公司内部治理与内部审计外文文献翻译2014年译文3722字
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 ConceptsHammed Arad (Philae)Department of accounting, Islamic Azad University, Hamadan, IranBarak Jamshedy-NavidFaculty Member of Islamic Azad University, Kerman-shah, IranAbstract: 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, Monitoring1. IntroductionThe 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 controlprocedures reduce process variation, leading to more predictable outcomes. Internal controls within business entities are called also business controls. They are tools used by manager's everyday.* Writing procedures to encourage compliance, locking your office to discourage theft, and reviewing your monthly statement of account to verify transactions are common internal controls employed to achieve specific objectives.All managers use internal controls to help assure that their units operate according to plan, and the methods they use--policies, procedures, organizational design, and physical barriers-constitute. Internal control is a combination of the following：1. Financial controls, and2. Other controlsAccording to the institute of chartered accountants of India internal control is the plan of organization and all the methods and procedures adopted by the management of an entity to assist in achieving management objective of ensuring as far as possible the orderly and efficient conduct of its business including adherence to management policies, the safe guarding of assets prevention and detection of frauds and error the accuracy and completeness of the accounting records and timely preparation of reliable financial information, the system of internal control extends beyond those matters which relate to the function of accounting system. In other words internal control system of controls lay down by the management for the smooth running of the business for the accomplishment of its objects. These controls can be divided in two parts i.e. financial control and other controls.Financial controls:- Controls for recording accounting transactions properly.- Controls for proper safe guarding company assets like cash stock bank debtor etc- Early detection and prevention of errors and frauds.- Properly and timely preparation of financial records I e balance sheet and profit and loss account.- To maximize profit and minimize cost.Other controls: Other controls include the following:Quality controls.Control over raw materials.Control over finished products.Marketing control, etc6. Parties responsible for and affected by internal controlWhile all of an organization's people are an integral part of internal control, certain parties merit special mention. These include management, the board of directors (including the audit commit tee), internal auditors, and external auditors.The primary responsibility for the development and maintenance of internal control rests with an organization's management. With increased significance placed on the control environment, the focus of internal control has changed from policies and procedures to an overriding philosophy and operating style within the organization. Emphasis on these intangible aspects highlights the importance of top management's involvement in the internal control system. If internal control is not a priority for management, then it will not be one for people within the organization either.As an indication of management's responsibility, top management at a publicly owned organization will include in the organization's annual financial report to the shareholders a statement indicating that management has established a system of internal control that management believes is effective. The statement may also provide specific details about the organization's internal control system.Internal control must be evaluated in order to provide management with some assurance regarding its effectiveness. Internal control evaluation involves everything management does to control the organization in the effort to achieve its objectives. Internal control would be judged as effective if its components are present and function effectively for operations, financial reporting, and compliance. he boards of directors and its audit committee have responsibility for making sure the internal control system within the organization is adequate. This responsibility includes determining the extent to which internal controls are evaluated. Two parties involved in the evaluation of internal control are the organization's internal auditors and their external auditors.Internal auditors' responsibilities typically include ensuring the adequacy of the system of internal control, the reliability of data, and the efficient use of the organization's resources. Internal auditors identify control problems and develop solutions for improving and strengthening internal controls. Internal auditors are concerned with the entire range of an organization's internal controls, including operational, financial, and compliance controls.Internal control will also be evaluated by the external auditors. External auditors assess the effectiveness of internal control within an organization to plan the financial statement audit. In contrast to internal auditors, external auditors focus primarily on controls that affect financial reporting. External auditors have a responsibility to report internal control weaknesses (as well as reportable conditions about internal control) to the audit committee of the board of directors.8. Limitations of an Entity's Internal ControlInternal control, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving an entity's control objectives. The likelihood of achievement is affected by limitations inherent to internal control. These include the realities that human judgment in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns in internal control can occur because of human failures such as simple errors or mistakes. For example, errors may occur in designing,Maintaining, or monitoring automated controls. If an entity’s IT personnel do not completely understand how an order entry system processes sales transactions, they may erroneously design changes to the system to process sales for a new line of products. On the other hand, such changes may be correctly designed but misunderstood by individuals who translate the design into program code. Errors also may occur in the use of information produced by IT. For example, automated controls may be designed to report transactions over a specified dollar limit for management review, but individuals responsible for conducting the review may not understand the purpose of such reports and, accordingly, may fail to review them or investigate unusual items.Additionally, controls, whether manual or automated, can be circumvented by the collusion of two or more people or inappropriate management override of internal control. For example, management may enter into side agreements with customers that alter the terms and conditions of the entity’s standard sales con tract in ways that would preclude revenuerecognition. Also, edit routines in a software program that are designed to identify and report transactions that exceed specified credit limits may be overridden or disabled.Internal control is influenced by the quantitative and qualitative estimates and judgments made by management in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of an entity’s internal control. The cost of an entity's internal control should not exceed the benefits that are expected to be derived. Although the cost-benefit relationship is a primary criterion that should be considered in designing internal control, the precise measurement of costs and benefits usually is not possible.Custom, culture, and the corporate governance system may inhibit fraud, but they are not absolute deterrents. An effective control environment, too, may help reduce the risk of fraud. For example, an effective board of directors, audit committee, and internal audit function may constrain improper conduct by management. Alternatively, the control environment may reduce the effectiveness of other components. For example, when the nature of management incentives increases the risk of material misstatement of financial statements, the effectiveness of control activities may be reduced.9. Balancing Risk and ControlRisk is the probability that an event or action will adversely affect the organization. The primary categories of risk are errors, omissions, delay and fraud In order to achieve goals and objectives, management needs to effectively balance risks and controls. Therefore, control procedures need to be developed so that they decrease risk to a level where management can accept the exposure to that risk. By performing this balancing act "reasonable assurance” can be attained. As it relates to financial and compliance goals, being out of balance can causebe proactive, value-added, and cost-effective and address exposure to risk.11. ConclusionThe concept of internal control and its aspects in any organization is so important, therefore understanding the components and standards of internal controls should be attend by management. Internal Control is a major part of managing an organization. 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. According to custom definition, Internal Control is a process affected 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 namely. The major factors of internal control are Control environment, Risk assessment, Control activities, Information and communication, Monitoring. This article reviews the main standards and principles of internal control and described the relevant concepts of internal control for all type of company.内部控制透视：理论与概念哈米德阿拉德（Philae）会计系，伊斯兰阿扎德大学，哈马丹，伊朗巴克Joshed -纳维德哈尼学院会员伊斯兰阿扎德大学，克尔曼伊朗国王，伊朗摘要：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。
内部控制l论文相关 外文翻译
审计委员会、董事会和内部控制重大缺陷的整治Audit Committees, Boards of Directors, and Remediation of Material Weaknesses in Internal Control译文：本研究探讨审核委员会和董事会的有效性是否与公司的内部控制的重大缺陷修复的及时性有关。
选取的样本包括从2003年7月至2004年12月编报公司根据的“萨班斯- 奥克斯利法案”第302节披露的至少一种重大弱点。
采用Logistic回归分析发现，较大的审计委员会，审计委员会，更大的非会计财务专业知识，以及更多的独立委员会的企业更容易及时地修复重大缺陷。
这些结果表明，审计委员会及董事会对监督整治重大缺陷发挥了重要作用。
总的来说，这项研究有助于我们了解审计委员会和董事会根据萨班斯- 奥克斯利法案“的制度的有效性。
这项研究还确定了整治重大缺陷及时性的重要决定因素，这是提高财务报告质量和恢复投资者信心的关键。
研究表明，审核委员会的质量与该公司的内部控制的质量呈正相关。
克里希南（2005）使用的样本公司，改变了审计师在1994-2000年期间发现，独立审计委员会和审计委员会的财务专业知识是不太可能与内部控制的问题有相关性。
Zhang等人（2007）使用在“萨班斯- 奥克斯利法”颁布后披露内部控制缺陷的样本公司，发现这些企业更可能有财务专业知识少的审计委员会。
如果审计委员会的质量与内部控制的质量有关，似乎有理由相信，一个更有效的审计委员会将确保及时修复重大缺陷，以保持内部控制的有效性。
一个有效的审计委员会可以直接进行，通过审查财务和会计人员的会计程序和控制来监督公司的控制。
当发现重大弱点，有效的审计委员会，更可能采取实用的方法，并和审计师讨论如何整治重大缺陷。
通过努力跟进有关建议，以改善内部控制和监测整治力度的进展，一个更有效的审计委员会可能导致重大缺陷的及时整治。
虽然审计委员会在监督整治重大缺陷中发挥了重要作用，但在整治过程中，董事会可以提供增量的监督。
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 inKuwaiti Industrial SMEsAbstract 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 SMEs1.IntroductionWithin the past few decades, internal audit departments have significantly contributed to organizational structure through value added services and thus, it hasbecome crucial part therein (Al- Twaijry et al., 2003; Arena and Azzone, 2009; Coram et al., 2008). Moreover, internal auditing has significantly increased in importance in the previous years, particularly in its consulting role inside the firm’s risk management. Owing to the widespread accounting scandals, and also the bankruptcy of firms, the internal audit (IA) function has been the focus of researchers and practitioners alike as a significant contributor of organizational effectiveness. More specifically, Abu-Azza (2012) contended that IA will contribute firm value through the provision of field services including operational audits and consulting management on various issues. Following the global financial crisis in 2008-2009, IA has transformed into a significant entity used to protect the rate of return on capital and to prevent wasted or devalued capital (Yee et al., 2008). Nevertheless, some studies in literature indicated that the effectiveness of IA function may not always be consistent (Abuazza et al., 2015). This is particularly true in developing countries, like Kuwait where firms may not be aware how much the IA concepts and practices are worth as acknowledged in the West.Moreover, Kuwaiti listed firms operate in an environment characterized with voluntary governance as Kuwait is considered to be among the Middle Easter nations that have not established a corporate governance code (Koldertsova, 2011). Moreover, such firms display high ownership concentration that may balance the weaker legal protection provided (Abu-Azza, 2012). Contrary to majority of developed nations, the Kuwait government mandates the appointment of a least two distinct auditors in firms, that are known as joint auditors or audit pairs. Despite the increasing importance of the IA function in organizations, the available literature in the domain has largely concentrated on external audit; other related authors indicated that IA function may not demonstrate consistent effectiveness (Al-Twaijry et al., 2003; Mihret et al., 2010; Mihret and Yismaw, 2007). More importantly, although some scholars examined IA effectiveness, as yet, there is no accepted universal guide to conduct such measurement (Arena and Azzone, 2009). Additionally, the literature reveals that no acknowledged approaches have been forwarded for the assessment of IA (Mihret et al., 2010) and as such, various approaches have been used in prior investigations of IAeffectiveness.2.Internal Audit in Kuwaiti Industrial SMEsSMEs are an integral part of numerous global economies particularly with respect to employment and their contribution to GDP. They have also played a significant role especially within certain GCC States including the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In UAE SMEs contribute to 30% of the overall GDP and 86% of the country’s employment. Comparably, in Saudi Arabia, SMEs make up 28% of GDP. On the other hand, Kuwait was late to appreciate the key role that can be played by SMEs enterprises in the economy. The private sector and SME contributions to employment lack lustre, and the government currently employs about 85% of Kuwait’s workforce (Alhabashi, 2015). However, Rampurwala and Marafi (2011), and Al Mutairi and Fayez (2015) suggested that, in Kuwait, local policies are fragmented and although several organizations see the benefit of SMEs in various sectors such as industrial, they are still in their beginning stages. This means that the launch of new industrial SMEs is likely to be weak, thus reducing their opportunity to contribute to the economy. In addition, Datta (2009) and Alhabashi (2015), point out that formal banks are usually loathed to lend to industrial SMEs because they suffer from failure to authenticate their information, such as accounting records and financial statements that reflect the efficiency and the capability of the project. Within the context of business market of Kuwait, 99% of firms consists of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) operating in the national economy institutions. Based on the distribution of SMEs in different sectors of Kuwait’s economic sectors, 11.7% of such firms operate in the industrial sector, 4% in the agricultural sector, 51% in the trade sector, 16% in the service sector, 0.3% in the mining sector, and the remaining 17% in other community services and social services sector.In Kuwait, industrial SMEs Law necessitates that the Kuwait Stock Exchange (KSE) listed companies to appoint two separate auditors to audit accounts. Additionally, this study shows the similarities and differences between audit services in the market in Kuwait and in other countries to enhance the knowledge of worldeconomy that is increasingly interdependent with accounting and auditing. Besides that, knowledge of the economies of auditing could also be increased (Shammari et al., 2008).3.Theoretical PerspectivesIn the context of IA research, the use of neoclassical economic theories like the agency theory (Adams, 1994) as well as the transaction cost theory (Spraakman, 1997) are not sufficient because they posit a developed a market economy environment characterized as having considerable transaction volume according to the economic development level throughout countries (Reed, 2002). Therefore, this confines the capacity of the theories to explain IA in extensive settings.Criticism of the above theories also stems from the institutional theories maintaining that individual behavior whether as product consumer or producer, cannot be delineated from the social context wherein the behavior occurs (Hula, 1984). Barley and Tolbert (1997) explained that the institutional theory acknowledges the significant value of cultural and social determinants as a significant impact upon the decision making (cited in Mihret et al. (2010)).Based on this premise, Mihret et al. (2010) made use of the institutional theory proposed by Dimaggio and Powell (1983), particularly circuit of industrial capital. Institutional theories primarily function as the base for examining organizational phenomenon integrated in extensive social, political and economic environments (Mihret et al., 2010). More importantly, they are capable of providing an insight into the IA practices as one element of organizational systems and shed light on the relationship between IA and the attainment of the objectives of the firms (Mihret et al., 2010).4.Research Model and HypothesesKing et al. (1994) illustrated a model to be an approximation, or a straightforward replica of the actual feature and in the current study. The primary objective is to investigate the present perceptions of IA directors, administrativeaffairs managers, financial affairs managers, CEOs and internal auditors concerning IA effectiveness through the determination of factors impacting the same. Additionally, several studies that examined this issue have employed various measures (Abu-Azza, 2012; Mihret et al., 2010; Mihret and Yismaw, 2007) but very few of them, as yet, has investigated the effect of internal auditors’ pay satisfaction on the effectiveness of IA. Five variables exist in the Model: Independence of internal auditors, Scope of internal auditors, Management support, Audited cooperation and Satisfaction of internal auditors.Independent variablesThis study aims to explore the critical factors influencing internal auditor effectiveness among industrial SMEs in Kuwait. In order to attain the research goals, the research hypotheses are proposed:I.Independence of Internal AuditorsIn terms of audit function, auditor independence has long been deemed to be a crucial driver as evidenced by the independence definition provided by ISPPIA (glossary) that described independence as the liberation from circumstances threatening objectivity or its appearance and that such objectivity needs to be managed through different levels (individual auditor, engagement, functional and organizational). Internal audit independence is a crucial element of corporate governance and the control system, and without it, the IA department becomes lost in the management group in that it will no longer provide an objective point of view (Al-Twaijry et al., 2003). Moreover, internal audit independence according to prior studies (Abu-Azza, 2012; Cohen and Sayag, 2010; Mihret et al., 2010), positively correlates with perceived effectiveness of IA. Regardless of its importance, independence of IA has received minimal attention from researchers. Accordingly, this study enriches the findings of the earlier studies as it looks into the association between internal auditor independence and IA effectiveness. Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed for testing;H1a: Independence of internal auditor positively impacts internal auditor’s effectiveness.H1b: Independence of internal auditor highly positively impacts internal auditor’s effectiveness mediated by satisfaction of internal auditors.II.Work Scope of Internal AuditorsThe work scope of the internal auditors is also a significant factor affecting IA effectiveness. IA throughout the years, has extended from the evaluation and measurement of internal control effectiveness to the delivery of consultation linked to organizational operations and system developments (Dittenhofer, 2001). Added to this, the IA scope covers services associated with consulting and assurance which include systematic review, reporting and appraisal of system adequacy in terms of finance, management, operations and budget control (Cohen and Sayag, 2010; IIA, 2016; Sakour and Laila, 2015).In a related study conducted by Mihret et al. (2010), the authors revealed a positive relationship between IA work scope and IA effectiveness and as such, it is only logical to examine such relationship in this research in the context of Kuwaiti firms.H2a: Work Scope of Internal Auditors impacts positively on internal auditor’s effectiveness.H2b: Work Scope of Internal Auditors highly positively impacts internal auditor’s effectiveness mediated by satisfaction of internal auditors.III.Management SupportManagement support and commitment have also been evidenced to impact IA effectiveness. In fact, successful IA function depends on the support demonstrated by the management on the process of auditing. It is important that managers acknowledge the fact that IA is a crucial process and activity like any other activities performed within the organization.In Mihret and Yismaw (2007) study, they highlighted the need to focus on IA recommendations and despite the well-prepared audit reports, the audit results in the past are not highlighted and consistently presented. Aside from this, the authors showed that audit evidence is linked with the reports indicating that the audit reports are physically bulky, which minimizes their readability. Also, the distribution of auditreports is restricted and thus, copies are not forwarded to senior management officers that relate to them. The authors reached to the conclusion that management support for internal audit determines internal audit effectiveness.H3a: Management Support impacts positively on internal auditor’s effectiveness.H3b: Management Support highly positively impacts internal audito’s effectiveness mediated by satisfaction of internal auditors.IV.Audited cooperationIn turn, auditee’s cooperation level impacts the degree to which IA properly attains its objectives (Al‐Twaijry et al., 2003; Mihret and Yismaw, 2007). Hence, auditee’s lack of cooperation can possibly obstruct the endeavour in attaining effective internal audit work. This is because full cooperation from auditee is necessary to allow internal auditors full access to all activities, records and properties (Ahmad et al., 2009). Within the companies in Saudi Arabia, Al‐Twaijryet et al. (2003) found low levels of auditee cooperation. This is especially true when the scope of audit is expanded outside of the traditional domains. Such situation, as argued by the authors, contributes to low levels of IA recommendations’implementation.H4a: Auditee cooperation impacts positively on internal auditor’s effectiveness.H4b: Auditee cooperation highly positively impacts on internal auditor’s effectiveness mediated by satisfaction of internal auditors.Satisfaction of Internal Auditors as a Moderating VariableThe pay satisfaction of employees is described by the level to which employees feel satisfaction towards financial rewards they obtain in terms of the level and process for the work they do (Shahnawaz and Jafri, 2009). It is one of the top crucial factors that measure the effectiveness of the organization (Heneman et al., 1997). Organizations having satisfied employees appear to display more effectiveness compared to their counterparts with dissatisfied employees (Shahnawaz and Jafri, 2009). In a narrower context of internal auditors, Shahnawaz and Jafri (2009) stated that majority of internal auditors were not satisfied with their jobs. This could result in lower productivity and performance. Abu-Azza (2012) supported this claim by his findings that showed the majority of internal auditors working for Libyan publicenterprises appear to be dissatisfied with their pay.H5: Satisfaction of Internal Auditors impacts positively on internal auditor’s effectiveness.5.ConclusionsThe aim of this research proposal is to look into the impact of the four factors that are linked to IA effectiveness moderated by satisfaction of internal auditors within the Kuwaiti industrial SMEs. This study contributes in the body of knowledge by expanding the already available literature on the IA effectiveness via the determination of the effectiveness of IA at the industrial firms employing the theories and variables that were previously identified and highlighted.中文译文：科威特工业中小企业内部审计有效性的理论探讨摘要本文旨在审查内部审计的有效性与国际内部审计专业实务标准（ISPPIA）有关的四个因素之间的关系：内部审计师的独立性，内部审计师的工作范围，管理支持和审计合作。
内部审计外文文献翻译
外文文献及原稿原稿IntroductionInt ernal a ud it ef fe ctive n e s s, t h e ext e nt t o whic h an inte r nal a udit offic e me e ts i ts ra ison d'êt re, i s a r guably a result o f the i n t e rpla y a mong four fa c tors: in t erna l audi tq uali t y; management support; or gani z at i onal sett i ng; and attributes of the audi t or.An i nt ern al audit func t ion's capabil i ty to provi de us eful a udi t findi ngs and re commendations w oul d help ra isemanagement'sintere s ti n it s re c omm e ndation s.T he m a na gementsupportw i thresourcesandc om mi t me nt to i mplement t heinternal a udi t reco m me nd ationsi s essenti a l in attainingaudit e ffec t ive ne s s.A l s o,the o rganizati o nals et ting i n w hi c h i ntern a laudit ope rat e s,i.e.t he or ga nizatio na ls t at us ofth eof fi ce,i t si nt erna lor ganizatio n andthepoli c ie s andpr oc edure s applyi ng t o eachaudi t o r, sho ul d enable smooth audi t s t ha t l ea d to reaching us e f ul a udi tfindings.Furth e r,thecapab i li t y,at t itudesandl e velofcoopera t ionoftheaudi t or i mpacton t heeffec t ive ne ss ofaud i ts.T herefore, internal audit ef fe ct i veness s houl d be vie w e d as a dynamicprocessthat is c ontinuously s ha ped by t h e interac t ions among t he fo ur factors me ntionedabove.Thi s s t udy e xami n ed,u singcasestudyan a lysis,t heint e rnala udi ts e rvic eof ala rgepublicsectororganization.Thepaperisstructuredasfollows.Thenextsectionpresents a review of the related literature; introduces a model for analyzingauditeffectiveness; and provides the research question. The third section presentstheresearch methodology; fourth section provides empirical analysis based on acasestudy; and fifth section presents a summary of the findings. The paperthensummarizes the conclusions, noting limitations of the study and suggesting avenuesfor futureresearch. InternalauditeffectivenessThe Instituteof Internal Auditors (IIA, 1999a) defined internal auditing as:an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add valueandimprove an organization's operations. It helps an organization accomplish itsobjectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improvetheeffectiveness of risk management, control, and governanceprocesses.This definition signifies that internal audit has undergone a paradigmshift froman emphasis on accountability about the past to improving future outcomes tohelpauditors operate more effectively and efficiently (Nagy and Canker, 2002; Stern,1994;Goodwin, 2004). Since, the definition equally serves both the private and thepublicsectors (Goodwin, 2004), it is used in this study as a basis to analyze publicsectorinternal auditeffectiveness.Internal audit is effective if it meets the intended outcome it is supposed tobringabout.Sawyer(1995)states,“…internalauditor'sjobisnotdoneuntildefectsarecorrecte d and remain corrected.”Van Hansberger (2005) explains that internalauditeffectiveness in the public sector should be evaluated by the extent to whichitcontributes to the demonstration of effective and efficient service delivery, asthisdrives the demand for improved internal audit services. Based on the results ofaconsultative forum that focused on improving public sector internal audit [1],VanHansberger (2005) identified perceptionsandownership; organizationandgovernance framework; legislation; improved professionalism; conceptualframework;and also resources as factors influencing internal audit effectiveness.Effectiveinternal audit undertakes an independent evaluation of financial andoperatinginformation and of systems and procedures, to provide useful recommendationsfor improvements asnecessary.The effectiveness of internal audit greatly contributes to the effectiveness ofeachauditor in particular andthe organization at large (Dittenhofer, 2001).Dittenhofer(2001) has also observed that if internal audit quality is maintained, it will contributeto the appropriateness of procedures and operations of the auditor, and therebyinternal audit contributes to effectiveness of the auditor and the organization asawhole. Using agency theory, Dingdong (1997) explained the role that internalauditplays in an economy and points out that internal audit has an advantage over externalauditin obtaining information quickly and finding problems at an earlier stage; and Sparkman (1997), applying the theory of transaction cost economics, demonstratedhow internal audit recommendations are important to the management ofgovernmentorganizations.Priorliteraturerelatingtointernalauditeffectivenesshaseitherfocusedontheinternal audit's ability to plan, execute and objectively communicate usefulfindings(Dingdong, 1997 Sparkman, 1997;Dittenhofer, 2001); or taken a broader viewandincluded factors that transcend the boundary of a single organization (VanHansberger,2005). This paper attempts to introduce a new perspective for evaluation of internalaudit effectiveness by identifying factors within an organization that impact onauditeffectiveness. A model, which assumes that there is a common interest to achieveorganizational goals for auditor management, top management and internal audit,isused for analysis of this case study. Since, audit effectiveness fosters theachievementof a common goal; there would be a natural incentive in an organization to improveit.The model considers four potential factors –internal audit quality,managementsupport, organizational setting, and auditor attributes to explain audit effectiveness,and shows how the interaction of these factors improves audit effectiveness.Internal audit quality, which is determined by the internal audit department'scapability to provide useful findings and recommendations, is central toauditeffectiveness. Internal audit has to prove that it is of value to the organization and earna reputation in the organization (Sawyer, 1995). Internal audit has to evaluateitsperformance and continually improve its service .audit quality is a function ofthelevelofstaffexpertise,thescopeofservicesprovidedandtheextenttowhichaudits areprope rlyplanned,executedandcommunicated.Audit findings and recommendations would not serve much purposeunlessmanagement is committed to implement them. Adams (1994) used agency theorytoexplain that it is in the interest of management to maintain a strong internalauditdepartment. Implementation of audit recommendations is highly relevant toauditeffectiveness (Van Hansberger, 2005) and the management of an organization isviewed as the customer receiving internal audit services. As a result,management'scommitment to useaudit recommendations and its support in strengthening internalauditis vital to audit effectiveness (Sawyer,1995).Organizational setting refers to the organizational profile, internal organizationand budgetary status of the internal audit office; and also the organizationalpoliciesand procedures that guide operation of auditors. It provides the context inwhichinternal audit operates. Thus, organizational setting can exert influence on the levelofeffectiveness that internal audit could achieve. The auditor attributes relate tothecapability of the auditor to meet its intended objectives. Auditor attributeswithimplications on audit effectiveness include the auditors' proficiency to efficientlyandeffectively meet organizational sub-goals; their attitude towards internal audit; andthelevel of cooperation provided to the auditor .Since, the four factors discussed aboveare intricately linked, audit effectiveness is a dynamic process that results fromtheeffect of each factor and the interplay among all. audit quality andmanagementsupport strongly affects audit effectiveness. Better audit effectiveness, in turn, hasapositivebearingonthesetwofactors.Ifinternalaudit enhancesqualitytotheextent itelicits management's interest, management support would be a natural quid proquobecause the management would realize the contribution of internal audit totheachievement of organizational goals. This would positively reflecton auditqualityand enhance audit effectiveness. The management's commitment to implementauditrecommendations improves the operation of the auditor, as a result of whichtheauditor attributes would improve to the benefit of audit effectiveness.Further,management retains the authority to improve the organizational setting andinfluencethe auditor towards a positive effect on audit effectiveness, whichin turn,benefitsauditquality.ConcludingcommentsThis study investigated the internal audit service of a large public sectorhighereducational institution, to identify factors influencing internal audit effectiveness,using a model developed for the analysis. The model consisted of fourinterrelatedfactors: internal audit quality; management support; the organizational setting;andattributes of theauditors.The findings of the study reveal that the internal audit office of theorganizationstudied needs to enhance the technical proficiency of the internal audit staffandminimizestaff turnover so as to foster audit effectiveness. The organizational statusand internal organization of the internal audit office are fairly rated, butinternalaudit'slackofauthorityonbudgetsreducesitscontrolofresourceacquisitionandutil ization.The scope of internal audit services is limited to regular activities. Extendingthescopeofservicesbywideningtherangeofsystemsandactivitiesaudited,withappropr iateriskanalysis,wouldimprove auditeffectiveness. Management'scommitment in providing greater attention to internalaudit recommendations andstaffingtheofficewithwell-qualifiedemployeesdeservesattentioninthisstudy.Theinternalauditors,undertheimpressionthat theirreportsarenotsufficientlyutilizedbythe management, may not be encouraged to exert the maximum possible effort in their engagements. In addition, the lack of attention by management may send awrongsignal about the importance of internal audit services to the audited, which in turnadversely affects the auditedattributes.The study has shown that internal audit of the organization studiedneedsimprovement in the areas of audit planning, documentation of audit work,auditcommunications and follow-up of recommendations. Audit effectiveness couldbeenhanced by ensuring consistency in documenting audit work to enableimprovedreview of audit work; proper follow-up of the status of audit findingsandrecommendations; increased distribution of audit reports; and further improvementinthe quality ofreporting.The limitation of this study is readily apparent. As in all case studies,thegeneralisabilityof the findings and the conclusions drawn is limited, althoughthestudy does provide evidence of the problems internal auditors face in providinganeffective service to management. Further, research could be welcome tofullyunderstand the level of internal audit effectiveness in the Ethiopian public sectorvis-à-vis its private sector, with a view to highlighting differences, if any,andconclusively defining the variables affecting internal audit effectiveness inEthiopia.译文简介内部审计的有效性，在何种程度上满足了内部审计处其存在的理由，可以说是一个四因素之间的相互作用的结果：内部审计质量，管理支持，组织设臵，以及受审核方属性。
