The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 3 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Key Risk Indicators reloaded
Open accessAbstract
Although Key Risk Indicators have been a staple for Operational Risk Management reports in financial institutions for years now, they are rarely drivers for action and their relevance is waning. The authors argue that, for Key Risk Indicators to become more relevant, they should be recast as predominantly business (first line of defence) driven and made practical rather than theoretical. After describing the current state of Key Risk Indicators and the future for such indicators in case no action is taken, an ideal situation is outlined and five recommendations are presented that serve as practical steps towards that ideal state.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Key Risk Indicators (KRIs) have long been a staple of operational risk reporting in financial institutions but rarely drive action, and the authors argue they must be recast as predominantly first-line/business-driven and practical rather than theoretical. The paper describes the current state, the likely future if nothing changes, an ideal KRI system, and five practical recommendations.
Key findings
- KRIs are often assumed to belong to the ORM/risk department, are not relevant for day-to-day management, and frequently mix KPIs with KRIs; as a result, KRI programmes can degenerate into a compliance fig leaf and waste time and effort.
- Operational KRIs flourish where data are continuous and near-time—examples include ageing of open nostro account items, IT-system availability, IT-server loads, intersystem breaks, and ATM cash availability—because they allow rapid reactions to threshold breaches. Strategic KRIs, by contrast, are supposed to alert management to risk-profile changes, but few FIs can effectively translate heterogeneous risk data into meaningful KRIs.
- Reasons for suboptimal strategic KRI implementation include haphazard deployment, limited stakeholder involvement in defining thresholds, thresholds often set unreasonably high so the “traffic light is always on green,” manual collection/aggregation, and very low usage. If unchanged, acceptance and use of strategic KRIs are likely to decrease or they may be abolished.
- The ideal KRI system has five characteristics: a clear understanding of what is measured (types A, B, and composite C), a keenly awaited batch of new KRI information, KRIs that allow corrective action (at minimum, investigate), KRIs that are routinely collected, and KRIs deployed close to decision makers. The five recommendations are: embellish the KRI with narrative; add ownership; select an uncomplicated KRI; reuse existing information; and make KRI programmes demand-based with the first line fully in charge.
- Contextual numbers cited: EBA Risk Dashboards show EU banks’ weighted Return on Equity at its lowest in Q2 2020 at 0.5%, rising to 7.4% a year later; German guaranteed interest rates were lowered e.g. to 0.25%; the largest Dutch pension fund, ABP, was “currently 20% behind the desired level.”
Methods
- Conceptual/practice paper, not an empirical study. It reviews the current state of KRIs, outlines what happens if usage continues as-is, describes an ideal KRI system, and presents five recommendations.
- Evidence base includes the authors’ experience at more than 20 FIs, official disclosures such as Pillar 3 Reports for banks and Solvency and Financial Condition Reports for insurers (summarized in Table 1 for selected FIs), and regulatory/industry publications (BCBS, EBA, EIOPA, DNB, FSI, and others).
- Analysis is qualitative: it distinguishes operational from strategic KRIs, identifies implementation problems, derives five ideal characteristics, and maps them to practical recommendations. No statistical modelling or hypothesis testing is reported.
Limitations
- Stated: no academic KRI literature corpus exists; references are scattered and rarely exceed a few pages. Table 1 is described as a “cursory overview,” and not all FIs publish KRI usage consistently or at all.
- Stated/evident: the recommendations are based on the authors’ experience and reasoning rather than empirical testing; there is no formal sample, measurement, or validation of the proposed ideal system or recommendations.
- Evident: the disclosure-based evidence is sparse and may not reflect actual internal KRI use; the paper’s examples are illustrative rather than systematically evaluated, and the authors note that not all KRIs are equal, limiting generalisation across operational and strategic KRIs.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
29 No basis given · 14 Own interpretation · 2 Sources not found · 1 Own result
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Composite KRIs are aggregated 2 at department or location level, which diffuses the direct relationship between the measurement and the required action.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 4. KRI collection relies on too many manual interventions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“4. KRI collection relies on too many manual interventions This point especially holds true for the strategic KRIs.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 4. KRI collection relies on too many manual interventions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Much of the data used to determine the KRI-values is manually captured, processed and interpreted.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 4. KRI collection relies on too many manual interventions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“After the 2008 financial crisis, regulators 3 have shifted their focus from operational to strategic KRIs.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 3. What happens if KRI usage continues as-is?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ECB 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 39
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That this is possible is evidenced by reports that are produced in the wake of an ongoing crisis.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Characteristic 2. A keenly awaited batch of new KRI information
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The question of what to do when thresholds are breached is rarely given much attention in (the design phase of) KRI programmes.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 2. KRIs are not relevant for (day-to-day) management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“KRIs of type C are a much less common sight, although a mature KRI programme should include them.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Characteristic 1. A clear understanding of what is measured by the KRI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many KRIs lead a mundane life without ever getting triggered.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 3. KRIs that allow corrective action
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Much risk related data, however, is not high frequency, is not collected instantaneously, is not assessed consistently, is only loosely combined into indicators, and, more significantly, is rarely acted upon.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 1.3. Circumstances affecting operational resilience
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alongside the KRIs that always existed but weren't called that, a smörgåsbord of indicators has emerged, some of which are useful, some of which are useless and some of which are downright misleading.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 5. Some practical steps on the road to revitalised KRIs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although Key Risk Indicators have been a staple for Operational Risk Management reports in financial institutions for years now, they are rarely drivers for action and their relevance is waning.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As is clear from the previous sections, the development and implementation of a KRI programme is far from straightforward.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 4. What would an ideal system of KRIs look like?
