內(nèi)部控制披露情況的監(jiān)管外文翻譯（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　1200單詞，7300英文字符，2200漢字</p><p>　　出處：Spira L F, Page M. Regulation by disclosure: the case of internal control[J]. Journal of Management & Governance, 2010, 14(4):409-413.</p><p>&l

2、t;b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p>　　Regulation by disclosure: the case of internal control</p><p>　　Laura F. Spira, Michael</p><p>　　In this paper we explore the use of disclosure as

3、a regulatory tool, using as an illustration the current UK requirements regarding the disclosure of information about internal control. After discussing the broad concept of regulation by disclosure, we trace the evoluti

4、on of concepts of internal control and its reporting, describing the background to the Turnbull guidance for directors on internal control reporting, the basis of current UK requirements. We then examine recent examples

5、of interna</p><p>　　In his analysis of the development of the role of audit, Power observes that internal control has become increasingly important as part of a system of regulation which relies on making in

6、ternal mechanisms visible through forms of self-validation and disclosure. Corporate governance requirements have frequently been couched in the form of codes of practice on the principle of ‘comply or explain’ rather th

7、an prescriptive legislation. The monitoring role of the board of directors, which forms the a</p><p>　　The use of internal control as a corporate governance device reflects a subtle but significant change in

8、 its conception, moving from the original ‘‘supportive’’ notion that internal control systems were an integral part of the structure of an organization which enabled its goals to be achieved, to the more recent view of i

9、nternal control as a substantially ‘‘preventive’’ system, designed to minimise obstructions to goal achievement and carrying significantly greater expectations of the effective</p><p>　　The emergence of risk

10、-based approaches to internal control has resulted in a confluence of internal control and risk management to the point that an influential publication (Jones and Sutherland 1999) issued at the same time as the Turnbull

11、guidance referred frequently to ‘‘internal control and risk management’’ as a single concept in providing practical assistance for boards in complying with the Turnbull disclosure requirements. </p><p>　　The

12、 demonstration of ‘‘good’’ corporate governance is a challenge for boards of directors but describing structural mechanisms such as internal control processes may be one way of meeting demands for transparency. Thus, wha

13、t was once an internal interest becomes a means of demonstrating regulatory compliance. </p><p>　　Concerns about internal control in the US and the UK arose initially from a desire to establish the boundarie

14、s of external auditor responsibility. The difficulties of defining internal control are illustrated in the earliest US experience, as summarised in a lecture by Mautz (1980). He quotes the 1949 AICPA definition: </p&g

15、t;<p>　　Internal control comprises the plan of organization and all of the coordinate methods and measures adopted within a business to safeguard its assets, check the accuracy and reliability of its accounting da

16、ta, promote operational efficiency, and encourage adherence to prescribed managerial policies. and describes the concern of firms’ legal counsel about the broadness of this definition. This concern led to a new definitio

17、n issued in 1958 which split the four parts of the original definition betw</p><p>　　Up to this point, the definition was really only of concern to companies and their auditors but the passing of the Foreign

18、 Corrupt Practices Act in 1977 changed this. The Act was passed in response to bribery scandals and for the first time envisaged the use of internal control as regulation. It was based on a narrow conception of internal

19、control newly described as ‘‘internal accounting control’’. It also changed the focus of internal control: whereas the concerns of ‘‘a(chǎn)ccounting control’’ had </p><p>　　Further concern about inadequacies in f

20、inancial reporting led to a private sector initiative which established the Tread way Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting in 1987. Its recommendations included a call for a review of the varying concepts of inte

21、rnal control to develop a consistent approach. The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO 1992) subsequently produced an integrated framework for internal control in 1992, defining internal control as: </p>&

22、lt;p>　　A process … designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories: </p><p>　　? Effectiveness and efficiency of operations. </p><p&g

23、t;　　? Reliability of financial reporting. </p><p>　　? Compliance with applicable laws and regulations (COSO 1992, p. 9) </p><p>　　However, the Sarbanes Oxley legislation of 2002 introduced a fur

24、ther definition: ‘‘internal control over financial reporting’’ which suggests that consistency has not yet been achieved and ambiguity still exists. </p><p>　　In the UK, internal control first entered the co

25、rporate governance agenda when the Cadbury Committee, reporting in 1992 on the financial aspects of corporate governance, adopted the view that directors’ responsibilities with regard to internal control should be clarif

26、ied. They recommended that directors should report on the effectiveness of internal control systems and that auditors should report on that statement but passed responsibility for implementing this to the accountancy pro

27、fession. </p><p>　　In 1994 the Rutteman working party defined internal control using the US definition of 1958 and also replaced the Cadbury recommendation that directors should report on the effectiveness o

28、f internal controls with the suggestion that they may wish to do so. In 1998 the Hampel review of the Cadbury Code weakened this recommendation even further but, for the first time, suggested that internal control and ri

29、sk management were related. </p><p>　　This link was built on by the internal control working party chaired by Nigel Turnbull which was charged with producing guidance for directors in interpreting the Code’s

