Growth Requires Risk Intelligence

Risk management should not aim to reduce risk, but rather to enable better decisions in the face of uncertainty. This is precisely the central message of the international Coface 2026 study. This is relevant for risk managers because the study describes this transformation not primarily as a matter of methodology, but as an interplay of governance, decision-making culture, data quality, technology, and early involvement in commercial decisions.

Not Risk Versus Growth, but Decision-Making Versus Stagnation

Companies operate in an environment where geopolitical tensions, commodity risks, and technological disruptions simultaneously impact business models. In this situation, risk cannot be managed by ruling out as many options as possible. Rather, what matters most is how quickly organizations can translate uncertainty into information ready for decision-making. The Coface survey of 1,250 senior risk and finance decision-makers shows that 62 percent worldwide view growth ambitions and risk discipline as fundamentally at odds with one another. At the same time, 60 percent say that, at best, risk and finance teams enable growth that the company would otherwise avoid. Only 11 percent believe that protection must always take precedence over growth opportunities [see Coface 2026a, pp. 3–4].

This shifts the bar for modern risk management. A functioning system can no longer be identified solely by whether limits are adhered to and losses are avoided. It must also demonstrate whether it improves management decisions, highlights options for action, and enables speed within defined risk limits. At its core, this is about "decision-oriented risk and opportunity management" [see Gleißner / Romeike 2020]. In practice, this means that risk analysis, limit systems, and risk control remain necessary but must be more closely integrated with scenario analyses, decision-making logic, and commercial trade-offs.

The Ambition Gap: Sought as a Growth Partner, Perceived as a Gatekeeper

This decision-oriented and strategic role of risk management is not yet a reality in many companies. Today, 38 percent of respondents view risk and finance functions primarily as "trusted guardians" – that is, as a protective force against negative consequences. Only 24 percent already view them as strategic growth partners. In three to five years, however, 44 percent expect such a partnership; the proportion expecting a purely protective role is projected to drop to 35 percent. Additionally, 45 percent anticipate that risk and finance teams will become active drivers of growth and expansion [Coface 2026a, pp. 5–6].

This is more than just a fundamental question about the added value of risk management. If the organization perceives Risk & Finance primarily as an approval body, the function is typically brought in late – at a point when commercial commitments, investment assumptions, or market entry decisions are already largely set in stone. At that point, risk management can only correct or halt the process. If, on the other hand, it is integrated into the strategic development phase of an opportunity, it can help shape conditions, safeguards, pricing logic, limits, and exit options. The difference lies between retrospective control and forward-looking decision design.

Strong risk discipline – but the danger of a self-imposed brake on growth

The findings for companies in Germany are particularly striking. 81 percent of German respondents see a fundamental conflict of objectives between growth ambitions and risk discipline – compared to 62 percent worldwide. 73 percent cite slow decision-making as a barrier to growth; internationally, the figure is 68 percent. At the same time, 40 percent of respondents in Germany associate risk and finance teams primarily with protection and control, while only 19 percent view them as strategic growth partners. Likewise, only 19 percent involve risk teams as early as the initial stages of growth decisions [Coface 2026b, pp. 1–2].

These figures should not be interpreted as a criticism of risk management as a whole. On the contrary: clear structures and robust controls provide significant added value in volatile and uncertain markets. After all, risk management reduces uncertainty. Discipline becomes problematic when it is associated with lengthy decision-making loops, sequential approvals, and an implicit zero-error ideal. This creates a paradoxical risk: The company avoids individual uncertainties but simultaneously increases the strategic risk of missing opportunities. For German risk managers, the key to progress therefore lies less in relaxing standards than in applying these standards earlier and in an integrated manner. Risk managers should recognize that risk management is not a "compliance discipline" designed merely to meet legal requirements. The result is often tedious "paper tigers" from which no decision-maker can derive relevant information for strategic decision-making. "While risk management counts crumbs, the business model goes up in smoke", as I recently put it in an article. Companies rarely face existential difficulties because travel expenses were exceeded by three percent, a regional branch was understaffed for two weeks, or a single receivable went bad.

