The use of standard risk management measurement decreed that the likelihood of a storm such as Katrina was only 3% and, as history has shown, the controls put in place mirrored that degree of likelihood.

Before 9/11, American security officials were aware of plots involving planes and terrorists but had no integrated program in place to prevent what happened.

Why weren’t these terrible disasters effectively identified and controlled?

The answer lies in the practice of using the usual measure of probability!

If a disastrous event is unlikely to occur, less effective control measures are put in place and this wreaks havoc with an organization’s ability to deal with the “accountability blame game” in either the courts, with regulatory bodies or with public opinion.

The only defence that works in the blame game is Due Diligence which requires being able to prove that all reasonable steps were taken to control foreseeable risks.

The term “foreseeability” has a legal meaning and requires particular attention on how the risk involved may affect the outside world and just because a risk is less “probable” doesn’t mean that lower standards are tolerated.

In assisting our clients with identifying and dealing with its risks, SRC calls upon trained and professional Risk Managers and systems implementers who are aware of the higher legal duties required for accountability.

If you are in a quandary as to the nature and extent of risks your organization faces, contact us for a Preliminary Risk Assessment Consultation.