Vaktechnische Publicaties

Een onderzoek naar de relatie tussen het leiderschap, de afdelingscultuur en het type interne auditdienst in Nederland. 

Big data is a popular term used to describe the exponential growth and availability of data created by people, applications, and smart machines. The term is also used to describe large, complex data sets that are beyond the capabilities of traditional data processing applications. The proliferation of structured and unstructured data, combined with technical advances in storage, processing power, and analytic tools, has enabled big data to become a competitive advantage for leading organizations that use it to gain insights into business opportunities and drive business strategies. However, the challenges and risks associated with big data must also be considered. Increased demand, immature frameworks, and emerging risks and opportunities that are not widely understood or systematically managed by organizations have created a need for more guidance in this area. Internal auditors, in particular, must develop new skill sets and obtain knowledge of big data principles to effectively provide assurance that risks are addressed and benefits are realized. Risks associated with big data include poor data quality, inadequate technology, insufficient security, and immature data governance practices. Internal auditors working with big data should engage with the organization’s chief information officer (CIO) and other key leaders to better understand the risks in terms of data collection, storage, analysis, security, and privacy. This guidance provides an overview of big data: its value, components, strategies, implementation considerations, data governance, consumption, and reporting, as well as some of the risks and challenges these may present. This guide also explains internal auditors’ roles and responsibilities when performing assurance or advisory procedures related to big data efforts.

The internal audit department is an essential part of a successful organization, and the chief audit executive (CAE) has a critical role in leading that function. As internal audit becomes more visible and more essential to an organization, so does the demand for effective CAEs—audit leaders who drive high-performing teams and deliver value by consistently addressing stakeholder needs, top-down risks, and the expectations of an evolving marketplace. Boards and executive management expect CAEs to bring innovation, strategic thinking, leadership, and expertise to the internal audit function—inspiring strong and effective internal audit departments. However, while CAEs are expected to have all of these qualities, there may be room for improvement. What advice does senior leadership have for their CAE to help them improve, continue to grow, and better serve the organization and its stakeholders? The results of the 2015 Global Internal Audit Common Body of Knowledge (CBOK) Stakeholder Study—specifically, the results from the questions asked of executives and board members who work closely with internal auditors—reveal four key messages for the CAE on how they can perform better in their roles, lead high-performing internal audit teams, and positively impact their organizations. The points of advice from stakeholders to CAEs:  Exhibit strong business acumen, including knowledge of the industry, the ability to understand business strategy, and the insight to understand and assess risks. Demonstrate leadership skills, technical competence, innovation, and relational competence with audit staff and stakeholders. Manage competing priorities, demands, and conflicts within the organization, including communication with all areas of the organization with objectivity and integrity. Seek to influence the culture of the organization. Modeling right behavior and thinking, inspiring discussion, and acting as a change agent is crucial to helping improve organizational culture.

Pulse of internal audit In last year’s Pulse of Internal Audit report, The IIA challenged internal auditors to “move out of their comfort zone” beyond annual planning and typical audit areas to audit at the speed of risk. Today, with increasing pressure on organizational governance and additional burdens placed on audit committees and boards, it is critical that chief audit executives (CAEs) lead with courage and take actions that could instill: Internal auditor’s self-confidence. Management and the board’s confidence in internal audit. Stakeholders’ confidence in the organization.  Improving the effectiveness of risk management is a defining characteristic of internal auditing, yet even experienced CAEs may overlook some risks. This report looks at four areas where internal audit should take a closer look — both for the organization as a whole and for the internal audit function in particular. Not all risks are new or emerging. In fact, many critical risks have been around for a long time and perhaps have fallen just below or somehow dropped off the radar. CAEs need to have the courage to revisit these areas while ensuring their audit coverage aligns with what is important and top-of-mind to key stakeholders. In this report, we address two such areas: Company communications not traditionally subject to independent assurance (e.g., analyst presentations, sustainability reporting, some operational reporting). Environmental, health and safety risks. According to The IIA’s International Professional Practices Framework, internal audit’s mission is to enhance and protect organizational value by providing risk-based and objective assurance, advice, and insight. To do this effectively, leaders must have the courage to look inward with the same objective, professional skepticism used when assessing others. This report covers two areas where internal audit leaders have identified ongoing challenges: Internal audit’s use of data analytics. Interpersonal dynamics between internal audit and others in the organization. Using survey results, this report shows how CAEs in North America are currently looking at these areas, and where there are reasons for concern. The report also provides insights on how CAEs can instill confidence by “evaluating and improving the effectiveness of risk management, internal control, and governance processes.”2

In this white paper, we will look at how auditors can assess, respond to and analyze the risks they encounter during a risk-based audit.

