COSO Internal Control - Integrated Framework May 2013

Co m m it te e o f S p o n s o r in g O rgani z ati o ns o f the Tre adway Co mmi ssi o n
Inter n al Co n t ro l I n te g rate d F ra mewo rk
F ramewo r k an d Ap p en d ice s
May 2013
This project was commissioned by COSO, which is dedicated to providing thought lead-
ership through the development of comprehensive frameworks and guidance on internal
control, enterprise risk management, and fraud deterrence designed to improve organi-
zational performance and oversight and to reduce the extent of fraud in organizations.
COSO is a private sector initiative, jointly sponsored and funded by:
American Accounting Association (AAA)
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
Financial Executives International (FEI)
Institute of Management Accountants (IMA)
The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)
ISBN 978-1-93735-239-4
2013 All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, redistributed, transmitted or displayed
in any form or by any means without written permission. For information regarding licensing and reprint permis-
sions please contact the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, licensing and permissions agent for
COSO copyrighted materials. Direct all inquiries to [email protected] or to AICPA, Attn: Manager, Rights and
Permissions, 220 Leigh Farm Rd., Durham, NC 27707. Telephone inquiries may be directed to 888-777-7077.
Co m m it te e o f S p o n s o r in g O rgani z ati o ns o f the Tre adway Co mmi ssi o n
C o m m i t t e e o f S p o n s o r i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n s o f t h e T r e a d w a y C o m m i s s i o n
Inter n al Co n t ro l I n te g rate d F ra mewo rk
F ramewo r k an d Ap p en d ice s
May 2013
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of
the Treadway Commission
Board Members
David L. Landsittel Mark S. Beasley Richard F. Chambers
COSO Chair Douglas F. Prawitt The Institute of Internal Auditors
American Accounting Association
Charles E. Landes Marie N. Hollein Sandra Richtermeyer

American Institute of Certified Financial Executives International Jeffrey C. Thomson
Public Accountants Institute of Management
Accountants
PwCAuthor
Principal Contributors
Miles E.A. Everson Stephen E. Soske Frank J. Martens
Engagement Leader Project Lead Partner Project Lead Director
New York, USA Boston, USA Vancouver, Canada
Cara M. Beston Charles E. Harris J. Aaron Garcia

Partner Partner Director
San Jose, USA Florham Park, USA San Diego, USA
Catherine I. Jourdan Jay A. Posklensky Sallie Jo Perraglia

Director Director Manager
Paris, France Florham Park, USA New York, USA
Advisory Council
Sponsoring Organizations Representatives

Audrey A. Gramling Steven E. Jameson J. Stephen McNally
Bellarmine University Community Trust Bank Campbell Soup Company
Fr. Raymond J. Treece Executive Vice President and Chief Finance Director/Controller
EndowedChair Internal Audit & Risk Officer
Ray Purcell William D. Schneider Sr.

Pfizer AT&T
Director of Financial Controls Director of Accounting
Members at Large
Jennifer Burns James DeLoach Trent Gazzaway
Deloitte Protiviti Grant Thornton
Partner Managing Director Partner
Cees Klumper Thomas Montminy Alan Paulus

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, PwC Ernst & Young LLP
Tuberculosis and Malaria Partner Partner
Chief Risk Officer
Thomas Ray Dr. Larry E. Rittenberg Sharon Todd

Baruch College University of Wisconsin KPMG
Emeritus Professor of Accounting Partner
Chair Emeritus COSO
Kenneth L. Vander Wal

ISACA
International President
20112012
Regulatory Observers and Other Observers

James Dalkin Harrison E. Greene Jr. Christian Peo
Government AccountabilityOffice Federal Deposit Insurance Securities and Exchange
Director in the Financial Corporation Commission
Management and Assistant Chief Accountant Professional Accounting Fellow
AssuranceTeam (Through June 2012)
Amy Steele Vincent Tophoff Keith Wilson

Securities and Exchange International Federation Public Company Accounting
Commission of Accountants Oversight Board
Associate Chief Accountant Senior Technical Manager Deputy Chief Auditor
(Commencing July 2012)
Additional PwC Contributors
Joseph Atkinson Jeffrey Boyle Glenn Brady

Partner Partner Partner
New York, USA Tokyo, Japan St. Louis, USA
James Chang Mark Cohen Andrew Dahle

Beijing, China San Francisco, USA Chicago, USA
Mary Grace Davenport Megan Haas Junya Hakoda

Partner Partner Partner (Retired)
New York, USA Hong Kong, China Tokyo, Japan
Diana Hillier Steve Hirt Brian Kinman

London, England Boston, USA St. Louis, USA
Barbara Kipp Hans Koopmans Sachin Mandal

Boston, USA Singapore Florham Park, USA
Alan Martin Pat McNamee Jonathan Mullins

Partner Partner Partner (Retired)
Frankfurt, Germany Florham Park, USA Dallas, USA
Simon Perry Andrew Reinsel Kristin Rivera

London, England Cincinnati, USA San Francisco, USA
Valerie Wieman Alexander Young David Albright

Partner Partner Principal
Florham Park, USA Toronto, Canada Washington, D.C., USA
Charles Yovino Eric M. Bloesch Christopher Michaelson

Principal Managing Director Director
Atlanta, USA Philadelphia, USA Minneapolis, USA
John Morrow Tracy Walker Qiao Pan

Director Director Senior Associate
Florham Park, USA Bangkok, Thailand New York, USA
Table of Contents
Foreword........................................................................................................................ i
Framework
1. Definition of Internal Control.................................................................................1
2. Objectives, Components, and Principles.............................................................5
3. Effective Internal Control.................................................................................... 18
4. Additional Considerations...................................................................................23
5. Control Environment........................................................................................... 31
6. Risk Assessment................................................................................................59
7. Control Activities.................................................................................................87
8. Information and Communication...................................................................... 105
9. Monitoring Activities......................................................................................... 123
10. Limitations of Internal Control........................................................................... 137
Appendices
A. Glossary ........................................................................................................... 143
B. Roles and Responsibilities................................................................................ 147
C. Considerations for Smaller Entities.................................................................. 159
D. Methodology for Revising the Framework...........................................................163
E. Public Comment Letters................................................................................... 165
F. Summary of Changes to the COSO Internal Control

Integrated Framework (1992).................................................................... 173
G. Comparison with COSO Enterprise Risk Management

Integrated Framework.......................................................................................181
Internal Control Integrated Framework May 2013

Foreword
In 1992 the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO) released its Internal ControlIntegrated Framework (the original framework).
The original framework has gained broad acceptance and is widely used around the
world. It is recognized as a leading framework for designing, implementing, and con-
ducting internal control and assessing the effectiveness of internal control.
In the twenty years since the inception of the original framework, business and operat-
ing environments have changed dramatically, becoming increasingly complex, techno-
logically driven, and global. At the same time, stakeholders are more engaged, seeking
greater transparency and accountability for the integrity of systems of internal control
that support business decisions and governance of the organization.
COSO is pleased to present the updated Internal ControlIntegrated Framework

(Framework). COSO believes the Framework will enable organizations to effectively
and efficiently develop and maintain systems of internal control that can enhance the
likelihood of achieving the entitys objectives and adapt to changes in the business and
operating environments.
The experienced reader will find much that is familiar in the Framework, which builds
on what has proven useful in the original version. It retains the core definition of internal
control and the five components of internal control. The requirement to consider the five
components to assess the effectiveness of a system of internal control remains funda-
mentally unchanged. Also, the Framework continues to emphasize the importance of
management judgment in designing, implementing, and conducting internal control, and
in assessing the effectiveness of a system of internal control.
At the same time, the Framework includes enhancements and clarifications that are
intended to ease use and application. One of the more significant enhancements is
the formalization of fundamental concepts that were introduced in the original frame-
work. In the Framework, these concepts are now principles, which are associated with
the five components, and which provide clarity for the user in designing and imple-
menting systems of internal control and for understanding requirements for effective
internalcontrol.
The Framework has been enhanced by expanding the financial reporting category of
objectives to include other important forms of reporting, such as non-financial and
internal reporting. Also, the Framework reflects considerations of many changes in the
business and operating environments over the past several decades, including:
Expectations for governance oversight
Globalization of markets and operations
Changes and greater complexities in business
Demands and complexities in laws, rules, regulations, and standards
Expectations for competencies and accountabilities
Use of, and reliance on, evolving technologies
Expectations relating to preventing and detecting fraud
Internal Control Integrated Framework May 2013 i

An Executive Summary provides a high-level overview intended for the board of direc-
tors, chief executive officer, and other senior management. This Framework and Appen-
dices publication sets out the Framework, including the definition of internal control,
requirements for effective internal control including components and relevant principles,
and direction for all levels of management in designing, implementing, and conducting
internal control and in assessing its effectiveness. Included within the Framework and
Appendices publication are ten chapters that constitute theFramework.
Appendices within the Framework and Appendices publication provide reference, but
are not considered a part of the Framework. The Illustrative Tools for Assessing Effec-
tiveness of a System of Internal Control provides templates and scenarios that may be
useful in applying the Framework.
In addition to the Framework, Internal Control over External Financial Reporting: A

Compendium of Approaches and Examples has been published concurrently to provide
practical approaches and examples that illustrate how the components and principles
set forth in this Framework can be applied in preparing external financial statements.
COSO previously issued Guidance on Monitoring Internal Control Systems to assist

organizations in understanding and applying monitoring activities within a system
of internal control. While this guidance was prepared to help in applying the original
framework, COSO believes that it has similar applicability to the updated Framework.
COSO may, in the future, issue other documents to provide assistance in applying the
Framework. However, neither the Internal Control over External Financial Reporting: A
Compendium of Approaches and Examples, Guidance on Monitoring Internal Control
Systems, nor any other past or future guidance takes precedence over the Framework.
Among other publications published by COSO is the Enterprise Risk Management

Integrated Framework (ERM Framework). The ERM Framework and the Framework
are intended to be complementary, and neither supersedes the other. Yet, while these
frameworks are distinct and provide a different focus, they do overlap. The ERM
Framework encompasses internal control, with several portions of the text of the original
framework reproduced within that document. The ERM Framework remains a viable
and suitable framework for designing, implementing, and conducting and assessing the
effectiveness of enterprise risk management.
Finally, the COSO Board would like to thank PwC and the Advisory Council for their
contributions in developing the Framework and related documents. Their full consid-
eration of input provided by many stakeholders and their insight were instrumental in
ensuring that the core strengths of the original framework have been preserved, clari-
fied, and strengthened.
David L. Landsittel
COSO Chair
ii Internal Control Integrated Framework May 2013

1. Definition of Internal Control
The purpose of this Internal ControlIntegrated Framework (Framework) is to help
management better control the organization and to provide a board of directors1 with
an added ability to oversee internal control. A system of internal control allows man-
agement to stay focused on the organizations pursuit of its operations and financial
performance goals, while operating within the confines of relevant laws and minimizing
surprises along the way. Internal control enables an organization to deal more effec-
tively with changing economic and competitive environments, leadership, priorities, and
evolving business models.
Understanding Internal Control

Internal control is defined as follows:
Internal control is a process, effected by an entitys board of directors, manage-

ment, and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding
the achievement of objectives relating to operations, reporting, and compliance.
This definition emphasizes that internal control is:
Geared to the achievement of objectives in one or more separate but overlap-

ping categoriesoperations, reporting, and compliance
A process consisting of ongoing tasks and activitiesa means to an end, not

an end in itself
Effected by peoplenot merely about policy and procedure manuals,

systems, and forms, but about people and the actions they take at every level
of an organization to effect internal control
Able to provide reasonable assurancebut not absolute assurance, to an

entitys senior management and board of directors
Adaptable to the entity structureflexible in application for the entire entity or

for a particular subsidiary, division, operating unit, or business process
This definition of internal control is intentionally broad for two reasons. First, it captures
important concepts that are fundamental to how organizations design, implement, and
conduct internal control and assess effectiveness of their system of internal control,
providing a basis for application across various types of organizations, industries, and
geographic regions. Second, the definition accommodates subsets of internal control.
Those who want to may focus separately, for example, on internal control over reporting
or controls relating to complying with laws and regulations. Similarly, a directed focus
on controls in particular units or activities of an entity can be accommodated.
1 The Framework uses the term board of directors, which encompasses the governing body, including the
board, board of trustees, general partners, owner, or supervisory board.
Internal Control Integrated Framework May 2013 1

Framework | Control Environment Risk Assessment Control Activities Information and Communication Monitoring Activities
It also provides flexibility in application, allowing an organization to sustain internal

control across the entire entity; at a subsidiary, division, or operating unit level; or within
a function relevant to the entitys operations, reporting, or compliance objectives, based
on the entitys specific needs or circumstances.
Geared to the Achievement of Objectives

The Framework sets forth three categories of objectives, which allow organizations to
focus on separate aspects of internal control:
Operations ObjectivesThese pertain to effectiveness and efficiency of the

entitys operations, including operational and financial performance goals, and
safeguarding assets against loss.
Reporting ObjectivesThese pertain to internal and external financial and

non-financial reporting and may encompass reliability, timeliness, trans-
parency, or other terms as set forth by regulators, standard setters, or the
entityspolicies.
Compliance ObjectivesThese pertain to adherence to laws and regulations

to which the entity is subject.
These distinct but overlapping categoriesa particular objective can fall under more
than one categoryaddress different needs and may be the direct responsibility of
different individuals. The three categories also indicate what can be expected from
internalcontrol.
A system of internal control is expected to provide an organization with reasonable

assurance that those objectives relating to external reporting and compliance with laws
and regulations will be achieved. Achieving those objectives, which are based largely on
laws, rules, regulations, or standards established by legislators, regulators, and stan-
dard setters, depends on how activities within the entitys control are performed. Gener-
ally, management and/or the board have greater discretion in setting internal reporting
objectives that are not driven primarily by such external parties. However, the organiza-
tion may choose to align its internal and external reporting objectives to allow internal
reporting to better support the entitys external reporting.
Achievement of some operations objectivessuch as a particular return on investment,

market share, or maintaining safe operationsis not always within the organizations
control. For instance, suppose an airline has specified an objective to depart 90% of
all flights on time. Adverse weather such as hurricanes and snowstorms are external
events beyond managements control that have the potential to significantly impact
the achievement of that objective. For these types of operations objectives, systems of
internal control can only provide reasonable assurance that management and the board
are made aware, in a timely manner, of the extent to which the entity is moving toward
those objectives.
Where external events are unlikely to have a significant impact on the achievement
of specified operations objectives or where the organization can reasonably predict
the nature and timing of external events and mitigate the impact to an acceptable
level, the entity may be able to attain reasonable assurance that these objectives can
2 Internal Control Integrated Framework May 2013

Definition of Internal Control
be achieved. For instance, suppose management specifies an objective to conduct

routine servicing of equipment every 500 hours of operation. Management believes that
achievement of this objective is largely within its control, while recognizing that there
may be external eventssuch as a pandemic that could cause significant reductions in
the workforce and related reductions in maintenance hoursthat have the potential to
impact the achievement of the objective, but that are unlikely to occur.
A Process
Internal control is not one event or circumstance, but a dynamic and iterative process2
actions that permeate an entitys activities and that are inherent in the way management
runs the entity. Embedded within this process are controls consisting of policies and
procedures. These policies reflect management or board statements of what should be
done to effect internal control. Such statements may be documented, explicitly stated in
other management communications, or implied through management actions and deci-
sions. Procedures consist of actions that implement a policy.
Business processes, which are conducted within or across operating units or functional
areas, are managed through the fundamental management activities, such as planning,
executing, and checking. Internal control is integrated with these processes. Internal
control embedded within these business processes and activities are likely more effec-
tive andefficient than stand-alone controls.
Effected by People
Internal control is effected by the board of directors, management, and other personnel.
It is accomplished by the people of an organization, by what they do and say. People
establish the entitys objectives and put actions in place to achieve specified objectives.
The boards oversight responsibilities include providing advice and direction to manage-
ment, constructively challenging management, approving policies and transactions,
and monitoring managements activities. Consequently, the board of directors is an
important element of internal control. The board and senior management establish the
tone for the organization concerning the importance of internal control and the expected
standards of conduct across the entity.
Issues arise every day in managing an entity. People may not fully understand the nature
of such issues or alternatives available to them, communicate effectively, or perform
consistently. Each individual brings to the workplace a unique background and ability,
and each has different needs and priorities. These individual differences can be inher-
ently valuable and beneficial to innovation and productivity, but if not properly aligned
with the entitys objectives they can be counterproductive. Yet, people must know their
responsibilities and limits of authority. Accordingly, a clear and close linkage needs to
exist between peoples roles and responsibilities and the way in which these duties are
communicated, carried out, and aligned with the entitys objectives.
2 Although referred to as a process, internal control comprises many processes.

Provides Reasonable Assurance

An effective system of internal control provides management and the board of directors
with reasonable assurance regarding achievement of an entitys objectives. The term
reasonable assurance rather than absolute assurance acknowledges that limitations
exist in all systems of internal control, and that uncertainties and risks may exist, which
no one can confidently predict with precision. Absolute assurance is not possible.
Reasonable assurance does not imply that an entity will always achieve its objectives.
Effective internal control increases the likelihood of an entity achieving its objectives.
However, the likelihood of achievement is affected by limitations inherent in all systems
of internal control, such as human error, the uncertainty inherent in judgment, and
the potential impact of external events outside managements control. Additionally, a
system of internal control can be circumvented if people collude. Further, if manage-
ment is able to override controls, the entire system may fail. Even though an entitys
system of internal control should be designed to prevent and detect collusion, human
error, and management override, an effective system of internal control can experience
afailure.
Adaptable to the Entity Structure

Entities may be structured along various dimensions. The management operating model
may follow product or service lines, and reporting may be done for a consolidated
entity, division, or operating unit, with geographic markets providing for further subdivi-
sions or aggregations of performance. The management operating model may utilize
outsourced service providers to support the achievement of objectives.
The legal entity structure is typically designed to follow regulatory reporting require-
ments, limit risk, or provide tax benefits. Often the organization of legal entities is quite
different from the management operating model used to manage operations, allocate
resources, measure performance, and report results.
Internal control can be applied, based on managements decisions and in the context of
legal or regulatory requirements, to the management operating model, legal entity struc-
ture, or a combination of these.

2. Objectives, Components, and
Principles
Introduction
An organization adopts a mission and vision, sets strategies, establishes objectives it
wants to achieve, and formulates plans for achieving them. Objectives may be set for
an entity as a whole or be targeted to specific activities within the entity. Though many
objectives are specific to a particular entity, some are widely shared. For example,
objectives common to most entities are sustaining organizational success, reporting to
stakeholders, recruiting and retaining motivated and competent employees, achieving
and maintaining a positive reputation, and complying with laws and regulations.
Supporting the organization in its efforts to achieve objectives are five components of
internal control:
Control Environment
Risk Assessment
Control Activities
Information and Communication
Monitoring Activities
These components are relevant to an entire entity and to the entity level, its subsidiaries,
divisions, or any of its individual operating units, functions, or other subsets of the entity.
Relationship of Objectives, Components, and the Entity

A direct relationship exists between objectives, which are what an entity strives to
achieve, components, which represent what is required to achieve the
objectives, and entity structure (the operating units, legal entities, and
other structures). The relationship can be depicted in the form of a cube.
The three categories of objectives are represented by

thecolumns.
The five components are represented by the rows.
The entity structure, which represents the overall entity, divisions,

subsidiaries, operating units, or functions, including business
processes such as sales, purchasing, production, and market-
ing and to which internal control relates, are depicted by the third
dimension of the cube.3
3 Throughout the Framework, the term the entity and its subunits refers collectively to the
overall entity, divisions, subsidiaries, operating units, and functions.

Each component cuts across and applies to all three categories of objectives. For
example, attracting, developing, and retaining competent people who are able to
conduct internal controlpart of the control environment componentis relevant to all
three objectives categories.
The three categories of objectives are not parts or units of the entity. For instance,
operations objectives relate to the efficiency and effectiveness of operations, not
specific operating units or functions such as sales, marketing, procurement, or
humanresources.
Accordingly, when considering the category of objectives related to reporting, for

example, knowledge of a wide array of information about the entitys operations is
needed. In that case, focus is on the middle column of the modelreporting objec-
tivesrather than on the operations objectives category.
Internal control is a dynamic, iterative, and integrated process. For example, risk
assessment not only influences the control environment and control activities, but also
may highlight a need to reconsider the entitys requirements for information and com-
munication, or for its monitoring activities. Thus, internal control is not a linear process
where one component affects only the next. It is an integrated process in which compo-
nents can and will impact another.
No two entities will, or should, have the same system of internal control. Entities, objec-
tives, and systems of internal control differ by industry and regulatory environment, as
well as by internal considerations such as the size, nature of the management operat-
ing model, tolerance for risk, reliance on technology, and competence and number of
personnel. Thus, while all entities require each of the components to maintain effective
internal control over their activities, one entitys system of internal control will look differ-
ent from anothers.
Objectives
Management, with board oversight, sets entity-level objectives that align with the
entitys mission, vision, and strategies. These high-level objectives reflect choices made
by management and board of directors about how the organization seeks to create, pre-
serve, and realize value for its stakeholders. Such objectives may focus on the entitys
unique operations needs, or align with laws, rules, regulations, and standards imposed
by legislators, regulators, and standard setters, or some combination of the two.
Setting objectives is a prerequisite to internal control and a key part of the management
process relating to strategic planning.
Individuals who are part of the system of internal control need to understand the overall
strategies and objectives set by the organization. As part of internal control, manage-
ment specifies suitable objectives so that risks to the achievement of such objectives
can be identified and assessed. Specifying objectives includes the articulation of spe-
cific, measurable or observable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound objectives.

Objectives, Components, and Principles
However there may be instances where an entity might not explicitly document an
objective. Objectives specified in appropriate detail can be readily understood by the
people who are working toward achieving them.
Categories of Objectives
The Framework groups entity objectives into the three categories of operations, report-
ing, and compliance.
Operations Objectives
Operations objectives relate to the achievement of an entitys basic mission and vision
the fundamental reason for its existence. These objectives vary based on manage-
ments choices relating to the management operating model, industry considerations,
and performance. Entity-level objectives cascade into related sub-objectives for opera-
tions within divisions, subsidiaries, operating units, and functions, directed at enhancing
effectiveness and efficiency in moving the entity toward its ultimate goal.
As such, operations objectives may relate to improving financial performance, produc-

tivity (e.g., avoiding waste and rework), quality, environmental practices, innovation, and
customer and employee satisfaction. These objectives pertain to all types of entities.
For example, a for-profit entity may focus on revenue, profitability, return on assets, and
liquidity. In contrast, a not-for-profit entity, though certainly concerned with revenues or
levels of spending, may focus more on increasing donor participation. A governmental
agency may focus on achieving the mission established by the legislature or govern-
ing body, by effectively and efficiently managing specific government programs and
its spending in line with the designated purposes of its appropriators to ensure objec-
tives are supported. If an entitys operations objectives are not well conceived or clearly
specified, its resources may be misdirected.
Safeguarding of Assets
The operations category of objectives includes safeguarding of assets, in other words,

protecting and preserving entity assets. For instance, an entity may set objectives
relating to the prevention of loss of assets and the timely detection and reporting of any
such losses. These objectives form the basis of assessing risk relating to safeguarding
of assets and selecting and developing controls needed to mitigate such risk.
The efficient use of an entitys assets and prevention of loss through waste, inefficiency,
or poor business decisions (e.g., selling product at too low a price, extending credit to
bad risks, failing to retain key employees, allowing patent infringement to occur, incur-
ring unforeseen liabilities) relate to broader operations objectives and are not a specific
consideration relating to safeguarding of assets.
Laws, rules, regulations, and external standards have created an expectation that
management reporting on internal control includes controls relating to preventing and
detecting unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of entity assets. In addition,
some entities consider safeguarding of assets a separate category of objective, and that
view can be accommodated within the application of the Framework.

Reporting Objectives
Reporting objectives pertain to the preparation of reports for use by organizations and
stakeholders. Reporting objectives may relate to financial or non-financial reporting
and to internal or external reporting. Internal reporting objectives are driven by internal
requirements in response to a variety of potential needs such as the entitys strategic
directions, operating plans, and performance metrics at various levels. External report-
ing objectives are driven primarily by regulations and/or standards established by regu-
lators and standard-setting bodies.
External Financial Reporting ObjectivesEntities need to achieve external

financial reporting objectives to meet obligations to and expectations of stake-
holders. Financial statements are necessary for accessing capital markets
and may be critical to being awarded contracts or in dealing with suppliers
and vendors. Investors, analysts, and creditors often rely on an entitys exter-
nal financial statements to assess its performance against peers and alterna-
tive investments. Management may also be required to publish financial state-
ments using objectives set forth by rules, regulations, and external standards.
External Non-Financial Reporting ObjectivesManagement may report exter-

nal non-financial information in accordance with laws, rules, regulations, stan-
dards, or other frameworks. Non-financial reporting requirements as set forth
by regulations and standards for management reporting on the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting are part of external non-financial
reporting objectives. For purposes of the Framework, external reporting in the
absence of a law, rule, regulation, standard, or framework represents external
communication.
Internal Financial and Non-Financial Reporting ObjectivesInternal reporting

to management and the board of directors includes information deemed nec-
essary to manage the organization. It supports decision making and assess-
ment of the entitys activities and performance. Internal reporting objectives
are based on preferences and judgments of management and the board.
Internal reporting objectives vary among entities because different organiza-
tions have different strategic directions, operating plans, and expectations.

Relationship within Reporting Category of Objectives
The overall relationship between the four sub-categories of reporting objectives is

shown in the graphic below.
Reporting objectives are different from the Information and Communication component
of internal control. Management establishes, with board oversight, reporting objectives
when the organization needs reasonable assurance of achieving a particular report-
ing objective. In these situations all five components of internal control are needed.
For instance, in preparing internal non-financial reporting to the board on the status of
merger integration efforts, the organization specifies internal reporting objectives (e.g.,
prepares reliable, relevant, and useful reports), assigns competent individuals, assesses
risks relating to specified objectives, selects and develops controls within the five com-
ponents necessary to mitigate such risks, and monitors components of internal control
supporting the specified non-financial reporting objective.
In contrast, the Information and Communication component supports the functioning of

all components of reporting objectives, as well as operations and compliance objec-
tives. For instance, controls within Information and Communication support the prepa-
ration of the above report, helping to provide relevant and quality information underlying
the report, but these controls are only part of the overall system of internal control.
Compliance Objectives
Entities must conduct activities, and often take specific actions, in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations. As part of specifying compliance objectives, the orga-
nization needs to understand which laws, rules and regulations apply across the entity.
Many laws and regulations are generally well known, such as those relating to human
resources, taxation, and environmental compliance, but others may be more obscure,
such as those that apply to an entity conducting operations in a remote foreign territory.

Laws and regulations establish minimum standards of conduct expected of the entity.
The organization is expected to incorporate these standards into the objectives set for
the entity. Some organizations will set objectives to a higher level of performance than
established by laws and regulations. In setting those objectives, management is able
to exercise discretion relative to the performance of the entity. For instance, a particu-
lar law may limit minors working outside school hours to eighteen hours in a school
week. However, a retail food service company may choose to limit its minor-age staff to
working fifteen hours per week.
For purposes of the Framework, compliance with an entitys internal policies and pro-
cedures, as opposed to compliance with external laws and regulations as discussed
above, relates to operations objectives.
Overlap of Objectives Categories

An objective in one category may overlap or support an objective in another. For
example, closing financial reporting period within five workdays may be a goal sup-
porting primarily an operations objectiveto support management in reviewing busi-
ness performance. But it also supports timely reporting and filings with regulatory
agencies.
The category in which an objective falls may vary depending on the circumstances. For
instance, controls to prevent theft of assetssuch as maintaining a fence around inven-
tory, or having a gatekeeper to verify proper authorization of requests for movement
of goodsfall under the operations category. These controls may not be relevant to
reporting where inventory losses are detected after a periodic physical inspection and
recorded in the financial statements. However, if for reporting purposes management
relies solely on perpetual inventory records, as may be the case for interim or internal
financial reporting, the physical security controls would then also fall within the report-
ing category. These physical security controls, along with controls over the perpetual
inventory records, are needed to achieve reporting objectives. A clear understanding is
needed of the entitys business processes, policies and procedures, and the respective
impact on each category of objectives.
Basis of Objectives Categories

Some objectives are derived from the regulatory or industry environments in which the
entity operates. For example:
Some entities submit information to environmental agencies.
Publicly traded companies file information with securities regulators.
Universities report grant expenditures to government agencies.
These objectives are established largely by law or regulation, and fall into the category
of compliance, external reporting, or, in these examples, both.
10 Internal Control Integrated Framework May 2013 FRM#01

Conversely, operations and internal reporting objectives are based more on the orga-
nizations preferences, judgments, and choices. These objectives vary widely among
entities simply because informed and competent people may select different objectives.
For example, one organization might choose to be an early adopter of emerging tech-
nologies in developing new products, whereas another might be a quick follower, and
yet another a late adopter. These choices would reflect the entitys strategies and the
competencies, technologies, and controls within its research and development function.
Consequently, no one formulation of objectives can be optimal for all entities.
Objectives and Sub-Objectives

Management links specified entity-level objectives to more specific sub-objectives that
cascade throughout the organization. Sub-objectives also are established as part of
or flowing from the strategy-setting process, and relate to the entity and its subunits
and functional activities such as sales, production, engineering, marketing, produc-
tivity, employee engagement, innovation, and information technology. Management
aligns these sub-objectives with entity-level objectives and coordinates these across
theentity.
Where entity-level objectives are consistent with prior practice and performance, the
linkage between activities is usually known. Where objectives depart from an entitys
past practices, management addresses the linkages or accepts increased risks. For
example, an entity-level objective relating to customer satisfaction depends on linked
sub-objectives dealing with the introduction of services that use a newer and less
proven technology infrastructure. These sub-objectives might need to be substantially
changed if past practice used older, proven technologies.
Sub-objectives for operating units and functional activities also need to be specific,
measurable or observable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound. In addition, they must
be readily understood by the people who are working toward achieving them. Manage-
ment and other personnel require a mutual understanding of both what is to be accom-
plished and the means of determining to what extent it is accomplished in order to
ensure individual and team accountability.
Entities may specify multiple sub-objectives for each activity, flowing both from the
entity-level objectives and from established standards relating to compliance and
reporting objectives, as deemed suitable in the circumstances. For example, procure-
ment operations objectives may be to:
Purchase goods that meet engineering specifications
Purchase goods from companies that meet environmental, health, and safety
specifications (e.g., no child labor, good working conditions)
Negotiate acceptable prices and other terms
As another example, when specifying suitable external reporting objectives relating

to the preparation of external financial statements, management considers account-
ing standards, financial statement assertions, and qualitative characteristics that are

applicable to the entity and its subunits. For example, management may set an entity-
level external financial reporting objective as follows: Our company prepares reliable
financial statements reflecting transactions and events in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.
Management also specifies suitable sub-objectives for divisions, subsidiaries, operat-

ing units, and functions with sufficient clarity to support entity-level objectives. For
instance, management specifies sub-objectives for sales transactions that apply appro-
priate accounting standards based on the circumstances and that address relevant
financial statement assertions and qualitative characteristics, such as:
All sales transactions that occur are recorded on a timely basis.
Sales transactions are recorded at correct amounts in the right accounts.
Sales transactions are accurately and completely summarized in the entitys

books and records.
Presentation and disclosures relating to sales are properly described, sorted,

and classified.
Components and Principles of Internal Control

The Framework sets out five components of internal control and seventeen principles
representing the fundamental concepts associated with components. These compo-
nents and principles of internal control are suitable for all entities. All seventeen prin-
ciples apply to each category of objective, as well as to objectives and sub-objectives
within a category. For instance, an entity may apply the Framework relative to complying
with a specific law regarding commercial arrangements with foreign entities, a sub-
category of the compliance category of objectives.
Below is a summary of each of the five components of internal control and the prin-
ciples relating to each component. Each of the principles is covered in the respective
component chapters.4
Control Environment
The control environment is the set of standards, processes, and structures that provide
the basis for carrying out internal control across the organization. The board of direc-
tors and senior management establish the tone at the top regarding the importance of
internal control and expected standards of conduct.
There are five principles relating to Control Environment:
1. The organization demonstrates a commitment to integrity and ethical values.
2. The board of directors demonstrates independence from management and exer-

cises oversight of the development and performance of internal control.
4 For purposes of the Framework, when describing principles the term organization is used to capture the
meaning of, collectively, the board of directors, management, and other personnel. Typically the board of
directors serves in an oversight capacity within this term.

3. Management establishes, with board oversight, structures, reporting lines, and

appropriate authorities and responsibilities in the pursuit of objectives.
4. The organization demonstrates a commitment to attract, develop, and retain com-

petent individuals in alignment with objectives.
5. The organization holds individuals accountable for their internal control responsibili-
ties in the pursuit of objectives.
Risk Assessment
Risk assessment involves a dynamic and iterative process for identifying and ana-
lyzing risks to achieving the entitys objectives, forming a basis for determining how
risks should be managed. Management considers possible changes in the external
environment and within its own business model that may impede its ability to achieve
itsobjectives.
There are four principles relating to Risk Assessment:
6. The organization specifies objectives with sufficient clarity to enable the identifica-
tion and assessment of risks relating to objectives.
7. The organization identifies risks to the achievement of its objectives across

the entity and analyzes risks as a basis for determining how the risks should
bemanaged.
8. The organization considers the potential for fraud in assessing risks to the achieve-
ment of objectives.
9. The organization identifies and assesses changes that could significantly impact the
system of internal control.
Control Activities
Control activities are the actions established by policies and procedures to help ensure
that management directives to mitigate risks to the achievement of objectives are
carried out. Control activities are performed at all levels of the entity and at various
stages within business processes, and over the technology environment.
There are three principles relating to Control Activities:
10. The organization selects and develops control activities that contribute to the miti-
gation of risks to the achievement of objectives to acceptable levels.
11. The organization selects and develops general control activities over technology to
support the achievement of objectives.
12. The organization deploys control activities through policies that establish what is
expected and procedures that put policies into action.


Information is necessary for the entity to carry out internal control responsibilities in
support of achievement of its objectives. Communication occurs both internally and
externally and provides the organization with the information needed to carry out
day-to-day controls. Communication enables personnel to understand internal control
responsibilities and their importance to the achievement of objectives.
There are three principles relating to Information and Communication:
13. The organization obtains or generates and uses relevant, quality information to
support the functioning of internal control.
14. The organization internally communicates information, including objectives

and responsibilities for internal control, necessary to support the functioning of
internalcontrol.
15. The organization communicates with external parties regarding matters affecting
the functioning of internal control.
Ongoing evaluations, separate evaluations, or some combination of the two are used
to ascertain whether each of the five components of internal control, including controls
to effect the principles within each component, is present and functioning. Findings are
evaluated and deficiencies are communicated in a timely manner, with serious matters
reported to senior management and to the board.
There are two principles relating to Monitoring Activities:
16. The organization selects, develops, and performs ongoing and/or separate evalu-
ations to ascertain whether the components of internal control are present and
functioning.
17. The organization evaluates and communicates internal control deficiencies in a

timely manner to those parties responsible for taking corrective action, including
senior management and the board of directors, as appropriate.

Internal Control and the Management Process

Because internal control is a part of managements overall responsibility, the five com-
ponents are discussed in the context of the management of the entity. Not every deci-
sion or action of management, however, is part of internal control:
Having a board that comprises directors with sufficient independence from

management and that carries out its oversight role is part of internal control.
However, many decisions reached by the board are not part of internal
control; for example approving a particular mission or vision. The board also
fulfills a variety of governance responsibilities in addition to its responsibilities
for oversight of internal control.
Making strategic decisions impacting the entitys objectives is not part of

internal control. An organization may apply enterprise risk management
approaches or other approaches in setting objectives.
Setting the overall level of acceptable risk and associated risk appetite5 is
part of strategic planning and enterprise risk management, not part of internal
control. Similarly, setting risk tolerance levels in relation to specific objectives
is also not part of internal control.
Selecting and developing controls designed to mitigate risks based on the

organizations risk assessment process is a part of internal control; however,
choosing which risk response is preferred to address specific risks is not part
of internal control.
Internal Control and Objective-Setting

It is not practical to design and implement a system of internal control unless the
entitys objectives are established, set, and specified for the organization. Establishing
and setting objectives and related sub-objectives are parts of or flow from the strategic-
planning process, with consideration given to laws, rules, regulations, and standards as
well as managements own choices. However, internal control cannot dictate or estab-
lish what an entitys objectives should be.
As part of internal control, an organization specifies objectives by:
Articulating and codifying specific, measurable or observable, attainable,

relevant and time-based objectives
Assessing suitability of objectives and sub-objectives for internal control

based on facts, circumstances, and established laws, rules, regulations,
andstandards
Communicating objectives and sub-objectives throughout the entity
5 Risk appetite is defined as the amount of risk, on a broad level, an entity is willing to accept in pursuit of
its mission/vision.

The following diagram illustrates establishing and setting objectives as part of the
management process outside of internal control, and specifying and using objec-
tives as part of internal control in the context of an external financial reporting and an
operationsobjective.
External Parties Part of the Part of Internal Control

Management Process
Establish Set Specify Use
External parties establish Set strategic objectives Articulate specific, mea- Use specified objec-
laws, rules, and stan- and select strategy surable or observable, tives and sub-objectives
dards (where applicable) within the context of attainable, relevant and as the basis for risk
relating to compliance an entitys established time-based objectives assessment.
and external financial mission or vision. and sub-objectives.
reporting objectives. Set entity-wide objec- Assess and affirm
tives and develop risk tol- suitability of objectives
erances based on entity and sub-objectives for
requirements suitable in internal control based
the circumstances. on facts, circumstances,
and established laws,
Align objectives with
rules, and standards.
entity strategy and
overall risk appetite. Communicate objec-
tives and sub-objectives
Set objectives and sub-
throughout the entity and
objectives for the entity
its subunits.
and its subunits suitable
in those circumstances.
Examples of Financial Reporting Objectives and Sub-Objectives
The Financial Accounting Our company pre- Management assesses Management identifies
Standards Board (FASB) pares reliable financial and affirms that US and assesses risk to pre-
established account- statements reflecting GAAP is suitable in the paring reliable financial
ing principles generally transactions and events circumstances. If not, statements reflecting
accepted in the United in accordance with US management provides activities in accordance
States of America (US GAAP. feedback to the objec- with US GAAP.
GAAP). tive-setting process.
A regulatory body Our company recognizes Operating unit financial Operating unit financial
establishes an account- sales revenue upon management assesses management identifies
ing standard on revenue installation of equipment and affirms suitability and assesses risk to
recognition. for sales-type capital of applicable account- recording revenue on
leases or recognizes ing standards relating equipment sales in accor-
rental revenue over the to all equipment sales. dance with US GAAP.
operating lease term. If not, operating unit
financial management
provides feedback to
the objective-setting
process.
Example of Operations Objectives
Not applicable for opera- Our company seeks to Operating unit manage- Operating unit manage-
tions objectives. improve performance ment assesses suitability ment identifies and
by increasing inventory of operations objectives assesses risk to the
turnover ratio to twelve relating to inventory achievement of an inven-
times per year, recogniz- turnover and customer tory turnover ratio of
ing that lower inventory back-order goals. If not, twelve times per year.
levels may result in more operating unit financial
backorder items for management provides
customers. feedback to the objec-
tive-setting process.

Limitations of Internal Control

The Framework recognizes that while an effective system of internal control provides
reasonable assurance of achieving the entitys objectives, inherent limitations do exist.
Even an effective system of internal control can experience a failure. These limitations
may result from the:
Suitability of objectives established as a precondition to internal control
Reality that human judgment in decision making can be faulty and subject
tobias
Breakdowns that can occur because of human failures such as errors
Ability of management to override internal control
Ability of management, other personnel, and/or third parties to circumvent

controls through collusion
External events beyond the organizations control
These limitations preclude the board and management from having absolute assurance
of the achievement of the entitys objectivesthat is, internal control provides reason-
able but not absolute assurance.

