Risk Mitigation vs. Risk Controls – The Foundation Every New Compliance Program Needs

Read time: 3 minutes

Starting a risk assessment or enterprise risk program? You’re joining thousands of compliance professionals facing the same challenge. According to Gartner, 76% of compliance leaders are prioritizing improvements to risk management in 2025, and regulatory complexity now tops the list of emerging risks organizations face.

However, the first hurdle is understanding what you’re actually building. Many new programs stumble because they treat every risk response the same way. They create massive spreadsheets where “redesign compensation model” sits next to “run monthly screening,” both simply labeled as “controls.”

The result? Confusion about priorities, unclear ownership, and difficulty measuring success.

The Critical Distinction

Let’s clear this up immediately. Risk mitigation and risk controls are different—and the distinction matters.

Risk mitigation = Strategic actions that reduce inherent risk by changing how you operate
Risk controls = Ongoing monitoring and safeguards that manage residual risk

Think of it this way: Mitigation patches the leak. Controls help you avoid sinking the boat.

Real Healthcare Examples

Stark Law Exposure (Healthcare):

• Mitigation: Completely redesign physician compensation to eliminate productivity bonuses tied to referrals
• Control: Quarterly disclosure campaigns where physicians report financial relationships

Anti-Kickback Concerns:

• Mitigation: Restructure vendor relationships to fit within regulatory safe harbors
• Control: Monthly sanctions screening for all vendors

Billing Compliance:

• Mitigation: Discontinue high-risk service lines or implement new documentation systems
• Control: Pre-bill coding review and automated pattern analysis

Notice how mitigation changes the game itself, while controls continuously monitor the game.

Why This Matters for Your Program

Understanding this distinction has practical implications:

1. Scale Risk Identification with Ease

When you classify responses correctly, you can automate risk assessments and engage risk owners with more targeted requests. Instead of overwhelming stakeholders with generic questionnaires, you can customize assessments that distinguish between strategic mitigation needs versus operational control gaps.

Resource Planning: Mitigation often requires significant upfront investment (executive decisions, system changes, restructuring). Controls require sustained operational resources. Misclassifying mitigation as a control might assign it to someone who lacks the authority to implement it.

Measurement: You measure mitigation by whether inherent risk decreases. You measure controls by whether they detect problems. The metrics are completely different.

2. Activate Your Compliance Team

Regular risk assessments are essential for creating a culture of compliance. By clearly distinguishing mitigation from controls, you help risk owners understand their role: Are they redesigning processes (mitigation) or monitoring existing ones (controls)?

This clarity boosts team impact by reducing duplicative work and providing each stakeholder with a customized view of their responsibilities.

3. Demonstrate Audit Readiness

The DOJ’s recent guidance emphasizes the use of data-driven risk detection and the measurement of compliance effectiveness. When regulators inquire about your program, they seek evidence of both strategic risk mitigation and robust operational controls. Being able to articulate your layered defense demonstrates sophistication.

Your Layered Defense

The most effective programs utilize both mitigation and controls in tandem. Here’s how:

Example: Conflict of Interest Risk

Layer 1 – Mitigation:

• Prohibit physicians from having financial relationships with referral targets
• Redesign medical director agreements using fair market value compensation

Layer 2 – Preventive Controls:

• Annual disclosure campaigns
• Pre-approval process for consulting arrangements

Layer 3 – Detective Controls:

• Quarterly disclosure updates
• Monthly referral pattern monitoring

Layer 4 – Corrective Controls:

• Investigation protocols when issues surface
• Self-disclosure procedures for violations

Each layer assumes that previous layers might not catch everything. That’s intentional—and effective.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

🚩 Choosing controls when you need mitigation

New compliance professionals often default to controls because they seem easier to implement. However, if the inherent risk is too high, no amount of monitoring can adequately protect you.

Warning signs you need mitigation:

• Same violations keep happening despite enhanced monitoring
• A single failure would be catastrophic
• Required controls would be operationally impossible
• Regulatory guidance suggests avoiding certain practices

Getting Started This Week

Action 1: Audit Your Current Approach
Review your existing risk register. Mark each response as “Mitigation” (changes inherent risk) or “Control” (monitors residual risk). This clarity will transform your program design.

Action 2: Identify Your Top 3 Risks
For each, ask: “Have we reduced inherent risk through mitigation?” If not, focus on that area before adding more controls.

Action 3: Create Clear Categories
In all documentation going forward, explicitly label risk responses as mitigation or controls. This helps everyone understand what you’re proposing and why.

Reinforce Risk Culture

A strong ethical culture decreases pressure on employees and reduces misconduct; however, only 56% of employees report having a positive perception of their organization’s culture.

By providing risk owners with clear frameworks that distinguish between mitigation and controls, you create a more engaging experience that encourages participation. Nobody wants to chase ambiguous requirements—they want clarity about whether they’re changing how work gets done (mitigation) or watching how it’s done (controls).

What’s Next

Now that you understand the foundation, you’re ready to organize these concepts systematically. In our next blog, we’ll explore how to design a controls framework with architecture that scales—one that balances comprehensiveness with usability as your program grows.

Risk Assessment

Ethico’s Risk Assessment tool helps organizations build effective compliance programs by clearly distinguishing between strategic risk mitigation and operational risk controls—a critical foundation for sustainable risk management. Our customizable assessment platform enables compliance teams to identify where inherent risks require fundamental operational changes versus where ongoing monitoring controls are needed, creating a layered defense approach that aligns with DOJ expectations for data-driven risk programs. Request a demo today!

About This Series: Building Risk and Controls Foundations for New Enterprise Risk Programs. Coming next: “Designing Your Controls Framework: Architecture That Works.”

Referenced Materials

“42 CFR § 411.357 – Exceptions to the Referral Prohibition Related to Compensation Arrangements.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/411.357. Accessed 8 Oct. 2025.

“Inherent and Residual Risk.” Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration, State of Tennessee, www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/finance/accounts/Inherent-vs-RisidualRisk.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct. 2025.