Corporate Governance and the Quality of Audit Process: An Exploratory Analysis Considering Internal Audit, Audit Committee and Board of Directors



Abstract Views
3311

Downloads
2369

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Dec 18, 2021
Published Jan 22, 2022
10.24018/ejbmr.2022.7.1.1210

Abstract viewed = 3311 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This research aims to offer a better understanding concerning the relationships between Internal Corporate Governance Mechanisms and quality of the external audit process and what are the governance mechanisms that can influence some aspects of the quality of the external audit process. Semi-structured interviews were employed in order to get detail views of the external auditors to explain and clarify how the Internal Corporate Governance Mechanisms can influence the quality of the external audit process as well as offer a better understanding of the relationships between the governance mechanisms and the quality of the external audit process. Adopting this research design (exploratory) was mainly as a response to the recent calls as there is a lack of this kind of study that investigate the relationship between the Internal Corporate Governance Mechanisms can influence the quality of the external audit process. This research focuses on the perception/insight of the Jordanian external auditors regarding the influence of Internal Corporate Governance Mechanisms on quality of the external audit process. Thus, this study uses a sample of 206 Jordanian external auditors for the survey and 13 participants from this sample for the interview. The qualitative study employed the thematic analysis to analyse the interview data. The interview results highlighted that there are different ways and stages that the ICGMs can influence the EAQ, for example, through holding effective regular meeting, ensuring the auditor compliance with the audit requirements “regular monitoring”, discussing the initial and significant audit results “draft of discussion”, taking necessary follow-up actions “feedback” as well as requesting the auditor to conduct additional tests which can in turn enhance the EAQ. The results also suggest that ICGM can assist improving different aspects of EAQ such as the quality of the evidence that are collected by the ICGM and the valuable guidance from the ICGM to the external auditor. The communication between the ICGM and external auditor can be focused on different issues related to the audit process such as auditors’ findings, the effectiveness of internal control, scope limitations and material misstatements which allow improving the effectiveness of audit process. This indicates that, the auditor must be aware of the dynamic deciding of the role of particular mechanisms in improving the external audit process. The results have implications for the practitioners and regulators who are assessing the role of ICGM in improving the reliability of the financial report and auditor’s report. The empirical findings demonstrate that different ICGM can influence different aspects of the EAQ. More importantly, the results reveal that audit practice in Jordan is experiencing some difficulties in terms of the independence of the auditor especially, for the small local firms and providing non-audit service. In addition, there is no professional body for board of director; internal audit and audit committee like Jordanian association of certified public accountant (JACPA) for the external auditor, thus, responsibilities of these mechanisms need to be formally overseen by a higher authority. For the policymakers, this study offers a unique proposition to improve the effectiveness of the ICGM to achieve EAQ. These empirical findings of this study also highlight the importance of improving EAQ as a solution for the agency problems through reducing information asymmetry, improving the disclosure practice, level of confidence and assurance of the financial reporting as well as deterring the opportunistic behaviour from different parties. This research extended the existing empirical evidence that investigated the role of the internal governance mechanisms in the audit process.

Keywords: Audit Committee and Board of Directors, Internal Audit

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Adeyemi, S. B., Okpala, O. & Dabor, E. L. (2012). Factors affecting audit quality in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(20), 20-25.
     Google Scholar
  2. Ahrens, T. & Chapman, C. S. (2006). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 3 )8(, 819-841.
     Google Scholar
  3. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1)3(, 385-405.
     Google Scholar
  4. Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1 (3), 385-405.
     Google Scholar
  5. Antle, R. (1984). Auditor independence. Journal of Accounting Research, 1-20.
     Google Scholar
  6. Arnold, B. & De Lange, P. (2004). Enron: An examination of agency problems. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(6), 751-765.
     Google Scholar
  7. Almasria, N. (2021). Determinant Governance Mechanisms Affecting the Quality of Auditing the External Auditors’ Perceptions. British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 18 (1), 38-66.
     Google Scholar
  8. Alawaqleh, Q. A., & Almasria, N. A. (2021). The Impact of Audit Committee Performance and Composition on Financial Reporting Quality in Jordan. International Journal of Financial Research, 12(3), 55-69.
