Priscilla A. Burnaby, CPA, PhD Bentley College Mohammad Abdolmohammadi, CPA, DBA Bentley College Susan Hass, Professor, CPA Simmons College Gerrit Sarens, PhD, CIA, CCSA Université Catholique de Louvain Marco Allegrini, PhD Università di Pisa Usage of Internal Auditing Standards by Companies in the United States and Select European Countries
24
Embed
Priscilla A. Burnaby, CPA, PhD Bentley College Mohammad Abdolmohammadi, CPA, DBA Bentley College Susan Hass, Professor, CPA Simmons College Gerrit Sarens,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Priscilla A. Burnaby, CPA, PhDBentley College
Mohammad Abdolmohammadi, CPA, DBABentley College
Susan Hass, Professor, CPASimmons College
Gerrit Sarens, PhD, CIA, CCSA Université Catholique de Louvain
Marco Allegrini, PhDUniversità di Pisa
Usage of Internal Auditing Standards by Companies in the United States and Select
European Countries
Objectives
• To compare usage of the IIA’s Standards and Practice Advisories in:–Belgium–Italy –The Netherlands–The United Kingdom and Ireland–The United States of America
– Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 – All those that have stock on the NYSE– King, 2002 – South Africa
• Stock Exchanges – NYSE, 2004
• Central Banks and Supervisory Authorities throughout Europe– Basel Committee, 2004 – Many countries– Banca d’Italia, 1999 – Italy– CBFA, 1997 – Belgium
• European Corporate Governance Codes– United Kingdom - Combined Code on Corporate Governance– Italy - Corporate Governance Code– Belgian - Corporate Governance Code– The Dutch Corporate Governance Code
Research Questions• RQ1: What is the level of usage of the Standards in Belgium, Italy,
The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the United States?
• RQ2: Do Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the United States differ in their compliance with the Standards?
• RQ3: Is guidance for usage of the Standards adequate?• RQ4: What is the level of usage of the Practice Advisories in
Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the United States?
• RQ5: What are the reasons for lack of compliance with the Standards?
• RQ6: Are there differences in internal quality and improvement programs in Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the United States?
• RQ7: Are there differences in external quality and improvement programs in Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the United States?
Research Methodology
• Data was selected from the CBOK (2006) database
• Due to missing data for some of the questions in the CBOK survey, usable responses may vary slightly for each question analyzed
• Chi-square test
IIA Membershipas of September 30, 2006
*Provided by The IIA.
Affiliate IIA Membership as of
9/30/2006*
Usable Responses
Percentage of Membership
Belgium 1,154 102 8.8
Italy 2,531 456 18.0
The Netherlands 1,741 112 6.4
UK and Ireland 7,185 271 3.8
United States 54,686 3,139 5.7
Total 67,297 4,080 6.1
Staff Level Belgium Italy TheNetherlands
UK and Ireland
United States
CAE 20.7 28.5 23.2 25.1 24.3Audit Manager
29.7 21.4 26.8 27.8 22.6
Audit Seniors/Supervisor 21.8 17.2 26.8 30.0 28.2
Audit Staff22.8 25.8 15.2 13.0 17.2
Other 5.0 7.1 8.0 4.1 7.7Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Number of Respondents
101 453 112 270 3,127
χ2 =56.68, p<.001
Participants’ Staff Levels(In Percentages)
Age of Respondents(in Percentages)
Age Belgium Italy TheNetherlands
UK and Ireland
United States
25 years old or less
0.0 0.3 1.2 2.2 4.8
26 to 34 years old
25.0 26.5 20.2 19.3 23.8
35 to 44 years old
44.3 33.7 38.1 39.9 32.5
45 to 54 years old
22.7 31.1 25.0 32.3 25.9
55 to 64 years old
8.0 7.5 14.3 6.3 12.6
65 years or older
0.0 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Number of Respondents
88 347 84 223 2529
χ2 =56.88, p<.001
Highest Level of Respondents’ Education (in Percentages)
Level of Education Belgium Italy TheNetherlands
