Audit quality and independence concerns in the South African audit industry: Contrasting views†

IF 1.1 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Michael Harber, B. Marx
{"title":"Audit quality and independence concerns in the South African audit industry: Contrasting views†","authors":"Michael Harber, B. Marx","doi":"10.1080/10291954.2019.1667646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Audit quality in South Africa is perceived by the audit regulator to be deteriorating, with the primary cause being a compromise of auditor independence, mostly as a result of excessively long audit firm tenures. The regulator has responded with mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR). The purpose of this research is to employ field surveys to collect the views of experienced audit committee (AC) chairs, chief financial officers (CFOs) and auditors of JSE-listed companies on the necessity for, and potential efficacy of, this regulation. An additional focus of the paper is to explore potential unintended outcomes, as well as identify preferred alternatives and provide recommendations and practical solutions to negative effects. Findings show that auditors, CFOs and AC chairs are strongly opposed to MAFR in South Africa on a cost-benefit analysis. Respondents do not believe that audit quality and independence has deteriorated and feel that existing measures to safeguard auditor independence are sufficient. In addition, the loss of knowledge and experience of the clients that will result from firm rotation, together with other unintended consequences such as unmanageable cost increases, provide further reasons not to implement MAFR. Findings also indicate that MAFR will not contribute towards decreasing the dominance of the market by the ‘Big 4’ firms. Practical recommendations are suggested based on the findings.","PeriodicalId":43731,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Accounting Research","volume":"34 1","pages":"1 - 23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10291954.2019.1667646","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Accounting Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10291954.2019.1667646","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Audit quality in South Africa is perceived by the audit regulator to be deteriorating, with the primary cause being a compromise of auditor independence, mostly as a result of excessively long audit firm tenures. The regulator has responded with mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR). The purpose of this research is to employ field surveys to collect the views of experienced audit committee (AC) chairs, chief financial officers (CFOs) and auditors of JSE-listed companies on the necessity for, and potential efficacy of, this regulation. An additional focus of the paper is to explore potential unintended outcomes, as well as identify preferred alternatives and provide recommendations and practical solutions to negative effects. Findings show that auditors, CFOs and AC chairs are strongly opposed to MAFR in South Africa on a cost-benefit analysis. Respondents do not believe that audit quality and independence has deteriorated and feel that existing measures to safeguard auditor independence are sufficient. In addition, the loss of knowledge and experience of the clients that will result from firm rotation, together with other unintended consequences such as unmanageable cost increases, provide further reasons not to implement MAFR. Findings also indicate that MAFR will not contribute towards decreasing the dominance of the market by the ‘Big 4’ firms. Practical recommendations are suggested based on the findings.
南非审计行业的审计质量和独立性问题:对比观点†
审计监管机构认为南非的审计质量正在恶化,主要原因是审计师独立性受损,主要是审计事务所任期过长。监管机构已作出回应,强制审计公司轮换(MAFR)。本研究的目的是通过实地调查,收集经验丰富的审计委员会主席、首席财务官和JSE上市公司审计师对该法规的必要性和潜在效力的意见。该论文的另一个重点是探索潜在的意外结果,以及确定首选的替代方案,并为负面影响提供建议和切实可行的解决方案。调查结果显示,审计师、首席财务官和AC主席在成本效益分析方面强烈反对南非的MAFR。受访者不认为审计质量和独立性已经恶化,并认为现有的保障审计师独立性的措施是足够的。此外,公司轮换将导致客户知识和经验的损失,以及其他意外后果,如无法控制的成本增加,为不实施MAFR提供了进一步的理由。调查结果还表明,MAFR不会降低“四大”公司的市场主导地位。根据调查结果提出了切实可行的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信