Efektivitas, objektivitas dan transparansi audit.pdf

7/23/2019 Efektivitas, objektivitas dan transparansi audit.pdf

1/7

Inside environmental auditing: effectiveness, objectivity,and transparencyWilliam

Cook1, Severine

van

Bommel2 and

Esther

Turnhout1

With

the

rise

of

non-traditional

governance

methods,

the

third

party audit has become a critical part of governing through and

with

information.

Third

party

audits

are

considered

an

integral

part of the process of the generation and dissemination of

credible

information,

and

are

subject

to

critique

and

praise.

In this article, we take stock of the literature about auditing.

In particular we will examine what modes of auditing are

distinguished

and

how

norms

of

transparency,

objectivity,

and

effectiveness are attributed to auditing. Our review shows that

the majority of the auditing literature evokes these norms in an

uncritical

fashion

as

characteristics

of

good

audits

or

as

things

that audits fail to achieve. We conclude our article by

advocating

for

a

more

grounded

examination

of

transparency,objectivity

and

effectiveness,

not

as

norms

that

can

be

used

to

separate

good

from

bad

audits,

but

as

they

are

enacted

during

the audit

process.

Addresses1Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University,

P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands2Strategic Communication Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box

8130, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands

Corresponding author: Cook, William ([email protected])

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability2016, 18:3339

This review comes from a themed issue onSustainabilitygovernance

and transformation

Edited by Bertrum MacDonald, Katrien Termeer, Paul Opdam and

Katrine Soma

Received: 10 March 2015; Revised: 21 July 2015; Accepted: 25 July

2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.016

1877-3435/# 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Introduction to environmental auditingAuditing

has

become

a

ubiquitous

phenomenon

in

many

public and

private

institutions

including

government

institutions, universities

and

businesses.

The

term

audit-

ing can

refer

to

a

process,

a tool,

or

a

policy

instrument

depending

on

the

source.

It

has

its

roots

in

the

financial

domain, wherein

an

auditor

would verify

the

financial

account of

an

organisation

or

individual

[1].

Following

the

audit explosion of the 1970s and 1980s [1], auditing asa tool

for

management

began

to

percolate

into

other

fields.

Within

the

environmental

domain,

auditing

has

risen

as

an important policy instrument to both assess and

improve the

performance

of

environmental

policies

and

programs [1]. Ultimately,

however,

auditing

refers

to

the

process

of

assessing

the

performance

of

organisations

or

institutions, often

by

using

certain

criteria,

such

as

effec-

tiveness or

efficiency,

often

against

a

specified

standard

[2].

With its

focus

on

the

generation

of

information

for

pur-

poses of

governance,

auditing

can

be

seen

as

part

of

what

has been

dubbed

informational

governance

[3]

or

gover-

nance by

disclosure

[4,5].

The

main

idea

of

auditing

inrelation

to

governance

is

to

increase

possibilities

for

public oversight

of

all

forms

of

governance

including

environmental governance.

Increased

transparency

by

means of

the

disclosure

of

information

is

assumed

to

make such

oversight

possible.

This

idea

took

on

new

meaning when business ideals of new public manage-ment were

transposed

to

the

public

sector

and

effective-

ness and efficiency became important standards to judge

performance

by

[6].

Currently,

there

is

a wide

diversity

of

auditing

approaches

and the products of these approaches may fulfil different

needs

and

are

aimed

at

different

audiences

(see

Figure

1).There are also debates as towhat thebest form of auditing

is. Some

authors

argue

that

regardless

of

their

audiences,purposes, and

fields

of

application,

audits

are

best

(or

should only

be)

performed

by

financial

auditors

as

the

principles

of

auditing

remain

the

same

regardless

of the

audit type or setting [7].This generally agreeswith Power

[1,8,9] who

considers

many

forms

of

environmental

audit-

ing to

be

comparable

when

discussing

principles.

How-

ever, on

could

argue

that

environmental

auditing

is

a

special case

because

it

is

often

difficult

to

assess

improve-

ments in

environmental

quality

in

specific

sites

on

the

basis of

generic

standards

and

criteria

and

even

more

difficult

to

demonstrate

that

these

improvements

are

theresult of

specific

measures.

Environmental

auditing

thus,

poses specific

challenges

for

auditors

when

they

are

faced

with the

task

of

interpreting

and

applying

the

standards

[10,11].

In this

paper,

we

review

the

current

state

of

the

art

literature about auditing

in

the

environmental

domain.

