Pearson CRISC New Attempt

Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in order to achieve its objectives. Risk appetite reflects the organization’s risk attitude and its willingness to take on risk in specific scenarios. Risk appetite is usually expressed in a qualitative statement approved by the board of directors1.

Risk capacity is the maximum amount of risk that an organization can responsibly take on without jeopardizing its financial stability or other key objectives. Risk capacity is determined by objective factors like income, assets, liabilities, debts, insurance coverage, dependents, and time horizon. Risk capacity is usually expressed in a quantitative measure that sets the limit of how much risk the organization can handle2.

Prudent business practice requires that risk appetite not exceed risk capacity, because this would mean that the organization is taking on more risk than it can afford or sustain. If the risk appetiteis higher than the risk capacity, the organization may face serious consequences such as insolvency, bankruptcy, reputational damage, legal liability, or regulatory sanctions. Therefore, the organization should align its risk appetite with its risk capacity, and ensure that its risk exposure is within its risk tolerance3.

The other options are not correct. Inherent risk is the level of risk that exists in the absence of controls or mitigations. It is the natural level of risk inherent in a process or activity. Residual risk is the level of riskthat remains after the controls or mitigations have been applied. It is the remaining risk after the risk response has been implemented. Risk tolerance is the acceptable variation in the outcomes related to specific objectives or risks. It is the range of risk exposure that the organization is prepared to accept4. None of these concepts are directly comparable torisk appetite, and none of them represent the limit of how much risk the organization can take on. References =

Risk Appetite vs. Risk Tolerance: What is the Difference? - ISACA

What Is the Difference Between Risk Tolerance and Risk Capacity? - Investopedia

Risk Management: Understanding Risk Capacity, Appetite, and Tolerance - Consulting Edge

[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

The most important thing for mitigating ethical risk when establishing accountability for control ownership is to ensure that the performance metrics balance business goals with risk appetite. Performance metrics are the measures that evaluate the achievement of the objectives or the performance of the processes or controls. Business goals are the desired or expected outcomes or results of the business activities or processes. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing and able to take. Ethical risk is the risk that arises from the violation or breach of the ethical principles or standards of the organization or the profession. To mitigate ethical risk, the performance metrics should balance business goals with risk appetite, meaning that they should not encourage or reward excessive or inappropriate risk-taking or unethical behavior, but rather promote and support responsible and ethical risk management and decision making. The other options are not as important as ensuring performance metrics balance business goals with risk appetite, as they are related to the documentation, communication, or monitoring of the processes or controls, not the evaluation or alignment of the performance metrics. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.2: Key Performance Indicators, page 183.

According to the Gaining the competitive edge – measuring and assessing an organization’s risk culture article, risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite should be aligned with the organization’s strategy, goals, and values, and should reflect the organization’s risk culture and capabilities. One of the main considerations when validating an organization’s risk appetite is the capacity to withstand loss, which is the ability of the organization to absorb the impact of adverse events without jeopardizing its viability or reputation. The capacity to withstand loss depends on various factors, such as the financial strength, the operational resilience, the governance structure, and the stakeholder expectations of the organization. By assessing the capacity to withstand loss, the organization can determine if its risk appetite is realistic and appropriate, or if it needs to be adjusted to match its risk profile and environment. References = Gaining the competitive edge – measuring and assessing an organization’s risk culture

The most concerning issue when reviewing the results of an independent control assessment to determine the effectiveness of a vendor’s control environment is that the controls had recurring noncompliance. This indicates that the vendor’s controls are not operating as intended or designed, and that the vendor is not taking corrective actions to address the control deficiencies. This can increase the risk exposure and liability for the organization that outsources the service or function to the vendor. The report being provideddirectly from the vendor, the risk associated with multiple control gaps being accepted, and the control owners disagreeing with the auditor’s recommendations are other possible issues, but they are not as critical as the recurring noncompliance. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 11; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 144.