They run into trouble because they fail to keep up with technological upheavals, ignore customer needs, build dangerous dependencies, underestimate new competitors, or defend outdated business models to the bitter end. Effective risk management must therefore look precisely where things get uncomfortable – and at the same time, where they become strategically interesting: Which technological developments could devalue our value proposition – and which could radically improve it? Which changes in customer behavior could destroy our margins – and which ones open up new revenue potential? Which competitor could bypass our value chain – and where could we ourselves bypass someone else’s value chain? Which assumption underlying our business model must not be wrong under any circumstances – and which new assumption could give us a strategic advantage?

The Internal Brake: Why the Reflexive "No" Is Organizationally Attractive

The study highlights a cultural mechanism familiar to many governance systems. Fifty percent of respondents agree with the statement that a "no" can seem more certain than seeking a structured "yes." At the same time, 59 percent report that objections from risk and finance teams are not perceived as a constructive contribution to improving growth initiatives. Thirty-three percent view them as a necessary but frustrating hurdle, 20 percent as overly cautious, and 6 percent as a sign of a lack of market understanding [Coface 2026a, pp. 8–9].

This finding points to an incentive problem: an avoided risk is often more visible internally than a missed opportunity. Those who halt a risky initiative can cite compliance with rules; those who allow a controlled risk position must justify their decision in the event of failure. The leadership data support this interpretation. While 67 percent say their executives balance growth and risk discipline, only 52 percent feel supported when deliberately taken and managed risks do not pay off. 48 percent see early involvement of risk management in strategic decisions. 12 percent even state that questioning commercial decisions can be personally risky [Coface 2026, pp. 10–11].

This is crucial for those responsible for governance: A risk appetite framework has little effect if informal incentives within the company penalize any deviation from the safe path. Those who want calculated risk must not only define thresholds but also clarify decision-making authority, escalation procedures, and the acceptance of well-reasoned wrong decisions.

What Growth-Oriented Organizations Do Differently

Coface has condensed the survey results into a group of 157 "Open Advantage Leaders," representing 12.6 percent of the total sample. These organizations were identified based on responses that reflect a growth-oriented perspective on opportunities and risks, a structured "yes," and a reduced perception of a fundamental conflict between risk and growth. It is important to note that this group represents an analytically defined segment of the survey and does not constitute experimental proof that the behaviors mentioned actually drive higher growth.

Nevertheless, the differences are revealing. Thirty-five percent of the "Open Advantage Leaders" already view Risk & Finance as a growth partner today, compared to 24 percent overall. For the next three to five years, the figures are 57 percent versus 44 percent. Twenty-nine percent view risk as a competitive advantage, compared to 19 percent in the overall sample. An open culture of debate is reported by 38 percent of respondents, but only by 23 percent overall. And 70 percent involve risk teams early on in growth decisions, compared to 58 percent overall; this happens directly in the idea phase for 36 percent versus 24 percent [Coface 2026, pp. 12–15].

For risk managers, this results in a clear working logic: First, risks must be translated into commercial trade-offs. Second, risk management should not only identify threats but also actively formulate the conditions under which an opportunity becomes viable. Third, close collaboration with sales, marketing, product, and market teams is essential. In the survey, 67 percent consider the translation of risks into commercial trade-offs to be particularly important; 61 percent cite the proactive identification of growth opportunities, and 55 percent cite close partnership with sales and marketing [Coface 2026, p. 11].

Data quality becomes a governance issue

The technological dimension of the study is particularly relevant because it highlights a widespread bottleneck: 52 percent of organizations report that their risk data is fragmented or highly variable across markets. Only 20 percent have consistent data across all relevant markets. Among Open Advantage Leaders, this figure is significantly higher at 38 percent. At the same time, 68 percent cite slow decision-making processes, 54 percent cite internal risk aversion, and 47 percent cite a lack of real-time data as key barriers to growth [Coface 2026a, pp. 16–17].