We use

a critical

social

science

lens

inspired

amongst

others

by

critical

accounting

studies,

science

and

tech-

nology studies

and

political

ecology

to

not

only

look

at

the

quality of auditing system or their purported effects, but

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability2016, 18:3339
mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.016http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18773435http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18773435http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.016mailto:[email protected]://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.016&domain=pdf


2/7

also

examine

how

auditing

practices

work;

how

they

produce information and align this with standards, andcriteria in order to make assessment or evaluation possi-ble. We

have

structured

our

review

as

follows:

first

we

take stock

of

the

mainstream

literature

about

auditing

both in

the

financial

and

in

the

environmental

domain.This will

help

to

clarify

what

the

main

focus

is

of

academic debates on auditing. On the basis of that, we

proceed by

examining

three

main

defining

features

of

what is considered to be a good audit: objectivity, trans-

parency and

effectiveness.

We

end

our

article

with

a

discussion of the

main

blind

spots

in

current

auditing

research,

arguing

for

the

importance

of

critical

social

science enquiry

into

the

practice

of

auditing.

Environmental auditing in literatureThe

literature

surrounding

environmental

auditing

is

diverse and

wide

ranging,

encompassing

many

different

schools of

thought,

methods,

and

contexts.

Here

we

first

highlight a

novel

way

to

think

about

environmental

auditing which

we

have

termed

modes

of

auditing.

It provides

a way

to

discuss

the

contextual

understanding

between

auditor

and

auditee

about

what

audits

are

meant

to achieve and how they are to be performed.While this isnot new,

we

found

that

is

has

not

been

taken

up

in

the

larger academic discussion about auditing. Secondly, we

demarcate

three

audit

characteristics

that

are

commonly

discussed:

transparency,

objectivity

and

effectiveness.

Incontrast to

modes

of

auditing,

these

are

well

established

themes in

the

literature.

Modes of auditing

As

auditing

has

become

increasingly

popular

and

used

in

the toolbox

of

environmental

management,

the

promi-

nent style,

or mode,

of

auditing

has

been

in

a

state

of

flux

between two

similar

but

distinct

definitions:

(1) concept

of

examination

and

assessment

of perfor-

mance [2]

(2)

systematic,

independent

and

documented

process

for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating itobjectively to

determine

the

extent

to

which

the

audit criteria

are

fulfilled

[12]

The

first

definition

is

general and

lacks

a

number

of

details

on the

how that

are

present

in

the

second,

namely

that it should be systematic, independent, objective

and evidence-based.

Furthermore,

the

first

definition

leaves its

key

term

entirely

uncharacterised.

What

is

meant by

assessment

or

examination?

Against

what

is

it

performance

assessed?

Nevertheless,

it

focuses

on

judg-

ing management

performance

without

concern

for

mech-

anistic details

of

what

an

audit

is

or

how

it

is

performed.

The second definition is, arguably, more complete. Itcertainly

makes

an

effort

to

establish

the

details

of

what

an audit

is,

as

is

evidenced

by

additional

adjectives

and

adverbs. It

also

solves

the

issue

of

the

previous

definition

by making

it

clear

that

performance

is

being

assessed

against audit

criteria.

This

additional

specificity

gives

auditors

and

auditees

more

clear

expectations

of

how

audits should be performed, but it also burdens theprocess

with

being

more

rigid,

and

being

linked,

concep-

tually, to notions of evidence, objectivity and evaluation.

This second

definition

has

gained

ground

in

the

tradi-

tional understanding of auditing because of its specificity.

This progress

towards

auditing

becoming

strictly defined

activity, co-evolved

with

the

emergence

of

differentmodes of

auditing

which

differ

in

terms

of

the

style

in

which an

audit

is

done

and

the

functions

it

fulfils.

According to

Power

[1]

environmental

auditing

started

as

an activity

in

which

outside

groups

wanted

to

gain

more

insight

into

the

environmental

effects

of

certain

organisa-

tions

such

as

industry

and

began

questioning

traditional

accountability structures.

As

such, environmental

audit-

ing was

not

clearly specified

in

terms

of

standards

and

criteria or in terms of the kind of information thatwas needed.

However,

with

time,

principles

of financial

34 Sustainability governance and transformation

Figure 1

Internal

actors

Internal actors

Management audit Accounting Compliance audit

Annual disclosure Environmental reports NGO social audits

Regulators reports Environmental consult Stakeholder research

Cerfification audit Pressure group audits Trade union reports

External actors

External

actors

Report

Audience

Report Compilers

1. 2.

4. 3.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Summary of the types of internal and external audits. Quadrant 1 represents purely internal audits, while quadrant 3 represents purely external

audits, such as certification audits.

Adapted from Gray [7].

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability2016, 18:3339 www.sciencedirect.com


3/7

auditing,

which

had

a

much

longer

history,

increasinglystarted to

invade

environmental

auditing.

Environmental

auditing became more strictly defined along the lines of

the second

definition

and

it

professionalized.

