RepRisk boosts agentic AI delivery to power data integration
ZURICH, Switzerland , June 25, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, RepRisk, the world's most respected DaaS company for reputational risks and responsible business conduct, announced its plans to hire 30 full-time employees to build out its next-generation agentic delivery capabilities and accelerate advanced data integration. 23 new hires take on AI and connected-LLM expert roles with most positions based at RepRisk's Zurich headquarters and several located in the Berlin office, forming a dedicated agentic products team. To satisfy client demand for enterprise-wide data integration, 7 of the 30 new full-time employees will strengthen the key account management and data delivery and integration teams.
By scaling two decades of human expertise with AI, and orchestrating data creation and delivery via AI agents, RepRisk empowers clients to access broader risk insights without compromising on accuracy, enabling novel ways to consume, enrich, and integrate its data.
"To serve our clients the way they wish – delivering our highly accurate, human-labeled data flexibly, seamlessly, and at scale – we are growing our team, continuing our path as an AI pioneer, and expanding the deployment of AI agents," commented Yani Kalafatis, Chief Technology Officer at RepRisk. He continued, "As one of Microsoft's Frontier Firms at the forefront of AI agent innovation, we are proud to help shape the paradigm shift from traditional bulk data licensing and static APIs to intelligent, context-aware, and goal-driven interactions between data products and enterprise systems."
"Building on our proven AI technology and connected agents, we are continuing our investment in AI to lead the way in agentic orchestration and delivery – unlocking new, transformative approaches to enterprise-wide data integration for our clients," commented Philipp Aeby, CEO and Co-founder at RepRisk. He continued, "Agentic delivery is the next step in empowering financial institutions and decision-makers to apply RepRisk's global standard for business conduct data – anytime, anywhere, and in ways that drive lasting value and impact."
Notes to editors
Underpinned by a two-decade heritage and consistent methodology, RepRisk uniquely combines advanced AI with deep human expertise to empower the global finance community with trusted risk insights. Known for its relevant coverage, unparalleled accuracy, and speed, RepRisk's high-quality data enables more than 90 of the world's major banks, 80% of the top investment managers, and 14 of the top 20 private equity firms to make better-informed decisions – driving growth and preserving long-term value.
RepRisk offers the largest and most comprehensive dataset, covering 100+ risk factors across 350,000+ entities globally (public and private companies, and related projects), and takes an objective, rules-based 'outside-in' approach – irrespective of information published by companies. Every day, RepRisk analyzes 2.5 million documents from 150,000 sources across 23 languages to deliver relevant risk insights.
About RepRisk
RepRisk is the world's most respected Data as a Service (DaaS) company for reputational risks and responsible business conduct. Since 2007, RepRisk's data has been trusted by the world's leading banks, investment managers, Fortune 500 companies, sovereign wealth funds, and organizations such as the OECD and UN. Combining advanced AI with deep human expertise, and a proven methodology at the core, RepRisk's solutions bring peace of mind, enabling clients to 'know more, be sure, and act faster'. Our pioneering solutions help to strengthen due diligence processes across ESG topics, such as biodiversity, deforestation, human rights, and corruption, empowering clients to identify, monitor, and mitigate reputational, compliance, and financial risks. Headquartered in Zurich, and with offices in Toronto, New York, London, Berlin, Manila, and Tokyo, we stay close to clients and bring an independent lens to the industry. United by our shared belief in the power of data, our 400 people are proud to be setting the global standard for business conduct data and driving positive change through transparency. Visit us at reprisk.com and follow us on LinkedIn.