     Google Scholar
  9. Alawaqleh, Q. A., Almasria, N. A., & Alsawalhah, J. M. (2021). The Effect of Board of Directors and CEO on Audit Quality: Evidence from Listed Manufacturing Firms in Jordan. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, Business, 8(2), 243-253.
     Google Scholar
  10. Almasria, N., Airout, R. M., Samara, A. I., Saadat, M., & Jrairah, T. S. (2021). The role of accounting information systems in enhancing the quality of external audit procedures. Journal of management Information and Decision Sciences, 24(7), 1-23.
     Google Scholar
  11. Almasria, N. A. (2018). The relationship between internal corporate governance mechanisms and the quality of external audit process-empirical evidence from Jordan.
     Google Scholar
  12. Almasria, N. (2021). Determinant Governance Mechanisms Affecting the Quality of Auditing the External Auditors’ Perceptions. British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences, 18(1), 38-66.
     Google Scholar
  13. Abdulnafea, A. L., Almasria, N. A., & Alawaqleh, Q. (2022). The effect of working capital management and credit management policy on jordanian banks’financial performance. Banks and Bank Systems, 16(4), 229-239. doi:10.21511/bbs.16(4).2021.19.
     Google Scholar
  14. Abdulnafea, A. L., Almasria, N. A., & Alawaqleh, Q. (2022). the effect of working capital management and credit management policy on jordanian banks’financial performance.
     Google Scholar
  15. Beisland, L. A., Mersland, R. & Strøm, R. Ø. (2015). Audit quality and corporate governance: Evidence from the microfinance industry. International Journal of Auditing, 19(3), 218-237.
     Google Scholar
  16. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
     Google Scholar
  17. Bryman, A. & Burgess, B. (2002). Analyzing qualitative data, Routledge.
     Google Scholar
  18. Bryman, A. (2012). 2001. Social research methods.
     Google Scholar
  19. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development, sage.
     Google Scholar
  20. Ball, A., Owen, D. L. & Gray, R. (2000). External transparency or internal capture? The role of third‐party statements in adding value to corporate environmental reports1. Business strategy and the environment, 9(1), 1-23.
     Google Scholar
  21. Beck, C. T. (1993). Qualitative research: The evaluation of its credibility, fittingness, and auditability. Western journal of nursing research, 15 (2), 263-266.
     Google Scholar
  22. Bryman, A. & Burgess, R. G. (1994). Developments in qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Analyzing qualitative data, 1-17.
     Google Scholar
  23. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
     Google Scholar
  24. Bettinelli, C. (2011). Boards of director s in family firms: An exploratory study of structure and group process. Family Business Review, 24(2), 151-169.
     Google Scholar
  25. Bathala, C. T. & Rao, R. P. (1995). The determinants of board composition: An agency theory perspective. Managerial and decision economics, 16(1), 59-69.
     Google Scholar
  26. Chen, Y& Rezaee, Z. (2013). Ownership structure, financial reporting fraud and audit quality: Chinese evidence. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 9(1), 75-99.
     Google Scholar
  27. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage publications.
     Google Scholar
  28. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage publications.
     Google Scholar
  29. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L. & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, pp. 209-240.
     Google Scholar
  30. Donaldson, L. (1990). The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of management review, 15(3), 369-381.
     Google Scholar
  31. Deangelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of accounting and economics, 3(3), 183-199.
     Google Scholar
  32. Deangelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of accounting and economics, 3(3), 183-199.
     Google Scholar
  33. Felix Jr, W. L. & Gramling, A. A. (2001). The contribution of internal audit as a determinant of external audit fees and factors influencing this contribution. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(3), 513-534.
     Google Scholar
  34. Fan, J. P. & Wong, T. J. (2005). Do external auditors perform a corporate governance role in emerging markets? Evidence from east asia. Journal of Accounting Research, 43(1), 35-72.
     Google Scholar
  35. Fan, J. P. & Wong, T. J. (2005). Do external auditors perform a corporate governance role in emerging markets? Evidence from east asia. Journal of Accounting Research, 43(1), 35-72.
