Camp Fire Academy
Learning path
Complete UI/UX Masterclass UI/UX Design Foundations UI/UX Design Intermediate Advanced UX Strategy
Specialisations
Fintech & Banking UI/UX UI/UX with AI Training UX for Leaders Design Thinking Figma Training
Most requested
AI for Workplace Productivity Excel for Business Power BI & Business Intelligence Cybersecurity Awareness PDPA Compliance Data Protection Officer Browse the full catalogue →
For teams
Corporate & In-House Training LMS & Self-Paced Learning Events
Company
About Contact Verify Certificate WhatsApp

Corruption Risk Management (CRM) Workshop

Corruption risk assessment goes wrong in a predictable way: the register lists risks like "bribery in procurement", scores them all as medium, attaches a policy as the control, and gets refreshed once a year by copying the previous version. This workshop takes the opposite approach. It works at process level, where the discretion and the opportunity actually sit, and it treats the control question seriously enough to ask whether the control would survive someone genuinely trying to get around it.

Programme Agenda

Why Corruption Risk Is Assessed Differently

What separates it from operational or financial risk: deliberate concealment, collusion, and the fact that the person best placed to exploit a weakness is often the one asked to describe the control.

Working at Process Level

Decomposing procurement, licensing, claims, enforcement, recruitment and disposal into steps. Finding where discretion exists, who exercises it, and what it is worth to someone outside.

Describing a Risk So It Can Be Managed

Actor, action, opportunity and benefit. Turning "corruption in tendering" into a specific scenario with a named role and a mechanism, which is the only version a control can be designed against.

Scoring Consistently

Likelihood and impact scales that two assessors apply the same way, including reputational and regulatory impact. Avoiding the compression that puts every risk in the middle.

Assessing Existing Controls Honestly

Design effectiveness versus operating effectiveness, controls that exist on paper only, and the segregation that collapses whenever someone is on leave. Testing rather than asking.

Designing Controls That Hold

Preventive, detective and corrective options; automation where discretion can be removed; and rotation, dual control and independent review where it cannot. Proportionality to the risk rather than to the budget.

Residual Risk and Acceptance

What remains after treatment, who is authorised to accept it, and recording that decision so it is a governance act rather than an omission.

Register Build and Challenge

Participants build a register for their own processes across the two days, then defend the scoring and control ratings against structured challenge.

Learning Outcomes:
Explain why corruption risk needs a different assessment approach
Decompose a business process to locate discretion and opportunity
Describe a corruption risk specifically enough to design a control against it
Apply likelihood and impact scales consistently across assessors
Test existing controls for operating effectiveness rather than accept assertions
Design proportionate preventive, detective and corrective controls
Record residual risk acceptance as a documented governance decision
Produce a corruption risk register for your own processes

Duration: 2 Days (16 Hours)
Training Hours: 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
Level: All levels
Training Mode: Physical, Online, or Hybrid
HRD Corp SBL-KHAS Claimable
Certificate of Completion included

Frequently Asked Questions

Integrity and compliance officers, risk managers, internal auditors, procurement and finance managers, and process owners in the functions being assessed. Process owners matter: they are the only people who know how the work actually gets done.

This programme goes deep on the risk assessment itself and stops there. The OACP workshop uses a risk assessment as an input and spends its time on initiatives, ownership, milestones and the plan document. Organisations doing both usually run this one first.

It gives you the method and produces a register. Whether your assessment is adequate is a matter for your own governance and, ultimately, a court. The programme is explicit about what the adequate procedures guidance expects of the risk assessment principle.

Yes, and in-house delivery is the usual format. We work from your process documentation beforehand so the two days go into assessment rather than into explaining what your processes are.

Yes, this programme is HRD Corp SBL-KHAS claimable. Our team can assist your HR department with the documentation required for the grant application.

Yes. Any programme can be booked as a team day. Everyone works the same brief together, so your people come away having built something and knowing each other better.

If you are claiming under HRD Corp, the session has to fall at least 14 days after your HRD Corp approval. If you are not claiming, the date is flexible and we work around your calendar.

Put them on the self-paced e-learning instead. Your team works through the modules on our LMS in their own time, sits the assessment, and earns the same certificate, so nobody has to clear a full day together.

More in Integrity and Governance