Search Results

During a media event at Netskope’s SASE Week, Steve Riley, the discussion moderator and field chief technology officer for Netskope, asked, “What’s the driving force for SASE? Why now? What’s changed?” How secure access services edge security will transform networks During a media event at Netskope’s SASE Week , Steve Riley, the discussion moderator and field chief technology officer for Netskope , asked, “What’s the driving force for SASE? Why now? What’s changed?” The short take is that we are in the midst of a digital transformation, with a stronger reliance on mobile and cloud computing than ever before, according to various attendees, and we need to implement secure access services edge (SASE) now to properly address data security and networking issues that are quickly approaching. Jason Clark, chief strategy officer at Netskope, said that business has been moving to a cloud-based framework and that cloud adoption has been accelerated by the pandemic. “Data is now sitting on a CPU that you don’t own or control because it’s on the cloud, and it’s being transmitted on a network — or the internet — that you don’t own, and the users are off the network. The security teams are being stretched by this,” he said. Clark stresses that moving to SASE means “a repositioning of security to consolidate to one new security inspection point. It’s a smart reset.” When Ed Amoroso, founder, and CEO of cybersecurity consultancy TAG Cyber , was asked why he was advocating for a move to SASE, he used an easy-to-visualize model. “Hub and spoke networks consolidated and brought everything to the datacenter. Now data is scattered among apps, cloud, and different work clouds so the hub and spoke doesn’t make any sense anymore,” he said. “By conceptualizing what you need in your mind, you start putting together SASE. We’re at a time when people need different networks that can be controlled from the cloud. Anyone listening can self-generate that SASE is required just by thinking about how we use networks today.” Meeting network engineers’ needs After, Riley poised two thought-provoking questions — “If everything is on the cloud, is there a network to manage?” and “If there is no datacenter, are there now many centers of data?” — George Gerchow, chief security officer at Sumo Logic , led a discussion on the importance of focusing on data security and encryption. Gerchow stressed repeatedly the need for collaboration with control, saying, “You have to have availability, but that availability has to have seamless security. Availability matters because people have to use their services, but if you don’t have security to go with it, good luck, because it can be over in an instant.” Clark suggested that there are two avenues in building a SASE framework: “If it’s security-led, then it’s about the data. Sometimes it’s network-led, and for networking, [then] it’s about access.” Supporting the idea of a network-led framework, Amoroso said, “Many things that have nothing to do with security are an important part of the architecture.” He pointed out that he has a stack of laptops that he still uses for each company with whom he consults because that’s the only way to access his corporate clients’ perimeter. The reality is that network engineers are probably busier than they’ve ever been, and SASE can bring about needed improvements to network access. Zero trust is adaptive trust Introducing the topic of zero trust elicited some laughter from panelists. They all proceeded to comment on the buzzword aspect of the phrase, despite much misunderstanding about what it really is. Clark summarized by saying, “It’s a framework that needs to be embedded in how we operate. It’s not binary. Trust is not on or off. Zero trust has a zero to five scale in my mind.” Riley added, “Zero is the starting point, but ultimately you’ll have to extend some level of trust in order for some level of interactivity to occur.” He followed that up by suggesting that the term “adaptive trust” would be more accurate, which was met with panel agreement. Clark described a zero-trust relationship as allowing its users to “give the least amount of access as possible, as much as possible, so that bad things can’t happen.” Gerchow added that zero trust is a fabric of many things, and that it entails working closely with vendors and partners to stop anything that isn’t supposed to happen. The great SASE migration Overall, the panel seemed to largely focus on a key question, “How do we convince the C-Suite?” Panelists agreed that SASE is the future of data security and secure access, but disagreed on how long it will take for a cloud adoption tipping point moment. Clark brought up the importance of the shared responsibility model, where you can control what user has access to, as well as what data is included. He said that a company should have its own standard for considering third-party risk before granting any outside agency access to its cloud-based framework. It was Amoroso who summarized the task of transitioning to SASE best. “It’s like if you have a new house, and you move your messy garage one piece at a time into the new garage, but you want to keep it organized as you go,” he explained. “The data that needs to move to the cloud is scattered. There are companies dealing with lost data. I think it’ll all eventually get to the cloud, but moving it is complicated.” by Corinna Makris , 06.11.21 Source: www.venturebeat.com

Can larger firms face and survive the challenge of startups? The one question that comes to mind these days is whether they are still capable of fostering innovation. Many large companies try to adapt to this new challenging environment by behaving like startups, which, as the researchers point out, is not the key to successful innovation for incumbent firms. BIG DATA AND THE LEAN STARTUP APPROACH AS TOOLS FOR INNOVATION IN LARGE FIRMS Can larger firms face and survive the challenge of startups? The one question that comes to mind these days is whether they are still capable of fostering innovation. Many large companies try to adapt to this new challenging environment by behaving like startups, which, as the researchers point out, is not the key to successful innovation for incumbent firms. Adapt or… Die Trying Previous research shows that incumbent firms find it difficult to adapt their business models (and thus their strategy) for various reasons including the complexity of the organization, a focus on short-term rather than long-term gains, and competition for resources among managers. Large companies often suffer from innovation blindness caused by the very fact that they hold onto outdated models and assumptions on how the world works. This difficulty in changing the business model makes it extremely challenging for firms to respond to the new forms of competition brought forth by startups. While changing the business model is often necessary, if not vital, there are no clear best practices and many firms have followed the route of trying to behave like a startup. This approach, however, is doomed to fail as it does not recognize the fundamental differences between the two types of organizations in areas such as resources, speed of decision-making, focus etc. Adapt. Do not adopt! There has been research encouraging large companies to adopt the lean startup methodology[1] for product innovation, suggesting that in this way, legacy companies would be able to quickly adjust and adapt the business model to create and appropriate the most value. But while a startup is by definition “an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model”, a legacy firm already has a business model. Therefore, to be economically competitive, incumbent firms need to be ambidextrous. In other words, they should be able to execute in present markets while innovating for new ones. According to Steven Seggie and his