Slide
Centre Interdisciplinaire
de Recherche et d’Innovation
en Cybersécurité et Société
de Recherche et d’Innovation
en Cybersécurité et Société
1.
Falschau, K. R. Agbodoh; Lamzihri, O.; Gagnon, S.
In: International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 2025, ISSN: 18347649 (ISSN).
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: C81, Cyber threats, Disinformation, Fake news, G34, Governance, K42, M15, Misinformation, Misleading information
@article{agbodoh_falschau_governance_2025,
title = {Do governance determinants contribute to effective management of cybersecurity threats posed by misleading information? Evidence from Canadian organizations},
author = {K. R. Agbodoh Falschau and O. Lamzihri and S. Gagnon},
url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-105024451738&doi=10.1108%2FIJAIM-12-2024-0467&partnerID=40&md5=58f9de11e945619e41d0f3085b3d819b},
doi = {10.1108/IJAIM-12-2024-0467},
issn = {18347649 (ISSN)},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-01-01},
journal = {International Journal of Accounting and Information Management},
abstract = {Purpose – This study aims to explore governance solutions adopted by Canadian organizations to address the cybersecurity threats posed by misleading information. Design/methodology/approach – This paper investigates the impact of several organizations’ governance determinants on five types of misleading information: phishing incidents, impersonation, fake news or false stories, fake reviews and other types of misleading information. Using nonparametric statistical techniques and regression models, this study assessed regional variations in responding to misleading information challenges and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. Findings – These results reveal that no unique governance solutions have emerged across the jurisdictions, implying that organizations operating in each province have different tolerances for emerging cyber risks and, thus, adopted specific strategies to combat them. The results also suggest that the impact exerted by specific governance determinants on misleading information varies across jurisdictions. Research limitations/implications – Limitations: The reliance on secondary data may limit the generalization of the results to other countries. Future research should consider additional determinants, such as non-technological organizational factors, and a longitudinal approach to assessing the significance of solutions and the frequency of incidents. Implications: The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Practical implications – The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Originality/value – This paper offers new insights and practical implications about governance solutions that might be considered in combating specific misleading information portrayed as emerging cyber threats. © 2025 Emerald Publishing Limited},
keywords = {C81, Cyber threats, Disinformation, Fake news, G34, Governance, K42, M15, Misinformation, Misleading information},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Purpose – This study aims to explore governance solutions adopted by Canadian organizations to address the cybersecurity threats posed by misleading information. Design/methodology/approach – This paper investigates the impact of several organizations’ governance determinants on five types of misleading information: phishing incidents, impersonation, fake news or false stories, fake reviews and other types of misleading information. Using nonparametric statistical techniques and regression models, this study assessed regional variations in responding to misleading information challenges and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. Findings – These results reveal that no unique governance solutions have emerged across the jurisdictions, implying that organizations operating in each province have different tolerances for emerging cyber risks and, thus, adopted specific strategies to combat them. The results also suggest that the impact exerted by specific governance determinants on misleading information varies across jurisdictions. Research limitations/implications – Limitations: The reliance on secondary data may limit the generalization of the results to other countries. Future research should consider additional determinants, such as non-technological organizational factors, and a longitudinal approach to assessing the significance of solutions and the frequency of incidents. Implications: The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Practical implications – The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Originality/value – This paper offers new insights and practical implications about governance solutions that might be considered in combating specific misleading information portrayed as emerging cyber threats. © 2025 Emerald Publishing Limited
2.
Agbodoh-Falschau, R. K.; Lamzihri, O.; Gagnon, S.
When Misleading Information Hits: How Canadian Companies React? Journal Article
In: Corporate Reputation Review, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 306–320, 2025, ISSN: 13633589 (ISSN).
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Cybersecurity risk, Disinformation, Governance, Misinformation, Misleading information, Principal component analysis
@article{agbodoh-falschauWhenMisleadingInformation2025,
title = {When Misleading Information Hits: How Canadian Companies React?},
author = {R. K. Agbodoh-Falschau and O. Lamzihri and S. Gagnon},
url = {https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85207355906?origin=resultslist},
doi = {10.1057/s41299-024-00203-4},
issn = {13633589 (ISSN)},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-01-01},
journal = {Corporate Reputation Review},
volume = {28},
number = {4},
pages = {306–320},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
abstract = {The concept of misleading information categorized as misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information among others is receiving much attention, as it is seen to have detrimental consequences on the organizations’ reputation and going concerns. Corporations face more challenges in honing responses to combat these cyber threats as there are still significant differences in the proposed governance solutions and a lack of empirical research investigating the most prevalent ones to fight these growing risks. Grounded on protection motivation theory, empirical evidence, and the data collected from the Statistics Canada Open Sources Database, this paper investigates the appropriateness of governance solutions that corporations contemplate in managing these cybersecurity risks. Our results show that governance solutions related to increasing online presence and customer outreach explained 52% of overall solutions contemplated by corporations to fight these cyber threats. The results also revealed that organizations ranked governance solutions associated with employee training, new increase cybersecurity measures, marketing campaigns, legal action, political advocacy, and reporting to external parties as the most adopted solutions to combat false or misleading information. Overall, our paper contributes to a growing disinformation, misinformation, and mal-information literature in business environments by providing empirical evidence on key governance solutions favored by corporations to combat misleading information. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2024.},
keywords = {Cybersecurity risk, Disinformation, Governance, Misinformation, Misleading information, Principal component analysis},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The concept of misleading information categorized as misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information among others is receiving much attention, as it is seen to have detrimental consequences on the organizations’ reputation and going concerns. Corporations face more challenges in honing responses to combat these cyber threats as there are still significant differences in the proposed governance solutions and a lack of empirical research investigating the most prevalent ones to fight these growing risks. Grounded on protection motivation theory, empirical evidence, and the data collected from the Statistics Canada Open Sources Database, this paper investigates the appropriateness of governance solutions that corporations contemplate in managing these cybersecurity risks. Our results show that governance solutions related to increasing online presence and customer outreach explained 52% of overall solutions contemplated by corporations to fight these cyber threats. The results also revealed that organizations ranked governance solutions associated with employee training, new increase cybersecurity measures, marketing campaigns, legal action, political advocacy, and reporting to external parties as the most adopted solutions to combat false or misleading information. Overall, our paper contributes to a growing disinformation, misinformation, and mal-information literature in business environments by providing empirical evidence on key governance solutions favored by corporations to combat misleading information. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2024.
3.
Falschau, K. R. Agbodoh; Lamzihri, O.; Gagnon, S.
In: International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 385–411, 2025, ISSN: 18347649 (ISSN).
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: C81, Cyber threats, Disinformation, Fake news, G34, Governance, K42, M15, Misinformation, Misleading information
@article{agbodohfalschauGovernanceDeterminantsContribute2025,
title = {Do governance determinants contribute to effective management of cybersecurity threats posed by misleading information? Evidence from Canadian organizations},
author = {K. R. Agbodoh Falschau and O. Lamzihri and S. Gagnon},
url = {https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105024451738?origin=resultslist},
doi = {10.1108/IJAIM-12-2024-0467},
issn = {18347649 (ISSN)},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-01-01},
journal = {International Journal of Accounting and Information Management},
volume = {34},
number = {2},
pages = {385–411},
publisher = {Emerald Publishing},
abstract = {Purpose – This study aims to explore governance solutions adopted by Canadian organizations to address the cybersecurity threats posed by misleading information. Design/methodology/approach – This paper investigates the impact of several organizations’ governance determinants on five types of misleading information: phishing incidents, impersonation, fake news or false stories, fake reviews and other types of misleading information. Using nonparametric statistical techniques and regression models, this study assessed regional variations in responding to misleading information challenges and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. Findings – These results reveal that no unique governance solutions have emerged across the jurisdictions, implying that organizations operating in each province have different tolerances for emerging cyber risks and, thus, adopted specific strategies to combat them. The results also suggest that the impact exerted by specific governance determinants on misleading information varies across jurisdictions. Research limitations/implications – Limitations: The reliance on secondary data may limit the generalization of the results to other countries. Future research should consider additional determinants, such as non-technological organizational factors, and a longitudinal approach to assessing the significance of solutions and the frequency of incidents. Implications: The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Practical implications – The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Originality/value – This paper offers new insights and practical implications about governance solutions that might be considered in combating specific misleading information portrayed as emerging cyber threats. © 2025 Emerald Publishing Limited},
