外文翻译--如何监测内部控制
内部控制外文翻译资料
Internal management, establish a sound internal control system, enterprises and the needs for enterprises to face market risks and challenges. Only in accordance with the actual situation of their own, developed to meet the needs of internal management control system, and strictly follow the implementation can be sustained, steady and healthy development.内部管理，建立健全内部控制制度，企业和企业面临的市场风险和挑战的需要。
只有按照自己的实际情况，开发出满足内部管理控制系统的需求，并严格遵照执行能够持续，稳定和健康的发展。
The so-called internal control, the means by the enterprises board of directors, managers and other staff implementation, in order to ensure the reliability of financial reporting, operating efficiency and effectiveness of existing laws and regulations to follow, and so provide reasonable assurance that the purpose of the course. Internal controls related to enterprise production and management of the control environment, risk assessment, supervision and decision-making, information and transfer and self-examination, from a business perspective on the whole in all aspects of production. Their effective implementation will undoubtedly promote enterprise production and management to a new level, to promote the rationalization of business processes and standardization.所谓内部控制，董事会的企业董事会，经理和其他员工实施的，为保证财务报告的可靠性，现有的法律法规，经营的效率和效果跟踪，并提供合理的保证，本课程的教学目的。
会计内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献
会计内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)内部控制透视：理论与概念摘要：内部控制是会计程序或控制系统，旨在促进效率或保证一个执行政策或保护资产或避免欺诈和错误。
内部是一个组织管理的重要组成部分。
它包括计划、方法和程序使用，以满足任务，目标和目的，并在这样做，支持基于业绩的管理。
内部控制是管理阶层的平等与控制可以帮助管理者实现资源的预期的有效管理的结果通过。
内部控制应减少或违规错误的风险关联未被发现的，但设计和建立有效的内部控制不是一个简单的任务，不可能是一个实现通过快速修复短套。
在此讨论了内部文件的概念的不同方面的内部控制和管制。
关键词：内部控制，管理控制，控制环境，控制活动，监督1、介绍环境需要新的业务控制变量不为任何潜在的股东和管理人士的响应因子为1，另外应执行/她组织了一个很大的控制权。
控制是管理活动的东西或以上施加控制。
思想的产生和近十年的发展需要有系统的商业资源和控制这种财富一个新的关注。
主题之一热一回合管制的商业资源是分析每个控制成本效益。
作为内部控制和欺诈的第一道防线，维护资产以及预防和侦查错误。
内部控制，我们可以说是一种控制整个系统的财务和其他方面的管理制定了为企业的顺利运行;它包括内部的脸颊，内部审计和其他形式的控制。
COSO的内部控制描述如下。
内部控制是一个客观的方法用来帮助确保实现。
在会计和组织理论，内部控制是指或目标目标的过程实施由组织的结构，工作和权力流动，人员和具体的管理信息系统，旨在帮助组织实现。
这是一种手段，其中一个组织的资源被定向，监控和测量。
它发挥着无形的（重要的作用，预防和侦查欺诈和保护组织的资源，包括生理（如，机械和财产）和乙二醇，声誉或知识产权，如商标）。
在组织水平，内部控制目标与可靠性的目标或战略的财务报告，及时反馈业务上的成就，并遵守法律，法规。
在具体的交易水平，内部控制是指第三方采取行动以实现一个具体目标（例如，如何确保本组织的款项，在申请服务提供有效的。
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。
内部控制外文文献及翻译
中文4500字本科生毕业设计（论文）外文原文及译文所在系管理系学生姓名郭淼专业会计学班级学号指导教师2013年6月外文文献原文及译文Internal ControlEmergence and development of the theory of the evolution of the internal controlInternal control in Western countries have a long history of development, according to the internal control characteristics at different stages of development, the development of internal control can be divided into four stages, namely the internal containment phase, the internal control system phase, the internal control structure phase, overall internal control framework stage.Internal check stages: infancy internal controlBefore the 1940s, people used to use the concept of internal check. This is the embryonic stage of internal control. "Keshi Accounting Dictionary" definition of internal check is "to provide effective organization and mode of operation, business process design errors and prevent illegal activities occur. Whose main characteristic is any individual or department alone can not control any part of one or the right way to conduct business on the division of responsibility for the organization, each business through the normal functioning of other individuals or departments for cross-examination or cross-control. designing effective internal check to ensure that all businesses can complete correctly after a specified handler in the process of these provisions, the internal containment function is always an integral part. "The late 1940s, the internal containment theory become important management methods and concepts. Internal check on a "troubleshooting a variety of measures" for the purpose of separation of duties and account reconciliation as a means to money and accounting matters and accounts as the main control object primary control measures. Its characteristics are account reconciliation and segregation of duties as the main content and thus cross-examination or cross-control. In general, the implementation of internal check function can be roughly divided into the following four categories: physical containment; mechanical containment; institutional containment; bookkeeping contain. The basic idea is to contain the internal "security is the result of checks and balances," which is based on two assumptions: First: two or more persons1西安交通大学城市学院本科毕业设计（论文）or departments making the same mistake unconsciously chance is very small; Second: Two or more the possibility of a person or department consciously partnership possibility of fraud is much lower than a single person or department fraud. Practice has proved that these assumptions are reasonable, internal check mechanism for organizations to control, segregation of duties control is the foundation of the modern theory of internal control.Internal control system phases:generating of internal controlThe late1940s to the early1970s, based on the idea of internal check, resulting in the concept of the internal control system, which is the stage in the modern sense of internal control generated. Industrial Revolution has greatly promoted the major change relations of production, joint-stock company has gradually become the main form of business organization of Western countries, in order to meet the requirements of prevailing socio-economic relations,to protect the economic interests of investors and creditors, the Western countries have legal requirements in the form of strengthen the corporate financial and accounting information as well as internal management of this economic activity.In 1934, the "securities and exchange act" issued by the U.S. government for the first time puts forward the concept of "internal accounting control", the implementation of general and special authorization book records, trading records, and compared different remedial measures such as transaction assets. In 1949, the American institute of certified public accountants (AICPA) belongs to the audit procedures of the committee (CPA) in the essential element of internal control: the system coordination, and its importance to management department and the independence of certified public accountants' report, the first official put forward the definition of internal control: "the design of the internal control includes the organization and enterprise to take all of the methods and measures to coordinate with each other. All of these methods and measures used to protect the property of the enterprise, to check the accuracy of accounting information, improve the efficiency of management, promote enterprise stick to established management guidelines." The definition from the formulation and perfecting the inner control of the organization, plan, method and measures such as rules and regulations to implement internal control, break through the limitation of control related to the financial and accounting department directly, the four objectives of internal control, namely the enterprise in commercial2外文文献原文及译文activities to protect assets, check the veracity and reliability of financial data, improve the work efficiency, and promote to management regulations. The definition of positive significance is to help management authorities to strengthen its management, but the scope of limitation is too broad. In 1958, the commission issued no. 29 audit procedures bulletin "independent auditors evaluate the scope of internal control", according to the requirements of the audit responsibility, internal control can be divided into two aspects, namely, the internal accounting control and internal management control. The former is mainly related to the first two of the internal control goal, the latter mainly relates to the internal control after two goals. This is the origin of the internal control system of "dichotomy". Because the concept of management control is vague and fuzzy, in the actual business line between internal control and internal accounting control is difficult to draw. In order to clear the relations between the two, in 1972 the American institute of certified public accountants in the auditing standards announcement no. 1, this paper expounds the internal management control and internal accounting control: the definition of "internal management control including, but not limited to organization plan, and the administrative department of the authorized approval of economic business decision-making steps on the relevant procedures and records. This authorization of items approved activities is the responsibility of management, it is directly related to the management department to perform the organization's business objectives, is the starting point of the economic business accounting control." At the same time, the important content of internal accounting control degree and protect assets, to ensure that the financial records credibility related institutions plans, procedures and records. After a series of changes and redefine the meaning of the internal control is more clear than before and the specification, increasingly broad scope, and introduces the concept of internal audit, has received recognition around the world and references, the internal control system is made.The internal control structure stage: development of the internal controlTheory of internal control structure formed in the 90 s to the 1980 s, this phase of western accounting audit of internal control research focus gradually from the general meaning to specific content to deepen. During this period, the system management theory has become the new management idea, it says: no physical objects in the world are composed of elements of3西安交通大学城市学院本科毕业设计（论文）system, due to the factors, there exists a complicated nonlinear relationship between system must have elements do not have new features, therefore, should be based on the whole the relationship between elements. System management theory will enterprise as a organic system composed of subsystems on management, pay attention to the coordination between the subsystems and the interaction with the environment. In the modern company system and system management theory, under the concept of early already cannot satisfy the need of internal control systems. In 1988, the American institute of certified public accountants issued "auditing standards announcement no. 55", in the announcement, for the first time with the word "internal control structure" to replace the original "internal control", and points out that: "the enterprise's internal control structure including provide for specific target reasonable assurance of the company set up all kinds of policies and procedures". The announcement that the internal control structure consists of control environment, accounting system (accounting system), the control program "three components, the internal control as a organic whole composed of these three elements, raised to the attention of the internal control environment.The control environment, reflecting the board of directors, managers, owners, and other personnel to control the attitude and behavior. Specific include: management philosophy and operating style, organizational structure, the function of the board of directors and the audit committee, personnel policies and procedures, the way to determine the authority and responsibility, managers control method used in the monitoring and inspection work, including business planning, budgeting, forecasting, profit plans, responsibility accounting and internal audit, etc.Accounting systems, regulations of various economic business confirmation, the collection, classification, analysis, registration and preparing method. An effective accounting system includes the following content: identification and registration of all legitimate economic business; Classifying the various economic business appropriate, as the basis of preparation of statements; Measuring the value of economic business to make its currency's value can be recorded in the financial statements; Determine the economic business events, to ensure that it recorded in the proper