管理 审计 外文翻译 外文文献 英文文献 内部控制爆X炸

外文出处：Maijoor S. The Internal Control Explosion[J]. International Journal of Auditing, 2000,

4(1):101–109.

内部控制爆炸①

摘要：Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。审计已经从审计结果转向审计制度和内部控制，它已内部控制爆炸然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。内部控制对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。

关键词：机构理论；公司治理；外部审计；内部审计；内部控制制度；管理控制

1 概述

Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。审计已经从审计结果转向审计制度和内部控制，它已然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。例如，在最近的对于欧洲联盟内外部审计服务的内部市场形成的辩论中，监管建议建立关于内部控制和内部审计制度。虽然对有关内部控制的价值期望高，但Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。内部控制是对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。

在审计和公司治理的公共政策辩论中，内部控制的概念越来越得到重视。公共越来①Maastricht Accounting and Auditing Research and Education Center (MARC), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands s.maijoor@marc.unimaas.nl Fax: 31-43-3884876 Tel: 31-43-3883783

越关注内部控制，令人对power在1997年英国和北美的书中的审计社会的现状有所信服。此书的主题是在Anglo-Saxon经济体的审计活动：审计爆炸的扩散。Power表示，联合开发与审计爆炸带动了内部控制制度兴起。增加监管问责制是公众对审计和公司治理政策辩论机构内部控制系统的一部分。然而Power注意到，尽管公众对内部控制的关注度迅速增加，内部控制的概念还是很模糊。他支出，内部控制是什么，内部控制的有效性的界定是内部控制的最基本问题。

本文讨论研究内部控制的兴起，认为内部控制的研究也有一些潜在的问题。首先，在以往的研究中，长期的内部控制涵盖完全不同的概念。其次，有关的内部控制研究机构的规模是有限的，要从孤立的学科进行交叉使用得到结果很难。因此，内部控制是尚未独立的研究范畴。最后，以往的对内部控制的研究没有彻底解决在审计和公司治理的公共政策辩论中谈到的内部控制有关问题。假设的内部控制、财务报告和公司治理的基本关系也没有被证实。

本文解构如下：在开始对内部控制进行研究和讨论之前，先介绍了两个主要的，在Power1997的书中所提出的发展：第一部分讨论了审计爆炸，第二部分讨论了内部控制的崛起。两者也讲被从欧盟的角度评论。第三部分讨论了什么是内部控制，并从会计研究的三个主要观点出发，研究内部控制制度。第四部分确定了内部控制和公司治理的公共政策辩论所承担的四个基本关系，并讨论之前的相关研究。最后一节提供了一个总结和结论。

2 内部控制的崛起

不论是否存在审计爆炸，Power1997和1998在审计中变得越来越重要。根据Power （1997年83爷），因为内部控制系统的可审计假设使得审计爆炸成为可能。根据更具体的财务审计，审计内部控制系统是财务审计起很很大的作用。作为内部控制制度兴起的结果，外部审计的重点从审计结果转变为审计的制度。此外，内部控制制度也成为监管体系的一部分。许多国家的企业管制报告和改革建仪，包括内部控制和内部控制报告。内部控制的崛起与共同发展，是增加内部审计的公共意义。

内部控制系统的可审计假设使得审计爆炸成为可能。担心Power系统是否能够审计不是技术问题，而是由专业验收的可审计性。Power(1997年54-57页），表示他自己的观点，关于内部控制和吉百利代码，其中包括董事以及核数师有关内部控制制度的责任和建议。Power认为，内部控制的崛起也与欧洲联盟一级的发展需作说明。

内部控制的概念在欧洲联盟内的财务报表审计对市场内部的建立的讨论是十分重要的。目前，欧洲联盟几乎没有任何共同的审计规定，也没有财务报表审计的内控市场。只有两个方面的审计协调：一个是组织的审核（如前面提到的指令）还有一个是审计师的资格审核（第八指令的结果）。因此，目前的内部控制系统的报告，目前不包括任何

欧洲的会计或审计。

1996年，欧盟委员会公布了一份研究报告和绿皮书。即名为《欧洲联盟的法定审计师的角色、地位和责任》。这些包括内部控制和审计建议数量的出版物是将内控市场摄入欧盟委员会的重要的第一步。

3 什么是内部控制

前面的章节表明内部控制在公共政策辩论和欧盟中引起越来越多的兴趣。然而，由Power(1997)观察到，关于内部控制的定义和有效性的判断，在公共政策讨论中产生了很多疑问。对于内部控制的研究，将在下文讨论，以用来强调Power(1997)的观点。在进行内部控制进行研究和讨论之前，应该明白什么是内部控制。

对于什么是内部控制这个问题，Power(1997年，83页）是引用了一个作为会计专业文献中的概念开始的。传统上，在会计专业文献中，内部控制是指像职责分工组织，会计控制和关注这个措施，授权策略，组织结构，采取措施以保护资产和信息的信誉测试。这些会计控制可以是一般性的或特别设计的，和有关的组织作为一个整体。最近会计专业文学扩大了内部控制的概念，现在使用的定义就更加广泛，除了会计控制以外还涵盖了许多其他的控制内容。公共政策文件关于审计和公司治理就特别使用了广泛的内部控制定义。比如，COSO报告（1992）对内部控制的定义为：他是一个能够影响一个董事会、管理人员和其他人员，旨在提供合理的能够保证实现的目标的过程，具体解释为：（1）行动的有效性和效率（2）财务报告的可靠性（3）遵守适当的法律和法规。

4 四个未来研究内部控制的方向

最近公共政策辩论队公司治理有很多的讨论，许多都是在研究组织内部控制、审计和组织绩效之间的关系。这些关系大多数都没有被证实研究。在上一节研究的机构理论在三个领域研究的区别是公司治理最关注的问题。然而，机构理论研究的内部控制主要关注的是如董事会的外部董事、审计委员会、董事的薪酬计划等顶层控制。经常在公开的政策文件中强烈提及的中等和较低级别的内部控制是机构理论难以考虑到的有关公司治理方面的影响。Power（1997年和1998年）研究了少数人研究的内部控制的宏观影响，包括中等和较低级别的控制。如前所述，最后两个类别的控制主要是再内部组织的有效性和审计管理决策方面的研究。

