Questões de Concurso Sobre interpretação de texto | reading comprehension em inglês

Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders

In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.

A brief definition

The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.

Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.

Why does it matter? Audit quality.

First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.

Applying skepticism internally

By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.

However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.

It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.

The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.

Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders 

Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders

In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.

A brief definition

The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.

Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.

Why does it matter? Audit quality.

First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.

Applying skepticism internally

By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.

However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.

It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.

The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.

Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders 

Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders

In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.

A brief definition

The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.

Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.

Why does it matter? Audit quality.

First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.

Applying skepticism internally

By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.

However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.

It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.

The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.

Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders 

Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders

In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.

A brief definition

The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.

Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.

Why does it matter? Audit quality.

First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.

Applying skepticism internally

By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.

However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.

It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.

The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.

Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders 

Internal audit’s role in ESG reporting

Conversations and focus on sustainability, typically grouped into environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, are quickly evolving — from activist investor groups and inquisitive regulators pushing for change to governing bodies and C-suite executives struggling to understand and embrace the concept. At the forefront of this new risk area is pressure for organizations to make public commitments to sustainability and provide routine updates to ESG-related strategies, goals, and metrics that are accurate and relevant. However, ESG reporting is still immature, and there is not a lot of definitive guidance for organizations in this space. For example, there is no single standard for what should be reported.

 What is clear is that strong governance over ESG — as with effective governance overall — requires alignment among the principal players as outlined in The Internal Institute of Auditors (IIA) Three Lines Model. As with any risk area, internal audit should be well-positioned to support the governing body and management with objective assurance, insights, and advice on ESG matters.

Embarking on the ESG journey

Efforts to mitigate the accelerating effects of climate change and address perceived historical social inequities are two powerful issues driving change globally. These movements have enhanced awareness of how all organizations impact, influence, and interact with society and the environment.

They also have spurred organizations to better recognize and manage ESG risks (i.e., risks associated with how organizations operate in respect to their impact on the world around them). This broad risk category includes areas that are dynamic and often driven by factors that can be difficult to measure objectively.

Still, there is growing urgency for organizations to understand and manage ESG risks, particularly as investors and regulators focus on organizations producing high-quality reporting on sustainability efforts. What’s more, that pressure is being reflected increasingly in executive performance as more organizations tie incentive compensation metrics to ESG goals.

As ESG reporting becomes increasingly common, it should be treated with the same care as financial reporting. Organizations need to recognize that ESG reporting must be built on a strategically crafted system of internal controls and accurately reflect how an organization’s ESG efforts relate to each other, the organization’s finances, and value creation.

Internal audit can and should play a significant role in an organization’s ESG journey. It can add value in an advisory capacity by helping to identify and establish a functional ESG control environment. It also can offer critical assurance support by providing an independent and objective review of the effectiveness of ESG risk assessments, responses, and controls.

Source: Adapted from https://na.theiia.org/about-ia/PublicDocuments/WhitePaper-Internal-Audits-Role-in-ESG-Reporting.pdf

Internal audit’s role in ESG reporting

Conversations and focus on sustainability, typically grouped into environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, are quickly evolving — from activist investor groups and inquisitive regulators pushing for change to governing bodies and C-suite executives struggling to understand and embrace the concept. At the forefront of this new risk area is pressure for organizations to make public commitments to sustainability and provide routine updates to ESG-related strategies, goals, and metrics that are accurate and relevant. However, ESG reporting is still immature, and there is not a lot of definitive guidance for organizations in this space. For example, there is no single standard for what should be reported.

 What is clear is that strong governance over ESG — as with effective governance overall — requires alignment among the principal players as outlined in The Internal Institute of Auditors (IIA) Three Lines Model. As with any risk area, internal audit should be well-positioned to support the governing body and management with objective assurance, insights, and advice on ESG matters.

Embarking on the ESG journey

Efforts to mitigate the accelerating effects of climate change and address perceived historical social inequities are two powerful issues driving change globally. These movements have enhanced awareness of how all organizations impact, influence, and interact with society and the environment.

They also have spurred organizations to better recognize and manage ESG risks (i.e., risks associated with how organizations operate in respect to their impact on the world around them). This broad risk category includes areas that are dynamic and often driven by factors that can be difficult to measure objectively.

Still, there is growing urgency for organizations to understand and manage ESG risks, particularly as investors and regulators focus on organizations producing high-quality reporting on sustainability efforts. What’s more, that pressure is being reflected increasingly in executive performance as more organizations tie incentive compensation metrics to ESG goals.

As ESG reporting becomes increasingly common, it should be treated with the same care as financial reporting. Organizations need to recognize that ESG reporting must be built on a strategically crafted system of internal controls and accurately reflect how an organization’s ESG efforts relate to each other, the organization’s finances, and value creation.

