IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accfor/v43y2019i2p220-245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical pathways of internal audit reporting lines

Author

Listed:
  • Waymond Rodgers
  • Salem Al Fayi

Abstract

This study identifies the ethical pathways of chief audit executive reporting lines that describe internal auditing relationships with different authorities in the organization (e.g. the board of directors, audit committee, chief executive officer, and chief financial officer). The literature has placed importance of these lines as determinants for the objectivity and independence of internal auditing. Recent studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding whether reporting to high authority is the optimal reporting line compared to reporting to low authority. For this reason, there is a need for further investigation. Thus, this study harnesses the strengths and weaknesses of three ethical pathways in a decision-making model (described as the Ethical Process Thinking Model). In this way, we provide an explanation of the complex situations of internal audit reporting line in reality. The findings highlight that individuals’ different perceptions and judgments, as well as information signals can lead to different reporting lines (decision choices). The three dominant ethical pathways (i.e. preference-based, rule-based and principle-based) advance the literature by providing a clearer picture for practitioners, researchers and regulators to facilitate independence and objectivity requirements.

Suggested Citation

  • Waymond Rodgers & Salem Al Fayi, 2019. "Ethical pathways of internal audit reporting lines," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 220-245, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:43:y:2019:i:2:p:220-245
    DOI: 10.1080/01559982.2019.1605871
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01559982.2019.1605871
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01559982.2019.1605871?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Waymond Rodgers & Mouza Al Habsi & George Gamble, 2019. "Sustainability and Firm Performance: A Review and Analysis Using Algorithmic Pathways in the Throughput Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-27, July.
    2. Rodgers, Waymond & Alhendi, Eyad & Xie, Feixue, 2019. "The impact of foreignness on the compliance with cybersecurity controls," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 1-1.
    3. Rodgers, Waymond & Al Shammakhi, Badriya N. & Jeaneth, Johansson & Wincent, Joakim & Adams, Kweku, 2020. "DIY Entrepreneurship: a decision-pathway framework for ethical thought structures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    4. Rodgers, Waymond & Cardenas, Jesus A. & Gemoets, Leopoldo A. & Sarfi, Robert J., 2023. "A smart grids knowledge transfer paradigm supported by experts' throughput modeling artificial intelligence algorithmic processes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    5. Waymond Rodgers & Tam Nguyen, 2022. "Advertising Benefits from Ethical Artificial Intelligence Algorithmic Purchase Decision Pathways," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(4), pages 1043-1061, July.
    6. Saddam A. Hazaea & Ebrahim Mohammed Al-Matari & Saleh F. A. Khatib & Khaldoon Albitar & Jinyu Zhu, 2023. "Internal Auditing in the Arab World: A Systematic Literature Review and Directions for Future Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:43:y:2019:i:2:p:220-245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.