Accountability structures and management relationships of internal audit : an Australian study

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the accountability structures and the management relationships of internal audit. In particular, related issues such as the predominant internal audit objectives and the related functions, the extent to which internal audit addresses any financial reporting risks and the manner in which internal auditors in Australia perform their tasks, are identified. The study also looks at the extent of compliance with the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on a survey of the chief audit executives in Australia, the study identifies the reporting mechanisms, functions and relationships of internal audit, including the contributions made towards good corporate governance. There is, however, some misalignment between the aspirations of internal auditors and their relationships with management.
Findings – While internal audit objectives have been established with a focus on controls, risks and governance, the study has highlighted the fact that there is a lack of correlation between the tasks performed by internal auditors and the important internal audit objectives, with the exception of internal control and risks. The results also suggest that internal auditors have been providing an internal consulting and advisory role in matters concerning IT systems, strategic risks and financial issues. If internal auditors are to proactively contribute to good corporate governance, they need to define how, and in what way, this can be done. In regard to corporate governance processes, the results of the research indicate that issues surrounding internal control, risk assessment and management processes are regarded as the key factors for internal audit to contribute to good corporate governance.
Originality/value – This study complements and contributes to the existing literature in providing insights into the evolving role of the internal audit function in terms of accountabilities and relationships with management. It also provides a valuable insight into how the internal audit profession can build upon its inherent strengths and address any apparent areas of concern. This will assist both the profession and policy makers alike, in better understanding and improving the role of the internal audit process.

An accountability framework to promote healthy food environments

Objective
To review the available literature on accountability frameworks to construct a framework that is relevant to voluntary partnerships between government and food industry stakeholders.

Design
Between November 2012 and May 2013, a desk review of ten databases was conducted to identify principles, conceptual frameworks, underlying theories, and strengths and limitations of existing accountability frameworks for institutional performance to construct a new framework relevant to promoting healthy food environments.

Setting
Food policy contexts within high-income countries to address obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases.

Subjects Eligible resources (n 26) were reviewed and the guiding principles of fifteen interdisciplinary frameworks were used to construct a new accountability framework.

Results
Strengths included shared principles across existing frameworks, such as trust, inclusivity, transparency and verification; government leadership and good governance; public deliberations; independent bodies recognizing compliance and performance achievements; remedial actions to improve accountability systems; and capacity to manage conflicts of interest and settle disputes. Limitations of the three-step frameworks and ‘mutual accountability’ approach were an explicit absence of an empowered authority to hold all stakeholders to account for their performance.

Conclusions
We propose a four-step accountability framework to guide government and food industry engagement to address unhealthy food environments as part of a broader government-led strategy to address obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. An independent body develops clear objectives, a governance process and performance standards for all stakeholders to address unhealthy food environments. The empowered body takes account (assessment), shares the account (communication), holds to account (enforcement) and responds to the account (improvements).

A Q methodology study of stakeholders' views about accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the responsibility deal food network

In March 2011, the United Kingdom's (UK's) Government launched five Public Health Responsibility Deal Networks to address public health priorities. The Networks used voluntary partnerships to influence peoples' choice architecture to move them toward healthier behaviors. The purpose of this research was to conduct an exploratory study of diverse stakeholders' perspectives about perceived responsibility and accountability expectations to improve food environments in England through the Food Network partnerships. A purposive sample of policy elites (n=31) from government, academia, food industry and non-government organizations sorted 48 statements related to improving food environments in England. Statements were grounded in three theoretical perspectives (i.e., legitimacy, nudge and public health law). PQMethod 2.33 statistical software program used factor analysis to identify viewpoints based on intra-individual differences for how participants sorted statements. The results revealed three distinct viewpoints, which explained 64% of the variance for 31 participants, and emphasized different expectations about responsibility. The food environment protectors (n=17) underscored government responsibility to address unhealthy food environments if voluntary partnerships are ineffective; the partnership pioneers (n=12) recognized government-industry partnerships as legitimate and necessary to address unhealthy food environments; and the commercial market defenders (n=1) emphasized individual responsibility for food choices and rejected government intervention to improve food environments. Consensus issues included: protecting children's right to health; food industry practices that can and should be changed; government working with industry on product reformulation; and building consumer support for economically viable healthy products. Contentious issues were: inadequacy of accountability structures and government inaction to regulate food marketing practices targeting children. We conclude that understanding different viewpoints is a step toward building mutual trust to strengthen accountability structures that may help stakeholders navigate ideologically contentious issues to promote healthy food environments in England.

An empirical study on accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the public health responsibility deal food network

Objective: In 2011, the United Kingdom launched five Public Health Responsibility Deal Networks inspired by ‘nudge theory’ to facilitate healthy-lifestyle behaviors. This study used Q methodology to examine stakeholders’ views about responsibility and accountability for healthy food environments to reduce obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. Design: A purposive sample of policy elites (n=31) from government, academia, food industry and civil society sorted 48 statements grounded in three theoretical perspectives (i.e., legitimacy, nudge and public health law). Factor analysis identified intra-individual statement sorting differences. Results: A three-factor solution explained 64 percent of the variance across three distinct viewpoints: food environment protectors (n=17) underscored government responsibility to address unhealthy food environments; partnership pioneers (n=12) recognized government-industry partnerships as legitimate; and the commercial market defenders (n=1) emphasized individual responsibility for food choices and rejected any government intervention. Conclusions: Building trust and strengthening accountability structures may help stakeholders navigate differences to engage in constructive actions. This research may inform efforts in other countries where voluntary industry partnerships are pursued to address unhealthy food environments.

