Managerial Auditing Journal

Corporate governance: communications from internal and external auditors

Janet L. Colbert
Article information:
To cite this document:
Janet L. Colbert, (2002),"Corporate governance: communications from internal and external auditors", Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 147 - 152
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686900210419930
Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 09:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 7 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3793 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Lois Munro, Jenny Stewart, (2011),"External auditors' reliance on internal auditing: further evidence", Managerial Auditing
Journal, Vol. 26 Iss 6 pp. 464-481 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686901111142530
Downloaded by McMaster University At 09:05 30 January 2016 (PT)

Hasnah Haron, Andrew Chambers, Rozaldy Ramsi, Ishak Ismail, (2004),"The reliance of external auditors on internal
auditors", Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 9 pp. 1148-1159 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686900410562795
Dominic S.B. Soh, Nonna Martinov-Bennie, (2011),"The internal audit function: Perceptions of internal
audit roles, effectiveness and evaluation", Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 26 Iss 7 pp. 605-622 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686901111151332

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:191455 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Corporate governance: communications from internal
and external auditors
Keywords
Corporate governance, Auditors,
Communication, Finance
Abstract
International Standards on
Auditing (ISAs) require external
auditors to communicate with the
client's governance body regarding
Downloaded by McMaster University At 09:05 30 January 2016 (PT)
significant matters which came to
the auditors' attention during the
engagement. Similarly, the
authoritative Practice Advisories
(PAs), issued by the Institute of
Internal Auditors (IIA), mandate
that internal auditors discuss
certain items with the board. Thus,
the governance body/board should
be receiving information from two
groups of auditors. Compares and
contrasts the requirements of the
ISAs and PAs with regard to
communications with the
governance body/board. The
differences in the communications
to the governance body/board by
the external and internal auditors
derive mainly from the focus of
each group. The external auditors
serve those users external to the
organization; in contrast, internal
auditors serve the board, which is
responsible for the internal aspects
of the entity. Besides
communication on financial issues,
the board also desires information
on operational and compliance
matters. The comparison of the
international external auditing and
the internal auditing standards
shows that some information
received by the governance body/
board is similar. However, much is
unique. Both groups of auditors aid
the governance body/board in
achieving its objective of guiding
the entity to carry out its mission
effectively and efficiently
Managerial Auditing Journal
17/3 [2002] 147±152
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0268-6902]
[DOI 10.1108/02686900210419930]
Janet L. Colbert
Department of Accounting, Gordon Ford College of Business, Bowling Green,
Kentucky, USA
Introduction
Under International Standards on Auditing
(ISAs), external auditors have a
responsibility to communicate certain
matters discovered during the financial
statement audit with those persons charged
with governance of the entity. Similarly, the
authoritative Practice Advisories (PA),
issued by the Institute of Internal Auditors
(IIA), require internal auditors to share
observations and recommendations with
those charged with oversight
responsibilities, typically, the board of
directors. Thus, the governance body/board
should be receiving information from two
sets of auditors. Does the communication
from one set of auditors complement or
supplement the insights gleaned from the
other? Or, is this reporting by the two groups
a duplication of effort and information?
After briefly reviewing significant
publications regarding corporate governance
and the supporting roles of internal and
external auditors, this article summarizes
the requirements of the international
external auditing standards and the internal
auditing standards related to auditor
communications with the governance body/
board. The article then goes on to compare
and contrast the standards.
Significant publications
In recent years, corporate governance has
received increased attention in the
accounting and auditing literature. See, for
example, the Panel on Audit Effectiveness
Report and Recommendations (Panel on Audit
Effectiveness of the Public Oversight Board,
2000) and the Report and Recommendations of
the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the
Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees
(Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the
Effectiveness of Corporate Audit
Committees, 1999). Both Cadbury (1992) and
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-6902.htm
COSO (1992) published reports related to
controls and corporate governance in 1992.
Still earlier, the Treadway Commission
(National Commission on Fraudulent
Financial Reporting, 1987) and the Cohen
Commission (AICPA, 1978) addressed
governance issues. Also, various Web sites
deal with such topics; some which are of
interest are shown in Table I.
