外文文獻翻譯----內部審計在沙特阿拉伯的發(fā)展

1、<p>　　內部審計在沙特阿拉伯的發(fā)展：協(xié)會理論透視</p><p><b>　　內部審計職能的價值</b></p><p>　　早先的研究已經運用各種各樣的方法來制定適當?shù)臉藴室栽u估內部審計職能的有效率。比如說，視遵照標準的程度為影響內部審計表現(xiàn)的其中因素之一。一份1988年國際會計師協(xié)會英國協(xié)會的研究報告就致力與研究內部審計作用價值中高級管理層和外部審計

2、員的認知力。這項研究證明了衡量所提供服務的價值的艱難性就是做評估的主要障礙。收益性，費用標準以及資源利用率都被確認為服務價值的衡量標準。在這項研究里，它強調了確保內部審計工作應遵從SPPIA的必要性。</p><p>　　在美國，1988的Albrechta研究過內部審計的地位和作用，還為了能有效的評估內部審計的效率特別制定出一套框架。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)有四個能讓內部審計部門發(fā)展從而提高內部審計效率的要件：一個合適的企業(yè)環(huán)

3、境，高級管理層的支持，具備高素質的內部審計人員以及高質量的內部審計工作。在這項研究里學者們強調管理層和審計人員都應該承認內部審計職能對于企業(yè)來說是一種具有增值性的職能。在英國，1997年，Ridley和D’Silva證明遵循專業(yè)標準的重要性是促進內部審計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、別專注于內部審計部門對于SPPIA遵從性的研究。1992年，Powell et al對11個國家的國際會計師協(xié)會的成員進行了一項全球性的調查以證明是否有全球性的內部審計文化。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)對這11個國家的國際會計師協(xié)會成員的調查中，有82%的是遵循SPPIA的。這個蠻高的百分比率促使學者們建議SPPIA提供內部審計這個職業(yè)全球化的證據(jù)。許多的研究已經關注涉及到獨立性的SPPIA標準。1981年，Clark et al發(fā)現(xiàn)內部審計部門的獨立性和

5、內部審計人員所做報告的權威性是影響他們工作客觀性的最至關重要的兩個因素。1985年，Plumlee致力于研究影響內部審計人員客觀性的潛在威脅，特別是參與內部控制制度的設計是否會影響到關于該制度質量與有效率的決斷力。Plumlee發(fā)現(xiàn)這樣參與設計會產生偏見最終會影響到工作的客觀性。內部審計職能與公司管理層兩者之間的關系通常會成為決定內部審計客觀性的一個重要因素。1989年，Harrell et al表明管理層對一些觀點的認知能力以及欲望都

6、可能會影響到內部審計人員的工作和判斷力。同時，他們也發(fā)現(xiàn)作為國際會計師協(xié)會成員的內部審計人員是不大可能屈服</p><p>　　在沙特阿拉伯的內部審計研究</p><p>　　已經證明相對地很少有關于沙特阿拉伯企業(yè)內部審計的研究，然而，例外的是1993年的Asairy和1996年的Woodworth和Said。Asairy試著評估沙特阿拉伯合股公司的內部審計部門的效率。他通過對38家公司的

7、內部審計部門的負責人，高級管理層和外部審計人員的問卷調查來研究。這項研究的結果顯示了內部審計成功的一個重要因素就是它獨立于其他的企業(yè)的經濟活動。內部審計部門所提供的服務是會受到管理層，其他雇員和外部審計人員的影響。內部審計人員的教育背景，訓練，經驗和專業(yè)素質都會影響到內部審計的效率。根據(jù)他的這項研究，Asairy建議所有合股公司都應該設置內部審計職能，而且應在沙特大學把內部審計作為一門獨立的課程來設立。1996年，Woodworth和S

8、aid試著調查沙特阿拉伯的內部審計人員關于根據(jù)被審單位的國籍是否會對被審單位具體的內部審計情況有不同的反應的看法?；?4份來自國際會計師協(xié)會達蘭協(xié)會成員的問卷調查，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)不同國籍沒有很大的區(qū)別。內部審計人員不會根據(jù)被審單位的國籍來改變他們的審計方式，文化程度對于審計的結果是沒有很大的影響的。</p><p>　　關于遵循SPPIA的重要性，專家和學術界都強調了內部審計部門和企業(yè)其他部門之間關系在決定內部審計部

