內部控制環(huán)境外文翻譯

1、<p>　　內部控制環(huán)境外文翻譯</p><p>　　Annukka Jokipi</p><p>　　出版日期（期刊號）：March 2009,Vol. 1, No. 3(Serial No. 10)</p><p>　　出版單位： Springer Science and Business Media, LLC. 2009</p><

2、;p><b>　　外文翻譯譯文：</b></p><p>　　摘要：為了保證企業(yè)需求內部控制活動的有效性和信息的可靠性以及遵守法律的適用性，每個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險是否切合權變理論。本文研究的是檢視這些風險特點的選擇是否適應他們公司內部控制結構和它是否會導致一些更加優(yōu)惠的有效性的評估控制管理。雖然內部控制的組成部分已進行單獨控制，本文嘗試闡明內部

3、控制的關鍵點并將其放到更加廣闊的背景中。結果證明，基于對741家芬蘭公司的調查研究，表明公司用內部控制結構來應對環(huán)境的不確定性，并觀測控制的有效性的戰(zhàn)略對其內部控制結構有著顯著的效果。</p><p>　　關鍵詞：內部控制、成效、權變理論、結構方塊建模</p><p><b>　　緒論</b></p><p>　　人們普遍認為，一個內部控制系統(tǒng)

4、可以幫助企業(yè)降低風險，并且使財務報表的可靠性得以保證。因此，越來越多的企業(yè)在他們具體的操作環(huán)境下更多的關注自己的內部控制。在巨大的管理壓力下，如何提高內部控制的有效性以及董事會和股東之間的溝通效果，是目前企業(yè)亟待解決的重要問題。由于內部控制可能會影響長期的報告，因此審計人員、供應商、客戶都對內部控制關注相當。Kinney在2000年指出，盡管內部控制對公司影響很大，但在組織環(huán)境中內部控制結構卻無法實現(xiàn)。雖然關于內部控制的文獻在國際研究上

5、已取得進展，但迄今為止，內部控制的研究數(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部控制有著很強的實用性。</p><p>　　本文的研究結論有助于了解內部控制結構及其在公司環(huán)境中觀察到對公司的效果。即使內部控制結構框架中提出了一個標準化的結構和內部控制目標，但仍然需要注意的是，有效地內部控制是要根據(jù)公司的不同特點來制定的。因此，即使是內部控制的框架中也無

6、法提供一個企業(yè)的特點和其控制系統(tǒng)的關系。因此，本研究利用一個應急方法，審查內部控制結構的設計，并且將其放到不同的環(huán)境下觀察其效果。研究報告分析了使用方程關系模型對741家芬蘭公司進行實例證明并得到結果。這項研究的結果在幾個重要方面增加了有限的內部控制研究的知識。首先，研究中提出了要利用內部控制及其在實踐中的有效性度量模型的實證研究結果。世界上有一些組織已經將內部控制框架建立基金會來開展活動。無論如何，有一點是值得注意的，那就是除了求證時

7、間框架外還要更加深入的求證內部控制研究模型。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)境同心結構或風險評估，在這些研究中內部控制只是作為一個概念，是研究不同情況下的整體。第二，盡管在這之前控制行為關系在內部控制的了解中發(fā)揮了關鍵作用，但是控制行為對內部控制的應急理論尚未進行</p><p>　　接下來的部分介紹了研究框架和部分定義的介紹，研究結構的相關問題文

8、獻。隨后本文詳細闡述了在SEM方法從741家芬蘭公司搜集數(shù)據(jù)為基礎對實例論證。最后是對結果的討論以及對研究限制闡述。</p><p><b>　　2 研究框架</b></p><p>　　在2003年Chenhall運用控制系統(tǒng)設計可以協(xié)助管理人員實現(xiàn)其公司的目標和期望的結果。內部系統(tǒng)控制增強了企業(yè)的檢測報告程序，也確保遵守法律法規(guī)。通過這種有效的內部控制對公司成功方

9、面有著關鍵的作用。但是，正如我們觀察到的，內部控制在真空下是不存在的。在1994年COCO（加拿大控制基準委員會框架）中指出，兩個組織不存在類似的控制系統(tǒng)，除非該組織的中心組織機構系統(tǒng)是相同的。內部控制系統(tǒng)根據(jù)不同的細節(jié)需要會產生在不同的組織環(huán)境下。在1994年COSO（美國控制基準委員會）在內部控制框架中提出內部控制系統(tǒng)是由控制環(huán)境、風險評估、內控活動、信息與溝通、監(jiān)督五要素組成，它們取決于管理層經營企業(yè)的方式，并融入管理過程本身，其

