The use of internal audit by Australian companies

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to explore the voluntary use of internal audit by Australian publicly listed companies and to identify factors that lead listed companies to have an internal audit function. Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on the Institute of Internal Auditors' definition of internal auditing, the paper predicts that internal audit use is associated with factors related to risk management, strong internal controls and strong corporate governance. To test the predictions, the study combines data from a survey of listed companies with information from corporate annual reports. The paper also provides descriptive information on the use of internal audit. Findings – The results indicate that only one-third of the sample companies use internal audit. While size appears to be the dominant driver, there is also a strong association between internal audit and the level of commitment to risk management. However, the study finds only weak support for an association between the use of internal audit and strong corporate governance. Research limitations/implications – A limitation of our study is that some of the variables in the model may not be good proxies for the factors being measured. Refinement of the model and the variables used provides an opportunity for future research. Practical implications – The limited use of internal audit by Australian companies has important implications for sound corporate governance. Originality/value – This is the first study that identifies factors associated with the use of internal audit by Australian listed companies.

A framework for diagnosing board effectiveness

Pressure on boards to improve corporate performance and management oversight has led to a series of inquiries and reports advocating governance reform. These reports largely reflect an agency perspective of governance and seek to ensure greater board independence from and control of management. While board independence is important to good governance, we contend that frameworks, models and advice centred on one element of governance ignore the complexity of how boards work. We develop a holistic board framework based upon the concept of board intellectual capital to address this concern. Our framework proposes a series of inputs (e.g. company history, company constitution, legal environment) that lead to a particular mix of board intellectual capital. We contend that the balance of the different elements of board intellectual capital will lead to a series of board behaviours. Further, the board needs to mobilise its intellectual capital to carry out a series of roles. The exact nature of these roles will depend on the company's requirements. Thus, the governance outputs of organisational performance, board effectiveness and director effectiveness will depend on the match between the board's intellectual capital and the roles required of it. We conclude by demonstrating the benefits of this framework as a diagnostic tool. We outline how boards wishing to improve their governance systems can diagnose common governance problems by evaluating their own board's capabilities in relation to the different components of the framework.

Impact of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999 on initial public offering prospectus earnings forecasts

Commencing 13 March 2000, the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999 (Cth) introduced changes to the regulation of corporate fundraising in Australia. In particular, it effected a reduction in the litigation risk associated with initial public offering prospectus disclosure. We find that the change is associated with a reduction in forecast frequency and an increase in forecast value relevance, but not with forecast error or bias. These results confirm previous findings that changes in litigation risk affect the level but not the quality of disclosure. They also suggest that the reforms' objectives of reducing fundraising costs while improving investor protection, have been achieved.

Multiple directorships and corporate performance in Australian listed companies

How many directorships are too many? Globally, normative advice emphasises the importance of limiting the number of directorships any individual should hold due to the workloads they entail. However, there is little empirical evidence to support this view. Rather, there is a strong tradition of supporting multiple directorships as a mechanism for the firm to co-opt external resources. To explore the issue of director workloads and multiple directorships, we first consider the issues related to multiple directorships and outline the conclusions of extant international and Australian studies into multiple directorships. We then detail our objectives in undertaking this research and our approach to data collection. Our findings indicate that the incidence of multiple directorships in Australian listed companies is low. We also find that many of the apparent examples of multiple directorships are due to related entities, which share common directors and, due to the nature of these entities, have much lower workload requirements. Further, there does not appear to be any relationship between holding multiple directorships and firm financial performance. Finally, we discuss the implications for boards and those interested in governance, particularly the need to ensure governance recommendations and guidelines reflect empirical findings. We offer one solution to address the concerns of boards, investors, other stakeholders and the community regarding multiple directorships: board and individual director evaluations.

Brand loyalties: rethinking content within global corporate media

Translating content from one media platform to another, a process here dubbed content streaming, is the leitmotif of contemporary globalized media. Yet widely divergent interpretations of the phenomenon have emerged. Academic political economy interprets content streaming as powerfully inimical to cultural diversity, media competition and freedom of speech. Mainstream business reporting, working from an opposing media economics schema, pillories ‘synergy’-based content strategies as oversold in theory and unworkable in practice. Challenging this established trend for the disciplines to develop in parallel, the article harnesses mainstream critique of content streaming to political economy’s traditionally circumspect view of corporate media. Examining first the commercial rationales for pursuing content streaming, before turning to the financial and managerial constraints on realizing these goals, the article positions content streaming as less all-pervasive than political economists have feared, but more commercially entrenched than the financial press currently allows.