内部审计论文中文外文参考文献

会计学内部审计 中英文资料外文翻译文献 内部审计在沙特阿拉伯的发展：协会理论透视内部审计职能的价值1早先的研究已经运用各种各样的方法来制定适当的标准以评估内部审计职能的有效率。比如说，视遵照标准的程度为影响内部审计表现的其中因素之一。一份 1988 年国际会计师协会英国协会的研究报告就致力与研究内部审计作用价值中高级管理层和外部审计员的认知力。这项研究证明了衡量所提供服务的价值的艰难性就是做评估的主要障碍。收益性，费用标准以及资源利用率都被确认为服务价值的衡量标准。在这项研究里，它强调了确保内部审计工作应遵从 SPPIA 的必要性。在美国，1988 的 Albrechta 研究过内部审计的地位和作用，还为了能有效的评估内部审计的效率特别制定出一套框架。他们发现有四个能让内部审计部门发展从而提高内部审计效率的要件：一个合适的企业环境，高级管理层的支持，具备高素质的内部审计人员以及高质量的内部审计工作。在这项研究里学者们强调管理层和审计人员都应该承认内部审计职能对于企业来说是一种具有增值性的职能。在英国，1997 年，Ridley 和 D’Silva 证明遵循专业标准的重要性是促进内部审计职能增值功能的最重要的因素。遵循 SPPIA大量的研究都特别专注于内部审计部门对于 SPPIA 遵从性的研究。1992 年，Powell etal 对 11 个国家的国际会计师协会的成员进行了一项全球性的调查以证明是否有全球性的内部审计文化。 有 他们发现对这 11 个国家的国际会计师协会成员的调查中， 82的是遵循 SPPIA 的。这个蛮高的百分比率促使学者们建议 SPPIA 提供内部审计这个职业全球化的证据。许多的研究已经关注涉及到独立性的 SPPIA 标准。1981 年，Clarket al 发现内部审计部门的独立性和内部审计人员所做报告的权威性是影响他们工作Abdulrahman A. M. Al-Twaijry John A. Brierley and David R. Gwilliam Internal Audit Research客观性的最至关重要的两个因素。1985 年，Plumlee 致力于研究影响内部审计人员客观性的潜在威胁，特别是参与内部控制制度的设计是否会影响到关于该制度质量与有效率的决断力。Plumlee 发现这样参与设计会产生偏见最终会影响到工作的客观性。内部审计职能与公司管理层两者之间的关系通常会成为决定内部审计客观性的一个重要因素。1989 年，Harrell et al 表明管理层对一些观点的认知能力以及欲望都可能会影响到内部审计人员的工作和判断力。同时，他们也发现作为国际会计师协会成员的内部审计人员是不大可能屈服于这种压迫下的。1991 年，Ponemon 调查研究了这样一个问题，内部审计人员是否会在他们工作过

