內(nèi)部控制外文翻譯---基于應(yīng)急理論基礎(chǔ)下的內(nèi)部控制因素及其后果的形成

1、<p>　　基于應(yīng)急理論基礎(chǔ)下的內(nèi)部控制因素及其后果的形成</p><p>　　Determinants and consequences of internal control</p><p>　　in firms: a contingency theory based analysis</p><p>　　作者：Annukka Jokipi</p

2、><p><b>　　起始頁(yè)碼：1-12</b></p><p>　　出版日期（期刊號(hào)）：March 2009,Vol. 1, No. 3(Serial No. 10)</p><p>　　出版單位： Springer Science and Business Media, LLC. 2009</p><p><b&g

3、t;　　外文翻譯譯文：</b></p><p>　　摘要：為了保證企業(yè)需求內(nèi)部控制活動(dòng)的有效性和信息的可靠性以及遵守法律的適用性，每個(gè)組織要選擇最適合的控制系統(tǒng)。因此，就必須考慮到意外事故的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是否切合權(quán)變理論。本文研究的是檢視這些風(fēng)險(xiǎn)特點(diǎn)的選擇是否適應(yīng)他們公司內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)和它是否會(huì)導(dǎo)致一些更加優(yōu)惠的有效性的評(píng)估控制管理。雖然內(nèi)部控制的組成部分已進(jìn)行單獨(dú)控制，本文嘗試闡明內(nèi)部控制的關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)并將其放到更加

4、廣闊的背景中。結(jié)果證明，基于對(duì)741家芬蘭公司的調(diào)查研究，表明公司用內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)環(huán)境的不確定性，并觀測(cè)控制的有效性的戰(zhàn)略對(duì)其內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)有著顯著的效果。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：內(nèi)部控制、成效、權(quán)變理論、結(jié)構(gòu)方塊建模</p><p><b>　　緒論</b></p><p>　　人們普遍認(rèn)為，一個(gè)內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)可以幫助企業(yè)降低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，并且

5、使財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表的可靠性得以保證。因此，越來(lái)越多的企業(yè)在他們具體的操作環(huán)境下更多的關(guān)注自己的內(nèi)部控制。在巨大的管理壓力下，如何提高內(nèi)部控制的有效性以及董事會(huì)和股東之間的溝通效果，是目前企業(yè)亟待解決的重要問(wèn)題。由于內(nèi)部控制可能會(huì)影響長(zhǎng)期的報(bào)告，因此審計(jì)人員、供應(yīng)商、客戶都對(duì)內(nèi)部控制關(guān)注相當(dāng)。Kinney在2000年指出，盡管內(nèi)部控制對(duì)公司影響很大，但在組織環(huán)境中內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)卻無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)。雖然關(guān)于內(nèi)部控制的文獻(xiàn)在國(guó)際研究上已取得進(jìn)展，但迄今為止，內(nèi)

6、部控制的研究數(shù)量有限。在2004年Selte and Widener出版的專業(yè)文章中提出，在管理控制中研究較少的內(nèi)部控制有著很強(qiáng)的實(shí)用性。</p><p>　　本文的研究結(jié)論有助于了解內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)及其在公司環(huán)境中觀察到對(duì)公司的效果。即使內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)框架中提出了一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的結(jié)構(gòu)和內(nèi)部控制目標(biāo)，但仍然需要注意的是，有效地內(nèi)部控制是要根據(jù)公司的不同特點(diǎn)來(lái)制定的。因此，即使是內(nèi)部控制的框架中也無(wú)法提供一個(gè)企業(yè)的特點(diǎn)和其控

7、制系統(tǒng)的關(guān)系。因此，本研究利用一個(gè)應(yīng)急方法，審查內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)的設(shè)計(jì)，并且將其放到不同的環(huán)境下觀察其效果。研究報(bào)告分析了使用方程關(guān)系模型對(duì)741家芬蘭公司進(jìn)行實(shí)例證明并得到結(jié)果。這項(xiàng)研究的結(jié)果在幾個(gè)重要方面增加了有限的內(nèi)部控制研究的知識(shí)。首先，研究中提出了要利用內(nèi)部控制及其在實(shí)踐中的有效性度量模型的實(shí)證研究結(jié)果。世界上有一些組織已經(jīng)將內(nèi)部控制框架建立基金會(huì)來(lái)開展活動(dòng)。無(wú)論如何，有一點(diǎn)是值得注意的，那就是除了求證時(shí)間框架外還要更加深入的求證