外文文献翻译内部审计在组织中的作用
外文文献翻译原文+译文文献来源：Adams C. Role of internal audit in the organisations[J]. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2017, 1(2): 78-99.原文Role of internal audit in the organizationsAdams CINTRODUCTIONWith the transformations experienced by the corporate world, virtually related to globalization, there has been increased competition between organisations which forced management to take decisions with greater confidence. This does not only mean to keep pace with the rate at which businesses are growing, but also to develop them in a more sustainable manner. Thus, to achieve these goals, it has been necessary to improve the management methods, tools and techniques enhanced by the internal auditing function.The Internal Audit Function (IAF) fits into this scenario because it is an important tool available to stakeholders, internal and externally, as it is construed as an ongoing function, in order to support management in monitoring and surveillance of the planned activities, in both productive and financial areas, evaluating and reporting improvements with respect to the weaknesses, aiming to add value to the organisation.In this context, this study was based on the answers to the followingquestion: what is the perception of management on the role that Internal Audit plays in management practices and decision-making within the organisations? The present study has its relevance in exploring the role IAF is playing to mitigate the dissatisfaction of the business community after accounting and financial scandals which involved auditing as a whole and as has been notoriously publicised. These Media also showed situations where there have been failures by auditing, causing discredit to the activity. Additionally, there is the lack of academic researches on the role that Internal Audit has in management practices and decision making in organisations.This research is aimed at provoking a reflection upon the contribution of Internal Audit Function in decision making in the organisations in order to bring greater credibility to this area of applied social sciences. We hope it inspires further researches on topics addressing Internal Audit Functions in the academic environment.The study focused on non-financial organisations in the State of S o Paulo, whose shares are traded at S o Paulo Stock Exchange, excluding telephone organisations, sanitation, electricity and gas, because these organisations provide services of basic needs to the population and have a different administrative focus.The delimitation of the research to the State of S o Paulo was due to the fact that it is the Brazilian state with the highest concentration oforganisations with shares traded at BM&FBOVESPA. This entity requires of the organisations in its portfolio a good organizational structure and high degree of disclosure, which somehow gave credibility to the data obtained.Concept and objectives of internal auditIt is barely impossible to conceptualise internal audit considering the diversity of its application in business entities. Even so, one would cite the concept provided by the Brazilian Institute of Internal Auditors (AUDIBRA, 1991, p. 33). Internal Audit is an activity of independent evaluation and management assistance, directed to the examination and evaluation of the adequacy, efficiency and effectiveness of the internal control system, as well as of the quality of performance of the operational areas in relation to their tasks and plans, goals, objectives, and policies defined for them.Noteworthy, that effectiveness means adequate exploration of the resources to achieve the goals while efficiency means that required indexes were achieved using the minimum and necessary efforts. Thus, the internal auditor’s opinion should state whether the entity is being effective and efficient in achieving its goals.According to Vasconcelos and Pereira (2004, p. 69-70), the scope of binomial efficiency and effectiveness is a functional view that the organisation’s stakeholders have of the Internal Audit work [...] TheInternal Auditor, in our view, should monitor and seek to understand these dynamics and their effects on the economic and financial status. Therefore, we argue that this professional is the best suited to signal the potential risks of going concern of organisations considering operational anomalies.That is, it would be up to him, based on analysis to provide a straight forward assistance in the monitoring of the financial situation. Our most important argument rests on the following premise: the internal auditor may propose directives and valuable information based on their historical data and rapport with the organisations’ management.Quoting CFC (2005) NBC TI 01, the Brazilian Federal Council of Accountants, characterizes the functions of Internal Audit: [...] as structured with technical, objective, systematic and disciplined procedures, that aims to add value to the results of the organisation, providing data for the improvement of processes, management and internal controls through the recommendation of solutions for nonconformities identified in the reports.In this same way, CFC (2011) emphasizes the managerial support that internal audit has to provide so that business objectives are attained in a more adequate manner. This explicitly defines Internal Audit as an advisory body to the management of the entities, aiming to add value by providing data for improvement of management processes.According to Mendes (1996, p. 9), the objective of the Internal Audit is, in particular, “[...] forming opinion about the criteria, proced ures, methods and quantification, cost rationalization and providing information so that the top management decisions are based on concrete information.” The decisions to be made by management always depend on good information, that is, accurate and timely.The Internal Audit is an instrument of administrative control and systematic verification of the effectiveness and efficiency of occupational activities in the company; it evaluates the entity’s internal controls and its administrative and occupational processes, analyzing the failures and the risk involved and gives broad based recommendations for remediation of anomalies. The Internal Audit work aims to protect the company’s assets against frauds or intentional misstatements. Classified by Moyes et al. (2013) as i) misstatements resulting from fraudulent financial reporting and ii) misstatement resulting from misappropriation of assets. Characteristics of the internal audit function (IAF)The role of Internal Audit is presented through various concepts expressed by scholars with different characteristics of its functions and activities that converge to its main objective, which is to add value to organizations through assessments and advisory support to management.Since WorldCom whistle-blowing and other financial scandals that besieged the stock markets in the last decade, internal audit has assumed amore important role. The NYSE now requires all companies listed there to maintain internal audit functions to provide management and the audit committee w ith ongoing assessment of the company’s risk management process and of internal control, (Harrington, 2004 p. 65).Thus, Internal Audit should be knowledgeable, insightful, have the method, and the intelligence to check the best for the company, aiming to add value with the least resources. Internal Audit should be “[...] a highly qualified adviser, which allows the management to have a systematic view of their organisation. It must be a unit engaged in achievement of end results (Mendes 1996., p. 9).Authors such as Carvalho and Pinho (2004. p. 24), Vasconcelos and Pereira (2004, p. 68), who understand that the Internal Audit has a professional duty to issue independent opinions, justify the assumptions of technical skills and personal attributes required of the auditor, as well as the high level of demand from users and the need to add value to users of their services.The IAF in the organisation is to review, evaluate and produce report containing information on all activities of the organisation, to assist the management in their decision making process. Internal Audit performs a task that shareholders would like to perform in order to be always aware of how their investments are managed.Apart from overseeing the activities, based on the broad knowledgeof the business, IAF could be used to substitute certain strategic functions most importantly when a need for rotation arises. Companies that have an IAF specifically hire internal auditors with the purpose of rotating them into management positions or cycle current employees into the IAF for a short stint before promoting them into management positions (Messier et al., 2011, p. 2131).Vasconcelos and Pereira (2004, p. 70) emphatically point out that “[...] the exercise of Internal Audit is not a commodity. It is not a consumable service much less a mere cog. It is a potential value aggregator. “This characterization clearly demonstrates how valuable the internal function is when fully exerting its activities.Internal audit function adding valueIt is of paramount importance to characterize what adding value is, so that we can analyze the contribution of Internal Audit to the management of the entities. The interpretation of value, in this study, is not only limited to the financial aspects; it is more comprehensive, as it includes human and physical aspects. So, to add value in the internal audit concept is to harness all available resources, within and outside the company, with an aim of assuring gains, which may be financial, material and human, and will assist management in fulfilling their goals.Internal Audit Function may add value in various accounting processes where transactions are originated in an organisation. Forinstance, the evaluation of capital investments and their association with the capital budget when adequately checked to guarantee that such project is feasible tends to add value. Another value adding function is the assessment and or follow-up of the development and implementation of ERPs; which ensures the timing of the systems at an affordable cost and to meet up with operational necessities. The continuous auditing also adds value by installing the required technologies in the control environment to ensure that alerts are given when unusual transactions are run in the operational environment of the organisation. Directors believe that top management is appropriately defining the organisation’s internal audit function, and that the profession should concentrate its effects on providing guidance and support. “....most of their audit depar tments have shifted toward a more value-added” (Nagy and Cenker, pp. 136, 2002).Be it known that the wealth of knowledge acquired by the IAF during the auditing of the business, which makes one say that it knows it better that any other person in the organisation makes the IAF a training ground for the management posts.The Internal Audit, when monitoring and assessing the adequacy of internal controls, as well as the rules and procedures implemented by management, becomes an ally of real value to the management. It is a tool that, according to Santos (2007, p. 9) “[...] plays a role of great importance, helping to eliminate wastes, simplify tasks, supportmanagement and report to management on the development of tasks performed”. The thought is in line wit h the implementation of loss prevention nowadays when artefacts are installed to safeguard assets.Whistle blowing has been termed as more effective when considering some tools monitored by IAF to track frauds and corruption, notwithstanding, internal audit collaborates in the minimisation of the risks of frauds and potential errors that could result in a material misstatement. The level of the IAF and the extent to which the IAF incorporates quality assurance techniques into fieldwork and audits activities related to financial reporting, monitors the remediation of previously identified control problems. Also, the timing of Section 404 work and the nature of follow-up monitoring suggests that these aspects of IAF quality help prevent material weaknesses (MWs) from occurring (Lin et al., 2011, p. 287).Internal Audit plays a strategic role in organizations because it aims to add value to the results of the organisation, providing information to improve risk management and internal controls procedures. It is considered one of the pillars of corporate governance as it provides evaluation services and consulting. In other words, it is an important piece to the management of organisations, since it matches the results obtained with the strategy and the action plan prepared by the company in order to identify threats and/or opportunities for the achievement of futureresults.The existence of a good and active internal audit in the organisation is in itself a value-addition, considering that it could be used to reduce the amount of work that is required of the independent auditor with referece to IFAC 610. The usage of internal audit work by the independent auditors is generally considered in the extent deemed satisfactory to cover certain test that ought to be corroborated by the engagement.译文内部审计在组织中的作用引言企业界经历的转换实际上与全球化相关,组织之间的竞争加剧,迫使管理者更有把握地作出决策。
企业内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献
企业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)译文：内部控制环境外文翻译摘要：为了保证企业需求内部控制活动的有效性和信息的可靠性以及遵守法律的适用性，每个组织要选择最适合的控制系统。
因此，就必须考虑到意外事故的风险是否切合权变理论。
本文研究的是检视这些风险特点的选择是否适应他们公司内部控制结构和它是否会导致一些更加优惠的有效性的评估控制管理。
虽然内部控制的组成部分已进行单独控制，本文尝试阐明内部控制的关键点并将其放到更加广阔的背景中。
结果证明，基于对741家芬兰公司的调查研究，表明公司用内部控制结构来应对环境的不确定性，并观测控制的有效性的战略对其内部控制结构有着显著的效果。
关键词：内部控制、成效、权变理论、结构方块建模1.绪论人们普遍认为，一个内部控制系统可以帮助企业降低风险，并且使财务报表的可靠性得以保证。
因此，越来越多的企业在他们具体的操作环境下更多的关注自己的内部控制。
在巨大的管理压力下，如何提高内部控制的有效性以及董事会和股东之间的沟通效果，是目前企业亟待解决的重要问题。
由于内部控制可能会影响长期的报告，因此审计人员、供应商、客户都对内部控制关注相当。
Kinney在2000年指出，尽管内部控制对公司影响很大，但在组织环境中内部控制结构却无法实现。
虽然关于内部控制的文献在国际研究上已取得进展，但迄今为止，内部控制的研究数量有限。
在2004年Selte and Widener出版的专业文章中提出，在管理控制中研究较少的内部控制有着很强的实用性。
本文的研究结论有助于了解内部控制结构及其在公司环境中观察到对公司的效果。
即使内部控制结构框架中提出了一个标准化的结构和内部控制目标，但仍然需要注意的是，有效地内部控制是要根据公司的不同特点来制定的。
因此，即使是内部控制的框架中也无法提供一个企业的特点和其控制系统的关系。
因此，本研究利用一个应急方法，审查内部控制结构的设计，并且将其放到不同的环境下观察其效果。
内部控制审计【外文翻译】
外文翻译原文Audits of Internal ControlMaterial Source:/cpajournal/2005/505/essentials/p22.htmAuthor: Jack W. PaulMAY 2005 - The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires public accounting firms that audit public companies to register with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and to adhere to professional standards established by the board for audits of public companies. The PCAOB’s pronouncement, Auditing Standard 2, An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting Performed in Conjunction with an Audit of Financial Statements, requires auditors to issue an opinion on the effectiveness of their public company clients’ internal control.On June 5, 2003, the SEC issued Release 33-8238 to implement section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOA), which requires management to include in the annual report to shareholders its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control. The company’s external auditors must attest to and report on management’s assessment for fiscal years beginning on or after January 15, 2006, for accelerated filers, and on or after July 15, 2006, for no accelerated filers. Standard 2 imposes many new responsibilities on public companies’ auditors and, by extension, on the public companies themselves. In it over 200 pages, Standard 2 delineates the PCAOB’s expectations for an internal control audit.Auditor’s responsibilities. Standard 2 requires the auditor to do the following: •Understand and evaluate management’s process for assessing the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over financial reporting.•Plan and conduct an audit of the company’s internal control.