Auditor independence and the expectations gap: Some evidence of changing user perceptions

Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 159-170

  Beattie, Vivien ^a,c   Brandt, Richard ^b   Fearnley, Stella ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^c Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85006867796     PISSN: 13581988     EISSN: 17400279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/eb024966     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Porter, B.A. (1993) ‘An Empirical Study of the Audit Expectation-Performance Gap’, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 24, No. 93, pp. 49-68.
2. Humphrey, C.G., Moizer, P. and Turley, W.S. (1993) The Audit Expectations Gap in Britain: An Empirical Investigation’, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 23, No. 91a, pp. 395-411.
3. ‘Audit Regulations and Guidance’ (1991) Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, contained the first drafting of the independence regulations; these have since been updated by the Chartered Accountants Joint Ethics Committee and were re-issued in 1996.
4. ‘The Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance’ (Cadbury Report) (1992), Gee and Co.
5. ‘Statements of Auditing Standards’ (SAS 600), Auditors Reports on Financial Statements (1993), Auditing Practices Board.
6. ‘The Future Development of Auditing’ (Macfarlane Report), Auditing Practices Board, 1992.
7. Humphrey, C.G., Moizer, P. and Turley, W.S. (1992), ‘The Audit Expectations Gap in the United Kingdom’, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, p. 84.
8. Among other issues the MacFarlane Report, op. cit. note 6, p. 11, asked for views on the establishment of a standing Audit Panel, similar to the Takeover Panel, or for independent shareholder representatives.
9. Mclnnes, W.M. (Ed) (1993) ‘Auditing into the 21st Century’, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, pp. 47-51, suggest that each listed company should have an independently appointed Audit Review Panel.
10. ‘The Audit Agenda’ (1994), Auditing Practices Board, a follow up to the Macfarlane Report, op. cit. note 6, acknowledges that respondents to their Green Paper did not support their suggestion of an independent body.
11. EC Green Paper (1996), ‘The Role, Position and Liability of the Statutory Auditor within the European Union’, European Commission, para. 4.8.
12. EC Green Paper (1996), ‘The Role, Position and Liability of the Statutory Auditor within the European Union’, European Commission, para. 4.8. note 2.
13. See note 3.
14. Peel, M. and Brinn, A. (1993) ‘Consultancy and Audit Fees in the UK Listed Market’, Accountancy, August, pp. 61-62.
15. Beattie, V.A., Brandt, R. and Fearnley, S.M. (1996) ‘Non-Audit Services - Consulting? More like Compliance’, Accountancy, November, pp. 126-7.
16. Brandt, R., Fearnley, S.M., Hines, A.H. and Beattie, V.A. (1997) ‘The Financial Reporting Review Panel: An Analysis of its Activities’, ‘Financial Reporting Today, Current and Emerging Issues’ (ed. Fisher, L., Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Ch. 3, pp. 27-54.
17. DeAngelo, L.E. (1981) ‘Auditor Size and Audit Quality’, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 3, 1981a, pp. 183-99.