Contact
Mathias Fürer+41 41 552 30 01media@reprisk.com
Logo: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/2718611/RepRisk_Logo.jpg
View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/reprisk-boosts-agentic-ai-delivery-to-power-data-integration-302490728.html
SOURCE RepRisk
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
17 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
As electric bills rise, evidence mounts that data centers share blame
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Amid rising electric bills, states are under pressure to insulate regular household and business ratepayers from the costs of feeding Big Tech's energy-hungry data centers. It's not clear that any state has a solution and the actual effect of data centers on electricity bills is difficult to pin down. Some critics question whether states have the spine to take a hard line against tech behemoths like Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta. But more than a dozen states have begun taking steps as data centers drive a rapid build-out of power plants and transmission lines. That has meant pressuring the nation's biggest power grid operator to clamp down on price increases, studying the effect of data centers on electricity bills or pushing data center owners to pay a larger share of local transmission costs. Rising power bills are 'something legislators have been hearing a lot about. It's something we've been hearing a lot about. More people are speaking out at the public utility commission in the past year than I've ever seen before,' said Charlotte Shuff of the Oregon Citizens' Utility Board, a consumer advocacy group. 'There's a massive outcry.' Some ComEd customers seeing triple-digit bill increases as supply rate hike, heat wave convergeSome data centers could require more electricity than cities the size of Pittsburgh, Cleveland or New Orleans, and make huge factories look tiny by comparison. That's pushing policymakers to rethink a system that, historically, has spread transmission costs among classes of consumers that are proportional to electricity use. 'A lot of this infrastructure, billions of dollars of it, is being built just for a few customers and a few facilities and these happen to be the wealthiest companies in the world,' said Ari Peskoe, who directs the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard University. 'I think some of the fundamental assumptions behind all this just kind of breaks down.' A fix, Peskoe said, is a 'can of worms' that pits ratepayer classes against one another. Some officials downplay the role of data centers in pushing up electric bills. Tricia Pridemore, who sits on Georgia's Public Service Commission and is president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, pointed to an already tightened electricity supply and increasing costs for power lines, utility poles, transformers and generators as utilities replace aging equipment or harden it against extreme weather. The data centers needed to accommodate the artificial intelligence boom are still in the regulatory planning stages, Pridemore said, and the Data Center Coalition, which represents Big Tech firms and data center developers, has said its members are committed to paying their fair share. But growing evidence suggests that the electricity bills of some Americans are rising to subsidize the massive energy needs of Big Tech as the U.S. competes in a race against China for artificial intelligence superiority. Data and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie published a report in recent weeks that suggested 20 proposed or effective specialized rates for data centers in 16 states it studied aren't nearly enough to cover the cost of a new natural gas power plant. In other words, unless utilities negotiate higher specialized rates, other ratepayer classes — residential, commercial and industrial — are likely paying for data center power needs. Meanwhile, Monitoring Analytics, the independent market watchdog for the mid-Atlantic grid, produced research in June showing that 70% — or $9.3 billion — of last year's increased electricity cost was the result of data center demand. ComEd CEO seeks rules to prevent AI from boosting energy billsLast year, five governors led by Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro began pushing back against power prices set by the mid-Atlantic grid operator, PJM Interconnection, after that amount spiked nearly sevenfold. They warned of customers 'paying billions more than is necessary.' PJM has yet to propose ways to guarantee that data centers pay their freight, but Monitoring Analytics is floating the idea that data centers should be required to procure their own power. In a filing last month, it said that would avoid a 'massive wealth transfer' from average people to tech companies. At least a dozen states are eyeing ways to