Navigating workforce-related risks

June 2024  |  TALKINGPOINT | RISK MANAGEMENT

Financier Worldwide Magazine

June 2024 Issue

FW discusses workforce-related risks with Michael Griffiths, Reem Janho, Sue Cantrell, Zac Shaw and Rachel Neal at Deloitte Consulting LLP.

FW: To what extent can workforce-related risks imperil not only an organisation’s financial and operational performance, but its reputation and brand as well?

Janho: Through research and experience, we have developed a comprehensive framework that includes a broad spectrum of internal and external workforce-related factors with the potential to impact an organisation’s core business outcomes – financial, operational, reputation and brand, and regulatory and compliance. This wide range of risk factors can have a snowball effect in terms of the impact on an organisation’s performance if, and when, they do manifest. For example, in the age of social media, the amplified voice of individuals continues to have tremendous implications for organisations. If a company’s current or prospective workforce takes to social media and brings negative attention to the practices of the organisation and its leadership, such activity can have a direct negative impact on the company’s reputation and brand, which can then result in turnover of critical talent, as well as create challenges in acquiring new talent. This can result in disruptions to business continuity that can impact overall financial performance.

Griffiths: The impact that organisations can have on their workers, and that workers can have on the organisations they work for, has critical implications for overall business performance. Most companies have a narrow understanding of these implications and often focus on mitigating downstream impacts to financial, operational, and regulatory and compliance outcomes. However, if an organisation’s bottom line is impacted by the manifestation of workforce risk, it can lead to downstream impacts to an organisation’s reputation and brand. Consider, for instance, an organisation that is held legally responsible for unethical or non-compliant practices. If the practices of that organisation come to light, that could result in a loss of trust among both consumers and workers alike, resulting in damage to the organisation’s reputation and brand that can take years to recover from.

Cantrell: If people are truly an organisation’s greatest asset – and from a financial perspective they are, comprising as much as 70 percent of total expenditure – then how effectively you manage workforce risk will significantly affect your financial and operational performance. Consider, for example, the risk of not having the right skills to compete or execute your strategy, or the risk of having workers in locations prone to political instability or socioeconomic crises that can disrupt ongoing operations. Workforce risk can impact an organisation’s brand and reputation; the top-ranked workforce risks by C-suite and board members include negative public relations due to worker or customer actions, and worker activism or leaks of confidential information. Organisations that better manage workforce risk outperform competitors in areas tied to core business outcomes, including profitability, operational efficiency and brand recognition.

Shaw: What is the lifeblood of an organisation? Depending on who you ask and their role at the company, you are likely to get a different response, but the answers you are likely to hear typically include cash flow, customers, innovation and talent. There is a strong case for workers being the lifeblood of any organisation. They drive business operations to create value, whether that be in the form of generating cash flow, improving customer satisfaction and brand loyalty, or creating new and innovative ways to increase business performance. In the same way that workers can create value for a company, there are multiple workforce-related factors that can create risk and impact business outcomes, including the company’s market brand. For instance, consider a company that is perceived as not providing fair compensation to workers. That perception can damage an organisation’s reputation and brand, leading to increased turnover of critical talent, and an inability to acquire top talent – which, in turn, can disrupt business operations and reduce financial profitability.

Neal: Many organisations are in a position today to actively manage their reputation and brand. Mitigating workforce risk is at the centre of this activity. Levels of workforce trust continue to decline, impacting the reputation and brand of the organisation. The workforce itself has never been so different for today’s employers, especially as they navigate the multigenerational makeup and expectations of workers. All these challenges must be met with creative controls. Collaborative workforce engagement falls at the epicentre of creating a path to a more risk-averse workforce with a vested interest in supporting the organisation’s brand and reputation.

FW: In your experience, do organisations pay sufficient attention to workforce-related risks? Does there need to be a greater focus on proactively identifying and mitigating these risks?

Griffiths: Many organisations are faced with challenges in clearly understanding and identifying workforce risk. For instance, we surveyed 875 organisational leaders to understand how they view and approach the topic and found that only 40 percent had a clear definition of workforce risk. We also discovered that while more than half of organisations felt very or extremely confident in their ability to manage workforce risk to meet their business objectives, roughly a third of those same organisations felt confident in their ability to do so over the next three years. These findings indicate that many organisations are challenged on two fronts: having a limited view of workforce risk and a false sense of confidence around their ability to manage it. However, we did identify a group of leading organisations that seem to buck this trend – they have a more holistic definition of workforce risk and adopt proactive approaches to mitigate and manage it. This presents an opportunity for other organisations to follow suit and become leaders in workforce risk management.

