【導(dǎo)讀】性，每個(gè)組織要選擇最適合的控制系統(tǒng)。因此，就必須考慮到意外事故的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是否切合。是否會(huì)導(dǎo)致一些更加優(yōu)惠的有效性的評(píng)估控制管理。雖然內(nèi)部控制的組成部分已進(jìn)行單。觀測(cè)控制的有效性的戰(zhàn)略對(duì)其內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)有著顯著的效果。在巨大的管理壓力下，如何提高內(nèi)部控制的有效性以及董事會(huì)和股東之間的溝通效。果，是目前企業(yè)亟待解決的重要問題。由于內(nèi)部控制可能會(huì)影響長(zhǎng)期的報(bào)告，因此審計(jì)。人員、供應(yīng)商、客戶都對(duì)內(nèi)部控制關(guān)注相當(dāng)。公司影響很大，但在組織環(huán)境中內(nèi)部控制結(jié)構(gòu)卻無法實(shí)現(xiàn)。國(guó)際研究上已取得進(jìn)展，但迄今為止，內(nèi)部控制的研究數(shù)量有限。用方程關(guān)系模型對(duì)741家芬蘭公司進(jìn)行實(shí)例證明并得到結(jié)果。這項(xiàng)研究的結(jié)果在幾個(gè)重。世界上有一些組織已經(jīng)將內(nèi)部控制框架建立。視意外事件的特征。此聲明類似于權(quán)變理論對(duì)每一個(gè)組織的特點(diǎn)采取。間的理論關(guān)系是基于COSO1994年提出的。指出根據(jù)特定的情

　　

【正文】 he external super vision of internal controls by management or other parties outside the process. In this research these five ponents define the internal control It is stated in the frameworks (., COSO 1994) that in order to have an adequate internal control system these ponents of internal control must be presented and function properly. Most of the research in this field focuses on examining particular control elements (Aquila 1998。 Hooks et al. 1994。 Mills 1997). Stringer and Carey (2021) examines all five ponents but use a qualitative approach and examine the ponents separately. In this study internal control ponents and observed effectiveness are used as latent variables in the analysis. It should be noted that the level of analysis is theoretical and specific individual controls or judgments are not the main focus of the study (see for example Felix and Niles 1988。 Gadh et al. 1993). Furthermore, the level of analysis in the firms is at the corporate control level as applied by the CEO and other corporate officers (see 1998) . Contingency variables Previous studies (Fisher 1995。 Gerdin 2021) have noted that a control system may have to be tailored to multiple and sometimes conflicting contextual characteristics. To capture the plexities of internal control structure design, this paper chooses to examine four contingency characteristics. The study examines the impact of strategy, size, anization structure, and environmental uncertainty on an internal control structure and reports its observed effectiveness. There is evidence in earlier studies that these characteristics have some impact on the design of control structures and on performance (for example Chenhall 2021。 Donaldson 2021。Hoque and James 2021。 Macintosh 1994。 Simons 1987。 Drazin and Van de Ven 1985。 Otley 1980). However, the selection of the characteristics may not be the only set of variables that might have an effect on internal control structure but the characteristics are considered relevant and are widely examined in control literature (Chenhall 2021). Next, this paper reviews the related literature for each contingency characteristic and develops its first four research questions. 4 Strategy Otley (1980) and Dermer (1977) state that the business strategy should be one of the main features in accounting control system design. Depending on the firm’s strategy, as noted by Miller et al. (1986), Miles and Snow (1978) and Porter (1980), control systems are used in different ways. For example, Simons (1990) found evidence that firms employ accounting control systems in dissimilar ways if they use different strategies. While these earlier studies suggest that different types of firm strategies tend to cause different control system configurations, strategies may also cause some differences in internal control. However, empirical studies conducted to date have not yielded any firm conclusions about the nature of the most appropriate connections between strategies and control (., 1999) The Miles and Snow (1978) typology was adopted in this study。 most control research has only focused on the differences between prospector and defender (Fisher 1995). Miles and Snow (1978) find that control systems of the prospector type may focus more on problem finding and that identifying flexible structures and processes may assist an anization in responding rapidly to environmental noted by Langfield Smith (1997) control in prospector anizations may be decentralized and results oriented. This means that the prospector requires a strong control environment, which can ensure strong control consciousness. Further,Simons (1987) finds that the prospector emphasizes monitoring deviations from a budget through exception reports and monthly reports. A prospector needs a wide range of information related to the future during the search for market opportunities which may activate information and munication ponents. Simons (1987) concludes that differences in the attributes of formal control systems exist between defender and prospector anizations and that these attributes have significant effects on pany performance. Based on prior management control studies (see Lang fieldSmith 1997。 Chenhall 2021) it is possible to suggest that certain types of control system will be suited to particular strategies。 prospectors are more likely to have flexible controls to enable quick adaptation to fast changing environments, while defenders are more likely to focus on reducing uncertainty and maximizing efficiency. Compared to defenders, prospectors are more flexible in modifying their management systems according to user needs. Based on the previous discussion the following research question is raised. ()