外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯----內(nèi)部審計(jì)在沙特阿拉伯的發(fā)展

1、<p>　　內(nèi)部審計(jì)在沙特阿拉伯的發(fā)展：協(xié)會(huì)理論透視</p><p><b>　　內(nèi)部審計(jì)職能的價(jià)值</b></p><p>　　早先的研究已經(jīng)運(yùn)用各種各樣的方法來(lái)制定適當(dāng)?shù)臉?biāo)準(zhǔn)以評(píng)估內(nèi)部審計(jì)職能的有效率。比如說(shuō)，視遵照標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的程度為影響內(nèi)部審計(jì)表現(xiàn)的其中因素之一。一份1988年國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì)英國(guó)協(xié)會(huì)的研究報(bào)告就致力與研究?jī)?nèi)部審計(jì)作用價(jià)值中高級(jí)管理層和外部審計(jì)

2、員的認(rèn)知力。這項(xiàng)研究證明了衡量所提供服務(wù)的價(jià)值的艱難性就是做評(píng)估的主要障礙。收益性，費(fèi)用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及資源利用率都被確認(rèn)為服務(wù)價(jià)值的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在這項(xiàng)研究里，它強(qiáng)調(diào)了確保內(nèi)部審計(jì)工作應(yīng)遵從SPPIA的必要性。</p><p>　　在美國(guó)，1988的Albrechta研究過內(nèi)部審計(jì)的地位和作用，還為了能有效的評(píng)估內(nèi)部審計(jì)的效率特別制定出一套框架。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)有四個(gè)能讓內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門發(fā)展從而提高內(nèi)部審計(jì)效率的要件：一個(gè)合適的企業(yè)環(huán)

3、境，高級(jí)管理層的支持，具備高素質(zhì)的內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員以及高質(zhì)量的內(nèi)部審計(jì)工作。在這項(xiàng)研究里學(xué)者們強(qiáng)調(diào)管理層和審計(jì)人員都應(yīng)該承認(rèn)內(nèi)部審計(jì)職能對(duì)于企業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)是一種具有增值性的職能。在英國(guó)，1997年，Ridley和D’Silva證明遵循專業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的重要性是促進(jìn)內(nèi)部審計(jì)職能增值功能的最重要的因素。</p><p><b>　　遵循SPPIA</b></p><p>　　大量的研究都特

4、別專注于內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門對(duì)于SPPIA遵從性的研究。1992年，Powell et al對(duì)11個(gè)國(guó)家的國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì)的成員進(jìn)行了一項(xiàng)全球性的調(diào)查以證明是否有全球性的內(nèi)部審計(jì)文化。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)這11個(gè)國(guó)家的國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì)成員的調(diào)查中，有82%的是遵循SPPIA的。這個(gè)蠻高的百分比率促使學(xué)者們建議SPPIA提供內(nèi)部審計(jì)這個(gè)職業(yè)全球化的證據(jù)。許多的研究已經(jīng)關(guān)注涉及到獨(dú)立性的SPPIA標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。1981年，Clark et al發(fā)現(xiàn)內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的獨(dú)立性和

5、內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員所做報(bào)告的權(quán)威性是影響他們工作客觀性的最至關(guān)重要的兩個(gè)因素。1985年，Plumlee致力于研究影響內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員客觀性的潛在威脅，特別是參與內(nèi)部控制制度的設(shè)計(jì)是否會(huì)影響到關(guān)于該制度質(zhì)量與有效率的決斷力。Plumlee發(fā)現(xiàn)這樣參與設(shè)計(jì)會(huì)產(chǎn)生偏見最終會(huì)影響到工作的客觀性。內(nèi)部審計(jì)職能與公司管理層兩者之間的關(guān)系通常會(huì)成為決定內(nèi)部審計(jì)客觀性的一個(gè)重要因素。1989年，Harrell et al表明管理層對(duì)一些觀點(diǎn)的認(rèn)知能力以及欲望都

