The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
90
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
90-98
10.37547/tajmei/Volume07Issue05-11
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
24 March 2025
ACCEPTED
26 April 2025
PUBLISHED
27 May 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue 05 2025
CITATION
Kapustina Ekaterina. (2025). Corporate Governance in the Context of
Business Digital Transformation. The American Journal of Management
and Economics Innovations, 7(05), 90
–
98.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajmei/Volume07Issue05-11
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Corporate Governance in
the Context of Business
Digital Transformation
Kapustina Ekaterina
CEO M&A consulting Los Angeles, California, USA
Abstract:
This article examines the transformation of
traditional corporate governance mechanisms amid
the accelerated adoption of digital technologies,
where the pace of innovation and the escalation of IT-
related risks demand from Boards of Directors not only
monitoring but also active strategic engagement in
digital initiatives. The relevance of this study is driven
by the fact that global spending on digital
transformation reaches trillions of dollars. In contrast,
only a small fraction of companies manage to adapt
the structure of their governing bodies: standing IT
committees exist in only 15% of S&P 500 organizations,
and “digital
-
savvy” directors number no more than
24%. Meanwhile, firms with high Board digital
competence
demonstrate
market-capitalization
growth rates 30% higher and exhibit superior equity
returns. This research aims to identify key institutional
and procedural changes necessary to align corporate
governance with the requirements of business digital
maturity. The novelty of this work lies in the
comprehensive assessment of the Board composition,
specialized committees, and technological and ESG
metrics integration on strategic decision effectiveness,
and in formulating practical recommendations for
revising mandates, business processes, and training
programs at the highest management level.
Conclusions drawn from this study point to the fact
that sustainable growth in the digital era would
demand: (1) increasing to three or more Board
members having IT and cybersecurity competencies;
(2) establishing empowering standing Science and
Technology Committees; (3) providing continuous
education including “digital onboarding” for new
Board members; (4) creating a single digital KPI
dashboard accessible to all; and (5) embedding new
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
91
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
procedures into charter documents under EU AI Act
Data Act NIS 2 requirements. The DBS Bank case shows
that the mix of these measures led to a threefold
increase in share price and a fivefold rise in profits over
ten years. This piece will be helpful for Board members,
corporate
secretaries,
corporate
governance
consultants, and digital transformation strategists.
Keywords:
corporate
governance,
digital
transformation, Board of Directors, digital-savvy board,
technology committee, digital maturity, ESG metrics, AI
Act.
Introduction:
Digital transformation represents a
sustained organizational shift in which companies move
from using information technologies merely to
automate fragments of processes toward fundamentally
rethinking the entire value-creation chain and customer
experience. The IDC forecast confirms the scale of this
phenomenon: global spending on digital transformation
will grow to nearly 4 trillion USD by 2027 [1].
The progression of companies up the “digital maturity
ladder” typically begins with data digitization,
then
involves process digitalization, and finally leads to
business-model transformation. A firm converts analog
documents and channels at the first level but retains its
previous operational logic. At the second level, it
restructures processes around real-time data and
algorithms. At the third level, it moves to platform
ecosystems where value is co-created with partners and
users, and decisions are made based on predictive
analytics. This transformational level requires a new
type of oversight from governing bodies, since the speed
of experimentation and the risk of technological
dependency rise sharply.
Historically, Boards of Directors have performed
primarily
a
monitoring
function,
overseeing
management to avoid agency conflicts, but in the digital
era, they are expected to provide proactive support for
innovation and flexible resource reallocation. A telling
indicator of this shift is the increase in the number of
companies combining the roles of CEO and Chair: among
S&P 500 firms, the share of such dual-role companies
rose from 47% in 2014 to 60% in 2024, reflecting a move
toward a more dynamic model of control and strategic
dialogue [2].
However, institutional changes have not kept pace with
technological challenges: only 15% of S&P 500
companies have a standing Science and Technology
Committee, and merely 24% are “digitally competent”
(i.e., have three or more directors with IT experience)
[3]. Meanwhile, research [4] shows that such digital-
savvy Boards deliver approximately 30% higher market-
capitalization growth rates than companies whose
Boards lack digital expertise.