3. Effective Internal Control
Requirements for Effective Internal Control

An effective system of internal control provides reasonable assurance of achievement
of an entitys objectives. Because internal control is relevant both to the entity and its
subunits, an effective system of internal control may relate to a specific part of the orga-
nizational structure. An effective system of internal control reduces, to an acceptable
level, the risk of not achieving an objective relating to one, two, or all three categories. It
requires that:
Each of the five components of internal control and relevant principles is

present and functioning6
The five components are operating together in an integrated manner
In determining whether a system of internal control is effective, management exercises

judgment in assessing whether each of the components and relevant principles is
present and functioning and components are operating together.
When internal control is determined to be effective, senior management and the board
of directors have reasonable assurance of the following categories ofobjectives:
Operationsthe organization:
-- achieves effective and efficient operations when external events are con-
sidered unlikely to have a significant impact on the achievement of objec-
tives or when the organization can reasonably predict the nature and timing
of external events and mitigate the impact to an acceptable level
-- understands the extent to which operations are managed effectively

and efficiently when external events may have a significant impact on
the achievement of objectives and the impact cannot be mitigated to an
acceptable level
Reportingthe organization prepares reports in conformity with applicable

laws, rules, regulations, and standards established by legislators, regula-
tors, and standard setters, or with the entitys specified objectives and
relatedpolicies
Compliancethe organization complies with applicable laws, rules, and

regulations
The Framework sets forth that components and relevant principles are requisite to an
effective system of internal control. It does not prescribe the process for how manage-
ment assesses its effectiveness.
6 Chapter 4, Additional Considerations, introduces points of focus as important characteristics of princi-

ples. The Framework does not require that management assess separately whether points of focus are
inplace.

Effective Internal Control
Suitability and Relevance of Components and

Principles
The Framework views all components of internal control as suitable and relevant to
allentities.
Principles are fundamental concepts associated with components. As such, the Frame-
work views the seventeen principles as suitable to all entities. The Framework presumes
that principles are relevant because they have a significant bearing on the presence
and functioning of an associated component. Accordingly, if a relevant principle is not
present and functioning, the associated component cannot be present and functioning.
There may be a rare industry, operating, or regulatory situation in which management

has determined that a principle is not relevant to a component. Considerations in apply-
ing this judgment may include the entity structure recognizing any legal, regulatory,
industry, or contractual requirements for governance of the entity, and the level of use
and dependence on technology used by the entity. Management must support its deter-
mination that a principle is not relevant with the rationale of how, in the absence of that
principle, the associated component can be present and functioning.
Present and Functioning

The phrase present and functioning applies to components and principles.
Present refers to the determination that components and relevant principles

exist in the design and implementation of the system of internal control to
achieve specified objectives.
Functioning refers to the determination that components and relevant

principles continue to exist in the conduct of the system of internal control to
achieve specified objectives.
In determining whether a component is present and functioning, senior management,

with board of director oversight, needs to determine to what extent relevant principles
are present and functioning. However, a principle being present and functioning does
not imply that the organization strives for the highest level of performance in applying
that particular principle. Rather, management exercises judgment in balancing the cost
and benefit of designing, implementing, and conducting internal control.
Operating Together
The Framework requires that all components operate together in an integrated manner.
Operating together refers to the determination that all five components collectively
reduce, to an acceptable level, the risk of not achieving an objective.
Components are interdependent with a multitude of interrelationships and linkages

among them, particularly the manner in which principles interact within and across
components. Components that are present and functioning capture the inherent

interdependencies and linkages among them. Examples of components operating

together include the following:
The organization establishes expected standards of conduct and sets perfor-

mance measures and incentives within the Control Environment to reduce the
potential for fraudulent behavior and may impact the assessed level of fraud
risk evaluated within Risk Assessment.
The development and deployment of policies and procedures as part of

Control Activities contributes to the mitigation of risks identified and analyzed
within Risk Assessment.
The processing of relevant, quality information within Information and Com-

munication supports deployment of business process and transaction con-
trols within Control Activities and performance of ongoing and separate evalu-
ations of such controls within Monitoring Activities.
The communication of internal control deficiencies to those responsible for

taking corrective actions as part of Monitoring Activities requires a full under-
standing of the entitys structures, reporting lines, authorities and responsi-
bilities as set forth in the Control Environment and as communicated within
Information andCommunication.
Accordingly, management can demonstrate that components operate together when:
Components are present and functioning
Internal control deficiencies aggregated across components do not result in

the determination that one or more major deficiencies exist
Deficiencies in Internal Control

There are many potential sources for identifying internal control deficiencies, including
the entitys monitoring activities, other components, and external parties that provide
input relative to the presence and functioning of components and relevant principles.
The term internal control deficiency refers to a shortcoming in a component or

components and relevant principle(s) that reduces the likelihood of an entity achieving
its objectives. An internal control deficiency or combination of deficiencies that severely
reduces the likelihood that the entity can achieve its objectives is referred to as a major
deficiency. As illustrated below, a major deficiency is a subset of internal control
deficiencies. As such, a major deficiency is by definition also an internal control
deficiency.

Effective Internal Control
When a major deficiency exists, the organization cannot conclude that it has met the
requirements for an effective system of internal control. A major deficiency exists in the
system of internal control when management determines that a component and one
or more relevant principles are not present or functioning or that components are not
operating together.
A major deficiency in one component cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level by

the presence and functioning of another component. Similarly, a major deficiency in a
relevant principle cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level by the presence and func-
tioning of other principles.
In determining whether components and relevant principles are present and function-
ing, management can consider controls to effect principles.7 For instance, in assessing
whether the principle Assesses Fraud Risk may not be present and functioning, the
organization can consider controls to effect other principles, such as those relating to
Establishes Structure, Authority, and Responsibility and Enforces Accountability. By
considering controls initially considered in the context of other principles, manage-
ment may be able to determine that the principle Assesses Fraud Risk is present and
functioning.
Management exercises judgment to assess the severity of an internal control defi-

ciency, or combination of deficiencies, in determining whether components and relevant
principles are present and functioning, and components are operating together, and ulti-
mately in determining the effectiveness of the entitys system of internal control. Further,
these judgments may vary depending on the category of objectives.
Regulators, standard-setting bodies, and other relevant third parties may establish
criteria for defining the severity of, evaluating, and reporting internal control deficiencies.
The Framework recognizes and accommodates their authority and responsibility as
established through laws, rules, regulations, and external standards.
In those instances where an entity is applying a law, rule, regulation, or external stan-
dard, management should use only the relevant criteria contained in those documents
to classify the severity of internal control deficiencies, rather than relying on the classifi-
cations set forth in the Framework. The Framework recognizes that any internal control
deficiency that results in a system of internal control not being effective pursuant to
such criteria would also preclude management from concluding that the entity has met
the requirements for effective internal control in accordance with the Framework (e.g.,
a major non-conformity relating to operations or compliance objectives, or a material
weakness relating to compliance or external reporting objectives).
For internal reporting and operations objectives, senior management, with board of
director oversight, may establish objective criteria for evaluating internal control defi-
ciencies and for how deficiencies should be reported to those responsible for achieving
these objectives.
7 The role of controls and how they effect principles is further described in Chapter 4, Additional
Considerations

Other Considerations
Although the organization may rely on an outsourced service provider to conduct
business processes, policies, and procedures on behalf of the entity, management
retains ultimate responsibility for meeting the requirements for an effective system of
internalcontrol.
Managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control occurs within

the entitys system of internal control. Other parties interacting with the entity, such
as external auditors and regulators, are not part of the entitys system of internal
control and thus cannot be part of managements process for assessing effective
internalcontrol.

4. Additional Considerations
Judgment
The Framework requires judgment in designing, implementing, and conducting internal
control and assessing its effectiveness. The use of judgment enhances managements
ability to make better decisions about internal control, but cannot guarantee perfect
outcomes.
Within the boundaries established by laws, rules, regulations, and standards, manage-
ment exercises judgement in important areas such as:
Applying internal control components relative to categories of objectives
Applying internal control components and principles within the entity structure
Specifying suitable objectives and sub-objectives and assessing risks to

achieving these objectives
Selecting, developing, and deploying controls necessary to effect principles
Assessing whether components are present, functioning, and operating

together
Assessing whether principles are relevant to the entity and present and
functioning
Assessing the severity of one or more internal control deficiencies in accor-

dance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and external standards, or with
the Framework
For example, in preparing financial statements, management exercises judgment in

complying with external financial reporting requirements. Management considers how
identified risks to specified financial reporting objectives and sub-objectives should be
managed. Managements alternatives for responding to risks may be more limited com-
pared with some other categories of objectives. That is, management is less likely to
accept a risk than to reduce the risk. For external financial reporting objectives relating
to financial statements prepared for external purposes, risk acceptance should occur
only when identified risks could not, individually or in aggregate, exceed the risk thresh-
old and result in a material omission or misstatement.
Management also exercises judgment in specifying and using suitable accounting

principles, particularly those relating to subjective measurements and complex transac-
tions. For instance, management exercises judgment in making assumptions and using
data in developing accounting estimates, in applying accounting principles to complex
transactions, and in preparing reliable and transparent presentations and disclosures.
Internal control over external financial reporting addresses the potential for bias in
exercising judgment that could lead to a material omission or misstatement in external
financialreporting.

Points of Focus
The Framework describes points of focus that are important characteristics of prin-
ciples. Management may determine that some of these points of focus are not suitable
or relevant and may identify and consider others based on specific circumstances of
the entity. Points of focus may assist management in designing, implementing, and
conducting internal control and in assessing whether the relevant principles are, in fact,
present and functioning. The Framework does not require that management assess
separately whether points of focus are in place.
Controls to Effect Principles

Embedded within the internal control process are controls, which consist of policies and
procedures. Policies reflect management or board statements of what should be done
to effect control. Procedures are actions that implement policies. Organizations select
and develop controls within each component to effect relevant principles. Controls are
interrelated and may support multiple objectives and principles.
The Framework does not prescribe specific controls that must be selected, developed,
and deployed for an effective system of internal control. That determination is a function
of management judgment based on factors unique to each entity, such as:
Laws, rules, regulations, and standards applicable to the entity
Nature of the entitys business and markets in which it operates
Scope and nature of the management operating model
Competency of the personnel responsible for internal control
Use of and dependence on technology
Managements responses to assessed risks
Management is expected to obtain persuasive evidence to support its determination

that components and relevant principles are present and functioning. Management
considers controls in conjunction with its assessment of components and relevant
principles. Understanding how controls effect principles through their selection, devel-
opment, and deployment can provide persuasive evidence to support managements
assessment of whether the entitys system of internal control is effective. The absence
of controls necessary to effect relevant principles would represent an internal control
deficiency. The Framework allows judgment in assessing the potential impact of a
control deficiency on the presence and functioning of a relevant principle. Management
may consider other controls (whether or not associated with that particular component
or principle) that compensate for an internal control deficiency.
Organizational Boundaries
Many organizations choose to shift some business processes and activities to outside
service providers. This approach has become prevalent because of the benefits of
obtaining access to low-cost human resources, reducing costs in the day-to-day

Additional Considerations
management of certain functions, obtaining access to better processes and systems,

and allowing management to focus more on the entitys mission.
Outsourced service providers can help organizations to perform business processes

such as procurement, payables management, payroll, pension and benefit manage-
ment, investment management, and stock-based compensation programs. Outside
service providers may also perform technology activities that support business pro-
cesses, providing services to procure, manage, and maintain previously internally
managed technology systems. Advances in technology have created cost-saving
opportunities through access to comprehensive architectures providing on-demand and
scalable shared technology that supports more complex and changing business opera-
tions and that may be cost prohibitive for management as an internal investment.
This dependence on outsourced service providers changes the risks of business activi-
ties, increases the importance of the quality of information and communications from
outside the organization, and creates greater challenges in overseeing its activities and
related controls. While management can use others to execute business processes,
activities, and controls for or on behalf of the entity, it retains responsibility for the
system of internal control. For instance, management retains responsibility for specify-
ing objectives, managing associated risks, and selecting, developing, and deploying
control to effect components and relevant principles.
The Framework can be applied to the entire entity regardless of what choices manage-
ment makes about how it will execute business activities that support its objectives,
either directly or through external relationships.
Technology
Technology may be essential to support managements pursuit of the entitys objec-
tives and to better control the organizations activities. The number of entities that use
technology continues to grow as does the extent that technology is used.
Technology is often referred to by other terms, such as management information

systems or information technology. These terms share the ideas of using a combi-
nation of automated and manual processes, and computer hardware and software,
methodologies, and processes. The Framework uses the term technology to refer to
all computerized systems, including software applications running on a computer and
operational control systems.
Technology environments vary significantly in size, complexity, and extent of integration.

They range from large, centralized, and integrated systems to decentralized systems
that operate independently within a specific operating unit. They may involve real-time
processing environments that enable immediate access to information, including mobile
computer applications that can cut across many systems, organizations, and geog-
raphies. Technology enables organizations to process high volumes of transactions,
transform data into information to support sound decision making, share information
efficiently across the entity and with business partners, and secure confidential informa-
tion from inappropriate use. In addition, technology can allow an entity to share opera-
tional and performance data with the public.

Technology innovation creates both opportunities and risks. It can enable the develop-
ment of new business markets and models, generate efficiencies through automation,
and enable entities to do things that were previously hard to imagine. It may increase
complexity, which makes identifying and managing risks more difficult.
The principles presented in the Framework do not change with the application of
technology. This is not to say that technology does not change the internal control
landscape. Certainly, it affects how an organization designs, implements, and conducts
internal control, considering the greater availability of information and the use of auto-
mated procedures, but the same principles remain suitable and relevant.8
Larger versus Smaller Entities

The principles underlying components of internal control are just as applicable for
smaller entities as for larger ones. However, implementation approaches may vary for
smaller entities, regardless of whether the entity is publicly traded, privately held, gov-
ernmental, or not-for-profit. For example, all public companies have boards of directors,
or other similar governing bodies, with oversight responsibilities related to reporting. A
smaller entity may have a less complex management operating model and entity struc-
ture, and more frequent communication with directors, enabling a different approach
to board oversight. Similarly, while many public companies are often required to have a
whistle-blower program, there may be a difference in the reporting procedures between
other types of smaller and larger entities. In a large entity, for example, the volume of
reported events may require initial reporting to an identified internal staff function, but a
smaller entity may allow direct reporting to the audit committee chair.
Smaller entities typically have unique advantages, which can contribute to effective
internal control. These may include a wider span of control by senior management
and greater direct interaction with personnel. For instance, smaller companies may
find informal staff meetings highly effective for communicating information relevant to
operating performance, whereas larger companies may need more formal mechanisms
such as written reports, intranet portals, periodic formal meetings, or conference calls
to communicate similar matters.
Conversely, larger entities may enjoy certain economies of scale, which often affect
support functions. For example, establishing an internal audit function within a smaller,
domestic entity likely would require a larger percentage of the entitys economic
resources than would be the case for a larger, multinational entity. A smaller entity
may not have an internal audit function or might rely on co-sourcing or outsourcing
to provide needed skills, where the larger entitys function might have a significantly
broader range of experienced in-house personnel. But in all likelihood the relative cost
for the smaller entity would be higher than for the larger one.
8 As this is a principles-based framework and because technology is continually evolving, the Framework
does not address specific technologies, such as cloud computing or social media.

Benefits and Costs of Internal Control
Benefits
Internal control provides many benefits to an entity. It provides management and boards
of directors with added confidence regarding the achievement of objectives, it provides
feedback on how a business is functioning, and it helps to reduce surprises. Among the
most significant benefits of effective internal control for many entities is the ability to
meet certain requirements to access capital markets, providing capital-driven innova-
tion and economic growth. Such access of course comes with responsibilities to effect
timely and reliable reporting for shareholders, creditors, capital providers, regulators,
and other third parties with which an entity has direct contractual relationships. For
instance, effective internal control supports reliable external financial reporting, which in
turn enhances investor confidence in providing the requisite capital.
Other benefits of effective internal control include:
Reliable reporting that supports management and board decision making on

matters such as product pricing, capital investment, and resource deployment
Consistent mechanisms for processing transactions, supporting quality of

information and communications across an organization, enhancing speed
and reliability at which transactions are initiated and settled, and providing
reliable recordkeeping and ongoing integrity of data
Increased efficiency within functions and processes
A basis for decisions where highly subjective and substantial judgment

isneeded
Ability and confidence to accurately communicate business performance with

business partners and customers, which supports continuity of relationships
Further, the Framework enables management to enhance efficiency in the design,

implementation, and conduct of a system of internal control. For example:
Understanding the importance of specifying suitable objectives may focus

managements attention on those risks and controls most important to achiev-
ing these objectives.
Focusing on those areas of risk that exceed acceptance levels and need to be
managed across the entity may reduce efforts spent mitigating risks in areas
of lesser significance.
Coordinating efforts for identifying and assessing risks across multiple objec-
tives may reduce the number of discrete risks assessed and mitigated.
Selecting, developing, and deploying controls to effect multiple principles may

also reduce the number of discrete, layered-on controls.
Applying a common languagethe Frameworkencompassing operations,

reporting, and compliance processes and controls may lessen the number of
languages used to describe internal control across the entity.

Entities always have limits on human and capital resources and constraints on how
much they can spend, and therefore they will often consider the costs relative to the
benefits of alternative approaches in managing internal control options.
Costs
Generally, it is easier to deal with the cost aspect in the cost-benefit equation because
in most cases financial costs can be quantified fairly precisely. Usually considered are
all direct costs associated with implementing internal control actions and responses,
plus indirect costs, where practically measurable. Some entities also include opportu-
nity costs associated with use of resources.
Overall, management considers a variety of cost factors in relation to expected benefits

when selecting and developing internal controls. These may include:
Considering the trade-offs between recruiting and retaining staff with a

higher level of competency and the related higher compensation costs. For
instance, a smaller, stable, privately held company may not want to, or be able
to, hire a chief financial officer with the experience of working for a publicly
tradedcompany.
Assessing the efforts required to select, develop, and perform control activi-
ties; the potential incremental efforts that the activity adds to the busi-
ness process; and the efforts to maintain and update the control activity
whenneeded.
Assessing the impacts of added reliance on technology. While the effort to

perform the control and the impact of added technology-based controls on
the business process may be small, the cost associated with selecting, devel-
oping, maintaining, and updating the technology could be substantial.
Understanding how changes in information requirements may call for greater

data collection, processing, and storage that could trigger exponential growth
in data volume. With more data available, an organization faces the challenge
of avoiding information overload by ensuring flow of the right information, in
the right form, at the right level of detail, to the right people, at the right time.
Establishing an information system that balances costs and benefits depends
on thoughtful consideration of information requirements.
Other Considerations in Determining Benefits and Costs

The benefit side of the cost-benefit equation often involves even more subjective evalu-
ation. For example, benefits of effective training programs usually are apparent but
difficult to quantify. Training programs are not often designed to measure the benefits
or to capture the necessary data to evaluate the program. Sales training programs may
not be structured to measure before-and-after employee sales results, making it difficult
to determine whether the training is effective and accomplishing its objectives. Further,
evaluating the benefits in relation to stakeholder expectations may be more difficult to
assess. In many cases, however, the benefit of developing actions within any of the five
components of internal control can be evaluated in the context of the benefit associated
with achievement of the related objective.

The complexity of cost-benefit determinations is compounded by the interrelationship of

controls with business operations. Where controls are integrated with management and
business processes, it is difficult to isolate either their costs or benefits.
It is up to management to decide how an entity evaluates the costs versus benefits of

alternative approaches to implementing a system of internal control, and what action it
ultimately takes. However, cost alone is not an acceptable reason to avoid implement-
ing internal control. The cost versus benefits considerations support managements
ability to develop and maintain a system of internal control that balances the allocation
of human resources in relation to the areas of greatest risk, complexity, or other factors
relevant to the entitys objectives.
Documentation
Entities develop and maintain documentation for their internal control system for a
number of reasons. One is to provide clarity around roles and responsibilities, which
promotes consistency in adhering to the entitys practices, policies, and procedures in
managing the business. Effective documentation assists in capturing the design of inter-
nal control and communicating the who, what, when, where, and why of internal control
execution, and creates standards and expectations of performance and conduct.
Another purpose of documentation is to assist in training new personnel and to offer a
refresher or reference for other employees. Documentation also provides evidence of
the conduct of internal control, enables proper monitoring, and supports reporting on
internal control effectiveness, particularly when evaluated by other parties interacting
with the entity, such as regulators, auditors, or customers. Documentation also provides
a means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having the knowl-
edge within the minds of a limited number of employees.
Management must also determine how much documentation is needed to assess the
effectiveness of internal control. Some level of documentation is always necessary to
assure management that each of the components and relevant principles is present
and functioning and components are operating together. This may include, for example,
documents showing that all shipments are billed or that periodic reconciliations are
performed. Two specific levels of documentation requirements must be considered in
relation to external financial and non-financialreporting:
In cases where management asserts to regulators, shareholders, or other

third parties on the design and operating effectiveness of its system of
internal control, management has a higher degree of responsibility. Typically,
this requires documentation to support the assertion that components and
relevant principles are present and functioning and components are operating
together. The nature and extent of the documentation may be influenced by
the entitys regulatory requirements. This does not necessarily mean that all
documentation is or should be more formal, but that persuasive evidence to
show that the components and relevant principles are present and functioning
and components are operating together is available and appropriate to satisfy
the entitys objectives.

In cases where an external auditor attests to the effectiveness of the system

of internal control, management will likely be expected to provide the auditor
with support for its assertion on the effectiveness of internal control. That
support includes evidence that the system of internal control is properly
designed and operating effectively to provide reasonable assurance of achiev-
ing the entitys objective. In considering the nature and extent of documen-
tation needed, management should remember that the documentation to
support the assertion will likely be used by the external auditor as part of his
or her audit evidence, including the sufficiency of such documentation for
those assertions. Management would also need to document significant judg-
ments, how such decisions were considered, and how the final decisions were
reached.
There may still be instances where controls are informal and implied through manage-
ment actions and decisions. This may be appropriate where management is able to
obtain evidence captured through the normal conduct of the business that indicates
personnel regularly performed those controls. However, it is important to keep in mind
that controls, such as those embedded within monitoring activities or risk assessments,
cannot be performed entirely in the minds of senior management without some docu-
mentation of managements thought process and analyses.
The level and nature of documentation can also vary by the size of the organization and
the complexity of the control. Larger entities usually have a more extensive system of
internal control and greater complexity in business processes, and therefore typically
find it necessary to have more extensive documentation, such as in-depth policy and
procedure manuals, flowcharts of processes, organizational charts, and job descrip-
tions. Smaller entities often find less need for formal documentation. In smaller compa-
nies, typically there are fewer people and levels of management, closer working rela-
tionships, and more frequent interaction, all of which promote communication of what
is expected and what is being done. Consequently, management of a smaller entity can
often determine that controls are in place through direct observation.
Documentation of internal control should meet business needs and be commensu-

rate with circumstances. The extent of documentation supporting the presence and
functioning of each of the components and relevant principles of internal control and
components operating together is a matter of judgment, and should be done with
cost-effectiveness in mind. In addition, the organization may benefit from some form of
formal documentation that enables management to reflect on the rationale for the judg-
ment and alignment with entity objectives.

Components of Internal Control | Control Environment
5. Control Environment
Chapter Summary
The control environment is the set of standards, processes, and structures

that provide the basis for carrying out internal control across the organi-
zation. The board of directors and senior management establish the tone
at the top regarding the importance of internal control including expected
standards of conduct. Management reinforces expectations at the various
levels of the organization. The control environment comprises the integrity
and ethical values of the organization; the parameters enabling the board of
directors to carry out its oversight responsibilities; the organizational struc-
ture and assignment of authority and responsibility; the process for attract-
ing, developing, and retaining competent individuals; and the rigor around
performance measures, incentives, and rewards to drive accountability for
performance. The resulting control environment has a pervasive impact on
the overall system of internal control.
Principles relating to the Control Environment component
1. The organization demonstrates a commitment to integrity and

ethicalvalues.
2. The board of directors demonstrates independence from management

and exercises oversight of the development and performance of
internalcontrol.
3. Management establishes, with board oversight, structures, reporting

lines, and appropriate authorities and responsibilities in the pursuit
ofobjectives.
4. The organization demonstrates a commitment to attract, develop, and

retain competent individuals in alignment withobjectives.
5. The organization holds individuals accountable for their internal control

responsibilities in the pursuit ofobjectives.

Introduction
The control environment is influenced
by a variety of internal and external
factors, including the entitys history,
values, market, and the competitive and
regulatory landscape. It is defined by the
standards, processes, and structures
that guide people at all levels in carry-
ing out their responsibilities for internal
control and making decisions. It creates
the discipline that supports the assess-
ment of risks to the achievement of the
entitys objectives, performance of control
activities, use of information and com-
munication systems, and conduct of
monitoringactivities.
An organization that establishes and maintains a strong control environment positions

itself to be more resilient in the face of internal and external pressures. It does this by
demonstrating behavior consistent with the organizations commitment to integrity and
ethical values, adequate oversight processes and structures, organizational design
that enables the achievement of the entitys objectives with appropriate assignment
of authority and responsibility, a high degree of competence, and a strong sense of
accountability for the achievement of objectives.
Organizational culture supports the control environment insofar as it sets expecta-

tions of behavior that reflects a commitment to integrity and ethical values, oversight,
accountability, and performance evaluation. Establishing a strong culture considers, for
example, how clearly and consistently ethical and behavioral standards are commu-
nicated and reinforced in practice. As such, culture is part of an organizations control
environment, but also encompasses elements of other components of internal control,
such as policies and procedures, ease of access to information, and responsiveness to
results of monitoring activities. Therefore culture is influenced by the control environ-
ment and other components of internal control, and vice versa.

Demonstrates Commitment to Integrity and

Ethical Values
Principle 1: The organization demonstrates a commitment
to integrity and ethical values.
Points of Focus
The following points of focus highlight important characteristics relating to this principle:
Sets the Tone at the TopThe board of directors and management at all
levels of the entity demonstrate through their directives, actions, and behavior
the importance of integrity and ethical values to support the functioning of the
system of internal control.
Establishes Standards of ConductThe expectations of the board of

directors and senior management concerning integrity and ethical values
are defined in the entitys standards of conduct and understood at all levels of
the organization and by outsourced service providers and business partners.
Evaluates Adherence to Standards of ConductProcesses are in place

to evaluate the performance of individuals and teams against the entitys
expected standards of conduct.
Addresses Deviations in a Timely MannerDeviations from the entitys

expected standards of conduct are identified and remedied in a timely and
consistent manner.
Tone at the Top and throughout the Organization

Management and the board of directors9 are expected to lead by example in developing
values, a philosophy, and an operating style for the organization. They take into account
the expectations of the entitys various stakeholders, such as employees, suppliers,
customers, investors, and the wider community. Further, they are influenced by the
social and ethical norms in the markets where the entity operates. In addition to foster-
ing an understanding and adherence to legal and regulatory requirements, manage-
ment and the board take specific measures to set the tone in terms of moral, social,
environmental, or other forms of responsible conduct, such as greenhouse gas emis-
sions reporting, sustainable production processes, or community outreach after natural
disasters. The resulting expectations are expressed to varying degrees of formality in
the form of:
Mission and values statements
Standards or codes of conduct
Policies and practices
9 The Framework uses the term board of directors, which encompasses the governing body, including
board, board of trustees, general partners, owner, or supervisory board.

Operating principles
Directives, guidelines, and other supporting communications
Actions and decisions of management at various levels and of the board

ofdirectors
Attitudes and responses to deviations from expected standards of conduct
Informal and routine actions and communication of leaders at all levels of

theentity
These elements reflect the expectations of integrity and ethical values and the degree to
which they are applied in decisions made at all levels of the organization, by outsourced
service providers, and by business partners (e.g., joint venture partners, strategic alli-
ances). They articulate and reinforce the commitment to doing what is right, not just
what complies with laws and regulations, so that these priorities are understood and
embraced across the organization. The degree to which these expectations are not
only communicated but also applied by senior management and the board as well as all
other levels of leadership within the organization characterizes the tone at the top and
throughout the organization.
Tone is impacted by the operating style and personal conduct of management and
the board of directors, attitudes toward risk, and positions, which may be conserva-
tive or aggressive (e.g., position on estimates, policy choices), and degree of formality
(e.g., in a smaller family business, controls may be more informal), all of which sends a
message to the organization. Personal indiscretions, lack of receptiveness to bad news,
or unfairly balanced compensation practices could impact the culture and ultimately
provide an incentive for inappropriate conduct. In contrast, a history of ethical and
responsible behavior by management and the board of directors and demonstrated
commitment to addressing misconduct send strong messages in support of integ-
rity. Employees are likely to develop the same attitudes about right and wrongand
about risks and controlsas those shown by management. Individual behavior is often
influenced by the knowledge that the chief executive officer has behaved ethically when
faced with a tough business-based or personal decision, and that all managers have
taken timely action to address misconduct.
A consistent tone from the board and senior management through to operating unit
management levels helps establish a common understanding of the values, business
drivers, and expected behavior of employees and partners of the organization. This
includes the various layers and divisions sometimes referred to as tone in the middle
in larger organizations. Such consistency helps pull the organization together in the
pursuit of the entitys objectives. Challenges to such consistency can arise in various
forms. For instance, different markets may call for different motivational approaches,
different degrees of evaluation of suppliers, and different customer service levelshow
management responds to such pressures can create different tones at different levels
of the organization. The messages from management about what is or is not acceptable
may vary to address particular challenges at those different levels, but the more they
remain consistent with the tone at the top, the more homogenous the performance of
internal control responsibilities in the pursuit of the entitys objectives will be.

In some cases, the tone set by the chief executive may result in unintended conse-
quences. Consider, for example, a management team that readily modifies the entitys
standard contractual terms to compete in the local business environment. While such
modification may be seen as positive for purposes of satisfying customer needs and
generating revenuefor instance getting products to customers fasterit may be det-
rimental to the achievement of other objectives, such as complying with product safety
standards, quotas, fair sales practices, or other requirements. Clear guidance and
direction from the top, as well as congruence across different levels of management,
facilitate the achievement of the entitys objectives.
Tone at the top and throughout the organization is fundamental to the functioning of an
internal control system. Without a strong tone at the top to support a strong culture of
internal control, awareness of risk can be undermined, responses to risks may be inap-
propriate, control activities may be ill defined or not followed, information and commu-
nication may falter, and feedback from monitoring activities may not be heard or acted
upon. Therefore tone can be either a driver or a barrier to internal control.
Standards of Conduct
Standards of conduct guide the organization in behavior, activities, and decisions in the
pursuit of objectives by:
Establishing what is right and wrong
Providing guidance for navigating what lies in between, considering associ-

ated risks
Reflecting governing laws, rules, regulations, standards, and other expecta-

tions that the organizations stakeholders may have, such as corporate social
responsibility
Ethical expectations, norms, and customs can vary across borders. Management and
the board of directors or equivalent oversight body establish the standards and mecha-
nisms for the organization to understand and adhere to doing what is right, and define
the process and resources for interpreting and addressing the potential for deviations.
These expectations are translated into an organizational statement of beliefs, values,
and standards of conduct.
The organization demonstrates its commitment to integrity and ethical values by apply-
ing the standards of conduct and continually asking challenging questions, particularly
when faced with difficult decisions. For example, it might ask: Does it infringe on the
organizations standards of conduct? Is it legal? Would we want our shareholders, cus-
tomers, regulators, suppliers, or other stakeholders to know about it? Would it reflect
negatively on the individual or the organization?
Integrity and ethical values are core messages in the organizations communications
and training. For example, a company that regularly receives awards for best places to
work and achieves high employee retention rates typically provides training on corpo-
rate ethical values and organizational culture, with the support of senior management
and the board. The training sessions are conducted quarterly or biannually depending

on the number of new employees hired. During such training, employees learn how the
ethical climate has developed in the organization. In addition, employees are provided
with examples of how integrity and ethical values have assisted in identifying issues and
solving problems and the importance of speaking up and raising concerns.
The organizations standards of conduct are regularly communicated and reinforced

not only to all levels of the organization but also to outsourced service providers. For
example, enforcing internal control for compliance with product safety standards
extends beyond the entity to include joint venture partners, suppliers, sales distributors,
and other outsourced service providers at all locations.
Management retains ultimate accountability for activities it delegates through legal or

contractual arrangements to outsourced service providers. Variables that can affect
the extent of communications, oversight, and other activities needed to ensure that
outsourced service providers and business partners adhere to the entitys standards of
conduct include:
The nature of services outsourced
Extent of alignment of the service providers standards of conduct with those

of the entity
Quality and frequency of the service providers reinforcement and oversight of

adherence to standards of conduct by its personnel
Magnitude and level of complexity of the entitys supply chain and

businessmodel
Inappropriate conduct by outsourced service providers or business partners can

reflect negatively on senior management and impact the entity itself by causing harm
to customers, other stakeholders, or the reputation of the organization, requiring costly
corrective action. Therefore management retains responsibility for the performance of
processes that it has delegated to outside service providers or business partners.
Adherence and Deviations

The established standards of conduct provide the basis for evaluating adherence to
integrity and ethical values across the organization and its outsourced service provid-
ers. They are communicated through the organizations policies and practices, and
employment or service contracts. Some organizations require formal acknowledgment
of receipt and compliance with such standards. To be sure that the standards are being
followed in practice, the actions, decisions, and attitudes of individuals are evaluated by
management or an independent party.
The lack of adherence to standards of conduct often stems from situations such as:
Tone at the top that does not effectively convey expectations regarding adher-
ence to standards
A board of directors that does not provide impartial oversight of senior man-
agements adherence to standards

High decentralization without adequate oversight, leaving senior management

unaware of actions taken at lower levels
Coercion by superiors, peers, or external parties to cut corners or engage in

fraud or other illicit behavior
Performance goals that create incentives or pressures to compromise

ethicalbehavior
Inadequate channels by which employees can safely voice questions

andconcerns
Failure to address non-existent or ineffective controls, which allow opportuni-

ties to conceal poor performance
Inadequate process for the investigation and resolution of alleged misconduct
A weak internal audit function that does not have the ability to detect and
report improper conduct
Penalties for improper conduct that are inconsistently applied, insignificant, or

unpublicized and thus lose their deterrent value
For example, standards of conduct may prohibit practices that could be perceived
as collusion to fix prices, but the organization must establish mechanisms to enforce
standards, such as awareness communications and training, scanning market pricing
activity to identify potential issues, and other measures to prevent or detect a deviation
from the organizations standards of conduct. The organization communicates estab-
lished tolerance levels for deviations. Depending on the significance of the impact to the
organization, the level of remedial action may vary but is applied consistently across the
organization. Evaluations of individual and team adherence to standards of conduct are
part of a systematic process for escalation and resolution of exceptions. The process
requires that management:
Define a set of indicators (e.g., training completion rates, results of monitoring

activities, breaches of confidentiality, collusion with other market participants,
harassment cases) to identify issues and trends related to the standards of
conduct for the organization, including its outsourced service providers. Such
indicators are revisited periodically and refined as necessary to help raise
potential issues early or before they repeat themselves.
Establish continual and periodic compliance procedures to confirm that

expectations and requirements are being met both internally and by out-
sourced service providers.
Identify, analyze, and report business conduct issues and trends to senior
management and the board of directors. Mechanisms for identifying issues
include direct reporting lines, human resource functions, and hotlines. Analy-
sis often requires cross-functional teams to determine the root cause and
what corrective actions are needed.
Consider the strength of leadership in the demonstration of integrity and

ethical values as an evaluated behavior in performance reviews, compensa-
tion, and promotion decisions.

Compile allegations centrally and have these evaluated by individuals inde-

pendent of the allegation.
Conduct and document investigations based on defined investigation

protocols.
Follow through on implementing corrective actions so that issues are rem-

edied in a timely and consistent manner.
Periodically analyze issues to identify trends and root causes, sometimes

calling for modification of policy, communications, training, or controls.
Evaluations may be conducted by an ongoing management process and/or by an inde-

pendent party. Individuals can also assess and report irregularities through formal and
informal communication channels, such as a whistle-blowing program, an ethics hotline,
upward feedback processes, and regular staff meetings.
Deviations from expected standards of conduct are addressed in a timely and consis-
tent manner. Depending on the severity of the deviation determined through the evalu-
ation process, management may take different actions and may also need to consider
local laws, but the standards to which it holds employees remain consistent. Depending
on the severity of the deviation, the employee may be issued a warning and provided
coaching, put on probation, or terminated.

Exercises Oversight Responsibility

Principle 2: The board of directors demonstrates
independence from management and exercises oversight
of the development and performance of internal control.
Points of Focus
Establishes Oversight ResponsibilitiesThe board of directors identifies and

accepts its oversight responsibilities in relation to established requirements
and expectations.
Applies Relevant ExpertiseThe board of directors defines, maintains, and

periodically evaluates the skills and expertise needed among its members to
enable them to ask probing questions of senior management and take com-
mensurate actions.
Operates IndependentlyThe board of directors has sufficient members

who are independent from management and objective in evaluations and
decisionmaking.
Provides Oversight for the System of Internal ControlThe board of direc-

tors retains oversight responsibility for managements design, implementation,
and conduct of internal control:
-- Control EnvironmentEstablishing integrity and ethical values, oversight

structures, authority and responsibility, expectations of competence, and
accountability to the board.
-- Risk AssessmentOverseeing managements assessment of risks to the

achievement of objectives, including the potential impact of significant
changes, fraud, and management override of internal control.
-- Control ActivitiesProviding oversight to senior management in the devel-

opment and performance of control activities.
-- Information and CommunicationAnalyzing and discussing information

relating to the entitys achievement of objectives.
-- Monitoring ActivitiesAssessing and overseeing the nature and scope

of monitoring activities and managements evaluation and remediation
ofdeficiencies.

Authorities and Responsibilities

The board of directors or equivalent oversight body (the board) understands the busi-
ness and expectations of stakeholders, including customers, employees, investors, and
the general public, as well as legal and regulatory requirements and related risks. These
expectations and requirements help shape the objectives of the organization, oversight
responsibilities of the board, and resource requirements.
The board has the authority to hire as well as terminate, as necessary, and establish
succession planning for the chief executive officer or equivalent, who is then charged
with overall execution of the entitys strategy, achievement of its objectives, and effec-
tiveness of the system of internal control. The board is responsible for providing over-
sight and constructive challenge to management.
Depending on the jurisdiction, oversight structures are developed voluntarily or as man-

dated by law, regulation, or standards, such as stock exchange listing standards. While
requirements for privately owned, not-for-profit, or other entities may vary, publicly listed
companies in many jurisdictions require committees at the board level to focus on spe-
cialized topics, such as:
Nomination/governance committees to lead the selection of directors and

oversee the evaluation of senior management and the board of directors
Compensation committees to oversee policies and practices for senior man-

agement compensation, motivating expected behaviors, balancing incentives
for short- and long-term performance, linking performance to strategic objec-
tives, and relating compensation to risk
Audit committees to oversee internal control over financial reporting and the
integrity and transparency of external reporting, including financial reports
Other committees of the board dedicated to addressing specific matters that

are critical to the entitys objectives (e.g., risk committees for financial services
institutions or compliance committees for pharmaceutical companies)
Board oversight is supported by structures and processes that management estab-

lishes at a business-execution level. For instance, management committees may focus
on topics such as information technology, products/services, process, or other aspects
of the business requiring dedicated focus. Management continually assesses risks
posed by the changes in the operating environment (e.g., emergence of new technology,
heightened regulatory requirements, and business model evolution) and addresses the
implications for the internal control system.
While the board retains oversight responsibility, the chief executive officer and senior
management bear direct responsibility for developing and implementing the internal
control system. Depending on the type of organization and its strategy, structure, and
objectives, operating units may have more or less autonomy designing the processes
and structures to enable internal control. For example, while one organization may
implement an enterprise resource planning system that standardizes all major pro-
cesses and controls, another organization may leave it to each division to determine and
implement those most suitable to its business activities.

