Search results

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 provides insights into the meanings given to audit quality (AQ) by audit partners responsible for delivering audit services. It explores the influence of contextual factors in the auditing setting on constructing such meanings and its representations.

Drawing on a symbolic-interactionist framework, this study takes an interpretive approach, employing semi-structured interviews with audit partners from the United Kingdom (UK).

Three primary meanings of AQ are identified. First, in contradiction to that offered by “mainstream” AQ research, audit partners in this study predominantly regarded the meaning of AQ as an economic concept in the context of the “business” of auditing, delivering the service quality (e.g. value-added auditing and value-for-money) that is expected by their audit clients. Second, the audit partners also espouse the meaning of AQ to be “fit for purpose” audit documentation and adherence to quality control that meets the standards of compliance demanded by independent audit inspections. Third, and similar to the classic convention of AQ, audit partners consider “inputs” to AQ, attributes related to individual auditors (e.g. qualifications, experience and training) as one of the key AQ meanings. A range of stimuli underlies AQ meaning construction, including the audit firm's commercial interests, legitimacy, image management and social identity resulting from audit partners' interactions with audit clients, regulators, and their own self-reflexivity. Interestingly, this study identifies a considerable potential conflict between the meanings assigned to AQ, which suggests that auditors are struggling to strike a balance between the competing demands of those meanings.

This exploratory study addresses only the audit partners' perceptions concerning the meaning of AQ. Findings of this study are relevant to auditors and other parties, such as regulators, in addressing competing dimensions of AQ and potential choices involving conduct and content in any individual audit engagement.

The study complements existing research into AQ by exposing the rationales and potential behaviours that underlie commitments to quality by those involved in commissioning audit engagements. It also adds detailed evidence of how contextual factors in the auditing environment interact with auditors' notions of AQ.

This study reviews and discusses the accounting literature that analyzes the role of auditors and enforcers in the context of fraud.

This literature review includes both qualitative and quantitative studies, based on the idea that the findings from different research paradigms can shed light on the complex interactions between different financial reporting controls. The authors use a mixed-methods research synthesis and select 64 accounting journal articles to analyze the main proxies for fraud, the stages of the fraud process under investigation and the roles played by auditors and enforcers.

The study highlights heterogeneity with respect to the terms and concepts used to capture the fraud phenomenon, a fragmentation in terms of the measures used in quantitative studies and a low level of detail in the fraud analysis. The review also shows a limited number of case studies and a lack of focus on the interaction and interplay between enforcers and auditors.

This study outlines directions for future accounting research on fraud.

The analysis underscores the need for the academic community, policymakers and practitioners to work together to prevent the destructive economic and social consequences of fraud in an increasingly complex and interconnected environment.

This study differs from previous literature reviews that focus on a single monitoring mechanism or deal with fraud in a broadly manner by discussing how the accounting literature addresses the roles and the complex interplay between enforcers and auditors in the context of accounting fraud.

This study aims to investigate the impact of the audit committee chair’s trust on the quality of interactions between the external auditor and the audit committee chair in Hong Kong.

The research uses a questionnaire survey to gather data from the audit committee chairs of the listed companies in Hong Kong, with a response rate of 19.2%. Partial least squares structural equation modelling is used in this study.

The results reveal that the audit committee chair’s trust in the external auditor’s competence, integrity and goodwill is an important determinant of the interaction quality. The findings also show that interaction quality during the pre-engagement stage is important to mediate the relationships between the three dimensions of trust and interaction quality during the audit performance stage.

This is the first study, to the best of the author’s knowledge, that examines the impact of the audit committee chair’s trust in the external auditor on the quality of their interactions. The findings provide insights for board of directors, auditors and policymakers to implement policies that enhance trust between them to improve audit quality.

This paper aims to examine whether the cultural distance between an international audit firm and target audit clients in emerging countries is associated with auditor choice decisions.

Based on a sample of 104,699 firm-year observations from 20 countries over 2009–2020, logit regression analysis is used to investigate the research questions.

The authors find strong evidence that cultural distance affects the auditor selection decision. The results suggest Big N auditors are more likely to be chosen by target audit clients in emerging countries with less cultural distance. In other words, target audit clients in emerging countries prefer to choose international audit firms whose cultural characteristics are similar. Moreover, results from two-stage least squares regression further suggest that the observed effect of cultural distance on auditor choice is unlikely to be driven by potential endogeneity.

The auditor choice is limited to companies hiring Big N auditors; the authors exclude any switches to non-Big N auditors or switches between Big N auditors. The study also suffers from the concerns about methodological and conceptual criticism that most studies about national culture have to deal with. Finally, through this paper, the authors carry out the auditor selection process from the target audit clients’ side; the authors do not discuss the supply side of the process.

The authors contribute to the audit choice literature by providing evidence that the cultural distance between the countries of audit firms and target audit clients plays a role in the auditor choice decision. The study complements the prior auditor choice literature, focusing primarily on Western economies, by structuring the sample scope to emerging market economies.

The differences between Big audit firms (BigN) and non BigN (nBigN) have been discussed at the international level from various points of view, focusing in particular on issues regarding the different quality of the services offered. This study aims to analyze the impact of digitalization on audit firms in the Italian context, seeking to understand how this phenomenon has influenced the quality differences already studied in the scientific literature.

The research adopts a qualitative approach, using semi-structured interviews. A total of 16 professionals working in the legal audit world were interviewed. The firms involved were PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Ernst and Young and Deloitte in the BigN category and BDO Italia Spa, MooreAxis Srl and Analisi Spa in the non Big class. The data collected via the interviews underwent thematic analysis. This analysis allowed the identification of three topics, on which the presentation of the results concentrated.