make data centers pay higher local transmission costs. In Oregon, a data center hot spot, lawmakers passed legislation in June ordering state utility regulators to develop new — presumably higher — power rates for data centers. The Oregon Citizens' Utility Board says there is clear evidence that costs to serve data centers are being spread across all customers — at a time when some electric bills there are up 50% over the past four years and utilities are disconnecting more people than ever. New Jersey's governor signed legislation last month commissioning state utility regulators to study whether ratepayers are being hit with 'unreasonable rate increases' to connect data centers and to develop a specialized rate to charge data centers. In some other states, like Texas and Utah, governors and lawmakers are trying to avoid a supply-and-demand crisis that leaves ratepayers on the hook — or in the dark. ComEd closes $10M customer relief fund after 70,000 applicationsIn Indiana, state utility regulators approved a settlement between Indiana Michigan Power Co., Amazon, Google, Microsoft and consumer advocates that set parameters for data center payments for service. Kerwin Olsen, of the Citizens Action Council of Indiana, a consumer advocacy group, signed the settlement and called it a 'pretty good deal' that contained more consumer protections than what state lawmakers passed. But, he said, state law doesn't force large power users like data centers to publicly reveal their electric usage, so pinning down whether they're paying their fair share of transmission costs 'will be a challenge.' In a March report, the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard University questioned the motivation of utilities and regulators to shield ratepayers from footing the cost of electricity for data centers. Both utilities and states have incentives to attract big customers like data centers, it said. To do it, utilities — which must get their rates approved by regulators — can offer 'special deals to favored customers' like a data center and effectively shift the costs of those discounts to regular ratepayers, the authors wrote. Many state laws can shield disclosure of those rates, they said. In Pennsylvania, an emerging data center hot spot, the state utility commission is drafting a model rate structure for utilities to consider adopting. An overarching goal is to get data center developers to put their money where their mouth is. 'We're talking about real transmission upgrades, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars,' commission chairman Stephen DeFrank said. 'And that's what you don't want the ratepayer to get stuck paying for.'
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
Why Big Tech's AI Billions Are Being Rewarded Unevenly
On July 30, Microsoft's market cap briefly soared past $4 trillion after the company reported another earnings beat. CEO Satya Nadella credited Azure's AI-driven growth and surging demand for copilot, telling investors the company was 'well-positioned to lead in the new era of AI-infused productivity,' according to its Q4 earnings call transcript. A day later, Meta's stock surged more than 8% after it reported ad revenue growth of 17% year-over-year and outlined new AI-powered tools for advertisers, details also captured in the Q2 earnings call transcript. On the other side of the divide, the mood was far less exuberant for Amazon and Apple. Both beat Wall Street's earnings expectations, but their stock moves were muted — and in Amazon's case, 'shares slipped despite reporting $147 billion in revenue. Apple unveiled 'Apple Intelligence' for iPhones, iPads and Macs, but offered few specifics on rollout or monetization. The contrast wasn't about who spent the most on AI. It was about which companies could convincingly connect that spending to measurable business results. That shift — from hype to proof — is redefining how the market judges AI investments. And that split is getting much harder to ignore across the industry. The AI Accountability Era When I asked what the recent earnings call by these four tech behemoths meant for the AI industry, Shekhar Natarajan, CEO of Orchestro, described it in blunt terms, calling it the new reality. 'Microsoft and Meta won because they mastered the art of AI storytelling with receipts,' he told me. 'Microsoft essentially turned OpenAI into the world's most expensive enterprise sales tool — every Azure deal now comes with an AI fairy tale that CFOs actually believe. Meta took the opposite approach: they made AI so invisible that advertisers don't even realize they're paying premium rates for algorithmic wizardry.' In contrast, he said, Amazon and Apple are 'AI rich, narrative poor.' Amazon 'built the most sophisticated AI infrastructure on the planet and somehow made it sound boring,' while Apple 'spent billions making Siri slightly less embarrassing and called it revolutionary.' That, Natarajan argued, is no longer enough. 