IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01099633.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Joint Audit: Issues and Challenges for Researchers and Policy-Makers

Author

Listed:
  • Nicole V. S. Ratzinger-Sakel

    (Universität Ulm - Ulm University [Ulm, Allemagne])

  • Sophie Audousset-Coulier

    (Department of accounting - Concordia University [Montreal])

  • Jaana Kettunen

    (JYU - University of Jyväskylä)

  • Cédric Lesage

    (GREGH - Groupement de Recherche et d'Etudes en Gestion à HEC - HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The publication of the European Commission Green Paper, ‘Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis' in October 2010, has stirred up a lively debate on the role of joint audits. This literature review identifies and evaluates, for the benefit of future research and regulators, existing evidence about joint audits. We find limited empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to increased audit quality, but some empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to additional costs. Overall, this paper indicates that joint audit should be seen as a mechanism that is embedded in a broader institutional context and not be considered in isolation from other factors that might impact the audit market. The results indicate that various country-level characteristics are simultaneously at play. While joint audits can potentially enhance the audit market competition by allowing smaller audit firms to maintain larger market shares, the related impact on audit quality has not yet been clearly demonstrated and thus provides a promising avenue for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicole V. S. Ratzinger-Sakel & Sophie Audousset-Coulier & Jaana Kettunen & Cédric Lesage, 2013. "Joint Audit: Issues and Challenges for Researchers and Policy-Makers," Post-Print hal-01099633, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01099633
    DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2013.834725
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kovermann, Jost & Velte, Patrick, 2019. "The impact of corporate governance on corporate tax avoidance—A literature review," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Quick, Reiner & Schmidt, Florian, 2018. "Do audit firm rotation, auditor retention, and joint audits matter? – An experimental investigation of bank directors' and institutional investors' perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-21.
    3. Mehdi Nekhili & Fahim Javed & Haithem Nagati, 2022. "Audit Partner Gender, Leadership and Ethics: The Case of Earnings Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(2), pages 233-260, May.
    4. Claus Holm & Frank Thinggaard, 2018. "From joint to single audits – audit quality differences and auditor pairings," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 321-344, April.
    5. Marcel Haak & Michelle Muraz & Roland Zieseniß, 2018. "Joint Audits: Does the Allocation of Audit Work Affect Audit Quality and Audit Fees?," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 55-80, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Sophie Audousset-Coulier, 2015. "Audit Fees in a Joint Audit Setting," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 347-377, June.
    8. Florian Hoos & Jorien Louise Pruijssers & Michel W. Lander, 2019. "Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 563-575, May.
    9. Zhu, Jingqi & Spence, Crawford & Ezzamel, Mahmoud, 2021. "Thinking like the state: Doxa and symbolic power in the accounting field in China," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    10. Qiang Guo & Christopher Koch & Aiyong Zhu, 2017. "Joint audit, audit market structure, and consumer surplus," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1595-1627, December.

    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-01099633. 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: 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.