内部控制环境外文翻译

内部控制环境外文翻译 The Standardization Office was revised on the afternoon of December 13, 2020
内部控制环境外文翻译
Annukka Jokip i
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。

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。

研究
报告分析了使用方程关系模型对741家芬兰公司进行实例证明并得到结果。

这项研究的结果在几个重要方面增加了有限的内部控制研究的知识。

首先，研究中提出了要利用内部控制及其在实践中的有效性度量模型的实证研究结果。

世界上有一些组织已经将内部控制框架建立基金会来开展活动。

无论如何，有一点是值得注意的，那就是除了求证时间框架外还要更加深入的求证内部控制研究模型。

除了少数例子外，Stringer和Carey早在2002年就研究了在特定集中研究控制元件，如控制环境同心结构或风险评估，在这些研究中内部控制只是作为一个概念，是研究不同情况下的整体。

第二，尽管在这之前控制行为关系在内部控制的了解中发挥了关键作用，但是控制行为对内部控制的应急理论尚未进行充分研究。

第三，从知识管理的角度进行内部控制还不成熟，因此在我们的研究中内部控制调查研究是重点。

第四，本文研究的主要特点是当一个组织注意内部控制时必须检视意外事件的特征。

其目的是确定哪些特征在内部变化有助于解释控制系统和观察内部控制的有效性。

然而，当对该模型进行一元或多元变量设置时，会产生不同的效果。

因此，本文主要论证了，如何将SEM技术应用到内部控制的研究。

在内部控制结构有效替代的情况下了解内部控制替代前后差异的共同性，这项研究将会对内部控制讨论做出很大的贡献，不仅如此，这项研究还提供了一种方法来识别不同组织对内部控制的特殊需求。

接下来的部分介绍了研究框架和部分定义的介绍，研究结构的相关问题文献。

随后本文详细阐述了在SEM方法从741家芬兰公司搜集数据为基础对实例论证。

最后是对结果的讨论以及对研究限制阐述。

2 研究框架
在2003年Chenhall运用控制系统设计可以协助管理人员实现其公司的目标和期望的结果。

内部系统控制增强了企业的检测报告程序，也确保遵守法律法规。

通过这种有效的内部控制对公司成功方面有着关键的作用。

但是，正如我们观察到的，内部控制在真空下是不存在的。

在1994年COCO（加拿大控制基准委员会框架）中指出，两个组织不存在类似的控制系统，除非该组织的中心组织机构系统是相同的。

内部控制系统根据不同的细节需要会产生在不同的组织环境下。

在1994年COSO（美国控制基准委员会）在内部控制框架中提出内部控制系统是由控制环境、风险评估、内控活动、信息与沟通、监督五要素组成，它们取决于管理层经营企业的方式，并融入管理过程本身，其相互关系可以用其模型表示。

此声明类似于权变理论对每一个组织的特点采取适当的控制系统一样。

（参考Chapman 1997； Chenhall 2003；
Fisher1995； Luft and Shields 2003）因此，以应急理论为基础的方法提供了在实践当中对内部控制因素不同的解释。

同时，以应急理论为基础的权变理论构成了一种新的方法来重新演绎有内部控制的理论和基础特点。

图1
应变特征
RQ1RQ2RQ3
RQ4
内部控制结构内部控制评判效果因此管理控制作为在组织制度中的一个重要控制子集一直是权变理论的研究主体。

研究主要集中在上下变量对管理控制系统设计的影响，本文，是对文献回顾的研究基础上分析的。

其目的是利用了解内部控制结构的特点和影响来观察成效以作为制定权变理论的基础。

内部控制和权变理论共享某些元素，但是共同点和不同点的广度取决于所用的定义。

在2003年Chenhall 指出，以前的以应变研究为基础的管理控制研究遵循传统的协助管理人员决策，是一种被动工具。

其目的是为了利用管理控制系统包含了一个会计系统这一特性，更好的管理包括个人或家族控制的控制因素，这样的控制理论如：
图1说明了研究框架和理论基础上的内部控制框架。

变量之间的关系有三组，在应变特点，内部控制结构和观察成效是本文研究的终点。

前四个研究问题（RQ1-RQ4）旨在测试（战略，规模，组织应变特征结构和环境的不确定性）等因素对内部控制结构的影响。

这些因素前人都有所研究（例如Chenhall 2003；Donaldson 2001；Hoque and James 2000； Macintosh 1994；Simons 1987；Drazinand Van de Ven 1985；Otley 1980)指出，指出这些因素对控制结构和企业的绩效产生一定的影响。