6、可能會(huì)影響到內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員的工作和判斷力。同時(shí)，他們也發(fā)現(xiàn)作為國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì)成員的內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員是不大可能屈服</p><p>　　在沙特阿拉伯的內(nèi)部審計(jì)研究</p><p>　　已經(jīng)證明相對(duì)地很少有關(guān)于沙特阿拉伯企業(yè)內(nèi)部審計(jì)的研究，然而，例外的是1993年的Asairy和1996年的Woodworth和Said。Asairy試著評(píng)估沙特阿拉伯合股公司的內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的效率。他通過對(duì)38家公司的

7、內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的負(fù)責(zé)人，高級(jí)管理層和外部審計(jì)人員的問卷調(diào)查來(lái)研究。這項(xiàng)研究的結(jié)果顯示了內(nèi)部審計(jì)成功的一個(gè)重要因素就是它獨(dú)立于其他的企業(yè)的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)。內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門所提供的服務(wù)是會(huì)受到管理層，其他雇員和外部審計(jì)人員的影響。內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員的教育背景，訓(xùn)練，經(jīng)驗(yàn)和專業(yè)素質(zhì)都會(huì)影響到內(nèi)部審計(jì)的效率。根據(jù)他的這項(xiàng)研究，Asairy建議所有合股公司都應(yīng)該設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)職能，而且應(yīng)在沙特大學(xué)把內(nèi)部審計(jì)作為一門獨(dú)立的課程來(lái)設(shè)立。1996年，Woodworth和S

8、aid試著調(diào)查沙特阿拉伯的內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員關(guān)于根據(jù)被審單位的國(guó)籍是否會(huì)對(duì)被審單位具體的內(nèi)部審計(jì)情況有不同的反應(yīng)的看法。基于34份來(lái)自國(guó)際會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì)達(dá)蘭協(xié)會(huì)成員的問卷調(diào)查，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)不同國(guó)籍沒有很大的區(qū)別。內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員不會(huì)根據(jù)被審單位的國(guó)籍來(lái)改變他們的審計(jì)方式，文化程度對(duì)于審計(jì)的結(jié)果是沒有很大的影響的。</p><p>　　關(guān)于遵循SPPIA的重要性，專家和學(xué)術(shù)界都強(qiáng)調(diào)了內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門和企業(yè)其他部門之間關(guān)系在決定內(nèi)部審計(jì)部

9、門成功或其他方面是具有一定的重要性的。（1972年的Mints, 1996年的Flesher, 1998年的Ridley & Chambers,和1999年的Moeller & Witt）。學(xué)術(shù)界致力于研究如果內(nèi)部審計(jì)要有效率，事前的準(zhǔn)備工作以及審計(jì)人員和被審單位之間的團(tuán)隊(duì)合作精神的必要性。1992年的Bethea認(rèn)為好的人際關(guān)系處理技巧是很重要的因?yàn)閮?nèi)部審計(jì)會(huì)產(chǎn)生消極看法和消極的態(tài)度。這些問題尤其對(duì)于多文化的商業(yè)環(huán)境

10、是非常重要的例如像沙特阿拉伯這樣審計(jì)人員和被審單位在文化和教育背景上有很大差異的地方( 1996年Woodworth & Said)。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　缺少內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的原因</p><p>　　通過對(duì)92家公司的采訪調(diào)查公司沒有設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)職能的原因，來(lái)自于52家公司的最多的回答就是信賴外

11、部審計(jì)人員能夠使公司獲得可能會(huì)從內(nèi)部審計(jì)中得到的贏利。典型地，被采訪者認(rèn)為外部審計(jì)者更好，要比內(nèi)部審計(jì)更有效率，更省錢。在對(duì)外部審計(jì)人員的采訪中透露出他們的客戶公司不會(huì)特別的區(qū)分清楚內(nèi)部審計(jì)和外部審計(jì)的工作性質(zhì)和角色的不同之處。比如，一個(gè)外部審計(jì)人員說(shuō)到，對(duì)于外部審計(jì)人員是做什么的通常都有個(gè)誤區(qū)，他們認(rèn)為外部審計(jì)人員會(huì)為公司做所有的事情，而且一定會(huì)找出所有的問題。說(shuō)到這里，一個(gè)外部審計(jì)人員質(zhì)疑內(nèi)部審計(jì)是否在任何一個(gè)企業(yè)環(huán)境中都具有增值的

