Institutional pressures in security management: Direct and indirect influences on organizational investment in information security control resources

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.12.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Organizations invest in three types of information security control resources (ISCR).

  • Internal security needs assessment (ISNA) affects the level of ISCR in organizations.

  • Key activities of ISNA are security investment rationale and risk analysis.

  • Institutional pressures affect ISCR directly and indirectly through ISNA.

  • Coercive and normative pressures are two critical institutional pressures.

Abstract

To offer theoretical explanations of why differences exist in the level of information security control resources (ISCR) among organizations, we develop a research model by applying insights obtained from resource-based theory of the firm and institutional theory. The results, based on data collected through a survey of 241 organizations, generally support our research model. Institutional pressures and internal security needs assessment (ISNA) significantly explain the variation in organizational investment in ISCR. Specifically, coercive and normative pressures are found to have not only a direct impact but also an indirect impact through ISNA on organizational investment in ISCR.

Introduction

The dependency on the connectivity enabled by the Internet has created unprecedented challenges for organizations to establish more secure information technology (IT) infrastructures. Even a single security breach may result in irreparable damage to firms in terms of corporate liability, loss of credibility, and reduced revenues [9]. High-profile security incidents in recent years have raised awareness of information security and brought it to the forefront of corporate priorities [20]. Many firms today rate information security as one of the highest priorities for their IT expenditures [13].

The early research stream on management of information security focused on developing comprehensive checklists for security procedures and controls, encompassing various areas of threats [14]. This approach later led to the development of risk management methodologies to assess the magnitude of risk using the probability of occurrence of a security lapse and the cost associated with it [3]. Later studies focused on information security policies and investigated drivers for compliance and violations (e.g., [8], [53], [54]). Despite a widespread belief that organizations can successfully address security issues by investing in technical and socio-organizational resources [17], there is still a lack of theory on and empirical support for what constitutes a coherent set of organizational resources for information security controls and why variations exist in the amount of such resources among organizations. In the wake of recent high profile security breaches at Target and Neiman Marcus, our research will provide insights as to why the other retailers, such as Wal-Mart and Sears, have different resources that protected them from malware stealing payment card numbers from the memory in cash registers in retail stores during the payment process or payment authorization [28].

This study intends to fill this gap in the literature with two objectives. First, drawing upon the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm [64], we first examined the nature of organizational resources deployed for better security—hereafter referred to as information security control resources (ISCR) in organizations. We used the typology of Grant [24] as a theoretical lens to identify three distinct but interrelated dimensions – information security technologies, qualified information security personnel, and security awareness of organizational users – of ISCR in organizations. Second, based on institutional theory and its recent development, we explicate antecedents of an organization's investment in ISCR. We posit that organizations heterogeneously respond to institutional pressures related to information security by making different levels of investment in ISCR. In particular, we argue that institutional pressures, such as mimetic, coercive, and normative pressures, exerted from the external environment have both direct and indirect impacts through ISNA on organizational investment in ISCR.

Section snippets

A resource-based view of information security controls

The RBV literature suggests that the set of resources a firm possesses can explain its performance [64]. Viewed either as a strength or a weakness of a firm, resources are considered assets that enable the firm to conceive and execute strategies that improve efficiency and effectiveness [64]. Although the RBV tends to define resources broadly to include capabilities, resources and capabilities have been considered as distinct concepts [5], [24]. Resources refer to the principal assets needed

Theory and hypotheses development

Our research model is developed by employing institutional theory and its recent development. Institutional theory suggests that the main objective in organizational decisions is to gain greater legitimacy from the stakeholders in its environment, and this legitimacy can be gained by adopting processes, structures, and strategies that others in the environment have already adopted. As Scott and Meyer [51] posit, the institutional environments “are characterized by the elaboration of rules and

Measure development

We borrowed existing measurement scales whenever available in the literature. When existing scales are not available, new measures were developed by tightly operationalizing definitions of constructs in this study. Appendix A presents all measurement items. We operationalized ISCR as a second-order construct with three subconstructs: information security technologies, qualified security personnel, and security awareness of organizational users. The second-order construct was modeled as

Data analysis

The components-based PLS approach was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the measurement scales and to test research hypotheses. We used Smart PLS version 2.0 for both validating measurement scales and testing the research model. The partial least squares (PLS) approach rather than the covariance-based modeling approach was used because the PLS approach is often considered to optimize the predictive power on the dependent variable (e.g., ISCR in our study). In addition, the PLS