Internal audit can and should play a significant role in an organization’s ESG journey. It can add value in an advisory capacity by helping to identify and establish a functional ESG control environment. It also can offer critical assurance support by providing an independent and objective review of the effectiveness of ESG risk assessments, responses, and controls.

Source: Adapted from https://na.theiia.org/about-ia/PublicDocuments/WhitePaper-Internal-Audits-Role-in-ESG-Reporting.pdf

Internal audit’s role in ESG reporting

Conversations and focus on sustainability, typically grouped into environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, are quickly evolving — from activist investor groups and inquisitive regulators pushing for change to governing bodies and C-suite executives struggling to understand and embrace the concept. At the forefront of this new risk area is pressure for organizations to make public commitments to sustainability and provide routine updates to ESG-related strategies, goals, and metrics that are accurate and relevant. However, ESG reporting is still immature, and there is not a lot of definitive guidance for organizations in this space. For example, there is no single standard for what should be reported.

 What is clear is that strong governance over ESG — as with effective governance overall — requires alignment among the principal players as outlined in The Internal Institute of Auditors (IIA) Three Lines Model. As with any risk area, internal audit should be well-positioned to support the governing body and management with objective assurance, insights, and advice on ESG matters.

Embarking on the ESG journey

Efforts to mitigate the accelerating effects of climate change and address perceived historical social inequities are two powerful issues driving change globally. These movements have enhanced awareness of how all organizations impact, influence, and interact with society and the environment.

They also have spurred organizations to better recognize and manage ESG risks (i.e., risks associated with how organizations operate in respect to their impact on the world around them). This broad risk category includes areas that are dynamic and often driven by factors that can be difficult to measure objectively.

Still, there is growing urgency for organizations to understand and manage ESG risks, particularly as investors and regulators focus on organizations producing high-quality reporting on sustainability efforts. What’s more, that pressure is being reflected increasingly in executive performance as more organizations tie incentive compensation metrics to ESG goals.

As ESG reporting becomes increasingly common, it should be treated with the same care as financial reporting. Organizations need to recognize that ESG reporting must be built on a strategically crafted system of internal controls and accurately reflect how an organization’s ESG efforts relate to each other, the organization’s finances, and value creation.

Internal audit can and should play a significant role in an organization’s ESG journey. It can add value in an advisory capacity by helping to identify and establish a functional ESG control environment. It also can offer critical assurance support by providing an independent and objective review of the effectiveness of ESG risk assessments, responses, and controls.

Source: Adapted from https://na.theiia.org/about-ia/PublicDocuments/WhitePaper-Internal-Audits-Role-in-ESG-Reporting.pdf

Internal audit’s role in ESG reporting

Conversations and focus on sustainability, typically grouped into environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, are quickly evolving — from activist investor groups and inquisitive regulators pushing for change to governing bodies and C-suite executives struggling to understand and embrace the concept. At the forefront of this new risk area is pressure for organizations to make public commitments to sustainability and provide routine updates to ESG-related strategies, goals, and metrics that are accurate and relevant. However, ESG reporting is still immature, and there is not a lot of definitive guidance for organizations in this space. For example, there is no single standard for what should be reported.

 What is clear is that strong governance over ESG — as with effective governance overall — requires alignment among the principal players as outlined in The Internal Institute of Auditors (IIA) Three Lines Model. As with any risk area, internal audit should be well-positioned to support the governing body and management with objective assurance, insights, and advice on ESG matters.

Embarking on the ESG journey

Efforts to mitigate the accelerating effects of climate change and address perceived historical social inequities are two powerful issues driving change globally. These movements have enhanced awareness of how all organizations impact, influence, and interact with society and the environment.

They also have spurred organizations to better recognize and manage ESG risks (i.e., risks associated with how organizations operate in respect to their impact on the world around them). This broad risk category includes areas that are dynamic and often driven by factors that can be difficult to measure objectively.

Still, there is growing urgency for organizations to understand and manage ESG risks, particularly as investors and regulators focus on organizations producing high-quality reporting on sustainability efforts. What’s more, that pressure is being reflected increasingly in executive performance as more organizations tie incentive compensation metrics to ESG goals.

As ESG reporting becomes increasingly common, it should be treated with the same care as financial reporting. Organizations need to recognize that ESG reporting must be built on a strategically crafted system of internal controls and accurately reflect how an organization’s ESG efforts relate to each other, the organization’s finances, and value creation.

Internal audit can and should play a significant role in an organization’s ESG journey. It can add value in an advisory capacity by helping to identify and establish a functional ESG control environment. It also can offer critical assurance support by providing an independent and objective review of the effectiveness of ESG risk assessments, responses, and controls.

Source: Adapted from https://na.theiia.org/about-ia/PublicDocuments/WhitePaper-Internal-Audits-Role-in-ESG-Reporting.pdf