10、相互關系可以用其模型表示。此聲明類似于權變理論對每一個組織的特點采取適當?shù)目刂葡到y(tǒng)一樣。（參考Chapman 1997； Chenhall 2003；Fisher1995； Luft and Shields 2003）因此，以應急理論為基礎的方法提供了在實踐當中對內部控制因素不同的解釋。同時，以應急理論為基礎的權變理論構成了一種新的方法來重新演繹有內部控制的理論和基礎特點。</p><p><b>　　

11、圖1</b></p><p>　　因此管理控制作為在組織制度中的一個重要控制子集一直是權變理論的研究主體。研究主要集中在上下變量對管理控制系統(tǒng)設計的影響，本文，是對文獻回顧的研究基礎上分析的。其目的是利用了解內部控制結構的特點和影響來觀察成效以作為制定權變理論的基礎。內部控制和權變理論共享某些元素，但是共同點和不同點的廣度取決于所用的定義。在2003年Chenhall指出，以前的以應變研究為基礎的管理

12、控制研究遵循傳統(tǒng)的協(xié)助管理人員決策，是一種被動工具。其目的是為了利用管理控制系統(tǒng)包含了一個會計系統(tǒng)這一特性，更好的管理包括個人或家族控制的控制因素，這樣的控制理論如：</p><p>　　圖1說明了研究框架和理論基礎上的內部控制框架。變量之間的關系有三組，在應變特點，內部控制結構和觀察成效是本文研究的終點。前四個研究問題（RQ1-RQ4）旨在測試（戰(zhàn)略，規(guī)模，組織應變特征結構和環(huán)境的不確定性）等因素對內部控制結構

13、的影響。這些因素前人都有所研究（例如Chenhall 2003；Donaldson 2001；Hoque and James 2000； Macintosh 1994；Simons 1987；Drazinand Van de Ven 1985；Otley 1980)指出，指出這些因素對控制結構和企業(yè)的績效產生一定的影響。</p><p>　　第五個研究因素（RQ5）集中于內部控制結構與內部控制有效性的關系上。變量

14、之間的理論關系是基于COSO（美國控制基礎委員會）1994年提出的。指出根據(jù)特定的情況對內部控制的需求不盡相同，但是內部控制組成的部分功能可以引導有效地內部控制系統(tǒng)。Fisher 1998年指出，成功的剪裁控制系統(tǒng)以適應企業(yè)的特點等類似的權變理論對公司的業(yè)績有著突出的貢獻。然而企業(yè)可能有著傳統(tǒng)性能的其他目標。因此根據(jù)Fisher1995年的建議，在模型中所設想的一個非財務目標對內部控制的有效性產生理想的效果。用內部控制因素管理大型的公司

15、已成為關鍵的因素（Sutton在2006年指出）。內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內部控制系統(tǒng)的業(yè)績，不過在過去的文獻中發(fā)現(xiàn)了許多相關文獻。</p><p><b>　　3.結構定義和研究</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構造問題因素之間的關系。</p><p><b&g

16、t;　　3.1內部控制框架</b></p><p>　　根據(jù)內部控制的廣泛研究，它涵蓋了一個組織的方方面面，在這里運用了匯集控制器的概念將內部控制架構的方法形成一個完整的整體，明確內部需求。在著名的內部控制框架（COCO、COSO）（加拿大控制基準委員會、美國控制基準委員會）中包括有效地內部控制定義和目前內部控制結構的組成部分。舉例來說，在1994年COCO（加拿大控制基礎委員會）框架中提到的內部控制

17、狀態(tài)可以在董事會和管理層的理解程度上，該實體的目標在于實現(xiàn)公布財務報表以及保證遵守法律法規(guī)。因此，在這中間的內部控制的研究應進行有效的界定，如何控制好這三個目標在管理的觀念上實現(xiàn)，是企業(yè)所要重點關注的問題。</p><p>　　因此，我認為可以在一個適當?shù)膬炔靠刂瓶蚣芙Y構中描述五個不同組成部分的條款，其可以確定為：</p><p>　　1 控制環(huán)境的界定是一個組織得以運作的精神支柱。這個組

18、件可以給人們創(chuàng)造一個他們可以進行他們的活動和執(zhí)行它們的責任氛圍。他創(chuàng)建了這家公司整體控制文化。</p><p>　　2 風險評估部分是指，處理風險如何威脅公司實現(xiàn)目標的過程。他設計到對風險的識別、分析和相應的評估。</p><p>　　3 控制活動的組成部分，是指對政策、程序和做法對分先環(huán)節(jié)戰(zhàn)略的實施是的管理目標得以實現(xiàn)的過程。</p><p>　　4 信息和通信組

19、建是指確保有關信息在形式和時限上的識別，是工作人員履行其職責和責任的有效溝通過程。</p><p>　　5 監(jiān)測組件是指評估內部控制的質量過程，談涵蓋了有管理人員進程外的其他各方面進行內部控制的外部監(jiān)督和定期評估。</p><p>　　在本文中這五個組成部分定義了內部控制的架構。根據(jù)1994年COCO架構，為了有足夠的內部控制系統(tǒng)使其組件部分正常運行。大部分的研究將這一部分作為重點研究領域