Independence and Relevant Expertise

The board of directors is independent from management and demonstrates relevant
skills and expertise in carrying out its oversight responsibilities. Independence is
demonstrated in the board members objectivity of mind, action, appearance, and fact.
A publicly listed company is typically required to have a majority of its directors be
independent and with no current or recent personal or professional relationship with the
entity. (In some jurisdictions, this is also a requirement for all members of some commit-
tees of the board, such as audit committees.) The factor of independence and relevant
expertise also considers the various board seats held by each of the board members
to limit any bias or conflict of interest that could result from board members sitting on
other company boards.
Because a board must be actively engaged at all times and be prepared to question
and scrutinize managements activities, present alternative views, and have the courage
to act in the face of obvious or suspected wrongdoing, it is necessary that the board
include independent directors. Certainly, officers and employees bring deep knowledge
of the entity to the table, but independent directors with relevant expertise provide value
through their impartiality, healthy skepticism, and unbiased evaluation.
Privately owned, not-for-profit, or other entities may find it costly or otherwise difficult to
attract competent independent directors. Depending on applicable requirements (some
may not be required to have a board of directors), it may be incumbent on these orga-
nizations to identify professional and personal qualities of the candidate important to
the entity (e.g., understanding of stakeholder perspectives, internal control mindset) and
establish a board with members who demonstrate these qualities. In such rare cases
where entities are unable to have an independent board, they recognize this factor and
evidence different processes and controls that result in adequate oversight.
Board composition is determined considering the mission, values, and various objec-
tives of the entity as well as the skills and expertise needed to oversee, probe, and
evaluate the senior management team most appropriately. The size of the board is
determined by considering the appropriate number of members to adequately facilitate
constructive criticisms, discussions, and decision making. Capabilities expected of all
board members include integrity and ethical standards, leadership, critical thinking, and
problem-solving. Further, the board is expected to include more specialized skills and
expertise, with sufficient overlap to enable discussion and deliberation, such as:
Internal control mindset (e.g., professional skepticism, perspectives on

approaches for identifying and responding to risks, assessing the effective-
ness of the system of internal control)
Market and entity knowledge (e.g., knowledge of products/services, value

chain, customer base, competitors)
Financial expertise, including financial reporting (e.g., accounting standards,

financial reporting requirements)
Legal and regulatory expertise (e.g., understanding of governing laws, rules,

regulations, and standards)

Social and environmental expertise (e.g., understanding of expectations of

social and environmental expectations and activities)
Incentives and compensation (e.g., knowledge of market compensation rates

and practices)
Relevant systems and technology (e.g., understanding critical systems and

technology challenges and opportunities)
The expertise and independence of the board of directors are evaluated regularly in
relation to the evolving needs of the entity. Board members participate in training as
appropriate to keep their skills and expertise current and relevant.
Oversight by the Board of Directors

The board of directors is involved in exercising oversight for the development and per-
formance of internal control through each of the five components of the Framework, as
illustrated in the table below:
Internal Control Component Oversight Activities of the Board
Control Environment Oversee the definition of and apply the standards of conduct of the
organization
Establish the expectations and evaluate the performance, integrity,
and ethical values of the chief executive officer or equivalent role
Establish oversight structures and processes aligned with the objec-
tives of the entity (e.g., board and committees as appropriate with
requisite skills and expertise)
Commission board oversight effectiveness reviews and address
opportunities for improvement
Exercise fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders or other owners
(as applicable) and due care in oversight (e.g., prepare for and
attend meetings, review the entitys financial statements and other
disclosures)
Challenge senior management by asking probing questions about the
entitys plans and performance, and require follow-up and correc-
tive actions, as necessary (e.g., questioning transactions that occur
repeatedly at the end of interim or annual reportingperiods)
Risk Assessment Consider internal and external factors that pose significant risks to
the achievement of objectives; identify issues and trends (e.g., sus-
tainability implications of the entitys business operations)
Challenge managements assessment of risks to the achievement of
objectives, including the potential impact of significant changes (e.g.,
risks associated with entering a new market), and fraud orcorruption
Evaluate how proactively the organization assesses risks relating to
innovations and changes such as those triggered by new technology
or economic and geopolitical shifts

Internal Control Component Oversight Activities of the Board
Control Activities Make specific inquiries of management regarding the selection,

development, and deployment of control activities in significant risk
areas and remediation as necessary (e.g., in response to significant
risks emerging from internal or external factors)
Oversee senior management in its performance of controlactivities
Information and Communication Communicate direction and tone at the top

Obtain, review, and discuss information relating to the entitys
achievement of objectives
Scrutinize information provided and present alternative views
Review disclosures to external stakeholders for completeness,
relevance, and accuracy
Allow for and address upward communication of issues
Monitoring Activities Assess and oversee the nature and scope of monitoring activities, any
management overrides of controls, and managements evaluation and
remediation of deficiencies
Engage with management, internal and external auditors, and others,
as appropriate, to evaluate the level of awareness of the entitys
strategies, specified objectives, risks, and control implications
associated with evolving business, infrastructure, regulations, and
other factors
Transparency obligations reinforce accountability of both senior management and

the board of directors. While disclosure requirements and expectations may differ by
jurisdiction, industry, or otherwise, the board of directors oversees that such needs are
understood and met over time. Reporting to the board of directors occurs both on a
regular and ad hoc basis, as needed, to help the board oversee the issues relating to
the system of internal control.

Establishes Structure, Authority, andResponsibility

Principle 3: Management establishes, with board
oversight, structures, reporting lines, and appropriate
authorities and responsibilities in the pursuit of objectives.
Points of Focus
Considers All Structures of the EntityManagement and the board of direc-

tors consider the multiple structures used (including operating units, legal
entities, geographic distribution, and outsourced service providers) to support
the achievement of objectives.
Establishes Reporting LinesManagement designs and evaluates lines

of reporting for each entity structure to enable execution of authorities and
responsibilities and flow of information to manage the activities of the entity.
Defines, Assigns, and Limits Authorities and ResponsibilitiesManagement

and the board of directors delegate authority, define responsibilities, and use
appropriate processes and technology to assign responsibility and segregate
duties as necessary at the various levels of the organization:
-- Board of DirectorsRetains authority over significant decisions and

reviews managements assignments and limitations of authorities and
responsibilities
-- Senior ManagementEstablishes directives, guidance, and control to

enable management and other personnel to understand and carry out their
internal control responsibilities
-- ManagementGuides and facilitates the execution of senior management

directives within the entity and its subunits
-- PersonnelUnderstands the entitys standard of conduct, assessed risks

to objectives, and the related control activities at their respective levels of
the entity, the expected information and communication flow, and monitor-
ing activities relevant to their achievement of objectives
-- Outsourced Service ProvidersAdheres to managements definition of the

scope of authority and responsibility for all non-employees engaged

Organizational Structures and Reporting Lines

Senior management and the board of directors establish the organizational structure
and reporting lines necessary to plan, execute, control, and periodically assess the
activities of the entity, in other words carry out their oversight responsibilities. They are
supported by requisite processes and technology to provide for clear accountability and
information flows within and across the overall entity and its subunits.
Entities are often structured along various dimensions. In particular:
The management operating model may follow product or service lines to facil-
itate development of new products and services, optimize marketing activities,
rationalize production, and improve customer service or other operational
aspects.
Legal entity structures are often designed to manage business risks, create
favorable tax structures, and empower managers at foreign operations.
Geographic markets may provide for further subdivisions or aggregations

ofperformance.
Entities also enter into a variety of relationships with outsourced service

providers to support the achievement of objectives, which creates additional
structures and reporting lines.
Each of these lenses may provide a different evaluation of the system of internal control.
While the aggregation of risks along one dimension may indicate no issues, the view
along a different dimension may show concentration risk around certain customer
types, overreliance on a sole vendor, or other vulnerabilities. Ownership and account-
ability at each level of aggregation enables such multidimensional review and analysis.
Organizational structures evolve as the nature of the business evolves. Management

therefore reviews and evaluates the structures for continued relevance and effective-
ness and efficiency in support of the internal control system. Consider, for example, a
bank that reports performance results and internal control effectiveness by legal entity,
business unit, or geography. If it does not regularly revisit its reporting to verify that it
adequately reflects its current business model, it may fail to recognize the emergence of
certain risks, the absence of appropriate controls, and inadequacy of reporting.
For each type of structure it operates (e.g., geographic market structure, business
segment structure, legal entity structure), management designs and evaluates the lines
of reporting so that responsibilities are carried out and information flows as needed.
It also verifies there is no conflict of interest inherent in the execution of responsibili-
ties across the organization and its outsourced service providers. Variables to consider
when establishing and evaluating organizational structures include the following:
Nature, size, and geographic distribution of the entitys business
Risks related to the entitys objectives and business processes, which may
be retained internally or outsourced, and interconnections with outsourced
service providers and business partners

Nature of the assignment of authority and responsibility to top, operating unit,

functional, and geographic management
Definition of reporting lines (e.g., direct reporting/solid line versus secondary

report/dotted line) and communication channels
Financial, tax, regulatory, and other reporting requirements of

relevantjurisdictions
Regardless of the organizational structure, definitions, and assignments of author-

ity and responsibility, reporting lines and communication channels must be clear to
enable accountability over operating units and functional areas. For example, the board
determines which senior management roles have at least a dotted line to the board
of directors to allow for open communication to the board of all issues of importance.
Similarly, direct reporting and informational reporting lines are defined at all levels of the
organization.
Responsibilities can generally be viewed as falling within three lines of defense against
the failure to achieve the entitys objectives, with oversight by the board of directors:
Management and other personnel on the front line provide the first line of
defense in day-to-day activities. They are responsible for maintaining effective
internal control day to day; they are compensated based on performance in
relation to all applicable objectives.
Business-enabling functions (also referred to as support functions) provide

guidance on internal control requirements and evaluate adherence to defined
standards; while they are functionally aligned to the business, their compen-
sation is not directly tied to performance of the area to which they render
expert advice.
Internal auditors provide the third line of defense in assessing and reporting
on internal control and recommending corrective actions or enhancements for
management consideration and implementation; their position and compen-
sation are separate and distinct from the business areas they review.
Periodic evaluation of existing structures in relation to the achievement of the entitys

objectives enables realignment with emerging priorities (e.g., new regulations) and ratio-
nalization (e.g., cutting across silos of different functions or operating units) to provide a
comprehensive and integrated view of internal control.
Authorities and Responsibilities

The board of directors delegates authority and defines and assigns responsibility to
senior management. In turn, senior management delegates authority and defines and
assigns responsibility for the overall entity and its subunits. Authority and responsibil-
ity are delegated based on demonstrated competence, and roles are defined based on
who is responsible for or kept informed of decisions. The board and/or senior manage-
ment define the degree to which individuals and teams are authorized and encouraged,
or limited, to pursue achievement of objectives or address issues as they arise.

Key roles and responsibilities assigned across the organization typically include
thefollowing:
The board of directors stays informed and challenges senior management as

necessary to provide guidance on significant decisions.
Senior management, which includes the chief executive officer or equiva-

lent organizational leader, is ultimately responsible to the board of directors
and other stakeholders for establishing directives, guidance, and control to
enable management and other personnel to understand and carry out their
responsibilities.
Management, which includes supervisors and decision-makers, executes

senior management directives at the entity and its subunits.
Personnel, which includes all employees of the entity, are expected to under-
stand the entitys standards of conduct, objectives as defined in relation to
their area of responsibility, assessed risks to those objectives, related control
activities at their respective levels of the entity, information, and communica-
tion flow, and any monitoring activities relevant to achieving objectives.
Management and personnel with direct responsibility over outsourced pro-

cesses conducted by external service providers. Outsourced service provid-
ers are provided with clear and concise contractual terms related to the enti-
tys objectives and expectations of conduct and performance, competence
levels, expected information, and communication flow. They may execute
business processes on behalf of or together with management, who remains
responsible for internal control.
Organizations delegate authority and responsibility to enable management and other

personnel to make decisions according to managements directives toward the achieve-
ment of the entitys objectives. An organization may define or revisit its structures by
reducing layers of management, delegating more authority and responsibility to lower
levels, or partnering with other organizations. For example, a sales organization may
empower its managers to sell at a greater discount to gain market share. However, the
authority is delegated and responsibility is assigned only to those who demonstrate the
competence to make adequate decisions; consistently adhere to the entitys stan-
dards of conduct, policies, and procedures; and understand the consequences of the
riskstheytake.
Delegation of authority provides greater agility, but it also increases the complexity of
risks to be managed. Senior management, with guidance from the board of directors,
provides the basis for determining what is or is not acceptable, such as non-compliance
with the organizations regulatory or contractual obligations.

Limitation of Authority
Authority empowers people to act as needed in a given role, but it is also necessary to
define the limitations of authority, sothat:
Delegation occurs only to the extent required to achieve the entitys objectives
(e.g., review and approval of new products involves the requisite business and
support functions, separate from the sales execution team).
Inappropriate risks are not accepted (e.g., a new vendor is not taken on
without the requisite due diligence review).
Duties are segregated to reduce the risk of inappropriate conduct in the

pursuit of objectives, and requisite checks and balances occur from the
highest to the lowest levels of the organization (e.g., defining roles, respon-
sibilities, and performance measures in a manner to reduce any potential for
conflicts of interest).
Technology is leveraged as appropriate to facilitate the definition and limita-

tion of roles and responsibilities within the workflow of business processes
(e.g., different access levels to enterprise resource planning systems at cor-
porate and subsidiary levels; access privileges granted to on-line customers,
business partners, and others).
Third-party service providers who are tasked with carrying out activities on
behalf of an entity understand the extent of their decision-making rights.

Demonstrates Commitment to Competence

Principle 4: The organization demonstrates a commitment
to attract, develop, and retain competent individuals in
alignment with objectives.
Points of Focus
Establishes Policies and PracticesPolicies and practices reflect expecta-

tions of competence necessary to support the achievement of objectives.
Evaluates Competence and Addresses ShortcomingsThe board of direc-

tors and management evaluate competence across the organization and in
outsourced service providers in relation to established policies and practices,
and act as necessary to address shortcomings.
Attracts, Develops, and Retains IndividualsThe organization provides

the mentoring and training needed to attract, develop, and retain sufficient
and competent personnel and outsourced service providers to support the
achievement of objectives.
Plans and Prepares for SuccessionSenior management and the board of

directors develop contingency plans for assignments of responsibility impor-
tant for internal control.
Policies and Practices

Policies and practices are the entity-level guidance and behavior that reflect the
expectations and requirements of investors, regulators, and other stakeholders. They
provide the foundation for defining the competence needed within the organiza-
tion and provide the basis for more detailed procedures for executing and evaluating
performance as well as determining remedial actions, as necessary. Such policies and
practicesprovide:
Requirements and rationale (e.g., implications of product safety laws, rules,

regulations, and standards for the entity)
Skills and conduct necessary to support internal control in the achievement of

the entitys objectives (e.g., knowledge of the operation of technology plat-
forms underpinning business processes)
Defined accountability for performance of key business functions (e.g.,

defined owners of product safety and areas of applicability within the
organization)
Basis for evaluating shortcomings and defining remedial actions, as neces-

sary (e.g., correcting a process or strengthening the skills of management and
other personnel)

Means to react dynamically to change (e.g., linkage to applicable operating

procedures to reflect new regulatory requirements, new risks identified, or
internal decision to modify business processes)
Policies and practices enable the focus on competence to permeate the organiza-
tion, starting with the board of directors relative to the chief executive officer, the chief
executive officer relative to senior management, and cascading down to various levels
of management. The resulting commitment to competence facilitates measuring the
achievement of objectives at all levels of the organization and by outsourced service
providers by establishing how processes should be carried out and what skills and
behavior should be applied.
Evaluate Competence
Competence is the qualification to carry out assigned responsibilities. It requires
relevant skills and expertise, which are gained largely from professional experience,
training, and certifications. It is expressed in the attitude, knowledge and behavior of
individuals as they carry out their responsibilities.
The human resources function of an organization can often help define competence and
staffing levels by job role, facilitating training and maintaining completion records, and
evaluating the relevance and adequacy of individual professional development in rela-
tion to the entitys needs.
The organization defines competence requirements as needed to support the achieve-

ment of objectives, considering, for instance:
Knowledge, skills, and experience needed
Nature and degree of judgment and limitations of authority to be applied to a

specific position
Cost-benefit analysis of different levels of skills and experience
The board of directors evaluates the competence of the chief executive officer and,
in turn, management evaluates competence across the organization and outsourced
service providers in relation to established policies and practices, and then acts as
necessary to address any shortcomings or excesses. In particular, a changing risk
profile may cause the organization to shift resources toward areas of the business that
require greater attention. For example, as a company brings a new product to market, it
may elect to increase staffing in its sales and marketing teams, or as a new applicable
regulation is issued, it may focus on those individuals responsible for implementa-
tion. Shortcomings may arise relating to staffing levels, expertise, or a combination of
factors. Management is responsible for acting on such shortcomings in a timely manner.

Attracting, Developing, and Retaining Individuals

The commitment to competence is supported by and embedded in the human resource
management processes for attracting developing, evaluating, and retaining the right
fit of management, other personnel, and outsourced service providers. The adequate
number of resources is determined and periodically readjusted considering the relative
importance of risks to be mitigated to support the achievement of the entitys objec-
tives. Management at different levels establishes the structures and processes to:
AttractSeek out candidates who demonstrate a fit with the entitys culture,
operating style, and organizational needs, and who have the competence for
the proposed roles.
TrainEnable individuals to develop competencies appropriate for assigned

roles and responsibilities, reinforce standards of conduct and expected levels
of competence for particular assignments, tailor training based on roles
and needs, and consider a mix of delivery techniques, including classroom
instruction, self-study, and on-the-job training.
MentorProvide guidance on the individuals performance toward expected

standards of conduct and competence, align the individuals skills and
expertise with the entitys objectives, and help personnel adapt to an
evolvingenvironment.
EvaluateMeasure the performance of individuals in relation to the achieve-

ment of objectives and demonstration of expected conduct, and against
service-level agreements or other agreed-upon standards for recruiting and
compensating outsourced service providers.
RetainProvide incentives to motivate and reinforce expected levels of

performance and desired conduct, including training and credentialing
asappropriate.
Through this process, any behavior not consistent with standards of conduct, policies
and practices, and internal control responsibilities is identified, assessed, and corrected
in a timely manner or otherwise addressed at all levels of the organization. This enables
the organization to actively address competence to support the achievement of the
entitys objectives balancing costs and benefits.
Plans and Prepares for Succession

Management continually identifies and assesses those performing functions that are
deemed essential to achieving the entitys objectives. The importance of each role is
determined by assessing what the impact would be if that role was temporarily or per-
manently unfilled. For instance, the chief executive officer and other members of senior
management, strategic suppliers, and key channel partners are functions that typically
require plans to be put in place to make sure those objectives can still be achieved,
even in the absence of the individual filling the role.

Senior management and the board of directors develop contingency plans for assign-
ing responsibilities important to internal control. In particular, succession plans for key
executives are defined, and succession candidates are trained and coached for assum-
ing the target role.
Succession planning is also undertaken when significant functions are delegated

through contractual arrangements to outsourced service providers. Where an orga-
nization places considerable reliance on an external party and the organization has
assessed the risk of that providers processes or systems breaking down as having a
direct impact on the entitys ability to achieve its objectives, some form of succession
plan may be needed. Measures to provide for ongoing knowledge sharing and docu-
mentation ease the succession to a new provider when necessary.

Enforces Accountability
Principle 5: The organization holds individuals
accountable for their internal control responsibilities in the
pursuit of objectives.
Points of Focus
Enforces Accountability through Structures, Authorities, and Responsibili-

tiesManagement and the board of directors establish the mechanisms to
communicate and hold individuals accountable for performance of internal
control responsibilities across the organization and implement corrective
action as necessary.
Establishes Performance Measures, Incentives, and RewardsManage-

ment and the board of directors establish performance measures, incentives,
and other rewards appropriate for responsibilities at all levels of the entity,
reflecting appropriate dimensions of performance and expected stan-
dards of conduct, and considering the achievement of both short-term and
longer-termobjectives.
Evaluates Performance Measures, Incentives, and Rewards for Ongoing

RelevanceManagement and the board of directors align incentives and
rewards with the fulfillment of internal control responsibilities in the achieve-
ment of objectives.
Considers Excessive PressuresManagement and the board of directors

evaluate and adjust pressures associated with the achievement of objec-
tives as they assign responsibilities, develop performance measures, and
evaluateperformance.
Evaluates Performance and Rewards or Disciplines IndividualsManage-

ment and the board of directors evaluate performance of internal control
responsibilities, including adherence to standards of conduct and expected
levels of competence and provide rewards or exercise disciplinary action
asappropriate.

Accountability for Internal Control

The board of directors ultimately holds the chief executive officer accountable for under-
standing the risks faced by the entity and establishing the requisite system of internal
control to support the achievement of the entitys objectives. The chief executive officer
and senior management, in turn, are responsible for designing, implementing, conduct-
ing, and periodically assessing the structures, authorities, and responsibilities needed
to establish accountability for internal control at all levels of the organization.
Accountability refers to the delegated ownership for the performance of internal control
in the pursuit of objectives considering the risks faced by the entity. Outsourced service
providers may be used to carry out responsibilities together with or on behalf of man-
agement, in which case management establishes the requisite levels of performance
and oversight mechanisms and retains ultimate accountability for internal control. Man-
agement provides guidance to enable the understanding of risks faced by the entity, to
communicate expectations of conduct of internal control responsibilities in support of
the achievement of the entitys objectives, and to hold personnel accountable.
Accountability for internal control is demonstrated in each form of organizational struc-

ture used by the entity. For example, a manager whose responsibilities include uphold-
ing fair trade practices is accountable to the legal entity, operating unit, geography,
or other existing structural entity to demonstrate an appropriate and effective control
environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and
monitoring to adhere to entity policy and support compliance with laws and regulations.
Accountability is interconnected with leadership, insofar as a strong tone at the top con-
tributes to internal control responsibilities being understood, carried out, and continu-
ally strengthened across the entity. Tone helps to establish and enforce accountability,
morale, and a common purpose through:
Clarity of expectations from senior management and the board of directors,

addressing issues such as integrity and ethics, conflict of interest, illegal or
otherwise improper activities, and anticompetitive arrangements (e.g., a code
of conduct is developed and communicated to all employees and outsourced
service providers, and enforced)
Guidance provided by management through its philosophy and operating

style, as expressed in the form of state of mind, formality, persistence and
other attitudes of management toward internal control (e.g., an entity that
has been successful taking significant risks may have a different outlook on
internal control than one that has faced harsh economic or regulatory conse-
quences as a result of venturing into higher-risk areas)
Control and information flow (e.g., communicating how decisions are made,
and soliciting and acting on 360-degree feedback on performance)
Upward and other communication channels for employees and outsourced

service providers to feel comfortable reporting violations of ethical standards
(e.g., anonymous or confidential communication channels are made available)
Employee commitment toward collective objectives (e.g., alignment of indi-

vidual goals and performance with the entitys objectives)

Managements response to deviations from expected standards and behav-

iors (e.g., notices, terminations, and/or other corrective actions that ensue
from failing to adhere to organizational standards, performance evaluation,
and reward structures are commensurate with the achievement of the organi-
zations objectives)
Accountability is driven by tone at the top and supported by the commitment to integrity
and ethical values, competence, structure, processes, and technology, which col-
lectively influence the control culture of the organization. Corrective action is taken as
necessary to re-establish the necessary accountability for internal control.
Performance Measures, Incentives, and Rewards

Performance is greatly influenced by the extent to which individuals are held account-
able and how they are rewarded.
Management and the board of directors establish performance measures, incentives,

and other rewards appropriate for responsibilities at all levels of the entity, consider-
ing the achievement of both short-term and longer-term objectives. Recognizing that
rewarding future results in the present can yield unintended consequences, the organi-
zation establishes a combination of quantitative and qualitative performance measures
balanced to reward successes and discipline behaviors as necessary in line with the
range of objectives. Consider for example a company seeking to win customer loyalty
with quality products. It engages its workforce in an effort to reduce production defect
rates and aligns its performance measures, incentives, and rewards with both the
operating units production goals and the expectations to comply with product safety
and quality standards, workplace safety laws, customer loyalty programs, and accurate
product recall reporting.
Performance measures, incentives, and rewards support an effective system of internal

control insofar as they are adapted to the entitys objectives and evolve dynamically
with its needs. The following table illustrates key success measures and considerations
for motivating, measuring and rewarding high performance.
Success Measures Considerations
Clear Objectives Consider all levels of personnel to support the achievement of the
entitys objectives.
Consider the multiple dimensions of expected conduct and per-
formance of the organization, outsourced service providers and
business partners (e.g., per service-level agreements), and define
objectives and related incentives and pressures.
Defined Implications Communicate/reinforce the entitys objectives and how each area
and level of the organization is expected to support the achieve-
ment of objectives.
Identify and discuss events that the market has rewarded in the
past and those that the market has punished.
Communicate consequences (positive and negative) of not achiev-
ing or fully/partially achieving specific entity objectives.

Success Measures Considerations
Meaningful Metrics Define metrics to transform disparate data into meaningful infor-
mation on performance.
Measure expected versus actual conduct and the impact of the
deviations, both positive and negative.
Assess the expected impact on the entitys objectives.
Adjustment to Changes Adjust performance measures regularly based on a systematic and

continual evaluation of the potential impacts of risks as they evolve
over time, as well as the quantification of the associated rewards.
Incentives provide the motivation for management and other personnel to perform.
Salary increases and bonuses are commonly used, but greater responsibility, visibility,
recognition, and other forms of non-monetary reward are other effective incentives.
Management consistently applies and regularly reviews the organizations measurement
and reward structures to ensure that it does not encourage inappropriate conduct (e.g.,
lack of balance between revenue goals and other objectives key to the viability of the
business can create conduct that is not in line with expected standards). Similarly, com-
pensation and reward structures, including hiring and promotion structures, incorporate
the review of historical conduct against expectations of ethical behavior. Individuals who
do not adhere to the entitys standards of conduct are sanctioned and not promoted or
otherwise rewarded.
Regardless of the form they take, incentives drive behavior. An entity that limits its focus
to only increasing the bottom line may be more likely to experience unwanted behavior
such as manipulation of the financial statements or accounting records, high-pressure
sales tactics, negotiations directed at increasing quarterly sales or profit at any cost, or
implicit offers of kickbacks.
Management and the board regularly evaluate the performance of individuals and teams
in relation to defined performance measures, which include business performance
factors as well as adherence and support for standards of conduct and demonstrated
competence.
Performance measures are reviewed periodically for ongoing relevance and adequacy in
relation to incentives and rewards. If necessary, internal or external factors are realigned
to objectives and other expectations of management, personnel, and outside providers.
Pressures
Management and the board of directors establish goals and targets toward the achieve-
ment of objectives that by their nature create pressures within the organization. Pres-
sures can also result from cyclical variations of certain activities, which organizations
have the ability to influence by rebalancing workloads or increasing resource levels, as
appropriate, to reduce the risk of employees cutting corners where doing so could be
detrimental to the achievement of objectives.

These pressures which are further impacted by the internal or external environment can
positively motivate individuals to meet expectations of conduct and performance, both
in the short and long term. However, undue pressures can cause employees to fear
the consequences of not achieving objectives and circumvent processes or engage in
fraudulent activity or corruption.
Excessive pressures are most commonly associated with:
Unrealistic performance targets, particularly for short-term results
Conflicting objectives of different stakeholders
Imbalance between rewards for short-term financial performance and those

for long-term focused stakeholders, such as corporate sustainability goals
For example, pressure to generate sales levels that are not commensurate with market
opportunities can lead sales managers to falsify numbers or engage in bribery or other
illicit acts. Pressures to demonstrate the profitability of investments can cause traders
to take off-strategy risks to cover incurred losses. Similarly, pressures to rush a product
to market and generate revenues quickly may cause personnel to take shortcuts on
product development or safety testing, which can be harmful to consumers or lead to
poor acceptance or impaired reputation.
To align individual and business unit objectives to those of the entity, the organization
considers how risks are taken and managed as a basis for compensation and other
rewards. For example, as traders take risks on behalf of their clients and the orga-
nization, they are aware that their remuneration, advancement, and position can be
boosted, reduced, or lost depending on their performance. Incentive structures that fail
to adequately consider the risks associated with the business model can cause inap-
propriate behavior.
Other business changes, such as changes in strategy, organizational design, and

acquisition/divestiture activity, also create pressures. Management and the board need
to understand those pressures and balance them with appropriate messaging and
incentives and rewards. Management and the board set and adjust as appropriate the
pressures on incentives and rewards when assigning responsibilities, designing per-
formance measures, and evaluating performance. It is managements responsibility to
guide those to whom they have delegated authority to make appropriate decisions in
the course of doing business. For example, organizations often view financial perfor-
mance, development of competencies, and timely and accurate reporting to stakehold-
ers as their most critical objectives for the viability of the business. They also expect
management, other personnel, and outsourced service providers and business partners
to preserve at all times the quality of products or services delivered, safety of personnel
performing its functions, and other factors that could create a moral hazard or damage
the entitysreputation.

Performance Evaluation and Reward

Just as performance objectives are cascaded down from the board of directors to the
chief executive officer, senior management, and other personnel, performance evalua-
tion is conducted at each of these levels. The board of directors evaluates the perfor-
mance of the chief executive officer, who in turn evaluates that of the senior manage-
ment team, and so on. At each level, adherence to standards of conduct and expected
levels of competence are evaluated, and rewards are allocated or disciplinary action is
exercised as appropriate. Rewards may be in the form of money, equity, recognition, or
career progression. The results of these evaluations are communicated and acted upon
with rewards or sanctions as applicable to influence desired behavior.
Compensation policies and practices are based on the compensation philosophy of the
organization, which considers the competitive positioning it seeks to achieve (methods
and levels of incentive and compensation to attract the highest caliber talent needed
to be superior to offers from industry peers). Compensation and other rewards are
awarded on the basis of performance evaluation, competencies, and skill acquisition,
as well as available market pricing information, with the goal of retaining high perform-
ers and encouraging attrition of lower-end performers. Human resources manages the
process of obtaining, processing, and communicating the relevant information to appro-
priate levels of management and other personnel.
Performance is measured in relation to the achievement of objectives and the ability to

manage within risk tolerance levels considering both the short and long term. As such, it
considers both historical (retrospective) and forward-looking (prospective) risks.

Components of Internal Control | Risk Assessment
6. Risk Assessment
Chapter Summary
Every entity faces a variety of risks from external and internal sources. Risk
is defined as the possibility that an event will occur and adversely affect
the achievement of objectives. Risk assessment involves a dynamic and
iterative process for identifying and assessing risks to the achievement
of objectives. Risks to the achievement of these objectives from across
the entity are considered relative to established risk tolerances. Thus, risk
assessment forms the basis for determining how risks will be managed.
A precondition to risk assessment is the establishment of objectives,
linked at different levels of the entity. Management specifies objectives
within categories relating to operations, reporting, and compliance
with sufficient clarity to be able to identify and analyze risks to those
objectives. Management also considers the suitability of the objectives
for the entity. Risk assessment also requires management to consider
the impact of possible changes in the external environment and within its
own business model that may render internal control ineffective.
Principles relating to the Risk Assessment component
6. The organization specifies objectives with sufficient clarity to enable

the identification and assessment of risks relating to objectives.
7. The organization identifies risks to the achievement of its objectives

across the entity and analyzes risks as a basis for determining how
the risks should bemanaged.
8. The organization considers the potential for fraud in assessing risks

to the achievement of objectives.
9. The organization identifies and assesses changes that could

significantly impact the system of internalcontrol.

Introduction
All entities, regardless of size, struc-
ture, nature, or industry, encounter
risks at all levels. Risk is defined in the
Framework as the possibility that an
event will occur and adversely affect
the achievement of objectives.
The use of the term adversely in

this definition does not ignore posi-
tive variances relating to an event
or series of events. Large positive
variances may still create adverse
impacts to objectives. For instance,
consider a company that forecasts
sales of 1,000 units and sets pro-
duction schedules to achieve this
expected demand. Management
considers the possibility that actual orders will exceed this forecast. Actual orders of
1,500 units would likely not impact the sales objectives but might adversely impact
production costs (through incremental overtime needed to meet increased volumes) or
customer satisfaction targets (through increased back orders and wait times). Conse-
quently, selling more units than planned may adversely impact objectives other than the
sales objective.
As part of the process of identifying and assessing risks, an organization may also
identify opportunities, which are the possibility that an event will occur and positively
affect the achievement of objectives. These opportunities are important to capture and
to communicate to the objective-setting processes. For instance, in the above example,
management would channel new sales opportunities to the objective-setting processes.
However, identifying and assessing potential opportunities such as new sales opportu-
nities is not a part of internal control.
Risk affects an entitys ability to succeed, compete within its industry, maintain its
financial strength and positive reputation, and maintain the overall quality of its prod-
ucts, services, and people. There is no practical way to reduce risk to zero. Indeed, the
decision to be in business incurs risk. Management must determine how much risk is to
be prudently accepted, strive to maintain risk within these levels, and understand how
much tolerance it has for exceeding its target risk levels.
Risk often increases when objectives differ from past performance and when manage-
ment implements change. An entity often does not set explicit objectives when it con-
siders its performance to be acceptable. For example, an entity might view its historical
service to customers as acceptable and therefore not set specific goals on maintaining
current levels of service. However, as part of the risk assessment process, the organiza-
tion does need to have a common understanding of entity-level objectives relevant to
operations, reporting, and compliance and how those cascade into the organization.

Risk Tolerance
Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation in performance relative to the achieve-
ment of objectives. Operating within risk tolerance provides management with greater
confidence that the entity will achieve its objectives. Risk tolerance may be expressed
in different ways to suit each category of objectives. For instance, when considering
financial reporting, risk tolerance is typically expressed in terms of materiality,10 whereas
for compliance and operations, risk tolerance is often expressed in terms of the accept-
able level of variation in performance.
Risk tolerance is normally determined as part of the objective-setting process, and as

with setting objectives, setting tolerance levels is a precondition for determining risk
responses and related control activities. Management may exercise significant discre-
tion in setting risk tolerance and managing risks when there are no external require-
ments. However, when there are external requirements, such as those relating to exter-
nal reporting and compliance objectives, management considers risk tolerance within
the context of established laws, rules, regulations, and external standards.
As well, senior management considers the relative importance of the competing objec-
tives and differing priorities for pursuing these objectives. For instance, a chief operat-
ing officer may view operations objectives as requiring a higher level of precision than
materiality considerations in reporting objectives, and vice versa for the chief financial
officer. However, it would be problematic for public companies to overemphasize opera-
tional objectives to an extent that adversely impacts the reliability of financial report-
ing. These views are considered as part of the strategic-planning and objective-setting
process with tolerances set accordingly. This kind of decision may also impact the level
of resources allocated to pursuing the achievement of those respective objectives.
Performance measures are used to help an entity operate within established risk toler-
ance. Risk tolerance is often best measured in the same unit as the related objectives.
For example, an entity:
Targets on-time delivery at 98%, with acceptable variation in the range of 97%
to 100%
Targets training with 90% of those taking the training attaining a pass rate, but
accepts that only 75% may pass
Expects staff to respond to all customer complaints within twenty-four hours,

but accepts that up to 10% of complaints may receive a response within
thirty-six hours
10 Regulators and standard-setting bodies define the term materiality. Management develops an under-
standing of materiality as defined by laws, rules, and standards when applying the Framework in the
context of such laws, rules, and standards.

Specifies Suitable Objectives

Principle 6: The organization specifies objectives
with sufficient clarity to enable the identification and
assessment of risks relating to objectives.
Points of Focus
The following points of focus highlight important characteristics relating to operations,
reporting, and compliance objectives:
Reflects Managements ChoicesOperations objectives reflect manage-
ments choices about structure, industry considerations, and performance of
the entity.
Considers Tolerances for RiskManagement considers the acceptable levels

of variation relative to the achievement of operations objectives.
Includes Operations and Financial Performance GoalsThe organization

reflects the desired level of operations and financial performance for the entity
within operations objectives.
Forms a Basis for Committing of ResourcesManagement uses operations

objectives as a basis for allocating resources needed to attain desired opera-
tions and financial performance.
External Financial Reporting Objectives

Complies with Applicable Accounting StandardsFinancial reporting
objectives are consistent with accounting principles suitable and available
for that entity. The accounting principles selected are appropriate in the
circumstances.
Considers MaterialityManagement considers materiality in financial state-

ment presentation.
Reflects Entity ActivitiesExternal reporting reflects the underlying transac-

tions and events to show qualitative characteristics and assertions.
External Non-Financial Reporting Objectives

Complies with Externally Established Standards and FrameworksMan-
agement establishes objectives consistent with laws and regulations, or stan-
dards and frameworks of recognized external organizations.
Considers the Required Level of PrecisionManagement reflects the

required level of precision and accuracy suitable for user needs and as based
on criteria established by third parties in non-financial reporting.
Reflects Entity ActivitiesExternal reporting reflects the underlying transac-

tions and events within a range of acceptable limits.

Internal Reporting Objectives

Reflects Managements ChoicesInternal reporting provides management
with accurate and complete information regarding managements choices and
information needed in managing the entity.
Considers the Required Level of PrecisionManagement reflects the

required level of precision and accuracy suitable for user needs in non-
financial reporting objectives, and materiality within financial reporting
objectives.
Reflects Entity ActivitiesInternal reporting reflects the underlying transac-

tions and events within a range of acceptable limits.
Reflects External Laws and RegulationsLaws and regulations establish
minimum standards of conduct which the entity integrates into compliance
objectives.
Considers Tolerances for RiskManagement considers the acceptable levels

of variation relative to the achievement of compliance objectives.
Specifying Objectives
A precondition to risk assessment is the establishment of objectives, linked at various
levels of the entity. These objectives align with and support the entity in the pursuit of
its strategic direction. While setting strategies and objectives is not part of the internal
control process, objectives form the basis on which risk assessment approaches are
implemented and performed and subsequent control activities are established. As part
of internal control, management specifies objectives and groups them within broad cat-
egories at all levels of the entity, relating to operations, reporting, and compliance. The
grouping of objectives within these categories allows for the risks to the achievement of
those objectives to be identified and assessed.
In affirming the suitability of objectives, management may consider such matters as:
Alignment of established objectives with strategic priorities
Articulation of risk tolerances for objectives
Alignment between established objectives and established laws, rules, regula-

tions, and standards applicable to the entity
Articulation of objectives using terms that are specific, measurable or observ-

able, attainable, relevant, and time-bound
Cascading of objectives across the entity and its subunits
Alignment of objectives to other circumstances that require specific focus by

the entity
Affirmation of suitable objectives within the objective-setting process before

those objectives are used as the basis for risk assessments

Where objectives within these categories are unclear, where it is unclear how these
objectives support the strategic direction, where there are concerns that the objectives
are not suitable based on the facts, circumstances, and established laws, rules, regula-
tions, and standards applicable to the entity, or where the organization would be basing
its risk assessment on understood but unapproved objectives, management communi-
cates this concern for input to the strategy-setting and objective-setting process.
Operations objectives reflect management choices within the particular business,
industry, and economic environments in which the entity functions. For instance, a
municipal government sets out several operations objectives, each supported by initia-
tives and criteria. Among its objectives are to, for example:
Implement five public engagement activities for greenhouse gas reductions

within the next twelve months
Increase seatbelt use by 30%, reduce speeding by 10% in general and 20% in
school zones, and reduce intersection encroachment by 25%
Implement water rates relative to industrial and residential consumption pat-

terns within five years
A for-profit entity may set operations objectives that focus on the efficient uses of
resources. For instance, a larger retailer has among its objectives to:
Provide customers with a broad range of merchandise at prices consistently

lower than its competitors
Increase inventory turnover ratio to twelve times per year within the next
twoquarters
Lower its CO2 emissions by 5% and reduce and recycle packaging material by
10% over the next year
As part of operations objectives, management also specifies risk tolerance set during
the objective-setting process. For operations objectives, risk tolerance may be
expressed in relation to the acceptable level of variation relative to the objective.
Goals and Resources

A clear set of operations objectives provides a clear focus on which the entity will
commit substantial resources needed to attain desired performance goals. These
include goals relating to financial performance, which pertain to all types of entities. A
for-profit entity may focus on revenue, profitability, liquidity, or some other measure,
while a not-for-profit or governmental agency may have less financial emphasis overall,
but still pursue goals relating to revenue, liquidity, and spending. If an entitys operations
objectives are not clear or well conceived, its resources may be misdirected.