A critical issue is the tight linkage between IT and
corporate strategies. Despite 91% of global companies
launching digital initiatives, 91% of directors are
concerned about their cost, and only 44% are confident
in management’s ability to implement the new business
model. This gap indicates that many Boards still view the
digital agenda as an auxiliary rather than a strategic
driver, which slows the reorientation of investment
portfolios and top-management KPI systems [5, 6].
Thus, the core problem is asynchrony: the pace of
technological innovation and pressure from customers,
regulators, and competitors grows exponentially, while
corporate governance processes update only with
inertia. The lack of digital skills on Boards, fragmented
responsibility for IT risks, and a focus on short-term
financial results impede firms’ transition from “digital
projects” to a sustainable digital business model.
Bridging this gap requires revising Board composition
and
mandates,
instituting
continuous
director
education, and integrating technological and financial
metrics within a unified decision-making framework.
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
This study of corporate governance in business digital
transformation is based on analyzing 28 sources,
including industry forecasts, index reports, director
surveys, company case studies, and regulatory
documents. The theoretical foundation consists of the
IDC forecast on digital transformation spending [1], the
Harvard Forum report on the increasing combination of
CEO and Chair functions among S&P 500 companies [2],
and Tonello’s analysis of Board composition [3], while
the MIT CISR study by Weill et al. [4] demonstrated that
digital-savvy Boards achieve roughly 30% higher market-
capitalization growth. Ethical and regulatory aspects are
explored via the EU AI Act [13], Data Act [14], and the
NIS 2 Directive on cyber-resilience [15], as well as IBM
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
92
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
reports on data-breach costs and automation risks [16],
which show, for example, that AI implementation
reduced average breach costs by USD 2.22 million.
Methodologically, the research combined:
●
Comparative analysis of Board composition
—
comparing the share of companies with
combined CEO/Chair roles, the presence of
technology committees, and digital-savvy
directors against TSR and ROE metrics [2]
–
[4].
●
The correlation analysis of performance
evaluates the relationship between the number
of IT-competent directors, market capitalization
growth (the digital-savvy Board AUC metric),
and return on equity, based on data from Bain
and Deloitte [25, 26].
●
Systematic review of director surveys
—
analyzing PwC Pulse Survey data on digital
initiatives and confidence in management [5, 6]
and NACD data on including cyber-risks in Board
agendas [17].
●
Content analysis of regulatory requirements
—
assessing the impact of the AI Act, Data Act, and
NIS 2 Directive on Board mandates and the
allocation of compliance responsibilities [13]
–
[15].
●
Case analysis of DBS Bank
—
examining the
practices of establishing a Technology &
Operations Committee and digital onboarding
of directors, and their effect on share-price
growth and net profit from 2014 to 2024 [27,
28].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Rapid cost reduction of cloud resources, the exponential
growth in generative AI capabilities, and the maturity of
distributed ledgers have formed the first vector of
pressure on Boards of Directors. Gartner forecasts that
aggregate corporate spending on public cloud services
will reach USD 723.4 billion by 2025, with infrastructure
and platform services becoming the fastest-growing
segment [7]. Concurrently, McKinsey records a surge in
corporate AI adoption (Fig. 1): 72% of organizations
apply at least one AI function, while regular utilization of
generative models has doubled to 65% in just one year
[8].
Fig. 1. Organizations that have adopted AI in at least one business function [8]
On the blockchain horizon, the situation is analogous: a
Deloitte survey indicates that 87% of companies intend
to invest in DLT solutions within the next 12 months,
expecting accelerated deployment of Web3 services [9].
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
93
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Such technological acceleration elevates the IT agenda
from t
he “operational” domain: directors must shift
from retrospective control to continuous monitoring of
risks and capital expenditures in digital assets, including
KPIs for time-to-market new features and cyber
resilience levels.