     Google Scholar
  36. Fylan, F. (2005). Semi structured interviewing. A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology, 65-78.
     Google Scholar
  37. Florackis, C. (2008). Agency costs and corporate governance mechanisms: Evidence for uk firms. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 4 (1), 37-59.
     Google Scholar
  38. Frost, N. (2011). Qualitative research methods in psychology: Combining core approaches, McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
     Google Scholar
  39. Gronroos, C. (1988). Service quality: The six criteria of good perceived service. Review of business, 9(3), 10.
     Google Scholar
  40. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4), 597-606.
     Google Scholar
  41. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4), 597-606.
     Google Scholar
  42. Holm, C. & Laursen, P. B. (2007). Risk and control developments in corporate governance: Changing the role of the external auditor? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15)2(, 322-333.
     Google Scholar
  43. Hsu, H.-H. & Wu, C. Y.-H. (2014). Board composition, grey directors and corporate failure in the uk. The British Accounting Review, 46(3), 215-227.
     Google Scholar
  44. Hussainey, K. (2009). The impact of audit quality on earnings predictability. Managerial Auditing Journal, 2)4(, 340-351.
     Google Scholar
  45. Halbouni, S. S. (2015). The role of auditors in preventing, detecting, and reporting fraud: The case of the united arab emirates (uae). International Journal of Auditing, 19)2(, 117-130.
     Google Scholar
  46. Halbouni, S. S. (2015). The role of auditors in preventing, detecting, and reporting fraud: The case of the united arab emirates (uae). International Journal of Auditing, 19)2(, 117-130.
     Google Scholar
  47. Hussainey, K. (2009). The impact of audit quality on earnings predictability. Managerial Auditing Journal, 24)4(, 340-351.
     Google Scholar
  48. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W. & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field methods, 18)1(, 3-20.
     Google Scholar
  49. Jensen, M. C. & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of financial economics,.3)4(, 305- 360.
     Google Scholar
  50. Jensen, M. C. & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of financial economics, 3)4(, 305- 360.
     Google Scholar
  51. Kane, G. D. & Velury, U. (2004). The role of institutional ownership in the market for auditing services: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 57)9(, 976-983.
     Google Scholar
  52. Kikhia, H. Y. (2014). Board characteristics, audit committee characteristics, and audit fees: Evidence from jordan. International Business Research, 7)12(.
     Google Scholar
  53. Karaibrahimoglu, Y. Z. (2013). Is corporate governance a determinant of auditor choice? – evidence from turkey/kurumsal yönetim denetçi seçiminde belirleyici midir?-türkiye'den bulgular. Ege Akademik Bakis, 13)2(, 273.
     Google Scholar
  54. Karaİbrahİmoğlu, Y. Z. (2013). Is corporate governance a determinant of auditor choice? - evidence from turkey. Ege Academic Review, 1)32(.
     Google Scholar
  55. Lin, Z. J. & Liu, M. (2009). The impact of corporate governance on auditor choice: Evidence from china. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 18(1), 44-59.
     Google Scholar
  56. Lin, Z. J. & Liu, M. (2009). The determinants of auditor switching from the perspective of corporate governance in china. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 476-491.
     Google Scholar
  57. Lawrence, A., Minutti-Meza, M. & Zhang, P. (2011). Can big 4 versus non-big 4 differences in audit-quality proxies be attributed to client characteristics? The Accounting Review, 86(1), 259-286.
     Google Scholar
  58. Lewis, J. & Ritchie, J. (2003). Generalising from qualitative research. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 2, 347-362.
     Google Scholar
  59. Lewis, J. & Ritchie, J. (2003). Generalising from qualitative research. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, 2, 347-362.
     Google Scholar
  60. Makni, I., Kolsi, M. C. & Affes, H. (2012). The impact of corporate governance mechanisms on audit quality: Evidence from tunisia. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 11(3), 48.
     Google Scholar
  61. Mahdavi, G., Monfared Maharlouie, M., Ebrahimi, F. & Sarikhani, M. (2011). The impact of corporate governance on auditor choice. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, no.68.
