IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/eme/csefzz/s1569-375920200000102021.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Challenging the Adequacy of the Conventional ‘Three Lines of Defence’ Model: A Case Study on Maltese Credit Institutions

In: Contemporary Issues in Audit Management and Forensic Accounting

Author

Listed:
  • Glen Borg
  • Peter J. Baldacchino
  • Sandra Buttigieg
  • Engin Boztepe
  • Simon Grima

Abstract

This study challenges the conventional theoretical approach of the ‘Three Lines of Defence’ Model adopted by most of the Maltese credit institutions. The authors propose a paradigm shifting conceptualised framework that would alter the corporate governance structures of banks. The objective is to test the feasibility and willingness of credit institutions to adopt such an approach. This study challenges the current practices of the internal auditing profession and organisations and invites them to evaluate their structures whilst recognising the benefits of adopting a combined assurance function. In order to test this hypothesis, the authors sought out semi-structured interviews with controllers (Internal Auditors, Risk Managers and Compliance Officers) within Maltese Credit Institutions, varying in size from significant, medium-sized and small institutions; personal from the Malta Financial Services Authority – The regulator, the Big four audit firms and members of the Malta Forum of Internal Auditors, and practitioners working both within and outside the financial industry. There were two contrasting opinions regarding the suggested proposition. On the one hand, those operating within the credit institutions, as well as the regulator and the external auditors, do not believe that the proposition of integrating risk, compliance and internal audit functions (IAF) in one team would be possible; the reason being that independence, which is the cornerstone of every IAF, would be severely impacted. On the other hand, there were those practitioners working outside the banking industry but with sufficient experience and knowledge in the field, who challenged the traditional concept of independence. They argue that the functions should not be separate from each other because they have much in common. Four themes emerged from the study: (1) challenges as a concept, (2) benefits, (3) risks and (4) condition for successful implementation. All interviewees, from risk departments, boards, external auditors and regulators agree that a strong, knowledgeable and independent IAF is fundamental to every organisation but more so within the financial industry. Nevertheless, this study revealed two schools of thought that emerged from the findings in relation to the IAF and its regulation, and specifically, when the authors presented the proposition of an integrated function.

Suggested Citation

  • Glen Borg & Peter J. Baldacchino & Sandra Buttigieg & Engin Boztepe & Simon Grima, 2020. "Challenging the Adequacy of the Conventional ‘Three Lines of Defence’ Model: A Case Study on Maltese Credit Institutions," Contemporary Studies in Economic and Financial Analysis, in: Contemporary Issues in Audit Management and Forensic Accounting, volume 102, pages 303-324, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:csefzz:s1569-375920200000102021
    DOI: 10.1108/S1569-375920200000102021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S1569-375920200000102021/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S1569-375920200000102021/full/epub?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec&title=10.1108/S1569-375920200000102021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S1569-375920200000102021/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/S1569-375920200000102021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:csefzz:s1569-375920200000102021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.