Identifying and Ranking the Components and Indicators of Auditor Accountability Based on Corporate Governance

Subject Areas : Ethics and corporate governance

Hamed Achak ¹ , Alireza Hirad ² , عباسعلی حق پرست ³ , Reza Sotudeh ⁴

1 - Department of Accounting, Zahedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zahedan, Iran.
2 - Department of Accounting, Khash Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khash, Iran
3 - Department of Accounting, Zahedan Branch, Islamic Azad university, Zahedan, Iran
4 - Department of Financial and Accounting, Faculty of Humanities, Meybod University, Meybod, Iran

Received: 2025-04-05 Accepted : 2025-07-23 Published : 2025-08-11

Keywords: Auditors, Accountability, Corporate Governance, Transparency, Professional Behavior,

Abstract :

Introduction: Auditors are vital to the framework of corporate governance, acting as key components in ensuring transparency and accountability within organizations. Their role extends beyond merely validating financial statements; they assess various risks and aid boards and audit committees in their oversight responsibilities. This multidimensional role highlights the importance of understanding how auditors contribute to corporate governance and how their accountability can be enhanced. Regarding critics who believe that focusing too much on integrating auditors into corporate governance might obscure the diverse functions auditors serve across different sectors, it’s important to recognize that while auditors adapt to various contexts, their fundamental role in providing independent assurance remains pivotal. A balanced approach considers the specific nuances of each industry while emphasizing the core responsibilities that auditors uphold. On concerns about increased costs associated with heightened auditor accountability, one could argue that the long-term benefits, such as improved governance, reduced risk of fraud, and enhanced stakeholder confidence, tend to outweigh immediate financial implications. Companies that invest in strong audit practices may experience greater stability and trust from investors, which can be beneficial in the long run. Considering the variances in perspectives among stakeholders regarding what constitutes effective audit quality, it’s crucial to foster an open dialogue. Effective audit quality is often subjective, influenced by different priorities across stakeholders. Thus, a clear framework defining what quality entails—aligned with stakeholder expectations—can help bridge these gaps, ultimately leading to a more coherent understanding of auditor accountability's contribution to effective corporate governance. In developing a model that clarifies the roles of auditors within corporate governance, it’s essential to create a comprehensive framework that captures the essence of these interactions. Addressing the research questions regarding the components and indicators of auditor accountability can enhance the effectiveness of audits and reinforce the relationships among auditors, governance frameworks, and organizational health. By examining these elements, we can strengthen both theoretical and practical applications in the auditing field, supporting the overarching goals of transparency and accountability in corporate settings. The research questions are as follows:

1. How would you respond to someone who argues that the complexity of corporate governance makes it difficult to establish a clear set of indicators for auditor accountability?
2. What about the possibility that the significance of various components of auditor accountability may differ across industries, thus complicating your ranking?
3. Have you considered the perspective that some stakeholders might see the components of auditor accountability as too vague or subjective to ensure effective implementation?

Materials and methods: The present study is applied in terms of purpose and adopts an exploratory approach, conducted during the year 2024. It employs a mixed-methods research design that includes both qualitative and quantitative analyses. In the first stage, the main research method utilized is data-based theorizing, which focuses on identifying the components and indicators of auditors' accountability based on corporate governance, as perceived by experts. The qualitative aspect of the study involves a statistical population composed of auditors and university faculty members. Participants were selected purposefully based on specific criteria: they must have expertise in auditing or accounting, possess over five years of work experience, be employed in the auditing profession, and have conducted research in auditing and corporate governance. A total of 20 auditors and faculty members were purposefully chosen as the statistical sample for this qualitative phase. The second stage of the research involved a quantitative analysis wherein the components and indicators identified were ranked using the Friedman test, reflecting the perspectives of the experts. In the third stage, a researcher-designed questionnaire was created to assess the validity of the identified components and indicators. This questionnaire was distributed among a larger statistical population, which included university faculty members and auditors. The sampling method for this phase was random, and based on Morgan's diagram, the sample size was calculated to be approximately 384 individuals. The questionnaire was structured using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from "very desirable" (value of 5) to "very undesirable" (value of 1). Distribution of the questionnaire was conducted in person, electronically, and within virtual specialized groups among the statistical sample members. To evaluate the validity of the questionnaire, feedback was gathered from professors and professional experts. The reliability of the questionnaire items was determined using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, while the normality of the data was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. To address the third research question, a t-test was performed, and the analysis was conducted using SPSS software. Auditors are vital to the framework of corporate governance, acting as key components in ensuring transparency and accountability within organizations. Their role extends beyond merely validating financial statements; they assess various risks and aid boards and audit committees in their oversight responsibilities. This multidimensional role highlights the importance of understanding how auditors contribute to corporate governance and how their accountability can be enhanced.