第五个研究因素（RQ5）集中于内部控制结构与内部控制有效性的关系上。

变量之间的理论关系是基于COSO （美国控制基础委员会）1994年提出的。

指出根据特定的情况对内部控制的需求不尽相同，但是内部控制组成的部分功能可以引导有效地内部控制系统。

Fisher 1998年指出，成功的剪裁控制系统以适应企业的特点等类似的权变理论对公司的业绩有着突出的贡献。

然而企业可能有着传统性能的其他目标。

因此根据Fisher1995年的建议，在模型中所设想的一个非财务目标对内部控制的有效性产生理想的效果。

用内部控制因素管理大型的公司已成为关键的因素（Sutton 在2006年指出）。

内部控制在组织中的影响和传统性能的可靠性措施可以衡量内部控制系统的业绩，不过在过去的文献中发现了许多相关文献。

3.结构定义和研究
在本节中提出了定义的适用范围，并且给出了以前的研究对构造问题因素之间的关系。

内部控制框架
根据内部控制的广泛研究，它涵盖了一个组织的方方面面，在这里运用了汇集控制器的概念将内部控制架构的方法形成一个完整的整体，明确内部需求。

在著名的内部控制框架（COCO、COSO）（加拿大控制基准委员会、美国控制基准委员会）中包括有效地内部控制定义和目前内部控制结构的组成部分。

举例来说，在1994年COCO（加拿大控制基础委员会）框架中提到的内部控制状态可以在董事会和管理层的理解程度上，该实体的目标在于实现公布财务报表以及保证遵守法律法规。

因此，在这中间的内部控制的研究应进行有效的界定，如何控制好这三个目标在管理的观念上实现，是企业所要重点关注的问题。

因此，我认为可以在一个适当的内部控制框架结构中描述五个不同组成部分的条款，其可以确定为：
1 控制环境的界定是一个组织得以运作的精神支柱。

这个组件可以给人们创造一个他们可以进行他们的活动和执行它们的责任氛围。

他创建了这家公司整体控制文化。

2 风险评估部分是指，处理风险如何威胁公司实现目标的过程。

他设计到对风险的识别、分析和相应的评估。

3 控制活动的组成部分，是指对政策、程序和做法对分先环节战略的实施是的管理目标得以实现的过程。

4 信息和通信组建是指确保有关信息在形式和时限上的识别，是工作人员履行其职责和责任的有效沟通过程。

5 监测组件是指评估内部控制的质量过程，谈涵盖了有管理人员进程外的其他各方面进行内部控制的外部监督和定期评估。

在本文中这五个组成部分定义了内部控制的架构。

根据1994年COCO架构，为了有足够的内部控制系统使其组件部分正常运行。

大部分的研究将这一部分作为重点研究领域设定控制元件（Aquila 1998; Hooks etal. 1994; Milles 1997）。

在2002年Stringer and Carey研究的五个组成部分，以及单个因素对内部控制研究是在此研究领域的一个质转变。

在这项研究中观察到的内部控制原件及其有效性能分析的潜在变量。

应当指出的是，理论和具体的个人控制或判断分析水平并不是主要的研究焦点。

此外，分析应用水平受公司首席执行官和其他管理人员的控制。

应急变量
在以前的研究中指出(Fisher1995；Gerdin2005)，控制系统可能经过调试来进行应对多种相互矛盾情形下的需求。

为了研究内部结构设计的复杂性，本文选择研究四个变量的特征。

该研究探讨了战略，规模，组织结构和环境的不确定性对内部控制结
构的影响，并且对其有效性进行考证。

早先的研究中证明，这些特征对内部控制结构的性能设计有一定的影响(比如Chenhall 2003; Donaldson 2001; Hoque and James 2000; Macintosh 1994; Simons 1987; Drazin and Van de Ven 1985; Otley 1980)然而，特征选择不是唯一的，并且对内部控制结构有着相关的影响。

