内部审计 外文文献翻译

文献翻译

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 et al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。他们发现对这11个国家的国际会计师协会成员的调查中，有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，Clark et 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客观性的最至关重要的两个因素。1985年，Plumlee致力于研究影响

Abdulrahman A. M. Al-Twaijry, John A. Brierley and David R. Gwilliam

* Internal Audit Research

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。（1972年的Mints, 1996年的Flesher, 1998年的Ridley & Chambers,和1999年的Moeller & 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 & 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 THEORY PERSPECTIVE

The value of the internal audit function

Previous studies have utilized a variety of approaches to determine appropriate criteria

to evaluate the effectiveness of the internal audit function. For example, considered the degree of compliance with standards as one of the factors which affects internal audit performance. A 1988 research report from the IIA-United Kingdom（IIA-UK，1988）focused on the perceptions of both senior management and external auditors of the value of the internal audit function. The study identified the difficulty of measuring the value of services provided as a major obstacle to such an evaluation. Profitability, cost standards and the effectiveness of resource utilization were identified as measures of the value of services. In its recommendations it highlighted the need to ensure that internal audit work complies with SPPIA.

In the US, Albrecht et al.(1988)studied the roles and benefits of the internal audit function and developed a framework for the purpose of evaluating internal audit effectiveness. They found that there were four areas that the directors of internal audit departments could develop to enhance effectiveness: an appropriate corporate environment, top management support, high quality internal audit staff and high quality internal audit work. The authors stressed that management and auditors should recognize the internal audit function as a value-adding function to the organization. In the UK, Ridley and

D’Silva (1997) identified the importance of complying with professional standards as the most important contributor to the internal audit function adding value.

Compliance with SPPIA

A number of studies have focused specifically on the compliance of internal audit departments with SPPIA. Powell et al.(1992) carried out a global survey of IIA members in 11 countries to investigate whether there was evidence of a world-wide internal audit culture. They found an overall compliance rate of 82% with SPPIA. This high percentage prompted the authors to suggest that SPPIA provided evidence of the internationalization

of the internal audit profession.

A number of studies have focused on the SPPIA standard concerned with independence.Clark et al.(1981) found that the independence of the internal audit department and the level of authority to which internal audit staff report were the two most important criteria influencing the objectivity of their work. Plumlee (1985) focused on potential threats to internal auditor objectivity, particularly whether participation in the design of an internal control system influenced judgements as to the quality and effectiveness of that system. Plumlee found that such design involvement produced bias that could ultimately threaten objectivity.

The relationship between the internal audit function and company management more generally is clearly an important factor in determining internal auditor objectivity. Harrell et al. (1989) suggested that perceptions of the views and desires of management could influence the activities and judgement of internal auditors. Also, they found that internal auditors who were members of the IIA were less likely to succumb to such

pressure.Ponemon (1991) examined the question of whether or not internal auditors will report sensitive issues uncovered during the course of their work. He concluded that the three factors affecting internal auditor objectivity were their social position in the organization, their relationship with management and the existence of a communication channel to report wrongdoing.

Internal audit research in Saudi Arabia

To date there has been relatively little research about internal audit in the Saudi Arabian corporate sector, exceptions, however, are Asairy (1993)and Woodworth and Said (1996). Asairy (1993)sought to evaluate the effectiveness of internal audit departments in Saudi joint-stock companies. He studied departments in 38 companies using questionnaire responses from the directors of internal audit departments, senior company management, and external auditors. The result of this study revealed that one significant factor in the perceived success of internal audit was its independence from other corporate activities. The service provided by the internal audit department was affected by the support it received from the management, other employees and external auditors. The education, training, experience and professional qualifications of the internal auditors influenced the

effectiveness of internal audit. On the basis of his study, Asairy (1993) recommended that all joint-stock companies, should have an internal audit function, and that internal auditing should be taught as a separate course in Saudi Universities.

Woodworth and Said (1996)sought to ascertain the views of internal auditors in Saudi Arabia as to whether there were differences in the reaction of auditees to specific internal audit situations according to the nationality of the auditee. Based on 34 questionnaire responses from members of the IIA Dhahran chapter, they found there were no significant differences between the different nationalities. The internal auditors did not modify their audit conduct according to the nationality of the auditee and cultural dimensions did not have a significant impact on the results of the audit.

Given the importance of complying with SPPIA, the professional and academic literature emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the internal audit department and the rest of the organization in determining the success or otherwise of internal audit departments (Mints,1972;Flesher,1996;Ridley & Chambers,1998 and Moeller & Witt,1999). This literature focuses on the need for co-operation and teamwork between the auditor and auditee if internal auditing is to be effective.Bethea (1992) suggests that the need for good human relations’ skills is important because internal auditing creates negative perceptions and negative attitudes. These issues are particularly important in a multicultural business environment such as Saudi Arabia where there are significant differences in the cultural and educational background of the auditors and auditees Woodworth and Said (1996).

