Leading a Trust Turnaround: How CEOs can Shape & Secure the Future Digital Economy

Leading a Trust Turnaround: How CEOs can Shape & Secure the Future Digital Economy

Good afternoon, everyone. And let me echo Leah’s welcome. Thank you so much for
being here with us today. For those of you who don’t
know me, I’m Omar Abbosh, Accenture’s chief executive for our
comms, media, and technology clients. And we’re here today to talk
about this topic of trust. Now, trust sometimes may feel
like a bit of a nebulous topic. And just talking with my colleagues
here on the panel earlier, I was reminded of the late 1990s where
people didn’t trust to put their credit card details on the internet. But at some point, that
changed, and this giant market called e-commerce exploded
and became what we see today. In reality, though, the real
application of the internet and all its associated technologies
and business are in the early stage. So e-commerce is still a relatively
small part of global retail, and the internet has hardly penetrated
into health care, insurance, industrial, and many other sectors. And the research that Accenture’s
published in the last couple of days on the state of trust
in the digital economy basically is saying, look, if you go
back 10 years, only 25% of companies would have used the internet genuinely
in their business operations. Today 100% of companies use the
internet in their business operations, and they’re increasing them. The challenge for CEOs, though– and I joke a little bit, caught
between a rock and a hard place– is, on the one hand, if a CEO and the
company doesn’t innovate fast enough, they risk getting left behind. But on the other hand, if
they innovate too quickly, they risk the erosion of trust
because they’re putting technologies and innovations in traffic
that they cannot secure. And in fact, the evidence
from the research says that that is indeed
the problem, that we’re erring on the side of going
a bit too fast today, where people are putting trust at risk. And we think that the future
value for business and society is too high to play that risk. So what we’d like to do today is talk
to you about the state of trust today, what organizations– governmental and business– can do about
it, and then some concrete actions. And I couldn’t think of a better
panel than this excellent collection I have here with me today,
representing business, government, and law enforcement. So Jean-Pascal Tricoire is
the CEO of Schneider Electric. And Agnés Pannier-Runacher is the
Secretary of State for the Minister of Finance and Economy from France, if
you couldn’t get that from my attempt at French there. And Jürgen Stock is a
Secretary General of Interpol, the organizing body of all the
police federations around the world. And so we’re going to
just dive into the topic. We’ll have a conversation
amongst ourselves and then invite the audience to
join us at an appropriate moment. So Jean-Pascal, Schneider
Electric is engaged in creating incredible technology
for businesses, companies to sensorize commercial
operations, industrial plants. You’re putting more and more
software into those facilities and those capabilities. Your EcoStruxure fabric is world-leading
in terms of what you’re doing. How do you think about
the state of trust today and what Schneider is doing about it? While preparing for this
panel, I was thinking that it’s a very complicated matter. At the end of the day, trust–
while at the beginning of the day, trust is the base of
everything we do in business, the way people speak about
processes, about controls. But every day we trust our customers. We trust our suppliers. We trust our people because the
base of the company is too delicate. Some people think that a company’s
a series of signature on stuff. But at the end of the day, it’s
all based on trust between people. What we do at Schneider is to supply
energy and automation digital solutions for better efficiency on sustainability. So therefore, it’s pretty
much the foundation of many of our customers’ solution. We speak about digital. But thinking about the
subject, there was not much trust in non-digital systems. Systems– we are breaking. You didn’t know it. You couldn’t prevent it. 30% still today of the public
service outages in the world are due to power outages that were not
prevented because things, by the way, were not connected. If you’ve got one hour of
interruption in the production line, automotive, wherever, it’s in million,
six million, seven million, 10 million. Normally, when I get a call from
a CEO, it’s coming from that. In most cases, we are not responsible. They call us for help. So you can say that the old system
is really physical, non-connected– is trustworthy. Therefore, in our sector, already
four cities we’ve been connected. We’ve been connected because
it brings traceability. It enables us to do
predictive maintenance. You start to see the things
drifting before they happen, and you can prevent problems to happen. The new thing somewhere is a fact that
the connected is getting connected. So the IP connectivity of the
world, the usage of the internet– which brings three
problems, as I see today. The first point is that
your data is accused to be on-premise with a naive
belief that it is impregnable because it’s on-premise. It’s getting duplicated somewhere. So sometimes it’s just a set
of data, logs of data, SCADA, that kind of thing. They can be a full digital
twin of your installation. So there, there is a
question of privacy. What we experience as individuals