Cantrell: Most large organisations have a well-developed capability to measure and manage organisational risk, but many do not pay nearly enough attention to workforce risk – an area that, if not managed effectively, can significantly impact an organisation’s brand and performance. Roughly 15 percent of the C-suite, executive leaders and board members we surveyed indicate they are extremely confident in their ability to effectively manage a variety of internal and external workforce risks to achieve their business objectives. And only 42 percent say they include workforce risk in board agendas and oversight. Traditionally, executives have paid attention to only a small subset of workforce risks, such as succession planning, compliance adherence and labour costs. They often miss other critical workforce risks, such as belonging and inclusion or filling critical roles, that our research suggests are measured far less frequently. By developing the capability to proactively identify potential workforce risks through continuous sensing and measurement, leaders can spot and act on potential problems before they have a material impact on performance. Tools and techniques such as scenario planning, real options and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to alert managers of potential emerging risks can all help.

Janho: Our research and experience indicate that many organisations primarily focus on ‘traditional’ workforce-related risk factors, such as succession planning, executive compensation and adherence to regulatory and compliance standards, to name a few. This narrow lens by which organisations view workforce risk can often leave organisations with a limited understanding of the broader spectrum of workforce-related factors that they can be exposed to, resulting in a reactive approach to managing risks once they have already become an issue. A limited number of leading organisations have adopted a more holistic definition and proactive methods to mitigate and manage workforce risk. Our research shows that those organisations that are more mature in this regard report better business performance across a wide range of factors.

Shaw: Organisational leaders think workforce risk is important. The board members, C-suite and executive leaders we surveyed ranked workforce risk as the second highest priority behind operational risk. However, our research also indicates that most organisations seem to have a false sense of confidence in their ability to effectively manage it. For instance, 54 percent of the leaders we surveyed felt very or extremely confident in their ability to manage workforce risk to achieve their business objectives, yet only 34 percent felt confident in their ability to do so over the next three years. Similarly, while 50 percent of those surveyed indicated their organisation regularly reviews and refines how they define workforce risk, only 40 percent agreed that they had a clear definition for it. This further suggests that organisations are struggling to understand and define what workforce risk means for their organisation. Interestingly, our ‘pioneer’ group – those we identified as confident, effective leaders in workforce risk management – were 50 percent more likely than others to entrust their line managers with expert-level knowledge of workforce risk management. Those same pioneers not only had a clear definition of workforce risk, but they also measured more workforce risk indicators and were more likely to indicate they were able to effectively measure and monitor workforce risk to inform decision making.

Neal: Organisations are evolving their way of conducting business daily and where they do it. For example, they are pioneering into new markets, changing how they do work due to technological advancements, and engaging the contingent workforce more than ever before. As organisations morph into their new operating models, they are faced with the need to focus more intentionally on workforce risk. But we often find they are behind the curve in doing so. Even the organisations with mature programmes to manage workforce risk are in a mode of active change management and find it challenging to keep pace with the momentum. There has never been a greater need for organisations to proactively manage workforce risk and protect their people and businesses. Organisations, with the understanding that their human capital generates value for the business and engages their workforce to co-create mitigation strategies and solutions, can elevate risk management to more manageable levels.

FW: From a regulatory point of view, are you seeing an increasing interest in protecting workers, safeguarding their health and strengthening their rights?

Shaw: What will be interesting to see – and a growing risk to organisations – is the combined impact of increased worker protections and the growth and adoption of emerging technologies, specifically AI. In recent years, we have seen an increased focus from regulators surrounding worker protections, particularly those related to protecting workers’ hours and wages, and increased government support for unions. Today, in the US, we are seeing a push for worker protections continue, with the senate introducing legislation that proposes to reduce the standard workweek from 40 to 32 hours. The reduction of standard workweek hours has also been an area of focus in the UK, with 89 percent of companies that took part in a 2022 pilot still retaining a four-day workweek policy a year later, and over half of those companies making the change permanent. This could open the door to regulatory changes in the future. At the same time, the advancement of AI-enabled technological capabilities has had an immediate impact on a sizeable portion of the workforce, the Writers Guild of America strike being one of many notable instances. That impact on the workforce, both replacing jobs and increasing productivity, is only expected to increase in size and scale over time as AI advances at a significant rate. What that means today is that we have two opposing forces – one in regulators providing more worker protections, the other in AI providing organisations with more opportunities to replace jobs or require more output from workers. What that could likely mean for the future is a highly volatile regulatory landscape, and one that will likely lead to new laws and changes to existing laws, placing more responsibility on organisations to ensure regulatory compliance.

