Defence and unilateral action define US cybersecurity

Significance A recent analysis identified 96 pieces of cybersecurity legislation in the House of Representatives and 61 in the Senate as of December 2021. However, the federal government is moving slowly on changing regulation to boost cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. Impacts Bills to promote the development of the cybersecurity workforce enjoy broad bipartisan support, and are more likely to pass. Cryptocurrency traders should expect more oversight and regulation, especially on transparency requirements and anti-money laundering. Mandatory reporting requirements for ransomware and other types of cyberattacks are likely to be passed eventually. Critical infrastructure firms will face the greatest obligations to inform the government about their cybersecurity.

WhatsApp in Clinical Practice—The Challenges of Record Keeping and Storage. A Scoping Review

The use of WhatsApp in health care has increased, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is a need to safeguard electronic patient information when incorporating it into a medical record, be it electronic or paper based. The aim of this study was to review the literature on how clinicians who use WhatsApp in clinical practice keep medical records of the content of WhatsApp messages and how they store WhatsApp messages and/or attachments. A scoping review of nine databases sought evidence of record keeping or data storage related to use of WhatsApp in clinical practice up to 31 December 2020. Sixteen of 346 papers met study criteria. Most clinicians were aware that they must comply with statutory reporting requirements in keeping medical records of all electronic communications. However, this study showed a general lack of awareness or concern about flaunting existing privacy and security legislation. No clear mechanisms for record keeping or data storage of WhatsApp content were provided. In the absence of clear guidelines, problematic practices and workarounds have been created, increasing legal, regulatory and ethical concerns. There is a need to raise awareness of the problems clinicians face in meeting these obligations and to urgently provide viable guidance.

Double materiality and the shift from non-financial to European sustainability reporting: review, outlook and implications

PurposeThis paper outlines the development of the principle of materiality in the European accounting framework, from the Modernization Directive (2003/51/EC) to the NFI Directive (2014/95/EU) and on to the proposals for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSR) Directive (2021/0104 (COD)). The authors highlight how the requirements for corporate reporting in terms of sustainability matters have changed, underlining the main issues that require further attention by practitioners, researchers and legislators.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is based upon a historic analysis of European Union (EU) regulations in the field of non-financial and sustainability reporting and how these have changed over time. A conceptual comparison of different reporting concepts is presented, and changes in their relevance to the EU accounting framework are discussed as part of the historic analysis. Implications from corporate practice are derived from previous empirical findings from the EU Commission's consultations.FindingsThe proposed change from non-financial to sustainability reporting within the EU affects more than simply the terminology used. It implies that a different understanding is needed of both the purposes of company reporting on sustainability matters and the aims of carrying out such reporting. This change was driven by the need and desire to appropriately interpret the principle of materiality set forth in the NFI Directive. However, the recent redefinition in the shift within the EU Commission's proposals presents considerable challenges–and costs–in practice.Research limitations/implicationsFuture research on the conceptualization and operationalization of ecological and social materiality, as well as on the use of this information by different stakeholder groups, is necessary in order to (a) help companies that are applying the reporting requirements in practice, (b) support the increased harmonization of the reports published by these companies and (c) fully assess the costs and benefits associated with the increase in reporting requirements for these companies.Practical implicationsCompanies have to establish relevant reporting processes, systems and formats to fulfil the increasing number of reporting requirements.Originality/valueThis paper outlines the historic development of the principle of materiality regarding mandatory non-financial or sustainability reporting within the EU. It outlines a shift in rationales and political priorities as well as in implications for European companies that need to fulfil the reporting requirements. In consequence, it describes appropriate interpretations of this principle of materiality under current and upcoming legislation, enabling users to apply this principle more effectively.

But How Will We Measure It? Co-Creating Assessments of Outcomes in Age-Friendly Care, PA

Moving from concept to quantitative measurement can be complex. There were several challenges in co-designing measures to assess the impact of Age-Friendly Care, PA, a geriatric workforce enhancement program. First as a FQHC, our clinical partner had not captured the metrics of interest. Second, the co-developed operational definitions for our metrics should be feasible, relevant, and useful for all project members. Third, funder reporting requirements must also be addressed. Working within this context, we co-created 11 outcome indicators structured around the 4Ms (IHI) now with 9 months of data. EMR changes to make data reportable included measuring opioid misuse mitigation, high-risk medication elimination, cognitive assessment and dementia care management, advanced care planning, care partner presence, annual wellness visit completion, pneumonia vaccination rates, colorectal screening rates, mobility goal tracking, and presence of a caregiver. Work continues around formulating themes to create a reportable mechanism for assessing What Matters.

Integrating Validity Evidence to Revise a Child Abuse Knowledge Test for Early Childhood Education Providers: A Mixed Methods Approach

Knowledge tests used to evaluate child protection training program effectiveness for early childhood education providers may suffer from threats to construct validity given the contextual variability inherent within state-specific regulations around mandated reporting requirements. Unfortunately, guidance on instrument revision that accounts for such state-specific mandated reporting requirements is lacking across research on evaluation practices. This study, therefore, explored how collection and integration of validity evidence using a mixed methods framework can guide the instrument revision process to arrive at a more valid program outcome measure.

Corporate Responses to Tackling Modern Slavery: A Comparative Analysis of Australia, France and the United Kingdom

The business and human rights agenda is gaining momentum internationally, perhaps best evidenced through recent legislative responses to tackling modern slavery. Using a reflexive law lens, we analyse three recent laws – the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, the French ‘duty of vigilance’ law of 2017, and the Australian Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth). The three laws, or their accompanying guidance, share characteristics in terms of reporting requirements: the supply chain; risk mapping/assessment and management; analysis of subsidiary and supply chain risk; and effectiveness. The French Act has a broader scope as it is a due diligence, rather than a reporting law and includes obligations with regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms, health and safety, and the environment. It is the only Act of the three with substantive penalty provisions. All reporting requirements in the French and Australian Acts are mandatory, but the UK Act has limited mandatory reporting requirements. We find that only 22 companies globally will be required to report under all three laws. Using a subset of this dataset, we analysed 59 French vigilance plans and UK modern slavery statements published by nine manufacturing companies. This provided some preliminary analysis of how businesses have reported under the French Droit de Vigilance and the UK Modern Slavery Act (reports under the Australian Modern Slavery Act for these companies were not published at time of writing). Overall, businesses are using less demanding measures such as introducing policies and delivering training more commonly than the somewhat more resource-intensive activities such as audits. The more onerous requirements of the French law were reflected in the content and level of detail in the vigilance plans, compared with the UK modern slavery statements. However, for some companies, there were strong similarities between the UK and French publications, indicating ‘creep’ from the French Act into UK reports or a ‘race to the top’.

Valences of Financial Reporting According to IFRS. Up-to-Date Challenges for Financial Auditors

Through this paper, the authors want to mark the centenary of the accounting profession in our country (1921-2021). They aim to analyze the evolution of financial reporting, at the national level, in the last three decades, parallel to the natural development of the accounting profession and to bring into the spotlights: – how developments at the national level have kept pace with the ever-changing European and international financial reporting requirements; – the current challenges for the accounting profession in general and financial auditors, in particular, generated by the frequent and particularly complex changes of international standards in the field, changes generated precisely by the need to strengthen the quality of the information provided by financial reporting; – the natural steps to be taken to strengthen professional cooperation and collaboration within and in the interest of the accounting profession, to respond effectively to the expectations of all stakeholders in the development of financial reporting.