Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

UK audit reporting practices in the pre-ISA700 (2015 revision) era

  • Published:
Asian Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Given its significance to stakeholders, the process of revising audit reports is an essential subject in today’s economic context. This study aims to detail relevant elements of this process by evaluating alterations to and developments of the audit report, as supported by international and regional standard-setters and regulators. To that end, we examine audit reports that have already applied new auditing regulations. This case study approach allows us to highlight UK audit-reporting practices both before and after the ISA 700 was issued and entered practice. Our findings reveal that in terms of content and content positioning, UK companies’ audit reports make use of the psychological effects of primacy versus serial position and have done so long before the applicability of the international standard for financial statements published after December 2016.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afterman, A. B. (2016). European audit reform: how it could affect US companies. The CPA Journal, 86(2), 54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almulla, M., & Bradbury, M. E. (2019). Auditor, client, and investor consequences of the enhanced auditor’s report. Available at SSRN 3165267.

  • Anderson, N. H. (1965). Primacy effects in personality impression formation using a generalized order effect paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, K. E., Bylinski, J. H., & Shields, M. D. (1983). Effects of audit report wording changes on the perceived message. Journal of Accounting Research, 355–370.

  • Bédard, J., Gonthier-Besacier, N., & Schatt, A. (2014). Costs and benefits of reporting key audit matters in the audit report: the French experience. In International Symposium on Audit Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boolaky, P. K., & Quick, R. (2016). Bank directors’ perceptions of expanded auditor’s reports. International Journal of Auditing, 20(2), 158–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brasel, K., Doxey, M. M., Grenier, J. H., & Reffett, A. (2016). Risk disclosure preceding negative outcomes: the effects of reporting critical audit matters on judgments of auditor liability. The Accounting Review, 91(5), 1345–1362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carcello, J. V., & Li, C. (2013). Costs and benefits of requiring an engagement partner signature: recent experience in the United Kingdom. The Accounting Review, 88(5), 1511–1546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & Huss, H. F. (2000). Going-concern opinions: the effects of partner compensation plans and client size. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(1), 67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, B. E., Glover, S. M., & Wolfe, C. J. (2014). Do critical audit matter paragraphs in the audit report change nonprofessional investors’ decision to invest? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33(4), 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Gaynor, L. M., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. M. (2008). Academic research on communications among external auditors, the audit committee, and the board: implications and recommendations for practice. Current Issues in Auditing, 2(1), A1–A8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordoş, G. S., & Fülöp, M. T. (2015). Understanding audit reporting changes: introduction of key audit matters. Accounting & Management Information Systems/Contabilitatesi Informatica de Gestiune, 14(1).

  • Creswell, J. (2009). Research design; qualitative and quantitative and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage ISBN 978-1-4522-2609-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3), 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobija, D., Cieślak, I., & Iwuć, K. (2013). Extended audit reporting-An insight from the auditing profession in Poland. Available at SSRN 2215605.

  • Dogan Bozan, B., & Arefaine, B. (2017). The implementation of ISA 701-key audit matters: empirical evidence on auditors adjustments in the new audit report.

  • European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EU). (2014). Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on Specific Requirements Regarding Statutory Audit of Public-Interest Entities and Repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC. Official Journal of the European Union: Legislation, 158, 77–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fakhfakh, M. (2016). Linguistic performance and legibility of auditors’ reports with modified opinions. Asian Review of Accounting.

  • Ferreira, C., & Morais, A. I. (2020). Analysis of the relationship between company characteristics and key audit matters disclosed. RevistaContabilidade&Finanças, 31(83), 262–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J. R., & Yu, M. D. (2009). Big 4 office size and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1521–1552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FTSE Russell. (2016), Industry classification benchmark: Structural enhancements to the industry categorization framework.

  • Gay, G., & Schellugh, P. (1993). The effect of the longform audit report on users ‘perceptions of the auditor’s role. Australian Accounting Review, 3(6), 2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gimbar, C., Hansen, B., & Ozlanski, M. E. (2016). Early evidence on the effects of critical audit matters on auditor liability. Current Issues in Auditing, 10(1), A24–A33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, G. L., Turner, J. L., Coram, P. J., & Mock, T. J. (2011). Perceptions and misperceptions regarding the unqualified auditor’s report by financial statement preparers, users, and auditors. Accounting Horizons, 25(4), 659–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez, E., Minutti-Meza, M., Tatum, K. W., & Vulcheva, M. (2018). Consequences of adopting an expanded auditor’s report in the United Kingdom. Review of Accounting Studies, 23(4), 1543–1587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IAASB. (2009), IAASB’s Clarity Center, and related resources on the IAASB website at www.iaasb.org/clarity-center.

  • IAASB. (2016). International Auditing& Assurance Standard Board, Identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement through understanding the entity and its environment. International Standard on Auditing (Vol. 315). New York, NY: International Federation of Accountants.

  • International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2012). Improving the Auditor’s Report. Invitation to Comment, 2012.

  • International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2013). Reporting on audited financial statements: proposed new and revised international standards on auditing (ISAs), 2013: Available at: http://goo.gl/mVRmNB.

  • International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2015). International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 701 communicating key audit matters in the independent auditor’s report. https:// www.ifac.org/publications-resources/international-standard-auditing-isa-701-new-communicating-key-audit-matters-i.

  • Kachelmeier, S. J., Schmidt, J. J., & Valentine, K. (2017). The disclaimer effect of disclosing critical audit matters in the auditor’s report. https://umbfc.bus.miami.edu/_assets/files/faculty-and-research/conferences-and-seminars/accounting-seminars/KSV_93014.pdf.

