Search results

Reviews the success of the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) in enhancing the professional status of both the discipline of internal auditing and the IIA itself. The IIA has established the paraphernalia of a formal professional framework but several factors appear to hold back the professional “project”, the most important of which is the absence of monopolistic control over the discipline. The IIA faces two options for the future. It may wish to proceed further along the path of creating a formal professional framework. Alternatively, the IIA in its current form may be ideally positioned for a new, post‐professional world for which traditional, antiquated professional institutions seem ill equipped.

Examines the role of professional associations, governmental agencies, and international accounting and auditing bodies in promulgating standards to foster auditor independence domestically and abroad. Focuses specifically on the role played by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the Securities and Exchange Commission and the US Government Accounting Office. Also looks at other professional associations in banking, industry, and manufacturing sectors dealing with sensitive issues of auditors′ involvement in such matters as management advisory services, operating responsibilities, outsourcing, opinion shopping, auditor rotation, and other conflicts of interest which may impair auditor independence.

This article deals with internal auditors’ use of and compliance with the Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, as well as the Practice Advisories, issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA). The results reported here form part of a global research project, the 2006 Common Body of Knowledge in Internal Auditing (CBOK) study. The research shows that internal auditors worldwide believe that overall, their organisations comply with the Standards. Reasons for not using the Standards relate to organisational attributes such as management’s perceptions that these do not add value and are too time‐consuming to comply with.

Via the Institute of Internal Auditors, founded in 1941, the internal auditing profession actively promote the quality of internal auditors and internal audit activities. Since 1999, internal auditing standards have been revised. From 1 January 2002, all internal audit activities/any consultant rendering internal auditing services must undergo quality control, according to the provisions of Attribute Standard 1300. The revised internal auditing standards on quality control in internal audit activities reflect fundamental changes for the internal auditing profession. This article analyses the formal prescriptions and guidelines on quality in internal audit activities contained in the internal auditing standards and related practice advisories.

Increased globalization and cross border trade suggest the importance of consistency in internal controls and the internal auditing activities within organizations when doing business with a region's neighbors. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether there are differences in the demographics of internal auditors in the neighboring regions of the USA, Canada, and many Latin American countries, their organizations' compliance with the Institute of Internal Auditors' (IIA) International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), and the skills and competencies that are most important to perform the profession of internal auditing.

Data were selected from the IIA's 2006 Common Body of Knowledge database created by the Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation. χ²‐tests or F‐tests were used to determine if there were differences in the responses between internal auditors from the US, Canadian and Latin American respondents.

Although there is less compliance and greater satisfaction with the Standards in participating Latin American countries, the findings indicate remarkable consistency in the USA, Canada, and Latin American countries in their application and compliance with the Standards and the kinds of skills and competencies respondents indicate are important for the practice of internal auditing. Global competition, increased communication and global stakeholder expectations have resulted in increased utilization of internal auditing in the Americas.

Reliability of organizational systems, output and performance must be continually evaluated to ensure effectiveness, efficiency and compliance with entity policies and procedures. One role of the internal auditor is to evaluate this performance using globally accepted Standards, frameworks and procedures. Adding value by making suggestions for system improvements and to provide assurance on the adequacy of system controls to stakeholders at all levels and geographical locations should insure the future of the internal auditing profession.

There has been nothing written about the comparison of the internal auditing profession's usage of the IIA Standards in the USA, Canada, and Latin America. As many organizations are doing business across these borders, reliance on the information provided by their suppliers and customers is important to executives. Systems that are monitored by internal auditors who follow the IIA's Standards should provide more assurance about the reliability of that information. This paper compares the usage of the IIA's Standards by internal auditors in the USA, Canada, and participating Latin American countries.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate differences in the degree of usage and compliance with the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) International Standards for the Professional Practices of Internal Auditing (Standards) by organizations' internal audit activities (IAA) located in the USA and a sample of European countries which have affiliates with the IIA. This paper shows the differences among Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands, the UK and Ireland, and the USA with respect to the level of use of the Standards and compliance with the Standards by respondents' IAAs.

Survey results from questionnaires sent to IIA members in September 2006 about various topics relating to internal auditing are summarized in the Common Body of Knowledge 2006 database. These results are compared among Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands, the UK and Ireland, and the USA.