•Based on this audit, provide an opinion on management’s written assessment about the effectiveness of the company’s internal control.This opinion incorporates the auditor’s opinion on the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over financial reporting.These responsibilities augment those required for the financial statement audit. Included EntitiesIn general, the scope of the audit of internal control includes all entities over which management has the ability to affect internal control:•Entities acquired on or before the date of management’s assessment as of the end of the fiscal year, including consolidated entities or those proportionately consolidated; and•Those accounted for as discontinued operations at the end of the fiscal year.In some situations, such as when management does not have the ability to affect the controls of an equity method investee, the auditor’s s cope includes only the controls related to the investor’s financial reporting of its interest in the investee, rather than the controls in place at the investee. The applicable controls are those designed to ensure proper application of the equity method in reporting the company’s proportion of investee income or loss, the investment balance, adjustments, and disclosures. Variable interest entities (VIE), defined in FASB Interpretation 46, are treated in a similar fashion when management is not the primary beneficiary and does not consolidate the VIE. Importantly, the auditor must evaluate the reasonableness of management’s claims regarding its inability to affect controls at such entities.Whereas design effectiveness pertains to whether a control is properly crafted, operating effectiveness deals with use of a properly designed control to prevent, detect, or correct misstatements or irregularities on a timely basis. For example, a daily reconciliation of cash receipts is not effectively designed when the cashier performs the reconciliation. But if an independent person is designated to perform the reconciliation and the other procedures are properly documented, the control is effectively designed. The control is not operating effectively when the independent reconciler either fails to perform the reconciliation daily or does so in a perfunctory manner. Design effectiveness of this control could be tested by reviewing documentation to ensure that the procedures are satisfactory. Operating effectiveness could b e tested by examining the reconciler’s initials on the daily reconciliation sheet.A striking difference between a financial statement and an internal control audit relates to the opportunity to correct deficiencies. Whereas a company can correct material misstatements detected during a financial statement audit by accepting the auditor’s proposed adjustments, if the auditor detects a material control weakness, itmay not be possible to fix it in time. Because the auditor’s opinion is “as of” the balance sheet date, the auditor must issue an adverse opinion on internal control when material weaknesses exist, even when the company receives an unqualified opinion on the financial statements.Take as a whole. The auditor exercises judgment to ascertain those accounts considered “significant” or more than material. The auditor also considers qualitative characteristics. For example, investment balances not material to the overall financial statements may obscure the true nature of the relationship, especially when the investment is in partially consolidated entities or involves debt guarantees. And certain accounts that are liquid or incorporate significant estimates are riskier than others. Examples include cash, marketable securities, and warranty liabilities.Point in time. Internal control procedures can relate to either transaction flows or account balances, sometimes referred to as “stocks.” Examples of controls relating to transaction flows include approving cash disbursements; prelisting cash receipts; approving credit sales; and matching purchase orders, vendor invoices, and receiving reports when booking accounts payable. Controls over balances (stocks) include periodic reconciliation of bank accounts; reconciliation of subsidiary ledgers with control accounts; procedures for physical inventory counts; and controls governing the periodic preparation of financial statements. Overarching controls include the factors comprising the control environment. Overarching controls and those pertaining to flows operate continuously throughout the fiscal period; controls relating to balances typically operate less frequently. Thus bank accounts are reconciled monthly, whereas controls over cash flows are continuous.Timing considerations. Controls must operate for a long enough period, which need not be an entire fiscal year, to provide sufficient confidence in the auditor’s control tests. Accordingly, the auditor must make several observations of controls that operate only at a point in time. Controls that operate infrequently should be tested closer to the “as of” date. These include controls over: the periodic preparation of financial statements; individual account balances; and no routine transactions. Consider a calendar-year company that begins the procedure of reconciling the accounts-receivable subsidiary ledger to the control account only at the end of December. The auditor might conclude that one observation is not sufficient to evaluate this control’s operating effectiveness.These considerations suggest that an unqualified opinion on internal control should state: “The controls were effective for a sufficient period of time during the fiscal year to be able to support the conclusion that they were still effective at the end of the period.” Nevertheless, Standard 2 calls for expressing an opinion as of a point in time, the end of the fiscal year.PCAOB Standard 2 requires the auditor to obtain evidence of the effectiveness of controls pertaining to all relevant assertions for all significant accounts each year; each year must stand on its own. It also calls for the auditor to vary the nature, extent, and timing of testing from year to year to introduce unpredictability and to respond to changing circumstances. Examples of variations include changing the number of tests performed and adjusting the combination of testing procedures.Audit ReportsStandard 2 specifies the content of the report on internal control. Auditors should be aware of several factors:•An auditor may provide either separate or combined reports on the financial statements and internal control.•Whereas the opinion on the financial statements typically addresses multiple periods, the opinion on internal control covers only the most recent fiscal year.•When an auditor issues separate reports, the annual report must contain both.•The reports should have the same date, normally the last day of fieldwork.•An auditor’s report on management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting includes an opinion on the company’s internal control.When the auditor issues an unqualified opinion on the financial statements but an adverse opinion on internal control, due to one or more material weaknesses, the report should indicate that the conduct of the financial statement audit took those material weaknesses into account. This information helps readers of the financial statements understand why the auditor gave an unqualified opinion on the financial statements. The auditor should include similar language when the adverse opinion on internal control affects the opinion on the financial statements.Most Likely Reasons for Opinion ModificationsAs a practical matter, opinion modifications are likely to arise from three circumstances:•Material misstatements detected by the auditor were not identified by the company. This situation could result in an adverse opinion.•Inadequate documentation. This situation is a control deficiency that may constitute a material weakness if extensive. In this case, the auditor renders an adverse opinion.•Inadequate management assessment creates a scope limitation requiring a disclaimer, a qualified opinion on internal control, or withdrawal from the engagement.Because it requires the auditor to go well beyond the review and evaluation of controls that was the norm for reporting on financial statements, Standard 2 promises to fundamentally alter the control systems in public companies and auditors’ assessment of them, thereby providing additional assurance to u sers.译文内部控制审计资料来源:http:// /cpajournal/2005/505/essentials/p22.htm作者：杰克·保罗2005年5月的萨班斯-奥克斯利法案, PCAOB发布了其第2号审计标准：“与财务报表审计相关的针对财务报告的内部控制的审计”，该标准关注对财务报告的内部控制的审计工作，以及这项工作与财务报表审计的关系问题。
内部审计在企业风险管理中的作用外文翻译
外文文献翻译原文：Internal auditing's role in ERMAs organizations lay their enterprise risk groundwork, many auditors are taking on management's oversight responsibilities, new research finds.Internal audit departments have played a variety of roles in their organization's enterprise risk management (ERM) activities since The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Tread way Commission (COSO) released its Enterprise Risk Management-Integrated Framework in September 2004. An IIA position paper issued in the wake of COSO ERM, "The Role of Internal Auditing in Enterprise-wide Risk Management," indicates the roles that the internal audit function should and should not play throughout the ERM process, ranging from full involvement to no involvement. According to the paper, internal auditors should have a core role in five ERM-related assurance activities: giving assurance on risk management processes, giving assurance that risks are evaluated correctly, evaluating risk management processes, evaluating the reporting of key risks, and reviewing the management of key risks.A recent IIA Research Foundation study examined the extent to which internal audit functions adhere to the ERM roles recommended in the IIA paper. During October 2005, researchers disseminated an online survey to 7,200 IIA members through The Institute's Global Auditing Information Network. The survey generated 361 responses from a mix of large, mid-sized, and small organizations in a variety of industries, including businesses, government agencies, and not for profit organizations. Nearly 60 percent of respondents identified themselves as a chief audit executive or audit director, 23 percent were audit managers, and 7.8 percent were staff or senior auditors. Approximately 90 percent were from the United States and Canada.Respondents' organizations are at different stages of implementing ERM, as defined by COSO. More than 11 percent say their organization's ERM infrastructure is mature or relatively mature, and 37 percent have recently adopted or are in theprocess of implementing ERM. Among all organizations surveyed, the internal audit function is primarily responsible for ERM-related activities in 36 percent of respondents' organizations, while 27 percent say the primary responsibility belongs to a chief risk officer (CRO) who is not part of the audit function. Nearly one-third of respondents say another executive or function oversees ERM..The hours and dollars internal audit functions spend on ERM-related activities are minimal for many respondents. Nearly half say their audit department spent 10 percent or less of its hourly and financial budgets on ERM-related activities during fiscal year 2004. More than one-third of audit departments spent II percent to 50 percent of their time on ERM, and 28 percent spent n percent to 50 percent of their financial budgets, while less than 10 percent of departments Spent more than 50 percent of their time and money.The IIA position paper categorizes 18 ERM-related activities according to the appropriate level of responsibility for the internal audit function. Survey respondents reported their current and ideal level of responsibility for these activities: no responsibility, limited responsibility, moderate responsibility, substantial responsibility, and total responsibility.CORE ACTIVITIESDifferences between respondents' current and ideal responsibilities are greatest for the five core ERM assurance activities identified In the IIA paper. Respondents Indicated that their current responsibility for each of the core ERM related activities is moderate, but they say they should have a substantial level of responsibility. These views agree with the IIA guidance. Additionally, roughly half of internal audit functions surveyed currently have substantial or full responsibility for at least one core activity, and more than two-thirds say they should have till or substantial responsibility for at least one core activity.Within the core category, the audit function's two highest levels of current responsibility involve reviewing management of key risks and evaluating the risk management process. Evaluating the risk management process and giving assurance on risk management processes are the highest-rated ideal responsibilities. Conversely,giving assurance that risks are evaluated correctly is the lowest-rated current and ideal responsibility.The following respondent comments offer some insight into why audit departments are not currently involved in core ERM-related activities at the level they deem appropriate;"We have just recently begun implementing ERM activities in our company. We do not yet have complete understanding of the process and buy-in from management.""The audit committee and management are not aware of what ERM is.""The internal audit function has just initiated an awareness campaign among the audit committee members."These comments suggest that educating management and the audit committee on ERM issues can be critical to ensuring that the audit function takes on an appropriate level of responsibility for ERM.LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIESThe IIA paper prescribes seven legitimate ERM-related activities for which internal committee audit functions may be responsible as long as safeguards are in place: facilitating the identification and evaluation of risks, coaching management in responding to risks, coordinating ERM-related activities, consolidating the reporting on risks, maintaining and developing the ERM framework, championing establishment of ERM, and developing risk management strategy for board approval. These activities are described as "consulting" activities. Although respondents' current responsibility for each of these legitimate activities ranges from limited to moderate, they say their ideal level should be moderate, which is consistent with the guidance.Within the legitimate category, the highest level of current internal audit responsibility involves facilitating the identification and evaluation of risks —the top-rated ERM-related activity, including core activities. This activity is also the highest-rated ideal activity among legitimate activities, suggesting that auditors consider it a core responsibility. This finding is not surprising. because risk detection and evaluation are traditional considerations in developing annual audit plans. The lowest-rated current and ideal activity is developing a risk management strategy forboard approval, which is an activity that might best be handled by management.The IIA guidance cautions that when internal auditors undertake these legitimate consulting activities, safeguards should be in place to ensure that they do not take on management responsibility for actually managing risks. One possible preventive measure would include documenting the auditors' ERM responsibilities in an audit committee-approved audit charter. Further, if auditors take on any ERM-related activities that fall within this consulting role, they should treat these engagements as consulting engagements and apply the relevant IIA standards to help ensure their independence and objectivity.INAPPROPRIATE ACTIVITIESAccording to the IIA position paper. It is inappropriate for internal auditors to be responsible for six ERM-related activities: setting the risk appetite, imposing risk management processes, providing management assurance on risks, making decisions on risk responses, implementing risk responses on management's behalf, and having accountability for risk management. Overall, audit functions in the survey have greater responsibility for these activities than the IIA paper recommends. However, auditors say they should have some limited responsibility for the inappropriate activities.Within the inappropriate category, internal auditors' highest level of current and ideal responsibility is providing management assurance on risks, while their lowest level of responsibility is for setting the risk appetite. Respondents' comments suggest that auditors currently have greater responsibilities in these areas because the audit function is playing a leading role during the early stages of ERM development.ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICSThe perceived current and ideal FRM roles for the internal audit function may vary across organizations, depending on the organization's industry, size, and audit department size, as well as the firm's need to comply with the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.INDUSTRY Respondents work in a variety of sectors, including financial services, manufacturing, transportation, communications, utilities, health care, retailand wholesale, government, and education. Researchers compared responses from the two largest industry groups: financial services and manufacturing. On average, financial service industry audit departments have greater current responsibility for core activities than those from manufacturing. With respect to inappropriate activities, manufacturing audit departments tend to say their ideal involvement should be higher than their current responsibility, while financial service industry audit departments rate their current and ideal responsibilities at the same level.ORGANIZATION SIZE Approximately half of respondents work in organizations that had 2004 revenues between US $500 million and US $5 billion. Nearly 25 percent of respondents work in organizations that had revenues under US $500 million in 2004, while a similar number of respondents work in organizations that had more than US $5 billion in revenue that year. Researchers compared responses from organizations with revenues of less than US $1 billion with organizations with revenues greater than US $1 billion. On average, auditors from both types of organizations have relatively equal levels of responsibility for current core activities. However, smaller organizations rated their ideal involvement for these core activities higher than large organizations. Smaller organizations have a slightly higher current level of responsibility for inappropriate activities than larger organizations and say their ideal involvement in these areas should be higher.AUDIT STAFF SIZE More than half of respondents work in audit departments with 10 or fewer auditors, slightly more than one-quarter work in departments with between 11 and 50 auditors, and approximately one-tenth of respondents work in departments with more than 50 auditors. Internal audit functions with more than 10 auditors currently have somewhat more responsibility for core activities than audit departments with 10 or fewer auditors. Both large and small audit functions have roughly equal levels of responsibility for all other ERM-related activities. However, unlike large audit organizations, respondents from small audit departments want to have more responsibility for activities in the inappropriate category.SARBANES-OXLEY Most respondents' organizations are required to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404. Researchers found few differences between thoseorganizations and respondents from organizations that do not have to comply with the act. The primary difference related to core activities, where compliers report a higher level of current responsibility than non-compliers.Although the IIA guidance is equally applicable to all organizations, the research indicates that smaller internal audit departments and those from smaller organizations tend to take on ERM responsibilities that would be more appropriate for management. In these cases, internal auditing should work to develop an ERM implementation and maintenance plan that includes a stratcgy and timeline for migrating responsibilities for these activities to managementTHE AUDITOR'S ROLEAlthough the survey results suggest that the current levels of responsibility audit departments have may differ somewhat from that levels recommended by The IIA'S position paper, the respondents' comments offer some evidence that auditors understand the underlying concepts of the guidance:"There needs to be a shift in the 'doing' of the ERM to being an internal audit function that relies on and evaluates the ERM process. ERM should be in sync with the audit universe and plan,""In the past i8 months, the corporation has appointed a CRO to provide oversight and guidance to evolving ERM processes. During this period, much of internal auditing's previous ERM roles have migrated to this officer." More importantly, respondents identified significant barriers in their organizations to following the guidance:"These ERM responsibilities and processes are not well defined in many organizations and should be more clearly articulated by senior management."'There is not enough emphasis from the top that risk management is important and must be done effectively. Management is still trying to hide things from internal auditing. It's not them against us, we're all in it together.""Most auditors and enterprise managers lack clarity on the distinction between responsibility for risk assurance implementation versus responsibility for risk assurance compliance and monitoring."These comments stress that a key element to establishing a successful ERM program is education on the importance of ERM and the appropriate roles management and internal auditing have in the process. Internal auditors can play a key role in providing this education. The audit department, management, hoard of directors, and audit committee need to be clear about which ERM related activities internal auditors should perform and which activities should always be performed by management. Relevant training should highlight that internal auditing could serve in a monitoring or consulting role throughout much of the ERM process, but the formal decision-making authority must reside with management if the audit department is to maintain its independence and objectivity.Auditors should take steps to ensure that the board and audit committee are aware of the COSO ERM framework and are actively engaged in overseeing the ERM process. Additionally, auditors should consider training senior management, the board, and others throughout their organization on COSO ERM and related guidance.Responses to the survey provide useful insights into additional steps that the internal audit profession should take. Auditors whose organizations are in the early stages of adopting ERM or will be implementing ERM in the future have many opportunities to ensure that the process is effective and efficient. For example, audit departments that currendy perform ERM-related activities that should be management's responsibility can take proactive steps to open up the lines of communication between internal auditing and management, the board and audit committee, and external auditors about the risks of this situation. Such communication should encourage management to take on appropriate ERM responsibilities. One approach audit departments could take is to develop a business plan describing how management can assume responsibility for ERM related activities for which they should be accountable. However, internal auditors should recognize that completing this plan and convincing management to accept these ERM responsibilities might not occur quickly.With appropriate planning, communication, and education, internal auditors, management, the board, and external auditors should be ready to work together toachieve the many benefits of ERM. Ideally, this coordination will result in performing ERM-related activities at appropriate places within the organization, management accepting its responsibility for ERM, and that audit function playing a role that is consistent with appropriate professional guidance.Source:Audrey.A.Gramling.Internal auditing's role in ERM.2004:2-4.译文：内部审计在企业风险管理中的作用新的研究发现：随着企业以组织风险为基础，许多审计人员对管理层采取职责监督措施。
内部审计论文中文外文参考文献
会计学内部审计中英文资料外文翻译文献内部审计在沙特阿拉伯的发展：协会理论透视内部审计职能的价值1早先的研究已经运用各种各样的方法来制定适当的标准以评估内部审计职能的有效率。
比如说，视遵照标准的程度为影响内部审计表现的其中因素之一。
一份1988 年国际会计师协会英国协会的研究报告就致力与研究内部审计作用价值中高级管理层和外部审计员的认知力。
这项研究证明了衡量所提供服务的价值的艰难性就是做评估的主要障碍。
收益性，费用标准以及资源利用率都被确认为服务价值的衡量标准。
在这项研究里，它强调了确保内部审计工作应遵从 SPP IA 的必要性。
在美国，1988 的A lbrec hta 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，Ri dley和D’S ilva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 SPPI A大量的研究都特别专注于内部审计部门对于 SPPI A 遵从性的研究。
1992 年，Powe ll 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。
有他们发现对这11 个国家的国际会计师协会成员的调查中， 82的是遵循S PPIA的。
这个蛮高的百分比率促使学者们建议S PPIA提供内部审计这个职业全球化的证据。
内部控制外文文献及翻译
附录A关于内部控制的意见如果要证明功能扩展到包含内部控制的有效性，那么报告准则则必须制定，若干基本问题必须被解决。
随着日益频繁增长，审计员听取了他们应该发表的一个效力于客户的内部控制制度建议的意见。
这一证明功能扩展的主张者迅速指出，目前已经有了实例如独立审计师的报告公开他们的客户的内部控制制度和一些政府机构的成效，包括一些空置中的美国证券和交易委员会，都需要一个报告。
这些证实类型的反对者公布了任何关于内部控制的有效性，他们认为，目前有显着性差异监管机构的报告要求和提出意见的内部控制将会误导公众。
本文综述了目前报告的做法，考虑到理想状态相关的危害的特点，并最后提出了一些在任何给与最后判决之前必要的予以回答的问题。
现状报告虽然审计员的报告中的一些情况提及了内部控制的性质，但作出的本质陈述还有很大不同的效应。
大型银行。
关于对内部控制的观点事实上出现在一些大型银行和看法发行的年度报告中。
有时这些意见是被董事会要求的。
例如，下面的主张出现在1969年年度报告的一个大型纽约银行中，作为第3款的独立会计师的标准短形式的报告：我们的审核工作包括评价有效性，大块的内部会计控制，其中还包括内部审计。
我们认为，在于程序的影响下，再加上银行内部审计工作人员所进行的审核，这些构成一个有效的系统的内部会计控制。
意见被提供给几个其他银行，但它们基本上引用的意见是一样的。
美国证券交易委员会的规定。
美国证券交易委员会表格X-17A-5，要求独立审计师作出某些有关的内部控制陈述，并必须在每年的大多数成员国家与每一个证券经纪或注册的交易商根据1934年证券交易法第15条进行交流时。
此外，美国证券交易委员会的第17a-5(g)规定要求独立的核数师的报告要包含“一份如，是否会计师审查了程序，要安全措施保障客户的证券的声明中”此外，许多股票交易所要求该报告要表明审查已取得的“会计制度，内部会计控制和程序，是为维护证券，包括适当的测试它们对以后的期间，检验日期前”，很显然，美国证券交易委员会的工作人员更倾向于考虑，会计师包括了语言相似，所要求的所有报告的交流提交给证券交易委员会。
公司治理外文文献及翻译 精品
附录A公司治理与高管薪酬：一个应急框架总体概述通过整合组织和体制的理论，本文开发了一个高管薪酬的应急办法和它在不同的组织和体制环境下的影响。
高管薪酬的研究大都集中在委托代理框架上，并承担一种行政奖励和业绩成果之间的关系。
我们提出了一个框架，审查了其组织的背景和潜在的互补性方面的行政补偿和不同的公司治理在不同的企业和国家水平上体现的替代效应。
我们还讨论了执行不同补偿政策方法的影响，像“软法律”和“硬法律”。
在过去的20年里，世界上越来越多的公司从一个固定的薪酬结构转变为与业绩相联系的薪酬结构，包括很大一部分的股权激励。
因此，高管补偿的经济影响的研究已经成为公司治理内部激烈争论的一个话题。
正如Bruce，Buck，和Main指出，“近年来，关于高管报酬的文献的增长速度可以与高管报酬增长本身相匹敌。
”关于高管补偿的大多数实证文献主要集中在对美国和英国的公司部门，当分析高管薪酬的不同组成部分产生的组织结果的时候。
根据理论基础，早期的研究曾试图了解在代理理论方面的高管补偿和在不同形式的激励和公司业绩方面的探索链接。
这个文献假设，股东和经理人之间的委托代理关系被激发，公司将更有效率的运作，表现得更好。
公司治理的研究大多是基于通用模型——委托代理理论的概述，以及这一框架的核心前提是，股东和管理人员有不同的方法来了解公司的具体信息和广泛的利益分歧以及风险偏好。
因此，经理作为股东的代理人可以从事对自己有利的行为而损害股东财富的最大化。
大量的文献是基于这种直接的前提和建议来约束经理的机会主义行为，股东可以使用不同的公司治理机制，包括各种以股票为基础的奖励可以统一委托人和代理人的利益。
正如Jensen 和Murphy观察，“代理理论预测补偿政策将会以满足代理人的期望效用为主要目标。
股东的目标是使财富最大化；因此代理成本理论指出，总裁的薪酬政策将取决于股东财富的变化。
”影响积极组织结果的主要指标是付费业绩敏感性，但是这种“封闭系统”法主要是在英美的代理基础文献中找到，假定经理人激励与绩效之间存在普遍的联系，很少的关注在公司被嵌入的不同背景。
内部审计_外文文献翻译
内部审计外文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。
Abdulrahman A. M. Al-Twaijry, John A. Brierley and David R. Gwilliam* Internal Audit Research1981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。
外文文献翻译-企业内部控制
外文文献及翻译THE CONCEPT OF INTERNALCONTROLSYSTEM: THEORETICALASPECTVaclovas Lakis, Lukas Giriūnas*Vilnius University, LithuaniaIntroductionOne 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 reasonablesecurity .The increasing variety of concepts of internal control systems requires their detailed analysis. A detailed analysis of the conceptions might help find the main reasons for their increasing number. It may also help to elaborate a structural scheme of the generalized concept of internal control. Consequently, it may help decrease the number of mistakes and frauds in enterprises and to offer the precautionary means that might help to avoid mistakes and build an effective internal control system.The purpose of the study: to compile the definition of the concept of internal control system and to elaborate the structural scheme of the generalized conception for Lithuanian industrial enterprises.The object of the research: internal control.To achieve the aim, the following tasks were carried out:to examine the definitions of internal control;to design a flowchart for the existing definitions of internal control;to formulate a new internal control system definition;? to identify the place of the internal control system in a company’s objectives and ? its management activities.Study methods: for the analysis of the conceptions of control, internal control, theconcept of internal control system, systematic and comparative means of scietific methods of analysis were used.1. Research of control conceptionAccording to J. Walsh, J. Seward (1990), H. K. Chung, H. Lee Chong, H. K.Jung (1997), control may be divided into two types – internal and external controls those might help to equalize authority or concerned party‘s attitudes to some certain organization control. Internal control involves the supreme enterprise control apparatus and enterprise shareholders, whereas external control might be defined as the power in the market or branch, competitive environment or state business regulation. Such analytical division is essential when analysing industrial or other enterprises, because this attitude to control makes it more specific and properly defined.The identification of an appropriate primary theoretical base is an important task in forming the structure of knowledge about the study subject. Appropriately selected conceptions enable to elucidate the essence of the processes, to characterize them and to realize their interplays and interaction principles. Conceptions may be defined as a summation of empirical cognition which transforms practically achieved results into conceptions. The above ideas might be taken as abstractions and lead to an ungrounded conclusion, and through conceptions the reality might be lost. Operating with more than one conceptions allows to form a universal opinion about the reality. Noteworthy, when operating with conceptions an optimal agreement might be found between theory and practice: using the common point of contact –conceptions –a theorist and a practician will always find the way and understand one another.The main problem of internal control is related to the definition of control conception and the identification of the place of internal control in an organization. Constant changes of the extent, functions and roles of internal control enable to form acommon definition of internal control and to identify its place in an organization.Analysis of the concept of internal control and its interpretation are essential for assessing the internal control system, because the conception of control is widely used not only in scientific research, but also in the daily activities of an enterprise; therefore the same conception might have a lot of various meanings and interpretations. Analysis of the concept provides conditions for the further research, because it is impossible to form a model of internal control assessment if the research object is unknown. A lot of definitions and variations of control can be found in thepublications by Lithuanian and foreign scientists and in public information sources. For example, in the Dictionary of International Words (2002), control is defined as: supervision, inspection of something; comparison of actual and required ? conditions; an enterprise or a group of people that control the work and responsibility of other ? enterprises or groups of people;maintenance of something.?In addition to the above seven internal control, and documentation control. Performance control and worker quality control, etc. The new system of accounting supervision system on the unit interior, the main contents of the internal control system.On the other hand, in the specialized Dictionary of Economic Terms (2005), control is defined as a performance with a definite influence on the management of an enterprise, as rights based on laws and contracts that involve proprietary rights to the whole property or its part, or any other rights that enable to exert a significant influence on the management and performance of an enterprise, or state supervision. Even in common information sources the definitions of control are formulated differently, although the common meaning is quite similar. Analysis and practical studies of Lithuanian scientists’ works enable to state that there is no one solid concept, definition or description of control. For example, E. Bu?kevi?iūt? (2008) says that when control is more particularly defined, its rules and requirements are described in more detail, it becomes more effective, more specific, more psychologically suggestive, it gives more freedom limits of choice for supervisors and less possibilities of lawlessness for people under control when. Identifying the object of the research, it should be noted that different definitions of control are given in scientific studies by Sakalas, 2000; Navickas, 2011; Katkus, 1997; Bu?kevi?iūt?, 2008; Drury, 2012; Bi?iulaitis, 2001; Lee Summers, 1991; Patrick, Fardo, 2009; Spencer, Pickett, 2010; Gupta, 2010 and other Lithuanian and foreign scientists (see Fig. 1).The different conceptions and their interpretations indicate that there is no solid opinion about how to define control, and even scientists and practicians themselves do not agree upon a unified definition or description of control or the conception of internal control and its interpretations. In scientific literature, different interpretations of control conceptions are usually related to different aspects of this conception, and their meaning in different situations may be defined in different ways depending on the situation and other external factors. According to A. Katkus (1997), C. Drury (2009), R. Bi?iulaitis (2001), D. R. Patrick, S. W. Fardo (2009), K. H. S. Pickett (2010), during a long-term period control is usually related to achieving the alreadysettled goals, their improvement and insurance. In other information sources (Dictionary of International Words, 2002; Sakalas, 2000; Bukeviiūt, 2008; Lee Summers, 1991) control is emphasized as a certain means of inspection which provides a possibility to regulate the planned and actual states and their performance. Despite these different opinions, control might be reasoned and revealed as a traditional function of any object of control, emphasized as one of the main self-defence means from the possible threats in the daily performance of an organization. There is also a more modern approach. For example, V. Navickas (2011) and P. Gupta (2010), presenting the concept of control, name it not only as one of the main factors that influence the organization’s performance and influences its management, but also as one of the assessment means of the taken decisions and achieved values. Such interpretation of the conception of control shows the main role of control. For example, R. Kanapickien? (2008) has analysed a big number of control definitions and says that only an effective and useful control should exist in an enterprise because each enterprise tries to implement its purposes and avoid the possible losses, i.e. mistakes and frauds. According to J.A. Pfister (2009), there are several types of control, and they can be grouped into strategic, management, and internal control. Thus, different researchers give different definitions of control, their descriptions have different goals, but different control definitions lead to numerous variations in the analysis of the conception of control. Thus, to create an effective control, the presence of its unified concept becomes a necessity and the basis for ensuring an effective control of the organization’s performance. The existence of different conceptions of control also indicates that there might be different types or kinds of control.2. The conception of internal controlHistorical development of internal control as individual enterprise system is not as broad as other management spheres in science directions. The definition of internal control was presented for the first time in 1949 by the American Institute of Certificated Accountants (AICPA). It defined internal control as a plan and other coordinated means and ways by the enterprise to keep safe its assets, check the covertness and reliability of data, to increase its effectiveness and to ensure the settled management politics. However, the presented definition of control concept has been constantly improved, and nowadays there is quite an extensive set of conceptions that indicates the system of internal control as one of the means of leadership to ensure safety of enterprise assets and its regular development. In 1992, the COSOmodelappeared; its analysis distinguished the concepts of risk and internal control. Nnow, the concept of internal control involved not only accounting mistakes and implementing means of their prevention, but also a modern attitude that might identify the spheres of control management and processes, and also a motivated development of their detailed analysis. The Worldwide known collapses of such companies as Enron, Worldcom, Ahold, Parmalat and others determined to issue in 2002 the Law of Sarbanes–Oxley in the USA, in which attention is focused on the effectiveness of the enterprise internal control system and its assessment. Such a significant law as that of Sarbanes–Oxley has dearly show that not only the internal control system must be concretized and clearly defined, but also the means of implementing the internal control system and assessing their effectiveness must be covered. The concept of internal control was further improved by such Lithuanian and foreign scientists as A.