability, but potential
misalignment on how relevant some risks are viewed. The report also examines where organizations turn for
assurance over risk management.
No examination of risk in 2020 would be complete without addressing the influence of COVID-19. Beyond the
obvious fallout from shuttering the global economy for extended periods, response to the pandemic contributed
to generally improved alignment among risk management players on business continuity, risk management,
and communications. The pandemic also exposed the strengths and weaknesses of how organizations manage
disruption. However, COVID-19’s most influential long-term impact may be the marked acceleration of technology’s
positive and negative effects on cybersecurity, talent management, economic and political volatility, and
disruptive innovation.
03< BACK TO TOC
THE ONRISK APPROACH
The OnRisk approach uses an innovative methodology that uniquely brings together the perspectives of major
contributors to organizational risk management. Alignment of these players’ views on risk knowledge, capability,
and relevance is a significant step toward achieving strong risk management in support of effective governance.
The methodology employed qualitative interviews of 30 board members, 30 C-suite executives, and 30 CAEs from
90 different organizations. Further support came from a quantitative survey of CAEs, which drew 348 responses.
The combination of qualitative and quantitative research provides robust data sets to examine top risks facing
organizations and allows for both objective data analysis and subjective insights based on responses from risk
management leaders. Further detail regarding the OnRisk methodology and how to use and leverage this report,
as well as details explaining the Risk Stages Model developed in conjunction with OnRisk can be found in the
appendices of this report.
04< BACK TO TOC
TOP RISKS, 2021
The 11 risks were selected from a wide assortment that are likely to affect organizations in 2021 and vetted
through in-depth interviews with board members, management, and CAEs. Some of the risks are unchanged from
the inaugural OnRisk report, some descriptions have been updated, and other risks are new to the list. These risks
should be relevant universally, regardless of an organization’s size, industry, complexity, or type. However, this list
does not cover all the significant risks in every organization; risks excluded from this analysis may have particular
relevance — even significant relevance — to organizations, depending on their specific circumstances.
CYBERSECURITY: The growing sophistication and variety of cyberattacks continue to wreak havoc on
organizations’ brands and reputations, often resulting in disastrous financial impacts. This risk examines whether
organizations are sufficiently prepared to manage cyber threats that could cause disruption and reputational harm.
THIRD PARTY: For an organization to be successful, it has to maintain healthy and fruitful relationships with
its external business partnerships and vendors. This risk examines organizations’ abilities to select and monitor
third-party relationships.
BOARD INFORMATION: As regulators, investors, and the public demand stronger board oversight, boards
place greater reliance on the information they are provided for decision-making. This risk examines whether
boards feel confident that they are receiving complete, timely, transparent, accurate, and relevant information.
SUSTAINABILITY: The growth of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) awareness increasingly influences
organizational decision-making. This risk examines organizations’ abilities to establish strategies to address
long-term sustainability issues.
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION: We are in an era of innovative business models, fueled by disruptive technologies.
This risk examines whether organizations are prepared to adapt to and/or capitalize on disruption.
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL VOLATILITY: National elections, multinational trade agreements, new or
extended protectionary tariffs, and uncertainty around timing of routine macroeconomic cycles all create
volatility in the markets in which organizations operate. This risk examines the challenges and uncertainties
organizations face in a dynamic and potentially volatile economic and political environment.
ORGANIZATIONAL GOVERNANCE: Governance encompasses all aspects of how an organization is directed
and managed: the system of rules, practices, processes, and controls by which it operates. This risk examines
whether organizations’ governance assists or hinders achievement of objectives.
DATA GOVERNANCE: Organizations’ reliance on data is expanding exponentially, complicated by advances in
technology and changes in regulations. This risk examines organizations’ overall strategic management of data:
its collection, use, storage, security, and disposition.
TALENT MANAGEMENT: A growing gig economy, dynamic labor conditions, and the continuing impact of
digitalization are redefining how work gets done. This risk examines challenges organizations face in identifying,
acquiring, upskilling, and retaining the right talent to achieve their objectives.
CULTURE: “The way things get done around here” has been at the core of a number of corporate scandals.
This risk examines whether organizations understand, monitor, and manage the tone, incentives, and actions
that drive the desired behavior.
BUSINESS CONTINUITY AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT: Organizations face significant existential challenges,
from cyber breaches and pandemics to reputational scandals and succession planning. This risk examines
organizations’ abilities to prepare, react, respond, and recover.
05< BACK TO TOC
KEY
OBSERVATIONS
The research for OnRisk 2021 provides a snapshot of how the principal drivers of risk management interact and
which risks pose the greatest challenges to their organizations. Analyses of the data led to the identification of five
key observations that shed light on how risks are understood and how an organization’s ability to manage risk is
perceived. In-depth examinations of these observations are found later in this report.
• Business continuity and crisis management and cybersecurity are the top-rated risks for 2021.
Unprecedented challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic as well as expanding reliance on technology
and data drove these two risks to the top of the list. They often were paired as some cyber threats were
heightened by the sudden relocation of employees to less secure work-from-home environments as well as
an intense shift to e-commerce brought on by the pandemic response.
• Two risks offer priorities for organizational improvement. All respondents rated disruptive innovation and
talent management among the most relevant risks. Yet, C-suite respondents ranked their personal knowledge
and the organization’s capabilities related to these risks among the lowest.
• Management perceptions on risk relevance are generally not aligned with boards and CAEs.
Board members and CAEs were largely aligned on their perception of the relevance of risks included in
OnRisk 2021. However, management relevance rankings were lower overall, with an especially large gap in the
perception of governance and economic and political volatility. Indeed, the C-suite assigned higher relevance
to operational risks such as talent management, culture, and business continuity.
