Abstract
PurposeThe US federal government requires auditors to follow governmental auditing standards when performing audits of entities expending significant federal government dollars. This study explores stakeholder participation during the comment letter phase of government auditing standard setting to determine if participation is symbolic or substantive.Design/methodology/approachResearchers conduct an analysis of the 179 comment letters submitted to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) and received for their 2010 and 2017 exposure drafts of government auditing standards.FindingsThe distribution of stakeholder participation groups in the government auditing standard-setting process differs from the distribution in the private company auditing standard-setting process. On average, participants submit letters that are greater than two pages in length. Participants also contribute feedback on topics that the GAO directly solicits. Taken together, the results demonstrate stakeholder behaviors that are consistent with a substantive rather than symbolic due process involvement for government auditing standards.Research limitations/implicationsStakeholder beliefs are inferred based on the observed behavior of comment letter submissions. Also, there is a subjective element to the classification of the comment letters for the study.Practical ImplicationsGiven the far-reaching implications of Yellow Book auditing standards on public, private and nonprofit entities, the findings are relevant to a heterogeneous audience. This study reveals opportunities for users of government auditing standards, practitioners and academics for greater involvement in due process standard setting to bring additional legitimacy to the GAO and its standard-setting activities.Originality/valueBeyond the current study, little empirical research examines Yellow Book auditing standards or the due process through which these standards are established. This is the first study to examine the complete set of comment letters for the 2010 and 2017 exposure drafts of government auditing standards.
Subject
Strategy and Management,Public Administration
Reference58 articles.
1. AICPA (2019a), “Auditing standards board”, available at: https://www.aicpa.org/research/standards/auditattest/asb.html (accessed 25 November 2019).
2. AICPA (2019b), “Auditing, attestation and quality control standards setting activities”, available at: https://www.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/research/standards/auditattest/asb/downloadabledocuments/asb-operating-policies.pdf (accessed 25 November 2019).
3. Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the auditing section of the American Accounting Association on PCAOB release No. 2013-009, proposed rule on improving the transparency of audit: proposed amendments to PCAOB auditing standards to provide disclosure in the auditor's report of certain participants in the audit: participating committee members;Current Issues in Auditing,2014
4. An examination of international accounting standard-setting due process and the implications for legitimacy;The British Accounting Review,2016
5. Governmental auditing research: an analytic framework, assessment of past work, and future directions;Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting,1986
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献