Сонин(2000), D. Robertson (1993), M.R. Simmons (1995), I. Toliatien? (2002), V. Lakis (2007), R. Biiulaitis (2001), J. Mackeviius (2001) and the international scientific organizations COSO, INTOSAI, CICA, IT Governance Institute.A comparative analysis of the introduced concepts of internal control shows that the usage of the concept of internal control is quite broad as it is supposed to involve the performance not only of the state, but also of the private sector. Although the conception of internal control is defined in different ways emphasizing its different aspects, the essential term still remains the same in all authors’ definitions: internal control is the inspection, observation, maintenance and regulation of the enterprise’s work (see Fig. 3.).It should be also be mentioned that the system of internal control may be defined in different ways every time. For example, R. T. Yeh and S. H. Yeh (2007) pay attention to the fact that usually such values as honesty, trust, respect, openness, skills, courage, economy, initiative, etc. are not pointed out, although they definitely can influence not only the understanding of the concept of internal control, but also its definition, because in different periods of time and in different situations it can obtain slightly different shades of meaning. Control and people, and values produced by people or their performance are tightly connected; consequently, internal control must be also oriented to the enterprise’s values, mission and vision; it does not matter how differently authors define the conception assessment limits: significant attention must be paid not to internal control itself, but to the identification of its functions andevaluation. Mostly internal control is concerned with authority management tools that help to control processes and achieve enterprise goals (COSO, 1992; Сонин, 2000; INTOSAI, 2004; CobiT, 2007; Toliatien?, 2002; Coco, 1995).C.J. Buck, J.B. Breuker (2008) declare internal control as a mistake detecting and correctingsystem; although J. Mackevi?ius (2001) and R. Bi?iulaitis (2001a) state that internal control is defined as a summation of certain rules, norms and means, actually such definitions are identical, but internal control must be related to safety, the rational use of property and the reliability of financial accounting.Results of a comprehensive analysis of internal control enable to state that, although different authors give different definitions of internal control, there are still some general purposes of the system of internal control, aimed, to ensure reliable and comprehensive information, to protect the property and documents, to enssure an effective economic performance, observation of accounting principles and presentation of reliable financial records, obeying laws and executive acts, enterprise rules and the effective control of risk. Analysis of concept of internal control, presented in both foreign and Lithuanian literature enables to formulate its generalized definition: the system of internal control is part of enterprise management system, which ensures the implementation of its goals, effective economic and commercial performance, observance of accounting principles and an effective control of risks, which enables to minimize the number of intentional and unintentional mistakes and to avoid frauds in the process of enterprise performance, made by its authority or employees.The internal control is an important symbol of modern enterprise management, through the practice of the conclusion is: to control is strong, weak, without control is controlled, disorderly. The new regulations "accounting law 27 units shall establish and perfect the system of supervision unit interior accountant. Unit interior accountant controls on the execution, the internal control is.The internal control is the formation of a series of measures to control functions, procedures, methods, and standardized and systematized, make it become a rigorous, relatively complete system. According to the control of the internal control can be divided into different purpose accounting control and management control. Accounting control and protection of assets is safe, the accounting information authenticity and integrity and financial activities related to the legitimacy of control, Management control means to ensure operation policy decision, implementation ofbusiness activities and promote the efficiency and effectiveness, and the effect of the relevant management to achieve the goals of control. Accounting control and management control and not mutually exclusive, incompatible, some control measures can be used for accounting control, and can also be used to control.The goal is to ensure that the internal control unit operations efficiency and effect, safety, economic information of assets and financial reports of reliability. Its main functions: one is to achieve target management policy and management, Second is the assets of safety protection unit is complete, prevent loss of assets, Three is to guarantee the business and financial accounting information authenticity and integrity. In addition, the legitimacy of the financial activities within the unit is the internal control goals.Good, although the internal control to achieve these goals, but whether the internal control design and operation, it is not how to eliminate its inherent limitations. This limitation must also be clear and prevention. Main show is: (1) the limited by cost benefit principle, (2) if the employee has different responsibility ignore control program, misjudgment, even the collusion, inside and outside, often cause in fraud internal control malfunction, (3) management personnel abuse, and to set up or Passover control of internal control ignored, also can make the establishment of internal control non-existing.The internal control system in a company must cover and help to properly organize and control the entire activity of the company; thus, according to majority of authors, internal control is all-inclusive activity in financial and management accounting, as well as in the strategic management of projects, operations, personneland the total quality management. However, the most important thing is that internal control should not only cover the entire activity of the company, but also take into account its objectives, goals and tasks in order to make its economic-commercial activity as effective as possible. Analysis of scientific literature in the field shows that it is important not only to predict the particular areas of internal control and interrelate them, but also to stress that the most important objective of internal control is the effective management of risk by identifying and eliminating errors and frauds inside the company. Therefore, the concept of internal control offered by the authors covers a company’s areas of activities, its tasks and objectives; also, it provides for the main goal – an effective risk management.Despite the quantitative indicators used for goal assessment, each enterprise and especially extractive industry enterprises where attention should be focused onavoiding mistakes and fraud should elaborate and introduce a really effective and optimal system of internal control and accounting so as to strengthen its position in the market and optimize profitability.ConclusionsThe analysis of control definitions has shown that rather wide variations of definitions and their interpretations prove control to be a wide concept, mainly due to the fact that control has quite many different aspects and its meaning in different situations may be also defined differently.Nevertheless, there are still some general aspects of the system of internal control, which include ensuring reliable and comprehensive information, protecting the property and documents, to ensure an effective economic performance, keeping to the principles of accounting and presenting reliable financial records, obeying laws and executive acts, enterprise rules and ensuring an effective control of risk.As a result of the study, the authors present an inclusive and generalizing definition of internal control: the system of internal control is part of the enterprise management system that ensures the implementation of the enterprise’s goals, its effect ive economic-commercial performance, observance of accounting principles and an effective control of work risks, which enables to minimize the number of intentional and unintentional mistakes, and to avoid frauds in the process of enterprise performance, made by its authority or employees.中文翻译：内部控制制度：理论研究拉基斯，卢卡斯维尔纽斯大学，立陶宛引言企业控制的基本工具之一，建立一个有效的内部控制制度，为现代经济条件下企业获得竞争优势提供了条件。
内部审计外文文献翻译
外文文献及原稿原稿IntroductionInt ernal a ud it ef fe ctive n e s s, t h e ext e nt t o whic h an inte r nal a udit offic e me e ts i ts ra ison d'êt re, i s a r guably a result o f the i n t e rpla y a mong four fa c tors: in t erna l audi tq uali t y; management support; or gani z at i onal sett i ng; and attributes of the audi t or.An i nt ern al audit func t ion's capabil i ty to provi de us eful a udi t findi ngs and re commendations w oul d help ra isemanagement'sintere s ti n it s re c omm e ndation s.T he m a na gementsupportw i thresourcesandc om mi t me nt to i mplement t heinternal a udi t reco m me nd ationsi s essenti a l in attainingaudit e ffec t ive ne s s.A l s o,the o rganizati o nals et ting i n w hi c h i ntern a laudit ope rat e s,i.e.t he or ga nizatio na ls t at us ofth eof fi ce,i t si nt erna lor ganizatio n andthepoli c ie s andpr oc edure s applyi ng t o eachaudi t o r, sho ul d enable smooth audi t s t ha t l ea d to reaching us e f ul a udi tfindings.Furth e r,thecapab i li t y,at t itudesandl e velofcoopera t ionoftheaudi t or i mpacton t heeffec t ive ne ss ofaud i ts.T herefore, internal audit ef fe ct i veness s houl d be vie w e d as a dynamicprocessthat is c ontinuously s ha ped by t h e interac t ions among t he fo ur factors me ntionedabove.Thi s s t udy e xami n ed,u singcasestudyan a lysis,t heint e rnala udi ts e rvic eof ala rgepublicsectororganization.Thepaperisstructuredasfollows.Thenextsectionpresents a review of the related literature; introduces a model for analyzingauditeffectiveness; and provides the research question. The third section presentstheresearch methodology; fourth section provides empirical analysis based on acasestudy; and fifth section presents a summary of the findings. The paperthensummarizes the conclusions, noting limitations of the study and suggesting avenuesfor futureresearch. InternalauditeffectivenessThe Instituteof Internal Auditors (IIA, 1999a) defined internal auditing as:an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add valueandimprove an organization's operations. It helps an organization accomplish itsobjectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improvetheeffectiveness of risk management, control, and governanceprocesses.This definition signifies that internal audit has undergone a paradigmshift froman emphasis on accountability about the past to improving future outcomes tohelpauditors operate more effectively and efficiently (Nagy and Canker, 2002; Stern,1994;Goodwin, 2004). Since, the definition equally serves both the private and thepublicsectors (Goodwin, 2004), it is used in this study as a basis to analyze publicsectorinternal auditeffectiveness.Internal audit is effective if it meets the intended outcome it is supposed tobringabout.Sawyer(1995)states,“…internalauditor'sjobisnotdoneuntildefectsarecorrecte d and remain corrected.”Van Hansberger (2005) explains that internalauditeffectiveness in the public sector should be evaluated by the extent to whichitcontributes to the demonstration of effective and efficient service delivery, asthisdrives the demand for improved internal audit services. Based on the results ofaconsultative forum that focused on improving public sector internal audit [1],VanHansberger (2005) identified perceptionsandownership; organizationandgovernance framework; legislation; improved professionalism; conceptualframework;and also resources as factors influencing internal audit effectiveness.Effectiveinternal audit undertakes an independent evaluation of financial andoperatinginformation and of systems and procedures, to provide useful recommendationsfor improvements asnecessary.The effectiveness of internal audit greatly contributes to the effectiveness ofeachauditor in particular andthe organization at large (Dittenhofer, 2001).Dittenhofer(2001) has also observed that if internal audit quality is maintained, it will contributeto the appropriateness of procedures and operations of the auditor, and therebyinternal audit contributes to effectiveness of the auditor and the organization asawhole. Using agency theory, Dingdong (1997) explained the role that internalauditplays in an economy and points out that internal audit has an advantage over externalauditin obtaining information quickly and finding problems at an earlier stage; and Sparkman (1997), applying the theory of transaction cost economics, demonstratedhow internal audit recommendations are important to the management ofgovernmentorganizations.Priorliteraturerelatingtointernalauditeffectivenesshaseitherfocusedontheinternal audit's ability to plan, execute and objectively communicate usefulfindings(Dingdong, 1997 Sparkman, 1997;Dittenhofer, 2001); or taken a broader viewandincluded factors that transcend the boundary of a single organization (VanHansberger,2005). This paper attempts to introduce a new perspective for evaluation of internalaudit effectiveness by identifying factors within an organization that impact onauditeffectiveness. A model, which assumes that there is a common interest to achieveorganizational goals for auditor management, top management and internal audit,isused for analysis of this case study. Since, audit effectiveness fosters theachievementof a common goal; there would be a natural incentive in an organization to improveit.The model considers four potential factors –internal audit quality,managementsupport, organizational setting, and auditor attributes to explain audit effectiveness,and shows how the interaction of these factors improves audit effectiveness.Internal audit quality, which is determined by the internal audit department'scapability to provide useful findings and recommendations, is central toauditeffectiveness. Internal audit has to prove that it is of value to the organization and earna reputation in the organization (Sawyer, 1995). Internal audit has to evaluateitsperformance and continually improve its service .audit quality is a function ofthelevelofstaffexpertise,thescopeofservicesprovidedandtheextenttowhichaudits areprope rlyplanned,executedandcommunicated.Audit findings and recommendations would not serve much purposeunlessmanagement is committed to implement them. Adams (1994) used agency theorytoexplain that it is in the interest of management to maintain a strong internalauditdepartment. Implementation of audit recommendations is highly relevant toauditeffectiveness (Van Hansberger, 2005) and the management of an organization isviewed as the customer receiving internal audit services. As a result,management'scommitment to useaudit recommendations and its support in strengthening internalauditis vital to audit effectiveness (Sawyer,1995).Organizational setting refers to the organizational profile, internal organizationand budgetary status of the internal audit office; and also the organizationalpoliciesand procedures that guide operation of auditors. It provides the context inwhichinternal audit operates. Thus, organizational setting can exert influence on the levelofeffectiveness that internal audit could achieve. The auditor attributes relate tothecapability of the auditor to meet its intended objectives. Auditor attributeswithimplications on audit effectiveness include the auditors' proficiency to efficientlyandeffectively meet organizational sub-goals; their attitude towards internal audit; andthelevel of cooperation provided to the auditor .Since, the four factors discussed aboveare intricately linked, audit effectiveness is a dynamic process that results fromtheeffect of each factor and the interplay among all. audit quality andmanagementsupport strongly affects audit effectiveness. Better audit effectiveness, in turn, hasapositivebearingonthesetwofactors.Ifinternalaudit