--- url: 'https://kshuttle.io/en/financial-regulation-data-control/' title: 'Denial, frustration, Excel… then control: what regulation really does to finance teams' author: name: admin url: 'https://kshuttle.io/en/author/admin-ks/' date: '2026-06-17T08:12:01+00:00' modified: '2026-06-17T08:12:01+00:00' type: post summary: 'IFRS 16, Pillar Two and financial reporting are not only creating new compliance obligations. They are forcing finance teams to structure, control and use data differently.' categories: - Finance image: 'https://kshuttle.io/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Deni-colere-Excel-1.png' published: true --- # Denial, frustration, Excel… then control: what regulation really does to finance teams **Pillar Two, IFRS 16, financial reporting: faced with new regulatory obligations, finance teams do not only need better tools. They need a clearer path from regulatory urgency to reliable data control. A look back at the Finance & Performance Management track of kShuttle Connect | Grand Format.**  Every [new regulation](#faq-financial-regulation) often begins with the same scene. A text is published. A deadline appears. Data needs to be collected, checked, justified and submitted. Teams look at what they already have: existing processes, Excel files, manual checks, internal assumptions, local contributors and resources already stretched by other priorities. **Then one sentence comes back, almost every time: “We should be able to manage it like this.”** It is human. Before transforming a process, an organisation first tries to absorb the new constraint. One more file. One more control. One more manual adjustment. One temporary spreadsheet that quietly becomes permanent. During [kShuttle Connect | Grand Format](https://kshuttle.io/en/evenement/kshuttle-connect-grand-format/), the Finance & Performance Management track started from this very operational reality. Not to dramatise regulation, but to look at what it really creates inside organisations: a tension between the urgency to comply and the need to build a sustainable data foundation. Because behind IFRS 16, Pillar Two or financial reporting, the issue is no longer only to produce a regulatory output. It is to know whether the organisation can produce data that is reliable, traceable, explainable and useful for decision-making. ## The regulatory shock curve The Finance track was built around a simple metaphor: when faced with a new regulatory constraint, organisations often go through a transformation curve. First comes shock. Then denial. Frustration. Bargaining. Discouragement. Acceptance. And sometimes, finally, maturity. ![regulatory shock curve](https://kshuttle.io/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Presentation-Parcours-Finance-et-Pilotage-KC5-2-1024x576.jpg) This curve is more than a communication device. It reflects what many finance teams experience when a new obligation disrupts existing processes. At the beginning, the value of a structured approach is not always obvious. With IFRS 16, the topic can appear to be “just” about lease contracts. With Pillar Two, some organisations may initially assume that the rules will have limited impact, especially when their consolidated effective tax rate already seems to sit above the expected threshold. **Then reality becomes more complex.** Contracts change. Scopes evolve. Modifications accumulate. Data is missing at closing. Controls multiply. Calculations need to be explained, replayed and documented. [XML](https://kshuttle.io/en/pillar-2-globe-xml-reporting/), which may initially look like a technical output, becomes a compliance topic in its own right. At that point, regulation stops being just a legal text. It becomes a full-scale test of data quality, process robustness and internal governance. ## Excel, or the false comfort of what we know In many organisations, **Excel is often the first survival tool.** It helps teams move fast, regain control and build an initial answer when the timeline is short. But this comfort becomes fragile when volumes increase, rules evolve, several teams need to contribute and every figure must be traceable. **This is particularly visible with IFRS 16.** The standard is not simply about recording lease contracts in a spreadsheet. It requires companies to recognise a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for most leases, and then manage payments, terms, options, modifications, renewals, terminations and related accounting impacts over time. At group level, each contract can become a point of dependency between local operations, accounting, consolidation, finance and audit teams. **Take a simple example.** A local entity changes the term of a property lease. On paper, the information may seem minor. In practice, it can affect the lease liability, the right-of-use asset, accounting entries, P&L impacts and disclosures. If that information remains in an email, an isolated spreadsheet or a local file that is not synchronised with the rest of the process, the organisation does not only lose time. It loses control. So the point is not to “move away from Excel” as a principle. The point is to know when a critical regulatory process can no longer rely on isolated files, manual rework and scattered controls. Excel helps teams cope. It does not govern. ## IFRS 16: when contracts become management data The testimony of [Agnès Auger](https://www.linkedin.com/in/agn%C3%A8s-auger-62498677/), Lease Insight IFRS 16 business project manager at [SNCF Réseau](https://kshuttle.io/en/regulatory-reporting-case-studies/), brought this issue back to the operational field. With IFRS 16, the difficulty is not limited to the initial calculation. The real challenge is to manage contracts over time. A contract can be modified, extended, transferred, terminated or reassessed. A scope can change. An entity can enter or leave the group. Retroactive impacts can appear. Each of these movements can affect calculations, accounting entries, reporting outputs and audit documentation. **In other words, IFRS 16 data is not static. It is living data.