Assurance of sustainability reports : impact on report users\u27 confidence and perceptions of information credibility

This study examines whether (1) assurance, (2) the level of assurance (reasonable vs limited) and (3) the type of assurance practitioner (accountant vs specialist consultant) affect users\u27 perceptions of reliability of sustainability reports. Based on an experimental questionnaire, we find that the provision of assurance improves perceived reliability of the environmental and social information. There are no significant main effects for both the level of assurance and type of assurance practitioner. However, a significant interaction is found between these two experimental factors and report users\u27 perceptions of reliability of such reports. More specifically, report users place more confidence in sustainability reports when the level of assurance provided is reasonable (that is, high but not absolute), and when such assurance is provided by a top tier accountancy firm, compared to when the assurance is provided by a specialist consultant. No such difference is found when the level of assurance provided is limited for either type of assurance practitioner group. The results of this study thus highlight the relevance of assurance for sustainability reporting.<br /

A Consideration of Literature on Trust and Distrust as they Relate to Auditor Professional Scepticism

With a view to expanding the discussion on professional scepticism, and motivating a broader perspective in research undertaken with the aim of helping auditors meet ongoing demands for an elevated level of professional scepticism, we consider the literature on trust and distrust as it relates to auditor professional scepticism. We draw on literature from a range of disciplines, and highlight new opportunities and previously unidentified challenges in helping auditors exercise an elevated level of professional scepticism. We distinguish between trust and distrust and note that the issue of professional scepticism is likely to be as much about auditors being insufficiently distrusting as it is about auditors being overly trusting. A number of potentially fruitful means by which professional scepticism might be enhanced are highlighted but we also encourage caution in that lower levels of trust in management, and increased distrust in management, may have unintended negative consequences

Effect of audit report disclosure on auditor litigation risk

Internationally, the escalating number of cases levelled against auditors and the costs of defending such actions has led to the auditing profession calling for measures to reduce their liability burden. Relatively few measures have been taken by the auditing profession by way of adapting the disclosure contained in the audit report to mitigate their litigation risk. This study examines whether the issuance of an audit opinion with a going concern related 'emphasis of matter' paragraph or work practices disclosure has any effect on potential litigants' likelihood of pursuing litigation against the auditor. An analysis of 69 responses from advanced law students and 18 practitioners working in corporate liquidation demonstrate that a modified (but not qualified) audit report effectively acts as a 'red flag' and reduces potential litigants' propensity to initiate litigation. However, work practices disclosure did not significantly alter potential litigants' inclination to recommend litigation. Despite this finding, respondents (particularly liquidators) indicated that work practices disclosure was an important factor in their litigation decision. These results suggest that further investigation into how to effectively disclose the work done on audit and assurance engagements is needed. This has implications for standard setters and the auditing profession, especially considering recent changes in the disclosure contained in audit and assurance reports. Copyright AFAANZ, 2004..