Audit Expectation Gap Debates: To What Extent Audit Expectation Gap Defence Auditors?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21512/becossjournal.v4i1.7790Keywords:
Audit expectation gap, Auditor, FraudAbstract
The research aimed to unpack the debate of the audit expectation gap that occurs between the audit profession and the general public. This qualitative research intended to revisit what shapes audit objectives and their difficulties by drawing upon prominent academic debates and publicly available reports. This research argues that the concept of the audit expectation gap is two-fold. At first, the gap has been seen as destruction for the audit profession. However, to a certain extent, the gap is useful for auditors' defence mechanisms from critics, though auditors have to be alert that the gap might turn into an offensive medium and fuel the criticism. To illustrate this contention, this research argues the following. Firstly, the series of accounting scandals, changes of auditing standards towards fraud, and the phenomenon of audit explosion are giving more autonomy for auditors to protect the professions' best interest. Secondly, the issue of audit independence and conflict of interest is favourable for auditors to sustain the gap and maintain the monopoly of the audit business. Instead of being left behind, auditors earned public legitimacy because they manage to build a distinctive image as an expert who was able to work for the greater public interest in a complex, uncertain, conflicted, and stressful working environment. Thirdly, public demand for transparency is hurting audit professions because it increases public mistrust and might reveal audit confidentiality. It even fuels criticism further because auditors have communication difficulties.
Plum Analytics
References
Albrecht, W. S., Albrecht, C. C., Albrecht, C. O., & Zimbelman, M. F. (2009). Fraud Examination (3rd ed). Mason, OH: South Western Cengage Learnong.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1939). Extension of Auditing Procedure. Statement on Auditing Procedures No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.aicpa.org/research/standards/auditattest/pages/sas.aspx#SAS43
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1978). The Commission on Auditors’ Responsibilities: Report, Conclusions, and Recommendations (Cohen Commission). In The Commission on Auditors’ Responsibilities. Retrieved from http://3197d6d14b5f19f2f440-5e13d29c4c016cf96cbbfd197c579b45.r81.cf1.rackcdn.com/collection/papers/1970/1978_0101_CohenAuditors.pdf
Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. (2011). Is it time for auditor independence yet? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(4–5), 310–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.07.004
Beard, V. (1994). Popular culture and professional identity: Accountants in the movies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(94)90038-8
Bonner, S. E. (1994). A Model of The Effects of Audit Task Complexity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(3), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0745-7_247
Bratten, B., Gaynor, L. M., McDaniel, L., Montague, N. R., & Sierra, G. E. (2013). The Audit of Fair Values and Other Estimates: The Effects of Underlying Environmental, Task, and Auditor-Specific Factors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(SUPPL.1), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50316
Brown, R. (1962). Changing Audit Objectives and Techniques. The Accounting Review, 37(4), 696–703.
Chui, L., & Pike, B. (2013). Auditors’ Responsibility for Fraud Detection: New Wine in Old Bottles? Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting, 5, 204–233.
Coffee, J. C. (2002). Understanding Enron: “It’s about the gatekeepers, stupid.” Business Lawyer, 57(4), 1403–1420. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.325240
Coffee, J. C. (2006). Gatekeepers: The Professions and Corporate Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Deumes, R., Schelleman, C., Vander Bauwhede, H., & Vanstraelen, A. (2012). Audit Firm Governance: Do Transparency Reports Reveal Audit Quality? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 31(4), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-10301
Farrell, B., & Franco, J. (1998). The Changing Role of the Auditor: An Analysis of Viewpoints from the Auditors’ Perspective. The Mid - Atlantic Journal of Business, 34(2), 101–124.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (2006). Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157 - Fair Value Measurements. Retrieved from https://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?cid=1218220130001&acceptedDisclaimer=true
Guénin-Paracini, H., Malsch, B., & Paillé, A. M. (2014). Fear and risk in the audit process. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(4), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.02.001
Heald, D. (2018). Transparency-generated trust: The problematic theorization of public audit. Financial Accountability and Management, 34(4), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12175
Hermanson, R. H., Duncan, P. H., & Carcello, J. V. (1991). Does the new audit report improve communication with investors? Ohio CPA Journal, 50(2), 32–37.