考虑到内部控制和公司治理研究的有限性，假定有利于内部控制制度的经济影响可以受到质疑。关于内部控制制度的的期望是不符合他们的能力（Power1997年）。以下四个建议，是内部控制、审计和公司治理的重点讨论的结果。这些问题到目前为止，已

经得到来自学术界的许多人的关注，尤其是考虑到Power(1997)确定的内部控制概念在公共政策辩论中日趋热门：（1）内部控制系统的需求。（2）内部控制制度和其他控制系统（例如外部审计和外部董事会或碱石灰）之间的关系。（3）对公司业绩的内部控制的影响。（4）内部控制报告的需求。

5 总结和结论

本文首先阐述了对Power(1997)的观察，得出内部控制制度受到越来越多的关注，这是内部控制爆炸的标志。改进和加强内部控制制度在公司治理的讨论，经常建议作为公司治理的一项重要的解决问题的方案。然而，在这些讨论中还是对内部控制是什么以及如何正确进行内部控制产生很大的混乱。长期的内部控制在会计研究的各种不同的子领域是完全不同的概念。另外，很少有研究从公司治理的角度关注内部控制。因此，对假定从公司治理的角度来提供关键的内部控制制度的政策的研究还没有。显然，对于这些关系的研究在未来会越来越有价值。

外文出处：Maijoor S. The Internal Control Explosion[J]. International Journal of Auditing,

2000, 4(1):101–109.

The Internal Control Explosion

Steven Maijoor

Maastricht Accounting and Auditing Research and Education Center (MARC), Universiteit Maastricht, The Netherlands

Abstract:The central theme in Power’s 1997 book on the audit society is the proliferation of audit activity within the United Kingdom (UK) and North America. The most important joint development with the audit explosion is the rise of internal control systems. Auditing has shifted from auditing outcomes to auditing systems, and internal controls have become the subject of public policy debates on the regulation of corporate governance and the regulation of auditing. Power states that there is much confusion in practice about what (effective) internal controls actually are. This paper makes a similar argument with respect to internal control research. Internal controls are studied in various areas of accounting research, covering very different concepts, and studying controls at different organizational levels. As a result, the cross-fertilization between the various types of internal control research is limited. Also, most internal control research in accounting is not conducted within the context of wider corporate governance issues. Hence, many claims about the value of internal control systems for corporate governance still need to be studied.

Keywords:agency theory; corporate governance; external auditing; internal audit; internal control systems; management control

Summary

The central theme in Power’s 1997 book on the audit society is the proliferation of audit activity within the United Kingdom (UK) and North America. The most important joint development with the audit explosion is the rise of internal control

Correspondence to: Maastricht Accounting and Auditing Research and Education Center (MARC), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands s.maijoor@marc.unimaas.nl Fax: 31-43-3884876 Tel: 31-43-3883783

systems. As a result of the explosion of internal control systems, auditing has shifted from auditing outcomes to auditing systems, and internal controls have become the subject of public policy debates on the regulation of corporate governance and the regulation of auditing. For example, in the recent debates on the formation of an internal market for external auditing services within the European Union, regulatory recommendations were made regarding internal control systems and internal auditing. While the expectations regarding the value of internal controls are high, Power states that there is much confusion in practice about what (effective) internal controls actually are. This paper makes a similar argument with respect to internal control research. Internal controls are studied in various areas of accounting research, covering very different concepts, and studying controls at different organizational levels. As a result, the cross-fertilization between the various types of internal control research is limited. Also, most internal control research in accounting is not conducted within the context of wider corporate governance issues. Hence, many claims about the value of internal control systems for corporate governance still need to be studied.

The internal control explosion

The concept of internal control receives increasing attention in public policy debates on auditing and corporate governance. The increasing public attention for internal control is convincingly illustrated for the UK and North America in Power’s 1997 book on the audit society. The main theme of the book is the proliferation of auditing activities in Anglo-Saxon economies: the audit explosion. According to Power, a joint development with the audit explosion is the rise of internal control systems. The increased (regulatory) demands for accountability has made organizations’internal control systems part of public policy debates on auditing, and corporate governance. However, Power observes that despite this increased public attention for internal control, the concept is still very vague. He states that there are fundamental problems with what internal controls really are and what it means when they are considered to be effective.

This paper discusses research that is relevant for the rise of internal control. It

argues that internal control research has also a number of substantial problems. First, in the previous research conducted, the term internal control covers vastly different concepts. Second, the size of the body of relevant internal control research is limited, conducted within isolated sub-disciplines and has hardly profited from cross-fertilization of the results obtained from various perspectives. Hence, internal control is not yet a separate category of research. Finally, the research conducted on internal control is not explicitly addressing issues relevant to the public policy debates on internal control,auditing, and corporate governance. Assumed fundamental relationships between internal control, financial reporting, and corporate governance have not yet been tested explicitly.

This paper is structured as follows. Before starting the discussion of internal control research, the paper introduces the two main, and related, developments identified in Power’s (1997) book: the first section discusses the audit explosion and the second section the rise of internal control. Both developments will also be commented on from a European Union perspective. The third section discusses what internal controls are, and the three main perspectives within accounting research studying internal control systems. The fourth section identifies four fundamental relationships assumed in public policy debates on internal control and corporate governance, and discusses prior related research. The last section provides a summary and conclusions.

