2021B03 – Auditors’ Going Concern Decisions: Insights from Practice
Project Number – 2021B03
Research output

2021B03 – Auditors’ Going Concern Decisions: Insights from Practice

What?

What?

Prior research is relatively conclusive on various externally observable (input) factors determining auditors’ GCO decisions (output) and the effects of these (consequences) on various parties in the audit assurance supply chain. At the same time, this prior research has been primarily archival in nature and has thus mostly included publicly available data in the external assessment of the prevalence of GCOs, even though a GCO is the outcome of a complex decision-making process.

As such, we have relatively limited knowledge about key elements of the actual audit and decision process surrounding GCOs. We aim to fill this gap in the literature by conducting in-depth interviews with experienced auditors, thereby aiming to (i) unpack auditors’ GCO decision-making process, (ii) identify key factors that lead auditors to issue, or forego, a GCO, and (iii) establish future research opportunities (some of which we intend to take up in future FAR funding rounds).

Why?

Decisions regarding going concern opinions (GCO) are among auditors’ most important judgments, as GCOs impact the client company, financial statement users, financial markets, and auditors themselves. However, evaluating management’s assertion that an entity will continue as a going concern is also one of the most challenging tasks that auditors perform (IAASB 2015; Bosman, van der Kuip, and Janssen 2021). Against this background, both the IAASB (2020) and NBA (2021b) have launched projects to explore how the auditor’s role and responsibilities can be enhanced in the challenging and complex area of GCO reporting.

No related news items found.
This paper draws on interviews with audit professionals in the Netherlands to investigate the decision-making processes involved in assessing and reporting on audit clients’ ability to continue as a going concern. Using Actor-Network-Theory, we conceptualize these decisions as a dynamic process, involving four interrelated stages. First, partners must recognize going concern as a critical issue of the audit (problematization). Second, they enlist a variety of internal and external actors to inform the assessment (interessement). Third, these actors are coordinated and monitored in the audit team’s preliminary evaluation (enrollment). Fourth, in consultation with national office, partners complete the going concern evaluation, including audit opinion wording and approval of financial statement disclosures (mobilization). By offering an in-depth process account of auditors’ going concern decisions, our study challenges prevailing portrayals in the literature as primarily individual or mechanistic. It also offers new insights and suggestions for future research into auditor going concern decisions.
This practice note provides initial insights from an interview study that investigates audit professionals’ decision-making processes regarding their clients’ ability to continue as a going concern. The authors find that these decisions involve the activation of a range of different actors that the engagement leader needs to manage and coordinate. Specifically, auditors need to recognize going  concern as a relevant issue (Phase 1). They then need to negotiate the involvement of their firm’s national office and restructuring specialists (Phase 2). As they conduct the going concern assessment, they mobilize a range of internal and external actors to negotiate management disclosures and the inclusion (or not) of a going concern paragraph in their audit opinion (Phase 3).

Project info

Project Lead

Marshall Geiger

Research team

Dominic Detzen
Philip Wallage
Philip Wallage
Marshall Geiger
Prof. Dr. Anna Gold
Anna Gold

Involved University

Project Number – 2021B03

Newsletter

Receive updates on FAR research, publications and events.

Filter projects: 

Project Lead
University Filter
1 - 10 of 52 projects