Internal audit outsourcing practice and rationales: SME evidence from New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study seeks to examine practices in, and rationales for, internal audit outsourcing in New Zealand (NZ) companies. The purpose is to assess whether practice and preference conform to expectations where small‐to‐medium businesses dominate. Design/methodology/approach Senior financial managers of all 165 NZ Stock Exchange listed companies are surveyed. Questions are drawn from the strategic management and auditing literature. Relationships between size, international association and industry are tested or revealed from descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses. Comparisons to overseas studies, where possible, are drawn. Findings Of 63 usable responses (38.2 per cent response rate), a comparatively low 57 per cent carry out some form of internal audit and a further 27 per cent claim interest in doing so. International companies are more likely to engage in internal audit, and preliminary findings point to less interest within consumer and equity/trust industries. As to outsourcers, 65 per cent (11) only began doing so recently, Big4 accounting firms are a major source, access to quality is an important reason and most 82 per cent (14 of 17) are aware of independence issues. Conclusions analyse legislative incentive patterns found and suggest further research. Originality/value Recent scandals and legislation in the USA, UK and Australia highlight the importance of the internal audit function to industry. This study looks at practices in and rationales for internal audit outsourcing found within the NZ corporate sector.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".