Over the past ten years, oversight bodies, regulators, governments, and clients have been demanding audit firms deliver higher audit quality, closing the expectations gap. As a response, audit firms have been working on developing and implementing new procedures, structures and audit programs.
However, this ‘hard’ approach has not yielded the desired improvements.
Prof. dr. Wim Gijselaers
Wim Gijselaers is full professor in educational research, in the School of Business and Economics at Maastricht University, the Netherlands. His research focuses on educational innovation in higher education, social determinants of team cognition and team performance, and judgment and decision making in management and accounting. His educational development work focused on the further development of Problem-Based Learning within Business Education. Next to teaching in the award-winning Master program Management of Learning, he teaches as visiting professor at the University of Bern (Switzerland) in a post-graduate program for Health Care Professionals. Wim is member of advisory boards of universities in Germany and Switzerland, and serves as chief-editor of the Springer Book Series Innovation and Change in Professional Education. Next, he is affiliated with the consulting firm Learning Miles (based in Helsinki). In this role he has presented workshops for Scandinavian-based companies on topics of Innovation and Change. He was co-founder and chair of the EDINEB network in the Nineties. Next, he was the founding editor of the Springer Book Series Educational Innovation in Economics and Business. He served positions as Program Director of International Business, and Associated Dean of Education. Currently he is chair of the department of Educational Research and Development, at the School of Business and Economics (Maastricht University). Several of his PhD’s received awards for their PhD Thesis, or papers presented at meetings of the American Educational Research Association, the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, and the EARLI Special Interest Group 14 “Learning and Professional Development”. Together with Professor Ann Vanstraelen he coordinates the GSBE research project "Culture, Ethics, and Leadership": https://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/research/institutes/gsbe/gsbe-research.
Prof. dr. Roger Meuwissen RA
Dr. Therese Grohnert
Reporting on going-concern-related uncertainties remains one of the most challenging issues faced by external auditors. Even though professional standards do not hold external auditors responsible for predicting future events, such as the subsequent viability of audit clients, if an auditor refrains from issuing a going concern modified audit opinion (hereafter GCO) and the client company subsequently fails (referred to in the academic literature as a “type II” reporting error), the costs to the auditor in terms of increased litigation costs and loss of reputation are often substantial (Carcello and Palmrose 1994). At the same time, companies usually do not welcome a GCO from their auditor. For example, if an auditor renders a GCO to a financially distressed client, there is often concern that the GCO itself may precipitate, or at least accelerate, the financial distress of the already troubled company resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Further, if an auditor renders a GCO to a client that subsequently survives (referred to in the academic literature as a “type I” reporting error), these clients are significantly more likely to switch to another auditor for their next audit (Geiger, Raghunandan and Rama 1998). It is not surprising, then, that audit practitioners, regulators and standard-setters around the world continue to grapple with this complex issue.As requested by the Foundation for Audit Research (FAR), the primary purpose of this research synthesis is to review and discuss the recent academic literature pertinent to the auditor’s decision to issue, or not issue, a GCO. Our review begins with research available after the going-concern research synthesis provided in Carson, Fargher, Geiger, Lennox, Raghunandan and Willekens (2013). We attempt to minimize the gap and the overlap in the research discussed in Carson et al. (2013) and our work. Further, in an attempt to be as comprehensive as possible, we do not limit our coverage to only published research, but also include well-developed working papers in the public domain, particularly if we determine they add significant contribution to the literature.
Prof. Marshall Geiger PhD
Marshall A. Geiger, Ph.D., CPA, is the CSX Chair in Management and Accounting and Professor of Accounting at the Robins School of Business, University of Richmond. Marshall has also been an honorary Professor of the Faculty of Business and Law at Deakin University in Australia. He graduated from Penn State University in 1988 with his Ph.D. in accounting and has published over 75 articles, a research monograph, and a Chapter in a research reference book on numerous topics in accounting, auditing and accounting education. Marshall has been recognized as the most prolific accounting scholar among all accounting Ph.Ds graduating worldwide in 1988. He is a past Editor at Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, and former Associate Editor at Accounting Horizons and holds appointments on five editorial review boards of scholarly journals in the US and internationally. Marshall has delivered over 60 educational and research seminars and programs on a broad range of topics in accounting and auditing to a wide range of participants, including audit practitioners, entrepreneurs, academics, lawyers and standard-setters.
Prof. dr. Anna Gold
Anna Gold obtained her Ph.D. from the University of Amsterdam in 2004, worked as an assistant professor at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University for six years and is currently professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam where she teaches Auditing at the BSc and MSc level, as well as PhD courses in Auditing and Experimental Methods. Anna’s research interests are in the judgment and decision-making area, primarily applied to the field of Auditing. Her research has focused on the impact of regulatory changes, on judgments and decisions of auditors and financial statement users. Her recent work focuses on how auditors and audit firms handle errors and whether varying the error management climate affects auditors’ error reporting willingness and audit firm learning. Anna’s work and her publications have appeared in a number of prestigious journals such as The Accounting Review, Accounting Horizons, Journal of Business Ethics, and International Journal of Auditing.
Prof. dr. Philip Wallage
Professor of Auditing at VU University Amsterdam and University of Amsterdam