12、功能。當(dāng)提到內(nèi)部控制制度時(shí)他說(shuō)到，只要他們滿意這最終的報(bào)告結(jié)果，我認(rèn)為內(nèi)部審計(jì)職能也可以不需要設(shè)置。外部審計(jì)最終會(huì)顯示出所有內(nèi)部審計(jì)的大缺點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　第二個(gè)采訪者（23家企業(yè)，25%）提到最多的不設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的原因是對(duì)成本和利潤(rùn)的一種權(quán)衡和協(xié)調(diào)。特別地是，17家公司認(rèn)為公司規(guī)模小以及其活躍性有限的本質(zhì)意味著設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)反而是沒有效率的。受采訪的外部審計(jì)人員都支持這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)，測(cè)量成本是

13、毫不費(fèi)事很容易的，相比較而言衡量利潤(rùn)則是比較困難這一事實(shí)就是促成這個(gè)決定的一個(gè)因素。</p><p>　　還有一些采訪者給出的不設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的原因。由于執(zhí)行內(nèi)部審計(jì)職能需要高成本的事實(shí)，14家企業(yè)聘請(qǐng)了不處于獨(dú)立的內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的雇員來(lái)執(zhí)行內(nèi)部審計(jì)的職責(zé)。有8家公司認(rèn)為沒有設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的必要，這是因?yàn)樗麄兿嘈潘麄冇袃?nèi)部控制制度已經(jīng)足夠了而沒必要再去設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)。5家公司認(rèn)為內(nèi)部審計(jì)不是什么重要的工作，還有三

14、家公司覺得他們的企業(yè)類型是不需要內(nèi)部審計(jì)的。有三個(gè)受訪者提到他們不設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門是因?yàn)檎也坏綄I(yè)人員來(lái)管理運(yùn)行這個(gè)部門，還有6家公司沒有提供不設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的原因。有10家公司曾經(jīng)設(shè)立過內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門但由于在招聘合格的高素質(zhì)的人員和改變企業(yè)的組織結(jié)構(gòu)方面具有一定難度就不再運(yùn)行這個(gè)部門。說(shuō)到這里，有8家沒有內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的公司計(jì)劃在不久的未來(lái)成立一個(gè)內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門。</p><p>　　內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的獨(dú)立性</

15、p><p>　　評(píng)論員和權(quán)威人士認(rèn)為獨(dú)立性是內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門最主要最關(guān)鍵的一個(gè)特性。在對(duì)內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的問卷調(diào)查回復(fù)中有60份說(shuō)有一份書面文件闡明了內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的目的，權(quán)威性和責(zé)任。在所進(jìn)行的所有問卷調(diào)查中，有93%的人說(shuō)一份在內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的職權(quán)范圍內(nèi)的文件被高級(jí)管理層所認(rèn)可，有97%的人說(shuō)這份文件闡明了內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門在企業(yè)中的地位，有接近個(gè)人，紀(jì)錄，資產(chǎn)的權(quán)利，還有90%的認(rèn)為這份文件闡明了內(nèi)部審計(jì)的范圍。受訪者被要求估計(jì)

16、相關(guān)文件與SPPIA特定要求想一致的程度。在這些有這種文件的內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門中有27家聲稱是完全遵循SPPIA，有23家認(rèn)為他們的公文部分遵循SPPIA。有超過三分之一被調(diào)查的部門要么就沒有這樣的公文要么就不清楚文件是否遵循SPPIA。SPPIA建議當(dāng)企業(yè)的董事會(huì)同意任命或撤除內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門負(fù)責(zé)人的時(shí)候要提高其獨(dú)立性，還有內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的負(fù)責(zé)人要對(duì)企業(yè)里資格老的個(gè)人負(fù)責(zé)。令人關(guān)注的是，有47家公司他們對(duì)于任命，撤除以及收入報(bào)告的責(zé)任是由非高級(jí)的