Customers and investors form the second layer of
drivers. The share of purchases made directly through
social media increased from 21% in 2019 to 46% in 2024,
and 67% of consumers use social media to discover new
brands [10]. Simultaneously, the e-commerce business
reached USD 27 trillion, growing by almost 60% in just
six years, which has intensified platform competition
and increased the cost of errors in the digital customer
experience [11]. Investors are adding an ESG
component: global sustainable assets amounted to USD
30.3 trillion as of 2022, and their weight in portfolios
continues to grow despite cyclical market fluctuations
[12]. Under such conditions, the Board of Directors finds
itself in a dual funnel of expectations
—
to increase
returns
from
omnichannel
investments
while
simultaneously proving the resilience of the business
model to climate and social risks; accordingly, CX and
ESG metrics are integrated into executive compensation
schemes alongside financial indicators.
The third, regulatory, vector accelerates the
transformation. The EU AI Act, which came into force on
1 August 2024, will already 2025 make requirements for
managing generative models and their testing
mandatory, and by 2026 will extend stringent rules to
high-risk AI systems, including penalties [13].
Complementing this is the Data Act (effective January
2024), which obligates companies to share industrial
and IoT data on non-discriminatory terms, elevating
data access issues to a strategic rather than merely
technical discussion [14]. The combination of these Acts
significantly reduces the time lag between technological
implementation and regulatory impact, forcing directors
to revise compliance procedures and the allocation of
responsibilities across committees.
Thus, the technological, market, and regulatory vectors
align into a unified coordinate system in which the pace
of innovation sets the tempo for changes in corporate
governance, and the regulator enshrines a new norm of
accountability. Boards of Directors of companies
aspiring to sustainable growth are compelled to
synchronize IT strategy with overall business strategy,
enhance Board members’ digital and ESG competencies,
and implement robust mechanisms for oversight of AI
models, cyber risks, and data flows.
The evolution of cloud, AI, and distributed ledgers has
already elevated the digital agenda from the operational
plane to the Board level: companies have begun
purposefully changing the composition of their
governing bodies. During 2023
–
2024, the proportion of
directors with technological or cyber backgrounds in the
S&P 500 rose from 20% to 38%, and in the Russell 3000
from 15% to 26% [3]. Nevertheless, a critical mass
remains rare: updated MIT CISR analysis showed that
only 26% of the studied U.S. companies have a “digital
-
and AI-
literate” Board
(three or more such directors),
yet these Boards exhibit an average return on equity
that is 10.9% above the industry norm [4].
To consolidate this effect, organizations institutionalize
technological expertise. In 2024, only 15% of S&P 500
companies had a separate Science and Technology
Committee. Still, research indicates that such a
committee is statistically more common among
“digitally literate” Boards and correlates with higher
market capitalization [4]. Complementing this are
mandatory upskilling session programs: Article 20 of the
NIS 2 Directive explicitly requires board members to
undergo regular cyber-risk training and imposes
personal liability for non-compliance with cyber-
resilience measures [15].
Direct financial and reputational risks drive competency
enhancement. According to an IBM report, the global
average cost of a data breach in 2024 reached a record
USD 4.88 million, increasing by 10% year over year,
while the application of AI and automation reduced this
amount by an average of USD 2.22 million [16]. It is
therefore unsurprising that 50% of directors had already
included “cyberattacks” among their top five strategic
threats by Q2 2024 (Fig. 2) [17], whereas 56% of WEF
respondents believe that attackers will hold the
advantage over the next two years [18].
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
94
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Fig. 2. What are the top business issues on your board's agenda in the 2024 Q2? [17]
The response shifts from episodic control to systematic
data governance: Boards demand a unified registry of
critical information assets, scenario-based stress tests
(“table
-
top”), MTTD/MTTR metrics, and mandatory
cyber-KPI integration into executive compensation
schemes. In conjunction with NIS 2, this establishes a
new corporate governance norm in which cyber
resilience and data quality are treated as rigorously as
financial reporting, and digital competence is a
condition for maintaining corporate competitiveness.
Expanding digital expertise within the Board proved to
be only the first step; the next was establishing durable
procedures enabling directors to allocate capital and
manage technological risks promptly. In 2024, the
average company already spends 7.5% of its revenue on
digital transformation, of which 5.4% is allocated to the
IT budget and the remainder to marketing, sales, and
legal support, as shown in Fig. 3 [19].