8、內(nèi)部控制研究模型。除了少數(shù)例子外，Stringer和Carey早在2002年就研究了在特定集中研究控制元件，如控制環(huán)境同心結(jié)構(gòu)或風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估，在這些研究中內(nèi)部控制只是作為一個(gè)概念，是研究不同情況下的整體。第二，盡管在這之前控制行為關(guān)系在內(nèi)部控制的了解中發(fā)揮了關(guān)鍵作用，但是控制行為對(duì)內(nèi)部控制的應(yīng)急理論尚未進(jìn)行</p><p>　　接下來(lái)的部分介紹了研究框架和部分定義的介紹，研究結(jié)構(gòu)的相關(guān)問(wèn)題文獻(xiàn)。隨后本文詳細(xì)闡述了在S

9、EM方法從741家芬蘭公司搜集數(shù)據(jù)為基礎(chǔ)對(duì)實(shí)例論證。最后是對(duì)結(jié)果的討論以及對(duì)研究限制闡述。</p><p><b>　　2 研究框架</b></p><p>　　在2003年Chenhall運(yùn)用控制系統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)可以協(xié)助管理人員實(shí)現(xiàn)其公司的目標(biāo)和期望的結(jié)果。內(nèi)部系統(tǒng)控制增強(qiáng)了企業(yè)的檢測(cè)報(bào)告程序，也確保遵守法律法規(guī)。通過(guò)這種有效的內(nèi)部控制對(duì)公司成功方面有著關(guān)鍵的作用。但是，正

10、如我們觀察到的，內(nèi)部控制在真空下是不存在的。在1994年COCO（加拿大控制基準(zhǔn)委員會(huì)框架）中指出，兩個(gè)組織不存在類似的控制系統(tǒng)，除非該組織的中心組織機(jī)構(gòu)系統(tǒng)是相同的。內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)根據(jù)不同的細(xì)節(jié)需要會(huì)產(chǎn)生在不同的組織環(huán)境下。在1994年COSO（美國(guó)控制基準(zhǔn)委員會(huì)）在內(nèi)部控制框架中提出內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)是由控制環(huán)境、風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估、內(nèi)控活動(dòng)、信息與溝通、監(jiān)督五要素組成，它們?nèi)Q于管理層經(jīng)營(yíng)企業(yè)的方式，并融入管理過(guò)程本身，其相互關(guān)系可以用其模型表示。

11、此聲明類似于權(quán)變理論對(duì)每一個(gè)組織的特點(diǎn)采取適當(dāng)?shù)目刂葡到y(tǒng)一樣。（參考Chapman 1997； Chenhall 2003；Fisher1995； Luft and Shields 2003）因此，以應(yīng)急理論為基礎(chǔ)的方法提供了在實(shí)踐當(dāng)中對(duì)內(nèi)部控制因素不同的解釋。同時(shí)，以應(yīng)急理論為基礎(chǔ)的權(quán)變理論構(gòu)成了一種新的方法來(lái)重新演繹有內(nèi)部控制的理論和基礎(chǔ)特點(diǎn)。</p><p><b>　　圖1</b>&

12、lt;/p><p>　　因此管理控制作為在組織制度中的一個(gè)重要控制子集一直是權(quán)變理論的研究主體。研究主要集中在上下變量對(duì)管理控制系統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)的影響，本文，是對(duì)文獻(xiàn)回顧的研究基礎(chǔ)上分析的。其目的是利用了解內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)的特點(diǎn)和影響來(lái)觀察成效以作為制定權(quán)變理論的基礎(chǔ)。內(nèi)部控制和權(quán)變理論共享某些元素，但是共同點(diǎn)和不同點(diǎn)的廣度取決于所用的定義。在2003年Chenhall指出，以前的以應(yīng)變研究為基礎(chǔ)的管理控制研究遵循傳統(tǒng)的協(xié)助管理