peers, incumbent firms should leverage advantages such as big data and adapt (not adopt) the lean startup methodology. Let us not forget that big firms have clear advantages in big data both through the amount that is available to them and also through the resources they have to analyze the data and act upon the results of the analysis. It is not the Size of Your Data that Matters but What You Do with it The real question then is: “How should firms leverage big data and adapt the lean startup methodology as a means of changing the business model to allow for successful innovation and successful competition with startups?” Traditionally, big data analysts have talked about the 3Vs of big data: volume, variety, and velocity.Each of these characteristics creates a learning challenge, which can then be addressed through use of parts of the lean startup methodology. Volume Volume refers to the increasing amount of data that is available. This volume leads to confirmation bias as a greater amount of data provides opportunities to confirm prior beliefs that inform decision-making. The solution provided by the lean startup methodology is to use the analysis of big data not to reach conclusions but instead to develop hypotheses, which can subsequently be tested through experimentation. Variety Variety means that firms have access to data from very different sources that were not available in the past. Although variety is seen as a good thing, it leads to an increased complexity of both the data and analysis, thus making it difficult to communicate insights for decision-making. The lean startup methodology suggests the introduction of a concept called innovation accounting[2]. It requires regular reporting on the progress of an innovation project with a decision to quit, persevere with, or pivot. The advantage is that it facilitates the access to insights throughout the process. Velocity Velocity refers to the fact that firms are getting real-time data. The richness and timeliness of the data suggest an increased ability to predict the future, and thus creates an illusion of control. The solution offered by the lean startup methodology is to include a build-measure-learn loop into the innovation process as this allows firms to engage in validated learning on an incremental basis. The risk is minimized, as all innovations are incremental in nature. So even if managers have the illusion of control, they will not be able to take large risks that may come back to haunt them in case of unexpected occurrences. Let Us Call a Spade a Spade With unprecedented amounts of Venture Capital money being invested in startups, incumbent firms are under greater pressure than ever before to maintain their status as leaders in their fields. Some of them have adopted, recklessly, the lean startup methodology with generally disastrous results. In sum, a startup is not a small version of a legacy company, neither is a legacy company just a large version of a startup. Therefore, incumbent firms should adapt the lean startup methodology instead of adopting it as it is. Firms should leverage the resource advantages they have regarding big data and combine these advantages with the adapted lean startup methodology to enable large companies to adjust their business models to allow for successful innovation. −−− [1] The lean startup methodology is a quick and iterative process that requires minimal resources compared to more traditional models of innovation (Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean startup changes everything. Harvard Business Review May, 4–9.) [2] A measurement process used to evaluate innovation throughout the innovation process by Steven Seggie , 04.10.21 Source : Knowledge Lab Essec

Become a sponsor of our event and showcase your product or service directly to top industry executives. This exclusive opportunity allows you to connect and engage with key decision-makers and budget holders, addressing their specific challenges and needs. Sponsorship packages are available for all budgets, but slots are limited. Apply now to secure your spot! If you are interested in sponsoring our event or would like more information about our sponsorship packages, please fill out the sponsor application form or contact us: events-sponsors@feyzinternational.com Sponsorship Application Form To sponsor our event, please take the time to fill out the information below. Continue Why become our Sponsor Reach a new audience Our summits and conferences provide direct access to C-level executives from leading innovative companies - busy leaders who are typically difficult to engage with. Networking opportunities Our corporate events team facilitates meaningful introductions, helping you transform new connections into trusted business partnerships. The program features networking breaks, cocktail receptions, four-course lunches, and more. Return on Investment In today’s economy, marketing budgets are tight, making ROI more critical than ever. Our summits and conferences offer a strategic investment, delivering value that exceeds your initial commitment. You’ll gain more than you invest. Exclusive Audience Showcase your product or program directly to senior executives with genuine purchasing authority. Our invite-only events ensure your time is dedicated to an exclusive group of IT and business decision-makers. This is more than a conference - it’s a prime opportunity to generate high-quality technology leads. One-on-One Business Meetings Benefit from exclusive, personalized meetings in an intimate setting with industry executives and thought leaders. This is your chance to discuss your product or program in detail and address specific needs directly. Creative sponsorship packages. Feyz International offers fully customized sponsorship packages tailored to your goals. Participate in networking events, lead panel discussions, present case studies, receive technology proposals, and much more. Our Sponsors Yandex is a technology company that builds intelligent products and services powered by machine learning. Our goal is to help consumers and businesses better navigate the online and offline world. Since 1997, we have delivered world-class, locally relevant search and information services. Link in AVECTIS CJSC is one of the leading solution providers and system integrators in Belarus operating in RCIS and CEE countries. AVECTIS has been successfully operating in the information technologies market since 1994 and implemented complex integrated projects for national and foreign customers. Link in Today Technoprom is a dynamically developing IT company that creates effective solutions for the development of the digital economy. By establishing strategic partnerships with leading technology providers, Technoprom offers its customers the highest quality business solutions and a wide range of services. Link in

