Connect with us

Accounting

Large orgs account for only 2% of cyber claims, but 51% of costs

Published

on

Recent data suggests that while large companies don’t have as many cyberincidents as smaller ones, when one does happen the costs can be massive. 

This is one of the findings of a study from Top 10 firm RSM, which found that large companies represented only 2% of cyber insurance claims but, at the same time, accounted for 51% of all incident costs. Conversely, 98% of claims come from small to medium-size enterprises with less than $2 billion in annual revenue, yet collectively represent less than half of the costs. 

Part of the reason for this variation is likely because large companies have more money to lose: the biggest company in the dataset, with over $290 billion in annual revenue, was about 29 million times larger than the smallest in the dataset, with less than $10,000 in annual revenue. The average large company—$12.5 billion in annual revenue—was more than 116 times larger than the average SME, with $108 million in annual revenue. 

cybersecurityfinal.jpeg

The most common source of loss, overwhelmingly, was ransomware, representing an average incident cost of $631,000 versus the next highest source, wire transfer fraud, which had an average cost of $171,000. Health care organizations bore the brunt of the costs, having an average incident cost of $566,000; professional services firms, such as accounting practices, bore an average cost of $271,000 by comparison. 

At the same time, professional services firms took the lead in terms of quantity of claims, the sector accounting for 18% of all claims versus health care at 14%. This appears to suggest that professional services firms have a higher number of lower-cost claims. 

“At SMEs, professional services claims accounted for 18% of all claims and 18% of total incident cost greater than $1K. Total incident cost ranged from $1K to $30M. The top causes of loss were the same as in the 2024 Claims Study: ransomware, BEC, and hackers,” said the report. 

While the traditional answer to cybersecurity challenges is more staff training, the data shows that only a small minority of incidents begin with non-criminal incidents such as staff mistakes, mishandling paper records, improper disclosures, lost devices, programming errors, system glitches or legal actions. Claims from such sources accounted for only 3% of such claims. The other 97% came from decidedly criminal events such as hacking, ransomware, social engineering, business email compromise, phishing, DDoS attacks, stolen devices, straight up theft, and banking/ACH fraud. 

“There are fewer and fewer non-criminal incidents, which may be attributed to better employee training and more sophisticated controls. At SMEs, the proportion of claims caused by criminal activities ranged from a low of 97% in 2020 to a high of 100% in 2023. This proportion has been over 97% since 2020,” said the study. 

It also noted that, over the past five years, the number and magnitude of incidents caused by malicious employees and ex-employees have been declining. The number of incidents decreased from 65 in 2020 to 11 in 2024. The average incident cost decreased from $116,000 in 2020 to $25,000 in 2023. Excepting an extreme outlier event in 2022, average incident cost has been low. 

The data also pointed out that while the figures are still disturbing, incidents are down compared to a few years ago. Of the roughly 10,000 claims analyzed, 53% of them came from either 2020 or 2021; in contrast, 47% of claims came from 2022, 2023 and 2024. 

The report recommended that companies establish an effective foundation to strengthen their ongoing cybersecurity efforts, doing things such as doubling  down on fundamental protections, managing vendors and third parties, embracing the cloud securely, staying ahead of emerging threats, and stressing incident response and resilience. 

“Companies need security hygiene and good control of their identities, multifactor authentication and reduction of privileged identities,” said Alden Hutchison, RSM’s principal of cyber risk and data protection consulting in a statement. “Those things alone will help shrink the attack surface. But there’s always a chance they’re going to get in. So now, what’s your resiliency plan? Do you have one? Have you tested it? Do you have the vendors in place to help you recover?”

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

on

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Modernizing Internal Controls: Machine Learning and Continuous Monitoring in Auditing

Published

on

Internal audit departments and corporate risk managers are modernizing internal control frameworks by shifting from periodic sampling techniques to continuous monitoring and machine learning analytics. As operational data volumes increase across enterprise organizations, automated control testing ensures financial integrity, prevents corporate fraud, and streamlines annual audit engagements.