13、人員決策，是一種被動(dòng)工具。其目的是為了利用管理控制系統(tǒng)包含了一個(gè)會(huì)計(jì)系統(tǒng)這一特性，更好的管理包括個(gè)人或家族控制的控制因素，這樣的控制理論如：</p><p>　　圖1說(shuō)明了研究框架和理論基礎(chǔ)上的內(nèi)部控制框架。變量之間的關(guān)系有三組，在應(yīng)變特點(diǎn)，內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)和觀察成效是本文研究的終點(diǎn)。前四個(gè)研究問(wèn)題（RQ1-RQ4）旨在測(cè)試（戰(zhàn)略，規(guī)模，組織應(yīng)變特征結(jié)構(gòu)和環(huán)境的不確定性）等因素對(duì)內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)的影響。這些因素前人都有所

14、研究（例如Chenhall 2003；Donaldson 2001；Hoque and James 2000； Macintosh 1994；Simons 1987；Drazinand Van de Ven 1985；Otley 1980)指出，指出這些因素對(duì)控制結(jié)構(gòu)和企業(yè)的績(jī)效產(chǎn)生一定的影響。</p><p>　　第五個(gè)研究因素（RQ5）集中于內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)與內(nèi)部控制有效性的關(guān)系上。變量之間的理論關(guān)系是基于COS

15、O（美國(guó)控制基礎(chǔ)委員會(huì)）1994年提出的。指出根據(jù)特定的情況對(duì)內(nèi)部控制的需求不盡相同，但是內(nèi)部控制組成的部分功能可以引導(dǎo)有效地內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)。Fisher 1998年指出，成功的剪裁控制系統(tǒng)以適應(yīng)企業(yè)的特點(diǎn)等類似的權(quán)變理論對(duì)公司的業(yè)績(jī)有著突出的貢獻(xiàn)。然而企業(yè)可能有著傳統(tǒng)性能的其他目標(biāo)。因此根據(jù)Fisher1995年的建議，在模型中所設(shè)想的一個(gè)非財(cái)務(wù)目標(biāo)對(duì)內(nèi)部控制的有效性產(chǎn)生理想的效果。用內(nèi)部控制因素管理大型的公司已成為關(guān)鍵的因素（Sutt

16、on在2006年指出）。內(nèi)部控制在組織中的影響和傳統(tǒng)性能的可靠性措施可以衡量?jī)?nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)的業(yè)績(jī)，不過(guò)在過(guò)去的文獻(xiàn)中發(fā)現(xiàn)了許多相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)。</p><p><b>　　3.結(jié)構(gòu)定義和研究</b></p><p>　　在本節(jié)中提出了定義的適用范圍，并且給出了以前的研究對(duì)構(gòu)造問(wèn)題因素之間的關(guān)系。</p><p><b>　　3.1內(nèi)部控制框架

17、</b></p><p>　　根據(jù)內(nèi)部控制的廣泛研究，它涵蓋了一個(gè)組織的方方面面，在這里運(yùn)用了匯集控制器的概念將內(nèi)部控制架構(gòu)的方法形成一個(gè)完整的整體，明確內(nèi)部需求。在著名的內(nèi)部控制框架（COCO、COSO）（加拿大控制基準(zhǔn)委員會(huì)、美國(guó)控制基準(zhǔn)委員會(huì)）中包括有效地內(nèi)部控制定義和目前內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)的組成部分。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，在1994年COCO（加拿大控制基礎(chǔ)委員會(huì)）框架中提到的內(nèi)部控制狀態(tài)可以在董事會(huì)和管理層的

18、理解程度上，該實(shí)體的目標(biāo)在于實(shí)現(xiàn)公布財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表以及保證遵守法律法規(guī)。因此，在這中間的內(nèi)部控制的研究應(yīng)進(jìn)行有效的界定，如何控制好這三個(gè)目標(biāo)在管理的觀念上實(shí)現(xiàn)，是企業(yè)所要重點(diǎn)關(guān)注的問(wèn)題。</p><p>　　因此，我認(rèn)為可以在一個(gè)適當(dāng)?shù)膬?nèi)部控制框架結(jié)構(gòu)中描述五個(gè)不同組成部分的條款，其可以確定為：</p><p>　　1 控制環(huán)境的界定是一個(gè)組織得以運(yùn)作的精神支柱。這個(gè)組件可以給人們創(chuàng)造一個(gè)他們可

