With Rewards and Retribution, Organizations Are Training for GDPR Compliance
The 2017 Veritas GDPR report found that global companies are mixing employee education with a “carrot and stick” approach to instill or grow a culture of compliance in-house.
December 15, 2017 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
While companies are turning to automation technology and analytics to meet their obligations under the EU's upcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), many are also relying on a rather low-tech solution to ensure compliance.
According to Veritas Technologies' 2017 GDPR report, most global companies are deploying employee training, coupled with incentives, legal obligations or the threat of disciplinary action, to spur their workforce to handle and manage data in a way that complies with the EU regulation.
The report is on a survey of 900 “decision makers” in organizations based in the United States, U.K., France, Germany, Australia, Singapore, Japan and the Republic of Korea with over 1,000 employees. Each organization has EU customers and will therefore be regulated by the GDPR once it comes online in May 2018.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they are moving to require their employees to receive GDPR training to help compliance with the EU regulation. Among those, at least 85 percent have prioritized training their IT and business direction and strategy employees, while 82 percent have prioritized training their legal and finance employees.
Though a majority of companies are focused on training their employees, they are approaching it in different ways: 40 percent look to educate their employees on the benefits of being GDPR compliant, 37 percent plan to educate their staff on the consequences of failing to do so.
What's more, 41 percent said they will implement disciplinary action should GDPR compliance be violated by an employees, while 25 percent would withhold employee benefits in cases of compliance violations.
Slightly over one-third also planned to offer rewards to employees for adhering to GDPR mandates.
Zachary Bosin, Veritas director of solutions marketing, noted that organizations are experimenting with “a carrot and stick approach” to ensure GPDR compliance. But he expected organizations in highly regulated industries to take “a more carrot-based approach” given that their employees are more familiar with meeting compliance standards. Other industries would likely lean more heavily on disciplinary action “because they really tried to build those compliance programs from the ground up.”
Beyond training, many organizations are also looking at more legal and operational ways to motivate their employees into GDPR compliance. Almost half said they would add compliance requirements to employee contracts.
Bosin noted that making employees legally responsible for GDPR compliance was typically done to “raise awareness” of the regulatory requirements and employee expectations. However, should noncompliance occur because of employee behavior, the organization would still shoulder have to the cost.
“The company is ultimately liable,” he said. “I have a hard time seeing a scenario in which, for example, an employee did something in terms of losing information and GDPR was enacted and the organization” could pass the liability on to an employee.
Meanwhile, only 31 percent were moving to restrict access to data to help enforce GDPR compliance. Such a move, Bosin said, would prove impractical, given the amount of data employees handle and store. Oftentimes, this occurs beyond the purview or grasp of the IT department. Therefore, while information governance processes and controls were important, they were not quick or easy fixes that could produce compliance in a short timeframe.
For many companies, adhering to the EU was also not just a matter of legal responsibility, but of good business. Ninety-two percent said compliance will improve data hygiene in-house, while 68 percent noted they will gain more insights into their data given by adhering to the regulation.
In addition, 59 percent believe that being GDPR-compliant will enhance their business brand, while 51 percent believe it will allow their organizations to more effectively protect their data in-house.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250