IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/alu/journl/v2y2021i23p11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing A Conceptual Model Framework On Setting Negotiation Strategies In Audit Decision-Making Processes

Author

Listed:
  • Anca Diana SUMÄ‚NARU

    (West University of Timisoara)

Abstract

Motivational factors and bargaining power are considered important elements for negotiation strategies by scholars and academics. However, there is few evidence up to date on the effect of these factors in the context of auditor client negotiation while adopting a decision making process framework. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to presents a Conceptual Model Framework that describes the decision-making process of auditors in terms of negotiation strategies. The research methodology involves the application of a thoughtful model that contains the the following elements: (a) perception motivational factors, and (b) bargaining power affecting the choice of negotiation strategy, and also identifies different pathways auditors use in their decision about negotiation strategies. Results show that only engagement risk perception influences the auditor to accept aggressive accounting treatments of the client. Further, it influences the use of all the negotiation strategies. On the other hand, client pressure has effect on compromising strategies, while bargaining power influences the concessionary strategy of auditors.

Suggested Citation

  • Anca Diana SUMÄ‚NARU, 2021. "Developing A Conceptual Model Framework On Setting Negotiation Strategies In Audit Decision-Making Processes," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 2(23), pages 1-11.
    • Handle: RePEc:alu:journl:v:2:y:2021:i:23:p:11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://oeconomica.uab.ro/upload/lucrari/2320212/11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caitlin Ruddock & Sarah J. Taylor & Stephen L. Taylor, 2006. "Nonaudit Services and Earnings Conservatism: Is Auditor Independence Impaired?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 701-746, September.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Simunic, Da, 1984. "Auditing, Consulting, And Auditor Independence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 679-702.
    4. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    5. Thompson, Leigh & Loewenstein, George, 1992. "Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 176-197, March.
    6. Johnson, Marilyn F. & Nelson, Karen K. & Frankel, Richard M., 2002. "The Relation Between Auditor's Fees for Non-audit Services and Earnings Quality," Research Papers 1696r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. George Drogalas & Michail Nerantzidis & Dimitrios Mitskinis & Ioannis Tampakoudis, 2021. "The relationship between audit fees and audit committee characteristics: evidence from the Athens Stock Exchange," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 24-41, March.
    3. Tobias Svanstr�m, 2013. "Non-audit Services and Audit Quality: Evidence from Private Firms," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 337-366, June.
    4. Scott Whisenant & Srinivasan Sankaraguruswamy & K. Raghunandan, 2003. "Evidence on the Joint Determination of Audit and Non‐Audit Fees," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 721-744, September.
    5. Francis, Jere R., 2004. "What do we know about audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 345-368.
    6. Bugeja, Martin, 2011. "Takeover premiums and the perception of auditor independence and reputation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 278-293.
    7. Chee‐Yeow Lim & Hun‐Tong Tan, 2008. "Non‐audit Service Fees and Audit Quality: The Impact of Auditor Specialization," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 199-246, March.
    8. Christiane Pott & Tobias Tebben & Christoph Watrin, 2014. "The effect of outside directors’ and auditors’ incentives on managers’ ability to manage cash bonuses," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 18(2), pages 505-540, May.
    9. Pyung Kyung Kang & Yoo Chan Kim & Dan Palmon, 2020. "Client’s Bargaining Power and Audit Negotiation over Earnings: Evidence from Audit Processes in a Business Groups Environment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1207-1238, December.
    10. Chee Lim & David Ding & Charlie Charoenwong, 2013. "Non-audit fees, institutional monitoring, and audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 343-384, August.
    11. Benjamin T. Albersmann & Reiner Quick, 2020. "The Impact of Audit Quality Indicators on the Timeliness of Goodwill Impairments: Evidence from the German Setting," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 56(1), pages 66-103, March.
    12. Rick Antle & Elizabeth Gordon & Ganapathi Narayanamoorthy & Ling Zhou, 2006. "The joint determination of audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 235-266, November.
    13. Garcia-Blandon, Josep & Argiles-Bosch, Josep Maria & Castillo-Merino, David & Martinez-Blasco, Monica, 2017. "An Assessment of the Provisions of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 on Non-audit Services and Audit Firm Tenure: Evidence from Spain," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 251-261.
    14. Atasi Basu & Randal Elder & Mohamed Onsi, 2012. "Reported earnings, auditor's opinion, and compensation: theory and evidence," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 29-48, March.
    15. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    16. Luo, Bing, 2019. "Effects of auditor-provided tax services on book-tax differences and on investors' mispricing of book-tax differences," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    17. Kitto, Andrew R., 2024. "The effects of non-Big 4 mergers on audit efficiency and audit market competition☆," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1).
    18. Singh, Abhijeet & Singh, Harjinder & Sultana, Nigar & Evans, John, 2019. "Independent and joint effects of audit partner tenure and non-audit fees on audit quality," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 186-205.
    19. Paul A. Griffin & David H. Lont & Yuan Sun, 2009. "Governance regulatory changes, International Financial Reporting Standards adoption, and New Zealand audit and non‐audit fees: empirical evidence," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 49(4), pages 697-724, December.
    20. Sarowar Hossain & Jeff Coulton & Jenny Jing Wang, 2023. "Client Importance and Audit Quality at the Individual Audit Partner, Office, and Firm Levels," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 59(2), pages 650-696, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    engagement risk; client pressure; bargaining power; conceptual model; decision.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:alu:journl:v:2:y:2021:i:23:p:11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dan-Constantin Danuletiu (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.