when somebody holds our stuff is true for your factory. It can be true for your home. It can be true for your building. So that is the first problem. So the second problem is a problem
of entry point, connectivity. What used to be on-premise,
on so-called isolated, is, in fact, now getting
connected to the internet, and we are all shit scared that
somebody will enter this way. And the third problem
probably is a new topic of AI, where now machines
are learning about you, and you don’t know what they
learn on the base of digital. And there is a problem of
ethics of the machines. So that’s the third point
which I see as a subject which is creating a problem of trust. But at the end– and I won’t answer your question. But do we have the choice? Because OK, you have risk,
but look at the advantages. Average 25% energy efficiency, 30% on
your OPEC, 30% on your Capex design. Preventive maintenance– you
see the problems before they happen, and you can prevent them. So the elevator is not stopping. The room is not in the dark. Your production is not in the dark. Trustability of the people
who have interacted because, before, when problems happened,
you don’t know what prompted it. In this case, you will get you will
get a trustability of the things. So it’s weighing risk and benefits,
but everybody’s rushing into it. And I would finish by
saying, on the top of it, I believe that the new IP connectivity
is safer than the insulation because most of the
problem we saw in the past were not coming through the internet. The were coming to a
USB key, an infected PC, a guy who’d come in who
had played with his kids over the weekend, got his PC
infected that created a Trojan Horse and or other thing. And you didn’t see anything. So security in the cities– I don’t know what Jürgen will tell us. Either you make barriers
across your city, or you put people who monitor
what’s going wrong in the city. Or I see what we see today is that
it’s more about monitoring what’s going malicious, what’s going wrong,
than believing, quite naively, that a wall is existing
around your company. So that’s how I see it. So what is the state of trust? People are embarking because
the benefits are huge. And we are all working to elevate
the monitoring of the installations as we go forward. You’re reminding me, as you
speak, Jean-Pascal– actually, I’m looking at Leah here– of
the energy sector, where there’s lots of doubts about connection. But actually, security of
supplying electricity and gas is enforced by more interconnection,
not less interconnection, so there are some
interesting parallels there. But OK, so Schneider is on a mission of,
we’re going to exploit this technology and use it for the benefit
of society and business. But our eyes are wide
open to some of the issues that we now need to
mitigate and address. So Agnés, President Macron had a
very bold and courageous call around the Paris Accord for cybersecurity. Could you tell us a little bit
about what you and the government were thinking about that
and what you want to achieve with regards to trust, please? Well, so as Jean-Pascal
mentioned, there are some risks attached to this cyberspace. The risks are not only on
the business, but it’s also on the conversations we are
all having around the world and sometimes on the, where is truth? And what is not true? And it’s also an issue for
democracy, and it’s clearly an issue for all democracies. And the fact is, as of
today, when you speak of the physical space,
more or less, we all know how to use this physical space. We know that we can get abused. We know that we can get robbed. But in fact, we’re not going in
a dodgy neighborhood at 2 o’clock in the evening because we
know where are the risks. When it comes to cyberspace,
I think we are maybe not knowledgeable enough, maybe naive– you mentioned the point. And maybe the fact that we
are all interconnected will help because we will be more
knowledgeable about the cyberspace. But taking that into
account, we have to act. And we cannot act as governments alone
because cyberspace don’t know any borders, don’t know any specific rules. And we have to acknowledge
that this is a space where we have to have a more
collaborative approach to set some collaborative
rules and that we have all– the companies, the governments,
and even civil society– a responsibility. So this is what is at stake with the
Paris call of the 12th of November. It is to say we should have the
same rights offline than online. This is basic, but this is
not the case as of today. And we should work all together
in a collaborative way. And everybody is responsible for
what is at stake at the cyberspace. It’s not only a question of commitment. It’s not only a question of companies
who may have more technology or whatever. That would be clearly a deadlock. And it’s also a question of citizenship. And through this Paris call, we want
to make an awareness of a culture. [INAUDIBLE] told me years ago,
if you want to address an issue, you have to make it visible. So we make the issue visible. And we say there is a way to address it. We put it on the table, on G7, on
G20, on the World Economic Forum. We don’t want to have a
specific forum to address it. We just want to say
we need to cooperate. We need to say we have
a responsibility in it. And we want to embark
everybody to work on that and to find some solutions that will
be moving solutions, we are aware. But clearly, this is a way to set
the discussion and to set the move. Perfect. Thank you, Agnés. And again, you’ve set my brain
wondering about digital identity. One of the issues with– so elevating common understanding
of cyber issues, I think, is great and super important. But one of the big differences between
