Designing an Audit Quality Pragmatism Model based on the Recommendations of the UK Financial Reporting Council (RFC)

Subject Areas : Management Accounting

Sanaz Hadji ¹ , Khosro Faghani Makrani ² , Naghi Fazeli ³

1 - PhD student, Department of Accounting, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran
2 - Associate Professor of Department of Accounting, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran
3 - Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran

Received: 2021-09-01 Accepted : 2022-08-24 Published : 2022-11-22

Keywords: Audit Quality Pragmatism, UK Financial Reporting Council, Issuance of a Going Concern Op,

Abstract :

The expectation gap as a process of audit reporting is rooted in the gap between theory and practice, an area that, while important for developing quality audit effectiveness, is due to a lack of pragmatic perception or so-called pragmatism and a lack of focus on the area. The development of the market realities sector has been virtually neglected in audit research. The purpose of this research is designing an audit quality pragmatism model based on the recommendations of the UK Financial Reporting Council (RFC). In this study, considering that there was no clear and coherent basis for the pragmatic quality of the audit report, based on the qualitative part methodology, an attempt was made to identify the dimensions of this issue based on the content analysis structure process. Therefore, in terms of the result of this research, it is developmental, and in terms of its applied purpose, it is in the category of mixed research in terms of research data collection. The target population in the qualitative section was 11 accounting experts who had a more tangible understanding of audit quality through similar research. Also in the quantitative part of the research, 14 independent auditors with more than 3 years of professional experience, who were determined based on the technique of selecting information gatekeepers, participated by filling out matrix questionnaires. The results of the research indicated the existence of two components of disclosure of key cases and disclosure of continuity of activity in the audit report and 11 themes related to the identified components as the basis of pragmatism of audit quality in the qualitative part. The results of the research indicated the existence of two components of disclosure of Key Audit Matters and disclosure of Issuance of a Going Concern Opinion in the audit report and 11 themes related to the identified components as the basis of pragmatism of audit quality in the qualitative part. The results in the quantitative part also showed that the disclosures of the assessment of the leverage ability of the company in A3 refunds and the disclosure of the level of financial obligations of the company "A11" are among the components of Issuance of a Going Concern Opinion in the audit report which were ranked at the fourth level of model prioritization as the most influential themes of the pragmatic quality of the audit report.

References:

• امیری، فرهاد.، جعفری، علی.، عباسیان‌فریدونی، محمدمهدی. (1399). ارائه الگوی برداشت بازار از کیفیت حسابرسی، تحقیقات حسابداری و حسابرسی، 12(47): 133-152


• حاجیان، حسن. (۱۳۹۹). بیانیه شورای گزارشگری مالی انگلستان () براس حسابرسان، مجله حسابرس، ۱۰۷(۲): ۱-۸.


• ساجدی، هدیه.، سادات‌تقوی، زهرا.، تقوی، فرناز سادات. (۱۳۹۴). مقدمه‌ای بر بازیابی اطلاعات، نشر: نیاز دانش (چاپ اول).


• سرلک، ولی.، خلجی، مجید.، گردان، محمد. (۱۳۹۵). بررسی سیستم‌های هوشمند پرسش و پاسخ خودکار زبان فارسی با استفاده از اطلاعات وب جهانی دانشنامه رشد و ویکی‌پدیا. مقاله کنفرانس. دومین کنفرانس بین‌المللی یافته‌های نوین پژوهشی در علوم، مهندسی و فناوری.


• محبی، احسان. (۱۳۹۷). کیفیت حسابرسی مسئله‌ای که همواره موردبحث است، مجله حسابرس، ۹۶(۶): ۷۲-۷۵.


• مهدوی، غلامحسین.، نمازی، نویدرضا. (1396). تدوین الگوی رابطه بین متغیرهای کیفیت حسابرسی با استفاده از رویکرد علت و معلولی سیستم‌های پویا، مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، 14(53): 45-70.


• Agyemang-Mintah, P. and Schadewitz, H. (2019). Gender diversity and firm value: evidence from UK financial institutions, International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 27(1): 2-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-06-2017-0073


• Allam, A., Ghattas, N., Kotb, A., Khaled Eldaly, M. (2016). Audit Tendering in the UK: A Review of Stakeholders' Views, International Journal of Auditing, 21(1): 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12076


• Attri, r., Dev, n., & Sharma, v. (2013). Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) approach: An Overview. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 2(2), 6.


• Baker, M. and Schaltegger, S. (2015). Pragmatism and new directions in social and environmental accountability research, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(2): 263-294. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2012-01079


• Bloomfield, R, J. (2012). A Pragmatic Approach to More Efficient Corporate Disclosure, Accounting Horizons, 26(2): 357-370. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-10261


• Bright, C. (2018). A pragmatic approach to conducting knowledge audits, International conference on knowledge management in nuclear facilities, IAEA-CN—153.


• Broadbent, J. (2002). Critical Accounting Research: A View from England. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(4): 433–449.


• Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann.


• Eldaly, M.K. and Abdel-Kader, M. (2018). How to regain public trust in audit firms? The case of the Financial Reporting Council, Accounting Research Journal, 31(3): 343-359. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-11-2015-0134


• Greenwood, M, J., Tao, L. (2020). Regulatory monitoring and university financial reporting quality: Agency and resource dependency perspectives, Financial Accountability & Management, 37(2): 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12244


• Guizani, M. and Abdalkrim, G. (2021). Ownership structure and audit quality: the mediating effect of board independence, Corporate Governance, 21(5): 754-774. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-12-2019-0369


• Jérémy, E., Stéphanie, T., Benoît, J. (2020). A pragmatist approach to audit practices: two cases of technical dialog from nuclear risk governance in France, Conference International de Management Strategies, 1-28.


• Kaushik, V., Walsh, Ch, A. (2019). Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research, Social Science, 8(2): 255-273. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8090255


• Malone, D. W. (2014). An introduction to the application of interpretive structural modeling. Proceedings of the IEEE, 63(3), 397-404.

 

• Nguyen, L.A. and Kend, M. (2021). The perceived impact of the KAM reforms on audit reports, audit quality and auditor work practices: stakeholders’ perspectives, Managerial Auditing Journal, 36(3): 437-462. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-10-2019-2445


• Park, H. (2021). Investor reaction to the audit engagement partner disclosure rule, Managerial Auditing Journal, 36(1): 167-190. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-2020-2893


• Ramesh, A., Banwet, D.K., Shankar, R. (2010). “Modeling the Barriers of Supply Chain Collaboration”, Journal of Modelling in Management, 5(2): 176–193.


• Ravelli, R. (2021). The FRC’s new requirements of auditors, Lexology Institution, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=06e14764-7dec-42f2-b676-8135c29f4bbf


• Salton, G., A. Wong, and C. S. Yang. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the ACM 18(2): 613–620.


• Singh, M. D., & Kant, R. (2011). Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural modeling approach. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 3(2), 10.


• Thiombiano, N.P. and Udeh, I. (2021). An examination of a pragmatic approach to minimizing underreporting of time, Managerial Auditing Journal, 36(6): 856-871. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-07-2020-2755


• Tillmann, P. (2021). Financial markets and dissent in the ECB’s Governing Council, European Economic Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2021.103848