4战略
Otley (1980) 和 Dermer (1977) 分别指出，企业战略应当属于会计控制系统设计的主要特征之一。

公司的战略不同将采用不同的控制系统，正如Miles and Snow (1978)和 Porter (1980)等指出的。

Simons在1990年发现，公司会因不同的会计控制系统来选择不同的战略方式。

虽然这些早期的研究表明，企业战略的不同往往会引起不同的控制系统配置。

战略也会导致内部控制的一些分歧。

然而，迄今为止进行的实例研究都没有取得战略与控制系统的自然链接。

在1978年Miles和Snow研究得大多数控制前者与后者的差异为重点。

Miles和Snow发现控制系统类型侧重于发现问题并且能够帮助一个组织灵活的应对环境的变化。

在1977年正如Langfield-Smith所指出的组织控制可以分散结果为导向。

这就意味着，监测通过强有力的控制环境，从未确保有力的控制意识。

Simons在1987年发现通过监测异常报告与月度报告的预算偏差，通过监测需要从市场上寻找到的机会，将各种不同的信息通过通信组件提供对未来预测有用的信息。

Simons在1987年的结论，在正式的控制系统的属性差异的捍卫下，得到这些属性对公司的业绩有着深远的影响。

根据之前的管理研究控制（Langfield Smith 1997; Chenhall 2003）表明，某些类型的控制系统将适用特定策略。

监测通过灵活的控制来应对不确定性的环境，减少不确定性的发生和公司效率最大化。

相对于公司，监测型公司根据用户的不同在不断地改变他们的管理系统。

Determinants and consequences of internal control
in firms: a contingency theory based analysis
作者：Annukka Jokipii
起始页码：1-12
出版日期（期刊号）：March 2009,Vol. 2, No. 4(Serial No. 11)
出版单位： Springer Science and Business Media, LLC. 2009
Abstract ：In order to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of activities, reliability of information and compliance with applicable laws, firms demand adequate internal control. However, several frameworks assume that the need for internal control varies according to a firm’s characteristics. This concurs with contingency theory, which claims that each organization has to choose the most suitable control system by taking into account contingency characteristics. This study examines which contingency characteristics firms choose to adapt their internal control structure and whether it results in a more favorable assessment of the effectiveness of control by the management. While the components of internal control have been examined individually in the control paper attempts to shed light on internal control and place it in a broader context. The results, derived from a web-based survey of 741 Finnish firms, indicate that firms adapt their internal control structure to deal with environmental uncertainty and to achieve observed control effectiveness. Also the strategy has statistically significant effects on internal control structure.
Keywords : Internal control Effectiveness Contingency theory
Structural equation modeling
1 Introduction
It is generally believed that an internal control system reduces risks and helps firms ensure the reliability of financial statements and compliance with laws and regulations (Spira and Page 2003). So, an increasing number of business failures and some widely publicized frauds have encouraged firms to put more emphasis on their internal control systems, which are specific to their particular operating environment. Management is under increased pressure to enhance the effectiveness of internal control and to effectively communicate this to the board of directors and shareholders (Sutton 2006). Reference groups like auditors, suppliers and customers are also interested in internal controls since they may affect long-term confidence
in reporting, accountability and in the corporate form of organization (Rittenberg and Schwieger 2001).
Despite the fact that internal control is an essential factor affecting the firm, the evidence of the actual performance of an internal control structure within the organizational environment is almost non-existent, and the topic relatively unexplored by researchers, as noted by Kinney (2000). The professional literature on internal control has made progress toward developing international control frameworks, but so far the amount of internal control research is limited. Selto and Widener (2004) analyze published research and professional articles and find that there were fewer internal control topics in the management control research literature than in practical literature. Increasing emphasis on the role played by internal control in business (Maijoor 2000), and the lack of existing research, creates new research needs and opportunities.
This study contributes to the understanding of the internal control structure and its observed effectiveness in company contexts. Even though the internal control frameworks (COSO, COCO etc.) present a standardized structure and objectives for internal control, they still advise that the need for effective internal control varies according to a firm’s characteristics. However, neither frameworks nor prior literature provide an adequate picture of the relationships between a firm’s characteristics and its control system. Therefore, this study utilizes a contingency approach to examine the design of the internal control structure and its observed effectiveness in different contexts. The study examines relationships using structural equation modeling (SEM) and presents empirical results from 741 firms in Finland.
The results of this study add to the limited internal control research knowledge in several important respects. First, the study presents empirical findings using measurement models for internal control and its effectiveness in practice. There are organizations worldwide which have used internal control frameworks as a foundation for conducting activities. At any rate, there is little evidence about frameworks outside practice, and thus the models deserve more intensive research attention (COSO 1994; Selto and Widener 2004). With a few
exceptions .,Stringer and Carey 2002) earlier studies have usually concentrated on particular control elements, such as the control environment (Aquila 1998), communication (Hooks et al. 1994) or risk assessment (Mills 1997). In this study the internal control concept is examined as a whole in different contexts. Second, the action of contingency theory on internal control has not been examined sufficiently within the prior literature even though that relationship plays a critical role in better understanding internal control within organizations. Third, there is a lack of knowledge about internal control from the point of view of management. The literature has so far concentrated on the external parties’view (Felix 1998), although organizing internal control in the organization is in fact the responsibility of management. Therefore, in this study the perceptions of the management of the surveyed firms are the focus. Fourth, this study examines important contingency characteristics that should be taken into account when focusing on the internal control in an organization. The aim is to determine which characteristics are helpful in explaining variations in an internal control system and its observed effectiveness. However, the model examined, yields different results when examined in a bivariate or in a multivariate setting. Therefore, this paper demonstrates how a contingency approach and SEM technique may be applied to internal control research.