While these reports and others address, in
varying degrees, corporate governance and
internal and external audit issues, very little,
if anything, has been written which
specifically focuses on requirements for both
internal and external auditors to
communicate with the governance body/
board and what the governance body/board
can expect. This article helps to fill that gap.
International auditing standards
International Standards Auditing section 260
(ISA 260), ``Communications of audit matters
with those charged with governance''
(International Federation of Accountants,
2000)[1], provides guidance in
communicating matters which may be of
interest to the governance body of an entity.
The Standard applies to external auditors.
The persons and body which should receive
the communication as well as the matters to
be included are addressed in the Standard.
Also, the timing and form of the
communication is covered. Finally, the
Standard's discussion encompasses
confidentiality issues as well as matters
related to applicable laws and regulations.
Relevant persons and governance body
The external auditor must determine the
persons or body entrusted with the
governance of the entity. The relevant
persons, and the body they make up, should
be those responsible for supervising,
controlling, and directing the entity, as well
as for achieving its objectives. The
governance body is also accountable for
appropriate financial reporting and for
reporting other matters to interested parties.
The title and structure of the governance
[ 147 ]
 Janet L. Colbert
Corporate governance:
communications from internal
and external auditors
Managerial Auditing Journal
17/3 [2002] 147±152
Downloaded by McMaster University At 09:05 30 January 2016 (PT)
[ 148 ]
Table I
Relevant Web sites
URL Organization
www.cbc.to/ CBC (Commonwealth Business
Council)
www.ecgn.ulb.ac.be/ecgn/ ECGN (European Corporate
Governance Network)
www.theiia.org/ecm/newsletters. IIA (Institution of Internal Auditors) ``Tone at the Top'' newsletter for
cfm?doc_id=739
www.oecd.org/daf/governance/ OECD (Organization for Economic
principles.htm Co-operation and Development)
body may vary across countries, according to
legal and cultural norms. Regardless of the
composition and name of the governance
body, the external auditors should identify it
and establish a working relationship with the
members.
Matters to be communicated
The matters which the external auditor must
communicate to the governance body are
those which are discovered during the
financial statement audit and which the
external auditor believe are significant and
relevant to that group. The external auditor
is under no obligation to specifically search
for matters of governance interest, but may
locate such items in the normal course of the
engagement.
ISA 260 notes some of the matters which
might come to the attention of the external
auditor and which may be of interest to the
governance body in fulfilling its oversight
role. These are:
. the scope of the audit;
. management's selection of, or changes in,
significant accounting policies;
. significant risks and exposures with a
potential financial statement effect;
. proposed and booked audit adjustments;
. material uncertainties which may impact
the going concern assumption;
. disagreements with management;
. expected modifications to the standard
audit report;
. material weaknesses in internal control;
. management integrity;
. fraud.
Timing and form of communication
The communication of matters to the
governance body should be done in a timely
fashion. Prompt reporting enables the body
to take appropriate action.
The form of the communication to the
governance body is not regulated by the ISA;
either oral or written communication is
allowed. If the external auditor chooses to
relay matters orally, appropriate
Brief description
Encourages best practices in
corporate governance
Research into corporate governance
issues
audit committees, boards and
executive management
Principles of corporate governance
documentation should be included in the
working papers. The documentation might
consist of minutes of the governance body's
meeting or a confirmation sent to that group
by the external auditor.
Confidentiality, laws and regulations
ISA 260 notes that the confidentiality rules of
accounting licensing bodies or legal
requirements may restrict the external
auditor's communication with the
governance body. Thus, the external
auditor's ethical responsibilities to
communicate with the group may differ from
its legal ones. Conversely, the Standard
observes that accounting licensing bodies or
legal requirements may mandate specific
communication with governance bodies. To
sort out these differing perspectives, the
external auditor may wish to consult with an
attorney. The ISA does not address the
requirements of these licensing bodies or
legal authorities.
