Search results

Purpose: A cyber insurance policy’s purpose is to help in the recovering of a person or corporation following a cyber breach and to compensate for civil suit expenses stemming from first- and third-party responsibility claims.

Methodology: The usage of cybersecurity spending has forecast a variety of security categories using F&S projection methodology. Each of these is suited to the end-user organisations of in-scope security mechanisms, as well as the particular market circumstances. Critical national infrastructure (CNI), immigration control, big events, first responding, executive branch, infrastructure, and transportation security are among the worldwide forecast categories. This segmentation is further subdivided into 16 subsegments, each with its own security forecasting system. F&S protection marketplaces are anticipated using a bottom-up technique for each nation, which adds up to worldwide market penetration. This covers 177 nations spread throughout seven zones.

Findings: The cybersecurity insurer industry was valued at USD 7.36 billion in 2020 and is predicted to be worth USD 27.83 billion by 2026, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 24.30% during the forecast time frame (2021–2026). The expanding use of digitalisation innovations such as the cloud, big data, mobile computing, internet of things (IoT), and artificial intelligence (AI) across more lines of employment and society, as well as improved connectivity, have enhanced the burden of already overburdened information technology (IT) staff.

Practical implications: Accepted the innovative Insurance Data Security Model Law (#668), which necessitates insurance providers and other agencies registered by government insurance agencies to advance, integrate, and establish an information security management system; start investigating any cybersecurity events; and advise the private insurance superintendent of such happenings. Too far, the approach has been embraced by governorates.

It is difficult to argue against the fact that research has focussed on artificial intelligence (AI) and robotisation over the past few decades. Additionally, during the past several years, it has taken off and is now extensively used in numerous businesses across various industries. Most of the time, AI has been associated with some industrial sector process automation. Still, recently, the authors have noticed more positive technology uses, especially in the financial services industry. Due to several factors, the financial sector needs to adopt AI and recognise its potential. The industry has historically been concerned about unpredictability, legislation, stronger cybersecurity, technological limitations and disruption of established lucrative operations.

Never before has there been more discussion about AI due to the advantages it provides to businesses that are providing financial services. That may explain why this change is referred to as the fourth industrial revolution. Both positively and negatively, it is quite disruptive. The effectiveness, accuracy and cost-effectiveness of solutions greatly increase. However, immense power also entails great responsibility.

Precautions and security are more crucial than ever for businesses since the financial sector is changing significantly and quickly. The various benefits and drawbacks of this technology are yet unknown to humans. Although AI was first shown to us in the 1950s, it has recently gained new prominence as processing power, and the available quantity of data has increased dramatically.

The objective of this chapter is to identify the key characteristics of Global Services businesses that will thrive and achieve success in the future. These factors are integrated into three main pillars, which we refer to as the Triple-Win. The first and most obvious pillar is technology as a tool. The second pillar is the design and sustainability of the business model, without which the previous factor would be merely a cost and not an investment. And last but not the least, there is the purpose which gives meaning to the proposal, focusing on the human being and their environment. The DIDPAGA business model sits at the intersection of these three elements.

Introduction: Looking at the risks faced by enterprises in recent years, we see that the risks have shifted radically from traditional economic and financial risks to those posed by environmental and social factors. Developments in the field of activity of enterprises (climate change, the increasing relationship between the society and enterprises through shareholders and partners) have led to an increase in the number and diversity of risks faced by enterprises. It is only possible for enterprises to cope with these increasing risks by adopting a proactive and contemporary management approach. One of these contemporary management approaches that businesses should adopt is sustainability. Many researches have shown that the integration of sustainability into risk management has proved successful in risk management.

Purpose: Looking at previous literature, this study sets forth what financial (economic), environmental and social risks businesses may face today, explains with a few examples what measures companies can implement to eliminate these risks, and a future perspective is presented to companies. In addition, this study makes recommendations on how to successfully manage the risks that companies may face and emphasizes what the positive results of sustainable risk management can be (increasing the business value, ensuring sustainability and increasing the shareholder value). Mention was made about the fact that the ability of enterprises to successfully manage sustainability risks depends on their ability to prevent, identify, mitigate and manage risks, and it was emphasized that the environmental, social and governance risks must, to a large extent, be taken into account by many circles (regulators and customers), mainly investors. In addition, this study aims to identify and evaluate the current and possible future risks and to serve as a guide for actions to be taken to minimize risks or keep them at an optimum level.

Methodology: In this section, a compilation study on sustainability risk management (SRM) was done in the light of information obtained from various reports, scientific articles and books. In other words, in this section, information from various scientific sources on SRM was systematically collected, analyzed, interpreted and evaluated, and effort was made to present an up-to-date, extensive conceptual framework related to SRM. In addition, the scientific literature – especially in the historical development process of the last decade – on the debate of SRM was examined in this study, and the highest point reached in this debate today is revealed. Thus, the positioning of different views on the sustainability issue and the latest developments in the literature were also evaluated properly.

Findings: As a result of the examination of the scientific literature on SRM in the last decade, it has been determined that SRM has led to many other favorable outcomes, from the sustainability of the enterprise to gaining competitive advantage, increasing its goodwill, reputation and efficiency.

How should we make sense of Europe's current malaise? Focused on the great recession, the European Union (EU)'s architecture, or diverging national interests, the literature offers useful economic, institutional, and political explanations. It is our contention that, however diverse, these works share one important limitation: a tendency to focus on rather immediate causes and consequences and not to step back with historical or comparative perspectives to gain a “longer” view of the dynamics at work. In this article, we begin by examining parallels between the EU's current conditions and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Then, introducing the articles contained in this special issue, we raise research questions pertaining to long-term historical, social, cultural, economic, and political factors. Are the current challenges unprecedented or do they have roots or connections to past events and developments? Is there a European trajectory into which we can contextualize current events? Are there bright spots, and what do they suggest about Europe's present and future? To engage in such questions, the papers leverage the insights of historical and comparative sociology, as well as comparative politics. In so doing, they offer analyses that see the EU as an instance of state formation. They propose that a key dimension of tension and possible resolution is the classic problem of sovereignty. They grapple with the question of identity and institutions, exploring in that context the extent and limit of citizens' support for more Europe. And they delve into the nature of the nationalist and populist sentiments within and across European countries.