1. 44th World Continuous Auditing and Reporting Symposium
Seville (Spain) March, 2019
Social Media adoption by Audit Institutions. A comparative analysis of the EU and the US.
Lourdes Torres, Sonia Royo and Jaime García-Rayado
Gespública

2. Index Introduction Research Questions Background Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
Index
Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions

3. Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
The most important functions of Public Sector Audit Institutions, the main external control bodies of the public sector, are to carry out compliance, financial and performance audits
Principle 7: "SAIs have to report publicly on the results of their audits and on their conclusions regarding overall government activities"
INTOSAI (2009) established the principles of transparency and accountability for SAIs in order to assist them in leading by example in their own governance and practices (ISSAI 20)
Principle 8: "SAIs have to communicate timely and widely on their activities and audit results through the media, websites and by other means"
INTOSAI: International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions
ISSAI: International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions

4. To give some advantages of Social Media (SM) are:
Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
To give some advantages of Social Media (SM) are:
To allow instant two-way direct communication with stakeholders, facilitating stakeholder feedback and eliminating dependence on traditional communication media
Give the opportunity to show a more complete image and improve visibility
To reduce spatial obstacles and allow massive low cost communication,
(Bertot et al., 2012;Bonson et al., 2012; González-Díaz et al., 2013; Stamati et al., 2015, Agostino et al., 2017)

5. RQ2. Can any patterns of adoption be identified?
Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
The objective of this paper is to analyze the presence of Audit Institutions in Web 2.0 tools and SM, in the EU and US, at central and regional level, in order to answer the following research questions:
RQ1. What is the level of adoption of Web 2.0 and SM tools among Audit Institutions?
RQ2. Can any patterns of adoption be identified?
RQ3. What factors are related to the adoption of Web 2.0 and SM tools?

6. There is a lack of research on SM use by Audit institutions.
Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
Background
There is a lack of research on SM use by Audit institutions.
Previous research of González-Díaz et al. (2013) found that among the 36 SAIs of OECD countries, only the SAIs of USA, Australia and Estonia were using Facebook and Twitter, in September They considered US GAO as an example of good practice.
Theoretical framework:
Institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983):
Coercive isomorphism
Mimetic isomorphism
Normative isomorphism
The diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 2003)

7. 143 Supreme and Regional Audit Institutions
Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
Sample
143 Supreme and Regional Audit Institutions
USA: 1 SAI and 50 RAIs
EU: 29 SAIs and 63 RAIs
13 Web 2.0 and Social Media tools:
Methodology
RQ1: Revision of official websites of Audit Institutions searching for active links to Web 2.0 and SM tools.
RQ2: Cluster analysis (Ward method) over 13 dichotomous variables indicating the adoption of SM and Web 2.0 tools.
RQ3: Bivariate analysis using the “Public administration style”, “SAI/RAI”, “Corruption perception index”, “Internet and SM penetration rates” and “Population”.

8. Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
RQ1. What is the level of adoption of Web 2.0 and SM tools among Audit Institutions? N
Mean (No. tools)
USA
SAI 1
100.0%
0.0% 8
RAI 50
50.0%
42.0%
12.0%
16.0%
6.0%
1.5
Total 51
51.0%
43.1%
13.7%
17.6%
5.9%
1.6 EU 29
51.7%
44.8%
48.3%
37.9%
27.6%
3.4%
2.4 63
17.5%
3.2%
15.9%
7.9%
0.5 92
28.3%
16.3%
26.1%
14.1%
1.1%
1.1 30
53.3%
46.7%
40.0%
30.0%
3.3%
2.6
113
31.9%
20.4%
14.2%
8.8%
11.5%
2.7%
0.9
143
36.4%
25.9%
21.7%
15.4%
2.8%
1.3
Low presence in all SM and Web 2.0 tools, being the highest in Twitter, Facebook and RSS
Higher adoption in SAIs than RAIs
Higher adoption in the USA than the EU (except RSS)
The SAI of the US, the Government Accountability Office, uses the highest number of SM (8)
The Cour des Comptes, the SAI of France, uses the highest number in the EU (7)