Internal auditing standards
Like ISA 260, guidance in the IIA's Practice
Advisories[2], discusses the auditor's
responsibilities in communicating with the
governing body of an organization. However,
the PAs apply to internal auditors rather
than their external colleagues. The guidance
in the PAs addresses the appropriate body
which internal auditors are to communicate
with and the communications to be made to
that group. Also, a charter, internal audit
plans, and activity reports are discussed in
the advisories. Finally, the PAs cover
coordination of the work of the internal
auditors with that of their external
colleagues.
Governing body and direct communication
The PAs note that the chief audit executive
(CAE) should report to the audit committee,
the board of directors, or other governing
authority. Regardless of its name, the
 Janet L. Colbert
Corporate governance:
communications from internal
and external auditors
Managerial Auditing Journal
17/3 [2002] 147±152
Downloaded by McMaster University At 09:05 30 January 2016 (PT)
appropriate body for internal auditors to
report to is the one with oversight
responsibility for auditing, financial
reporting, organizational governance, and
control.
The CAE should have direct and regular
contact with the board. Such contact helps to
ensure that the board and the CAE
communicate regarding matters which are
relevant to both.
Charter, plans and activity reports
The PAs specify that every internal audit
department should have a charter. The
document validates the unit's position in the
entity, authorizes internal audit access to
records, and defines the scope of its work.
The charter should be approved by senior
management and accepted by the board.
Periodically, the CAE should assess whether
the charter is still adequate and
communicate the assessment to senior
management and the board.
The CAE should also submit to senior
management and the board a summary of
plans for work for the upcoming year. The
summary should be approved by senior
management and tendered to the board for
informational purposes. Such information
helps the board ascertain if the work of
internal auditing supports the objectives and
plans of the entity.
After completing the work, the internal
audit department should present reports of
its activities to senior management and the
board. Significant engagement observations
and recommendations are included in the
report. The reporting should be undertaken
at least annually. Below are those items
which the PAs suggest might constitute
significant engagement observations and
therefore, should be communicated to the
board:
. irregularities;
. illegal acts;
. errors;
. waste;
. inefficiency;
. ineffectiveness;
. conflicts of interest;
. control weaknesses.
While it is the internal auditor's
responsibility to report significant
engagement observations, it is management's
duty to resolve those issues. Management
may decide to act by implementing
recommendations made by the internal
auditors or by making other changes.
Alternatively, management may decide not
to take action, thereby accepting whatever
risk the internal auditors have identified in
the current situation. Regardless of which
course management chooses, the internal
auditor is then responsible for informing the
board as to management's actions or
decisions.
External auditors
The PAs note that, to ensure appropriate
audit coverage and to minimize duplication
of work, internal and external audit coverage
should be coordinated. The CAE should
periodically evaluate the coordination of the
work of the two sets of auditors and
communicate the results of the evaluation to
the board.
The PAs recognize that external auditors
are required to communicate directly with
the board regarding certain issues. The CAE
should be prepared for questions from the
board and have an understanding of those
matters which the external professionals will
discuss. Thus, in advance of the external
auditors' meeting with the board, the
internal group should request information
from their external colleagues regarding the
issues to be presented.
Compare and contrast
Some of the information provided to the
governance body/board by the international
external and the internal auditors will be
similar, while much may be unique to one or
the other sets of auditors. The comparison of
the international external and internal audit
guidance regarding communications with
the governance body/board is summarized in
Table II.
To comprehend the similarities and
differences in the information the two groups
proffer, it is helpful to begin by
understanding the sources of both the
demand for the external audit and the
authority for the internal audit function.
Authority/demand
The demand for the external audit derives
from the users of financial statements and
their representatives and advisors. These
parties are aided in their decision making
regarding financial matters by the added
credibility which an independent audit
provides.
Another factor which impacts on the
demand for external audits is the legal and
regulatory climate. Specific laws or
regulations in various countries may require
entities to submit audited financial
statements.
Whether the demand for an engagement
emanates from added credibility and/or laws
and regulations, the external auditor's focus
is to protect third party or public interests.
