IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v14y2021i6p268-d574233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditor Judgements after Withdrawal of the Materiality Accounting Standard in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Raul David

    (Discipline of Accounting and Finance, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0800, Australia)

  • Indra Abeysekera

    (Discipline of Accounting and Finance, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0800, Australia)

Abstract

The concept of materiality, originating in the accounting domain and applied in the auditing domain, is an essential tool for improving audit quality. A renewed interest in materiality research emerged in Australia after submitting Exposure Draft no. 243 by the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) proposing the withdrawal of AASB 1031 Materiality, which became effective in July 2015. The purpose of this paper is to review the audit literature to examine how the materiality concept is located in the regulatory framework, the standards and guidance that support the application of this concept, and research undertaken using different research methods. As our review reveals significant gaps in recent research on the subject, gaps need to be addressed. The paper concludes by proposing research propositions that fit into the audit triangle for materiality research developed in this paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Raul David & Indra Abeysekera, 2021. "Auditor Judgements after Withdrawal of the Materiality Accounting Standard in Australia," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:14:y:2021:i:6:p:268-:d:574233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/14/6/268/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/14/6/268/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Preeti Choudhary & Kenneth Merkley & Katherine Schipper, 2019. "Auditors’ Quantitative Materiality Judgments: Properties and Implications for Financial Reporting Reliability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(5), pages 1303-1351, December.
    2. Chewning, G & Pany, K & Wheeler, S, 1989. "Auditor Reporting Decisions Involving Accounting Principle Changes - Some Evidence On Materiality Thresholds," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 78-96.
    3. Edgley, Carla, 2014. "A genealogy of accounting materiality," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-271.
    4. Federica Farneti & James Guthrie, 2009. "Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: Why they report," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 89-98, June.
    5. Keith A. Houghton & Christine Jubb & Michael Kend, 2011. "Materiality in the context of audit: the real expectations gap," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(6), pages 482-500, June.
    6. Ward, Bh, 1976. "Investigation Of Materiality Construct In Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 138-152.
    7. Takiah Mohd Iskandar & Errol R Iselin, 1999. "A review of materiality research," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 209-239, September.
    8. Firth, Michael, 1979. "Consensus views and judgment models in materiality decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 283-295, October.
    9. Arnold, Donald Sr. & Bernardi, Richard A. & Neidermeyer, Presha E., 2001. "The association between European materiality estimates and client integrity, national culture, and litigation," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 459-483, 012.
    10. DeZoort, F. Todd & Hermanson, Dana R. & Houston, Richard W., 2003. "Audit committee support for auditors: The effects of materiality justification and accounting precision," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 175-199.
    11. Louise Bringselius, 2018. "Efficiency, economy and effectiveness—but what about ethics? Supreme audit institutions at a critical juncture," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 105-110, February.
    12. Wong-On-Wing, Bernard & Hal Reneau, J. & West, Stephen G., 1989. "Auditors' perception of management: Determinants and consequences," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(5-6), pages 577-587, October.
    13. Farneti, Federica & Guthrie, James, 2009. "Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: Why they report," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 89-98.
    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. Edgley, Carla, 2014. "A genealogy of accounting materiality," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-271.
    2. Roberto Aprile & David Alexander & Federica Doni, 2023. "Enhancing the materiality principle in integrated reporting by adopting the General Systems Theory," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 2219-2233, September.
    3. Tudor Oprisor & Adriana TIRON-TUDOR & Cristina Silvia NISTOR, 2016. "The integrated reporting system: a new accountability enhancement tool for public sector entities," The Audit Financiar journal, Chamber of Financial Auditors of Romania, vol. 14(139), pages 747-747.
    4. Barone, Elisabetta & Ranamagar, Nathan & Solomon, Jill F., 2013. "A Habermasian model of stakeholder (non)engagement and corporate (ir)responsibility reporting," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 163-181.
    5. Aurelio Tommasetti & Riccardo Mussari & Gennaro Maione & Daniela Sorrentino, 2020. "Sustainability Accounting and Reporting in the Public Sector: Towards Public Value Co-Creation?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Lodovico Gherardi & Anna Maria Linsalata & Enrico Deidda Gagliardo & Rebecca Levy Orelli, 2021. "Accountability and Reporting for Sustainability and Public Value: Challenges in the Public Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Francisco J. López-Arceiz & Ana J. Bellostas & Pilar Rivera, 2018. "Twenty Years of Research on the Relationship Between Economic and Social Performance: A Meta-analysis Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 453-484, November.
    8. Lies Bouten & Patricia Everaert & Luc Van Liedekerke & Lieven De Moor & Johan Christiaens, 2011. "Corporate social responsibility reporting: A comprehensive picture?," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 187-204, September.
    9. Iurkov, Viacheslav & Koval, Mariia & Misra, Shekhar & Pedada, Kiran & Sinha, Ashish, 2024. "Impact of ESG distinctiveness in alliances on shareholder value," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    10. Hassan Lahbari & Riadh Manita, 2011. "L'impact des facteurs qualitatifs sur les jugements éthiques de la matérialité en audit," Post-Print hal-00650541, HAL.
    11. Elda Du Toit, 2024. "Thirty Years of Sustainability Reporting: Insights, Gaps and an Agenda for Future Research Through a Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-33, December.
    12. Javier Montoya del Corte & Francisco Javier Martínez García & Ana Fernández Laviada, 2010. "Effective use of qualitative materiality factors: evidence from Spain," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(5), pages 458-483, May.
    13. Camelia Oprean-Stan & Ionica Oncioiu & Iulia Cristina Iuga & Sebastian Stan, 2020. "Impact of Sustainability Reporting and Inadequate Management of ESG Factors on Corporate Performance and Sustainable Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-31, October.
    14. Cregård Anna & Sobis Iwona, 2017. "Dissemination of Environmental Information and its Effects on Stakeholders’ Decision-Making: A Comparative Study between Swedish and Polish Municipalities," NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, Sciendo, vol. 10(2), pages 9-47, December.
    15. Rob Boterenbrood, 2017. "The Audit Expectation Gap between Companies and Their Auditors: An Exploratory Study," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 18(5), pages 1124-1133, October.
    16. Bambang Sutopo & Sebastian Kot & Arum Kusumaningdyah Adiati & Lina Nur Ardila, 2018. "Sustainability Reporting and Value Relevance of Financial Statements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, March.
    17. Julia Baldauf & Marcel Steller & Rudolf Steckel, 2015. "The Influence of Audit Risk and Materiality Guidelines on Auditors’ Planning Materiality Assessment," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(4), pages 1-97, November.
    18. Joost de Haan-Hoek & Wim Lambrechts & Janjaap Semeijn & Marjolein C. J. Caniëls, 2020. "Levers of Control for Supply Chain Sustainability: Control and Governance Mechanisms in a Cross-Boundary Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-22, April.
    19. Giuseppe Nicolò & Gianluca Zanellato & Adriana Tiron-Tudor, 2020. "Integrated Reporting and European State-Owned Enterprises: A Disclosure Analysis Pre and Post 2014/95/EU," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, March.
    20. Monika Kansal & Mahesh Joshi & Shekar Babu & Sharad Sharma, 2018. "Reporting of Corporate Social Responsibility in Central Public Sector Enterprises: A Study of Post Mandatory Regime in India," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 813-831, September.

    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:gam:jjrfmx:v:14:y:2021:i:6:p:268-:d:574233. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.