Abstract

     Internal audit quality is the foundation for a company’s survival and development across the world. As a result, global efforts have been made to develop a scientific and accurate evaluation index for internal audit quality. However, literature shows that existing internal audit quality evaluation indices have many flaws, such as a lack of systematic internal audit evaluation indicators, poor execution, and inability to identify priority areas. To address gaps in the literature, this study intended to construct an internal audit quality evaluation index utilizing the joint approaches of the Balanced Scorecard, Delphi Process, and Analytical Hierarchy Process. A systematic literature review, examination of companies’ internal audit guidelines, Balanced Scorecard, and Delphi approaches resulted in a multilevel internal audit quality evaluation index with five dimensions (stakeholder satisfaction, stakeholder contribution, financial results, internal audit process, and learning and growth) and 36 indicators. The Analytical Hierarchy Process revealed that the most prioritized dimension is the internal audit process. The consistency ratio and evaluation feedback from the listed companies’ internal auditors, management, and audit committee members revealed that the results are valid and reliable.

Introduction

     Internal audit quality is the foundation for a organization’s survival and development across the world. According to Boskou et al., 2019, internal audit quality (IAQ) is a critical component of an organization’s sustainability since it assists the business in maintaining effective controls and avoiding fraud. Several publications (Ashbaugh-Skaife et al., 2008; Hoai et al., 2022) have shown that effective internal control may improve the quality of financial reporting. It is commonly acknowledged that IAQ is a critical component of successful internal control, on which financial reporting quality is also dependent. It helps the organization’s operations since it is a separate activity that assists a corporation in achieving its goals by employing a well-organized approach to risk management, internal control, and governance efficiency and effectiveness (Stewart and Subramaniam, 2010; El Gharbaoui and Chraibi, 2021). Scholars from all around the world have discovered a link between IAQ and organizational performance (Hazaea et al., 2020; Kaawaase et al., 2021). Hence, IAQ is of interest to managers, shareholders, investors, auditors, and consequently international organizations and nations.

     In line with the usefulness of the IAQ, there have been global efforts in establishing a scientific evaluation index for IAQ. International organizations and regulatory bodies such as the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and the largest six audit firms in the United Kingdom; the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in the United States; the Chartered Accountants of Australia and New Zealand (CAANZ); the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) in Singapore; and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) put forward indicators for evaluating IAQ. For instance, PCAOB published 28 indicators for evaluating audit quality while CAANZ published only nine indicators. The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) also published five components of a firm’s internal control system with 17 principles (COSO, 2013).

Conclusion and recommendations

     The need for a scientific and reliable IAQE index to guide companies to improve internal auditing influenced this study. This study constructed the IAQE index by combining literature review, preliminary analysis, and review of companies’ internal audit guidelines, BSC, Delphi Process, and AHP methodologies. A systematic literature review, review of companies’ internal audit guidelines, BSC, and Delphi approaches resulted in a multilevel IAQE index comprising five dimensions and 36 indicators. Eight indicators were selected stakeholder dimension, nine indicators for stakeholder contribution dimension, seven indicators for financial results dimension, six indicators for internal audit process dimension, and six indicators for learning and growth dimension. The AHP results through experts’ judgment of the dimensions and indicators revealed that all the five dimensions are important in the IAQE index system. Overall, “achieving internal audit objectives” had the highest weight while “the number of complaints received by the internal audit department” had the lowest weight in the IAQE index system. The CR and feedback evaluation from the internal auditors and audit committee members of the selected enterprises revealed the acceptability of the results. In line with internal auditing standards, the developed IAQE index fits well with internal audit components since the index offers an independent, objective assurance and consulting among key stakeholders internal auditing for evaluating and improving the efficacy of risk management, control, and governance systems.