Discussion of the findings

Our study identifies three distinct types of ISCR – information security technologies, qualified information security personnel, and security awareness of organizational users – to provide theoretical explanations of what constitutes a coherent set of organizational resources for information security controls. Specifically, we developed a second-order construct of ISCR with the three types of control resources as subconstructs and a research model to explain why differences exist in the level

Study limitations

The study is not without limitations. First, while the organizations that our participants work for represent a broad range of industries, they are for-profit organizations. Our data does not include not-for-profit firms. Therefore, the findings of the study should be interpreted accordingly. Motivations for security investment might differ for not-for-profit organizations. For instance, Anthony et al. [2] found that for-profit hospitals are more (less) likely to comply with a mandatory

Future research directions

This study offers several avenues for future research. One avenue for future research is to empirically investigate the link between ISCR and security performance. It seems that such an investigation, while of great importance, poses formidable challenges for researchers. One reason is the lack of reliable metrics in measuring the security performance of organizations. It is difficult or impossible to use traditional performance metrics in an information security context. Thus, we first need to

Concluding remarks

Despite the growing importance of information security, our understanding of organizational approaches to managing IS security remains rudimentary. In particular, this study answered a fundamental question regarding what constitutes ISCR and why variations exist in the level of ISCR among organizations. We offered theoretical explanations for both of the questions and gave strong empirical support for our arguments. Nonetheless, we cannot exclude the possibility that other theoretical

References (66)

  • B. Bulgurcu et al.

    Information security policy compliance: an empirical study of rationality-based beliefs and information security awareness

    MIS Q.

    (2010)
  • H. Cavusoglu et al.

    The effect of Internet security breach announcements on market value: capital market reaction for breached firms and Internet security developers

    Int. J. Electron. Com.

    (2004)
  • H. Cavusoglu et al.

    The value of intrusion detection systems (IDSS) in information technology (IT) security

    Inf. Syst. Res.

    (2005)
  • D. Chatterjee et al.

    Shaping up for e-commerce: institutional enablers of the organizational assimilation of web technologies

    MIS Q.

    (2002)
  • W.W. Chin

    The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling

  • S. Collett

    Forecast 2014: How to Wring Value from Your IT Budget

    (September, 2013)
  • R. Courtney

    Security risk assessment in electronic data processing

  • Deloitte Touche

    2005 Global Security Survey

    (2005)
  • G. Dhillon et al.

    Information system security management in the new millennium

    Commun. ACM

    (2000)
  • G. Dhillon et al.

    Current directions in IS security research: towards socio-organizational perspectives

    Inf. Syst. J.

    (2001)
  • P.J. DiMaggio et al.

    The iron cage revisited—institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields

    Am. Sociol. Rev.

    (1983)
  • S. Dynes et al.

    Information security in the extended enterprise: some initial results from a field study of an industrial firm

  • E&Y

    Global Information Security Survey 2005: Report on the Widening Gap

    (2005)
  • R. Fisher

    Information Systems Security

    (1984)
  • R. Garud et al.

    Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: an introduction to the special issue

    Organ. Stud.

    (2007)
  • D. Gefen et al.

    Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice

    Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst.

    (2000)
  • R.M. Grant

    Contemporary Strategy Analysis

    (2005)
  • K.E. Greenaway et al.

    Theoretical explanations for firms’ information privacy behaviors

    Commun. AIS

    (2005)
  • R. Grewal et al.

    An investigation into the antecedents of organizational participation in business-to-business electronic markets

    J. Marketing

    (2001)
  • A.E. Harris et al.

    A sneaky path into Target customers’ wallets

    N.Y. Times

    (2014)
  • E.A. Harris et al.

    Neiman Marcus data breach worse than first said

    N.Y. Times

    (2014)
  • H.A. Haveman

    Follow the leader—mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets

    Admin. Sci. Q.

    (1993)
  • C.B. Jarvis et al.

    A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research

    J. Consum. Res.

    (2003)
  • Cited by (79)

    • Cybersecurity capabilities and cyber-attacks as drivers of investment in cybersecurity systems: A UK survey for 2018 and 2019

      2023, Computers and Security
      Citation Excerpt :

      Cybersecurity has become a key factor that determines the success or failure of organizations (Karjalainen et al., 2019; Jeong et al., 2019; Chronopoulos et al., 2017; Wolff, 2016; Cavusoglu et al., 2015; Bose and Luo, 2014; Bulgurcu et al., 2010).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    The co-authors have contributed equally to this paper.

    2

    Tel.: +1 972 883 5939; fax: +1 972 883 2089.

    3

    Tel.: +1 604 822 8894; fax: +1 604 822 0045.

    4

    Tel.: +1 604 822 8396; fax: +1 604 822 0045.

    View full text