9. RQ2. Can any patterns of adoption be identified? Group N Mean
Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
RQ2. Can any patterns of adoption be identified?
 Group N
Mean 1
100.0%
18.2%
9.1%
36.4% 11
4.0 2
95.7%
69.6%
56.5%
34.8%
87.0%
0.0% 23 3
85.0%
50.0%
5.0% 20
1.4 4
12.5%
18.8% 16 5 73
0.0
Total
25.9%
21.7%
15.4%
4.2%
143
1.3
Group 1: Twitter, Facebook and YouTube and uses other tools.
Group 2: High presence in Twitter and LinkedIn and uses other tools.
Group 3: Only Twitter or Facebook.
Group 4: RSS, which only allows one-way communication.
Group 5: Adopt no tools. It includes half of the sample.

10. RQ2. Can any patterns of adoption be identified?
Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
RQ2. Can any patterns of adoption be identified?
Group 1 is composed by Anglo-American and Easter European audit institutions.
In Group 2 Anglo-American and Easter European and Nordic institutions predominate.
In group 3 Anglo-American, Nordic and Napoleonic institutions predominate.
More than half of SAIs are in the first two groups.
More than half of RAIs are in the last group.

11. RQ3. What factors are related to the adoption of Web 2.0 and SM tools?
Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
RQ3. What factors are related to the adoption of Web 2.0 and SM tools?
Nordic
Anglo-American
Eastern
Napoleonic
Germanic
Kruskal-Wallis
Use at least one tool
81.8%
60.7%
57.1%
45.0%
7.4%
27.175**
SAI
RAI
Chi-square
Use at least one tool
72.4%
43.3%
27.367**
Use at least one tool
Do not use any tool
U-MW
Mean Ln inhab. (Country/ region)
15.44
14.7 **
Mean Internet penetration rate
79.45
80.77
Mean Social Media penetration rate
62.84
56.99 **
Mean Corruption perception Index
70.53
71.29
Notes: *p-value<0.05; **p-value<0.01. N=142 because the ECA has not been included in these analyses.

12. RQ3. What factors are related to the adoption of Web 2.0 and SM tools?
Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
RQ3. What factors are related to the adoption of Web 2.0 and SM tools?
Anglo-American
Nordic
Eastern
Napoleonic
Germanic
Kruskal-Wallis
No tools used(Mean)
1.8
1.4
1.0
0.1
26.235**
SAI
RAI
U-MW
No tools used(Mean)
2.6
0.9
3.797**
No tools used 
Spearman correlation
Ln inhab. (Country/ region)
0.351**
Internet penetration rate
Social Media penetration rate
0.270**
Corruption perception Index
0.012
Notes: *p-value<0.05; **p-value<0.01. N=142 because the ECA has not been included in these analyses.

13. The use of SM by Audit Institutions is still in an initial stage.
Introduction
Research Questions
Background
Sample and Method
Results
Main Conclusions
The use of SM by Audit Institutions is still in an initial stage.
The low diffusion rate of SM suggests that Audit Institutions do not perceive great advantages in the adoption of these tools or believe that their use is in conflict with existing patterns and values (diffusion of innovations theory).
Public administration styles influence SM adoption.
The results point to the existence of a certain dependence on institutional pressures and citizen demand for the adoption of these tools. These factors seem to play a key role in the initial stages of SM adoption.
The higher levels of adoption among SAIs are very probably explained by INTOSAI (2009a, 2010, 2013b) recommendations (coercive and normative isomorphism, institutional theory)

14. 44th World Continuous Auditing and Reporting Symposium
Seville (Spain) March, 2019
Social Media adoption by Audit Institutions. A comparative analysis of the EU and the US.
Lourdes Torres, Sonia Royo and Jaime García-Rayado
Gespública