PCAOB的执法方法是否符合其授权?受制裁的审计师和前PCAOB执法人员的观点

IF 3.8 3区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Nathan Cannon, Phillip Lamoreaux, Eldar Maksymov, Noah Myers
{"title":"PCAOB的执法方法是否符合其授权?受制裁的审计师和前PCAOB执法人员的观点","authors":"Nathan Cannon,&nbsp;Phillip Lamoreaux,&nbsp;Eldar Maksymov,&nbsp;Noah Myers","doi":"10.1111/1911-3846.13019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 mandates the PCAOB to enforce compliance with its audit standards fairly. However, the enforcement process is not sufficiently transparent for public evaluation of its fairness, prompting a call by a former Board member for transparency of the process and for improvement suggestions from the public. Further, academic evidence on the PCAOB enforcement is limited. We address this call and the gap in the literature by interviewing 33 difficult-to-access participants about the enforcement process: 20 sanctioned auditors and 13 former PCAOB enforcement staff members. Using procedural justice theory as a lens in evaluating our data, we conclude the enforcement process lacks fairness in key components. Both auditors and former enforcement staff express concerns that staff use overly damning one-sided language in public orders, do not assess investor harm, and face incentives to sanction auditors, particularly small firms that cannot afford costly defense. We contribute to the literature on PCAOB enforcement by offering new insights into the enforcement process from firsthand perspectives of sanctioned auditors and former enforcement staff, deepening understanding of how enforcement practices align with the PCAOB's mandate for fair procedures. We also discuss process improvement suggestions from our participants and important future research opportunities.</p>","PeriodicalId":10595,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Accounting Research","volume":"42 2","pages":"807-836"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the PCAOB enforcement approach aligned with its mandate? Perspectives of sanctioned auditors and former PCAOB enforcement staff\",\"authors\":\"Nathan Cannon,&nbsp;Phillip Lamoreaux,&nbsp;Eldar Maksymov,&nbsp;Noah Myers\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1911-3846.13019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 mandates the PCAOB to enforce compliance with its audit standards fairly. However, the enforcement process is not sufficiently transparent for public evaluation of its fairness, prompting a call by a former Board member for transparency of the process and for improvement suggestions from the public. Further, academic evidence on the PCAOB enforcement is limited. We address this call and the gap in the literature by interviewing 33 difficult-to-access participants about the enforcement process: 20 sanctioned auditors and 13 former PCAOB enforcement staff members. Using procedural justice theory as a lens in evaluating our data, we conclude the enforcement process lacks fairness in key components. Both auditors and former enforcement staff express concerns that staff use overly damning one-sided language in public orders, do not assess investor harm, and face incentives to sanction auditors, particularly small firms that cannot afford costly defense. We contribute to the literature on PCAOB enforcement by offering new insights into the enforcement process from firsthand perspectives of sanctioned auditors and former enforcement staff, deepening understanding of how enforcement practices align with the PCAOB's mandate for fair procedures. We also discuss process improvement suggestions from our participants and important future research opportunities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Accounting Research\",\"volume\":\"42 2\",\"pages\":\"807-836\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Accounting Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1911-3846.13019\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Accounting Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1911-3846.13019","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2002年的《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》(Sarbanes-Oxley Act)要求PCAOB公平地执行其审计标准。然而,执行程序不够透明,无法让公众评价其公平性,这促使一位前董事会成员呼吁提高该程序的透明度,并征求公众的改进建议。此外,关于PCAOB执行的学术证据有限。我们通过采访33名难以接触到的执法过程参与者来解决这一呼吁和文献中的空白:20名受制裁的审计师和13名前PCAOB执法人员。利用程序正义理论作为评估我们数据的透镜,我们得出结论,执法过程在关键部分缺乏公平性。审计人员和前执法人员都表示担心,审计人员在公共秩序中使用过于严厉的片面语言,不评估投资者的损害,并面临制裁审计人员的动机,尤其是无力承担昂贵辩护费用的小公司。我们从受制裁的审计师和前执法人员的第一手视角,对执法过程提供了新的见解,加深了对执法实践如何与PCAOB公平程序的授权相一致的理解,从而为PCAOB执法方面的文献做出了贡献。我们还讨论了参与者提出的流程改进建议以及未来重要的研究机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is the PCAOB enforcement approach aligned with its mandate? Perspectives of sanctioned auditors and former PCAOB enforcement staff

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 mandates the PCAOB to enforce compliance with its audit standards fairly. However, the enforcement process is not sufficiently transparent for public evaluation of its fairness, prompting a call by a former Board member for transparency of the process and for improvement suggestions from the public. Further, academic evidence on the PCAOB enforcement is limited. We address this call and the gap in the literature by interviewing 33 difficult-to-access participants about the enforcement process: 20 sanctioned auditors and 13 former PCAOB enforcement staff members. Using procedural justice theory as a lens in evaluating our data, we conclude the enforcement process lacks fairness in key components. Both auditors and former enforcement staff express concerns that staff use overly damning one-sided language in public orders, do not assess investor harm, and face incentives to sanction auditors, particularly small firms that cannot afford costly defense. We contribute to the literature on PCAOB enforcement by offering new insights into the enforcement process from firsthand perspectives of sanctioned auditors and former enforcement staff, deepening understanding of how enforcement practices align with the PCAOB's mandate for fair procedures. We also discuss process improvement suggestions from our participants and important future research opportunities.

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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) is the premiere research journal of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, which publishes leading- edge research that contributes to our understanding of all aspects of accounting"s role within organizations, markets or society. Canadian based, increasingly global in scope, CAR seeks to reflect the geographical and intellectual diversity in accounting research. To accomplish this, CAR will continue to publish in its traditional areas of excellence, while seeking to more fully represent other research streams in its pages, so as to continue and expand its tradition of excellence.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信