'We've entered what I call the 'AI accountability era' — where investors have figured out that 'synergies' and 'transformation' don't pay dividends, but revenue does. The market essentially said: 'Cool demo, where's the recurring subscription model?'' This shift is merciless for companies still leaning on AI as a catch-all talking point. 'The next 12–18 months will be a bloodbath for AI tourism — expect pivots from 'AI-powered everything' to 'AI-profitable something specific,'' Natarajan noted. What Investors Reward Now Guy Dassa, AI expert and investment partner at OurCrowd, agrees the earnings gap isn't about AI spend levels, but about visibility and execution. 'The market is no longer rewarding AI spending in a vacuum, it's rewarding clarity, execution, and monetization,' he explained. Microsoft tied its AI investments directly to Azure's revenue growth and to customer adoption of copilot across office and enterprise workflows. Meta demonstrated that AI-driven ad targeting and content recommendations are keeping users engaged and advertisers spending more. Amazon and Apple, Dassa said, were 'more opaque' — investors heard about model development and branding, but saw little in the way of measurable revenue attribution. 'Yes, we're entering a post-hype phase,' he added. 'The narrative is shifting from potential to performance. Investors are asking: Where is the revenue? Where is the efficiency gain? Where is the user growth? Companies can no longer get by with vague promises or flashy demos — they need to show productized AI, enterprise adoption, or embedded monetization.' According to IDC, companies are now generating an average of $3.50 in value for every $1 spent on AI, with more than 90% of initiatives delivering measurable returns within 18 months. In practical terms, Dassa explained, that means investor decks will focus less on model size and more on use case adoption, margin expansion and defensible infrastructure. 'AI is no longer a strategy; it's an execution layer,' he added. The New AI Differentiator If 2023 was about who had the biggest model, 2025 is about who can deploy one seamlessly at scale. 'Here's the dirty secret nobody talks about: Building great AI models is now table stakes,' said Natarajan. 'Every teenager with a GitHub account can fine-tune GPT. The real money is in the unglamorous stuff — who can serve a model in 50 milliseconds instead of 500, who can handle inference spikes without melting their data centers.' That's where infrastructure maturity becomes visible in market performance. Dassa noted that Microsoft's lead in enterprise AI is underpinned by Azure's GPU access, inference optimization and integration pipelines — capabilities it has been quietly scaling for years. Meta's advantage comes from running AI models across one of the most extensive proprietary stacks in tech, tuned for ad delivery at global scale. 'Meanwhile,' Dassa noted, 'companies without robust infrastructure or with unclear integration plans are struggling to convince investors they can translate models into money.' The analogy Natarajan draws is to the internet boom of the late 1990s. 'Everyone focused on websites while the real winners were building CDNs and payment processors,' he said. 'Today's AI infrastructure leaders are tomorrow's Cloudflares and Stripes.' AI Execution Needs People Capital spending alone won't win the next phase of AI adoption. Kieran Corbett, venture partner at Geek Ventures, put it plainly: 'CAPEX for CAPEX sake will no longer be tolerated by shareholders, tangible growth and execution is what will be rewarded by further capital. Where so much of this AI spend is now being spent on is the talent race to enable effective execution and this doesn't look like it'll slow down.' In other words, execution isn't just about GPUs and data centers. It's about whether a company can attract and retain the talent to turn its AI investments into differentiated products, integrated workflows and sticky revenue streams. That talent race is intensifying, particularly for engineers who can bridge the gap between research and deployment. And for public companies, the stakes are higher than just quarterly earnings calls. Miss the execution mark now, and it's not only market cap that suffers, but also the competitive positioning for the rest of the decade. Time To Build Real Stuff Microsoft and Meta didn't simply benefit from favorable market winds this quarter. They earned investor confidence by pairing clear AI narratives with visible revenue impact, backed by infrastructure and teams that can deliver at scale. Amazon and Apple may close that gap in future quarters, but Q2 sent a message the market won't soon forget: the AI free ride is over. As Natarajan put it, 'We funded your AI fantasy camp. Time to build an AI business.'
