Abstract
Critical analyses of the audit profession have become more common in recent years. Many of these analyses focus on the entire audit profession in developing their criticisms and concerns. In this paper, the scope of analysis is narrowed to examine in depth the auditing profession's use of the concepts of reasonable assurance and materiality in audit performance and audit communications. Reasonable assurance and materiality are the terms that auditors use to describe the scope of their responsibility to the public. Similarly, reasonable assurance and materiality are the key determinants of audit effort. An overview of official guidance, practitioner reports, and academic research reveals that these two key concepts are not well specified nor are they consistently applied in audit practice. These findings are evaluated from two competing perspectives on professions – the traditional, functionalist perspective and the critical theorists' perspective. Evaluation from the latter perspective leads to a conclusion that the profession's use of these key terms to guide practice and communication leaves the profession open to charges of mystification and unjustified paternalism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA): 1981, Statement on Auditing Standards No.39: “Auditing Sampling” (AICPA).
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA): 1982, Professional Standards(AICPA).
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA): 1984, Statement on Auditing Standards No.47: “Audit risk and Materiality” (AICPA).
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA): 1988a, Statement on Auditing StandardsNo. 53: “The Auditor's Responsibility to Detect and Report Errors and Irregularities” (AICPA).
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA): 1988b, Statement on Auditing StandardsNo. 55: “Consideration of the Internal Control Structure in a Financial Statement Audit” (AICPA).
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA): 1988c, Code of Professional Conduct(AICPA).
Armstrong, M. and J. Vincent: 1988, ‘Public Accounting: A Profession at the Crossroads’, Accounting Horizons(March), 94–98.
Arneson, R.: 1980, ‘Mill versus Paternalism’, Ethics( July), 470–489.
Bayles, M.: 1981, Professional Ethics(Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, CA).
Boland, R.: 1982, ‘Myth and Technology in the American Accounting Profession’, Journal ofManagement Studies, 109–127.
Chewning, G., K. Pany and S. Wheeler: 1989, ‘Auditor Reporting Decisions Involving Accounting Principle Changes: Some Evidence on Materiality Thresholds’, Journal of AccountingResearch(Spring), 78–95.
Commission on Auditor' Responsibilities: 1978, Report, Conclusions, and Recommendations(AICPA).
Cushing, B. and J. Loebbecke: 1983, ‘Analytical Approaches to Audit Risk: A Survey and Analysis’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory(Fall), 23–41.
Cushing, B. and J. Loebbecke: 1986, Comparison ofAudit Methodologies of Large Accounting Firms(American Accounting Association).
Dworkin, G.: 1971, ‘Paternalism’, in R. A. Wasserstrom (ed.), Morality and the Law(Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont CA).
Elliott, R.: 1981, ‘Audit Materiality and Myth’, DRScott Memorial Lectures in Accountancy 11, 39–48.
FASB: 1980, Statement of Financial Accounting ConceptsNo. 2: “Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information” (FASB).
Fisher, M.: 1990, ‘The Effects of Reporting Auditor Materiality Levels Publicly, Privately, or Not at All in an Experimental Markets Setting’, Auditing: AJournal of Practice & Theory(Supplement), 184–223.
General Accounting Office (GAO): 1985, CPA AuditQuality: Inspectors General Find Significant Problems(December).
General Accounting Office (GAO): 1986, CPA AuditQuality: Many Governmental Audits Do Not Complywith Professional Standards(March).
Holstrum, G. and M. Messier: 1982, ‘A Review and Integration of Empirical Resarch on Materiality’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory(Fall), 45–63.
Houghton, C. and J. Fogarty: 1991, ‘Inherent Risk’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory(Spring), 1–21.
Huss, J. and F. Jacobs: 1991, ‘Risk Containment: Exploring Auditor Decision in the Engagement Process’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory(Fall), 16–32.
Icerman, R. and W. Hillison: 1991, ‘Disposition of Audit-Detected Errors: Some Evidence on Evaluative Materiality’, Auditing: A Journal ofPractice & Theory(Spring), 22–34.
Jackson, P.: 1990, ‘Discussion of “The Effects of Reporting Auditor Materiality Level Publicly, Privately, or Not at All in an Experimental Markets Setting’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory(Supplement), 227–230.
Jennings, M., D. Kneer and P. Reckers: 1987, ‘A Reexamination of the Concept of Materiality: Views of Auditors, Users and Officers of the Court’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory(Spring), 104–115.
Kinney, W., Jr.: 1988, ‘Discussant's Response to “Why the Auditing Standards on Evaluating Internal Control Needed to be Replaced’, in R. P. Srivastava and J. E. Rebele (eds.), AuditingSymposium IX: Proceedings of the dy1988 ToucheRoss/University of Kansas Symposium on AuditingProblems, 55–60.
Kinney, W., Jr. and W. L. Felix, Jr.: 1993,’ Implementing SAS No. 5: An Interim Report’, The Expectation Gap Standards(AICPA, New York).
Kultgen, J.: 1988, Ethics and Professionalism(University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia).
Larson, M.: 1977, The Rise of Professionalism: ASociological Analysis(The University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
Leslie, D.: 1985, Materiality: The Concept and itsApplication to Auditing, Research Study (Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants).
Liebermann, J.: 1970, The Tyranny of the Experts(Walker, New York).
Mautz, R. and H. Sharaf: 1961, The Philosophy ofAuditing(American Accounting Association, Sarasota, Florida).
Messier, W., Jr.: 1983, ‘The Effect of Experience and Firm Type on Materiality/Disclosure Judgments’, Journal of Accounting Research(Autumn), 611–618.
Mill, J.: 1962, Utilitarianism. On Liberty, Essay onBentham, Edited by M. Warnock (New American Library, New York).
Morris, M. and W. Nichols: 1988, ‘Consistency Exceptions: Materiality Judgments and Audit Firm Structure’, The Accounting Review(April), 237–254.
Morton, J. and W. Felix, Jr.: 1991, ‘A Critique of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 55’, Accounting Horizons(March), 1–10.
National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1987, Report of the National Commissionon Fraudulent Financial Reporting.
Read, W., J. Mitchell and A. Akresh: 1987, “’Planning Materiality and SAS No. 47’, Journal ofAccountancy(December), 72–79.
Selley, D.: 1984, ‘The Origins and Development of Materiality as an Audit Concept’, University ofKansas 1984 Auditing Symposium Proceedings(University of Kansas Press).
Strawser, J.: 1991, ‘Examination of the Effect of Risk Model Components on Perceived Audit Risk’, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory(Spring), 126–135.
Waller, W.: 1993, ‘Auditors' Inherent/Control Risk Assessments in Field Setting’, Unpublished Manuscript ( January), 1–38.
Zeff, S.: 1987, ‘Does the CPA Belong to a Profession?’, Accounting Horizon( June), 65–68.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roberts, R.W., Dwyer, P.D. An Analysis of Materiality and Reasonable Assurance: Professional Mystification and Paternalism in Auditing. Journal of Business Ethics 17, 569–578 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005886117617
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005886117617