17、管理者負(fù)責(zé)，通常就是一般的經(jīng)理。SPPIA建議內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的負(fù)責(zé)人應(yīng)該直接坦率的跟董事會(huì)溝通以保證審計(jì)部門的獨(dú)立，同時(shí)為內(nèi)部審計(jì)的負(fù)責(zé)人和董事會(huì)提供了一種方</p><p>　　SPPIA證明參與制度的設(shè)計(jì)，設(shè)置，運(yùn)行很有可能會(huì)削弱內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員的客觀性。受訪者被問到在非審計(jì)職責(zé)的范圍內(nèi)管理層多久一次會(huì)要求內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門的協(xié)助。有37個(gè)被調(diào)查的內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門說(shuō)管理層有時(shí)，經(jīng)常有這樣的需求，還有27個(gè)部門從來(lái)沒參與過這些

18、非審計(jì)的工作。這些調(diào)查證明了一些企業(yè)的內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員經(jīng)常會(huì)為其他部門的人彌補(bǔ)不足之處。</p><p>　　THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNAL AUDIT IN SAUDI ARABIA: AN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY PERSPECTIVE</p><p>　　The value of the internal audit function</p

19、><p>　　Previous studies have utilized a variety of approaches to determine appropriate criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the internal audit function. For example, considered the degree of compliance wit

20、h standards as one of the factors which affects internal audit performance. A 1988 research report from the IIA-United Kingdom（IIA-UK，1988）focused on the perceptions of both senior management and external auditors of the

21、 value of the internal audit function. The study identified the difficulty of</p><p>　　In the US, Albrecht et al.(1988)studied the roles and benefits of the internal audit function and developed a framework

22、for the purpose of evaluating internal audit effectiveness. They found that there were four areas that the directors of internal audit departments could develop to enhance effectiveness: an appropriate corporate environm

23、ent, top management support, high quality internal audit staff and high quality internal audit work. The authors stressed that management and auditors should re</p><p>　　Compliance with SPPIA</p><

24、p>　　A number of studies have focused specifically on the compliance of internal audit departments with SPPIA. Powell et al.(1992) carried out a global survey of IIA members in 11 countries to investigate whether there

25、 was evidence of a world-wide internal audit culture. They found an overall compliance rate of 82% with SPPIA. This high percentage prompted the authors to suggest that SPPIA provided evidence of the internationalization

26、 of the internal audit profession. </p><p>　　A number of studies have focused on the SPPIA standard concerned with independence.Clark et al.(1981) found that the independence of the internal audit department

27、 and the level of authority to which internal audit staff report were the two most important criteria influencing the objectivity of their work. Plumlee (1985) focused on potential threats to internal auditor objectivity

28、, particularly whether participation in the design of an internal control system influenced judgements as to the quali</p><p>　　The relationship between the internal audit function and company management mor

29、e generally is clearly an important factor in determining internal auditor objectivity. Harrell et al. (1989) suggested that perceptions of the views and desires of management could influence the activities and judgement

30、 of internal auditors. Also, they found that internal auditors who were members of the IIA were less likely to succumb to such pressure.Ponemon (1991) examined the question of whether or not internal a</p><p&g

31、t;　　Internal audit research in Saudi Arabia</p><p>　　To date there has been relatively little research about internal audit in the Saudi Arabian corporate sector, exceptions, however, are Asairy (1993)and Wo

32、odworth and Said (1996). Asairy (1993)sought to evaluate the effectiveness of internal audit departments in Saudi joint-stock companies. He studied departments in 38 companies using questionnaire responses from the direc

33、tors of internal audit departments, senior company management, and external auditors. The result of this study revealed that o</p><p>　　Woodworth and Said (1996)sought to ascertain the views of internal audi