UK and Ireland
United States
Secondary / High School Education
0.0 20.6 0.8 23.4 1.3
Bachelors / Diploma in Business8.9 42.8 5.4 19.6 49.9
Bachelors / Diploma in Fields Other than Business 4.0 17.5 4.5 20.7 11.9
Masters / Graduate Degree / Diploma in Business 57.4 13.7 56.3 20.0 30.1
Masters / Graduate Diploma in Fields Other than Business 26.7 3.8 20.5 12.2 5.5
Doctoral Degree 2.0 .7 8.0 1.5 .9
Other 1.0 .9 4.5 2.6 .4Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Number of Respondents 101 451 112 270 3129
χ2 =967.89, p<.001
Number of Years as an IIA Member (in Percentages)
Years Belgium ItalyThe
Netherlands UK and Ireland
United States
5 or less 68.3 74.4 64.0 42.5 56.1
6 to 10 19.8 18.8 21.6 33.6 20.2
11 or more 11.9 6.8 14.4 23.9 23.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of Respondents
101 453 111 268 3121
χ2 =119.26, p<.001
Respondents’ Professional Qualifications Type of Professional Qualification Belgium Italy
TheNetherlands
UK and Ireland
United States
χ2 p
Internal Auditing (such as CIA / MIIA / PIIA) 55.9 31.1 48.2 62.4 40.6 80.355 <.001
Information Systems Auditing (such as CISA / QiCA / CISM) 9.8 3.9 20.5 14.0 14.0 42.918 <.001
Government Auditing / Finance (such as CIPFA / CGAP / CGFM) .0 2.0 4.5 7.0 4.9 16.404 .003**
Control Self-Assessment (such as CCSA) 8.8 12.3 2.7 1.1 3.0 100.076 <.001**
Public Accounting / Chartered Accountancy (such as CA / CPA / ACCA / ACA)
10.8 12.3 47.3 17.7 36.3 166.812 <.001
Management / General Accounting (such as CMA / CIMA / CGA) 2.9 .7 2.7 5.5 2.2 18.389 .001**
(RQ6) When IAA Was Last Subject to a Formal Internal Quality Assessment (in Percentages)
Timing Belgium Italy The Netherlands
UK and Ireland
United States
# of Respo
nd ents
% # of Respo
nd ents
% # of Respo
nd ents
% # of Respond ents
% # of Respo
nd ents
%
Done in past 5 years or scheduled to be completed prior to January 1, 2007.
39 50.6 122 35.0 45 55.6 127 69.4 1191 60.0
Never had one or not done in compliance with Standard 1311
38 49.4 227 65.0 36 44.4 56 30.6 794 40.0
Total Number of Respondents
77 100.0 349 100.0 81 100.0 183 100.0 1985 100.0
χ2 = 89.275, p<.001
(RQ7) When IAA Was Last Subject to a Formal External Quality Assessment (in Percentages)
Timing Belgium Italy The Netherlands UK and Ireland United States
# of Responde
nts
% # of Responde
nts
% # of Responde
nts
% # of Respond
ents
% # of Responde
nts
%
Done in past 5 years or scheduled to be completed prior to January 1, 2007.
35 47.9 79 27.1 35 43.8 126 68.5 1127 57.7
Never had one or not done in compliance with Standard 1312
38 52.1 213 72.9 45 56.3 58 31.5 827 42.3
Total Number of Respondents
73 100.0 292 100.0 80 100.0 184 100.0 1954 100.0
χ2 =115.997, p<.001
Conclusions
• Growth of the profession has been hastened by national regulation
• Respondents age, education, time in the profession, and years of IIA membership vary by country
• Age of organizations and of IAAs vary by country
Conclusions, continued
• There is consistency within each country for the use of the Standards in whole or in part by staff level but variation by country
• Significant differences exist between countries In the level of satisfaction with the adequacy of the guidance for all Standards and Practice Advisories, with the exception of Standards 1300 and 2600– UK and Ireland are least satisfied with the Standards
and Practice Advisories– Belgium is most satisfied with Standards guidance– Italy is most satisfied with the Practice Advisories
Conclusions, continued
• Compliance with Standard 1300, Quality Assurance and Improvement Program and Standard 2600, Resolution of Management’s Acceptance of Risks, is universally limited– US has highest full compliance– Italy has lowest full compliance
• Convincing management and the board of the value of the Standards is a significant challenge for many IAAs
• Size of the audit staff affects usage of the Standards in Italy and the US