As companies begin to explore and develop technology solutions based on blockchain and smart contracts, there is a need to understand the impact of blockchain and smart contracts on the assessment of internal controls and enterprise risk. Especially since the distributed ledger and smart contracts blur the system boundaries between trading partners, there is a need to understand whether internal control assessments based on a single company approach is adequate in an integrated and collaborative environment. This paper provides an overview of smart contracts for practitioners and describes the associated risks of engaging in a blockchain consortium. We also list potential questions related to internal controls that may be considered when either engaging in a consortium or executing a smart contract. We then discuss whether current frameworks, specifically the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations' (COSO) integrated and COSO's Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) frameworks, adequately address a collaborative supply chain ecosystem.
{"title":"Evaluating Blockchain Using COSO","authors":"N. Vincent, R. Barkhi","doi":"10.2308/ciia-2019-509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-2019-509","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 As companies begin to explore and develop technology solutions based on blockchain and smart contracts, there is a need to understand the impact of blockchain and smart contracts on the assessment of internal controls and enterprise risk. Especially since the distributed ledger and smart contracts blur the system boundaries between trading partners, there is a need to understand whether internal control assessments based on a single company approach is adequate in an integrated and collaborative environment. This paper provides an overview of smart contracts for practitioners and describes the associated risks of engaging in a blockchain consortium. We also list potential questions related to internal controls that may be considered when either engaging in a consortium or executing a smart contract. We then discuss whether current frameworks, specifically the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations' (COSO) integrated and COSO's Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) frameworks, adequately address a collaborative supply chain ecosystem.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46415378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Responding to complaints that small issuers have disproportionately high costs that exceed the benefits of internal control attestation, the SEC has expanded size-based exemptions to SOX 404(b) since its initial adoption. Recent changes to the exemption criteria have rekindled the debate over the value of the SOX 404(b) requirement. This paper summarizes the model presented in Levine (2009), describes conditions for overauditing, and suggests solutions for practitioners, their clients, and regulators.
{"title":"Do the Benefits of Small Issuer SOX 404(b) Exemptions Outweigh the Costs?","authors":"Amanda M. Convery, Carolyn B. Levine","doi":"10.2308/CIIA-2020-026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/CIIA-2020-026","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Responding to complaints that small issuers have disproportionately high costs that exceed the benefits of internal control attestation, the SEC has expanded size-based exemptions to SOX 404(b) since its initial adoption. Recent changes to the exemption criteria have rekindled the debate over the value of the SOX 404(b) requirement. This paper summarizes the model presented in Levine (2009), describes conditions for overauditing, and suggests solutions for practitioners, their clients, and regulators.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42295452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses a recent study titled “Do voluntary disclosures mitigate the cybersecurity beach contagion effect?” (Kelton and Pennington 2020). The study finds voluntary cybersecurity disclosures can provide firms protection from contagion effects, a phenomenon where the negative impact of a cybersecurity breach at an industry peer firm spills over to other bystander firms in the same industry. This article offers practical implications of the study for financial reporting executives, boards of directors, and auditors.
本文讨论了最近一项名为“自愿披露是否会减轻网络安全海滩传染效应?”(Kelton and Pennington 2020)。研究发现，自愿披露网络安全信息可以为企业提供保护，使其免受传染效应的影响。传染效应是一种现象，即行业同行企业网络安全漏洞的负面影响会蔓延到同行业的其他旁观者企业。本文为财务报告主管、董事会和审计师提供了研究的实际意义。
{"title":"How to Reduce the Cybersecurity Breach Contagion Effect","authors":"A. Kelton","doi":"10.2308/CIIA-2020-025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/CIIA-2020-025","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article discusses a recent study titled “Do voluntary disclosures mitigate the cybersecurity beach contagion effect?” (Kelton and Pennington 2020). The study finds voluntary cybersecurity disclosures can provide firms protection from contagion effects, a phenomenon where the negative impact of a cybersecurity breach at an industry peer firm spills over to other bystander firms in the same industry. This article offers practical implications of the study for financial reporting executives, boards of directors, and auditors.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43324298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance rates continue to lag behind corporate reporting of CSR activity (Blasco and King 2017), suggesting managers question whether the benefits of purchasing assurance outweigh the costs. This article summarizes a recent study by Stuart, Bedard, and Clark (2020) investigating the value of CSR assurance when a company experiences a negative event by examining how prior disclosure of management’s CSR intentions, and the decision to purchase independent assurance, influence investors’ judgments. Findings suggest investors react more favorably to management’s intention to engage in activities that increase expected future financial returns when economic times are good. In contrast, in difficult times investor preference shifts to management’s intent for activities done solely for social good as a signal of ethical culture. However, this preference disappears when disclosures are assured. Findings suggest the decision to purchase CSR assurance plays an important role in signaling management’s ethical culture.
