外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯--內(nèi)部審計(jì)

1、內(nèi)部審計(jì)在沙特阿拉伯的發(fā)展:協(xié)會(huì)理論透視內(nèi)部審計(jì)職能的價(jià)值 1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)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。在美國(guó), 1988的 Albrechta 研究過(guò)內(nèi)部審計(jì)的地位和作用,還為了能有效的評(píng)

2、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(mén)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)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 DSilva 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。遵循 SPPIA大量的研究都特別專注于內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)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

3、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(mén)的獨(dú)立性和內(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

4、偏見(jiàn)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于這種壓迫下的。 1991年, Ponemon 調(diào)查研究了這樣一個(gè)問(wèn)題, 內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員是否會(huì)在他們工作過(guò)程中報(bào)告那些未被揭露 的敏感問(wèn)題。 他得出的結(jié)論是, 影響內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員客觀性的三個(gè)因素分別是他們?cè)谄?業(yè)中所處的地位,他們跟管理層的關(guān)系以及舉報(bào)不道德行為的渠道的存在。在沙特阿拉伯的

5、內(nèi)部審計(jì)研究已經(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(mén)的效率。他通過(guò)對(duì) 38家公司的內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)的負(fù)責(zé)人,高級(jí)管 理層和外部審計(jì)人員的問(wèn)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(mén)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

6、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(mén)獨(dú)立的課程來(lái)設(shè) 立。 1996年, Woodworth 和 Said 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?；?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(wèn)卷調(diào)查,他們發(fā)現(xiàn)不同國(guó)籍沒(méi)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(méi)有很大的影響的。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(mén)和企業(yè)其他部門(mén) 之間關(guān)系在決定內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)成功或其他方面是具有一定的重要性的。 (1972年的 Min

7、ts, 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(wèn)題尤其對(duì)于多文化 的商業(yè)環(huán)境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。結(jié)論缺少內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)的原因通過(guò)對(duì) 92家公司的采訪調(diào)

8、查公司沒(méi)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(qián)。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(wèn)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

9、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)。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(mén)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(mén)對(duì)他們來(lái)說(shuō)反而是沒(méi)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。還有一些采訪者給出的不設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)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(mén)的雇員來(lái)執(zhí)行內(nèi)部審計(jì)的

10、職 責(zé)。 有 8家公司認(rèn)為沒(méi)有設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)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(méi)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, 還有三家公司覺(jué)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(mén)是因?yàn)檎也坏綄I(yè)人員來(lái)管理運(yùn)行這個(gè)部門(mén), 還有 6家公司 沒(méi)有提供不設(shè)置內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)的原因。有 10家公司曾經(jīng)設(shè)立過(guò)內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)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(mén)。 說(shuō)到這里, 有 8家沒(méi)有內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)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(mén)。內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)的獨(dú)立性評(píng)論員和權(quán)威

11、人士認(rèn)為獨(dú)立性是內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)最主要最關(guān)鍵的一個(gè)特性。 在對(duì)內(nèi) 部審計(jì)部門(mén)的問(wèn)卷調(diào)查回復(fù)中有 60份說(shuō)有一份書(shū)面文件闡明了內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)的目 的,權(quán)威性和責(zé)任。在所進(jìn)行的所有問(wèn)卷調(diào)查中,有 93%的人說(shuō)一份在內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén) 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(mén)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)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(mén)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(guò)三分

12、之一被調(diào)查的部門(mén)要么就沒(méi)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(mén)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(mén)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(mén)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(mén)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) 提供了一種方法以能使彼此告知對(duì)方的利益。 在跟內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)負(fù)責(zé)人的交談中顯示 出內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)通常是對(duì)一般經(jīng)理報(bào)告負(fù)責(zé)而不是董事會(huì)。 由問(wèn)卷回復(fù)者提