enhancesqualitytotheextent itelicits management's interest, management support would be a natural quid proquobecause the management would realize the contribution of internal audit totheachievement of organizational goals. This would positively reflecton auditqualityand enhance audit effectiveness. The management's commitment to implementauditrecommendations improves the operation of the auditor, as a result of whichtheauditor attributes would improve to the benefit of audit effectiveness.Further,management retains the authority to improve the organizational setting andinfluencethe auditor towards a positive effect on audit effectiveness, whichin turn,benefitsauditquality.ConcludingcommentsThis study investigated the internal audit service of a large public sectorhighereducational institution, to identify factors influencing internal audit effectiveness,using a model developed for the analysis. The model consisted of fourinterrelatedfactors: internal audit quality; management support; the organizational setting;andattributes of theauditors.The findings of the study reveal that the internal audit office of theorganizationstudied needs to enhance the technical proficiency of the internal audit staffandminimizestaff turnover so as to foster audit effectiveness. The organizational statusand internal organization of the internal audit office are fairly rated, butinternalaudit'slackofauthorityonbudgetsreducesitscontrolofresourceacquisitionandutil ization.The scope of internal audit services is limited to regular activities. Extendingthescopeofservicesbywideningtherangeofsystemsandactivitiesaudited,withappropr iateriskanalysis,wouldimprove auditeffectiveness. Management'scommitment in providing greater attention to internalaudit recommendations andstaffingtheofficewithwell-qualifiedemployeesdeservesattentioninthisstudy.Theinternalauditors,undertheimpressionthat theirreportsarenotsufficientlyutilizedbythe management, may not be encouraged to exert the maximum possible effort in their engagements. In addition, the lack of attention by management may send awrongsignal about the importance of internal audit services to the audited, which in turnadversely affects the auditedattributes.The study has shown that internal audit of the organization studiedneedsimprovement in the areas of audit planning, documentation of audit work,auditcommunications and follow-up of recommendations. Audit effectiveness couldbeenhanced by ensuring consistency in documenting audit work to enableimprovedreview of audit work; proper follow-up of the status of audit findingsandrecommendations; increased distribution of audit reports; and further improvementinthe quality ofreporting.The limitation of this study is readily apparent. As in all case studies,thegeneralisabilityof the findings and the conclusions drawn is limited, althoughthestudy does provide evidence of the problems internal auditors face in providinganeffective service to management. Further, research could be welcome tofullyunderstand the level of internal audit effectiveness in the Ethiopian public sectorvis-à-vis its private sector, with a view to highlighting differences, if any,andconclusively defining the variables affecting internal audit effectiveness inEthiopia.译文简介内部审计的有效性，在何种程度上满足了内部审计处其存在的理由，可以说是一个四因素之间的相互作用的结果：内部审计质量，管理支持，组织设臵，以及受审核方属性。
公司治理外文文献及翻译 精品
附录A公司治理与高管薪酬：一个应急框架总体概述通过整合组织和体制的理论，本文开发了一个高管薪酬的应急办法和它在不同的组织和体制环境下的影响。
高管薪酬的研究大都集中在委托代理框架上，并承担一种行政奖励和业绩成果之间的关系。
我们提出了一个框架，审查了其组织的背景和潜在的互补性方面的行政补偿和不同的公司治理在不同的企业和国家水平上体现的替代效应。
我们还讨论了执行不同补偿政策方法的影响，像“软法律”和“硬法律”。
在过去的20年里，世界上越来越多的公司从一个固定的薪酬结构转变为与业绩相联系的薪酬结构，包括很大一部分的股权激励。
因此，高管补偿的经济影响的研究已经成为公司治理内部激烈争论的一个话题。
正如Bruce，Buck，和Main指出，“近年来，关于高管报酬的文献的增长速度可以与高管报酬增长本身相匹敌。
”关于高管补偿的大多数实证文献主要集中在对美国和英国的公司部门，当分析高管薪酬的不同组成部分产生的组织结果的时候。
根据理论基础，早期的研究曾试图了解在代理理论方面的高管补偿和在不同形式的激励和公司业绩方面的探索链接。
这个文献假设，股东和经理人之间的委托代理关系被激发，公司将更有效率的运作，表现得更好。
公司治理的研究大多是基于通用模型——委托代理理论的概述，以及这一框架的核心前提是，股东和管理人员有不同的方法来了解公司的具体信息和广泛的利益分歧以及风险偏好。
因此，经理作为股东的代理人可以从事对自己有利的行为而损害股东财富的最大化。
大量的文献是基于这种直接的前提和建议来约束经理的机会主义行为，股东可以使用不同的公司治理机制，包括各种以股票为基础的奖励可以统一委托人和代理人的利益。
正如Jensen 和Murphy观察，“代理理论预测补偿政策将会以满足代理人的期望效用为主要目标。
股东的目标是使财富最大化；因此代理成本理论指出，总裁的薪酬政策将取决于股东财富的变化。
”影响积极组织结果的主要指标是付费业绩敏感性，但是这种“封闭系统”法主要是在英美的代理基础文献中找到，假定经理人激励与绩效之间存在普遍的联系，很少的关注在公司被嵌入的不同背景。
内部审计的英文文献
1及审计方案外，并未就审计目标如何达成作出说明。
如何管理审计并监督审计团队？哪些常见的手段是内外部审计项目中都会用到的？这些问题在内部审计师协会（IIA）和新西兰社会会计师公会的准则中都只是一带而过。
专业学术理论同样的，一些专业性学术理论文献资料也未就以上问题给出详细的解答，同时并未提及审计监督中的实证证据。
据现有文献了解到，已经有几项关于审计规划与调度方面研究。
Kearns 和Myott也讨论到关于在整体行政管理的审计环节中作业控制号、作业控制日志的使用。
就目前而言，还未出现定位在具体的审计项目监督技术方面的课题研究。
Defji在一片关于审计业务约定的有效性管理的简短的专题论文中，借鉴了国际审计准则3号文件，明确指出了一些应适用于所有有效且高效审计工作的质量控制程序。
这些程序包括：规定工作文件的形式与内容、审计方案的建设与使用、关于内部控制的调查问卷和流程图的使用以及一些法定要求披露的会计准则中指出的清单。
Willson和Root在他们的文献中推荐使用一定数量的审计管理工具和技术。
这些技术包括：审计手册，问卷和清单，任务授权形式，项目预算，项目报告，审计方案和项目控制质量综述。
Ratliff等人讨论出十二个审计管理辅助项目，包括：工作授权形式、审计清单、审计员分配形式和分配板、工作时间控制表、工作论文指标、审计方案、会议议程、工作文件、工作文件审查表、总结发现、报告审查签收表、并报告释放控制片。
Bacsik和Rizzo鼓励及时审查审计工作底稿，提出了“审查控制表”来确定每个审查员的责任区并监测公开审查的范围。
作者进一步提出了“公开项目清单”，以监测那些尚未解决的审计问题。
然而，这些资料中并没有提供一个可以囊括所有应予以审计监督项目的连贯的结构。
他们不仅没有就具体使用什么技术可以得出一些实证证据作出解释，而且实际上没有提供一些用于内外部审计的技术方面的相关建议。
另外，也没有任何关于如何制定出完整的审计工作表的建议。
内部审计_外文文献翻译
内部审计外文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SPPIAAbdulrahman A. M. Al-Twaijry, John A. Brierley and David R. Gwilliam* Internal Audit Research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。
公司内部治理与内部审计外文文献翻译2014年译文3722字
文献出处：Gramling A, Maletta M. Corporate Internal Governance and Role of Internal Audit [J]. Journal of Accounting Literature, 2014, 23(1): 194-244.（声明：本译文归百度文库所有，完整译文请到百度文库。
）原文Corporate Internal Governance and Role of Internal AuditGramling A, Maletta M.AbstractIn the recent years, a series of events of corporate governance failure have caused the rethought on corporate governance .In many countries, laws, governments and associations start to focus on the internal governance of corporate, corporate governance shows a trend of internalization. But, it still doesn't form the common sense about the core of the internal governance of corporate and the role of internal audit in the internal governance. This article argues that the core of the internal governance of corporate is risk management and internal control; internal audit plays an active role of supervisor and enabler in internal corporate governance framework by its independence and competence.Keywords: Internal governance；Risk management；Internal control；Internal audit 1 IntroductionWorldwide in recent years a large number of organizations failures occur (such as accounting fraud, bankruptcy, etc.), from the United States of Enron, Enron, WorldCom (WorldCom) to domestic silver metal, ST events such as the dawn, the quality of corporate governance has been questioned, changes in the environment is put forward to strengthen the corporate governance requirements. This kind of failure, especially the accounting fraud, prove that the company's internal governance, such as the board's lack of independence, the poor quality of the audit committee and internal audit function absence) can lead to problems (Abbott, 2000; Beasley, 2000).Legal environment increased the responsibilities of the directors and senior management of listed companies, Securities Class Action according to Stanford law school institute (Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse) studies have shown that the number of Securities Class Action increased significantly, especially in the 2001years later, this change reflects the company directors face greater legal risks. Promulgated in 2002, the United States of SOX act: chief executive and chief financial officer of financial report must be submitted to the SEC's legitimacy and to ensure fair expression, in violation of regulations will be fined or sentenced to prison. Many groups also made an urgent appeal for improved corporate governance, Tread way commission of sponsors, namely in 1992, the COSO committee released the report related to corporate governance, Internal Control overall Framework (Internal Control - Integrated Framework), in 2004, and put forward related to corporate governance report - the Risk Management Framework (Enterprise Risk Management - Integrated Framework), intended to develop applicable Risk Management Framework for the Management and directors.The changes in the environment is put forward to strengthen the corporate governance requirements, in order to make more reasonable and effective corporate governance, the focus of corporate governance have started to change from country to country, and presents a trend of the internalization of corporate governance, and the trend of the internalization of present a mandatory change, all countries through the form of laws and regulations on driving the rapid development of the company's internal governance. The core of company governance is risk management and internal control, each subject both for-profit and nonprofit; purpose is to provide value for its stakeholders. All subjects faced with uncertainty, the uncertainty hidden damage to the value or increase, both risks is represented at the chance. Enterprise risk management and internal control the management authorities to effectively deal with uncertainty and associated risk and opportunity, thus improve the body's ability to create value.Corporate internal governance efficiency needs to be within the company set up a complete organizational structure, internal management in the internal governance structure of the board of directors and the professional committee, is the company's internal governance policy makers and consignor, management is the executor of the internal corporate governance and the consignee, internal audit organization and internal auditors because of its special properties on the organization (independence)and personnel's professional competence, determines the internal audit in the internal governance of listed companies plays an important "monitor" and "promote" leading role. The risk of internal audit through direct monitoring and confirm to other internal and external governance and internal control related subject conveying information about risk management and internal control, in the company's internal governance plays an irreplaceable role in promoting the guide.2 The new trend of corporate governance: the trend of internalizationCorporate governance includes internal governance and external governance. External governance elements including product market, manager market, and capital market, financial market and control the market. Internal governance includes the shareholders meeting, board of directors and the professional committee and board of supervisors, management, etc., in practice due to the country's political, economic and cultural development trajectory, the corporate governance mode is not exactly the same, the us and the UK model is given priority to with external corporate governance mechanism, weak internal governance; German and Japanese mode is given priority to with internal corporate governance mechanism, external governance is weak. Lin think external governance mechanism to standardize the operation of the company plays a more important role, compared with the market competition mechanism, the company's internal governance structure is the external governance mechanism on the basis of the derived system arrangement, plays a supplement of external governance and protect the interests of the related interest subjects. Worldwide in recent years a large number of corporate governance failure cases, such as Enron, Enron, World com (World com) and so on, also resulted in the changes of the trend of corporate governance, corporate governance presents the trend of internalization, countries all over the world paid attention to the construction of the company's internal governance mechanism, the SOX act in 2002 is undoubtedly further promoted the process of the internalization of corporate governance.2.1 Audit committee system further attention and deepenBefore the Enron, the audit committee system has gained the attention of the countries in the west. In 1992 famous British Cadbury report; Canada MACDONALD,a report released in 1988; Australian company practice and operation working group published in 1990, according to a report in every company should set up the audit committee; in 1992 the board of directors of the New Zealand practice draft guidelines also suggest to set up the audit committee. After Enron event, the United States in 2002 issued the SOX act with particular emphasis on the role of the audit committee in corporate governance, on the composition of the audit committee, independence, accountability, economic source are made clear rules, the law regulation: did not establish internal audit of the company, must set up internal audit committee, and there is no "real" relationship with company's independent directors, from the legal safeguard the implementation of the audit committee in corporate governance role. Independent audit committees established is under the board, and the independence of the audit committee, authority and financial expertise to emphasize. Require commercial Banks to set up the audit committee, the audit committee is head of the independent directors, and the duties of the audit committee to the rules. To set up an independent director of the audit committee, remuneration and appraisal committee and give full play to its role. Each country to the attention of the audit committee and the deepening of the audit committee responsibilities and authorities, reflect the supervision department of the audit committee in improve the quality of financial reporting and ensure that the CPA independence and prevent the failure of corporate governance in corporate governance activities, such as legal action to evadea good forecast.2.2 The independent director system to speed up the pace of globalizationAlthough the independent director system originated in the United States, but since the 1980 s the independent director system to the global expansion and transplantation, a process which peaked in the late 90 s and the beginning of this century. The British in 1991, 1995 and 1998, respectively, Cadbury report, Granbury report and the joint principles: principles of good corporate governance and best code of conduct "published in 1999, France the Vienna report, Canada in the report, released in 1994 and 1997.After Enron, in 2002, the New York stock exchange and NASDQ Suggestions to consummate the two exchanges and reform scheme ofindependent director system, request to increase the number of independent directors, independent directors in the board of directors of the listed company must be majority; And strengthen the requirement of "independence", and requires independent directors to the listed company and shareholders or managers of listed companies related organization relationship in no major, requires public companies to set up all the governance committee composed of independent directors, the compensation committee and audit committee, etc. In 2002, congress passed the SOX act on reform of the accounting and corporate governance, regulations, the securities and exchange commission has sacked for corporate directors, can temporarily or permanently banned problem into the listed company directors, audit committee composed of independent directors and all upgraded to statutory bodies, the audit committee is not controlled by shareholders or management. From various countries in the world can be seen in the development of the independent director system, increasing the proportion of independent directors of board of directors, independent director function area expands unceasingly, in the audit, remuneration and nomination or governance committee are gradually increased the independence requirements, and give more authority, and responsibility. Independent director is gradually to a formal assessment of CEO and board of directors, dominated by independent director evaluation procedure and conclusion. Improved significantly with legal status of independent directors, independent director’s responsibility deepening embodied the important position of the independent director system in corporate governance.3 The core of the company's internal governance: risk management and internal controlPresents the trend of the internalization of corporate governance is the indisputable fact that, but what is the core of the internal corporate governance and no consensus .It is thought that the main purpose of the corporate governance is to protect the interests of investors, ensure that can get enough return, so as to arouse the enthusiasm of its investment. This view more popular in British and American countries. Company also has the view that, in addition to the investors and other stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers and communities, where ourcompany is located is the purpose of corporate governance in the process of company's business goal, should seek a balance between the interests in the company or the coordination. This view is popular in the European continent; And view, the core of corporate governance is to deal with the relationship between the enterprise owners and professional managers.On the basis of deepening the reform of property right system perfect incentive constraint mechanism for managers, in order to achieve effective incentive and restraint managers' behavior; also has a view also have thought, the board of directors is the core of corporate governance, the board of directors in corporate governance structure, like in the role of principal-agent. For the shareholders meeting, board of directors is the company's major decision agents, but for senior management, board of directors and the implementation plan of the principal major policy decisions. This hub of principal-agent relationship roles, the board of directors decides the issue of the board of directors is the kernel of corporate governance.Before two views will be to achieve the purpose of corporate governance as the core of corporate governance;The third kind of view will be the object of corporate governance as the core of corporate governance; The last view will be corporate governance as the control core of a subject. These views do not reveal the true core of the company's internal governance, international federation of accountants (IFAC) business committee council (PAIB) and the chartered institute of management accountants (CIMA), puts forward the corporate governance (Enterprise governance) and management (Easiness governance) the corporate governance structure of the new combination. Left part of the show the main body and core of the company internal governance, including the chairman and CEO/CFO, independent directors, audit committee, remuneration committee, and internal audit is internal governance body, and the risk management and internal control is the core of internal governance. The traditional corporate governance focuses on the relationship of each part in the governance structure and governance of checks and balances and target, but did not reveal the key of the corporate governance, risk management and control. In fact, each subject, both for-profit and nonprofit, or government agencies, its purpose is to provide value forshareholdersAll subjects faced with uncertainty, the uncertainty hidden damage to the value or increase, both risks is represented at the chance. Enterprise risk management and internal control the management authorities to effectively deal with uncertainty and associated risk and opportunity, thus improve the body's ability to create value. At the same time, risk management and internal control in a joint as a Corporate governance (Corporate governance) core at the same time, and through the strategic risk management and internal control on the strategic process for effective supervision Over - sight to reach the company's management (Business governance), effective use of resources, create value. In the new concept of corporate governance, risk management and internal control is the management performance of entrusted economic responsibility and the effective use of resources to create value, risk management and internal control have become the key and core problems of corporate governance.