accounting period; Describe properly in the financial statements of4外文文献原文及译文economic business and related content.The control program, refers to the management policies and procedures, to ensure to achieve certain purpose. It includes economic business and activity approval; Clear division of the responsibility of each employee; Adequate vouchers and bills setting and records; The contact of assets and records control; The business of independent audit, etc. Internal structure of control system management theory as the main control thought, attaches great importance to the environmental factors as an important part of internal control, the control environment, accounting system and control program three elements into the category of internal control; No longer distinguish between accounting control and management control, and uniform in elements describe the internal control, think the two are inseparable and contact each other.Overall internal control framework stages: stage of internal controlAfter entering the 1990 s, the study of internal control into a new stage. With the improvement of the corporate governance institutions, the development of electronic information technology, in order to adapt to the new economic and organizational form, using the new management thinking, "internal control structure" for the development of "internal control to control the overall framework". In 1992, the famous research institutions internal control "by organization committee" (COSO) issued a landmark project - "internal control - the whole framework", also known as the COSO report, made the unification of the internal control system framework. In 1994, the report on the supplement, the international community and various professional bodies widely acknowledged, has wide applicability. The COSO report is a historical breakthrough in the research of internal control theory, it will first put forward the concept of internal control system of the internal control by the original planar structure for the development of space frame model, represents the highest level of the studies on the internal control in the world.The COSO report defines internal control as: "designed by enterprise management, to achieve the effect and efficiency of the business, reliable financial reporting and legal compliance goals to provide reasonable assurance, by the board of directors, managers and other staff to5西安交通大学城市学院本科毕业设计（论文）implement a process." By defining it can be seen that the COSO report that internal control is a process, will be affected by different personnel; At the same time, the internal control is a in order to achieve business objectives the group provides reasonable guarantee the design and implementation of the program. The COSO report put forward three goals and the five elements of internal control. The three major target is a target business objectives, information and compliance. Among them, the management goal is to ensure business efficiency and effectiveness of the internal control; Information goal is refers to the internal control to ensure the reliability of the enterprise financial report; Compliance goal refers to the internal controls should abide by corresponding laws and regulations and the rules and regulations of the enterprise.COSO report that internal control consists of five elements contact each other and form an integral system, which is composed of five elements: control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, monitoring and review.Control Environment: It refers to the control staff to fulfill its obligation to carry out business activities in which the atmosphere. Including staff of honesty and ethics, staff competence, board of directors or audit committee, management philosophy and management style, organizational structure, rights and responsibilities granted to the way human resources policies and implementation.Risk assessment: It refers to the management to identify and take appropriate action to manage operations, financial reporting, internal or external risks affecting compliance objectives, including risk identification and risk analysis. Risk identification including external factors (such as technological development, competition, changes in the economy) and internal factors (such as the quality of the staff, the company nature of activities, information systems handling characteristics) to be checked. Risk analysis involves a significant degree of risk estimates to assess the likelihood of the risk occurring, consider how to manage risk.Control activities: it refers to companies to develop and implement policies and procedures, and 6外文文献原文及译文to take the necessary measures against the risks identified in order to ensure the unit's objectives are achieved. In practice, control activities in various forms, usually following categories: performance evaluation, information processing, physical controls, segregation of duties.Information and communication: it refers to enable staff to perform their duties, to provide staff with the exchange and dissemination of information as well as information required in the implementation, management and control operations process, companies must identify, capture, exchange of external and internal information. External information, including market share, regulatory requirements and customer complaints and other information. The method of internal information including accounting system that records created by the regulatory authorities and reporting of business and economic matters, maintenance of assets, liabilities and owners' equity and recorded. Communication is so that employees understand their responsibilities to maintain control over financial reporting. There are ways to communicate policy manuals, financial reporting manuals, reference books, as well as examples such as verbal communication or management.Monitoring: It refers to the evaluation of internal controls operation of the quality of the process, namely the reform of internal control, operation and improvement activities evaluated. Including internal and external audits, external exchanges.Five elements of internal control system is actually wide-ranging, interrelated influence each other. Control environment is the basis for the implementation of other control elements; control activities must be based on the risks faced by companies may have a detailed understanding and assessment basis; while risk assessment and control activities within the enterprise must use effective communication of information; Finally, effective monitoring the implementation of internal control is a means to protect the quality. Three goals and five elements for the formation and development of the internal control system theory laid the foundation, which fully reflects the guiding ideology of the modern enterprise management idea that security is the result of systems management. COSO report emphasizes the integration framework and internal control system composed of five elements, the framework for the7西安交通大学城市学院本科毕业设计（论文）establishment of an internal control system, operation and maintenance of the foundation.In summary,because of social, economic and environmental change management, internal control functions along with the changes, in order to guide the evolution of the internal control theory. As can be seen from the history of the development of internal control theory, often derived from the internal control organizational change management requirements, from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy, innovation management methods and tools for the development of the power to bring internal controls.From the internal containment center,controlled by the internal organization of the mutual relations between the internal control of various subsystems and went to COSO as the representative to the prevention and management loopholes to prevent the goal, through the organization of control and information systems,to achieve the overall system optimization of modern internal sense of control theory, from Admiral time, corresponding to the two economic revolution.Therefore, in the analysis of foreign internal control theory and Its Evolution, requires a combination of prevailing socio-economic environment and business organization and management requirements, so as to understand the nature of a deeper internal control theory of development.8外文文献原文及译文译文：内部控制Ge.McVay一、内部控制理论的产生与发展演进内部控制在西方国家已经有比较长的发展历史，根据内部控制在不同发展阶段的特征，可以将内部控制的发展分为四个阶段，即内部牵制阶段、内部控制制度阶段、内部控制结构阶段、内部控制整体框架阶段。
内部控制外文文献及翻译
LNTU---Acc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。
会计内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献
会计内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献会计内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)内部控制系统披露—一种可替代的管理机制根据代理理论，各种治理机制减少了投资者和管理者之间的代理问题（Jensen and Meckling，1976； Gillan，2006）。
传统上，治理机制已经被认定为内部或外部的。
内部机制包括董事会及其作用、结构和组成（Fama，1980；Fama and Jensen，1983），管理股权(Jensen and Meckling，1976)和激励措施，起监督作用的大股东(Demsetz and Lehn，1985)，内部控制系统(Bushman and Smith，2001)，规章制度和章程条款(反收购措施)和使用的债务融资（杰森，1993）。
外部控制是由公司控制权市场(Grossman and Hart,1980)、劳动力管理市场（Fama,1980）和产品市场（哈特,1983）施加的控制。
各种各样的金融丑闻，动摇了世界各地的投资者，公司治理最佳实践方式特别强调了内部控制系统在公司治理中起到的重要作用。
内部控制有助于通过提供保证可靠性的财务报告，和临时议会对可能会损害公司经营目标的事项进行评估和风险管理来保护投资者的利益。
这些功能已被的广泛普及内部控制系统架构设计的广泛认可，并指出了内部控制是用以促进效率，减少资产损失风险，帮助保证财务报告的可靠性和对法律法规的遵从（COSO,1992）。
尽管有其相关性，但投资者不能直接观察，因此也无法得到内部控制系统设计和发挥功能的信息，因为它们都是组织内的内在机制、活动和过程（Deumes and Knechel,2008）。
由于投资者考虑到成本维持监控管理其声称的（Jensen and Meckling，1976）,内部控制系统在管理激励信息沟通上的特性，以告知投资者内部控制系统的有效性,是当其他监控机制（该公司的股权结构和董事会）比较薄弱，从而为其提供便捷的监控（Leftwich et等,1981）。
内部控制【外文翻译】
外文文献翻译译文一、外文原文原文：Internal controlIntroductionThe system of internal control over financial reporting in Japan under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA) was implemented as of the fiscal year starting on April 1 2008.Under this system, executive officers of listed companies are obligated to evaluate their company's internal control over financial reporting and to file the results of such evaluation in the form of an internal audit report with the Financial Services Agency (FSA). In this report, executive officers should state material weakness if they judge any material weakness exists in the company's internal control over financial reporting. The report should also be audited by outside accounting auditors before being filed with the FSA. Since most Japanese companies have a fiscal year that ends in March, June 2009 will be the first time most companies file such a report.When the internal control system was introduced, it made reference to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of the US. Under the Japanese system, clear standards were set regarding the set-up of internal controls over financial reporting in an effort to prevent the creation of excessive documentation and to control costs, two issues which had occurred in the US. However, even with such standards, some uncertainty exists. In particular, uncertainty arises regarding the connection between this system under the FIEA and the rules of the Companies Act.Failure to submit the internal audit report or submission of false statements can lead to liabilities and criminal penalties under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA). However, if there is a material weakness in the company's internal controls over financial reporting and executive officers disclose such material weakness in theinternal audit report, no sanctions will be imposed under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, nor will it directly lead to the director's liabilities under the Companies Act. Rather, disclosure of such material weakness is thought to be desirable, because by disclosing such material weakness, a company can improve the quality of its internal control over financial reporting, which will enable the company to submit more accurate financial reports in the future.Internal control is a process-effected by an entity's board of directors, management, and other personnel--designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories: reliability of financial reporting, effectiveness and efficiency of operations, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Internal control consists of the following five interrelated