This paper shows the differences among Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands, the UK and Ireland, and the USA with respect to the level of use of the Standards and compliance with the Standards by respondents' IAAs. There are significant levels of variation in responses by country. For Standards 1300, Quality Assurance and Improvement Program, and 2600, Resolution of Management's Acceptance of Risks, respondents indicate high levels of non‐compliance.

This study compares the status of the use of the IIA Standards in five countries to determine if there is any difference in application in different parts of the world.

This paper examines the role of professional associations, governmental agencies, and international accounting and auditing bodies in promulgating standards to deter and detect fraud, domestically and abroad. Specifically, it focuses on the role played by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), the US Government Accounting Office (GAO), and other national and foreign professional associations, in promulgating auditing standards and procedures to prevent fraud in financial statements and other white‐collar crimes. It also examines several fraud cases and the impact of management and employee fraud on the various business sectors such as insurance, banking, health care, and manufacturing, as well as the role of management, the boards of directors, the audit committees, auditors, and fraud examiners and their liability in the fraud prevention and investigation.

Highlights similarities among the codes of ethics promulgated by professional societies in the United States such as The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), and the EDP Auditors Association (EDPAA). Takes the Code of Ethics of the Institute of Internal Auditors, an international professional association, as an example to demonstrate that most of the articles of professional codes do not reflect the cultural dimensions of Asian, European, and other countries. Since one single universal code of ethics may not meet the needs of an international group, international professional societies may wish to consider alternatives to incorporate in their codes of ethics, especially the cultural dimensions of other countries. Cultural differences often limit the effectiveness of a uniform international code of ethics because they create a lack of consensus within a profession as to what constitutes acceptable behaviour.

Professional accounting associations in various countries and governmental and other quasi‐official bodies have played an important role not only in the evolution of internal control reporting on a global scale, but also in educating management, investors, financial institutions, accountants, auditors, and other interested parties highlighting the pervasiveness of the effects of a sound internal control structure in corporate reporting as well as other aspects of an organization′s success. These associations include the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Cadbury Committee, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW), the Scottish Institute of Chartered Accountants (SICA), the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), and others. Business failures, management fraud, corporate misconduct, international bribery, and notorious business scandals in all sectors of business have prompted the US government to take drastic action on internal control reporting to safeguard public interest. Several professional and government committees were formed to study this precarious situation: the Treadway Commission, the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) of the Treadway Commission, the Packard Commission, the Cohen Commission, the Adams Commission in Canada, the Cadbury Committee in the UK, and others. The principal motivation for the changing dynamics has been growing public pressure for greater corporate accountability. The government′s pressure on the accounting profession and management of public corporations has been pivotal in spearheading internal control reporting. Examines the role of professional associations, governmental agencies, and others in promulgating standards for internal control reporting, and the impact of legislation on this aspect of internal auditing in the USA and worldwide.

The purpose of this paper is to characterize how those who perform (internal auditors), mandate (audit committee (AC) members), use (AC members and external auditors) and normalize (the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)) internal audit work, respectively make sense of the notion of “internal audit quality” (IAQ).

This study is predicated on the meta-analysis of extant literature on IAQ, 56 interviews with internal auditors and AC members of public or para-public sector organizations in Canada, and archival documents published by the IIA, analyzed in the light of framing theory.

Four interpretative schemes (or frames) emerge from the analysis, called “manager,” “éminence grise,” “professional” and “watchdog.” They respectively correspond to internal auditors’, AC members’, the IIA’s and external auditors’ viewpoints and suggest radically different perspectives on how IAQ should be defined and controlled (via input, throughput, output or professional controls).

Empirically, the authors focus on rare research data. Theoretically, the authors delineate four previously undocumented competing frames of IAQ.

Practically, the various governance actors involved in assessing IAQ can learn from the study that they should confront their views to better coordinate their quality control efforts.

Highlighting the contrast between these frames is important because, so far, extant literature has predominantly focussed on only one perspective on IAQ, that of external auditors. The authors suggest that IAQ is more polysemous and complex than previously acknowledged, which justifies the qualitative and interpretive approach.