[ 149 ]
 Janet L. Colbert
Corporate governance:
communications from internal
and external auditors
Managerial Auditing Journal
17/3 [2002] 147±152
Downloaded by McMaster University At 09:05 30 January 2016 (PT)
Table II
Comparison of ISAs and PAs regarding communication with governance body/board
Topic ISAs
Authority/demand External focus
Aid users by adding credibility
Mandated by laws/regulations
Protect the public interest
Planning, scope Gather evidence to support opinion
on financial statements
Not required to plan procedures to
locate matters to communicate
Reporting responsibilities Report matters which may have
come to attention of external
auditor; no requirement to search
for matters
Matters are generally limited to
those financial in nature
No obligation to follow up on
PAs
Internal focus
Derived from definition/charter
Serves the board
Plans approved by senior management,
summary presented to board
Restrictions on scope reported to board
Submit plans for coming period
Present activity report of work
performed
Matters may be operational, compliance,
or financial in nature
Mandate to follow up on significant
engagement observations and

findings
Generally report at or near end of
engagement
Coordination with other Allows coordination with internal
auditors auditors
Requires external auditors to
consider work of internal auditor;
does not require communication
regarding that consideration
recommendations
Allows coordination with external
auditors
Requires communication to the board
regarding coordination of the two
sets of auditors

Because of this perspective, that auditor's Planning and scope

communication with the governance body
centers on information garnered during the
work performed in this role.
In contrast to that of the external auditor,
the internal auditor's focus derives from the
definition of internal auditing and from
language in the department's charter. The
definition of internal auditing is:
Internal auditing is an independent, objective
assurance and consulting activity designed to
add value and improve an organization's
operations. It helps an organization
accomplish its objectives by bringing a
systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate
and improve the effectiveness of
management, control, and governance
processes[3].
This definition emphasizes internal audit's
role in aiding the entity to achieve its
objectives. The internal audit function's
charter should reinforce this view. Because
the board is ultimately responsible for the
entity's accomplishment of its objectives, the
internal auditor's focus is on providing
information to that group.
Both external and internal auditors
communicate with the governance body/
board. However, the external auditors are
ultimately attempting to protect the public
interest ± an external focus ± while the
internal auditors serve the board ± an
internal focus.
[ 150 ]
In planning the engagement and determining
its scope, the external auditor's main
objective is to gather evidence to support
giving an opinion on the financial
statements. Secondarily, and as a product of
the audit, the composition of the governance
body and what matters are to be
communicated to it are considered.
ISA 260 notes that the form of the
governance body may vary across
jurisdictions. In some countries, two boards
exist; one is typically a supervisory,
nonexecutive body and the other is a
management, or executive, board. Other
countries may embrace the single board
model. Regardless of which structure the
country and entity utilize, the external
auditor should plan to report to the body
which supervises, controls, and directs the
entity. This group is accountable for ensuring
that the entity's objectives are achieved and
that financial results and other information
are reported to interested parties.
When planning the engagement, the
external auditor is not required to design
procedures specifically to gather information
to report to the governance body. Rather,
matters to be communicated are those which
come to the auditor's attention in the course
of the engagement and which the auditor
deems to be significant and relevant to the
governance body. To make clear the scope of
 Janet L. Colbert
Corporate governance:
communications from internal
and external auditors
Managerial Auditing Journal
17/3 [2002] 147±152
Downloaded by McMaster University At 09:05 30 January 2016 (PT)
the work and their responsibilities regarding
communication, the external auditors may
elect to include this information in an
engagement letter.
Because the demand for, and objectives of,
internal audit are distinct from those of
external audit, the planning and scope of the
two types of engagements also vary. Internal
auditors typically plan engagements which are
different in nature and much broader in scope
than those of their external colleagues. While
external engagements focus on the financial
statement audit, internal audit work typically
encompasses compliance and operational
engagements, as well as financial work.
The PAs indicate that the CAE should
annually prepare a summary of the planned
work and staffing requirements, as well as a
budget. Senior management should give
approval to this overall plan. For
informational purposes, the board should be
presented with a summary of the plan. The
summary should be detailed enough to allow
the board to ascertain if the work of internal
audit bolsters the objectives of the entity and
the board.
