Category Archives: Reputation Risk

Want to scan your crypto wallet for risks? Check: AML crypto BTC, USDT, ETH. Checking cryptocurrency wallets for dirty money.

Americans Mistrust Companies with Personal Data, Study Shows

Posted on by

According to a new survey by the Pew Research Center, most Americans believe that companies are tracking their activities on and offline, and that this activity is unavoidable. Not only that, but many also believe that they have little control over who can access an array of personal details, such as their location and online activity, including purchases they have made online or in person. This mistrust, coupled with the advent of more stringent data privacy regulations, means a more complex risk landscape for businesses operating online.

While companies often market services that collect data as improving the customer experience, those users likely disagree.

buy tenormin online www.northwestmed.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/tenormin.html no prescription pharmacy

In fact, 81% of the American public believe that the risks of companies collecting their data outweigh the benefits. This may have to do with a lack of understanding of what companies do with their data—59% say “they have very little/no understanding about what companies do with the data collected.”

It may also be a perceived lack of control over how companies are collecting and using that data, with 81% saying that “they have very little/no control” over companies collecting their data, and 79% “very/somewhat concerned about how companies use the data collected.” With more online activity, 72% of respondents said that “all, almost all or most of what they do online or while using their cellphone is being tracked by advertisers, technology firms or other companies,” and 64% report seeing ads based on their personal data.

Many companies outline how they use customer data in terms of service or other privacy disclaimers—according to the survey, 81% of respondents say they are asked to agree to a privacy policy at least once a month, and 25% almost daily. However, 74% report that they sometimes or never read a company’s privacy policy before agreeing, and only 22% read the entire text if they do read it.

Pew Data Trust

Security is also a worry, with 70% reporting that they feel like their data is less secure than it was five years ago and only 6% saying it is more secure today than in the past.

buy tretiva online www.northwestmed.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/tretiva.html no prescription pharmacy

Considering the vast array of data breaches, seemingly across all industries, this is likely not surprising.

buy albenza online www.northwestmed.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/albenza.html no prescription pharmacy

Millions of Americans have received notices from their banks, hospitals, or even their hardware store or ride-share app that their personal data has been compromised. According to cybersecurity company Norton, the first half of 2019 saw 3,800 breaches exposing 4.1 billion records, a 54% increase from the first half of 2018.

Given these results, it is no wonder that states, countries, and regions are beginning to enact strict regulations about data privacy. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which provides protections for the data of California residents, also exposes businesses that collect, store, use and disclose those residents’ data to serious liabilities. In response to some companies hiding breaches from the public, states are also weighing stronger breach reporting requirements with larger fines for violations. Whether these efforts will diminish user mistrust is unclear—63% said that “they understand very little or nothing at all about the laws and regulations that are currently in place to protect their data privacy.”

Strategies to Prevent Internal Fraud

Posted on by

As employees can be key perpetrators of fraud, creating and implementing best practices with regard to insiders is a key part of an enterprise’s everyday risk management procedures. For example, developing internal controls that involve multiple layers of review for financial transactions, and arranging independent reviews of the company’s financial records can prevent malfeasance, detect ongoing fraud and prevent it from continuing.

buy atarax online iddocs.net/images/photoalbum/gif/atarax.html no prescription pharmacy

In fact, according to Kroll’s 2019 Global Fraud and Risk Report, businesses discovered insider fraud by conducting internal audits 38% of the time, through external audits 20% of the time and from whistleblowers 11% of the time.

Technology solutions provider Column Case Investigative recently examined five common types of fraud that businesses face, including employees falsifying their timesheets to steal money from the company, taking intellectual property or passing off counterfeit items as genuine, funneling money away from vendors to themselves, or soliciting favors or compensation from clients or vendors for preferential treatment. These tactics can impact a company’s profits and expose it to possible litigation, but also pose risk to its reputation with customers and partners, as well as its competitiveness.

buy zantac online iddocs.net/images/photoalbum/gif/zantac.html no prescription pharmacy

To best mitigate these risks, the provider recommended that companies do their due diligence in the hiring process to detect any warning signs that applicants may have a motive to commit fraud. To limit intellectual property theft and misuse, they should limit access to important information and materials.

buy robaxin online iddocs.net/images/photoalbum/gif/robaxin.html no prescription pharmacy

Enterprises can also create clear ethical standards for employee conduct and a positive culture in which workers are happier, more committed to the company and more comfortable reporting fraud when they see or suspect it happening.

Check out the infographic below for more best practices to mitigate employee fraud risks:

Ahead of RIMS ERM Conference, Keynote Speaker Gretchen Anderson Talks Culture Change

Posted on by

At next month’s RIMS ERM Conference 2019, the opening keynote speaker will be Gretchen Anderson, director of the Katzenbach Center at PwC and co-author of The Critical Few: Energize Your Company’s Culture by Choosing What Really Matters. Her address will aim to provide risk professionals with a playbook for successful enterprise-wide culture change. She recently sat down with Risk Management Monitor for a preview, discussing the relationship between culture and productivity and the role of risk management in helping drive change.

