The ICFR process: Perspectives of accounting executives at large public companies

Author:

Maksymov Eldar1ORCID,Pickerd Jeffrey2ORCID,Wilks T. Jeffrey3ORCID,Williams Devin4ORCID

Affiliation:

1. W.P. Carey School of Business Arizona State University Tempe Arizona USA

2. Patterson School of Accountancy University of Mississippi Mississippi USA

3. Marriott School of Business Brigham Young University Provo Utah USA

4. Price College of Business University of Oklahoma Norman Oklahoma USA

Abstract

AbstractThe Sarbanes‐Oxley Act charges management with the primary responsibility for internal control over financial reporting (ICFR). However, prior research tells us little about the ICFR process from management's perspective. We develop a theoretical model of the ICFR process from management's perspective and examine that model by surveying 145 and interviewing 35 accounting executives at large US public companies. Our primary finding is that executives feel constrained in their ability to direct ICFR and hold perspectives that reflect these constraints. Specifically, most executives feel compelled by auditors to follow the PCAOB's preferences even though executives believe these preferences often tend to distract management and auditors from riskier areas. Executives also believe that audit committees' involvement in ICFR is too passive and that auditors' assessments are sometimes too severe, prompting executives to push back on auditors. Overall, executives strive to make decisions that are optimal for their ICFR, but limited resources and other business conditions, such as restructuring events and lack of qualified personnel, limit the effectiveness of their ICFR efforts. We discuss the implications of our results for practitioners, regulators, and researchers.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Economics and Econometrics,Finance,Accounting

Reference73 articles.

1. A summary of 10 years of PCAOB research: What have we learned?

2. Acito A. A. Anderson J. J. &Beck M. J.(2020).PCAOB inspection deficiency type and information about audit quality. Working paper Virginia Tech Michigan State University and Virginia Tech.

3. Revealing Oz: Institutional Work Shaping Auditors' National Office Consultations*

4. Aobdia D. Choudhary P. &Sadka G.(2020).Why do auditors fail to report material weaknesses in internal controls? Evidence from the PCAOB data. Working paper Northwestern University University of Arizona and University of Texas at Dallas.

5. Big Data and Analytics in the Modern Audit Engagement: Research Needs

Cited by 2 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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3