logo-newlogo-newlogo-newlogo-new
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Audit Trail Academy
  • Advisory Services
  • Books
✕
  • Home
  • Chambers on Internal Audit
  • Uncategorized
  • 8 Headlines That Defined 2018 for Internal Audit

8 Headlines That Defined 2018 for Internal Audit

​”We Are Here to Help You”: Managing Relationships When Management Is Skeptical
December 26, 2018
​5 Internal Auditor Resolutions for 2019
January 7, 2019
December 31, 2018

Chambers 8 Headlines That Defined 2018 for Internal Audit

With the end of the year it’s time to look back at the headlines that should have attracted internal auditors’ close attention. Like recent years, 2018 saw a number of big stories about high-profile corporate scandals. Several may have sown the seeds for the next wave of regulations that could impact the work of internal audit.

Risk Management Chickens Came Home to Roost in 2018

Fines and regulatory settlements of past scandals made for many more headlines in 2018 involving Equifax, Wells Fargo, and Volkswagen. They also provided important lessons about risk management.

The settlement of a class action suit brought against Equifax by eight American states signaled what I described in a July blog post as “a bold statement about the importance of internal audit.” The Equifax consent order, stemming from the stunning 2017 data breach that exposed the personal data of more 140 million Americans, was designed in part to address shortcomings in internal audit and board and management oversight. 

Similarly, a massive billion-dollar fine by two U.S. regulators against Wells Fargo for its mishandling of auto insurance and home loans also elicited an agreement to change the lender’s risk and compliance practices. That included producing for its board a detailed plan to strengthen its compliance and risk management functions.

The U.S. Federal Reserve went further, limiting the bank’s ability to grow its balance sheet beyond 2017 levels until it takes steps to address risk management shortcomings. Wells Fargo estimates the limitation would cut its annual profit by as much as $400 million.

As for Volkswagen, the fallout continued three years after its emissions scandal first erupted. “Dieselgate,” which has already cost the automaker more than $15 billion in fines, has morphed into greater scrutiny and skepticism among European regulators — not just for Volkswagen, but for Daimler-Benz and BMW, as well.

I wrote about the important lesson for internal audit and risk managers from those situations in the July blog post: 

Indeed, scandals from Volkswagen to Wells Fargo to Equifax have heightened awareness that all players in risk management must work collectively and equally to succeed. Ultimately, there are consequences whenever key components of systems of risk management fail.

Carillion Collapse Exposed Systemic Risk Management Problems

The stunning downfall of one of the United Kingdom’s biggest construction companies brought to light failures in board oversight, government oversight, and both internal and external audit functions at Carillion. 

The worst news from an audit perspective was what can only be described as a highly dysfunctional independent assurance process laid bare by two parliamentary select committee investigations. One committee report described the outside firms that provided audit or consulting services as a “cozy club incapable of providing the degree of independent challenge needed.”

The fallout from Carillion peaked late in the year when the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority issued a report calling for separation of audit from consulting services among the Big Four firms — KPMG, EY, Deloitte, and PwC. This includes a split between audit and advisory businesses, with separate management and accounts. 

The reports also include recommendations to create additional accountability for those appointing auditors, and development of a “joint audit” system, where the Big Four would have to work with smaller firms on audits. 

Internal Audit Findings Could Have Prevented Atlanta’s Ransomware Attack 

Not all of 2018’s headlines were about internal audit failings. Indeed, news reports indicated that Atlanta’s ransomware attack could have been avoided had city leaders acted on internal audit recommendations to address serious cyber vulnerabilities. 

The city’s auditor laid out dire shortcomings in Atlanta’s IT department and forewarned that there were basically no formal plans in place to protect the city from cyber threats. The audit report warned that complacency and severe resource shortages in IT created a “significant level of preventable risk exposure to the city,” and it concluded the city had “no formal processes to manage risk.”

Arrest of Nissan Motors Chairman Exposed Weak Governance 

The arrest of Nissan Motors board Chairman Carlos Ghosn on charges that he severely underreported his compensation to Japanese authorities raised significant questions about governance and assurance processes at the automaker.    

Indeed, Nissan CEO Hiroto Saikawa described the “dark side” of placing too much company power in one person’s hands and called the corporate governance structure within the company “weak,” according to Bloomberg News. I raised a more fundamental question in a blog post on the scandal:

But the question that isn’t being asked is, why was an admittedly “weak” governance structure allowed to exist in the first place at a Fortune 100 company? And a more fundamental question is, who was charged with assuring good governance at Nissan?