We

can

now

look at auditing as consisting of differentmodes that exist

on a spectrum

between

professionalisation,

what

wecall professionalism,

and

protest

[8].

Professional

auditing is

representative

of

a

more

strict

view

of

auditing,

as it

arose

from

financial auditing.

This

view

posits

audits

as the

neutral

monitoring

of

pre-existing

information

against stated

criteria

[8].

In

contrast,

protest

auditing

is not

necessarily

restricted

to

pre-existing

information

or

to stated

criteria.

It

can

make

use

of

a

wider

scope

of

normative yardsticks

to

evaluate

environmental

perfor-

mance against,

for

example

with

the

aim

to

raise

aware-

ness of

specific

environmental

problems

and

their

causes.

Thus, the

difference

between

the

poles

of the

protest-

professionalism spectrum, and their associated defini-

tions, is that they [render] selectively visible [8] differ-

ent types of evidence in accordance with different

standards and

criteria

which

may

result different

out-comes in

terms

of

performance.

Within

a single

audit

process,

these

modes

can

lead

to

different

expectations

and tensions

between

the

actors

involved;

the

audit

procedures prescribe audits to be professional while

the expectations

of stakeholder,

and

in

some

cases

also

auditors, are

more

protest

oriented

[10,13].

Despite

the

importance of

these

differences,

the

different

modes

of

auditing are

often

implicit.

Not

many

authors

actively

engage with

the

mode

of

auditing

to

which

their

analysis

subjects

subscribe,

nor

do

they

reflexively

consider

what

modeof auditing they themselves use. As wewill argue inmore detail

later,

by

scrutinizing

auditing

practices

we

may gain

insight

into

where

an

audit

falls

between

protest

and professionalism,

and

thereby

better

understand

which audit

characteristics

are

considered

important

and why.

Audit characteristics

While

the

modes

of

auditing

discussed

in

the

previous

section are largely unexplored, there is a body of literature

that discusses

the

characteristics

of

audits.

Out

of

this

literature, three main themes arise: effectiveness, objec-

tivity/neutrality,

and

transparency.

As

we

will

show

in

this

section, these

characteristics

are

often

simply

posited

asdefining features

of

an

audit,

or

used

as

criteria

to

evaluate

the quality

of

an

audit.

Effectiveness

We

see

a

distinction

between

two

types

of

effectiveness

in the

auditing

literature.

The

first

type

focuses

on

how

audits are

performed.

Studies

relating

to

this

internal

effectiveness

focus

on

questions

such

as

Are

audits

being performed

in

an

effective

manner?

This

is

an

entirely self-contained or self-referential topic as it is onlyconcerned

with

the

workings

of

an

audit

and

how

audits

can

be

better

performed,

regardless

of

the

outcome.

Gray[7] provides

an

example

of

how

the

internal

processes

of

audits are judged as effective or ineffective. The author

examines the

individual

skills

and

backgrounds

of

the

auditors. Based on their background skills, the author

then makes

a judgement

as

to

who

would

perform

thebetter audit.

Herbohn

[14]

also

devotes

effort

to

describ-

ing the

points

in

the

auditing

process

where

the

outcome

of the

audit

would be

improved

if

the

inner

working

were

streamlined

or

enhanced.

Thus,

this

part

of

the

literature

is mainly

concerned

with

best

practices

in

auditing.

The second

type

of

effectiveness

focuses

on

the

effects

of

auditing

on

the

world

outside

the

auditing

unit

and

addresses questions

such

as

Are

audits

effecting

the

change their

standards

claim?

This

is

linked

with

the,

sometimes

implicit,

problem

audits

are

meant

to

solve

in

a field

of

management.

If

organisations

are

able

to

show

that they contribute to solving these problems through

audits, the audit is in that sense effective.By having these

audits, these organisations receive the seal of approval for

following some

form

of

best

practice

in

achieving

envi-ronmental

goals,

and

they

are

therefore

either

allowed

to

enter

a

market,

or

are

more

likely

to

increase

their

market

share [15,16]. This

can

be

shown

as

a

concern

for

specific

outcomes, such as minimising environmental impacts of

tourism

[17],

increasing

stakeholder

involvement

in

forest

management [18],

or

more

comprehensive

improvements

of overall

performance

[1921].

Also

authors

that

focus

on

the effectiveness

of

the

larger

certification

system

are,

by

extension, concerned

with

the

effectiveness

of

audits

[22].

Moor,

Cubbage,

and Eicheldinger [23]

provide a clear

example

of

the

uncritical

focus on

environmental

ac-

counting

effectiveness. By performing an

e-mail

survey

of forest managers, the

authors

quantify

the changes

in

forest management

practices,

concluding that

all

[111]

firms changed many

practices

in

forest management,

environmental protection, community relations, publicaffairs,

economic,

and

environmental

management sys-

tems to receive [Forestry Stewardship Council or Sus-

tainable

Forestry Initiative]

certification

([23],

p. 86).