Many companies have hired you to help them institute culture changes. What are some unrealistic goals you encounter?

online pharmacy robaxin with best prices today in the USA

Gretchen Anderson: The unrealistic goals that we hear about when we’re talking about culture change often have to do with speed and type. Regarding speed, the mistake I often hear leaders make is when they say something like: ‘I need my company’s whole culture to change by a deadline.’ That could be in time for them to roll out a new operating model or in time for a new CEO who’s about to take charge. And I tell them it takes much longer than they think it will take. Nevertheless, there are ways you can think about speeding that up as long as you accept that you’re working on a timeframe of years, and not months.
The other unrealistic goal is thinking you can implant another organization’s culture into yours. You can’t just copy another culture and expect that to spark innovation. Think of an enterprise as an organism that has to adapt or reject new tissue; an idea will be rejected if it doesn’t line up with the ways that people already like to work.

Is culture change easier for smaller or larger enterprises?

GA: A small company has the ability to test and learn really quickly, especially if they need to shift the culture into one where its people can work more virtually or even where they hold meetings more effectively. Small organizations have the advantage of moving quickly but they don’t have as much evidence and data points later, and so they don’t always see the cumulative effects over time simply because they have comparatively fewer employees than larger enterprises.

What are the top factors/traits you have noticed that companies possessed when implementing a successful culture change?

GA: Everything about a cultural evolution involves taking it out of the realm of faith and bringing it into the realm of proof. It can’t just be about people liking their work better, organizations [need to get] people to really understand how their behaviors, habits, norms and way of working are going to help their business be successful.

As a consultant, what has your experience with risk professionals been like?

GA: The people in risk management are such careful observers of the way that we work, the way that work gets done and what people can bring to a solution. I think their voice needs to be really strong to facilitate a discussion about how culture supports the business.

One of the key takeaways from the 2018 ERM Conference was that risk managers need to earn their seat at the table, but they can also be the drivers of culture change. Which do you think should come first?

online pharmacy rogaine with best prices today in the USA

GA: I would absolutely say a seat at the table has to come first. Once risk managers earn that seat, they can track how effective the change is and then that becomes the case for further change. I think it’s really authentic to act your way into a new way of thinking because it acknowledges there’s always a level of experimentation and proof in trying to evolve your behavior.

online pharmacy amoxicillin with best prices today in the USA

For Anderson’s full interview and a deeper dive into culture change, click here to check out her episode of RIMScast.

Johnson & Johnson to Pay $572 Million in Opioid Crisis Lawsuit

Posted on by

This week, a judge in Oklahoma ordered pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million for its role in the opioid crisis that has ravaged the country and killed more than 6,000 people in Oklahoma alone. The ruling is the first to hold a drug manufacturer responsible for the crisis, which was fueled by companies flooding the market with addictive painkillers and pushing doctors to overprescribe the drugs. The amount is far less than the $17.5 billion that the state’s attorney general sought, and the company says it plans to appeal the ruling.

Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman ruled that the state met its burden in arguing that the company created a “temporary public nuisance” by using “misleading marketing and promotion of opioids,” and added in his ruling that “those actions annoyed, injured or endangered the comfort, repose, health or safety of Oklahomans.”

Judge Balkman cited Johnson & Johnson’s deceptive and aggressive marketing of painkillers to doctors, and the company’s practice of discouraging its sales representatives from discussing addiction or other negative consequences of using the drugs, while encouraging their prescription for both moderate and severe pain. The company also sought to convince doctors that they were under-prescribing pain medications and that having patients ask for higher doses was not a sign of addiction, just indicative of needing more to address their pain.

Johnson & Johnson markets the painkillers Duragesic (fentanyl) and Nucynta, both of which contain opioids. The company has also long manufactured the raw ingredients for other companies’ opioid-based painkillers, having bought a company in Tasmania in the 1980s that grows poppies and processed opium. According to the New York Times, by the height of the opioid epidemic, the company had become “the leading supplier for the ingredients in painkillers in the United States,” having developed a specific strain of poppy that provided the basis for Purdue’s Oxycontin, as well as manufacturing and supplying ingredients for “a range of other drugs, including hydrocodone, morphine, codeine and buprenorphine.”

Michael Ullmann, Johnson & Johnson’s general counsel, released a statement calling the judgement “a misapplication of public nuisance law that has already been rejected by judges in other states.” He also noted, “The unprecedented award for the state’s ‘abatement plan’ has sweeping ramifications for many industries and bears no relation to the company’s medicine or conduct.”

The amount decided for damages may actually seem low—$572 million will reportedly only fund a single year of Oklahoma’s opioid recovery plan, which the state estimates will cost $12.7 billion to $17.5 billion over 20 to 30 years. The company’s stock even rose this week, which some attribute to relief over the relatively low damages.

However, many are cheering the Oklahoma ruling as other lawsuits near their court dates. This includes a massive federal lawsuit scheduled for October in Cleveland, Ohio, that brings together more than 2,000 separate cases. Judge Balkman’s decision that the company’s activities constituted a public nuisance opens the door for similar rulings in other state cases, and an additional legal avenue for holding companies responsible for their part in the epidemic.

Also this week, Oxycontin manufacturer Purdue Pharma pledged to pay $10 billion to $12 billion to settle thousands opioid-related claims, according to NBC News. Purdue had been part of the Oklahoma suit, but to avoid the lawsuit, Purdue agreed in March to pay a $270 million settlement to establish an addiction treatment and research center at Oklahoma State University, and provide continued funding over five years. Purdue’s owners the Sackler family also agreed to pay $75 million to the center for five years. In May, Israel-based Teva Pharmaceuticals also settled with Oklahoma for $85 million, which will further fund the state’s effort to combat opioid addiction.