Search results

Until recently, the formal model for the estimation of audit risk was relatively straightforward. There were two major approaches: the familiar multiplicative planned risk model in the USA and UK; and the Canadian Bayesian posterior risk model. Recent work has substantially changed the framework for estimating audit risk. Aims to evaluate these proposals and to develop a single framework for the measurement of planned and posterior risk.

Business risk and inherent risk both bear on the audit; the audit risk model; and the nature, timing, and extent of work performed. Inherent risk and business risk bear an inverse relationship to detec‐tion risk and have a direct effect on the level of work performed. Neither risk can be eliminated totally and neither is controllable by the auditor. Business risk relates to the financial statements and affects overall audit risk; inherent risk applies to an individual audit area. Inherent risk is explicitly included in the professional standards and the audit‐risk model while business risk is not and has only an indirect bearing on the model. Management can take steps to affect the level of inherent risk, but the perceptions of users of the financial statements bear on business risk.

Explores the state of the art in internal auditing risk assessment techniques by reviewing professional requirements as stated in Statement of Internal Auditing Standards (SIAS) No. 9 and then examining and discussing currently available risk assessment techniques. Models explored in the study include the traditional risk assessment model and those by Wilson and Randon; Patton, Evans and Lewis; Boritz; and Siers and Blyskal. The results of the study indicate that professional standards are being met by all of the risk assessment techniques examined but none of the techniques is perfect for all users. Indeed, each has at least one flaw which seriously compromises its usefulness. Empirical research comparing predicted areas of high risk with actual areas could be used to determine the robustness of these models.

Internal auditors should consider the risks pertinent to an auditee when planning the work. Internal auditors may select a procedures‐driven approach or a risk‐driven approach. In a procedures‐driven approach, the audit procedures are chosen without full consideration of the risks present. Rather, the internal auditor may use procedures because they are commonly employed or because they were used on the last examination of the auditee. In a risk‐driven approach, specific procedures are planned only after consideration of the risks. A risk‐driven approach is generally more effective and efficient than a procedures‐driven approach because the internal auditor′s efforts are focused on areas with relatively more risk.

This study aims to examine the mediating effects of corporate governance mechanisms like the board of directors on the association between disruptive technology adoption by audit clients and the risk of material misstatements, including inherent risk and control risk. In particular, the authors study the mediating effects of board characteristics such as board size, independence and gender diversity.

Based on a sample of 100 audit clients listed on the FTSE 100 from 2015 to 2021, this study uses structural equation modelling to test the research objectives.

The findings indicate a significant and negative association between disruptive technology adoption by audit clients and inherent risk. However, there is no significant evidence observed for control risk. The utilisation of disruptive technology by the audit client has a significant impact on the board characteristics, resulting in an increase in board size, greater independence and gender diversity. The authors also find strong evidence that board independence mediates the association between disruptive technology usage and both inherent risk and control risk. In addition, board size and gender exhibit distinct and differential mediating effects on the association and across the two types of risks.

The study reveals that the significant role of using disruptive technology by audit clients in reducing the risk of material misstatements is closely associated with the board of directors, which makes audit clients place greater emphasis on the construction of effective corporate governance.

This study offers essential primary evidence that can assist policymakers and standard setters in formulating guidance and recommendations for board size, independence and gender quotas, ensuring the enhancement of effective governance and supporting the future of audit within the next generation of digital services.

With respect to relevant stakeholders, it is imperative for audit clients to recognise that corporate governance represents a fundamental means of addressing the ramifications of applying disruptive technology, particularly as they pertain to inherent and control risks within the audit client.

This study contributes to the existing literature by investigating the joint impact of corporate governance and the utilisation of disruptive technology by audit clients on inherent risk and control risk, which has not been investigated by previous research.

This exercise provides comprehensive coverage of audit materiality, assessing inherent risk, and allocating tolerable misstatement appropriate for an undergraduate auditing course. The Delphi method could be an appropriate tool in any accounting setting where the learning goals involve judgment, consensus, or learning through group interaction.

This chapter describes a classroom exercise that required students to establish planning materiality, assess inherent risk associated with balance sheet accounts, and allocate tolerable misstatement using a modified application of the Delphi method. Additionally, the exercise calls attention to group processing skills and the role played by professional judgment in planning an audit. We assigned students to five-person audit teams and through a series of Delphi rounds asked them to establish planning materiality and assess the inherent risk associated with each balance sheet account for a fictitious company. Students prepared a matrix, both individually and as a team, that compared each statement account to every other account to determine which account in each pairing they viewed as having higher inherent risk. As a final step, they allocated tolerable misstatement mathematically for each account based on pairing results.

