IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reaccs/v29y2024i3d10.1007_s11142-023-09771-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do financial executives respond to the use of artificial intelligence in financial reporting and auditing?

Author

Listed:
  • Cassandra Estep

    (Emory University)

  • Emily E. Griffith

    (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

  • Nikki L. MacKenzie

    (Georgia Institute of Technology)

Abstract

Financial reporting quality can benefit from companies and auditors using artificial intelligence (AI) in complex and subjective financial reporting areas. However, benefits will only accrue if managers incorporate AI-based information into their financial reporting decisions, which the popular press and academic literature suggest is uncertain. We use a multi-method approach to examine how financial executives view and respond to AI. In a survey, respondents describe various uses of AI at their companies, spanning from simple to complex functions. While managers are not averse to the use of AI by their companies or their auditors, they appear to be uncertain about how auditors’ use of AI will directly benefit their companies. In an experiment that manipulates whether a company and/or its auditor use AI, managers whose companies use AI record larger audit adjustments for a complex accounting estimate when the auditor uses AI. Auditor AI use does not affect managers’ adjustment decisions in the absence of company AI. This study highlights the importance of considering the effects of AI use by both companies and their auditors when evaluating how AI influences auditing and financial reporting.

Suggested Citation

  • Cassandra Estep & Emily E. Griffith & Nikki L. MacKenzie, 2024. "How do financial executives respond to the use of artificial intelligence in financial reporting and auditing?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 2798-2831, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reaccs:v:29:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11142-023-09771-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11142-023-09771-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11142-023-09771-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11142-023-09771-y?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bame-Aldred, Charles W. & Kida, Thomas, 2007. "A comparison of auditor and client initial negotiation positions and tactics," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 497-511, August.
    2. Michael Gibbins & Susan A. McCracken & Steve E. Salterio, 2007. "The Chief Financial Officer's Perspective on Auditor†Client Negotiations," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 387-422, June.
    3. Richard C. Hatfield & Christopher P. Agoglia & Maria H. Sanchez, 2008. "Client Characteristics and the Negotiation Tactics of Auditors: Implications for Financial Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1183-1207, December.
    4. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    5. Anastassia Fedyk & James Hodson & Natalya Khimich & Tatiana Fedyk, 2022. "Is artificial intelligence improving the audit process?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 938-985, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Karen Wilken Braun, 2001. "The Disposition of Audit†Detected Misstatements: An Examination of Risk and Reward Factors and Aggregation Effects," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 71-99, March.
    8. Taffler, Richard J. & Lu, Jeffrey & Kausar, Asad, 2004. "In denial? Stock market underreaction to going-concern audit report disclosures," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 263-296, December.
    9. Dean Gatzlaff & Peng Liu, 2013. "List Price Information in the Negotiation of Commercial Real Estate Transactions: Is Silence Golden?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 760-786, November.
    10. Emily E. Griffith, 2020. "Auditors, Specialists, and Professional Jurisdiction in Audits of Fair Values†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 245-276, March.
    11. Kexing Ding & Baruch Lev & Xuan Peng & Ting Sun & Miklos A. Vasarhelyi, 2020. "Machine learning improves accounting estimates: evidence from insurance payments," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 1098-1134, September.
    12. Michael Gibbins & Steven Salterio & Alan Webb, 2001. "Evidence About Auditor–Client Management Negotiation Concerning Client’s Financial Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 535-563, December.
    13. Henrik Kristensen & Tommy Gärling, 2000. "Anchor Points, Reference Points, and Counteroffers in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 493-505, November.
    14. 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.
    15. Bratten, Brian & Jennings, Ross & Schwab, Casey M., 2016. "The accuracy of disclosures for complex estimates: Evidence from reported stock option fair values," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 32-49.
    16. Margaret H. Christ & Scott A. Emett & Scott L. Summers & David A. Wood, 2021. "Prepare for takeoff: improving asset measurement and audit quality with drone-enabled inventory audit procedures," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 1323-1343, December.
    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. Hamrick, Jennifer & Schafer, Jennifer & DeZoort, Todd, 2023. "The effect of client gender and negotiation style on auditors' proposed audit adjustments," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    2. Dodgson, Mary Kate & Agoglia, Christopher P. & Bennett, G. Bradley, 2021. "The influence of relationship partners on client managers’ negotiation positions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Laurence Daoust & Bertrand Malsch, 2020. "When the Client Is A Former Auditor: Auditees' Expert Knowledge and Social Capital as Threats to Staff Auditors' Operational Independence†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1333-1369, September.
    4. Jones, Joanne & MacTavish, Carolyn & Schultz, Wendy, 2019. "The effect of gender and firm identification on auditor pre-negotiation judgments," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 49-57.
    5. Richard C. Hatfield & Christopher P. Agoglia & Maria H. Sanchez, 2008. "Client Characteristics and the Negotiation Tactics of Auditors: Implications for Financial Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(5), pages 1183-1207, December.
    6. Preeti Choudhary & Kenneth Merkley & Katherine Schipper, 2022. "The Costs of Waiving Audit Adjustments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1813-1857, December.
    7. Bryan K. Church & Narisa Tianjing Dai & Xi (Jason) Kuang & Xuejiao Liu, 2020. "The Role of Auditor Narcissism in Auditor–Client Negotiations: Evidence from China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1756-1787, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Yan Luo & Steven E. Salterio, 2021. "Toward an Archival Measure of the Likelihood of Auditor‐Client Management Negotiation: An Exploration of the Audit Lag Measures Conjecture†," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 109-143, March.
    10. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Perreault, Stephen & Kida, Thomas, 2011. "The relative effectiveness of persuasion tactics in auditor–client negotiations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 534-547.
    12. Anna Che Azmi & Yuen Hoong Voon, 2016. "The Effect of Clients’ Auditing Experience and Concession-Timing Strategies on Auditor-Client Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 1049-1069, September.
    13. Zhang, Chanyuan (Abigail) & Cho, Soohyun & Vasarhelyi, Miklos, 2022. "Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in auditing," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    14. Papirakis, Rachel, 2022. "Auditors’ self-actualization and ability to resist client pressure: Evidence from Canada," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    15. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    16. 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.
    17. Ovidiu Constantin BUNGET & Adriana TIRON-TUDOR & Anca Diana SUMANARU, 2019. "Aspects Regarding the Auditor-Auditee Relationship in the Context of Negotiation," The Audit Financiar journal, Chamber of Financial Auditors of Romania, vol. 17(154), pages 247-247.
    18. Douthit, Jeremy D. & Kachelmeier, Steven J. & Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2024. "Does auditor assurance of client prosocial activities affect subsequent reporter-auditor negotiations?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    19. Obermire, Kara M. & Cohen, Jeffrey R. & Zehms, Karla M., 2021. "Audit committee members’ professional identities: Evidence from the field," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    20. Marc Eulerich & Aida Sanatizadeh & Hamid Vakilzadeh & David A. Wood, 2024. "Is it all hype? ChatGPT’s performance and disruptive potential in the accounting and auditing industries," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 2318-2349, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Accounting estimates; Artificial intelligence; Audit adjustments; Auditor–client interaction; Financial executive judgment; Judgment and decision making;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:spr:reaccs:v:29:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s11142-023-09771-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.