Without engaging with the normative values, the ac-

counting

is

assessed

in

terms

of how it

results in

managerial

changes, and

therefore

in

environmentalchanges.

Objectivity/neutrality

The

second

thematic

topic

that emerges

in

the

literature

deals with

the

idea

of

objectivity

or

neutrality.

While

according

to

Power

[9], it

is

well

established

that

audit-

ing is

not

neutralor

objective,

the

majority of

the

literature

is remarkably

silent

on

this

issue.

Authors

either

do

not

engagewith

the

issue

at

all,

or

simply

assert

that

audits

are

objective. Shapiro [24] noticed that auditors themselvesoften claim

the

position

of

impartial

guardians,

and

this

Inside

environmental

auditing Cook, van Bommel and Turnhout 35



4/7

was echoed

in

contemporary

academic

works

such

asTomlinson and

Atkinson

[2]. Other

recent

authors

accept

theidea ofneutrality as a defining feature of audits without

meaningfully engaging

with it

[25,26,27].

Rau and

Moser

[28] performed an experiment to test the effects of bias on

auditors ability

to

perform

their

ongoing

audit

activities.We infer

that

the

authors

indicate

that un-biased

(objec-

tive) auditor

behaviour is

the

idealized

behaviour. Auditors

deviate

from

this

ideal

due

to

external

influences.

Thus,

in

most auditing

studies,

the

idea

of

objectivity

or

neutrality

has become

a given;

something

that is

propagated

as

a

characteristic of

auditing

or

as

a norm

for

good

audits.

A relatively

small

part

of

the

social

science

literature

about auditing,

or

about other

forms of

bureaucratic

knowledge production,

is

concerned

with

how

objectivity

and neutrality

are

mobilized

during

auditing

processes.

This literature

documents

the

more

complex

relationship

between the auditors and the knowledge that they pro-

duce.Robertson [11] argues that the process of generating

formal information for purposes of bureaucratic control (in

his case

wetland

banking)

involves

various

steps

duringwhich the

indeterminacy

of

the

field

is

erased

and

codi-

fied by

means

of

principally

unstable

forms

of

knowledge,

such as

species

identification.

Similarly,

ethnographic

accounts of auditing show how auditors cannot remain

removed

from

the

situation

in

which

they

are

placed,

but

at the

same

time

must

present

their

information

as

objective and

neutral

[10,29,30].

Thus,

while

it

is

cru-

cially important

for

auditing

information

to

be

seen

as

objective, these

studies

show

that

the

production

of

objectivity is

situated

in

the

actual practices

of

auditing.

Transparency

The

final

theme

we

wish

to

highlight

in

the

literature

on

the topic

of

environmental

auditing

is

the

issue

of

trans-

parency. This

topic

is

evoked

primarily

in

terms

of

how

it

relates fundamentally

to

processes

of

openness,

truth-

telling and

accountability.

This

particular

way

of

placing

transparency in the system of auditing is discussed byLamberton

[31].

Figure

2

highlights

that

for

Lamberton,

transparency is seen as absolutely fundamental to the

auditability

of

a system,

in

order

for

an

audit

to

be

effective, the system in which it resides, the certification

standards

and

auditing

procedures,

must

be

transparent.

This resonates

well

with

the

literature

about

information-al governance,

which

promotes

transparency

as

something

self-evident and

benign

[3,5].

However, in

contrast

to

what

Figure

2

suggests,

transpar-

ency is

not

always

the

starting

point

of

audits.

A

number

of authors

argue

that

complex

systems

are

inherently

opaque,

in

that

their

development

is

not

observable

by

outside actors,

and

that

in

order

for

audits

to

be

effective,

theymake

sense

of

this

opacity.

Pentland

[30]

presents

an

example of auditing without transparency where auditorsin show

their

work

by

constructing

a

set

of

terms

as

opaque as the management system they are auditing.Asdal [32]

demonstrates

how

transparency

can

be

seen

as the

result

of

the

auditing

rather

than

its

starting

point.

Eden [10]

echoes

this

using

ethnographic

methods

to

highlight

how

auditors

work

with

auditees

to

make

envi-

ronmental

standards

fieldworthy,

or actionable,

in

the

field. In

this

work,

auditees

and

auditors

strive

together

and against each other to define key terms of the audit.One such

example

is

the

idea

of

what

a

clump

of

trees

is. The author concludes that the auditors and auditees

together

define

the

meaning

of

the

standards

in

a

process

that is impossible to observe outside the audit in action.

