IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sjobre/v56y2004i2d10.1007_bf03372732.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Die Festlegung von Wesentlichkeitsgrenzen in der deutschen Wirtschaftsprüfungspraxis

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Wolz

    (Bergische Universität Wuppertal)

Abstract

Summary Due to recent cases of fraud in financial statements and spectacular corporate failures, the quality of statutory audits is once again under discussion. Audit quality combines, among others, the aspects of reliability and exactness of the audit opinion, which can be modelled by the interacting variables of the audit risk and the materiality threshold being used. The recently published audit standard IDW AuS 250: Audit Materiality raises the question, whether this norm can assure a sufficient audit quality in terms of reliability and exactness of the audit opinion. Based on a analysis of the audit approaches of the Big 5 audit firms, the study at hand addresses this aspect by an empirical examination of how the materiality threshold is assessed in the context of the risk driven audit approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias Wolz, 2004. "Die Festlegung von Wesentlichkeitsgrenzen in der deutschen Wirtschaftsprüfungspraxis," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 122-145, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sjobre:v:56:y:2004:i:2:d:10.1007_bf03372732
    DOI: 10.1007/BF03372732
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF03372732
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF03372732?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. H. Gin Chong, 1992. "Auditors and Materiality," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(5), pages 1-1, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Firth, Michael, 1979. "Consensus views and judgment models in materiality decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 283-295, October.
    4. Messier, Wf, 1983. "The Effect Of Experience And Firm Type On Materiality Disclosure Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 611-618.
    5. Mayper, Ag, 1982. "Consensus Of Auditors Materiality Judgments Of Internal Accounting Control Weaknesses," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 773-783.
    6. repec:eme:maj000:02686909210017865 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Carpenter, Brian W. & Dirsmith, Mark W., 1992. "Early debt extinguishment transactions and auditor materiality judgments: A bounded rationality perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 17(8), pages 709-739, November.
    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. Hassan Lahbari & Riadh Manita, 2011. "L'impact des facteurs qualitatifs sur les jugements éthiques de la matérialité en audit," Post-Print hal-00650541, HAL.
    2. Edgley, Carla, 2014. "A genealogy of accounting materiality," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-271.
    3. Javier Montoya del Corte & Francisco Javier Martínez García & Ana Fernández Laviada, 2010. "Effective use of qualitative materiality factors: evidence from Spain," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(5), pages 458-483, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Tae G. Ryu & Chul-Young Roh, 2007. "The Auditor's Going-Concern Opinion Decision," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 6(2), pages 89-101, August.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Jong-Shin Wei, 2007. "Book Review -- World Investment Prospects to 2010 ¡V Boom or Backlash?," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 6(2), pages 179-180, August.
    9. Edgley, Carla & Jones, Michael J. & Atkins, Jill, 2015. "The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: A field study approach," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-18.
    10. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    11. Sadok Mansour, 2007. "Modelisation Du Risque Dans Les Methodologies D'Audit : Apport Des De La Psychometrie," Post-Print halshs-00543217, HAL.
    12. Jordan Famularo, 2023. "Corporate social responsibility communication in the ICT sector: digital issues, greenwashing, and materiality," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-25, December.
    13. Ann Gaeremynck & Marleen Willekens, 2003. "The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 65-79.
    14. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3528 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Piet Sercu & Heidi Bauwhede & Marleen Willekens, 2006. "Post-Enron Implicit Audit Reporting Standards: Sifting through the Evidence," De Economist, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 389-403, September.
    16. E. Michael Bamber & Joseph H. Bylinski, 1987. "The effects of the planning memorandum, time pressure and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers' review time judgments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 127-143, September.
    17. Terence Bu†Peow NG & Hun†Tong Tan, 2007. "Effects of Qualitative Factor Salience, Expressed Client Concern, and Qualitative Materiality Thresholds on Auditors' Audit Adjustment Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1171-1192, December.
    18. Dezoort, F. T., 1998. "An analysis of experience effects on audit committee members' oversight judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-21, January.
    19. K. Raghunandan, 1993. "Predictive Ability of Audit Qualifications for Loss Contingencies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 612-634, March.
    20. Wu, Xi & Wang, Jun, 2018. "Management's Materiality Criteria of Internal Control Weaknesses and Corporate Fraud: Evidence from China," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-19.
    21. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    M41;

    JEL classification:

    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting

    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:spr:sjobre:v:56:y:2004:i:2:d:10.1007_bf03372732. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.