Human Resources Perspective: Audit Fee, Internal Control, and Audit Materiality Affect Auditor Switching
Author:
Saluy Amad Badawi1, Kemalsari Novawiguna1, Handiman Unang Toto1, Arwiya Peby1, Faridi Ahmad2, Caya Bustanul Arifin1, Machmud Haliansyah1
Affiliation:
1. Faculty of Economics and Business, Mercu Buana University Jl. Raya, RT.4/RW.1, Kel. Meruya Selatan., Kec. Kembangan, Jakarta Selatan, Daerah Khusus Ibu Kota Jakarta 11650, INDONESIA 2. Faculty of Health Sciences, Muhamadiyah Prof.Dr. Hamka University, Jl. Limau II No.2 Kramat Pela Jakarta Selatan, INDONESIA
Abstract
Auditor switching is a topic that has garnered significant attention from researchers in the field of accounting and auditing. Auditor Switching has important implications for audit quality and auditor independence. Auditor switching is often considered a strategy or approach used by companies to promote transparency, independence, and accountability in financial reports. Hence, this study aims to analyze factors that influence auditor switching such as audit fees, internal controls, and audit materiality. 175 in-person surveys were conducted with public accounting firm auditors from Jakarta Region, Indonesia. The study revealed that auditors related to auditor switching and indicated that audit fees, internal control, and audit materiality have a significant influence on auditors switching. Auditor switching seen from the perspective of human resources has a significant impact on the human resources of public accounting firms. The ability of public accounting firms to recruit and retain talented professionals, and public accounting firms need to attract and retain skilled auditors to provide quality services to their clients. Public accounting firms invest significant resources in training and developing their auditors to ensure they possess the necessary knowledge and skills.
Publisher
World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS)
Reference65 articles.
1. C. Deegan, “Introduction: The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures–a theoretical foundation,” Accounting, Audit. Account. J., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 282–311, 2002. 2. R. Khalifa, N. Sharma, C. Humphrey, and K. Robson, “Discourse and audit change: Transformations in methodology in the professional audit field,” Accounting, Audit. Account. J., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 825–854, 2007. 3. H. K. Qawqzeh, W. A. Endut, N. Rashid, R. J. Johari, N. A. Hamid, and Z. A. Rasit, “Auditor Tenure, Audit Firm Rotation and Audit Quality: A,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 8, no. 12, 2018. 4. M. A. Farouk and S. U. Hassan, “Impact of audit quality and financial performance of quoted cement firms in Nigeria,” Int. J. Account. Tax., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–22, 2014. 5. A. Aghaei Chadegani, Z. Muhammaddun Mohamed, and A. Jari, “The determinant factors of auditor switch among companies listed on Tehran Stock Exchange,” Int. Res. J. Financ. Econ. ISSN, pp. 1450–2887, 2011.
|
|