程中报告那些未被揭露的敏感问题。他得出的结论是，影响内部审计人员客观性的三个因素分别是他们在企业中所处的地位，他们跟管理层的关系以及举报不道德行为的渠道的存在。在沙特阿拉伯的内部审计研究已经证明相对地很少有关于沙特阿拉伯企业内部审计的研究，然而，例外的是 1993年的 Asairy 和 1996 年的 Woodworth 和 Said。Asairy 试着评估沙特阿拉伯合股公司的内部审计部门的效率。他通过对 38 家公司的内部审计部门的负责人，高级管理层和外部审计人员的问卷调查来研究。这项研究的结果显示了内部审计成功的一个重要因素就是它独立于其他的企业的经济活动。内部审计部门所提供的服务是会受到管理层，其他雇员和外部审计人员的影响。内部审计人员的教育背景，训练，经验和专业素质都会影响到内部审计的效率。根据他的这项研究，Asairy 建议所有合股公司都应该设置内部审计职能，而且应在沙特大学把内部审计作为一门独立的课程来设立。1996 年，Woodworth 和 Said 试着调查沙特阿拉伯的内部审计人员关于根据被审单位的国籍是否会对被审单位具体的内部审计情况有不同的反应的看法。基于 34 份来自国际会计师协会达兰协会成员的问卷调查，他们发现不同国籍没有很大的区别。内部审计人员不会根据被审单位的国籍来改变他们的审计方式，文化程度对于审计的结果是没有很大的影响的。关于遵循 SPPIA 的重要性，专家和学术界都强调了内部审计部门和企业其他部门之间 （1972 年的 Mints关系在决定内部审计部门成功或其他方面是具有一定的重要性的。1996 年的 Flesher 1998 年的 Ridley amp Chambers和 1999 年的 Moeller amp Witt）。学术界致力于研究如果内部审计要有效率，事前的准备工作以及审计人员和被审单位之间的团队合作精神的必要性。1992 年的 Bethea 认为好的人际关系处理技巧是很重要的因为内部审计会产生消极看法和消极的态度。这些问题尤其对于多文化的商业环境是非常重要的例如像沙特阿拉伯这样审计人员和被审单位在文化和教育背景上有很大差异的地方 1996 年 Woodworth amp Said。结论缺少内部审计部门的原因通过对 92 家公司的采访调查公司没有设置内部审计职能的原因，来自于 52 家公司的最多的回答就是信赖外部审计人员能够使公司获得可能会从内部审计中得到的赢利。典型地，被采访者认为外部审计者更好，要比内部审计更有效率，更省钱。在对外部审计人员的采访中透露出他们的客户公司不会特别的区分清楚内部审计和外部审计的工作性质和角色的不同之处。比如，一个外部审计人员说到，对于外部审计人员是做什么

的通常都有个误区，他们认为外部审计人员会为公司做所有的事情，而且一定会找出所有的问题。说到这里，一个外部审计人员质疑内部审计是否在任何一个企业环境中都具有增值的功能。当提到内部控制制度时他说到，只要他们满意这最终的报告结果，我认为内部审计职能也可以不需要设置。外部审计最终会显示出所有内部审计的大缺点。第二个采访者（23 家企业，25）提到最多的不设置内部审计部门的原因是对成本和利润的一种权衡和协调。特别地是，17 家公司认为公司规模小以及其活跃性有限的本质意味着设置内部审计部门对他们来说反而是没有效率的。受采访的外部审计人员都支持这个观点，测量成本是毫不费事很容易的，相比较而言衡量利润则是比较困难这一事实就是促成这个决定的一个因素。还有一些采访者给出的不设置内部审计部门的原因。由于执行内部审计职能需要高成本的事实，14 家企业聘请了不处于独立的内部审计部门的雇员来执行内部审计的职责。有 8 家公司认为没有设置内部审计部门的必要，这是因为他们相信他们有内部控制制度已经足够了而没必要再去设置内部审计。5 家公司认为内部审计不是什么重要的工作，还有三家公司觉得他们的企业类型是不需要内部审计的。有三个受访者提到他们不设置内部审计部门是因为找不到专业人员来管理运行这个部门，还有 6 家公司没有提供不设置内部审计部门的原因。有 10 家公司曾经设立过内部审计部门但由于在招聘合格的高素质的人员和改变企业的组织结构方面具有一定难度就不再运行这个部门。说到这里，有 8 家没有内部审计部门的公司计划在不久的未来成立一个内部审计部门。内部审计部门的独立性评论员和权威人士认为独立性是内部审计部门最主要最关键的一个特性。在对内部审计部门的问卷调查回复中有 60 份说有一份书面文件阐明了内部审计部门的目的，权威性和责任。在所进行的所有问卷调查中，有 93的人说一份在内部审计部门的职权范围内的文件被高级管理层所认可，有 97的人说这份文件阐明了内部审计部门在企业中的地位，有接近个人，纪录，资产的权利，还有 90的认为这份文件阐明了内部审计的范围。受访者被要求估计相关文件与 SPPIA 特定要求想一致的程度。在这些有这种文件的内部审计部门中有 27 家声称是完全遵循 SPPIA，有 23 家认为他们的公文部分遵循 SPPIA。有超过三分之一被调查的部门要么就没有这样的公文要么就不清楚文件是否遵循 SPPIA。SPPIA 建议当企业的董事会同意任命或撤除内部审计部门负责人的时候要提高其独立性，还有内部

