What do you mean? By the definition of "risk" in the paper, seems like npm wouldn't be risky.
Questions asked to ascertain risk:
10 hours are needed to make a module.
Making a module is not hobby programming.
Conditions such as the time needed to learn a tool are the same for each tool.
The tools are prediction tools such as a static code analysis tool.
npm is full of packages (developer tools and libraries in general) popular with developers but that carry enormous risks-- like short support cycles, breaking changes, security issues, packages that themselves depend on packages with similar problems, among other things. You don't have to let a paper define how you evaluate risk, but even if you co-opt their definition of risk as loss profitability, npm's popularity is at odds with "minimizing risk."
Questions asked to ascertain risk: