IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/majpps/02686900910919875.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Establishing a baseline for assessing the frequency of auditors' comments concerning perceived client integrity

Author

Listed:
  • Richard A. Bernardi

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine whether comments made by Big‐Six auditors about their post‐audit perceptions of the client's integrity were influenced by their firm's rating of the client's integrity prior to the start of the current audit. Design/methodology/approach - The paper uses an established fraud detection case study with a manipulation of client integrity. The participants include 152 managers and 342 seniors from five of the then Big‐Six firms. Findings - The findings indicates that auditors were insensitive to client integrity ratings in the audit planning/risk assessment stage of the audit. Practical implications - The very foundation of corporate governance and the value of the audit are weakened when client integrity is questionable and may not result in implementing more rigorous audit procedures suggested by Mautz and Sharaf. Originality/value - The existent literature cannot be used to determine whether or not Auditing Standards enacted since 1991 have had any effect on the practice of auditing in this area. Consequently, this paper contributes to the literature by establishing a 1991 (i.e. before Statement of Auditing Standards 82) baseline for evaluation purposes. (A baseline being a point of reference to compare the results of future research.)

Suggested Citation

  • Richard A. Bernardi, 2009. "Establishing a baseline for assessing the frequency of auditors' comments concerning perceived client integrity," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24(1), pages 4-21, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:02686900910919875
    DOI: 10.1108/02686900910919875
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02686900910919875/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02686900910919875/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/02686900910919875?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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bias; Auditors; Ethics;
    All these keywords.

    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:eme:majpps:02686900910919875. 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: Emerald Support (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.