{"title":"Practitioner Summary: The Value of Assurance and Ethics in Difficult Times: Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures and Investor Decisions","authors":"Andrew C. Stuart, J. Bedard, Cynthia E. Clark","doi":"10.2308/ciia-2020-012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-2020-012","url":null,"abstract":"Corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance rates continue to lag behind corporate reporting of CSR activity (Blasco and King 2017), suggesting managers question whether the benefits of purchasing assurance outweigh the costs. This article summarizes a recent study by Stuart, Bedard, and Clark (2020) investigating the value of CSR assurance when a company experiences a negative event by examining how prior disclosure of management’s CSR intentions, and the decision to purchase independent assurance, influence investors’ judgments. Findings suggest investors react more favorably to management’s intention to engage in activities that increase expected future financial returns when economic times are good. In contrast, in difficult times investor preference shifts to management’s intent for activities done solely for social good as a signal of ethical culture. However, this preference disappears when disclosures are assured. Findings suggest the decision to purchase CSR assurance plays an important role in signaling management’s ethical culture.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46550949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This two-part educational resource was developed to enhance students' understanding of a key aspect of the audit guidance concerning financial statement audit planning for substantive testing at the assertion level. Assuming the role of audit associates at a CPA firm, students first engage in a training activity in which they deconstruct substantive audit tasks into significant financial statement accounts, management assertions, and types of audit procedures related to each task. Then, students consider inherent risk factors for a client engagement in a mini case and apply relevant accounts, management assertions, and detailed substantive audit procedures. These resources are easy to implement and require little advanced preparation, yet they provide a rich instructional resource for either new or experienced auditing faculty. Assessment results and student survey responses reveal the effectiveness of these resources in promoting students' comprehension of the critical role of management assertions in the audit planning process.
{"title":"Planning for Substantive Testing at the Assertion Level: A Training Activity and Mini Case","authors":"Janice E. Rummell, A. Weickgenannt","doi":"10.2308/ciia-2020-003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-2020-003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This two-part educational resource was developed to enhance students' understanding of a key aspect of the audit guidance concerning financial statement audit planning for substantive testing at the assertion level. Assuming the role of audit associates at a CPA firm, students first engage in a training activity in which they deconstruct substantive audit tasks into significant financial statement accounts, management assertions, and types of audit procedures related to each task. Then, students consider inherent risk factors for a client engagement in a mini case and apply relevant accounts, management assertions, and detailed substantive audit procedures. These resources are easy to implement and require little advanced preparation, yet they provide a rich instructional resource for either new or experienced auditing faculty. Assessment results and student survey responses reveal the effectiveness of these resources in promoting students' comprehension of the critical role of management assertions in the audit planning process.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44368950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research suggests that staff auditors are more comfortable interacting with client personnel through email than face-to-face and that this choice of communication mode has the potential to impact audit outcomes. However, very little is known about how staff auditors choose a communication mode and its effects on their client interactions. Therefore, we present survey-based evidence that the majority of staff auditors prefer to interact with the client face-to-face but use face-to-face and email relatively equally. Auditors who primarily email the client place less value on client connection, and those who prefer email report feeling more communication anxieties related to the client. Importantly, the use of face-to-face communication is associated with more positive and productive client interactions. Firms can use the results of our study to understand the factors influencing staff auditors' preference for and use of different communication modes and its effect on audit outcomes, particularly as remote work increases.
{"title":"The Role of Communication Mode in Auditor-Client Interactions: Insights from Staff Auditors","authors":"Melissa Carlisle, E. Hamilton","doi":"10.2308/ciia-2020-007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-2020-007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Research suggests that staff auditors are more comfortable interacting with client personnel through email than face-to-face and that this choice of communication mode has the potential to impact audit outcomes. However, very little is known about how staff auditors choose a communication mode and its effects on their client interactions. Therefore, we present survey-based evidence that the majority of staff auditors prefer to interact with the client face-to-face but use face-to-face and email relatively equally. Auditors who primarily email the client place less value on client connection, and those who prefer email report feeling more communication anxieties related to the client. Importantly, the use of face-to-face communication is associated with more positive and productive client interactions. Firms can use the results of our study to understand the factors influencing staff auditors' preference for and use of different communication modes and its effect on audit outcomes, particularly as remote work increases.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46880850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Karen J. De Meyst, D. Lowe, Mark E. Peecher, Jeffrey S. Pickerd, Andrew Reffett
Maksymov, Pickerd, Lowe, Peecher, and Reffett (2020b) draw insights based on interviews with 27 prominent audit litigation attorneys about the factors affecting the initiation of legal claims against auditors and how such factors affect settlement outcomes. We summarize their key findings and discuss important implications for audit practitioners. Specifically, we focus on the key factors that affect plaintiff attorneys’ willingness to pursue legal claims against auditors, including the merits of the claim, size of alleged economic damages, auditors’ ability to pay, and the expected cost to pursue the claim. We also discuss the reasons why most audit disputes settle (as opposed to resolving at trial) and the factors affecting settlement outcomes. We hope the insights provided enhance audit practitioners’ understanding of litigation and the settlement process to allow them to manage claims in a less intimidated and ultimately more strategic manner.