• Perceptions on capability to manage risks are more aligned. This year, responses were more tightly clustered
in ranking organizational ability to manage risk. The board overconfidence noted in last year’s report appears to
have eased. Responses to COVID-19, which focused in part on renewed risk assessments and more frequent
communication and collaboration among risk management players, likely drove stronger alignment on
organizational strengths and weaknesses.
• Management sees organizational governance as a less relevant risk than do boards and internal audit.
The disparity in relevance rankings for organizational governance as a risk is significant and telling. Management’s
lower relevance ranking on this risk, combined with its higher rankings on personal knowledge and organizational
capability, signal management overconfidence in this area and a disconnect from boards and CAEs.
06< BACK TO TOC
KEY
OBSERVATIONS EXPLAINED
The five key observations are examined in-depth in the following pages. As noted previously, the qualitative and
quantitative surveys for OnRisk 2021 were intended to elicit candid perspectives on the nature and understanding of
risk management through the eyes of its three principal drivers. The analyses of the data reveal essential insights into
interactions and alignment among respondents, leading to enlightening conclusions about how those interactions
and alignments impact risk management.
07< BACK TO TOC
PANDEMIC RESPONSE DRIVES
RELEVANCE RATINGS ON RISKS
Source:
OnRisk 2021
qualitative survey.
n = 90.
Based on both qualitative and quantitative surveys, business continuity
and crisis management and cybersecurity were the two most relevant risks
among OnRisk respondents, which reflects 2020’s unique context. The clear
and present risk associated with keeping the doors open was rated right
alongside the ever-expanding risk related to cyber threats (Figure 1).
Close to 9 in 10 (87%) board members ranked business continuity and crisis
management as highly or extremely relevant, while more than 9 in 10 (93%)
CAEs rated it as highly or extremely relevant. However, far fewer members of
the C-suite identified it as such, with just more than 6 in 10 (63%) describing
it as highly or extremely relevant. Generally, C-suite respondents assigned
lower relevance rankings for all risks examined.
CAE rankings skewed the overall cybersecurity rating higher, with 90%
rating it as highly or extremely relevant. However, board members put other
risks ahead of cybersecurity, rating culture, talent management, board
information, and organizational governance as more relevant. The C-suite
gave cybersecurity its second highest rating overall, but a lower percentage
rated it as highly or extremely relevant (73%).
Board and C-suite respondents rate their level of personal knowledge lowest when it comes to cybersecurity. This may
reflect continued uncertainty about a risk that is constantly evolving via technological advancement and related disruptive
innovation. CAEs continue to be outliers in rating themselves significantly higher in knowledge about this risk. The three
respondent groups were aligned and not particularly confident about organizational capability to manage cyber risks. On
average, fewer than half of respondents (46%) rated their organizations as very or extremely capable.
COVID-19’s influence on the relevance of these two risks is not surprising. The pandemic’s existential threat to organizations,
combined with the extreme measures taken to cope with the deadly virus, created new cyber vulnerabilities. For example,
the newly ubiquitous work-from-home environment introduced the monumental task of enforcing cyber-safety protocols for
entire offsite workforces. The perceived relevance and urgency of cyber-related risks was heightened further by changes to
operations, mitigating the vulnerabilities of popular communications software, managing customer and vendor relationships
strictly online, and internal audit’s inability to perform on-site visits.
“COVID definitely
heightens the risk...
showing financial
documents on
Zoom calls.”
–Board
Manufacturing/Utilities
Figure 1: ONRISK 2021 RISK RATINGS – ALL RESPONDENTS
08< BACK TO TOC
PRIORITIES FOR ORGANIZATIONAL
IMPROVEMENT
Among all respondents, talent management and disruptive innovation emerged among the most relevant risks. Yet,
C-suite respondents gave their lowest ratings to personal knowledge and organizational capabilities related to those risks.
This discrepancy reveals two areas ripe for organizational improvement. The following comparison offers a simple but powerful
insight into areas of potential risk management weakness. The X-axes in the graphics below (Figures 2 and 3) reflect relevance
assigned by C-suite respondents to each of the 11 identified key risks. The corresponding Y-axes reflect management’s rankings
on either their personal knowledge or the organization’s capabilities to manage each risk. The lower right quadrants of each
graph represent areas of high significance but low knowledge or capability. The appearance of talent management and disruptive
innovation in the lower right quadrants of both graphs (highlighted) visually depicts that these risk areas offer the greatest
opportunities for improvement.
Talent management, disruptive innovation emerge as clear areas for improvement.
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT: C-SUITE
Source:
OnRisk 2021
qualitative survey.
n = 30.
Source:
OnRisk 2021
qualitative survey.
n = 30.
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES: C-SUITE
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
09< BACK TO TOC
PRIORITIES FOR ORGANIZATIONAL IMPROVEMENT
continued
The timing of the surveys for the OnRisk 2021 report likely influenced the relevancy ratings for both talent
management and disruptive innovation. COVID-19 pressed management into making difficult decisions on talent
management. Similarly, management recognized and reacted to the potential impacts of continued disruptive
innovation at a time when many organizations were particularly vulnerable to competition and felt pressure to
quickly adopt new technology to support recovery. However, management’s acknowledged lack of confidence
in personal knowledge and organizational capabilities related to both areas cannot be dismissed.
TALENT MANAGEMENT
Identifying, hiring, and retaining top talent is a perennial and global challenge. Responding to COVID-19 added
significant complexity to this risk category as organizations scrambled to react to lockdowns, related supply-chain
and cash-flow disruptions, and an exodus of employees from traditional work sites. Pay cuts, furloughs, and workforce
reductions followed as the pandemic’s effects stretched from days to weeks to months.
