Preventive measures and owners

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video focuses on how to choose measures addressing the causes of risk. Follow the sequence of decisions in the example rather than simply memorising a list. Notice who is involved, what information is needed and the expected result. These points help turn the content into a practice that another person can verify. 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.

An effective measure addresses how risk can occur. It may prevent, detect or correct. Separation of duties, independent approval, third-party checks and decision records serve different purposes. Training helps but does not always replace process controls. The integrity programme should prioritise more thorough measures for high or maximum risks.

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

Link each measure to its intended cause. Define performer, owner, frequency, evidence and implementation date. Assess feasibility and resources. In a small team, seek suitable compensating controls instead of describing impossible separation. Also identify who monitors overall implementation of the risk plan. 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

To address a wrong bank account, the organisation introduces confirmation through a known supplier contact. Confirmation through the same suspicious email would not address the cause. 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: Is a second confirmation through the same unverified route enough? 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. The control must be independent of the risk source. Use a verified contact and keep confirmation evidence before changing details.

One mistake to avoid is: assigning vague or unfunded measures to people unable to implement them.

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.