online and offline is anonymity. In online, if you speak up in a way that
your social environment doesn’t like, they tell you. They signal it. Offline, that doesn’t happen. And so there are some things for us to
think about, how we may tackle those. So you represent the federation of all
the police agencies around the world– Almost all of them. 190– Four. 194 countries, so that’s
a lot of police groups. And you help provide the
infrastructure to connect them to help fight crime in the 21st century. So tell us a little bit about
your high-tech infrastructure and what you’re doing to
help manage increasing trust. Yeah, first of all, thank you
very much for having a global law enforcement on that panel. Of course, we consider that our
role in fighting cybercrime. But the same applies for
terrorism, organized crime, because very often these phenomena
are linked with each other in supporting prosecutions,
investigations, so to ensure that there is no safe haven
for any kind of criminal activity– but also for the prevention piece. And I think trust is a very
interesting concept and, of course, very important for policing. But I represent a very diverse community
of 194 member countries’ police services, some of them conducting, on a
regular basis, public surveys on trust. And we know that, for instance,
here in Switzerland, in France, in my home country Germany,
currently the police this is ranking very
high in public trust. So in some countries,
it’s the number one. So even higher considered as
constitutional courts, politicians, and other societal groups. So trust is definitely a very
important category for law enforcement. But equally important is to having
a clear set of rules and regulations because I think trust is also
based on transparency with regards to what police
is doing, actually. So providing transparency,
for instance, in handling sensitive data, sensitive information. And I was wondering– you know that
cyber crime is one of these extremely under-reported crimes. So currently, we do not have
really a clear understanding what the global landscape looks
like with regard to cybercrime. I could tell you a lot about
international terrorism and organized crime groups operating
globally on environmental crime, drug trafficking. In terms of cyber, of course, we
all recall these wake-up calls like WannaCry, NotPetya. My home country Germany had
an incident a couple of days ago, almost, where there was
a big disruption, which– the investigation is still going on. But it seems that it was somebody who,
years ago, would have called a “script kiddie,” still living in his
mother’s and father’s basement and causing a data breach concerning
more than 1,000 politicians, journalists, and everybody. So not a high profile
criminal, perhaps– perhaps– but causing
a major disruption. So we know these cases, and the
consequences have been the same. So the Germans understood cyber
hygiene is still an issue. So what does it mean in terms
of the category of trust? Are people– if they use the password,
123456, or, I love you, do they trust nothing will happen? Or is it ignorance? What is that? I don’t know exactly. And why is it that only maybe
2%, 3%, 4% of all the incidents that are taking place are
reported to the police? Because we all want to make
sure that the internet is not becoming a kind of no-go
area that nobody trusts. The internet has a
platform for communication and has a platform for business. So I think law enforcement, in
ensuring that cyber criminals are brought behind bars, is one important
component, beside prevention. So why is it that every
bank, for instance, has a red button that, in case
that there’s a bank robbery– it’s almost dying out. Nobody is conducting
bank robbery anymore because the cyber is much easier. But why is it that every bank has such
a red button which they push immediately in case an incident occurs? And in the cyber arena, obviously,
first of all, it takes still, statistically, 150 days to become
aware that they have been breached. And secondly, if they become
aware, they do something but not informing the police. So why is it? Is it a category of trust
because they do not exactly know what the police is
doing in such an incident? They don’t know whether the prosecutor
is shutting down the company or pulling the blacks and
seizing all the computers and the businesses is
collapsing for some time. Is it because they do not
trust in our abilities to investigate that kind
of crime on a global level? And of course, that maybe should
conclude my introductory remarks by saying global law enforcement, in
its diversity, has, in the recent years, been successful in conducting
cyber investigations. We all know the example of some of the
major Darknet marketplaces, AlphaBay, Hansa market, which were taken down. We know some of the botnet incidents,
so denial of service attacks where botnets have been
taken down by, at least, those law enforcement agencies
that have the capability and the trained staff
at that stage, and those who have been establishing a
go ahead and close cooperation with the private sector. That is key. That also has something
to do with trust. I think Davos is a great trust
building exercise for all of us, the convening power of
the World Economic Forum. But again, I would say having clear
rules and regulations is equally important, that trust comes from
the existence of clear rules and regulations, from transparency,
that everybody understands what is global law enforcement doing
with the information I provide, what happens if I enter into
