Search results

The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced new challenges for auditors to provide high-quality audits. These challenges pose interesting questions about the ability of auditors to obtain audit evidence and ensure appropriate conclusions. In response to these questions, this paper aims to examine how self-efficacy affects the auditors’ effort and performance during COVID-19 and how remote audit proficiency helps them respond to these challenges, as reflected in more effort and high-quality performance.

To test the hypotheses, this study used a quantitative approach in which 193 Saudi auditors were surveyed and partial least squares structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data.

The authors demonstrated that self-efficacy is positively associated with the perceived audit effort and performance during the COVID-19 crisis. The results also showed that remote audit proficiency plays a significant role during COVID-19 as it can help auditors exert more effort and perform audit activities effectively. This study also found that remote audit mediates the association between self-efficacy and both effort and performance during COVID-19. These results are also asserted under several robust analyses.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, these findings provide the first evidence on the effect of COVID-19 on auditors and have implications for both theory and practice.

This paper aims to investigate the association between International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) effort due to higher levels of material adjustments and audit fees. In addition, this paper tests whether these associations differ between industry specialist auditors and non-specialist auditors.

The authors measure IFRS effort by using differences between local GAAP and IFRS. More specifically, they measure the differences in the balances of accounts that are prepared under IFRS as opposed to the previously used Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) standards. They posit that higher material adjustments and more risk to fair presentation of financial statements require additional accounting and auditing effort (“IFRS effort”).

The authors find that audit fees are higher when accounting standards are more material and complex at an aggregate level. Nevertheless, not all standards are equally complex and/or material and not all individual standards contribute to higher audit fees. In addition, the results show that the positive association between IFRS effort and audit fees is more pronounced when firms are audited by city-level industry specialists than by non-industry specialists.

Overall, the results are consistent with the prediction of increasing audit fees for firms requiring higher levels of IFRS effort compared to firms requiring lower levels of IFRS effort. The results contribute to the understanding that not all IFRS are equally complex and, thereby, the standards require different levels of auditor effort. Isolating specific standards based on materiality/risk levels is informative to standard setters for standard setting, standard implementation and post-implementation review of standards.

This paper aims to examine the perspectives of auditors, regulators and financial report preparers on the effects of key audit matters (KAMs) reporting on audit effort, fees, quality and report transparency.

The authors conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (13 Audit Partners, 5 Chief Financial Officers and 3 regulators) and thematically analysed the interviews. They use the frame of “Paradox of Transparency” to explain the findings.

Auditors perceive that the overall quality control of their audits has improved both in the planning and execution stages, and such improvement can mostly be attributed to the coercive pressures from professional bodies and regulators. Nevertheless, audit fee remains unchanged. Auditors disclose industry generic items and descriptions of KAMs, sometimes masking the real problem areas of the clients. Even after improving the performative audit quality, transparency of audit reporting has not improved. Issues that warrant going concern qualifications or audit report modifications are now reported as KAMs. Hence, KAMs reporting might make the audit report less transparent.

Localised audit environments and institutions affect the transparency of KAMs reporting. Without attention to corporate governance and auditors’ independence issues, paradoxically, performative improvement in audit quality (due to the KAMs reporting requirement) does not enhance the transparency of audit reports.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide field-level evidence in Bangladesh and other developing countries about the perceptions of auditors, financial report preparers and regulators on the effects of KAMs reporting on audit efforts, fees, quality and report transparency.

This study aims to examine the effect of reducing disclosure and auditing requirements on audit quality, auditor effort and auditor conservatism. The Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012 is used as a setting for this research. The JOBS Act aimed to boost economic growth by easing emerging growth companies’ (EGCs) access to capital markets. The Act provides scaled disclosure and auditing provisions and exemptions for EGCs.

Using data from Capital IQ, CRSP and Audit Analytics on EGCs and matching non-EGCs between 2012 and 2018, this study assesses the effect of such reduced disclosure and audit requirements on audit quality, auditor effort and auditor conservatism.

The findings denote that while audit quality and auditor effort are lower for EGCs, auditor conservatism is not different for EGCs as compared to non-EGCs.

This study expands the current research by providing evidence on the impact of reduced reporting and auditing requirements on auditor conservatism and audit quality, in addition to auditor effort in EGC engagements.

