中英文翻译内部控制爆炸①摘要：Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。

由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。

审计已经从审计结果转向审计制度和内部控制，它已然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。

Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。

本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。

内部控制对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。

因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。

所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。

关键词：机构理论；公司治理；外部审计；内部审计；内部控制制度；管理控制1 概述Power的1997版书以审计社会为主题的探讨使得审计活动在联合王国（英国）和北美得到扩散。

由审计爆炸一同带动的是内部控制制度的兴起。

审计已经从审计结果转向审①Maastricht Accounting and Auditing Research and Education Center (MARC), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands s.maijoor@marc.unimaas.nl Fax: 31-43-3884876 Tel: 31-43-3883783计制度和内部控制，它已然成为公众对公司治理和审计监管政策的辩论主题。

例如，在最近的对于欧洲联盟内外部审计服务的内部市场形成的辩论中，监管建议建立关于内部控制和内部审计制度。

虽然对有关内部控制的价值期望高，但Power表示对什么是有效的内部控制各方说法不一。

本人对内部控制研究方面有一个合理的解释。

内部控制是对非常不同概念的各个领域的会计进行探究，并研究如何控制不同水平的组织。

因此，内部控制研究的各类之间的交叉影响是有限的，而且，许多内部会计控制是研究是再更宽广的公司治理问题的背景下进行的。

所以，许多有关内部控制制度对公司治理的价值观点扔需要进行研究。

在审计和公司治理的公共政策辩论中，内部控制的概念越来越得到重视。

公共越来越关注内部控制，令人对power在1997年英国和北美的书中的审计社会的现状有所信服。

此书的主题是在Anglo-Saxon经济体的审计活动：审计爆炸的扩散。

Power表示，联合开发与审计爆炸带动了内部控制制度兴起。

增加监管问责制是公众对审计和公司治理政策辩论机构内部控制系统的一部分。

然而Power注意到，尽管公众对内部控制的关注度迅速增加，内部控制的概念还是很模糊。

他支出，内部控制是什么，内部控制的有效性的界定是内部控制的最基本问题。

本文讨论研究内部控制的兴起，认为内部控制的研究也有一些潜在的问题。

首先，在以往的研究中，长期的内部控制涵盖完全不同的概念。

其次，有关的内部控制研究机构的规模是有限的，要从孤立的学科进行交叉使用得到结果很难。

因此，内部控制是尚未独立的研究范畴。

最后，以往的对内部控制的研究没有彻底解决在审计和公司治理的公共政策辩论中谈到的内部控制有关问题。

假设的内部控制、财务报告和公司治理的基本关系也没有被证实。

本文解构如下：在开始对内部控制进行研究和讨论之前，先介绍了两个主要的，在Power1997的书中所提出的发展：第一部分讨论了审计爆炸，第二部分讨论了内部控制的崛起。