This significant disruption to talent management, as well as its impact on morale, productivity, and workplace culture,
will have both short- and long-term implications for organizations. Three areas offer evidence of its potential disruption.
1. As organizations have quickly adopted new technologies to adapt to the pandemic, finding talent with new or
modified skills has been critical. Organizations that responded most nimbly and effectively to this challenge may be
more likely to emerge from the pandemic in a position of strength.
2. The work-from-home phenomenon has fundamentally changed how organizations recruit and manage talent.
This accelerated evolution in the employment contract has positive and negative implications. While having a
majority of the workforce operating in home settings posed significant immediate challenges in technology,
cybersecurity, and logistics, it all but eliminated the limitation of geographic considerations when identifying
and hiring the right talent. What’s more, generous work-from-home options may become standard if organizations
hope to compete for top talent in the future.
3. The “new normal” for employment has complicated the work-life balance equation, yielding multiple talent
management implications related to paid time off, productivity, morale, and workplace culture.
DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION
As organizations felt pressure to find new ways to operate effectively under pandemic-related restrictions, they accelerated
the adoption of new technologies and abandoned cautious “wait-and-see” approaches to innovation, at least in the short
term. This response bodes well for organizations that can make the leap successfully. However, the pandemic response
exposed a potentially significant weakness: practically nothing will slow the pace of technological innovation and its
related disruptions; yet, organizations appear ill-prepared to leverage or manage this risk.
Technology-driven assaults have dismantled legacy business models and built some of the 21st century’s most recogniz-
able brands — Uber, Amazon, Apple, Netflix. What’s more, the greatest acceleration of disruption will likely come from
combining powerful technological advances, such as SpaceX’s Starlink project, which promises to bring low-cost internet
services to remote areas of the world through a fleet of orbiting communication satellites. Organizations that embrace
new technology and become leading-edge trailblazers will be best positioned to succeed. This will require 21st century
management that not only understands and leverages disruptive innovation, but also nurtures it.
10< BACK TO TOC
MANAGEMENT NOT ALIGNED
ON RISK RELEVANCE
The introduction of relevance in OnRisk 2021 as a measure of overall risk management provides important
insights into governance. Overall, there is strong alignment among all three risk management players on personal
knowledge and organizational capabilities relative to the 11 key risks examined in the report. However, the average
ratings for how relevant the risks are to organizations were better aligned between boards and CAEs (75% and 74%,
respectively), than management’s rating (57%) (Figure 4).
A detailed breakdown of relevance ratings further evidences that the board assigns more relevance to each risk than
management does. A closer look also reveals which risks were most relevant to each group (Figure 5). For example,
while talent management and culture appeared to be highly relevant to both the C-suite and the board, the board’s
relevance score exceeded that of management by about 20 points for each. Also, both groups rated business
continuity and crisis management with high relevance, but boards rated the risk about 25 points higher than
management did. The two groups were most closely aligned on the relevance of cybersecurity risk. However, the risk
clearly topped the relevance list for C-suite respondents, while it was the sixth most relevant risk for board members.
AVERAGE RATINGS BY
RESPONDENT GROUP
Figure 4:
ORGANIZATIONAL RELEVANCE
Figure 5:
Source:
OnRisk 2021
qualitative survey.
n = 90.
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey. n = 90.
11< BACK TO TOC
GREATER OVERALL ALIGNMENT
ON CAPABILITY
Perceptions on organizational capability to manage risks are more aligned compared to 2019, primarily due to lower
rankings by boards this year in several risk areas (Figure 6), including talent management, board information, and data
governance (previously data ethics, data protection, and data and new technology). This does not necessarily signal loss
of confidence, but more likely a more realistic understanding of these risk areas. It is likely the pandemic prompted greater
communication and fresh assessment of risks and capabilities. This is supported by board members rating their personal
knowledge of risks on average higher this year compared to 2019.
Boards no longer outliers on ability to manage risks.
ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITY
Figure 6:
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey. n = 60.
12< BACK TO TOC
MISALIGNMENT
ON ORGANIZATIONAL
GOVERNANCE RISK
Management sees organizational governance risk substantially differently than do boards. C-suite respondents
ranked their personal knowledge of the risk and the organization’s ability to manage it slightly higher than boards did but
ranked the risk much less relevant (Figure 7). This ranking pattern is illuminating.
Governance encompasses all aspects of how an organization is directed and managed, and it is commonly viewed as a
useful barometer of management performance. Indeed, the strength of an organization’s overall governance drives its
ability to achieve its objectives.
The gap between the relevance rankings by management and the board should not be easily dismissed. Slightly more
than 5 in 10 C-suite respondents ranked the relevance of organizational governance risk as highly or extremely relevant.
In contrast, about 8 in 10 board respondents ranked it at those levels. This gap, about 25 points, signals a disconnect.
This gap combined with management’s higher ranking on personal knowledge and organizational capabilities reflect that
management is either overconfident when it comes to organizational governance risk or simply unaware of the level of
concern from board members in this area.
C-suite respondents rated their personal knowledge and organizational capabilities to manage organizational
governance risk higher than the board and internal audit. They also rated the relevance lower than both risk
management partners.
Management ranks knowledge and capability higher, relevance lower than do boards.
ORGANIZATIONAL GOVERNANCE
Figure 7:
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey. n = 60.
13< BACK TO TOC
14< BACK TO TOC
COVID-19’S IMPACT ON
RISK MANAGEMENT
COVID-19 has been an unexpected, unwelcomed, and unstoppable
test of risk management. Like no other event in recent memory, the
pandemic is compelling organizations to examine risk management
practices and performance in the struggle to excel, remain competitive,
or simply keep the doors open.
