Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 131–161 | Cite as

The role of the audit committee in Thailand: a mature monitoring mechanism or an evolving process?

  • Kwansagool Tengamnuay
  • Pamela Stapleton


Following the East Asia financial crisis of 1997 in common with other countries, Thailand mimicked a series of governance measures, including the mandatory formation of audit committees (AC), that were designed in western developed nations with diffuse share ownership, although evidence about the success of these measures in developed nations is mixed. This research contributes to understanding of the role of ACs in a non-English speaking developing country, where share ownership is concentrated, rather than diffuse. It examines the perceptions of audit committee members, investors and analysts about the roles ACs perform and the importance of these roles. To obtain a large number of responses we have used a questionnaire survey method. We adopt Spira’s (Corporate Governance: an International Review 6(1):29–38, 1998) model of evolutionary development of ACs in which they are characterised as developing along a continuum from an ‘infant’ to a ‘mature’ stage of development, although such development need not be linear. The majority of our participants report that ACs perform roles that are in line with international guidelines, but this appears to reflect a passive role in terms of complying with, rather than developing guidance and regulation. Our evidence reveals that the ACs placed greater emphasis on internal control systems, including internal audit and review of audit fees, than on roles associated with external audit and financial statements, indicative of an early stage in the process of evolutionary development.


Audit committees Evolutionary development Developing country Dominant shareholders Thailand 



The authors acknowledge with thanks the funding provided for this research by the Faculty of Business Administration, Kasetsart University, Thailand, and wish to express their thanks to the Stock Exchange of Thailand for its assistance. We are very grateful to all participants who responded to the questionnaires and extend our thanks to Prof. Marc Goergen, who advised on earlier drafts of this work.


