IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v17y2024i11p525-d1525143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Key Audit Matters and Stock Ownership on Audit Committee Members’ Accounting Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle Höfmann

    (Independent Researcher, 45475 Mühlheim an der Ruhr, Germany)

  • Christiane Pott

    (Faculty of Economics, TU Dortmund University, 44227 Dortmund, Germany)

  • Sandra Chrzan

    (Faculty of Economics, TU Dortmund University, 44227 Dortmund, Germany)

Abstract

This study investigated the interactive effect of key audit matters (KAMs) and stock ownership on German audit committee (AC) members’ preferences regarding accounting issues in an experimental setting. Specifically, we explored whether the increased accountability of AC members to investors, resulting from KAM disclosures, is influenced by whether an AC member owns shares in the audited company. Our findings suggest that the disclosure of KAMs supports a conservative management accounting preference. However, KAMs can be used by stock-owning AC members as disclaimers that inform the investing public and might serve as legitimation tools for ACs with a preference for less conservative accounting. Hence, our study provides evidence from a two-tier governance country that audit committee members’ accounting preferences based on disclosed KAMs depend on their financial independence.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle Höfmann & Christiane Pott & Sandra Chrzan, 2024. "The Effects of Key Audit Matters and Stock Ownership on Audit Committee Members’ Accounting Preferences," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:17:y:2024:i:11:p:525-:d:1525143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/11/525/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/17/11/525/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daylian M. Cain & George Loewenstein & Don A. Moore, 2011. "When Sunlight Fails to Disinfect: Understanding the Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(5), pages 836-857.
    2. Joseph V. Carcello & Terry L. Neal, 2003. "Audit Committee Independence and Disclosure: choice for financially distressed firms," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(4), pages 289-299, October.
    3. Alhababsah, Salem & Yekini, Sina, 2021. "Audit committee and audit quality: An empirical analysis considering industry expertise, legal expertise and gender diversity," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    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. Ismayilov, Huseyn & Potters, Jan, 2013. "Disclosing advisor's interests neither hurts nor helps," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 314-320.
    2. Effron, Daniel A. & Raj, Medha, 2021. "Disclosing interpersonal conflicts of interest: Revealing whom we like, but not whom we dislike," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 68-85.
    3. Weißmüller, Kristina Sabrina, 2025. "Dangerous Morality. How Moral Licensing Undermines the Fight against Administrative Corruption, and How to Fix it," OSF Preprints kt2v7_v1, Center for Open Science.
    4. Palmeira, Mauricio, 2020. "Advice in the presence of external cues: The impact of conflicting judgments on perceptions of expertise," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 82-96.
    5. Yuanto Kusnadi & Kwong Sin Leong & Themin Suwardy & Jiwei Wang, 2016. "Audit Committees and Financial Reporting Quality in Singapore," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 197-214, November.
    6. Areneke, Geofry & Adegbite, Emmanuel & Tunyi, Abongeh, 2022. "Transfer of corporate governance practices into weak emerging market environments by foreign institutional investors," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(5).
    7. Ashiru, Folajimi & Adegbite, Emmanuel & Frecknall-Hughes, Jane & Daodu, Olabisi, 2024. "Reliability of the audit committee in weak institutional environments: Evidence from Nigeria," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    8. Roman Inderst & Kiryl Khalmetski & Axel Ockenfels, 2019. "Sharing Guilt: How Better Access to Information May Backfire," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3322-3336, July.
    9. Paul Chen & Martin Richardson, 2019. "Conflict of Interest, Disclosure and Vertical Relationships: An Experimental Analysis," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 38(3), pages 167-181, September.
    10. Ashfaque Banbhan & Xinsheng Cheng & Nizam Ud Din, 2018. "Financially Qualified Members in an Upper Echelon and Their Relationship with Corporate Sustainability: Evidence from an Emerging Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Jeroen Maesschalck, 2022. "Making Behavioral Ethics Research More Useful for Ethics Management Practice: Embracing Complexity Using a Design Science Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 933-944, December.
    12. Jim Psaros & Michael Seamer, 2015. "Ranking Corporate Governance of Australia's Top Companies: A Decade On," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 25(4), pages 405-412, December.
    13. Yousef Alwardat, 2019. "Disclosure Quality and its Impact on Financial Reporting Quality, Audit Quality, and Investors’ Perceptions of the Quality of Financial Reporting: A Literature Review," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 8(3), pages 201-201, August.
    14. Fabian Wagner, 2024. "Determinants of conventional and digital investment advisory decisions: a systematic literature review," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 1-32, December.
    15. Alhababsah, Salem & Alhaj-Ismail, Alaa, 2023. "Does shared tenure between audit committee chair and engagement partner affect audit outcomes? Evidence from the UK," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    16. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2016. "The pros and cons of workplace tournaments," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 302-302, October.
    17. Mohd Azmi Mohd Noor Author_Email: mnmazmi@ tm.com.my & Dr. Faudziah Hanim Bt Fadzil, 2011. "Influence Of Corporate Governance Attributes On Firms’ Financial Performance In Malaysia," Annual Summit on Business and Entrepreneurial Studies (ASBES 2011) Proceeding 2011-039-124, Conference Master Resources.
    18. Alharbi, Samar S. & Saeed, Asif & Iqbal, Umer & Elommal, Najoua, 2025. "Board co-option and audit quality: Evidence from US," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    19. Husam Aldamen & Keith Duncan & Simone Kelly & Ray McNamara & Stephan Nagel, 2012. "Audit committee characteristics and firm performance during the global financial crisis," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 52(4), pages 971-1000, December.
    20. Tobias Gesche, 2016. "De-biasing strategic communication," ECON - Working Papers 216, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Sep 2021.

    More about this item

    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:gam:jjrfmx:v:17:y:2024:i:11:p:525-:d:1525143. 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.