{"title":"Factors Affecting the Outcomes of Legal Claims against Auditors","authors":"Karen J. De Meyst, D. Lowe, Mark E. Peecher, Jeffrey S. Pickerd, Andrew Reffett","doi":"10.2308/ciia-2020-023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-2020-023","url":null,"abstract":"Maksymov, Pickerd, Lowe, Peecher, and Reffett (2020b) draw insights based on interviews with 27 prominent audit litigation attorneys about the factors affecting the initiation of legal claims against auditors and how such factors affect settlement outcomes. We summarize their key findings and discuss important implications for audit practitioners. Specifically, we focus on the key factors that affect plaintiff attorneys’ willingness to pursue legal claims against auditors, including the merits of the claim, size of alleged economic damages, auditors’ ability to pay, and the expected cost to pursue the claim. We also discuss the reasons why most audit disputes settle (as opposed to resolving at trial) and the factors affecting settlement outcomes. We hope the insights provided enhance audit practitioners’ understanding of litigation and the settlement process to allow them to manage claims in a less intimidated and ultimately more strategic manner.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45026959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Robert P. Mocadlo, J. Rich, Madeline Trimble, Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou
This article summarizes and outlines practical implications from the findings of “It Goes Without Saying: The Effects of Intrinsic Motivational Orientation, Leadership Emphasis of Intrinsic Goals, and Audit Issue Ambiguity on Speaking Up” (Kadous, Proell, Rich, and Zhou 2019). Through a series of experiments and surveys, the initial paper tests the effect that leadership focus on intrinsic motivation of auditors can have on their willingness to “speak up” with audit issues. Furthermore, they introduce the effects that ambiguity and source of motivation have on their initial findings. We expand this original work by summarizing the empirical findings and elaborating on the practical implications for auditors, managers, academics, and regulators. Applying these findings in practice could be a cost effective and efficient way to operationalize PCAOB AS 1201 and improve audit quality.
本文总结并概述了《不言而喻：内在动机取向、内在目标的领导强调和审计问题歧义对直言不讳的影响》（Kadous，Proell，Rich，and Zhou 2019）的研究结果的实际意义。通过一系列实验和调查，最初的论文测试了领导层对审计师内在动机的关注对他们“畅所欲言”审计问题的意愿的影响。此外，他们还介绍了歧义和动机来源对他们最初发现的影响。我们通过总结经验发现并阐述对审计师、管理者、学者和监管机构的实际影响来扩展这项原始工作。在实践中应用这些发现可能是实施PCAOB AS 1201和提高审计质量的一种成本效益和高效的方式。
{"title":"Fostering Intrinsic Motivational Orientation: A Cost-Effective Method for Encouraging Audit Staff to Speak Up","authors":"Robert P. Mocadlo, J. Rich, Madeline Trimble, Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou","doi":"10.2308/ciia-2020-002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-2020-002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article summarizes and outlines practical implications from the findings of “It Goes Without Saying: The Effects of Intrinsic Motivational Orientation, Leadership Emphasis of Intrinsic Goals, and Audit Issue Ambiguity on Speaking Up” (Kadous, Proell, Rich, and Zhou 2019). Through a series of experiments and surveys, the initial paper tests the effect that leadership focus on intrinsic motivation of auditors can have on their willingness to “speak up” with audit issues. Furthermore, they introduce the effects that ambiguity and source of motivation have on their initial findings. We expand this original work by summarizing the empirical findings and elaborating on the practical implications for auditors, managers, academics, and regulators. Applying these findings in practice could be a cost effective and efficient way to operationalize PCAOB AS 1201 and improve audit quality.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49504949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article summarizes three academic studies (Brewster 2011; Brewster 2016; Bucaro 2019) that investigate the effects of a specific form of critical thinking, systems-thinking, on audit judgments. Systems-thinking emphasizes taking a holistic “big picture” perspective and understanding how parts of complex processes interact and function. Collectively, the three studies find that systems-thinking can lead to auditors better understanding the risk of material misstatement through improved risk assessment and information processing. Ultimately, these improvements in critical thinking also increase the likelihood of identifying incorrect management explanations and incorporation of comprehensive information into audit decisions. Importantly, these studies find that systems-thinking can be instilled through short tutorial sessions, which may be embedded directly into the audit process.