The rise of internal control

Irrespective of whether there is an audit explosion or implosion, both in Power (1997) and (1998) internal control systems are considered to increase in importance in auditing. According to Power (1997, p. 83), the audit explosion has been possible because of the assumption that internal control systems are auditable. More specifically for financial audits, the concept of auditing internal control systems is at the heart of the financial audit explosion. As a result of the rise of internal control systems, external audits are less focussed on auditing outcomes, and more focussed on auditing systems. In addition, internal control systems are now also becoming part of the regulatory systems. Many national corporate governance reports and reforms include recommendations for internal controls, and reporting on internal controls. A joint development with the rise of internal control is the increased public significance of internal auditors.

The rise of internal control is possible because internal control systems became auditable. According to Power, whether or not a system is auditable is not determined by technical auditing aspects but by the acceptance of auditability by the profession. Power (1997, pp. 54 - 57) illustrates his argument regarding the rise of internal control with the case of the Cadbury Code (1992), which includes recommendations for the responsibilities of directors and auditors regarding internal control systems. Power’s point regarding the rise of internal control, can also be illustrated with developments at a European Union level.

The concept of internal control is important in the discussion on the establishment of the internal market for financial statement auditing within the European Union. Currently, there are hardly any common European Union regulations regarding auditing, and in fact there is no internal market for financial statement auditing. Only two aspects of auditing are harmonized: which organizations need an audit (as a result of the earlier mentioned Directives), and the qualification of auditors (as a result of the Eighth Directive). Hence, internal control systems, and reporting on those systems, are currently not included in any European Directive on accounting or auditing.

In 1996, the European Commission published a research report (Buijink et al. 1996) and a Green Paper, both titled The Role, the Position, and the Liability of the Statutory Auditor within the European Union. These publications were the first major steps in the internal market for auditing services project of the European Commission and included a number of recommendations on internal control and auditing.

What are internal controls?

The previous sections show that in public policy debates there is an increasing interest in internal controls, also from a European Union perspective. However, as observed by Power (1997), there is much confusion in these public policy discussions about what internal controls actually are and what it means when they are effective. The state of current research on internal control, which will be discussed below, reinforces Power’s (1997) point. The discussion of current internal control research will be preceded by the issue of what internal controls are.

To answer the question what internal controls are, Power (1997, p. 83) refers as a start to concepts in the professional accountancy literature. Traditionally, in the professional accountancy literature, internal controls refer to accounting controls, and

concern measures in organizations like segregation of duties, authorization policies, organization structure, measures to protect assets and information, and credibility tests. These accounting controls can either be general and relevant to the organization as a whole, or designed for particular cycles. The recent professional accountancy literature has expanded the internal control concept and now uses much wider definitions. The new definitions cover many other controls in addition to accounting controls. Especially the published public policy documents on auditing and corporate governance use wide definitions of internal control. A report like COSO (1992) defines internal control as:

‘A process, effected by an entity’s board of directors, management, and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories:

- Effectiveness and efficiency of operations

- Reliability of financial reporting

- Compliance with applicable laws and regulations’

Obviously, the organizational measures that can contribute to this process are numerous. As a consequence of this wide definition, a report like COSO considers many organizational measures to be part of internal control systems, including human resource policies and practices, procedures for communication within organizations, and the management style of the board of directors. A problem with these wider definitions is that it is not clear what the boundaries are of internal control systems. For example, it could be argued that all organizational measures contribute to internal control asdefined by COSO.

The unclear boundaries of the concept of internal control are also witnessed to someextent in the academic accounting literature. Within this literature, three areas of (internal) control research can be distinguished: (1) internal control from an external auditing perspective, (2) internal control from an organization theory perspective; and (3) internal control from an economics perspective. Each of the three areas will be discussed below.

There is a vast academic literature on internal control from an external auditing perspective. Internal controls are the main subject area in auditing research, and pioneering studies are, for example, Ashton (1974) and Mock and Turner (1981). Internal control research from an auditing perspective mainly focuses on traditional accounting controls. These are studied in the context of decision making by auditors.

As a result, the focus is on how accounting controls affect the reliability of financial reporting. Further, most of the internal control research in auditing focuses on problems related to lower level controls, i.e. accounting controls for specific cycles and transactions. Broad control concepts are hardly considered in this literature. Even the concept of control environment, which is currently a standard item in audit manuals of the international audit firm networks, receives limited attention in this area of research.3

Control research from an organization theory perspective, or management control perspective, uses a much broader concept of control than in auditing research. The control problems studied in this area of research are mainly at the level of departments and divisions. Further, controls are studied mainly in the context of the organizational effectiveness of departments and divisions. The typical organizational measures distinguished in this area of research are action controls, results controls, and personnel and cultural controls (Merchant, 1998). These organizational measures include traditional internal accounting controls: the action controls listed by Merchant (1998, pp. 27 - 30), are the accounting controls that are typically the subject of study in the external auditing literature. Results controls concern management systems based on rewarding individuals, or groups of individuals, for generating good results. Personnel and cultural controls are based on systems where employees control their own behaviors, or are based on employees controlling each others’behaviours. It should be noted that COSO (1992) more or less combines, both in terms of perspectives and in terms of the controls studied, the two literatures identified above. The control research in the accounting literature from an economic perspective is dominated by agency theory. The control measures studied are broad: monitoring mechanisms, bonding mechanisms and reward systems or bonus plans. Most of the agency theory research focuses on the control problems between outside capital suppliers, and (inside and outside) directors. Hence, this literature focuses on top-level control problems. The economic efficiency of various control mechanisms for solving agency problems are studied extensively. Questions addressed include the trade-off between various control mechanisms (e.g., between external auditing and a board of outside directors) and the efficiency of control mechanisms as a function of firms’capital structures.

While there are many similarities between organization and economic approaches to control, they are different (see for a comparison of the two approaches Eisenhardt

1985). The organization perspective focuses on the relationship (“fit”) between task characteristics and control measures. In addition, the organization control perspectives makes clear that “people”, culture or social control can be an important control mechanism. The economic control perspective, or agency theory, emphasizes the effects of uncertainty, costs of monitoring mechanisms and rewards for control systems.