审计部门的负责人要对企业里资格老的个人负责。令人关注的是，有 47 家公司他们对于任命，撤除以及收入报告的责任是由非高级的管理者负责，通常就是一般的经理。SPPIA 建议内部审计部门的负责人应该直接坦率的跟董事会沟通以保证审计部门的独立，同时为内部审计的负责人和董事会提供了一种方法以能使彼此告知对方的利益。在跟内部审计部门负责人的交谈中显示出内部审计部门通常是对一般经理报告负责而不是董事会。由问卷回复者提供的缺乏跟董事会交流的进一步证据显示出在将近一半的公司中，内部审计部门的成员从来都没参加过董事会会议而只有两家公司的内部审计人员是定期出席董事会会议的。获取证据不受限制和不受束缚的询问权力是内部审计独立性和有效性的最重要的方面。问卷的回复显示有 34 个内部审计主管认为他们不能完全获取所有有用的信息。而且，在所有调查中，少数一些人不相信他们可以不受限制的报告缺陷，隐瞒，不道德的行为或者错误。还有相当一部分人认为做内部审计不能总是从高级管理层那里获得支持。SPPIA 证明参与制度的设计，设置，运行很有可能会削弱内部审计人员的客观性。受访者被问到在非审计职责的范围内管理层多久一次会要求内部审计部门的协助。有37 个被调查的内部审计部门说管理层有时，经常有这样的需求，还有 27 个部门从来没参与过这些非审计的工作。这些调查证明了一些企业的内部审计人员经常会为其他部门的人弥补不足之处。THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNAL AUDIT IN SAUDI ARABIA: AN INSTITUTIONAL THEORYPERSPECTIVEThe value of the internal audit functionPrevious studies have utilized a variety of approaches to determineappropriate criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the internal auditfunction. For example considered the degree of compliance with standards asone of the factors which affects internal audit performance. A 1988 researchreport from the IIA-United Kingdom（IIA-UK，1988）focused on the perceptionsof both senior management and external auditors of the value of the internalaudit function. The study identified the difficulty of measuring the valueof services provided as a major obstacle to such an evaluation. Profitabilitycost standards and the effectiveness of resource utilization were identifiedas measures of the value of services. In its recommendations it highlightedthe need to ensure that internal audit work complies with SPPIA.In the US Albrecht et al.1988studied the roles and benefits of the internalaudit function and developed a framework for the purpose of evaluatinginternal audit effectiveness. They found that there were four areas that thedirectors of internal audit departments could develop to enhanceeffectiveness: an appropriate corporate e

nvironment top management supporthigh quality internal audit staff and high quality internal audit work. Theauthors stressed that management and auditors should recognize the internalaudit function as a value-adding function to the organization. In the UKRidley and D’Silva 1997 identified the importance of complying withprofessional standards as the most important contributor to the internal auditfunction adding https://www.360docs.net/doc/374208775.html,pliance with SPPIAA number of studies have focused specifically on the compliance of internalaudit departments with SPPIA. Powell et al.1992 carried out a global surveyof IIA members in 11 countries to investigate whether there was evidence ofa world-wide internal audit culture. They found an overall compliance rateof 82 with SPPIA. This high percentage prompted the authors to suggest thatSPPIA provided evidence of the internationalization of the internal auditprofession.A number of studies have focused on the SPPIA standard concerned withindependence.Clark et al.1981 found that the independence of the internalaudit department and the level of authority to which internal audit staffreport were the two most important criteria influencing the objectivity oftheir work. Plumlee 1985 focused on potential threats to internal auditorobjectivity particularly whether participation in the design of an internalcontrol system influenced judgements as to the quality and effectiveness ofthat system. Plumlee found that such design involvement produced bias thatcould ultimately threaten objectivity.The relationship between the internal audit function and company managementmore generally is clearly an important factor in determining internal auditorobjectivity. Harrell et al. 1989 suggested that perceptions of the viewsand desires of management could influence the activities and judgement ofinternal auditors. Also they found that internal auditors who were membersof the IIA were less likely to succumb to such pressure.Ponemon 1991 examinedthe question of whether or not internal auditors will report sensitive issuesuncovered during the course of their work. He concluded that the three factorsaffecting internal auditor objectivity were their social position in theorganization their relationship with management and the existence of acommunication channel to report wrongdoing.Internal audit research in Saudi ArabiaTo date there has been relatively little research about internal audit in theSaudi Arabian corporate sector exceptions however are Asairy 1993andWoodworth and Said 1996. Asairy 1993sought to evaluate the effectivenessof internal audit departments in Saudi joint-stock companies. He studieddepartments in 38 companies using questionnaire responses from the directorsof internal audit departments senior company management and externalauditors. The result of this study revealed that one significant factor inthe perceived success of internal audit was its independence from othercorporate activities. The service provided by the internal audit dep