Our experience covers a wide range of industries and challenges, giving us a unique perspective we bring to every customer partnership. We help you view your business differently, uncover new opportunities, and achieve results that connect today’s realities with tomorrow’s ambitions. Industries Our experience covers a wide range of industries and challenges, giving us a unique perspective we bring to every customer partnership. We help you view your business differently, uncover new opportunities, and achieve results that connect today’s realities with tomorrow’s ambitions. Automotive We help automotive leaders make breakthrough decisions that drive profitable growth, improve cost efficiency, and address sustainability challenges across manufacturing and supply chains. Healthcare Improving healthcare remains a core focus of our consulting services. Today’s global healthcare landscape is more complex than ever, and our experts at Feyz International bring extensive industry experience to help you optimize growth and profitability in this risk-sensitive sector. We focus on driving meaningful innovation that benefits the healthcare community. Over the years, our consulting services have helped assess the true value of healthcare businesses, implement processes tailored to their needs, and unlock market opportunities that add lasting value. In a rapidly evolving healthcare sector, success is measured by long-term sustainability as much as immediate results. Financial Services Navigating the rapidly changing financial services landscape requires practical strategies and deep industry insight. We work closely with senior executives and investors to address complex commercial challenges, combining extensive sector expertise with advanced analytics to deliver solutions that enhance customer engagement, risk management, and operational efficiency. Our services support expansion into new markets, including mature and emerging regions, consumer and commercial segments, and a broad spectrum of products such as banking, insurance, wealth management, and securities distribution. Through targeted market entry and growth strategies, we help create sustainable value and long-term success, supported by a proven track record of delivering measurable results. Become our partner! partners@feyzinternational.com About Us

Ridiculously low ceilings on administrative fines hindered the effectiveness of EU data protection law for over twenty years. US tech giants may have seen these fines as a cost of doing business. Now, over two years after the commencement of the European Union’s widely heralded General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the anticipated billion-euro sanctions of EU Data Protection Authorities, or ‘DPAs’, which were to have changed the paradigm, have yet to be issued. GDPR COMPLIANCE IN LIGHT OF HEAVIER SANCTIONS TO COME—AT LEAST IN THEORY Ridiculously low ceilings on administrative fines hindered the effectiveness of EU data protection law for over twenty years. US tech giants may have seen these fines as a cost of doing business. Now, over two years after the commencement of the European Union’s widely heralded General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the anticipated billion-euro sanctions of EU Data Protection Authorities, or ‘DPAs’, which were to have changed the paradigm, have yet to be issued. Newspaper tribunes and Twitter posts by activists, policymakers and consumers evidence a sense of unfulfilled expectations. DPA action has not supported the theoretical basis for GDPR sanctions—that of deterrence. However, the experience to date and reactions to it inspire recommendations for DPAs and companies alike. In our working paper, EU General Data Protection Regulation Sanctions in Theory and in Practice , forthcoming in Volume 37 of the Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal later in 2020, we explore the theoretical bases for GDPR sanctions and test the reality of DPA action against those bases. We use an analysis of the various functions of sanctions (confiscation, retribution, incapacitation, etc.) to determine that their main objective in the GDPR context is to act as a deterrent, inciting compliance. To achieve deterrence, sanctions must be severe enough to dissuade. This has not been the case under the GDPR as shown through an examination of the actual amount of the sanctions, which is paradoxical, given the substantial increase in the potential maximum fines under the GDPR. Sanctions prior to the GDPR, with certain exceptions, were generally capped at amounts under €1 million (e.g. £500,000 in the UK, €100,000 in Ireland, €300,000 in Germany and €105,000 in Sweden). Since the GDPR has applied, sanctions have ranged from €28 for Google Ireland Limited in Hungary to €50 million for Google Inc in France, far below the potential maximum fine of 4% of turnover, or approximately €5.74 billion for Google Inc. based on 2019 turnover. While the highest sanctions under the GDPR have been substantially greater than those assessed under the prior legislation, they have been far from the maximum fines allowed under the GDPR. Nonetheless, this failure of DPAs, especially the Irish DPA responsible for overseeing most of the US Tech Giants, has not gone unnoticed, as shown by EU institutional reports on the GDPR’s first two years. Indeed, increased funding of DPAs and greater use of cooperation and consistency mechanisms are called for, highlighting the DPAs’ current lack of means. Here, we underscore the fact that, in the area of data protection, there has been perhaps too much reliance on national regulators whereas in other fields (banking regulation, credit rating agencies, etc.), the European Union has tended to move toward centralization of enforcement. Despite these short-fallings, the GDPR’s beefing-up of the enforcement toolbox has allowed for actions by non-profit organizations mandated by individuals (such as La Quadrature du Net that took action against tech giants after the GDPR came into force), making it easier for individuals to bring legal proceedings against violators in the future, and an EU Directive on representative actions for the protection of consumer collective interests is in the legislative pipeline. On the side of businesses, there has been a lack of understanding of certain key provisions of the GDPR and, as compliance theorists tell us, certain firms may be overly conservative and tend to over-comply out of too great a fear of sanction. This seems to be the case with the GDPR’s provisions regarding data breach notifications, where unnecessary notifications have overtaxed DPAs. The one-stop-shop mechanism, which is admittedly complex, also created misunderstanding. This mechanism allows the DPA of the main establishment in the European Union of a non-EU company to become the lead supervisory authority in procedures involving that company, which potentially could lead to companies’ forum-shopping on this basis. However, there is also a requirement that the main establishment has decision-making power with respect to the data processing to which the procedure relates. Failure to consider the latter requirement could result in companies selecting main establishments in countries where there is not such decision-making power, and thereby halt attempts at forum-shopping for a lead supervisory authority for certain processing. One example of this culminated in the French DPA (CNIL)’s largest fine so far, imposed on Google, whereas the latter argued that the Irish DPA was its lead supervisory authority. As we explain in our paper, a lack of GDPR enforcement carries risks. Not only does it undercut the deterrent effect of the GDPR, but it also provides a tenuous basis for risk assessment by companies. While the GDPR’s first two years involved a sort of grace period when DPAs focused on educating companies and spent time painfully investigating complaints to litigation-proof their cases, some companies model their risk assessment of regulation based on enforcement histories. If there is a push for greater enforcement, which EU institutional reports would tend to foreshadow, the basis for companies’ models will be inaccurate. Furthermore, such dependence on risk evaluation ignores potential benefits to firms of increased trust and efficiency involved with expanding compliance to adopt a higher data protection compliance standard applied to customers worldwide. Thus, we argue, not only should DPAs sanction offenders, but DPAs should sanction them severely when justified, establishing the necessary deterrence effect for EU data protection law. Moreover, DPA’s communication should in many cases be modified to stop downplaying sanctions: such communication is counterproductive to the desired effect of sanctions. Companies, on the other hand, should take efforts to fully understand the GDPR, and embrace compliance, leaving behind data protection forum-shopping as a potentially ineffective action. Furthermore, the typical securities lawyer warning that, ‘past performance is no guarantee of future results’, may be a forewarning to companies using past sanctions to create their compliance risk-assessment models that the results may not be accurate for the future. W. Gregory Voss is an Associate Professor in the Human Resources Management & Business Law Department at TBS Business School Hugues Bouthinon-Dumas is an Associate Professor in the Public and Private Policy Department at ESSEC Business School. by Hugues Bouthinon-Dumas , 04.12.20 Source : Knowledge Lab Essec