As cyberattacks grow in frequency, severity, and complexity, cybersecurity professionals are urging organizations to move beyond a defensive and reactive approach to a more proactive approach, allowing for the prediction and anticipation of cybersecurity threats. Recognizing this emerging trend, the Institute of Internal Auditors’ Audit Executive Center (AEC), in collaboration with the Internal Audit Foundation, elected to supplement recent research by conducting a Quick Poll survey of chief audit executives (CAEs) to ask specific questions about their organizations’ use of security operations centers (SOCs) as part of their cybersecurity strategies. Responses were received from 130 CAEs, representing organizations of various size from many industries. In addition to providing insights into specific SOC policies and practices, the AEC Quick Poll survey results also suggest that some conclusions can be drawn about CAEs’ general levels of involvement in monitoring and reviewing their SOC operations. In order to assure complete anonymity, the survey respondents were not asked to provide identifying or qualifying information about their organizations. Using the survey findings as a starting point, researchers from Crowe Horwath conducted a series of follow-up interviews with information security executives in various organizational structures and geographic locations, and with various sensitivities to cybersecurity threats. The objective was to gather first-hand examples of current best practices. To protect the companies’ identities, the interview responses were normalized intom three general types of organizations: 1) large companies with global operations, 2) large companies with national operations, and 3) medium-size companies with regional operations. The responses were summarized along those lines in this report. The research team also interviewed representatives of a number of leading vendors that offer cybersecurity intelligence solutions and services. In addition to offering a summary of that research, this report is intended to help cybersecurity professionals, CAEs, and other stakeholders to explore broader issues and to answer two questions: 1) How can organizations move beyond merely reacting and responding to cybersecurity incidents and instead start to identify, anticipate, and actively defend against known and emerging threats? 2) What role can CAEs play in encouraging and facilitating this shift from a reactive to a proactive stance? By addressing—and ultimately answering—these questions, organizations can take the critical first steps to advancing their cybersecurity initiatives regardless of whether they are first establishing a SOC, or advancing further and establishing a fully functioning security intelligence center (SIC). 

Hoe meet je cultuur en gedrag? Hoe gaan we om met de toenemende invloed van IT? En wat is de oplossing voor de schaarste op de arbeidsmarkt? In de auditwereld is verandering een van de weinige constanten. Iedere organisatie zoekt op haar eigen manier naar de antwoorden op deze vragen. Daarbij staat elke discipline voor eigen uitdagingen: de accountant in business, de openbaar accountant en de interne en overheidsaccountant. Welke ontwikkelingen zien zij? Hoe spelen ze hierop in? En hoe ziet de toekomst van het auditvak eruit? De afgelopen tijd vroegen we een aantal vooraanstaande professionals met een auditachtergrond naar hun visie. Het resultaat: vier verhalen die – ieder vanuit een eigen perspectief – een interessante inkijk in een veranderende wereld bieden. Dat de kijk op de ontwikkelingen per discipline en per persoon verschilt, bleek overduidelijk toen we het onderwerp ‘beroepseed’ ter sprake brachten. De meningen over de invoering hiervan liepen uiteen van ‘onzin’ tot ‘een goede zaak’. Hoe dan ook: voor 1 mei 2017 moet elke accountant de beroepseed hebben afgelegd. Het is een van de 53 maatregelen die het vertrouwen in de beroepsgroep moeten herstellen. Naast alle trends en ontwikkelingen in het vakgebied zelf, gebeurt er ook veel op de arbeidsmarkt. Audit is voor Yacht Finance een focusgebied en een discipline waarin we veel expertise hebben, ook vanwege de alsmaar toenemende schaarste op de arbeidsmarkt. Daarbij zetten we vooral in op de combinatie van audit en finance & control. Enerzijds omdat onze opdrachtgevers veel baat hebben bij professionals die beide beheersen, anderzijds omdat juist deze combinatie medewerkers een unieke positie op de arbeidsmarkt geeft en carrières in een stroomversnelling brengt. Hoe de nieuwe realiteit er precies uitziet weet niemand. Toch tekenen de contouren zich langzaam af. Graag nemen wij u in deze whitepaper mee in de ontwikkelingen, uitdagingen en vraagstukken in de auditwereld. 