30、 requirements for reporting on internal control, finally grasping the nettle avoided by Cadbury, Rutteman and Hampel. Using a broad definition of internal control, the Turnbull guidance views it as a key component of ris

31、k management. In terms of the apparent satisfaction of disclosers and their audiences, the guidance consultatio</p><p>　　The study reported in this paper uses disclosures required by the Turnbull guidance to

32、 illustrate aspects of the use of disclosure as a regulatory tool. Having outlined the background to current concerns about internal control disclosure, the next section considers theories of disclosure. </p><

33、p><b>　　譯文 </b></p><p>　　內(nèi)部控制披露情況的監(jiān)管</p><p>　　本文選取英國當(dāng)前對于內(nèi)部控制信息披露的規(guī)定作為案例，探討了披露這項(xiàng)監(jiān)管工具的使用。在討論了披露管制的廣義概念之后，我們跟蹤了內(nèi)部控制及其披露這兩個(gè)概念的演變歷程，其中介紹了《公司治理綜合法典》指導(dǎo)意見中關(guān)于內(nèi)部控制披露的背景，也就是英國當(dāng)前規(guī)范的制定基礎(chǔ)。然后我們通過

34、分析最近一些有關(guān)內(nèi)部控制披露的案例，來確定他們傳遞披露要求的途徑，并考慮到披露要求對企業(yè)行為和信息使用者產(chǎn)生的可能的影響。最后我們探討了一些生命周期的披露問題，以此來總結(jié)全文。這篇論文具體分析披露這項(xiàng)監(jiān)管工具、驗(yàn)證內(nèi)部控制信息披露的本質(zhì)，給有關(guān)披露研究的文獻(xiàn)又增添了一筆。</p><p>　　Power在審計(jì)的角色發(fā)展分析中發(fā)現(xiàn)，內(nèi)部控制在監(jiān)管系統(tǒng)中的重要性是越來越高。這套監(jiān)管系統(tǒng)通過自我驗(yàn)證和信息披露達(dá)到內(nèi)部機(jī)

35、制可視化的效果。公司治理?xiàng)l例經(jīng)常呈現(xiàn)為實(shí)務(wù)守則的形式，采用“遵守或解釋”的形式，而不是規(guī)范立法。作為一個(gè)組織內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)制高點(diǎn)的董事會，它的監(jiān)督作用得到了強(qiáng)調(diào)。在這些改良的談判中，特殊利益群體的影響力也很重要。因?yàn)槭莾?nèi)部控制的專家，內(nèi)部審計(jì)師提升了自己在組織中的地位(Spira&Page,2003)，而外部審計(jì)師增加了專業(yè)服務(wù)業(yè)務(wù)的潛力。監(jiān)管者和立法人員在針對危機(jī)制定政策的時(shí)候，已經(jīng)將注意力集中到了內(nèi)部控制問題上(Cunning

36、ham,2004)。</p><p>　　作為一項(xiàng)公司治理的工具，內(nèi)部控制的作用發(fā)生了微妙但很重大的變化。原本“支持型”主張的是“內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)作為組織結(jié)構(gòu)一部分是為了確保組織目標(biāo)得以實(shí)現(xiàn)”，而最近的觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)實(shí)質(zhì)上是一個(gè)預(yù)防系統(tǒng)，旨在最大限度地減少目標(biāo)執(zhí)行過程中的障礙，給這類系統(tǒng)的有效性帶來更大的期望值。正如Page和Spira(2004)提到的，因?yàn)榻M織變化的速度太快，公司開始逐漸在內(nèi)部控制中采取以風(fēng)

37、險(xiǎn)為基礎(chǔ)的方法。控制系統(tǒng)變化太快，需要嚴(yán)格的記錄，但是公司對于一些電算化系統(tǒng)可能沒有完整的文件。基于這些原因，組織控制系統(tǒng)中可能會增添一些系統(tǒng)，而且很可能沒有中央記錄控制系統(tǒng)。</p><p>　　以風(fēng)險(xiǎn)為基礎(chǔ)的內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)，結(jié)合了內(nèi)部控制和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理。這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)有一個(gè)有影響力的出版物(Jones&Sutherland,1999)和《公司治理綜合法典》指導(dǎo)意見同時(shí)發(fā)布?！豆局卫砭C合法典》指導(dǎo)意見中指出，在給

38、董事會提供有關(guān)披露要求的援助時(shí)，“內(nèi)部控制”與“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理”經(jīng)常指的是一個(gè)概念。</p><p>　　好的公司治理是對董事會能力的挑戰(zhàn)，同時(shí)描述了各式各樣的結(jié)構(gòu)機(jī)制，內(nèi)部控制可能只是滿足組織透明化的一種方式。因此，曾經(jīng)作為一項(xiàng)內(nèi)部利益的內(nèi)部控制，成為了遵從法規(guī)的一種手段。</p><p>　　在美國和英國，內(nèi)部控制最初產(chǎn)生是為了建立外部審計(jì)師責(zé)任的界限。Mautz(1980)在一次講座中通過