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“KRIs and other data driven approaches are necessary for proper risk management but do not play a major role in practice”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 5. KRI usage remains at very low levels
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Starting with the Basel II inclusion of KRIs in the ORM toolkit, many FIs have had a stab at formally introducing KRIs.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 5. Some practical steps on the road to revitalised KRIs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Too often, KRI breaches are expected to lead to immediate knee-jerk actions.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Characteristic 3. KRIs that allow corrective action
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Few FIs have the ability to effectively translate heterogeneous risk data into meaningful KRIs.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 2.1. Some reasons for suboptimal KRI implementation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“5. KRI usage remains at very low levels”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 5. KRI usage remains at very low levels
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that, in certain areas, KRIs have never been in dispute.This applies typically to real-time systems such as system breaks, reconciliation breaks, IT-outages and other environments with instant, high frequency data updates.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 1.3. Circumstances affecting operational resilience
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are plenty of risks that can be measured this way.They are typically operational gauges that are regularly used by any process owner who wants to know what is going on in their process.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Characteristic 1. A clear understanding of what is measured by the KRI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“KRIs are often assumed to belong to the domain of the ORM department as part of their risk framework.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 2. KRIs are not relevant for (day-to-day) management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Although the regulation has been clear about the need for KRIs for twenty years, implementation remains weak.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 1.3. Circumstances affecting operational resilience
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites BCBS 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites BCBS 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“3.Not all stakeholders are actively involved in defining KRIs”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 2. KRIs are not relevant for (day-to-day) management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted that the strategic risks measured by KRIs are of low frequency.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 2. KRIs are not relevant for (day-to-day) management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“by far the biggest effort is spent in collecting data on KRIs, processing it, analysing it for first order and second order changes and ultimately reporting on it.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Characteristic 4. KRIs that are routinely collected
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 1 illustrates that, although KRIs are mentioned by some FIs, little or no detail is provided.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 2. The current state of KRIs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During turbulent times, it is not uncommon to have daily and intraday updates.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Characteristic 2. A keenly awaited batch of new KRI information
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“once the novelty of the programme wears off, so does the interest in the KRI programmes wane quickly.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 5. KRI usage remains at very low levels
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the KRIs that do trigger action, nine out of ten times these actions are not spectacular.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 3. KRIs that allow corrective action
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Strategic KRIs require executives and boards to focus on structural weaknesses which implies a longer time horizon than the typical operational KRIs provide.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 3. What happens if KRI usage continues as-is?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If KRI data is collected and/or analysed by what is perceived as a third party (like the risk department) or on behalf of a third party (such as KRIs collected for an oversight body), the KRI is less likely to be used in the real world.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Characteristic 5. KRIs that are deployed close to the decision makers
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If KRIs (continue to) fail to contribute to better management, this is likely to lead to a waning interest in them.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 3. What happens if KRI usage continues as-is?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And although not all KRIs are created equal (note the distinction between operational and strategic KRIs), we can identify the ideal circumstances for a successful KRI programme.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 4. What would an ideal system of KRIs look like?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the issues mentioned above are allowed to continue, the acceptance of strategic KRIs as an ORM instrument will suffer substantially.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 3. What happens if KRI usage continues as-is?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That in turn may undermine the role of risk management as an integral part of business management.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 3. What happens if KRI usage continues as-is?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The closer the KRI information (both the collection and the analysis) is to the decision maker, the better the chances are that KRI data will be used for actual process management.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Characteristic 5. KRIs that are deployed close to the decision makers
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If they are set too tightly, breaches will be frequent and not taken seriously.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 2. KRIs are not relevant for (day-to-day) management
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thresholds are a key element of KRIs and are not easy to define.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 2. KRIs are not relevant for (day-to-day) management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Thresholds are an expression of the company's risk appetite and assume that appropriate action is taken when the risk exposure exceeds the risk appetite.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, risk management has a broader remit to include changes in the risk profile.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Characteristic 1. A clear understanding of what is measured by the KRI
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Risk management has a broader remit to include changes in the risk profile.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under such conditions, KRIs have little impact on management actions, let alone business decisions.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 2. KRIs are not relevant for (day-to-day) management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The whole KRI programme degenerates into a compliance fig leaf and ends up wasting of time and effort, further undermining the whole concept of KRIs.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 2. KRIs are not relevant for (day-to-day) management
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In situations of crisis, however, the main focus is on short term issues only.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 3. What happens if KRI usage continues as-is?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That creates more buy-in than requesting staff to collect additional information on top of the MIS and process data that is readily available.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 4. KRIs that are routine collected
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A mature KRI-monitoring system requires both types.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Characteristic 1. A clear understanding of what is measured by the KRI
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: A mature KRI-monitoring system requires both type A/B and type C KRIs.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“KRI usage is likely to decrease and organisations will reduce the effort put into strategic KRIs to a minimum or even abolish them.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 3. What happens if KRI usage continues as-is?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, the information comes in late, its value for business decision is questionable and the process becomes inefficient, if not irrelevant.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 4. KRI collection relies on too many manual interventions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The expectation that all KRIs are of type A has led to a simplistic approach adopting simplistic thresholds and effectively relegated KRIs to a system of simplistic gauges as if measuring risk is no more than a simple readout.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > Characteristic 1. A clear understanding of what is measured by the KRI
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Thresholds are an expression of the company's risk appetite and assume that appropriate action is taken when the risk exposure exceeds the risk appetite.