What’s more, no organization is being spared, and no two organizations
are impacted in the same way. COVID-19 creates unique risk management
challenges and opportunities for organizations large and small, public and
private, established and start-up. It exposes the strengths and weaknesses of
each organization’s risk management and governance, as well as their agility
and flexibility to manage through crisis. It stimulates leaders to imagine
what success and competition will look like in a post-COVID-19 business
environment that promises to be dramatically different.
Indeed, the pandemic’s impact is evident in all aspects of our existence, from
how it blurs the line between work and home to how it continues to redefine
social interaction. Video chat platforms are the new boardroom and happy
hour bistro. Face masks are killing lipstick sales but booming as fashion
accessories. Amazon, UPS, and FedEx trucks invade neighborhoods as the
2020 version of ice cream trucks.
Data from the OnRisk 2021 surveys affirms some anticipated pandemic
impacts, such as organizations focusing more on short-term, operational
risks. It also tells of improved risk awareness and alignment among risk
management players. But the most impactful revelation may be emerging
signs of accelerating adoption of new technologies, a movement that
promises to fundamentally change how work gets done. One C-suite
respondent described this acceleration as “advancing the technology
scale a few years in just a few months.”
The short- and long-term impacts of this race to embrace disruptive
innovation will be diverse and difficult to predict as implementation of
technology can be fickle and frustrating even under the best circumstances.
Transforming business processes, culture, and customer experiences at warp
speed to meet the demands of a post-COVID-19 world will invariably lead
to as many disastrous mistakes as happy accidents. It will almost certainly
lead to new, as yet unforeseen risks, which organizations must be
prepared to manage.
OnRisk 2021 data and additional research by The IIA bear out another moral
from the pandemic. Organizations that invested in building strong internal
relationships and technology pre-COVID-19 were best able to withstand
the pandemic’s challenges and uncertainties. This lesson is critical to
organizations as they emerge from COVID-19’s long shadow. Those that can
successfully build and nurture alignment while advancing a clearly defined
digital agenda will be best positioned to thrive in the pandemic’s aftermath.
“It’s amazing how [disruptive
innovation] is driven by this
virus. We’re advancing the
technology scale a few years
in just a few months. Fueled
disruptive innovation will
impact virtually every
business.”
– C-suite, Insurance
15< BACK TO TOC
RISK ASSURANCE AND THE
THREE LINES MODEL
The Three Lines Model (Figure 8) is designed to help organizations identify structures and processes that facilitate
strong governance and risk management. The new model, an update of the Three Lines of Defense, published by
The IIA in July 2020, provides particular clarity to questions of assurance. The principles-based model identifies
appropriate structures, processes, and roles that enable accountability from the governing body, actions (including
managing risk) from management to achieve organizational objectives, and assurance from an independent and
objective internal audit function.
In clearly delineating roles to accomplish accountability, actions, and assurance, the model offers important
guidance on assurance and the value of “improvement through rigorous inquiry and insightful communication”
that an independent internal audit function provides.
Yet data from both qualitative and quantitative OnRisk 2021 surveys suggest that truly independent assurance is
often lacking, and the sources of assurance are typically inconsistent. Leaders generally feel the level of assurance
they are getting is satisfactory, regardless of where it comes from. However, this laissez-faire approach fails to
address the value of an independent assurance assessment.
KEY:
Accountability, reporting
Delegation, direction,
resources, oversight
Alignment, communication
coordination, collaboration
Governing body roles: integrity, leadership and transparency
The IIA’s Three Lines Model
E
XTE
R
N
A
L A
S
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
P
R
O
VID
E
R
S
First line roles:
Provision of
products/services
to clients;
managing risk
Second line roles:
Expertise, support,
monitoring and
challenge on
risk-related matters
Third line roles:
Independent and
objective assurance
and advice on all
matters related to
the achievement
of objectives
GOVERNING BODY
Accountability to stakeholders for organizational oversight
MANAGEMENT
Actions (including managing risk) to achieve
organizational objectives
INTERNAL AUDIT
Independent assurance
Copyright © 2020 by The Institute
of Internal Auditors, Inc. All rights
reserved.
Figure 8:
16< BACK TO TOC
Internal audit coverage of key risks is considerable, but far from complete. CAEs report
they provide assurance for each key risk examined in OnRisk 2021, but the percentage of
those that do drops dramatically beyond cybersecurity, third party, business continuity and
crisis management, and data governance (Figure 9). CAEs also report minimal assurance
services in the areas of economic and political volatility and disruptive innovation, both of
which were rated as higher in relevance by the group.
What’s more, when compared to risk relevance rankings by the C-suite, internal audit
provides minimal assurance on two of the C-suite’s top three risks (see Figure 5 on page 11).
This incomplete coverage may be due to limitations on resources, skills, or scope of work.
Yet another factor influencing assurance is the use of internal audit as a consulting service. Organizations rely increasingly
on internal audit’s enterprisewide knowledge and perspectives on risk to provide advisory services. Unless sufficiently
resourced, this practice can shift assets away from traditional assurance services. OnRisk 2021 respondents offered a variety of
perspectives on internal audit’s role within the organization. Some board and management respondents retain archaic views of
internal auditors as accountants who provide little more than “tick-the-box” services or “police” who cannot be trusted as true
business partners. Others point to organizational culture and weak internal audit leadership as contributing factors.
• Ensure internal audit’s scope of work reflects the organization’s assurance needs.
Internal auditors must do more than just check boxes.
• Ensure internal audit reports directly to the board to create more transparency
and improve information sharing.