The findings of this research reveal that the digitalization of companies has widened the quality gap between Big and non BigN. BigN have been better able to exploit the benefits of the new digital technologies due to their greater investment capacity. At the same time, stakeholders’ expectations of the audit process in terms of quality have increased sharply, also in relation to nBigN.

This study’s main contribution is its analysis of the impact of digitalization on the audit quality of BigN and nBigN. This paper contributes to the existing literature by studying the consequences of digitalization on nBigN, a topic previously unexplored in the scientific literature (Manita et al., 2020), and the impact of new technologies in the context of audit firms in general.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on audit fees and the reporting of key audit matters (KAMs). Additionally, this study also looks into potential differences in the behavior of male and female audit partners during this period, adding to the existing research on gender's effect on different elements of the audit process.

This study used a sample of all FTSE 350 firms from before the COVID-19 pandemic and during the pandemic. It analyzed the data using Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis to test its hypotheses.

This paper provides early evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on audit fees and KAM disclosures in the UK. The results of this study show an increase in audit fees during the pandemic and greater detail in the reporting of KAMs, with no significant difference between male and female audit partners. These findings will be of interest to audit firms and regulators as they assess the performance of auditors during the pandemic and evaluate the expanded audit report's effectiveness in providing sufficient information to financial statement users.

This study provides first-of-its-kind empirical evidence on how auditors in the UK reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings of this study will be of interest to audit firms, regulators, such as the Financial Reporting Council, and other stakeholders as they evaluate the performance of auditors during the crisis period. The results will help regulators assess the effectiveness of the expanded audit report in providing sufficient information during a time of heightened risk and scrutiny.

This study aims to examine the effects of audit quality on earnings management and cost of equity capital (COE) considering the impact of two owner types: government ownership and foreign ownership.

The study uses a panel data set of 236 Vietnamese firms covering the period 2007 to 2017. Because the two main dependent variables of the COE capital and the absolute value of discretionary accruals receive fractional values between zero and one, the paper uses the generalised linear model (GLM) with a logit link and the binomial family in regression analyses. The paper uses numerous audit quality measures, including hiring Big 4 auditors or the industry-leading Big 4 auditor, changing from non-Big 4 auditors to Big 4 auditors or the industry-leading Big 4 auditor, and the length of Big 4 auditor tenure. Big 4 companies include KPMG, Deloitte, EY and PwC, whereas the non-big 4 are the other audit companies.

The study finds a negative relationship between audit quality and both the COE capital and income-increasing discretionary accruals. The effects of audit quality on discretionary accruals and the COE capital depend on the ownership levels of two important shareholders: the government and foreign investors. Foreign ownership is negatively associated with discretionary accruals; however, the effect is more pronounced in the sub-sample of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the firms where the government owns 50% or more equity, than in the sub-sample of Non-SOEs.

To the best of the knowledge, no prior similar study exists that used the GLM with a logit link and the binomial family regression. Global investors may be interested in understanding how unique institutional settings and capital markets of each country impact the financial reporting quality and cost of capital. Further, policymakers of developing markets may have incentives to improve the quality of financial reporting and reduce the cost of capital which should result in attracting more foreign investments.

The paper examines the relationship between board effectiveness and audit fees for state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Furthermore, given the unique nature of SOEs, the paper assesses country-level influences, such as economic freedom, political democracy and protection of minority shareholders, which can impact board effectiveness and audit fees.

A combination of two-stage and ordinary least squares regression is used to examine the board characteristics-audit fee relationship for SOEs in a multinational setting during the period from 2016 to 2018.

The results indicate that board characteristics that represent a high level of effectiveness are associated with higher audit fees in SOEs. Furthermore, the findings suggest SOE's operating in countries evidencing medium levels of democracy and economic freedom and medium to high levels of protection of minority shareholders may be motivated to reduce agency conflicts by promoting accountability and transparency, thereby demanding increasing levels of corporate governance, monitoring and audit quality, thereby increasing audit fees.

The results provide further support for the OECD (2015) guidelines promoting the use of high-quality external audits in SOEs.

As a result of the scarceness of research in this area, the current study extends the literature by examining the role of corporate governance and audit fees in SOEs, while examining the influence of economic freedom, political democracy and protection of minority shareholders.

Following recent high-profile audit failures, concern has been expressed that auditors are not demonstrating sufficient skepticism when exercising professional judgment. In particular, client assumptions and estimations relating to hypothetical valuations in financial reporting are not being challenged. This paper seeks to address the issue by advancing a decision-making framework aimed at guiding auditors beyond regulatory reductionist thinking towards an enhanced understanding of the cognitive processes which shape professional judgment in forming a reliable audit opinion.

Drawing on the normative philosophical and theological teachings of Bernard Lonergan, the authors' decision-making framework embodies reflective thinking and the data of consciousness to highlight the central role played by enquiry in the dynamics of understanding, judgment and decision-making. Such enquiry elicits challenge of the management bias inherent in hypothetical valuations.

Auditing through a Lonerganian lens allows auditors to reflect on their approach to objective decision-making by offering a set of cognitive tools to enhance the enquiry essential for nurturing professional skepticism.

This paper contributes to the literature by developing the somewhat neglected discourse on the cognitive processes essential for professional skepticism and audit judgment. The authors demonstrate how Lonerganian self-appropriation intensifies an awareness of the recursive cognitive activities pertinent to objective judgment and decision-making. This awakened consciousness has the potential not only to change how auditors question evidence to make informed judgments and decisions, but also to normalize the practice of challenge.