a collaboration with Interpol, for instance, on developing
cyber security-related solutions, developing tools. What exactly is law enforcement doing? And I think we have to be much better
in explaining that to the public. And we have to be much
better in setting up new, institutionalized
forms of partnership, what I’m doing here every day
now, every hour, and today here, inviting representatives of companies,
like Accenture, for instance, in joining our desk-by-desk approach,
where international law enforcement teams, joint investigation teams, are
sitting together with private sector people under a strict set
of rules and regulations and trying to create preventive powers
and trying to successfully investigate cyber crime. So a very interesting
concept, the concept of trust. But equally important is that we
all understand what’s going on, have clear rules and
regulations in place, which is difficult on a global
scale because, of course, we are talking about a
global phenomena, which requires a global, comprehensive,
well-coordinated approach. Yeah. I’m just going to reflect a little
bit on the last comments you made here again and then come around to talk
about, well, what should we be doing. But so when you asked the
question about, why do businesses not immediately declare
what’s going on in the case of a breach that they half know about– so I’ll tell you what
I hear from my clients. In some cases, the law
enforcement’s agencies do indeed show up with muddy
boots, stamping around the house and making a mess without
thinking about, what does it really mean for the business. In other cases, the standards that
we have established in other domains, like benzene gets into my mineral
water or my brakes are not functioning so well, and I do a
mass product recall– those standards where people
know how to handle those crises– that hasn’t established itself
yet in the cyber sphere. And so those are some of
the reasons, I feel like, why there may be some hesitancy. So as I listen to the three of you– more transparency, more
collaboration, more education so that people understand clearly
can be enormously helpful, and we all need to play our role in
helping make more of that happen. If I come around a
little bit, Jean-Pascal. And you talked upstairs about the
fact that computing is leaving the naively protected data center. And it’s not just gone to the cloud,
but in fact, it’ll go to the edge. And in a world of tens of billions,
depending on whose numbers you look at, hundreds of billions of connected
devices, intelligence and data will be stored in a vastly broader
array than what we see today. So how does Schneider thinking about
securing that kind of environment? And how do you think
about the trust issues that you will confront going forward? Well, we are obsessed by it. Well, there are two points
that we need to secure. The first one is our
systems and the customer. We have to secure our customers’
systems, which is the first priority. And then there is second one,
which is securing our own company. And they are not exactly the same. But by the way, coming back
on what you are mentioning, one of the reasons why companies
take time to go back to police– you need time to understand
because sometimes you don’t know exactly where it comes from. At least when there
was a bank robber, it was a bad guy with a
gun in front of you. Sometimes a cyber thing is
coming two or three steps, and you need to understand a little bit. And we work sometimes with people
like you to establish that, but it takes it takes time. Now back to my subject, what is, at
least on our side, our principle. The first thing is really
make a mapping of the risk because you can elevate defenses
eye-level on this part of your system. If you have no defense in
that sense, in that actuator, on that part of software, there is
no point to have a wall eye-level. So we do scenario afterwards. You have to put in those jobs, people
with a healthy level of paranoia, which is– so that they’re always
imagining the worst possible. So that the first thing. The second point is
that clearly everything which is around cyber protection
on the budget, on allocation has been ramping very, very fast. One thing that I’m looking
at is making sure– the advantage of being a 25 billion
euro company is that a lot of R&D is to have enough mass, the
R&D. Develop platforms– there used to be a time where people
say, I have to experiment fast. Everybody’s doing his
own subsystem enough. So the funny thing is that
digital is a funny package of testing very fast on the
market, so doing first initiative. But at the same time, big discipline
on the backbone of your system so that you can mutualize,
[INAUDIBLE] that everybody benefits from what you are doing. In our sector, which is connecting
products to control systems on the edge, to analytics, duplicating
on the cloud, end-to-end design– it was easy to manage
a company in our sector 15 years ago when everybody
was doing a product, which we are not talking to each other. Today, much more complicated. In terms of leadership,
it’s having this environment where you cultivate, on one side, a
full compliance sense of discipline. And, at the same time, the spirit to
try things fast is a complicated thing. It’s a balance of every moment. What else could I say? Alliances. The old industries working
on securing systems– personally I say to my teams– never develop something
that somebody else is doing in a much larger quantity. There has been this crazy belief
when digital was born that everybody could develop his own technology. Nothing has changed. There is still an effect of scale. The people who are very
