IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jappol/v28y2009i4p265-280.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are fully independent audit committees really necessary?

Author

Listed:
  • Bronson, Scott N.
  • Carcello, Joseph V.
  • Hollingsworth, Carl W.
  • Neal, Terry L.

Abstract

Accounting scandals and concerns about the quality of financial statements have led to many calls for improved audit committee effectiveness. Prior research indicates that audit committee independence is positively related to effective oversight of the financial reporting process. Unfortunately, prior research has not provided an answer as to how much independence on the audit committee is enough. This is an important unanswered question because while Section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) currently requires all listed companies to maintain an audit committee that is 100% independent there has been much debate regarding easing the SOX requirements for smaller and foreign companies. In this paper we examine whether the regulatory requirements of a completely independent audit committee are necessary to obtain the monitoring benefits related to audit committee independence that have been documented in prior literature. Our results suggest that the benefits of audit committee independence are consistently achieved only when the audit committee is completely independent. These results provide support for the SOX requirement of 100% independent audit committees.

Suggested Citation

  • Bronson, Scott N. & Carcello, Joseph V. & Hollingsworth, Carl W. & Neal, Terry L., 2009. "Are fully independent audit committees really necessary?," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 265-280, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jappol:v:28:y:2009:i:4:p:265-280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278-4254(09)00036-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:jappol:v:28:y:2009:i:4:p:265-280. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaccpubpol .

    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.