The Limitation of Periodic Audit Sampling
Historically, internal and external auditors evaluated internal controls by reviewing random samples of financial transactions—often analyzing less than five percent of total ledger entries. In complex enterprise environments, periodic sampling methods carry inherent risks of overlooking localized financial misstatements, unauthorized disbursements, or operational control breakdowns.

In 2026, progressive internal audit functions are utilizing automated continuous monitoring platforms that evaluate one hundred percent of financial transactions in real time. Continuous control auditing systems continuously monitor general ledger entries, procurement approvals, and expense reimbursements across all operating subsidiaries.

AI-Powered Fraud Detection and Anomaly Identification
Machine learning models trained on historical corporate financial data excel at identifying subtle transactional anomalies that indicate potential fraud or operational error. Automated systems instantly flag duplicate invoice payments, unapproved vendor creation, unusual journal entry timing, and unauthorized override of authority thresholds.

When an anomaly is detected, the automated auditing platform generates an instant risk alert, allowing internal audit teams to investigate root causes immediately. Early detection prevents minor operational errors from escalating into material weaknesses in financial reporting.

Streamlining External Audit Preparation
Continuous internal control monitoring delivers significant benefits during annual external financial audits. External audit firms can review continuous audit logs and automated control testing documentation, reducing the time required for manual field testing.

This integrated approach lowers overall audit compliance fees, reduces administrative burdens on corporate accounting staff, and provides senior management and audit committees with real-time visibility into the organization’s overall risk profile.

Core Implementation Guidelines
1. Transition to 100% Data Testing: Replace legacy sampling methods with automated continuous audit monitoring systems.
2. Deploy Anomaly Detection Algorithms: Implement machine learning models to identify unauthorized transactions and operational control overrides.
3. Align Internal and External Audit Workflows: Coordinate continuous control testing protocols with external auditors to optimize annual compliance cycles.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Tax Compliance and Global Regulatory Harmonization in 2026

Published

on

Corporate tax accounting departments are navigating an era of unprecedented regulatory complexity as global tax harmonization frameworks take full effect alongside real-time digital tax reporting mandates. Tax directors and accounting teams are adopting cloud-based tax compliance automation tools to manage multi-jurisdictional tax liabilities and satisfy stringent reporting rules across international jurisdictions.

Implementation of Global Minimum Tax Provisions
The implementation of international tax reform agreements—notably the Pillar Two global minimum tax framework—has reshaped multinational corporate tax planning. Multinational enterprises with consolidated revenues exceeding established thresholds must ensure an effective tax rate of at least 15% across every jurisdiction in which they operate.

Accounting teams are implementing specialized tax calculation modules integrated directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms. These automated tools calculate effective tax rates per country, identify top-up tax liabilities, and generate standardized compliance documentation required by national tax authorities.

Real-Time Digital Invoicing and E-Reporting Mandates
Tax authorities across Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific have enacted mandatory electronic invoicing (e-invoicing) and continuous transaction controls (CTC). Under these systems, corporate transaction data must be submitted electronically to government portals in real time at the point of sale or invoice issuance.

This shift toward continuous digital tax reporting eliminates traditional annual tax audits in favor of ongoing automated compliance monitoring. Accounting departments are upgrading invoicing software to ensure seamless XML data formatting, digital signature authentication, and real-time validation against tax authority databases.

Automation and Data Analytics in Corporate Tax Strategy
To keep pace with dynamic tax legislation, tax departments are transitioning from reactive compliance teams to proactive strategic advisors. Machine learning algorithms analyze corporate transactional data to identify tax credits, research and development (R&D) incentives, and cross-border transfer pricing adjustments.

By automating routine tax return filings and calculations, corporate tax directors can focus on long-term capital structuring, evaluating the tax implications of corporate mergers, and optimizing international supply chain networks.

Strategic Priorities for Tax Executives
1. ERP System Upgrades: Ensure enterprise software is capable of generating real-time, granular tax data required for global minimum tax compliance.
2. E-Invoicing Integration: Implement scalable e-invoicing platforms to satisfy regional continuous transaction control regulations.
3. Strategic Tax Analytics: Utilize predictive tax modeling tools to evaluate structural changes in corporate operations and cross-border trade.

Continue Reading

Trending