Rethinking the responsabilities of the public accountant in the internal accounting audit

Abstract

Through the academic research, the results of which are shared, it was possible to address common internal problems in companies in general, which were also observed in those participating in the project. Since the 2020 pandemic, more attention began to be paid to the internal difficulties of companies and how they influenced their performance in the most challenging times. Operating effectively and efficiently, with systemic and technological viability, and protecting scarce resources made the difference between business continuity or closure in our country. This circumstance takes on greater significance in economies like Argentina, where 90% of the companies that make up the private sector are SMEs. Therefore, support for this sector becomes plausible as a way to revitalize the national micro and macro economy, an issue that represents one of the purposes of the internal accounting audit
assurance service.

Given this scenario, a hypothesis arose: ¿How could the public accountant contribute to generating value for companies through internal audit assurance services?

To this end, it was essential to admit that assurance services had historically been concentrated in external auditing, marking a significant lag in the practice of other types of accounting auditing. However, when CECyT Audit Report No. 1 and Technical Resolution No. 3 on auditing were published in 1976, Dr. Horacio Lopez Santiso described a methodology common to the different types of auditing, applying the systemic approach. In fact, he titled the work “A New Approach to Auditing and its Standards,” and there: “Each of the traditional types of auditing (external, internal, operational, management, etc.) can be thought of as an audit of systems or parts of a system (...) which is a function independent of the system being controlled; through the use of guidelines, standards, or elements to measure them (sensors)...”. Bearing this in mind and given that internal accounting auditing is an assurance service that falls under the purview of public accountants, a professional technical standard to regulate it is lacking. While Technical Resolution No. 37 and its amendment, Technical Resolution No. 53, contain guidelines for other assurance engagements, they do not specifically address internal accounting auditing, nor do they elaborate on its methodology according to the guidelines of the Global Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the integrated framework that governs its practice, or specific global internal auditing standards.

Thus, having a specific technical standard for internal auditing, consistent with Technical Resolution No. 37 and its amendment, would reaffirm the foundations for its more widespread practice. It is well known that the 2020 pandemic and the transition to the Fifth Industrial Revolution have changed the world. Today is as it was before, to paraphrase the Harry Stiles song. Therefore, having a technical standard that regulates the internal audit service would imply accepting the phenomenology of change, taking advantage of new opportunities for the accountant, more in line with the current needs of the context, and capable of contributing to the generation of value through internal efficiency for its clients.