Fig. 3. Allocation of IT and Non-IT Digital Transformation Budgets by Industry [19]
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
95
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Almost 95% of EY-surveyed CEOs intend to maintain or
accelerate transformation programs, and 58% plan to
increase the pace of investments, prompting directors
to name capital allocation strategy as the second most
crucial agenda item for 2024 [20]. In practice, this has
stimulated the emergence of annual “capital sprints”:
the Board reviews the technology portfolio quarterly,
comparing measured ROI of initiatives against a multi-
year horizon and reallocating resources from inefficient
initiatives to generative AI or cloud projects with
multiplicatively better margins.
Simultaneously, the very architecture of oversight has
changed: instead of one-off CIO presentations,
permanent dashboards are implemented that combine
cloud expenditures, feature time-to-market, and cyber
resilience indicators on a single panel. Nevertheless,
over one-third of directors still complain of receiving
“insufficient metrics” to assess the impact of technology
on company value, corroborating the NACD finding of a
gap between Board expectations and management
reporting quality [21]. To close this gap, best practices
incorporate a dual “funnel” for investment project
filtration: first, the Technology Committee reviews
architectural compatibility and cyber risk; then, the
Strategy Committee approves the budget based on
scenario-based NPV analysis that accounts for technical
debt remediation costs.
Following investment processes, Boards are compelled
to formalize algorithmic ethics. According to PwC data,
only half of directors feel sufficiently informed about AI
risks, although 69% trust management to implement the
AI strategy [22]. Conversely, 73% of companies already
apply or pilot traditional and generative AI at the
executive level, yet only 58% have conducted a
complete risk assessment [23]. The regulatory
pendulum accelerates this pressure: the AI Act, now in
force, stipulates fines of up to 7% of global revenue for
prohibited practices and 3% for breach of obligations by
suppliers of high-risk models [24], thereby moving
algorithmic ethics from voluntary codes into the sphere
of fiduciary responsibility. The response is adopting
Responsible AI policies: the Board approves principles of
transparency, trainability, and energy efficiency,
including mandatory audits of training datasets and bias
stress tests.
Thus, strategic oversight and capital allocation
mechanisms gradually merge with AI governance:
Boards enshrine in their charters that any significant
investment in digital assets is examined through
economic return, cyber resilience, and compliance with
algorithmic ethical norms. Companies that have
succeeded in integrating such processes exhibit higher
return on capital and lower volatility, confirming the
empirical thesis that in the digital transformation era,
value is created not by the volume of technology
expenditures but by the quality of their managerial
control.
Industry data confirm this general pattern. An analysis
of the 42 largest banks conducted by Bain & Company
found that the presence of a tech-oriented Board
correlates with outperformance of average market TSR
by five percentage points, a reduction in the cost-to-
income ratio by 10 percentage points, and an increase in
NPS by 12 points; the “tech
-
savvy board” ra
nked first
among the driver factors [25].
A cross-industry sample by Deloitte complements the
picture. In companies where at least one director had
technological leadership experience, the average three-
year revenue growth rate was 5% higher, and annual
stock performance was 8 % better than that of
competitors without such competence [26].
The aggregate results indicate that directors’ digital
expertise influences performance not indirectly but
through concrete governance mechanisms described in
the previous section: Boards allocate capital more
precisely among technological initiatives, resolve
technical debt more rapidly, and set cyber-resilience and
ROI metrics in real time. The key condition remains
sufficient concentration of competence in the
boardroom
: one or two “tech directors” do not make a
difference, but three or more change the nature of
discussions,
transforming
technology
from
an
operational cost item into a source of sustainable
growth.