The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating effect of effort on the relationship between both accountability pressure and self‐efficacy, and auditors' performance.

The paper uses a between‐subjects experimental research design with accountability pressure manipulated randomly to two groups, accountable and non‐accountable. Each participant is required to perform internal control tasks.

Based on partial least square (PLS) analysis, results indicate that both variables, i.e. accountability pressure and self‐efficacy, are positively related to audit judgment performance through the process of high level of effort. High self‐efficacious participants who received accountability pressure would have high levels of effort, which in turn increase audit judgment performance.

This study provides further evidence on the effect of motivational factors on auditors' performance. Understanding the mediating role of some motivational variables is crucial in designing a continuous development program to enhance auditors' performance. The proposed framework of effort as a mediating variable is consistent with Libby and Lipe and Chang et al., who argue that accountability pressure and self‐efficacy would cause individuals to increase their effort in order to perform better.

The paper contributes to the literature on motivational factors that would explain the variability in audit judgments in coping with complex audit tasks.

Ethics play an important role in society; however, many economics models assume that individual players act “economically” rational and ignore situations where an individual may forgo economic benefit for the public good. This chapter models the strategic interaction between auditors and management and allows for management to choose the economically irrational outcome of behaving ethically even when doing so defies their own financial self-interest. One of the model's assumption is that a certain percentage of managers do not engage in a “strategy” to misreport their financial statements because doing so is “unethical”. If recent accounting scandals are indicative of an ethical crisis in this country, this model offers hope because an increase in the percentage of unethical mangers leads to a decrease in fraudulent reporting. The model also illustrates the effects of an increase in the rewards for committing fraud (e.g., greater numbers of stock options, restricted stock, and accounting-based performance incentives) and an increase in the penalty for detected fraud (e.g., stiffer penalties for fraud from Sarbanes–Oxley).

This study aims to examine whether firms that appear to exhibit high sustainable outputs are more likely to pay higher audit fees than firms without such outputs.

The sustainability outputs are measured using a sustainable product portfolio consisting of four products: clean energy products, eco-design products (EDP), environmental products (EP) and sustainable building projects (SBP). The audit fee variable is measured by the natural logarithm of the total amount of audit fees. The study tests two models of the association between these outputs and audit fees; Model 1 tests this association in the absence of the moderating variable (sustainability committee), and Model 2 tests the association in the presence of the moderating variable.

An analysis of data on 261 European firms from the Refinitiv Eikon database from 2010 to 2019 shows that high sustainability outputs are significantly and positively associated with audit fees. More importantly, this association is moderated by the presence of a board-level sustainability committee, suggesting that this type of committee reflects a factor considered by auditors in their audit risk assessment practices. The findings indicate that in Model 1, one (EP) out of four variables has a significant and positive association with audit fees, while in Model 2 and in the presence of sustainability committee, two variables (EP and EDP) have a significant and negative association with audit fees. However, the robust analysis shows that three variables (EP, EDP and SBP) have significant and negative associations with audit fees.

The study findings have important implications for policymakers, auditors and firms’ managers. For policymakers, the findings provide support for the argument that sustainable attitudes incentivise firms to manage sustainable product profiles more effectively. As such, policymakers should incentivise firms to establish a sustainability committee and regulate its role and responsibilities. Auditors should coordinate with the sustainability committee to facilitate audit efforts and reduce audit fees.

Understanding the relationship between sustainable products and audit fees will allow firms to improve their portfolio of sustainable products. In addition, other social implications of this study relate to improving relationships with society by establishing a sustainability committee that is responsible to communicate with that society.

The results support the argument that firms should manage sustainable product portfolios more effectively. In addition, the results of the study highlight the importance of a new variable as a moderator, the sustainability committee, which has not been examined before.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the empirical association between expected and unexpected audit fees and reported earnings quality for a sample of Big 4(5) client companies over a period from 2000 to 2005.

The paper employs a cross‐sectional multiple regression model for a sample of 1,142 firms (6,852 firm‐years) covering a time period of six years comprising 2000 to 2005 to evaluate the relationship between both expected and unexpected audit fees and performance‐adjusted discretionary accruals that are estimated from the extended version of the modified Jones model.

