Analyzing the Attitude of Iranian Auditing Experts toward the Business Risk Audit Efficiency for Stakeholders

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Shoeyb Rostami OstadKelayeh ¹
• Mohammad Ali Aghaei ²
• Kumars Biglar ¹

¹ Department of Accounting, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran

² Department of Accounting, Modares University, Tehran, Iran

10.22067/ijaaf.2022.42129

Abstract

In evaluating a business based on the business risk audit (BRA) approach, auditors should define and perceive strategic management control techniques and operating processes. They should also select risk control processes in vital operating processes to estimate the type and magnitude of residual business risks that might affect the accuracy and fairness of financial statements. Given the international re-emergence of BRA concepts in recent years, this approach is considered an essential innovation in the auditing methodology. This study aims to analyze the attitude of Iranian auditing experts toward the BRA efficiency for stakeholders. For this purpose, a researcher-made questionnaire was designed in three dimensions: normative legitimacy of BRA, pragmatic legitimacy of BRA, and cognitive legitimacy of BRA (per dimensions of the legitimacy theory proposed by Greenwood, Suddaby & Hinings, 2002). The questionnaire was then distributed to a research sample including the Partners, Audit Org., and IACPA obtained at the end of 2021; the research results indicated that the BRA approach had normative legitimacy (m= 3.61), pragmatic legitimacy (m= 3.78), and cognitive legitimacy (m= 3.29) in Iran for the opinions of experts and statistical findings. Given the flaws and shortcomings of Iran’s current auditing framework, integrating the BRA approach into the current framework will be promising. At the same time, this approach can prevent over-auditing due to its proven inherent value. It can also be considered a naturally correct method of auditing.

Keywords

• Auditee Business Risk
• Audit Institutions
• Audit Efficiency
• Legitimacy of BRA
• Risk of Material Misstatement

Main Subjects

• Auditing

---

©2022 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

References

1. Abdullatif, M., and Al-Khadash, H. A. (2010). Putting Audit Approaches in Context: The Case ofBusiness Risk Audits in Jordan. International Journal of Auditing, 14(1), pp. 1–24.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-1123.2009.00400.x
2. AL-Qudah, L.A. (2021). The Impact of Business Risk-Based Audit Approach on ReducingUnsystematic Risks: Evidence from Jordanian Banks. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(1), pp. 343–352. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.343
3. Azinfar, K., Ghodrati Zovarm, A., and Noroozi, M. (2019). The Effect of Risk Dimensions on Audit Pricing. Financial accounting and auditing research, 11(44), pp. 155-174. (in Persian).
4. Bell, T. B., Marrs, F., Solomon, I., and Thomas, H. (1997). Auditing Organizations Through a StrategicSystems Lens: The KPMG Business Measurement Process. KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, Montvale, New Jersey.
5. Bell, T. B., Peecher, M., and Solomon, I. (2005). The 21st Century Public Company Audit: Conceptual Elements of KPMG’s Global Audit Methodology. KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, Montvale, New Jersey.
6. Chang, H., Kao, Y-C., Mashruwala, R., and Sorensen, S.M. (2018). Technical Inefficiency, Allocative Inefficiency, and Audit Pricing. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 33(4), pp. 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X17696760
7. Curtis E., Humphrey, C., and Turley, W. S. (2016). Standards of Innovation in Auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 35(3), pp. 75–98. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51462
8. De Martinis, M., and Houghton, K. (2019). The Business Risk Audit Approach and Audit Production Efficiency. Abacus: A Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business Studies, 55(4), pp. 734-782. https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12178
9. DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In The New Institutionalism in Organisational Analysis, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 63-82.
10. Durocher, S., and Gendron, Y. (2014). Epistemic commitment and cognitive disunity toward fair-value accounting. Accounting and Business Research, 44(6), pp. 630–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2014.938012
11. European Confederation Institutes of Internal Audit (ECIIA) (2020). Risk in Focus 2020: Hot topics for internal auditors. Brussels, Belgium.
12. Fukukawa, H., and Mock, T. J. (2011). Audit Risk Assessments Using Belief versus Probability. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 30(1), pp. 75–99. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2011.30.1.75
13. Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., and Hinings, C. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), pp. 58–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069285
14. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) (2019). International Auditing Standards (ISA 315), Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatements through Understanding the Entity and its Environment, available at: https://www.iaasb.org/publications/isa-315-revised-2019-identifying-and-assessing-risks-
material-misstatement.
15. Malsch, B., and Gendron, Y. (2013). Re-theorizing change: Institutional experimentation and the struggle for domination in the field of public accounting. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), pp. 870–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12006
16. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 4th edition. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. America, United States.
17. Power, M. K., and Gendron, Y. (2015). Qualitative research in auditing: A methodological roadmap. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-10423
18. Samsonova-Taddei, A. (2013). Social relations and the differential local impact of global standards: The case of international standards on auditing. Abacus, 49(4), 506–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12017
19. Schultz, J. J., Bierstaker, J. L., and O’Donnell, E. (2010). Integrating Business Risk into Auditor Judgment About the Risk of Material Misstatement: The Influence of a Strategic-systems-audit Approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(2), pp. 238–51.
20. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), pp. 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
21. Tolbert, P. S., and Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In Handbook of Organization Studies, pp. 175–190. SAGE, London, U.K.
22. Van Buuren, J., Koch, C., Van Nieuw Amerongen, N., and Wright, A. (2014). The use of business risk audit perspectives by non-Big 4 audit firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33(3), pp. 105–128. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50760
23. Van Buuren, J., Koch, C., Van Nieuw Amerongen, N., and Wright, A. (2018). Evaluating the Change Process for Business Risk Auditing: Legitimacy Experiences of non-Big 4 Auditors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(2), pp. 249–269. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51748
24. Wright, W. F. (2016). Client business models, process business risks and the risk of material misstatement of revenue. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 48(4), pp. 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2015.11.005