Skip to main content

RSK-16.1: Risk Treatment Options

RSK 9 — Critical Protect

Mechanisms exist to select appropriate risk treatment options, based on applicable risk assessment findings, including: (1) Mitigating the risk to an acceptable level; (2) Avoiding the risk (e.g., terminating the project); (3) Transferring the risk to a third party (e.g., insurance and service provider); or (4) Accepting the risk.

Renumbered: Formerly RSK-06.3 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization select appropriate risk treatment options, based on applicable risk assessment findings, including: (1) Mitigating the risk to an acceptable level; (2) Avoiding the risk (e.g., terminating the project); (3) Transferring the risk to a third party (e.g., insurance and service provider); or (4) Accepting the risk?

General (7)
Framework Mapping Values
ISO/SAE 21434 2021 RQ-15-17 RQ-15-17(a) RQ-15-17(b) RQ-15-17(c) RQ-15-17(d)
ISO 27701 2025 6.1.3(a)
ISO 31000 2018 6.5.2
ISO 31010 2009 4.3.5 5.3.3
NIST 800-39 3.3 TASK 3-1 TASK 3-2
UN R155 7.2.2.3
UN ECE WP.29 7.2.2.3
US (4)
EMEA (6)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Germany BAIT 2017 3.9
EMEA Germany C5 2026 OIS-07.01B.4 OIS-09.06B
EMEA EU DORA RTS 2024 Article 3.1(d) Article 3.1(d)(i) Article 27.2(h)(vi)
EMEA Israel CDMO 2.0 4.2, Stage 3.1
EMEA Saudi Arabia OTCC-1 2022 1-3-1-6
EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 3.2.1.10 3.2.1.3-2.3 3.2.1.3-2.3.a 3.2.1.3-2.3.b 3.2.1.3-2.3.b.1 3.2.1.3-2.3.b.2 3.2.1.3-2.4 3.2.1.3-2.5 3.2.1.3-2.5.a 3.2.1.3-2.5.b 3.2.1.3-2.5.c
APAC (5)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia CCM 2026 GOV-05 IDE-04 REC-01
APAC Japan ISMAP 4.4.7.1 4.4.8.1 4.4.8.2
APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 8.1(b) 11.17 11.17(a) 11.17(b) 11.17(c) A10-B14(g)
APAC Singapore CCOP CII 2026 3.1.2(c) 3.2.2(b)iii
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 4.1.3 4.1.4(c) 4.4.2 4.4.3
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Bermuda BMACCC 2020 5.8

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

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

Risk Management (RSK) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). 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. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported. ▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks. ▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).

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 select appropriate risk treatment options, based on applicable risk assessment findings.

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-16.1_A01 risk treatment options are defined.
  2. RSK-16.1_A02 appropriate risk treatment options, based on applicable risk assessment findings, are selected.

Evidence Requirements

E-RSK-13 Risk Treatment Options

Documented evidence of organization-approved risk treatment options.

Risk Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Risk response decision policy (accept, mitigate, transfer, avoid)

Small

  • Risk response decision policy (accept, mitigate, transfer, avoid)

Medium

  • Formal risk response options policy
  • Documented criteria for each risk response type

Large

  • Enterprise risk response framework
  • Risk committee decision-making process

Enterprise

  • Enterprise GRC platform with risk response workflows
  • Formal risk appetite and tolerance framework

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.