Episode 23: Risk Transfer and Avoidance Strategies

Welcome to The Bare Metal Cyber CISM Prepcast. This series helps you prepare for the exam with focused explanations and practical context.
Risk treatment is not limited to mitigation or acceptance. Two other important strategies—risk transfer and risk avoidance—are equally valid components of a mature risk management plan. Risk transfer involves shifting the financial or operational burden of a risk to another party, usually through contracts or insurance. Risk avoidance, on the other hand, means eliminating the activity that creates the risk altogether. Both approaches can help align the organization’s risk profile with its tolerance and strategic goals.
Choosing transfer or avoidance depends on several factors, including cost, feasibility, and business value. Each decision must be supported by clear justification, including an impact analysis. Documentation is critical. Governance bodies and auditors must be able to trace how and why each risk was treated in a particular way. These strategies should never be used casually—they require the same rigor and oversight as other risk responses.
Risk transfer is appropriate when a risk cannot be reduced to an acceptable level using internal controls. In these cases, shifting responsibility to a third party can offer a practical alternative. Transfer typically applies to financial consequences rather than the probability of occurrence. For example, you may not reduce the chance of a data breach, but you may transfer the financial impact of that breach through insurance.
This strategy is well suited for risks involving external service providers, regulatory liability, or rare but high-impact events. However, effective transfer requires a formal agreement. This may be a contract, policy, or service-level document. Simply assuming that a third party will absorb risk is not sufficient. The transfer must be explicit, enforceable, and understood by all parties involved.
There are several common methods for transferring risk. Insurance is the most obvious. Cyber liability insurance, business interruption coverage, and data breach response policies can all help transfer financial loss. Another method is including indemnification clauses in contracts with vendors and partners. These clauses assign responsibility for damages caused by the third party’s actions.
Service Level Agreements, or SLAs, are another tool. These documents include performance expectations and define penalties or remedies when services fall short. Outsourcing is also a form of risk transfer. When a service provider assumes responsibility for certain systems or data, they also assume part of the associated risk—provided that responsibilities are clearly defined. Additional methods include using escrow accounts, vendor warranties, or financial hedging mechanisms to offset potential losses.
Evaluating the effectiveness of risk transfer involves several steps. First, assess whether the third party has the capacity to absorb the risk. This includes reviewing their financial strength, insurance policies, and operational maturity. Next, examine the terms of the agreement. Exclusions, limitations, and specific conditions may limit your actual protection. Be sure to understand what is—and isn’t—covered.
Legal jurisdiction matters too. An agreement that works in one region may not be enforceable in another. Align all transfer mechanisms with industry standards, regulatory requirements, and compliance obligations. Finally, remember to reflect any transferred risks in your risk register. If a risk is truly transferred, it may be removed or downgraded—but only after validation that the transfer is real and reliable.
Transferred risks still require oversight. Assign ownership to someone responsible for contract management, vendor governance, or risk tracking. Regular reporting should be required from the third party, including updates on incidents, controls, and compliance. Include audit rights in the contract whenever possible. This allows your organization to verify that agreed-upon controls are in place.
Keep track of contract timelines. Renewals, expirations, and renegotiations are critical moments for reassessing transfer effectiveness. Transferred risks should be visible in enterprise risk dashboards and reviewed in governance meetings. Transferring risk does not mean forgetting it—it simply shifts who manages it.
Risk avoidance is a different kind of decision. This approach means walking away from a risk entirely by not engaging in the activity that introduces it. Avoidance is appropriate when the risk is both unacceptable and difficult or costly to manage. It is commonly used during early project planning, vendor evaluation, or system design. If the risk is too high and cannot be sufficiently controlled, the best option may be to cancel, redesign, or replace the activity.
Examples of risk avoidance include rejecting a vendor due to weak security practices, halting a cloud migration due to legal complexity, or decommissioning legacy systems that present unmanageable exposure. Avoidance is not just about saying “no”—it’s about understanding when the cost of engagement outweighs the benefits. These decisions must consider opportunity loss as well. Walking away from a high-risk initiative may reduce exposure, but it could also delay innovation or market entry.
Choosing avoidance over other options requires specific criteria. The risk must exceed the organization’s tolerance and be too expensive or difficult to reduce. If mitigation controls are immature, unavailable, or incompatible, avoidance may be the only reasonable response. Regulatory concerns are another driver. If the risk introduces noncompliance or legal liability, avoidance becomes a way to preserve organizational integrity.
Long-term considerations also play a role. A short-term benefit may not justify long-term exposure. When the anticipated risk over time outweighs the strategic value of the initiative, risk avoidance becomes not only defensible, but responsible. These decisions must involve senior leadership and be aligned with enterprise strategy.
Every risk transfer or avoidance decision must be clearly documented. The organization’s risk log should include justification, impacted assets, decision-makers, and supporting evidence. Attach contracts, risk assessments, meeting minutes, or policy excerpts that explain the choice. Update residual risk levels to reflect the outcome of the decision. Governance reports must also be revised to reflect the treatment path taken.
It’s important to note what alternative strategies were considered and why they were rejected. This transparency supports audit readiness and improves future decision-making. Consistency is key. Risk treatment decisions must align with documented policies and frameworks. Deviations from standard approaches must be well explained.
Monitoring is essential for both transfer and avoidance strategies. For transferred risks, track how third parties perform over time. Are they meeting control expectations? Are they disclosing incidents promptly? Are new risks emerging through their operations? For accepted or residual exposure, reevaluate periodically. Even if risk was considered transferred, your organization may still carry indirect exposure.
Avoided risks must also be reviewed. Conditions change—new technologies, revised regulations, or evolving business needs may reopen the door to previously avoided activities. Additionally, new vendors may offer solutions that make a once-untenable risk manageable. These changes require periodic reassessment and tracking of new options for transfer or mitigation.
Risk transfer and avoidance should not be viewed as exceptions. They are legitimate and valuable strategies that belong in the risk treatment toolkit. Embed them into your standard workflows. Include them in policy language, risk treatment forms, and governance documentation. Align decisions with the organization’s risk appetite and leadership expectations.
These strategies should be reflected in training programs, vendor selection criteria, and project risk assessments. As the business environment changes, reassess all treatment decisions—not just those involving mitigation. Maintain transparency with boards, audit committees, and executive stakeholders. Risk response is not static, and transfer and avoidance decisions must evolve alongside the organization.
Thanks for joining us for this episode of The Bare Metal Cyber CISM Prepcast. For more episodes, tools, and study support, visit us at Bare Metal Cyber dot com.

Episode 23: Risk Transfer and Avoidance Strategies
Broadcast by