Library CONSUMER FINANCE IN THE DIGITAL AGE: LEVERAGING BIG DATA AND TECHNOLOGY TO PERSONALIZE PROTECTION Have you ever wondered why consumers tend to make suboptimal financial decisions, and why financial firms are often in a position to exploit them? Clearly, this is due in part to consumers’ biases and limited rationality... BIG DATA AND THE LEAN STARTUP APPROACH AS TOOLS FOR INNOVATION IN LARGE FIRMS Can larger firms face and survive the challenge of startups? The one question that comes to mind these days is whether they are still capable of fostering innovation... SOCIAL ACCOUNTING: A TOOL FOR MEASURING CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY Corporate social responsibility is an increasingly popular topic in the corporate world and beyond, highlighting a need for best practices and a stronger understanding of what it really means to be a sustainable business... DOING GOOD WHILE DOING WELL: THE CASE OF BUSINESS IT INITIATIVES How can organizations do good (help the environment) while doing well (boosting economic growth)? While both worthy goals, they can be at odds with each other, creating a dilemma for organizations... GDPR COMPLIANCE IN LIGHT OF HEAVIER SANCTIONS TO COME - AT LEAST IN THEORY Ridiculously low ceilings on administrative fines hindered the effectiveness of EU data protection law for over twenty years. US tech giants may have seen these fines as a cost of doing business... EU SUSTAINABLE GROWTH REGULATIONS: THE CHALLENGES OF TRANSPARENCY, COMPARABILITY, AND LEADERSHIP With the European Green Deal of December 2019 supporting long-term signals to support green investments, and the proposed European Climate Law as a framework for... HOW TO BUILD A PROACTIVE WORKFORCE: TRAINING PROBLEM SOLVERS OR STRATEGIC CHANGE AGENTS? Employees who take a proactive approach at work – who speak up with suggestions, try to bring about improvements, and take initiative – generally perform better, are more satisfied with their job, and progress more quickly in their career... SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THANKS TO THE DATA FOOTPRINT From accelerating sales to optimizing operational processes, digital impacts the value chain in every aspect. If the digital revolution generates an inevitable modernization of companies and a hope of value generation, it also provokes a major challenge for organizations: Data... A DAWN OF DATA REVOLUTION AND WHAT'S AT STAKE? It is estimated that by year 2025, individuals and businesses alike will produce about 463 exabytes of data per day globally and there will be an estimated 175 zettabytes of data in the global data sphere. Businesses use data for a variety of reasons; including but not limited to analyzing customer behavior...

Corporate social responsibility is an increasingly popular topic in the corporate world and beyond, highlighting a need for best practices and a stronger understanding of what it really means to be a sustainable business. For this to occur, we need ways of measuring corporate sustainability: social accounting is one way of doing so. Adrian Zicari, professor at ESSEC, explains its merits, as well as its limitations, in a recent chapter in the Handbook on Ethics in Finance. SOCIAL ACCOUNTING: A TOOL FOR MEASURING CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY Corporate social responsibility is an increasingly popular topic in the corporate world and beyond, highlighting a need for best practices and a stronger understanding of what it really means to be a sustainable business. For this to occur, we need ways of measuring corporate sustainability: social accounting is one way of doing so. Adrian Zicari, professor at ESSEC, explains its merits, as well as its limitations, in a recent chapter in the Handbook on Ethics in Finance. First, a primer: social accounting refers to the measurement of an organization’s social and environmental performance, recognizing the need to go beyond measuring economic impact only. There are a number of indicators that can be used, for example the disclosure of pollution information or the composition of the company’s workforce, among others. The list of indicators goes on, as assessing social and environmental information is a complex matter. This makes the scope of social accounting quite broad, and also leads to the question of balancing comprehensiveness and comprehension: more information is not necessarily better, as it can make reports hard to understand. Many of these indicators are not measurable in financial terms, so practitioners of social accounting need to go beyond conventional accounting and gather information from different sources. This requires a significant investment. As a result, social reports are more common in bigger companies. Dr. Zicari explored five issues (1): The motivation behind corporate disclosure of social & environmental information The use of social accounting internally for management purposes The link between social accounting and financial performance Whether or not regulation contributes to sustainability The potential that social accounting has for contributing to sustainable practices Disclosure on social and environmental information Today, the disclosure of social and environmental information is usually voluntary, though some European countries have recently implemented regulations. For instance, some companies in France have to present a “déclaration de performance extra-financière”. This means that in many cases, companies can pick and choose what, how, and when they disclose. This makes it difficult to compare companies, as there are many different frameworks in use. If it is not mandatory, why do companies disclose this kind of information? One reason is to show their legitimacy, i.e. living up to social expectations. Others may have a more “defensive” strategy in play, like if they are under fire from environmental agencies. If they do produce social reports, their motivations may impact the content. Researchers have noted that companies with poorer environmental performance tend to talk more about their environmental projects (2) and use more optimistic language (3). In other words, companies tend to be strategic when deciding what they share and how they share it, and their motivation is often based on protecting or enhancing the company’s reputation. This does not necessarily mean that companies are acting in bad faith, but it does mean that they may not disclose all their social and environmental indicators. Dr. Zicari notes that this can lead to tensions between companies and stakeholders: companies may not disclose all information, while stakeholders may seek more transparency. Should disclosure be mandatory? Corporate social responsibility initiatives and social accounting alike are typically voluntary, but there are increasingly calls for more mandatory reporting. This would be beneficial in that it could increase comparability, standardize reporting, boost the scope of information shared, result in better-informed consumers. One way to increase regulation is through “soft-law” initiatives, meaning the use of frameworks that are voluntary, but provide structure, like GRI, SASB, and Integrated Reporting. If a company says that it complies