     Google Scholar
  62. Masadeh, A. A., Saadat, M., Almasria, N. A., Jrairah, T. S., & Alsawalhah, J. M. (2021). investigating the role of applying the quality cost approach in the manufacturing system in the public shareholding manufacturing company in jordan. Academy of accounting and financial Studies Journal, 25(5), 1-14.‏
     Google Scholar
  63. O’sullivan, N. (2000). The impact of board composition and ownership on audit quality: Evidence from large uk companies. The British Accounting Review, 32(4), 397-414.
     Google Scholar
  64. O’sullivan, N. (2000). The impact of board composition and ownership on audit quality: Evidence from large uk companies. The British Accounting Review, 32(4), 397-414.
     Google Scholar
  65. Palmrose, Z.-V. (1988). 1987 competitive manuscript co-winner: An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. Accounting Review, 55-73.
     Google Scholar
  66. Rasmussen, L. B., Vargo, L. E., Reavey, D. A. & Hunter, K. S. (2005). Qualitative data and the credibility criteria. Advances in Neonatal Care, 1, (5), pp. 28-38.
     Google Scholar
  67. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M. & Ormston, R. (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, Sage.
     Google Scholar
  68. Remmers, H., Shock, N. & Kelly, E. (1927). An empirical study of the validity of the spearman-brown formula as applied to the purdue rating scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18(3,) pp. 187.
     Google Scholar
  69. Roulston, K. (2010). Considering quality in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10(2), pp.199-228.
     Google Scholar
  70. Soliman, M. & Elsalam, M. A. (2013). Corporate governance practices and audit quality: An empirical study of the listed companies in Egypt. Available at SSRN 2257815.
     Google Scholar
  71. Soliman, M. & Elsalam, M. A. (2013). Corporate governance practices and audit quality: An empirical study of the listed companies in Egypt. Available at SSRN 2257815.
     Google Scholar
  72. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for interpreting talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.
     Google Scholar
  73. Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J. & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.
     Google Scholar
  74. Srivastava, A. & Thomson, S. B. (2009). Framework analysis: A qualitative methodology for applied policy research.
     Google Scholar
  75. Silverman, D. (2000). Analyzing talk and text. Handbook of qualitative research2(0), pp. 821-834.
     Google Scholar
  76. Turnbull, S. (1997). Corporate governance: Its scope, concerns and theories. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5(4), pp. 180-205.
     Google Scholar
  77. Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controveries inthe use of mixed methods in the social and behvioral sciences. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, pp. 3-50.
     Google Scholar
  78. Voeller, D., Bremert, M. & Zein, N. (2013). Interdependencies between auditing and corporate governance–evidence from germany. Schmalenbach Business Review, 65, pp. 198-226.
     Google Scholar
  79. Vaivio, J. (2008). Qualitative management accounting research: Rationale, pitfalls and potential. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 5(1), pp. 64-86.
     Google Scholar
  80. Zanani, W., Abdullah, W., Shahnaz, I. & Nurasyikin, J. (2008). The impact of board composition, ownership and ceo duality on audit quality: The malaysian evidence.
     Google Scholar
  81. Zanani, W., Abdullah, W., Shahnaz, I. & Nurasyikin, J. (2008). The impact of board composition, ownership and ceo duality on audit quality: The malaysian evidence.
     Google Scholar
  82. Zanani, W., Abdullah, W., Shahnaz, I. & Nurasyikin, J. (2008). The impact of board composition, ownership and ceo duality on audit quality: The Malaysian evidence.
     Google Scholar
  83. Zahra, S. A. & Pearce, J. A. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of management, 15(2), pp. 291-334.
     Google Scholar
  84. Zanani, W., Abdullah, W., Shahnaz, I. & Nurasyikin, J. (2008). The impact of board composition, ownership and ceo duality on audit quality: The Malaysian evidence.
     Google Scholar
  85. Zureigat, Q. M. (2011). The effect of ownership structure on audit quality: Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(10), pp. 38-46.
     Google Scholar