{"title":"Systems-Thinking in Complex Audit Situations","authors":"Billy E. Brewster, Anthony C. Bucaro","doi":"10.2308/ciia-19-017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-19-017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article summarizes three academic studies (Brewster 2011; Brewster 2016; Bucaro 2019) that investigate the effects of a specific form of critical thinking, systems-thinking, on audit judgments. Systems-thinking emphasizes taking a holistic “big picture” perspective and understanding how parts of complex processes interact and function. Collectively, the three studies find that systems-thinking can lead to auditors better understanding the risk of material misstatement through improved risk assessment and information processing. Ultimately, these improvements in critical thinking also increase the likelihood of identifying incorrect management explanations and incorporation of comprehensive information into audit decisions. Importantly, these studies find that systems-thinking can be instilled through short tutorial sessions, which may be embedded directly into the audit process.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48471671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In “Who Did the Audit? Audit Quality and Disclosures of Other Audit Participants in PCAOB Filings” (Dee, Lulseged and Zhang 2015), we examine quality for issuer audits disclosed as involving less-experienced “participating auditors”. We find that market prices of these issuers reacted negatively at the time of disclosure, and investors’ valuations of their post-disclosure quarterly earnings declined; investors have greater uncertainty in the numbers reported. In addition, the quality of the reported earnings is lower. However, we do not see a subsequent increase in audit fees which suggests clients don’t increase demands for higher quality to counteract the uncertainty in investors’ perceptions of audit quality. Since our sample is limited to less-experienced participating auditors, the results are not readily generalizable to the universe of participating auditors. We suggest research using Form AP data explore if our findings are generalizable to issuer audits involving the wider population of participating auditors. D ow naded rom hp://m eridianenpress.com /cia/articf/doi/10.2308/C IIA-19-002/2/ciia-ciia-19-002.pdf by gest on 25 Sptem er 2020
在“谁进行了审计？PCAOB备案中其他审计参与者的审计质量和披露”（Dee，Lulseged和Zhang，2015）中，我们检查了被披露为涉及经验不足的“参与审计师”的发行人审计的质量。我们发现，这些发行人在披露时的市场价格反应消极，投资者对其披露后季度收益的估值下降；投资者对公布的数字有更大的不确定性。此外，报告收益的质量较低。然而，我们没有看到随后审计费用的增加，这表明客户不会增加对更高质量的要求，以抵消投资者对审计质量看法的不确定性。由于我们的样本仅限于经验较少的参与审计师，因此结果不容易推广到参与审计师的范围内。我们建议使用Form AP数据进行研究，探讨我们的发现是否可推广到涉及更广泛参与审计师的发行人审计。D ow naded from hp://m eridianenpress.com/cia/articlef/doi/10.2308/C IIA-19-002/ciia-ciia-19-002.pdf by gest on 25 Sptemer 2020
{"title":"Audit Quality and Disclosures of Less-Experienced Participating Audit Firms in PCAOB Filings","authors":"C. Dee, Ayalew Lulseged, Tianming Zhang","doi":"10.2308/ciia-19-002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-19-002","url":null,"abstract":"In “Who Did the Audit? Audit Quality and Disclosures of Other Audit Participants in PCAOB Filings” (Dee, Lulseged and Zhang 2015), we examine quality for issuer audits disclosed as involving less-experienced “participating auditors”. We find that market prices of these issuers reacted negatively at the time of disclosure, and investors’ valuations of their post-disclosure quarterly earnings declined; investors have greater uncertainty in the numbers reported. In addition, the quality of the reported earnings is lower. However, we do not see a subsequent increase in audit fees which suggests clients don’t increase demands for higher quality to counteract the uncertainty in investors’ perceptions of audit quality. Since our sample is limited to less-experienced participating auditors, the results are not readily generalizable to the universe of participating auditors. We suggest research using Form AP data explore if our findings are generalizable to issuer audits involving the wider population of participating auditors. D ow naded rom hp://m eridianenpress.com /cia/articf/doi/10.2308/C IIA-19-002/2/ciia-ciia-19-002.pdf by gest on 25 Sptem er 2020","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47073530","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：