IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Travelling audit's fault lines: a new architecture for auditing standards


  • David J. Hatherly


Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to challenge the conceptual basis upon which the current auditing standards are based. Design/methodology/approach - The paper critically appraises the Auditors' Code published by the Auditing Practices Board and containing the nine fundamental and enduring principles upon which current auditing standards are based. Findings - It is argued that the nine enduring principles should be replaced by seven enduring tensions – the fault lines of auditing – so as to rethink the conceptual basis of auditing standards. Five of these are drawn from the paper's analysis of the Auditors' Code and two are based upon the author's experience of the issues arising in the preparation of the Code and the ensuing debate. Research limitations/implications - Further research should be carried out to test the robustness of the seven enduring tensions as the basis for standard setting. A first step might be to map the existing standards onto the new conceptual basis. Practical implications - Standard setters can deploy a new architecture for auditing standards and one that addresses the tensions inherent in auditing. Standard setting should be recognised as an activity dominated by ethical choices and concerns. Originality/value - The new conceptual basis should provide us with a much closer reading of what auditing is, and its potential for development without expectation gaps.

Suggested Citation

  • David J. Hatherly, 2009. "Travelling audit's fault lines: a new architecture for auditing standards," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(2), pages 204-215, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:v:24:y:2009:i:2:p:204-215

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item


    Auditing; Professional ethics; Standards;


    Access and download statistics


    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:v:24:y:2009:i:2:p:204-215. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Virginia Chapman). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.