Given expectations for slow growth and economic and political uncertainty, technology advances and business model disruption, cyber threats, greater regulatory scrutiny, and investor demands for transparency, it’s hardly surprising that most audit committees around the world point to risk management as the top challenge facing the company in the year ahead. More than 40 percent of respondents say their risk management systems require substantial work. Audit committees, by and large, continue to express confidence in financial reporting and audit quality; yet, along with risk management, our 2017 Global Audit Committee Pulse Survey highlights ongoing concerns about legal and regulatory compliance, managing cyber security risk, and managing the control environment in the company’s extended organization. Of the more than 800 audit committee members responding to our survey, nearly 4 in 10 said the committee’s effectiveness would be most improved by having a “better understanding of the business and key risks,” while nearly a third said additional expertise related to technology or cyber security would be helpful. Overall, audit committees are largely satisfied that their agendas are properly focused on legal and regulatory compliance issues, maintaining internal controls over financial reporting, and key assumptions underlying critical accounting estimates. However, they see room for improvement when it comes to focusing on CFO succession planning, talent and skills in the finance organization, tone at the top and culture, and aligning the company’s short- and long-term priorities. Most audit committees say their organizations have a long way to go in their efforts to implement major new accounting standards. Fewer than 15 percent report a clear implementation plan for the new revenue recognition standard, and fewer than 10 percent reported a clear plan for implementation of the new leasing standard. And of those whose companies are affected by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) country-by-country tax reporting, many expressed concern about the lack of clarity or communication with their committee on that issue. Survey respondents also cited ongoing opportunities to improve their company’sability to manage cyber risks. Of course, these challenges will vary by company and by country (and it is difficult to compare data from 15 countries, often with markedly different business environments, regulatory requirements, and corporate governance practices). But our survey findings offer insights that audit committees around the world can use to sharpen the committee’s focus, benchmark its responsibilities and practices, and strengthen its oversight.

Competing in a rapidly changing world, companies must grapple with emerging challenges seemingly every day: cyber threats, emerging and potentially disruptive technologies, business performance risk and more. In this increasingly complex environment, Internal Audit (“IA”) has a crucial role to play to help the organization in managing risks associated with these diverse business trends. This is also in line with the UK and Dutch Corporate Governance Codes. An impactful IA function will stay current with these wide-ranging business issues as they emerge so it can help monitor related risks and their potential effects on the organization. To provide the greatest value, IA must find opportunities to challenge the status quo to reduce risk, improve controls and identify potential efficiencies and cost benefits across the organization. To help IA functions achieve these goals, KPMG surveyed IA functions from companies in multiple industries globally and in the Netherlands. The result is KPMG Internal Audit: Top 10 Considerations for 2017, which outlines areas where IA should focus so it can effectively add value across the organization and maximize its influence on the company. Top 10 Considerations for 2017: Cybersecurity Culture/Soft Controls Integrated Assurance Regulatory compliance Third party relationships Anti-bribery/anti-corruption Emerging technologies Data analytics and continuous auditing Performance risk Strategic alignment

The increasing importance of internal audit’s role as the third line of defense in effective risk management and control has raised its visibility both within and outside of the organization. As a result, chief audit executives (CAEs) and internal audit departments are looking for ways to utilize their unique expertise to enhance their value to the overall corporate mission. This leads to the question — asked by all high performing support areas such as finance, human resources, IT, and legal — how can we have a strategic impact on the organization? Internal audit is uniquely positioned to be a strategic partner. With reporting relationships to the chief executive officer (CEO) or other executive officer, audit committee, and the board, high performing CAEs combine intelligence, expertise, diligence, and curiosity in a manner that positions internal audit for a critical strategic role. Despite this, CAEs are not generally recognized for the potential strategic impact that they can have on their organizations. For CAEs looking to elevate the strategic role of internal audit, several questions should be answered to take this next logical and desired step. Does the CAE understand the strategic mission of the organization at a deep level? Does the CAE understand the perspective of the CEO and board and make the effort to become a trusted partner, offering advice and solutions that address key problems? Is internal audit aligned with the strategic mission? Is internal audit anticipatory and proactive (rather than reactive)? Does the CAE provide assurance on risk management? Unfortunately, traditional perceptions of internal auditing can lead to wariness on the part of others to embrace internal audit as a strategic partner. Further, internal audit must balance the independence that is required for its role against the level of involvement in the tactical duties necessary to achieve the organization’s goals. After all, it is the mandate of internal audit to assess these tactics. But proactively addressing these challenges can lead to a real opportunity for internal audit to be recognized as a strategic partner and contributor.

