The invisible value-add of risk services—and how firms can get past it
I’ve been analysing our Client Perceptions data for some years now, and during that time, views on value have continued to lag behind the very positive feedback clients give on the quality of firms’ work. It also lags behind the strong ratings for firms’ attributes, such as sector expertise, responsiveness & flexibility, and the breadth of firms’ services (to name just a few).
However, you might have been hopeful—like I was when reviewing the latest survey data—that in today’s market, where new risks emerge at every turn, the value of risk advisory work in particular would be more evident to clients. And while value scores have improved this year, the longer term trend shows little real change.
It appears that the age-old dynamic still prevails: Clients invest heavily in a firm to identify and mitigate risks—whether it’s a potential cyber breach, a compliance failure, or a supply chain disruption. When the firm does its job well, the incident never materialises. The breach doesn’t happen, the fine is never issued, and the supply chain remains intact. The value of the service is invisible, a disaster prevented rather than a tangible outcome achieved.
What can firms do to improve perceptions of value in risk advisory?
While value is often framed in terms of cost-effectiveness, another way to think about the value of risk work is to consider what an external firm delivers beyond what internal resources can achieve. Namely, are they hoping for something better, faster, easier, safer, or cheaper than they could do themselves?
The first thing we notice from the data is how little separates the different reasons for working with firms. Cost is certainly important, but it doesn’t appear to be the leading reason for many clients—more often, the work being less expensive is cited as a secondary consideration. Minimising the risks associated with the project is a leading reason for working with an external firm among this client group, but so is the need for better outcomes.
It appears that—beyond the basic need to get the work done—clients choose to engage risk advisory firms for reasons that differ widely, reflecting their individual priorities and circumstances.
Using the same list of reasons, we also ask respondents to tell us why they chose to work with a particular firm. This data suggests that clients see the value-add of different types of risk advisory firms—whether they are MBB firms, the Big Four, or risk & cybersecurity specialists—in different ways too.
This means that the most successful firms are going to be those that take the time to truly understand a client’s specific needs at the outset of a project. By asking these questions and checking in regularly, firms can ensure they’re delivering the value clients are really seeking, solidifying their position as a value-adding expense.
This blog is an extract of a story featured in our latest Client Perceptions report, Client Perceptions of Risk Firms in 2025. If you are interested in finding out more or purchasing the report, please get in touch.