components.1、Control environment sets the tone of an organization, influencing the control consciousness of its people. It is the foundation for all other components of internal control, providing discipline and structure.2、Risk assessment is the entity's identification and analysis of relevant risks to achievement of its objectives, forming a basis for determining how the risks should be managed.3、Control activities are the policies and procedures that help ensure that management directives are carried out.4、Information and communication are the identification, capture, and exchange of information in a form and time frame that enable people to carry out their responsibilities.5、Monitoring is a process that assesses the quality of internal control performance over time.The interlaced audit issue is as follows: under the internal control system of the Companies Act, company auditors must audit the method and the results of the accounting audit conducted by outside accounting auditors. On the other hand, the internal control system of the FIEA requires the outside accounting auditors to auditthe company auditors' monitoring of internal financial controls. Therefore, company auditors that audit outside accounting auditors under the Companies Act are audited by the same outside accounting auditors under the FIEA. This interlaced audit however is expected to make each audit more effective because the company auditor and the outside accounting auditor will each monitor the audit of the other.The time lag issue is expected to arise due to the timing of the submissions of the various audit reports required under the FIEA and the Companies Act. Company auditors will need to prepare and submit audit reports regarding the execution of duties by directors for the fiscal year as required by the Companies Act. However, it is expected that these audit reports will be submitted before the internal audit report required under the FIEA is submitted and audited by the outside accounting auditors. Thus, if the internal audit report points out a material weakness that was not referred to in the audit reports prepared by the company auditor, the company auditor will be placed in a difficult position and will need to decide whether to amend and make changes to the audit reports as such audit reports should also disclose such weaknesses. However, if the directors, the company auditors, and the accounting auditors are cooperating properly, this issue would not arise.It is expected that the system of internal control over financial reporting will prompt companies to build better control systems through cooperation between the directors, company auditors and outside accounting auditors.Connection between the two internal control systemsOn the internal financial controls and internal accounting control the similarities and differences.A difference between monitoring and control objectives.Reason for the difference between the two, simply because of financial supervision and control of the target company's material flow and cash flow, and accounting internal control object is the information flow. Understanding of Marx's words, “the production and the production of bookkeeping records are two different things after all, just to ship the same loading and shipping order are two differentthings.” Corporate material production process is based on the currency as the leading material movement, production and operation of the currency as the beginning and the end result, is achieving its goal of expanding the value of value. And accounting control is passed that have occurred in the material flow, capital flow formed by the flow of information to be the recognition, measurement, reporting. The former to productivity gains, the latter objective, the real target. However, operation of the accounting value of enterprise assets, after all, subordinate to the overall objective, we should also ask for the overall objective of internal control should also be an asset value of its end. Why is this request? This is because the production activities of financial decisions and accounting need to subordinate corporate financial activities, accounting control objectives are to be subject to financial control target.Internal accounting control system is now setting goals, still remain in traditional accounting supervision and legal, reasonable levels, while ignoring the principles of economic efficiency, not subordinated to the overall goal of corporate finance. We know that even if the security integrity of corporate assets and personnel compliance. However, poor economic efficiency of enterprises can not continue to exist, then such an accounting internal control system, despite the integrity of the specification how beneficial for them? Accounting supervision, internal accounting controls, is the business management of the important part, if not for the continued survival and development of enterprises play a useful role, it is indeed sad . Although the internal financial control and internal accounting control objectives differ, but the overall goal should always be consistent. Accounting control objectives should always be subject to financial supervision and corporate goals. Accounting internal controls for business expenses from their own legitimacy and rationality to make judgments, give expenditure or expenditure not to start. This is the person in charge of the accounting organization's powers. The specific operation is completed by the cashier. Economic business is completed, signed by the person in charge, after verification of the accounting charge, the decision to grant or not to grant reimbursement claims. Practices through review of the original certificate and found areas of doubt or vulnerability. In acheck, be controlled when reimbursement. Another major accounting internal control task is to ensure that the accounting information provided by an objective, true, complete and timely.Financial internal control is based on the financial accounts of enterprises as the main target of supervision, to consider the legality of the decision-making costs, reasonable, and consistent with the principles of economic interests. The right balance of enterprises in the enterprise legal person units, in determining the expenditure, the accounting bodies and accounting personnel to provide business only the amount of funds available for expenditure obligations, and no decision-making rights. Usually the meeting was the participation by the general accountant, accounting bodies and accounting personnel did not participate in conference events. Therefore, the financial supervision to monitor the main orientation is very necessary. Financial supervision should be in advance of supervision as well, so that you can not burn in prevention. Matter of course, need supervision in order to promptly correct the error.From a doctrinal perspective the Catholic Church is highly centralized under the authority of the pope and his bishops. However, from an administrative perspective the church is quite decentralized with each diocese and each parish within the diocese having a fair amount of autonomy. Dioceses have virtually no external or regulatory oversight of their financial statements. Unlike corporations which provide quarterly financial statements to the SEC and hold quarterly conference calls with outside analysts, the church is subject to almost no recurring outside financial scrutiny. Many dioceses voluntarily post their audited annual financial statements on their website at the conclusion of the year-end audit. Additionally, many dioceses provide parishioners with an annual financial and administrative newsletter which provides a highly summarized view of the cash flows for the year and the results of social and spiritual programs offered by the diocese. But many other dioceses do neither. Since they are not required by law to be transparent and accountable in their finances, they choose to keep their finances private.Corporate Financial ControlsRecent scandals, such as the Enron and Tyco scandals, contributed to the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002. This has resulted in U.S. corporations undergoing intensive review, analysis, and testing of their internal control structures.The primary focus of the Sarbanes-Oxley bill is on fraudulent financial reporting. In a number of high-profile cases, management aggressively recognized revenue or manipulated (deferred) expenses to purposely make the company look better than it really was. This financial reporting chicanery had the impact of inflating the stock price which greatly benefited top management, holders of large blocks of the companies’ stock and stock options.Fraudulent financial reporting is much less of a concern for the dioceses and other not-for-profit entities. Safeguarding an entity’s assets is a bigger concern for not-for-profit entities. Revelations of embezzlements in not-for-profit entities are routinely reported in the media. Occasionally, those embezzlements occur at the highest levels of the organization. For example, the Orthodox Church of America recently fired its chancellor and began an audit. The chancellor is at the center of allegations brought by the former church treasurer of missing money, diverted cash, and un-audited accounts totaling millions of dollars. A pastor in the Bridgeport, Connecticut Catholic diocese was investigated on charges that he misspent $1.4 million of parish donations. Four purchasing agents for the archdiocese of New York allegedly extorted over two million dollars in a kickback scheme over eight years from various food vendors to maintain lavish lifestyles. The church lost over one million dollars by having to pay higher prices for the food being purchased for schools and parishes.There have been a number of studies that have documented the importance of and the general inadequacy of internal financial controls in churches. Others have focused on the relationship between the spiritual aspects of a church and its accounting practices.The objectives of the internal financial control structure of an entity are:1. Provide reliable financial statements and accounting records2. Safeguard the entity’s assets3. Promote operational efficiency and effectiveness4. Promote adherence to management’s policies and proceduresAn effective internal control structure consists of three levels:1. Control environment2. Accounting system3. Control proceduresRegardless of whether the entity is a Fortune 500 company or a diocese of the Catholic Church, the objectives of the internal control structure remain the same.They have difficulty separating duties and employees often have little supervision by a qualified financial manager. A fundamental tenet of internal accounting control is to keep the financial recordkeeping duties separate from those individuals that have access to assets, especially cash.Source: Jean C. Bedard, 2009 “Internal control”. T he Accounting Rreview.V ol.84,No.3.pp.839-867.二、翻译文章译文：内部控制介绍内部控制下的财务报告在日本的金融商品交易法（FIEA）下系统实施是从2008年4月1日开始的。
内部控制外文翻译
基于应急理论基础下的内部控制因素及其后果的形成Determinants and consequences of internal controlin firms: a contingency theory based analysis作者：Annukka Jokip i起始页码：1-12出版日期（期刊号）：March 2009,Vol. 1, No. 3(Serial No. 10)出版单位：Springer Science and Business Media, LLC. 2009外文翻译译文：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。
内部控制【外文翻译】