Global macroeconomic uncertainty and rock-bottom interest rates, soaring regulatory expectations, cybersecurity threats and attacks, legacy information technology (IT) systems, Fintech, blockchain, and other disruptive innovations are all examples of the staggering collection of market and regulatory challenges that confront the financial services industry (FSI), making it the most demanding sector in which internal auditors operate. Amid the industry’s growing macroeconomic, regulatory, procedural, and technological complexity, internal audit within FSI must fulfill its core mission of delivering assurance excellence. Yet, internal auditors must do more. Effective assurance alone no longer guarantees success. This is an important message conveyed by FSI participants in the 2015 Global Internal Audit Common Body of Knowledge (CBOK) Stakeholder Survey. The results of this global survey of stakeholders— specifically, the results from the responses of executives and board members who work closely with internal auditors—reveal best practices that internal auditors in FSI should consider in their quest to continually improve performance and deliver more value to their organizations. Among the key findings: Internal audit reporting structure, the chief audit executive’s (CAE’s) relationships with the boards and the executive teams, and the entire function’s communication skill and style represent key success factors. Assurance is paramount. The consultative, value-added work that stakeholders clearly want auditors to deliver cannot detract from assurance. Assurance work is most valuable when it is aligned with the strategic risks of the organization and provides credible challenges to the effectiveness of risk management activities within the organization. CAEs and internal auditors should convey both good and bad news while exerting their influence to focus attention (at the board level and throughout the organization) on specific risks. CAEs also should possess the authority necessary to elevate and communicate strategic issues quickly to executive management and the board. Stakeholders expect internal audit to assess governance effectiveness and to monitor the values and behaviors that influence the organization’s risk culture. Stakeholders believe that internal audit should take on a more active role in assessing and evaluating the organization’s strategic risks and emerging risks

Your work as an audit professional is fundamentally about trust. It's important to explore how you can continue to promote trust during this time of profound change across the business landscape. Given the explosion of data and the digitization of our lives, we want to promote a discussion about how the audit profession must evolve its tools and approach to keep up with the pace of change and remain relevant in a dynamic marketplace. Specifically, our profession must embrace the use of advanced technologies, including data and analytics (D&A), robotics, automation and cognitive intelligence, to manage processes, support planning and inform decision making. KPMG is constantly thinking about the development of innovative capabilities and technologies that will enhance quality and strengthen the relevance of audits into the future. Where auditors once searched manually through reams of financial information to hunt down the anomaly that may give pause to the appropriateness of a company’s assertion, the accumulation of large data sets and the application of advanced analytics and cognitive technologies make it possible to rapidly and precisely analyze larger, more complete populations of financial and non-financial data. The use of these technologies can also generate richer, more detailed audit evidence for evaluation and provide executives with actionable insights about their organizations, their core processes and their controls. What’s more, supervised cognitive systems can learn from each encounter with new information enabling continuous refinement of the knowledge and analytical capabilities of the system. It’s really simple: Cognitive technology isn’t just changing the face of financial reporting and auditing, it’s revolutionizing it. To prepare for this environment, tomorrow’s teams of professionals must possess more than just an understanding of accounting and auditing – they will need stronger critical thinking, analytical, data science and IT skills to complement their financial and business acumen. To that end, KPMG is committed to fostering a culture of innovation and learning, especially within the Audit Practice.

Hier een teaser in te vullen

Internal auditors often face challenges to their judgment and to their core ethical values. How they handle those challenges determines the value of the profession. his report provides an overview of results from the 2015 Global Internal Audit Common Body of Knowledge (CBOK) Practitioner Survey regarding ethics in internal auditing. It also provides a framework that can be used to analyze internal audit professional ethics and related pressures. While all internal auditors are likely to face ethical pressures at some point during their careers, the CBOK practitioner survey data indicates that there are distinct diferences in pressures on internal auditors in various regions across the globe. here are also diferences in the strength of support for the function when internal auditors face ethical dilemmas. Both the strength of ethical codes and internal audit responsibilities related to those codes have increased in the ive years since the last CBOK survey was conducted, but the 2015 survey demonstrates that there are many ways in which the ethical environment can be improved. Too many organizations, especially in the public sector, do not have organizational codes of conduct or codes of ethics, and many internal auditors receive little or no training regarding he IIA’s Code of Ethics. Relatively few ethics audits are taking place and the data suggests that it may be diicult to perform an audit of the ethical environment if an organization does not have a code of ethics. In an ideal environment, internal auditors should always be able to present indings without the threat of personal recrimination. Unfortunately, internal auditors do not always operate in such environments. Internal auditors who resist pressure to change their indings are at times subjected to negative consequences such as pay cuts, involuntary transfers to other positions, or even termination of employment. he internal audit profession could not exist without a strong foundation based on a commitment to ethical conduct. he framework provided by this report demonstrates a clear need for all internal auditors to adopt he IIA’s Code of Ethics to help guide performance when they face ethical pressures.   

Hier een teaser in te vullen