As a result, data architecture becomes an integral part of risk management governance. An organization can make decisions only as quickly as its information is complete, evidence-based, comparable, up-to-date, and ready for decision-making. Fragmented systems not only create operational inefficiency; they also increase reliance on individual judgments, complicate the aggregation of exposures, and foster information asymmetry between the market, sales, finance, and risk departments. For risk managers, this means that data quality, data analytics methods, taxonomies, and interfaces belong on the risk management agenda – not just on the IT agenda.

From Looking Back to Looking Ahead: Scenarios, Predictive Analytics, and AI

The skills prioritized by respondents indicate the direction in which the function should move. 64 percent cite scenario modeling and stress testing as particularly important skills for growth-oriented risk and finance teams, 59 percent cite predictive business and market information, and 54 percent cite AI-supported risk or credit assessments. 46 percent cite centralized customer and market intelligence, and 41 percent cite the automation of routine risk decisions [Coface 2026a, p. 18].

For professional risk management, it is crucial not to equate technology with decision quality. The actual added value only arises when data is systematically translated into insights relevant to decision-making. Predictive analytics, in particular, offers great potential here: By analyzing historical data, patterns, and interdependencies, future developments, risk drivers, and potential loss scenarios can be identified and quantified earlier. This shifts risk management from a predominantly retrospective assessment to forward-looking decision support. However, an early warning indicator is only valuable if it is clearly defined which management action is triggered at which threshold value. Similarly, a forecasting model requires transparent assumptions, a suitable data set, continuous validation, and an understanding of its uncertainty. AI-supported decisions also require robust governance for model risks, data sources, exceptions, and human oversight. 

Together with my colleague Gabriele Wieczorek, I have highlighted in the book "Data Analytics in Risk Management" that the key added value of modern data analysis lies in the systematic integration of descriptive, diagnostic, and predictive methods with concrete management decisions. While the Coface study does not develop a technical model architecture for this purpose, it does underscore the organizational objective: Risk information should not only be available more quickly and in a more targeted manner, but should also be brought closer to the actual decision-making moment with the help of predictive analytics. This allows relevant developments to be identified earlier, potential impacts to be better assessed, and courses of action to be prepared in a timely manner.

Toward decision-ready risk intelligence

It is interesting to note that the study does not view growth as the opposite of risk mitigation. Rather, "commercial safety nets" are what create the leeway to take risks in the first place. Seventy percent cite diversification of customers and markets as important or very important for growth, 55 percent cite guarantees and contractual safeguards, 45 percent cite trade credit insurance, and 37 percent cite external expert networks [Coface 2026a, p. 18].

This aligns with classic risk management logic: risk is not reduced across the board, but rather modified through diversification, transfer, contractual structuring, limits, and information advantages so that the remaining exposure aligns with the company’s risk-bearing capacity. For trade and credit risks in particular, risk transfer can thus serve as an enabler—provided that costs, coverage limits, and residual risks are transparently factored into the decision.

Expectations of external partners in risk management are also changing. 77 percent want forward-looking insights that enable more proactive decisions. 71 percent expect support in being able to confidently seize more opportunities; 65 percent want protection that enables bolder commercial decisions. Technology is expected to enhance this added value: 80 percent cite AI-driven insights and early warning signals, 70 percent mention integrable predictive risk and credit data, and 65 percent point to automated decisions for low-risk transactions [Coface 2026a, pp. 20–21].

For risk managers, this creates a new requirement for supplier and data provider governance. It is not only relevant whether an external partner provides data or insures against losses. What is decisive is whether the information is timely, integrable, traceable, and geared toward concrete decisions. The value of external support increases where uncertainty becomes measurable and manageable – and decreases where additional data merely generates more reports.

What Risk Managers Should Specifically Change Now

The study’s five "Open Advantage" shifts can be translated into a practical transformation agenda: Risk must be understood as a source of options, not merely as a control function or "compliance task"; Challenge must improve decision-making and occur early on; risks should be optimized in service of strategy rather than reflexively minimized; risk intelligence ready for decision-making must simultaneously increase speed and discipline; external partners should translate uncertainty into measurable actionable insights [Coface 2026, pp. 22–23].