译文公司内部治理与内部审计作者：格拉姆林；玛勒塔摘要近年来一系列公司治理失败案件引发了人们对公司治理的重新审视，社会团体都呼吁增强公司内部治理, 公司治理呈现出内部化的趋势。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
文献出处：Gramling A, Maletta M. Corporate Internal Governance and Role of Internal Audit [J]. Journal of Accounting Literature, 2014, 23(1): 194-244.（声明：本译文归百度文库所有，完整译文请到百度文库。
）原文Corporate Internal Governance and Role of Internal AuditGramling A, Maletta M.AbstractIn the recent years, a series of events of corporate governance failure have caused the rethought on corporate governance .In many countries, laws, governments and associations start to focus on the internal governance of corporate, corporate governance shows a trend of internalization. But, it still doesn't form the common sense about the core of the internal governance of corporate and the role of internal audit in the internal governance. This article argues that the core of the internal governance of corporate is risk management and internal control; internal audit plays an active role of supervisor and enabler in internal corporate governance framework by its independence and competence.Keywords: Internal governance；Risk management；Internal control；Internal audit 1 IntroductionWorldwide in recent years a large number of organizations failures occur (such as accounting fraud, bankruptcy, etc.), from the United States of Enron, Enron, WorldCom (WorldCom) to domestic silver metal, ST events such as the dawn, the quality of corporate governance has been questioned, changes in the environment is put forward to strengthen the corporate governance requirements. This kind of failure, especially the accounting fraud, prove that the company's internal governance, such as the board's lack of independence, the poor quality of the audit committee and internal audit function absence) can lead to problems (Abbott, 2000; Beasley, 2000).Legal environment increased the responsibilities of the directors and senior management of listed companies, Securities Class Action according to Stanford law school institute (Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse) studies have shown that the number of Securities Class Action increased significantly, especially in the 2001years later, this change reflects the company directors face greater legal risks. Promulgated in 2002, the United States of SOX act: chief executive and chief financial officer of financial report must be submitted to the SEC's legitimacy and to ensure fair expression, in violation of regulations will be fined or sentenced to prison. Many groups also made an urgent appeal for improved corporate governance, Tread way commission of sponsors, namely in 1992, the COSO committee released the report related to corporate governance, Internal Control overall Framework (Internal Control - Integrated Framework), in 2004, and put forward related to corporate governance report - the Risk Management Framework (Enterprise Risk Management - Integrated Framework), intended to develop applicable Risk Management Framework for the Management and directors.The changes in the environment is put forward to strengthen the corporate governance requirements, in order to make more reasonable and effective corporate governance, the focus of corporate governance have started to change from country to country, and presents a trend of the internalization of corporate governance, and the trend of the internalization of present a mandatory change, all countries through the form of laws and regulations on driving the rapid development of the company's internal governance. The core of company governance is risk management and internal control, each subject both for-profit and nonprofit; purpose is to provide value for its stakeholders. All subjects faced with uncertainty, the uncertainty hidden damage to the value or increase, both risks is represented at the chance. Enterprise risk management and internal control the management authorities to effectively deal with uncertainty and associated risk and opportunity, thus improve the body's ability to create value.Corporate internal governance efficiency needs to be within the company set up a complete organizational structure, internal management in the internal governance structure of the board of directors and the professional committee, is the company's internal governance policy makers and consignor, management is the executor of the internal corporate governance and the consignee, internal audit organization and internal auditors because of its special properties on the organization (independence)and personnel's professional competence, determines the internal audit in the internal governance of listed companies plays an important "monitor" and "promote" leading role. The risk of internal audit through direct monitoring and confirm to other internal and external governance and internal control related subject conveying information about risk management and internal control, in the company's internal governance plays an irreplaceable role in promoting the guide.2 The new trend of corporate governance: the trend of internalizationCorporate governance includes internal governance and external governance. External governance elements including product market, manager market, and capital market, financial market and control the market. Internal governance includes the shareholders meeting, board of directors and the professional committee and board of supervisors, management, etc., in practice due to the country's political, economic and cultural development trajectory, the corporate governance mode is not exactly the same, the us and the UK model is given priority to with external corporate governance mechanism, weak internal governance; German and Japanese mode is given priority to with internal corporate governance mechanism, external governance is weak. Lin think external governance mechanism to standardize the operation of the company plays a more important role, compared with the market competition mechanism, the company's internal governance structure is the external governance mechanism on the basis of the derived system arrangement, plays a supplement of external governance and protect the interests of the related interest subjects. Worldwide in recent years a large number of corporate governance failure cases, such as Enron, Enron, World com (World com) and so on, also resulted in the changes of the trend of corporate governance, corporate governance presents the trend of internalization, countries all over the world paid attention to the construction of the company's internal governance mechanism, the SOX act in 2002 is undoubtedly further promoted the process of the internalization of corporate governance.2.1 Audit committee system further attention and deepenBefore the Enron, the audit committee system has gained the attention of the countries in the west. In 1992 famous British Cadbury report; Canada MACDONALD,a report released in 1988; Australian company practice and operation working group published in 1990, according to a report in every company should set up the audit committee; in 1992 the board of directors of the New Zealand practice draft guidelines also suggest to set up the audit committee. After Enron event, the United States in 2002 issued the SOX act with particular emphasis on the role of the audit committee in corporate governance, on the composition of the audit committee, independence, accountability, economic source are made clear rules, the law regulation: did not establish internal audit of the company, must set up internal audit committee, and there is no "real" relationship with company's independent directors, from the legal safeguard the implementation of the audit committee in corporate governance role. Independent audit committees established is under the board, and the independence of the audit committee, authority and financial expertise to emphasize. Require commercial Banks to set up the audit committee, the audit committee is head of the independent directors, and the duties of the audit committee to the rules. To set up an independent director of the audit committee, remuneration and appraisal committee and give full play to its role. Each country to the attention of the audit committee and the deepening of the audit committee responsibilities and authorities, reflect the supervision department of the audit committee in improve the quality of financial reporting and ensure that the CPA independence and prevent the failure of corporate governance in corporate governance activities, such as legal action to evadea good forecast.2.2 The independent director system to speed up the pace of globalizationAlthough the independent director system originated in the United States, but since the 1980 s the independent director system to the global expansion and transplantation, a process which peaked in the late 90 s and the beginning of this century. The British in 1991, 1995 and 1998, respectively, Cadbury report, Granbury report and the joint principles: principles of good corporate governance and best code of conduct "published in 1999, France the Vienna report, Canada in the report, released in 1994 and 1997.After Enron, in 2002, the New York stock exchange and NASDQ Suggestions to consummate the two exchanges and reform scheme ofindependent director system, request to increase the number of independent directors, independent directors in the board of directors of the listed company must be majority; And strengthen the requirement of "independence", and requires independent directors to the listed company and shareholders or managers of listed companies related organization relationship in no major, requires public companies to set up all the governance committee composed of independent directors, the compensation committee and audit committee, etc. In 2002, congress passed the SOX act on reform of the accounting and corporate governance, regulations, the securities and exchange commission has sacked for corporate directors, can temporarily or permanently banned problem into the listed company directors, audit committee composed of independent directors and all upgraded to statutory bodies, the audit committee is not controlled by shareholders or management. From various countries in the world can be seen in the development of the independent director system, increasing the proportion of independent directors of board of directors, independent director function area expands unceasingly, in the audit, remuneration and nomination or governance committee are gradually increased the independence requirements, and give more authority, and responsibility. Independent director is gradually to a formal assessment of CEO and board of directors, dominated by independent director evaluation procedure and conclusion. Improved significantly with legal status of independent directors, independent director’s responsibility deepening embodied the important position of the independent director system in corporate governance.3 The core of the company's internal governance: risk management and internal controlPresents the trend of the internalization of corporate governance is the indisputable fact that, but what is the core of the internal corporate governance and no consensus .It is thought that the main purpose of the corporate governance is to protect the interests of investors, ensure that can get enough return, so as to arouse the enthusiasm of its investment. This view more popular in British and American countries. Company also has the view that, in addition to the investors and other stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers and communities, where ourcompany is located is the purpose of corporate governance in the process of company's business goal, should seek a balance between the interests in the company or the coordination. This view is popular in the European continent; And view, the core of corporate governance is to deal with the relationship between the enterprise owners and professional managers.On the basis of deepening the reform of property right system perfect incentive constraint mechanism for managers, in order to achieve effective incentive and restraint managers' behavior; also has a view also have thought, the board of directors is the core of corporate governance, the board of directors in corporate governance structure, like in the role of principal-agent. For the shareholders meeting, board of directors is the company's major decision agents, but for senior management, board of directors and the implementation plan of the principal major policy decisions. This hub of principal-agent relationship roles, the board of directors decides the issue of the board of directors is the kernel of corporate governance.Before two views will be to achieve the purpose of corporate governance as the core of corporate governance;The third kind of view will be the object of corporate governance as the core of corporate governance; The last view will be corporate governance as the control core of a subject. These views do not reveal the true core of the company's internal governance, international federation of accountants (IFAC) business committee council (PAIB) and the chartered institute of management accountants (CIMA), puts forward the corporate governance (Enterprise governance) and management (Easiness governance) the corporate governance structure of the new combination. Left part of the show the main body and core of the company internal governance, including the chairman and CEO/CFO, independent directors, audit committee, remuneration committee, and internal audit is internal governance body, and the risk management and internal control is the core of internal governance. The traditional corporate governance focuses on the relationship of each part in the governance structure and governance of checks and balances and target, but did not reveal the key of the corporate governance, risk management and control. In fact, each subject, both for-profit and nonprofit, or government agencies, its purpose is to provide value forshareholdersAll subjects faced with uncertainty, the uncertainty hidden damage to the value or increase, both risks is represented at the chance. Enterprise risk management and internal control the management authorities to effectively deal with uncertainty and associated risk and opportunity, thus improve the body's ability to create value. At the same time, risk management and internal control in a joint as a Corporate governance (Corporate governance) core at the same time, and through the strategic risk management and internal control on the strategic process for effective supervision Over - sight to reach the company's management (Business governance), effective use of resources, create value. In the new concept of corporate governance, risk management and internal control is the management performance of entrusted economic responsibility and the effective use of resources to create value, risk management and internal control have become the key and core problems of corporate governance.译文公司内部治理与内部审计作者：格拉姆林；玛勒塔摘要近年来一系列公司治理失败案件引发了人们对公司治理的重新审视，社会团体都呼吁增强公司内部治理, 公司治理呈现出内部化的趋势。