Results

Reasons for not having an internal audit department

Of the 92 company interviews examining the reasons why companies do not have an internal audit function, the most frequent response from 52 companies (57%) was that reliance on the external auditor enabled the company to obtain the benefits that might be obtained from internal audit. Typically, interviewees argued that the external auditor is better, more efficient and saves money. Interviews with the external auditors revealed that

client companies could not distinguish clearly between the work and roles of internal and external audit. For example, one external auditor said,

there is a misperception of what the external auditor does, they think the external auditor does everything for the company and must discover any problem.

Having said this, one external auditor doubted that an internal audit function would add value in all circumstances. When referring to the internal control system he stated,

as long as they are happy with the final output, I think the internal audit function will not add value. External auditing eventually will highlight any significant internal control weakness.

The second most frequent reason mentioned by interviewees (23 firms, 25%) for not operating an internal audit department was the cost/benefit trade-off. Specifically, 17 firms considered that the small size of the company and the limited nature of its activities meant that it would not be efficient for them to have an internal audit department. The external auditors interviewed were of the opinion that the readily identifiable costs as compared with the more difficult to measure benefits was a factor contributing to this decision.

A number of other reasons were given by interviewees for not having an internal audit department. As a consequence of the high costs of conducting internal audit activities, 14 firms used employees who were not within a separate internal audit department to carry out internal audit duties. Eight companies did not think there was a need for internal audit because they believed their internal control systems were sufficient to obviate the need for internal audit. Five companies did not think that internal audit was an important activity and three felt that their type of the business did not require internal audit. Three respondents mentioned that they did not operate an internal audit department because professional people could not be found to run the department, and six companies did not provide a reason for not having an internal audit department. In 10 companies an internal audit department had been established but was no longer operating because of difficulties in recruiting qualified personnel and changes in the organization structure. Having said this,

eight companies without an internal audit department were planning to establish one in the future.

The independence of internal audit departments

Commentators and standard setters identify independence as being a key attribute of the internal audit department. From the questionnaire responses 60 (77%) of the internal audit departments stated that there was a written document defining the purpose, authority and responsibility of the department. In nearly all instances where there was such a document the terms of reference of the internal audit department had been agreed by senior management (93%), the document identified the role of the internal audit department in the organization, and its rights of access to individuals, records and assets (97%), and the document set out the scope of internal auditing (90%). Respondents were asked to assess the extent to which the relevant document was consistent with the specific requirements of SPPIA. In those departments where such a document existed 27 (45%) claimed full compliance with SPPIA, 23 (38%) considered their document to be partially consistent with SPPIA. In more than one-third of the departments surveyed either no such document existed (n=18, 23%) or the respondent was not aware whether or not the document complied with SPPIA (n=10, 13%).

SPPIA suggests that independence is enhanced when the organization’s board of directors concurs with the appointment or removal of the director of the internal audit department, and that the director of the internal audit department is responsible to an individual of suitable seniority within the organization. It is noticeable that in 47 companies (60%) their responsibilities with regard to appointment, removal and the receipt of reports lay with non-senior management, normally a general manager. SPPIA recommends that the director of the internal audit department should have direct communication with the board of directors to ensure that the department is independent, and provides a means for the director of internal auditing and the board of directors to keep each other informed on issues of mutual interest. The interviews with directors of internal audit departments showed that departments tended to report to general managers rather than the board of directors. Further evidence of the lack of access to the board of directors

was provided by the questionnaire responses showing that in almost half the companies, members of the internal audit department have never attended board meetings and in only two companies did attendance take place regularly.

Unrestricted access to documentation and unfettered powers of enquiry are important aspects of the independence and effectiveness of internal audit. The questionnaire responses revealed that 34 (44%) internal audit directors considered that they did not have full access to all necessary information. Furthermore, a significant minority (n=11, 14%) did not believe they were free, in all instances, to report faults, frauds, wrongdoing or mistakes. A slightly higher number (n=17, 22%) considered that the internal audit function did not always receive consistent support from senior management.

SPPIA identifies that involvement in the design, installation and operating of systems is likely to impair internal auditor objectivity. Respondents were asked how often management requested the assistance of the internal audit department in the performance of non-audit duties. In 37 internal audit departments (47%) surveyed such requests were made sometimes, often or always, and only 27 (35%) departments never participated in these non-audit activities. The interviews revealed that in some organizations internal audit staff was used regularly to cover for staff shortages in other departments.