with one of those, then it has to abide by that and provide the according data. This could also boost stakeholder engagement by providing a reference point and also make it easier to compare companies, as currently comparisons are hindered by the many different frameworks out there. Another option is the use of “hard-law”, legally-binding regulations. One example of this is the Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Union, under which companies with over 500 employees disclose non-financial information. Some initial research suggests that this could have a negative impact on information quality, as companies prefer to share good news (4). Increased regulations on social reporting could help, but regulation alone will not ensure disclosure, nor does increased disclosure lead to increased sustainability. This suggests that while regulation could be useful, it does not replace the need for stakeholders to advocate for sustainability. Using social accounting internally Much of the discussion has focused on disclosure to external parties. What about the goings-on inside the company? Internal indicators can help managers make decisions that align with CSR indicators. However, since the indicators can be hard to decipher, managers may struggle to work with them, especially as CSR work can be siloed within the organization. Companies use different approaches when using social accounting internally. An “inside-out” approach highlights the use of internal social accounting information by managers in their decision-making processes; this can be combined with the “outside-in” perspective, wherein external stakeholders use report information to inform their decisions (5). Both of these perspectives are important in striving for sustainability. To facilitate this process and also help managers interpret the information, CSR discussions should be integrated into corporate performance and dealt with across the organization, rather than being the responsibility solely of a specialized team. What is the link between social accounting and financial performance? Social accounting is not interchangeable with conventional accounting: how exactly do they relate? Their scopes are different, but there is a lot of overlap, both in content and in audience. For example, perhaps a firm makes an expenditure to make a process greener: this will be reported in Profit and Loss Statements (the cost) and in social reports (the effect of the green initiative). An investor may read both these statements, as the financial statements help evaluate the company’s potential and social reports show its environmental impact. The research is mixed when it comes to how sustainability actually impacts financial performance; as a result, managers may be unsure about the profitability of sustainable policies, even if they think the ethical rationale is strong. When measuring the situation, managers thus need to carefully consider the framework they use, and whether or not it is appropriate for the situation. Can social accounting lead to organizational change? Even if the link between sustainability and financial performance is unclear, sustainability remains a worthy goal. This means that social accounting, too, is useful, as a tool for achieving sustainability. What can it actually achieve? Some scholars (cf. 6) suggest that social accounting can inform better decision-making and facilitate teamwork. Others are less certain (cf. 7), who argue that it is mainly symbolic and may not lead to significant change. One thing is true: realizing true improvements is difficult, and the mere implementation of social accounting processes will not automatically improve sustainability. Further, over-reliance on social accounting may lead to a focus on the “small picture”, rather than truly revisiting conventional business models. While social accounting is not a silver bullet, it has shown success; the KPMG Survey of Corporate Reporting (2017) (8), studying reporting practices in 50 countries, found that social reporting is widespread, and there is a community dedicated to its improvement and implementation. Social accounting could also help with the “big picture”: while reports may highlight smaller, incremental improvements, these could inform long-term changes to conventional business practices. For example, mining: by definition a polluting activity, but nevertheless one that is necessary for industrial production. Using social accounting could give managers and stakeholders information that could help reduce the environmental impact as a short-term strategy, while preserving the need to look for long-term solutions that are better for the planet. Social accounting is necessary and helpful for improving business models. Increased disclosure illuminates managers how the company can improve and informs the company’s efforts to be socially responsible. More transparency will benefit stakeholders and empower the public. We need to remember that social accounting remains a means to an end, and it will be tested by how effectively it creates measurable change in corporate practices. Key points and takeaways Tension exists between companies and stakeholders, as the former may not share all information and the latter seek greater transparency. Regulation could improve report quality, but will not automatically improve disclosure. Managers may find it challenging to work with social and environmental indicators, leading us back to the first point: some information may not be disclosed because it is not well understood or not readily available. We still do not have a clear picture of the link between sustainability and financial performance. We must be clear-eyed on the promise of social accounting. It can help improve existing business models, but does not create new ones, and managers should be encouraged to use complementary tools. All things considered: social accounting is an increasingly helpful tool for managers and stakeholders, and can help improve corporate sustainability. References Zicari, A. (2020). The many merits and some limits of Social Accounting: Why disclosure Is not enough. Handbook on Ethics in Finance, 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29371-0_14 Cho, C. H., & Patten, D. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7-8), 639-647. Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W., & Patten, D. M. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 431-443. Costa, E., & Agostini, M. (2016). Mandatory disclosure about environmental and employee matters in the reports of Italian-listed corporate groups. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 36(1), 10-33. Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. Burke, J. J., & Clark, C. E. (2016). The business case for integrated reporting: Insights from leading practitioners, regulators, and academics. Business Horizons, 59(3), 273-283. Rodrigue, M., Magnan, M., & Cho, C. H. (2013). Is environmental governance substantive or symbolic? An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 107-129. Blasco, J. L., & King, A. (2017). The road ahead: the KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2017. Zurich: KPMG International. by Adrián Zicari , 08.06.21 Source : Knowledge Lab Essec