13、供的缺乏 跟董事會(huì)交流的進(jìn)一步證據(jù)顯示出在將近一半的公司中, 內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)的成員從來(lái)都 沒(méi)參加過(guò)董事會(huì)會(huì)議而只有兩家公司的內(nèi)部審計(jì)人員是定期出席董事會(huì)會(huì)議的。 獲取 證據(jù)不受限制和不受束縛的詢問(wèn)權(quán)力是內(nèi)部審計(jì)獨(dú)立性和有效性的最重要的方面。 問(wèn) 卷的回復(fù)顯示有 34個(gè)內(nèi)部審計(jì)主管認(rèn)為他們不能完全獲取所有有用的信息。而且, 在所有調(diào)查中, 少數(shù)一些人不相信他們可以不受限制的報(bào)告缺陷, 隱瞞, 不道德的行 為或者錯(cuò)誤。還有相當(dāng)一部分人認(rèn)為做內(nèi)部審計(jì)不能總是從高級(jí)管理層那里獲得支 持。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(wèn)到在非審計(jì)職責(zé)的范圍內(nèi)管

14、理層多久一次會(huì)要求內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)的協(xié)助。 有 37個(gè)被調(diào)查的內(nèi)部審計(jì)部門(mén)說(shuō)管理層有時(shí),經(jīng)常有這樣的需求,還有 27個(gè)部門(mén)從來(lái) 沒(méi)參與過(guò)這些非審計(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(mén)的人彌補(bǔ)不足之處。THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNAL AUDIT IN SAUDI ARABIA: AN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY PERSPECTIVEThe value of the internal audit functionPrevious studies have utilized a variety of approaches to dete

15、rmine appropriate criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the internal audit function. For example, considered the degree of compliance with standards as one of the factors which affects internal audit performance. A 1988 research report from the IIA-United Kingdom(IIA-UK , 1988 focused on the per

16、ceptions of both senior management and external auditors of the value of the internal audit function. The study identified the difficulty of measuring the value of services provided as a major obstacle to such an evaluation. Profitability, cost standards and the effectiveness of resource utilization

17、 were identified as measures of the value of services. In its recommendations it highlighted the need to ensure that internal audit work complies with SPPIA.In the US, Albrecht et al.(1988studied the roles and benefits of the internal audit function and developed a framework for the purpose of evalu

18、ating internal audit effectiveness. They found that there were four areas that the directors of internal audit departments could develop to enhance effectiveness: an appropriate corporate environment, top management support, high quality internal audit staff and high quality internal audit work. The

19、 authors stressed that management and auditors should recognize the internal audit function as a value-adding function to the organization. In the UK, Ridley and DSilva (1997 identified the importance of complying with professional standards as the most important contributor to the internal audit fu

20、nction adding value.Compliance with SPPIAA 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 was evidence of a world-wide internal audit cu

21、lture. 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 of the internal audit profession.A number of studies have focused on the SPPIA standard concerned with independence.Clark et a

22、l.(1981 found that the independence of the internal audit department and the level of authority to which internal audit staff report were the two mostimportant criteria influencing the objectivity of their work. Plumlee (1985 focused on potential threats to internal auditor objectivity, particularly

23、 whether participation in the design of an internal control system influenced judgements as to the quality and effectiveness of that system. Plumlee found that such design involvement produced bias that could ultimately threaten objectivity.The relationship between the internal audit function and co

24、mpany management more generally is clearly an important factor in determining internal auditor objectivity. Harrell et al. (1989 suggested that perceptions of the views and desires of management could influence the activities and judgement of internal auditors. Also, they found that internal auditor

25、s who were members of the IIA were less likely to succumb to such pressure.Ponemon (1991 examined the question of whether or not internal auditors will report sensitive issues uncovered during the course of their work. He concluded that the three factors affecting internal auditor objectivity were t

26、heir social position in the organization, their relationship with management and the existence of a communication channel to report wrongdoing.Internal audit research in Saudi ArabiaTo date there has been relatively little research about internal audit in the Saudi Arabian corporate sector, exceptio

