Search results

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.

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.

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.

In 2002, The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) observed the 25th anniversary of the publication of its first Systems, Auditability, & Control (SAC) study. This paper reviews the development of the SAC projects and their impact on Information Systems (IS) auditing in particular. Three different research methodologies were used for collecting the data for this research. First, a rigorous literature review was conducted. Second, an oral‐history methodology was used to collect data via interviews. Third, notes and minutes from many early committee meetings of IIA, including the SAC Committee, were studied. The early years (1954‐1977) saw a dearth of related literature. Thus individual accountants and auditors found it difficult to acquire or gather information on emerging issues. The Systems, Auditability, & Control (SAC) study published in 1977 was one of the major attempts to codify IS auditing knowledge. This study has been followed up by three other SAC projects in 1991, 1994, and 2001. These SAC projects have provided some of the best guidance for IS auditors over these last 25 years. From the beginning of IS auditing, there has been a continued acceleration of technology. In particular, the audit process has been impacted by the proliferation of microcomputers.

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 study aims to examine the extent to which external auditors (EAs) use the work of the internal audit function (IAF) based on the purpose of its primary activities. The authors rely on attribution theory, which suggests that individuals search for meaning when an event occurs. In this setting, the authors explore how the overall (assurance vs advisory) or specific (e.g. risk management and evaluating internal controls) focus of IAF activities influences perceived EA reliance on the IAF’s work.

The authors first explore the research question with data extracted from a broad, longitudinal survey conducted triennially by the national chapters of the Institute of Internal Auditors in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. The data includes responses from 2014, 2017 and 2020 administrations of the survey. The authors conduct a parallel survey with practicing EAs attending two training sessions of a European office of a global network firm. Hypotheses were tested using ordered logistic regression.

Among the chief audit executive (CAE) participants, the authors observe that a balanced or primarily assurance-related purpose of the IAF, relative to a primarily advisory-related purpose, is associated with higher perceived EA reliance. The authors observe similar perceptions of the extent of reliance among the EA participants.

With a unique data set of practicing internal auditors from three countries, coupled with a sample of EAs, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine differences in EA reliance across the IAF’s primary roles. The study relies on data from three European countries, which differs from prior EA reliance literature with a largely North American focus. Further, comparison between perceptions of EAs and CAEs is a novel approach and this paper’s findings suggest that perceptions of CAEs could be a reliable proxy for EA-intended behavior.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the responses of South African respondents with all Common Body of Knowledge (CBOK) 2006 respondents in the areas of compliance with the Institute of Internal Auditors' (IIA) International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards) and several areas of the internal audit activity's (IAA) operations.

This paper summarises and discusses the survey results from questionnaires sent to the IIA members as of September 2006. For selected topics, the CBOK 2006 database is compared for South African respondents and non‐South African respondents.

The paper finds that South Africans have a higher level of compliance with the Standards than those respondents residing in other parts of the world. Since the internal auditing profession is so young in South Africa, compliance with the Standards gives structure and support to the new IAAs and internal auditors.

This is the first study comparing the status of the South African internal auditing profession with the global state of internal auditing, activities performed by internal auditors and the perception of the IAAs in their organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the profile of internal audit in five Asia‐Pacific countries and investigate the 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 (IAAs). This paper shows the differences between Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and Taiwan. It also discusses part of the results of the Common Body of Knowledge 2006 global study conducted by the IIA.

The paper reports the results of a questionnaire survey sent to the global membership of the IIA in September 2006 on various aspects of internal audit practices.

The profile of internal audit differs amongst the countries with much older organizations exist in Australia, Japan and New Zealand. Respondents in New Zealand, Japan, Chinese Taiwan, China and Australia all report to have a reasonably high level of usage of Standards. However, Australia has the highest number of respondents who report that they are in full compliance of the Standards.

This is the first global study of internal auditors' compliance with the IIA Standards.

In South Africa, King III requires companies to have their corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures independently assured. Within this context, the purpose of this paper is to examine internal audit’s CSR assurance role.

With reference to the International Professional Practices Framework of the Institute of Internal Auditors, the first phase of the study conceptually considers whether internal audit does qualify as an independent CSR assurance provider. Using a content analysis of integrated reports, the second phase examines the extent to which internal audit’s CSR assurance role has been disclosed. The final phase relies on survey responses to understand the emerging trends observed in the second phase.

The study finds that although internal audit does provide independent CSR assurance, this assurance is primarily intended for internal stakeholders to assist in improving the quality of CSR reporting practices. With one notable exception across the study period, the results suggest that any benefits accruing to external stakeholders were not deliberate, but merely incidental. The paper concludes by arguing that although internal audit will continue to incorporate material CSR issues into its mandatory risk-based auditing approach, the results will not necessarily be publicly available. The extent of reliance that external stakeholders can place on company CSR disclosures are therefore not directly influenced by internal audit’s involvement in CSR-related matters. However, by adopting a proactive CSR role, internal audit can assist reporting companies improve their CSR reporting practices.

Although CSR assurance has been extensively researched, this is one of the first studies to specifically consider the CSR assurance role of the internal audit activity. Despite its South African orientation, given the emerging nature of the CSR assurance phenomenon, the study findings have global implications.