Employees who take a proactive approach at work – who speak up with suggestions, try to bring about improvements, and take initiative – generally perform better, are more satisfied with their job, and progress more quickly in their career. For organizations, a proactive workforce which anticipates changes and is willing to contribute to innovation is seen as a competitive advantage. So how can organizations encourage employees to be more proactive?  HOW TO BUILD A PROACTIVE WORKFORCE: TRAINING PROBLEM SOLVERS OR STRATEGIC CHANGE AGENTS? Employees who take a proactive approach at work – who speak up with suggestions, try to bring about improvements, and take initiative – generally perform better, are more satisfied with their job, and progress more quickly in their career. For organizations, a proactive workforce which anticipates changes and is willing to contribute to innovation is seen as a competitive advantage. So how can organizations encourage employees to be more proactive? Previous research has highlighted two potential avenues for organizations wishing to increase the proactivity of their workforce: hiring new human resources with particular personalities and skills sets, or changing the work context, for example by enriching existing employees’ work. However, these strategies often encounter two issues that may block their implementation: the lack of opportunity to hire due to difficult economic or budgetary contexts, and the lack in means and resources to enrich job roles. It therefore falls to training and development to offer a feasible approach to promoting employee proactivity. Indeed, in the United States alone, organizations spent over $165 billion on employee training and development in 2013. But how should training approaches aimed at encouraging proactivity in the workforce be designed? And which training approaches are most effective for employees with different needs and priorities? Karoline Strauss, together with Sharon K. Parker of the University of Western Australia, decided to carry out research to address these questions. “It was clear to us that the training approach an organization should take would depend on the type of proactivity it is looking for in its employees”, says Prof. Strauss. The researchers suspected that a different training approach would be needed to encourage employees to become proactive in solving problems they encountered in their day-to-day work, or to encourage them to involve themselves in strategic change and become proactive in shaping the future of the organization. The researchers developed two distinct training interventions focused on encouraging these two types of proactivity. The researchers then recruited 112 volunteers from a police force in the North of England. The volunteers were randomly allocated to one of the two training approaches, or to a third group that received no training whatsoever. “To test whether the training approaches were effective in promoting proactivity, we compare employees who took part in the training to employees in this third group”, explains Prof. Strauss. “This means that we can rule out that employees throughout the organization became more or less proactive because of other changes that took place during the time of our study”. The researchers then tracked employees over 9 months to see if their proactivity increased. The findings showed that both training approaches were potentially effective in encouraging employees to be more proactive, but that employees’ needs and preferences determined whether the training worked for them. Prof. Strauss’s findings showed that employees faced with a high workload were most likely to respond positively to the training approach aimed at encouraging them to be proactive problem solvers. “These employees felt swamped by the demands they were facing”, states Prof. Strauss. “We succeeded in training them to approach their job in a more proactive way and take charge of challenges and obstacles they were facing”. Training these employees to identify problems in their job and to develop ways to address these problems helped them to find more efficient ways of completing their day-to-day tasks. On the other hand, the training approach aimed at encouraging employees to become more proactive in shaping the future of the organization was most effective for those who are generally more focused on long-term rather than short-term benefits. Employees who were more interested in the short-term did not respond to the training approach in the same way – they did not become more proactive. “Our findings really show that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to proactivity training”, explains Prof. Strauss. “For organizations who want to enhance proactivity in their workforce this has two important implications. First, what kind of proactivity do they expect? Do they want employees to become proactive in overcoming obstacles and finding more efficient ways of working, or do they want employees who think about the long-term future and about strategic change at the organization level? Second, organizations need to consider the situation the employee is in. What are the employee’s needs and preferences? Pushing somebody who is generally not very interested in the long-term to contribute to bringing about a vision of the organization in the future is unlikely to be effective in making them more proactive, and our findings suggest that it can even backfire”. Prof. Strauss’s work has been recognized for the strength of its experimental design which rules out alternative explanations for changes in employee proactivity. However, she suggests that more research is needed on the effects of training interventions on employee proactivity. “Our study is an important first step in determining which type of training approach can be effective in encouraging employees to be more proactive, and who is most likely to respond positively to the training. But can we, for example, combine the different training approaches, and are there other ways in which employees and organizations can benefit from proactivity training?” Further research will need to explore these questions in other organizational settings. by Karoline Strauss , 03.10.16 Source : Knowledge Lab Essec

From accelerating sales to optimizing operational processes, digital impacts the value chain in every aspect. If the digital revolution generates an inevitable modernization of companies and a hope of value generation, it also provokes a major challenge for organizations: Data. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THANKS TO THE DATA FOOTPRINT Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, companies have had to accelerate their digital transformation. This implies increased investments, so substantial that they require C-level support. The stakes are high for organizations. From accelerating sales to optimizing operational processes, digital impacts the value chain in every aspect. If the digital revolution generates an inevitable modernization of companies and a hope of value generation, it also provokes a major challenge for organizations: Data. Data from transactions, customers, products, etc. invades the daily operations of organizations, constituting a potentially valuable asset, but above all an important challenge in terms of governance and management. Organizations must increase the understanding of these data as part of their transformation. In the very short term and in an uncertain time, data becomes more crucial than ever to identify the levers of performance of companies. Optimizing costs, increasing business revenues, and driving process efficiency are all initiatives based on the availability of relevant data. As the decision cycles accelerate, many decision-makers will no longer be able to drive their businesses with approximate and often inaccurate data. Having good data - and just in time - has become a pressing necessity. But this prospect seems attainable only if the data heritage is better mastered. This is precisely the purpose of the "Data Footprint" method designed by Kearney and Essec. Evaluating the data footprint now constitutes an essential approach to secure investments and increase control over data assets. The Data Footprint approach introduces a virtuous practice that aims to understand the data heritage, risks, challenges and limits linked to data within organizations. The Data Footprint is an evaluation process based on a 360° analysis of the data required as part of a