Assessing likelihood and impact

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is assessing likelihood and impact. By the end, you should be able to assign risk levels using consistent, reasoned criteria. We will connect the information available, the criterion guiding the decision and the action that must be recorded. Follow the case and compare your answer with the proposed response. A ZIntPK integrity plan applies to specified entities under KPK guidelines. For other organisations the approach is recommended practice. Risk assessment is not a finding of guilt or a copy of Portugal’s RGPC.

Risk assessment considers likelihood and consequences together with actual control effects. No reports does not prove low risk where detection is weak. KPK guidelines provide a methodology for obliged entities; an internal teaching scale does not replace it.

Apply the following rule: Entities with an internal-route duty and external authorities report previous-year statistics to KPK by 1 March; this does not mean sending every identified case. The ZIntPK integrity plan has a different group of obliged entities. Current KPK guidelines apply from 1 January 2025, with reporting on implementation by 5 June. Portugal’s RGPC is not Slovenian law. Recommended organisational measures are not automatically universal legal duties.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Adopt an understandable scale and explain criteria. This exercise uses three levels only as an example. Examine exposure, opportunities and existing controls. Record reasons and uncertainties. Compare similar processes. No known incidents does not mean zero likelihood, particularly where detection is weak. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

The team rates risk low because no reports arrived, although the channel is difficult to access and checks do not operate. Zero reports is weak evidence. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Can low risk be justified solely by no reports? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Check detection capability and actual controls. Explain the basis and its limitations.

One mistake to avoid is: assigning numbers without criteria or presenting the teaching matrix as a legal requirement.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team describes every prevention measure as mandatory in every organisation. How should the explanation change?

Separate the specific duty and its obliged entities from recommended practice. Integrity plans, conflicts and public procurement have their own scope. Portugal’s RGPC does not transfer automatically. For a recommended control, identify risk, owner and evidence of effectiveness.