27、ns, however, are Asairy (1993and Woodworth and Said (1996. Asairy (1993sought to evaluate the effectiveness of internal audit departments in Saudi joint-stock companies. He studied departments in 38 companies using questionnaire responses from the directors of internal audit departments, senior comp

28、any management, and external auditors. The result of this study revealed that one significant factor in the perceived success of internal audit was its independence from other corporate activities. The service provided by the internal audit department was affected by the support it received from the

29、 management, other employees and external auditors. The education, training, experience and professional qualifications of the internal auditors influenced the effectiveness of internal audit. On the basis of his study, Asairy (1993 recommended that all joint-stock companies, should have an internal

30、 audit function, and that internal auditing should be taught as a separate course in Saudi Universities.Woodworth and Said (1996sought to ascertain the views of internal auditors in Saudi Arabia as to whether there were differences in the reaction of auditees to specific internal audit situations ac

31、cording to the nationality of the auditee. Based on 34 questionnaire responses from members of 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 a

32、uditee and cultural dimensions did not have a significant impact on the results of the audit.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

33、determining 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 between the auditor and auditee if internal auditing is to be effective.Bethea (1992 s

34、uggests that the need for good human relations skills is important because internal auditing creates negative perceptions and negative attitudes. These issues are particularly important in a multicultural business environment such as Saudi Arabia where there are significant differences in the cultur

35、al and educational background of the auditors and auditees Woodworth and Said (1996.ResultsReasons for not having an internal audit departmentOf 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

36、 that reliance on the external auditor enabled the company 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 that client companies could

37、 not distinguish clearly between the work and roles of internal and external audit. For example, one external auditor said,there is a misperception of what the external auditor does, they think the external auditor does everything for the company and must discover any problem.Having said this, one e

38、xternal auditor doubted that an internal audit function would add value in all circumstances. When referring to the internal control system he stated,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 a

39、ny significant internal control weakness.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 size of the company and the limited nature of its activiti

40、es 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 identifiable costs as compared with the more difficult to measure benefits was a factor contributing to this decision.A number of other reason

41、s were given by interviewees for not having an internal audit department. As a consequence of the 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 the

42、re was a need for internal audit because they believed their internal control systems were sufficient to obviate the need for internal audit. Five companies did not think that internal audit was an important activity and three felt that their type of the business did not require internal audit. Thre

43、e respondents mentioned that they did not operate an internal audit department because professional people could not be found to run the department, and six companies did not provide a reason for not having an internal audit department. In 10 companies an internal audit department had been establish

44、ed but was no longer operating because of difficulties in recruiting qualified personnel and changes in the organization structure. Having said this, eight companies without an internal audit department were planning to establish one in the future.The independence of internal audit departmentsCommen

45、tators and standard setters identify independence as being a key attribute of the internal audit department. From the questionnaire responses 60 (77% of the internal audit departments stated that there was a written document defining the purpose, authority and responsibility of the department. In ne

46、arly all instances where there was such a document the terms of reference of the internal audit department had been agreed by senior management (93%, the document identified the role of the internal audit department in the organization, and its rights of access to individuals, records and assets (97

47、%, and the document set out the scope of internal auditing (90%. Respondents were asked to assess the extent to which the relevant document was consistent with the specific requirements of SPPIA. In those departments where such a document existed 27 (45% claimed full compliance with SPPIA, 23 (38% c

48、onsidered their document to be partially consistent with SPPIA. In more than one-third of the departments surveyed either no such document existed (n =18, 23% or the respondent was not aware whether or not the document complied with SPPIA (n =10, 13%.SPPIA suggests that independence is enhanced when

49、 the organizations board of directors concurs with the 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 noticeable that in 47 companies

50、(60% their responsibilities with regard to appointment, removal and the receipt of reports lay with non-senior management, normally a general manager. SPPIA recommends that the director of the internal audit department should have direct communication with the board of directors to ensure that the department is independent, and provides a means for the director of internal auditing and the board of directors to keep each othe