good at the secured cloud are very good at the secured cloud. People who are very good at
that acquisition and algorithm are very good at that. Nothing has changed. There is no walking on the
water, flying to the sky. It’s exactly the same. So we are working in a close manner
we selected, strong partners with whom that we trust to help
us building IO defenses, and we would do it in another way. We work with people like Interpol. Or there are countries where we operate
that it’s not our country of origin, and we love that the
agencies, the local agencies, are really considering us as partners. So not only watch your system but,
those people watching, all the time, the net that tell you,
we’ve seen that there may be something malicious happening. We work together in resolving things. So it’s not only technology,
but working with all ecosystem. And finally, training
people because, really, you want everybody to be, on
that side, very compliant, that there is zero tolerance
in doing funky things and forgetting to be trained the
latest things on cybersecurity. That’s how I would put it. The last thing– and you said it. It seems a duty of a company
is to be transparent. Shit happens because
of multiple attacks. Good thing is that– cross finger, touch monkey’s skin– so far, systems react well. But at the same time, you
call the customer and say, there has been this problem. We are working on it. We work on it together. But you have to be super transparent
on what– this is a base of trust. The zero problem
environment never exists. It was not existing the physical world. It’s not existing in the digital world. But you trust people
who speak truth to you. That was great, Jean-Pascal. And actually, as
Jean-Pascal’s speaking, he reminds me of my longtime boss
who very recently stepped down as the chairman and CEO of
Accenture, Pierre Nanterme, who had a phrase of, call a cat a cat. So I think we just got a
bit of that experience here. So [FRENCH] happens. It’s good to know it’s probably global
phenomenon that we need to deal with. Jean-Pascal, actually in the research,
one of the things that came out is that what all the 1,700
executives we spoke to said is that one of the hardest things
they’re finding to secure nowadays is third parties in their supply chain. So 80% of companies are saying
that’s one of the hardest things to grapple with is how to
establish standards for security in the supply chain that are not
where many companies have grown up. So just something to– Some of the appointees
work a lot on standards together, on the interfaces to make
sure you secure the point of junction between your company. At the same time, you learn
a lot from the others. People believe it’s always
easy to work by yourself. Actually, when you work
with other companies, it forces to clean the interfaces,
and normally it makes you more secure. And actually, on that last point, I
was very heartened in the research that the vast majority of executives
said that no company is big enough to handle this issue alone. So everyone recognizes the need
to connect and collaborate, as you said, with the
threat intelligence groups and all the various
industry bodies around security. [INAUDIBLE] Accenture has convinced you
that you need them to secure yourself. [LAUGHTER] And by the way, Kelly Bissell,
who runs Accenture Security, is in the back of the room. [INTERPOSING VOICES] And if I may add it to
that point, currently we do not have a global early
warning mechanism in place. That’s also a lesson that we all
were able to learn after WannaCry, after NotPetya, that information
was available at that time. Some companies were
using this information. But it was not shared because
such a mechanism doesn’t exist, and it still doesn’t exist. So we have certs in place. We have– sometimes on a national
level, there’s a lot going on– sometimes, but rarely,
on a regional level. But we really need to set
up a global early warning system against this threat. And again, no country, no
company, no country, no region can do that in isolation. So that also maybe requires,
yes, trust and commitment to build that collaboration. And I think the Center
for Cybersecurity that was set up here under the
auspices of the web is another good opportunity
for the private sector and linked to global law
enforcement through Interpol. But it also requires
the lawmakers to help us setting up this regulatory
framework and that framework on setting out clear SOPs. In case something
happens, what is the way to alarm the community
very, very quickly? Because we know from
WannaCry, a lot of the damage could have been prevented with
a proper global mechanism that urgently needs to be developed. And regular patching would help as well. But I completely agree. Yes, simple as it is. That’s not enough. [INTERPOSING VOICES] –the sharing and transparency,
as it was mentioned. Just to give you an example,
as I was a former deputy CEO, we have some cyber approach to
see where our weaknesses and what we have to improve. And in fact, we see that there
was a weakness through a supplier. So our company IT– you can go through a supplier
and go to another company. So it was not a weakness
affecting us, but it was affecting one of the
big listed company in France and was very surprised. Of course, we make the
communication [INAUDIBLE].. But that means that sharing
the information, collaboration, transparency are absolutely key. And coming back to basic,
another example when we launched all the cybersecurity,
GPDR, was on the market, sharing information on the customers. We tracked the fact that some