An example of how digital transformation alters the very
logic of corporate governance is DBS Bank. Following a
2014 meeting between its CEO Piyush Gupta and Jack
Ma, the Board elevated to a strategic level the question
of transforming the bank “from a financial company into
a technology company,” and in 2015 es
tablished a
standing Technology & Operations Committee to
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
96
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
oversee investments in cloud platforms, API economy,
and customer-data analytics. At the governance-div
level, over five years, the proportion of directors with IT
experience grew to one-third, and every new
independent director underwent a mandatory “digital
onboarding” course. This reboot produced tangible
effects: from 2014 to 2024, DBS’s share price increased
by more than 300%, net profit grew fivefold to $11.4
billion, and the customer base reached 18.5 million [27].
McKinsey notes that the Board could rapidly reallocate
capital between AI experimentation and modernization
of legacy systems, which reduced the digital-product
time-to-market cycle from 18 months to less than five
months. The goal is to shorten this to several weeks,
which the bank deems necessary for full AI scale-up.
Today, an industry platform called ALAN enables AI
deployment and plays a crucial role in achieving this
accelerated rollout [28].
This account confirms the conclusion of the previous
section: when the Board establishes a sustainable
process of strategic technology oversight rather than
limiting itself to one-off CIO initiatives, digital
transformation becomes a source of measurable value
creation. The key mechanism combines a qualified
Board composition, specialized committees, and metrics
that directly link investments in AI, cloud, or DLT with
revenue dynamics, operating costs, and cyber risks. This
linkage enables organizations to transform technology
from a line-item expense into a systemic driver of
competitive advantage.
CONCLUSION
The study demonstrates that digital transformation
demands fundamentally new oversight and strategic
planning approaches from corporate governance
bodies. The pace of technological innovation vastly
outstrips traditional decision-making and resource-
allocation processes, giving rise to a “gap” between top
management’s ambitions and the Board of Directors’
ability to monitor and support innovation initiatives
effectively. Analysis of S&P 500 and Russell 3000
companies shows that those with “digital
-
savvy” Boards
achieve higher market capitalization and return-on-
equity metrics. Yet, their overall proportion remains
small, and institutional mechanisms (Science &
Technology
Committees,
mandatory
upskilling
programmes) are being adopted only incrementally.
Market analysis of cloud services, generative AI, and
distributed ledgers confirms that technological drivers
are establishing a new norm for corporate governance:
cloud expenditures are rising rapidly, AI initiatives span
the majority of organizations, and the regulatory
pressure of the EU AI Act and Data Act elevates data
governance and algorithmic-ethics issues from an
operational plane to a sphere of Board fiduciary
responsibility. Under these conditions, the executive
div must possess requisite digital competencies and
implement permanent dashboards, integrated KPIs, and
scenario-based risk analyses to respond swiftly to
change and minimize technological and cyber threats.
Alongside technological factors, customers, investors,
and regulators exert significant influence: growth in
omnichannel sales and ESG investments, coupled with
heightened demands for cyber resilience and
algorithmic transparency, make the digital agenda a
Board-level priority. Best practices reveal a shift from
episodic CIO oversight to systematic management of the
investment portfolio, where capital sprints, a dual
“funnel” for project filtration, and integration of cyber
-
and ethics filters become standard elements of strategic
oversight.
Thus, ensuring sustainable growth in the digital-
transformation era depends on synchronizing IT strategy
with overall business strategy, strengthening Board
competencies, and formalizing control mechanisms over
digital assets. The DBS Bank example illustrates how
combining a technology-oriented Board composition,
specialized
committees,
and
relevant
metrics
accelerates time-to-market and drives substantial
improvements in financial performance. Embedding
such processes in corporate governance transforms
technology from a cost item into a systemic driver of
competitive advantage. It calls for further development
of Board-level training, reporting, and accountability
institutions.
REFERENCES
M.
Shirer,
“Worldwide
Spending
on
Digital
Transformation is Forecast to Reach Almost $4 Trillion
by 2027, According to New IDC Spending Guide,”
IDC
,
May
30,
2024.
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
97
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
J. Daum and L. McCarthy, “2024 U.S. Board Index,”
The
Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance
,
Oct.
26,
2024.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/10/26/2024-u-
s-board-index/
M. Tonello and M. Tonello, “Board Practices and
Composition: 2024 Edition,”
The Harvard Law School
Forum on Corporate Governance
, Dec. 12, 2024.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/12/12/board-
practices-and-composition-2024-edition/
(accessed
Apr. 15, 2025).
