Enhancing auditee’s implementation of audit recommendations: A case of the state audit of Vietnam

The implementation of the State Audit’s recommendations plays a vital role on determination of

audit quality. However, it depends on many dimensions, such as: audited entities’ attitudes, nature

of the feasibility of recommendations and so on. The paper carries out a study on the

implementation of audit recommendations, the practice of implementing the State Audit of

Vietnam’s recommendations, the causes of outstanding issues. On that basis, a number of solutions

are proposed to improve the ability of the State Audit’s recommendations being adopted

pdf10 trang | Chia sẻ: Thục Anh | Ngày: 24/05/2022 | Lượt xem: 338 | Lượt tải: 0download
Nội dung tài liệu Enhancing auditee’s implementation of audit recommendations: A case of the state audit of Vietnam, để tải tài liệu về máy bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
ns 468 of the auditees but are not considered by the State Audit (due to the unlawfulness), resulting in the low level of cooperation of the auditees, affecting the quality and results of implementing the recommendations proposed by the State Audit. 6. Research’s conclusion and recommendations In the coming time, in order to enhance the effectiveness of the implementation of audit recommendations proposed by the State Audit of Vietnam, we should implement the following measures: Firstly, it is necessary to improve the quality of audit activities to ensure that the recommendations are appropriate and feasible. Audit quality not only maintains the prestige of the State Audit, but also ensures the effectiveness of auditing through the implementation of its recommendations. Therefore, the State Audit of Vietnam should implement and control the quality of audits in specialized and regional state audits in order to eliminate inappropriate, general, unrealistic recommendations. Periodically, the State Audit of Vietnam should have a department to review the recommendations and reject the inappropriate ones, while actively monitoring the recommendations that are highly feasible but not yet implemented. This is also a measure to minimize the risk in the audit. Secondly, it is necessary to intensify the monitoring and reminding the implementation of auditing recommendations: the General Affairs Division of the specialized and regional State Audit offices should intensify the monitoring, reminding and synthesize reports on the implementation of audit recommendations; they should advise the Directors of Department of the specialized and regional State Audit offices to solve problems arising in the implementation of audit recommendations and to answer any complaint of the auditees. This department will be responsible for reminding periodically and reminding immediately after the deadline for reporting the implementation of audit recommendations at the request of the State Audit in the audit report. The method of reminding also needs to be more diversified, such as: in writing, through the implementation of the audit recommendations, through auditing activities,... To implement this task proactively, the Auditor General may authorize the Directors of Departments in the specialized and regional State Audit offices to sign official dispatches to remind auditees of implementing audit recommendations within the assigned scope. The specialized divisions of the specialized and regional state audit offices should actively review unimplemented audit recommendations and advise the managers of the State Audit on timely response of the auditees' questions to unimplemented recommendations. The reason is that the auditees have not yet agreed with the recommendations of the State Audit. These specialized divisions are responsibility for reviewing and reporting to the managers of the State Audit all audit recommendations which cannot be implemented and proposing solutions. Thirdly, it is necessary to strengthen the coordination between the State Audit and functional agencies: If there is close coordination between the State Audit and other relevant agencies in the process of inspecting implementation of the audit conclusions and recommendations, this will help the audit recommendations will be implemented fully and 469 seriously. Many of the audit recommendations are related to macro-financial management and therefore it needs to have the coordination of many authorities. For example, the recommendation on the improvement of the management mechanism requires involving many policy-making agencies and the need for political determination to be implemented. So, if there is no co-ordination, the auditees will not be able to implement these recommendations. For example, in the audit of local government, the audit team recommends that the local authorities improve the land price management mechanism for land use projects which generate income from land lease. This recommendation requires the coordination of many local branches and the support from the central government to be implemented. Even in some cases, the State Audit should hold conferences with local or central authorities to discuss how to implement the conclusions and recommendations. Fourthly, it is necessary to strengthen the propaganda and dissemination of law so that agencies, organizations and individuals understand the law and strengthen the law enforcement. In fact, over the years, many auditees have not fully understood the provisions of law as well as the sanctions for implementing the State Audit’s conclusions and recommendations. As a result, the dissemination of laws will help the auditees better understand the implementation of audit conclusions and recommendations. Propaganda could be done in many forms, in which each auditor must be a communicator. The process of auditing should show the auditees any errors found, and advise them the manner in which they should do and specify punishing sanctions if the auditee fails to implement the audit recommendations. In conclusion, the implementation of the State Audit’s recommendations plays an important role on determination of audit quality. Therefore, Vietnam should implement some above recommendations to improve the ability of the State Audit’s recommendations being adopted. 7. References Aikins, S. K. (2012), Determinants of auditee adoption of audit recommendations: Local government auditors' perspectives, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 24(2), 195-220. Alzeban, A., & Sawan, N. (2015), The impact of audit committee characteristics on the implementation of internal audit recommendations, Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 24, 61-71. Behn, B. K., Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & Hermanson, R. H. (1997), The determinants of audit client satisfaction among clients of Big 6 firms, Accounting Horizons, 11(1), 7. Burton, G. F., Emett, S. A., Simon, C. A., & Wood, D. A. (2012), Corporate managers' reliance on internal auditor recommendations, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 31(2), 151-166. 470 Carslaw, C., Pippin, S., & Mason, R. (2012), Are public sector auditors more effective than private sector audit firms are when auditing governmental entities? Some evidence from United States counties, Public and Municipal Finance, 1 (1), 49-57. Djati, K., & Payamta (2013), The measurement of internal audit effectiveness at Ministry of Finance in Republic of Indonesia, Annual International Conference on Accounting & Finance, 1, 113-117. Kilgore, A., Harrison, G., & Radich, R. (2014), Audit quality: What’s important to users of audit services, Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(9), 776-799. Knechel, W. R., Krishnan, G. V., Pevzner, M., Shefchik, L. B., & Velury, U. K. (2012), Audit quality: Insights from the academic literature, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(1), 385-421. Malik, M. (2014), Audit committee composition and effectiveness: a review of post- SOX literature, Journal of Management Control, 25(2), 81-117. Modlin, S., & Stewart, L. S. (2014), Local government staff involvement in the external audit process: Reassessing independent auditee satisfaction levels among professionally administered county governments, Public Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 246-272. Rice, S. C., & Weber, D. P. (2012), How effective is internal control reporting under SOX 404? Determinants of the (non-)disclosure of existing material weaknesses, Journal of Accounting Research, 50, 811–843. Samelson, D., Lowensohn, S., & Johnson, L. E. (2006), The determinants of perceived audit quality and auditee satisfaction in local government, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 18(2), 139. Schroeder, M.S., Solomon, I., & Vickrey, D. (1986), Audit quality: The perceptions of auditcommittee chairpersons and audit partners, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 5(2), 86-93. Sneed, C., Sneed, J., & Boozer, J. B. (2015), Should State and Local Governments Adopt Provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? Franklin Business & Law Journal, 2015(1), 2-17. The National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2015), Law on State Audit No.81/2015/QH13, issued on 24 June 2015. State Auditors (2017), Report on Auditing Results of 2016, Hanoi.

Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:

  • pdfenhancing_auditees_implementation_of_audit_recommendations_a.pdf
Tài liệu liên quan