关于会计的英文文献英文
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.