This stands

in

opposition

to

the

notion

that

audits

are

performed

against

pre-defined

standards,

which

is

a keyaspect of

auditing.

Finally

there

are

authors

that

interrogate

the

very

idea

of

transparency

and

suggest

that

it

is

something

that

is

constructed

rather

than

a pre-existent

characteristic

of

a

system(Strathern

[33],

as

well

as

others

[4,6,34,35]).

This

literature argues

that

while

audits

are

effective

only

on

transparent

systems;

it

is

the

audits

that

make

systems

transparent.

However,

this

transparency

is

never

a ful-

filled ideal

but

always

partial

and

conditional.

Neyland

[36] offers

a

succinct

analysis

of

how

this

works.

He


Figure 2

Transparency

Inclusiveness

Audit

informationcharacteristics

What

information

Quality of

information

How to report

information

Auditability

Informs


Example of conceptualisation of transparency as the base aspect of

the auditability of a system.

Adapted from Lamberton [31].



5/7

argued

that

auditing

involved

the

mobilization

of

visi-bles in

order

to

support

the

claim

of

transparency,

even

if

it does not improve an organizations functioning. In this

way, transparency

is

actually

more

about

overlaying

a

veneer of transparency over a body of working that

remains otherwise

opaque.

While many

authors

acknowledge

how

transparency

is

a

construct of

the

auditing

process,

the

presence

of

a

recent,

very clear,

model

with

transparency

as

a

starting

point

indicates there

is

still

a notion

that

transparency

is

some-

how external

to

the

process,

as

a condition

for

auditing

or

as an

objective

that

can

be

achieved.

Moreover,

a lack

of

examples examining

transparency

underlines

a

general

trend in

accepting

it

as

a

given

part

of

the

audit

process

[27].

Scrutinizing the effects of auditingThe overall effect of the literature is a division between

three general strands in the auditing literature. First,

there is instrumental literature that tends to be descrip-

tive in

nature,

and

as

such

provides

a

tremendous

amountof insights

into

how

audits

take

place.

However,

it

tends

to avoid

challenging

the

assumptions

of

more

traditional

views of

auditing

[3739]. It is often concerned with

discussing whether audits are being performed effective-

ly, whether

an

audit

has

effects

on

management

practice,

andwhether

audits

are

neutral,

objective

and

transparent.

Instrumentalist

auditing

studies

may

critique

auditing

for

not having

achieved

objectivity

or

transparency

in

audit-

ing, but

generally

consider

those

characteristics

as

things

that are

assumed

to

simply

exist

and

can

be

assessed

in

a

straightforwardway.Thus, in this literature, the criteria ofobjectivity/neutrality

and

transparency

go

unchallenged,

and in

some

cases,

they

act

as

the

jumping-off

point

for

the whole

system.

Second, there

is

critical

literature,

which

asserts

that

auditing is

not

objective

or

neutral

and

that

transparency

is not conditional for audits to take place. This literatureexposes audits

as

something

else

opaque,

subjec-

tive than they portray themselves to be and argues

that objectivity,

neutrality

and

transparency

are

unattain-

able. We also note that despite these profound criticisms,

the first

camp

continues

without

taking

notice

of the

critical

literature

and

without

engaging

fundamentallywith the

audit

characteristics

discussed

in

this

paper.

Indeed, it

seems

that

the

instrumentalist

literature

con-

tinues to

expand

at

a

rate

that

outstrips

the

critical

literature.

While these

two

strands

of

literature

differ

in

how

they

view a possible

lack

of

objectivity

and

transparency

as

a problem

to

be

solved

in

the

instrumental

camp

or

as

an

inevitability

in

the

critical

camp

both

are

to

some

extent similar in their reification of objectivity and trans-parency. We

suggest

that

by

glazing

over

the

question

how

auditors

and

auditees

think,

frame

and

enact

auditsas objective/neutral

or

transparent,

both

camps

in

the

literature tend to discount the agencies of the auditors

and the

auditees.

This

is

taken

up

explicitly

in

the

third

strand of auditing literature [30,40,41]. These studies do

not uncritically

evoke

objectivity,

effectivity

and

trans-parency, nor

do

they

dismiss

them.

Instead,

they

offer

detailed analyses

of

how

auditors

and

auditees

go

about

constructing, negotiating,

and

reconstructing

their

repre-

sentations of

effectiveness,

objectivity

and

transparency

during an

audit.

Eden

[10]

once

again

provides

an

excel-

lent example

by

carefully

examining

the

utterances

and

actions during

the

audit

process.

