No abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to characterize how those who perform (internal auditors), mandate (audit committee (AC) members), use (AC members and external auditors) and normalize (the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)) internal audit work, respectively make sense of the notion of “internal audit quality” (IAQ). Design/methodology/approach – This study is predicated on the meta-analysis of extant literature on IAQ, 56 interviews with internal auditors and AC members of public or para-public sector organizations in Canada, and archival documents published by the IIA, analyzed in the light of framing theory. Findings – Four interpretative schemes (or frames) emerge from the analysis, called “manager,” “éminence grise,” “professional” and “watchdog.” They respectively correspond to internal auditors’, AC members’, the IIA’s and external auditors’ viewpoints and suggest radically different perspectives on how IAQ should be defined and controlled (via input, throughput, output or professional controls). Research limitations/implications – Empirically, the authors focus on rare research data. Theoretically, the authors delineate four previously undocumented competing frames of IAQ. Practical implications – Practically, the various governance actors involved in assessing IAQ can learn from the study that they should confront their views to better coordinate their quality control efforts. Originality/value – Highlighting the contrast between these frames is important because, so far, extant literature has predominantly focussed on only one perspective on IAQ, that of external auditors. The authors suggest that IAQ is more polysemous and complex than previously acknowledged, which justifies the qualitative and interpretive approach.

SUMMARY This paper proposes a “micro-level” analysis of the way in which internal auditors express role conflicts in their day-to-day practice and how they perceive, manage, and resolve them. From this perspective, I analyze real-life experiences described by 42 interviewed internal auditors. Using a theoretical lens specifically designed for this purpose, I highlight the complexity and magnitude of the role conflicts they experience during the internal audit process, along with the strategic and dynamic coping processes they mobilize, while remaining concretely grounded in their specific context. Thus, this study makes an original contribution to the development of new knowledge on internal auditing and concludes that internal auditors tend to lack independence and audit committee members often exercise disturbingly weak power (on the internal audit function), as compared to the top managers. Accordingly, this paper points to the difficulty of applying an idealized conception of independence and purist governance principles to practice. It also questions the appropriateness of considering internal auditing as a meaningful independent assurance device in operating the corporate governance “mosaic” (Cohen, Krishnamoorthy, and Wright 2002).

This structured literature review adopts a multimethod and multitheoretical approach to identify current knowledge about internal audit as well as related knowledge gaps. To that end, it provides an overview of post-Sarbanes-Oxley Act literature, organizing it under three themes: the multiple roles of internal audit, internal audit quality (IAQ), and the practice of internal audit. Despite the volume of literature published during the period covered by this review (2005 to mid-2017), the first two themes are still in development, while the third is emergent. We suggest research avenues to fill the following main gaps: (i) Given differing opinions about the expected or actual roles of internal audit, prior literature infers that the internal audit function has become the "jack of all trades" of governance, but does not clearly capture its actual roles. (ii) The viewpoint of external auditors has dominated IAQ research, leading to a misunderstanding of how actors with greater stakes in the practice of internal audit conceptualize and evaluate IAQ. (iii) Knowledge of the actual practice of internal audit and its accountability and ethical issues is fragmentary, therefore the literature's current picture of internal audit is far from comprehensive.

SUMMARY This research is based on an in-depth analysis of 34 interviews with partners in Big 4, medium-sized, and small audit firms that specialize in private and/or public company audits, to explore how they understand the concept of audit quality. Two contrasting conventions—i.e., shared judgment norms—of audit quality emerge from the analysis. Public company audit partners in Big 4 firms espouse what we call the “model” audit quality convention, which considers that audit quality results from a technically flawless audit, where professional judgment is highly formalized, and quality is attested by a perfectly documented audit file that passes Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB) and PCAOB inspections. In contrast, partners working primarily on private company audits, regardless of their firm's size, endorse what we call the “value-added” audit quality convention, which considers that audit quality results from tailoring the audit to meet the client's unique needs, where professional judgment is unconstrained, and where quality is attested by the client's perception that the audit has given a better understanding of their financial situation and the associated risks and opportunities. Our analysis also reveals significant tensions within each of these two conventions, and a fear that the current regulatory framework for quality control might end up severely hurting audit quality.