审计委员会和审计师会协调工作吗?来自风险领域、重要性和会议的证据

G. Livne, Maria Tsipouridou, Anthony Wood
{"title":"审计委员会和审计师会协调工作吗?来自风险领域、重要性和会议的证据","authors":"G. Livne, Maria Tsipouridou, Anthony Wood","doi":"10.2308/tar-2020-0441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We provide evidence on effort coordination and information sharing between audit committees and external auditors. We use four effort measures: the risk areas reported by both the auditor and committee, auditor-reported materiality, and committee meetings. We find that the number of risks reported by the auditor (committee) is positively related to the number of risks reported by the committee (auditor) and that lower materiality is associated with more risks that the committee discloses. The evidence also suggests that although risk areas are “sticky,” the committee identifies new risks faster, whereas the auditor focuses on shared risks. Next, our analysis indicates that audit process standardization influences reporting quality in a nonlinear manner. Finally, although audit fees tend to rise with auditor effort, they are unrelated to the committee’s effort. Our findings endorse the service perspective on auditing by emphasizing the collaborative nature of the audit process over individual actors’ self-interests. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: M41; M42; G38.","PeriodicalId":22240,"journal":{"name":"The Accounting Review","volume":"223 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Audit Committees and Auditors Coordinate Effort? Evidence from Risk Areas, Materiality and Meetings\",\"authors\":\"G. Livne, Maria Tsipouridou, Anthony Wood\",\"doi\":\"10.2308/tar-2020-0441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We provide evidence on effort coordination and information sharing between audit committees and external auditors. We use four effort measures: the risk areas reported by both the auditor and committee, auditor-reported materiality, and committee meetings. We find that the number of risks reported by the auditor (committee) is positively related to the number of risks reported by the committee (auditor) and that lower materiality is associated with more risks that the committee discloses. The evidence also suggests that although risk areas are “sticky,” the committee identifies new risks faster, whereas the auditor focuses on shared risks. Next, our analysis indicates that audit process standardization influences reporting quality in a nonlinear manner. Finally, although audit fees tend to rise with auditor effort, they are unrelated to the committee’s effort. Our findings endorse the service perspective on auditing by emphasizing the collaborative nature of the audit process over individual actors’ self-interests. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: M41; M42; G38.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Accounting Review\",\"volume\":\"223 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Accounting Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2020-0441\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Accounting Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2020-0441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们提供了审计委员会与外部审计师之间工作协调和信息共享的证据。我们使用了四种衡量方法:审计师和委员会共同报告的风险领域、审计师报告的重要性以及委员会会议。我们发现,审计师(委员会)报告的风险数量与委员会(审计师)报告的风险数量呈正相关,重要性越低,委员会披露的风险越多。证据还表明,尽管风险领域具有 "粘性",但委员会识别新风险的速度更快,而审计师则专注于共有风险。接下来,我们的分析表明,审计流程标准化对报告质量的影响是非线性的。最后,尽管审计费用往往会随着审计师工作的增加而增加,但它们与委员会的工作无关。我们的研究结果强调了审计流程的合作性质,而非单个参与者的自身利益,从而认可了审计的服务视角。 数据可用性:数据来源于文中引用的公开资料。 JEL 分类:M41; M42; G38.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do Audit Committees and Auditors Coordinate Effort? Evidence from Risk Areas, Materiality and Meetings
We provide evidence on effort coordination and information sharing between audit committees and external auditors. We use four effort measures: the risk areas reported by both the auditor and committee, auditor-reported materiality, and committee meetings. We find that the number of risks reported by the auditor (committee) is positively related to the number of risks reported by the committee (auditor) and that lower materiality is associated with more risks that the committee discloses. The evidence also suggests that although risk areas are “sticky,” the committee identifies new risks faster, whereas the auditor focuses on shared risks. Next, our analysis indicates that audit process standardization influences reporting quality in a nonlinear manner. Finally, although audit fees tend to rise with auditor effort, they are unrelated to the committee’s effort. Our findings endorse the service perspective on auditing by emphasizing the collaborative nature of the audit process over individual actors’ self-interests. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: M41; M42; G38.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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