PCAOB Insider Information Leaked to KPMG Employees

Criminal charges were brought against former Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and KPMG employees accused of using leaked PCAOB information to help the Big Four firm improve its audit results. The wrongdoing was exposed by an internal KPMG investigation and related federal investigation, and the arrests resulted in an October guilty plea from one former KPMG executive.

To its credit, KPMG acted quickly when it learned of the scheme and cooperated fully with federal investigators. It also fired the three executives involved. As I wrote in a related blog post, organizations must set ethical standards, communicate them clearly and repeatedly, determine suitable punishments for transgressions, and act consistently when disciplining ethical violations, no matter who commits them. 

The lesson for practitioners is to be aware that professional ethics live and die at the personal level. In other words, the moral compass is ultimately steered by the individual. Executive leadership must understand this reality and be prepared to react decisively and ethically when an employee’s personal weakness puts the organization at risk.

Facebook Scandal Upped the Ante on Data Privacy

Driven by whistleblower revelations, details of the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica debacle raised the stakes on data privacy in March, just two months before the European Union’s new data privacy rules went into effect.

Many have accused Facebook of lax oversight of its privacy protocols and confusing privacy settings that put the personal information of nearly 90 million people at risk and further exposed how social media could be exploited politically.

The Facebook revelations prompted significant policy discussion and enactments among U.S. lawmakers involving data privacy. The California Consumer Privacy Act, signed into law in June and effective in January 2020, requires explicit consent to share consumer information.

It probably won’t end there. Indeed, the White House said in July it would work with lawmakers to create consumer privacy protection. Apple and Google weighed in in September, urging Congress to create new federal privacy legislation.

#MeToo Movement Continued to Topple Mighty Corporate Executives

The #MeToo movement redefined how many organizations see risks associated with sexual harassment and inequality in the workplace. While those two areas were known risk categories prior to the movement, the explosion of misconduct allegations against executives from the entertainment industry and elsewhere significantly raised these risks. The movement also showed the power of social media and the lightning speed at which atypical risks can impact organizations.

The #MeToo movement’s impact was demonstrated in voter turnout in the U.S. midterm elections and a record number of women being elected to Congress. This new dynamic could influence legislation and regulations next year and into the future. 

IIA Looks to Refresh Three Lines of Defense

In December, The IIA announced a yearlong project to review and update the Three Lines of Defense, one of the best known risk management models. The project is headed by a core working group of governance experts who have tapped into the vast experiences of a 30-member advisory group. The project includes a comprehensive review of governance approaches from around the world, and it will seek out and incorporate public comments through a formal exposure process. 

From the outset, The IIA’s objective has been to explore how best to update the Three Lines of Defense model to reflect changes in modern risk management and governance, while at the same time preserve its straightforward and clear approach. In keeping with its original intent, the refresh will focus on roles, not organizational structures. In response to critiques, the aim is to make the model more flexible, suitable to all sectors, and responsive to both the challenges and opportunities that risks present.

The consequences associated with several of the headlines outlined here highlight the potential for new regulation or regulatory scrutiny. Internal auditors should monitor developments in these areas in the coming year and be prepared to speak candidly with stakeholders about control weaknesses in cybersecurity, data privacy, and elsewhere that make their organizations vulnerable.

As always, I look forward to your comments.

Share

Related posts

January 31, 2023

Recent Advice on Hiring Internal Auditor’s You Can ‘Trust’ Is Misdirected


Read more
January 24, 2023

Do Performance Bonuses Impair Internal Auditors’ Independence and Objectivity?


Read more
January 16, 2023

Are Internal Auditors to Blame When Boards Are in the Dark?


Read more

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What’s Trending

01-31-23

Recent Advice on Hiring Internal Auditor’s You Can ‘Trust’ Is Misdirected


01-24-23

Do Performance Bonuses Impair Internal Auditors’ Independence and Objectivity?


01-16-23

Are Internal Auditors to Blame When Boards Are in the Dark?


Read More

Archive

  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009

Contact Us

PO Box 1441
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170

+1-407-463-9389
rchambers@richardchambers.com

About AuditBeacon.com

AuditBeacon.com is a resource center for internal auditors and risk professionals from around the world. In addition to more than 500 blogs authored by Richard Chambers, the site includes links to news and insights on internal audit and other information that illuminates the value of this important profession. AuditBeacon.com is provided as a service by Richard F. Chambers and Associates, LLC.

Copyright © 2023 Richard F. Chambers & Associates. All Rights Reserved.
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Audit Trail Academy
  • Advisory Services
  • Books