Investigating the black box of external audit practice: the paradox of auditors' failure in detecting and reporting fraud

IF 1.1 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Accounting Literature Pub Date : 2023-02-27 DOI:10.1108/jal-05-2022-0057
Rasha Kassem
{"title":"Investigating the black box of external audit practice: the paradox of auditors' failure in detecting and reporting fraud","authors":"Rasha Kassem","doi":"10.1108/jal-05-2022-0057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe study aims to explore the reasons behind external auditors' failure to detect and report fraud.Design/methodology/approachSemi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-four experienced Big 4 auditors.FindingsThe present study reveals power issues within audit firms and how some dishonest audit partners deal with auditors' concerns at the higher echelons. It also shows how auditors are pressured and intimidated by audit clients when fraud-related issues are raised. Further, it sheds light on ethical, governance and regulatory issues inhibiting auditors’ ability to detect or report fraud.Research limitations/implicationsThis study advances the audit literature by adding practice-based evidence on why external auditors fail to discover fraud.Practical implicationsThe results draw policymakers' attention to the issues that inhibit external auditors' ability to discover fraud in practice which could help policymakers develop effective interventions. Additionally, it provides several recommendations which could aid policymakers and audit firms in designing effective audit reforms to resolve the fraud detection deficit.Originality/valueThis is the first study exploring external auditors' views on their failure to detect and report fraud and how the conflict of interests operates in the audit practice.","PeriodicalId":45666,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Literature","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jal-05-2022-0057","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: 1

Abstract

PurposeThe study aims to explore the reasons behind external auditors' failure to detect and report fraud.Design/methodology/approachSemi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-four experienced Big 4 auditors.FindingsThe present study reveals power issues within audit firms and how some dishonest audit partners deal with auditors' concerns at the higher echelons. It also shows how auditors are pressured and intimidated by audit clients when fraud-related issues are raised. Further, it sheds light on ethical, governance and regulatory issues inhibiting auditors’ ability to detect or report fraud.Research limitations/implicationsThis study advances the audit literature by adding practice-based evidence on why external auditors fail to discover fraud.Practical implicationsThe results draw policymakers' attention to the issues that inhibit external auditors' ability to discover fraud in practice which could help policymakers develop effective interventions. Additionally, it provides several recommendations which could aid policymakers and audit firms in designing effective audit reforms to resolve the fraud detection deficit.Originality/valueThis is the first study exploring external auditors' views on their failure to detect and report fraud and how the conflict of interests operates in the audit practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外部审计实践的黑箱调查:审计师未能发现和报告舞弊的悖论
目的本研究旨在探讨外部审计师未能发现和报告欺诈行为的原因。设计/方法/方法对24名经验丰富的四大审计师进行了半结构化访谈。调查结果本研究揭示了审计公司内部的权力问题,以及一些不诚实的审计合作伙伴如何在高层处理审计师的担忧。它还显示了当提出欺诈相关问题时,审计师是如何受到审计客户的压力和恐吓的。此外,它还揭示了阻碍审计师发现或报告欺诈行为的道德、治理和监管问题。研究局限性/含义这项研究通过添加基于实践的证据来证明外部审计师为什么没有发现欺诈行为,从而推进了审计文献的发展。实际含义研究结果提请决策者注意阻碍外部审计师在实践中发现欺诈行为的问题,这可能有助于决策者制定有效的干预措施。此外,它还提供了一些建议,可以帮助决策者和审计公司设计有效的审计改革,以解决欺诈检测不足的问题。独创性/价值这是首次探讨外部审计师对其未能发现和报告欺诈行为的看法,以及利益冲突如何在审计实践中运作的研究。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: The objective of the Journal is to publish papers that make a fundamental and substantial contribution to the understanding of accounting phenomena. To this end, the Journal intends to publish papers that (1) synthesize an area of research in a concise and rigorous manner to assist academics and others to gain knowledge and appreciation of diverse research areas or (2) present high quality, multi-method, original research on a broad range of topics relevant to accounting, auditing and taxation. Topical coverage is broad and inclusive covering virtually all aspects of accounting. Consistent with the historical mission of the Journal, it is expected that the lead article of each issue will be a synthesis article on an important research topic. Other manuscripts to be included in a given issue will be a mix of synthesis and original research papers. In addition to traditional research topics and methods, we actively solicit manuscripts of the including, but not limited to, the following: • meta-analyses • field studies • critiques of papers published in other journals • emerging developments in accounting theory • commentaries on current issues • innovative experimental research with strong grounding in cognitive, social or anthropological sciences • creative archival analyses using non-standard methodologies or data sources with strong grounding in various social sciences • book reviews • "idea" papers that don''t fit into other established categories.
期刊最新文献
Carbon emission trading scheme and earnings smoothness Carbon emission trading scheme and earnings smoothness Does mandating gender quota in corporate boards affect firms’ credit ratings? Evidence from India Does mandating gender quota in corporate boards affect firms’ credit ratings? Evidence from India Strategic responses of the clients of multinational audit firms to corporate governance audit regulation
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1