Janho: One of the many workforce risk factors that we have seen accelerate coming out of the global pandemic is the amplified voice of individuals. Social media provides individuals with the means to amplify their thoughts to an ever-expanding audience, the likes of which we have never seen before. As a result, we are seeing workers come together to voice their concerns, needs, and priorities with the world, with their actions and activism influencing the behaviours of organisational leaders and regulators alike. For example, workers have increasingly called for companies to provide fair compensation and livable wages. Similarly, with the growth and accessibility of AI and worker data, workers are putting the onus on companies for ethical treatment and protection of their private information. This has put a spotlight on leaders and regulators alike to act. In the US, over the past year alone, the federal government, states, counties and cities have focused on passing workplace legislation intended to protect employees. What we are seeing as a result includes regulatory changes, particularly at the state level, such as increased minimum wage laws, expansion of employee privacy protections, pay transparency standards, requirements regarding use and consent for use of AI to protect workers’ rights and privacy, as well as increased union support at both the federal and state level.

Cantrell: Regulations are evolving to protect workers as advances in technology and AI can now analyse worker communications and behaviours on a larger scale than ever before. Companies can collect vast amounts of data from their workers and customers more easily than ever, transforming it into insights with the use of AI and advanced analytics. Although this can benefit workers and organisations alike, if organisations do not take a responsible approach to workforce data and technology and ensure the protection of worker rights, they may be at risk of data privacy and security breaches, erosion of workforce trust, and financial or regulatory penalties. In the US, data collection policies are not covered by a single, comprehensive federal privacy law; instead, this falls under the jurisdiction and responsibility of individual states. Some states have laws governing worker privacy, including restrictions on email tracking and social media monitoring. However, in general, employers based in the US have a relatively broad scope to track worker communications and activities, if they are not infringing on constitutionally protected rights. In the UK, workplace data collection policies are governed by the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulation, which emphasise the importance of obtaining informed consent and providing clear information to workers regarding the purpose and extent of data collection. As businesses strive to strike the right balance between adopting technological advancements that can benefit both organisations and workers and preserving individual privacy rights, it will likely prompt government discussions around updating existing labour and employment policies to address these emerging challenges. In the meantime, to ensure workforce trust, businesses will need to develop their own robust frameworks of responsibility that go beyond compliance to existing regulations.

Neal: Worldwide, progress is being made in a number of areas, such as pay equity and transparency, child labour, minimum wages, medical leave, sick pay and health and safety, to name a few. Much of this change is perpetuated through the activism of individuals and groups around the world and their need to be heard. Union activity is on the rise and is impacting previously immune industries. One thing I find interesting is the amount of change occurring in local jurisdictions. Localised change is creating a matrix of rule variations that is complex to manage. Alone, these variations are creating risk for organisations to meet all the requirements due to complexity. To bring this full circle, it is imperative for organisations to establish communication channels with not only their workforce, but also their communities, their industries and the businesses surrounding them. Without an understanding of their environment, it is difficult for organisations to manage the foundational needs of their people and strive toward the beneficial relationship required to be successful.

FW: What potential penalties may face companies that fail to apply effective risk management processes to their workforce and meet their compliance requirements?

Neal: The cost of non-compliance is higher than ever before and there are no signs of it decreasing. Some of the largest penalties assessed revolve around violations of information privacy and security, discrimination and child labour rights. Penalties are not the only costs to be considered; there are also costs for business disruption and productivity losses that can occur. In hopes of combatting the cost of non-compliance, hiring is on the rise for compliance professionals. That is a good place to start. However, investing in the enabling technology, organisational structure, process improvement and upskilling the current workforce will also support organisational efforts to mitigate risk. Companies are steadily realising the reward in this investment and are bringing to fruition the value of respecting the cost of compliance, which is much less than the cost of non-compliance.

