1 October COMBINED ASSURANCE: IS YOUR ORGANISATION ADEQUATELY ASSURED? (2019-10-01) October 1, 2019 Combined Assurance, General combined assurance, lines of defense, board of directors, assurance By Glen Talbot(CA)SA, Travers Cape (CA)SA and peer viewed by Jene’ Palmer CA(SA): CGF Lead Independent Consultants If we have both internal and external auditors, we have combined assurance, right? Wrong! For the board of directors to claim that they have discharged their obligations to implement a Combined Assurance Model requires much more than just the appointment of internal and external auditors. Critical questions As a director (executive or non-executive), can you confidently answer the following questions: Do you have a clear picture of your organisational structure? This includes the legal entity structure of the organisation (or group of companies) as well as the operational structures including business units, divisions and departments. Do you have a clear understanding of the business processes being engaged by the various entities and business areas within your organisation? Has your organisation identified and assessed its key risks (strategic and operational) which impact the business processes? Do you know what lines of defense have been applied to mitigate these business risks? Are you satisfied that the lines of defense collectively provide adequate comfort to your stakeholders that the organisation’s control environment is being optimally managed? Lines of defense King III referred to three (3) lines of defense, however, King IV™ has expanded this concept to include six (6) lines of defense as depicted below: King III (2009) King IV™ (2016) Management assurance The organisation’s line functions that own and manage risks The organisation’s specialist functions that facilitate and oversee risk management and compliance Internal assurance providers Internal auditors, internal forensic fraud examiners and auditors, safety and process assessors and statutory actuaries External assurance providers Independent external assurance service providers such as external auditors Other external assurance providers such as sustainability and environmental auditors, external actuaries and external forensic fraud examiners and auditors Regulatory inspectors Defining Combined Assurance Many boards appear to grapple with the meaning of the term “Combined Assurance” and see it as something which is delegated (relegated) to the finance department. Simply put: “Combined” refers to the combination of all the assurance providers as set out in the six lines of defense; and “Assurance” refers to the level of confidence derived from the work performed by various assurance providers. King IV™ defines “assurance” as: “The diligent application of mind to evidence, resulting in a statement or declaration concerning an identified subject matter or subject matter information, and that is made for the purpose of enhancing confidence in that subject matter or subject matter information”. It therefore stands to reason that the objective of a Combined Assurance Model is to provide comfort to stakeholders that an effective control environment is in place to address key business risks arising from business processes, including “non-finance” related business processes such as outsourced IT services. King IV™ defines a “Combined Assurance Model” as one which : “incorporates and optimises all assurance services and functions so that taken as a whole, these enable an effective control environment; support the integrity of information used for internal decision-making by management, the governing body and its committees; and support the integrity of the organisation’s external reports”. Whilst the above appears quite daunting, the Combined Assurance Model recognises that organisations are constrained by limited resources and that it is not practical, nor desirable, for all lines of defense to provide assurance on all “subject matter or subject matter information”. The key to achieving the best possible level of assurance within defined cost constraints lies in: establishing and approving a comprehensive risk register which forms the foundation for determining which business risks need to be mitigated; identifying the different assurance providers and mapping the coverage they provide in respect of the risks contained in the risk register; and using the Combined Assurance Mapping to identify gaps in assurance as well as areas where there is a duplication of effort (and costs). Key role players The board (as the governing body) is ultimately accountable for ensuring that an effective and efficient system of internal controls is designed and implemented within the organisation. In many instances, the board will delegate this responsibility to the audit committee who will approve a Combined Assurance Framework and oversee that the outcomes of the Combined Assurance Model provide adequate comfort that the organisation’s control environment is effective and that it underpins the integrity of the organisation’s internal and external reporting. Business benefits By leveraging the Combined Assurance Model to achieve an optimal level of assurance, the board can realise the following tangible business benefits: renewed focus on business and operations; enhanced risk management; better coordination of efforts between internal and external assurance providers with those of management to optimise assurance coverage; reduced costs through the elimination of unnecessary duplication of assurance efforts; improved integrity of the organisation’s internal and external reporting; improved tracking of remedial actions; and improved organisational credibility and reputation. Reporting obligations Full disclosure of the application of the Combined Assurance Model in the Annual Integrated Report will underpin the implementation of a Corporate Governance Framework® and demonstrate the board’s commitment to good corporate governance. To simply state in the Annual Integrated Report that “we adopt a combined assurance approach” is simply not sufficient. In compliance with governance best practice and in order to provide stakeholders with a good understanding of how the organisation applies the principles of Combined Assurance, the following information should as a minimum, be disclosed in the Annual