内部控制【外文翻译】外文文献翻译译文一、外文原文原文：Internal controlIntroductionThe system of internal control over financial reporting in Japan under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA) was implemented as of the fiscal year starting on April 1 2008.Under this system, executive officers of listed companies are obligated to evaluate their company's internal control over financial reporting and to file the results of such evaluation in the form of an internal audit report with the Financial Services Agency (FSA). In this report, executive officers should state material weakness if they judge any material weakness exists in the company's internal control over financial reporting. The report should also be audited by outside accounting auditors before being filed with the FSA. Since most Japanese companies have a fiscal year that ends in March, June 2009 will be the first time most companies file such a report.When the internal control system was introduced, it made reference to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of the US. Under the Japanese system, clear standards were set regarding the set-up of internal controls over financial reporting in an effort to prevent the creation of excessive documentation and to control costs, two issues which had occurred in the US. However, even with such standards, some uncertainty exists. In particular, uncertainty arises regarding the connection between this system under the FIEA and the rules of the Companies Act.Failure to submit the internal audit report or submission of false statements can lead to liabilities and criminal penalties under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA). However, if there is a material weakness in the company's internal controls over financial reporting and executive officers disclose such material weakness in theinternal audit report, no sanctions will be imposed under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, nor will it directly lead to the director's liabilities under the Companies Act. Rather, disclosure of such material weakness is thought to be desirable, because by disclosing such material weakness, a company can improve the quality of its internal control over financial reporting, which will enable the company to submit more accurate financial reports in the future.Internal control is a process-effected by an entity's board of directors, management, and other personnel--designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories: reliability of financial reporting, effectiveness and efficiency of operations, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Internal control consists of the following five interrelated components.1、Control environment sets the tone of an organization, influencing the control consciousness of its people. It is the foundation for all other components of internal control, providing discipline and structure.2、Risk assessment is the entity's identification and analysis of relevant risks to achievement of its objectives, forming a basis for determining how the risks should be managed.3、Control activities are the policies and procedures that help ensure that management directives are carried out.4、Information and communication are the identification, capture, and exchange of information in a form and time frame that enable people to carry out their responsibilities.5、Monitoring is a process that assesses the quality of internal control performance over time.The interlaced audit issue is as follows: under the internal control system of the Companies Act, company auditors must audit the method and the results of the accounting audit conducted by outside accounting auditors. On the other hand, the internal control system of the FIEA requires the outside accounting auditors to auditthe company auditors' monitoring of internal financial controls. Therefore, company auditors that audit outside accounting auditors under the Companies Act are audited by the same outside accounting auditors under the FIEA. This interlaced audit however is expected to make each audit more effective because the company auditor and the outside accounting auditor will each monitor the audit of the other.The time lag issue is expected to arise due to the timing of the submissions of the various audit reports required under the FIEA and the Companies Act. Company auditors will need to prepare and submit audit reports regarding the execution of duties by directors for the fiscal year as required by the Companies Act. However, it is expected that these audit reports will be submitted before the internal audit report required under the FIEA is submitted and audited by the outside accounting auditors. Thus, if the internal audit report points out a material weakness that was not referred to in the audit reports prepared by the company auditor, the company auditor will be placed in a difficult position and will need to decide whether to amend andmake changes to the audit reports as such audit reports should also disclose such weaknesses. However, if the directors, the company auditors, and the accounting auditors are cooperating properly, this issue would not arise.It is expected that the system of internal control over financial reporting will prompt companies to build better control systems through cooperation between the directors, company auditors and outside accounting auditors.Connection between the two internal control systemsOn the internal financial controls and internal accounting control the similarities and differences.A difference between monitoring and control objectives.Reason for the difference between the two, simply because of financial supervision and control of the target company's material flow and cash flow, and accounting internal control object is the information flow. Understanding of Marx's words, “the production and the production of bookkeeping records are two different things after all, just to ship the same loading and shipping order are two differentthings.” Corporate material production process is based on the currency as the leading material movement, production and operation of the currency as the beginning and the end result, is achieving its goal of expanding the value of value. And accounting control is passed that have occurred in the material flow, capital flow formed by the flow of information to be the recognition, measurement, reporting. The former to productivity gains, the latter objective, the real target. However, operation of the accounting value of enterprise assets, after all, subordinate to the overall objective, we should also ask for the overall objective of internal control should also be an asset value of its end. Whyis this request? This is because the production activities of financial decisions and accounting need to subordinate corporate financial activities, accounting control objectives are to be subject to financial control target.Internal accounting control system is now setting goals, still remain in traditional accounting supervision and legal, reasonable levels, while ignoring the principles of economic efficiency, not subordinated to the overall goal of corporate finance. We know that even if the security integrity of corporate assets and personnel compliance. However, poor economic efficiency of enterprises can not continue to exist, then such an accounting internal control system, despite the integrity of the specification how beneficial for them? Accounting supervision, internal accounting controls, is the business management of the important part, if not for the continued survival and development of enterprises play a useful role, it is indeed sad . Although the internal financial control and internal accounting control objectives differ, but the overall goal should always be consistent. Accounting control objectives should always be subject to financial supervision and corporate goals. Accounting internal controls for business expenses from their own legitimacy and rationality to make judgments, give expenditure or expenditure not to start. This is the person in charge of the accounting organization's powers. The specific operation is completed by the cashier. Economic business is completed, signed by the person in charge, after verification of the accounting charge, the decision to grant or not to grant reimbursement claims. Practices through review of the original certificate and found areas of doubt or vulnerability. In acheck, be controlled when reimbursement. Another majoraccounting internal control task is to ensure that the accounting information provided by an objective, true, complete and timely.Financial internal control is based on the financial accounts of enterprises as the main target of supervision, to consider the legality of the decision-making costs, reasonable, and consistent with the principles of economic interests. The right balance of enterprises in the enterprise legal person units, in determining the expenditure, the accounting bodies and accounting personnel to provide business only the amount of funds available for expenditure obligations, and no decision-making rights. Usually the meeting was the participation by the general accountant, accounting bodies and accounting personnel did not participate in conference events. Therefore, the financial supervision to monitor the main orientation is very necessary. Financial supervision should be in advance of supervision as well, so that you can not burn in prevention. Matter of course, need supervision in order to promptly correct the error.From a doctrinal perspective the Catholic Church is highly centralized under the authority of the pope and his bishops. However, from an administrative perspective the church is quite decentralized with each diocese and each parish within the diocese having a fair amount of autonomy. Dioceses have virtually no external or regulatory oversight of their financial statements. Unlike corporations which provide quarterly financial statements to the SEC and hold quarterly conference calls with outside analysts, the church is subject to almost no recurring outside financial scrutiny. Many dioceses voluntarily post their audited annual financial statements on their website at the conclusion of the year-end audit. Additionally, many dioceses provide parishioners with an annual financial and administrativenewsletter which provides a highly summarized view of the cash flows for the year and the results of social and spiritual programs offered by the diocese. But many other dioceses do neither. Since they are not required by law to be transparent and accountable in their finances, they choose to keep their finances private.Corporate Financial Controls。
内部控制制度【外文翻译】
外文翻译原文Internal Control SystemsMaterial Source:Encyclopedia of Business Author:Audrey Gramling Internal control can be described as any action taken by an organization to help enhance the likelihood that the objectives of the organization will be achieved. The definition of internal control has evolved as different internal control models have been developed. This article will describe these models, present the definitions of internal control they provide, and indicate the components of internal control. Various parties responsible for and affected by internal control will also be discussed.THE COSO MODELIn the United States many organizations have adopted the internal control concepts presented in the report of the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Published in 1992, the COSO report defines internal control as:a process, effected by an entity's board of directors, management and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories:1.effectiveness and efficiency of operations2.reliability of financial reportingpliance with applicable laws and regulationsCOSO describes internal control as consisting of five essential components, include:1.The control environment2.Risk assessment3.Control activitiesrmation and communication5.MonitoringAs the base of the pyramid, the control environment is arguably the most important component because it sets the tone for the organization. Factors of thecontrol environment include employees' integrity, the organization's commitment to competence, management's philosophy and operating style, and the attention and direction of the board of directors and its audit committee.Risk assessment refers to the identification, analysis, and management of uncertainty facing the organization. Risk assessment focuses on the uncertainties in meeting the organization's financial and operational objectives. Changes in personnel, new product lines, or rapid expansion could affect an organization's risks.Control activities include the policies and procedures maintained by an organization to address risk-prone areas. An example of a control activity is a policy requiring approval by the board of directors for all purchases exceeding a predetermined amount. Control activities were once thought to be the most important element of internal control, but COSO suggests that the control environment is more critical since the control environment fosters the best actions, while control activities