Janho: Regulatory compliance refers to the adherence to laws, regulations and guidelines set forth by governing bodies to ensure the safety, quality and ethical standards of an organisation’s products and operations. While that distinction is important to ensure compliance and meet legal requirements, it is also important to note that failing to comply with such regulations can have severe consequences not just from a legal perspective, but also for a company’s finances, operations, reputation and brand. For example, when an organisation fails to comply with regulations, it can face fines, sanctions or even legal action. The penalties for non-compliance can vary depending on the severity of the violation and the jurisdiction in which the organisation operates and, in some instances, can result in significant financial losses, and that is just the just the tip of the iceberg. If a company’s non-compliant practices come to light, it can also damage its operational effectiveness, along with its reputation and brand. For instance, loss of trust in the organisation and its brand for both workers and consumers can result in workforce turnover or inability to source critical skills and talent, as well as lack of engagement for both new and longstanding consumer bases, and it can take years to rebuild that trust.

Shaw: The potential penalties that organisations can face for non-compliance are not always fines and fees. The impact on regulatory and compliance outcomes can lead to downstream effects on financial, operational and reputational performance. That, along with increased protections for workers and an increasingly connected world, means more regulatory obligations for organisations, and more opportunity for instances of non-compliance to become the next media headline. Add in the additional impact of amplified voices and choices of workers and consumers, and what you see is a ripple effect, with gaps in compliance at the centre. Those gaps can lead to tarnishing the company’s reputation and brand, impacting everything from the ability to keep and acquire talent, to selling services and goods to consumers.

FW: What steps should companies take to assess and manage any workforce-related risks associated with their operations? What strategies can help to navigate risks and avoid costly oversights?

Griffiths: Organisations need to first understand that there is a wide array of both external and internal workforce risk factors than can impact their operational performance. Identifying risks that can be most impactful to the organisation’s operational landscape is only part of the journey toward effectively assessing and managing workforce risk. Organisations can become leaders in managing workforce risk by recognising that such activity is not purely a leadership issue. For instance, leading organisations are 50 percent more likely than others to identify line managers as having expert-level knowledge of workforce risk. These findings suggest that organisations that make workforce risk a priority and entrust both leadership and line managers to actively manage it can become more effective in managing risks that can impact business performance.

Cantrell: Organisations should start by defining workforce risk, making sure to identify the full array of potential and underlying internal and external sources of workforce risk that could most likely disrupt their financial and operational performance, reputation and brand and compliance with regulations. Next, they should measure and monitor workforce risk by using real-time data and metrics, applying specialised methods and tools to help identify future threats, and more transparently reporting and disclosing workforce-related information. Then, they should manage and govern workforce risk by proactively developing mitigation strategies and assigning clear oversight and ownership both vertically, from line managers to the board, and horizontally, across functions including and beyond HR.

Shaw: You need a clear definition for workforce risk, and that definition needs to account for a number of factors. Those factors include any internal or external workforce-related challenge with the potential to impact your business performance. Once you have defined it, and what workforce risk means for your organisation, you need to identify your organisation’s risk exposures, and establish proactive methods to actively measure and monitor them. Through our survey of board members, C-suite and executive leaders, we found that most organisations measured less than half of the workforce risk metrics we tested, and only 5 percent indicated they were extremely satisfied with the way their organisation measures and monitors workforce risk. Once you have the metrics and the means to understand workforce risk, you then need to implement practices to manage and govern it. Our survey results also indicated that C-suites and boards oversee at most four out of the 11 workforce risk areas. These gaps indicated that many organisations could do more to measure risk exposure, increase governance and oversight, and provide leadership with data-driven insights to make informed decisions.

Janho: The first step that organisations can take is to adopt a broader definition of workforce risk, to proactively identify and fully understand the factors to which they can be exposed. The second step is prioritising those workforce-related factors to determine what elements are most critical to operational effectiveness, which varies based on the type of organisation and workforce demographics. For example, a manufacturing company with onsite workers will likely face a different set of risks and challenges than a financial services company comprised of remote and hybrid workers, based on the types of talent needed to achieve their business objectives. However, regardless of the type of organisation, all will need to ensure that they get the table stakes right – establishing governance and oversight, documenting policies and procedures, and monitoring and adhering to regulatory compliance – to effectively mitigate and manage workforce risk long-term.

FW: How can data and technology assist in delivering insights into worker safety and performance?