两者也讲被从欧盟的角度评论。

第三部分讨论了什么是内部控制，并从会计研究的三个主要观点出发，研究内部控制制度。

第四部分确定了内部控制和公司治理的公共政策辩论所承担的四个基本关系，并讨论之前的相关研究。

最后一节提供了一个总结和结论。

2 内部控制的崛起不论是否存在审计爆炸，Power1997和1998在审计中变得越来越重要。

根据Power （1997年83爷），因为内部控制系统的可审计假设使得审计爆炸成为可能。

根据更具体的财务审计，审计内部控制系统是财务审计起很很大的作用。

作为内部控制制度兴起的结果，外部审计的重点从审计结果转变为审计的制度。

此外，内部控制制度也成为监管体系的一部分。

许多国家的企业管制报告和改革建仪，包括内部控制和内部控制报告。

内部控制的崛起与共同发展，是增加内部审计的公共意义。

内部控制系统的可审计假设使得审计爆炸成为可能。

担心Power系统是否能够审计不是技术问题，而是由专业验收的可审计性。

Power(1997年54-57页），表示他自己的观点，关于内部控制和吉百利代码，其中包括董事以及核数师有关内部控制制度的责任和建议。

Power认为，内部控制的崛起也与欧洲联盟一级的发展需作说明。

内部控制的概念在欧洲联盟内的财务报表审计对市场内部的建立的讨论是十分重要的。

目前，欧洲联盟几乎没有任何共同的审计规定，也没有财务报表审计的内控市场。

只有两个方面的审计协调：一个是组织的审核（如前面提到的指令）还有一个是审计师的资格审核（第八指令的结果）。

因此，目前的内部控制系统的报告，目前不包括任何欧洲的会计或审计。

1996年，欧盟委员会公布了一份研究报告和绿皮书。

即名为《欧洲联盟的法定审计师的角色、地位和责任》。

这些包括内部控制和审计建议数量的出版物是将内控市场摄入欧盟委员会的重要的第一步。

3 什么是内部控制前面的章节表明内部控制在公共政策辩论和欧盟中引起越来越多的兴趣。

然而，由Power(1997)观察到，关于内部控制的定义和有效性的判断，在公共政策讨论中产生了很多疑问。

对于内部控制的研究，将在下文讨论，以用来强调Power(1997)的观点。

在进行内部控制进行研究和讨论之前，应该明白什么是内部控制。

对于什么是内部控制这个问题，Power(1997年，83页）是引用了一个作为会计专业文献中的概念开始的。

传统上，在会计专业文献中，内部控制是指像职责分工组织，会计控制和关注这个措施，授权策略，组织结构，采取措施以保护资产和信息的信誉测试。

这些会计控制可以是一般性的或特别设计的，和有关的组织作为一个整体。

最近会计专业文学扩大了内部控制的概念，现在使用的定义就更加广泛，除了会计控制以外还涵盖了许多其他的控制内容。

公共政策文件关于审计和公司治理就特别使用了广泛的内部控制定义。

比如，COSO报告（1992）对内部控制的定义为：他是一个能够影响一个董事会、管理人员和其他人员，旨在提供合理的能够保证实现的目标的过程，具体解释为：（1）行动的有效性和效率（2）财务报告的可靠性（3）遵守适当的法律和法规。