39、總結(jié)早期美國的經(jīng)驗(yàn)指出了定義內(nèi)部控制的艱巨性。他引用了1949年美國注冊會計(jì)師協(xié)會的定義:</p><p>　　內(nèi)部控制包括組織計(jì)劃和企業(yè)為保障資產(chǎn)安全、核查會計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)的準(zhǔn)確性和可靠性、提高組織運(yùn)作效率、鼓勵遵守管理政策采取的所有方法和措施。</p><p>　　介紹了公司法律顧問對于這個(gè)定義廣度的擔(dān)憂，這個(gè)擔(dān)憂導(dǎo)致了1958年新定義的誕生。它將原定義中的四個(gè)部分重組為:會計(jì)控制(資產(chǎn)保障、

40、會計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)可靠性和準(zhǔn)確性審核)、行政控制(提高運(yùn)作效率、鼓勵遵守管理政策)，并規(guī)定審計(jì)師的責(zé)任只有審核會計(jì)控制。1972年，定義進(jìn)一步被縮小，美國規(guī)定審計(jì)范圍只限定于會計(jì)控制對應(yīng)的兩個(gè)部分。</p><p>　　到目前為止，這個(gè)定義只關(guān)注公司和他們的審計(jì)師。但是1977年頒布的《反國外行賄法案》改變了這一點(diǎn)。該法案是為了回應(yīng)行賄丑聞，并首次設(shè)想在監(jiān)管中使用內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)。這個(gè)系統(tǒng)是一個(gè)狹義的概念，最近被稱為“內(nèi)部會計(jì)

41、控制”。它也改變內(nèi)部控制的側(cè)重點(diǎn):原本的會計(jì)控制關(guān)注的是低組織水平和辦事程序，而該法案第一次將注意力轉(zhuǎn)移到了董事會的層面。</p><p>　　財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告不足的進(jìn)一步被關(guān)注，導(dǎo)致了倡議需要一個(gè)專門的部門來監(jiān)管。這個(gè)部門就是1987年建立的專門針對欺詐性財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告的全美反舞弊性財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告委員會發(fā)起組織(COSO委員會)。其建議中要求為不同的內(nèi)部控制概念開發(fā)一套一致的方法。全美反舞弊性財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告委員會發(fā)起組織(COSO,19

42、92)隨后在1992年產(chǎn)生了一個(gè)內(nèi)部控制的整體框架，將內(nèi)部控制定義為:</p><p>　　一個(gè)旨在提供合理保障以下組織目標(biāo)的過程: </p><p>　　?營運(yùn)的效益及效率。 </p><p>　　?財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表的可靠性。 </p><p>　　?遵守適用的法律和法規(guī)。(COSO,1992， 頁碼: 9) </p><p&g

43、t;　　然而， 2002 年出臺的薩班斯法案給出了進(jìn)一步的定義: 財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表中的內(nèi)部控制。 這表明一致性還尚未實(shí)現(xiàn)， 仍然存在歧義。 </p><p>　　1992 年， 英國首次將內(nèi)部控制納入了公司治理的范疇。在有關(guān)公司治理中財(cái)務(wù)方面的報(bào)告中， 吉百利委員會采納了以下觀點(diǎn): 與內(nèi)部控制有關(guān)的董事責(zé)任應(yīng)該予以說明。 他們建議， 董事們應(yīng)該報(bào)告內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)的有效性，而審計(jì)師也應(yīng)該對此發(fā)表報(bào)告， 但他們必須通過實(shí)施這項(xiàng)

44、責(zé)任的會計(jì)職業(yè)能力資格。 </p><p>　　1994 年， Rutteman 工作小組利用美國 1958 年的定義重新界定了內(nèi)部控制，同時(shí)也取代了吉百利定義中建議的董事應(yīng)該報(bào)告內(nèi)部控制系統(tǒng)的有效性，建議他們不妨這樣做。 1998 年， Hampel 審查了吉百利標(biāo)準(zhǔn)， 進(jìn)一步削弱了這個(gè)建議，但第一次提出內(nèi)部控制和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理是相關(guān)聯(lián)的。 </p><p>　　這個(gè)鏈接是由 Nigel Tu

45、rnbull 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的內(nèi)部控制工作小組創(chuàng)建的。 Nigel Turnbull 還擔(dān)負(fù)著為董事在解釋對內(nèi)部控制報(bào)告的要求提供指導(dǎo)的責(zé)任， 后來這個(gè)棘手問題交給了 Cadbury,Rutteman 和 Hampel。如果使用廣義的內(nèi)部控制定義， 那么《公司治理綜合法典》 指導(dǎo)意見將它視為風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理的重要組成部分。為了 滿足披露者和信息接收者對于透明 化的要求， 英國 財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告理事會(Financial Reporting Council) 下屬