  • Kiss, C., Fülöp, M. T., & Cordoș, G. S. (2015). Relevant aspects regarding the changes of the statutory audit report in the light of international regulations. Audit financiar, 13(126), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knechel, W., Vanstraelen, A., & Zerni, M. (2015). Does the identity of engagement partners matter? An analysis of audit partner reporting decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(4), 1443–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köhler, A., Ratzinger-Sakel, N., & Theis, J. (2020). The effects of key audit matters on the auditor’s report’s communicative value: experimental evidence from investment professionals and non-professional investors. Accounting in Europe, 1–24.

  • Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.

  • Krishnan, G. V. (2003). Audit quality and the pricing of discretionary accruals. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 22(1), 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, K. W. (2013). Audit reporting of Big 4 versus non-Big 4 auditors: the case of ex-Andersen clients. The International Journal of Accounting, 48(4), 495–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennox, C.S., Schmidt, J.J. & Thompson, A. (2017), Are expanded audit reports informative to investors? Evidence from the U.K., https://ssrn.com/abstract=2619785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennox, C. S., Schmidt, J. J., & Thompson, A. (2018). Is the expanded model of audit reporting informative to investors? Evidence from the UK. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://ssrn. Com/abstract, 2619785.

  • Li, H. A., Hay, D., & Lau, D. (2018). Assessing the impact of the new auditor’s report. Pacific Accounting Review, 31(1), 110–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LSE. (2016). London stock exchange. https://www.londonstockexchange.com/.

  • Maglio, R. (2011). A content based analysis of comment letters on the IASB discussion paper ‘Financial instruments with characteristics of equity’. Available at SSRN 1795982.

  • Mastracchio Jr., N. J., & Lively, H. M. (2013). The effect of the clarified standards on auditors’ reports. The CPA Journal, 83(3), 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2009). Encyclopedia of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mock, T. J., Bédard, J., Coram, P. J., Davis, S. M., Espahbodi, R., & Warne, R. C. (2013). The audit reporting model: current research synthesis and implications. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice, 32(Supplement 1), 323–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdock Jr., B. B. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(5), 482–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öhman, P. (2007). Perspective on audit: thoughts, expectations, and dilemma (Doctoral dissertation, Doctoral Thesis). University Mid Sweden, Sundsvall).

  • PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2014). Corporate performance: what do investors want to know?.

  • Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. (2013a). PCAOB proposed a new auditing standard to enhance the auditor’s reporting model. Available at: http://pcaobus.org/News/Releases/Pages/08132013_ARM_Fact_Sheet.aspx.

  • Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. (2013b). Proposed auditing standards – the auditor’s report on an audit of financial statements when the auditor expresses an unqualified opinion; The auditor’s responsibilities regarding other information in certain documents containing audited financial statements and the related auditor’s report; and related amendments to PCAOB standards. PCAOB Release No. 2013–005, August 13, 2013. Available at: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket034/Release_2013–005_ARM.pdf.

  • Raghunandan, K., & Rama, D. V. (1995). Audit reports for companies in financial distress: before and after SAS No. 59. Auditing, 14(1), 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratzinger-Sakel, N., & Theis, J. (2017). Does considering key audit matters affect auditor judgment performance?.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, L. C. (2015). Are auditor and audit committee report changes useful to investors? Evidence from the United Kingdom.

  • Segal, M. (2017). ISA 701: key audit matters-an exploration of the rationale and possible unintended consequences in a South African. Journal of Economic and Financial Sciences, 10(2), 376–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, M. (2019). Key audit matters: insight from audit experts. Meditari Accountancy Research.

  • Sierra-García, L., Gambetta, N., García-Benau, M. A., & Orta-Pérez, M. (2019). Understanding the determinants of the magnitude of entity-level risk and account-level risk key audit matters: the case of the United Kingdom. The British Accounting Review, 51(3), 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simnett, R., & Huggins, A. (2014). Enhancing the auditor’s report: to what extent is there support for the IAASB’s proposed changes? Accounting Horizons, 28(4), 719–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simunic, D. A., & Stein, M. T. (1987). Product differentiation in auditing: auditor choice in the market for unseasoned new issues (No. 13). Canadian Certified General.

  • Sirois, L.-P., Bédard, J., & Bera, P. (2018). The informational value of key audit matters in the auditor’s report: evidence from an eye-tracking study. Accounting Horizons, 32(2), 141–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiron-Tudor, A., Cordos, G. S., & Fülöp, M. T. (2018). Stakeholders’ perception about strengthening the audit report. African Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance, 6(1), 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanstraelen, A., Schelleman, C., Meuwissen, R., & Hofmann, I. (2012). The audit reporting debate: seemingly intractable problems and feasible solutions. European Accounting Review, 21(2), 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velte, P., & Issa, J. (2019). The impact of key audit matter (KAM) disclosure in audit reports on stakeholders’ reactions: a literature review. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 17(3), 323–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. In United States: Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data (4th ed.).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Operational Programme Human Capital 2014-2020, under the project number POCU 123793 with the title ‘Researcher, future entrepreneur - New Generation’.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Transylvania Business School, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    George-Silviu Cordoș, Melinda-Timea Fülöp & Adriana Tiron-Tudor

  2. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    George-Silviu Cordoș, Melinda-Timea Fülöp & Adriana Tiron-Tudor

Authors
  1. George-Silviu Cordoș
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melinda-Timea Fülöp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adriana Tiron-Tudor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melinda-Timea Fülöp.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cordoș, GS., Fülöp, MT. & Tiron-Tudor, A. UK audit reporting practices in the pre-ISA700 (2015 revision) era. Asian J Bus Ethics 9, 349–370 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-020-00113-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-020-00113-8

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation