會計 財經(jīng) 外文 英文 畢業(yè) 論文文獻(xiàn)翻譯 民營企業(yè)內(nèi)部審計現(xiàn)狀與發(fā)展對策

1、 外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯內(nèi)部審計在沙特阿拉伯的發(fā)展：協(xié)會理論透視內(nèi)部審計職能的價值abdulrahman a. m. al-twaijry, john a. brierley and david r. gwilliam* internal audit research早先的研究已經(jīng)運(yùn)用各種各樣的方法來制定適當(dāng)?shù)臉?biāo)準(zhǔn)以評估內(nèi)部審計職能的有效率。比如說，視遵照標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的程度為影響內(nèi)部審計表現(xiàn)的其中因素之一。一份1988年國際會計師協(xié)會英國協(xié)會的研究報告就致力與研究內(nèi)部審計作用價值中高級管理層和外部審計員的認(rèn)知力。這項(xiàng)研究證明了衡量所提供服務(wù)的價值的艱難性就是做評估的主要障礙。收益性，費(fèi)用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及資源利用率都被確

2、認(rèn)為服務(wù)價值的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在這項(xiàng)研究里，它強(qiáng)調(diào)了確保內(nèi)部審計工作應(yīng)遵從sppia的必要性。在美國，1988的albrechta研究過內(nèi)部審計的地位和作用，還為了能有效的評估內(nèi)部審計的效率特別制定出一套框架。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)有四個能讓內(nèi)部審計部門發(fā)展從而提高內(nèi)部審計效率的要件：一個合適的企業(yè)環(huán)境，高級管理層的支持，具備高素質(zhì)的內(nèi)部審計人員以及高質(zhì)量的內(nèi)部審計工作。在這項(xiàng)研究里學(xué)者們強(qiáng)調(diào)管理層和審計人員都應(yīng)該承認(rèn)內(nèi)部審計職能對于企業(yè)來說是一種具有增值性的職能。在英國，1997年，ridley和dsilva證明遵循專業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的重要性是促進(jìn)內(nèi)部審計職能增值功能的最重要的因素。遵循sppia大量的研究都特別專注于內(nèi)

3、部審計部門對于sppia遵從性的研究。1992年，powell et al對11個國家的國際會計師協(xié)會的成員進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)全球性的調(diào)查以證明是否有全球性的內(nèi)部審計文化。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)對這11個國家的國際會計師協(xié)會成員的調(diào)查中，有82%的是遵循sppia的。這個蠻高的百分比率促使學(xué)者們建議sppia提供內(nèi)部審計這個職業(yè)全球化的證據(jù)。許多的研究已經(jīng)關(guān)注涉及到獨(dú)立性的sppia標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。1981年，clark et al發(fā)現(xiàn)內(nèi)部審計部門的獨(dú)立性和內(nèi)部審計人員所做報告的權(quán)威性是影響他們工作客觀性的最至關(guān)重要的兩個因素。1985年，plumlee致力于研究影響內(nèi)部審計人員客觀性的潛在威脅，特別是參與內(nèi)部控制制度的設(shè)計

4、是否會影響到關(guān)于該制度質(zhì)量與有效率的決斷力。plumlee發(fā)現(xiàn)這樣參與設(shè)計會產(chǎn)生偏見最終會影響到工作的客觀性。內(nèi)部審計職能與公司管理層兩者之間的關(guān)系通常會成為決定內(nèi)部審計客觀性的一個重要因素。1989年，harrell et al表明管理層對一些觀點(diǎn)的認(rèn)知能力以及欲望都可能會影響到內(nèi)部審計人員的工作和判斷力。同時，他們也發(fā)現(xiàn)作為國際會計師協(xié)會成員的內(nèi)部審計人員是不大可能屈服于這種壓迫下的。1991年，ponemon調(diào)查研究了這樣一個問題，內(nèi)部審計人員是否會在他們工作過程中報告那些未被揭露的敏感問題。他得出的結(jié)論是，影響內(nèi)部審計人員客觀性的三個因素分別是他們在企業(yè)中所處的地位，他們跟管理層的關(guān)系

5、以及舉報不道德行為的渠道的存在。在沙特阿拉伯的內(nèi)部審計研究已經(jīng)證明相對地很少有關(guān)于沙特阿拉伯企業(yè)內(nèi)部審計的研究，然而，例外的是1993年的asairy和1996年的woodworth和said。asairy試著評估沙特阿拉伯合股公司的內(nèi)部審計部門的效率。他通過對38家公司的內(nèi)部審計部門的負(fù)責(zé)人，高級管理層和外部審計人員的問卷調(diào)查來研究。這項(xiàng)研究的結(jié)果顯示了內(nèi)部審計成功的一個重要因素就是它獨(dú)立于其他的企業(yè)的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動。內(nèi)部審計部門所提供的服務(wù)是會受到管理層，其他雇員和外部審計人員的影響。內(nèi)部審計人員的教育背景，訓(xùn)練，經(jīng)驗(yàn)和專業(yè)素質(zhì)都會影響到內(nèi)部審計的效率。根據(jù)他的這項(xiàng)研究，asairy建議所有合股

6、公司都應(yīng)該設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計職能，而且應(yīng)在沙特大學(xué)把內(nèi)部審計作為一門獨(dú)立的課程來設(shè)立。1996年，woodworth和said試著調(diào)查沙特阿拉伯的內(nèi)部審計人員關(guān)于根據(jù)被審單位的國籍是否會對被審單位具體的內(nèi)部審計情況有不同的反應(yīng)的看法?；?4份來自國際會計師協(xié)會達(dá)蘭協(xié)會成員的問卷調(diào)查，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)不同國籍沒有很大的區(qū)別。內(nèi)部審計人員不會根據(jù)被審單位的國籍來改變他們的審計方式，文化程度對于審計的結(jié)果是沒有很大的影響的。關(guān)于遵循sppia的重要性，專家和學(xué)術(shù)界都強(qiáng)調(diào)了內(nèi)部審計部門和企業(yè)其他部門之間關(guān)系在決定內(nèi)部審計部門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

7、, 1998年的ridley & chambers,和1999年的moeller & witt）。學(xué)術(shù)界致力于研究如果內(nèi)部審計要有效率，事前的準(zhǔn)備工作以及審計人員和被審單位之間的團(tuán)隊(duì)合作精神的必要性。1992年的bethea認(rèn)為好的人際關(guān)系處理技巧是很重要的因?yàn)閮?nèi)部審計會產(chǎn)生消極看法和消極的態(tài)度。這些問題尤其對于多文化的商業(yè)環(huán)境是非常重要的例如像沙特阿拉伯這樣審計人員和被審單位在文化和教育背景上有很大差異的地方( 1996年woodworth & said)。結(jié)論缺少內(nèi)部審計部門的原因通過對92家公司的采訪調(diào)查公司沒有設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計職能的原因，來自于52家公司的最多的回答就是信賴外部審計人員能夠

8、使公司獲得可能會從內(nèi)部審計中得到的贏利。典型地，被采訪者認(rèn)為外部審計者更好，要比內(nèi)部審計更有效率，更省錢。在對外部審計人員的采訪中透露出他們的客戶公司不會特別的區(qū)分清楚內(nèi)部審計和外部審計的工作性質(zhì)和角色的不同之處。比如，一個外部審計人員說到，對于外部審計人員是做什么的通常都有個誤區(qū)，他們認(rèn)為外部審計人員會為公司做所有的事情，而且一定會找出所有的問題。說到這里，一個外部審計人員質(zhì)疑內(nèi)部審計是否在任何一個企業(yè)環(huán)境中都具有增值的功能。當(dāng)提到內(nèi)部控制制度時他說到，只要他們滿意這最終的報告結(jié)果，我認(rèn)為內(nèi)部審計職能也可以不需要設(shè)置。外部審計最終會顯示出所有內(nèi)部審計的大缺點(diǎn)。第二個采訪者（23家企業(yè)，25%

9、）提到最多的不設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計部門的原因是對成本和利潤的一種權(quán)衡和協(xié)調(diào)。特別地是，17家公司認(rèn)為公司規(guī)模小以及其活躍性有限的本質(zhì)意味著設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計部門對他們來說反而是沒有效率的。受采訪的外部審計人員都支持這個觀點(diǎn)，測量成本是毫不費(fèi)事很容易的，相比較而言衡量利潤則是比較困難這一事實(shí)就是促成這個決定的一個因素。還有一些采訪者給出的不設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計部門的原因。由于執(zhí)行內(nèi)部審計職能需要高成本的事實(shí)，14家企業(yè)聘請了不處于獨(dú)立的內(nèi)部審計部門的雇員來執(zhí)行內(nèi)部審計的職責(zé)。有8家公司認(rèn)為沒有設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計部門的必要，這是因?yàn)樗麄兿嘈潘麄冇袃?nèi)部控制制度已經(jīng)足夠了而沒必要再去設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計。5家公司認(rèn)為內(nèi)部審計不是什么重要

10、的工作，還有三家公司覺得他們的企業(yè)類型是不需要內(nèi)部審計的。有三個受訪者提到他們不設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計部門是因?yàn)檎也坏綄I(yè)人員來管理運(yùn)行這個部門，還有6家公司沒有提供不設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計部門的原因。有10家公司曾經(jīng)設(shè)立過內(nèi)部審計部門但由于在招聘合格的高素質(zhì)的人員和改變企業(yè)的組織結(jié)構(gòu)方面具有一定難度就不再運(yùn)行這個部門。說到這里，有8家沒有內(nèi)部審計部門的公司計劃在不久的未來成立一個內(nèi)部審計部門。內(nèi)部審計部門的獨(dú)立性評論員和權(quán)威人士認(rèn)為獨(dú)立性是內(nèi)部審計部門最主要最關(guān)鍵的一個特性。在對內(nèi)部審計部門的問卷調(diào)查回復(fù)中有60份說有一份書面文件闡明了內(nèi)部審計部門的目的，權(quán)威性和責(zé)任。在所進(jìn)行的所有問卷調(diào)查中，有93%的人說一

11、份在內(nèi)部審計部門的職權(quán)范圍內(nèi)的文件被高級管理層所認(rèn)可，有97%的人說這份文件闡明了內(nèi)部審計部門在企業(yè)中的地位，有接近個人，紀(jì)錄，資產(chǎn)的權(quán)利，還有90%的認(rèn)為這份文件闡明了內(nèi)部審計的范圍。受訪者被要求估計相關(guān)文件與sppia特定要求想一致的程度。在這些有這種文件的內(nèi)部審計部門中有27家聲稱是完全遵循sppia，有23家認(rèn)為他們的公文部分遵循sppia。有超過三分之一被調(diào)查的部門要么就沒有這樣的公文要么就不清楚文件是否遵循sppia。sppia建議當(dāng)企業(yè)的董事會同意任命或撤除內(nèi)部審計部門負(fù)責(zé)人的時候要提高其獨(dú)立性，還有內(nèi)部審計部門的負(fù)責(zé)人要對企業(yè)里資格老的個人負(fù)責(zé)。令人關(guān)注的是，有47家公司他們對

12、于任命，撤除以及收入報告的責(zé)任是由非高級的管理者負(fù)責(zé)，通常就是一般的經(jīng)理。sppia建議內(nèi)部審計部門的負(fù)責(zé)人應(yīng)該直接坦率的跟董事會溝通以保證審計部門的獨(dú)立，同時為內(nèi)部審計的負(fù)責(zé)人和董事會提供了一種方法以能使彼此告知對方的利益。在跟內(nèi)部審計部門負(fù)責(zé)人的交談中顯示出內(nèi)部審計部門通常是對一般經(jīng)理報告負(fù)責(zé)而不是董事會。由問卷回復(fù)者提供的缺乏跟董事會交流的進(jìn)一步證據(jù)顯示出在將近一半的公司中，內(nèi)部審計部門的成員從來都沒參加過董事會會議而只有兩家公司的內(nèi)部審計人員是定期出席董事會會議的。獲取證據(jù)不受限制和不受束縛的詢問權(quán)力是內(nèi)部審計獨(dú)立性和有效性的最重要的方面。問卷的回復(fù)顯示有34個內(nèi)部審計主管認(rèn)為他們不能

13、完全獲取所有有用的信息。而且，在所有調(diào)查中，少數(shù)一些人不相信他們可以不受限制的報告缺陷，隱瞞，不道德的行為或者錯誤。還有相當(dāng)一部分人認(rèn)為做內(nèi)部審計不能總是從高級管理層那里獲得支持。sppia證明參與制度的設(shè)計，設(shè)置，運(yùn)行很有可能會削弱內(nèi)部審計人員的客觀性。受訪者被問到在非審計職責(zé)的范圍內(nèi)管理層多久一次會要求內(nèi)部審計部門的協(xié)助。有37個被調(diào)查的內(nèi)部審計部門說管理層有時，經(jīng)常有這樣的需求，還有27個部門從來沒參與過這些非審計的工作。這些調(diào)查證明了一些企業(yè)的內(nèi)部審計人員經(jīng)常會為其他部門的人彌補(bǔ)不足之處。the development of internal audit in saudi arabia

14、: an institutional theory perspective the value of the internal audit functionprevious 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

15、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 o

16、f 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 t

17、he 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 effectivenes

18、s: 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 an

19、d dsilva (1997) identified the importance of complying with professional standards as the most important contributor to the internal audit function adding value. compliance with sppiaa number of studies have focused specifically on the compliance of internal audit departments with sppia. powell et a

20、l.(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 inte

21、rnationalization 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 impo

22、rtant 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 foun

23、d 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 percept

24、ions 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 wil

25、l 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. intern

26、al audit research in saudi arabiato 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

27、 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 wa

28、s 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 i

29、nfluenced 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 ascer

30、tain 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 n

31、o 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

32、 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). t

33、his 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. th

34、ese 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). resultsreasons for not having an internal audit departmentof t

35、he 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, intervie

36、wees 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 mispercept

37、ion 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 s

38、tated, 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 interna

39、l 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 t

40、hat 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 act

41、ivities, 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.

42、 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 depa

43、rtment, 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 sa

44、id this, eight companies without an internal audit department were planning to establish one in the future. the independence of internal audit departmentscommentators and standard setters identify independence as being a key attribute of the internal audit department. from the questionnaire response

45、s 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 manage

46、ment (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 docum

47、ent 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 docu

48、ment 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 organizations board of directors concurs with the appointment or removal of the director of the internal audit department, and t

49、hat 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

50、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 depa