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Netscape: Remembering the internet's Big Bang, 30 years later
Aug. 9 marks the 30th anniversary of the internet's Big Bang moment, an inflection point in the emergent digital world. This Big Bang was the stunning stock market debut of Netscape Communications, maker of the first widely popular web browser, Netscape Navigator. Netscape — a pitch-perfect name for a web pioneer — is at best a distant memory these days. But on August 9, 1995, Netscape took its shares public in an IPO that illuminated the online world, introducing the web to millions of people only vaguely familiar with the technology. Netscape was a Silicon Valley startup whose IPO defined the audacity of the web's early days. The company had been founded in 1994 by James H. Clark, he of Silicon Graphics fame, and Marc Andreessen, then a recent college graduate whom Newsweek magazine was soon to call the 'über-super-wunder whiz kid of cyberspace.' Although its founders were colorful, the company had been a money-loser during the months before its IPO. Its Navigator browser, however, was user-friendly and becoming a preferred gateway to the early web. Clark, Andreessen, and Netscape's gentlemanly chief executive, James Barksdale, went on a multicity roadshow to pitch the company to would-be investors in the weeks preceding the IPO. There was, it turned out, no scarcity of interested parties. Five million Netscape shares were offered for sale August 9, 1995, at $28 each. Trading of the stock on the NASDAQ exchange was delayed nearly two hours because of a huge order imbalance. When Netscape did open for trading, it sold for $71 a share. By day's end, the share price had eased to $58.25, which represented a market capitalization of more than $2 billion. It was a stirring launch still celebrated as the ' Netscape Moment.' Netscape euphoria was a digital and cultural phenomenon that proved short-lived. The IPO caught the attention of the software giant Microsoft, which had been fairly slow to recognize the promise of the web. The IPO confirmed Netscape as a threat to its software dominance. Later in August 1995, Microsoft introduced its own web browser, Internet Explorer 1.0. The initial version was anemic, but Microsoft regularly released upgrades, eventually bringing Explorer to par, technically, with Navigator. What came to be called the 'browser wars' were joined. To win, Microsoft deployed what the federal government said were monopoly tactics by bundling Explorer with its Windows operating system. The government and several states sued, accusing Microsoft of misusing its power 'to develop a choke hold on the browser software needed to access the Internet.' Antitrust litigation came too late to save Netscape. Its once-overwhelming share of the browser market dwindled under Microsoft's pressure. In late 1998, Netscape was acquired by book-ending its meteoric rise and decay as an independent company. The digital graveyard is filled with 1990s startups and their thwarted ambitions. Alta Vista, for example, once promised high-speed search online. It was unceremoniously shut down in 2013. Why recall the abbreviated life of a flamboyant internet pioneer like Netscape? Several reasons offer themselves. Netscape's IPO signaled that great wealth to be made online, which helped ignite the dot-com frenzy of the late 1990s. The IPO became a standard of sorts for judging tech innovations. The other day, for example, a Reuters commentary ruminated about the 'shadow' that Netscape's IPO may cast these days over enthusiasm for artificial intelligence. More broadly, Netscape in 1995 anticipated a period of sweeping transformation online that affected and altered nearly all aspects of life. Netscape also deserves recognition as an impressively innovative company. Its lasting contributions include Secure Sockets Layer, an encryption tool that helped protect online transactions. A Netscape technologist named Brendan Eich developed JavaScript, a programming language that animated the web. Netscape also introduced those small packets of digital information known as cookies, stored on a user's computer. Netscape, moreover, was a force that contributed to a heady sense of optimism about the early web. The writer Charles Yu several years ago recalled the jauntiness of those days. 'I entered college in 1993 and graduated in 1997,' Yu wrote. 'Halfway through, the Internet became a thing. Netscape said: 'Here you go, here's a door to a brand-new place in the existence of the universe. We just started letting people in. Go ahead, it's fun. It'll keep getting bigger for the rest of your life. Also, you can change stuff in it. You get to make up new rules for everything — thinking, remembering, communicating.'' Netscape was emblematic of a promising but tentative time when, according to Pew Research Center, most Americans were 'still feeling their way through cyberspace.' The web was an inviting if a bit mysterious place back then, before the advent of social media, smart phones, and myriad apps. It's surely meaningful, then, to have at least a nodding familiarity of the days and the company that gave rise to the digital world's Big Bang.