• Ensure the audit team is well rounded and staffed with knowledgeable, confident,
and assertive practitioners.
• Focus on obtaining high-quality assurance services from internal audit,
not just consulting services.
• Clarify roles for internal and external auditors.
“Generally speaking,
I’d say it’s enough.
We haven’t had
any major issues
with it…so far,
so good.”
– C-suite, Finance
ASSURANCE INSIGHTS
Q7. Which of the following risks do you provide or anticipate
providing assurance on in 2020 and/or 2021?
C-suite respondents rated talent
management and culture among
their top 3 risks.
Figure 9:
TIPS ON ASSURANCE
OnRisk 2021 respondents offered a number of recommendations to improve assurance services and processes.
Figure 10:
“ I’ve seen a big difference
in companies in terms of
the role of IA. In some
cases, they’re a policeman,
people don’t really like
them. In other cases they’re
a real business partner to
improve controls and seen
as a resource for
well-trained employees.”
– Board, Retail/Grocery
Source: OnRisk 2021 quantitative, n = 348., OnRisk 2021 qualitative, n = 30.
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey. n = 90.
17< BACK TO TOC
18< BACK TO TOC
RISKS
THE
Managing risk is the art of building value by understanding what can be gained or lost
from action or inaction, the foreseen or the unforeseen, the planned or the unplanned.
Those who know what they don’t know can ask questions. Those who don’t know what
they don’t know are paralyzed. This section examines key observations related to individual
risks; recommends actions to be taken by the board, management, and CAE to enhance risk
management efforts; and identifies the developmental stage of each risk. More information
about the methodology that supports these observations and the definitions that determine
the stages of risk can be found in the appendices.
19< BACK TO TOC
20
THE RISKS
CYBERSECURITY
Analysis:
More members of management see cybersecurity
as being highly relevant to their organizations than
any other key risk. However, knowledge of this
highly impactful risk remains particularly low among
members of both the board and management.
This low level of knowledge likely stems from the
ever-evolving nature of cyber threats. All parties align
in perceiving organizational capability to be quite low,
especially when compared to the relevance of the risk.
Actions:
C-suite: Dedicate necessary internal and/or external resources to consistently evaluate emerging
cyber threats, get complete perspectives on current status, and provide transparent and thorough
updates to the board.
Board: Ensure that appropriate time is allocated in meeting agendas for management, internal
audit, and potentially outside subject matter experts to educate members of the board with a
realistic perspective on emerging cyber threats, organizational efforts, and existing vulnerabilities.
CAE: Identify opportunities to educate management and the board on emerging cyber risks and
perform routine evaluations of all risk management functions related to cybersecurity.
R E L E VA N C E
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAE
Moved from Recognize to Develop
RISK STAGE
< BACK TO TOC
21< BACK TO TOC
22
THIRD PARTY
Analysis:
CAEs and members of the C-suite are in agreement
about organizational capability to manage third-party
risk. However, board members are more confident.
Surprisingly, fewer C-suite respondents than board
members or CAEs consider third-party risks to be
highly relevant.
Actions:
C-suite: Management should ensure that a comprehensive list of third-party arrangements is
maintained and that a risk-based approach is developed and followed to procure and monitor
third-party relationships.
Board: Evaluate internal audit plans to ensure that adequate resources are allocated to
third-party risks. Set expectations that management periodically communicates the status of key
third-party relationships.
CAE: Periodically and regularly evaluate management processes related to establishing and
monitoring third-party relationships. Consider including engagements to review third-party
relationships that are operationally or strategically important to the organization.
R E L E VA N C E
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAE
RISK STAGE
Remained in Explore
< BACK TO TOC
THE RISKS
BOARD
INFORMATION
Analysis:
All parties are aligned regarding organizational
capability to manage risks related to the quality of
information provided to boards. Not surprisingly,
board members rate themselves as more
knowledgeable about this risk category.
Actions:
C-suite: Enhance communication to ensure transparent, complete, and timely information is
provided to the board, particularly regarding key risks.
Board: Set expectations with management and CAEs about the level of information to be provided.
Be willing to communicate if excessive amounts of information overwhelm clear messaging. Seek
independent assurance related to the quality of information provided.
CAE: Evaluate information provided to the board, noting inconsistencies or omissions. Inquire
with board members about the quality of information being provided, and be willing to contribute
an objective assessment.
RISK STAGE
R E L E VA N C E
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAE
Moved from Develop to Maintain
THE RISKS
23< BACK TO TOC
SUSTAINABILITY
Analysis:
All parties are reasonably well aligned with regard
to organizations’ capability to manage environmental,
social, and governance risks, which collectively
comprise sustainability. However, confidence is fairly
low. CAEs rate their personal knowledge about this
increasingly relevant risk category as very low.
Actions:
C-suite: Recognize sustainability’s growing importance to organizational stakeholders, including
customers, employees, and investors. Identify opportunities to enhance long-term shareholder
value by embracing sustainability leadership as a strategic opportunity.
Board: Pressure management to build sustainability into strategic plans. Set expectations of
internal auditors to provide assurance related to voluntary or required sustainability reporting.
CAE: Educate internal audit teams about emerging risks related to sustainability and how
sustainability fits into organizations’ operational and strategic priorities.
R E L E VA N C E
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAE
RISK STAGE
Moved from Explore to Develop
THE RISKS
24< BACK TO TOC
25< BACK TO TOC
26
DISRUPTIVE
INNOVATION
Analysis:
All risk management roles believe that disruptive
innovation is one of the most relevant risks, likely
owing to changes in the global economy, exacerbated
by the global pandemic. However significant
misalignment exists regarding personal knowledge
and organizational capability. Boards and CAEs are
significantly more confident than management in
organizations’ capabilities to be appropriately
proactive and/or reactive to disruptive innovation.
