审计师独立性的问题本质:一个历史的视角

IF 0.8 Q4 BUSINESS
J. Edwards, B. West
{"title":"审计师独立性的问题本质:一个历史的视角","authors":"J. Edwards, B. West","doi":"10.1080/21552851.2022.2036621","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Much of the utility of the external audit derives from a presumption that professional auditors are independent and will therefore provide impartial opinions – premises that have often been challenged in recent decades. Focusing initially on a nineteenth-century phenomenon, the ‘continuous audit’, this study provides a historical perspective for reviewing contemporary concerns with the audit function by revealing that failings in auditor independence date from the naissance of the professional audit. It is shown that the continuous audit served primarily the needs of management. That is, in modern parlance, it was a form of management consulting carried out under the guise of an independent service for the benefit of shareholders. Eventually this deception proved unsustainable as the emergent audit profession sought to strengthen its claim to independence and company managers sought more cost-effective means for the routine monitoring of operations. Lack of independence and conflict of interest persisted, however, continuing to be masked by a rhetorical discourse that protected the occupational territory and authority of the audit profession through to the present day.","PeriodicalId":43233,"journal":{"name":"Accounting History Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The problematical nature of auditor independence: a historical perspective\",\"authors\":\"J. Edwards, B. West\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21552851.2022.2036621\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Much of the utility of the external audit derives from a presumption that professional auditors are independent and will therefore provide impartial opinions – premises that have often been challenged in recent decades. Focusing initially on a nineteenth-century phenomenon, the ‘continuous audit’, this study provides a historical perspective for reviewing contemporary concerns with the audit function by revealing that failings in auditor independence date from the naissance of the professional audit. It is shown that the continuous audit served primarily the needs of management. That is, in modern parlance, it was a form of management consulting carried out under the guise of an independent service for the benefit of shareholders. Eventually this deception proved unsustainable as the emergent audit profession sought to strengthen its claim to independence and company managers sought more cost-effective means for the routine monitoring of operations. Lack of independence and conflict of interest persisted, however, continuing to be masked by a rhetorical discourse that protected the occupational territory and authority of the audit profession through to the present day.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43233,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting History Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting History Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21552851.2022.2036621\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting History Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21552851.2022.2036621","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

外部审计的大部分效用源于一种假设,即专业审计师是独立的,因此将提供公正的意见——近几十年来,这种假设经常受到挑战。本研究首先关注19世纪的一个现象,即“持续审计”,通过揭示审计师独立性的缺失可以追溯到职业审计的诞生,为回顾当代对审计职能的关注提供了一个历史视角。结果表明,持续审计主要是服务于管理层的需要。也就是说,用现代的说法,它是一种管理咨询形式,打着独立服务的幌子,为股东谋利益。最终,这种欺骗被证明是不可持续的,因为新兴的审计职业试图加强其独立性,而公司管理人员则寻求更经济有效的方法来对业务进行日常监督。然而,缺乏独立性和利益冲突仍然存在,并继续被保护审计职业领域和权威的修辞话语所掩盖,直到今天。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The problematical nature of auditor independence: a historical perspective
ABSTRACT Much of the utility of the external audit derives from a presumption that professional auditors are independent and will therefore provide impartial opinions – premises that have often been challenged in recent decades. Focusing initially on a nineteenth-century phenomenon, the ‘continuous audit’, this study provides a historical perspective for reviewing contemporary concerns with the audit function by revealing that failings in auditor independence date from the naissance of the professional audit. It is shown that the continuous audit served primarily the needs of management. That is, in modern parlance, it was a form of management consulting carried out under the guise of an independent service for the benefit of shareholders. Eventually this deception proved unsustainable as the emergent audit profession sought to strengthen its claim to independence and company managers sought more cost-effective means for the routine monitoring of operations. Lack of independence and conflict of interest persisted, however, continuing to be masked by a rhetorical discourse that protected the occupational territory and authority of the audit profession through to the present day.
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
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
×
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