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）。學術界致力于研究如果內部審計要有效率，事前的準備工作以及審計人員和被審單位之間的團隊合作精神的必要性。1992年的Bethea認為好的人際關系處理技巧是很重要的因為內部審計會產生消極看法和消極的態(tài)度。這些問題尤其對于多文化的商業(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>　　結論</b></p><p>　　缺少內部審計部門的原因</p><p>　　通過對92家公司的采訪調查公司沒有設置內部審計職能的原因，來自于52家公司的最多的回答就是信賴外

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

12、功能。當提到內部控制制度時他說到，只要他們滿意這最終的報告結果，我認為內部審計職能也可以不需要設置。外部審計最終會顯示出所有內部審計的大缺點。</p><p>　　第二個采訪者（23家企業(yè)，25%）提到最多的不設置內部審計部門的原因是對成本和利潤的一種權衡和協(xié)調。特別地是，17家公司認為公司規(guī)模小以及其活躍性有限的本質意味著設置內部審計部門對他們來說反而是沒有效率的。受采訪的外部審計人員都支持這個觀點，測量成本是

13、毫不費事很容易的，相比較而言衡量利潤則是比較困難這一事實就是促成這個決定的一個因素。</p><p>　　還有一些采訪者給出的不設置內部審計部門的原因。由于執(zhí)行內部審計職能需要高成本的事實，14家企業(yè)聘請了不處于獨立的內部審計部門的雇員來執(zhí)行內部審計的職責。有8家公司認為沒有設置內部審計部門的必要，這是因為他們相信他們有內部控制制度已經足夠了而沒必要再去設置內部審計。5家公司認為內部審計不是什么重要的工作，還有三

14、家公司覺得他們的企業(yè)類型是不需要內部審計的。有三個受訪者提到他們不設置內部審計部門是因為找不到專業(yè)人員來管理運行這個部門，還有6家公司沒有提供不設置內部審計部門的原因。有10家公司曾經設立過內部審計部門但由于在招聘合格的高素質的人員和改變企業(yè)的組織結構方面具有一定難度就不再運行這個部門。說到這里，有8家沒有內部審計部門的公司計劃在不久的未來成立一個內部審計部門。</p><p>　　內部審計部門的獨立性</

15、p><p>　　評論員和權威人士認為獨立性是內部審計部門最主要最關鍵的一個特性。在對內部審計部門的問卷調查回復中有60份說有一份書面文件闡明了內部審計部門的目的，權威性和責任。在所進行的所有問卷調查中，有93%的人說一份在內部審計部門的職權范圍內的文件被高級管理層所認可，有97%的人說這份文件闡明了內部審計部門在企業(yè)中的地位，有接近個人，紀錄，資產的權利，還有90%的認為這份文件闡明了內部審計的范圍。受訪者被要求估計

16、相關文件與SPPIA特定要求想一致的程度。在這些有這種文件的內部審計部門中有27家聲稱是完全遵循SPPIA，有23家認為他們的公文部分遵循SPPIA。有超過三分之一被調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建議當企業(yè)的董事會同意任命或撤除內部審計部門負責人的時候要提高其獨立性，還有內部審計部門的負責人要對企業(yè)里資格老的個人負責。令人關注的是，有47家公司他們對于任命，撤除以及收入報告的責任是由非高級的

17、管理者負責，通常就是一般的經理。SPPIA建議內部審計部門的負責人應該直接坦率的跟董事會溝通以保證審計部門的獨立，同時為內部審計的負責人和董事會提供了一種方</p><p>　　SPPIA證明參與制度的設計，設置，運行很有可能會削弱內部審計人員的客觀性。受訪者被問到在非審計職責的范圍內管理層多久一次會要求內部審計部門的協(xié)助。有37個被調查的內部審計部門說管理層有時，經常有這樣的需求，還有27個部門從來沒參與過這些

18、非審計的工作。這些調查證明了一些企業(yè)的內部審計人員經常會為其他部門的人彌補不足之處。</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,