34、tors in Saudi Arabia as to whether there were differences in the reaction of auditees to specific internal audit situations according to the nationality of the auditee. Based on 34 questionnaire responses from members of

35、 the IIA Dhahran chapter, they found there were no significant differences between the different nationalities. The internal auditors did not modify their audit conduct according to the nationality of the audi</p>

36、<p>　　Given the importance of complying with SPPIA, the professional and academic literature emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the internal audit department and the rest of the organization in d

37、etermining the success or otherwise of internal audit departments (Mints,1972;Flesher,1996;Ridley & Chambers,1998 and Moeller & Witt,1999). This literature focuses on the need for co-operation and teamwork betwee

38、n the auditor and auditee if internal auditing is to be effective.Bethea (1992) </p><p><b>　　Results</b></p><p>　　Reasons for not having an internal audit department</p><p

39、>　　Of the 92 company interviews examining the reasons why companies do not have an internal audit function, the most frequent response from 52 companies (57%) was that reliance on the external auditor enabled the comp

40、any to obtain the benefits that might be obtained from internal audit. Typically, interviewees argued that the external auditor is better, more efficient and saves money. Interviews with the external auditors revealed th

41、at client companies could not distinguish clearly between the work</p><p>　　there is a misperception of what the external auditor does, they think the external auditor does everything for the company and mus

42、t discover any problem.</p><p>　　Having said this, one external auditor doubted that an internal audit function would add value in all circumstances. When referring to the internal control system he stated,

43、</p><p>　　as long as they are happy with the final output, I think the internal audit function will not add value. External auditing eventually will highlight any significant internal control weakness.</p

44、><p>　　The second most frequent reason mentioned by interviewees (23 firms, 25%) for not operating an internal audit department was the cost/benefit trade-off. Specifically, 17 firms considered that the small s

45、ize of the company and the limited nature of its activities meant that it would not be efficient for them to have an internal audit department. The external auditors interviewed were of the opinion that the readily ident

46、ifiable costs as compared with the more difficult to measure benefits was a f</p><p>　　A number of other reasons were given by interviewees for not having an internal audit department. As a consequence of th

47、e high costs of conducting internal audit activities, 14 firms used employees who were not within a separate internal audit department to carry out internal audit duties. Eight companies did not think there was a need fo

48、r internal audit because they believed their internal control systems were sufficient to obviate the need for internal audit. Five companies did not think that </p><p>　　The independence of internal audit de

49、partments</p><p>　　Commentators and standard setters identify independence as being a key attribute of the internal audit department. From the questionnaire responses 60 (77%) of the internal audit departmen

50、ts stated that there was a written document defining the purpose, authority and responsibility of the department. In nearly all instances where there was such a document the terms of reference of the internal audit depar

51、tment had been agreed by senior management (93%), the document identified the role of the in</p><p>　　SPPIA suggests that independence is enhanced when the organization’s board of directors concurs with the

52、appointment or removal of the director of the internal audit department, and that the director of the internal audit department is responsible to an individual of suitable seniority within the organization. It is noticea

53、ble that in 47 companies (60%) their responsibilities with regard to appointment, removal and the receipt of reports lay with non-senior management, normally a general manager</p><p>　　Unrestricted access to

54、 documentation and unfettered powers of enquiry are important aspects of the independence and effectiveness of internal audit. The questionnaire responses revealed that 34 (44%) internal audit directors considered that t

55、hey did not have full access to all necessary information. Furthermore, a significant minority (n=11, 14%) did not believe they were free, in all instances, to report faults, frauds, wrongdoing or mistakes. A slightly hi

56、gher number (n=17, 22%) considered tha</p><p>　　SPPIA identifies that involvement in the design, installation and operating of systems is likely to impair internal auditor objectivity. Respondents were asked

57、 how often management requested the assistance of the internal audit department in the performance of non-audit duties. In 37 internal audit departments (47%) surveyed such requests were made sometimes, often or always,