External audits and official controls– what’s the difference in their usefulness and credibility?
External audits and official controls– what’s the difference in their usefulness and credibility?

Summary/Abstract: Purpose– The study aims to determine whether audited organizations experience differences betweenexternal audits and official controls.Design/methodology/approach– A survey among 100 organic food producers was conducted to exploredifferences regarding the usability of external audits and official controls. The survey was conducted in 2020using the computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) method supplemented by the computer-assisted webinterview (CAWI) method. Organizations processing organic farming products in Poland were chosen forthe study.Findings– Three primary benefits associated with external audits and official controls were identified, i.e.(1) enabling and initiating activities related to the improvement of the organization, (2) improving the financialperformance of the organization and (3) enhancing credibility. For most organizations, the assessment of thesefeatures was at the same level for both external audits and official control. However, if these assessmentsdiffered, commercial audits were assessed at a higher level than official controls.Research limitations/implications– The study is limited to only one specific type of manufacturingorganization and one European country.Originality/value– The literature review shows some conceptual differences between audits and officialcontrols, but the results of this study show that the business environment does not perceive these differences assignificant. Thus, the value of the study is reflected in the conclusion that both external audits and officialcontrols are considered useful and credible approaches to monitoring the quality within the organization,which allows us to state that external evaluation is generally seen as an opportunity to improve theperformance of the organization.

• Details
• Contents