** This is where the shift from a file-based approach to a structured system changes the nature of the work. [Lease Insight](https://kshuttle.io/en/regulatory-business-solutions/ifrs16-asc842-lease-accounting-software/) enables organisations to manage IFRS 16 and ASC 842 in a dedicated environment, with simulation capabilities, modification tracking, reporting, non-eligible contract management, reconciliation of lease charges, scenario analysis and comparative visualisation. The purpose is not only to produce compliant reporting. It is also to secure changes, make financial impacts understandable and allow teams to retrieve the history behind a calculation or a decision. In an audit context, this difference becomes critical. It is not enough to present a final result. Teams need to explain how that result was built, from which data, based on which assumptions and through which controls. Regulatory maturity often starts there: when data is no longer collected only to be reported, but structured so it can be used to manage. ## Pillar Two: the same shock, at global tax level Pillar Two creates a similar tension, but on a different scale. With the [GloBE](https://kshuttle.io/en/pillar-2-globe-xml-reporting/) rules, in-scope multinational groups need to assess their exposure to the global minimum tax on a jurisdictional basis. The topic appears to be tax-driven. In practice, it mobilises tax, finance, consolidation, reporting, information systems and sometimes local entities. Here again, the first reflex may be to rely on what already exists. The data is somewhere. CbCR exists. Consolidation exists. Tax teams know the rules. So the issue may appear to be one of calculation. But Pillar Two quickly changes the nature of the problem. The difficulty is not only to calculate an effective tax rate. It is to know whether the GloBE data is available, complete, controlled, aligned with the right scope, documented and usable for reporting. **A practical example makes this clear.** A group may initially assume that its Pillar Two scope follows its consolidation scope. Then it discovers that a specific entity needs a different treatment, that a jurisdiction requires additional analysis, or that a data point required for GloBE calculations has never been collected in that form before. This is no longer only a tax issue. It is a data architecture issue. The same applies to the GloBE Information Return, or GIR. The XML format is not a technical detail placed at the end of the chain. It requires information to be structured according to an expected, controllable and exchangeable format. If the data is not organised upstream, the final file becomes the place where all process weaknesses become visible. Pillar Two therefore transforms tax data into operational data. It must be collected, validated, historised, controlled and retained.  ## From reactive compliance to controlled data The Finance track also highlighted an important shift: **compliance can no longer be treated as a succession of isolated obligations.** **IFRS 16, Pillar Two and financial reporting** each have their own rules, deadlines and deliverables. But they all rely on the **same foundations**: reliable data, clear responsibilities, documented workflows, robust controls, explainable results and continuity over time. This is where the shift from reactive compliance to data control takes place. When data is collected in urgency, every reporting campaign feels like a reconstruction. Teams go back to files, reconcile gaps, search for supporting evidence, correct anomalies and document afterwards what should have been structured from the start. When a common data foundation is in place, data can be reused, checked, analysed and enriched over time. It becomes more than a regulatory input. It becomes a management asset. This is also the role of a platform such as [ExRP©](https://kshuttle.io/en/regulatory-business-data-platform/): bringing together regulatory, financial, tax and ESG data in a common environment, so that organisations can improve consistency between departments, strengthen data reliability and ensure continuity across processes. Regulation then becomes something more than a cost. It becomes a framework for better understanding the organisation, its commitments, its risks and its room for decision. ## What finance teams should take away Regulation is not only a matter for experts. It is a revealer. It reveals the true quality of data. It reveals dependency on spreadsheets. It reveals silos between teams. It reveals unclear responsibilities. It reveals whether an organisation can produce reliable information under time pressure. But it can also become a turning point. That requires not treating each regulatory requirement as an isolated emergency. Compliance does not happen only at the moment of filing, calculation or reporting. It is built upstream, in the data architecture, workflows, controls, governance and ability to adapt processes over time. This is the difference between answering an obligation and building a capability. With Lease Insight, this means a more structured management of lease contracts, simulations, impact analysis and better traceability across the lease portfolio. With GMT Insight, it means a stronger Pillar Two process: GloBE data collection, ETR calculations, QDMTT and IIR calculations, simulations, transitional safe harbours, GIR XML production, data freeze, corrective returns and retention of reporting data. In both cases, the same logic applies: the more complex regulation becomes, the more organisations need a foundation that connects compliance, process and decision-making.  ## Regulatory maturity is not about ticking the box The final stage of the transformation curve presented during the Finance track may be the most important: maturity. **Maturity does not mean regulation becomes simple. It means the organisation has stopped experiencing it as a permanent shock.** A mature organisation knows where its data is, who controls it, how it is transformed, why certain assumptions were chosen and how results can be explained. It can run scenarios, compare assumptions, document choices and respond to auditors without rebuilding the entire process each time. This maturity does not come from a tool alone. It comes from the combination of a clear methodology, strong governance, engaged teams and a technology foundation capable of supporting the process over time. This is probably one of the strongest lessons from the Finance & Performance Management track: finance teams are not only trying to comply. They are trying to regain visibility in an environment where standards multiply, data moves between systems and decisions must be justified. The question is no longer only: “Are we compliant?” **The real question becomes: “Can we make decisions based on data we truly control?”** ## Conclusion  The Finance & Performance Management track of **kShuttle Connect | Grand Format** put words on a reality often experienced quietly by finance teams: every new regulation creates tension, resistance and then transformation. Regulatory shock may be inevitable. Excel panic should not be. Between the two, there is a path: structuring data, securing processes, documenting controls, engaging teams and turning compliance into a management capability. IFRS 16 and Pillar Two do not only tell the story of new obligations. They point to a deeper transformation in the role of finance teams: moving away from defensive reporting and towards reliable data for decision-making. This is where maturity begins. ## Go further With [ExRP®](https://kshuttle.io/en/regulatory-business-data-platform/), kShuttle supports finance, tax, sustainability and reporting teams in structuring regulatory and strategic data. [Lease Insight](https://kshuttle.io/en/regulatory-business-solutions/ifrs16-asc842-lease-accounting-software/) helps organisations secure IFRS 16 and ASC 842 management, from contract tracking and modifications to simulations, financial impacts and long-term reporting. [GMT Insight](https://kshuttle.io/en/regulatory-business-solutions/pillar2-tax-compliance-software/) supports multinational groups in managing Pillar Two compliance, from GloBE data collection to GIR production, including calculations, controls, simulations and auditability. **[Speak with one of our experts to understand how to turn regulatory obligations into a foundation for better decision-making.](https://kshuttle.io/en/request-demo/)** ## FAQ Why do financial regulations such as IFRS 16 or Pillar Two create pressure for organisations? Financial regulations create pressure because they require organisations to collect, control, document and explain data coming from multiple systems, entities and teams. The difficulty is not only the rule itself, but its operational implementation: scope, data quality, responsibilities, controls, auditability and the ability to produce reliable reporting on time. Why does Excel become insufficient for some regulatory processes? Excel remains useful for analysis and early-stage work, but it becomes fragile when several teams contribute, data volumes increase, rules change and each data point must be traceable. For critical regulatory processes such as IFRS 16 or Pillar Two, the main risks are isolated files, manual rework, lack of version control, limited audit trail and difficulty proving which controls have been performed. What is the main IFRS 16 challenge for finance teams? IFRS 16 is not only about calculating a lease liability. Finance teams must manage lease contracts over time, including modifications, renewals, terminations, transfers, retroactive impacts, accounting entries and reporting outputs. The challenge is to turn lease contracts into reliable, traceable and usable data for closing, audit and management purposes. Why is Pillar Two also a data issue? Pillar Two relies on jurisdictional calculations, GloBE data, scope analysis, elections, safe harbours and reporting obligations such as the GIR. Multinational groups must therefore centralise data, control it, document assumptions and produce results that are explainable and auditable. What does it mean to move from compliance to data control? Moving from compliance to data control means no longer treating each regulation as a one-off emergency. The objective is to build a reusable, controlled and documented data foundation that enables the organisation not only to produce regulatory reporting, but also to analyse impacts, run scenarios and support decisions.