Vaktechnische Publicaties

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

This report provides an overview of the results from the 2015 Global Internal Audit Common Body of Knowledge (CBOK) Practitioner Survey regarding internal audit quality assurance and improvement programs (QAIPs), and evaluates the internal audit profession’s conformance with professional standards related to QAIPs. The 2015 CBOK practitioner survey found significant and troubling differences between approved professional standards and actual internal audit practices. Although The International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing requires development and maintenance of QAIPs covering all aspects of internal audit activity, only 34% of participating chief audit executives (CAEs) stated that they fully conform with this requirement. Many CAEs who reported that they do not conform with this requirement also do not disclose their nonconformance to their audit committees or other governing bodies. The internal audit profession’s failure to abide by its own quality standards may have profound consequences because internal audit functions with fully developed QAIPs tend to be different from other internal audit functions. Compared to other CAEs in the CBOK study, those reporting conformance to professional standards related to internal audit quality: Were more likely to report functionally to a board, audit committee, or equivalent Were more likely to have complete and unrestricted access to information as appropriate for the performance of audit activities Worked in organizations with more highly developed risk management processes Used a wider variety of resources to develop audit plans Made more use of technology in internal audit processes Were more likely to have documented procedures in an internal audit manual Received more hours of training and were more likely to have formalized training programs Were more likely to report that funding for the internal audit function was “completely sufficient”