A pathway model to five lines of accountability in cybersecurity governance

IF 4.1 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS
Sergeja Slapničar, Micheal Axelsen, Ivano Bongiovanni, David Stockdale
{"title":"A pathway model to five lines of accountability in cybersecurity governance","authors":"Sergeja Slapničar,&nbsp;Micheal Axelsen,&nbsp;Ivano Bongiovanni,&nbsp;David Stockdale","doi":"10.1016/j.accinf.2023.100642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In an in-depth field study, we investigate cyber security governance configurations vis-à-vis the five lines of accountability (5 LoA) – that is, the Three Lines Model extended by the accountability of executive management and the board of directors (<span>IIA, 2020</span>). The aim is to explore the configurations adopted by organizations in governing cybersecurity, and why it would matter for cyber security whether the five lines of accountability are adopted. We define the type of the 5 LoA adoption by: (i) the segregation of the lines that spans from blended to segregated and (ii) the level of engagement of those in line roles that ranges from low to high. In this way, we identify four types of adoption of the 5 LoA: ‘no adoption, ‘ostensible’, ‘implicit’, and ‘explicit’ adoption. We theorize how the type of adoption of the 5 LoA is affected by the interplay of institutional forces and organizations’ need for efficiency and effectiveness, and develop a pathway model for organizations’ adoption of the 5 LoA. We find that organizations that adopt the 5 LoA with clear segregation between these lines (‘ostensible’ and ‘explicit’ adoption) are those subject to prudential regulation (coercive forces), whereas efficiency motives and mimetic forces drive organizations to seek fluidity and flexibility by ‘blending’ the segregated lines (‘implicit’ adoption) to ensure fast reactions to changing environment. Regardless of the segregation between lines and whether they are blended or not, we found that all organizations see scope to improve the level of engagement in the 5 LoA to improve the effectiveness of cyber security governance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47170,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Accounting Information Systems","volume":"51 ","pages":"Article 100642"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Accounting Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467089523000349","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In an in-depth field study, we investigate cyber security governance configurations vis-à-vis the five lines of accountability (5 LoA) – that is, the Three Lines Model extended by the accountability of executive management and the board of directors (IIA, 2020). The aim is to explore the configurations adopted by organizations in governing cybersecurity, and why it would matter for cyber security whether the five lines of accountability are adopted. We define the type of the 5 LoA adoption by: (i) the segregation of the lines that spans from blended to segregated and (ii) the level of engagement of those in line roles that ranges from low to high. In this way, we identify four types of adoption of the 5 LoA: ‘no adoption, ‘ostensible’, ‘implicit’, and ‘explicit’ adoption. We theorize how the type of adoption of the 5 LoA is affected by the interplay of institutional forces and organizations’ need for efficiency and effectiveness, and develop a pathway model for organizations’ adoption of the 5 LoA. We find that organizations that adopt the 5 LoA with clear segregation between these lines (‘ostensible’ and ‘explicit’ adoption) are those subject to prudential regulation (coercive forces), whereas efficiency motives and mimetic forces drive organizations to seek fluidity and flexibility by ‘blending’ the segregated lines (‘implicit’ adoption) to ensure fast reactions to changing environment. Regardless of the segregation between lines and whether they are blended or not, we found that all organizations see scope to improve the level of engagement in the 5 LoA to improve the effectiveness of cyber security governance.

网络安全治理中五条责任线的路径模型
在一项深入的实地研究中,我们调查了网络安全治理配置与五条责任线(5条责任线)的关系,即由执行管理层和董事会的责任扩展的三条责任线模型(IIA,2020)。其目的是探索各组织在管理网络安全方面采用的配置,以及为什么采用五条责任线对网络安全至关重要。我们通过以下方式来定义采用5个LoA的类型:(i)从混合到分离的路线的分离,以及(ii)从低到高的路线角色的参与程度。通过这种方式,我们确定了5个LoA的四种采用类型:“不采用”、“表面上”、“隐含”和“明确”采用。我们理论化了机构力量和组织对效率和有效性的需求之间的相互作用如何影响采用5个LoA的类型,并为组织采用5个LoA开发了一个路径模型。我们发现,采用5个LoA并在这两条线之间有明确区分的组织(“持续”和“明确”采用)是那些受到审慎监管(强制力)的组织,而效率动机和模仿力量驱使组织通过“混合”隔离线(“采用”)来寻求流动性和灵活性,以确保对不断变化的环境做出快速反应。无论线路之间的隔离以及它们是否混合,我们发现所有组织都看到了提高5个LoA参与水平的空间,以提高网络安全治理的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Accounting Information Systems will publish thoughtful, well developed articles that examine the rapidly evolving relationship between accounting and information technology. Articles may range from empirical to analytical, from practice-based to the development of new techniques, but must be related to problems facing the integration of accounting and information technology. The journal will address (but will not limit itself to) the following specific issues: control and auditability of information systems; management of information technology; artificial intelligence research in accounting; development issues in accounting and information systems; human factors issues related to information technology; development of theories related to information technology; methodological issues in information technology research; information systems validation; human–computer interaction research in accounting information systems. The journal welcomes and encourages articles from both practitioners and academicians.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信