联合向审计客户提供非审计服务:来自印度的经验证据

Q2 Business, Management and Accounting
Vikalpa Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.1177/02560909211041796
R. K. Tiwari, Jasojit Debnath
{"title":"联合向审计客户提供非审计服务:来自印度的经验证据","authors":"R. K. Tiwari, Jasojit Debnath","doi":"10.1177/02560909211041796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Executive Summary The provision of non-audit services (NAS) by an incumbent auditor has remained a highly contentious issue. One school argues that the joint provision does not impair an auditor’s independence. Instead, it reduces total costs, enhances the ability to detect material misstatements, increases technical competence due to knowledge spillovers and leads to intense competition. However, a substantial tranche of an audit firms’ income is derived from NAS, and the joint provision increases economic ties with the client. Therefore, another school of thought perceives that the joint provision impairs auditor independence. It is also alleged that auditors expect non-audit work after finishing the auditing job. Their independence is also affected by the risks of self-review. Extant literature reveals that the majority of the studies on the issue are archival and experimental. The studies are concentrated in the US, UK, Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, China, and some of the European Union Nations. The article examines the perspective of chartered accountants (CAs) on the joint provision of NAS in India. The study samples 119 CAs. The reliability of the survey result was measured using Cronbach’s α, and a score of 0.77 indicated acceptable internal consistency reliability. The data were analysed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann Whitney U test statistic. The summary of their suggestions for ensuring auditor independence is presented separately. The findings reflect that existing prohibitions imposed by the Companies Act, 2013, are not enough to ensure auditor independence, and the Management Services u/s 144 of the Act needs to be clearly defined. Practitioners do not support the proposition that joint provision should end and a separate category of professionals be mandated to render NAS. However, the recommendations include strengthening provisions to reduce the conflict of interest.","PeriodicalId":35878,"journal":{"name":"Vikalpa","volume":"125 1","pages":"153 - 165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Joint Provision of Non-audit Services to Audit Clients: Empirical Evidences from India\",\"authors\":\"R. K. Tiwari, Jasojit Debnath\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02560909211041796\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Executive Summary The provision of non-audit services (NAS) by an incumbent auditor has remained a highly contentious issue. One school argues that the joint provision does not impair an auditor’s independence. Instead, it reduces total costs, enhances the ability to detect material misstatements, increases technical competence due to knowledge spillovers and leads to intense competition. However, a substantial tranche of an audit firms’ income is derived from NAS, and the joint provision increases economic ties with the client. Therefore, another school of thought perceives that the joint provision impairs auditor independence. It is also alleged that auditors expect non-audit work after finishing the auditing job. Their independence is also affected by the risks of self-review. Extant literature reveals that the majority of the studies on the issue are archival and experimental. The studies are concentrated in the US, UK, Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, China, and some of the European Union Nations. The article examines the perspective of chartered accountants (CAs) on the joint provision of NAS in India. The study samples 119 CAs. The reliability of the survey result was measured using Cronbach’s α, and a score of 0.77 indicated acceptable internal consistency reliability. The data were analysed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann Whitney U test statistic. The summary of their suggestions for ensuring auditor independence is presented separately. The findings reflect that existing prohibitions imposed by the Companies Act, 2013, are not enough to ensure auditor independence, and the Management Services u/s 144 of the Act needs to be clearly defined. Practitioners do not support the proposition that joint provision should end and a separate category of professionals be mandated to render NAS. However, the recommendations include strengthening provisions to reduce the conflict of interest.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35878,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vikalpa\",\"volume\":\"125 1\",\"pages\":\"153 - 165\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vikalpa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02560909211041796\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vikalpa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02560909211041796","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由在职审计员提供非审计服务一直是一个极具争议的问题。一所学校辩称,联合条款不会损害审计师的独立性。相反,它降低了总成本,增强了发现重大错报的能力,由于知识溢出而提高了技术能力,并导致了激烈的竞争。然而,审计事务所收入的很大一部分来自NAS,联合条款增加了与客户的经济联系。因此,另一种观点认为,联合条款损害了审计师的独立性。也有人指称,审计人员在完成审计工作后,期望进行非审计工作。他们的独立性也受到自我审查风险的影响。现存文献表明,大多数关于这一问题的研究都是档案性和实验性的。这些研究集中在美国、英国、澳大利亚、马来西亚、尼日利亚、南非、中国和一些欧盟国家。本文考察了印度注册会计师对联合提供NAS的看法。该研究对119种CAs进行了采样。调查结果的信度采用Cronbach 's α进行测量,0.77分为可接受的内部一致性信度。采用Wilcoxon sign -rank检验和Mann Whitney U检验统计量对数据进行分析。他们对确保审计师独立性的建议摘要另列。调查结果表明,2013年公司法实施的现有禁令不足以确保审计师的独立性,该法案的管理服务u/s 144需要明确定义。从业者不支持应该结束联合提供和授权一个单独类别的专业人员提供NAS的主张。但是,这些建议包括加强减少利益冲突的规定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Joint Provision of Non-audit Services to Audit Clients: Empirical Evidences from India
Executive Summary The provision of non-audit services (NAS) by an incumbent auditor has remained a highly contentious issue. One school argues that the joint provision does not impair an auditor’s independence. Instead, it reduces total costs, enhances the ability to detect material misstatements, increases technical competence due to knowledge spillovers and leads to intense competition. However, a substantial tranche of an audit firms’ income is derived from NAS, and the joint provision increases economic ties with the client. Therefore, another school of thought perceives that the joint provision impairs auditor independence. It is also alleged that auditors expect non-audit work after finishing the auditing job. Their independence is also affected by the risks of self-review. Extant literature reveals that the majority of the studies on the issue are archival and experimental. The studies are concentrated in the US, UK, Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, China, and some of the European Union Nations. The article examines the perspective of chartered accountants (CAs) on the joint provision of NAS in India. The study samples 119 CAs. The reliability of the survey result was measured using Cronbach’s α, and a score of 0.77 indicated acceptable internal consistency reliability. The data were analysed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann Whitney U test statistic. The summary of their suggestions for ensuring auditor independence is presented separately. The findings reflect that existing prohibitions imposed by the Companies Act, 2013, are not enough to ensure auditor independence, and the Management Services u/s 144 of the Act needs to be clearly defined. Practitioners do not support the proposition that joint provision should end and a separate category of professionals be mandated to render NAS. However, the recommendations include strengthening provisions to reduce the conflict of interest.
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
Vikalpa
Vikalpa Business, Management and Accounting-Business, Management and Accounting (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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