The role of internal audit in corporate governance and management

This research report is based on a study undertaken in Australia, and aims to evaluate the role of internal audit in corporate governance and management. It identifies the accountability structures and objectives of internal audit, considers the nature of internal audit functions and the extent of application of The Institute of Internal Auditors Standards of Professional Practice, reviews the relationships of the chief audit executives (CAEs) and assesses the nature of financial report risks and other issues covered by internal auditors. The research findings include a diversity of accountability structures for CAEs and a range of internal audit activities, with the application of the IIA Standards being in need of improvement. In conclusion, the researchers make recommendations for improvements in practice to be considered by The Institute of Internal Auditors and other regulating and governing bodies.

New forms of organising : changing structures, processes and boundaries in a public sector institution

Globalisation, deregulation, privatisation, and advances in communications technologies have intensified competition and impacted on the structures, processes and boundaries that define organisations. Increased competition at both the local and global level calls for increased responsiveness and flexibility, and continuous improvement and innovation. As organisations endeavour to become more attentive and responsive to environmental trends, and customer needs and expectations, they are experimenting with different forms of organising. This has included flattening structures, devolving decision-making responsibility and encouraging greater collaboration and knowledge transfer across functional areas.

The William Angliss Institute of TAFE operates in the post-secondary sector which has experienced significant changes over the past decade as a result of: wide-ranging public sector reforms imposed by successive governments; budgetary cutbacks; accountability and performance improvement pressures; increased national and international competition, industrial relations changes and more demanding, sophisticated customers. This paper draws on the INNFORM Study's three organisational design dimensions of structure, process, and boundaries to examine the nature and degree of change that has taken place at the Institute. Case study findings indicate that while William Angliss has implemetted changes across the three design dimensions, the depth and breadth of these vary and this has impacted on overall performance outcomes. Its experience suggests that even when an organisation adopts a systemic approach and implements changes simultaneously across structure, process and boundaries, optimal performance benefits will not accrue unless these elemental changes are mutually reinforcing and complementary. It also suggests that improvement to processes, particularly communications and human resources practices must be an overarching consideration, as complementary change across all three design dimensions depends ultimately on the contribution and commitment organisational members are prepared to make.

The prospects of deliberative global governance in the G20: legitimacy, accountability, and public contestation

This article contends that the ‘G’ system struggles to play a legitimate and effective role in global governance and argues that the G20 could play a important role if the forum was more publically accountable. This article argues that because of increasing forms of public contestation, the broadening agenda of the G8 and G20 and the uncertain status of global cooperation, that the legitimacy of the ‘G’ system is being questioned. As such, it is appropriate to consider deliberative avenues whereby public views could be considered by the G20 in a systematic way to foster forms of accountability. This consideration is animated by deliberative democracy theory and republican theory which advance a normative agenda which seeks to transform governance structures by enhancing the role of deliberation and public reasoning in political life. The article outlines the development of the ‘G’ system's legitimacy, considers possible modes of accountability and public involvement with respect to the G20 and examines the implications of more formalised public deliberation with respect to the G20.

Bushfire catastrophe in Victoria, Australia : public record, accountability, commemoration, memorialization and heritage protection

In Australia, 7 February 2009 has become known as ‘Black Saturday’ because of the bushfire catastrophe that took 173 lives and devastated communities in the central parts of the State of Victoria. The paper considers how the 2009 fires have been recorded, how the issue of accountability has been dealt with, particularly in relation to the State and its agencies but also individual residents in the fire-devastated areas, and how bushfire deaths and other losses have been commemorated through remembrance events and museum collection projects and memorialized through the creation of new monuments and the protection of remaining physical structures as official heritage. Despite the major impact of bushfires on the State, to date few bushfire-related places have been protected. The former Cockatoo Kindergarten, which acted as a community refuge during an earlier catastrophic Victorian bushfire on Ash Wednesday, 16 February 1983, is an exception. Inscribed in 2012, the former kindergarten is the only bushfire-related place inscribed on the Victorian Heritage Register, in this case for its historical and social value as a place resonating with other communities affected by other bushfires and helping the broader Victorian public to come to terms with bushfire catastrophe. But, while bushfire commemoration activities and physical memorials, like those relating to war, help many societies remember individual and community pain and suffering, they can divert attention from the more fundamental questions of why they were there in the first place and what must be done to ensure the same catastrophe does not recur in the future. In this regard, the paper questions the oft-cited claim that bushfires are embedded in the Australian psyche, seeing links between the rhetoric around bushfire survival and Australian myth-making and nation-building.