In sum, within the accounting literature, the term internal control refers to various concepts. Three perspectives can be distinguished: external auditing, management control, and agency theory. The three perspectives differ in the type of controls being subject of study. External auditing is mainly concerned with lower level controls related to specific cycles, processes and transactions. Management control focuses on the control problems of departments and divisions, which could be described as middle-level controls. Agency theory is mainly concerned with the control problems of directors and outside suppliers of capital, the top-level controls. In addition to differences in the organizational level of analysis, as discussed the three literatures differ in perspective. As a result of these different levels of analysis, and the different perspectives taken, the cross-fertilization is minimal between the three sub-areas studying (internal) control. Hence, internal controls are not yet a separate and coherent area of research.

Four empirical issues for future internal control research

In the recent public policy debates on corporate governance, many arguments are used that implicitly assume specific relationships between organizations, internal control, auditing and organizational performance. Most of these relationships have not been studied empirically. Of the three areas of research distinguished in the previous section, agency theory is the most concerned with corporate governance issues. However, the internal controls studied in agency theory are mostly concerned with top-level controls like the board of outside directors, audit committees, and remuneration plans for directors. The corporate governance effects of strong middle- and lower-level internal controls, which are frequently recommended in public policy documents, are hardly considered by agency theory. Power (1997 and 1998) is one of the few who studies the macro-effects of internal control, including middle- and lower-level controls. As stated earlier, the last two categories of controls are mainly

studied in the context of internal organizational effectiveness and audit management decisions.

Considering the limited research conducted on internal control and corporate governance, the assumed beneficial economic effects of internal control systems can be questioned. The expectations regarding internal control systems are not in line with their operational capabilities (Power 1997). Below, four issues are suggested which are central to the debate on internal control, auditing, and corporate governance. So far, these issues have received surprisingly little attention from academic researchers, especially considering the current rise of the internal control concept in public policy debates as identified by Power (1997).

1. The demand for internal control systems.

2.The relationship between internal control systems and other control systems (e.g., external auditing, and board of outside directors or supervisory board).

3.The effects of internal control on firm performance.

4.The demand for reporting on internal control.

Summary and conclusion

This paper starts with the observation by Power (1997) that there is increasing attention for internal control systems, which is labeled as the internal control explosion. In corporate governance discussions, improved and stronger internal control systems are frequently suggested as an important solution to corporate governance problems. However, within these debates there is much confusion about what internal controls are and how they can function properly. This paper argues that here are similar problems in accounting research on internal controls. The term internal control refers to vastly different concepts in sub-areas of accounting research. In addition, few studies are concerned with internal control from a corporate governance perspective. Hence, assumed relationships that are critical from a corporate governance perspective, and thus critical for policy recommendations for internal control systems, are not yet studied. Clearly, future research regarding these relationships would be valuable.

References

[1] Abdel-Khalik, A.R. (1993) Why do private companies demand auditing? A case for organizational loss of control. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 8(1) pp. 31 - 52

[2] American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (1997) Report of the Special Committee on Assurance Services, https://www.docsj.com/doc/1818983252.html,/assurance/index.htm

[3] Ashton, R.H. (1974) An experimental study of internal control judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 12(1), pp. 1143-157

[4] Buijink, W., Maijoor, S., Meuwissen, R. and Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1996) The Role, Position, and Liability of the Statutory Auditor within the European Union, study commissioned by DG XV of the European Commission, Luxembourg: ECSC-ECEAEC

[5] Buijink, W., Maijoor, S. and Meuwissen, R. (1998) Competition in auditing: Evidence from entry, exit, and market share mobility in Germany versus the Netherlands. Contemporary Accounting Research 15(3), pp. 385 - 404

[6] Cadbury Report (1992) Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance, a Code of Best Practice, London: Burgess Science Press [7] Chow, C.W. (1982) The demand for external auditing, size, debt and ownership influences. The Accounting Review 57(2), pp. 272 - 291

[8] CNPF AFEP (1995) Le Conseil d’Administration des Sociétés Cotées (Rapport Vienot), Paris

[9] Committee of the Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (1992) Internal Control, Integrated Framework (COSO Report), New York: AICPA Committee on Corporate Governance (1997), Recommendations on Corporate Governance in the Netherlands (Peters Report)

[10] Eilifsen, A., Knechel, W.R. and Wallage, P. (1999) External Assurance Services and Strategic Business Risk: An International Field Study, Working Paper

[11] Eisenhardt, K.M. (1985) Control: organizational and economic approaches. Management Science 31(2), pp. 134 - 149

[12] European Commission (1996), The Role, Position, and Liability of the Statutory Auditor in the European Union

[13] European Commission (1998) Communication from the Commission; The Statutory Audit in the European Union: The Way Forward

[14] Gordon, D.M. (1990) Who bosses whom? The intensity of supervision and the discipline of labor. AEA Papers and Proceedings 80(2), pp. 28 - 32

[15] Gordon, D.M. (1994) Bosses of different stripes: a cross-national perspective on monitoring and supervision. AEA Paper and Proceedings 84(2), pp. 375 - 379

[16] Haskins, M.E. (1987) Client control environments: an examination of auditors’ perceptions. The Accounting Review 62(3), pp. 542 - 563

[17] Leftwich, R., Watts R.L. and Zimmerman J.L. (1981) V oluntary corporate disclosure: the case of interim reporting Studies on Standardization of Accounting Practices: An Assessment of Alternative Institutional Arrangements, supplement to vol.

