Search results

This study aims to explore some perceptions related to the suggestion that external auditors will be replaced by audit technologies that use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to make audit judgements when performing the financial statement audits. Digital transformation is revitalising the technologies used by external auditors and their firms; thus, the authors seek to understand what challenges this creates for the auditing profession in Vietnam.

Through the theoretical lens of new institutionalism theory, this study uses a qualitative approach involving 20 semi-structured interviews conducted with external auditors in Vietnam during 2022. This sample includes the global Big Four, global mid-tier and smaller local Vietnamese audit firms.

The findings indicate that there is resistance or disagreement with the suggestion that in the future audit technologies using AI tools can replace humans (external auditors). The role of external auditors in the professional services sector will gradually be changed by audit technologies; however, external auditors are unlikely to be replaced by audit technologies that use AI tools based on the responses of the participants. Strict institutional rules that exist in Vietnam would prevent the replacement of (human) external auditors. In the future, external auditors may take on new roles as consultants, with unique skills in classifying and processing data for decision-making processes; however, they will not be completely replaced by technology in the audit space.

This study has limitations that it is based on the data collection from a single developing country, Vietnam; therefore, the generalisability of the findings is limited to Vietnam. Also, the authors sought insights into the future of external audits in Vietnam.

This study highlights the changing role of auditors and institutions. Thus, policymakers, external auditors and auditees in other developing countries would find the findings helpful.

This study provides new perspectives, particularly from local Vietnamese firms, about audit practices that emerge due to high-level technological advancements and then embed themselves into existing audit practices in an emerging economy. Prior studies tended to focus on the global Big Four firms, thus this study contributes by sharing the perceptions of the smaller practitioners also.

This paper aims to assess the cumulative evidence on the determinants of sustainability assurance (SA) reports and the choice of assurance provider quality. It addresses the contradictory and inconsistent findings of past studies conducted over the past two decades.

The authors undertake a meta-regression analysis that enables systematic, comparative assessment of the variables associated with the choice of SA and the type of assurance provider. The authors undertake a chronological analysis with the aim of identifying systematic differences in the empirical evidence across distinct time periods.

The results indicate that there is very little evidence to support many of the expected associations between commonly studied predictor variables (namely, measures based on agency and corporate governance conceptions) and the choice of SA and the assurance provider type. As a result, research on this topic does not make as effective a contribution as might be expected. There is, however, a time period difference. The authors find results from studies using company data prior to 2010 are significantly different from those using post-2010 data. The results indicate the decision to publish SA to be significantly associated with companies in the oil industry and utilities, and larger organisations where agency costs tend to be higher. Obtaining assurance from a higher-quality provider is found to be associated with companies in environmentally sensitive industries and in stakeholder-oriented countries.

The study shows that as yet there is not sufficient evidence to support expected results. Users of the research should be aware of this, and researchers should know that more work is needed. The authors suggest researchers take greater care in the choice and comparability of variable measurement and expand the conceptual base when selecting predictor variables.

Companies need to be more transparent and accountable to critical stakeholders such as report users and regulators, and the latter should be more aware that the organisational practice of SA and choice of service provider have changed over time and are increasingly open to agency and other cultural biases.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to apply meta-regression techniques for understanding the body of literature on SA and provider choice.

This study aims to collect new empirical evidence to determine how different forms of ownership structure responded to the recent COVID-19 crisis. In light of this tragedy, it explores the relationship between ownership structure forms (i.e. block-holders, foreign, institutional and family ownerships) and audit quality (proxied by audit fees).

In total, 3,200 firm-year observations for Jordanian enterprises covering the years 2005 through 2020 are used in an ordinary least squares regression with firm-clustered standard error to assess the hypotheses.

The regression results showed that COVID-19 strengthens the association between each type of ownership (i.e. block-holders, foreign, institutional ownership forms) and audit quality. This result reflects the need for high-quality audit services during the pandemic by such owners to improve their business decisions and limit agency-conflict issues. However, the analysis failed to find any effect of COVID-19 when it comes to family ownership. Family-controlled firms may react faster in crisis situations, and correspondingly, they do not bear high audit costs. The extended analysis covering the years 2005–2022 came to the same results.

The results aid authorities in their control and management of the auditing business. The findings have important consequences for policymakers, lawmakers, regulators and the audit profession as they assess the growing issues in an uncertain economic environment. Evidence is provided that may be used to reassure investors and aid authorities as they devise appropriate remedies to the pandemic-triggered economic crisis. The findings may aid in the improvement of legislation that governs Jordan’s auditing industry. Furthermore, the results can be generalized to other Middle Eastern countries.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to empirically evaluate how different types of ownership affect audit quality in response to a dramatic shift in auditors’ working conditions brought on by the global health calamity. In emerging economies like Jordan, this type of analysis allows for preliminary assumptions to be established about ownership status during the COVID-19 outbreak. It adds to the body of auditing knowledge by shedding light on how various kinds of ownership affect responses to adverse events. This assessment is intended to serve as the definitive testimony in the field of accounting regarding the effects of the coronavirus across various corporations’ portfolios.