Where next for risk management? The case for a rethink

In the world of risk management, one question looms larger than all others: Where next?

This isn’t just a question of frameworks, processes, or software. It’s a deeper, philosophical challenge about how we think about risk and how we prepare for it. For too long, the discipline has become stale—repackaging the same ideas with new names, colours, or metaphors, but leaving the core systems untouched. If we fail to evolve, we risk—pun intended—becoming obsolete. We could not only become irrelevant but possibly replaced by artificial intelligence that can process faster, more objectively and without our human biases.

The flaws in our current thinking

Let’s confront an uncomfortable truth: many current risk models lean too heavily on probability over impact. But the very nature of complex systems makes this approach flawed. The three-body problem in physics (Marchal, Yoshida, Yi-Sui, 1984) shows us that predicting the movement of even three gravitationally interacting objects is nearly impossible with any reliability. What does that say about our ability to forecast events in geopolitics, economics, or climate?

If we acknowledge that not everything can be predicted or planned for, then where do we draw the line between management and educated guessing? How do we account for uncertainty that can’t be modelled?

A call for new thinking

What’s needed now isn’t a better version of the same thing. We need to break from current thinking entirely. One approach might be design thinking—a mindset that embraces creativity, rejects assumptions and starts with the question: “What if we ignored everything we already believe about risk?”

A starting point could be re-defining risk itself. Can we, as a global discipline, agree on a modern, unified definition of risk? From there, we could identify causes and effects in a way that’s more holistic and systemic, rather than siloed.

There’s also a divide worth addressing: academics versus practitioners. Academics bring theory, models and frameworks. Practitioners bring experience, instinct and context. Both sides often think they hold the answer—either through research or real-world exposure. But what if neither is fully correct on their own? What if the solution lies in combining both perspectives?

Could we come together to define a simple set of questions—a shared starting point—and co-create a system that is both academically sound and tested in the real world

Lessons from geopolitical risk

Let’s consider one of today’s most commonly cited top risks: geopolitical instability. Recent events—whether a change in leadership in one country or military aggression from another—have disrupted economies and markets globally. But here’s the question: Should we have seen it coming?

As Meissner (2025) notes in The Routledge Handbook of Political Risk, these geopolitical tensions have historical precedent. So why did they take companies and governments by surprise? Why wasn’t there a robust system in place to anticipate or at least mitigate their impact?

If we can’t predict or prepare for things that have already happened before, what does that say about the effectiveness of our current risk methodologies?

Writing the next chapter

If we are truly serious about advancing the field of risk, we need a generational shift in thinking. The next wave of risk professionals must stop simply reading from the old books—and start writing a new one. One that incorporates design thinking, acknowledges complexity and dares to go beyond the known.

Risk will never be fully predictable. But if we embrace uncertainty, rethink our assumptions and work together across silos, we can build systems that are more adaptive, responsive and realistic.

The future of risk isn’t in better forecasts. It’s in better questions.