In

order

to

determine

the

naturalness

of

older

forests,

auditors

and

auditees

engaged

in

considerable

amounts

of

to

ensure

that

dead-

wood measurements

(as

an

example)

are

presented

as

factually

representative

of

naturalness

in

the

audit

report. Thus,

the

integrity

of

the

audit

is

produced

not

necessarily through accurate reporting, but rather through

practical negotiation and construction. In order to have a

more grounded appreciation of what auditing does and

how it

produces

its

effects

(which

is

not

the

same

asasking

about

its

effectiveness)

more

such

studies

of

auditing

practices

in

the

environmental

domain

are

nec-

essary.

Thesestudies

wouldbenefit

from

including

what

we

have

termed modes

of

auditing.

We

assert

that

considering

the mode

of

auditing

provides

valuable

contextual

infor-

mation. It

reveals

how

the

way

in

which

an

audit

is

conceptualized

by

both

the

auditor

and

the

auditee,

alters

the expectations

of

how

an

audit

is

performed

and

how

its

outcome is received. Examining the working definition ofwhat an

audit

is

provides

insight

into

where

along

the

spectrum

an

audit

might

fall.

This

means

considering

the

spectrum

of

modes

would be

useful

in

fieldwork

when

considering auditor

and

auditee

behaviour.

The

mode

of

auditing

therefore

interacts

with

the

characteristics

of

the

audit in

largely

unexplored

ways,

leaving

a

considerable

blind spot in how we understand audits. Unfortunately,there

seems

to

be

a disconnect

between

those

studies

that

wish to consider the definition of auditing and those

studies that

are

concerned

with

actually

performing

an

audit. Power [1] argues that focus should be on the effects

of auditing

rather

than

the

intentions

behind

it.

While

we

agree with

this

point

to

a

degree,

the

lack

of

criticalconcern for

the

assumed

principles

and

definitions

behind

each audit

leads

analyses

missing

data

that

can

calibrate

the entire

discussion.

Specifically,

we

argue

that

bypass-

ing discussions

regarding

more

basic

assumptions

such

as

what does

it

mean

to

be

effective,

or

how

effectiveness

is performed,

limits

exploration

of

the

wherefores

behind

audit (in)effectiveness.

Figure 3

demonstrates

how

these

ideas

can

be

linked.

First, we can see how the two ends of the modes ofauditing

spectrum

can

be

linked

to

concrete

definitions

of

Inside

environmental




6/7

auditing,

and

how

different

modes

are

more

closely

related to

different

audit

characteristics.

We

wouldexpect

to see

correlation

in

investigations

into

auditing

between

the mode

and

the

focus

of

how

an

audit

is

performed.

Audits and

auditors

that

are

more

concerned

with

profes-

sionalism, we would expect focus more on issues of

objectivity/neutrality. McDermotts study [11] shows

how Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) ISO-ized

(i.e. professionalized)

their

processes

in

order

to

signalimpartiality.

The

author

goes

on

to

describe

how

forestry

industry

representatives

were

against

highly

procedural,

prescriptive

audit

processes.

This

implies

that

those

entitiesmore concernedwith professionalism desire audi-

tors to

have

more

freedom

to

make

perform

audit

pro-

cedures without

having

to

show

every

step

they

take.

Environmentalists,

on

the

other

hand,

lobbied

for

certi-

fier proof

([29],

p.

8)

standards.

In

this

view,

transpar-

ency is

inextricably

linked

with

the

notion

of

protest.

Elad

[13]

also

links

protest

and

transparency

particularly.

In

this example unscrupulous forest managers strive toactively use

corporate

social

disclosures

to

defend

their

companys

enlightened

self-interests,

or

to

deflect

unde-

sirable stakeholder

demands

([13],

p.

649)

by

not

thor-

oughly explaining

key

audit

terms.

We

therefore

see

objectivity/neutrality

linked

to

professionalism

and

trans-

parency linked

to

protest.

Effectiveness

is

the

thread

that

runs through all modes of auditing literature. Regardlessof the

normative

value

placed

on

the

auditing

process,

there is always concern for either the external or internal

effectiveness,

as

was

evident

in

the

literature

discussed.

We acknowledge,

of

course,

that

this

model

only

deals

with the

extremes,

and

in

reality,

audits

processes

fallsomewhere in

between

the

two

poles,

but

being

the

subject

to

which

the

concepts

are

applied,

they

do

not

appear

on

the

diagram

itself.

Therefore,

to

make

this

conceptualmodel

actionable,

more

empirical

work

would

be necessary

to

qualify

what

exactly

exists

along

the

spectrum. As

we

have

conceived

it,

the

model

can

serve

future research

by

offering

multiple

entry

points

to

ana-

lysing the

audit

processes.

Regardless

of

whether

the

research

starts

exploring

the

normative

values

of

audits

or the mechanical concerns, links can be made to theother audit

elements.