19 of Journal of Accounting Research, pp. 50 - 77

[18] Maijoor, S.J. (1994) Economic effects of accounting regulation for public accountants: evidence from the Netherlands. Accounting and Business Research 24 (95), pp. 267 - 276

[19] Maijoor, S. and Van Witteloostuijn A. (1996) An empirical test of the resource-based theory: strategic regulation in the Dutch audit industry. Strategic Management Journal 17(7), pp. 549-569

[20] Marden, R.E., Holstrum, G.L. and Schneider, S.L. (1997) Control environment condition and the interaction between control risk, account type and management’s assertions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 16(1), pp. 51 - 68

[21] McMullen, D.A., Raghunandan, K. and Rama, D.V. (1996) Internal control reports and financial reporting problems. Accounting Horizons, 10(4), pp. 67 - 75 [22] Merchant, K. (1998) Modern Management Control Systems, New Jersey: Prenctice Hall

[23] Meuwissen, R.H.G. (1999) The Economics of Auditor Careers and Audit Markets, Doctoral Thesis, Universiteit Maastricht

[24] Mock, T.J. and Turner, J.L. (1981) Internal Accounting Control Evaluation and Auditor Judgment, Audit Research Monograph #3, AICPA

[25] Pincus, K., Rusbarsky, M. and. Wong, J. (1989) V oluntary formation of corporate audit committees among NASDAQ firms. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 8(4), pp. 239 - 265

[26] Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford University Press

[27] Power, M. (1998) The Audit Implosion: Regulating Risk from the Inside, ICAEW & LSE

[28] Weets, V. and Jegers, M. (1997) Are the ‘Big Six’ ‘big’in Belgium? The European Accounting Review 6(4), pp. 773 - 789

[29] Widener, S.K. and Selto, F.H. (1998) Management Control Systems and Boundaries of the Firm: Why do Firms Outsource Internal Auditing Activities?, Working Paper, University of Colorado at Boulder

会计内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献

会计内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)

内部控制透视：理论与概念 摘要：内部控制是会计程序或控制系统，旨在促进效率或保证一个执行政策或保护资产或避免欺诈和错误。内部是一个组织管理的重要组成部分。它包括计划、方法和程序使用，以满足任务，目标和目的，并在这样做，支持基于业绩的管理。内部控制是管理阶层的平等与控制可以帮助管理者实现资源的预期的有效管理的结果通过。内部控制应减少或违规错误的风险关联未被发现的，但设计和建立有效的内部控制不是一个简单的任务，不可能是一个实现通过快速修复短套。在此讨论了内部文件的概念的不同方面的内部控制和管制。 关键词：内部控制，管理控制，控制环境，控制活动，监督 1、介绍 环境需要新的业务控制变量不为任何潜在的股东和管理人士的响应因子为1，另外应执行/她组织了一个很大的控制权。控制是管理活动的东西或以上施加控制。思想的产生和近十年的发展需要有系统的商业资源和控制这种财富一个新的关注。主题之一热一回合管制的商业资源是分析每个控制成本效益。 作为内部控制和欺诈的第一道防线，维护资产以及预防和侦查错误。内部控制，我们可以说是一种控制整个系统的财务和其他方面的管理制定了为企业的顺利运行;它包括内部的脸颊，内部审计和其他形式的控制。 COSO的内部控制描述如下。内部控制是一个客观的方法用来帮助确保实现。在会计和组织理论，内部控制是指或目标目标的过程实施由组织的结构，工作和权力流动，人员和具体的管理信息系统，旨在帮助组织实现。这是一种手段，其中一个组织的资源被定向，监控和测量。它发挥着无形的（重要的作用，预防和侦查欺诈和保护组织的资源，包括生理（如，机械和财产）和乙二醇，声誉或知识产权，如商标）。在组织水平，内部控制目标与可靠性的目标或战略的财务报告，及时反馈业务上的成就，并遵守法律，法规。在具体的交易水平，内部控制是指第三方采取行动以实现一个具体目标（例如，如何确保本组织的款项，在申请服务提供有效的。）内部控制程序reduce程变异，导

本科毕业论文内部控制外文文献翻译完整版中英对照

A Clear Look at Internal Controls: Theory and Concepts Hammed Arad (Philae) Department of accounting, Islamic Azad University, Hamadan, Iran Barak Jamshedy-Navid Faculty Member of Islamic Azad University, Kerman-shah, Iran Abstract: internal control is an accounting procedure or system designed to promote efficiency or assure the implementation of a policy or safeguard assets or avoid fraud and error. Internal Control is a major part of managing an organization. It comprises the plans, methods, and procedures used to meet missions, goals, and objectives and, in doing so, support performance-based management. Internal Control which is equal with management control helps managers achieve desired results through effective stewardship of resources. Internal controls should reduce the risks associated with undetected errors or irregularities, but designing and establishing effective internal controls is not a simple task and cannot be accomplished through a short set of quick fixes. In this paper the concepts of internal controls and different aspects of internal controls are discussed. Keywords: Internal Control, management controls, Control Environment, Control Activities, Monitoring 1. Introduction The necessity of control in new variable business environment is not latent for any person and management as a response factor for stockholders and another should implement a great control over his/her organization. Control is the activity of managing or exerting control over something. he emergence and development of systematic thoughts in recent decade required a new attention to business resource and control over this wealth. One of the hot topic a bout controls over business resource is analyzing the cost-benefit of each control. Internal Controls serve as the first line of defense in safeguarding assets and preventing and detecting errors and fraud. We can say Internal control is a whole system of controls financial and otherwise, established by the management for the smooth running of business; it includes internal cheek, internal audit and other forms of controls. COSO describe Internal Control as follow. Internal controls are the methods employed to help ensure the achievement of an objective. In accounting and organizational theory, Internal control is defined as a process effected by an organization's structure, work and authority flows, people and management information systems, designed to help the organization accomplish specific goals or objectives. It is a means by which an organization's resources are directed, monitored, and measured. It plays an important role in preventing and detecting fraud and protecting the organization's resources, both physical (e.g., machinery and property) and intangible (e.g., reputation or intellectual property such as trademarks). At the organizational level, internal control objectives relate to the reliability of financial reporting, timely feedback on the achievement of operational or strategic goals, and compliance with laws and regulations. At the specific transaction level, internal control refers to the actions taken to achieve a specific objective (e.g., how to ensure the organization's payments to third parties are for valid services rendered.) Internal control