Humphrey, C. (2007). Debating Audit Expectations. In M. Sherer & S. Turley. Current Issues in Auditing (3rd Edition), 3–30. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446219133.n1
Humphrey, C., & Moizer, P. (1990). From Techniques to Ideologies: An Alternative Perspective on the Audit Function. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1, 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/1045-2354(90)03021-7
Humphrey, C., Moizer, P., & Turley, S. (1992). The audit expectations gap-plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 3(2), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/1045-2354(92)90008-F
International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). (2009). Transparency of Firms that Audit Public Companies Consultation Report. In Technical Committee IOSCO Consultation Report. Retrieved from https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD302.pdf
Kaplan, R. S., & Kiron, D. (2007). Accounting Fraud at WorldCom. Harvard Business School Case, 9-104–071.
Kershaw, D. (2006). Waiting for Enron: The unstable equilibrium of auditor independence regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 33(3), 388–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2006.00364.x
La Rosa, F., Caserio, C., & Bernini, F. (2019). Corporate governance of audit firms: Assessing the usefulness of transparency reports in a Europe‐wide analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 27(1), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12235
Laux, C., & Leuz, C. (2009). The crisis of fair-value accounting: Making sense of the recent debate. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 826–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.003
Mancino, J. (1997). The auditor and Fraud. Journal of Accountancy, 183(4), 32–36.
Marczewski, D., & Akers, M. (2005). CPAs’ Perceptions of the Impact of SAS 99. The CPA Journal, 75(6), 38–40.
McNair, C. J. (1991). Proper compromises: The management control dilemma in public accounting and its impact on auditor behavior. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(7), 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(91)90017-9
Mennicken, A., & Power, M. (2013). Auditing and Corporate Governance. The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Governance, (November), 308–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642007.013.0014
Moizer, P. (2007). Independence. In M. Sherer & S. Turley. Current Issues in Auditing (3rd Edition), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446219133
Moore, D. A., Tetlock, P. E., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). Conflicts of interest and the case of auditor independence: Moral seduction and strategic issue cycling. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.19379621
O’Halloran, M. (2008, October 18). Firms “have case to answer” on banks crisis. The Irish Times, p. 1. Retrieved from https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/firms-have-case-to-answer-on-banks-crisis-1.897592
Pentland, B. T. (1993). Getting Comfortable with the Numbers: Auditing and the Micro-production of Macro-order. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(7), 605–620.
Porter, B. (1993). An Empirical Study of the Audit Expectation-Performance Gap. Accounting and Business Research, 24(93), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1993.9729463
Porter, B. (2007). Auditors’ responsibilities with respect to corporate fraud - a controversial issue. In M. Sherer & S. Turley. Current Issues in Auditing (3rd Edition), 31–54. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446219133.n2
Pound, G. D. (1981). Note on Audit Report Readability. Accounting and Finance, 21, 45.
Power, M. (1994). The Audit Explosion. London: Demos.
Power, M. (1999). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198296034.001.0001
Power, M. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00047-2
Power, M. (2005). The Theory of the Audit Explosion. In Ferlie, Lynn & Pollitt. The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Chapter 14, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199226443.003.0015
Russel, P. (1991). Department of Trade Investigations. In M. Sherer & S. Turley. Current Issues in Auditing (2nd Edition), 76–98.
Seligman, J. (2002). No One Can Serve Two Masters: Corporate and Securities Law After Enron. Washington University Law Review, 80(2), 449–517.
Sikka, P. (2009). Financial crisis and the silence of the auditors. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 868–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.01.004
Sikka, P., Puxty, A., Willmott, H., & Cooper, C. (1998). The impossibility of eliminating the expectations gap: Some theory and evidence. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 9(3), 299–330. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.1997.0159
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Business Economic, Communication, and Social Sciences (BECOSS) Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License - Share Alike that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
USER RIGHTS
All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, currently being defined for this journal as follows: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA)
