IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/accfor/v32y2008i2p143-147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Business risk auditing: A regressive evolution?—A research note

Author

Listed:
  • Flint, Christine
  • Fraser, Ian A.M.
  • Hatherly, David J.

Abstract

Business risk auditing (BRA) has been much publicised as revolutionary. The essence of the phenomenon, and the actual impact on practice, however, are unclear. This note revisits some pre-BRA interview evidence investigating auditor engagement with business risk. The evidence suggests that, pre-BRA, big-six auditors were already familiar with concepts of business risk although they were uncertain as to how precisely business risk informed the audit process. This suggests that BRA was evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, change and that the engagement of recent international standards with business risk is not significantly different from that of big-six auditors pre-BRA. The BRA era in audit methodology might be conceptualized as one of regressive evolution.

Suggested Citation

  • Flint, Christine & Fraser, Ian A.M. & Hatherly, David J., 2008. "Business risk auditing: A regressive evolution?—A research note," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 143-147.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:accfor:v:32:y:2008:i:2:p:143-147
    DOI: 10.1016/j.accfor.2007.12.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0155998207000713
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.accfor.2007.12.001?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. Robson, Keith & Humphrey, Christopher & Khalifa, Rihab & Jones, Julian, 2007. "Transforming audit technologies: Business risk audit methodologies and the audit field," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 409-438.
    2. Rihab Khalifa & Nina Sharma & Christopher Humphrey & Keith Robson, 2007. "Discourse and audit change," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(6), pages 825-854, October.
    3. Curtis, Emer & Turley, Stuart, 2007. "The business risk audit - A longitudinal case study of an audit engagement," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 439-461.
    4. Power, Michael K., 2003. "Auditing and the production of legitimacy," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 379-394, May.
    5. Knechel, W. Robert, 2007. "The business risk audit: Origins, obstacles and opportunities," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 383-408.
    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. 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.

    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. Guénin-Paracini, Henri & Malsch, Bertrand & Paillé, Anne Marché, 2014. "Fear and risk in the audit process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 264-288.
    2. Humphrey, Christopher & Loft, Anne & Woods, Margaret, 2009. "The global audit profession and the international financial architecture: Understanding regulatory relationships at a time of financial crisis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 810-825, August.
    3. Carrington, Thomas, 2010. "An analysis of the demands on a sufficient audit: Professional appearance is what counts!," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 669-682.
    4. O'Dwyer, Brendan & Owen, David & Unerman, Jeffrey, 2011. "Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: The case of assurance on sustainability reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 31-52, January.
    5. Free, Clinton & Salterio, Steven E. & Shearer, Teri, 2009. "The construction of auditability: MBA rankings and assurance in practice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 119-140, January.
    6. Knechel, W. Robert & Salterio, Steven E. & Kochetova-Kozloski, Natalia, 2010. "The effect of benchmarked performance measures and strategic analysis on auditors' risk assessments and mental models," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 316-333, April.
    7. Bruynseels, Liesbeth & Willekens, Marleen, 2012. "The effect of strategic and operating turnaround initiatives on audit reporting for distressed companies," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 223-241.
    8. 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.
    9. Christopher Humphrey, 2008. "Auditing research: a review across the disciplinary divide," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(2), pages 170-203, February.
    10. Ian Fraser & Chris Pong, 2009. "The future of the external audit function," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(2), pages 104-113, January.
    11. Faulconbridge, James R. & Muzio, Daniel, 2021. "Valuation devices and the dynamic legitimacy-performativity nexus: The case of PEP in the English legal profession," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    12. Lasse Niemi & W. Robert Knechel & Hannu Ojala & Jill Collis, 2018. "Responsiveness of Auditors to the Audit Risk Standards: Unique Evidence from Big 4 Audit Firms," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 33-54, January.
    13. Daniel VILSANOIU & Mihaela SERBAN, 2010. "Changing Methodologies in Financial Audit and Their Impact on Information Systems Audit," Informatica Economica, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(1), pages 59-65.
    14. Dermarkar, Simon & Hazgui, Mouna, 2022. "How auditors legitimize commercialism: A micro-discursive analysis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    15. Arena, Marika & Arnaboldi, Michela & Azzone, Giovanni, 2010. "The organizational dynamics of Enterprise Risk Management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 659-675, October.
    16. Carlos Ramirez, 2013. "‘We are being Pilloried for Something, We Did Not Even Know We Had Done Wrong!’ Quality Control and Orders of Worth in the British Audit Profession," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 845-869, July.
    17. Wright, William F., 2016. "Client business models, process business risks and the risk of material misstatement of revenue," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 43-55.
    18. Alia Miledi & Benoit Pigé, 2013. "Le Jugement Professionnel En Audit : Enquete Aupres Des Associes Signataires," Post-Print hal-01002359, HAL.
    19. Maroun, Warren & Atkins, Jill, 2014. "Section 45 of the Auditing Profession Act: Blowing the whistle for audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 248-263.
    20. Ardelean Alexandra, 2013. "Defining the Public Interest in Relation to the Accountancy Profession: Some Perspectives," Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 60(2), pages 1-17, 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:eee:accfor:v:32:y:2008:i:2:p:143-147. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/accounting-forum .

    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.