IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00650541.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

L'impact des facteurs qualitatifs sur les jugements éthiques de la matérialité en audit

Author

Listed:
  • Hassan Lahbari

    (EM Strasbourg - École de Management de Strasbourg = EM Strasbourg Business School)

  • Riadh Manita

    (Pôle Finance Responsable - Rouen Business School - Rouen Business School)

Abstract

The place of the qualitative materiality in the professional judgments of the audit has become increasingly important in research and especially after the publication of SAB.99. Our work has focused on the influence of qualitative factors (SAB.99) on the ethical judgments of materiality in France. Through real scenarios involving three qualitative factors, we tried to test the influence of these on the ethical judgments of materiality.

Suggested Citation

  • Hassan Lahbari & Riadh Manita, 2011. "L'impact des facteurs qualitatifs sur les jugements éthiques de la matérialité en audit," Post-Print hal-00650541, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00650541
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-00650541
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-00650541/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Messier, Wf, 1983. "The Effect Of Experience And Firm Type On Materiality Disclosure Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 611-618.
    2. Mayper, Ag, 1982. "Consensus Of Auditors Materiality Judgments Of Internal Accounting Control Weaknesses," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 773-783.
    3. 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.
    4. Carpenter, Brian W. & Dirsmith, Mark W., 1992. "Early debt extinguishment transactions and auditor materiality judgments: A bounded rationality perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 17(8), pages 709-739, November.
    5. Firth, Michael, 1979. "Consensus views and judgment models in materiality decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 283-295, October.
    6. Moriarity, S & Barron, Fh, 1976. "Modeling Materiality Judgments Of Audit Partners," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 320-341.
    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. Lionel Escaffre & Aymen Abbadi, 2016. "Le Rapport D'Audit Comme Un Signal Potentiel À La Disposition Des Pme Françaises : Proposition D'Un Design De Recherche," Post-Print hal-01900824, HAL.

    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. Matthias Wolz, 2004. "Die Festlegung von Wesentlichkeitsgrenzen in der deutschen Wirtschaftsprüfungspraxis," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 122-145, March.
    2. Edgley, Carla, 2014. "A genealogy of accounting materiality," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-271.
    3. 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.
    4. Stefano Azzali & Tatiana Mazza & Luca Fornaciari & Laura Trinchera, 2021. "Effects of Materiality Assessment on Internal Controls over Financial Reporting Maturity," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Tae G. Ryu & Chul-Young Roh, 2007. "The Auditor's Going-Concern Opinion Decision," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 6(2), pages 89-101, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Gullkvist, Benita & Jokipii, Annukka, 2013. "Perceived importance of red flags across fraud types," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 44-61.
    9. Jong-Shin Wei, 2007. "Book Review -- World Investment Prospects to 2010 ¡V Boom or Backlash?," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 6(2), pages 179-180, August.
    10. Edgley, Carla & Jones, Michael J. & Atkins, Jill, 2015. "The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: A field study approach," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-18.
    11. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    12. Sadok Mansour, 2007. "Modelisation Du Risque Dans Les Methodologies D'Audit : Apport Des De La Psychometrie," Post-Print halshs-00543217, HAL.
    13. Jordan Famularo, 2023. "Corporate social responsibility communication in the ICT sector: digital issues, greenwashing, and materiality," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-25, December.
    14. Ann Gaeremynck & Marleen Willekens, 2003. "The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 65-79.
    15. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3528 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Piet Sercu & Heidi Bauwhede & Marleen Willekens, 2006. "Post-Enron Implicit Audit Reporting Standards: Sifting through the Evidence," De Economist, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 389-403, September.
    17. E. Michael Bamber & Joseph H. Bylinski, 1987. "The effects of the planning memorandum, time pressure and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers' review time judgments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 127-143, September.
    18. Terence Bu†Peow NG & Hun†Tong Tan, 2007. "Effects of Qualitative Factor Salience, Expressed Client Concern, and Qualitative Materiality Thresholds on Auditors' Audit Adjustment Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1171-1192, December.
    19. Dezoort, F. T., 1998. "An analysis of experience effects on audit committee members' oversight judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-21, January.
    20. K. Raghunandan, 1993. "Predictive Ability of Audit Qualifications for Loss Contingencies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 612-634, March.
    21. Wu, Xi & Wang, Jun, 2018. "Management's Materiality Criteria of Internal Control Weaknesses and Corporate Fraud: Evidence from China," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-19.

    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:hal:journl:hal-00650541. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.