Reporting Objectives
Reporting objectives pertain to the preparation of reports that encompass reliability,
timeliness, transparency, or other terms as set forth by regulators, standard-setting
bodies, or by the entitys policies. This category includes external financial reporting,
external non-financial reporting, internal financial reporting, and internal non-financial
reporting. External reporting objectives are driven primarily by laws, rules, regulations,
and standards established by governments, regulators, standard-setting bodies, and
accounting bodies. Internal reporting objectives are driven by the entitys strategic
directions, and by reporting requirements and expectations established by manage-
ment and the board of directors.
External Financial Reporting Objectives
Complies with Accounting Standards

Entities need to achieve financial reporting objectives to meet external obligations. Pub-
lished financial statements and financial information are necessary for accessing capital
markets and may be critical to the awarding of contracts or to dealing with suppliers.
Investors, analysts, and creditors may use financial statements and other financial infor-
mation to assess the entitys performance and to compare it with peers and alternative
investments.
Financial reporting objectives are consistent with accounting principles suitable and
available for that entity and appropriate in the circumstances. External financial report-
ing objectives address the preparation of financial statements for external purposes,
including published financial statements, other financial statements and reports, and
other forms of external financial reporting derived from an entitys financial or manage-
ment accounting books and records.
Financial statements for external purposes are prepared in accordance with

applicable accounting standards, rules, and regulations. These financial
statements may include annual and interim financial statements, condensed
financial statements, and selected financial information derived from such
statements. These statements may, for instance, be publicly filed with a regu-
lator, distributed through annual meetings, posted to an entitys website, or
distributed through other electronic media.
Other financial statements and reports may be prepared in accordance with

other basis of accounting and are typically driven by taxing authorities, gov-
ernmental agencies, or by requirements established through contracts and
agreements. Financial statements and reports may be distributed to specified
external users (e.g., reporting to a bank on financial covenants established in
a loan agreement, to a taxing authority in connection with filing tax returns,
to a funding agency by a not-for-profit entity where such statements are not
madepublic).
Other external financial reporting derived from an entitys financial and man-
agement accounting books and records rather than from financial state-
ments for external purposes may include earnings releases, selected financial

information posted to an entitys website, and selected amounts reported in

regulatory filings. External financial reporting objectives relating to such other
financial information may not be driven directly by standard setters and regu-
lators, but are typically expected by stakeholders to align with such standards
and regulations.
Qualitative Characteristics
External financial reporting reflects transactions and events to show the qualitative
characteristics and assertions that underlie financial statements established by the
respective accounting standard setters. There are many sources of such characteristics
and assertions relating to financial reporting.
External financial statements may be considered in terms of fundamental characteristics

and enhancing characteristics.11,12
Fundamental characteristics refer to relevance and faithful representation, as follows:
Relevanceinformation that is capable of making a difference in user

decisions
Faithful Representationinformation that is complete, neutral, and free

fromerror
Enhancing characteristics refer to comparability, verifiability, timeliness, and under-

standability, as follows:
Comparabilityinformation that can be compared with similar information

about other entities and with similar information about the same entity for
another period or another date
Verifiabilitydifferent knowledgeable and independent observers reaching

consensus, although not necessarily complete agreement, that a particular
depiction is a faithful representation
Timelinesshaving information available to decision-makers in time to be

ofuse
Understandabilityinformation that is classified, characterized, and presented

clearly and concisely
Inherent in relevance is the concept of financial statement materiality. Materiality sets

the threshold for determining whether a financial amount is relevant. Information is
material if its omission or misstatement could influence the decisions of users taken on
the basis of the financial reporting. Materiality depends on the size of the item or error
judged in the particular circumstances of its omission or misstatement. With external
financial reporting, materiality reflects the required level of precision and accuracy
11 Derived from International Financial Reporting Standards.

12 Some jurisdictions may describe financial statement assertions using terms such as existence or
occurrence, completeness, valuation or allocation, rights and obligations, and presentation
anddisclosure.

suitable for external users needs and presents the underlying entity activities, transac-
tions, and events within the range of acceptable limits.13
Reliability is another frequently used qualitative characteristic associated with external

financial reporting objectives. Reliability involves preparing external financial statements
that are free of material error and bias. Reliability is also necessary for the information
to faithfully represent the transactions or other events it purports to represent. External
reporting also reflects the required level of precision and accuracy suitable for internal
needs and the underlying entity activities, presenting transactions, and events within a
range of acceptable limits.
The qualitative characteristics noted above are applied along with suitable accounting
standards and financial statement assertions. These assertions typically fall into the
categories relating to:
Classes of transactions and events for the period
Account balances at the period end
Presentation and disclosure
External Non-Financial Reporting Objectives
Complies with Laws, Rules, Regulations Standards, and Frameworks

Management may report information externally consistent with laws, rules, regula-
tions, non-financial standards or frameworks. For example, where management seeks
to manage its impact on sustainable development, it may prepare and publish a sus-
tainability report that provides information about economic, environmental, and social
performance. Another entity may apply chain-of-custody standards through which its
products are distributed from their origin in the forest to their end use. The entity attains
an annual certification that demonstrates its responsible production and consumption
of forest products and publicly reports this information.
Considers Precision and Reflects Activities

Non-financial reporting, as with financial reporting:
Classifies and summarizes information in a reasonable manner and at the

appropriate level of detail so that it is neither too detailed nor too condensed
Reflects the underlying entity activities
Presents transactions and events within the required level of precision and
accuracy suitable for user needs
Uses criteria established by the third parties and as set out in external stan-
dards or frameworks, as appropriate
13 Derived from International Financial Reporting Standards. Some jurisdictions may use different descrip-
tions of financial statement materiality.

Internal Reporting Objectives

Reliable internal reporting, including balanced scorecards and performance dash-
boards, provides management with accurate and complete information needed to
manage the organization. It supports managements decision making and monitoring
of the entitys activities and performance. Examples of internal reports include results
of marketing programs, daily sales flash reports, production quality, and employee and
customer satisfaction results. Internal reporting objectives are based on preferences,
judgment, and management style.
Internal reporting objectives vary among entities because different organizations have
different goals, strategic directions, and levels of risk tolerance. As with external report-
ing, internal reporting reflects the required level of precision and accuracy suitable for
internal needs and the underlying entity activities, presenting transactions and events
within a range of acceptable limits.
Many organizations will apply external standards to assist in managing their operations.
Such standards may relate to the control over technology, human resource manage-
ment, or records management. However, as standards that apply to external reporting
may not apply to internal reporting, management may choose to set different levels of
acceptable variation for external and internal reporting.
As with other types of reporting, internal reporting:
Uses criteria established by the third parties and as set out in external stan-
dards or frameworks, as appropriate
Classifies and summarizes information in a reasonable manner and at the

appropriate level of detail so that it is neither too detailed nor too condensed
Reflects the underlying entity activities
Presents transactions and events within the required level of precision and
accuracy suitable for user needs
Laws and regulations establish minimum standards of conduct that the entity integrates
into its compliance objectives. For example, occupational safety and health regula-
tions might cause an entity to define its objective as package and label all chemicals
in accordance with regulations. Policies and procedures would then deal with com-
munications programs, site inspections, and training relating to the entitys compliance
objectives. And, similar to external reporting objectives, management considers the
acceptable levels of variation in performance within the context of complying with laws
and regulations. Such laws and regulations may cause management to set lower levels
of acceptable variation to remain in compliance with those laws and regulations.
Entities must conduct their activities, and often take specific actions, in accordance
with applicable laws and regulations. As part of specifying compliance objectives, the
organization needs to understand which laws and regulations apply across the entity.
Many laws and regulations are generally well known, such as those relating to reporting

on anti-bribery, fair labor practices, and environmental compliance, but others may not
be as well known to the organization, such as those that apply to operations in a foreign
territory.
Many laws and regulations depend on external factors and tend to be similar across all
entities in some cases and across an industry in others. These requirements may relate,
for example, to markets, pricing, taxes, the environment, employee welfare, or interna-
tional trade. Many entities will establish objectives such as:
Preventing and detecting criminal conduct and other wrongdoing
Preparing and filing tax returns prior to the filing deadlines and in accordance
with regulatory requirements
Labeling nutritional information on food packaging in accordance with appli-

cable guidelines
Operating a vehicle fleet within maximum emission control requirements

Identifies and Analyzes Risk

Principle 7: The organization identifies risks to the
achievement of its objectives across the entity and
analyzes risks as a basis for determining how the risks
should be managed.
Points of Focus
Includes Entity, Subsidiary, Division, Operating Unit, and Functional

LevelsThe organization identifies and assesses risks at the entity, subsid-
iary, division, operating unit, and functional levels relevant to the achievement
of objectives.
Analyzes Internal and External FactorsRisk identification considers

both internal and external factors and their impact on the achievement
ofobjectives.
Involves Appropriate Levels of ManagementThe organization puts into

place effective risk assessment mechanisms that involve appropriate levels of
management.
Estimates Significance of Risks IdentifiedIdentified risks are analyzed

through a process that includes estimating the potential significance of
therisk.
Determines How to Respond to RisksRisk assessment includes consider-

ing how the risk should be managed and whether to accept, avoid, reduce, or
share the risk.
Risk Identification
Identifying and analyzing risk is an ongoing iterative process conducted to enhance
the entitys ability to achieve its objectives. Although an entity might not explicitly state
all objectives, this does not mean that an implied objective is without either internal or
external risk. Regardless of whether an objective is stated or implied, an entitys risk
assessment process should consider risks that may occur. This process is supported
by a variety of activities, techniques, and mechanisms, each relevant to overall risk
assessment. Management develops and implements controls relating to the conduct of
such activities.
Management considers risks at all levels of the entity and takes the necessary actions
to respond. An entitys assessment considers factors that influence the severity, veloc-
ity, and persistence of the risk, likelihood of the loss of assets, and the related impact on
operations, reporting, and compliance activities. The entity also needs to understand its
tolerance for accepting risks and its ability to operate within those risk levels.

Risk identification must be comprehensive. It should consider all significant interac-

tionsof goods, services, and informationinternal to an entity and between the entity
and its relevant business partners and outsourced service providers. These entities can
include potential and existing suppliers, investors, creditors, shareholders, employees,
customers, buyers, intermediaries, and competitors, as well as public bodies and news
media. In addition, the organization should consider risks emanating from external
factors such as new or amended laws and regulations, environmental issues, or poten-
tial natural events.
Further, risks related primarily to one category of objectives may impact objectives
in other categories. For instance, a risk relating primarily to an operations objective
for the timely production and delivery of a companys product may also impact finan-
cial reporting if the companys sales contract contains penalties for late shipments.
In those instances where an organization is considering risks relating primarily to one
category of objectives, for instance financial reporting, the risk assessment process
may need to consider objectives in other categories that can also impact financial
reportingobjectives.
Risk identification is an iterative process and is often integrated with the planning
process. However, it may be useful to take a fresh look at the identified risks, and not
merely default to making an inventory of risks as noted in the previous review. The focus
is on identifying all risks that potentially impact the achievement of objectives as well as
on emerging risksthose risks that are increasingly relevant and important to the entity
and that may be addressed by scanning and analyzing relevant risk factors, as remote
as they may seem.
Considers Entity and Subunits

Risk identification considers risks at various levels of the organizational structure,
including the overall entity and its subunits, and processes such as sales, human
resources, marketing, production, and purchasing. Entity-level risk identification is
typically conducted at a relatively high level and, generally, does not include assessing
transaction-level risks. Conversely, the identification of risks at a process level is inher-
ently more detailed and would include transaction-level risks.
In addition, risk assessment considers risks originating in outsourced service provid-

ers, key suppliers, and channel partners that directly or indirectly impact the entitys
Internal and External Factors

Management considers risks in relation to internal and external factors. Risk is dynamic;
therefore, to determine the frequency of its risk assessment process, management
generally considers the rate of change in risks to the achievement of objectives, other
operational priorities, and cost. Typically, the process is a combination of ongoing and
periodic risk assessments. If the rate of change relating to an objective or internal and
external factors increases, it is useful to accelerate the frequency of assessing the
related risks or assess the risk on a real-time basis.

Entity-Level Risks
Risks at the entity level can arise from external or internal factors. External factors
mayinclude:
EconomicChanges that can impact financing, capital availability, and barri-

ers to competitive entry
Natural EnvironmentNatural or human-caused catastrophes or ongoing

climate change that can lead to changes in operations, reduced availability of
raw materials, or loss of information systems, highlighting the need for contin-
gency planning
RegulatoryA new financial reporting standard that can require different or

additional reporting by a legal entity, management operating model, or line of
business; a new anti-trust law or regulation that can force changes in operat-
ing or reporting policies and strategies
Foreign OperationsA change in the government of a foreign country of

operation that can result in new laws and regulations or altered tax regimes
SocialChanging customer needs or expectations that can affect product

development, production process, customer service, pricing, or warranties
TechnologicalDevelopments that can affect the availability and use of data,

infrastructure costs, and the demand for technology-based services
Internal factors include:
InfrastructureDecisions on the use of capital resources that can affect

operations and the ongoing availability of infrastructure
Management StructureA change in management responsibilities that can

affect the way certain controls are effected
PersonnelThe quality of personnel hired and methods of training and moti-

vation that can influence the level of control consciousness within the entity;
expiration of labor agreements that can affect the availability of staff
Access to AssetsThe nature of the entitys activities and employee accessi-

bility to assets that can contribute to misappropriation of resources
TechnologyA disruption in information systems processing that can

adversely affect the entitys operations
Identifying external and internal factors that contribute to risk at an entity level is critical
to comprehensive risk assessment. Once the major factors have been identified, man-
agement can then consider their relevance and significance and, where possible, link
these factors to specific risks and activities.
For example, an importer of apparel and footwear established an entity-level objec-

tive of becoming an industry leader in high-quality fashion merchandise. The entity
considered general risks such as the impact of deterioration in economic conditions,
market acceptance of products, new competitors in the entitys market, and changes in
environmental or regulatory laws and regulations. In addition, the entity considered risks
at the entity level such as:

Supply sources, including the quality, quantity, and stability of foreign

manufacturers
Exposures to fluctuations in the value of foreign currencies
Timeliness of receiving shipments and delays in customs inspections
Availability and reliability of shipping companies and costs
Likelihood of international hostilities and trade embargoes
Pressures from customers and investors to boycott doing business in a

foreign country whose government adopts unacceptable policies
Expectations from consumers or local stakeholders toward use of

naturalresources
Transaction-Level Risks
Risks are identified at the transaction level within subsidiaries, divisions, operating units,
or functions, including business processes such as sales, purchasing, production, and
marketing. Dealing with risks at this level helps focus on the achievement of objectives
and/or sub-objectives that have cascaded down from the entity-level objectives. Suc-
cessfully assessing risk at the transaction level also contributes to maintaining accept-
able levels at the entity level.
In most instances, many different risks can be identified. In a procurement process, for
example, an entity may have an objective related to maintaining adequate raw materi-
als inventory. The risks to not achieving this objective might include suppliers providing
materials that do not meet specifications or are not delivered in needed quantities, on
time, or at acceptable prices. These risks might affect entity-level objectives pertain-
ing to the way specifications for purchased goods are communicated to vendors, the
use and appropriateness of production forecasts, identification of alternative supply
sources, and negotiation practices.
Potential causes of failing to achieve an objective range from the obvious to the
obscure. Certainly, readily apparent risks that significantly affect the entity should be
identified. To avoid overlooking relevant risks, this identification is best made apart
from assessing the likelihood of the risk occurring. There are, however, practical limita-
tions to the identification process, and often it is difficult to determine where to draw
the line. For example, it may not make sense to conduct a detailed assessment of the
risk of a meteor falling from space onto an entitys production facility, while it may be
reasonable for a facility located near an airport to consider in some detail the risk of an
airplanecrash.
Risk Analysis
After risks have been identified at both the entity level and the transaction level, a risk
analysis needs to be performed. The methodology for analyzing risks can vary, largely
because many risks are difficult to quantify. Nonetheless, the processwhich may be
more or less formalusually includes assessing the likelihood of the risk occurring and
estimating its impact. In addition, the process could consider other criteria to the extent
management deems necessary.

Levels of Management
As with other processes within internal control, responsibility and accountability for risk
identification and analysis processes reside with management at the overall entity and
its subunits. The organization puts into place effective risk assessment mechanisms
that involve appropriate levels of management with expertise.
Significance of Risk
As part of risk analysis, the organization assesses the significance of risks to the
achievement of objectives and sub-objectives. Organizations may assess significance
using criteria such as:
Likelihood of risk occurring and impact
Velocity or speed to impact upon occurrence of the risk
Persistence or duration of time of impact after occurrence of the risk
Likelihood and impact are commonly used terms, although some entities use
instead probability, severity, seriousness, or consequence. Likelihood repre-
sents the possibility that a given event will occur, while impact represents its effect.
Sometimes the words take on more specific meaning, with likelihood indicating the
possibility that a given risk will occur in qualitative terms such as high, medium, and
low, and probability indicating a quantitative measure such as a percentage, fre-
quency of occurrence, or other numerical metric.
Risk velocity refers to the pace with which the entity is expected to experience the
impact of the risk. For instance, a manufacturer of consumer electronics may be con-
cerned about changing customer preferences and compliance with radio frequency
energy limits. Failing to manage either of these risks may result in significant erosion
in the entitys value, even to the point of being put out of business. In this instance,
changes in regulatory requirements develop much more slowly than do changes in
customer preferences.
Management often uses performance measures to determine the extent to which objec-
tives are being achieved, and normally uses the same or a congruent unit of measure
when considering the potential impact of a risk on the achievement of a specified
objective. An entity, for example, with an objective of maintaining a specified level of
customer service will have devised a rating or other measure for that objectivesuch
as a customer satisfaction index, number of complaints, or measure of repeat business.
When assessing the impact of a risk that might affect customer servicesuch as the
possibility that the entitys website might be unavailable for a time periodimpact is
best determined using the same measures.
A risk that does not have a significant impact on the entity and that is unlikely to occur
generally does not require a detailed risk response. A risk with a higher likelihood of
occurrence and/or the potential of a significant impact, on the other hand, typically
results in considerable attention. But even those risks with a potentially high impact that
have a low likelihood will be considered, avoiding the notion that such risks couldnt
happen here, as even low likelihood risks can occur. The importance of understanding
risks assessed as having a low likelihood is greater when the potential impact of the risk
might persist over a longer period of time. For instance, the long-term impact on the

entity from environmental damage caused by the entitys actions may be viewed much
differently than the long-term impact of losing technology processing in a manufactur-
ing plant for several days.
Estimates of significance of the risk often are determined by using data from past
events, which provides a more objective basis than entirely subjective estimates. Inter-
nally generated data based on an entitys own experience may be more relevant and
provide better results than data from external sources. Even in these circumstances,
however, external data can be useful as a checkpoint or to enhance the analysis.
For example, a companys management assessing the risk of production stoppages
because of equipment failure looks first at frequency and impact of previous failures of
its own manufacturing equipment. It then supplements that data with industry bench-
marks. This allows a more precise estimate of likelihood and impact of failure, enabling
more effective preventive maintenance scheduling. Note, too, that using data from past
events can provide incomplete conclusions where events occur infrequently.
In addition, management may wish to assess risks using a time horizon consistent
with the time horizon of the related objectives. Because the objectives of many entities
focus on the short- to mid-term, management analyzes risks associated with those time
frames. However, some objectives extend to the longer term, and management must
not ignore those risks that might be further into the future.
Inherent and Residual Risk

Management considers both inherent and residual risk. Inherent risk is the risk to the
achievement of entity objectives in the absence of any actions management might take
to alter either the risks likelihood or impact. Residual risk is the risk to the achieve-
ment of objectives that remains after managements responses have been developed
and implemented. Risk analysis is applied first to inherent risk. Once risk responses
have been developed, as discussed below, management then considers residual risk.
Assessing inherent risk in addition to residual risk can assist the organization in under-
standing the extent of risk responses needed.
Risk Response
Once the potential significance of risks has been assessed, management considers
how the risk should be managed. This involves applying judgment based on assump-
tions about the risk and reasonable analysis of costs associated with reducing the level
of risk. The response need not necessarily result in the least amount of residual risk. But
where a risk response would result in residual risk exceeding levels acceptable to man-
agement and the board, management revisits and revises the response. Accordingly,
the balancing of risk and risk tolerance may be iterative.
Risk responses fall within the following categories:
AcceptanceNo action is taken to affect risk likelihood or impact.
AvoidanceExiting the activities giving rise to risk; may involve exiting a

product line, declining expansion to a new geographical market, or selling
adivision.

ReductionAction is taken to reduce risk likelihood or impact, or both; typi-

cally involves any of myriad everyday business decisions.
SharingReducing risk likelihood or impact by transferring or otherwise

sharing a portion of the risk; common techniques include purchasing insur-
ance products, forming joint ventures, engaging in hedging transactions, or
outsourcing an activity.
In relation to risk response, management should consider:
The potential effect on risk significance and which response options align with
the entitys risk tolerance
Requisite segregation of duties to enable the response to achieve the intended

reduction in significance
Costs versus benefits of potential responses
Evaluating Risk Response Options

In evaluating response options, management considers significance, including the effect
on both likelihood and impact of the risk, recognizing that a response might affect them
differently. For example, consider a company with a data center located in a region with
heavy storm activity. It establishes a business continuity plan, which, while having no
effect on the likelihood of a storm occurring, mitigates the impact of building damage
or personnel being unable to get to work should a storm occur. On the other hand, the
choice to move the computer center to another region will not reduce the impact of a
comparable storm, but could reduce the likelihood of a similar storm occurring near that
new location.
Resources always have constraints, and entities must consider the relative costs and
benefits of alternative risk response options. Before installing additional procedures,
management should consider carefully whether existing ones may be suitable for
addressing identified risks. Because procedures may satisfy multiple objectives, man-
agement may discover that additional actions are not warranted or that existing proce-
dures may be sufficient or simply need to be performed to a higher standard.
Selected Responses
There is a distinction between risk assessment, which is part of internal control, and
the choice of specific risk responses and the related plans, programs, or other actions,
which are part of the management process and not internal controls. Internal control
does not encompass ensuring that the optimal risk response is chosen. For instance,
the management of one entity may choose to share technology risk by outsourcing
certain aspects of its technology processing with an entity experienced in that field
(recognizing that this may also introduce new risks to the organization), while another
entity may choose to retain its technology processing and develop general controls
over activities for managing related technology risks. Neither of these choices should
be viewed as right or wrong, as both can be effective at managing technology risks. But
where a risk response would result in the residual risk exceeding risk tolerances for any
category of objectives, management revisits and revises the response accordingly.

Once management has chosen to reduce or share a risk, then it can determine actions
to respond to the risk and select and develop associated control activities. The nature
and extent of the risk response and any associated control activities will depend, at
least in part, on the desired level of risk mitigation (which is the focus of Chapter 7).
In some instances, management may select a response that requires action within
another component of internal controlfor instance enhancing a part of the control
environment.
Typically, control activities are not needed when an entity chooses to either accept or
avoid a specific risk. For instance, a mining company with significant commodity price
risk may decide to accept the risk as it believes that investors are aware of and accept
price risk exposure. In this case, management would not implement control activities
relating to commodity price exposures, but would likely implement control activities
relating to other external financial reporting assertions, including completeness and
valuation. There may, however, be instances where the organization decides to avoid a
risk, and chooses to develop control activities in order to avoid that risk. For instance,
to avoid concerns over possible fair trade practices, an organization may implement
control activities barring purchasing from certain entities. Management may also need
to review the level of risk in light of changes that make it no longer desirable to accept
that risk, for instance if the risk exceeds the organizations risk tolerance. When man-
agement chooses not to assess a risk or does not identify a risk, it is tantamount to
accepting the risk without considering potential changes in the related level of risk and
whether that risk remains within its risk tolerance.

Assesses Fraud Risk

Principle 8: The organization considers the potential for
fraud in assessing risks to the achievement of objectives.
Points of Focus
Considers Various Types of FraudThe assessment of fraud considers

fraudulent reporting, possible loss of assets, and corruption resulting from the
various ways that fraud and misconduct can occur.
Assesses Incentive and PressuresThe assessment of fraud risk considers

incentives and pressures.
Assesses OpportunitiesThe assessment of fraud risk considers opportu-

nities for unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposal of assets, altering of the
entitys reporting records, or committing other inappropriate acts.
Assesses Attitudes and RationalizationsThe assessment of fraud risk

considers how management and other personnel might engage in or justify
inappropriate actions.
Types of Fraud
Risk assessment includes managements assessment of the risks relating to the fraudu-
lent reporting and safeguarding of the entitys assets. In addition, management consid-
ers possible acts of corruption, both by entity personnel and by outsourced service
providers directly impacting the entitys ability to achieve its objectives.
The actions being conducted as part of applying this principle link closely to the pre-
ceding principle (Identifies and Analyzes Risks), which assesses risks based on the
presumption that the entitys expected standards of ethical conduct are adhered to
by management, other personnel, and outsourced service providers. This principle,
Assesses Fraud Risk, assesses risk in a different context, when an individuals actions
may not align with the expected standards of conduct. Management may also consider
the point of focus relating to the principle Identifies and Analyzes Risk when developing,
implementing, and conducting internal control. For instance, responses to risks identi-
fied as part of this principle fall within the same categories noted above (accept, avoid,
reduce, and share). And, as above, the selection and development of controls to effect
specific risk responses chosen by management is essential to mitigating fraud risks
Fraudulent Reporting
Fraudulent reporting can occur when an entitys reports are wilfully prepared with
omissions or misstatements. These events may occur through unauthorized receipts or
expenditures, financial misconduct, or other disclosure irregularities. A system of inter-
nal control over financial reporting is designed and implemented to prevent or detect, in
a timely manner, a material omission from or misstatement of the financial statements
due to error or fraud.

When assessing risks to the achievement of financial reporting objectives, organizations

typically consider the potential for fraud in the following areas:
Fraudulent Financial ReportingAn intentional act designed to deceive users

of external financial reports and that may result in a material omission from or
misstatement of such financial reports
Fraudulent Non-Financial Reporting An intentional act designed to deceive

users of non-financial reporting, including sustainability reporting, health and
safety, or employment activity, and that may result in reporting with less than
the intended level of precision
Misappropriation of AssetsTheft of the entitys assets where the effect may

cause a material omission or misstatement in the external financial reports
Illegal ActsViolations of laws or governmental regulations that could have a

material direct or indirect impact on the external financial reports
As part of the risk assessment process, the organization should identify the various
ways that fraudulent reporting can occur, considering:
Management bias, for instance in selecting accounting principles
Degree of estimates and judgments in external reporting
Fraud schemes and scenarios common to the industry sectors and markets in
which the entity operates
Geographic regions where the entity does business
Incentives that may motivate fraudulent behavior
Nature of technology and managements ability to manipulate information
Unusual or complex transactions subject to significant management influence
Vulnerability to management override and potential schemes to circumvent

existing control activities
There may be instances where the organization is not able to directly manage the infor-
mation captured for financial reporting, yet is expected to have controls within the entity
that identify, analyze, and respond to that particular risk. For instance, management of
a software vendor may not be able to prevent personnel within an on-line retailer from
underreporting sales numbers to reduce payments to the software vendor. However, the
software company can implement control activities to detect such reporting by compar-
ing new software registration levels to sales volumes.
Further, risks pertaining to the complete and accurate recording of asset losses in the
entitys financial statements represent a reporting objective. More specifically related
to financial reporting, omission or misstatements may arise from failing to record the
loss of assets, manipulating the financial statements to conceal such a loss, or record-
ing transactions outside the appropriate reporting period. For instance, an entity may
hold its books open for an extended time after a period end to include additional sales,
improperly account for intercompany transfers of inventory, or manipulate the amortiza-
tion of its capital assets.

Safeguarding of assets refers to protecting against the unauthorized and wilful acquisi-
tion, use, or disposal of assets. The inappropriate use of an entitys assets occurs to
benefit an individual or group. The unauthorized acquisition, use, and disposal of assets
may relate to activities such as illegal marketing, theft of assets, theft of intellectual
property, late trading, and money laundering.
Safeguarding of assets typically relates to operations objectives, although certain

aspects may relate to other categories of objectives. In terms of operations, manage-
ment may consider the inappropriate use of an entitys assets and other resources
including intellectual property and preventing loss through theft, waste, or neglect.
An entity may also lose value of its assets through inefficiency or what turns out to be
simply bad business decisionssuch as selling a product at too low a price, or extend-
ing credit to bad risks. These situations relate to the operations objectives but are not
directly linked to safeguarding of assets.
Where legal or regulatory requirements apply, management considers risks relating to

safeguarding of assets in relation to compliance objectives. For example, an entity may
intentionally prepare inaccurate regulatory reporting statements to avoid inspection
andpenalties.
Regardless of what objective may be affected, the responsibility and accountability for
loss prevention and anti-fraud policies and procedures reside with management of the
entity and its subunits in which the risk resides.
Corruption
In addition to assessing risks relating to the safeguarding of assets and fraudulent
reporting, management considers possible corruption occurring within the entity. Cor-
ruption is generally relevant to the compliance category of objectives but could very well
influence the control environment that also affects the entitys external financial report-
ing objectives. This includes considering incentives and pressures to achieve objectives
while demonstrating adherence to expected standards of conduct and the effect of the
control environment, specifically actions linked to Principle 4 (Demonstrates Commit-
ment to Competence) and Principle 5 (Enforces Accountability). Aspects of corruption
that are considered in an external financial reporting context typically relate to illegal
acts that are considered in government statutes relevant to the activity.
In assessing possible corruption, the entity is not expected to directly manage the
actions of personnel within third-party organizations, including those relating to out-
sourced operations, customers, suppliers, or advisors. However, depending on the level
of risk assessed within this component, management may stipulate the expected level
of performance and standards of conduct through contractual relations, and develop
control activities that maintain oversight of third-party actions. Where necessary, man-
agement responds to unusual actions detected in others.

Management Override
Management override describes action taken to override an entitys controls for an
illegitimate purpose including personal gain or an enhanced presentation of an entitys
financial condition or compliance status. For example, to allow a large shipment of
goods to a customer with unacceptable credit in order to increase revenue, a manager
improperly overrides internal control by approving the sale transaction placed on credit
hold by a supervisor who conducted the control properly. Actions to override are typi-
cally not documented or disclosed, because the intent is to cover up the actions.
Management override should not be confused with management intervention, which

represents action that departs from controls designed for legitimate purposes. At times,
management intervention is necessary to deal with non-recurring and non-standard
transactions or events that otherwise might be handled inappropriately. Providing for
management intervention is necessary because controls cannot be designed to antici-
pate and mitigate every risk. Managements actions to intervene are generally overt and
documented or otherwise disclosed to appropriatepersonnel.
As part of assessing fraud risk, management assesses the risk of management over-
ride of internal control. The board of directors or subset of the board (e.g., audit com-
mittee) oversees this assessment and challenges management depending on the
circumstances. The entitys control environment can significantly influence the risk of
management override. This is especially important for smaller entities where senior
management may be very involved in conducting many controls.
Factors Impacting Fraud Risk
Incentives and Pressures

Assessing the risk of fraud includes considering opportunities to commit fraud, as well
as attitudes and rationalizations. Where there is a loss of assets, fraudulent reporting, or
corruption, there are typically incentives and pressures, opportunities to access those
assets, and attitudes and rationalizations that claim to justify the action. Incentives
and pressures often result from and relate to the control environment, as discussed in
Principle 5 (Enforces Accountability). As part of assessing fraud risk, the organization
considers possible incentives and pressures and the potential impact on fraud risk.
Opportunity
Opportunity refers to the ability to actually acquire, use, or dispose of assets, which
may be accompanied by altering the entitys records. Those involved in the inappropri-
ate actions usually also believe that their activities will not be detected. Opportunity is
created by weak control activities and monitoring activities, poor management over-
sight, and management override of control. For instance, the likelihood of a loss of
assets or fraudulent external reporting increases when there is:
A complex or unstable organizational structure
High turnover rates of employees within accounting, operations, risk manage-

ment, internal audit, or technology staff

Ineffective design or poorly executed control activities
Ineffective technology systems
Attitudes and Rationalizations

Attitudes and rationalizations by individuals engaging in or justifying inappropriate
actions may include:
A person labeling the use of resources as borrowing, and fully intending to

pay the stolen money back
A person believing that something is owed to him or her because of job dis-
satisfaction (salary, job environment, treatment by managers, etc.)
A person not understanding or not caring about the consequences of his or

her actions or of accepted notions of decency and trust
Other Considerations in Fraud Risk Assessment

It is possible to mitigate the likelihood of a fraud-related risk by taking action within the
other components of internal control or by making changes to the entitys operating
units, business processes, and activities. An entity may choose to sell certain opera-
tions that are prone to having higher risks relating to individual conduct, cease doing
business in certain geographic locations, reallocate roles among personnel to enhance
the segregation of duties, or reorganize its business processes to avoid unacceptable
risks. For example, the risk of misappropriation of funds may be reduced by implement-
ing a central payment processing function with greater segregation of duties instead
of having only a few staff process payments at each of the entitys locations. The risk
of corruption may be reduced by closely monitoring the entitys procurement process.
The risk of financial statement fraud may be reduced by establishing shared services
centers to provide accounting services to multiple segments, affiliates, or geographic
locations of an entitys operations. A shared services center may be less vulnerable to
influence by local operations managers and may be able to cost effectively implement
more extensive anti-fraud programs.
When management detects fraudulent reporting, inadequate safeguarding of assets, or

corruption, some form of remediation will be necessary. In addition to dealing directly
with the improper actions, it may be necessary to take remediation steps within the
risk assessment process or amend actions undertaken as part of other components of
internal control.

Identifies and Analyzes Significant Change

Principle 9: The organization identifies and assesses
changes that could significantly impact the system of
internal control.
Points of Focus
Assesses Changes in the External EnvironmentThe risk identification

process considers changes to the regulatory, economic, and physical environ-
ment in which the entity operates.
Assesses Changes in the Business ModelThe organization considers the

potential impacts of new business lines, dramatically altered compositions
of existing business lines, acquired or divested business operations on the
system of internal control, rapid growth, changing reliance on foreign geogra-
phies, and new technologies.
Assesses Changes in LeadershipThe organization considers changes in

management and respective attitudes and philosophies on the system of
internal control.
Assessing Change
As economic, industry, and regulatory environments change, the scope and nature of
an entitys leadership, priorities, business model, organization, business processes, and
activities need to adapt and evolve. Internal control effective within one set of condi-
tions may not necessarily be effective when those conditions change significantly. As
part of risk assessment, management identifies changes that could significantly impact
the entitys system of internal control and takes action as necessary. Thus, every entity
will require a process to identify and assess those internal and external factors that can
significantly affect its ability to achieve its objectives.
This process will parallel, or be a part of, the entitys regular risk assessment process.
It involves identifying the changes to any significant assumption or condition. It requires
having controls in place to identify and communicate changes that can affect the
entitys objectivesand assess the associated risks. Such analysis includes identifying
potential causes of achieving or failing to achieve an objective, assessing the likelihood
that such causes will occur, evaluating the probable effect on achievement of the objec-
tives, and considering the degree to which the risk can be managed.
Although the process by which an entity manages change is similar to, if not a part of,
its regular risk assessment process, it is discussed separately. This is because it is
important to effective internal control and because it can too easily be overlooked or
given insufficient attention in the course of dealing with everyday issues.

Management develops approaches to identify significant changes in any material

assumption or condition that have taken place or will shortly occur. To the extent prac-
ticable, these mechanisms are forward looking, so an entity can anticipate and plan for
significant changes. Early warning systems should be in place to identify information
signaling new risks that can have a significant impact on the entity. Management also
develops and implements controls relating to the conduct of such approaches.
This focus on change is founded on the premise that, because of their potential impact,
certain conditions should be the subject of special consideration. The extent to which
such conditions require managements attention, of course, depends on the effect they
may have in particular circumstances.
External Environment
Changing External EnvironmentA changing regulatory or economic envi-
ronment can result in increased competitive pressures, changes in operating
requirements, and significantly different risks. Large-scale operations, report-
ing, and compliance failures by one entity may result in the rapid introduction
of broad new regulations. For instance, the release of harmful materials near
populated or environmentally sensitive areas may result in new industry-
wide transportation restrictions that impact an entitys shipping logistics; the
external information that is viewed as having poor transparency may result
in enhanced regulatory reporting requirements for all publicly traded compa-
nies; and the poor treatment of elderly patients in a care facility may prompt
additional care requirements for all care facilities. Each of these changes
may require an organization to closely examine the design of its internal
controlsystem.
Changing Physical EnvironmentNatural disasters directly impacting the

entity, supply chain, and other business partners may result in elevated
risks that an entity needs to consider to sustain its business. An organiza-
tion, for example, may need to find alternative sources of raw material or
moveproduction.
Business Model
Changing Business ModelWhen an entity enters new business lines, alters
the delivery of its services through new outsourced relationships, or dramati-
cally alters the composition of existing business lines, previously effective
internal controls may no longer be relevant. The composition of the risks
initially assessed as the basis for establishing internal controls may have
changed, or the potential impact of those risks may have increased so that
prior internal controls are no longer sufficient. Some financial services organi-
zations, for example, may have expanded into new products and concentra-
tions without focusing on how to respond to changes in the associated risks
of their products.
Significant Acquisitions and DivestituresWhen an entity decides to acquire

business operations, it may need to review and standardize internal controls
across the expanded entity. Controls in place in the pre-acquisition operations
may not be well developed, suitable for the newly combined entity, or scalable

to operation in the new business. Similarly, when an operation is disposed of,

the level of acceptable variation may change in operations, and materiality
may decrease. In addition, certain entity-level controls at the disposed busi-
ness operation may no longer be present. Both the acquisition and divesture
of a business may require the organization to review and possibly revise its
internal controls to support the achievement of objectives as appropriate to
the restructured entity.
Foreign OperationsThe expansion or acquisition of foreign operations

carries new and often unique risks. Developing business in new geographies
or outsourcing operations to foreign locations may help the business to grow
and/or reduce costs, but it may also present new challenges and alter the type
and extent of the risks. Operating in unfamiliar markets poses risk because
there are different customs and practices. For instance, the control environ-
ment in a new environment is likely to be influenced by the local culture and
customs. Business risks may result from factors unique to the local economy
and regulatory environment and channels of communication.
Rapid GrowthWhen operations expand significantly and quickly, existing

structures, business processes, information systems, or resources may be
strained to the point where internal controls break down. For instance, adding
manufacturing shifts to meet demand or increasing back-office personnel may
result in those responsible for supervision being unable to adapt to the higher
activity levels and maintain adequate control.
New TechnologyWhen new technology is incorporated into production,

service delivery processes, or supporting information systems, internal con-
trols will likely need to be modified. For instance, introducing sales capabilities
through mobile devices may require access controls specific to that technol-
ogy as well as changes in controls over shipping processes.
Leadership Changes
Significant Personnel ChangesA member of senior management new to an
entity may not understand the entitys culture and reflect a different philoso-
phy or may focus solely on performance to the exclusion of control-related
activities. For instance, a newly hired chief executive officer focusing on
revenue growth may send a message that a prior focus on effective inter-
nal control is now less important. Further, high turnover of personnel, in the
absence of effective training and supervision, can result in breakdowns. For
instance, a company that reduces its staffing levels by 25% in an attempt to
reduce costs may erode the overall internal control structure.

Components of Internal Control | Control Activities
7. Control Activities
Chapter Summary
Control activities are the actions established through policies and pro-
cedures that help ensure that managements directives to mitigate risks
to the achievement of objectives are carried out. Control activities are
performed at all levels of the entity, at various stages within business
processes, and over the technology environment. They may be preven-
tive or detective in nature and may encompass a range of manual and
automated activities such as authorizations and approvals, verifications,
reconciliations, and business performance reviews. Segregation of du-
ties is typically built into the selection and development of control activi-
ties. Where segregation of duties is not practical, management selects
and develops alternative control activities.
Principles relating to the Control Activities component
10. The organization selects and develops control activities that

contribute to the mitigation of risks to the achievement of objectives
to acceptable levels.
11. The organization selects and develops general control activities over
technology to support the achievement ofobjectives.
12. The organization deploys control activities through policies that

establish what is expected and in procedures that put policies
intoaction.

