After two decades working across international development, governance and institutional reform, Renee Le Cussan no longer sees risk as something organisations can simply eliminate.
Her career has taken her across Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Pacific, including projects involving border management, migration, sanctions, governance reform and institutional strengthening. Many of those assignments were carried out in fragile or unpredictable environments where every decision involved trade-offs.
Early in her career, Renee Le Cussan approached risk in a conventional way. The objective was to reduce it wherever possible. Over time, experience showed her that this approach was often unrealistic.
In complex operating environments, reducing one risk can increase another.
Stronger financial controls may improve accountability but slow the delivery of essential services. Faster implementation may help communities sooner but increase operational exposure. Strict compliance with every written requirement may protect an organisation on paper while making a project impossible to deliver in practice.
For Renee Le Cussan, the central question gradually changed. Instead of asking how to avoid risk entirely, she began asking which risks mattered most and what the organisation was trying to protect.
That shift requires judgement.
A project team may need to balance public accountability against practical delivery. It may need to protect staff safety while maintaining access to communities. It may also need to respond to changing sanctions, legal advice or political conditions before formal policies can be updated.
Renee Le Cussan has seen how quickly circumstances can change. On programmes involving countries subject to international sanctions, compliance reviews weren’t completed once and filed away. Teams had to revisit legal advice, examine planned activities and reassess decisions whenever the regulatory environment shifted.
This experience reinforced her view that risk management is an ongoing process rather than a fixed document.
It also taught her that risk decisions can’t be separated from local conditions. Procedures developed in Canberra, London or Washington may not account for unreliable electricity, limited banking access, cash-based economies or the absence of registered suppliers in remote locations.
Applying those procedures without adjustment may create the appearance of control while producing poor outcomes.
Renee Le Cussan’s approach doesn’t support ignoring rules or accepting unnecessary exposure. It calls for a clearer understanding of purpose. Organisations need to identify the people, funds, services and institutional values they are trying to protect, then design controls that reflect the actual environment.
This kind of risk management is less about certainty and more about informed choice.
For Renee Le Cussan, the most effective leaders aren’t those who promise to remove every risk. They are the ones who understand competing pressures, make deliberate decisions and remain ready to adjust when circumstances change.