people from the executive management have some information on
the net that was for sale. So we just communicate on that,
and the executive in my team was not aware that their own
data was for sale on the net. And it changes completely
what was supposed to be a netstrike approach–
the customer, GPDR, constraints, headache, whatever. It becomes very personal because there
were attacks in their own integrity. And I think that, in education,
there is very basic thing to do, which is to educate your employees also
to be able to tackle the cyberspace security as citizen– that is, to know what are the main
ways to misuse the information– to educate them as customers, and
to educate them as professionals because they will have
a 360 degree approach. And that can make them much better
professional and much better citizens and customers. And I think this is what is also
at stake, very basic approach. That’s perfect, Agnés. Thank you. And everything you’re saying
resonates with me a lot. I think one of the realizations
that society is coming to is you don’t have to be rich
and famous to get hacked. And in fact, the cost of hack
is super cheap and automated. And so the kind of education
you’re talking about is required of every
citizen who wants to look after themselves and their families. So Jürgen, what would you ask
of business in terms of better collaboration with law enforcement? What are the sorts of
things that you’re really after for the next level of
evolution to help ensure more trust? From organizing collaboration
on meetings like that– there is a nice potential partner– let’s do something
together, which very often is the basis for good
work, good collaboration, entering into a more
institutionalized collaboration, and also accepting perhaps some risks
in terms of what is the perception, what is maybe reputational risks around that,
or what’s the return on investment. I think what is required in light
of the dimension of the threat, and the dimension of
the threat will only increase during the next
couple of years as the world is continuing being hyperconnected. It’s quite clear that this provides
unprecedented opportunities for criminals of all kind to attack our
systems, so the threat will increase. But to institutionalize on a
national level, on a regional level, on a global level, a well-organized
and coordinated cooperation amongst the business sectors. So maybe, I don’t know, the critical
infrastructures, any kind of industry amongst themselves, which
very often already exists– But sharing across the different
businesses and building the bridge between business and public sector or
the many agencies that are nowadays responsible for cybersecurity
issue, specialized agencies– in some countries, already plenty of– sometimes on a local level, on a
state level, on the federal level. So there is a complex
architecture of security. And if we do not coordinate
these activity properly, we open the door for vulnerabilities. So we need to develop that
architecture of security. And we have to enter into
a new institutionalized way of cooperating in a planned way, in a
strategic way with the private sector. So again, we try to do that on a small
scale in our Interpol Global Complex for Innovation in Singapore, where
we have at least currently 15 companies that have been seconding
staff into the center, based on clear rules and regulation to which
information they have access and not, and working on security solutions
and also supporting investigations. And the next step might be
developing joint incidence response teams that helps in terms of a
crisis to immediately helping finding the answers their business continues. But on the other hand, we can
mitigate the impact of an attack. So institutional cooperation
with the private sector on a national, regional,
and global level. That’s, I think, what we
further need to develop. So you’ve put lots of thoughts,
I think, in everyone’s mind here. I’d like to come to the
audience and open up a bit and get your perspectives. Just before I do, Leah, will you
give me the five minute warning? Because it’s not just me
that’s been exhausted by Davos. My watch conked out
a little bit earlier. [LAUGHTER] So that would help. Just a word, also, on
government approach. I believe that the government
has to lead an impulse to debate. And I completely agree with you. And this is clearly what is
at stake in the Paris call. We had to pull and analyze the knowledge
and then to be able to frame the rules. But if you want to frame the rules, we
need to frame it based on the evidence, and the evidence comes
from the companies. So there’s clearly a
need for collaboration. And please, do not hesitate
to embark in the Paris call and to work with us
because we would like to make some proposals and agenda
and proposals for the coming year to know how we can move forward and
settle the foundations of regulations that is pragmatic but efficient.

Danny Hutson

1 thought on “Leading a Trust Turnaround: How CEOs can Shape & Secure the Future Digital Economy

  1. How exciting to see the continuation of the debate that we have kicked-started in 2016 at the MIT Sloan (https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/104552 ) within the CyberSecurity center of MIT (https://cams.mit.edu/ ) and under the leadership and with the guidance of the distinguished Prof. Stuart Madnick (https://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/directory/stuart-madnick).  Proud to see Schneider Electric and @Jean Pascal taking the center stage in this very important debate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *