---

Integrity is the trust currency that underwrites an organization’s reputation, stakeholder confidence, and long-term value. As recent media headlines have shown, integrity failures can trigger costly operational disruptions, regulatory penalties, reputational damage, and loss of stakeholder loyalty, making integrity risk not just a governance concern but a top-tier strategic priority for legal, compliance, and risk management leaders.  

Integrity risk refers to the potential for negative consequences or loss when individuals or organizations act in ways that violate their ethical values, moral principles, or corporate virtues. These risks are often subtle, rooted in behavior and culture, and capable of eroding individual or organizational confidence, reputation, and performance. 

Managing integrity risk  

Distinguishing between ethics, integrity, and fraud is essential for building a robust framework for integrity risk management. At a conceptual level, ethics represents the why – the foundational principles that guide moral reasoning; integrity is the how – the expression of those principles lived through consistent and authentic behavior; and fraud is the what happens when integrity fails – a deliberate breach of ethical standards for personal or institutional gain.  

Understanding these distinctions empowers leaders to not only identify integrity risks but also foster a healthy organizational culture and a positive environment where integrity – the vital and underlying “INT” factor – is internalized, intelligently applied, and consistently reflected in interactions both within and beyond the organization. Crucially, integrity is also sustained through genuine interest at all levels, reinforcing its role as a shared responsibility.  

These four “INT” dimensions – internalization, intelligence, interaction, and interest – form the core of integrity as a daily practice, shaping ethical behavior as a lived experience rather than simply words on paper. Together, they reflect a holistic approach to creating courageous cultures and ethical leadership that is self-aware, informed, relational, and engaged. By cultivating these dimensions, organizations can move beyond rule-based compliance to foster a culture where integrity is deeply embedded, resilient under pressure, and sustained over time amid shifting compliance regulations and dynamic business environments. 

Evaluating integrity risk factors 

Integrity and its “INT” dimensions are influenced by risk factors similar to those that negatively impact ethics and compliance programs. As a result, organizations should be vigilant about monitoring integrity risk factors across their enterprise. Here are several key risk factors that may adversely affect an organization’s integrity: 

• Business climate: Intense competition or financial stress may lead individuals or organizations to cut ethical corners to gain an advantage or survive a period of duress. 

• Weak governance: Lack of oversight and accountability increases exposure. 

• Cultural misalignment: A disconnect between stated values and actual behavior undermines credibility. 

• Organizational principles: Organizations that claim to value integrity, transparency, or equity but fail to act accordingly create cynicism and ethical drift. 

• Trust: Blind trust can lead to lapses in judgment and unchecked decision-making, while broken trust can damage morale, reputation, and business relationships. 

• Leadership behavior: Leaders who model or tolerate bullying behavior and unethical conduct stifle a “speak-up” culture, setting a dangerous precedent that integrity is optional. Ethical blind spots foster perceptions of unfairness or favoritism. 

• Conflicts of interest: Relationships favoring specific individuals or groups that result in preferential treatment undermine fairness, while decisions driven by personal gain compromise integrity. 

• Performance pressure: Unrealistic goals may incentivize unethical shortcuts. 

• Opaque processes: A lack of transparency can foster manipulation and mistrust, making it difficult to detect bias, favoritism, or misconduct. 

• Recognition: Valuing outcomes without regard for the integrity of means can encourage unethical shortcuts, discourage collaboration, erode trust and morale, and ultimately signal that integrity is negotiable. 

• Rewards: Incentivizing and rewarding behaviors that do not reflect integrity or that conflict with cultural norms and organizational values can create ethical tension and discourage integrity-based decision-making. 

These risks often emerge when one or more corners of the Integrity Triangle^[1]Anti-Fraud Playbook: The Best Defense Is a Good Offense. Austin, TX: Association of Certified Fraud Examiners in partnership with Grant Thornton, 2020.are weak, ineffective, or misaligned. The Integrity Triangle offers a practical framework for assessing how integrity is both achieved and sustained within organizational environments. Its three cornerstones – responsibility, accountability, and authority – are operational standards that incorporate dimensions of “INT” and shape how management and employees view choices, challenges, and conflict; make decisions; and navigate scrutiny.  

Integrity is not optional. For legal, compliance, and risk management teams, it is the foundation for credibility, defensibility, and organizational resilience. Each corner of the triangle reinforces the others, and alignment is critical for successful integrity risk management. 

When evaluating integrity risk factors along with the cornerstones of the Integrity Triangle for risk assessment or root cause analysis, consider the following questions: 

Integrity Triangle cornerstones	Key questions for risk assessment or root cause analysis
Responsibility – Task-oriented leadership in which individuals or organizations have an assigned role, duty, or obligation to act.	Who has it? Where is it documented? When and to whom is it communicated? How is it affirmed and acknowledged?
Accountability – Results-oriented leadership in which individuals or organizations take ownership of their decisions and actions, as well as the consequences and outcomes.	Who answers for decisions and actions? How is it measured? How is it rewarded? How are consequences and outcomes determined?
Authority – Leadership in which individuals or organizations are empowered to set standards, shape culture, make decisions, and enforce policies.	Who establishes the rules? Who sets the tone? Who owns and influences decisions? What perceptions about it exist?

Other methods of assessing integrity risk include: 

• Key performance indicator (KPI) analysis: Evaluating and comparing results of KPIs for programs directed by legal, compliance, and risk management teams governing corporate culture, compliance, and ethics.  

• Collaborative design thinking: Scenario planning and tabletop training exercises in which integrity-based decisioning and ethical dilemmas, along with their consequences, are explored.  

• Multisource data fusion: Analyzing data from internal sources such as hotlines, employee engagement surveys, exit interviews, offboarding surveys, and internal audit reports to identify patterns and trends indicative of integrity risk. 

Each of these approaches, whether adopted independently or executed through collective evaluation, helps shift the focus on integrity from an often reactive, compliance-focused conundrum to a strategic governance imperative embedded within decision-making and operations. 

Building an integrity-driven organization 

To thrive in an era of heightened scrutiny, rapid change, and complex regulatory and stakeholder expectations, organizations must treat integrity not as a compliance checkbox, but as a strategic asset. By embracing the “INT” factor and looking through the lens of the Integrity Triangle, legal, compliance, and risk management executives can build organizations that are both risk resilient and anchored in strong values. This integrity-driven mindset fosters a culture where ethical standards are embedded in every decision, reputation is protected, and long-term success is sustained through trust and accountability. 

---

About the author 

Pamela (Pam) Verick is a Certified Compliance and Ethics Professional and Certified Fraud Examiner with over 25 years of experience in corporate compliance and forensic investigations. She and HKA’s Financial Crime Compliance professionals support organizations in identifying, assessing, and addressing integrity risks. Through independent assessments, data analysis, and scenario-based evaluations, they help clients uncover cultural and governance-related vulnerabilities that may compromise ethical standards. Pam has assisted organizations, key stakeholders, and their legal counsel on fraud governance matters and unplanned event response in 40 countries across six continents. She has also performed investigations and root cause analyses of economic crime and misconduct by corporate directors and officers, management, employees, and third parties. 

To discuss integrity risk management and investigations of integrity risk failures, please contact Pam Verick at PamelaVerick@hka.com or +1 202 258 0913. 

View Pamela’s Expert Profile.  

---

This article presents the views, thoughts, or opinions only of the author and not those of any HKA entity. The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only. While we take reasonable care at the time of publication to confirm the accuracy of the information presented, the content is not intended to deal with all aspects of the referenced subject matter, should not be relied upon as the basis for business decisions, and does not constitute legal or professional advice of any kind. HKA Global, LLC is not responsible for any errors, omissions, or results obtained from the use of the information within this article. This article is protected by copyright © 2025 HKA Global, LLC. All rights reserved.