Some Arguments That Justify The Audit Trinity’S Approach In The Context Of Corporate Governance
The purpose of this paper is to develop a synthesis of the main arguments that could justify the necessity of audit trinity’s approach (internal audit, external audit, audit committee) in assuring good corporate governance. The aim of the paper is also to synthesize relevant theoretical and empirical latest literature that argues the significance of audit functions as an important mechanism in the effective functioning of corporate governance system. From methodological point of view, the construction of this paper has adopted a normative approach, the research being primarily, based on a examination of relevant literature, with a focus on developments that have more or less implications over the progress of corporate governance issues, especially in these difficult economic context that requires urgently the adopting of effective solutions. By presenting on overview over the latest literature ad discussing the shifting demands with respect to the audit’s contribution to ensuring good corporate governance, the author of this paper hopes to stimulate further research and constructive debates in the field.
Volume (Year): 6 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences Dumbravii Avenue, No 17, postal code 550324, Sibiu, Romania|
Phone: 004 0269 210375
Fax: 004 0269 210375
Web page: http://economice.ulbsibiu.ro/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Brenda A. Porter, 2009. "The audit trinity: the key to securing corporate accountability," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(2), pages 156-182, February.
- Gillan, Stuart L. & Martin, John D., 2007. "Corporate governance post-Enron: Effective reforms, or closing the stable door?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 929-958, December.
- Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Agency Problems and Residual Claims," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 327-49, June.
- Benston, George J. & Hartgraves, Al L., 2002. "Enron: what happened and what we can learn from it," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 105-127.
- Stuart Turley & Mahbub Zaman, 2004. "The Corporate Governance Effects of Audit Committees," Journal of Management and Governance, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 305-332, 06.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:blg:journl:v:6:y:2011:i:1:p:5-18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mihaela Herciu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.