Search results

The objective of this study is to present novel evidence regarding the impact of the Key Audit Matters (KAM) disclosure requirements of International Standard on Auditing – 701 (ISA) on the auditing profession concerning reimbursement costs in underdeveloped nations, Jordan.

A year-industry fixed-effects OLS regression model has been employed to test the developed hypotheses. The regression analysis of the period from 2005 to 2022 tests the presence of KAM disclosures in Jordanian finance business, while the regression analysis of the period from 2017 to 2022 tests the actual impact of KAM disclosure following the first implementation of ISA-701 in Jordan.

The analysis has verified that the presence and the proportions of KAM disclosures outlined in ISA-701 resulted to significant auditing compensatory expenses. The findings confirmed that KAM disclosures increase auditor workload, responsibility, complexity, and risk, consequently resulting in higher reimbursement expenses.

The findings of this study have the potential to serve as a basis for the development of a novel financial regulatory legislation or a regulated framework for disclosing significant occurrences. This paper provides new empirical evidence to standard-setters and policymakers regarding the requirement of ISA-701 for external auditors to disclose KAM. This study is advantageous for stakeholders, regulatory agencies, standard-setters, and audit report readers who are interested in KAM disclosures and the implementation of ISA-701. The results could inspire the academic community to obtain fresh data from emerging markets to ascertain the impact of KAM disclosure on audit practices.

To the author's knowledge, this study is one of the few empirical investigations into the impact of current additional disclosure rules on the audit profession concerning reimbursement costs. It provides preliminary evidence linking ISA regulations to corporate productivity in Jordan, a developing nation. Little is known about how developing nation auditors react to KAM disclosures' role in stakeholder protection and how their expanded reporting obligations influence them. This study examines audit behaviour in a weak legal setting, unlike most prior studies, which have been done in highly regulated systems.

This study aims to examine the relationship between the attributes of audit firms (Big 4, audit fees, busy season, audit firm tenure and audit partner gender) and the impact of these attributes on key audit matters (KAM) readability in Malaysia.

The auditor's reports and financial data were analysed from a sample of FTSE 100 Malaysia-listed companies for the fiscal years 2017–2019, consisting of 258 observations. Panel regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the possible associations between audit firm attributes and KAM readability. The Flesch reading ease score and Coleman–Liau index were applied to measure KAM readability.

The findings show that female audit partners significantly impact KAM readability; further analysis also revealed that companies audited by Big 4 audit firms and higher audit fees tend to report a more readable KAM disclosure in the FTSE 100 in Malaysia.

The regression results provide empirical evidence of the influence of audit firm attributes on KAM readability. This study also examined important corporate governance players, such as external auditors and those charged with governance, who form the audit committee's qualities when analysing the determinants of KAM reporting variations in Malaysia.

This rich descriptive study examines auditors' client risk assessment (i.e. “key audit matters”/critical audit matters) disclosures in expanded audit reports of 328 Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 companies. The study compares auditor-identified client risks with corporate risk disclosures identified in audit committee reports, in terms of number and type of risks. The research also compares variation in auditor-identified client risks between individual Big 4 audit firms. In addition, the study examines auditor ranking of their client risks disclosed.

The study manually content analyses disclosures in audit reports and audit committee reports of a sample of 328 FTSE-350 companies with 2015 year-ends.

Audit committees identify more risks than auditors (23% more risks). However, auditor-identified client risks and audit-committee-identified risks are similar (80% similar), as are auditor-identified client risks between the individual Big 4 audit firms. Only ten (3%) audit reports rank the importance of auditor-identified client risks.

Sample is restricted to one year, one jurisdiction, large-listed companies and companies audited by Big 4 auditors.

The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.

The paper mobilises institutional theory to interpret the findings. The findings suggest that auditor-identified client risks in expanded audit reports may demonstrate mimetic behaviour in terms of similarity with audit-committee-identified risks and similarity between individual Big 4 audit firms. The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.

This paper aims to examine the effects of the 2014 European regulatory reform on auditors’ activity, the audit outcome and the audit market, with a focus on the Spanish market.

The research is based on in-depth, semistructured interviews with partners of the main audit firms operating in the Spanish market. This qualitative approach provides a precise identification of the cause-effect relationships of the new measures introduced by the European audit regulation.