The result was a consensus of opinion and an early attempt at forming professional judgment. The students’ responses to a debriefing questionnaire and the results of a pre-/post-test suggest that the learning objectives of the exercise were met.

The specific learning objectives of the exercise were to help students understand the concepts of tolerable misstatement and planning materiality, the elements of inherent risk, the Delphi method for reaching group consensus, the need to work as a team, and the importance professional judgment plays in the audit process. The result was a consensus of opinion and an early attempt at forming professional judgment. The students’ responses to a debriefing questionnaire and the results of a pre-/post-test suggest that the learning objectives of the exercise were met.

This study aims to demonstrate how pressures (incentives) in the audit environment can lower audit quality because of a breakdown between professionally skeptical (PS) judgment (risk assessment) and PS action (testing).

The authors used a Qualtrics-based experiment with attitude change as a proxy measure of cognitive dissonance (CD). The authors analyze the results using a one-way independent between-group ANOVA with post hoc tests and t-tests.

The authors find that auditors experience CD when they fail to take appropriate high PS action (audit tests) that are in line with high PS judgment (risk assessments). The motivational force to reduce CD drives auditors to revise their assessments upward (rank higher), lower diagnostic audit tests (PS actions) and lower risk assessments (PS judgments). This leads to lower overall professional skepticism, and hence lower audit quality.

This investigation provides an empirical investigation of Nelson’s (2009) model of professional skepticism and demonstrates a specific mechanism for how incentives in the audit environment lower audit quality. Based on the findings, treatments to enhance audit quality can benefit by strengthening the critical link between PS judgments (risk assessments) and PS actions (audit tests).

This paper aims to examine the effect of carbon emissions on audit fees. The authors hypothesize that firms in cities with higher carbon emission levels have lower reporting transparency, higher return volatility or are subject to higher reputation risk, causing them to be charged higher audit fees for auditing services.

The authors use panel data of 25,960 firm-year observations from a sample of Chinese firms. The carbon emission data for each Chinese city are obtained from the China Emission Accounts and Datasets for Emerging Economies. This paper adopts a multiple regression model to study the impact of carbon emissions on audit fees.

The authors find that firms located in cities with higher carbon emission levels and firms with more carbon emissions are charged, on average, a higher audit fee. This audit fee effect of carbon risk is transmitted by lessened information transparency and elevated financial risk within these firms. This paper shows that auditors consider carbon risk in their audit fee decisions and other factors that could influence audit risk and effort.

This study draws a connection between carbon emissions and audit fees. It is especially relevant due to the increasing importance of environmental factors in the audit risk assessment. In addition, the findings suggest that a firm implementing a proactive environmental strategy benefits the economy and decreases the costs to the firm for services such as auditing.

This study aims to investigate whether accounting-related litigation is associated with a break in the client’s earnings string and the auditor’s response to a break in the earnings string.

The authors use regression models on a sample of publicly-traded USA companies with earnings strings.

The authors find that clients’ earnings string breaks are associated with increased accounting litigation risk and audit fees. The results are more prevalent for larger breaks.

The findings suggest auditors anticipate string breaks by clients which implies that audit fee research should consider earnings string characteristics in the fee models.

The auditor’s access to private information allows them to anticipate string breaks and potential increase in litigation risk.

An earnings string break represents a convergence of concerns highly relevant to the auditor: more users relying on the financial statements with greater expectations, increased likelihood of losses to those users, an environment where the likelihood of misstatement may increase, and explicitly stated professional responsibilities in response to the latter. Despite that, and a rich earnings string literature, prior studies have not directly examined auditors’ response to a client’s string break.

Existing studies have shown that all kinds of audit risks greatly affect audit pricing for accounting firms. However, it is still unclear whether environmental risks caused by environmental violations lead to a high audit fee. This study aims to investigate whether accounting firms raise audit fees after client firms have violated environmental regulations or have been punished for such violations.

This study selects listed firms with environmental violations between 1994 and 2018 as the treatment sample and match the treatment group with a control group of firms from the same industry, of similar asset size and with no environmental violations for the same time period. Then, this study constructs a difference-in-difference (DID) model to explore the impact of firm environmental violations (or punishment for environmental violations) on the audit pricing.

This study finds that accounting firms tend to raise audit fees after client firms have violated environmental regulations or have been punished for such violations, and this increasing effect is different due to environmental regulation intensity, regional span and internal control defects. Further evidences show that environmental violations influence audit fees through financial restatement, whereas environmental punishments impact audit fees through earnings management and risk-taking.

This study enriches the literature on determining factors of audit fees and economic consequences of environmental violations and provides empirical supports to understand the pricing behavior of accounting firms.