Operationally, this means, for example, integrating risk management into opportunity and deal designs from the outset, making scenario and stress tests mandatory for key growth decisions, translating risk appetite into concrete decision-making rules, linking early-warning systems to clear actions, and treating the quality of critical risk data as a governance metric. Equally important is a culture of error and risk in which a risk that was transparently documented and taken within the risk appetite is not retroactively treated as a control failure simply because the outcome was negative.

Strong indicators, but no proof of causality

The study’s significance lies in its broad international management perspective. A total of 1,250 CFOs, CROs, and finance and risk directors from 13 countries in EMEA, APAC, and the Americas were surveyed in February and March 2026. The companies come from the manufacturing, chemical, agrifood, ICT, retail, and energy sectors; on average, they employed 7,303 people and generated global revenue of $3.9 billion. The survey was supplemented by interviews and the analysis of a subgroup referred to as "Open Advantage Leaders" [Coface 2026, p. 24; p. 3].

However, certain limitations must be taken into account for a scientifically sound interpretation. The data consists of self-reported assessments by executives and is based on a cross-sectional survey. The differences presented between the overall sample and the Open Advantage Leaders reveal correlations and organizational patterns, but do not indicate a causal effect on revenue, profitability, or enterprise value. The formation of the leader group is also based on selected responses regarding attitudes and behaviors. For risk managers, the study is therefore most valuable as a benchmark and a source of hypotheses: It shows which governance and data patterns are associated with a more growth-oriented approach to risk and which issues should be examined within their own organizations.

The Coface study describes a shift in roles: risk management is increasingly measured not only by its ability to limit losses, but also by its capacity to enable robust growth decisions. The biggest hurdle here is not necessarily a lack of control mechanisms. Rather, it is slow decision-making processes, internal risk aversion, late involvement, and fragmented data that hold organizations back.

This finding is particularly relevant for German companies. A strong culture of risk discipline is coupled with an above-average awareness of the conflict between risk and growth. The answer to this cannot be less governance, but rather better governance: earlier involvement of opportunity- and risk management, faster decision-making structures, consistent data, scenario-based analyses, and a leadership culture that accepts calculated risk even when the expected success fails to materialize.

Outlook

The coming years are likely to further sharpen the dividing line between administrative and strategic risk management. Functions that primarily produce reports, controls, and approvals risk being bypassed when it comes to time-critical business decisions. The result could often be irrelevant and ineffective "risk accounting." In contrast, "decision-oriented risk management" – which analyzes scenarios based on sound methods, develops early warning indicators, and translates risk-bearing capacity and market information into a clear decision-making framework – can become an integral part of the growth architecture.

The real question for the future, therefore, is not whether companies should take on more or less risk. It is whether they are able to identify relevant risks early enough, translate them into quantifiable options, and make decisions more quickly within defined parameters. This is precisely where risk management can evolve from a control tool into a competitive advantage.

List of Sources and Further Reading:

• Coface (2026a): Risk Management: From Risk Control to Growth Engine. International study based on a survey of 1,250 senior decision-makers; survey period: February/March 2026.
• Coface Germany (2026b): Coface Study: Slow Decision-Making Holds Back the Growth of German Companies (Press release dated August 24, 2026)
• Gleißner, W. / Romeike, F. (2020): Entscheidungsorientiertes Risikomanagement nach DIIR RS Nr. 2 [Decision-Oriented Risk Management According to DIIR RS No. 2], in: Der Aufsichtsrat, Issue 04/2020, pp. 55–57.
• Romeike, F. (2026): Shut It Down – and No One Would Notice. A Test of Risk Management Effectiveness, RiskNET, July 23, 2026, www.risknet.de/en/topics/news-details/shut-it-down-and-no-one-would-notice/
• Romeike, F. / Wieczorek, G. (2026): Data Analytics im Risikomanagement [Data Analytics in Risk Management]: Descriptive Analytics – Diagnostic Analytics – Predictive Analytics, Springer Verlag, Wiesbaden 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-48843-7