IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/acceur/v10y2013i2p175-199.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Joint Audit: Issues and Challenges for Researchers and Policy-Makers

Author

Listed:
  • Nicole V. S. Ratzinger-Sakel
  • Sophie Audousset-Coulier
  • Jaana Kettunen
  • Cédric Lesage

Abstract

The publication of the European Commission Green Paper, 'Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis' in October 2010, has stirred up a lively debate on the role of joint audits. This literature review identifies and evaluates, for the benefit of future research and regulators, existing evidence about joint audits. We find limited empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to increased audit quality, but some empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to additional costs. Overall, this paper indicates that joint audit should be seen as a mechanism that is embedded in a broader institutional context and not be considered in isolation from other factors that might impact the audit market. The results indicate that various country-level characteristics are simultaneously at play. While joint audits can potentially enhance the audit market competition by allowing smaller audit firms to maintain larger market shares, the related impact on audit quality has not yet been clearly demonstrated and thus provides a promising avenue for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicole V. S. Ratzinger-Sakel & Sophie Audousset-Coulier & Jaana Kettunen & Cédric Lesage, 2013. "Joint Audit: Issues and Challenges for Researchers and Policy-Makers," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 175-199, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:acceur:v:10:y:2013:i:2:p:175-199
    DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2013.834725
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17449480.2013.834725
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17449480.2013.834725?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dana Zhang & Gerald Lobo & Jean-François Casta & Luc Paugam, 2013. "The Effect of Joint Auditor Pair On Timely Loss Recognition: Evidence From Impairment Tests," Post-Print hal-01637689, HAL.
    2. Moez Bennouri & Mehdi Nekhili & Philippe Touron, 2011. "Does Auditors' Reputation 'Discourage' Related Party Transactions? The French Case," Post-Print hal-00714209, HAL.
    3. Paul André & GéRaldine Broye & Christopher Pong & Alain Schatt, 2016. "Are Joint Audits Associated with Higher Audit Fees?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 245-274, June.
    4. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11491 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kovermann, Jost & Velte, Patrick, 2019. "The impact of corporate governance on corporate tax avoidance—A literature review," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Quick, Reiner & Schmidt, Florian, 2018. "Do audit firm rotation, auditor retention, and joint audits matter? – An experimental investigation of bank directors' and institutional investors' perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-21.
    3. Mehdi Nekhili & Fahim Javed & Haithem Nagati, 2022. "Audit Partner Gender, Leadership and Ethics: The Case of Earnings Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(2), pages 233-260, May.
    4. Claus Holm & Frank Thinggaard, 2018. "From joint to single audits – audit quality differences and auditor pairings," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 321-344, April.
    5. Marcel Haak & Michelle Muraz & Roland Zieseniß, 2018. "Joint Audits: Does the Allocation of Audit Work Affect Audit Quality and Audit Fees?," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 55-80, January.
    6. Marius Gros & Daniel Worret, 2016. "Lobbying and Audit Regulation in the EU," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 381-403, September.
    7. Mohamed M. El-Dyasty & Ahmed A. Elamer, 2022. "Multiple audit mechanism, audit quality and cost of debt: empirical evidence from a developing country," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(3), pages 264-281, September.
    8. Sophie Audousset-Coulier, 2015. "Audit Fees in a Joint Audit Setting," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 347-377, June.
    9. Florian Hoos & Jorien Louise Pruijssers & Michel W. Lander, 2019. "Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 563-575, May.
    10. Zhu, Jingqi & Spence, Crawford & Ezzamel, Mahmoud, 2021. "Thinking like the state: Doxa and symbolic power in the accounting field in China," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    11. Qiang Guo & Christopher Koch & Aiyong Zhu, 2017. "Joint audit, audit market structure, and consumer surplus," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1595-1627, December.

    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. Qiang Guo & Christopher Koch & Aiyong Zhu, 2017. "Joint audit, audit market structure, and consumer surplus," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1595-1627, December.
    2. Sierra-García, Laura & Gambetta, Nicolás & García-Benau, María A. & Orta-Pérez, Manuel, 2019. "Understanding the determinants of the magnitude of entity-level risk and account-level risk key audit matters: The case of the United Kingdom," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 227-240.
    3. Lasse Niemi & W. Robert Knechel & Hannu Ojala & Jill Collis, 2018. "Responsiveness of Auditors to the Audit Risk Standards: Unique Evidence from Big 4 Audit Firms," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 33-54, January.
    4. Andrikopoulos, Andreas & Merika, Anna & Merikas, Andreas & Sigalas, Christos, 2021. "Related party transactions and principal-principal conflicts in public companies: Evidence from the maritime shipping industry," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    5. Mai, Nhat Chi, 2020. "Related Party Transactions, State Ownership, the Cost of Corporate Debt, and Corporate Tax Avoidance: Evidence from Vietnam," OSF Preprints y5qj3, Center for Open Science.
    6. Murad Harasheh & Roberta Provasi, 2023. "A need for assurance: Do internal control systems integrate environmental, social, and governance factors?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 384-401, January.
    7. Gérald Lobo & Luc Paugam & Lana Zhang & Jean-François Casta, 2013. "Effect Of Joint Auditor Pair On Conserv A Tism: Evidence From Impairment Tests," Post-Print hal-00993007, HAL.
    8. Hyunjung Choi & Jungeun Cho, 2021. "Related-Party Transactions, Chaebol Affiliations, and the Value of Cash Holdings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, January.
    9. Linus Axén & Torbjörn Tagesson & Denis Shcherbinin & Azra Custovic & Anna Ojdanic, 2019. "Does municipal ownership affect audit fees?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(3), pages 693-713, September.
    10. Bhandari, Avishek & Kohlbeck, Mark & Mayhew, Brian, 2022. "Association of related party transactions with sensitivity of investments and external financing," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    11. Chen, Ching-Lung & Chen, Chung-Yu & Weng, Pei-Yu, 2020. "Do related party transactions always deteriorate earnings informativeness?," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    12. Florian Hoos & Jorien Louise Pruijssers & Michel W. Lander, 2019. "Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 563-575, May.
    13. Quick, Reiner & Schmidt, Florian, 2018. "Do audit firm rotation, auditor retention, and joint audits matter? – An experimental investigation of bank directors' and institutional investors' perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-21.
    14. Claus Holm & Frank Thinggaard, 2018. "From joint to single audits – audit quality differences and auditor pairings," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 321-344, April.
    15. Lassaad Abdelmoula & Habib Affes, 2019. "Determining Factors of the Quality of Joint Audit: Tunisian Context," Journal of Accounting and Management Information Systems, Faculty of Accounting and Management Information Systems, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 559-587, December.
    16. Bi, XiaoGang & Tang, Judy & Tharyan, Rajesh, 2020. "Switching due diligence auditor in Chinese mergers and acquisitions," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    17. Marcel Haak & Michelle Muraz & Roland Zieseniß, 2018. "Joint Audits: Does the Allocation of Audit Work Affect Audit Quality and Audit Fees?," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 55-80, January.
    18. Zhu, Jingqi & Spence, Crawford & Ezzamel, Mahmoud, 2021. "Thinking like the state: Doxa and symbolic power in the accounting field in China," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).

    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:acceur:v:10:y:2013:i:2:p:175-199. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAIE20 .

    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.