What does ISO/TS 31050 provide?
Scenario 6:
Trunroll is a fast-food chain headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, specializing in wraps, burritos, and quick-serve snacks through both company-owned and franchised outlets across several states. Recently, the company identified two major risks: increased dependence on third-party delivery platforms that could disrupt customer service if contracts were to fail or fees rose sharply, and stricter health and safety inspections that might expose vulnerabilities in hygiene practices across certain franchise locations. Therefore, the top management of Trunroll adopted a structured risk management process based on ISO 31000 guidelines to systematically identify, assess, and mitigate risks, embedding risk awareness into daily operations and strengthening resilience against future disruptions.
To address these risks, Trunroll outlined and documented clear actions with defined responsibilities and timelines. Regarding the dependence on third-party delivery platforms, the company decided not to move forward with planned partnerships with third-party delivery apps, as the risk of losing control over the customer experience and rising costs outweighed the potential benefits.
To address stricter health inspections across franchises, Trunroll invested in stronger hygiene protocols, mandatory staff training, and upgraded monitoring systems to reduce the likelihood of violations. Yet, management understood that some exposure would remain even after these measures. To address this risk, they decided to use one of the insurance methods, reserving internal financial resources to cover unexpected losses or penalties, ensuring the remaining risk was managed within acceptable boundaries.
Additionally, Trunroll set up a cloud-based platform to document and maintain risk records. This allowed managers to log supplier inspection results, training outcomes, and incident reports into one secure system, while also providing flexibility to update and scale applications as needed without managing the underlying infrastructure. In doing so, Trunroll ensured that all risk-related information is documented in progress reports and incorporated into mid-term and final evaluations, with risk management being updated regularly to monitor changes and treatments.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
Which risk treatment option did Trunroll use to address the risk of increasing dependence on third-party delivery platforms?
Scenario 7:
Maxime, a chocolate manufacturer headquartered in Ghent, Belgium, produces toffees, eclairs, enrobed chocolates, and caramels. In 2023, a contamination incident in its caramel line triggered a large-scale product recall across Europe, exposing weaknesses in supplier evaluation, reporting channels, and crisis communication. Recognizing the financial, operational, and reputational impact of this event, top management decided to apply a risk management process in line with ISO 31000. The aim was to strengthen resilience, embed risk awareness across departments, and ensure risks are systematically managed in both daily operations and long-term strategies.
To ensure that the risk management process is effective, Maxime set up a structured monitoring and review process with clear procedures for collecting and analyzing data on key risks like supplier reliability, food safety, and communication. For validation of measurement methods, Sophie, the head of Quality Assurance, was tasked with assessing whether the tools used were suitable for evaluating the effectiveness of the process.
Additionally, Maxime introduced a set of measures designed to provide early warning indicators across critical areas. In operations, they tracked the number of production line stoppages and the percentage of defective batches. On the financial side, they monitored fluctuations in raw material prices, especially cocoa, and their impact on margins. For regulatory matters, they followed the frequency of nonconformities identified during inspections. In terms of technology, system downtime in automated packaging lines was measured.
To ensure these indicators were communicated effectively, Sophie worked with top management to present the results in a format that made changes easy to spot and understand. Rather than relying only on static reports, they chose a more dynamic approach that displayed key values visually, highlighted deviations, and issued alerts when thresholds were crossed.
In addition, Maxime established clear communication and consultation processes to ensure that relevant stakeholders were properly engaged. The top management used an approach that clarified who was responsible for carrying out tasks, who held final accountability, who should be consulted for expertise, and who needed to stay informed. To strengthen engagement, Maxime organized how risk information would be delivered to different audiences. Employees received updates during team briefings and through the company’s internal platform, while external parties, such as suppliers and regulators, were informed through formal reports and direct correspondence. This approach ensured that each group had access to the information most relevant to them in a timely way.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
According to Scenario 7, what reporting method did the top management and Sophie decide to use to communicate warning signals effectively?
What is one of the primary purposes of maintaining records in risk management?
What is an appropriate approach when communicating risks to the media?
Scenario 4:
Headquartered in Barcelona, Spain, Solenco Energy is a renewable energy provider that operates several solar and wind farms across southern Europe. After experiencing periodic equipment failures and supplier delays that affected energy output, the company initiated a risk assessment in line with ISO 31000 to ensure organizational resilience, minimize disruptions, and support long-term performance.