As the internal auditors perform
engagements during the year, they may
encounter scope limitations. Such
restrictions arise when the internal audit
activity is prevented from carrying out its
plans and meeting its objectives. For
example, a scope limitation may arise when
access to locations, records, or employees is
limited, the internal auditors are not able to
perform necessary procedures, or the
planned work is restricted. The board should
be informed, preferably in writing, of these
challenges and their possible impact.
Reporting responsibilities
In communicating with the governance body,
the external auditor covers those matters
already listed. When discussing the items
noted, the external auditors should make
clear that the financial statement audit is not
designed to locate all matters which may be
relevant to the governing body. Rather, only
those which came to the external auditor's
attention when performing the engagement
are included. Unless requested by the
governing body, no special work is
performed to search for such matters.
The external audit's communication with
the governing body should be completed in a
timely fashion. Generally, at or near the
completion of the audit is sufficient.
However, if critical items are found, meeting
with the governing body before the end of the
engagement may be warranted.
In comparison to that of the external
auditors, the internal auditor's
communications with the board are
generally more detailed. Also, internal
auditors are likely to communicate more
frequently than their external colleagues.
Besides submitting plans for the coming
year's work, internal auditors also prepare
activity reports covering those items already
listed. The activity reports, emphasizing
significant observations and
recommendations, may be prepared as the
work is being performed or after it has been
completed. The CAE presents these activity
reports to senior management and the board
at least annually. However, the CAE is likely
to communicate with the board much more
often, perhaps several times a year.
In studying the list of matters to be
communicated, it is apparent that the
external auditor relays matters with either a
direct financial statement impact or which
were unearthed during the financial
statement audit. In contrast, the list of
engagement observations shows that the
significant audit observations found by the
internal auditor are much broader in scope
than the external audit findings. The internal
audit observations follow from the activity's
coverage of operational and compliance, as
well as financial statement, issues.
Besides the breadth of the observations,
recommendations, and findings, the auditor's
treatment of the entity's responses to them
differs between the external and internal
groups. The external auditors have no
obligation to follow up with the governing
body or management to ascertain if action has
been taken. (Of course, during the next year's
audit, the issues may surface again.) In
contrast to their external colleagues, internal
auditors are under a mandate to follow up on
significant engagement observations and
recommendations. The internal group is to
ascertain if appropriate action has been
taken, or if not, if management has accepted
the related risks. Management is not required
to implement the recommendations of the
internal audit activity or to make any changes
at all. However, the changes implemented, or
management's acceptance of the risks, should
be reported back to the board.
Coordination with other auditors
Because members of the governance body/
board will be hearing from both the external
and internal auditors, they may naturally
have queries regarding the two groups
working together. The internal audit
literature addresses the coordination of work
with the external auditors in PA 2050-1,
``Coordination.'' ISA 610, ``Considering the
Work of Internal Auditing,'' focuses on this
issue in the international external audit
standards (International Federation of
Accountants, 2000)
[ 151 ]
 Janet L. Colbert
Corporate governance:
communications from internal
and external auditors
Managerial Auditing Journal
17/3 [2002] 147±152
Downloaded by McMaster University At 09:05 30 January 2016 (PT)
[ 152 ]
Both the ISA 610 and PA 2050-1 allow
coordination of the work of the external and
internal audit groups. However, neither
standard goes so far as to require coordination.
The international external audit standard
directs the auditor to consider the activities
of the internal audit function and to
determine if that function's activities might
impact on the external engagement.
However, the ISA does not require the
external auditor to communicate the results
of the consideration with the governance
body.
In contrast, the PA mandates that the
director of internal audit evaluate the
coordination of the two sets of auditors and
then communicate the assessment to senior
management and the board. Also, the
director of internal audit may choose to
communicate regarding the performance of
the external auditor.
The internal audit standard goes on to
indicate that the internal auditor should
anticipate that the external auditor will
communicate with the board regarding
various issues. The internal auditor is
advised to be prepared by having an
understanding of the topics. Similar advice is
not present in the international external
auditing standard.