Findings: The purpose of this study was to identify and rank the components and indicators of auditor accountability based on corporate governance. Six key components were identified: 1. Accountability to Shareholders: Ensuring that the interests of shareholders are prioritized and addressed in the auditing process. 2. Accountability to the Board of Directors or Executive Managers: Acting in the best interests of senior management and providing necessary oversight and guidance. 3. Accountability to Risk Management Processes: Involvement in identifying, assessing, and managing risks within the organization to ensure
sound governance practices. 4. Accountability to Information Transparency: Upholding the principles of transparency in financial reporting and disclosure to stakeholders. 5. Accountability to Stakeholders: Recognizing diverse stakeholder interests and ensuring that their concerns are incorporated into audit practices. 6. Ethical Accountability and Professional Behavior: Adhering to ethical standards and professional conduct in all auditing activities. In total, the study identified 37 specific indicators that further detail these components, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding auditor accountability within corporate governance.

Conclusion: Transparent accountability and effective reporting by auditors play a crucial role in enhancing investor decision-making and strengthening corporate governance. When auditors prioritize accountability to shareholders, board members, and other stakeholders, it fosters trust and confidence in financial statements. Clear and transparent reporting helps investors make informed choices, ultimately leading to better investment outcomes.

 

References:

اثنی‌عشری، حمیده؛ بیگ‌پناه، بهزاد (1402). پاسخگویی عمومی مؤسسات حسابرسی: واکاوی دیدگاه حسابرسان. پژوهش‌های حسابداری مالی، 15(3)، ص29-52.
بیگ‌پناه، بهزاد؛ اثنی عشری، حمیده؛ هشی، عباس؛ اسدی، غلامحسین (1401). پاسخ‌گویی مؤسسه‌های حسابرسی: رویکرد تحلیل محتوا. بررسی‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 29(2)، ص213-241.
بیگ‌پناه، بهزاد؛ اثنی عشری، حمیده؛ هشی، عباس؛ اسدی، غلامحسین (1404). تأثیر نظام حاکمیت مؤسسات حسابرسی بر کیفیت حسابرسی. دانش حسابداری و حسابرسی مدیریت، 14(56)، ص97-113.
حساس یگانه، یحیی (1388). فلسفه حسابرسی. تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
زارع، ایمان؛ غلامی جمکرانی، رضا؛ مرادی، محمد؛ بابایی‌فرد، اسدالله؛ جهانگیرنیا، حسین (1400). پاسخگویی در حسابداری از منظر اسلام با محوریت تئوری ساختیابی. تحقیقات مالی اسلامی، 10(2)2، ص831-855.
سازمان حسابرسی (1403). استانداردهای مصوب حسابداری و حسابرسی.
شمسی، قباد؛ جمشیدی نوید، بابک؛ قنبری، مهرداد؛ محمدی یاریجانی، فروزان (1403). ارائه الگوی مطلوب گزارش حسابرسی و کیفیت حسابرسی بخش عمومی با در نظر گرفتن نقش میانجی کنترل‌های داخلی مبتنی بر ریسک. دانش حسابرسی، ۲۴(۹۵)، ص۳۸۴-۴۰۵.
غفوریان شاگردی، امیر؛ وقفی، سید حسام؛ ابراهیمی، سید کاظم؛ عظیمی برخورداری، محمد (1403). بررسی نقش تعدیل‌گر دقت اظهارنظر حسابرس بر رابطه بین حاکمیت شرکتی و تغییر حسابرس. مطالعات حسابداری و حسابرسی، (در دست انتشار).
مهدی‌پور، مرصاد؛ مهرفر، ابوطالب؛ مصداقی، احسان (1403). بررسی تأثیر حاکمیت شرکتی و تغییر مؤسسات حسابرسی بر کیفیت حسابرسی. رویکردهای پژوهشی نوین مدیریت و حسابداری، 8(29)، ص396-408.
هریوندی، سهیل (1403). ارزیابی اثر برقراری الزامات پاسخگویی و قوانین و مقررات به حسابرسان مستقل در مبارزه با فساد مالی. چشم‌انداز حسابداری و مدیریت، 7(91)، ص56-67.
یاری‌فرد، رسول؛ هاشمی، نگار (1403). تأثیر گزارشگری مسئولیت اجتماعی بر ارزش شرکت با در نظر گرفتن نقش کیفیت حسابرسی، حاکمیت شرکتی و مدیریت سود در شرکت‌های پذیرفته‌شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. چشم‌انداز حسابداری و مدیریت، 7(94)، ص1-27.
Adeyemi, F.K. & Olarewaju, O.M. (2019). Internal Control System and Financial Accountability: An Investigation of Nigerian South-Western Public Sector. ACTA Universitis Danumius, 15(1),
p. 134-150.
Alade, M.E., Owabumoye, M.O. & Olowookere, J.K. (2020). Budgetary control mechanism and financial accountability in Ondo State Public Sector. Accounting and Taxation Review, 4(2),
p. 134-147.
Al-Hussaini, E.K. & Al-Tawil, M.K. (2018). The impact of corporate governance on financial performance: Evidence from Iraqi banks. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 8(1), p. 179-188.