  1. Abbott, L. J., & Parker, S. (2000). Auditor selection and audit committee characteristics. A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(2), 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ACGA (The Asian Corporate Governance Association). (1999). Building stronger boards and companies in Asia.
  3. ADBI. (1999). Corporate governance in Asia, Executive Summary Series No. S15/00. Japan: ADBI Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Alba, P., Claessens, S., & Djankov, S. (1998). ‘Thailand’s corporate financing and governance structures: Impact on firm’s competitiveness’. Paper Presented at Conference on Thailand’s Dynamic Economic Recovery and Competitiveness, Bangkok, 20–21 May 1998.Google Scholar
  5. Al-Mudhaki, J., & Joshi, P. L. (2004). The role and functions of audit committees in the Indian corporate governance: Empirical findings. International Journal of Auditing, 8(1), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Al-Twaijry, A., Brierley, J. A., & Gwilliam, D. R. (2002). An examination of the role of audit committees in the Saudi Arabian corporate sector. Corporate Governance, 10(4), 288–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. APB (Auditing Practices Board). (1994). The audit agenda. London: APB.Google Scholar
  8. BCA (Business Council of Australia). (1991). Corporate practices and conduct. Melbourne: The Bosch Working Group.Google Scholar
  9. Beasley, M. S., Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & Lapides, P. D. (2000). Fraudulent financial reporting: Consideration of industry traits and corporate governance mechanisms. Accounting Horizons, 14(4), 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birkett, B. S. (1986). The recent history of corporate audit committees. The Accounting Historians Journal, 13(2), 109–124.Google Scholar
  11. Bradbury, M. E. (1990). The incentives for voluntary audit committee formation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 9(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braiotta, L. Jr., Hickok, R. S., & Biegler, J. C. (1999). The audit committee handbook (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. BRC (Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees). (1999). Report and recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the effectiveness of corporate audit committees. New York Stock Exchange.Google Scholar
  14. Cadbury Committee. (1992). Financial aspects of corporate governance. London: Gee Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  15. Carcello, J. V., & Neal, T. L. (2000). Audit committee composition and auditor reporting. The Accounting Review, 75(4), 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. CEPS (Centre for European Policy Studies). (1995). Corporate Governance in Europe CEPS. Working Party Report No.12 (Boach Report). Brussels: CEPS.Google Scholar
  17. Chung, K. H., & Kim, Leong-Kuk. (1999). Corporate ownership and the value of a vote in and emerging market. Journal of Corporate Finance, 5, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. CICA (Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants). (1988). The Macdonald report. Toronto: CICA.Google Scholar
  19. Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Lang, L. (1999a, March). Expropriation of minority shareholders: Evidence from East Asia. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3088. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  20. Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Lang, L. (1999b, February). Who controls East Asian Corporations? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2054. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  21. Collier, P. (1992). Audit committees in large UK companies. London, England: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.Google Scholar
  22. Collier, P., & Zaman, M. (2005). Convergence in European corporate governance: The audit committee concept. Corporate Governance, 13(6), 753–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cuervo, A. C. (2002). Corporate governance mechanisms: A plea for less code and more market control. Corporate Governance, 10, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. DeZoort, F. T. (1997). An investigation of audit committees’ oversight responsibilities. Abacus, 33(2), 208–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DeZoort, F. T. (1998). An analysis of experience effects on audit committee members’ oversight judgements. Accounting Organisations and Society, 23(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Edwards, P., Ezzamel, M., McLean, C., & Robson, K. (1999, October). New public sector reform and institutional change. Chartered Institute of Management Accountants.Google Scholar
  28. Eichenseher, J. W., & Shields, D. (1985). Corporate Director liability and monitoring preferences. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 4, 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–325.Google Scholar
  30. Fama, E., & Jensen, M. C. (1983a). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fama, E., & Jensen, M. C. (1983b). Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fraser, I., & Henry, W. (2005). The future of corporate governance: Insights from the UK. Edinburgh: ICAS.Google Scholar
  33. Fraser, I., Henry, W., & Wallage, P. (2000). The future of corporate governance: Insights from the Netherlands. Edinburgh: ICAS.Google Scholar
  34. GAO (General Accounting Office). (1991). Audit committees: Legislation needed to strengthen bank oversight. Report to Congressional Committees.Google Scholar
  35. Goodwin, J., & Seow, J. L. (2002). The influence of corporate governance mechanisms on the prevention and detection of control weaknesses, fraud and error: The perceptions of auditors and directors. Accounting & Finance, 42, 195–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ICAEW (The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales). (1997). Audit committees: A framework for assessment. London: ICAEW Audit Faculty.Google Scholar
  37. Iskander, M. R., & Chamlou, N. (2000). Corporate governance: A framework for implementation. Washington, D.C: The World Bank Group.Google Scholar
  38. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economies, 3, 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnson, S., Boone, P., Breach, A., & Friedman, E. (1999). Corporate governance in the Asian financial crisis. The MIT Entrepreneurship Center and the Russian – European Centre for Economic Policy (RECEP).Google Scholar