4 四个未来研究内部控制的方向最近公共政策辩论队公司治理有很多的讨论，许多都是在研究组织内部控制、审计和组织绩效之间的关系。

这些关系大多数都没有被证实研究。

在上一节研究的机构理论在三个领域研究的区别是公司治理最关注的问题。

然而，机构理论研究的内部控制主要关注的是如董事会的外部董事、审计委员会、董事的薪酬计划等顶层控制。

经常在公开的政策文件中强烈提及的中等和较低级别的内部控制是机构理论难以考虑到的有关公司治理方面的影响。

Power（1997年和1998年）研究了少数人研究的内部控制的宏观影响，包括中等和较低级别的控制。

如前所述，最后两个类别的控制主要是再内部组织的有效性和审计管理决策方面的研究。

考虑到内部控制和公司治理研究的有限性，假定有利于内部控制制度的经济影响可以受到质疑。

关于内部控制制度的的期望是不符合他们的能力（Power1997年）。

以下四个建议，是内部控制、审计和公司治理的重点讨论的结果。

这些问题到目前为止，已经得到来自学术界的许多人的关注，尤其是考虑到Power(1997)确定的内部控制概念在公共政策辩论中日趋热门：（1）内部控制系统的需求。

（2）内部控制制度和其他控制系统（例如外部审计和外部董事会或碱石灰）之间的关系。

（3）对公司业绩的内部控制的影响。

（4）内部控制报告的需求。

5 总结和结论本文首先阐述了对Power(1997)的观察，得出内部控制制度受到越来越多的关注，这是内部控制爆炸的标志。

改进和加强内部控制制度在公司治理的讨论，经常建议作为公司治理的一项重要的解决问题的方案。

然而，在这些讨论中还是对内部控制是什么以及如何正确进行内部控制产生很大的混乱。

长期的内部控制在会计研究的各种不同的子领域是完全不同的概念。

另外，很少有研究从公司治理的角度关注内部控制。

因此，对假定从公司治理的角度来提供关键的内部控制制度的政策的研究还没有。

显然，对于这些关系的研究在未来会越来越有价值。

The Internal Control ExplosionSteven MaijoorMaastricht Accounting and Auditing Research and Education Center (MARC), Universiteit Maastricht, The NetherlandsAbstract:The central theme in Power’s 1997 book on the audit society is the proliferation of audit activity within the United Kingdom (UK) and North America. The most important joint development with the audit explosion is the rise of internal control systems. Auditing has shifted from auditing outcomes to auditing systems, and internal controls have become the subject of public policy debates on the regulation of corporate governance and the regulation of auditing. Power states that there is much confusion in practice about what (effective) internal controls actually are. This paper makes a similar argument with respect to internal control research. Internal controls are studied in various areas of accounting research, covering very different concepts, and studying controls at different organizational levels. As a result, the cross-fertilization between the various types of internal control research is limited. Also, most internal control research in accounting is not conducted within the context of wider corporate governance issues. Hence, many claims about the value of internal control systems for corporate governance still need to be studied.Keywords:agency theory; corporate governance; external auditing; internal audit; internal control systems; management controlSummaryThe central theme in Power’s 1997 book on the audit society is the proliferation of audit activity within the United Kingdom (UK) and North America. The most important joint development with the audit explosion is the rise of internal controlCorrespondence to: Maastricht Accounting and Auditing Research and Education Center (MARC), Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Universiteit Maastricht, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands s.maijoor@marc.unimaas.nl Fax: 31-43-3884876 Tel: 31-43-3883783systems. As a result of the explosion of internal control systems, auditing has shifted from auditing outcomes to auditing systems, and internal controls have become the subject of public policy debates on the regulation of corporate governance and the regulation of auditing. For example, in the recent debates on the formation of an internal market for external auditing services within the European Union, regulatory recommendations were made regarding internal control systems and internal auditing. While the expectations regarding the value of internal controls are high, Power states that there is much confusion in practice about what (effective) internal controls actually are. This paper makes a similar argument with respect to internal control research. Internal controls are studied in various areas of accounting research, covering very different concepts, and studying controls at different organizational levels. As a result, the cross-fertilization between the various types of internal control research is limited. Also, most internal control research in accounting is not conducted within the context of wider corporate governance issues. Hence, many claims about the value of internal control systems for corporate governance still need to be studied.The internal control explosionThe concept of internal control receives increasing attention in public policy debates on auditing and corporate governance. The increasing public attention for internal control is convincingly illustrated for the UK and North America in Power’s 1997 book on the audit society. The main theme of the book is the proliferation of auditing activities in Anglo-Saxon economies: the audit explosion. According to Power, a joint development with the audit explosion is the rise of internal control systems. The increased (regulatory) demands for accountability has made organizations’internal control systems part of public policy debates on auditing, and corporate governance. However, Power observes that despite this increased public attention for internal control, the concept is still very vague. He states that there are fundamental problems with what internal controls really are and what it means when they are considered to be effective.This paper discusses research that is relevant for the rise of internal control. It argues that internal control research has also a number of substantial problems. First, in the previous research conducted, the term internal control covers vastly different concepts. Second, the size of the body of relevant internal control research is limited,conducted within isolated sub-disciplines and has hardly profited from cross-fertilization of the results obtained from various perspectives. Hence, internal control is not yet a separate category of research. Finally, the research conducted on internal control is not explicitly addressing issues relevant to the public policy debates on internal control,auditing, and corporate governance. Assumed fundamental relationships between internal control, financial reporting, and corporate governance have not yet been tested explicitly.This paper is structured as follows. Before starting the discussion of internal control research, the paper introduces the two main, and related, developments identified in Power’s (1997) book: the first section discusses the audit explosion and the second section the rise of internal control. Both developments will also be commented on from a European Union perspective. The third section discusses what internal controls are, and the three main perspectives within accounting research studying internal control systems. The fourth section identifies four fundamental relationships assumed in public policy debates on internal control and corporate governance, and discusses prior related