19、以進(jìn)行他們的活動(dòng)和執(zhí)行它們的責(zé)任氛圍。他創(chuàng)建了這家公司整體控制文化。</p><p>　　2 風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估部分是指，處理風(fēng)險(xiǎn)如何威脅公司實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)的過(guò)程。他設(shè)計(jì)到對(duì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的識(shí)別、分析和相應(yīng)的評(píng)估。</p><p>　　3 控制活動(dòng)的組成部分，是指對(duì)政策、程序和做法對(duì)分先環(huán)節(jié)戰(zhàn)略的實(shí)施是的管理目標(biāo)得以實(shí)現(xiàn)的過(guò)程。</p><p>　　4 信息和通信組建是指確保有關(guān)信息在形式和

20、時(shí)限上的識(shí)別，是工作人員履行其職責(zé)和責(zé)任的有效溝通過(guò)程。</p><p>　　5 監(jiān)測(cè)組件是指評(píng)估內(nèi)部控制的質(zhì)量過(guò)程，談涵蓋了有管理人員進(jìn)程外的其他各方面進(jìn)行內(nèi)部控制的外部監(jiān)督和定期評(píng)估。</p><p>　　在本文中這五個(gè)組成部分定義了內(nèi)部控制的架構(gòu)。根據(jù)1994年COCO架構(gòu)，為了有足夠的內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)使其組件部分正常運(yùn)行。大部分的研究將這一部分作為重點(diǎn)研究領(lǐng)域設(shè)定控制元件（Aquila

21、 1998; Hooks etal. 1994; Milles 1997）。在2002年Stringer and Carey研究的五個(gè)組成部分，以及單個(gè)因素對(duì)內(nèi)部控制研究是在此研究領(lǐng)域的一個(gè)質(zhì)轉(zhuǎn)變。</p><p>　　在這項(xiàng)研究中觀察到的內(nèi)部控制原件及其有效性能分析的潛在變量。應(yīng)當(dāng)指出的是，理論和具體的個(gè)人控制或判斷分析水平并不是主要的研究焦點(diǎn)。此外，分析應(yīng)用水平受公司首席執(zhí)行官和其他管理人員的控制。</

22、p><p><b>　　3.2應(yīng)急變量</b></p><p>　　在以前的研究中指出(Fisher1995；Gerdin2005)，控制系統(tǒng)可能經(jīng)過(guò)調(diào)試來(lái)進(jìn)行應(yīng)對(duì)多種相互矛盾情形下的需求。為了研究?jī)?nèi)部結(jié)構(gòu)設(shè)計(jì)的復(fù)雜性，本文選擇研究四個(gè)變量的特征。該研究探討了戰(zhàn)略，規(guī)模，組織結(jié)構(gòu)和環(huán)境的不確定性對(duì)內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)的影響，并且對(duì)其有效性進(jìn)行考證。早先的研究中證明，這些特征對(duì)內(nèi)部

23、控制結(jié)構(gòu)的性能設(shè)計(jì)有一定的影響(比如Chenhall 2003; Donaldson 2001; Hoque and James 2000; Macintosh 1994; Simons 1987; Drazin and Van de Ven 1985; Otley 1980)然而，特征選擇不是唯一的，并且對(duì)內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)有著相關(guān)的影響。</p><p><b>　　4戰(zhàn)略</b></p

24、><p>　　Otley (1980) 和 Dermer (1977) 分別指出，企業(yè)戰(zhàn)略應(yīng)當(dāng)屬于會(huì)計(jì)控制系統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)的主要特征之一。公司的戰(zhàn)略不同將采用不同的控制系統(tǒng)，正如Miles and Snow (1978)和 Porter (1980)等指出的。Simons在1990年發(fā)現(xiàn)，公司會(huì)因不同的會(huì)計(jì)控制系統(tǒng)來(lái)選擇不同的戰(zhàn)略方式。雖然這些早期的研究表明，企業(yè)戰(zhàn)略的不同往往會(huì)引起不同的控制系統(tǒng)配置。戰(zhàn)略也會(huì)導(dǎo)致內(nèi)部控制的