Introduction
Control activities serve as mecha-
nisms for managing the achievement
of an entitys objectives and are
very much a part of the processes
by which an entity strives to achieve
those objectives. They do not exist
simply for their own sake or because
having them is the right or proper
thing to do.
Control activities can support one

or more of the entitys operations,
reporting, and compliance objectives.
For example, an on-line retailers con-
trols over the security of its informa-
tion technology affect the processing
of accurate and valid transactions
with consumers, the protection of consumers confidential credit card information, and
the availability and security of its website. In this case, control activities are necessary
to support the reporting, compliance, and operationsobjectives.
Selects and Develops Control Activities

Principle 10: The organization selects and develops
control activities that contribute to the mitigation of risks
to the achievement of objectives to acceptable levels.
Points of Focus
Integrates with Risk AssessmentControl activities help ensure that risk

responses that address and mitigate risks are carried out.
Considers Entity-Specific FactorsManagement considers how the environ-

ment, complexity, nature, and scope of its operations, as well as the specific
characteristics of its organization, affect the selection and development of
control activities.
Determines Relevant Business ProcessesManagement determines which

relevant business processes require control activities.
Evaluates a Mix of Control Activity TypesControl activities include a range

and variety of controls and may include a balance of approaches to mitigate
risks, considering both manual and automated controls, and preventive and
detective controls.

Considers at What Level Activities Are AppliedManagement considers

control activities at various levels in the entity.
Addresses Segregation of DutiesManagement segregates incompatible

duties, and where such segregation is not practical management selects and
develops alternative control activities.
Integration with Risk Assessment

Control activities support all the components of internal control, but are particularly
aligned with the Risk Assessment component. Along with assessing risks, manage-
ment identifies and puts into effect actions needed to carry out specific risk responses.
Typically, control activities are not needed when an entity chooses to either accept or
avoid a specific risk. There may, however, be instances where the organization decides
to avoid a risk and chooses to develop control activities to avoid that risk. The action
to reduce or share a risk serves as a focal point for selecting and developing control
activities. The nature and extent of the risk response and any associated control
activities will depend, at least in part, on the desired level of risk mitigation acceptable
tomanagement.
Control activities are those actions that help ensure that responses to assessed risks,
as well as other management directives such as establishing standards of conduct in
the control environment, are carried out properly and in a timely manner. For example,
suppose a company sets an operations objective to meet or exceed sales targets for
the ensuing reporting period, and management identifies a risk that the organizations
personnel have insufficient knowledge about current and potential customers needs.
Managements response to address this identified risk includes developing buying his-
tories for existing customers and undertaking market research initiatives to increase the
organizations understanding of how to attract potential customers. Control activities
might include tracking the progress of the development of the customer buying histo-
ries against established timetables, and taking steps to help ensure the quality of the
reported marketing data.
Relevant Business Processes

When determining what actions to put in place to mitigate risk, management considers
all aspects of the entitys internal control components and the relevant business pro-
cesses, information technology, and locations where control activities are needed. This
may require considering control activities outside the operating unit, including shared
service or data centers, and processes or functions performed in outsourced service
providers. For example, entities may need to establish control activities to address the
integrity of the information sent to and received from the outsourced service provider.
Entity-Specific Factors
Because each entity has its own set of objectives and implementation approaches,
there will be differences in objectives, risk, risk responses, and related control activities.
Even if two entities have identical objectives and structures, their control activities could

be different. Each entity is managed by different people with different skills who use
individual judgment in effecting internal control. Moreover, controls reflect the environ-
ment and industry in which an entity operates, as well as the complexity of its organiza-
tion, its history and its culture, nature, and scope of operations.
Entity-specific factors can impact the control activities needed to support the system of
internal control. For instance:
The environment and complexity of an entity, and the nature and scope of its
operations, both physically and logically, affect its control activities.
Highly regulated entities generally have more complex risk responses and
control activities than less-regulated entities.
The scope and nature of risk responses and control activities for multinational
entities with diverse operations generally address a more complex internal
control structure than those of a domestic entity with less-varied activities.
An entity with a sophisticated enterprise resource planning (ERP) system will

have different control activities than an entity that uses an off-the-shelf com-
puter accounting system.
An entity with decentralized operations and an emphasis on local autonomy

and innovation presents different control circumstances than another whose
operations are constant and highly centralized.
Business Process Control Activities

Business processes are established across the entity to enable organizations to
achieve their objectives. These business processes may be common to all businesses
(such as purchasing, payables, or sales processing) or unique to a particular industry
(such as claims processing, trust services, or drilling operations). Each of these pro-
cesses transforms inputs into outputs through a series of transactions or activities.14
Control activities that directly support the actions to mitigate transaction process-
ing risks in an entitys business processes are often called application controls or
transactioncontrols.15
Transaction controls are the most fundamental control activities in an entity since
they directly address risk responses in the business processes in place to meet man-
agements objectives. Transaction controls are selected and developed wherever
the business process may reside, ranging from the organizations financial consoli-
dations process at the entity level to the customer support process at a particular
operatingunit.
14 The term transactions tends to be associated with financial processes (e.g., payables transactions),
while activities is more generally applied to operational or compliance processes. For the purposes of
the Framework, the term transactions applies to both.
15 The term transaction controls is used in the Framework to refer to both manual and automated controls.

A business process will likely cover many objectives and sub-objectives, each with
its own set of risks and risk responses. A common way to consolidate these business
process risks into a more manageable form is to group them according to information-
processing objectives16 of completeness, accuracy, and validity.
The following information-processing objective definitions are used in the Framework.17
CompletenessTransactions that occur are recorded. For instance, an organi-

zation can mitigate the risk of not processing all transactions with vendors by
selecting actions and transaction controls that support all invoice transactions
being processed within the accounts payable business process.
AccuracyTransactions are recorded at the correct amount in the right

account (and on a timely basis) at each stage of processing. For instance,
transaction controls over data elements and master data, such as the item
price in the vendor master file, can address the accuracy of processing a pur-
chasing transaction. Accuracy in the context of an operational process can be
defined to cover the broader concept of quality (e.g., the accuracy and preci-
sion of a manufactured part).
ValidityRecorded transactions represent economic events that actually

occurred and were executed according to prescribed procedures. Validity is
generally achieved through control activities that include the authorization of
transactions as specified by an organizations established policies and pro-
cedures (i.e., approval by a person having the authority to do so). In an opera-
tional context, the parts used in making an automobile are obtained from an
authorized supplier.
The risk of untimely transaction processing may be considered a separate risk or

included as part of the completeness or accuracy information-processing objective.
Restricted access is an important consideration for most business processes and is
often included as an information-processing objective because without appropriately
restricting access over transactions in a business process, the control activities in that
business process can be overridden and segregation of duties may not be achieved.
Restricted access is especially important where technology is integral to an organiza-

tions processes or business. For example, many organizations use ERP applications.
Configuring the security in these applications to address restricted access can become
very complex and requires technical knowledge and a structured approach. Consider-
ations for restricted access are discussed in more detail under the Security Manage-
ment Processes section of Principle 11.
While the information-processing objectives are most often associated with financial
processes and transactions, the concept can be applied to any activity in an organiza-
tion. For instance, a candy maker will strive to have control activities in place to help
16 While related in concept and terminology, information-processing objectives and financial statement asser-
tions are different. Financial statement assertions are specific to the reliability of financial reporting, while
information-processing objectives apply to transaction processing.
17 Information-processing objectives refers to an entitys goals for control activities and thus are sub-objec-
tives in the context of a system of internal control.

ensure that all the ingredients are included in its cooking process (completeness), in the
right amounts (accuracy), and from approved vendors whose products passed quality
testing (validity).
As another example, the information-processing objectives and related control activities

also apply to managements decision-making processes over critical judgments and
estimates. In this situation, management should consider the completeness of the iden-
tification of significant factors affecting estimates for which it must develop and support
assumptions. Similarly, management should consider the validity and reasonableness of
those assumptions and the accuracy of its estimation models.
This does not mean that if management considers the information-processing objec-
tives the organization will never make a faulty judgment or estimate; judgments and
estimates are always subject to human error. However, when appropriate control activi-
ties are in place, and the information management uses is, in its judgment, accurate,
complete, and valid, then the likelihood of better decision making is improved.
Types of Transaction Control Activities

A variety of transaction control activities can be selected and developed, including
thefollowing:
Authorizations and ApprovalsAn authorization affirms that a transaction

is valid (i.e., it represents an actual economic event or is within an entitys
policy). An authorization typically takes the form of an approval by a higher
level of management or of verification and a determination if the transaction is
valid. For example, a supervisor approves an expense report after reviewing
whether the expenses seem reasonable and within policy. An example of an
automated approval is where an invoice unit cost is automatically compared
with the related purchase order unit cost within a pre-established toler-
ance level. Invoices within the tolerance level are automatically approved for
payment. Those invoices outside the tolerance level are flagged for additional
investigation.
VerificationsVerifications compare two or more items with each other or

compare an item with a policy, and perform a follow-up action when the
two items do not match or the item is not consistent with policy. Examples
include computer matching or a reasonableness check. Verifications generally
address the completeness, accuracy, or validity of processing transactions.
Physical Controls Equipment, inventories, securities, cash, and other assets

are secured physically (e.g., in locked or guarded storage areas with physical
access restricted to authorized personnel) and are periodically counted and
compared with amounts shown on control records.
Controls over Standing DataStanding data, such as the price master file,
is often used to support the processing of transactions within a business
process. Control activities over the processes to populate, update, and main-
tain the accuracy, completeness, and validity of this data are put in place by
the organization.

ReconciliationsReconciliations compare two or more data elements and, if

differences are identified, action is taken to bring the data into agreement. For
example, a reconciliation is performed over daily cash flows with net positions
reported centrally for overnight transfer and investment. Reconciliations gen-
erally address the completeness and/or accuracy of processing transactions.
Supervisory ControlsSupervisory controls assess whether other transaction

control activities (i.e., particular verifications, reconciliations, authorizations
and approvals, controls over standing data, and physical control activities)
are being performed completely, accurately, and according to policy and
procedures. Management normally uses judgment to select and develop
supervisory controls over higher risk transactions. For instance, a supervisor
may review18 whether an accounting clerk performs a reconciliation according
to policy. This can be a high-level review (e.g., checking if the reconciliation
spreadsheet has been completed) or a more detailed review, (e.g., checking to
see if any reconciling items have been followed up and corrected or an appro-
priate explanation is provided).
Control activities can be preventive or detective, and organizations usually select a

mix. The major difference is the timing of when the control activity occurs. A preventive
control is designed to avoid an unintended event or result at the time of initial occur-
rence (e.g., upon initially recording a financial transaction or upon initiating a manu-
facturing process). A detective control is designed to discover an unintended event or
result after the initial processing has occurred but before the ultimate objective has
concluded (e.g., issuing financial reports or completing a manufacturing process). In
both cases the critical part of the control activity is the action taken to correct or avoid
an unintended event or result.
When selecting and developing control activities, the organization considers the
precision of the control activitythat is, how exact it will be in preventing or detect-
ing an unintended event or result. For example, suppose the purchasing manager of a
company reviews all purchases over $1 million. This control activity may mitigate the
risk of errors over $1 million, helping to cap the entitys exposure, but it does not cover
all transactions. In contrast, an automated edit check that compares prices on all pur-
chase orders to the price master file and produces a report of variances that is reviewed
by a purchasing supervisor addresses accuracy for all transactions. Control activity
precision is closely linked to the organizations risk tolerance for a particular objective
(i.e., the tighter the risk tolerance, the more precise the actions to mitigate the risk and
the related control activities need to be).
When selecting and developing control activities it is important to understand what a

particular control is designed to accomplish (i.e., the specific risk response the control
addresses) and whether it has been developed and implemented as designed to miti-
gate the risk. For example, in one entity sales orders undergo an automated or manual
edit check that matches a customers billing address and zip code to information in a
standing data file of valid customer relationships. If the match fails, corrective action is
taken. This control activity helps achieve the accuracy information-processing objective.
18 Supervisory reviews can be either control activities or monitoring activities. The difference is discussed
further in Chapter 9, Monitoring Activities.

However, it does not help achieve the completeness information-processing objective

(i.e., whether all approved sales orders are being processed). Another control activity,
such as sequentially numbering approved sales orders and then checking if all have
been processed, would be needed to address completeness.
Technology and Control Activities

Control activities and technology19 relate to each other in two ways:
Technology Supports Business ProcessesWhen technology is embedded

into the entitys business processes, such as robotic automation in a manu-
facturing plant, control activities are needed to mitigate the risk that the tech-
nology itself will not continue to operate properly to support the achievement
of the organizations objectives.
Technology Used to Automate Control ActivitiesMany control activities in an

entity are partially or wholly automated using technology. These procedures
are known as automated control activities or automated controls in the Frame-
work. Automated controls include financial processrelated automated trans-
action controls, such as a three-way match performed within an ERP system
supporting the procurement and payables sub-processes, and computer-
ized controls in operational or compliance processes, such as checking the
proper functioning of a power plant. Sometimes the control activity is purely
automated, such as when a system detects an error in the transmission of
data, rejects the transmission, and automatically requests a new transmission.
Other times there is a combination of automated and manual procedures.
For example, the system automatically detects the error in transmission, but
someone has to manually initiate the re-transmission. In other cases, a manual
control depends on information from a system, such as computer-generated
reports supporting a budget-to-actual analysis.
Most business processes have a mix of manual and automated controls, depending on
the availability of technology in the entity. Automated controls tend to be more reliable,
subject to whether technology general controls, discussed later in this chapter, are
implemented and operating, since they are less susceptible to human judgment and
error, and are typically more efficient.
Control Activities at Different Levels

In addition to controls that operate at the transaction-processing level, the organiza-
tion selects and develops a mix of control activities that operate more broadly and that
typically take place at higher levels in the organization. These broader control activi-
ties usually are business performance or analytical reviews20 involving comparisons of
19 Technology is a broad term. In the Framework its use applies to technology that is computerized, includ-
ing software applications running on a computer, manufacturing controls systems, etc.
20 Business performance reviews can be either control activities or monitoring activities. The difference is
discussed further in Chapter 9, Monitoring Activities.

different sets of operating or financial data. The relationships are analyzed and inves-
tigated and corrective actions are taken when not in line with policy or expectations.
Transaction controls and business performance reviews at different levels work together
to provide a layered approach to addressing the organizations risks and are integral to
the mix of controls within the organization.
For example, an operating unit may have business performance reviews over the pro-
curement process that include purchase price variances, the percentage of orders that
are rush purchase orders, and the percentage of returns to total purchase orders. By
investigating any unexpected results or unusual trends, management may detect cir-
cumstances where the underlying procurement objectives may not have been achieved.
Another form of business performance review occurs when senior management con-
ducts reviews of actual performance versus budgets, forecasts, prior periods, and
competitor results. Major initiatives are trackedsuch as marketing programs, improve-
ments to production processes, and cost containment or reduction programsto
measure the extent to which targets are being reached. Management reviews the status
of new product development, joint venture opportunities, or financing needs. Manage-
ment actions taken to analyze and follow up on such reporting are control activities.
The scope of a business performance review (i.e., how many detailed risks it covers) will
tend to be greater than for a transaction control. Also, the span of the review across the
organization will tend to be greater as a business performance review is usually per-
formed at higher levels in the organization than a transaction control. However, to effec-
tively respond to a set of risks, the review must be precise enough to detect all errors
that exceed the risk tolerance. A transaction control may address a single specific risk,
whereas an operating unit business performance review typically addresses a number
of risks. For example, the business performance review over rush purchase orders
covers several risks in the procurement process but may not address risks concerning
the accuracy and completeness of processing specific transactions.
Most business performance reviews are detective in nature because they typically occur
after transactions have already taken place and been processed. So while higher-level
controls are important in the mix of control activities, it is difficult to fully and efficiently
address business process risks without transaction controls.
Segregating Duties
When selecting and developing control activities management should consider whether
duties are divided or segregated among different people to reduce the risk of error or
inappropriate or fraudulent actions. Such consideration should include the legal envi-
ronment, regulatory requirements, and stakeholder expectations. This segregation of
duties generally entails dividing the responsibility for recording, authorizing, and approv-
ing transactions, and handling the related asset. For instance, a manager authorizing
credit sales is not responsible for maintaining accounts receivable records or handling
cash receipts. If one person is able to perform all these activities he or she could, for

example, create a fictitious sale that could go undetected. Similarly, salespersons

should not have the ability to modify product price files or commission rates. A control
activity in this area could include reviewing access requests to the system to deter-
mine whether segregation of duties is being maintained. For example, a request for a
salesperson to have system access to modify product price files or commission rates
shouldbe rejected.
The segregation of duties can address important risks relating to management over-
ride. Management override circumvents existing controls and is an often-used means
of committing fraud. The segregation of duties is fundamental to mitigating fraud risks
because it reduces, but cant absolutely prevent, the possibility of one person acting
alone. However, there is always the risk that management can override control activities.
Collusion is needed to perform fraudulent activities when key process responsibilities
are divided between at least two employees. Also, the segregation of duties reduces
errors by having more than one person performing or reviewing transactions in a
process, increasing the likelihood of an error being found.
However, sometimes segregation is not practical, cost effective, or feasible. For

instance, small companies may lack sufficient resources to achieve ideal segregation,
and the cost of hiring additional staff may be prohibitive. In these situations, manage-
ment institutes alternative21 control activities. In the example above, if the salesperson
can modify product price files, a detective control activity can be put in place to have
personnel unrelated to the sales function periodically review whether and under what
circumstances the salesperson changed prices.
21 The Framework prefers the term alternative controls over compensating controls. The latter term has
been used to describe additional control activities put in place when segregation of duties could not be
achieved. However, this term has evolved to refer to control activities that mitigate the impact of an identi-
fied control deficiency when evaluating the operating effectiveness of controls and is used in this context
in the Framework.

Selects and Develops General Controls over

Technology
Principle 11: The organization selects and develops
general control activities over technology to support the
Points of Focus
Determines Dependency between the Use of Technology in Business

Processes and Technology General ControlsManagement understands
and determines the dependency and linkage between business processes,
automated control activities, and technology general controls.
Establishes Relevant Technology Infrastructure Control ActivitiesMan-

agement selects and develops control activities over the technology infra-
structure, which are designed and implemented to help ensure the complete-
ness, accuracy, and availability of technology processing.
Establishes Relevant Security Management Process Control Activities

Management selects and develops control activities that are designed and
implemented to restrict technology access rights to authorized users com-
mensurate with their job responsibilities and to protect the entitys assets from
external threats.
Establishes Relevant Technology Acquisition, Development, and Main-

tenance Process Control ActivitiesManagement selects and develops
control activities over the acquisition, development, and maintenance of tech-
nology and its infrastructure to achieve managements objectives.
Dependency between the Use of Technology in Business

Processes and Technology General Controls
The reliability of technology within business processes, including automated controls,
depends on the selection, development, and deployment of general control activities
over technology, referred to from here on as technology general controls.22 Technology
general controls over the acquisition and development of technology are deployed to
help ensure that automated controls work properly when first developed and imple-
mented. Technology general controls also help information systems continue to function
properly after they are implemented.
For instance, suppose an organization wants to deploy an automated matching and edit
check control that examines data entered on-line. If something does not match, or is
22 Terminology typically used to describe these controls includes general computer controls, general con-
trols, or information technology controls. The term technology general controls is used here to refer to
general control activities over technology.

in the wrong format, immediate feedback is provided so that corrections can be made.
Error messages indicate what is wrong with the data, and exception reports allow for
subsequent follow-up. Technology general controls over system development help
ensure that this automated control works properly when first designed and implemented
(e.g., the edit checks follow the business logic defined by management, the checks
match data with the right transaction or standing data file, any error message com-
pletely and accurately reflects what is wrong, and all exceptions are reported according
to the organizations policies).
Once this automated control is properly implemented, technology general controls

help ensure its continued operation (e.g., the right files are being used in the matching
process and the files are complete and accurate). Also, proper security control activities
limit access to the system to only those who need it, reducing the possibility of unau-
thorized edits to the files. Control activities over any changes to the technology help
ensure that it continues to function as designed.
As with other entity functions, processes are put in place to select, develop, operate,
and maintain an entitys technology. These processes may be limited to a few activities
over the use of standard technology purchased from an external party (e.g., a spread-
sheet application) or expanded to support both in-house and externally developed tech-
nology. Selected and developed control activities contribute to the mitigation of specific
risks surrounding the use of technology processes.
Technology General Controls

Technology general controls include control activities over the technology infrastructure,
security management, and technology acquisition, development, and maintenance.
They apply to all technologyfrom information technology applications on a mainframe
computer; to client/server, desktop, end-user computing, portable computer, and
mobile device environments; to operational technology, such as plant control systems
or manufacturing robotics. The extent and rigor of control activities will vary for each of
these technologies depending on various factors, such as the complexity of the technol-
ogy and risk of the underlying business process being supported. Similar to business
transaction controls, technology general controls may include both manual and auto-
mated control activities.
Technology Infrastructure
Technology requires an infrastructure in which to operate, ranging from communication
networks for linking technologies to each other and the rest of the entity, to the com-
puting resources for applications to operate, to the electricity to power the technology.
The technology infrastructure can be complex. It may be shared by different business
units within the entity (e.g., a shared service center) or outsourced either to third-party
service organizations or to location-independent technology services (e.g., cloud com-
puting). These complexities present risks that need to be understood and addressed.
Given the broad range of possible changes in the use of technology likely to continue
into the future, the organization needs to track these changes and assess and respond
to the new risks.

Control activities support the completeness, accuracy, and availability of technology

processing. Whether the infrastructure is batch scheduling for a mainframe computer,
real-time processing in a client/server environment, mobile wireless devices, or a
sophisticated communications network, the technology is actively checked for prob-
lems and corrective action taken when needed. Maintaining technology often includes
backup and recovery procedures, as well as disaster recovery plans, depending on the
risks and consequences of a full or partial outage.
Security Management Processes

Security management includes sub-processes and control activities over who and what
has access to an entitys technology, including who has the ability to execute transac-
tions. They generally cover access rights at the data, operating system (system soft-
ware), network, application, and physical layers. Security controls over access protects
an entity from inappropriate access and unauthorized use of the system and supports
segregation of duties. By preventing unauthorized use of and changes to the system,
data and program integrity are protected from malicious intent (e.g., someone break-
ing into the technology to commit fraud, vandalism, or terrorism) or a simple error (e.g.,
a well-intentioned employee using a vacationing colleagues account to get work done,
and executing a transaction erroneously or deleting a file because he or she is not prop-
erly trained in the work).
Security threats can come from both internal and external sources. The external threat
is particularly important for entities that depend on telecommunications networks
and the Internet. Technology users, customers, and malicious parties may be halfway
around the world or down the hall. The many potential uses of technology and points
of entry underscore the importance of security management. External threats have
become prevalent in todays highly interconnected business environments, and con-
tinual effort is required to address these risks.
Internal threats may come from former or disgruntled employees who pose unique risks
because they may be both motivated to work against the entity and better equipped to
succeed in carrying out a malicious act because they have greater access and knowl-
edge of the entitys security management systems and processes.
User access to technology is generally controlled through authentication control activi-

ties where a unique user identification or token is authenticated against an approved
list. Technology general controls are designed to allow only authorized users on an
approved list. These control activities generally employ a policy of restricting authorized
users to the applications or functions commensurate with their job responsibilities and
supporting an appropriate segregation of duties. Control activities are used to check
requests for access against the approved list. Other control activities are in place to
update access when employees change job functions or leave the entity. A periodic
review of access rights against the policy is often used to check if access remains
appropriate. Access also needs to be controlled when different technology elements are
connected to each other.

Technology Acquisition, Development, and Maintenance Processes

Technology general controls support the acquisition, development, and maintenance of
technology. For example, a technology development methodology23 provides a struc-
ture for system design and implementation, outlining specific phases, documentation
requirements, approvals, and checkpoints with controls over the acquisition, develop-
ment, and maintenance of technology. The methodology provides appropriate con-
trols over changes to technology, which may involve requiring authorization of change
requests, verifying the entitys legal right to use the technology in the manner in which
it is being employed, reviewing the changes, approvals, and testing results, and imple-
menting protocols to determine whether changes are made properly.
In some companies the development methodology covers the continuum from large
development projects to the smallest changes. In other companies there is one distinct
process for developing new technology and a separate process for change manage-
ment. In either case, a change management process will be in place to track changes
from initiation to final disposition. Changes may arise as a result of a problem in the
technology that needs to be fixed or a request from the user community.
The technology general controls included in a development methodology will vary

depending on the risks of the technology initiative. A large or complex development
initiative will generally have greater risks than a small or simple initiative. The extent and
rigor of the controls over the initiative should be sized accordingly.
One alternative to in-house development is the use of packaged software. Technology

vendors provide flexible, integrated systems allowing customization through the use
of built-in options. Many technology development methodologies address the acquisi-
tion of vendor packages as a development alternative and include the necessary steps
to provide control over their selection and implementation. Once selected and imple-
mented, technology general controls outlined above would also apply to the ongoing
development and maintenance of technology,
Another alternative is outsourcing. While in principle the same considerations apply

whether controls are performed internally or by an outsourced service provider, out-
sourcing presents unique risks and often requires selecting and developing additional
controls over the completeness, accuracy, and validity of information submitted to and
received from the outsourced service provider.
23 There are many names for this process. One common name is systems development life cycle (SDLC).

Deploys through Policies and Procedures

Principle 12: The organization deploys control activities
through policies that establish what is expected and
procedures that put policies into action.
Points of Focus
Establishes Policies and Procedures to Support Deployment of Manage-

ments DirectivesManagement establishes control activities that are built
into business processes and employees day-to-day activities through policies
establishing what is expected and relevant procedures specifying actions.
Establishes Responsibility and Accountability for Executing Policies and

ProceduresManagement establishes responsibility and accountability for
control activities with management (or other designated personnel) of the
business unit or function in which the relevant risks reside.
Performs in a Timely MannerResponsible personnel perform control activi-

ties in a timely manner as defined by the policies and procedures.
Takes Corrective ActionResponsible personnel investigate and act on

matters identified as a result of executing control activities.
Performs Using Competent PersonnelCompetent personnel with sufficient

authority perform control activities with diligence and continuing focus.
Reassesses Policies and ProceduresManagement periodically reviews

control activities to determine their continued relevance, and refreshes them
when necessary.
Policies and Procedures

Policies reflect managements statement of what should be done to effect control. Such
statements may be documented, explicitly stated in communications, or implied through
managements actions and decisions. Procedures consist of actions that implement
apolicy.
Control activities specifically relate to those policies and procedures that contribute to
the mitigation of risks to the achievement of objectives to acceptable levels. A policy, for
instance, might call for review of customer trading activities by a securities dealer retail
branch manager. The procedure is the review itself, performed in a timely manner and
with attention given to factors set forth in the policy, such as the nature and volume of
securities traded, and their relation to customer net worth and age.
Policies and procedures are often communicated orally. Unwritten policies can be effec-
tive where the policy is a long-standing and well-understood practice, and in smaller
organizations where communications channels involve limited management layers and
close interaction with and supervision of personnel. Though a cost-effective alternative

for some entities, unwritten policies and procedures can be easier to circumvent, be
costly to the organization if there is turnover in personnel, and can reduce accountabil-
ity. When subject to external party review, policies and procedures would be expected
to be formally documented.24
But whether or not a policy is in writing, it must establish clear responsibility and
accountability, which ultimately resides with the management of the entity and subunit
where the risk resides. Procedures should be clear on the responsibilities of person-
nel performing the control activity. Also, policies need to be deployed thoughtfully and
conscientiously, and the related procedures must be timely and be performed diligently
and consistently by competent personnel.
Timeliness
The procedures should include the timing of when a control activity and any follow-up
corrective actions are performed. Untimely procedures can reduce the usefulness of the
control activity. For example, a regular review of user accounts for inappropriate access
rights is conducted by the business process owner on a timely basis to reduce the
risk of unauthorized access to an acceptable level. Longer intervals between reviews
increase the potential for untimely detection of unauthorized access.
Corrective Action
In conducting a control activity, matters identified for follow-up should be investigated
and, if appropriate, corrective action taken. For example, consider a case where a rec-
onciliation of cash accounts detects a discrepancy in one of the accounts. The account-
ing clerk follows up with the person in charge of recording cash and determines that
a cash receipt was not posted properly. The receipt is reapplied and the correction is
reflected in the reconciliation.
Competence
A well-designed control activity generally cannot be conducted without competent per-
sonnel with sufficient authority to perform the control activity. The level of competency
required to perform a control activity will depend on factors such as the complexity of
the control activity and the complexity and volume of the underlying transactions. Fur-
thermore, a procedure will not be useful if performed by rote, without a sharp, continu-
ing focus on the risks to which the policy is directed. Sufficient authority may be needed
to fully perform all aspects of the control such as taking corrective action.
Periodic Reassessment
Management should periodically reassess policies and procedures and related control
activities for continued relevance and effectiveness, unrelated to being responsive to
significant changes in the entitys risks or objectives. Significant changes would be
evaluated through the risk assessment process. Changes in people, process, and tech-
nology may reduce the effectiveness of control activities or make some control activi-
ties redundant. Whenever one of these changes occurs, management should reassess
24 See the discussion on documentation in Chapter 4, Additional Considerations.

the relevance of the existing controls and refresh them when necessary. For example,
management may upgrade the purchasing module of an ERP system and introduce
automated transaction control activities that cause the old manual control activities to
be redundant and, hence, no longer necessary.

Components of Internal Control | Information and Communication
8. Information and Communication
Chapter Summary
Information is necessary for the entity to carry out internal control re-
sponsibilities to support the achievement of its objectives. Management
obtains or generates and uses relevant and quality information from
both internal and external sources to support the functioning of internal
control. Communication is the continual, iterative process of providing,
sharing, and obtaining necessary information. Internal communication is
the means by which information is disseminated throughout the organi-
zation, flowing up, down, and across the entity. It enables personnel to
receive a clear message from senior management that control respon-
sibilities must be taken seriously. External communication is twofold: it
enables inbound communication of relevant external information and
provides information to external parties in response to requirements and
expectations.
Principles relating to the Information and Communica-

tioncomponent
13. The organization obtains or generates and uses relevant, quality

information to support the functioning of internal control.
14. The organization internally communicates information, including

objectives and responsibilities for internal control, necessary to
support the functioning of internal control.
15. The organization communicates with external parties regarding

matters affecting the functioning of internalcontrol.

Introduction
The Information and Communica-
tion component of the Framework
supports the functioning of all
components of internal control. In
combination with the other compo-
nents, Information and Communica-
tion supports the achievement of the
entitys objectives, including objec-
tives relevant to internal and external
reporting. Controls within Informa-
tion and Communication support the
organizations ability to use the right
information within the system of inter-
nal control and to carry out internal
control responsibilities.
Information is the data that is com-

bined and summarized based on relevance to information requirements. Information
requirements are determined by the ongoing functioning of the other internal control
components, taking into consideration the expectations of all users, both internal and
external. Information systems support informed decision making and the functioning of
the internal control by processing relevant, timely, and quality information from internal
and external sources.
Communication enables the organization to share relevant and quality information

internally and externally. Communication provides information necessary in design-
ing, implementing, and conducting internal control, and in assessing its effectiveness.
Management communicates information internally to enable personnel to understand
the entitys objectives and the importance of their control responsibilities. Internal
communication facilitates the functioning of internal control by sharing information up,
down, and across the entity. External communication enables management to obtain
and share information between the entity and external parties about risks, regulatory
matters, changes in circumstances, customer satisfaction, and other information rel-
evant to the functioning of the internal control.
An information system is the set of activities, involving people, processes, data and/or
technology, which enable the organization to obtain, generate, use, and communicate
transactions and information to maintain accountability and measure and review the
entitys performance or progress toward achievement of objectives.
The Framework distinguishes this component from the internal reporting category of
objectives. Information and Communication is only one component of the Framework.
This component serves to provide relevant, quality information to support all compo-
nents of internal control. On the other hand, an organization seeking reasonable assur-
ance in preparing external reports requires all five components of internal control. Com-
munication can appear broad at times (e.g., information communicated about external
trends or events), but in the context of the Framework, its use may be narrower (e.g.,
communication enabling a user to carry out controls within Risk Assessment).

Uses Relevant Information

Principle 13: The organization obtains or generates
and uses relevant, quality information to support the
functioning of internal control.
Points of Focus
Identifies Information RequirementsA process is in place to identify the

information required and expected to support the functioning of the other
components of internal control and the achievement of the entitys objectives.
Captures Internal and External Sources of DataInformation systems

capture internal and external sources of data.
Processes Relevant Data into InformationInformation systems process

and transform relevant data into information.
Maintains Quality throughout ProcessingInformation systems produce

information that is timely, current, accurate, complete, accessible, protected,
and verifiable and retained. Information is reviewed to assess its relevance in
supporting the internal control components.
Considers Costs and BenefitsThe nature, quantity, and precision of infor-

mation communicated are commensurate with and support the achievement
of objectives.
Information Requirements
Information is necessary for the organization to carry out its internal control responsibili-
ties to support the achievement of objectives. Information about the entitys objectives
is gathered from board and senior management activities and summarized in a way that
management and others can understand objectives and their role in their achievement.
For example, a wholesale distributor found that its managers did not have a solid under-
standing of the key objectives for the organization. The business plan was detailed and
difficult to concisely communicate. The board of directors worked with senior man-
agement to summarize the entitys key objectives into a clear narrative document that
accompanied internally distributed financial statements. In addition, the board provided
a balanced scorecard that mapped these goals to metrics and actual results, both
non-financial and financial, on a monthly basis. Feedback from a subsequent employee
survey indicated that management and other personnel better understood the organiza-
tions objectives.
Obtaining relevant information requires management to identify and define informa-

tion requirements at the relevant level and requisite specificity. Identifying information
requirements is an iterative and ongoing process that occurs throughout the perfor-
mance of an effective internal control system.

Management develops and implements controls relating to the identification of relevant

information that supports the functioning of components. The following examples illus-
trate how information in support of the functioning of other internal control components
is identified and defined.
Internal Control Component Example of Information Used
Control Environment Management performs an annual entity-wide survey of its employees

to gather information about their personal conduct in relation to the
entitys code of conduct. The survey is part of a process that pro-
duces information to support the Control Environment component and
may also provide input into the selection, development, implementa-
tion, or maintenance of control activities.
Risk Assessment As a result of changes in customer demands, an entity changes its

product mix and delivery mechanisms. Expanded on-line sales have
caused credit card transactions to increase significantly. To assess
the risk of non-compliance with security and privacy regulations
associated with credit card information, management gathers infor-
mation about the number of transactions, overall value, and nature of
data retained for the last fiscal year and evaluates its significance in
conducting its risk analysis.
Control Activities Certain equipment used in a high-volume production environment

deteriorates if it operates longer than a specified time period. To
maximize equipment lifespan, management obtains and reviews
the daily up-time logs and compares them to ranges set by senior
management. The information supports control activities that address
mitigation procedures required when maximum up-time levels are
exceeded.
Monitoring Activities A large utility company gathers, processes, and reports accident and
injury records related to the power generation operating unit. Com-
paring this information with trends in workers compensation health
insurance claims identifies variations from established expectations.
This may indicate that control activities over the identification, pro-
cessing, reporting, investigation, and resolution of accident and injury
events may not be functioning as intended.
Controls embedded within the five components establish information requirements.

These requirements facilitate and direct management and other personnel to identify
relevant and reliable sources of information and underlying data. The amount of infor-
mation and underlying data available to management may be more than is needed
because of increased sources of information and advances in data collection, process-
ing, and storage. In other cases, data may be difficult to obtain at the relevant level or
requisite specificity. Therefore, a clear understanding of the information requirements
directs management and other personnel to identify relevant and reliable sources of
information and data.

Achieving the right balance between the benefits and the costs to obtain and manage
information, and the information systems, is a key consideration in establishing an infor-
mation system that meets the entitys needs.
Information from Relevant Sources

Information is received from a variety of sources and in a variety of forms. The follow-
ing table summarizes examples of internal and external data and sources from which
management can generate useful information relevant to internal controls.
Examples of Internal Sources of Data Examples of Internal Data
Email communications Organizational changes

Inspections of production floor processing On-time and quality production experience
Minutes or notes from operating committee Actions in response to energy consumption
meetings metrics
Personnel time reporting systems Hours incurred on time-based projects
Reports from manufacturing systems Number of units shipped in a month
Responses to customer surveys Factors impacting customer attrition rates
Whistle-blower hotline Complaint on managers behavior
Examples of External Sources of Data Examples of External Data
Data received from outsourced service providers Products shipped from contract manufacturer
Industry research reports Competitor product information
Peer company earnings releases Market and industry metrics
Regulatory bodies New or expanded requirements
Social media or other blog posts Opinions about the entity
Trade shows Evolving customer preferences
Whistle-blower hotline Claim of misuse of funds, bribery
Management considers a comprehensive scope of potential events, activities, and data

sources, available internally and from reliable external sources, and selects the most rel-
evant and useful to the current organizational structure, business model, or objectives.
As change in the entity occurs, the information requirements also change. For example,
entities operating in a highly dynamic business and economic environment experience
continual changes such as highly innovative and quick-moving competitors, shifting
customer expectations, evolving regulatory requirements, globalization, and technology
innovation. Therefore, management re-evaluates information requirements and adjusts
to meet its ongoing needs.

Processing Data through Information Systems

Organizations develop information systems to source, capture, and process large
volumes of data from internal and external sources into meaningful, actionable infor-
mation to meet defined information requirements. Information systems encompass a
combination of people, processes, data, and technology that support business pro-
cesses managed internally as well as those that are supported through relationships
with outsourced service providers and other parties interacting with the entity.
Information may be obtained through a variety of forms including manual input or

compilation, or through the use of information technology such as electronic data inter-
change (EDI) or application programming interfaces (API). Conversations with custom-
ers, suppliers, regulators, and employees are also sources of critical data and informa-
tion needed to identify and assess both risks and opportunities. In some instances,
information and underlying data captured requires a series of manual and automated
processes to ensure it is at the relevant level and requisite specificity. In other cases,
information may be obtained directly from an internal or external source. Management
develops and implements control activities over the integrity of data input into informa-
tion systems and over the completeness and accuracy of processing such data into
information used by other controls.
The volume of information accessible to the organization presents both opportunities

and risks. Greater access to information can enhance internal control. On the other
hand, increased volume of information and underlying data may create additional risks
such as operational risks caused by inefficiency due to data overload, compliance risks
associated with laws and regulations around data protection and retention, and privacy
and security risks arising from the nature of data stored by or on behalf of the entity.
The nature and extent of information requirements, the complexity and volume of infor-
mation, and the dependence on external parties impacts the range of sophistication of
information systems, including the extent of technology deployed. Regardless of the
level of sophistication adopted, information systems represent the end-to-end informa-
tion processing of transactions and data that enable the entity to collect, store, and
summarize quality and consistent information across the relevant processes, whether
manual, automated, or a combination of both.
Information systems developed with integrated, technology-enabled processes provide

opportunities to enhance the efficiency, speed, and accessibility of information to users.
Additionally, such information systems may enhance internal control over security and
privacy risks associated with information obtained and generated by the organization.
Information systems designed and implemented to restrict access to information only
to those who need it and to reduce the number of access points enhance the effective-
ness of mitigating risks associated with the security and privacy of information.
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, association management systems (AMS),

corporate intranets, collaboration tools, interactive social media, data warehouses, busi-
ness intelligence systems, operational systems (e.g., factory automation and energy-
usage systems), web-based applications, and other technology solutions present
opportunities for management to leverage technology in developing and implementing
effective and efficient information systems.

Information Quality
Maintaining quality of information is necessary to an effective internal control system,
particularly with todays volume of data and dependence on sophisticated, auto-
mated information systems. The ability to generate quality information begins with
the data sourced. Inaccurate or incomplete data, and the information derived from
such data, could result in potentially erroneous judgments, estimates, or other
managementdecisions.
The quality of information depends on whether it is:
AccessibleThe information is easy to obtain by those who need it. Users

know what information is available and where in the information system the
information is accessible.
CorrectThe underlying data is accurate and complete. Information systems

include validation checks that address accuracy and completeness, including
necessary exception resolution procedures.
CurrentThe data gathered is from current sources and is gathered at the

frequency needed.
ProtectedAccess to sensitive information is restricted to authorized per-

sonnel. Data categorization (e.g., confidential and top secret) supports
informationprotection.
RetainedInformation is available over an extended period of time to support

inquiries and inspections by external parties.
SufficientThere is enough information at the right level of detail relevant to

information requirements. Extraneous data is eliminated to avoid inefficiency,
misuse, or misinterpretation.
TimelyThe information is available from the information system when

needed. Timely information helps with the early identification of events,
trends, and issues.
ValidInformation is obtained from authorized sources, gathered according to

prescribed procedures, and represents events that actually occurred.
VerifiableInformation is supported by evidence from the source. Manage-

ment establishes information management policies with clear responsibility
and accountability for the quality of the information.