Board members also perceive themselves to be
significantly more knowledgeable about risks related
to disruptive innovation.
Actions:
C-suite: Leverage the knowledge of board members to identify ways to innovate and identify
competitors’ attempts to disrupt business as usual.
Board: Share with the organization any guidance and wisdom accumulated through outside
and diverse experiences. Set expectations for management to provide proactive strategies that
leverage innovation for competitive advantage and to be prepared to react timely to disruption.
CAE: Ensure a thorough understanding of strategic risks and opportunities to leverage innovation
to be disruptive and identify potential risks that could inhibit organizations’ strategies to innovate
and disrupt.
R E L E VA N C E
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAE
RISK STAGE
New to OnRisk
< BACK TO TOC
THE RISKS
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL
VOLATILITY
Analysis:
All parties are aligned regarding the capability
of organizations to manage economic and political
volatility, but they diverge on levels of personal
knowledge about managing external volatility.
Further, board members and CAEs are aligned on
how relevant this risk is to organizations, but far
fewer in management see this as a highly
relevant risk.
Actions:
C-suite: Build contingencies and scenario plans for dealing with potential outcomes.
Communicate with the board about the potential upsides and downsides of political changes
and economic swings.
Board: Engage management and internal auditors in discussions regarding potential economic
and political outcomes and inquire about the readiness of organizations to be flexible.
CAE: In order to properly assess organizational capabilities to manage this risk, internal auditors
must better educate themselves on how economic and political uncertainties may affect the
likelihood of achieving organizational objectives.
R E L E VA N C E
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAE
RISK STAGE
New to OnRisk
THE RISKS
27< BACK TO TOC
28
ORGANIZATIONAL
GOVERNANCE
Analysis:
For this mature risk, there is very strong alignment
among all stakeholders regarding individual
knowledge and organizational capability. However,
while board members and CAEs are well aligned
on the relevance of this risk, fewer members of the
C-suite see it as highly relevant to organizational
ability to achieve objectives.
Actions:
C-suite: Align with the board on the relevance of organizational governance and continue
to maintain healthy dialogue around risk management and all three key governance roles.
Board: Ensure that senior management understands and agrees upon organizational
governance as a priority for achieving organizational objectives.
CAE: Maintain a consistent line of communication with board members to ensure their
needs are being met.
R E L E VA N C E
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAE
RISK STAGE
New to OnRisk
< BACK TO TOC
THE RISKS
DATA
GOVERNANCE
Analysis:
There is very strong alignment among all
stakeholders regarding organizational capability and
reasonable alignment regarding the relevance of this
risk to achieving organizational objectives. However,
board members view their personal knowledge about
the governance over data significantly lower than do
either management or CAEs, perhaps because they
perceive this governance to be related to the
technical aspects of data.
Actions:
C-suite: Drive leading practices in data governance that ensure compliance with laws and
regulations as well as progress toward meeting strategic objectives.
Board: Expect education on key aspects of data governance and request briefings from
management and internal audit on how the organization strategically manages data.
CAE: Provide training to board members on the key aspects of data governance and provide
assurance that management practices are leading edge.
R E L E VA N C E
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAE
RISK STAGE
New to OnRisk
THE RISKS
29< BACK TO TOC
30< BACK TO TOC
TALENT
MANAGEMENT
Analysis:
Management and the board agree on organizational
capability to address risks related to talent management.
However, board members perceive themselves as having
greater knowledge and view this risk as having more
relevance than do members of management.
Actions:
C-suite: Focus on evolving the competencies that are most in demand, and develop strategies for
ensuring that the organization has and will continue to have the talent to fill those competencies
through effective succession planning, upskilling strategies, and recruitment.
Board: Continue to ensure that management is committed to managing talent at all levels
of the organization, and set expectations for consistent briefings on talent-related processes
and initiatives.
CAE: Consider engagements focused on providing assurance to stakeholders around talent
management processes, and maintain open lines of communication with the board regarding
its perspectives of key areas of talent focus.
R E L E VA N C E
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAE
RISK STAGE
Moved from Develop to Explore
THE RISKS
31< BACK TO TOC
CULTURE
Analysis:
Most of the key players in risk management
see culture as highly relevant to organizational
success and are relatively confident in their personal
knowledge of the topic. However, a significant
gap exists with regard to how many feel that their
organizations are highly capable of managing this
critical risk. Board members, who are inherently more
removed from the working culture of the organization,
have higher confidence overall than do management
respondents and CAEs.
Actions:
C-suite: Act in a manner that promotes an effective culture. Establish consistent processes to
gauge the culture and communicate those perceptions to the board timely.
Board: Review assessments of organizational culture with the internal audit function and
management. Ensure that executive goals and incentives are aligned with the promotion of
an effective organizational culture.
CAE: Consider performing engagements that provide an objective assessment of organizational
culture. Provide assurance that management’s actions are aligned with leading practices related
to organizational culture.
R E L E VA N C E
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAE
RISK STAGE
Moved from Maintain to Develop
THE RISKS
32< BACK TO TOC
BUSINESS CONTINUITY AND
CRISIS MANAGEMENT
Analysis:
Not surprisingly given the events of 2020,
nearly all board members and CAEs see this risk as
highly relevant to organizations. Ironically, a lower
percentage of management respondents see this
risk as highly relevant and a significantly lower
percentage of management respondents are
confident in their organizations’ capabilities to
manage this key risk.