The findings indicate that, based on auditors’ opinions, the costs of the main regulatory changes outweigh the benefits. The European Union (EU) Audit Regulation imposes more demanding provisions, such as an extended auditor’s report, mandatory audit firm rotation, more banned nonaudit services and stricter quality controls, resulting in substantial side effects on audit activity and the audit market. This could undermine the objective of enhancing the quality of audit services.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the effect of the 2014 EU regulatory reform on audit activity, audit market and audit outcome based on auditors’ perceptions. The findings may be of interest to academics, professionals and regulators alike, as they offer valuable insights for assessing the effectiveness of the new audit provisions. Additionally, the qualitative methodology used facilitates a causal analysis of the key elements introduced by the regulations, potentially paving the way for future research avenues.

This paper reviews a substantial body of scholarly work on the audit expectation gap (AEG) for many years and aims to construct a new synthesis of the existing knowledge of the AEG discovered by numerous scholars in the world.

A broad search of the literature was conducted using a few AEG related keywords in the Google Scholar search engine and two databases of Scopus and Emerald from 1974 to 2021. Only the articles published in reputable journals concerning the AEG were selected after applying some selection criteria.

The concept of AEG is a multidimensional concept. Different causes for the AEG were identified, and several strategies were summarized into major promising strategies for narrowing it. It was found that the AEG cannot be eradicated entirely from society.

This review of the literature will be of interest to auditors, financial statement users, regulatory agencies, and policymakers, among other parties. Further, this AEG synthesis may be useful in understanding misperceptions and determining how they differ across diverse stakeholders.

There is a dearth of literature review studies incorporating all the facets of AEG. Hence, this study incorporates all those facets, namely research methods and instruments and dimensions used along with causes and mechanisms to narrow down the AEG while addressing the gaps and highlighting the themes for future research. Finally, a fresh, yet more straightforward definition was generated as a result of the comprehensive review of the literature, adding novelty to the extant literature.

The present study aims to assess the impact of narcissism, self-confidence and auditor's characteristics on audit report readability for companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange.

The study’s statistical population comprises firms listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. The present research used a systematic elimination method, and 1,162 firm-year observations were obtained for seven years from 2012 to 2018. Three variables including auditor tenure, audit fee and audit specialization are used for measuring auditing features. The Fog index is used as a proxy for measuring audit report readability. In addition, in this paper, four regressions, including fixed effects, random effects, pooled and T+1, are used to estimate reliable coefficients.

The findings show a negative and significant relationship between auditor’s characteristics (tenure, fee and specialization) and audit report readability. Moreover, the variables of the auditor’s narcissism, self-confidence and mandatory auditor change have a positive and significant association with audit report readability. This study lends support to the theories of personality disorder and behavioral decision.

Since narcissism and self-confidence are two characteristics that shape an individual’s character and personality, some involved behavioral factors in auditors’ characteristics contribute to their decisions. The effects of these should be detected to enhance the decision-making process. The said factors significantly impact audit report readability. Hence, this paper attempts to assess the effect of the said factors on audit report readability.

The present study aims to contribute to the growing stream of literature about the network perspective of value co-creation via key account management (KAM) by exploring how firms, in complex industrial markets, use key account strategies to create value, not only for buyers and sellers of industrial products/services but also, more widely, for larger ecosystems of stakeholders. The research question this paper seeks to address is how the KAM approach promotes value co-creation in multi-stakeholder ecosystem.

To answer this research question, this study uses a qualitative research approach based on data triangulation. This study focuses on the market access (MA) strategies implemented by a multinational UK-based pharmaceutical company within the Italian multi-stakeholder health-care ecosystem over several years.

The results show that KAM in complex networks acts as a catalyst for value creation, through multiple interactions with different actors and an ad hoc configuration of five strategic levers: product performance, economic impact, institutional relationships, commercial organization and communication. These levers are able to unlock the appropriate value drivers and form a specific “market access mix” implemented by the firm to both promote the adoption of the firm’s products and generate value for all market stakeholders.

The study offers an innovative and comprehensive evidence-based model for designing specific MA strategies aimed at co-creating value within multi-stakeholder ecosystems. The proposed MA mix outlines the fact that knowledge, relationships and innovation are not unique factors that can be leveraged by stakeholders to co-create value.