Management establishes information management policies with clear responsibil-

ity and accountability for the quality of the information. These policies address data
governance expectations that guide processes to define categories or classes of data
and assign requirements for physical handling, storage, security, and privacy. These
policies support management and other personnels responsibilities for protecting data
and information from unauthorized access or change and for adhering to retention
requirements.
For example, in one case senior management of a decentralized, geographically dis-

persed government agency identified a risk, specific to achieving an operational objec-
tive associated with the quality of operational data collected from its 2,000 field units.
Management developed a set of specified data requirements and a reporting format to
be used by all field units. Senior management consistently performed monthly reviews
of key metrics derived from the data across all units. Those units with the best and
poorest performance were required to explain the source of their data to an internal
audit team. In addition, agency management used the reports of unit operational data
and metrics on field visits and began asking questions to assess the units understand-
ing of data on the reports. After six months of implementing this system of reporting,
monthly reviews, field visits, and related feedback that was shared throughout the
process, the quality of information improved to the level acceptable to management.
To maintain this level, management implemented amended policies and processes for
reporting the operational data and business intelligence technology to enable consis-
tent, timely reporting of the information.
Information that is obtained from outsourced service providers that manage busi-
ness processes on behalf of the entity, and other external parties on whom the entity
depends, is subject to the same internal control expectations. Information requirements
are developed by the organization and communicated to outside service providers and
other similar external parties. Controls support the organizations ability to rely on such
information, including internal control over outsourced service providers such as vendor
due diligence, exercise of right-to-audit clauses, and obtaining an independent assess-
ment over the service providers controls.
Management considers its requirements to retain communications, particularly those to

and from external parties or those that relate to the entitys compliance with laws and
regulations. Given the potential volume and ability to store and retrieve such infor-
mation, this requirement may be challenging when management relies on real-time,
technology-enabled communication. Controls over retention of internal control informa-
tion consider the challenges of advances in technology, including communication and
collaboration technologies used to support other components of internal control and
achievement of the entitys objectives.

Communicates Internally
Principle 14: The organization internally communicates
information, including objectives and responsibilities for
internal control, necessary to support the functioning of
internal control.
Points of Focus
Communicates Internal Control InformationA process is in place to com-

municate required information to enable all personnel to understand and carry
out their internal control responsibilities.
Communicates with the Board of DirectorsCommunication exists between

management and the board of directors so that both have information needed
to fulfill their roles with respect to the entitys objectives.
Provides Separate Communication LinesSeparate communication chan-

nels, such as whistle-blower hotlines, are in place and serve as fail-safe
mechanisms to enable anonymous or confidential communication when
normal channels are inoperative or ineffective.
Selects Relevant Method of CommunicationThe method of communication

considers the timing, audience, and nature of the information.
Internal Control Communication

Communication of information conveyed across the entity include:
Policies and procedures that support personnel in performing their internal

control responsibilities
Specified objectives
Importance, relevance, and benefits of effective internal control
Roles and responsibilities of management and other personnel in

performingcontrols
Expectations of the organization to communicate up, down, and across

the entity any matters of significance relating to internal control including
instances of weakness, deterioration, or non-adherence
The organization establishes and implements policies and procedures that facilitate
effective internal communication. This includes specific and directed communication
that addresses individual authorities, responsibilities, and standards of conduct across
the entity. Senior management communicates the entitys objectives clearly through
the organization so that other management and personnel, including non-employees
such as contractors, understand their individual roles in the organization. Such com-
munication occurs regardless of where personnel are located, their level of authority, or

their functional responsibility. Internal communication begins with the communication

of specified objectives. As management cascades the communication of the entity-
specific objectives throughout the organization, it is important that the related sub-
objectives or specific requirements are communicated to personnel in a manner that
allows them to understand how their roles and responsibilities impact the achievement
of the entitys objectives.
All personnel also receive a clear message from senior management that their internal
control responsibilities must be taken seriously. Through communication of objectives
and sub-objectives, personnel understand how their roles, responsibilities, and actions
relate to the work of others in the organization; what responsibilities for internal control
they have; and what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable behavior. As discussed
under Control Environment, by establishing appropriate structures, authorities, and
responsibilities, communication to personnel of the expectations for internal control is
effected. However, communication about internal control responsibilities may not on
its own be sufficient to ensure that management and other personnel embrace their
accountability and respond as intended. Often, management must take timely action
that is consistent with such communication to reinforce the messages conveyed.
Management selects, develops, and deploys controls that help ensure that information
is shared through internal communication and that help management and other per-
sonnel carry out control responsibilities across multiple functions, operating units, or
divisions. For example:
Field service personnel in the sales department of an entity gather informa-

tion about defect rates on certain parts. This information is also useful to the
directors of manufacturing and engineering as it may indicate a production
quality or product design issue. In addition, the results of monitoring activi-
ties are communicated to other personnel to help identify the root cause of an
issue and take corrective action.
The internal audit department conducts an audit over the commissions paid
to distributors in one international location. The audit reveals instances of
fraudulent reporting of sales through certain distributors. Further investigation
exposes payments by the distributor to the sales representative responsible
for the related distributors. This information is shared with those responsible
for responding to potential fraud and with sales management in other interna-
tional locations, enabling them to analyze information more critically to deter-
mine if the issue is more pervasive and take any necessary actions.
Internal Control Communication with Board

Communication between management and the board of directors provides the board
with information needed to exercise its oversight responsibility for internal control. Infor-
mation relating to internal control communicated to the board generally includes signifi-
cant matters about the adherence to, changes in, or issues arising from the system of
internal control. The frequency and level of detail of communication between manage-
ment and the board must be sufficient to enable the board of directors to understand
the results of managements separate and ongoing assessments and the impact of

those results on the achievement of objectives. Additionally, the frequency and level of
detail must be sufficient to enable the board of directors to respond to indications of
ineffective internal control in a timely manner.
Direct communication to the board of directors by other personnel is also impor-

tant. Members of the board of directors should have direct access to employees
without interference from management. For example, some organizations encourage
board members to meet with management and personnel without senior manage-
ment present. This allows board members to independently ask questions and assess
important matters that employees may not otherwise feel comfortable sharing, such as
adherence to the code of conduct, competence of personnel, or potential management
override of controls. Additionally, the overall system of internal control is enhanced by
the internal audit department that is independent of management. Internal audit com-
munication to the board of directors is generally direct, free from management bias and,
where necessary, confidential.
Communication beyond Normal Channels

For information to flow up, down, and across the organization, there must be open
channels of communication and a clear-cut willingness to report and listen. Manage-
ment and other personnel must believe their supervisors truly want to know about prob-
lems and will deal with them, as necessary. In most cases, normal established reporting
lines in an entity are the appropriate channels of communication. However, person-
nel are quick to pick up on signals if management does not have the time, interest, or
resources to deal with problems they have uncovered. Compounding the problem is
that an unreceptive or unavailable manager is usually the last to know that the normal
communications channel is inoperative or ineffective.
In some circumstances, separate lines of communication are needed to establish a fail-

safe mechanism for anonymous or confidential communication when normal channels
are inoperative or ineffective. Many entities provide, and make employees aware of, a
channel for such communications to be received by the board of directors or a board
delegate such as a member of the audit committee. In some cases, laws and regula-
tions require companies to establish such alternative communications channels (e.g.,
whistle-blower and ethics hotlines). Information systems should include mechanisms
for anonymous or confidential reporting. Employees must fully understand how these
channels operate, how they should be used, and how they will be protected to have
the confidence to use them. Policies and procedures exist requiring all communication
through these channels to be assessed, prioritized, and investigated. Escalation proce-
dures ensure that necessary communication will be made to a specific board member
who is responsible for ensuring that timely and proper assessments, investigations, and
actions are carried out.
These separate mechanisms, which encourage employees to report suspected viola-

tions of an entitys code of conduct without fear of reprisal, send a clear message that
senior management is committed to open communication channels and will act on
information that is reported to them.

Method of Communication
Both the clarity of the information and effectiveness with which it is communicated are
important to ensuring messages are received as intended. Active forms of communica-
tion such as face-to-face meetings are often more effective than passive forms such as
broadcast emails and intranet postings. Periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of com-
munication helps to ensure methods are working. This can be done through a variety
of existing processes such as employee performance evaluations, annual management
reviews, and other feedback programs.
Management selects the method of communication, taking into account the audience,
nature of the communication, timeliness, cost, and any legal or regulatory requirements.
Communication can take such forms as:
Dashboards
Email messages
Live or on-line training
Memoranda
One-on-one discussions
Performance evaluations
Policies and procedures
Presentations
Social media postings
Text messages
Webcast and other video forms
Website or collaboration site postings
When choosing a method of communication, management considers the following:
Where messages are transmitted orallyin large groups, smaller meetings,

or one-on-one sessionsthe persons tone of voice and non-verbal cues
emphasize what is being said and enhance understanding and opportunity for
recipients to respond to the communication.
Cultural, ethnic, and generational differences can affect how messages

are received and should be considered in the method of communication to
support a variety of audiences (e.g., by translating messages into multiple
languages, holding one-to-one meetings that respect a preference for privacy
in certain matters, and using technology-based media).
Communications directly relevant to internal control effectiveness may require

a method that allows for long-term retention. In some instances, employee
acknowledgment of review and understanding of certain policies should
be retained (e.g., code of conduct, anti-money laundering, and corporate
security).

Time-sensitive communications delivered through informal methods such as

email, text messaging, and social media postings may be sufficient and more
cost-effective, particularly when confidentiality or retention is not necessary.
Management and personnel who communicate solely through formal means

(e.g., official office memos) may not reach their intended audience and may
not receive return communications from those who are more accustomed to
using informal means of communication (e.g., email, text messages, or social
media postings).
Communication of information related to internal control responsibilities alone may not

be sufficient to ensure that management and other personnel receive and respond as
intended. Consistent and timely actions taken by management with such communica-
tion reinforce the messages conveyed.

Communicates Externally
Principle 15: The organization communicates with external
parties regarding matters affecting the functioning of
internal control.
Points of Focus
Communicates to External PartiesProcesses are in place to communicate

relevant and timely information to external parties including shareholders,
partners, owners, regulators, customers, and financial analysts and other
external parties.
Enables Inbound CommunicationsOpen communication channels allow

input from customers, consumers, suppliers, external auditors, regulators,
financial analysts, and others, providing management and the board of direc-
tors with relevant information.
Communicates with the Board of DirectorsRelevant information result-

ing from assessments conducted by external parties is communicated to the
board of directors.
Provides Separate Communication LinesSeparate communication chan-

nels, such as whistle-blower hotlines, are in place and serve as fail-safe
mechanisms to enable anonymous or confidential communication when
normal channels are inoperative or ineffective.
Selects Relevant Method of CommunicationThe method of communication

considers the timing, audience, and nature of the communication and legal,
regulatory, and fiduciary requirements and expectations.
External Communication
Communication occurs not only within the entity, but with those outside as well. With
open external communication channels, important information concerning the entitys
objectives may be provided to shareholders or other owners, business partners, cus-
tomers, regulators, financial analysts, government entities, and other external parties.
Outbound communication should be viewed distinctly from external reporting as dis-
cussed in Chapter 2 Objectives, Components, and Principles.
The organization develops and implements controls that facilitate external communica-
tion. These may include policies and procedures to obtain or receive information from
external parties and to share that information internally, allowing management and other
personnel to identify trends, events, or circumstances that may impact the achievement
of objectives. For example, customer or supplier complaints or inquiries about ship-
ments, receipts, billings, or other unusual activities may indicate operating problems,
fraudulent activities, or errors.

Outbound Communication
Communication to external parties allows them to readily understand events, activities,
or other circumstances that may affect how they interact with the entity. Managements
communication to external parties sends a message about the importance of internal
control in the organization by demonstrating open lines of communication. Communi-
cation to external suppliers and customers supports the entitys ability to maintain an
appropriate control environment. Suppliers and customers need to fully understand the
entitys values and cultures. They are informed of the entitys code of conduct and rec-
ognize their responsibilities in helping to ensure compliance with the code of conduct.
For example, management communicates its controls relating to business dealings with
vendors upon approval of a new vendor and requires the vendor to acknowledge its
adherence prior to the approval of an initial purchase order with the vendor.
Technology and communication tools enable external parties to have access to public
forums to post and discuss an entitys business, activities, and controls. When an
organization uses, or authorizes its employees to use public forums, such as social
media and similar unrestricted communication tools, management develops and
implements controls that guide expectations for proper use to avoid jeopardizing the
entitysobjectives.
Inbound Communication to Management and the Board

Communications from external parties may also provide important information on the
functioning of the entitys internal control system. These can include:
An independent assessment of internal controls at an outsourced service

provider related to the organizations objectives
An independent auditors assessment of internal control over financial or non-

financial reporting of the entity
Customer feedback related to product quality, improper charges, and missing

or erroneous receipts
New or changed laws, rules, regulations, standards, and other requirements of

standard- and rule-setting bodies
Results from regulatory compliance reviews or examinations such as banking,

securities, or taxing authorities
Vendor questions related to timely or missing payments for goods sold
Postings on organization-sponsored or supported social media websites or

communication tools
Information resulting from external assessments about the organizations activities

that relate to matters of internal control are evaluated by management and, where
appropriate, communicated to the board of directors. For example, management has
entered into an arrangement that allows the organization to periodically use exter-
nally managed technology services to perform transaction processing in lieu of hiring
personnel and purchasing and implementing additional hardware and software inter-
nally. The organization uses sensitive customer data in certain processes. To maintain
compliance with the entitys policies and external laws, regulations, and standards, an

assessment of internal control over the security and privacy of externally transmitted
data (including data transmitted over the Internet) is performed by a third party. The
results of the assessment reveal weaknesses in internal control that could impact the
security and privacy of data. Management assesses the significance of the weaknesses
and reports information necessary to enable the board of directors to carry out its
oversightresponsibilities.
The interdependence of business processes between the entity and outsourced service
providers can blur the lines of responsibility between the entitys internal control system
and that of outsourced service providers. This creates a need for more rigorous con-
trols over communication between the parties. For example, supply chain management
in a global retail company occurs through a dynamic, interactive exchange of activi-
ties between the company, vendors, logistics providers, and contract manufacturers.
Internal control over the end-to-end processes becomes a shared responsibility, but
there may be uncertainty about which entity is responsible at a particular stage of the
process. Communicating with outsourced service providers responsible for activities
supporting the entitys objectives may facilitate the risk assessment process, the over-
sight of business activities, decision making, and the identification of responsibility for
internal control throughout the process regardless of where activities occur.
Communication beyond Normal Channels

Complexity of business relationships between the entity and external parties may arise
through service provider and other outsourcing arrangements, joint ventures and alli-
ances, and other transactions that create mutual dependencies between the parties.
Such complexity may create concerns over how business is being conducted by or
between the parties. In this case, the organization makes separate communication
channels available to customers, suppliers, and outsourced service providers to allow
them to communicate directly with management and other personnel. For example,
a customer of products developed through a joint venture may learn that one of the
joint venture partners sold products in a country that was not agreed to under the joint
venture arrangement. Such a breach may affect the customers ability to use or resell
the products, impacting the customers business. The customer needs a channel in
which it can communicate concerns to others in the organization without disrupting its
ongoing operations.
Method of Communication
The means by which management communicates externally affects the ability to obtain
information needed as well as to ensure that key messages about the organization are
received and understood. Management considers the method of communication used,
which can take many forms, taking into account the audience, the nature of the commu-
nication, timeliness, and any legal or regulatory requirements. For example, customers
who regularly access entity information through a customer portal may receive mes-
sages through postings on the corporate website.

Press and news releases issued through investor or public relations channels are often
effective for reaching a broad audience of external parties, ensuring wide distribution
and increasing the likelihood that information is received. Blogs, social media, elec-
tronic billboards, and email are also common forms of external communication because
they can be tailored and directed to the specific party, help to control the information
obtained by external parties, and support expectations that information can be sent and
received quickly with greater use of mobile communication devices.

Components of Internal Control | Monitoring Activities
9. Monitoring Activities
Chapter Summary
Ongoing evaluations, separate evaluations, or some combination of the

two are used to ascertain whether each of the five components of inter-
nal control, including controls to effect the principles within each compo-
nent, is present and functioning. Ongoing evaluations, built into business
processes at different levels of the entity, provide timely information.
Separate evaluations, conducted periodically, will vary in scope and
frequency depending on assessment of risks, effectiveness of ongoing
evaluations, and other management considerations. Findings are evalu-
ated against criteria established by regulators, standard-setting bodies,
or management and the board of directors, and deficiencies are commu-
nicated to management and the board of directors as appropriate.
Principles relating to the Monitoring Activities component
16. The organization selects, develops, and performs ongoing and/

or separate evaluations to ascertain whether the components of
internal control are present and functioning.
17. The organization evaluates and communicates internal control

deficiencies in a timely manner to those parties responsible for
taking corrective action, including senior management and the
board of directors, asappropriate.

Introduction
Monitoring activities assess whether
each of the five components of
internal control and relevant prin-
ciples is present and functioning. The
organization uses ongoing, separate
evaluations, or some combination
of the two, to ascertain whether
the components of internal control
(including controls to effect principles
across the entity and its subunits) are
present and functioning. Monitoring
is a key input of the organizations
assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control. It also provides
valuable support for assertions of
the effectiveness of the system of
internalcontrol.
An entitys system of internal control will often change. The entitys objectives and the
components of internal control may also change over time. Also, controls may become
less effective or obsolete, may no longer be deployed in the manner in which they were
selected or developed, or may be deemed insufficient to support the achievement of
the new or updated objectives. Monitoring activities are selected, developed, and per-
formed to ascertain whether each component continues to be present and functioning
or if change is needed. Monitoring activities provide valuable input for management to
use when determining whether the system of internal control continues to be relevant
and is able to address new risks.
Where appropriate, monitoring activities identify and examine expectation gaps relat-
ing to anomalies and abnormalities, which may indicate one or more deficiencies in an
entitys system of internal control. When reviewing and investigating expectation gaps,
management often identifies root causes of such gaps. In ascertaining whether the
five components of internal control are present and functioning, monitoring activities
consider controls within each of the five components. Management evaluates these
controls and how they effect principles; for example, assessing controls selected and
deployed by the organization for:
Maintaining compliance with the entitys code of conduct
Articulating acceptable levels of risk
Obtaining relevant information after information requirements have changed
When distinguishing between a monitoring activity and a control activity, organiza-

tions need to consider underlying details of the activity, especially where the activity
involves some level of supervisory review. Supervisory reviews are not automatically
classified as monitoring activities and it may be a matter of judgment whether a review
is classified as a control activity or a monitoring activity. For example, the intent of a
monthly completeness control activity would be to detect and correct errors, where a

monitoring activity would ask why there were errors in the first place and assign man-
agement the responsibility of fixing the process to prevent future errors. In simple terms,
a control activity responds to a specific risk, whereas a monitoring activity assesses
whether controls within each of the five components of internal control are operating as
intended.
The examples below illustrate the relationship between control activities and monitoring
activities of a payable reconciliation.
Control Activities Monitoring Activities
The accounts payable (AP) clerk at Division A Management independent of those involved in
reconciles the Division A payables sub-ledger to the performance of the control activity:
the general ledger on a periodic basis. Reconcil- -- Inspects documentation that the reconcilia-
ing items are investigated and resolved on a tions were performed across all divisions or
timely basis. subsidiaries.
-- Examines for identifiable trends in the
volume and/or nature of the reconciling
items noted.
Management evaluates whether the sources and
the quality of information used for the payable
reconciliation are appropriate.
Management evaluates whether new risks relat-
ing to changes in internal and external factors
were identified, assessed, and responded to in
the payables reconciliation.
The AP supervisor periodically reviews and Semiannually, management evaluates whether

approves the payables sub-ledger to general supervisors performing the review and approval
ledger account reconciliation. are properly trained and knowledgeable and if
supervisors perform in accordance with the AP
process design.

Conducts Ongoing and/or Separate Evaluations

Principle 16: The organization selects, develops, and
performs ongoing and/or separate evaluations to
ascertain whether the components of internal control are
present and functioning.
Points of Focus
Considers a Mix of Ongoing and Separate EvaluationsManagement

includes a balance of ongoing and separate evaluations.
Considers Rate of ChangeManagement considers the rate of change in

business and business processes when selecting and developing ongoing
and separate evaluations.
Establishes Baseline UnderstandingThe design and current state of an

internal control system are used to establish a baseline for ongoing and sepa-
rate evaluations.
Uses Knowledgeable PersonnelEvaluators performing ongoing and

separate evaluations have sufficient knowledge to understand what is
beingevaluated.
Integrates with Business ProcessesOngoing evaluations are built into the

business processes and adjust to changing conditions.
Adjusts Scope and FrequencyManagement varies the scope and frequency

of separate evaluations depending on risk.
Objectively EvaluatesSeparate evaluations are performed periodically to

provide objective feedback.
Ongoing and Separate Evaluations

Monitoring can be done in two ways: through ongoing evaluations or separate evalu-
ations, or some combination of the two. Ongoing evaluations are generally defined,
routine operations, built in to business processes and performed on a real-time basis,
reacting to changing conditions. Separate evaluations are conducted periodically by
objective management personnel, internal audit, and/or external parties, among others.
The scope and frequency of separate evaluations is a matter of management judgment.
Separate evaluations can employ the same techniques as ongoing monitoring, but
they are designed to evaluate controls periodically and are not ingrained in the routine
operations of the entity. Since separate evaluations take place periodically, problems
will often be identified more quickly by ongoing evaluations. Many entities with sound

ongoing evaluations will nonetheless conduct separate evaluations of the components

of internal control to reconfirm ongoing evaluation conclusions. An entity that perceives
a need for frequent separate evaluations may consider identifying ways to enhance
ongoing evaluations.
Management selects, develops, and performs a mix of monitoring activities usually

including both ongoing and separate evaluations, to ascertain whether each of the five
components of internal control is present and functioning. As part of monitoring the
five components, management uses these evaluations to ascertain whether controls to
effect principles across the entity and its subunits have been selected, developed, and
deployed. The decision of whether to conduct ongoing or separate evaluations, or some
combination of the two, may occur at different levels of the entity. Thought is given to
the scope and nature of the entitys operations, changes in internal and external factors,
and the associated risks when developing the ongoing and separate evaluations.
Rate of Change
Management considers the rate that an entity or the entitys industry is anticipated to
change. An entity in an industry that is quickly changing may need to have more fre-
quent separate evaluations and may reconsider the mix of ongoing and separate evalu-
ations during the period of change. For example, banks subject to financial regulatory
reforms select and develop monitoring activities that anticipate future change and reac-
tions to the changing regulatory environment. Usually, some combination of ongoing
and separate evaluations will validate whether or not the components of internal control
remain present and functioning.
Monitoring activities may be used to support external reporting including management

assertions over the entitys system of internal control or other forms of compliance
reporting. The requirements of external reporting or management assertions will usually
affect the combination of ongoing and separate evaluations and how they are selected,
developed, and performed.
Baseline Information
Understanding the design and current state of a system of internal control provides
useful baseline information for establishing ongoing and separate evaluations. When
using monitoring activities it is necessary to have an understanding of how manage-
ment has designed the system of internal control and how controls within each of the
five components effect principles. As management gains experience with monitoring
activities, its understanding will evolve based on the results of such activities. If an entity
does not have a baseline understanding in areas with risks of higher significance, it may
need to perform a separate evaluation of those areas to establish the baseline. When
change occurs within any of the five components of internal control, the baseline may
need to be evaluated to make sure monitoring activities remain appropriate or updated
so they are aligned with other components of internal control.

Ongoing Evaluations
Manual and automated ongoing evaluations monitor the presence and functioning of
the components of internal control in the ordinary course of managing the business.
Ongoing evaluations are generally performed by line operating or functional manag-
ers, who are competent and have sufficient knowledge to understand what is being
evaluated, giving thoughtful consideration to implications of information they receive.
By focusing on relationships, inconsistencies, or other relevant implications, they raise
issues and follow up with other personnel as necessary to determine whether corrective
or other action is needed.
Entities frequently use technology to support ongoing evaluations. Computerized con-

tinuous monitoring techniques have a high standard of objectivity (once programmed
and tested) and allow for efficient review of large volumes of data at a low cost. Such
techniques, combined with robust review and analysis of the results by knowledgeable
and responsible personnel, can result in an efficient and effective program for ongoing
evaluations.
The following examples illustrate ongoing evaluations.
A medium-size manufacturing entity has in place a process for conducting a monthly

production meeting attended by the manufacturing supervisor, inventory manager,
and demand planning supervisor to review current production levels and product
modifications. The quality officer attends this routine meeting. As part of her ongoing
evaluation of the controls in the production planning process, the quality officer
evaluates information obtained in the meeting to raise probing questions of manage-
ment and other personnel, to ascertain whether appropriate analysis and actions are
being performed and followed up on in a timely manner, and to identify unusual trends
or anomalies that may warrant immediate investigations. She also uses information
obtained and analyzed during the meeting to recommend modifications to control
activities relevant to the production planning process.
Control activities embedded in the procurement process use software to automate the
review of all payment transactions. A software routine embedded within the payable
process immediately identifies any unusual transactions based on pre-established
parameters (e.g., possible duplicate payments). The accounts payable supervisor
daily investigates any identified anomalies, determines root causes, and evaluates and
communicates any internal control deficiency to those in the procurement process
responsible for taking corrective action.

The human resource department has developed policies and practices that support
the organizations commitment to attract, develop, and retain competent staff. These
practices include training, mentoring, and evaluation practices that encourage devel-
opment and promotion of management positions. As part of the entitys human
resource policies and practices, staff mentors semiannually prepare and present to
the human resource supervisors a review of assigned individuals actual performance
against expected performance levels and standards of conduct. The director of per-
sonnel attends these semiannual presentations as part of the ongoing evaluation of
human resource policies and practices and provides objective, real-time feedback to
department supervisors and mentors about the effectiveness of the review process,
compliance with labor laws, and recommendations for improving subsequent
processes.
An entity authorizes its accounts payable clerks to process contractor invoices with
up to a 5% variance from amounts specified for services pursuant to executed con-
tracts without seeking supervisory approval. The accounts payable manager moni-
tors this control activity at the end of each month by reviewing disbursement activity
and focusing specifically on two trends: the volume of disbursements where there are
variances from contracts, and the frequency with which a particular clerk processes
any variance payments. The accounts payable manager investigates any instance of
an excessive variance or abnormal frequency or trend from both an operational and
potential fraud perspective and takes action to assess and resolve root causes.
Separate Evaluations
Separate evaluations are generally not ingrained within the business but can be useful in
taking a fresh look at whether each of the five components of internal control is present
and functioning. Such evaluations include observations, inquiries, reviews, and other
examinations, as appropriate, to ascertain whether controls to effect principles across
the entity and its subunits are designed, implemented, and conducted. Separate evalu-
ations of the components of internal control vary in scope and frequency, depending on
the significance of risks, risk responses, results on ongoing evaluations, and expected
impacts on the control components in managing the risks. Higher priority risks and
responses should be evaluated often in greater depth and/or more often than lower pri-
ority risks. While higher priority risks can be evaluated with both ongoing and separate
evaluations, separate evaluation may provide feedback on the results of ongoing evalua-
tions, and the number of separate evaluations can be increased as necessary.
A separate evaluation of the overall internal control system, or specific components of

internal control, may be appropriate for a number of reasons: major strategy or manage-
ment change, acquisitions or dispositions, changes in economic or political conditions,
or changes in operations or methods of processing information. The evaluation scope
is determined by which of the three objectives categoriesoperations, reporting, or
complianceare being addressed.

Knowledgeable Personnel
Separate evaluations are often conducted through the internal audit function, and while
having an internal audit function is not a requisite of internal control, it can enhance
the scope, frequency, and objectivity of such reviews.25 Since separate evaluations are
conducted periodically by independent managers, employees, or external reviewers to
provide feedback with greater objectivity, evaluators need to be knowledgeable about
the entitys activities and how the monitoring activities function, and understand what is
being evaluated. Procedures designed to operate in a particular way may be modified
over time to operate differently, or they may no longer be performed. Sometimes new
procedures are established, but are not known to those who described the process and
are not included in available documentation. Determining the actual functioning can be
accomplished by holding discussions with personnel who perform or are affected by
controls, by examining performance records, or by a combination of procedures.
The evaluator analyzes the presence and functioning of components of internal control,
and the results of evaluations. The analysis is conducted against the backdrop of
managements established standards for each component, with the ultimate goal of
determining whether the process provides reasonable assurance with respect to the
statedobjectives.
Separate Evaluation Approaches and Objectivity

There are a variety of approaches available to perform separate evaluations. The scope,
nature, frequency, and formality of approaches vary with the relative importance of the
risk responses and related components and principles of internal control that are being
evaluated. Separate evaluations may include:
Internal Audit EvaluationsInternal auditors are often objective and com-

petent resources, whether in-house or outsourced, and perform separate
evaluations as part of their regular duties, or at the specific request of senior
management or the board of directors. Typically, each year the internal audit
function develops an internal audit plan of projects that are selected based on
a risk-based approach aligned with organizational objectives and stakeholder
priorities. For instance, areas of review may include compliance with code
of conduct, design of the risk assessment process, reporting of data quality,
and reporting of specific transactions and controls. Reports are distributed to
senior management, the board of directors or its audit committee, and other
parties positioned to take action on the recommendations in the report.
25 Some external bodies may require an entity to have an internal audit function. For example the New York
Stock Exchange requires all corporations who list securities on the exchange to have an internal audit
function (NYSE Listed Company Manual 303A.07(d)).

Other Objective EvaluationsFor entities that lack an internal audit group

or for those that have other quality functions that perform internal audit-like
activities (such as a controls compliance group), management may use other
internal or external objective reviewers, such as compliance officers, opera-
tions specialists, IT security specialists, or consultants. For example, an
entitys IT security specialist may periodically evaluate the entitys compliance
with relevant information security standards.26
Cross Operating Unit or Functional EvaluationsAn entity may use personnel

from different operating units or functional areas to evaluate components of
internal controls. For example, quality audit personnel from operating unit A
may periodically evaluate the internal controls of operating unit B. Also, adding
personnel from different operating units or functional areas on evaluations
may improve communications between the operating unit or functional area.
Benchmarking/Peer EvaluationsSome entities compare or benchmark

components of internal control against those of other entities. Such compari-
sons might be done directly with another entity or under the auspices of trade
or industry associations. Other entities may be able to provide comparative
information. A word of caution: when conducting comparisons, consider the
differences that always exist in objectives, facts, and circumstances.
Self-AssessmentsSeparate evaluations may take the form of self-assess-

ments (also called self-reviews), where those responsible for a particular
unit or function will assess the presence and functioning of components of
internal control relating to their activities. For example, in one company the
chief executive of a food product division directs the evaluation of its internal
control activities related to food safety regulations. She personally assesses
the controls associated with strategic choices and high-level objectives as
well as the components of internal environment, and individuals in charge of
the divisions various operating activities assess the presence and functioning
of components relative to their spheres of responsibility. Since self-assess-
ments may have less objectivity, depending on the person conducting the
self-assessment, than other separate evaluation approaches, the evaluator or
those using the report will determine the weight and value to be placed on the
results.
26 An entity might use ISO/IEC 27002, published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
and by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), which provides recommended practices for
information security management for use by those responsible for designing, implementing or maintaining
information security management systems.

Outsourced Service Providers

Entities that use outsourced service providers for services such as third-party ware-
housing, Internet hosting, healthcare claims processing, retirement plan administration,
or loan services need to understand the activities and controls associated with the
services and how the outsourced service providers internal control system impacts the
entitys system of internal control.
Entities may use the following approaches to understand the outsourced service pro-
viders system of internal control:
The user of outsourced services may conduct its own separate evaluations of
the outsourced service providers system of internal control as relevant to the
entity. In these circumstances an entity should build into its contract with any
outsourced service provider a right-to-audit clause to allow for its own sepa-
rate evaluation and access to visit the provider.
Relevant information concerning internal control at an outsourced service

provider may be attained by reviewing an independent audit or examination
report.27 When reviewing such reports, organizations consider the content
of the assertions and attestations to be satisfied that the outsourced service
providers controls interface with the entitys controls, and that the tests and
results of the outsourced service providers controls provide sufficient comfort
to the user entity. Entities also consider the period of time covered by an inde-
pendent audit or examination report since it might not coincide with or provide
the complete coverage needed by the entity. In these circumstances an entity
should build into its contract with any outsourced service provide a require-
ment for an independent audit or examination report.
When considering circumstances such as the nature and scope of information

transferred between parties and the nature of the processing and reporting
the outsourced service provider performs, an entity may be able to determine
that there is sufficient internal control over processing provided by the out-
sourced service provider without additional documentation.
27 Examples of attestations for external financial reporting include a Service Organization Control (SOC)
report issued pursuant to the AICPAs Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No 16 (SSAE
16 or SOC 1) or the International Standard on Assurance Engagements 3402 report (ISAE 3402).

Evaluates and Communicates Deficiencies

Principle 17: The organization evaluates and
communicates internal control deficiencies in a timely
manner to those parties responsible for taking corrective
action, including senior management and the board of
directors, as appropriate.
Points of Focus
Assesses ResultsManagement and the board of directors, as appropriate,

assess results of ongoing and separate evaluations.
Communicates DeficienciesDeficiencies are communicated to parties

responsible for taking corrective action and to senior management and the
board of directors, as appropriate.
Monitors Corrective ActionsManagement tracks whether deficiencies are

remediated on a timely basis.
Assess Results
In conducting monitoring activities, the organization may identify matters worthy of
attention. Those that represent a potential or real shortcoming in some aspect of the
system of internal control that has the potential to adversely affect the ability of the
entity to achieve its objectives are referred to as internal control deficiencies. In addition,
the organization may identify opportunities to improve the efficiency of internal control,
or areas where changes to the current system of internal control may provide a greater
likelihood that the entitys objectives will be achieved. Although identifying and assess-
ing potential opportunities is not part of the system of internal control, the organization
will typically want to capture any opportunities identified and communicate those to the
strategy or objective-setting processes.
Deficiencies in an entitys components of internal control and underlying principles may

surface from a variety of sources:
Monitoring activities, including:
-- Ongoing evaluations of an entity, including managerial activities and every-

day supervision of employees, which generate insights from those who are
directly involved in the entitys activities. These insights are obtained in real
time and can quickly identify deficiencies.
-- Separate evaluations performed by management, internal auditors, func-

tional managers, and other personnel, which can highlight areas that need
to be improved.

Other components of internal control provide input relative to the operation of

that component.
External parties such as customers, vendors, external auditors, and regula-

tors frequently provide important information about an entitys components of
internal control.
Communicating Internal Control Deficiencies

Reporting on internal control deficiencies depends on the criteria established by regula-
tors, standard-setting bodies, and management and boards of directors, as appropri-
ate. Results of ongoing and separate evaluations are assessed against those criteria to
determine whom to report to and what is reported. Alternatively, any criteria established
by the board of directors or management typically is based on the entitys facts and
circumstances and on established laws, rules, regulations, and standards.
Communicating internal control deficiencies to the right parties to take corrective

actions is critical for entities to achieve objectives. Additionally, the scope and approach
of the evaluations, as well as any internal control deficiencies, need to be communi-
cated to those conducting the overall assessment of effectiveness of internal control.
The nature of matters to be communicated varies depending on how the deficiency is

evaluated against appropriate criteria, individuals authority to deal with circumstances
that arise, and the oversight activities of superiors. Deficiencies may be reported to
senior management and the board of directors depending on the reporting criteria as
established by regulators, standard-setting bodies, or the entity, as appropriate. Internal
control deficiencies are usually reported both to the parties responsible for taking cor-
rective action and to at least one level of management above that person.
This higher level of management provides needed support or oversight for taking
corrective action and is positioned to communicate with others in the entity whose
activities may be affected. Where findings cut across organizational boundaries, the
deficiencies are reported to all relevant parties and to a sufficiently high level to drive
appropriate action. For instance, deficiencies relating to a board member or sub-
committee where the board member or sub-committee is not independent to the extent
required, or where the board did not provide sufficient oversight, would be reported as
prescribed by the entitys reporting protocols to the full board, the chair of the board,
lead director, and/or the nominating/governance or other appropriate board committees.
In considering what needs to be communicated, it is necessary to look at the impli-

cations of findings and the entitys reporting directives. It is essential that not only a
particular transaction or event be reported, but also that related faulty procedures be
re-evaluated. Alternative communications channels should also exist for reporting sensi-
tive information such as illegal or improper acts. Additionally, deficiencies may need to
be reported externally depending on the type of entity and the regulatory, industry, or
other compliance requirements to which it is subject.

Monitoring Corrective Actions

After internal control deficiencies are evaluated and communicated to those parties
responsible for taking corrective action, management tracks whether remediation
efforts are conducted on a timely basis. Those responsible for taking corrective actions
are usually different from those conducting the monitoring activities. The organization
exercises judgment in determining how deficiencies are remediated and that judgment
should be applied by those responsible for selecting, developing, and deploying con-
trols to effect principles.
As is the case with the initial communication of internal control deficiencies, deficiencies
that are not remediated on a timely basis are usually communicated to at least one level
of management above the party responsible for taking corrective action. In addition,
management may need to revisit the selection and deployment of monitoring activities,
including a mix of ongoing and separate evaluations, until corrective actions have reme-
diated the internal control deficiency.

10. Limitations of Internal Control
Chapter Summary
Internal control, no matter how well designed, implemented and con-

ducted, can provide only reasonable assurance to management and the
board of directors of the achievement of an entitys objectives. The like-
lihood of achievement is affected by limitations inherent in all systems
of internal control. These include the realities that human judgment in
decision making can be faulty, external events outside the organizations
control may arise, and breakdowns can occur because of human failures
such as making errors. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by
two or more people colluding, and because management can override
the system of internal control.

Internal control has been viewed by some observers as ensuring that an entity will not
failthat is, the entity will always achieve its operations, reporting, and compliance
objectives. In this sense, internal control sometimes is looked upon as a cure-all for all
real and potential business ills. This view is misguided. Internal control is not a panacea.
In considering limitations of internal control, two distinct concepts must be recognized.

The first set of limitations acknowledges that certain events or conditions are simply
beyond managements control. The second acknowledges that no system of internal
control will always do what it is designed to do. The best that can be expected in any
system of internal control is that reasonable assurance be obtained, which is the focus
of this chapter. Second, internal control cannot provide absolute assurance for any of
the objective categories.
Reasonable assurance does not imply that systems of internal control will frequently
fail. Many factors, individually and collectively, serve to strengthen the concept of
reasonable assurance. Controls that support multiple objectives or that effect multiple
principles within or across components reduce the risk that an entity may not achieve
its objectives. Furthermore, the normal, everyday operating activities and responsibili-
ties of people functioning at various levels of an organization are directed at achieving
the entitys objectives. Indeed, it is likely that these activities often apprise manage-
ment about the process toward the entitys operations objectives, and also support the
achievement of compliance and reporting objectives. However, because of the inherent
limitations discussed here, there is no guarantee that, for example, an uncontrollable
event, mistake, or improper incident could never occur. In other words, even an effective
system of internal control may experience failures. Reasonable assurance is not abso-
lute assurance.
Notwithstanding these inherent limitations, management should be aware of them

when selecting, developing, and deploying controls that can, to the extent practical,
minimizethem.
Preconditions of Internal Control

The Framework specifies several areas that are part of the management process but not
part of internal control. Two such areas relate to the governance process that extends
the boards role beyond internal control and establishing objectives as a precondition
to internal control. There is a dependency established on these areas, among others,
to also be effective. For example, an entitys weak governance processes for selecting,
developing, and evaluating board members may limit its ability to provide appropriate
oversight of internal control. Similarly, ineffective strategy-setting or objective-setting
processes would challenge the entitys ability to identify poorly specified, unrealistic,
or unsuitable objectives. A system of internal control cannot encompass all activities
undertaken by the entity, and weaknesses in these areas may impede the organization
from having effective internal control.