research. The last section provides a summary and conclusions.The rise of internal controlIrrespective of whether there is an audit explosion or implosion, both in Power (1997) and (1998) internal control systems are considered to increase in importance in auditing. According to Power (1997, p. 83), the audit explosion has been possible because of the assumption that internal control systems are auditable. More specifically for financial audits, the concept of auditing internal control systems is at the heart of the financial audit explosion. As a result of the rise of internal control systems, external audits are less focussed on auditing outcomes, and more focussed on auditing systems. In addition, internal control systems are now also becoming part of the regulatory systems. Many national corporate governance reports and reforms include recommendations for internal controls, and reporting on internal controls. A joint development with the rise of internal control is the increased public significance of internal auditors.The rise of internal control is possible because internal control systems became auditable. According to Power, whether or not a system is auditable is not determined by technical auditing aspects but by the acceptance of auditability by the profession.Power (1997, pp. 54 - 57) illustrates his argument regarding the rise of internal control with the case of the Cadbury Code (1992), which includes recommendations for the responsibilities of directors and auditors regarding internal control systems. Power’s point regarding the rise of internal control, can also be illustrated with developments at a European Union level.The concept of internal control is important in the discussion on the establishment of the internal market for financial statement auditing within the European Union. Currently, there are hardly any common European Union regulations regarding auditing, and in fact there is no internal market for financial statement auditing. Only two aspects of auditing are harmonized: which organizations need an audit (as a result of the earlier mentioned Directives), and the qualification of auditors (as a result of the Eighth Directive). Hence, internal control systems, and reporting on those systems, are currently not included in any European Directive on accounting or auditing.In 1996, the European Commission published a research report (Buijink et al. 1996) and a Green Paper, both titled The Role, the Position, and the Liability of the Statutory Auditor within the European Union. These publications were the first major steps in the internal market for auditing services project of the European Commission and included a number of recommendations on internal control and auditing.What are internal controls?The previous sections show that in public policy debates there is an increasing interest in internal controls, also from a European Union perspective. However, as observed by Power (1997), there is much confusion in these public policy discussions about what internal controls actually are and what it means when they are effective. The state of current research on internal control, which will be discussed below, reinforces Power’s (1997) point. The discussion of current internal control research will be preceded by the issue of what internal controls are.To answer the question what internal controls are, Power (1997, p. 83) refers as a start to concepts in the professional accountancy literature. Traditionally, in the professional accountancy literature, internal controls refer to accounting controls, and concern measures in organizations like segregation of duties, authorization policies, organization structure, measures to protect assets and information, and credibility tests. These accounting controls can either be general and relevant to the organization as awhole, or designed for particular cycles. The recent professional accountancy literature has expanded the internal control concept and now uses much wider definitions. The new definitions cover many other controls in addition to accounting controls. Especially the published public policy documents on auditing and corporate governance use wide definitions of internal control. A report like COSO (1992) defines internal control as:‘A process, effected by an entity’s board of directors, management, and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories:- Effectiveness and efficiency of operations- Reliability of financial reporting- Compliance with applicable laws and regulations’Obviously, the organizational measures that can contribute to this process are numerous. As a consequence of this wide definition, a report like COSO considers many organizational measures to be part of internal control systems, including human resource policies and practices, procedures for communication within organizations, and the management style of the board of directors. A problem with these wider definitions is that it is not clear what the boundaries are of internal control systems. For example, it could be argued that all organizational measures contribute to internal control asdefined by COSO.The unclear boundaries of the concept of internal control are also witnessed to someextent in the academic accounting literature. Within this literature, three areas of (internal) control research can be distinguished: (1) internal control from an external auditing perspective, (2) internal control from an organization theory perspective; and (3) internal control from an economics perspective. Each of the three areas will be discussed below.There is a vast academic literature on internal control from an external auditing perspective. Internal controls are the main subject area in auditing research, and pioneering studies are, for example, Ashton (1974) and Mock and Turner (1981). Internal control research from an auditing perspective mainly focuses on traditional accounting controls. These are studied in the context of decision making by auditors. As a result, the focus is on how accounting controls affect the reliability of financial reporting. Further, most of the internal control research in auditing focuses on problems related to lower level controls, i.e. accounting controls for specific cyclesand transactions. Broad control concepts are hardly considered in this literature. Even the concept of control environment, which is currently a standard item in audit manuals of the international audit firm networks, receives limited attention in this area of research.3Control research from an organization theory perspective, or management control perspective, uses a much broader