While many studies examine how the Part I inspection report or the PCAOB inspection process as a whole impact the auditor and audit committee decision making, the research on the impact of Part II reports is limited. Furthermore, the PCAOB is publicly issuing Part II inspection reports with greater frequency; thus, an understanding of how the failed remediation of Part II reports influences the audit firm and its clients is of importance to a number of parties.

 Drake, K. D., N. C. Goldman, and S. J. Lusch. 2016. Do Income Tax-Related Deficiencies in Publicly Disclosed PCAOB Part II Reports Influence Audit Client Financial Reporting of Income Tax Accounts? The Accounting Review 91 (5): 1411-1439.

www.auditingresearchsummaries.org

The findings of this study are important for audit firms when considering how audit offices implement the normally positive tone at the top of the firms that seem to favor practices and policies that support an open error management climate (EMC). First, our results suggest that successfully establishing an open EMC is beneficial for an audit firm in most (but not all) situations examined in terms of enhancing the firm’s ability to uncover internally errors that otherwise may remain undetected in audit working papers. Our findings imply, however, that these benefits can only be achieved when an open EMC is not only stated in formal firm policies but is actually implemented and consistently applied at the individual audit office level. Second, our findings imply that increasing auditors’ willingness to report their own conceptual errors (e.g., where an ineffective procedure is employed or incorrectly implemented) is particularly challenging and requires measures to support auditors in overcoming their concerns about presenting a good impression to their firm, given that an open EMC was not sufficient by itself to increase the reporting of conceptual errors. Finally, the generally high willingness to report own errors suggests that a key question is how to enhance the likelihood that auditors will indeed self-detect these errors.

Further our findings suggest that audit regulators and inspectors need to be careful in their attempts to ensure that audit firm’s implement policies that support audit quality.  In particular, proposals that would link compensation, discipline and other within firm sanctions for audit quality reducing actions need to be considered carefully in light of the effects that such policies would have on the firm’s error management climate.  Careful delineation between repeat offenders being punished versus supporting an open learning environment for initial reporting of errors needs to be carefully considered and communicated or else the error management climate can quickly become a blame climate where errors are not reduced, just hidden better.

For more information on this study, please contact any of the authors.

Gold, A., U. Gronewold, and S. E. Salterio. 2014. Error management in audit firms: Error climate, type, and originator. The Accounting Review 89 (1): 303-330. 

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org

This study should be of interest to both regulators and audit firms.  In the future, standard setters should consider how natural human behavior may result in unintended consequences.  By considering psychology, standard setters may be able to write the standards in a way to minimize those potential consequences or at least be aware of the risks. 
    This study should also be of interest to audit firms because current auditing standards are neutral with respect to whether audit documentation of risk assessments are performed quantitatively or qualitatively.  This implies that either option is adequate and treats the potential costs as minor.  As risk assessments that are more lenient in nature tend to lead to fewer audit procedures and less substantive evidence, the costs may be more than inconsequential. 

For more information on this study, please contact M. David Piercey.
 

Piercey, M. D. 2011. Documentation Requirements and Quantified versus Qualitative Audit Risk Assessments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 30 (4):223-248.

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org