审计风险外文文献翻译最新译文

文献出处：C E Hogan. The Discussion of Audit Risk Control [J]. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2015, 25(1): 219. 原文 The Discussion of Audit Risk Control C E Hogan Abstract For any one market, seeking resources optimal configuration is its internal requirements, this requirement with complete information between market subjects, in reality, however, investors and by investors, creditors and debtors, regulators and inevitable existence of information asymmetry between the regulated, audit the generation of the industry is to eliminate the information asymmetry. Certified public accountants to verify statements of the financial information of foreign enterprises and other information, the truth of market main body with information as close as possible to complete information is the process of the audit. Since the audit conclusion is certified public accountants in sampling surveys on the basis of the subjective conclusion, usually can't be absolutely perfect information, the audit risk and the audit risk is the audit itself inherent cannot evade a question. Keywords: audit risk, audit risk management and risk control 1 Introduction Auditing profession development, has become an indispensable organic part of market economy, in the establishment and maintenance of the capital market development, holds an important place of audit, audit of the financial market is hard to imagine. In recent years, however, in view of the accounting firms and certified public accountants case erupted repeatedly, most lawsuits and high litigation of the damages to the whole industry development.2002 of the American journal of accounting statistics results show that the United States over the past 15 years for the auditor to accuse lawsuit, far more than the whole industry occurred in the 105 - year history of the total number of ['];European Ernst & young, KPMG, delete and PWC international accounting firms in 2007, a year only received compensation lawsuit, claim amount

外文翻译--如何监测内部控制

附录A

附录B 如何监测内部控制 内部控制是任何组织有效运行的关键,董事会、执行长和内部审计人员都为实现这个企业的目标而工作;该内部控制系统是使这些团体确保那些目标的达成的一种手段。控制帮助一个企业有效率地运转。此外,运用一种有效的风险系统,风险可被降低到最小。同时,控制促进经营和与经营有关的信息的可靠性。全美反舞弊性财务报告委员会发起组织(COSO；1992) 在它发布的具有开创性的文件《内部控制整合框架》中,将内部控制定义为：企业风险管理是一个过程，受企业董事会、管理层和其他员工的影响，包括内部控制及其在战略和整个公司的应用，旨在为实现经营的效率和效果、财务报告的可靠性以及法规的遵循提供合理保证。该委员会还指出,一个的内部控制的系统包括五个要素。它们是：控制环境、风险评估、信息和沟通、控制活动、监控。 COSO的定义及五个要素已被证明确实对不同的团体,如董事会和首席执行官起到作用。这些群体对内部控制系统的监管以及系统设计与运行有责任。而且,内部审计人员已经发现COSO的指导是有用的。这群人员可能会被董事会或管理层要求去测试控制。COSO最近发布的一份讨论文件，指出五个要素监控,其中的五个要素的确定在1992 frame work COSO原本。中国发展简报的题为《内部控制-整合框架：内部控制体系监督指南》(COSO，2007)。在文件中,COSO 强调监控的重要性，以及这些信息常常被没有充分利用。 因为董事会、执行长,和内部审计人员都在一个公司的内部控制中扮演着重要角色，内部控制的各要素,包括监测,都对所有的团体有着非常重要的意义。同时,外审计人员对监测有兴趣。《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》（2002）为外部审计师创建了一个新的监督体制。所有的五个要素,包括监测,必须加以考虑。另外,内部控制审计必须结合对财务报告的检查。在一体化审计之前，在首席执行官的领导下，也许也在内部审计活动的支持下的管理，评估了内控制体系的有效性。随后外部审计人员对控制出具意见。起监督角色的董事会，将阅读内部审计、管理层和首席执行官出具的报告。文件关于监测对每一个团体的指导起了帮助,因为他们分别为各自的角色而劳动。 第一，什么是监测。监测的组成可评估内部控制系统在过去一段时间发挥效用的质量。其对控制功能的评估有助于企业确定其控制在有效地运作中。在执行监测活动时，相关人员参与审查系统的设计及其运行效果。这种检查必须进行及时,目的是为了提供给企业最大的利益。管理层负责做出适当的行动以回应这些结果。当事人对内部控制有兴趣,可以充分依赖这个内部控制系统,如果合适的监

内部审计的英文文献

内部和外部审计监督的实证比较 理查德?L.拉特利夫、理查德?L.詹森、詹姆斯 C.弗拉格 管理审计杂志，第8 卷，第2章，2006 年，第9-16页 ? MCB 大学出版社，0268-6902 引言 审计监督项目的对象包括所有可以确保审核有效地进行的必要活动。监督一个审计项目与向管理方提出的审计报告息息相关。新西兰社会会计师公会在其审计准则中明确提出正确的审计业务过程中应当包含约定计划和监督。内部审计师协会（IIA）以及其在美国的总部与新西兰的区域分会在其《内部审计专业实践标准》中也提到：“审计工作应妥善计划和监督”。 总体审计项目监督中很重要的一方面就是对那些计划已得到批准的审计工作的监督。 内部审计师协会（IIA）重点要求审计项目应得到“妥善监管”，其中包括： ●指导审计人员的工作分配 ●监督审计方案的批准 ●确保有足够数量的审计底稿 ●保证足够的审计报告 ●确保审计目标的实现 ●监督审计过程中记录并保留证据 新西兰社会会计师公会在审计准则4中明确指出：“审计工作者应当小心地直接监督和审查那些委托助理们完成的工作。”为达到本文研究目的，这里引用准则4中提到的审计监督方面的术语包括“方向”“监督”“审查”。 “方向”包括“告知助理他们的职责和审计程序的目标”，督促他们并且“让他们知道那些可能会影响整个审计程序的性质、时间及进度的事项……”。准则针对正确的审计工作列出了时间计划表、计划备忘和审计书面方案。 “监督”包括监察审计工作的进展、对审计工作计划中要求修改的部分提出警告以及用自己的专业判断来解决问题。准则中同时还指出：对每一项由助理完成的工作必须进行检查。 尽管内部审计师协会（IIA）和新西兰社会会计师公会提供了一些关于审计监督的指导性意见，但除了公会简要的未明确定义出规划的时间表、计划备忘以