“They are an expression of the company's risk appetite and assume that appropriate action is taken when the risk exposure exceeds the risk appetite.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The low frequency of strategic risks measured by KRIs is not a flaw.
“It is important to note that the low frequency is not a flaw.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Risk management has a broader remit to include changes in the risk profile.
“However, risk management has a broader remit to include changes in the risk profile.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A mature KRI-monitoring system requires both type A/B and type C KRIs.
“A mature KRI-monitoring system requires both types.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 1.3. Circumstances affecting operational resilience
“The COVID-19 pandemic led to specific supervisory guidance of the Financial Stability Institute (FSI 2021).”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > References
“[Financial Stability Institute] (2020) Covid-19 and operational resilience addressing financial institutions' operational challenges in a pandemic, FSI Brief No 2.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 1.3. Circumstances affecting operational resilience
“EIOPA published a general statement on the management of operational risks in Institutions on Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP) which is similar to KRIs as suggested by the BCBS: "Risk limits may also be set to notify an IORP of any breach of tolerable risks.Risk tolerance can be expressed in absolute terms, e.g.'The IORP will not accept a delay in investing contributions that exceeds x days" (BCBS 2019, p. 5).”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > References
“EIOPA [European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority] (2019) Opinion on the supervision of the management of operational risks faced by IORPs.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 1.1. Prolonged low interest environment
“This modest rise in RoE in European banks in 2020 is an improvement, but it is largely due to lower provisions for bad loans.”
§ Key Risk Indicators reloaded > 1.1. Prolonged low interest environment
“at its lowest point in the second quarter of 2020 at 0.5% rising to 7.4% a year later (EBA 2021a, page 16).”
Citations
Cites
Girling, P. (2013) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118755754 · Cited by 45
Risikoaggregation in Kreditinstituten
van den Brink, G. J. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73250-1_11 · Cited by 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Soner, M., & Karadağ, M. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18041929 · Cited by 2
The Integration of Key Risks and Performance Indicators Using COSO-2017 in Medium Enterprise Fintech
Sekolah Tinggi Manajemen PPM, J. M. R. N. 9.-1., & Prasetyo, A. H. (2025) · PERWIRA - Jurnal Pendidikan Kewirausahaan Indonesia · doi:10.21632/perwira.8.1.38-50 · Cited by 2
Обліково-аналітичне забезпечення управління суб’єктів господарювання в умовах сталого розвитку
університет, Д. П., & Колісник, О. (2025) · doi:10.33244/978-966-337-776-6
Інформаційно-аналітичні системи моніторингу ризиків у діяльності підприємств
Сергій, Л., & Оксана, Л. (2025) · Актуальні питання економічних наук · doi:10.5281/zenodo.19075599
Metadata
- Authors
- van den Brink, G. J., & Leipoldt, M.
- Venue
- Maandblad voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie
- Publisher
- Amsterdam University Press
- Published
- 2022-07-28
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 5/6
- Pages
- 165-171
- ISSN
- 0924-6304 (ISSN-L)
- 2543-1684
- OpenAlex
- W4288074632
- Semantic Scholar
- c7157615af0d4093971cd678aaf916d6b08335f4
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 0.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Maandblad Voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- ZooKeys (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Risk Management in Financial Firms
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting and Organizational Management
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Keywords
- key risk indicators, operational risk management, financial institutions, risk management practices, risk management recommendations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Key Risk Indicators reloaded. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5117/mab.96.80730
- The paper
- van den Brink, G. J., & Leipoldt, M. (2022). Key Risk Indicators reloaded. Maandblad voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie. https://doi.org/10.5117/mab.96.80730