Having

grounded,

contextualised

data

is

necessary

for

these

ideas

to

serve

as

a

useful

conceptual framework

for

future

studies

about

auditing

practices

that

take

seriously

both

the

definitions

of

audit-

ing at

work,

the

practices

of

auditing,

and

the

relation-

ships between.

Following Li [42] we assert that definitions of auditing

and auditing practices are both equally real and both

merit critical attention. Such a practice-based approach

to the

analysis

of

auditing

[43]

along

the

lines

set

out

inthe third

strand

of

literature

discussed

in

this

article

takes

seriously

the

simultaneous

negotiation

of

the

definition

and characteristics

of

auditing,

the

social

context

in

which

auditing takes place, and the phenomenon (the environ-

mental, management

activities)

that

is

being

audited.

Contrary to

what

the

majority

of

the

auditing

literature

contends, the

meaning

and

importance

of

effectiveness,

objectivity and

transparency

are

not

well

established.

Rather, these

characteristics

are

supremely

mutable,

and as

a

matter

of

course

must

be

made

actionable.

Insight into how this is done and how it relates todefinitions,

characteristics

and

modes

of

auditing

is

what

is needed

to

get

inside environmental

auditing.

AcknowledgementsThe writing and publication of this article have been supported by theWageningen University strategic IP/OP research theme InformationalGovernance.

References and recommended readingPapers of particular interest, published within the period of review,have been highlighted as:

of special interest of outstanding interest

1. Power M: The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. New York:Oxford University Press; 1997.

2. Tomlinson P, Atkinson S: Environmental Audits: ProposedTerminology. Environ Monit Assess 1987, 8:187-198.

3. Mol A:Environmental Reformin the InformationAge: TheContoursof Informational Governance.

Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress; 2008.

4. Gupta A: Transparency under scrutiny: information disclosurein global environmental governance. Global Environ Pol2008,8:1-7.

5. Gupta A, Mason M:A transparency turn in global

environmentalgovernance. In Transparency

inGlobalEnvironmentalGovernance.Edited by Gupta A, Mason M. The MIT Press; 2014:3-38.


Figure 3

Transparency Effectiveness Objectivity/Neutrality

ProfessionalismProtest

Definition 2Definition 1


Linking modes of auditing with audit characteristics.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0240http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0235http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0230http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0225http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0220http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0220


7/7

6.

Turnhout E, Neves K, Lijster E: Measurementality inbiodiversity governance: Knowledge, transparency, and theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversityand Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environ Plan A 2014,46:581-597.

The authors offer a critical analysis of how business ideals related totransparency, effectiveness and efficiency influence environmentalknowledge making and policy practices.

7. Gray R: Current developments and trends in social andenvironmental auditing, reporting and attestation: a reviewand comment.

Int J Audit2000, 4:247-268.

8. Power M: Auditing and environmental expertise: betweenprotest and professionalisation.

Account Audit Account J1991,4:30-41.

9. Power M: Auditing and the production of legitimacy. AccountOrgan Soc 2003, 28:379-394.

10. Eden S: Being fieldworthy: environmental knowledgepractices and the space of the field in forest certification.Environ Plan D: Soc Space 2008, 26:1018-1035.

11. RobertsonMM: The nature that capital cansee: science, state,and market in the commodification of ecosystem services.Environ Plan D: Soc Space 2006, 24:367-387.

12. Domingues P, Sampaio P, Arezes P: Beyond audit definition:

a framework proposal for integratedmanagement systems. InProceedings of the 2011 Industrial Engineering ResearchConference. 2011.

13. Elad C: Auditing and Governance of the Forestry Industry:Between Protest and Professionalism.

Crit Perspect Account2001, 12:647-671.

14. Herbohn K: A full cost environmental accounting experiment.Account Organ Soc 2005, 30:519-536.

15. YakhouM, Dorweiler V:Environmental accounting: an essentialcomponent of business strategy. Bus Strategy Environ 2004,13:65-77.

16. Fischer C, Aguilar F, Jawahar P, Sedjo R: Forest Certification:Toward Common Standards? Washington, DC:Resources for theFuture; 2005.

17. Diamantis D: The importance of environmental auditing and

environmental indicators in islands.

Eco-Manage Audit1999,6:18-25.

18. Nitkin D, Brooks L: Sustainability auditing and reporting: theCanadian Experience.

J Bus Ethics 1998, 17:1499-1507.

19. MarkopoulosM: TheImpacts ofCertificationon CommunityForestEnterprises: A Case Study of the Lomero

Community ForestManagement Project, Bolivia.

London: Department forInternational Development; 1998.

20. Ebeling J, YasueM: The effectiveness of market-basedconservation in the tropics: Forest certification in Ecuadorand Bolivia.