25、一些分歧。然而，迄今為止進(jìn)行的實(shí)例研究都沒(méi)有取得戰(zhàn)略與控制系統(tǒng)的自然鏈接。</p><p>　　在1978年Miles和Snow研究得大多數(shù)控制前者與后者的差異為重點(diǎn)。Miles和Snow發(fā)現(xiàn)控制系統(tǒng)類型側(cè)重于發(fā)現(xiàn)問(wèn)題并且能夠幫助一個(gè)組織靈活的應(yīng)對(duì)環(huán)境的變化。在1977年正如Langfield-Smith所指出的組織控制可以分散結(jié)果為導(dǎo)向。這就意味著，監(jiān)測(cè)通過(guò)強(qiáng)有力的控制環(huán)境，從未確保有力的控制意識(shí)。Simons

26、在1987年發(fā)現(xiàn)通過(guò)監(jiān)測(cè)異常報(bào)告與月度報(bào)告的預(yù)算偏差，通過(guò)監(jiān)測(cè)需要從市場(chǎng)上尋找到的機(jī)會(huì)，將各種不同的信息通過(guò)通信組件提供對(duì)未來(lái)預(yù)測(cè)有用的信息。Simons在1987年的結(jié)論，在正式的控制系統(tǒng)的屬性差異的捍衛(wèi)下，得到這些屬性對(duì)公司的業(yè)績(jī)有著深遠(yuǎn)的影響。</p><p>　　根據(jù)之前的管理研究控制（Langfield Smith 1997; Chenhall 2003）表明，某些類型的控制系統(tǒng)將適用特定策略。監(jiān)測(cè)通過(guò)

27、靈活的控制來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)不確定性的環(huán)境，減少不確定性的發(fā)生和公司效率最大化。相對(duì)于公司，監(jiān)測(cè)型公司根據(jù)用戶的不同在不斷地改變他們的管理系統(tǒng)。</p><p>　　Determinants and consequences of internal control</p><p>　　in firms: a contingency theory based analysis</p>&l

28、t;p>　　作者：Annukka Jokipii</p><p><b>　　起始頁(yè)碼：1-12</b></p><p>　　出版日期（期刊號(hào)）：March 2009,Vol. 2, No. 4(Serial No. 11)</p><p>　　出版單位： Springer Science and Business Media, LLC.

29、 2009</p><p>　　Abstract ：In order to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of activities, reliability of information and compliance with applicable laws, firms demand adequate internal control. However, se

30、veral frameworks assume that the need for internal control varies according to a firm’s characteristics. This concurs with contingency theory, which claims that each organization has to choose the most suitable control

31、 system by taking into account contingency characteristics. This study examines which co</p><p>　　Keywords : Internal control Effectiveness Contingency theory </p><p>　　Structural eq

32、uation modeling</p><p>　　1 Introduction</p><p>　　It is generally believed that an internal control system reduces risks and helps firms ensure the reliability of financial statements and complia

33、nce with laws and regulations (Spira and Page 2003). So, an increasing number of business failures and some widely publicized frauds have encouraged firms to put more emphasis on their internal control systems, which are

34、 specific to their particular operating environment. Management is under increased pressure to enhance the effectiveness of internal co</p><p>　　Despite the fact that internal control is an essential factor

35、affecting the firm, the evidence of the actual performance of an internal control structure within the organizational environment is almost non-existent, and the topic relatively unexplored by researchers, as noted by Ki

36、nney (2000). The professional literature on internal control has made progress toward developing international control frameworks, but so far the amount of internal control research is limited. Selto and Widener (2004)&l

37、t;/p><p>　　This study contributes to the understanding of the internal control structure and its observed effectiveness in company contexts. Even though the internal control frameworks (COSO, COCO etc.) present