artmentwas affected by the support it received from the management other employeesand external auditors. The education training experience and professionalqualifications of the internal auditors influenced the effectiveness ofinternal audit. On the basis of his study Asairy 1993 recommended that alljoint-stock companies should have an internal audit function and thatinternal auditing should be taught as a separate course in Saudi Universities.Woodworth and Said 1996sought to ascertain the views of internal auditorsin Saudi Arabia as to whether there were differences in the reaction ofauditees to specific internal audit situations according to the nationalityof the auditee. Based on 34 questionnaire responses from members of the IIADhahran chapter they found there were no significant differences between thedifferent nationalities. The internal auditors did not modify their auditconduct according to the nationality of the auditee and cultural dimensionsdid not have a significant impact on the results of the audit.Given the importance of complying with SPPIA the professional and academicliterature emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the internalaudit department and the rest of the organization in determining the successor otherwise of internal audit departments Mints1972Flesher1996Ridleyamp Chambers1998 and Moeller amp Witt1999. This literature focuses on the needfor co-operation and teamwork between the auditor and auditee if internalauditing is to be effective.Bethea 1992 suggests that the need for good humanrelations’ skills is important because internal auditing creates negativeperceptions and negative attitudes. These issues are particularly importantin a multicultural business environment such as Saudi Arabia where there aresignificant differences in the cultural and educational background of theauditors and auditees Woodworth and Said 1996.ResultsReasons for not having an internal audit departmentOf the 92 company interviews examining the reasons why companies do not havean internal audit function the most frequent response from 52 companies 57was that reliance on the external auditor enabled the company to obtain thebenefits that might be obtained from internal audit. Typically intervieweesargued that the external auditor is better more efficient and saves money.Interviews with the external auditors revealed that client companies couldnot distinguish clearly between the work and roles of internal and externalaudit. For example one external auditor saidthere is a misperception of what the external auditor does they think theexternal auditor does everything for the company and must discover anyproblem.Having said this one external auditor doubted that an internal audit functionwould add value in all circumstances. When referring to the internal controlsystem he statedas long as they are happy with the final output I think the internal auditfunction will not add value. External auditing eventually will highlight anysignifica

nt internal control weakness.The second most frequent reason mentioned by interviewees 23 firms 25 fornot operating an internal audit department was the cost/benefit trade-off.Specifically 17 firms considered that the small size of the company and thelimited nature of its activities meant that it would not be efficient for themto have an internal audit department. The external auditors interviewed wereof the opinion that the readily identifiable costs as compared with the moredifficult to measure benefits was a factor contributing to this decision.A number of other reasons were given by interviewees for not having an internalaudit department. As a consequence of the high costs of conducting internalaudit activities 14 firms used employees who were not within a separateinternal audit department to carry out internal audit duties. Eight companiesdid not think there was a need for internal audit because they believed theirinternal control systems were sufficient to obviate the need for internalaudit. Five companies did not think that internal audit was an importantactivity and three felt that their type of the business did not requireinternal audit. Three respondents mentioned that they did not operate aninternal audit department because professional people could not be found torun the department and six companies did not provide a reason for not havingan internal audit department. In 10 companies an internal audit department.