Conclusion
Both the ISAs and the PAs address the
communication of the respective auditors
with the governance body/board.
Significantly, both sets of standards require
such communication. Also, both the ISAs and
the PAs allow, but do not require,
coordination with the other group of auditors.
The differences in the communications of
the external and internal auditors with the
governance body/board derive from the
focus of each group. While the demand for the
external audit arises from external users'
desire for credible financial statements, the
need for the internal audit function arises
from the board's wish for information useful
in fulfilling its duty to aid in achieving the
entity's objectives. Thus, the scope of the
external audit is limited to matters related to
the financial statements while the work of
internal audit encompasses operational and
compliance, as well as financial issues. Other
differences between the external and internal
audit communications relate to follow-up on
the auditor's observations, recommendations,
and findings and notification regarding
coordination with the other set of auditors.
From the comparison of the international
external auditing and the internal auditing
standards regarding communications with
the governance body/board, it can be seen
that some information received by the body
from the two sets of auditors is similar.
However, the objectives of an external audit
and an internal audit differ. Therefore, the
information and perspective the two sets of
auditors offer to the governance body/board
are distinct. Both groups of auditors aid the
governance body/board in its role of guiding
the entity in effectively and efficiently
carrying out its mission.
Notes
1 Effective for audits of financial statements for
periods ending on or after 31 December 2000.
2 The IIA Practice Advisories referenced in this
article are:
. 1000-1: Internal audit charter;
. 1110-1: Organizational independence;
. 1130-1: Impairments to independence or
objectivity;
. 2020-1: Communication and approval;
. 2050-1: Coordination;
. 2060-1: Reporting to board and senior
management;
. 2410-1: Communication criteria.
3 www.theiia.org, Professional Practices
Framework, approved June 1999, effective
1 January 2002.
References
AICPA (1978), The Commission on Auditors'
Responsibilities: Report, Conclusions, and
Recommendation, The Cohen Commission
Report, AICPA, New York, NY.
Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the
Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees
(1999), Report and Recommendations of the
Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the
Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees,
National Association of Securities Dealers
(NASB) and New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE), February.
Cadbury, Sir A. (1992), Financial Report of the
Committee on the Financial Aspects of
Corporate Governance, Financial Reporting
Council, London Stock Exchange, London
(Cadbury Report), December.
Committee on Sponsoring Organizations (COSO)
of the Treadway Commission (1992), Internal
Control ± Integrated Framework, AICPA, New
York, NY.
International Federation of Accountants (IFAC)
(2000), IFAC 2000 Technical Pronouncements,
IFAC, New York, NY.
National Commission on Fraudulent Financial
Reporting (Treadway Commission) (1987),
Report of the National Commission on
Fraudulent Financial Reporting, National
Commission on Fraudulent Financial
Reporting.
Panel on Audit Effectiveness of the Public
Oversight Board (2000), The Panel on
Audit Effectiveness Report and
Recommendations August 31, 2000, Public
Oversight Board, Stamford, CT, available at
www.pobauditpanel.org
 This article has been cited by:

1. Mélanie Roussy. 2015. Welcome to the Day-to-Day of Internal Auditors: How Do They Cope with Conflicts?. AUDITING:
A Journal of Practice & Theory 34, 237-264. [CrossRef]
2. Mélanie Roussy. 2013. Internal auditors’ roles: From watchdogs to helpers and protectors of the top manager. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting 24, 550-571. [CrossRef]
3. Fernando Belfo, António Trigo. 2013. Accounting Information Systems: Tradition and Future Directions. Procedia Technology
9, 536-546. [CrossRef]
4. Philomena Leung, Barry J. Cooper, Luckmika Perera. 2011. Accountability structures and management relationships of
internal audit. Managerial Auditing Journal 26:9, 794-816. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. De la Rey van der Waldt, Gerbie van Heerden. 2007. Financial communication to retirement fund members: a survey among
trustees and member stakeholders. Communicatio 33, 152-168. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by McMaster University At 09:05 30 January 2016 (PT)