38、 a standardized structure and objectives for internal control, they still advise that the need for effective internal control varies according to a firm’s characteristics. However, neither frameworks nor prior literature

39、 provide an adequate picture of the relationships between a firm’s characteristic</p><p>　　The results of this study add to the limited internal control research knowledge in several important respects. Firs

40、t, the study presents empirical findings using measurement models for internal control and its effectiveness in practice. There are organizations worldwide which have used internal control frameworks as a foundation for

41、conducting activities. At any rate, there is little evidence about frameworks outside practice, and thus the models deserve more intensive research attention (COSO </p><p>　　Fourth, this study examines impor

42、tant contingency characteristics that should be taken into account when focusing on the internal control in an organization. The aim is to determine which characteristics are helpful in explaining variations in an intern

43、al control system and its observed effectiveness. However, the model examined, yields different results when examined in a bivariate or in a multivariate setting. Therefore, this paper demonstrates how a contingency appr

44、oach and SEM technique may </p><p>　　The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section presents a research framework and the following section presents definitions of constructs and the literat

45、ure related to the research questions. The fourth section explains the survey design and measurement of variables. Following that, the paper elaborates on the empirical analysis using the SEM method based on data collect

46、ed from 741 Finnish firms. The sixth section includes a discussion of the results. The last section ends with </p><p>　　2 Research framework</p><p>　　Control systems are designed to assist manag

47、ers to achieve their firm’s goals and desired outcomes (Chenhall 2003). An internal control system potentially enhances a firm’s monitoring and reporting processes, as well as ensuring compliance with laws and regulation

48、s. In this way effective internal control has a critical role to play in a firm’s success. But, as we can see from the practical findings, internal control does not exist in vacuum. The COSO framework (1994, p. 18) state

49、s that two organ</p><p>　　However, contingency theory constitutes a novel approach to studying internal control and thus, theoretical fundamentals and chosen characteristics are derived from the contingency-

50、based control literature. Consequently, management control</p><p>　　is a major control sub-system in organizations which have been the subject of contingency theory research (Collier 2004). The research has

51、mainly focused on the influence of contextual variables on management control system design (for example Langfield Smith 1997; Chenhall 2003) and in this paper, the literature is reviewed along with an analysis of the re

52、search based on these studies. The aim is to use contingency theory to understand characteristics affecting internal control structures and i</p><p>　　Figure 1 illustrates the research framework based on con

53、tingency theory and internal control frameworks. The relationships between three sets of variables—the contingency characteristics, the internal control structure and the observed effectiveness—are the focus of this rese

54、arch. The first four research questions (RQ1–RQ4) aim to test if contingency characteristics (strategy, size, organizational structure and environmental uncertainty) affect the internal control structure. There</p>

55、<p>　　is evidence in earlier management control studies (for example Chenhall 2003; Donaldson 2001; Hoque and James 2000; Macintosh 1994; Simons 1987; Drazin and Van de Ven 1985; Otley 1980) that these characteris

56、tics may have some impact on the design of control structures and on firm performance.</p><p>　　The fifth research question (RQ5) concentrates on the relationship between an internal control structure and ob

57、served internal control effectiveness. The theoretical relationship between variables is based on the COSO (1994) that states that depending on circumstances the need for internal control varies, but internal control com

58、ponents that are presented and function properly lead to effective internal control systems. The relationship also parallels contingency theory that states that successf</p><p>　　under increased pressure to

59、enhance it in firms with proper internal control (Sutton 2006). Internal control affects many processes in an organization and reliable traditional performance measures, which can be claimed to measure performance due so

60、lely to the internal control system, can not be identified in the previous literature.</p><p>　　To summarize, this paper examines if contingency characteristics affect the internal control structure and furt

61、her, whether the internal control structure will result in a more favorable assessment of effectiveness if applied in alternative contexts.</p><p>　　3 Definition of constructs and research questions</p>

62、;<p>　　In this section the definitions of the constructs used are presented, and the literature that contributes to the relationships between constructs is reviewed alongside there search questions that have been

63、 developed.</p><p>　　3.1 Internal control framework</p><p>　　According to the broad view of internal control, it covers all aspects of an organization and there was a clear demand for a method o

