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
© 2024 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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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