Cantrell: New advances in technology can provide valuable, real-time insights to improve worker safety and performance like never before. As workers work, they generate data from various sources, including digital work applications, workplace smart sensors, wearables, and voice and video inputs. These passive data sources, as long as they are in compliance with regulations and responsibly used in a way that guards worker privacy and provides them with the opportunity to opt-in to data collection, can often be used in concert with traditional data sources like surveys or structured data in information systems and databases to better spot risks and opportunities for improvement. For example, some organisations are using AI-enabled video analytics on factory floors or distribution centres to analyse patterns to improve productivity and safety. Video data is aggregated and anonymised, and workers as well as leaders can see the patterns to make their own decisions on how to improve worker safety and the work experience. Other examples include using AI to be a personalised coach to improve workers’ happiness or performance. The trick is to never use the data or AI as surveillance or with punitive consequences, and instead use it to provide benefits to workers as a developmental tool or to spot broad patterns of potential risk across the workforce in real-time.

Neal: We have data – now what do we do with it? That is a question organisations have been asking for quite some time. And yet, now they have even more data. There is a balance to strike in order to adhere to data privacy and security requirements and the ethical use of data. The ever-changing worldwide regulatory landscape covering data privacy and security is complex to both understand and manage. What you can do in one part of the world, you cannot do in another. The key to unlocking the data lies in proactively evaluating it against the requirements to make informed decisions on its use. Once you have done that, advancing your data analytics to produce the desired result is your next challenge.

Janho: The increased availability of data and acceleration of emerging technology, such as AI, has a wide array of implications for risk management. While worker data, and the technological means to analyse it, has become more abundant than ever, such practices can be a double-edged sword for organisations. For instance, organisations that collect passive data to continuously measure and monitor for metrics related to worker safety – both physical and mental – and worker performance may find themselves at a financial and operational advantage in proactively identifying and managing workforce-related risks. However, if organisations use such data in an unethical manner, they may find themselves at odds with the workforce and regulators, resulting in downstream impacts to their reputation and brand, and regulatory and compliance outcomes.

Griffiths: Increased accessibility to worker data and emerging technology provides organisations with opportunities to better understand and manage workforce risk more effectively than ever before. As exciting as that can be, organisations can also be overwhelmed by the amount of data at their disposal and can fall into the trap of ‘analysis paralysis’ if they are not targeted in their approach. To that end, organisations should first start by understanding and defining the right metrics to measure and do so in a way that provides data-driven insights that can support leaders in making informed decisions to manage workforce risk. However, our research indicates that most organisations primarily measure a small set of workforce risk indicators, such as succession planning efficacy, workforce planning accuracy and labour costs per worker, indicating that organisations can do more to proactively identify risks related to worker safety and performance.

Shaw: The availability of various types of worker data, and the necessary means to collect, measure and monitor it, are greater than ever before. As great as accessibility of data may be, you also need to know what you are looking for, and how to analyse it. In the context of workforce risk, that means defining the right metrics to measure, and those metrics should generate insights that can lead to action and enable informed decision making at every level. Most organisations only measure a small range of workforce-related metrics. Succession planning and workforce planning were the two most measured in our survey – they were also the only two metrics measured by more than 50 percent of respondents. Less than half indicated they measure labour costs per worker, even fewer measure turnover rates by job, and less than a quarter indicated they were measuring critical or hard-to-fill roles. This indicates that there is a substantial gap in the robustness of workforce risk metrics that organisations collect. To start the journey, organisations can take inventory of the data they have, determine the metrics they need, and implement the means to analyse those metrics, generate actionable insights, and report results to those that need them to make informed decisions.

FW: Going forward, do you believe workforce-related risks are likely to remain a key item on the corporate risk register? Do companies need to ensure they have an unwavering focus on associated controls and compliance?

Shaw: Workforce risk is going to be an ever important and expanding challenge for organisations to navigate. Our research shows that many organisations understand that workforce risk is important, but few feel that they are sufficiently prepared or confident they will be able to manage it effectively over the next three years. And if the next three years are anything like the last, that means that many organisations can do more to manage workforce risk with justifiable confidence. Doing so requires proactive approaches and a strong foundation and capabilities in identifying, measuring and monitoring, and managing and governing workforce risk.