company initiative steered by the entity in charge of Data Governance. The aim of the Data Footprint is to assess the data assets to establish a risk assessment score. Based on multiple dimensions of analysis such as data quality or security, our method allows a quantified assessment of the data heritage in an organization. Today, the data heritage is still poorly controlled and exploited in many companies. What is the quality level of critical data sets in the organization (e.g customers/suppliers’ data)? What is the level of risk associated? What is the degree of control and ownership of data in the organization? These questions are often asked by decision makers without concrete answers based on a structured assessment. The complexity of information systems combined with the lack of governance make the data equation often complex and costly. The Data Footprint allows companies to get a tangible data assessment across multiple dimensions in order to establish a risk score. The purpose of such a measure is to be able to accurately assess areas of weakness and to monitor data heritage improvements. The approach also allows internal and external benchmarks based on a standardized analysis grid. The strategy for implementing a Data Footprint should be progressive while focusing on the critical data sets in the context of companies’ major programs, projects or business transformation initiatives. The approach should involve several collaborators, at least representatives of business lines and IT, who jointly use a score sheet based on the following five dimensions:accessibility and availability,quality, ownership,risks, and identification of the future users. The overall score calculated on these five dimensions can range between 0 and 15, the lower the score the higher the risk related to the enterprise initiative. Consider as an example a company specializing in the distribution of electronic equipment to the general public through its distribution network of more than 2,000 stores. As part of its data strategy, the company decides to launch a priority project that deploys a “Customer-centric” approach in order to increase customer value. The objective is to capture a better understanding of customer preferences in order to meet their expectations. The company anticipates a significant potential risk linked to data (availability, quality, etc.) and decides to launch a Data footprint approach. The total Data risk score for this company was less than 5 in the evaluation exercise. On the recommendation of the Chief Data Officer in agreement with the rest of the team, the decision to launch the project is postponed pending the implementation of a specific data related action plan. This approach allowed the company to apprehend a major risk related to data on this project. Indeed, a rapid launch of this project without prior assessment would have potentially led to failure with economic consequences (losses estimated at a few hundred thousand euros). The approach also made it possible to initiate collaborative work around the data over the entire duration of this assessment (one month), and thus avoiding internal misunderstandings about the responsibilities of the various stakeholders (Business lines, IT teams, etc.). Finally, a clear action plan could be drawn justifying the investment of technical and human resources to upgrade the information system. by Jeroen Rombouts , 19.10.20 Source : Knowledge Lab Essec

For entrepreneurs to flourish, they need funding: venture capital is financial capital provided to early-stage, high-potential, high-risk, growing entrepreneurial companies. Venture capital is particularly attractive for new companies with a limited operating history that are too small to raise capital in the public markets, and have not reached the point where they are able to secure a bank loan or complete a debt offering The role of venture capital securities in entrepreneurship For entrepreneurs to flourish, they need funding: venture capital is financial capital provided to early-stage, high-potential, high-risk, growing entrepreneurial companies. Venture capital is particularly attractive for new companies with a limited operating history that are too small to raise capital in the public markets, and have not reached the point where they are able to secure a bank loan or complete a debt offering. In exchange for the high risk that venture capitalists (VCs) shoulder by investing in smaller and less mature companies, venture capitalists usually get a significant portion of the company's ownership (and consequently their value). Once a VC decides to invest in a venture, the involved parties need to settle on a deal structure. When negotiating the deal structure, parties need to keep a few considerations in mind: The deal structure needs to protect the VC against losses and should encourage entrepreneurs to work hard to make the venture a success. Most VC investments are illiquid, which means that unlike shares of listed companies, they cannot be sold very easily. Finally, most investments are characterized by asymmetric information. In general, the entrepreneur knows more about the venture than the investor. VCs typically use convertible preferred equity to finance ventures. As the name suggests there are two important features of these securities: conversion and preferred. Investors of convertible preferred equity have the option of either holding a debt-like claim -preferred equity or converting into common equity. Converting into common equity implies sharing ownership in the venture with the entrepreneur. Preferred terms make it similar to a loan (debt), gives holders a right to interest payment (dividends) and additionally gives preference in payments over common equity. In other words, the preferred feature ensures that preferred investors are paid before common equity holders. In a typical deal, VCs would hold preferred equity and the entrepreneur common equity, thus the VC can get paid before the entrepreneur if the venture does not do well. However, if the venture succeeds and its value increases, the VC would convert the preferred equity into common equity and share the fruits of this success with the entrepreneur. AAnother feature of VC investments is that they are done in stages. VCs would never provide all the capital upfront to a venture; instead, they would only provide sufficient capital to reach the next milestone. Once the capital has been used up, the entrepreneur has to raise another round of financing to reach the next milestone. The advantage of staging is that VCs can stop financing if the venture is not doing well. It can also be advantageous for the entrepreneur, as the terms can be made more favorable to them if their venture is successful. Staging also helps reconcile the aforementioned asymmetric information levels between entrepreneurs and VCs, since future investments are only made based on past outcomes. Finally, in addition to providing capital, VCs also monitor and guide the venture. The structure of most deals is designed to ensure the monitoring role of VCs. While VCs do not hold the majority of shares, they would have the right to nominate members to the board of directors. These rights help the VC monitor progress and guide the venture and gives them the power to replace managers if operations are not going smoothly. Having discussed the general features of VC investments, we will now explore details of some specific securities used in VC contracting. It must be noted that convertible preferred securities come in various flavors. Dr. Arcot analyzes one such security called participating convertible preferred security (PCP), used widely in venture capital contracts (Arcot, 2014). Participating convertible preferred stock gives its holders the right to be paid first (before common shareholders generally held by the entrepreneurs) and