Understanding commonalities and differences in internal control structures and observed effectiveness in alternative contexts makes a significant contribution to the internal control discussion. Thus, the study provides a means to identify the special needs of different organizations.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section presents a research framework and the following section presents definitions of constructs and the literature related to the research questions. The fourth section explains the survey design and measurement of variables. Following that, the paper elaborates on the empirical analysis using the SEM method based on data collected from 741 Finnish firms. The sixth section includes a discussion of the results. The last section ends with the conclusions and limitations of the study.
2 Research framework
Control systems are designed to assist managers to achieve their firm’s goals and desired ou tcomes (Chenhall 2003). An internal control system potentially enhances a firm’s monitoring and reporting processes, as well as ensuring compliance with laws and regulations. In this way effective internal control has a critical role to play in a firm’s su ccess. But, as we can see from the practical findings, internal control does not exist in vacuum. The COSO framework (1994, p. 18) states that two organizations should not have similar internal control system unless the organizations are identical. The need for, and the specifics of, internal control systems may vary in organizational contexts. This statement presented in the internal control framework (COSO 1994) is analogous to contingency theory that claims that each organization has to choose the most suitable control system by taking into account contingency characteristics (see reviews in Chapman 1997; Chenhall 2003; Fisher 1995; Luft and Shields 2003). The contingency approach therefore offers an explanation for the variety
of internal control systems found in practice.
However, contingency theory constitutes a novel approach to studying internal control and thus, theoretical fundamentals and chosen characteristics are derived from the contingency-based control literature. Consequently, management control
is a major control sub-system in organizations which have been the subject of contingency theory research (Collier 2004). The research has mainly focused on the influence of contextual variables on management control system design (for example Langfield Smith 1997; Chenhall 2003) and in this paper, the literature is reviewed along with an analysis of the research based on these studies. The aim is to use contingency theory to understand characteristics affecting internal control structures and its observed effectiveness rather than
to elaborate on contingency theory as such.
Figure 1 illustrates the research framework based on contingency theory and internal control frameworks. The relationships between three sets of variables—the contingency characteristics, the internal control structure and the observed effectiveness—are the focus of this research. The first four research questions (RQ1–RQ4) aim to test if contingency characteristics (strategy, size, organizational structure and environmental uncertainty) affect the internal control structure. There
is evidence in earlier management control studies (for example Chenhall 2003; Donaldson 2001; Hoque and James 2000; Macintosh 1994; Simons 1987; Drazin and Van de Ven 1985; Otley 1980) that these characteristics may have some impact on the design of control structures and on firm performance.
The fifth research question (RQ5) concentrates on the relationship between an internal control structure and observed internal control effectiveness. The theoretical relationship between variables is based on the COSO (1994) that states that depending on circumstances the need for internal control varies, but internal control components that are presented and function properly lead to effective internal control systems. The relationship also parallels contingency theory that states that successfully tailoring a control system to suit the firm’s characteristics will result in better firm performance (Fisher 1998). However, firms may also have goals other than traditional performance. Therefore, as proposed by Fisher (1995), a desired outcome envisaged in the model is that of a non-financial goal, namely internal control effectiveness. This has become more important due to management being
under increased pressure to enhance it in firms with proper internal control (Sutton 2006). Internal control affects many processes in an organization and reliable traditional performance measures, which can be claimed to measure performance due solely to the internal control system, can not be identified in the previous literature.
To summarize, this paper examines if contingency characteristics affect the internal control structure and further, whether the internal control structure will result in a more favorable assessment of effectiveness if applied in alternative contexts.
3 Definition of constructs and research questions
In this section the definitions of the constructs used are presented, and the literature that contributes to the relationships between constructs is reviewed alongside there search questions that have been developed.
Internal control framework
According to the broad view of internal control, it covers all aspects of an organization and there was a clear demand for a method of pulling together control concepts to form an integrated internal control framework. Well-known frameworks (COSO, COCO) the Basle Framework, the Combined Code and the Turnbull Guidance) include a definition of effective internal control and present the components of the internal control structure. For example COSO (1994) states that internal control can be judged to be effective when the board of directors and management have reasonable assurances that they understand the extent to which the entity’s operational objectives ar e being achieved, the published financial statements are being prepared reliably, and the applicable laws and regulations are being
