审计风险外文文献

盛年不重来，一日难再晨。及时宜自勉，岁月不待人。

Independent audit risk analysis and preventive measures Abstract

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

In the US, Albrecht et al.(1988)studied the roles and benefits of the internal audit function and developed a framework for the purpose of evaluating internal audit effectiveness. They found that there were four areas that the directors of internal audit departments could develop to enhance effectiveness: an appropriate corporate environment, top management support, high quality internal audit staff and high quality internal audit work. The authors stressed that management and auditors should recognize the internal audit function as a value-adding function to the organization. In the UK, Ridley and D’Silva (1997) identified the importance of complying with professional standards as the most important contributor to the internal audit function adding value.

Key words

Audit,Risk, Internal Control, Auditing

Compliance with SPPIA

A number of studies have focused on the SPPIA standard concerned with independence.Clark et al.(1981) found that the independence of the internal audit department and the level of authority to which internal audit staff report were the two most important criteria influencing the objectivity of their work. Plumlee (1985) focused on potential threats to internal auditor objectivity,

particularly whether participation in the design of an internal control system influenced judgements as to the quality and effectiveness of that system. Plumlee found that such design involvement produced bias that could ultimately threaten objectivity.

The relationship between the internal audit function and company management more generally is clearly an important factor in determining internal auditor objectivity. Harrell et al. (1989) suggested that perceptions of the views and desires of management could influence the activities and judgement of internal auditors. Also, they found that internal auditors who were members of the IIA were less likely to succumb to such pressure.Ponemon (1991) examined the question of whether or not internal auditors will report sensitive issues uncovered during the course of their work. He concluded that the three factors affecting internal auditor objectivity were their social position in the organization, their relationship with management and the existence of a communication channel to report wrongdoing.

The independence of internal audit departments

Commentators and standard setters identify independence as being a key attribute of the internal audit department. From the questionnaire responses 60 (77%) of the internal audit departments stated that there was a written document defining the purpose, authority and responsibility of the department. In nearly all instances where there was such a document the terms of reference of the internal audit department had been agreed by senior management (93%), the document identified the role of the internal audit department in the organization, and its rights of access to individuals, records and assets (97%), and the document set out the scope of internal auditing (90%). Respondents were asked to assess the extent to which the relevant document was consistent with the specific requirements of SPPIA. In those departments where such a document existed 27 (45%) claimed full compliance with SPPIA, 23 (38%) considered their document to be partially consistent with SPPIA. In more than one-third of the departments surveyed either no such document existed (n=18,