The paper finds that both expected and unexpected audit fees are associated with an increase in earnings quality, as indicated by the reduction of both absolute and signed discretionary accrual adjustments. Furthermore, in some analyses these associations are found to persist into the post‐Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) period. The main results hold in sensitivity tests that involve using both the absolute and signed unexpected audit fees as independent variables and in tests that use both the absolute and signed current accruals as dependent variables of interest.

The results suggest that audit efforts consistent with client‐specific business attributes and reflected in expected audit fees mitigate financial reporting biases, the effect of which is incrementally observable to some extent in the post‐SOX period as well. Unexpected audit fees, a proxy for fee surprise arising out of auditor‐client‐specific contractual situations, are also associated with an increase in earnings quality. The association is, in some analyses, significant for the post‐SOX years. The test results do not exhibit any evidence of auditor independence problems associated with high expected and unexpected audit fees; a result that supports the “reputation protection” argument for auditors' reporting decisions.

In a time period surrounding the introduction of SOX when nonaudit consulting services have severely been restricted, and the audit fee growth for publicly traded companies have been dramatic, an analysis of this nature potentially produces valuable insights into the auditors' fee decision, audit efforts, and auditor independence issue. The study looks into a new perspective concerning the relationship between audit fees and financial reporting practice over the two regulatory regimes, pre‐ and post‐SOX.

This study aims to examine how auditors respond to the revelation of clients’ corporate fraud.

This study uses an ordinary least squares estimation to examine how audit fees and audit turnover change after the revelation of corporate fraud.

After a client discloses fraudulent activities, average audit fees significantly increase due to an increase in audit hours, rather than in audit premiums. Both new and continuing auditors increase audit hours for fraud firms, but only new auditors charge higher audit fees for the increased effort. In addition, when auditors are designated by regulators following the revelation of fraud, audit fees and premiums increase, but audit hours do not. Finally, auditor turnover becomes more frequent after the revelation of fraud. Overall, the findings suggest that auditors update their assessment of audit risks after fraud revelation and, thus, adjust their audit pricing and client acceptance decisions.

The study provides regulators and audit practitioners with insights into how to audit contract characteristics and regulatory intervention (auditor designations) affect auditors’ response to increased audit risks.

The study contributes to the auditing literature and practice by providing evidence on how auditors respond to the revelation of fraudulent activities and how their response depends on their ability to determine audit fees. Moreover, we provide novel evidence that audit contracting characteristics and regulatory requirements result in different responses of auditors toward changes in audit risks.

In this study the authors examine the nature and contents of key audit matters (KAMs), and the consequences of KAMs reporting on audit quality in the context of a developing country, Bangladesh. The authors’ proxies of audit qualities are discretionary accruals, small positive earnings surprise, audit report lag, earnings management via below the line items and audit fees.

The authors use content analysis of the KAMs for the period 2018–2021 to understand the nature and extent of KAMs reported by auditors in Bangladesh. The authors then use multivariate regression analysis to examine the effect of the number and content characteristics of KAMs on audit quality by using multivariate regression analysis.

Auditors in Bangladesh disclose a higher number of KAMs compared to other countries, disclose short descriptions of KAMs and industry generic KAMs. The authors document significant cross-sectional variations in the number and content characteristics of KAMs reported by auditors in Bangladesh. The authors’ pre-post analysis suggest that audit quality has improved after the adoption of KAMs. Cross-sectional analysis suggests that KAMs number and content characteristics are related to audit quality.

The authors’ findings imply that the KAMs reporting has the potential to play significant monitoring role in reducing the opportunistic behavior of managers. Hence, KAMs reporting can play a significant role in reducing the agency problem. For regulators, shareholders and corporate managers, the authors’ findings imply that if the audit quality is to be increased, the audit effort should be supported by an appropriate amount of audit fee.

The content characteristics of KAMs significantly influence managerial reporting behavior and affect the level of audit efforts.

Unlike developed countries (Gutierrez et al., 2018; Lennox et al. 2022), this study supports that KAMs reporting improves audit quality and control opportunistic behavior of managers in developing countries. The authors show that even though the KAMs disclosure quality is poor, it has the potential to improve financial reporting quality.