complied with. Therefore, in this study effectiveness of internal control is defined in terms of management’s perceptions of how well these three internal control objectives are met. Similarly, in the frameworks a proper internal control structure is described in different terms, but the following five components can be identified:
1. The control environment component defines the ethos of an organization and the way it operates. This component refers to the creation of an atmosphere in which people can conduct their activities and carry out their control responsibilities. It creates the overall control culture in the firm.
2. The risk assessment component refers to the processes of dealing with the risks that pose a threat to achieving the firm’s objectives. It involves the identification, analysis and assessment of relevant risks.
3. The control activities component refers to policies, procedures and practices that assure management that the objectives are achieved and the risk mitigation strategies are carried out effectively.
4. The information and communication component ensures that relevant information is identified, captured and communicated in a form and time frame that allows personnel to carry out their duties and responsibilities effectively.
5. The monitoring component refers to a process of assessing the quality of control. It covers ongoing and periodical evaluations of the external super vision of internal controls by management or other parties outside the process.
In this research these five components define the internal control It is stated in the frameworks ., COSO 1994) that in order to have an adequate internal control system these components of internal control must be presented and function properly. Most of the research in this field focuses on examining particular control elements (Aquila 1998; Hooks et al. 1994; Mills 1997). Stringer and Carey (2002) examines all five components but use a qualitative approach and examine the components separately.
In this study internal control components and observed effectiveness are used as latent variables in the analysis. It should be noted that the level of analysis is theoretical and specific individual controls or judgments are not the main focus of the study (see for example Felix and Niles 1988; Gadh et al. 1993). Furthermore,
the level of analysis in the firms is at the corporate control level as applied by the
CEO and other corporate officers (see 1998)
.
Contingency variables
Previous studies (Fisher 1995; Gerdin 2005) have noted that a control system may have to be tailored to multiple and sometimes conflicting contextual characteristics. To capture the complexities of internal control structure design, this paper chooses to examine four contingency characteristics. The study examines the impact of strategy, size, organization structure, and environmental uncertainty on an internal control structure and reports its observed effectiveness. There is evidence in earlier studies that these characteristics have some impact on the design of control structures and on performance (for example Chenhall 2003; Donaldson 2001;Hoque and James 2000; Macintosh 1994; Simons 1987; Drazin and Van de Ven 1985; Otley 1980). However, the selection of the characteristics may not be the
only set of variables that might have an effect on internal control structure but the characteristics are considered relevant and are widely examined in control literature (Chenhall 2003). Next, this paper reviews the related literature for each contingency characteristic and develops its first four research questions.
4 Strategy
Otley (1980) and Dermer (1977) state that the business strategy should be one of the main features in accounting control system design. Depending on the firm’s strategy, as noted by Miller et al. (1986), Miles and Snow (1978) and Porter (1980), control systems are used in different ways. For example, Simons (1990) found evidence that firms employ accounting control systems in dissimilar ways if they use different strategies. While these earlier studies suggest that different types of firm strategies tend to cause different control system configurations, strategies may also cause some differences in internal control. However, empirical studies conducted to date have not yielded any firm conclusions about the nature of the most appropriate connections between strategies and control ., 1999)
The Miles and Snow (1978) typology was adopted in this study; most control research has only focused on the differences between prospector and defender (Fisher 1995). Miles and Snow (1978) find that control systems of the prospector type may focus more on problem finding and that identifying flexible structures and processes may assist an organization in responding rapidly to environmental noted by Langfield Smith (1997) control in prospector organizations may be decentralized and results oriented. This means that the prospector requires a strong control environment, which can ensure strong control consciousness. Further,Simons (1987) finds that the prospector emphasizes monitoring deviations from a budget through exception reports and monthly reports. A prospector needs a wide range of information related to the future during the search for market opportunities which may activate information and communication components. Simons (1987) concludes that differences in the attributes of formal control systems exist between defender and prospector organizations and that these attributes have significant effects on company performance.
Based on prior management control studies (see Lang field-Smith 1997; Chenhall 2003) it is possible to suggest that certain types of control system will be suited to particular strategies; prospectors are more likely to have flexible controls to enable quick adaptation to fast changing environments, while defenders are more likely to focus on reducing uncertainty and maximizing efficiency. Compared to defenders, prospectors are more flexible in modifying their management systems according to user needs. Based on the previous discussion the following research question is raised.。