P. Weill, “Digitally Savvy Boards: AI Update,”
MIT CISR
,
Mar.
20,
2025.
https://cisr.mit.edu/publication/2025_0301_SavvyBoar
dsUpdate_WeillWoernerBannerMoore
16, 2025).
“Corporate board director insights from the PwC Pulse
Survey:
PwC,”
PwC
,
2023.
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/library/pulse-
survey/business-reinvention/corporate-board-
directors.html
“Corporate board director insights from the PwC Pulse
Survey,”
PwC
,
2024.
Apr. 17, 2025).
“Gartner Forecasts Worldwide Public Cloud End
-User
Spending to Total $723 Billion in 2025,”
Gartner
, Nov.
19,
2024.
A. Singla, “The st
ate of AI in early 2024: Gen AI adoption
spikes and starts to generate value,” McKinsey, 2024.
Accessed: Apr. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available:
R. Massey, “Blockchain and Web3 Adoption for
Enterprises,”
Deloitte
“Consumers willing to pay 9.7% sustainability premium,
even as cost-of-
living and inflationary concerns weigh,”
PWC
,
May
15,
2024.
https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/press-
releases/2024/pwc-2024-voice-of-consumer-
survey.html
UNCTAD, “Digital Economy Report 2024,”
UNCTAD
, Jul.
10,
2024.
https://unctad.org/publication/digital-
“Global Sustainable Investment Review 2022,”
GSIA
https://www.gsi-alliance.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/12/GSIA-Report-2022.pdf
(accessed Apr. 20, 2025).
“AI Act,”
European Commission
, 2024.
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-
framework-ai
“Data Act explained,”
European Commission
, Jan. 29,
2025.
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/factpages/data-act-explained
(accessed Apr. 20, 2025).
“The NIS 2 Directive,”
The NIS 2 Directive
https://www.nis-2-directive.com/
2025).
“Cost of a data breach report,”
IBM
, 2024.
https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach
Apr. 23, 2025).
T. Sikora, “Cybersecurity Threats Top Board Agendas,”
NACD
, Jun. 28, 2024.
https://www.nacdonline.org/all-
“Redefining resilience: Cybersecurity in the gen AI era,”
Accenture, 2024. Accessed: Apr. 22, 2025. [Online].
Available:
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
98
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
“Focusing
on
the
foundation:
How
digital
transformation investments have changed in 2024,”
Deloitte
,
Oct.
13,
2024.
(accessed Apr. 24,
2025).
“How board
oversight of capital allocation can drive
strategy,” EY, May 2024. Accessed: Apr. 27, 2025.
[Online].
Available:
N. Denzel, “Technology Leadership In The Boardroom:
Driving Trust And Value,” NACD, 2024. Accessed: Apr.
27,
2025.
[Online].
Available:
“PwC’s 2024 Annual Corporate Directors Survey,”
PwC
,
2024.
“2024 US Responsible AI Survey: PwC,”
PwC
, 2024.
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/tech-effect/ai-
analytics/responsible-ai-survey.html
2025).
“Artificial intelligence act: Council and Parliament strike
a deal on the first rules for AI in the world,”
European
Council
,
2023.
V. D’Agnoluzzo, “How Banks Can Parlay Technology into
a Compet
itive Edge,”
Bain
, Nov. 07, 2023.
https://www.bain.com/insights/how-banks-can-parlay-
technology-into-a-competitive-edge/
2025).
L. Abrash, “The tech
-forward boardroom: Fostering
richer boardroom conversations on technology,”
Deloitte
,
Jul.
28,
2024.
O. Walker, “DBS and Jack Ma: how a meeting helped
change the history of Singapore’s biggest bank,”
Financial
Times
,
Mar.
26,
2025.
https://www.ft.com/content/0b454bfa-ab1b-48ce-
b02f-c3fc7c67782e
“DBS Bank: Transforming digital banking in Singapore,”
McKinsey
