IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v63y2023i4p4813-4820.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comments of the AFAANZ Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee on the Proposed Standard on Assurance Engagements over GHG Emissions Disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • David Hay
  • Noel Harding
  • Chris Gan
  • Irene Ge
  • Linh Ho
  • Dinithi Ranasinghe
  • Harj Singh
  • Nigar Sultana
  • Shan Zhou

Abstract

The New Zealand External Reporting Board (XRB) issued for public comment a standard on Assurance Engagements over GHG Emissions Disclosure. The Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee of AFAANZ prepared a submission, based on the findings reported in published research, responding to a number of the questions asked by the XRB. This technical note presents the formal submission made to the XRB.

Suggested Citation

  • David Hay & Noel Harding & Chris Gan & Irene Ge & Linh Ho & Dinithi Ranasinghe & Harj Singh & Nigar Sultana & Shan Zhou, 2023. "Comments of the AFAANZ Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee on the Proposed Standard on Assurance Engagements over GHG Emissions Disclosure," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4813-4820, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:63:y:2023:i:4:p:4813-4820
    DOI: 10.1111/acfi.13136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13136
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/acfi.13136?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eilifsen, Aasmund & Hamilton, Erin L. & Messier, William F., 2021. "The importance of quantifying uncertainty: Examining the effects of quantitative sensitivity analysis and audit materiality disclosures on investors’ judgments and decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Clive S. Lennox & Jaime J. Schmidt & Anne M. Thompson, 2023. "Why are expanded audit reports not informative to investors? Evidence from the United Kingdom," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 497-532, June.
    3. Hirst, De, 1994. "Auditors Sensitivity To Source Reliability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 113-126.
    4. Robyn Moroney & Soon-Yeow Phang & Xinning Xiao, 2021. "When Do Investors Value Key Audit Matters?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 63-82, January.
    5. Bamber, Em, 1983. "Expert Judgment In The Audit Team - A Source Reliability Approach," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 396-413.
    6. Hong Li & David Hay & David Lau, 2019. "Assessing the impact of the new auditor’s report," Pacific Accounting Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(1), pages 110-132, March.
    7. Pei-Chi Kelly Hsiao & Tom Scott & Zeting Zang, 2022. "A snapshot of sustainability assurance market in New Zealand," Pacific Accounting Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 34(5), pages 669-686, April.
    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. Nien-Su Shih, 2024. "Does Using the Extended Audit Report Decrease Information Asymmetry in Family Firms?," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 14(1), pages 1-3.
    2. Duboisée de Ricquebourg, Alan & Maroun, Warren, 2023. "How do auditor rotations affect key audit matters? Archival evidence from South African audits," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    3. Ma, Jin & Coram, Paul & Troshani, Indrit, 2024. "The effect of key audit matters and management disclosures on auditors’ judgements and decisions: An exploratory study," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    4. Ilias G. Basioudis, 2007. "Auditor's Engagement Risk and Audit Fees: The Role of Audit Firm Alumni," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(9‐10), pages 1393-1422, November.
    5. Joseph F. Brazel & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2007. "An Examination of Auditor Planning Judgements in a Complex Accounting Information System Environment," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1059-1083, December.
    6. Benjamin P. Commerford & Sean A. Dennis & Jennifer R. Joe & Jenny W. Ulla, 2022. "Man Versus Machine: Complex Estimates and Auditor Reliance on Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 171-201, March.
    7. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Hunton, J.E. & Gomaa, M.I., 2006. "The Impact of Client Expertise, Client Gender and Auditor Gender on Auditors' Judgments," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-031-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    8. Maksymov, Eldar, 2015. "Auditor evaluation of others’ credibility: A review of experimental studies on determinants and consequences," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 104-124.
    9. Hien Hoang & Robyn Moroney & Soon‐Yeow Phang & Xinning Xiao, 2023. "Investor reactions to key audit matters: Financial and non‐financial contexts," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3325-3349, September.
    10. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    11. Elsayed, Mohamed & Elshandidy, Tamer & Ahmed, Yousry, 2023. "Is expanded auditor reporting meaningful? UK evidence," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    12. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    13. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    14. Mario J. Maletta, 1993. "An Examination of Auditors' Decisions to Use Internal Auditors as Assistants: The Effect of Inherent Risk," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 508-525, March.
    15. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    16. Fanning, Kirsten & David Piercey, M., 2014. "Internal auditors’ use of interpersonal likability, arguments, and accounting information in a corporate governance setting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 575-589.
    17. El’fred Boo & Terence Ng & Premila Gowri Shankar, 2021. "Effects of Advice on Auditor Whistleblowing Propensity: Do Advice Source and Advisor Reassurance Matter?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(2), pages 387-402, November.
    18. Anna Rose & Jacob Rose, 2008. "Management Attempts to Avoid Accounting Disclosure Oversight: The Effects of Trust and Knowledge on Corporate Directors’ Governance Ability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 83(2), pages 193-205, December.
    19. Venter, Zander S. & Czúcz, Bálint & Stange, Erik & Nowell, Megan S. & Simensen, Trond & Immerzeel, Bart & Barton, David N., 2024. "‘Uncertainty audit’ for ecosystem accounting: Satellite-based ecosystem extent is biased without design-based area estimation and accuracy assessment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    20. Guo, Mengmeng & Su, Yun & Zhao, Rui, 2024. "The effect of expanded audit report on IPO underpricing: Evidence from China," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).

    More about this item

    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:bla:acctfi:v:63:y:2023:i:4:p:4813-4820. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    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.