Judgment
The effectiveness of internal control is limited by the realities of human frailty in the
making of business decisions. Such decisions must be made with human judgment in
the time available, based on information at hand, subject to management biases, and
under the pressures of the conduct of business. Some decisions based on human judg-
ment may later, with the clarity of hindsight, be found to produce less than desirable
results, and may need to be changed.
External Events
Internal control, even effective internal control, operates at different levels for differ-
ent objectives. For objectives relating to the effectiveness and efficiency of an entitys
operationsachieving its mission, value propositions (e.g., productivity, quality, and
customer service), profitability goals, and the likeinternal control cannot provide
reasonable assurance of the achievement when external events may have a significant
impact on the achievement of objectives and the impact cannot be mitigated to an
acceptable level. In these situations, internal control can only provide reasonable assur-
ance that the organization is aware of the entitys progress, or lack of it, toward achiev-
ing such objectives.
Breakdowns
Even a well-designed system of internal control can break down. Personnel may mis-
understand instructions, make mistakes in judgment, or commit errors due to careless-
ness, distraction, or being asked to focus on too many tasks. For example, a depart-
ment supervisor responsible for investigating exceptions might simply forget or fail to
pursue the investigation far enough to be able to make appropriate corrections. Tempo-
rary personnel conducting controls for vacationing or sick employees might not perform
correctly. Changes in information technology application controls may be implemented
before personnel have been trained to recognize indicators that they may not be func-
tioning as designed.
Management Override
Even an entity with an effective system of internal control may have a manager who is
willing and able to override internal control. The term management override is used
here to mean overruling prescribed policies or procedures for illegitimate purposes with
the intent of personal gain or an enhanced presentation of an entitys performance or
compliance. A manager of a division or operating unit, or a member of senior manage-
ment, might override the control for many reasons such as to:
Increase reported revenue to cover an unanticipated decrease in market share
Enhance reported earnings to meet unrealistic budgets
Boost the market value of the entity prior to a public offering or sale

Meet sales or earnings projections to bolster bonus payouts tied to

performance
Appear to cover violations of debt covenant agreements
Hide lack of compliance with legal requirements
Override practices include deliberately making misrepresentations to bankers, lawyers,

accountants, and vendors, and intentionally issuing false documents such as purchase
orders and sales invoices.
Management override should not be confused with management intervention, which

represents managements actions to depart from prescribed controls for legitimate
purposes. Management intervention is necessary to deal with non-recurring and non-
standard transactions or events that otherwise might be handled inappropriately. Provi-
sion for management intervention is necessary because no process can be designed to
anticipate every risk and every condition. Managements actions to intervene are gener-
ally overt and subject to policies and procedures or otherwise disclosed to appropriate
personnel. Actions to override usually are not documented or disclosed, and have the
intent to cover up the actions.
Collusion
Collusion can result in internal control deficiencies. Individuals acting collectively to per-
petrate and conceal an action from detection often can alter financial or other manage-
ment information so that it cannot be detected or prevented by the system of internal
control. Collusion can occur, for example, between an employee who performs controls
and a customer, supplier, or another employee, Sales and/or operating unit manage-
ment might collude to circumvent controls so that reported results meet budgets or
incentive targets.

Appendices | A: Glossary
Appendices

A. Glossary
Application ControlsProgrammed procedures in application software and
related manual procedures designed to help ensure the completeness and
accuracy of information processing.
Automated ControlsControl activities mostly or wholly performed through

technology (e.g., automated control functions programmed into computer
software; contrast with Manual Controls).
BoardGoverning body of an entity, which may take the form of a board of

directors or supervisory board for a corporation, board of trustees for a not-
for-profit organization, board of governors or commissioners for government
entities, general partners for a partnership, or owner for a small business.
CategoryOne of three groupings of objectives of internal control. The cat-

egories relate to operations, reporting, and compliance.
ComplianceHaving to do with conforming with laws and regulations appli-

cable to an entity.
ComponentOne of five elements of internal control. The internal control

components are the Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activi-
ties, Information and Communication, and Monitoring Activities.
Control(1) As a noun (i.e., existence of a control), a policy or procedure that

is part of internal control. Controls exist within each of the five components.
(2) As a verb (i.e., to control), to establish or implement a policy or procedure
that effects a principle.
Control ActivityAn action established through policies and procedures that

help ensure that managements directives to mitigate risks to the achievement
of objectives are carried out.
Control DeficiencyA synonym for Internal Control Deficiency. A control

deficiency may also describe a deficiency with respect to a particular control
or control activity.
COSOThe Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Com-

mission. COSO is a joint initiative of five private-sector organizations and is
dedicated to providing thought leadership through the development of frame-
works and guidance on enterprise risk management, internal control, and
fraud deterrence (see www.coso.org).
Design(1) Intent; as used in the definition of internal control, the internal

control system design is intended to provide reasonable assurance of the
achievement of objectives; when the intent is realized, the system can be
deemed effective. (2) Plan; the way a system is supposed to work, contrasted
with how it actually works.
Detective ControlA control designed to discover an unintended event or

result after the initial processing has occurred but before the ultimate objec-
tive has concluded (contrast with Preventive Control).

Appendices
EffectedUsed with an internal control system: devised and maintained.
Effective Internal ControlAn effective system of internal control provides

reasonable assurance of achieving an entitys objectives. It requires that each
of the five components of internal control and relevant principles is present
and functioning, and that the five components of internal control are operating
together.
EntityA legal entity or management operating model of any size established

for a particular purpose. A legal entity may, for example, be a business enter-
prise, not-for-profit organization, government body, or academic institution.
The management operating model may follow product or service lines, divi-
sion, or operating unit, with geographic markets providing for further subdivi-
sions or aggregations of performance.
Entity-levelHigher levels of the entity, separate and distinct from other parts
of the entity including subsidiaries, divisions, operating units, and functions.
Entity-wideActivities that apply across the entitymost commonly in rela-

tion to entity-wide controls.
Ethical ValuesMoral values that enable a decision-maker to determine an

appropriate course of behavior; these values should be based on what is right,
which may go beyond what is legal.
Financial StatementsTypically a statement of financial position, a statement

of income, a statement of changes in equity, a statement of cash flow, and
notes to the financial statements.
Inherent LimitationsThose limitations of all internal control systems. The

limitations relate to the preconditions of internal control, external events
beyond the entitys control, limits of human judgment, the reality that break-
downs can occur, and the possibility of management override and collusion.
Inherent RiskThe risk to the achievement of objectives in the absence of any

actions management might take to alter either the risk likelihood or impact.
IntegrityThe quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness,

honesty, and sincerity; the desire to do the right thing, to profess and live up
to a set of values and expectations.
Internal ControlA process, effected by an entitys board of directors,

management, and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assur-
ance regarding the achievement of objectives relating to operations, reporting,
andcompliance.
Internal Control DeficiencyA shortcoming in a component or components

and relevant principle(s) that reduces the likelihood that the entity can achieve
its objectives.
Major DeficiencyAn internal control deficiency or combination of defi-

ciencies that severely reduces the likelihood that the entity can achieve its
objectives.

Appendices | A: Glossary
Management InterventionManagements overruling of prescribed poli-

cies or procedures for legitimate purposes when dealing with non-recurring
or non-standard transactions or events that otherwise might be handled
inappropriately.
Management OverrideManagements overruling of prescribed policies or

procedures for illegitimate purposes with the intent of personal gain or an
enhanced presentation of an entitys financial condition or compliance status.
Management ProcessThe series of actions taken by management to run

an entity. An internal control system is a part of an integrated management
process.
Manual ControlsControls performed manually, not through technology

(contrast with Automated Controls).
Operating TogetherThe determination that all five components collectively

reduce, to an acceptable level, the risk of not achieving an objective.
OperationsUsed with objectives or controls: having to do with the effec-

tiveness and efficiency of an entitys operations, including performance and
profitability goals, and safeguarding resources.
OrganizationPeople, including the board of directors, senior management,

and other personnel.
PolicyManagement or board member statement of what should be done to

effect control. Such statements may be documented, explicitly stated in com-
munications, or implied through actions and decisions. A policy serves as the
basis for procedures.
Present and FunctioningApplied to components and principles. Present

refers to the determination that components and relevant principles exist in
the design and implementation of the system of internal control to achieve
specified objectives. Functioning refers to the determination that compo-
nents and relevant principles continue to exist in the conduct of the system of
internal control to achieve specified objectives.
Preventive ControlA control designed to avoid an unintended event or result

at the time of initial occurrence (contrast with Detective Control).
ProcedureAn action that implements a policy.
Reasonable AssuranceThe concept that internal control, no matter how

well designed and operated, cannot guarantee that an entitys objectives will
be met. This is because of Inherent Limitations in all internal control systems.
Relevant PrinciplePrinciples represent fundamental concepts associated

with components. There may be a rare industry, operating, or regulatory situa-
tion in which management has determined that a principle is not relevant to a
component.
Residual RiskThe risk to the achievement of objectives that remains after

managements response has been designed and implemented.

Appendices
RiskThe possibility that an event will occur and adversely affect the achieve-
ment of objectives.
Risk ResponseThe decision to accept, avoid, reduce, or share a risk.
Risk ToleranceThe acceptable variation relative to performance to the

Senior ManagementThe chief executive officer or equivalent organizational

leader and senior management team.
StakeholdersParties that are affected by the entity, such as sharehold-

ers, the communities in which an entity operates, employees, customers,
andsuppliers.
TechnologySoftware applications running on a computer, manufacturing

controls systems, etc.
Technology General ControlsControl activities that help ensure the con-

tinued, proper operation of technology. They include controls over the tech-
nology infrastructure, security management, and technology acquisition,
development, and maintenance. Other terms sometimes used to describe
technology general controls are general computer controls and information
technology controls.
Transaction ControlsControl activities that directly support the actions to

mitigate transaction processing risks in an entitys business processes. Trans-
action controls can be manual or automated and will likely cover the informa-
tion-processing objectives of completeness, accuracy, and validity.

B. Roles and Responsibilities
Introduction
Internal control is effected by personnel internal to the organization, including the board
of directors or equivalent oversight body and its committees, management and person-
nel, business-enabling functions, and internal auditors. Collectively, they contribute to
providing reasonable assurance that specified objectives are achieved. When out-
sourced service providers perform controls on behalf of the entity, management retains
responsibility for those controls.
An organization may view internal control through three lines of defense:
Management and other personnel on the front line provide the first line of
defense as they are responsible for maintaining effective internal control day
to day; they are compensated based on performance in relation to all appli-
cable objectives.
Business-enabling functions such as risk, control, legal, and compliance

provide the second line of defense as they clarify internal control requirements
and evaluate adherence to defined standards. While they are functionally
aligned to the business, their compensation is not directly tied to performance
of the area to which they render expert advice.
Internal auditors provide the third line of defense as they assess and report
on internal control and recommend corrective actions or enhancements for
management to consider and implement; their position and compensation are
separate and distinct from the business areas they review.
Responsible Parties
Every individual within an entity has a role in effecting internal control. Roles vary in
responsibility and level of involvement, as discussed below.
The Board of Directors and Its Committees

Depending on the jurisdiction and nature of the organization, different governance
structures may be established, such as a board of directors, supervisory board, trust-
ees, and/or general partners, with committees as appropriate. In the Framework, these
governance structures are commonly referred to as the board of directors.
The board is responsible for overseeing the system of internal control. With the power
to engage or terminate the chief executive officer, the board has a key role in defining
expectations about integrity and ethical values, transparency, and accountability for the
performance of internal control responsibilities. Board members are objective, capable,
and inquisitive. They have a working knowledge of the entitys activities and environ-
ment, and they commit the time necessary to fulfill their governance responsibilities.

Appendices
They utilize resources as needed to investigate any issues, and they have an open and
unrestricted communications channel with all entity personnel, the internal auditors,
independent auditors, external reviewers, and legal counsel.
Boards of directors often carry out certain duties through committees, whose use varies
depending on regulatory requirements and other considerations. Board committees
may be used for oversight of audit, compensation, nominations and governance, risk,
and other topics significant for the organization. Each committee can bring specific
emphasis to certain components of internal control. Where a particular committee has
not been established, the related functions are carried out by the board itself.
Board-level committees can include the following:
Audit CommitteeRegulatory and professional standard-setting bodies

often require the use of audit committees. The role and scope of authority
of an audit committee can vary depending on the organizations regulatory
jurisdiction, industry norm, or other variables. This is sometimes also called
the audit and risk committee to emphasize the importance of risk oversight.
Management is responsible for the reliability of the financial statements, but
an effective audit committee plays a critical oversight role. The board of direc-
tors, often through its audit committee, has the authority and responsibility to
question senior management regarding how it is carrying out its internal and
external reporting responsibilities and to verify that timely corrective actions
are taken, as necessary.
As a result of its independence the audit committee, along with a strong

internal audit function as applicable, is often best positioned to identify and
promptly act in situations where senior management overrides controls or
deviates from expected standards of conduct. The audit committee interacts
with external auditors, meeting regularly to discuss the scope of planned audit
procedures and results of audit procedures. Meetings with external auditors
include executive sessions without management present to provide a forum
for further dialogue between external auditors and audit committees. While
board composition requirements vary, independent directors are important as
they can provide an objective perspective. For example, the UK, German, and
other corporate governance codes, and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)
and NASDAQ listing requirements define the number and criteria for audit
committee members to be independent from management and financially
literate (e.g., at least one member with accounting or financial management
expertise).
Compensation CommitteeEstablishes the compensation for the chief exec-

utive officer or equivalent and provides oversight of compensation arrange-
ments to motivate without providing incentives for undue risk-taking so as to
ultimately protect and promote the interest of shareholders or other owners
of the entity. It oversees senior management in its role to balance perfor-
mance measures, incentives, and rewards with the pressures created by the
entitys objectives, and helps structure compensation practices to support the
achievement of the entitys objectives without unduly emphasizing short-term
results over long-term performance.

Appendices | B: Roles and Responsibilities
Nomination/Governance CommitteeProvides control over the selection of

candidates for directors and senior management. It regularly assesses and
nominates members of the board of directors; makes recommendations
regarding the boards composition, operations, and performance; oversees
the succession planning process for the chief executive officer and other key
executives; and develops oversight discipline, processes, and structures. It
promotes director orientations and training and evaluates oversight structures
and processes (e.g., board/committee evaluations).
Other CommitteesOther committees of the board of directors that oversee

specific areas. These committees are often established in large organizations
or due to particular circumstances of the entity. For example, in an industry
where compliance with certain laws and regulations is fundamental to the sur-
vival or development of the organization, a board-level compliance committee
may be necessary. Risk committees are formed to focus on changes in risk
levels and related impacts, and oversight of risk responses. Further to board
committees that provide oversight, management-level committees often exist
to provide guidance in the execution of specific areas, such as compliance
committees, new product committees, and others.
Senior Management
Chief Executive Officer

The chief executive officer (CEO) is accountable to the board of directors and is respon-
sible for designing, implementing, and conducting an effective system of internal
control. In privately owned, not-for-profit, or other entities, the equivalent role may have
a different title but generally covers the same responsibilities as described below. More
than any other individual, the CEO sets the tone at the top that affects the control envi-
ronment and all other components of internal control.
The CEOs responsibilities relating to internal control include:
With the support of management, providing leadership and direction to senior

management, shaping entity values, standards, expectations of compe-
tence, organizational structure, and accountability that form the foundation
of the entitys internal control system (e.g. specifying entity-wide objectives
andpolicies)
Maintaining oversight and control over the risks facing the entity (e.g., direct-
ing all management and other personnel to proactively identify risks to the
system of internal control, considering the ever-increasing pace of change and
networked interactions of business partners, outsourced service providers,
customers, employees, and others and resulting risk factors)
Guiding the development and performance of control activities at the entity

level, and delegating to various levels of management the design, implemen-
tation, conduct, and assessment of internal control at different levels of the
entity (e.g., processes and controls to be established)

Appendices
Communicating expectations (e.g., integrity, competence, key policies) and

information requirements (e.g., the type of planning and reporting systems the
entity will use)
Evaluating control deficiencies and the impact on the ongoing and long-
term effectiveness of the system of internal control (e.g., meeting regularly
with senior management from each of the operating units such as research
and development, production, marketing, sales, and major business-
enabling functions such as finance, human resources, legal, compliance,
risk management to evaluate how they are carrying out their internal control
responsibilities)
Other Members of Senior Management

Senior management comprises not only the CEO but also other senior executives
leading the key operating units and business-enabling functions. Examplesinclude:
Chief administrative officer
Chief audit executive
Chief compliance officer
Chief financial officer
Chief information officer
Chief legal officer
Chief operating officer
Chief risk officer
Other senior leadership roles, depending on the nature of the business
These senior management roles support the CEO with respect to internal control, spe-
cifically by:
Providing leadership and direction to management in terms of shaping entity

values, standards, expectations of competence, organizational structure, and
accountability that form the foundation of the entitys internal control system
(e.g. specifying entity-wide objectives and policies)
Maintaining oversight over the risks facing the entity (e.g., directing all man-
agement and other personnel to proactively identify risks to the system of
internal control, considering the ever-increasing pace of change and net-
worked interactions of business partners, outsourced service providers,
customers, employees, and others and resulting risk factors)

Guiding the development and performance of controls at the entity level,

and delegating to various levels of management the design, implementation,
conduct, and assessment of internal control at different levels of the entity
(e.g., processes and controls to be established)
Communicating expectations (e.g., integrity, competence, key policies) and

information requirements (e.g., the type of planning and reporting systems the
entity will use)
Evaluating internal control deficiencies and the impact on the ongoing and
long-term effectiveness of the system of internal control (e.g., meeting regu-
larly with finance, controllership, risk management, information technology,
human resources, and business management from each of the operating units
to evaluate how they are carrying out their internal control responsibilities)
Senior management guides the development and implementation of internal control

policies and procedures that address the objectives of their functional or operating unit
and verify that they are consistent with the entity-wide objectives. They provide direc-
tion, for example, on a units organizational structure and personnel hiring and training
practices, as well as budgeting and other information systems that promote control over
the units activities. As such, through a cascading responsibility structure, each execu-
tive is a CEO for his or her sphere of responsibility.
Senior management assigns responsibility for establishing even more specific inter-
nal control procedures to those personnel responsible for the units functions or
departments. These subunit managers can play a more hands-on role in devising and
executing particular internal control procedures. Often, these managers are directly
responsible for determining resource requirements, training needs, and internal control
procedures that address unit objectives, such as developing authorization procedures
for purchasing raw materials, accepting new customers, or reviewing production reports
to monitor product output. They also make recommendations on the controls, monitor
their application within processes, and meet with upper-level managers to report on the
operation of controls.
Depending on how many layers of management exist, these subunit managers, or

lower-level supervisory personnel, are directly involved in executing policies and proce-
dures at a detailed level. It is their responsibility to execute remedial actions as control
exceptions or other issues arise. This may involve investigating data-entry errors,
transactions flagged on exception reports, departmental expense budget variances,
or customer back orders or product inventory positions. Issues are communicated up
the organizations reporting structure according to the level of severity. Issues requiring
senior management oversight include financial performance, product quality, product
safety, workplace safety, community involvement, compliance with emission targets, or
other areas related to the achievement of the entitys objectives.
Managements responsibilities come with specific authority and accountability. Each

manager is accountable to the next higher level for his or her portion of the internal
control system, with the CEO being ultimately accountable to the board of directors,
and the board being accountable to shareholders or other owners of the entity.

Appendices
The chief financial officer (CFO) supports the CEO in front-line responsibilities, includ-
ing internal control over financial reporting. In certain reporting jurisdictions, the CFO is
required by law to certify to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,
alongside the CEO.
Business-Enabling Functions
Various organizational functions or operating units support the entity through special-
ized skills, such as risk management, finance, product/service quality management,
technology, compliance, legal, human resources, and others. They provide guidance
and assessment of internal control related to their areas of expertise, and it is incum-
bent on them to share and evaluate issues and trends that transcend organizational
units or functions. They keep the organization informed of relevant requirements as
they evolve over time (e.g., new or changing laws and regulations across a multitude of
jurisdictions). Such business-enabling functions are referred to as the second line of
defense, while front-line personnel execute their control activities.
While all controls function to serve a purpose, their efforts are coordinated and inte-
grated as appropriate. For example, a companys new customer acceptance process
may be reviewed by the compliance function from a regulatory perspective, by the risk
management function from a concentration risk perspective, and by the internal audit
function to assess the design and effectiveness of controls. Disruptions to the busi-
ness process are minimized when the timing and approach to reviews and management
of issues are coordinated to the extent possible. Integration of efforts helps create a
common language and platform for evaluating and addressing internal control matters,
as business-enabling functions guide the organization in achieving its objectives.
Risk and Control Personnel

Risk and control functions are part of the second line of defense. Depending on the size
and complexity of the organization, dedicated risk and control personnel may support
functional management to manage different risk types (e.g., operational, financial, quan-
titative, qualitative) by providing specialized skills and guidance to front-line manage-
ment and other personnel and evaluating internal control. These activities can be part of
an entitys centralized or corporate organization or they can be set up with dotted line
reporting to functional heads. Risk and control functions are central to the way manage-
ment maintains control over business activities.
Responsibilities of risk and control personnel include identifying known and emerging
risks, helping management develop processes to manage such relevant risks, com-
municating and providing education on these processes across the organization, and
evaluating and reporting on the effectiveness of such processes. The chief risk/control
officer is responsible for reporting to senior management and the board on significant
risks to the business and whether these risks are managed within the entitys estab-
lished tolerance levels, with adequate internal control in place. Despite such significant
responsibilities, risk and control personnel are not responsible for executing controls,
but support overall the achievement of internal control.

Legal and Compliance Personnel

Counsel from legal professionals is key to defining effective controls for compliance
with regulations and managing the possibility of lawsuits. In large and complex organi-
zations, specialized compliance professionals can be helpful in defining and assessing
controls for adherence to both external and internal requirements. The chief legal/com-
pliance officer is responsible for ensuring that legal, regulatory, and other requirements
are understood and communicated to those responsible for effecting compliance.
A close working relationship between business management and legal and compliance
personnel provides a strong basis for designing, implementing, and conducting internal
control to manage adverse outcomes such as regulatory sanctions, legal liability, and
failure to adhere to internal compliance policies and procedures. At smaller organiza-
tions, legal and compliance roles may be shared by the same professional, or one of
these roles can be outsourced with close oversight by management.
Other Personnel
Internal control is the responsibility of everyone in an entity and therefore constitutes
an explicit or implicit part of everyones job description. Front-line personnel con-
stitute the first line of defense in the performance of internal control responsibilities.
Examplesinclude:
Control EnvironmentReading, understanding, and applying the standards of

conduct of the organization
Risk AssessmentIdentifying and evaluating risks to the achievement of

objectives and understanding established risk tolerances relating to their
areas of responsibility
Control ActivitiesPerforming reconciliations, following up on exception

reports, performing physical inspections, and investigating reasons for cost
variances or other performance indicators
Information and CommunicationProducing and sharing information used

in the internal control system (e.g., inventory records, work-in-process data,
sales or expense reports) or taking other actions needed to effect control
Monitoring ActivitiesSupporting efforts to identify and communicate to

higher-level management issues in operations, non-compliance with the code
of conduct, or other violations of policy or illegal actions
The care with which those activities are performed directly affects the effectiveness of
the internal control system. Internal control relies on checks and balances, including
segregation of duties, and on employees not looking the other way. Personnel under-
stands the need to resist pressure from superiors to participate in improper activi-
ties, and channels outside normal reporting lines are available to permit reporting of
suchcircumstances.

Appendices
Internal Auditors
As the third line of defense, internal auditors provide assurance and advisory support
to management on internal control. Depending on the jurisdiction, size of the entity, and
nature of the business, this function may be required or optional, internal or outsourced,
large or small. In all cases, internal audit activities are expected to be carried out by
competent and professional resources aligned to the risks relevant to the entity.
The internal audit activity includes evaluating the adequacy and effectiveness of con-
trols in responding to risks within the organizations oversight, operations, and informa-
tion systems regarding. For example:
Reliability and integrity of financial and operational information
Effectiveness and efficiency of operations and programs
Safeguarding of assets
Compliance with laws, rules, regulations, standards, policies, procedures, and

contracts
All activities within an organization are potentially within the scope of the internal audi-
tors responsibility. In some entities, the internal audit function is heavily involved with
controls over operations. For example, internal auditors may periodically monitor pro-
duction quality, test the timeliness of shipments to customers, or evaluate the efficiency
of the plant layout. In other entities, the internal audit function may focus primarily on
compliance or financial reportingrelated activities. In all cases, they demonstrate the
necessary knowledge of the business and independence to provide a meaningful evalu-
ation of internal control.
The scope of internal auditing is typically expected to include oversight, risk manage-
ment, and internal control, and assist the organization in maintaining effective control
by evaluating its effectiveness and efficiency and by promoting continual improvement.
Internal audit communicates findings and interacts directly with management, the audit
committee, and/or the board of directors.
Internal auditors maintain an impartial view of the activities they audit through their skills
and authority within the entity. Internal auditors have functional reporting to the audit
committee and/or the board of directors and administrative reporting to the chief execu-
tive officer or other members of senior management.
Internal auditors are objective when not placed in a position of subordinating their judg-
ment on audit matters to that of others and when protected from other threats to their
objectivity. The primary protection against these threats is appropriate internal auditor
reporting lines and staff assignments. These assignments are made to avoid potential
and actual conflicts of interest and bias. Internal auditors do not assume operating
responsibilities, nor are they assigned to audit activities with which they were involved
recently in connection with prior operating assignments.

External Parties
A number of external parties can contribute to the achievement of the entitys objec-
tives, whether by performing activities as outsourced service providers or by providing
data or analysis to functional/operational personnel. In both cases, functional/opera-
tional management always retains full responsibility for internal control.
Outsourced Service Providers

Many organizations outsource business functions, delegating their roles and respon-
sibilities for day-to-day management to outside service providers. Administrative,
finance, human resources, technology, legal, and even select internal operations can be
executed by parties outside the organization, with the objective of obtaining access to
enhanced capabilities at a lower cost. For example, a financial institution may outsource
its loan review process to a third party, a technology company may outsource the oper-
ation and maintenance of its information technology processing, and a retail company
may outsource its internal audit function. While these external parties execute activities
for or on behalf of the organization, management cannot abdicate its responsibility to
manage the associated risks. It must implement a program to evaluate those activities
performed by others on their behalf to assess the effectiveness of the system of internal
control over the activities performed by outsourced service providers.
Other Parties Interacting with the Entity

Customers, vendors, and others transacting business with the entity are an important
source of information used in conducting control activities. For example:
A customer can inform a company about shipping delays, inferior product

quality, or failure to otherwise meet the customers needs for product or
service. Or a customer may be more proactive and work with an entity in
developing needed product enhancements.
A vendor can provide statements or information regarding completed or open

shipments and billings, which may be used to identify and correct discrepan-
cies and to reconcile balances.
A potential supplier can notify senior management of an employees request

for a kickback.
Experts can provide market data to help the organization adapt its busi-
ness model and supporting processes and controls to new challenges
andopportunities.
A non-governmental organization or newspaper may publish reports on

working or environmental conditions at a supplier or sub-supplier.
Such information sharing between management and external parties can be important
to the entity in achieving its operations, reporting, and compliance objectives. The entity
has mechanisms in place with which to receive such information and to take appropriate
action on a timely basisthat is, it not only addresses the particular situation reported,
but also investigates the underlying source of an issue and fixes it.

Appendices
In addition to customers and vendors, other parties, such as creditors, can provide
insight on the achievement of an entitys objectives. A bank, for example, may request
reports on an entitys compliance with certain debt covenants and recommend perfor-
mance indicators or other desired targets or controls.
Independent Auditors
In some jurisdictions, an independent auditor is engaged to audit or examine the effec-
tiveness of internal control over external financial reporting in addition to auditing the
entitys financial statements. (In some jurisdictions, the auditor is also legally required
to express an opinion on the effectiveness of the internal control over external financial
reporting in addition to his or her opinion on the financial statements.) Results of these
audits enable the auditor to provide information to management that will be useful
in conducting its oversight responsibilities. These reports and communications may
include:
Observations including analytical information and recommendations for use in

taking actions necessary to achieve established objectives
Findings of internal control deficiencies that come to attention of the auditor,

and recommendations for improvement
Notwithstanding the depth and nature of the independent auditors work, this is not a
replacement or a supplement to an adequate system of internal control, which remains
the full responsibility of management.
Such information frequently relates not only to financial reporting but to operations and
compliance activities as well. The information is reported to and acted upon by manage-
ment and, depending on its significance, to the board of directors or audit committee.
External Reviewers
Subject matter specialists can be solicited or mandated to review specific areas of the
organizations internal control. Recognizing the various requirements or expectations of
its stakeholders, an organization often seeks expert advice to translate these into poli-
cies and procedures, as well as communications and training, and evaluation of adher-
ence to such requirements and standards. Workplace safety, environmental concerns,
and fair trade practices are some examples of areas where an organization proactively
seeks to ensure that it is complying with governing rules and standards. Certain func-
tional areas may also be reviewed to promote greater effectiveness and efficiency of
operations, such as compliance reviews, information systems penetration testing, and
employment practices assessments.
Legislators and Regulators

Legislators and regulators can affect the internal control systems through specific
requirements to establish internal control across the organization and/or through
examinations of particular operating units. Many entities have long been subject to
legal requirements for internal control. For example, companies listed on a US stock
exchange are expected to establish and maintain a system of internal control, and legis-
lation requires that senior executives of publicly listed companies certify to the effec-
tiveness of their companys internal control over financial reporting.

Various regulations require that public companies establish and maintain internal
accounting control systems that satisfy specified objectives. Various laws and regu-
lations apply to financial assistance programs, which address a variety of activities
ranging from civil rights to cash management, and specify required internal control
procedures or practices. Several regulatory agencies directly examine entities for
which they have oversight responsibility. For example, federal and state bank examin-
ers conduct examinations of banks and often focus on certain aspects of the banks
internal control systems. These agencies make recommendations and are frequently
empowered to take enforcement action. Thus, legislators and regulators affect the inter-
nal control systems in several ways:
They establish rules that provide the impetus for management to establish an
internal control system that meets statutory and regulatory requirements.
Through examination of a particular entity, they provide information used by

the entitys internal control system and provide comment letters, recommen-
dations, and sometimes directives to management on needed internal control
system improvements.
They may receive and, in turn, investigate whistle-blower allegations.
Financial Analysts, Bond Rating Agencies, and the News Media

Financial analysts, bond rating agencies, and news media personnel analyze manage-
ments performance against strategies and objectives by considering historical financial
statements and prospective financial information, actions taken in response to condi-
tions in the economy and marketplace, potential for success in the short and long term,
and industry performance and peer-group comparisons, among other factors. Such
investigative activities can provide insights, among many other outcomes, into the state
of internal control and how management is responding to enhancing internal control.

C. Considerations for Smaller Entities
Characteristics of Smaller Entities

Many different perceptions exist as to what constitutes a smaller entity. Some think
of a local, family-owned hardware store or corner bakery as a typical small business.
Others may think of a not-for-profit entity that generates several million dollars in annual
donations. Others may consider a small entity in the context of a company that has
been public for many years manufacturing an innovative product, and which now gener-
ates annual revenue of several hundred million dollars with hopes that future growth will
catapult it to the Fortune 500 category. Depending on perspective, any or all of these
may be considered smaller entities.
The Framework does not provide a definition in terms of revenue, capitalization, or

other factors; that is the role of regulators or other parties. Instead, the term smaller
rather than small, suggests there is a wide range of entities to which these consid-
erations apply. The focus here is on smaller entities that have many of the following
characteristics:
Fewer lines of business and fewer products within lines
Concentration of marketing focus by channel or geography
Leadership by management with significant ownership interest or rights
Fewer levels of management with wider spans of control
Less complex transaction processing systems
Fewer personnel, many having a wider range of duties
Limited ability to maintain deep resources in line as well as support staff posi-
tions such as legal, human resources, accounting, and internal auditing
The last bulleted item, limited ability to maintain deep resources, is a frequent cause of
smaller entities being lower on the economies-of-scale curve. Often, but not always,
smaller entities have a higher per unit cost of producing a product or providing a
service. On the other hand, many smaller entities achieve competitive advantage in cost
savings through innovation, lower overhead (by retaining fewer people and substituting
variable for fixed costs via a part-time workforce or variable compensation plans), and
narrower focus in terms of product, location, and complexity.
Economies of scale is often a factor affecting support functions, including those that
directly support internal control. For example, establishing an internal audit function
within a hundred-million-dollar entity likely would require a larger percentage of eco-
nomic resources than would be the case for a multi-billion-dollar entity. Certainly, the
smaller entitys internal audit function would be smaller, and might rely on co-sourcing
or outsourcing to provide needed skills, where the larger entitys function might have a
broad range of experienced personnel in-house. But in all likelihood the relative cost for
the smaller entity would be higher than for the larger one.

Appendices
None of the above characteristics by themselves are definitive. Certainly, size, by what-
ever measureassets, revenue, spending, personnel, or otheraffects and is affected
by these characteristics, and shapes thinking about what constitutes smaller.
Meeting Challenges in Attaining Cost-Effective

Internal Control
The characteristics of smaller entities tend to provide significant challenges for cost-
effective internal control. Often managers of smaller entities view control as an admin-
istrative burden to be added to existing business processes, rather than recognize the
business need for and benefit of effective internal control that is integrated within these
processes.
Among the challenges are:
Obtaining sufficient resources to achieve adequate segregation of duties
Balancing managements ability to dominate activities, with significant oppor-

tunities for improper management override of processes in order to appear
that business performance goals have been met
Recruiting individuals with requisite expertise to serve effectively on the board

of directors and committees
Recruiting and retaining personnel with sufficient experience and skill in

operations, reporting, compliance, and other disciplines
Taking critical management attention from running the business in order to

provide sufficient focus on internal control
Controlling information technology and maintaining appropriate general

and application controls over computer information systems with limited
technicalresources
Despite resource constraints, smaller entities usually can meet these challenges and
succeed in attaining effective internal control in a reasonably cost-effective manner.
Segregation of Duties
Many smaller entities have limited numbers of employees performing various func-
tions, which sometimes results in inadequate segregation of duties. There are, however,
actions that management can take to compensate for this circumstance. Following are
some types of controls that can be implemented:
Review Reports of Detailed TransactionsManagers review on a regular and

timely basis system reports of the detailed transactions.
Review Selected TransactionsManagers select transactions for review of

supporting documents.
Periodically Observe AssetsManagers periodically conduct counts of

physical inventory, equipment, and other assets and compare them with the
accounting records.

Appendices | C: Considerations for Smaller Entities
Check ReconciliationsManagers from time to time review reconciliations of

account balances such as cash, accounts payable, and accounts receivable,
or perform them independently.
Segregation of duties is not an end in itself, but rather a means of mitigating a risk inher-
ent in processing. When developing or assessing controls that address risks in an entity
with limited ability to segregate duties, management should consider whether other
controls satisfactorily address these risks and are applied conscientiously enough to
reduce risk.
Management Override
Many smaller entities are dominated by the founder or a leader who exercises a great
deal of discretion and provides personal direction to other personnel. This positioning
may be key to enabling the entity to meet its growth and other objectives, and can also
contribute significantly to effective internal control. With this leaders in-depth knowl-
edge of different facets of the entityits operations, processes, policies and proce-
dures, contractual commitments, and business riskshe or she is positioned to know
what to expect in reports generated by the system and to follow up as needed. Such
concentration of knowledge and authority, however, comes with a downside: the leader
typically is able to override controls.
There are a few basic but important things that can help to mitigate the risk of manage-
ment override:
Maintain a corporate culture where integrity and ethical values are held in high
esteem, embedded throughout the organization, and practiced on an every-
day basis. This can be supported and reinforced by recruiting, compensat-
ing, and promoting individuals where these values are appropriately reflected
inbehavior.
Implement a whistle-blower program, where personnel feel comfortable

reporting any improprieties, regardless of the level at which they may be
committed. Importantly, they may be able to maintain anonymity and confi-
dence that reported matters will be investigated thoroughly and acted upon,
appropriately and without reprisals. It is important that where circumstances
warrant matters can be reported directly to the board or audit committee.
Position an effective internal audit function to detect instances of wrongdo-

ing and breakdowns at the entity and subunit levels. Ready access to relevant
information and ability to communicate directly with senior management and
the board or audit committee are key factors.
Attract and retain qualified board members that take their responsibilities
seriously to perform the critical role of preventing or detecting instances of
management override.
Such practices mitigate the risk of impropriety and promote accountability of leader-
ship, while gaining the unique advantages of cost-effective internal control in a smaller
entity environment.

Appendices
Board of Directors
The discussion above highlights the need for a board of directors with requisite exper-
tise to perform its oversight responsibilities well. With appropriate knowledge, attention,
and communication, the board is positioned to provide an effective means of offsetting
the effects of improper management override. In smaller entities, the board of directors
typically has in-depth knowledge of what usually are relatively straightforward business
operations, and it communicates more closely with a broader range of personnel.
Many smaller entities, however, find it very difficult to attract independent directors with
the desired skills and experience. Typical challenges to finding suitable directors include
inadequate knowledge of the entity and its people, the entitys limited ability to provide
compensation commensurate with board responsibilities, a sense that the chief execu-
tive might be unaccustomed or unwilling to appropriately share governance responsibili-
ties, or concerns about potential personal liability.
Some entities address such concerns of desired board candidates and expand their
search of valued or required expertise such as financial and accounting expertise. In
this way, they can shape the board to not only appropriately monitor senior manage-
ment, but also to provide value-added advice.
Information Technology
Many smaller entities do not have the extensive technical resources necessary to select,
develop, and deploy software applications in a controlled manner. Thus, these entities
consider alternatives to meet their needs of business processes and internal control.
Many smaller entities use software developed and maintained by others. These pack-
ages still require controlled implementation and operation, but many of the risks asso-
ciated with systems developed in-house are reduced. For example, typically there is
less need for program change controls, inasmuch as changes are done exclusively by
the developer, and generally the personnel in a smaller entity dont have the technical
expertise to attempt to make unauthorized program modifications.
Commercially developed software packages can bring additional advantages. Such

packages may provide embedded facility for controlling which employees can access or
modify specified data, perform checks on data processing completeness and accuracy,
and maintain related documentation.
Monitoring activities routinely performed by managers running a business can provide
information on the presence and functioning of other components and relevant prin-
ciples. Management of many smaller entities regularly perform such activities, but have
not always taken sufficient credit for their contribution to the effectiveness of internal
control. These activities, usually performed manually and sometimes supported by
computer software, should be fully considered in designing, implementing, and con-
ducting internal control and assessing the effectiveness of internal control.

D. Methodology for Revising the
Framework
Background
In November 2010, the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Com-
mission (COSO) announced a project to review and update its Internal ControlInte-
grated Framework (original framework). This initiative was expected to make the original
framework and related evaluation tools more relevant in the increasingly complex indus-
try, operating, and regulatory environment so that organizations worldwide could better
design, implement, and conduct internal control and assess its effectiveness. As the
author of the original framework, PwC conducted this project by bringing together in-
depth understanding of the original framework and rationale for decisions made in cre-
ating the Framework, and sought input from users, stakeholders, and senior resources
who provided current perspectives on internal control.
The original framework has been widely accepted by organizations in implementing,

designing, conducting, and assessing internal control relating to operations, compli-
ance, and financial reporting objectives, and more recently to internal control over finan-
cial reporting in compliance with the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and similar
regulatory requirements in other countries. Enhancement provided by this project is not
intended to change how internal control is defined, assessed, or managed, but rather to
provide relevant conceptual guidance and practical examples.
The COSO Board formed an Advisory Council comprising representatives from indus-
tries, academia, government agencies, and non-profit entities, and observers from
regulators and standard setters to provide input as the project progressed. In addition,
the Framework has been exposed to the public to capture additional input. Such due
process has helped the update adequately address current challenges for organizations
within their internal control.
Approach
The project consisted of five phases:
Assess and EnvisionThrough literature reviews, global surveys, and public

forums, this phase identified current challenges for organizations in imple-
menting the Framework. During this phase, PwC analyzed information,
reviewed various sources of input, and identified critical issues and concerns.
COSO launched a global survey, available to the general public for providing
input on the original framework, soliciting over 700 responses.
Build and DesignPwC, with COSO Board oversight, developed the updated
Framework. Multiple drafts of the documents were reviewed by the Advisory
Council, and various user and stakeholder groups provided additional insight
about proposed updates via participation in conferences, webinars, and semi-
nars sponsored by COSO organizations.