管理 审计 外文翻译 外文文献 英文文献 内部控制爆X炸

外文出处：Maijoor S. The Internal Control Explosion[J]. International Journal of Auditing, 2000, 4(1):101–109. 内部控制爆炸① 摘要：Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。审计已经从审计结果转向审计制度和内部控制，它已内部控制爆炸然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。内部控制对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。 关键词：机构理论；公司治理；外部审计；内部审计；内部控制制度；管理控制 1 概述 Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。审计已经从审计结果转向审计制度和内部控制，它已然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。例如，在最近的对于欧洲联盟内外部审计服务的内部市场形成的辩论中，监管建议建立关于内部控制和内部审计制度。虽然对有关内部控制的价值期望高，但Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。内部控制是对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。 在审计和公司治理的公共政策辩论中，内部控制的概念越来越得到重视。公共越来①Maastricht Accounting and Auditing Research and Education Center (MARC), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands s.maijoor@marc.unimaas.nl Fax: 31-43-3884876 Tel: 31-43-3883783

中小企业内部审计外文翻译文献

文献信息： 文献标题：A Theoretical Discussion of Internal Audit Effectiveness in Kuwaiti Industrial SMEs（科威特工业中小企业内部审计有效性的理论探讨）国外作者：Awn Metlib AL-SHBAIL，Turki A.A.TURKI 文献出处：《International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences》, 2017,1(7):107-116 字数统计：英文2221单词，12805字符；中文4184汉字 外文文献： A Theoretical Discussion of Internal Audit Effectiveness in Kuwaiti Industrial SMEs Abstract This paper aims to scrutinise the association between the internal audit effectiveness and the four factors associated with International Standards for Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (ISPPIA): independence of internal auditors, scope of internal auditors, management support, and audited cooperation. The relationship between these factors and Satisfaction of internal auditors is also examined. Further, the moderating effect on the relationship between these factors (if present) and the effectiveness of IA among industrial SMEs in Kuwait are investigated through satisfaction of internal auditors. By ascertaining the effectiveness of IA at the industrial firms via theories as well as variables, this paper broadens the available literature on the effectiveness of IA. Key words：Internal audit effectiveness, satisfaction of internal auditors, Kuwaiti Industrial SMEs 1.Introduction Within the past few decades, internal audit departments have significantly contributed to organizational structure through value added services and thus, it has

中小企业内部控制_外文参考文献

中小企业内部控制_外文参考文献 安徽工业大学毕业设计外文翻译 Private Enterprises of the intenal control issues Pulin Chang Economic Review. 2008, (5) Third, the promotion of private SMEs in the internal control system strategy (A) change management and business owners the concept of development. The majority of private small and medium enterprises in the family business, the success of these enterprises depends largely on internal control or entrepreneur leadership attention and level of implementation. Over the years, by traditional Chinese culture, business owners believe in Sincerity, fraternal loyalty permeate many aspects of enterprise management, strengthen internal controls that will affect the organization the members of distrust, resulting in internal control. Many private business owners that rely on business to do business benefits out of, rather than out of the internal financial management control; that the market is the most important internal control will be bound himself and staff development. Understanding of the bias, so that these leaders neglected the internal control system on the production and operation activities. Internal control can really become the leader of the internal needs of enterprise internal control system is the key to whether a mere formality. The internal control to make the internal needs of the enterprise depends largely on two points: First, determine

审计学内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献

中英文翻译 内部控制爆炸① 摘要：Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。审计已经从审计结果转向审计制度和内部控制，它已然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。内部控制对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。 关键词：机构理论；公司治理；外部审计；内部审计；内部控制制度；管理控制 1 概述 Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。审计已经从审计结果转向审 ①Maastricht Accounting and Auditing Research and Education Center (MARC), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands s.maijoor@marc.unimaas.nl Fax: 31-43-3884876 Tel: 31-43-3883783

计制度和内部控制，它已然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。例如，在最近的对于欧洲联盟内外部审计服务的内部市场形成的辩论中，监管建议建立关于内部控制和内部审计制度。虽然对有关内部控制的价值期望高，但Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。内部控制是对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。 在审计和公司治理的公共政策辩论中，内部控制的概念越来越得到重视。公共越来越关注内部控制，令人对power在1997年英国和北美的书中的审计社会的现状有所信服。此书的主题是在Anglo-Saxon经济体的审计活动：审计爆炸的扩散。Power表示，联合开发与审计爆炸带动了内部控制制度兴起。增加监管问责制是公众对审计和公司治理政策辩论机构内部控制系统的一部分。然而Power注意到，尽管公众对内部控制的关注度迅速增加，内部控制的概念还是很模糊。他支出，内部控制是什么，内部控制的有效性的界定是内部控制的最基本问题。 本文讨论研究内部控制的兴起，认为内部控制的研究也有一些潜在的问题。首先，在以往的研究中，长期的内部控制涵盖完全不同的概念。其次，有关的内部控制研究机构的规模是有限的，要从孤立的学科进行交叉使用得到结果很难。因此，内部控制是尚未独立的研究范畴。最后，以往的对内部控制的研究没有彻底解决在审计和公司治理的公共政策辩论中谈到的内部控制有关问题。假设的内部控制、财务报告和公司治理的基本关系也没有被证实。 本文解构如下：在开始对内部控制进行研究和讨论之前，先介绍了两个主要的，在Power1997的书中所提出的发展：第一部分讨论了审计爆炸，第二部分讨论了内部控制的崛起。两者也讲被从欧盟的角度评论。第三部分讨论了什么是内部控制，并从会计研究的三个主要观点出发，研究内部控制制度。第四部分确定了内部控制和公司治理的公共政策辩论所承担的四个基本关系，并讨论之前的相关研究。最后一节提供了一个总结和结论。 2 内部控制的崛起 不论是否存在审计爆炸，Power1997和1998在审计中变得越来越重要。根据Power （1997年83爷），因为内部控制系统的可审计假设使得审计爆炸成为可能。根据更具体