Integrated Report: the process of risk management; and information about the organisation’s implementation of its Combined Assurance Model, including details of the overall assurance measures, providers and reports obtained to verify and substantiate the integrity of internal and external reports relied on by stakeholders for decision-making. The Combined Assurance Model can help to reduce siloed thinking within an organisation and force an integrated approach to developing and implementing an effective control environment. It promotes a shared understanding of risk and control information and will enable the board to confidently assess whether controls are really addressing critical business risks. ENDS Words: 1,009 For further information contact: CGF Research Institute (Pty) Ltd - Tel: +27 (11) 476 8264 / Web: www.cgfresearch.co.za Glen Talbot (CGF Lead Independent Consultant) - Cell: 082 545 4425 / E-mail: email@example.com Travers Cape (CGF Lead Independent Consultant) - Cell: 082 816 7841 / E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Jené Palmer (Lead Independent Consultant) - Cell: 082 903 6757 / E-mail: email@example.com Follow CGF on Twitter: @CGFResearch Click below to read more... Attached Files 20191001-Combined-assurance-Is-your-organisation-adequately-assured.pdf 223.11 KB Related Articles WHY ALL ORGANISATIONS SHOULD PUBLISH A MEANINGFUL INTEGRATED REPORT (2018-03-26) Most modern, well-governed organisations are acutely aware of the need for their businesses to be run in an ethical and socially-conscious manner and for this ethos to be communicated to their stakeholders. This being the case, it is well documented that the influential set of so-called Millennials -- unlike their older generational ‘Baby Boomers’ and Xennials -- actively support organisations whose tenets are based upon transparency, including the preservation of society and the environment. TANGIBLE BENEFITS OF A CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK® Article by Jene’ Palmer Forward-thinking organisations have realised that corporate governance does not merely fall into the portfolio of the Company Secretary. Indeed, the draft King IV Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa 2016 (‘King IV’), describes corporate governance as “the exercise of ethical and effective leadership by the governing body” of an organisation. Why then is corporate governance still viewed by many organisations as a process which increases bureaucracy and drives a ‘tick box’ exercise? Perhaps the explanation lies in not understanding and appreciating the value which can be unlocked by implementing a purpose-built Corporate Governance Framework® which is tailored to the organisation. Empirical research supports the fact that good corporate governance translates into tangible and sustainable benefits for the organisation. Some of these benefits are set out below. SUSTAINABILITY DEPENDS ON A STRONG GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK Article by Terrance M. Booysen Corporate governance is one of the key elements many investors consider when they reflect upon the organisation’s success, as well as when deciding upon their investment choices. But when the organisation’s governance system shows signs of stress or failure, not only do astute investors understand the unsettling impact it has upon the organsation’s supply chain, they also become wary about its sustainability which may give rise to them re-considering to ‘weather the storm’ or ‘bail out’ so to speak. Over the years so much has been written about failures of corporate governance within organisations, including the financial, social and political consequences which are typically found in its trail. Yet in spite of numerous regulation to improve the overall conduct of organisations, including the various King Codes of Corporate Governance written in South Africa, even more organisations are becoming affected by poor governance. DEMYSTIFYING ISO MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS AND RELATED GUIDELINES (2019-10-25) The number of management systems has risen dramatically in recent years, reflecting the increasing governance demands being placed on more and more organisations and their boards, and especially so in the wake of a myriad of governance scandals and corporate collapses locally and abroad. THE COMPANY SECRETARY: FROM COMPANY ADMINISTRATOR TO GOVERNANCE LEADER (2018-06-19) The role of a company secretary is broad and onerous to say the least and, if this post is not occupied by a competent person who has the appropriate knowledge and skills; the consequences can be the cause of significant organisational friction. The requirements and reporting lines of the position -- by their very nature -- give rise to potential conflict situations, and it is for this reason in particular, that the person appointed to the position must have the necessary maturity, experience and independence to properly carry out their duties and responsibilities, while being objective, impartial and independent. BOARDS THAT CREATE VALUE: CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK® By Jene’ Palmer and reviewed by Terrance M. Booysen It has been painful to watch the likes of Lance Armstrong, Mike Tyson and Hansie Cronje sabotage their futures through poor decision-making. Similarly, many organisations and their boards have failed to demonstrate strong and responsible leadership qualities to motivate and drive their organisations to success. Awareness, decisiveness and accountability are some of the business leadership qualities required to achieve remarkable performances. The ‘buck’ stops with the board of directors and it is the board of directors who are ultimately held accountable for the success of the organisation. However, with the business landscape changing at an accelerating rate, risk management and decisive decision-making are becoming more challenging and business failures more prominent. A recent Harvard Business Review reports the failure rate for mergers and acquisitions to be between 70% and 90%. According to the United States Small Business Administration, only 44% of new businesses are still in existence after four years. Against this backdrop, how does a board create a sustainable organisation in what are clearly turbulent times? Comments are closed.