keywords = {C81, Cyber threats, Disinformation, Fake news, G34, Governance, K42, M15, Misinformation, Misleading information},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Purpose – This study aims to explore governance solutions adopted by Canadian organizations to address the cybersecurity threats posed by misleading information. Design/methodology/approach – This paper investigates the impact of several organizations’ governance determinants on five types of misleading information: phishing incidents, impersonation, fake news or false stories, fake reviews and other types of misleading information. Using nonparametric statistical techniques and regression models, this study assessed regional variations in responding to misleading information challenges and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. Findings – These results reveal that no unique governance solutions have emerged across the jurisdictions, implying that organizations operating in each province have different tolerances for emerging cyber risks and, thus, adopted specific strategies to combat them. The results also suggest that the impact exerted by specific governance determinants on misleading information varies across jurisdictions. Research limitations/implications – Limitations: The reliance on secondary data may limit the generalization of the results to other countries. Future research should consider additional determinants, such as non-technological organizational factors, and a longitudinal approach to assessing the significance of solutions and the frequency of incidents. Implications: The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Practical implications – The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Originality/value – This paper offers new insights and practical implications about governance solutions that might be considered in combating specific misleading information portrayed as emerging cyber threats. © 2025 Emerald Publishing Limited
4.
Falschau, K. R. Agbodoh; Lamzihri, O.; Gagnon, S.
In: International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 2025, ISSN: 18347649 (ISSN).
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: C81, Cyber threats, Disinformation, Fake news, G34, Governance, K42, M15, Misinformation, Misleading information
@article{agbodohfalschauGovernanceDeterminantsContribute2025a,
title = {Do governance determinants contribute to effective management of cybersecurity threats posed by misleading information? Evidence from Canadian organizations},
author = {K. R. Agbodoh Falschau and O. Lamzihri and S. Gagnon},
url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-105024451738&doi=10.1108%2FIJAIM-12-2024-0467&partnerID=40&md5=58f9de11e945619e41d0f3085b3d819b},
doi = {10.1108/IJAIM-12-2024-0467},
issn = {18347649 (ISSN)},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-01-01},
journal = {International Journal of Accounting and Information Management},
abstract = {Purpose – This study aims to explore governance solutions adopted by Canadian organizations to address the cybersecurity threats posed by misleading information. Design/methodology/approach – This paper investigates the impact of several organizations’ governance determinants on five types of misleading information: phishing incidents, impersonation, fake news or false stories, fake reviews and other types of misleading information. Using nonparametric statistical techniques and regression models, this study assessed regional variations in responding to misleading information challenges and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. Findings – These results reveal that no unique governance solutions have emerged across the jurisdictions, implying that organizations operating in each province have different tolerances for emerging cyber risks and, thus, adopted specific strategies to combat them. The results also suggest that the impact exerted by specific governance determinants on misleading information varies across jurisdictions. Research limitations/implications – Limitations: The reliance on secondary data may limit the generalization of the results to other countries. Future research should consider additional determinants, such as non-technological organizational factors, and a longitudinal approach to assessing the significance of solutions and the frequency of incidents. Implications: The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Practical implications – The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Originality/value – This paper offers new insights and practical implications about governance solutions that might be considered in combating specific misleading information portrayed as emerging cyber threats. © 2025 Emerald Publishing Limited},