A cross-functional risk team was assembled, including representatives from engineering, finance, operations, and logistics. The team began a structured and systematic review of the energy production process to identify potential deviations from intended operating conditions and assess their possible causes and consequences. Using guided discussions with prompts such as “too high,” “too low,” or “other than expected,” they explored how variations in system behavior could lead to operational disruptions or safety risks.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
In Scenario 4, the team conducted a structured, systematic review of the energy production process to identify potential deviations from intended operating conditions and evaluate their possible causes and consequences. Which risk identification technique did they use?
What is one of the outputs of Business Impact Analysis (BIA)?
Scenario 5:
Crestview University is a well-known academic institution that recently launched a digital learning platform to support remote education. The platform integrates video lectures, interactive assessments, and student data management. After initial deployment, the risk management team identified several key risks, including unauthorized access to research data, system outages, and data privacy concerns.
To address these, the team discussed multiple risk treatment options. They considered limiting the platform’s functionality, but this conflicted with the university’s goals. Instead, they chose to partner with a reputable cybersecurity firm and purchase cyber insurance. They also planned to reduce the likelihood of system outages by upgrading server capacity and implementing redundant systems. Some risks, such as occasional minor software glitches, were retained after careful evaluation because they did not significantly affect Crestview’s operations. The team considered these risks manageable and agreed to monitor and address them at a later stage. Thus, they documented the accepted risks and decided not to inform any stakeholder at this time.
Once the treatment options were selected, Crestview’s risk management team developed a detailed risk treatment plan. They prioritized actions based on which processes carried the highest risk, ensuring cybersecurity measures were addressed first. The plan clearly defined the responsibilities of team members for approving and implementing treatments and identified the resources required, including budget and personnel. To maintain oversight, performance indicators and monitoring schedules were established, and regular progress updates were communicated to the university’s top management.
Throughout the risk management process, all activities and decisions were thoroughly documented and communicated through formal channels. This ensured clear communication across departments, supported decision-making, enabled continuous improvement in risk management, and fostered transparency and accountability among stakeholders who manage and oversee risks. Special care was taken to communicate the results of the risk assessment, including any limitations in data or methods, the degree of uncertainty, and the level of confidence in findings. The reporting avoided overstating certainty and included quantifiable measures in appropriate, clearly defined units. Using standardized templates helped streamline documentation, while updates, such as changes to risk treatments, emerging risks, or shifting priorities, were routinely reflected in the system to keep the records current.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
The risk management team of Crestview documented the accepted risks and decided not to inform any stakeholder at this time. Is this acceptable?
Scenario 4:
Headquartered in Barcelona, Spain, Solenco Energy is a renewable energy provider that operates several solar and wind farms across southern Europe. After experiencing periodic equipment failures and supplier delays that affected energy output, the company initiated a risk assessment in line with ISO 31000 to ensure organizational resilience, minimize disruptions, and support long-term performance.
A cross-functional risk team was assembled, including representatives from engineering, finance, operations, and logistics. The team began a structured and systematic review of the energy production process to identify potential deviations from intended operating conditions and assess their possible causes and consequences. Using guided discussions with prompts such as “too high,” “too low,” or “other than expected,” they explored how variations in system behavior could lead to operational disruptions or safety risks.
One risk identified was the failure of the main power inverter system at one of the company’s key solar facilities—a single point of failure with high production dependence. To better understand this risk, the team used a structured visual technique that mapped the causes leading up to the inverter failure on one side and the potential consequences on the other. It also illustrated the controls that could prevent or mitigate both sides.
During discussions, several team members were inclined to focus on positive evidence supporting the belief that the inverter was reliable, while giving less consideration to contradictory data from maintenance reports. Differing viewpoints were not immediately discussed, as many participants felt more confident agreeing with the general group view that the likelihood of failure was low. It was only after a detailed review of supplier reports that the team revisited their assumptions and adjusted the analysis accordingly.
Ultimately, the likelihood of failure was determined to be “possible” based on annual system monitoring and maintenance records. However, the consequences were potentially severe, including an estimated €450,000 in lost revenue per week of downtime, contract penalties, and negative stakeholder perceptions. The team assumed a potential downtime of two weeks per failure, resulting in a total potential loss of €900,000 per event.
To better quantify the financial exposure to this risk, the team multiplied the estimated probability of failure (10%) by the potential loss per event (€900,000), yielding an annual expected impact of €90,000. This calculation provided a clearer basis for prioritizing the inverter failure risk relative to other risks in the risk register.
Based on the scenario above, answer the following question:
What did the team at Solenco determine when they examined the likelihood and consequences of the inverter failure?
What is the main value of scenario analysis in risk identification?
