IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tei/journl/v5y2012i2p7-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Joint Audit and Accuracy of the Auditor's Report: An Empirical Study

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Baldauf

    (Innsbruck University, Department of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Universitaetsstraße 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

  • Rudolf Steckel

    (Innsbruck University, Department of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Universitaetsstraße 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria)

Abstract

This study examines the effects of a joint audit on auditor’s report consensus and accuracy. We investigate whether a joint audit, particularly the report issued, improves an audit’s quality. We measure the audit’s quality using the degree of auditor consensus in the auditor’s report. We also use an expected opinion, which we believe is appropriate in the defined circumstances, as a scale for the measurement of the report’s accuracy. Participants in the study were statutory auditors from Austria and Germany. At present, manners of improving audit quality and auditing decisions are being intensively discussed in the European Union and everywhere in the world. The joint audit approach is a very current topic in this discussion. Regulators and standard setters are extensively examining the benefits of various audit approaches. Nevertheless, in most countries, the joint audit approach is still utilised on a voluntary basis and is not very common. Our study provides evidence that auditors who use a joint audit approach achieve higher consensus and greater accuracy. In light of current discussion on improving the quality of audits by implementing new methods and regulations, these results are significant for both auditing practice and audit research. Despite this importance, there are very few studies and little research on improving quality through the use of a joint audit approach. Our results demonstrate the need for further investigation of the determinants of audit performance when using a joint audit approach. Using a case study research design and an interview, we draw conclusions and discuss necessary future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Baldauf & Rudolf Steckel, 2012. "Joint Audit and Accuracy of the Auditor's Report: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), Democritus University of Thrace (DUTH), Kavala Campus, Greece, vol. 5(2), pages 7-42, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:tei:journl:v:5:y:2012:i:2:p:7-42
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ijbesar.af.duth.gr/docs/volume5_issue2/joint_audit_accuracy.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ijbesar.af.duth.gr/volume5_issue2.php
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Libby, Robert & Lewis, Barry L., 1982. "Human information processing research in accounting: The state of the art in 1982," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 231-285, July.
    2. Bloom, Robert & Elgers, Pieter T. & Murray, Dennis, 1984. "Functional fixation in product pricing: A comparison of individuals and groups," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, January.
    3. Jere Francis & Chrystelle Richard & Ann Vanstraelen, 2006. "Assessing France's Joint Audit Requirement: Are Two Heads Better Than One?," Post-Print halshs-00153518, HAL.
    4. Daroca, Frank P., 1984. "Informational influences on group decision making in a participative budgeting context," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 13-32, January.
    5. Dirsmith, Mark W. & Covaleski, Mark A., 1985. "Informal communications, nonformal communications and mentoring in public accounting firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 149-169, April.
    6. Keasey, Kevin & Watson, Robert, 1989. "Consensus and accuracy in accounting studies of decision-making: A note on a new measure of consensus," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 337-345, July.
    7. Francis, Jere R., 2004. "What do we know about audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 345-368.
    8. Trotman, Kt & Yetton, Pw, 1985. "The Effect Of The Review Process On Auditor Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 256-267.
    9. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1073 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shun-Ji Jin & In Tae Hwang & Sun Min Kang, 2018. "Improving Sustainability through a Dual Audit System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Marco Haid & Sabine Graschitz & Peter Heimerl, 2019. "Error Reports in the Light of Error Management Climate, Task Complexity and Personnel Composition," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), Democritus University of Thrace (DUTH), Kavala Campus, Greece, vol. 12(3), pages 14-23, December.
    3. Mohamed M. El-Dyasty & Ahmed A. Elamer, 2022. "Multiple audit mechanism, audit quality and cost of debt: empirical evidence from a developing country," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(3), pages 264-281, September.

    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. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Dierynck, Bart & Kadous, Kathryn & Peters, Christian P. H., 2024. "Learning in the auditing profession: A framework and future directions," Other publications TiSEM eb74c8e4-bc4a-4b71-b88a-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. 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.
    5. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    6. Causholli, Monika & Floyd, Theresa & Jenkins, Nicole Thorne & Soltis, Scott M., 2021. "The ties that bind: Knowledge-seeking networks and auditor job performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Thiéry, Stéphanie & Lhuillery, Stephane & Tellechea, Marion, 2023. "How can governance, human capital, and communication practices enhance internal audit quality?," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    8. Sang Cheol Lee & Mooweon Rhee & Jongchul Yoon, 2018. "Foreign Monitoring and Audit Quality: Evidence from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-22, September.
    9. Melinda Timea FÜLÖP & Mirela-Oana PINTEA, 2014. "Effects Of The New Regulation And Corporate Governance Of The Audit Profession," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 4, pages 545-554, July.
    10. Olivier Herrbach, 2001. "Audit quality, auditor behaviour and the psychological contract," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 787-802.
    11. Lin, Tse-Chun & Liu, Jinyu & Ni, Xiaoran, 2022. "Foreign bank entry deregulation and stock market stability: Evidence from staggered regulatory changes," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 185-207.
    12. Nieves Carrera & Nieves Gómez‐Aguilar & Christopher Humphrey & Emiliano Ruiz‐Barbadillo, 2007. "Mandatory audit firm rotation in Spain: a policy that was never applied," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(5), pages 671-701, September.
    13. Ghafran, Chaudhry & O'Sullivan, Noel, 2017. "The impact of audit committee expertise on audit quality: Evidence from UK audit fees," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 578-593.
    14. Anderson-Gough, Fiona & Grey, Christopher & Robson, Keith, 2001. "Tests of time: organizational time-reckoning and the making of accountants in two multi-national accounting firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 99-122, March.
    15. Baumöhl, Eduard & Iwasaki, Ichiro & Kočenda, Evžen, 2019. "Institutions and determinants of firm survival in European emerging markets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 431-453.
    16. Kristian D. Allee & Daniel D. Wangerin, 2018. "Auditor monitoring and verification in financial contracts: evidence from earnouts and SFAS 141(R)," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1629-1664, December.
    17. Maroun, Warren & Solomon, Jill, 2014. "Whistle-blowing by external auditors: Seeking legitimacy for the South African Audit Profession?," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 109-121.
    18. Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, 2019. "The Effect of Financial Constraints on Audit Fees," Capital Markets Review, Malaysian Finance Association, vol. 27(2), pages 59-87.
    19. Viator, Ralph E., 2001. "The association of formal and informal public accounting mentoring with role stress and related job outcomes," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 73-93, January.
    20. Karim Jamal, 2008. "Mandatory Audit of Financial Reporting: A Failed Strategy for Dealing with Fraud," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 97-110, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Audit quality; Auditor's report; Consensus; Empirical study; Joint audit;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - General
    • 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:tei:journl:v:5:y:2012:i:2:p:7-42. 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: Kostas Stergidis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dbikagr.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.