RSK-05.3: Risk Appetite
Mechanisms exist to define organizational risk appetite, the degree of uncertainty the organization is willing to accept in anticipation of a reward.
Renumbered: Formerly RSK-01.5 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization define organizational risk appetite, the degree of uncertainty the organization is willing to accept in anticipation of a reward?
General (8)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC3.1-POF1 CC3.1-POF2 CC3.1-POF15 CC3.2-POF8 |
| ISO 27701 2025 | 6.1.2(a)(1) |
| ISO 31000 2018 | 5.4.2 6.3.4 |
| ISO 31010 2009 | 4.3.3 |
| NIST 800-39 | TASK 1-4 |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | GV.RM GV.RM-02 GV.RR-01 |
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | GV.RM-P3 |
| SWIFT CSF 2025 | 7.4A |
US (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal CERT RMM 1.2 | RISK:SG2 RISK:SG2.SP1 |
| 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 (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 | Article 28.2(a) Article 31.1(a) |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.3.1.10 3.3.1.13(a) |
| EMEA EU NIS2 Annex 2024 | 2.1.2(b) |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 20/750 2020 | 3.3.1-10 3.3.1-13.a |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 22/806 2022 | 34.d |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 1-4-5 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 | 3.2.1.11 |
APAC (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 2023 | 16(b) |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF 2024 | GV.RM.S4 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 4.4.7.1 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 8.1 8.1(e) |
| APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 | 3.1.2(a) 3.4.1(e) |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 3.1.5 3.1.7(d) |
Americas (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 1.3 3.1.8 |
| Americas Canada OSFI Self-Assessment Guidance | 1.3.2 3.1.8 |
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
Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
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 appetite, the degree of uncertainty the organization is willing to accept in anticipation of a reward.
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
- RSK-05.3_A01 an executive steering committee, or advisory board, defines the organization's risk appetite.
Evidence Requirements
- E-RSK-08 Risk Appetite
-
Documented evidence the organization has a defined risk appetite.
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