Actions:
All: Leverage experiences of the global pandemic to identify organizational strengths
and opportunities for improvement, and work collaboratively to implement improvements
where necessary.
R E L E VA N C E
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAE
RISK STAGE
Moved from Explore to Develop
THE RISKS
33< BACK TO TOC
APPENDICES
34< BACK TO TOC
METHODOLOGY
Qualitative and quantitative surveys
The OnRisk 2021 report continues The IIA’s
groundbreaking approach of collecting stakeholder
perspectives on risk and risk management in support of
good governance and achieving organizational success. The
combination of quantitative and qualitative research provides
a robust look at the top risks facing organizations in 2021. It
allows for both objective data analysis and subjective insights
based on responses from risk management leaders.
The addition of relevance ratings for each of the 11 key risks
provides additional comparative information about how
risks are leveraged and managed. While the qualitative and
quantitative surveys were limited to organizations based in
North America, many of them have global footprints.
The quantitative survey covers top risks as viewed by 348
North American internal audit leaders, primarily CAEs.
The comprehensive survey also addressed organizational
approaches to risk management, including where internal
audit provides assurance and focuses its efforts.
The qualitative survey is based on a total of 90 in-depth interviews with professionals in North American boardrooms,
C-suites, and internal audit functions. The respondents came from 90 different organizations. As part of the interviews,
respondents were asked to evaluate 11 key risks on three scales: their personal awareness and knowledge of each risk,
their perception of their organization’s capability to address each risk, and their views of the relevance of each risk to
their organization. The ratings were based on a seven-point Likert Scale, with “Not at all knowledgeable,” “Extremely
incapable,” and “Not at all relevant” being the lowest ratings (1) and “Extremely knowledgeable,” “Extremely capable,”
and “Extremely relevant” being the highest ratings (7).
The combined responses for the knowledge and capability ratings were then used to plot the position of each respondent
group for each risk, where the X axis delineates perceived organizational capability, and the Y axis delineates personal
knowledge of the risk (Figure 11). The plot points were determined by the percentage of respondents who answered a 6
or 7 on the 7-point scale, representing high confidence in personal knowledge and/or organizational capability relating to
the risk under consideration. The triangle created by connecting each plot point graphically depicts the alignment among
the three respondent groups for each risk.
New this year are the relevance ratings from each respondent group, which are delineated on a single horizontal
axis for each risk.
Figure 11: Personal Knowledge/Organizational Capability Graph
35< BACK TO TOC
36
HOW TO USE THIS
REPORT
Explanation of graphics
Based on in-depth interviews with 90 professionals, the
knowledge and capabilities of each of the three respondent
groups were measured and plotted for each risk. Simple
quadrant mapping provides an effective and consistent tool
to reflect those views.
The four quadrants of the graph correspond to the magnitude
of each of the two measures. For example, responses with high
averages for knowledge and capability would be plotted in the top
right quadrant. Conversely, responses averaging low for knowledge
and capability would be plotted in the lower left quadrant. As
described in the previous section, the averages are determined
based on the percentage of respondents who provided a top-two
rating for the knowledge or capability characteristics.
Position plotting
Positions for each of the three respondent groups are plotted
on the quadrant map not only to identify the relative knowledge
and capability on each risk, but also to graphically illustrate any
misalignment among the groups that may exist. The resulting
triangles — referred to simply as alignment triangles in this report
— provide a strong indicator of how well a risk is understood and
managed collectively. The size, shape, and location of each
triangle also provides insights on what is driving any misalign-
ment (SEE RELATED SIDEBAR).
New relevance graphic
Each respondent group’s rating on relevance is plotted along
a single axis, providing a clear depiction of variations in the
relevance rankings by board members, management, and CAEs.
Alignment Triangles:
What do they mean?
The alignment triangles created by plotting each
respondent group’s perspectives on each risk
offer insights into how the risk is currently being
managed. The shape of each triangle can provide
valuable information, as well.
SHORT AND NARROW
Triangles with this basic shape suggest strong alignment
on what each group knows about a risk, but significant
disagreement by one respondent group about the
organization’s capability for addressing the risk.
TALL AND NARROW
Conversely, triangles with this basic shape
suggest significant range of knowledge among
respondent groups, but strong alignment on
their views on organizational capability.
SHORT AND BROAD
This basic shape suggests disagreement by more
than one respondent group, with the most significant
disagreement relating to the organization’s capability
to address the risk.
TALL AND BROAD
This basic shape suggests
misalignment by more than one
respondent group, with significant
disagreement on both knowledge
and capability.
SMALL AND SYMMETRICAL
This shape suggests strong alignment of all three
respondent groups on knowledge and capability.
Depending on the location of the triangle, this could
reflect a risk that is well understood and managed
(top right quadrant) or one that is not well
understood or managed (lower left quadrant).
C-SUITE
BOARD
CAEs
Figure 13: RELEVANCE GRAPH
Figure 12:
QUADRANT GRAPH
< BACK TO TOC
LEVERAGING THE
METHODOLOGY
Readers of OnRisk 2021 should review and analyze the data for each of the 11 key
risks addressed in this report and are encouraged to conduct a similar analysis among
their own organizations’ boards, management, and internal audit functions.
Comments from qualitative interview participants are interspersed throughout
OnRisk 2021 to offer a glimpse into not just what they think of each risk, but how they
think about them. While these comments provide some insights, it is vital for every
organization to have similar discussions about how each player in the risk management
process understands risk, the organization’s capability to manage risk, and the
relevance of individual risks to the organization’s efforts to set and achieve goals.
