IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v14y2021i6p268-d574233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditor Judgements after Withdrawal of the Materiality Accounting Standard in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Raul David

    (Discipline of Accounting and Finance, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0800, Australia)

  • Indra Abeysekera

    (Discipline of Accounting and Finance, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0800, Australia)

Abstract

The concept of materiality, originating in the accounting domain and applied in the auditing domain, is an essential tool for improving audit quality. A renewed interest in materiality research emerged in Australia after submitting Exposure Draft no. 243 by the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) proposing the withdrawal of AASB 1031 Materiality, which became effective in July 2015. The purpose of this paper is to review the audit literature to examine how the materiality concept is located in the regulatory framework, the standards and guidance that support the application of this concept, and research undertaken using different research methods. As our review reveals significant gaps in recent research on the subject, gaps need to be addressed. The paper concludes by proposing research propositions that fit into the audit triangle for materiality research developed in this paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Raul David & Indra Abeysekera, 2021. "Auditor Judgements after Withdrawal of the Materiality Accounting Standard in Australia," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:14:y:2021:i:6:p:268-:d:574233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/14/6/268/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/14/6/268/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Preeti Choudhary & Kenneth Merkley & Katherine Schipper, 2019. "Auditors’ Quantitative Materiality Judgments: Properties and Implications for Financial Reporting Reliability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(5), pages 1303-1351, December.
    2. Ward, Bh, 1976. "Investigation Of Materiality Construct In Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 138-152.
    3. Takiah Mohd Iskandar & Errol R Iselin, 1999. "A review of materiality research," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 209-239, September.
    4. Chewning, G & Pany, K & Wheeler, S, 1989. "Auditor Reporting Decisions Involving Accounting Principle Changes - Some Evidence On Materiality Thresholds," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 78-96.
    5. Edgley, Carla, 2014. "A genealogy of accounting materiality," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-271.
    6. Firth, Michael, 1979. "Consensus views and judgment models in materiality decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 283-295, October.
    7. Arnold, Donald Sr. & Bernardi, Richard A. & Neidermeyer, Presha E., 2001. "The association between European materiality estimates and client integrity, national culture, and litigation," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 459-483, 012.
    8. DeZoort, F. Todd & Hermanson, Dana R. & Houston, Richard W., 2003. "Audit committee support for auditors: The effects of materiality justification and accounting precision," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 175-199.
    9. Louise Bringselius, 2018. "Efficiency, economy and effectiveness—but what about ethics? Supreme audit institutions at a critical juncture," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 105-110, February.
    10. Wong-On-Wing, Bernard & Hal Reneau, J. & West, Stephen G., 1989. "Auditors' perception of management: Determinants and consequences," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(5-6), pages 577-587, October.
    11. Federica Farneti & James Guthrie, 2009. "Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: Why they report," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 89-98, June.
    12. Farneti, Federica & Guthrie, James, 2009. "Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organisations: Why they report," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 89-98.
    13. Keith A. Houghton & Christine Jubb & Michael Kend, 2011. "Materiality in the context of audit: the real expectations gap," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(6), pages 482-500, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Edgley, Carla, 2014. "A genealogy of accounting materiality," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-271.
    2. Roberto Aprile & David Alexander & Federica Doni, 2023. "Enhancing the materiality principle in integrated reporting by adopting the General Systems Theory," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 2219-2233, September.
    3. Matteo Molinari & Maria Pia Maraghini & Angelo Riccaboni, 2021. "Reporting di Sostenibilit? e Controllo Manageriale: L?esperienza di Edison S.p.A," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2021(2), pages 61-86.
    4. Bouten, Lies & Everaert, Patricia & Van Liedekerke, Luc & De Moor, Lieven & Christiaens, Johan, 2011. "Corporate social responsibility reporting: A comprehensive picture?," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 187-204.
    5. Elisa Bonollo, 2015. "Disclosures in Local Healthcare Organizations? Social Reports. ?What?? and ?Why?? An Empirical Analysis of the Italian National Healthcare System," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(1), pages 41-75.
    6. Tudor Oprisor & Adriana TIRON-TUDOR & Cristina Silvia NISTOR, 2016. "The integrated reporting system: a new accountability enhancement tool for public sector entities," The Audit Financiar journal, Chamber of Financial Auditors of Romania, vol. 14(139), pages 747-747.
    7. 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.
    8. Aurelio Tommasetti & Riccardo Mussari & Gennaro Maione & Daniela Sorrentino, 2020. "Sustainability Accounting and Reporting in the Public Sector: Towards Public Value Co-Creation?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Williams, Belinda & Wilmshurst, Trevor & Clift, Robert, 2011. "Sustainability reporting by local government in Australia: Current and future prospects," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 176-186.
    10. Viera Papcunová & Roman Vavrek & Marek Dvořák, 2021. "Role of Public Entities in Suitable Provision of Public Services: Case Study from Slovakia," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, November.
    11. Lodovico Gherardi & Anna Maria Linsalata & Enrico Deidda Gagliardo & Rebecca Levy Orelli, 2021. "Accountability and Reporting for Sustainability and Public Value: Challenges in the Public Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, January.
    12. Francesco Rosati & Roberta Costa & Armando Calabrese & Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen, 2018. "Employee attitudes towards corporate social responsibility: a study on gender, age and educational level differences," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1306-1319, November.
    13. Karen‐Ann M. Dwyer & Niamh M. Brennan & Collette E. Kirwan, 2023. "Auditor Materiality in Expanded Audit Reports: More (Disclosure) is Less," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 33(1), pages 31-45, March.
    14. Dina Patrisia & Shabbir Dastgir, 2017. "Diversification and corporate social performance in manufacturing companies," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 7(1), pages 121-139, April.
    15. Paolo Esposito & Spiridione Lucio Dicorato & Emanuele Doronzo, 2021. "The effect of ownership on sustainable development and environmental policy in urban waste management: An explicatory empirical analysis of Italian municipal corporations," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1067-1079, February.
    16. Francisco J. López-Arceiz & Ana J. Bellostas & Pilar Rivera, 2018. "Twenty Years of Research on the Relationship Between Economic and Social Performance: A Meta-analysis Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 453-484, November.
    17. Lucia Biondi & Enrico Bracci, 2018. "Sustainability, Popular and Integrated Reporting in the Public Sector: A Fad and Fashion Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, August.
    18. Lynch, Barbara, 2010. "An examination of environmental reporting by Australian state government departments," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 32-45.
    19. Hassan Lahbari & Riadh Manita, 2011. "L'impact des facteurs qualitatifs sur les jugements éthiques de la matérialité en audit," Post-Print hal-00650541, HAL.
    20. Stefano Azzali & Tatiana Mazza & Luca Fornaciari & Laura Trinchera, 2021. "Effects of Materiality Assessment on Internal Controls over Financial Reporting Maturity," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, July.

    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:gam:jjrfmx:v:14:y:2021:i:6:p:268-:d:574233. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.