Appendices
Preparation for Public ExposureWith assistance provided by the Advisory

Council and oversight of the COSO Board, PwC prepared exposure drafts and
an on-line questionnaire to facilitate a review by the general public. The COSO
Board and PwC asked for comments from the general public on many relevant
topics, including whether the:
-- Requirements of effective internal control are clearly set forth in the

Framework
-- Roles of components, relevant principles, and points of focus are clearly

set forth in the Framework
-- The Framework is sound, logical, and useful to management of entities of

all sizes.
Public ExposureIn this phase, PwC refined the update through reviews
with the general public. The Framework was issued for public exposure for a
104-day comment period. During this phase, PwC, COSO Board members,
and Advisory Council members presented the updated Framework at numer-
ous professional conferences, seminars, round tables, and meetings with
users and stakeholders. The updated Framework was also made available for
comment during the public exposure of the companion documents: Internal
Control over External Financial Reporting: Compendium of Approaches and
Examples, and Illustrative Tools for Assessing Effectiveness of a System of
Internal Control. PwC reviewed and analyzed all comments received during
these public exposure periods, and reviewed resolutions and modifications
related to more significant issues raised during public exposure with the
COSO Board and Advisory Council.
FinalizationPwC finalized the Framework and related publications and pro-

vided final documents to the COSO Board for review and acceptance.
Within each project phase and between phases, as one might expect, many different
and sometimes contradictory observations or recommendations were expressed on
fundamental issues relating to internal control. PwC, with COSO Board oversight, care-
fully considered the merits of positions put forth, both individually and in the context of
related issues, and revised the Framework to help the development of a relevant, logical,
and internally consistent publication on internal control.

E. Public Comment Letters
As noted in Appendix D, Methodology for Revising the Framework, a draft of the
Framework was issued for public comment from December 19, 2011 through March 31,
2012. There were more than 100 public responses to the on-line survey and 96 public
comment letters relating to this exposure draft. These letters contained more than 1,000
comments on many aspects of the updated Framework, and each comment was con-
sidered in further revisions.
Interested parties were also invited to comment on the Framework during the 78-day
public exposure of Internal Control over External Financial Reporting: A Compen-
dium of Approaches and Examples. Responses to the on-line survey questions and
twenty-three public comment letters related to the post-public exposure version of the
Framework.
This appendix summarizes the more significant comments and any resulting modifica-
tions to the Framework arising from these exposure periods. Many respondents con-
curred with COSO that the updates to the Framework are expected to help management
strengthen existing systems of internal control by responding to many changes in the
business and operating environments over the past twenty years, codifying principles
associated with the five components of internal control, and expanding the reporting
objective to include other important forms of reporting. There were divergent views
as to whether the updates to the Framework would set a higher threshold for attaining
effective internal control, impose additional burdens on entities that report on internal
control, and should incorporate additional aspects of enterprise risk management.
Whereas some respondents sought fundamental changes to the Framework, others

recognized that the Framework remains relevant and useful today and should be used
as the basis for an update in selected areas, as discussed below.
Definition of Internal Control

Some respondents suggested amending the definition in different ways. Individual sug-
gestions included aligning the definition with other standards, embedding risk, remov-
ing objective categories, increasing emphasis on the board, adding anti-fraud/ethical
behavior expectations, removing the concept of reasonable assurance, expanding the
reporting objective to include other aspects such as timeliness and transparency, and
stipulating that effectiveness of internal control is attained by reducing the risk of not
achieving an objective to an acceptably low level. Other respondents, however, noted
that the original definition has gained wide acceptance (e.g., auditing standards, legisla-
tion and guidance) and should be retained.
The Framework revises the definition to remove the modifiers from each category of
objectives. The reasons for this change are that the objectives are discussed in some
detail later in Chapter 1, Definition of Internal Control, and with the broadening of the
reporting category, respondents appropriately identified additional relevant aspects of
the reporting objective beyond just reliability.

Appendices
Other than this change, the Framework retains a broad definition as other suggestions
are either encompassed in the definition, as amended, or are discussed more appropri-
ately as part of the components of internal control. Finally, incorporating the notion of
reducing risk to a low level potentially pre-empts managements judgment and may be
too restrictive for some objectives.
Reporting, Operations, and Compliance Objectives

Some respondents called for reconsidering the expansion of financial reporting objec-
tives and potential regulatory implications, and reconsidering the measurability of the
achievement of operations objectives. The Framework retains descriptions of the three
categories of objectives and provides supplemental descriptions of operations and
compliance objectives.
Principles
Respondents acknowledged the benefit of formalizing into principles internal control
concepts introduced in the original framework, providing clarity for management in
designing, implementing, and conducting internal control, and assessing the effective-
ness of systems of internal control.
Some respondents suggested folding Principle 11, Selects and Develops General
Controls over Technology, into Principle 10, Selects and Develops Control Activities,
based on a view that selecting and developing technology general controls is a subset
of selecting control activities in general, which are part of Principle 10.
Some also suggested combining Principle 8, Assessing Fraud Risk, with Principle 7,
Identifies and Analyzes Risks, on the basis that fraud risk may be viewed as only one
type of risk potentially impacting objectives.
The Framework carries forward the seventeen principles. It retains the principles
that focus on the use of technology and the assessment of fraud risks, recognizing
their important role in achieving effective internal control. Some principles were also
enhanced or clarified based on respondents comments.
Effectiveness
Achievement of Operations Objectives

Some respondents suggested that effective internal control can provide management
and the board with more than an understanding of the extent to which operations are
managed effectively and efficiently. Some respondents suggested that if operations
objectives are specified with sufficient clarity and the limitations imposed by external
events are either not significant or can be mitigated to an acceptable level, internal
control can provide reasonable assurance of achieving those operations objectives.

Appendices | E: Public Comment Letters
The Framework has been updated to recognize that when external events are consid-
ered unlikely to have a significant impact on the achievement of objectives or where the
organization can reasonably predict the nature and timing of external events and miti-
gate the impact to an acceptable level, internal control can provide reasonable assur-
ance that operations are being managed effectively and efficiently.
However, there may still be instances when external events may have a significant
impact on the achievement of objectives and the impact cannot be mitigated to an
acceptable level. In those instances effective internal control can only provide man-
agement and the board with an understanding of the extent to which operations are
managed effectively and efficiently.
Relevant Principles
Comments on the post-exposure version focused on the requirements for effective
internal control and whether management can conclude that a system of internal control
is effective when principles are not present and functioning. The Framework presumes
that principles are relevant. However, there may be a rare industry, operating, or regula-
tory situation in which management has determined that a principle is not relevant to
the associated component. Considerations in applying this judgment may include the
entity structure recognizing any legal, regulatory, industry, or contractual requirements
for governance of the entity, and the level of use and dependence on technology used
by the entity. The Framework clarifies the requirement that relevant principles must be
present and functioning to achieve effective internal control.
Components Operating Together

Respondents also requested clarification of the requirement that components operate
together. A definition and further discussion was added to Chapter 3 on components
operating together.
Points of Focus
Some respondents expressed concern that including point of focus (named as attri-
butes in the initial public exposure draft) may trigger an undesirable checklist mental-
ity by management, auditors, and regulators. Other respondents requested clarity on
whether the attributes represent requirements relating to whether principles are present
and functioning or whether the Framework presumes that attributes are present and
functioning.
The Framework now replaces the term attributes with points of focus, consistent
with the original framework, to reduce the perception that the use of points of focus is
a requirement. The Framework clarifies the relevance of points of focus by positioning
them as important characteristics of principles. The Framework allows management
greater flexibility to exercise judgment in considering which points of focus are relevant
for the entity. The Framework was revised to remove the presumption that points of
focus must be in place and separately assessed.

Appendices
Points of focus have been removed from Chapter 3, Effective Internal Control, to clarify
that they are not to be considered requirements associated with the relevant principles.
Instead, they are introduced and their relevance clarified in Chapter 4, Additional Con-
siderations. Within the respective component chapters, they are listed after the principle
to which they apply.
Classification of Internal Control Deficiencies

Some respondents suggested removing major and minor non-conformities, and using
a consistent terminology for all categories of objectives in the Framework. Some sug-
gested using terms significant deficiency and material weakness for allcategories.
The Framework presents a revised terminology when generally referring to the severity
of deficiencies, and uses the terms internal control deficiencies and major deficien-
cies. However, for certain objectives, the Framework acknowledges that management
should use only the relevant criteria established in laws, rules, regulations, and stan-
dards with respect to the severity classification of internal control deficiencies.
Objective-Setting
Some respondents suggested that the Framework include objective-setting as a com-
ponent of internal control. Others suggested that objective-setting remain a precondi-
tion of internal control, and that the Framework provide greater clarity of the role of
assessing suitability of objectives within internal control.
The Framework retains the five components and the concept that establishing objec-
tives is a precondition to internal control. It clarifies the distinction between establishing
objectives (outside the system of internal control) and specifying objectives (within the
system of internal control) in Chapter 2, Objectives, Components, and Principles. The
Framework expands discussion on suitability of objectives and explains how manage-
ment should respond when specified objectives are viewed as unsuitable (see Chapter
4, Risk Assessment).
Objectives
Some respondents suggested including safeguarding of assets as a category of objec-
tives based on established laws, rules, regulations, and standards. Others suggested
that safeguarding of assets is part of each category of objectives.
The Framework retains safeguarding of assets as an operations objective, consistent

with the original framework. The Internal ControlIntegrated Framework, Addendum
to Reporting Parties (May 1994) affirmed that the definition of internal control relates
to operations, compliance, and financial reporting objectives, as set out in the origi-
nal framework, and remains appropriate. The Addendum also concluded that when

management reports on internal control over financial reporting there is a reasonable

expectation that such reporting covers controls to help prepare financial statements
and prevent or detect in a timely manner any unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposi-
tion of assets.
The Framework acknowledges that some laws, rules, regulations, and standards have
established safeguarding of assets as a separate category of objective. When manage-
ment reports on an entitys system of internal control, there may be established objec-
tives or sub-objectives relating to physical security, prevention, or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of assets. The Framework retains the view
that safeguarding of assets is primarily related to operations, but may be viewed within
the context of reporting and compliance objective categories.
Strategic Objectives
Some respondents suggested the addition of strategic objectives as a category of
objectives. Some also suggested that this change was already made in Enterprise Risk
ManagementIntegrated Framework (ERM Framework) and that the Framework should
adopt a similarchange.
The Framework retains operations, reporting, and compliance objective categories and
the concept that strategic objectives are not part of internal control. Including strategy-
setting and strategic objectives would require adding other concepts, including risk
appetite and risk tolerance, to provide a complete discussion of this objective category.
These concepts are more appropriate in the context of enterprise risk management, as
discussed below.
Enterprise Risk Management

Some respondents called for further integration of enterprise risk management con-
cepts into internal control, in particular seeking an expanded discussion of risk toler-
ance and adding risk appetite. Some also sought a merger of COSOs ERM Framework
with the Framework. Others supported keeping the two frameworks separate and
distinct.
The COSO Board considered merging the two frameworks and decided to keep them
separate and distinct. Accordingly, strategy-setting, strategic objectives, and risk
appetite remain part of the ERM Framework. The Framework retains the definition of
risk appetite and the application of risk tolerance and retains strategy-setting as a pre-
condition of internal control.
The Framework expands the Foreword to acknowledge that the two frameworks are
intended to be complementary, neither superseding the other. The Framework includes
a discussion of overlapping concepts in Appendix G.

Appendices
Smaller Entities and Governments

Some respondents called for expanded guidance specific to smaller entities and gov-
ernments. Some suggested that the Framework specifically highlight the differences in
applicability to such entities. Others suggested that the length of document is poten-
tially overwhelming for smaller organizations.
The Framework contains additional discussion relating to Principle 2, Exercises Over-

sight Responsibility concerning smaller entities. Additional discussion from the 2006
COSO Guidance for Smaller Public Entities is included in Appendix C. This appendix
has been expanded to consider entities beyond smaller public companies and has rel-
evance for other smaller entities.
Technology
Some respondents commented, in general, on expanding the guidance on technology in
the Framework. Others suggested including detailed technology topics such as backup
and recovery in Principle 11, Selects and Develops General Controls over Technology.
And still others suggested adding detailed risks associated with current technology
initiatives such as cloud computing or continuous auditing techniques. Some recom-
mended referring to or incorporating other established frameworks specifically address-
ing technology controls and other considerations.
The Framework includes enhanced discussion on technology both in the points of

focus and in various chapters. The Framework does not include extensive discussion
on specific current technology initiatives or the risks associated with them because of
the evolving nature of technology and concerns that the Framework may become dated.
The Framework does not explicitly reference other technology-focused frameworks
byname.
Structure and Layout

Some respondents expressed concern about the length of the Framework and sug-
gested presenting only those requirements of internal control. Others suggested revis-
ing the structure to emphasize requirements versus supplemental guidance.
The COSO Board continues to believe that the Framework comprises all chapters. The
Board acknowledges, however, the importance of clearly setting forth that components
and relevant principles are requirements of an effective system of internal control.
Due Process
Some respondents questioned the sufficiency of the overall due process activities
surrounding COSOs initiative to update the Framework, suggesting, for instance, that
PwC and COSO conduct additional outreach and public consultations before releas-
ing the Framework. The COSO Board believes the extensive level of activities over the
past several years have captured a wide range of views on the proposed revisions to the

Framework as described in Appendix D, Methodology for Revising the Framework. As

part of this approach, PwC and COSO:
Surveyed users and stakeholders in the original framework to capture user

views on the nature and extent of necessary updates, receiving over 700
responses (December 2010 to September 2011)
Conducted eleven meetings with the Advisory Council (whose members

include representatives of AICPA, AAA, FEI, IIA, IMA, public accounting firms,
other professional organizations and various regulatory observers)
Provided exposure drafts of the updated Framework for public comments

(December 2011 to March 2012)
Made available a revised draft of the Framework for public comments, in con-
nection with providing exposure drafts of the proposed Internal Control over
External Financial Reporting: A Compendium of Approaches and Examples,
along with Framework and Illustrative Tools for Assessing Effectiveness of a
System of Internal Control (September to December 2012)
Participated in many conferences, webinars, and seminars with membership

of COSO to seek additional views from stakeholders and users (January 2011
to January 2013)
COSO believes there has been a substantive due process effort to capture views on
proposed updates to the Framework and Appendices, Internal Control over External
Financial Reporting: A Compendium of Approaches and Examples, and Illustrative Tools
for Assessing Effectiveness of a System of Internal Control.

F. Summary of Changes to the
COSO Internal ControlIntegrated
Framework (1992)
This Appendix summarizes the broad changes from the original edition issued in 1992,
as well as changes made within each of the five components of internal control.
Broadbased Changes
The following significant changes are evident across all areas of the updated
Framework:
Applies a principles-based approachThe Framework focuses greater atten-

tion on principles. While the original framework implicitly reflected the core
principles of internal control, the Framework explicitly states the seventeen
principles, which represent the fundamental concepts associated with the
components of internal control. These principles remain broad as they are
intended to apply to (1) any category of objectives and (2) any type of entity,
for-profit companies, both publicly traded and privately held companies; not-
for-profit entities; government bodies; and other organizations. Supporting
each principle are points of focus, representing important characteristics of
principles.
Clarifies requirements for effective internal controlThe components and

principles comprise the criteria that will assist management in assessing
whether an entity has effective internal control. The Framework requires that
each of the components and relevant principles be present and functioning
and the five components be operating together.
Expands the reporting category of objectivesThe financial reporting objec-

tive category is expanded to consider other external reporting beyond finan-
cial reporting, as well as internal reporting, both financial and non-financial.
Clarifies the role of objective-setting in internal controlThe original frame-

work stated that objective-setting was a management process, and that
establishing objectives is a precondition to internal control. The Framework
preserves that view and expands the discussion on specifying objectives and
considered suitability of established objectives. This discussion is included in
Chapter 2, Objectives, Components, and Principles.
Considers globalization of markets and operationsOrganizations expand

beyond domestic markets in the pursuit of value, entering into international
markets, and executing cross-border mergers and acquisitions. The Frame-
work discusses changes in management operating models, legal entity
structures, and related roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities for internal
control at the entity and subunit level. In addition, it considers the identifi-
cation and analysis of internal and external risk factors relating to mergers
andacquisitions.

Appendices
Enhances governance conceptsThe Framework includes expanded

discussion on governance relating to the board of directors and com-
mittees of the board, including audit, compensation, and nomination/
governancecommittees.
Considers different business models and organizational structuresBusiness

models and structures have evolved over the past twenty years, and many
entities now expand their business models to encompass the use of out-
sourced service providers for products or services necessary to the ongoing
operation of the entity. The competitive landscape, globalization, dynamic
industry and technological changes, evolving business models, competition
for talent, cost management, and other factors have required management to
look beyond internal operations to access needed resources. The Framework
explicitly considers the extended business model, including the responsibili-
ties for internal control in this model and the achievement of effective internal
control.
Considers demands and complexities in laws, rules, regulations, and stan-

dardsRegulators and standard setters promote greater stakeholder pro-
tection and confidence in external reporting through changes in laws, rules,
regulations, and standards. The Framework recognizes the roles of regulators
and standard-setters in establishing objectives and in providing criteria to
assess the severity and to report internal control deficiencies.
Considers expectations for competencies and accountabilitiesDemands for

greater competence and accountability increase as organizations grow more
complex, acquire entities, restructure, introduce new products and services,
and implement new processes and technologies. Organizations may flatten
and shift management operating models and delegate greater authority or
accountability. The Framework broadens the discussion on thesetopics.
Reflects the increased relevance of technologyThe number of entities that

use or rely on technology has grown substantially since 1992, along with the
extent that technology is used in most entities. Technologies have evolved
from large standalone mainframe environments that process batches of
transactions to highly sophisticated, decentralized, and mobile applications
involving multiple real-time activities that can cut across many systems, orga-
nizations, processes, and technologies. The change in technology can impact
how all components of internal control are implemented.
Enhances consideration of anti-fraud expectationsThe original framework

considered fraud, although the discussion of anti-fraud expectations and
the relationship between fraud and internal control was less prominent. The
Framework contains considerably more discussion on fraud and also consid-
ers the potential of fraud as a principle of internal control.

Appendices | F: Summary of Changes to the COSO Internal ControlIntegrated Framework (1992)
Achievement of Objectives
The original framework noted that internal control can be judged effective in each of the
three categories, respectively, if the board of directors and management have reason-
able assurance that:
They understand the extent to which the entitys operations objectives are
being achieved
Published financial statements are being prepared reliably
Applicable laws and regulations are being complied with
The original framework noted that achievement of operations objectives is not always
within the entitys control. For these operations objectives, the system of internal control
can provide reasonable assurance only that management and, in its oversight role, the
board are made aware, in a timely manner, of the extent to which the entity is moving
toward those objectives.
The Framework acknowledges that achievement of some operations objectives is not

always within the organizations control and in those instances retains the view set out
in the original framework. The Framework also recognizes that when external events
are unlikely to have a significant impact on the achievement of specified objectives,
an organization may be able to attain reasonable assurance those objectives can be
achieved.
Changes to Components of Internal Control
Control Environment
In the two decades since the publication of the original framework in 1992, a number
of factors have pointed to the need for an update on what to consider in establishing a
sound control environment. There is now greater complexity in business models, with
enterprises extending to a wide network of third parties and business partners that are
not only accountable for delivering results but also for adhering to expected standards
that the organization seeks to uphold. The multiple structures that define organizations
today, whether by product line, geography, legal entity, or some other factor, require
a flexible and multidimensional approach to governance and control and the ability to
report accordingly.
Today, there is an increased need for transparency of how the organization operates
and governs itself; reporting now extends beyond financial performance; risk discus-
sions are expected to be more robust and detailed; corporate social responsibility
reporting matters more to stakeholders; and the pace for publishing such information
has accelerated. Changes in expectations of governance as a result of regulatory devel-
opments, listing standards, and other stakeholder requirements have mandated certain
structures and processes. These include independence of board members, disclosures
of skill profiles, processes for board and audit committee evaluation, and alignment of

Appendices
incentives, pressures, and rewards to ensure the right behavior is promoted and nega-
tive behavior is corrected. All of this is designed to keep pace with the evolving risk
profile of the organization.
In the updates to Chapter 5, the Control Environment, key changes include:
Combining into five principles the discussions relating to integrity and ethical
values, commitment to competence, board of directors or audit commit-
tee, managements philosophy and operating style, organizational structure,
assignment of authority and responsibility, and human resource policies
andpractices
Explaining linkages between the various components of internal control to

demonstrate the foundational aspects of the control environment for a sound
system of internal control
Expanding the discussion of governance roles in an organization, recogniz-

ing differences in structures, requirements, and challenges across different
jurisdictions, sectors, and types of entities
Clarifying the expectations of integrity and ethical values to reflect lessons

learned and developments in ethics and compliance (e.g., codes of conduct,
the attestation process, whistle-blower processes, investigation and resolu-
tion, and training and reinforcement both internally and with third parties)
Expanding the notion of risk oversight and strengthening the linkages between
risk and performance to help allocate resources to support internal control in
the achievement of the entitys objectives
Emphasizing the need to consider internal control across the complexi-

ties in organizational structure resulting from different business models
and the use of outsourced service providers, business partners, and other
externalpartners
Aligning roles and responsibilities discussed in organizational structure with

the information presented in Appendix B, Roles and Responsibilities, so that
major roles are used consistently within the Framework.
Risk Assessment
Since 1992 the attention given to risk and the risk assessment component of internal
control has continued to increase, with risk and control being more closely aligned.
Consequently, many organizations have shifted their thinking away from being prescrip-
tive to taking a more risk-based approach to internal control. Some users of the original
framework suggested that updates were needed to further enhance the understanding
of risk and its link to the overall system of internal control. As companies embrace risk
management and enterprise risk management programs, they are also seeking greater
clarity of how risk assessments are considered in the context of internal control, and
what aspects of risk management remain incremental to internal control.

Users also noted that almost half of the original chapter on risk assessment focused on
objectives, and that this focus was not needed if objective-setting was truly a precon-
dition to internal control. Many organizations have expanded their reporting efforts,
moving to include many other types of external reporting beyond just financial report-
ing. Finally, often in response to events occurring within their organizations, industry, or
within the general business community, and as a result of expanding legislative pres-
sures in some jurisdictions, many organizations have also increased their efforts relating
to anti-fraud efforts.
Therefore, Chapter 6, Risk Assessment, reflects these key changes by:
Repositioning much of the discussion on objective-setting, which continues

to be viewed as a precondition to risk assessment, to Chapter 2, Objectives,
Components, and Principles, and no longer including the discussion on cat-
egories of objectives, linkage between objectives, and achievement of objec-
tives in the Risk Assessment component
Focusing the Risk Assessment component on articulating objectives relat-

ing to operations, reporting, and compliance with sufficient clarity so that
any risks to those objectives can be identified and assessed, and consid-
ering the need to assess the suitability of objectives for use as a basis for
assessingeffectiveness
Broadening the financial reporting category of objectives to include other

aspects of external reporting and to include internal reporting
Reflecting the view that non-financial reporting is conducted in relation to an

external requirement or standard
Clarifying that risk assessment includes processes for risk identification, risk
analysis, and risk response
Expanding the discussion on the risk severity beyond impact and likelihood to
include velocity and persistence
Incorporating risk tolerances (set as a precondition to internal control and

pertaining to the level of acceptable variation in performance and the relative
importance of objectives) into the assessment of acceptable risk levels
Expanding the discussion on management needing to understand significant

changes in its internal and external factors and how those might impact the
overall system of internal control
Considering fraud risk relating to material omission or misstatement of report-

ing, inadequate safeguarding of assets, and corruption as part of the risk
assessmentprocess

Appendices
Control Activities
Since 1992, the evolving role of technology in business has perhaps been most evident
in the implementation of control activities. While the fundamental concepts around
control activities put forth in the original framework have not changed, technology has
changed many of the details. Today, information technology is much more integrated
into business processes throughout any entity. The variety of technologies being used
at most entities has mushroomed beyond largely centralized information systems in an
organizations own data center to myriad decentralized, mobile, intelligent and web-
enabled technologies, which are increasingly located at third-party service organiza-
tions. Also, the recent focus on improving controls in organizations, which has been
provoked by the marketplace and regulation, has led to a deeper understanding of how
control activities are effectively designed and implemented.
Therefore, within Chapter 7, Control Activities, key changes include:
Broadening the discussion to reflect the evolution in technology since 1992

(e.g., replacing data center concepts with a more general discussion on the
technology infrastructure)
Expanding the discussion of the relationship between automated control

activities and general controls over technology to reinforce the linkages to
business processes, with the details on automated control activities and
general controls over technology separated into discrete sections to clarify the
distinction between the two
Expanding the discussion that control activities constitute a range of control

techniques while providing a more detailed description of these types and
techniques, and a way to categorize them; making distinct transaction-level
controls from controls at other levels of the organization; and discussing in
more detail information-processing objectives
Updating the discussion on general technology controls to focus more on

the universal concepts of what needs to be controlled in this area rather than
specifics applicable to 1992 technology
Clarifying that control activities are actions established by policies and proce-
dures rather than being the policies and procedures themselves

The source, volume, and form of information and communication have expanded
dramatically since 1992. Information sources have grown more diverse and complex,
spanning outsourced service providers that support all or part of an organizations
business processes (e.g., outsourcing service providers, joint ventures) and internal and
external networks designed to create unstructured information-sharing mechanisms
(socialmedia).
The volume of information, particularly in the form of raw data, accessible to and col-
lected by organizations, creates both opportunity and risk. The scope of regulatory
regimes has created greater demand for information, greater expectations for quality
and protection, and greater requirements for communication. And, as organizations

and business models have become more complex in structure and geographic reach,
quality information and its communication within the organization has become an
imperative. Additionally, the importance of the free flow of information within the orga-
nization to allow management and employees to understand new or changed events or
circumstances to re-evaluate risks and modify the internal control system has become
more critical as the legal, management, and functional structures of business entities
have become more complex.
Within Chapter 8, Information and Communication, key changes include:
Emphasizing the discussion of importance of quality of information
Expanding the discussion of the expectations for verifying to a source and

for retention when information is used to support reporting objectives to
externalparties
Expanding the discussion on the impact of regulatory requirements on reliabil-

ity and protection of information
Expanding the discussion on the volume and sources of information in light of

increased complexity of business processes, greater interaction with external
parties, and technology advances
Reflecting the impact of technology and other communication mechanisms on

the speed, means, and quality of the flow of information
Adding content on the information and communication needs between the

entity and third parties, emphasizing the importance of considering how
processes may occur outside the entity (e.g., by the use of third-party service
providers that manage specific processes) and how the entity needs to obtain
information from and communicate with parties that operate outside its legal
and operational boundaries
In applying the original framework, users often focused monitoring efforts extensively
on control activities. With the change in regulatory reporting requirements in many juris-
dictions, organizations have begun to consider monitoring in its broader and intended
contextassisting management in understanding how all components of internal
control are being applied and whether the overall system of internal control operates
effectively. To enhance internal consistency among components in the Framework and
make the discussion more actionable, the title of this component has been updated to
Monitoring Activities and the discussion has been enhanced.
The changes to the principles in the Framework will not substantially alter the
approaches developed for COSOs Guidance on Monitoring Internal Control Systems.
Within Chapter 9, Monitoring Activities, key changes include:
Refining the terminology, where the two main categories of monitoring activi-
ties are now referred to as ongoing evaluations and separate evaluations

Appendices
Adding the need for a baseline understanding in establishing and evaluating

ongoing and separate evaluations
Expanding discussion of the use of technology and external service providers
Overall Framework Layout

The original framework contained one chapter that presented the definition of internal
control, the components of internal control, the relationship of objectives and compo-
nents, and effectiveness. In the Framework, these topics are covered in three different
chapters: Chapter 1, Definition of Internal Control defines internal control; Chapter 2,
Objectives, Components, and Principles, discusses components of internal control and
the relationship of objectives, components, and principles; and Chapter 3, Effective
Internal Control, considers the requirements for assessing the effectiveness of a system
of internal control. Further, Chapter 4, Additional Considerations, discusses manage-
ment judgment, points of focus, cost versus benefits of internal control, the changing
role of technology, documentation, and application of internal control in larger versus
smaller entities.

G. Comparison with COSO Enterprise
Risk ManagementIntegrated
Framework
In 2004, COSO issued Enterprise Risk ManagementIntegrated Framework (ERM
Framework), which establishes a framework for enterprise risk management and
provides guidance to business and other entities to help them develop and apply their
enterprise risk management activities. It identifies and describes eight interrelated com-
ponents necessary for effective enterprise risk management.
The ERM Framework defines enterprise risk management as a process, effected by an

entitys board of directors, management, and other personnel, applied both in strategy-
setting and across the entity, designed to identify potential events that may affect the
entity, to manage risk, and to provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of an
entity will be achieved. Organizations that have implemented the ERM Framework will
likely see minimal impact on their enterprise risk management efforts resulting from the
issuance of this Internal ControlIntegrated Framework: Framework and Appendices.
This appendix outlines the relationship between the Internal ControlIntegrated Frame-
work and the ERM Framework.
A Broader Concept
Enterprise risk management is broader than internal control, elaborating on internal
control and focusing more directly on risk. Internal control is an integral part of enter-
prise risk management, while enterprise risk management is part of the overall gover-
nance process. This relationship is depicted in the illustration below.
The publication Enterprise Risk ManagementIntegrated Framework remains in place

for entities and others looking broadly at enterprise risk management.

Appendices
Categories of Objectives
Both Internal ControlIntegrated Framework and Enterprise Risk ManagementInte-
grated Framework cover all reports developed by an entity, disseminated both internally
and externally. These include reports used internally by management and those issued
to external parties, including regulatory filings and reports to other stakeholders.
The two publications handle categories of objectives differently. While both specify the
three categories of objectives of operations, reporting, and compliance, ERM Frame-
work adds a fourth category: strategic objectives (illustrated in the diagram below).
Strategic objectives operate at a higher level than the others. They flow from an entitys
mission or vision, and the operations, reporting, and compliance objectives should be
aligned with them. Enterprise risk management is applied in setting strategies, as well
as in working toward achievement of objectives in the other three categories.
An underlying premise of enterprise risk management is that every entity exists to

provide value for its stakeholders. Strategic objectives reflect managements choice of
how the entity will seek to create value for its stakeholders. Related objectives (referring
to operations, reporting, and compliance objectives in the ERM Framework) flow from
these strategic objectives. While enterprise risk management focuses on how an entity
creates, preserves, and realizes value, internal control focuses primarily on the achieve-
ment of specified objectives.
Enterprise risk management is often viewed as being more forward-looking, consider-

ing how much risk the organization is willing to accept, how risks are both created and
mitigated from strategic choices, and how emerging risks may impact the organization.
In contrast, internal control focuses on whether the organization is mitigating risks to
the achievement of specified objectives. In this context, internal control is often more
retrospective than prospective.
Risk Appetite and Risk Tolerances

The ERM Framework introduces the concepts of risk appetite and risk tolerance.
Risk appetite is the broad-based amount of risk an entity is willing to accept

in pursuit of its mission/vision. It serves as a guidepost in strategy-setting and
selecting related objectives.
Risk tolerance is the acceptable level of variation in performance relative to

achievement of objectives. In setting risk tolerance levels, management con-
siders the relative importance of the related objectives and aligns risk toler-
ance with riskappetite.
Operating within risk tolerance provides management greater assurance that the entity
remains within its risk appetite, which in turn provides added comfort that the entity will
achieve its objectives. The concept of risk tolerance is included in the Framework as a
precondition to internal control, but not as a part of internal control.

Appendices | G: Comparison with COSO Enterprise Risk ManagementIntegrated Framework
Portfolio View
Enterprise risk management requires considering composite risks from a portfolio
perspective. This concept is not contemplated in the Internal ControlIntegrated
Framework, which focuses on achievement of objectives on an individual basis. Internal
control does not require that the entity develop a portfolio view.
Components
With the enhanced focus on risk, the ERM Framework expands the internal control
frameworks risk assessment component, creating three components: event identifica-
tion, risk assessment, and risk response (shown in the illustration below).
Expanded into
3 components
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework Enterprise Risk ManagementIntegrated Framework
The objective-setting component of the ERM Framework considers the process used by
management and the board for setting operations, reporting, and compliance objec-
tives. Setting risk appetite and risk tolerance are key tenets of enterprise risk manage-
ment. In contrast, internal control views the setting of objectives and risk tolerance as
preconditions to an effective system of internal control.
Summary of Similarities and Differences

ofComponents
Each of the five components of internal control is reviewed below in relation to the ERM
Framework. In each case, a table is included setting out concepts that are:
Common to both internal control (IC) and enterprise risk management (ERM)
Included in internal control and expanded upon in enterprise risk management
Incremental to enterprise risk management and not part of internal control

Appendices
The principles for each component contained in the Framework are used where pos-
sible to depict these similarities and differences.
Control Environment
Common to ERM and IC Introduced in IC and expanded Incremental to ERM

inERM
Demonstrates commitment to Exercises oversight Establishes risk management

integrity and ethical values responsibility philosophy
Establishes structures, author- Establishes risk culture
ity, and responsibility Establishes risk appetite
Demonstrates commitment to
competence
Enforces accountability
In discussing the Control Environment component, the ERM Framework discusses (in
the chapter titled Internal Environment) an entitys risk management philosophy, which
is the set of shared beliefs and attitudes characterizing how an entity considers risks,
reflecting its values and influencing its culture and operating style. As described above,
the Framework encompasses the concept of an entitys risk appetite, which is sup-
ported by more specific risk tolerances.
Because of the critical importance of the board of directors and its composition, ERM
Framework expands on the call for a critical mass of independent directors (normally at
least two) stating that for enterprise risk management to be effective, the board must
have at least a majority of independent outsidedirectors.
Risk Assessment

inERM
Assesses fraud risk Identifies and analyzes Distinguishes risk and

risks/events opportunities
Identifies and analyzes signifi-
cant change Develops portfolio view
ERM Framework and Internal ControlIntegrated Framework both acknowledge that

risks occur at every level of the entity and result from a variety of internal and external
factors. And both frameworks consider risk identification in the context of the potential
impact on the achievement of objectives.

Appendices | G: Comparison with COSO Enterprise Risk ManagementIntegrated Framework
ERM Framework discusses the concept of potential events, defining an event as an

incident or occurrence emanating from internal or external sources that affect strategy
implementation or achievement of objectives. Potential events with positive impact rep-
resent opportunities, while those with negative impact represent risks. Potential events
with an adverse impact represent risks. The Framework focuses on identifying risks
and does not include the concept of identifying opportunities as the decision to pursue
opportunities as part of the broader strategy-settingprocess.
While both frameworks call for assessment of risk, ERM Framework suggests viewing
risk assessment through a sharper lens. Risks are considered as inherent and residual,
preferably expressed in the same unit of measure established for the objectives to
which the risks relate. Time horizons should be consistent with an entitys strategies,
objectives and, where possible, observable data. ERM Framework also calls attention to
interrelated risks, describing how a single event may create multiple risks.
As noted, enterprise risk management encompasses the need for an entity-level portfo-
lio view, with managers responsible for business unit, function, process, or other activi-
ties having a composite assessment of risk for individual units.
Like the Internal ControlIntegrated Framework, the ERM Framework identifies four
categories of risk response: avoid, reduce, share, and accept. However, enterprise
risk management requires an additional consideration: potential responses from these
categories with the intent of achieving a residual risk level aligned with the entitys risk
tolerances. Management also considers as part of enterprise risk management the
aggregate effect of its risk responses across the entity and in relation to the entitys risk
appetite.
Control Activities

inERM
Selects and develops control None None

activities
Selects and develops general
controls over technology
Deploys through policies and
procedures
Both frameworks present control activities as helping ensure that managements risk
responses are carried out. The Internal ControlIntegrated Framework presents a more
current view of technology and its impact on the running of an entity.

Appendices

inERM
Communicates internally Uses relevant information None

Communicates externally
The ERM Framework takes a broader view of information and communication, highlight-
ing data derived from past, present, and potential future events. Historical data allows
the entity to track actual performance against targets, plans, and expectations, and
provides insights into how the entity performed in the periods under varying conditions.
Current data provides important additional information, and data on potential future
events and underlying factors completes the analysis. The information infrastructure
sources and captures data in a timeframe and at a depth of detail consistent with the
entitys need to identify events and assess and respond to risks and remain within its
risk appetite. The Internal ControlIntegrated Framework focuses more narrowly on
data quality and relevant information needed for internal control.

inERM
Conducts ongoing and/or None None

separate evaluations
Evaluates and communicates
deficiencies
Both frameworks present monitoring activities as helping to ensure that the compo-
nents of internal control and enterprise risk management continue to function and
remain suitable over time. The Internal ControlIntegrated Framework presents a more
current view of monitoring using baseline information and the monitoring of external
serviceproviders.

990025P

COSO Internal Control - Integrated Framework May 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COSO Internal Control - Integrated Framework May 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

COSO Internal Control - Integrated Framework May 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main organizations that sponsor COSO?

What are the main organizations that sponsor COSO?

What are the principal contributors listed in the document?

What are the principal contributors listed in the document?

Co m m it te e o f S p o n s o r in g O rgani z ati o ns o f the Tre adway Co mmi ssi o n

Inter n al Co n t ro l I n te g rate d F ra mewo rk

American Accounting Association (AAA)

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)

Financial Executives International (FEI)

Institute of Management Accountants (IMA)

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)

Inter n al Co n t ro l I n te g rate d F ra mewo rk

Charles E. Landes Marie N. Hollein Sandra Richtermeyer

Cara M. Beston Charles E. Harris J. Aaron Garcia

Catherine I. Jourdan Jay A. Posklensky Sallie Jo Perraglia

Sponsoring Organizations Representatives

Ray Purcell William D. Schneider Sr.

Cees Klumper Thomas Montminy Alan Paulus

Thomas Ray Dr. Larry E. Rittenberg Sharon Todd

Kenneth L. Vander Wal

Regulatory Observers and Other Observers

Amy Steele Vincent Tophoff Keith Wilson

Joseph Atkinson Jeffrey Boyle Glenn Brady

James Chang Mark Cohen Andrew Dahle

Mary Grace Davenport Megan Haas Junya Hakoda

Diana Hillier Steve Hirt Brian Kinman

Barbara Kipp Hans Koopmans Sachin Mandal

Alan Martin Pat McNamee Jonathan Mullins

Simon Perry Andrew Reinsel Kristin Rivera

Valerie Wieman Alexander Young David Albright

Charles Yovino Eric M. Bloesch Christopher Michaelson

John Morrow Tracy Walker Qiao Pan

1. Definition of Internal Control.................................................................................1

2. Objectives, Components, and Principles.............................................................5

3. Effective Internal Control.................................................................................... 18

8. Information and Communication...................................................................... 105

9. Monitoring Activities......................................................................................... 123

10. Limitations of Internal Control........................................................................... 137

A. Glossary ........................................................................................................... 143

B. Roles and Responsibilities................................................................................ 147

C. Considerations for Smaller Entities.................................................................. 159

D. Methodology for Revising the Framework...........................................................163

E. Public Comment Letters................................................................................... 165

F. Summary of Changes to the COSO Internal Control

G. Comparison with COSO Enterprise Risk Management

Internal Control Integrated Framework May 2013

COSO is pleased to present the updated Internal ControlIntegrated Framework

Expectations for governance oversight

Globalization of markets and operations

Changes and greater complexities in business

Demands and complexities in laws, rules, regulations, and standards

Expectations for competencies and accountabilities

Use of, and reliance on, evolving technologies

Expectations relating to preventing and detecting fraud

Internal Control Integrated Framework May 2013 i

In addition to the Framework, Internal Control over External Financial Reporting: A

COSO previously issued Guidance on Monitoring Internal Control Systems to assist

Among other publications published by COSO is the Enterprise Risk Management

ii Internal Control Integrated Framework May 2013

Understanding Internal Control

2. Objectives, Components, and Principles.............................................................5

C. Considerations for Smaller Entities.................................................................. 159

D. Methodology for Revising the Framework...........................................................163

F. Summary of Changes to the COSO Internal Control

G. Comparison with COSO Enterprise Risk Management