keywords = {C81, Cyber threats, Disinformation, Fake news, G34, Governance, K42, M15, Misinformation, Misleading information},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Purpose – This study aims to explore governance solutions adopted by Canadian organizations to address the cybersecurity threats posed by misleading information. Design/methodology/approach – This paper investigates the impact of several organizations’ governance determinants on five types of misleading information: phishing incidents, impersonation, fake news or false stories, fake reviews and other types of misleading information. Using nonparametric statistical techniques and regression models, this study assessed regional variations in responding to misleading information challenges and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. Findings – These results reveal that no unique governance solutions have emerged across the jurisdictions, implying that organizations operating in each province have different tolerances for emerging cyber risks and, thus, adopted specific strategies to combat them. The results also suggest that the impact exerted by specific governance determinants on misleading information varies across jurisdictions. Research limitations/implications – Limitations: The reliance on secondary data may limit the generalization of the results to other countries. Future research should consider additional determinants, such as non-technological organizational factors, and a longitudinal approach to assessing the significance of solutions and the frequency of incidents. Implications: The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Practical implications – The study’s findings are expected to contribute to operational and strategic directions that elevate awareness of the growing threat of misleading information in the cyber domain. It provides stakeholders with effective governance solutions that play a critical role in mitigating cybersecurity risks by fostering awareness and detection capabilities. Originality/value – This paper offers new insights and practical implications about governance solutions that might be considered in combating specific misleading information portrayed as emerging cyber threats. © 2025 Emerald Publishing Limited
5.
Agbodoh-Falschau, R. K.; Lamzihri, O.; Gagnon, S.
When Misleading Information Hits: How Canadian Companies React? Journal Article
In: Corporate Reputation Review, 2024, ISSN: 13633589 (ISSN), (Publisher: Springer Nature).
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: C81, Cybersecurity risk, Disinformation, G34, Governance, K42, M15, Misinformation, Misleading information, Principal component analysis
@article{agbodoh-falschau_when_2024,
title = {When Misleading Information Hits: How Canadian Companies React?},
author = {R. K. Agbodoh-Falschau and O. Lamzihri and S. Gagnon},
url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85207355906&doi=10.1057%2fs41299-024-00203-4&partnerID=40&md5=d5f72a1918cee04b8585bad2153ca426},
doi = {10.1057/s41299-024-00203-4},
issn = {13633589 (ISSN)},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-01-01},
journal = {Corporate Reputation Review},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
abstract = {The concept of misleading information categorized as misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information among others is receiving much attention, as it is seen to have detrimental consequences on the organizations’ reputation and going concerns. Corporations face more challenges in honing responses to combat these cyber threats as there are still significant differences in the proposed governance solutions and a lack of empirical research investigating the most prevalent ones to fight these growing risks. Grounded on protection motivation theory, empirical evidence, and the data collected from the Statistics Canada Open Sources Database, this paper investigates the appropriateness of governance solutions that corporations contemplate in managing these cybersecurity risks. Our results show that governance solutions related to increasing online presence and customer outreach explained 52% of overall solutions contemplated by corporations to fight these cyber threats. The results also revealed that organizations ranked governance solutions associated with employee training, new increase cybersecurity measures, marketing campaigns, legal action, political advocacy, and reporting to external parties as the most adopted solutions to combat false or misleading information. Overall, our paper contributes to a growing disinformation, misinformation, and mal-information literature in business environments by providing empirical evidence on key governance solutions favored by corporations to combat misleading information. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2024.},
note = {Publisher: Springer Nature},
keywords = {C81, Cybersecurity risk, Disinformation, G34, Governance, K42, M15, Misinformation, Misleading information, Principal component analysis},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The concept of misleading information categorized as misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information among others is receiving much attention, as it is seen to have detrimental consequences on the organizations’ reputation and going concerns. Corporations face more challenges in honing responses to combat these cyber threats as there are still significant differences in the proposed governance solutions and a lack of empirical research investigating the most prevalent ones to fight these growing risks. Grounded on protection motivation theory, empirical evidence, and the data collected from the Statistics Canada Open Sources Database, this paper investigates the appropriateness of governance solutions that corporations contemplate in managing these cybersecurity risks. Our results show that governance solutions related to increasing online presence and customer outreach explained 52% of overall solutions contemplated by corporations to fight these cyber threats. The results also revealed that organizations ranked governance solutions associated with employee training, new increase cybersecurity measures, marketing campaigns, legal action, political advocacy, and reporting to external parties as the most adopted solutions to combat false or misleading information. Overall, our paper contributes to a growing disinformation, misinformation, and mal-information literature in business environments by providing empirical evidence on key governance solutions favored by corporations to combat misleading information. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2024.