64、f pulling together control concepts to form an integrated internal control framework. Well-known frameworks (COSO, COCO) the Basle Framework, the Combined Code and the Turnbull Guidance) include a definition of effective

65、 internal control and present the components of the internal control structure. For example COSO (1994) states that internal control can be judged </p><p>　　Similarly, in the frameworks a proper internal con

66、trol structure is described in different terms, but the following five components can be identified:</p><p>　　1. The control environment component defines the ethos of an organization and the way it operates

67、. This component refers to the creation of an atmosphere in which people can conduct their activities and carry out their control responsibilities. It creates the overall control culture in the firm.</p><p>

68、　　2. The risk assessment component refers to the processes of dealing with the risks that pose a threat to achieving the firm’s objectives. It involves the identification, analysis and assessment of relevant risks.</p

69、><p>　　3. The control activities component refers to policies, procedures and practices that assure management that the objectives are achieved and the risk mitigation strategies are carried out effectively.<

70、;/p><p>　　4. The information and communication component ensures that relevant information is identified, captured and communicated in a form and time frame that allows personnel to carry out their duties and r

71、esponsibilities effectively.</p><p>　　5. The monitoring component refers to a process of assessing the quality of control. It covers ongoing and periodical evaluations of the external super vision of interna

72、l controls by management or other parties outside the process.</p><p>　　In this research these five components define the internal control structure.2 It is stated in the frameworks (e.g., COSO 1994) that in

73、 order to have an adequate internal control system these components of internal control must be presented and function properly. Most of the research in this field focuses on examining particular control elements (Aquila

74、 1998; Hooks et al. 1994; Mills 1997). Stringer and Carey (2002) examines all five components but use a qualitative approach and examine the comp</p><p>　　In this study internal control components and observ

75、ed effectiveness are used as latent variables in the analysis. It should be noted that the level of analysis is theoretical and specific individual controls or judgments are not the main focus of the study (see for examp

76、le Felix and Niles 1988; Gadh et al. 1993). Furthermore,</p><p>　　the level of analysis in the firms is at the corporate control level as applied by the</p><p>　　CEO and other corporate officers

77、 (see e.g.Fisher 1998)</p><p><b>　　.</b></p><p>　　3.2 Contingency variables</p><p>　　Previous studies (Fisher 1995; Gerdin 2005) have noted that a control system may hav

78、e to be tailored to multiple and sometimes conflicting contextual characteristics. To capture the complexities of internal control structure design, this paper chooses to examine four contingency characteristics. The stu

79、dy examines the impact of strategy, size, organization structure, and environmental uncertainty on an internal control structure and reports its observed effectiveness. There is evidence in earlie</p><p>　　(

80、Chenhall 2003). Next, this paper reviews the related literature for each contingency characteristic and develops its first four research questions.</p><p>　　4 Strategy</p><p>　　Otley (1980) and

81、Dermer (1977) state that the business strategy should be one of the main features in accounting control system design. Depending on the firm’s strategy, as noted by Miller et al. (1986), Miles and Snow (1978) and Porter

82、(1980), control systems are used in different ways. For example, Simons (1990) found evidence that firms employ accounting control systems in dissimilar ways if they use different strategies. While these earlier studies

83、suggest that different types of firm strate</p><p>　　The Miles and Snow (1978) typology was adopted in this study; most control research has only focused on the differences between prospector and defender (F

84、isher 1995). Miles and Snow (1978) find that control systems of the prospector type may focus more on problem finding and that identifying flexible structures and processes may assist an organization in responding rapidl

85、y to environmental change.As noted by Langfield Smith (1997) control in prospector organizations may be decentralized and resu</p><p>　　Based on prior management control studies (see Lang field-Smith 1997; C

86、henhall 2003) it is possible to suggest that certain types of control system will be suited to particular strategies; prospectors are more likely to have flexible controls to enable quick adaptation to fast changing envi

87、ronments, while defenders are more likely to focus on reducing uncertainty and maximizing efficiency. Compared to defenders, prospectors are more flexible in modifying their management systems according to use</p>