IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/acbsfi/v31y2021i3p255-285.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The problematical nature of auditor independence: a historical perspective

Author

Listed:
  • John Richard Edwards
  • Brian West

Abstract

Much of the utility of the external audit derives from a presumption that professional auditors are independent and will therefore provide impartial opinions – premises that have often been challenged in recent decades. Focusing initially on a nineteenth-century phenomenon, the ‘continuous audit’, this study provides a historical perspective for reviewing contemporary concerns with the audit function by revealing that failings in auditor independence date from the naissance of the professional audit. It is shown that the continuous audit served primarily the needs of management. That is, in modern parlance, it was a form of management consulting carried out under the guise of an independent service for the benefit of shareholders. Eventually this deception proved unsustainable as the emergent audit profession sought to strengthen its claim to independence and company managers sought more cost-effective means for the routine monitoring of operations. Lack of independence and conflict of interest persisted, however, continuing to be masked by a rhetorical discourse that protected the occupational territory and authority of the audit profession through to the present day.

Suggested Citation

  • John Richard Edwards & Brian West, 2021. "The problematical nature of auditor independence: a historical perspective," Accounting History Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 255-285, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:acbsfi:v:31:y:2021:i:3:p:255-285
    DOI: 10.1080/21552851.2022.2036621
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21552851.2022.2036621
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21552851.2022.2036621?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

    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:taf:acbsfi:v:31:y:2021:i:3:p:255-285. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RABF21 .

    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.