6.
Agbodoh-Falschau, R. K.; Lamzihri, O.; Gagnon, S.
When Misleading Information Hits: How Canadian Companies React? Journal Article
In: Corporate Reputation Review, 2024, ISSN: 13633589 (ISSN).
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: C81, Cybersecurity risk, Disinformation, G34, Governance, K42, M15, Misinformation, Misleading information, Principal component analysis
@article{agbodoh-falschauWhenMisleadingInformation2024,
title = {When Misleading Information Hits: How Canadian Companies React?},
author = {R. K. Agbodoh-Falschau and O. Lamzihri and S. Gagnon},
url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85207355906&doi=10.1057%2fs41299-024-00203-4&partnerID=40&md5=d5f72a1918cee04b8585bad2153ca426},
doi = {10.1057/s41299-024-00203-4},
issn = {13633589 (ISSN)},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-01-01},
journal = {Corporate Reputation Review},
publisher = {Springer Nature},
abstract = {The concept of misleading information categorized as misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information among others is receiving much attention, as it is seen to have detrimental consequences on the organizations’ reputation and going concerns. Corporations face more challenges in honing responses to combat these cyber threats as there are still significant differences in the proposed governance solutions and a lack of empirical research investigating the most prevalent ones to fight these growing risks. Grounded on protection motivation theory, empirical evidence, and the data collected from the Statistics Canada Open Sources Database, this paper investigates the appropriateness of governance solutions that corporations contemplate in managing these cybersecurity risks. Our results show that governance solutions related to increasing online presence and customer outreach explained 52% of overall solutions contemplated by corporations to fight these cyber threats. The results also revealed that organizations ranked governance solutions associated with employee training, new increase cybersecurity measures, marketing campaigns, legal action, political advocacy, and reporting to external parties as the most adopted solutions to combat false or misleading information. Overall, our paper contributes to a growing disinformation, misinformation, and mal-information literature in business environments by providing empirical evidence on key governance solutions favored by corporations to combat misleading information. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2024.},
keywords = {C81, Cybersecurity risk, Disinformation, G34, Governance, K42, M15, Misinformation, Misleading information, Principal component analysis},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The concept of misleading information categorized as misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information among others is receiving much attention, as it is seen to have detrimental consequences on the organizations’ reputation and going concerns. Corporations face more challenges in honing responses to combat these cyber threats as there are still significant differences in the proposed governance solutions and a lack of empirical research investigating the most prevalent ones to fight these growing risks. Grounded on protection motivation theory, empirical evidence, and the data collected from the Statistics Canada Open Sources Database, this paper investigates the appropriateness of governance solutions that corporations contemplate in managing these cybersecurity risks. Our results show that governance solutions related to increasing online presence and customer outreach explained 52% of overall solutions contemplated by corporations to fight these cyber threats. The results also revealed that organizations ranked governance solutions associated with employee training, new increase cybersecurity measures, marketing campaigns, legal action, political advocacy, and reporting to external parties as the most adopted solutions to combat false or misleading information. Overall, our paper contributes to a growing disinformation, misinformation, and mal-information literature in business environments by providing empirical evidence on key governance solutions favored by corporations to combat misleading information. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2024.