内部控制外文文献翻译

文献出处:Lakis V, Giriūnas L. THE CONCEPT OF INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM: THEORETICAL ASPECT[J]. Ekonomika/Economics, 2012, 91(2). 原文 THE CONCEPT OF INTERNALCONTROLSYSTEM: THEORETICALASPECT Vaclovas Lakis, Lukas Giriūnas* Vilnius University, Lithuania Introduction One of the basic instruments of enterprise control, whose implementation in modern economic conditions provide conditions for achieving a competitive advantage over other enterprises is the creation of an effective internal control system. In the industry sector, the market is constantly changing, and this requires changing the attitude to internal control from treating it only in the financial aspect to the management of the control process. Internal control as such becomes an instrument and means of risk control, which helps the enterprise to achieve its goals and to perform its tasks. Only an effective internal control in the enterprise is able to help objectively assessing the potential development and tendencies of enterprise performance and thus to detect and eliminate the threats and risks in due time as well as to maintain a particular fixed level of risk and to provide for its reasonable

ERP系统中英文对照外文翻译文献

ERP系统中英文对照外文翻译文献 (文档含英文原文和中文翻译) ERP系统在财务报告内部控制的作用 【摘要】：萨班斯-奥克斯利法案法例中强调，ERP系统的重要作用是运用内部控制反映公司的基本建设，为此 ERP系统软件开发供应商也增加了对内部控制的应用。他们认为，这些内置的控制和其他功能将帮助企业改善其财务报告内部控制就如萨班斯法案要求的那样。这项研究测试，通过检查萨班斯法案第404条在1994年和2003年之间实施ERP 系统的公司合规内控数据。其结果表明，应用ERP 的公司相对于未应用ERP的样本公司较少报告内部控制弱点。它还发现，这种差异存在一般控制和特别控制中。

关键词：企业资源规划；ERP；萨班斯-奥克斯利法案；萨班斯法案第404条；内部控制1简介 2002年的萨班斯法案要求企业将其内部控制的有效性的报告与财务报告作为一个整体努力，以减少欺诈和恢复完整的财务报告过程的一部分。ERP系统软件开发供应商已强调，ERP系统的重要作用是运用“内置”控制反映公司基本建设。他们在营销理念强调了产品的功能，声称这些系统将帮助企业按萨班斯法案所要求提高内部控制的有效性。 这些供应商的声明激发了关于ERP系统对内部控制的影响一项有趣的实证问题研究。具体来说，是不是实现ERP系统的企业或多或少可能比未实现ERP系统的公司较少在其年度报告报告内部控制弱点？已经进行过这特定区域研究的经验/档案相对较少的，因为之前萨班斯法案内部控制的数据并没有被公开报道。这项研究的方法通过在文献资料检查一个已经宣布实施ERP系统和一个还没有类似的公司控制样本公司的抽样调查的内部控制数据来发现差距。 内部控制是在公司使用的以解决代理问题的许多机制之一。其他的机制还包括财务报告，编制预算，审计委员会和外部审计（Jensen和佩恩2003）。研究表明，内部控制降低了代理成本（Abdel-khalik 1993；Barefield 等，1993），有些甚至争辩说，即使没有萨班斯法案的要求，企业也有经济诱因报告内部控制（Deumes和Knechel，2008年）。他们的论点假定这些额外提供给有关的代理行为主体的信息可以减少了信息不对称和降低投资者的风险以及权益资本成本。其他的研究发现，内部控制报告与公司盈余质量有关, （Chan 等， 2008；Ashbaugh-Skaife等，2008） ERP系统提供了一种机制，运用内部控制，旨在保证控制的准确性和快速，准确的财务报告财务信息的可靠性报告给股东。 除了提供有关代理行为的外部委托人的增加保证，ERP系统也应有助于减轻大型企业各层次之间的管理的代理问题。使用内建控制以增加透明度的应该使各级代理商从中不可观察的行为中受益变得更加困难。这是可能的，但是，企业实施ERP系统可能无法利用的所有的内建的控制功能，无论是对经营合法的原因或者是因为管理层为了操纵盈余希望避免增加透明度的目的。通过这些控制措施的成效的检查，这项研究不仅扩展了研究机构的理论流，还考察这种盈余管理与内部控制、一般控制和特别控制之间相关的整体检验假说。 这项研究使用了108家在1994年和2003年之间宣布实施ERP系统的样本公司，与

审计风险外文文献

盛年不重来，一日难再晨。及时宜自勉，岁月不待人。 In depe ndent audit risk an alysis and preve ntive measures Abstract Previous studies have utilized a variety of approaches to determine appropriate criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the internal audit function. For example, con sidered the degree of complia nee with sta ndards as one of the factors which affects internal audit performanee. 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 effective ness of resource utilizati on were ide ntified as measures of the value of services. In its recommendations it highlighted the need to ensure that audit work complies with SPPIA. In the US, Albrecht et al.(1988)studied the roles and ben efits of the in ternal audit fun cti on and developed a framework for the purpose of evaluat ing internal audit effective ness. They found that there were four areas that the directors of in ternal audit departments could develop to enhance effectiveness: an appropriate corporate environment, top management support, high quality internal audit staff and high quality in ternal audit work. The authors stressed that man ageme nt 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 importanee of complying with professional standards as the most important contributor to the internal audit function adding value. Key words Audit,Risk, I nternal C on trol, Audit ing Complia nee with SPPIA 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 importa nt criteria in flue ncing the objectivity of their work. Plumlee (1985) focused on potential threats to internal auditor objectivity, 卑微如蜷蚁坚瀏以大象