IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ijcgvn/v8y2015i1p84-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statutory Auditors' Independence in the Backdrop of Corporate Corruption: Select Case Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Siddhartha Sankar Saha
  • Mitrendu Narayan Roy

Abstract

This study considers three highly recognised corporate scandals that occurred in three diverse continents during different time periods. These are Enron Corporation (United States of America [USA], 2001], Polly Peck International (PPI) (United Kingdom [UK],1990] and Satyam Computer Services Ltd (India, 2009). Arthur Anderson LLP (USA), Stoy Hayward (UK) and Price Waterhouse (India) performed as statutory auditors in these three companies respectively. This study analyses statutory auditors' independence in these select cases based on nine parameters. Investigated facts on these parameters are compared with current regulatory requirements in order to explore the deviation for the case indicating the extent to which statutory auditors' independence was lost in each scandal. The study finds that statutory auditors in all three cases had enough reasons to compromise their independence. Their activities against most of the parameters were not in compliance with current regulatory requirements. Appointment procedure of statutory auditors, provision of non-audit services and remuneration arrangement threatened statutory auditors' independence in all three scandals. Safeguards available in the form of audit committee, external review and disciplinary framework were also not adequate. It ultimately caused statutory auditors in all three companies to compromise their independence.

Suggested Citation

  • Siddhartha Sankar Saha & Mitrendu Narayan Roy, 2015. "Statutory Auditors' Independence in the Backdrop of Corporate Corruption: Select Case Studies," Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, , vol. 8(1), pages 84-102, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ijcgvn:v:8:y:2015:i:1:p:84-102
    DOI: 10.1177/0974686215574433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0974686215574433
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0974686215574433?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clive S. Lennox, 1999. "Audit Quality and Auditor Size: An Evaluation of Reputation and Deep Pockets Hypotheses," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(7&8), pages 779-805.
    2. Clive S. Lennox, 1999. "Audit Quality and Auditor Size: An Evaluation of Reputation and Deep Pockets Hypotheses," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(7‐8), pages 779-805, September.
    3. Paul M. Healy & Krishna G. Palepu, 2003. "The Fall of Enron," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 3-26, Spring.
    4. Simon Deakin & Suzanne J. Konzelmann, 2003. "Learning from Enron," Working Papers wp274, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    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. Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Seong Mi Bae & Javier Manzanares & Jong Dae Kim, 2019. "Board Directors’ Expertise and Corporate Corruption Disclosure: The Moderating Role of Political Connections," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-22, August.

    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. Cai, Yongbin & Li, Mengzhe, 2022. "CEO-CFO tenure consistency and audit fees," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    2. AYOUB, Maysam, 2023. "European evidence on the effects of audit office changes on clients' financial reporting quality," Working Papers 2023007, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    3. Shoaib Ali & Hafiz Muhammad Naveed & Abubakar Khaliq, 2020. "Does an External Governance Framework Enhance the Performance of Pakistan's Banking Sectors? Foreign Ownership as Moderator," Economy, Asian Online Journal Publishing Group, vol. 7(2), pages 110-118.
    4. Dennis M. Lopez & Pamela C. Smith, 2010. "Auditor Type and Audit Quality Differences in Nonprofit Healthcare Organizations – U.S. Evidence," Working Papers 0107, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    5. Guang-Zheng Chen, 2020. "Related Party Transactions and Opinion Shopping," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9.
    6. Casey, Ryan J. & Kaplan, Steven E. & Pinello, Arianna Spina, 2015. "Do auditors constrain benchmark beating behavior to a greater extent in the fourth versus interim quarters?," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-10.
    7. Nathan R. Berglund, 2020. "Do Client Bankruptcies Preceded by Clean Audit Opinions Damage Auditor Reputation?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1914-1951, September.
    8. Serge Evraert & Stéphane Trebucq, 2003. "Crise De Confiance Et Information Comptable : Une Etude Empirique Des Reactions Du Marche Français A L'Annonce Des Affaires Enron Et Worldcom," Post-Print halshs-00582775, HAL.
    9. Nelson, Karen K. & Price, Richard A. & Rountree, Brian R., 2008. "The market reaction to Arthur Andersen's role in the Enron scandal: Loss of reputation or confounding effects?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2-3), pages 279-293, December.
    10. Kuhn, Michael & Siciliani, Luigi, 2013. "Manipulation and auditing of public sector contracts," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 251-267.
    11. Fung, Simon Yu Kit & Raman, K.K. & Zhu, Xindong (Kevin), 2017. "Does the PCAOB international inspection program improve audit quality for non-US-listed foreign clients?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 15-36.
    12. Cook, Jonathan & Kowaleski, Zachary T. & Minnis, Michael & Sutherland, Andrew & Zehms, Karla M., 2020. "Auditors are known by the companies they keep," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1).
    13. Bastien Lextrait, 2021. "Scaling up SME's credit scoring scope with LightGBM," EconomiX Working Papers 2021-25, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    14. Augustine O. Okolie Ph.D, FCA, 2014. "Audit Firm Size and Market Price Per Share of Quoted Companies in Nigeria," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 4(5), pages 100-117, May.
    15. Louis-Philippe Sirois & Sophie Marmousez & Dan A. Simunic, 2012. "Big 4 and non-Big 4 Audit Production Costs: Office Level Audit Technology and the Impact on Audit Fees," Post-Print hal-00691147, HAL.
    16. Pei-Gi Shu & Tsung-Kang Chen & Wen-Jye Hung, 2015. "Audit duration quality and client credit risk," Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 137-162, June.
    17. Dennis M. Lopez & Pamela C. Smith, 2010. "Auditor Type and Audit Quality Differences in Nonprofit Healthcare Organizations – U.S. Evidence," Working Papers 0107, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    18. Ishaq Ahmed Mohammed & Ayoib Che-Ahmad & Mazrah Malek, 2018. "Shareholder’s involvement in the audit committee, audit quality and financial reporting lag in Nigeria," Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), Prague Development Center, vol. 14(2), pages 355-374, April.
    19. Prabashi Dharmasiri & Soon-Yeow Phang & Ashna Prasad & John Webster, 2022. "Consequences of Ethical and Audit Violations: Evidence from the PCAOB Settled Disciplinary Orders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 179-203, August.
    20. Koch, Christopher & Schmidt, Carsten, 2010. "Disclosing conflicts of interest - Do experience and reputation matter?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 95-107, January.

    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:sae:ijcgvn:v:8:y:2015:i:1:p:84-102. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.