20、設定控制元件（Aquila 1998; Hooks etal. 1994; Milles 1997）。在2002年Stringer and Carey研究的五個組成部分，以及單個因素對內部控制研究是在此研究領域的一個質轉變。</p><p>　　在這項研究中觀察到的內部控制原件及其有效性能分析的潛在變量。應當指出的是，理論和具體的個人控制或判斷分析水平并不是主要的研究焦點。此外，分析應用水平受公司首席執(zhí)行官和其他

21、管理人員的控制。</p><p><b>　　3.2應急變量</b></p><p>　　在以前的研究中指出(Fisher1995；Gerdin2005)，控制系統(tǒng)可能經過調試來進行應對多種相互矛盾情形下的需求。為了研究內部結構設計的復雜性，本文選擇研究四個變量的特征。該研究探討了戰(zhàn)略，規(guī)模，組織結構和環(huán)境的不確定性對內部控制結構的影響，并且對其有效性進行考證。早先的

22、研究中證明，這些特征對內部控制結構的性能設計有一定的影響(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，并且對內部控制結構有著相關的影響。</p><p><b>　　4戰(zhàn)略<

23、;/b></p><p>　　Otley (1980) 和 Dermer (1977) 分別指出，企業(yè)戰(zhàn)略應當屬于會計控制系統(tǒng)設計的主要特征之一。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)，公司會因不同的會計控制系統(tǒng)來選擇不同的戰(zhàn)略方式。雖然這些早期的研究表明，企業(yè)戰(zhàn)略的不同往往會引起不同的控制系統(tǒng)配

24、置。戰(zhàn)略也會導致內部控制的一些分歧。然而，迄今為止進行的實例研究都沒有取得戰(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。Miles和Snow發(fā)現(xiàn)控制系統(tǒng)類型側重于發(fā)現(xiàn)問題并且能夠幫助一個組織靈活的應對環(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果為導向。這就意味著，監(jiān)測通過強有力的控制環(huán)境，從未確保有

25、力的控制意識。Simons在1987年發(fā)現(xiàn)通過監(jiān)測異常報告與月度報告的預算偏差，通過監(jiān)測需要從市場上尋找到的機會，將各種不同的信息通過通信組件提供對未來預測有用的信息。Simons在1987年的結論，在正式的控制系統(tǒng)的屬性差異的捍衛(wèi)下，得到這些屬性對公司的業(yè)績有著深遠的影響。</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

26、統(tǒng)將適用特定策略。監(jiān)測通過靈活的控制來應對不確定性的環(huán)境，減少不確定性的發(fā)生和公司效率最大化。相對于公司，監(jiān)測型公司根據(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&

27、lt;/p><p>　　作者：Annukka Jokipii</p><p><b>　　起始頁碼：1-12</b></p><p>　　出版日期（期刊號）：March 2009,Vol. 2, No. 4(Serial No. 11)</p><p>　　出版單位： Springer Science and Busines

28、s Media, LLC. 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

29、. However, several 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 sui

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

31、Structural equation 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 statement

32、s and compliance 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 syste

33、ms, which are 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 esse

34、ntial factor 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, a

35、s noted by Kinney (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 Wid

36、ener (2004)</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

37、etc.) present 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 pri

38、or literature 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 r

39、espects. First, 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 fo

40、undation for 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 e

41、xamines important 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

42、 in an internal 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 con

43、tingency approach 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 an

44、d the literature 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

45、 data collected 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

46、 assist managers 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 a

47、nd regulations. 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,

48、 p. 18) states 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

49、 contingency-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

50、research has 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 analy

51、sis of the research 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

52、 based on contingency 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

53、 of this research. 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. Th

54、ere</p><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 thes

55、e characteristics 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 str

56、ucture and observed 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 interna

57、l control components 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

58、 pressure to 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 perfo

59、rmance due solely 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 struc

60、ture and further, 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 quest

61、ions</p><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 t

62、hat have been 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 f

63、or a method of 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

64、 of effective 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

65、 internal control 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 wa

66、y it operates. 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&g

67、t;<p>　　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

68、 risks.</p><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 ef

69、fectively.</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

70、 duties and responsibilities 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 visi

71、on of internal 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

72、1994) that in 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 ele

73、ments (Aquila 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 componen

74、ts and observed 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 (

75、see for example 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 corpo

76、rate officers (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 s

77、ystem may have 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 characteris

78、tics. The study 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>

79、<p>　　(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>　　Otle

80、y (1980) and 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

81、) and Porter (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 ear

82、lier studies 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 an

83、d defender (Fisher 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 resp

84、onding rapidly 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-

85、Smith 1997; Chenhall 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

86、changing environments, 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 u