J Environ Manage 2008:1-9.

21. Ling T: Performance Audit: Contributing to accountability indemocratic government. Prague: European Evaluation Society;2010.

22. Tikina A, Innes J:A framework for assessing the effectivenessof forest certification.

Can J For Res 2008, 38:1357-1365.

23. Moore SE, Cubbage F, Eicheldinger C: Impacts of ForestStewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forest Initiative(SFI) Forest Certification in North America.

J For2012,110:79-88.

24. Shapiro S: The social control of impersonal trust.

Am J Sociol1987, 93:623-658.

25.

Rametsteiner E, Simula M: Forest certification an instrumenttopromotesustainable forestmanagement? J EnvironManage2003, 67:87-98.

26.

Sugiura K, Yoshioka T, Inoue K: Effects of acquiring FSC forestmanagement certification for Japanese enterprises usingSmartwood Audits. J For Res 2012, 23:165-172.

The authors provide a clear account of the effects of FSC certification,

with some focus placed on how forest managers perceive the role andpurpose of certification auditing.

27. Ungureanu M: Role of environmental audit in the modernenterprise. Ann Econ Sci Ser2012, XVII:88-95.

28. Rau S, Moser D: Does performing other audit tasks affectgoing-concern judgments? Account Rev1999, 74:493-508.

29.

McDermott C: Trust, legitimacy and power in forestcertification: a case study of the FSC in British Columbia.Geoforum 2012, 43:634-644.

Focusing on the construction of legitmacy discourse around FSC certi-fication auditing,the authorexamineshow trustanddistrustaremanagedor not managed.

30. Pentland B: Getting comfortable with the numbers: auditingand themicro-production of macro-order.

Account Organ Soc1993, 18:605-620.

31. Lamberton G: Sustainability Accounting a brief history and

conceptual framework. Account Forum 2005, 29:7-26.

32. Asdal K: Enacting things through numbers: taking nature intoaccount/ing. Geoforum 2008, 39:123-132.

33. Strathern M: The tyranny of transparency. Br Educ Res J2000,26:309-321.

34. Fox J: The uncertain relationship between transparency andaccountability. Dev Pract2007, 17:663-671.

35. Etzioni A: Is transparency the best disinfectant? J Pol Philos2010, 18:389-404.

36. Neyland D: Acheiving transparency: the visible, invisible anddivisible in academic accountability networks.

Organization2007, 14:499-516.

37. Hansen E, Fletcher R, Cashore B, McDermott C: ForestCertification in North America.

Oregon State University ExtensionService; 2006.

38. Klooster D: Institutional choice, community, and struggle:a case study of forest co-management in Mexico.World Dev2000, 28:1-20.

39. Nsekyiere E, Simula M: Comparative study on the auditingsystems of sustainable forest management.

Int Trop TimberOrgan 2000.

40.

Gupta A, Vijge M, Turnhout E, Pistorius T:Making REDD+Transparent. In Transparency in Global EnvironmentalGovernance. Edited by Gupta A, Mason M. MIT Press; 2014:181-201.

The authors use the example of REDD+ to discuss the various intendedandunintended effects ofmonitoring, reportingandverificationschemes.

41. MaletzO, TysiachnioukM: The effectof expertise on the qualityof forest standards implementation: the case of FSC forestcertification in Russia. For Policy Econ 2009, 11:422-428.

42. Li T: TheWill to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and thePractice of Politics.

Durham: Duke University Press; 2007.

43.

Arts B, Behagel J, Turnhout E, Koning D: A practice basedapproach to forest governance. For Policy Econ 2014, 49:4-11.

Theauthorsprovide thecontoursof a practice basedperspective to serveas an alternative to normative and instrumental theories of environmentalgovernance.

Inside

environmental


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0295http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0295http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0295http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0295http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0295http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0355http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0355http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0355http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0355http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0355http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0355http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0355http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0380http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0380http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0380http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0380http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0380http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0380http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0380http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0405http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0405http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0405http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0405http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0405http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0405http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0405http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0405http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0410http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0410http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0410http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0410http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0410http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0410http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0410http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0410http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0425http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0425http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0425http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0425http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0425http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0425http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0430http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0425http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0425http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0420http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0415http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0410http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0410http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0410http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0405http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0405http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0405http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0400http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0395http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0390http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0385http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0380http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0380http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0375http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0370http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0365http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0360http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0355http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0355http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0350http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0345http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0340http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0335http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0330http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0325http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0320http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0315http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0310http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0305http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0300http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0295http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0295http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0295http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0290http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0285http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0280http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0275http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0270http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0265http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0260http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0255http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0250http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1877-3435(15)00080-9/sbref0245

Documents

Efektivitas, objektivitas dan transparansi audit.pdf