Skip to main content

RSK-05.1: Risk Tolerance

RSK 9 — Critical Identify

Mechanisms exist to define organizational risk tolerance, the specified range of acceptable results.

Renumbered: Formerly RSK-01.3 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization define organizational risk tolerance, the specified range of acceptable results?

General (11)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC3.1-POF1 CC3.1-POF2 CC3.1-POF15 CC3.2 CC3.2-POF8
IEC 62443-2-1 2024 ORG 2.1
ISO 27701 2025 6.1.2(a)(1)
ISO 31000 2018 5.4.2 6.3.4
ISO 31010 2009 4.3.3
NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 GOVERN 1.3 MAP 1.5 MAP 3.2
NIST 800-39 TASK 1-3
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) GV.RM GV.RM-02 GV.RR-01
NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 GV.RM-P2
SWIFT CSF 2025 7.4A
UL 2900-1 2017 12.1(f)
US (3)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 17 CFR 229.106(b)(1) 17 CFR 229.106(b)(1)(i)
USA Federal FCA CRM 2023 609.930(a)
USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 500.9(b)(1)
EMEA (6)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA CHE FINMA Circular 2023/1 IV.A-23 IV.A-38 V-101 V-103
EMEA Germany C5 2026 OIS-07.01B.3 OIS-09.03B
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 3.1(a) Article 27.2(h)(vi)
EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 3.3.1.10
EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 2.1.2(b)
EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 3.2.1.11
APAC (7)
Americas (2)

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 — Well Defined

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with RSK domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to define organizational risk tolerance, the specified range of acceptable results.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Assessment Objectives

  1. RSK-05.1_A01 an executive steering committee, or advisory board, defines the organization's risk tolerance.

Evidence Requirements

E-RSK-07 Risk Tolerance

Documented evidence the organization has a defined risk tolerance.

Risk Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Risk Management Program (RMP)
  • Defined risk tolerance

Small

  • Risk Management Program (RMP)
  • Defined risk tolerance

Medium

  • Risk Management Program (RMP)
  • Defined risk tolerance

Large

  • Risk Management Program (RMP)
  • Defined risk tolerance

Enterprise

  • Risk Management Program (RMP)
  • Defined risk tolerance

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.