provide safeguards to prevent wrong actions from occurring.Information and communication encompasses the identification, capture, and exchange of financial, operational, and compliance information in a timely manner. People within an organization who have timely, reliable information are better able to conduct, manage, and control the organization's operations.Monitoring refers to the assessment of the quality of internal control. Monitoring activities provide information about potential and actual breakdowns in a control system that could make it difficult for an organization to accomplish its goals. Informal monitoring activities might include management's checking with subordinates to see if objectives are being met. A more formal monitoring activity would be an assessment of the internal control system by the organization's internal auditors.OTHER CONTROL MODELSSome users of the COSO report have found it difficult to read and understand.A model that some believe overcomes this difficulty is found in a report from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, which was issued in 1995. The report presents a control model referred to as Criteria of Control (CoCo). The CoCo model, which builds on COSO, is thought to be more concrete and user-friendly. CoCo describes internal control as actions that foster the best result for an organization. These actions, which contribute to the achievement of the organization's objectives, center around:1.Effectiveness and efficiency of operations2.Reliability of internal and external reportingpliance with applicable laws and regulations and internal policiesCoCo indicates that control comprises:those elements of an organization (including its resources, systems, processes, culture, structure and tasks) that, taken together, support people in the achievement of the organization's objectives.CoCo model recognizes four interrelated elements of internal control, including purpose, capability, commitment, and monitoring and learning. An organization that performs a task is guided by an understanding of the purpose of the task and supported by capability (information, resources, supplies, and skills). To perform the task well over time, the organization needs a sense of commitment. Finally, the organization must monitor task performance to improve the task process. These elements of control, which include twenty specific control criteria, are seen as the steps an organization takes to foster the right action.In addition to the COSO and CoCo models, two other reports provide internal control models. One is the Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation's Systems Auditability and Control (SAC), which was issued in 1991 and revised in 1994. The other is the Information Systems Audit and Control Foundation's COBIT (Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology), which was issued in 1996.The Institute of Internal Auditors issued SAC to provide guidance to internal auditors on internal controls related to information systems and information technology (IT). The definition of internal control included in SAC is:a set of processes, functions, activities, sub-systems, and people who are grouped together or consciously segregated to ensure the effective achievement of objective and goals.COBIT focuses primarily on efficiently and effectively monitoring information systems. The report emphasizes the role and impact of IT control as it relates to business processes. This control model can be used by management to develop clear policy and good practice for control of IT. The following COBIT definition of internal control was adapted from COSO:The policies, procedures, practices, and organizational structures are designed to provide reasonable assurance that business objectives will be achieved and that undesired events will be prevented or detected and corrected.While the specific definition of internal control differs across the various models, a number of concepts are very similar across these models. In particular, themodels emphasize that internal control is not only policies and procedures to help an organization accomplish its objectives but also a system affected by people. In these models, people are perceived to be central to adequate internal control.These models also stress the concept of reasonable assurance as it relates to internal control. Internal control systems cannot guarantee that an organization will meet its objectives. Instead, internal control can only be expected to provide reason -able assurance that a company's objectives will be met. The effectiveness of internal controls depends on the competency and dependability of the organization's people. Limitations of internal control include faulty human judgment, misunder -standing of instructions, errors, management override of controls, and collusion. Further, because of cost-benefit considerations, not all possible controls will be implemented. Because of these inherent limitations, internal controls cannot guarantee that an organization will meet its objectives.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 committee), 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 andfunction effectively for operations, financial reporting. The board 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 to the audit committee of the board of directors.译文内部控制制度资料来源：商业百科全书作者：奥德丽·格拉姆内部控制被认为是任何能够提高组织目标完成效率的措施。
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。
外文翻译--关于内部控制的意见
外文原文OPINIONS ON INTERNAL CONTROL If the attest function is extended to cover internal control effectiveness, guidelines for reporting must be formulated, and several fundamental questions must be resolved.With increasing frequency, auditors hear the suggestion that they should express an opinion on the effectiveness of a client's internal control system. Advocates of this extension of the attest function are quick to point out that there are already instances in which independent auditors are reporting publicly on the effectiveness of their clients' systems of internal control and that some government agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission in some eases, require a report. Opponents of attestation-type reports counter that any report on internal control effectiveness would be misleading to the public and they believe that there is a significant difference between present regulatory agency reporting requirements and an opinion on internal control. This article reviews the present reporting practices, considers the desirable features of the reports as well as the associated hazards, and, finally, proposes some of the questions which must be answered before any final judgment can be made.THE CURRENT STATUS OF REPORTSAlthough auditors' reports do in several circumstances contain references to internal control, the nature of the representations made concerning effectiveness differ significantly.Large banks. Opinions on internal control are, in fact, given in the ease of a few large banks and the opinions do appear in published annual reports. These opinions are sometimes requested by the board of directors. For example, the following opinion appears in the 1969 annual report of a large New York bank, as a third paragraph in the independent accountant's standard short-form report:Our examination included an evaluation of the effectiveness of the hunk's internal accounting controls, including the internal auditing. In our opinion, lie procedures in effect, together with the examinations conducted by the bank's internal audit staff, constitute an effective system of internal accounting control.Opinions are rendered for a few other banks, but they are essentially the same as the quoted opinion.SEC requirements. SEC Form X-17A-5, which requires that the independent auditor make certain representations concerning internal control, must be filed annually by most members of national securities exchanges and every broker or dealer registered pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.In addition, the SEC's Rule 17a-5(g) requires that the independent auditor's report contain "a statement as to whether the accountant reviewed the procedures for safeguarding the securities of customers." Moreover, many exchanges require that the report indicate that a review has been made of "the accounting system, the internal accounting control and procedures for safeguarding securities including appropriate tests thereof for the period since the prior examination date," and, evidently, the SEC staff prefers that the accountant include language similar to that required by the exchanges in all reports filed with the SEC. The scope paragraph of the report usually reads as follows:We have examined the statement of financial condition of (name) as of (date). Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and accordingly included a review of the accounting system, the internal accounting control and procedures for safeguarding securities and such tests thereof since the prior examination dote, (date) and of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. (Emphasis added.)To avoid confusion as to the type of review made, it is related to "generally accepted auditing standards" by the word "accordingly." Note that the requirement is met without the expression of an opinion on adequacy since the report merely states that a review has been made.If there are material inadequacies in internal control, the independent auditor is required to report them to the SEC, but according to Rule I7a-5(b)(3) inadequacies may be reported in a confidential supplementary report. If no material inadequacies are found, a representation to that effect is neither required nor expected. Therefore reports to the SEC do not constitute the expression of an opinion on internal control effectiveness and, in this respect, differ significantly from the reports issued for a few large banks.Other government agencies. Government agencies differ widely in the type of report required on internal control. Perhaps the most stringent requirement is that administered by the Office of Economic Opportunity. Section 243 of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of1967 requires an auditor's appraisal of a grantee's accounting system and internal controls before a substantial amount of OEO grant funds have been expended . The auditor's report must include the following opinion:The accounting system and internal controls of the (grantee and delegate agencies) are considered (adequate, inadequate) to safeguard the assets of the grantee, check the accuracy and reliability of accounting data, promote operational efficiency and encourage adherence to prescribed management policies.Some agencies require a report very similar to that required by the SEC for brokers. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board, for example, requires that the auditor's report indicate that internal control has been reviewed and requires submission of a copy of the management letter containing comments about any weaknesses in the system and recommendations for their correction.THE DESIRABILITY OF REPORTING ON INTERNAL CONTROLThose who believe that reports on internal control are desirable do so primarily for two reasons. First, they believe such reports would be useful to the public in evaluating management's performance in this area of its responsibility. Some regard such reports as a feasible and logical first step toward reports on management's performance in other areas.The second reason advanced by advocates of reports on internal control is that these reports would provide an additional basis for reliance on unedited interim financial statements. In view of the increasing importance of quarterly and other interim statements, the advocates believe that such reports would provide a useful public service. Opponents, on the other hand, are concerned that such reports would be a disservice to the public because of the risk of misunderstanding and unwarranted reliance. Thus, the crux of the question concerning desirability of reporting on internal control turns on an evaluation of the potential benefits and hazards to the readers of such reports.HAZARDS OF REPORTING ON INTERNAL CONTROL If reporting on internal control holds potential benefit for the profession and report users, what has impeded wholehearted assumption of responsibility for reporting on internal control?First, there is really no such thing as an overall evaluation of internal control. An auditor views internal control in terms of specific types of errors and irregularities which may occur because of weaknesses in the procedures concerning specific classes of transactions and related assets. Unless internal control is excellent in every respect, generalizations about the adequacy of the overall system are extremely difficult to make. Strengths in one area of internal control do not normally offset weaknesses in another area. Weaknesses in cash receipts procedures are not mitigated by strength in handling of cash disbursements, and adequate collection procedures cannot substitute for ineffective control over billing procedures.Second and closely related to the difficulties of an overall evaluation, there is the incomparability of an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole and an opinion on the internal control sys-tem taken as a whole. Weaknesses in internal control can have a potential material impact on operations, but their materiality cannot be evaluated in the same manner that a known dollar amount of error can be with respect to the financial statements taken as a whole. Therefore, it is difficult to formulate the language of a standard report from which deviations could be considered as having a special and known significance.Third, there are many inherent limitations on the effectiveness of any system of internal control. Certain actions are not subject to control within the scope of internal control systems. Control procedures that depend primarily on the separation of incompatible duties can be circumvented by collusion. Management officials who are charged with administering the internal control system are in a position to perpetrate intentional errors and irregularities in .spite of the controls that might prevent similar actions by lower ranking employees. Perhaps the most critical inherent limitation is the fact that performance of man> control procedures is dependent on human judgment and volition and there are many possibilities for error arising from misunderstandings, mistakes, carelessness, distraction or fatigue.Finally—partially as a consequence of the other problems-reports on internal control create a significant possibility of unwarranted and misleading inferences on the part of users. Prominent among possible misunderstandings is the unwarranted projection of the opinion into future periods and the concomitant undue reliance on unedited financial information. The review and tests of internal control pertain only to the period covered during the examination. In the future, conditions, procedures and compliance may change. Many changes may occur to causevariations in compliance with established procedures, including new employees or employees taking over new responsibilities, unusual fluctuations in business volume that cause employees to take short cuts, and innovations in operations which introduce new types of transactions. Further, the reliability of financial statements is significantly influenced by management judgments which are not subject to control by the system.In view of the significant hazards associated with opinions on internal control, such opinions should be expressed with care and caution. At present there is an absence of field work and reporting standards for expressing an opinion on internal control, and the CPA who renders a report is exposing himself to an undefined responsibility.Many questions must be answered before opinions on internal control should be issued on a regular basis. These questions may be divided into fundamental questions and reporting guideline questions.FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONSDoes an opinion on internal control contain information important to anyone other than management?Letters to management recommending improvements in the internal control system are a traditional by-product of independent audits. While the value of these reports on internal control is acknowledged as an important service to management, opponents of opinions on internal control question their importance to parties other than management.Advocates of opinions on internal control hold that the report does, to a limited extent, increase the reliance which can be placed on unedited financial information in the future even though reliability is unaffected. At the present time, an unqualified opinion on financial statements may he based on an examination which includes a significant extension of auditing procedures necessitated by poor internal control, but the reader of the auditor's report has no way of knowing this. A report on internal control would highlight the weakness and the reader would know that substantially less reliance should be placed on the unedited financial information issued during the period between audited statements. In addition, and of more importance, is the fact that an opinion on internal control reports on management's significant fiduciary obligation to devise, install and supervise an adequate system of internal control.Would reporting, on internal control significantly extend the auditor's liability beyond that assumed when issuing an opinion on financial statements?Any suggested extension of the attest function raises apprehensions concerning a concomitant extension of legal liability. Although a definitive answer to the extent of legal liability assumed cannot be obtained prior to litigation, there arc several lines of speculation.One view is that the most likely cause of action will arise when an unreported weakness in internal control causes a material misstatement in financial position or in the results of operations in the period covered by the opinion. Under these circumstances the deficiency in the report is likely to receive widespread attention and people relying on the report arc likely to be damaged thereby. In this situation, the auditor would probably he involved in litigation anyway because of his opinion on the financial statements.There is also a possibility of material errors or irregularities caused by deliberate management misrepresentation or employee collusion, which no system of internal control can prevent. The auditor's responsibility for these items should be similar to his responsibility when the financial statements on which he renders an unqualified opinion are materially misleading because of deliberate management misrepresentation or employee collusion. As long as he complied with generally accepted auditing standards, he would not be responsible.Another view on legal liability is that the expression of an opinion on internal control will draw attention to present responsibilities and also increase those responsibilities. Plaintiffs in a ease against auditors will have a new alleged deficiency with which to charge the auditor. In addition, if the subject of internal control review and evaluation becomes a point of litigation, juries may have even more difficulties evaluating this technical subject than they do evaluating testimony concerning financial statement presentation.Should a report on internal control be required or should it be voluntary and issued at the discretion of management?It does not seem to be within the auditor's province to require a report on internal control. The report does not add any credibility to audited financial statements and, thus, is not required for a fair presentation of financial position and results of operations. Those opposed to opinions on internal control contend that only "positive" opinions that internal control is adequate will be issued. Management would have a natural reluctance to have significant inadequacies in internalcontrol exposed to public view and, consequently, would not allow unfavorable opinions to be issued.Those favoring opinions on internal control counter that new reporting practices must start somewhere. Voluntary reporting disclosures—if they contain significant information—have a way of becoming required either by public pressure or the force of custom.Can a report be prepared which will not be misleading to report users?Whether a report will be misleading is a function of both the accuracy and clarity of the report and the knowledge and understanding possessed by the users of the report. One of the most significant hazards of reporting on internal control is the possibility of unwarranted and misleading inferences on the part of users. Experience with the short-form report on financial statements indicates that it may be as important for a report on internal control to say what the report does not represent as it is to accurately state what is represented. Actually, the answer to this question depends, to a large extent, on the answers obtained from the reporting guideline questions.REPORTING GUIDELINE QUESTIONSShould the report on interned control be a separate report distinct from the opinion on financial statements?Although there is a definite relationship between the evaluation of internal control and the opinion on the financial statements, there is a significant distinction between audited financial statements and internal control evaluation. In forming his opinion on the statements, the auditors evaluation of internal control is only an intermediate step in his examination. The opinion on internal control adds no further credibility to the financial statements and any implication that this is true should be avoided.Of course, internal control evaluation must be mentioned in the report on the financial statements when internal control is so inadequate that compliance with generally accepted auditing standards is impossible. In the extreme case when internal control is virtually nonexistent, a disclaimer of opinion on the statements is appropriate. In these circumstances there is a significant probability of unrecorded transactions, documentary evidence examined is highly suspect, and post balance sheet events cannot be adequately reviewed.If the distinction between the opinion on financial statements and the opinion on internal control is to be made forcefully, the opinion on internal control should be a separate report. If the reports are not separated, the opinion on financial statements should precede the report on internal control to avoid implication that the latter is necessary for fair presentation of the financial statements.What is the appropriate scope of audit work necessary to support an opinion on internal control?There are no standards of field work for determining the scope of work necessary to support an opinion on internal control. An adequate description of the work performed in a scope section of the report could ser\'e the same function as the scope paragraph in the report on financial statements. An auditor should be responsible for failure to disclose a weakness in internal control only if his review and evaluation should have uncovered that weakness. The scope of audit work for opinions on internal control has two aspects—breadth of coverage and depth of investigation.Should the scope of the review be clarified by including a concise definition of internal control in the report?The breadth of coverage could be as broad as a special investigation of a management information system or as narrow as the accounting controls which must be reviewed to comply with the second standard of field work. No matter what breadth of coverage was, the scope paragraph could include a concise definition of the internal control system reviewed. Although a number of definitions would probably be equally suitable, some definition should be given to describe concisely the subject of the report. A phrase at the end of the definition introduced by the word "including" could be used to identify any aspect of controls requiring specific mention. For example, the board of directors may feel that evaluation of the internal auditing department is especially important.Is the scope of the examination necessary to support an opinion on internal control the same as that required to satisfy the second standard of field work?The