concept of control than in auditing research. The control problems studied in this area of research are mainly at the level of departments and divisions. Further, controls are studied mainly in the context of the organizational effectiveness of departments and divisions. The typical organizational measures distinguished in this area of research are action controls, results controls, and personnel and cultural controls (Merchant, 1998). These organizational measures include traditional internal accounting controls: the action controls listed by Merchant (1998, pp. 27 - 30), are the accounting controls that are typically the subject of study in the external auditing literature. Results controls concern management systems based on rewarding individuals, or groups of individuals, for generating good results. Personnel and cultural controls are based on systems where employees control their own behaviors, or are based on employees controlling each others’behaviours. It should be noted that COSO (1992) more or less combines, both in terms of perspectives and in terms of the controls studied, the two literatures identified above. The control research in the accounting literature from an economic perspective is dominated by agency theory. The control measures studied are broad: monitoring mechanisms, bonding mechanisms and reward systems or bonus plans. Most of the agency theory research focuses on the control problems between outside capital suppliers, and (inside and outside) directors. Hence, this literature focuses on top-level control problems. The economic efficiency of various control mechanisms for solving agency problems are studied extensively. Questions addressed include the trade-off between various control mechanisms (e.g., between external auditing and a board of outside directors) and the efficiency of control mechanisms as a function of firms’capital structures.While there are many similarities between organization and economic approaches to control, they are different (see for a comparison of the two approaches Eisenhardt 1985). The organization perspective focuses on the relationship (“fit”) between task characteristics and control measures. In addition, the organization control perspectives makes clear that “people”, culture or social control can be an important controlmechanism. The economic control perspective, or agency theory, emphasizes the effects of uncertainty, costs of monitoring mechanisms and rewards for control systems.In sum, within the accounting literature, the term internal control refers to various concepts. Three perspectives can be distinguished: external auditing, management control, and agency theory. The three perspectives differ in the type of controls being subject of study. External auditing is mainly concerned with lower level controls related to specific cycles, processes and transactions. Management control focuses on the control problems of departments and divisions, which could be described as middle-level controls. Agency theory is mainly concerned with the control problems of directors and outside suppliers of capital, the top-level controls. In addition to differences in the organizational level of analysis, as discussed the three literatures differ in perspective. As a result of these different levels of analysis, and the different perspectives taken, the cross-fertilization is minimal between the three sub-areas studying (internal) control. Hence, internal controls are not yet a separate and coherent area of research.Four empirical issues for future internal control researchIn the recent public policy debates on corporate governance, many arguments are used that implicitly assume specific relationships between organizations, internal control, auditing and organizational performance. Most of these relationships have not been studied empirically. Of the three areas of research distinguished in the previous section, agency theory is the most concerned with corporate governance issues. However, the internal controls studied in agency theory are mostly concerned with top-level controls like the board of outside directors, audit committees, and remuneration plans for directors. The corporate governance effects of strong middle- and lower-level internal controls, which are frequently recommended in public policy documents, are hardly considered by agency theory. Power (1997 and 1998) is one of the few who studies the macro-effects of internal control, including middle- and lower-level controls. As stated earlier, the last two categories of controls are mainly studied in the context of internal organizational effectiveness and audit management decisions.Considering the limited research conducted on internal control and corporategovernance, the assumed beneficial economic effects of internal control systems can be questioned. The expectations regarding internal control systems are not in line with their operational capabilities (Power 1997). Below, four issues are suggested which are central to the debate on internal control, auditing, and corporate governance. So far, these issues have received surprisingly little attention from academic researchers, especially considering the current rise of the internal control concept in public policy debates as identified by Power (1997).1. The demand for internal control systems.2.The relationship between internal control systems and other control systems (e.g., external auditing, and board of outside directors or supervisory board).3.The effects of internal control on firm performance.4.The demand for reporting on internal control.Summary and conclusionThis paper starts with the observation by Power (1997) that there is increasing attention for internal control systems, which is labeled as the internal control explosion. In corporate governance discussions, improved and stronger internal control systems are frequently suggested as an important solution to corporate governance problems. However, within these debates there is much confusion about what internal controls are and how they can function properly. This paper argues that here are similar problems in accounting research on internal controls. The term internal control refers to vastly different concepts in sub-areas of accounting research. In addition, few studies are concerned with internal control from a corporate governance perspective. Hence, assumed relationships that are critical from a corporate governance perspective, and thus critical for policy recommendations for internal control systems, are not yet studied. Clearly, future research regarding these relationships would be valuable.。