We recently supported the ACCA CRO and Risk Group with a CRO focused discussion about Risk, Strategy and Governance. We attacked the topic by presenting challenges, and we took a lot of opinion on board in relation to:
How far down into the organisation is there clear line of sight?
Is your strategic process adequate to include Social and Environmentally driven Workloads?
In your organisation, are objectives prioritised
Are you systematic and joined up about accountability?
An initial write up is here – but we will be providing an Article for the ACCA Magazine and sharing the analysis we have developed.
As a first draft share - this is what we boiled the feedback into:
The ACCA Risk Forum discussions revealed several important insights into how organisations approach prioritisation, accountability, and risk management. Here are the key implications I believe the event re-enforces:
Prioritisation Is Often Inconsistent and Lacks Agility
Many organisations claim to prioritise objectives, but systems are either informal, subjective, or too fluid to ensure clarity.
Prioritisation frameworks may exist, but frequent changes without corresponding organisational agility lead to confusion and delays.
There is often misalignment between strategic objectives and team or individual goals, with “important” being poorly defined or inconsistently applied.
Profitability and compliance are common drivers, but this risks overlooking objectives with strategic or social value.
Accountability Is Fragmented and Culturally Challenging
Accountability is often assumed or implicit, not clearly mapped to strategy or supported by strong governance structures.
A recurring theme is reluctance to enforce accountability, particularly at the individual level—seen as a cultural barrier.
Even where accountability exists (e.g. under regulatory frameworks like SM&CR), interdependencies and cross-functional clarity are often lacking.
Without clear ownership, monitoring, and consequence mechanisms, accountability breaks down, posing risks to execution and assurance.
Governance and Controls Are Present but Not Fully Integrated
Tools and assurance functions are in place in many organisations, but they are often used in a monitoring capacity, not as enablers of strategy and accountability.
There is a gap between governance functions and business operations, leading to weak enforcement of priorities and blurred responsibilities.
Integration and responsiveness—linking governance, risk, performance, and accountability—remain work-in-progress for most organisations.
Risk Arises from Assumptions, Silos, and Lack of Follow-through
Many responses implied that assumptions are made about competence, prioritisation, and accountability without rigorous confirmation.
Siloed approaches (e.g., by team or reporting line) lead to duplication, gaps, and misaligned efforts.
The lack of a joined-up approach to accountability, prioritisation, and risk ownership creates vulnerabilities to delivery failure, reputational harm, or regulatory breaches.
Cultural and Leadership Gaps Undermine Execution
Culture is a significant barrier: people are often uncomfortable being held to account or holding others to account.
There is a need for stronger leadership support, enabling organisations to act on changing priorities without hesitation.
Change management and strategic responsiveness are often undermined by slow organisational reaction, even when prioritisation decisions are sound.
Overall Message
Organisations recognise the importance of prioritisation and accountability, but often lack the systemic, cultural, and leadership frameworks to make them work effectively. Risk doesn’t just arise from external factors—but from internal inconsistency, assumption, and cultural avoidance.
What do you think?