A critical step in such an analysis is to undertake a clear-eyed examination of how
those charged with risk management understand and execute their roles. The IIA’s
recently published Three Lines Model provides additional guidance for understanding
the essentials of governance and the roles that support those essentials:
• Accountability — by the governing body (board) to stakeholders for oversight.
• Actions (including managing risk) — by management to achieve
organizational objectives.
• Assurance and advice — by an independent internal audit function to provide
insight, confidence, and encouragement for continuous improvement.
As noted earlier in this report, the COVID-19 pandemic has impelled organizations
toward improved communications, ongoing risk assessments, and closer alignment on
key risks. When combined with a strong understanding of roles, this new collaboration
and communication create ideal conditions for successful risk management
and governance.
37< BACK TO TOC
38
THE STAGES OF
RISK
The risks discussed in this report fall into one of four stages as they relate
to the potential impact on organizations and what actions organizations should
be taking to address them — recognize, explore, develop, and maintain.
The Risk Stages Model (Figure 14) reflects how risk management evolves on
the same scale as two of the risk rankings — knowledge and capability.
Additionally, the relevance of each risk should be understood as unique
to each organization. Where each risk ranks in relevance depends on
various factors including the organization’s size, industry, and type as well
as competition, maturity, supply chain, liquidity, and other factors. As noted
earlier, there are likely risks not included in this analysis that have particular
relevance to some organizations, depending on their specific circumstances.
Because of this unique aspect, relevance is not depicted in the Risk
Stages Model.
Stages of Risk Explanation
RECOGNIZE
A risk is perceived
as emerging and
knowledge of the risk
among stakeholders is low.
Risk response strategies
are not implemented or
are not assumed to be
effectively designed given
the low understanding
of the underlying risk.
Monitoring processes have
not been contemplated.
Inherent risk levels are not
well understood.
Knowledge – Low
Capability – Low
EXPLORE
Knowledge of the risk
is growing among some
stakeholders but not all.
The risk may be perceived
as emerging or dynamic.
Risk response strategies
have been contemplated
but not fully implemented.
Monitoring processes have
not been contemplated
or are not implemented.
Inherent risk levels are
generally understood.
Knowledge – Mid to High
Capability – Low
DEVELOP
Risk knowledge is high,
at least with management
teams. Risk response
strategies may be
developed or in process
of being implemented.
Monitoring processes
may be in contemplation
but are not likely to have
been fully implemented.
Residual risk is generally
understood.
Knowledge – Low to High
Capability – Mid to High
MAINTAIN
Risk is well understood by
all relevant stakeholders
and is not perceived to
be changing significantly.
Risk response strategies
have been developed and
implemented, consistent
with the perceived
relevance of the risk.
Monitoring processes
are utilized to ensure risk
response strategies are
operating effectively as
designed. Residual risk
levels are understood
and believed to be at an
acceptable level for the
organization.
Knowledge – High
Capability – High
Figure 14:
RISK STAGES MODEL
Risk stages are Recognize (r), Explore (e), Develop (d), Maintain (m).
< BACK TO TOC
Figure 1 – OnRisk 2021 Risk Ratings – All Respondents
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey. Questions: How knowledgeable are you about each of the
following risks? How capable is your organization when it comes to handling each of the following
risks? How relevant are each of the following risks to your organization? Combined percentage for
scores of 6 or 7, with 7 being the highest level. n = 90
Figure 2 – Areas For Improvement: C-suite
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey: Questions: How capable is your organization when it
comes to handling each of the following risks? How relevant are each of the following risks to your
organization? Combined percentage for scores of 6 or 7, with 7 being the highest level. n = 30
Figure 3 – Learning Opportunities: C-suite
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey: How knowledgeable are you about each of the following
risks? How relevant are each of the following risks to your organization? Combined percentage for
scores of 6 or 7, with 7 being the highest level. n = 30
Figure 4 – Average Rating By Respondent Group
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey: Questions: How knowledgeable are you about each of the
following risks? How capable is your organization when it comes to handling each of the following
risks? How relevant are each of the following risks to your organization? Combined percentage for
scores of 6 or 7, with 7 being the highest level. n = 90
Figure 5 – Organizational Relevance
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey: Question: How relevant are each of the following risks to
your organization? Combined percentage for scores of 6 or 7, with 7 being the highest level. n = 90
Figure 6 – Organizational Capability
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey: Question: How capable is your organization when it comes
to handling each of the following risks? Combined percentage for scores of 6 or 7, with 7 being the
highest level. n = 60
Figure 7 – Organizational Governance
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey. Questions: How knowledgeable are you about each of the
following risks? How capable is your organization when it comes to handling each of the following
risks? How relevant are each of the following risks to your organization? Combined percentage for
scores of 6 or 7, with 7 being the highest level. n = 60
Figure 8 – The IIA’s Three Lines Model
Source: The Institute of Internal Auditors
Figure 9 – Assurance Insights
Source: OnRisk 2021 quantitative survey: Q7. Which of the following risks do you provide or
anticipate providing assurance on in 2020 and/or 2021? n = 348. OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey
C-suite respondents: How relevant are each of the following risks to your organization? Combined
percentage for scores of 6 or 7, with 7 being the highest level. n = 30.
Figure 10 – Tips On Assurance
Source: OnRisk 2021 qualitative survey. Q 11. Where do you get your assurance on the
effectiveness of risk management? n = 90
Figure 11 – Personal Knowledge/Organizational Capability Graph
Source: The Institute of Internal Auditors
Figure 12: Quadrant Graph
Source: The Institute of Internal Auditors
Figure 13: Relevance Graph
Source: The Institute of Internal Auditors
Figure 14: Risk Stages Model
Source: The Institute of Internal Auditors
FIGURES
39< BACK TO TOC