at the same time, allows them to participate in excess earnings (i.e., the cash flow after all debt and preferred claims have been satisfied) along with the common stockholder. PCP holders thus concurrently hold both a debt-like claim (preferred equity) as well as an equity claim (participation rights). However, PCP holders lose their preferred rights if they convert this PCP stock into common stock. His research explores why venture capitalists are willing to convert their PCP stock into common equity and give up their preferred rights. He proposes a signaling model for PCP stock based on its role in venture capital exits. The two major forms of exits observed in venture capital are the initial public offerings (IPOs) and the trade sale. IPOs are exits where shares of the venture are sold to investors and then listed on the stock market and trade sale is a transaction in which a venture is sold to another company. Typically, a PCP stake is converted into common equity during an IPO exit, but is not converted in a trade sale exit. The model shows that VCs can signal the quality of their venture in an IPO by converting their PCP stake into common equity and giving up some of their cash flow rights. By giving up something during an IPO, VCs are signaling to investors that the venture is of a high quality. Signaling is of particular importance in an IPO, because in an IPO shares are sold to new investors who do not have access to documents to analyze the venture’s performance. Investors in an IPO typically have to rely on a bank to perform the due diligence and hence are thus relatively uninformed about the venture. In contrast, potential trade buyers are given access to documents, which they can analyze to reach conclusions about the venture’s quality. Since trade buyers typically come from the same industry as the venture, they are likely to have industry knowledge and are better equipped to interpret the information provided. When exit is through an IPO, the entrepreneur retains control of the firm. Thus, when the firm value is high, an IPO exit rewards the entrepreneur and should be the preferred exit route. However, the VC may be reluctant to take that route, given that investors in an IPO are less informed and the VC may not get the full value for his stake. When the firm value is high, the VCs may prefer to target investors who are more informed and get a higher value for their stake. In other words, exit through a trade sale. However, the interests of VCs and entrepreneurs are more easily aligned when the VCs convert their PCP stakes into common shares and exit through an IPO. Venture capitalists investing in start-ups use sophisticated financial instruments to structure their investments. This article provides a rationale for the use of one such instrument, PCP stock, based on the venture capitalist’s exit strategy. In doing so, it makes a connection between the exit route and entrepreneurial effort. This highlights factors that have direct implications for the incentives of venture capitalists to invest in ventures and entrepreneurs to exert effort to make them a success. by Sridhar Arcot , 04.01.22 Source: Knowledge Lab

Istanbul IT Leadership Summit IT and Data Executives Register Now! In-Person Event | January 12, 2023 Attending Companies Discover More Why Attend our Event? Exclusive Content – In-depth, trend-forward sessions – with tons of practical takeaways and ideas to keep you ahead in the IT space. Connections – Hundreds of seasoned IT decision makers, cyber security experts, strategists, risk managers, data heads, marketers, and more to mingle and connect with. Meet your customers, vendors, expert resources, friends and colleagues. Network with leading solution providers – As a delegate, you will experience cutting-edge technology from solution providers that can fulfil your business requirements. Showcase of Technology solutions - Gather practical perspectives from many real-world use cases shared by the market’s leading players, including early adopters and leaders from across the region. Key Topics Technology is part of our daily lives and even more so in our professional environment. The goal of this invitation-only event is to encourage discussions and dialogue on what it means to be a successful IT executive and to provide tools and strategies to assist current and emerging leaders. We urge our leaders to confidentially share their experiences and plans while hearing from inspirational and visionary speakers. We explore and share the main topics amongst which artificial intelligence, fintech, cybersecurity and the metaverse are the most popular. We encourage you to come and meet some of the biggest players when it comes to cloud computing, big data security, customer service and enterprise technology. Coming together will not only expand your networks and knowledge, you can meet the industry specialists and learn more about their expert services. Innovation & Emerging Technologies Cybersecurity, Data Protection & IT Risk Management Metaverse, Blockchain & Cryptocurrencies Leadership & Business Transformation AI, Data & Analytics Cloud, Infrastructure & Operations The Agenda The event's dynamic agenda will take you through a series of roundtable discussions, real-life use cases, and dedicated industry tracks, giving you a bird's eye view of the current market situation, the latest technological innovations and strategies for propelling your organization to meet the unique challenges of these unprecedented times. Our Upcoming Events

Zürich Tech Leadership Conference Tech and Data Science Executives Register Now! In-Person Event | 2023 Attending Companies Discover More Why Attend our Event? Exclusive Content – Trend-forward sessions – with tons of practical takeaways and ideas to keep you ahead in the IT space. Connections – Hundreds of seasoned IT decision makers, cyber security experts, strategists, risk managers, data heads, marketers, and more to mingle and connect with. Meet your customers, vendors, expert resources, friends and colleagues. Network with leading solution providers – As a delegate, you will experience cutting-edge technology from solution providers that can fulfil your business requirements. Showcase of Technology solutions - Gather practical perspectives from many real-world use cases shared by the market’s leading players, including early adopters and leaders from across the region. Key Topics Technology is part of our daily lives and even more so in our professional environment. The goal of this invitation-only event is to encourage discussions and dialogue on what it means to be a successful IT executive and to provide tools and strategies to assist current and emerging leaders. We urge our leaders to confidentially share their experiences and plans while hearing from inspirational and visionary speakers. We explore and share the main topics amongst which artificial intelligence, fintech, cybersecurity and the metaverse are the most popular. We encourage you to come and meet some of the biggest players when it comes to cloud computing, big data security, customer service and enterprise technology. Coming together will not only expand your networks and knowledge, you can meet the industry specialists and learn more about their expert services. Innovation & Emerging Technologies Cybersecurity, Data Protection & IT Risk Management Metaverse, Blockchain & Cryptocurrencies Leadership & Business Transformation AI, Data & Analytics Cloud, Infrastructure & Operations The Agenda The event's dynamic agenda will take you through a series of roundtable discussions, real-life use cases, and dedicated industry tracks, giving you a bird's eye view of the current market situation, the latest technological innovations and strategies for propelling your organization to meet the unique challenges of these unprecedented times. Our Upcoming Events