Ball, R., Kothari, S.P. & Robin, A. (2009). Looking for leadership: The relation between board governance and firm performance. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 21(1), p. 44-62.
Broomhill, R. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility: Key Issues and Debates. Duns tan. no.1
Buuren, J. & Koch, C. (2010). Do Audit firms use the transparency report to signal audit quality? Economics of Innovation and new technology,11(4), p. 1-52.
Chen, C.H., Chen, S.Y. & Cheng, C.H. (2017). The impact of corporate transparency on firm performance: Evidence from Taiwan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 27(1), p. 101-118.
Cheng, Y., Lopin, K. & Feng, K. (2017). The Relationship between CSR Disclosure and Competitive Advantage, Sustainability Accounting. Management and Policy Journal, 8(5), p. 547-570.
Dash, T. & Sahoo, C.K. (2025). Indian mining industry: exploring the significance of social audit
in fostering sustainable corporate social responsibility. Social Responsibility Journal, 21(3),
p. 640-666. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-01-2024-0020
Deumes, R., Schelleman, C., Bauwhede, H.V. & Vanstraelen, A. (2012). Audit firm governance: Do transparency reports reveal audit quality? Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 31(4),
p. 193-214.
Dewi, N.F., Ferdous Azam, S.M. & Yusoff, S.Kh. (2019). Factors influencing the information quality of local government financial statement and financial accountability. Management Science Letters, no. 9, p. 1373–1384.
Financial Reporting council (202). Discussion: Technological resources: using technology to enhance audit quality.
Freeman, R.E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cengage Learning.
Fu, Y. (2015). Transparency reporing and partner remuneration in Australian audit firms. UNSW Australia University. https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/2815
Hategan, C.D. (2020). Auditing the Auditors- Oversight: Necessity or Comlulsoriness. Challenges and perspectives of financial audit. https://doi.org/10.20869/AUDITF/2020/157/002
IOSCO (2009). Transparency of firms that audit public companies, Consultation Report. International Organization of Securities Commissions.
URL= https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pd f/ioscopd302.pdf
Lennox, C. & Pittman, J. (2010). Auditing the auditors: Evidence on the recent reforms to the external monitoring of audit firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(1-2), p. 84-103.
Lightstone, K. & Driscoll, C. (2008). Disclosing elements of disclosure: A test of legitimacy theory and company ethics. Canadian Journal of administrative sciences, 25(1), p. 7-21.
Mădălina, G., Nadia, A. & Cătălin, A. (2011). The role of the accountancy professional bodies in developing social and environmental reporting. Economics, annals of faculty of economics, University of Oradea, 1(1) p. 622-652.
Pott, C., Mock, T. & Watrin, C. (2008). The effect of a transparency report on auditor independence: Practitioners' self- assessment. Review Management Sciences, 2(2), p. 111-112.
Rosa, F., Caserio, C. & Bernini, F. (2018). Corporate governance of audit firms: Assessing the usefulness of transparency reports in Europe-Wide analysis. Corporate governance, 27(1),
p. 14-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12235
Sommerfeldt, R.D., Zimbelman, A.F. & Zimbelman, M.F. (2019). The effect of audit culture on auditor honesty and skepticism. Working paper, p. 1-44.
Tucker, J.W. (2015). The relation between disclosure quality and reporting quality: A discussion of Cassell, Myers and Seidel. Accounting, organizations and Society, no. 46, p. 39-43.
Wang, O., Wu, H. & Li, C. (2025). Corporate social responsibility performance and litigation risk. Finance Research Letters, no. 72.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.106584
Wang, Q., Fan, Y. & Lu, J. (2020). Audit quality and corporate governance: A review and research agenda. Journal of Accounting Literature, no. 40, p. 1-16.
Zhao, Z., Meng, F., He, Y. & Gu, Z. (2019). The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Competitive advantage with Multiple Mediations from Social Capital and Dynamic Capabilities. Sustainability, 11(1).