A cost-benefit analysis is the best method to assist in justifying an investment in automated controls, as it helps to compare and evaluate the costs and benefits of the investment and to determine its feasibility and profitability. A cost-benefit analysis is a process of identifying, measuring, and comparing the expected costs and benefits of a project or a decision, such as investing in automated controls. A cost-benefit analysis can help to justify an investment in automated controls by providing the following benefits:
* It enables a data-driven and evidence-based approach to decision making, rather than relying on subjective or qualitative judgments.
* It facilitates a consistent and standardized way of assessing and communicating the value and impact of the investment across the organization and to the external stakeholders.
* It supports the alignment of the investment with the organizational strategy and objectives, and helps to evaluate the achievement of the desired outcomes.
* It helps to identify and prioritize the opportunities and challenges of the investment, and to develop and implement appropriate strategies and actions to address them.
* It provides feedback and learning opportunities for the investment and its outcomes, and helps to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.
The other options are not the best methods to assist in justifying an investment in automated controls.
Alignment of investment with risk appetite is an important aspect of risk management, but it does not directly address the costs and benefits of the investment. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Alignment of investment with risk appetite helps to ensure that the investment is consistent with the organizational risk tolerance and preferences, and does not expose the organization to excessive or unacceptable risk. Elimination of compensating controls is a possible benefit of investing in automated controls, but it is not a method to justify the investment. Compensating controls are alternative or additional controls that are implemented to mitigate the risk when the primary or preferred controls are not feasible or effective. Elimination of compensating controls can help to reduce the complexity and costs of the control environment, and to improve the efficiency and reliability of the controls.
Reduction in personnel costs is a possible benefit of investing in automated controls, but it is not a method to justify the investment. Personnel costs are the expenses related to the staff and employees involved in the processes or functions that are automated. Reduction in personnel costs can help to increase the profitability and productivity of the organization, and to allocate the resources more effectively and efficiently. References
= Cost Benefit Analysis: An Expert Guide | Smartsheet, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Automation - Efficiency, Cost-Savings, Robotics | Britannica

The greatest challenge when implementing a corporate risk framework for a global organization is the management support. A corporate risk framework is a set of principles, policies, standards, and processes that guide and govern the risk management activities across the organization. A corporate risk framework helps to establish a consistent and integrated approach to risk management, and to align the risk management objectives and strategies with the business goals and values. Implementing a corporate risk framework for a global organization requires the management support, which is the commitment, involvement, and endorsement of the senior management and the board. Management support is essential for providing the vision, direction, and resources for the risk management initiatives, and for ensuring the accountability, responsibility, and ownership of the risk management roles and functions. Management support is also critical for creating and sustaining a risk-aware culture, and for promoting the risk management awareness and communication among the stakeholders. Management support can be challenging to obtain and maintain, especially for a global organization, as it may face various barriers, such as different expectations, priorities, preferences, or perspectives of the management, lack of trust or confidence in the risk management value or performance, resistance to change or innovation, or competing interests or agendas. Privacy risk controls, business continuity, and risk taxonomy are not as challenging as management support, as they are the components or outcomes of the corporate risk framework, and they can be addressed or improved by applying the appropriate methods, techniques, or tools. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA,
2015, page 35.