Cantrell: Workforce-related risks will only grow in importance over time as organisations continue to evolve to compete more on speed, innovation and agility than on scalable efficiency. We are operating in a human-powered economy, having transitioned from an industrial economy to a knowledge economy, and now to an economy that is powered by the hearts and minds of people. Human connections now drive everything of value to an organisation, including revenue, innovation and intellectual property, efficiency, brand relevance, productivity, retention, adaptability and risk.

Janho: Workforce risk will continue to be of increasing importance for every organisation at every level, from the board, C-suite and executive leadership, to line managers and individual workers. The pandemic acted as an accelerant in many ways, with instances such as high rates of unemployment, emphasis on wellbeing and livable wages, the impact of worker activism, and many other examples that highlighted the need for organisations address the needs and impact of their workforce on the business. Today, organisations are still faced with these challenges, as well as new trends and market disruptions, such as AI both replacing and augmenting work. This emphasises the need for organisations to include a broad definition of workforce risk in their purview, and further ensure that the appropriate governance and controls are in place to support leadership in making informed decisions that not only safeguard adherence to regulatory compliance but drive the organisation to meet and exceed its immediate and long-term business objectives.

Griffiths: Organisations are increasingly faced with ever-present challenges, emerging trends and disruptors, and areas of focus for stakeholders and regulators that are notably tied to the workforce. We see this not as a limited trend, but one that will only continue to grow in importance based on the increasing impact risk factors can have on workers and organisations alike. Organisations can position themselves to become leaders in effectively managing workforce risk by taking steps to make it a top priority. That starts by establishing responsibility and oversight that spans across the enterprise, starting at the board level and cascading across the C-suite down to line managers, to proactively identify and manage emerging workforce risks. Leaders who do not make workforce risk management a top priority may find themselves at odds with board members, asset managers, influential shareholders and regulators, all of whom seem to be increasingly interested in how such risks are managed.

Neal: Without unwavering attention to applying mitigation strategies with an eye on continuous improvement, companies will not be able to adhere to their strategic vision. Otherwise, organisations will revert to focusing on reactionary activities rather than those leading to the success of the business and its people. Although it may feel a bit tedious to establish controls and monitor performance against them, it can be quite exciting to see the positive results.

Michael Griffiths is a principal at Deloitte Consulting LLP with more than 20 years of experience, working with organisations on key transformational programmes. Within the human capital practice, he leads the workforce transformation offering, helping clients with learning transformations, workforce planning, workforce experience, becoming skill based and other workforce-related issues. He is well published in the field of learning and talent and is the leading market voice on becoming a skills-based organisation. He can be contacted on +1 (203) 423 4769 or by email: mgriffiths@deloitte.com.

Reem Janho is a principal in Deloitte Consulting LLP’s workforce transformation practice, leading the workforce risk offering. She has more than 20 years of experience working with organisations to address complex transformation challenges driven by disruption from regulation, business model changes and cost pressures. She holds both a juris doctorate and a master’s degree in business administration, and has authored several thought-pieces related to workforce risk impacts and mitigation strategies. She can be contacted on +1 (617) 437 2752 or by email: rejanho@deloitte.com.

Sue Cantrell is vice president of products, workforce strategies and the US eminence leader at Deloitte Consulting LLP. She is a leading author and frequent speaker on the future of work and human capital and has 25 years of experience serving as an executive adviser, researcher and developer of new workforce-related solutions. She can be contacted on +1 (541) 728 7408 or by email: scantrell@deloitte.com.

Zac Shaw is a manager within the workforce risk offering of Deloitte Consulting LLP’s workforce transformation practice. He has nine years of experience supporting organisational leaders to solve their most challenging workforce-related matters, including traditional and alternative talent strategies, end-to-end operating model design, and risk management. He has also developed and co-authored multiple publications on the topics of workforce risk and the alternative workforce. He can be contacted on +1 (312) 486 2002 or by email: zshaw@deloitte.com.

Rachel Neal is a specialist leader at Deloitte Consulting LLP, supporting clients by identifying, assessing and mitigating human capital risks resulting from strategic, regulatory, process and technology changes. She is adept at supporting clients’ efforts to update their compliance programmes, workforce operations and processes to proactively manage the increased risk environment. She has global experience across many industries, serving in corporate and consulting environments. She can be contacted on +1 (678) 735 9289 or by email: raneal@deloitte.com.

© Financier Worldwide

THE PANELLISTS

Michael Griffiths

Reem Janho

Sue Cantrell

Zac Shaw

Rachel Neal

Deloitte Consulting LLP