second standard of Held work states:There is to be a proper study and evaluation of the existing internal control as a basis for reliance thereon and for the determination of the resultant extent of the tests to which auditing procedures are to be restricted.If the breadth of coverage of the opinion is the same as that required for an opinion on financial statements, then the depth of the investigation may be related to compliance with the second standard of field work. This aspect may be covered in a scope section of the report as follows:Our examination of the financial statements performed in act01 dance with generally accepted auditing .standards, accordingly included a review and evaluation of the accounting system and internal controls.In a large company with a high volume of clerical work, any degree of audit coverage beyond tests of a small percentage of total transactions would be prohibitively costly. Consequently, the auditor must review and test the internal controls and be satisfied with the adequacy of the system. In a small company this may not be true. In addition, accountants are not in complete agreement on the amount of audit work necessary to perform a review and evaluation of internal control which meets the second standard of field work. For these reasons, there is disagreement on the depth of investigation necessary to support an opinion on internal control.Should an opinion on internal control be expressed in terms of an overall measure such as adequacy or effectiveness?Several characteristics of internal control systems are relevant to this question. Weaknesses in internal control are not offsetting, all systems have inherent weaknesses, and cost acts as a constraint on the effectiveness of all systems. One view is that these characteristics are "understood" in a comprehensive expression such as adequacy or effectiveness. "Effective" in this context means appropriate for the particular situation, with each company regarded as a unique situation.Another view holds that experience with the short-form report on financial statements indicates that very little should be presumed to be "understood" and that, since the "adequacy" of the system is the auditor's representation, great care should be exercised in clearly stating what "adequate" means.Should an opinion on prescribed methods and procedures be separated from an opinion on compliance with those procedures?One suggested alternative to a comprehensive representation on effectiveness is the divisionof the opinion between the adequacy of prescribed internal control procedures and the adequacy of compliance with those procedures. A proper study and evaluation of internal control includes distinct phases.Adequate evaluation of a system of internal control requires (1) knowledge and understanding of the procedures and methods prescribed and (2) a reasonable degree of assurance that they are in use and operating as planned. (Numerals added.)Knowledge and understanding of the prescribed procedures are gained by a review of the system accomplished by inquiry, observation and review of documentation. On the other hand, assurance that the procedures are in use and operating as planned requires tests of compliance. By observation of personnel and examination of documentary evidence, the auditor determines, for the entire period covered by the examination, whether the necessary procedures were performed and, if so, by whom. Thus, the auditor may form different conclusions concerning the adequacy of die prescribed procedures and the degree of compliance with those procedures.Separation of the opinion on prescribed procedures from the opinion on compliance serves the further purpose of alerting the reader to some of the limitations inherent in any internal control system by giving notice that the existence of adequate procedures does not automatically assure satisfactory compliance.If a separate opinion is expressed on compliance, what period of time should be covered?Since one of the significant hazards of expressing an opinion on internal control is unwarranted projection of the representations to the future, the opinion should be expressed with respect to a point in time or a span of time. An opinion could be expressed on the internal control system in effect at the time of the completion of the review, which would normally coincide with the completion of field work. On the other hand, the opinion might be expressed for the period of time in the company's operations covered by the examination, which would normally coincide with the period covered by the financial statements. Another variation would limit the period of time for which the opinion was expressed to the time span of the review and evaluation of the internal control system which could be limited to a few months.Should additional cautionary language be added to the opinion to clarify the nature of the opinion and explain what it does not represent?Two hazards of reporting on internal control are especially relevant to this question: (1) Theeffectiveness of any system is subject to inherent limitations and (2) there is a danger that the system may change in the future, which makes projection of the opinion to the future unwarranted.An opinion on internal control could include a denial section which concisely explains the limitations of the opinion. Wording such as the following might be included in such a section: (1) The continuing effectiveness of the system as designed requires constant surveillance on the part of management and periodic review. (2) The effective functioning of any system of internal control depends on whether individuals continue to conform to prescribed policies and procedures. (3) We do not express an opinion on future compliance with prescribed procedures.(4) The system of internal control cannot prevent collusion or prevent intentional irregularities by the administrators of the system.What criteria should be used in determining whether exceptions to effective internal control should be reported?There arc two alternative, existing criteria which could be used as a basis for reporting exceptions. One criterion relates effectiveness or adequacy of internal control to financial statement presentation. Under this criterion an exception would be reported if controls would not, with reasonable promptness, prevent or detect material errors and irregularities, i.e., those which have a potential material impact on the financial statements. The other criterion would report exceptions on the same basis used to recommend improvements in internal control to management.How should exceptions be reported?This question is not so much one of format as it is a matter of degrees of opinions. Under one view exceptions would be introduced into the report by adding the phrase "except as noted below" to the appropriate opinion sentence. Exceptions would be listed after the opinion paragraph and classified by major class of transaction or asset and the relation to adequacy or compliance. If the exceptions were sufficiently material, the opinion would be expressed that internal control was inadequate. In other words, there would be three types of opinions equivalent to the unqualified, qualified and adverse types of opinions rendered on financial statements.Another view would limit the types of opinions to either "adequate" or "inadequate." Underthis view, weaknesses not considered sufficient to regard the system as inadequate might be included in a report on internal control. Further, some controls outside the scope of the review for internal control report purposes might be included in a report to management, which might very well be different from the report to others. This situation is analogous to the situation which exists for long form and short-form reports. The recommendations to management not contained in the report on internal control should not warrant reporting in the opinion on internal control, i.e., they should not support a contention that the report on internal control was misleading.How should the auditor comply with internal control reports prescribed by regulatory agencies?If the regulatory agency requirement is for a statement that the internal control system was reviewed as part of the examination and a copy of the recommendation letter to management, the requirement docs not expose the auditor to the hazards of expressing an opinion on internal control previously outlined. However, if the regulatory agency requires a positive expression of opinion on internal control effectiveness and, in addition, prescribes the form of report, the auditor should give careful consideration to whether the prescribed form sufficiently recognizes the reporting hazards.If the prescribed form is unacceptable to the auditor, he has two basic alternatives. He could attempt to persuade the agency to accept a substantially different report, which could take a variety of forms. On the other hand, he could modify the prescribed opinion to reduce the reporting hazards in a manner which meets the specific requirements of the agency.Consider the reporting requirement administered by the Office of Economic Opportunity, which is that "the auditor's appraisal regarding the accounting systems and internal controls must include the following words in order to be acceptable to OEO." In other words, their opinion paragraph must be used, hut they do not say that the opinion has to be confined to their wording.A possible modification of the prescribed form would be the addition of a scope paragraph to clarify the basis supporting the opinion and another paragraph to explain what the opinion does not include, which might be called a denial paragraph.Should an opinion on internal control he expressedWhen an audit is not performed? When the auditor is associated with financial statements which are unedited, a report on internal control is not in accordance with paragraph 8, SAP No.。
内部控制披露情况的监管外文翻译(节选)
1200单词，7300英文字符，2200汉字出处：Spira L F, Page M. Regulation by disclosure: the case of internal control[J]. Journal of Management & Governance, 2010, 14(4):409-413.外文翻译Regulation by disclosure: the case of internal controlLaura F. Spira, MichaelIn this paper we explore the use of disclosure as a regulatory tool, using as an illustration the current UK requirements regarding the disclosure of informationabout internal control. After discussing the broad concept of regulation by disclosure, we trace the evolution of concepts of internal control and its reporting, describing the background to the Turnbull guidance for directors on internal control reporting, the basis of current UK requirements. We then examine recent examples of internal control disclosures, identifying the range of ways in which they address the disclosure requirements and considering the possible impact of the disclosure requirements on corporate behavior and on the audiences for disclosure. We conclude with some reflections on the disclosure life cycle. The paper contributes to the literature on disclosure by specifically considering the role of disclosure as a regulatory tool and by examining the nature of specific disclosures in an area of continuing interest, that of internal control.In his analysis of the development of the role of audit, Power observes that internal control has become increasingly important as part of a system of regulation which relies on making internal mechanisms visible through forms of self-validation and disclosure. Corporate governance requirements have frequently been couched in the form of codes of practice on the principle of ‘comply or explain’ rather than prescriptive legislation. The monitoring role of the board of directors, which forms the apex of the internal control system of an organisation, has been emphasised. The influence of particular interest groups has been important in the negotiation of these developments. Auditors, both internal and external, can claim expertise in internal control, advancing their organisational position in the case of internal auditors (Spira and Page 2003) and increasing the potential for sales of specialised services in the case of external auditors. Regulators and legislators have focused on internal control issues as a policy response to crises (Cunningham 2004).The use of internal control as a corporate governance device reflects a subtle but significant change in its conception, moving from the original ‘‘supportive’’ notion that internal control systems were an integral part of the structure of an organization which enabled its goals to be achieved, to the more recent view of internal control as a substantially ‘‘preventive’’ system, designed to minimise obstructions to goal achievement and carrying significantly greater expectations of the effectiveness of such systems. As Page and Spira (2004) note, companies have also increasingly taken ‘risk-based’ approaches to internal control because of the increased pace of organizational change—control systems change too fast to be rigidly documented and companies may not even have full documentation relating to some of their IT based systems. For these reasons there has been an increase in ‘delegation’ of controldownwards in the organisation and there is likely to be no central record of control systems.The emergence of risk-based approaches to internal control has resulted in a confluence of internal control and risk management to the point that an influentialpublication (Jones and Sutherland 1999) issued at the same time as the Turnbull guidance referred frequently to ‘‘internal control and risk management’’ as a single concept in providing practical assistance for boards in complying with the Turnbull disclosure requirements.The demonstration of ‘‘good’’ corporate gover nance is a challenge for boards of directors but describing structural mechanisms such as internal control processes may be one way of meeting demands for transparency. Thus, what was once an internal interest becomes a means of demonstrating regulatory compliance.Concerns about internal control in the US and the UK arose initially from a desire to establish the boundaries of external auditor responsibility. The difficulties of defining internal control are illustrated in the earliest US experience, as summarised in a lecture by Mautz (1980). He quotes the 1949 AICPA definition:Internal control comprises the plan of organization and all of the coordinate methods and measures adopted within a business to safeguard its assets, check the accuracy and reliability of its accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and encourage adherence to prescribed managerial policies. and describes the concern of firms’ legal counsel about the broadness of this definition. This concern led to a new definition issued in 1958 which split the four parts of the original definition between ‘‘accounting control’’ (safeguarding assets and checking reliability and accuracy of accounting data) and ‘‘administrative control’’ (promotion of operational efficiency and encouragement of adherence to prescribed management policies) and defined auditors’ responsibility as reviewing accounting controls only. A further narrowing took place in 1972 when the US auditing profession limited the two components of ‘‘accounting control’’ even mor e.Up to this point, the definition was really only of concern to companies and their auditors but the passing of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977 changed this. The Act was passed in response to bribery scandals and for the first time envisaged the use of internal control as regulation. It was based on a narrow conception of internal control newly described as ‘‘internal accounting control’’. It also changed the focus of internal control: whereas the concerns of ‘‘accounting control’’ had been at low organisational levels and clerical procedures, the Act now shifted attention to controls at board level for the first time.Further concern about inadequacies in financial reporting led to a private sector initiative which established the Treadway Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting in 1987. Its recommendations included a call for a review of the varying concepts of internal control to develop a consistent approach. The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO 1992) subsequently produced an integrated framework for internal control in 1992, defining internal control as:A process … designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories:• Effectiveness and efficiency of operations.• R eliability of financial reporting.• Compliance with applicable laws and regulations (COSO 1992, p. 9)However, the Sarbanes Oxley legislation of 2002 introduced a further definition: ‘‘internal control over financial reporting’’ which suggests that cons istency has not yet been achieved and ambiguity still exists.In the UK, internal control first entered the corporate governance agenda when the Cadbury Committee, reporting in 1992 on the financial aspects of corporate governance, adopted the view that d irectors’ responsibilities with regard to internal control should be clarified. They recommended that directors should report on the effectiveness of internal control systems and that auditors should report on that statement but passed responsibility for implementing this to the accountancy profession.In 1994 the Rutteman working party defined internal control using the US definition of 1958 and also replaced the Cadbury recommendation that directors should report on the effectiveness of internal controls with the suggestion that they may wish to do so. In 1998 the Hampel review of the Cadbury Code weakened this recommendation even further but, for the first time, suggested that internal control and risk management were related.This link was built on by the internal control working party chaired by Nigel Turnbull which was charged with producing guidance for directors in interpreting the Code’s requirements for reporting on internal control, finally grasping the nettle avoided by Cadbury, Rutteman and Hampel. Using a broad definition of internal control, the Turnbull guidance views it as a key component of risk management. In terms of the apparent satisfaction of disclosers and their audiences, the guidance consultation initiated by the Financial Reporting Council Turnbull Review Group in 2005. The guidance has also been widely adopted in the public sector.The study reported in this paper uses disclosures required by the Turnbull guidance to illustrate aspects of the use of disclosure as a regulatory tool. Having outlined the background to current concerns about internal control disclosure, the next section considers theories of disclosure.译文内部控制披露情况的监管本文选取英国当前对于内部控制信息披露的规定作为案例，探讨了披露这项监管工具的使用。
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。
内部控制外文翻译.doc
内部控制外文翻译外文翻译原文来源：Research Paper, July XXXX年月日A Clear Look at Internal Controls: Theory and Concepts内部控制透视：理论与概念The necessity of control in new variable business environment is not latent for any person and managementas a response factor for stockholdersand another should implement a greatcontrol over his/her organization. 环境需要新的业务控制变量不为任何潜在的股东和管理人士的响应因子为1，另外应执行/她组织了一个很大的控制权。
控制是管理活动的东西或以上施加控制。
思想的产生和近十年的发展需要有系统的商业资源和控制这种财富一个新的关注。
One of the hot topic a boutcontrols over business resource is analyzingthe cost-benefit of each control. 主题之一热一回合管制的商业资源是分析每个控制成本效益。
作为内部控制和欺诈的第一道防线，维护资产以及预防和侦查错误。
内部控制，我们可以说是一种控制整个系统的财务和其他方面的管理制定了为企业的顺利运行;它包括内部的脸颊，内部审计和其他形式的控制。
COSOdescribe Internal Control as follow. Internalcontrols are the methods employed to help ensure the achievement of an objective. COSO的内部控制描述如下。
内部控制是一个客观的方法用来帮助确保实现。
会计内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献
会计内部控制中英文对照外文翻译文献n:Internal control is an accounting re or control system ___ policies。
protecting assets。
and preventing fraud and errors。
It is an important component of nal management that includes planning。
methods。
and res used to meet tasks。
goals。
and objectives。
and in doing so。
supports performance-based management。
Internal control is equal to management control and can help managers achieve the expected effective management of resources。
However。
designing and establishing effective internal control is not a simple task and cannot be achieved through quick fixes。
This article discusses the different aspects of the concept of internal control and management.Keywords: internal control。
management control。
control environment。
control activities。
n2.Internal Control Perspective: ___The environment requires new business control variables that are not responsive to any potential ___ control。
外文文献-如何监测内部控制
1如何监测内部控制引言：内部控制对于任何一个组织的有效运作都是至关重要的。
若有一个有效的控制系统在合适的地方运用,你的风险可降至最小化。
但是你应该如何监测控制,以确保其质量和效用呢?内部控制是任何组织有效运行的关键,。
董事会、执行长和内部审计人员都为实现这个企业的目标而工作;该内部控制系统是使这些团体确保那些目标的达成的一种手段。
控制帮助一个企业有效率地运转。
此外,运用一种有效的风险系统,风险可被降低到最小。
同时,控制促进经营和与经营有关的信息的可靠性。
发表的有关文件全美反舞弊性财务报告委员会发起组织(COSO;1992) 在它发布的具有开创性的文件《内部控制整合框架》中,将内部控制定义为:企业风险管理是一个过程，受企业董事会、管理层和其他员工的影响，包括内部控制及其在战略和整个公司的应用，旨在为实现经营的效率和效果、财务报告的可靠性以及法规的遵循提供合理保证。
该委员会还指出,一个的内部控制的系统包括五个要素。
它们是：•控制环境•风险评估•信息和沟通•控制活动•监控COSO的定义及五个要素已被证明确实对不同的团体,如董事会和首席执行官起到作用。
这些群体对内部控制系统的监管以及系统设计与运行有责任。
而且,内部审计人员已经发现COSO的指导是有用的。
这群人员可能会被董事会或管理层要求去测试控制。
COSO最近发布的一份讨论文件，指出五个要素监控,其中的五个要素的确定在1992framework COSO原本。
中国发展简报的题为《内部控制-整合框架：内部控制2体1简-科尔伯特，美国中央情报局(CIA)、注册会计师（CPA）、中国注册金融分析师(CRFA)。
是里士满州东部肯塔基大学的一个会计教授。
她主要写关于COSO报告、萨班斯-奥克斯利法案、公司治理问题、内部控制，以及其他主题的文章。
科尔伯特博士从事审计和审计服务教学，以及多种统计学、会计学，和公司治理的MBA课程。
此文出处：《企业会计和金融》2008年5/6月。
- 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)。
附录A
附录B
如何监测内部控制
内部控制是任何组织有效运行的关键,董事会、执行长和内部审计人员都为实现这个企业的目标而工作;该内部控制系统是使这些团体确保那些目标的达成的一种手段。
控制帮助一个企业有效率地运转。
此外,运用一种有效的风险系统,风险可被降低到最小。
同时,控制促进经营和与经营有关的信息的可靠性。
全美反舞弊性财务报告委员会发起组织(COSO；1992) 在它发布的具有开创性的文件《内部控制整合框架》中,将内部控制定义为：企业风险管理是一个过程，受企业董事会、管理层和其他员工的影响，包括内部控制及其在战略和整个公司的应用，旨在为实现经营的效率和效果、财务报告的可靠性以及法规的遵循提供合理保证。
该委员会还指出,一个的内部控制的系统包括五个要素。
它们是：控制环境、风险评估、信息和沟通、控制活动、监控。
COSO的定义及五个要素已被证明确实对不同的团体,如董事会和首席执行官起到作用。
这些群体对内部控制系统的监管以及系统设计与运行有责任。
而且,内部审计人员已经发现COSO的指导是有用的。
这群人员可能会被董事会或管理层要求去测试控制。
COSO最近发布的一份讨论文件，指出五个要素监控,其中的五个要素的确定在1992 frame work COSO原本。
中国发展简报的题为《内部控制-整合框架：内部控制体系监督指南》(COSO，2007)。
在文件中,COSO 强调监控的重要性，以及这些信息常常被没有充分利用。
因为董事会、执行长,和内部审计人员都在一个公司的内部控制中扮演着重要角色，内部控制的各要素,包括监测,都对所有的团体有着非常重要的意义。
同时,外审计人员对监测有兴趣。
《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》（2002）为外部审计师创建了一个新的监督体制。
所有的五个要素,包括监测,必须加以考虑。
另外,内部控制审计必须结合对财务报告的检查。
在一体化审计之前，在首席执行官的领导下，也许也在内部审计活动的支持下的管理，评估了内控制体系的有效性。
随后外部审计人员对控制出具意见。
起监督角色的董事会，将阅读内部审计、管理层和首席执行官出具的报告。
文件关于监测对每一个团体的指导起了帮助,因为他们分别为各自的角色而劳动。
第一，什么是监测。
监测的组成可评估内部控制系统在过去一段时间发挥效用的质量。
其对控制功能的评估有助于企业确定其控制在有效地运作中。
在执行监测活动时，相关人员参与审查系统的设计及其运行效果。
这种检查必须进行及时,目的是为了提供给企业最大的利益。
管理层负责做出适当的行动以回应这些结果。
当事人对内部控制有兴趣,可以充分依赖这个内部控制系统,如果合适的监
测活动被有效管理且管理层根据结果采取行动。
当一个高度的依赖可以连接到内部控制的监控方面，和系统的其它方面的测试,特别是控制活动,可以适当被降低。
即时控制。
一些监测活动将开始执行并且持续。
也就是说,他们被造进系统，沿着正常经营活动执行。
典型地,连续的监测活动都是自动化的。
这个系统随之产生被管理层审查的异常报告,然后适当的行动可以被采取。
不连续控制。
除了用即时连续的监测技术外,企业也可以选择分开的监测活动。
这些需要管理层或内部审计人员的截然不同的监控。
不连续控制可能会成为收集的即时连续活动的信息的结果,或是从正在进行的,或对特定风险的回应。
作为管理者设计内部控制系统,他们会识别企业要达成经营目标的风险。
这些风险应被优先处理，且通过资源配置以分散风险。
正如管理部门设计内部控制系统,会考虑谁将参与这些监测活动，何时且多久执行活动，和对这些元素的监测。
监测环节设计的每一个方面会在下文讨论，设计内部控制的监测环节：识别风险并优先考虑，确定谁将会参与监测活动，考虑监测活动的时间，决定监测活动执行的频率。
风险,优先权,资源。
为了适当地设计内部控制系统，管理部门首先会评估企业正面临的不能达到经营目标的风险。
随后，一个内部控制系统,包括监测环节,会根据这些风险来设计。
为了最有效地利用监测活动,它们应该被优先。
也就是说,携带较大风险的交易和事项比较危险，应该增加监测活动。
这些活动可能会执行得更加频繁。
另一种可能是每次检查之间有较大范围的覆盖。
举个例子,如果一个制造商的销售回报有所增加,但产品质量差,公司可能会选择检查更多的即将装运的产品，或者将检查的时间定在每日，而不是每周。
用于监测活动的资源必须充分。
通过指定合适的资金等级，管理部门就监测活动如何重要发出了一个有力的信息。
一种在最高层实施的方法是建立一个有利于增强控制的组织结构。
接着，才可雇佣合格的、专业的人员来实施和运作这个系统。
作为内部控制的监控环节，应该建立与那些有权采取行动的人员的正式的沟通渠道。
监测活动的结果应很快在权威且有权力做出反应的个体中传开。
及时纠正的措施帮助组织实现其目标有效地、有效率地进行。
第二，谁负责实施监测。
为使监测有效，必须有合适的人员实施这项活动。
个人可将参与监测作为工作的一个方面。
而另一些人,如核查人员,质量控制人员,以及内部审计人员，监测则是他们工作的重点。
管理部门必须设计内部控制系统，来监测发生并且适时的由熟练的员工指挥。
只有这样监测结果才能进行处理。
企业人员必须清楚明白何种信息可以对收到结果的个体起作用,以及何种信息应转到下一水平。
同时, 在系统监测方面的个人的工作应该能够被总结和过滤信息,以便它对那些利用它来完善组织机构的人有用。
管理是对内部控制系统最终负责
的,包括监测，而管理层的人员没有被授权执行监测活动。
内部审计人员可以被要求介入。
另一种选择是把此功能外包出去。
这两种选择都可能是有效的。
同时,利用专业的内部审计人员或第三方提供商，管理层的人员就可腾出时间进行其他活动。
第三，何时监测和监测的频率。
当考虑监测活动的时间,管理层必须考虑多种因素。
例如,这个行业,特定的企业,和有资格的人员执行监测职责都对决定內部控制监测的时间和频率有重要作用。
第四，监测元素。
管理层负责整个的内部控制系统的设计与操作,包括监测环节。
另一个环节, 环境控制,与监测是相关联的。
控制环境包括最高层的组织。
董事会负责为企业营造氛围。
董事会若坚持有效控制对企业的运行是必不可少的，则这种态度将渗透在整个企业。
此外,如果董事会成员强调监测元素的重要性,并要求查看监测活动的结果,管理层则可明确监测元素对该企业的总体目标是如何重要。
举一个监督监测结果的例子，董事会的成员可能会要求监测活动每月有一个总结报告。
各种各样的管理者就可被问及针对结果所采取的措施。
然后,他们将很快了解监测元素对企业的治理有多么重要。
第五，对监测结果的报告和采取的措施。
监测元素有效,内部控制中存在的弱点则必须传达给组织内适当的人员。
每一个弱点迹象的指出应附带着对它的描述。
除了报告弱点和其内部重要性, 关于内部控制的外部沟通由法律或规章规定。
无论接受者对于企业是内部或外部的,及时的沟通是非常重要的。
装备了及时的信息，个体负责仔细操作，就可以选择合适的行动方案。
随之,企业的外部决策者就可以做出正确的选择。