  40. Kalbers, L. P., & Fogarty, T. J. (1993). Audit committee effectiveness: An empirical investigation of the contribution of power. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 12(1), 24–49.Google Scholar
  41. Kalbers, L. P., & Fogarty, T. J. (1998). Organizational and economic explanations of audit committee oversight. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10(2), 129–150.Google Scholar
  42. KPMG. (2000). Shaping the audit committee agenda. United States: KPMG Offices.Google Scholar
  43. La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the World. Journal of Finance, 54, 471–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee, T., & Stone, M. (1997). Economic agency and audit committees: Responsibilities and membership composition. International Journal of Auditing, 1(2), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lu, J., & Batten, J. (2001). The implementation of OECD corporate governance principles in post-crisis Asia. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 4, 47–62.
  46. Mallin, C. (2002). Institutional investors: The growth of global influences. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 10, 67–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marsh, H. L., & Powell, T. E. (1989). The audit committee charater: RxFor fraud prevention. Journal of Accountancy. Accounting and Public Policy, 13, 121–139. February, pp.57–65.Google Scholar
  48. Menon, K., & Williams, J. (1994). The use of audit committees for monitoring. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 13, 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 310–363.Google Scholar
  50. NACD (The NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on Audit Committees). (2000). Report of the NACD Blue Ribbon Commission on Audit Committees: A practical guide. Washington, D.C. National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) and The Center for Board Leadership.Google Scholar
  51. Nikomborirak, D., & Tangkitvanich, S. (1999). Corporate governance: The challenge facing the Thai economy. In Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001). Corporate Governance in Asia: A Comparative PerspectiveGoogle Scholar
  52. Pilbeam, K. (2001). The East Asian financial crisis: Getting to the heart of the issues. Managerial Finance, 27(1/2), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pincus, K., Rusbarsky, M., & Wong, J. (1989). Voluntary formation of corporate audit committees among Nasdaq firms. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 8(2), 239–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Porter, B., & Gendall, P. J. (1998). Audit committees in private and public sector companies in New Zealand: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Auditing, 2, 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. PWC. (2001). Audit committees: Applying international best practices in Indonesia. Indonesia: PricewaterhouseCoopers.Google Scholar
  56. Raghunandan, K., Read, W. J., & Rama, D. V. (2001). Audit committee composition, “gray directors,” and interaction with internal auditing. Accounting Horizons, 15(2), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. SEC – Thailand (The Working Group on Enhancing Good Corporate Governance of Thai Listed Companies). (1999). Enhancing good corporate governance of Thai listed companies. The Office of Securities and Exchange Commission (Thailand): Bangkok.
  59. SET (The Stock Exchange of Thailand). (1997). Corporate governance in Thailand – A price waterhouse survey. Bangkok: The SET.Google Scholar
  60. SET (The Stock Exchange of Thailand). (1998). Regulation of the stock exchange of Thailand (Vol. 8). Bangkok: The SET.Google Scholar
  61. SET (The Stock Exchange of Thailand). (1999a). Notification of the stock exchange of Thailand Re: Qualification and scope of work of the audit committees (No.1).Google Scholar
  62. SET (The Stock Exchange of Thailand). (1999b). Set drives good corporate governance launches institute of directors. SET.
  63. SET (The Stock Exchange of Thailand) (1999c). Best practice guidelines for the audit committee (2nd published). SETGoogle Scholar
  64. SET (The Stock Exchange of Thailand). (2001a). A survey on audit committees: Increasing expectations and expanding responsibilities. Bangkok: The SET.Google Scholar
  65. SET (The Stock Exchange of Thailand). (2001b). Committee on corporate governance development report on corporate governance. Bangkok: The SET.Google Scholar
  66. SET. (2003). Good governance assessment of listed companies. The Stock Exchange of Thailand.
  67. S&P (Standard & Poor’s). (2001). S&P Supports push for higher awareness of corporate governance in Asia-Pacific. Standard & Poor’s News, 9 May 2001.Google Scholar
  68. Sommer, A. A. (1991). Auditing audit committees: An educational opportunity for auditors. Accounting Horizons, 5, 91–93.Google Scholar
  69. Spira, L. F. (1998). An evolutionary perspective on audit committee effectiveness. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 6(1), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Spira, L. F. (1999). Ceremonies of governance: Perspectives on the role of the audit committee. Journal of Management and Governance, 3, 231–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Suehiro, A. (2001). Family business gone wrong? Ownership patterns and corporate performance in Thailand. ADB Institute Working Paper No. 19.Google Scholar
  72. Teoh, H. Y., & Lim, C. C. (1996). An empirical study of the effects of audit committees, disclosure of nonaudit fees, and other issues on audit independence: Malaysian evidence. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation, 5(2), 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. The Treadway Commission (National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting). (1987). Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  74. The World Bank. (1998). East Asia: The road to recovery. Washington, D.C: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank.Google Scholar
  75. Tricker, R. I. (1978). The independent director: A study of the non-executive director and of the audit committee. Croydon, England: Tolley Publishing Company Ltd.Google Scholar
  76. Turley, S., & Zaman, M. (2004). The corporate governance effects of audit committees. Journal of Management and Governance, 8, 305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vanasco, R. R. (1994). The audit committee: An international perspective. Managerial Auditing Journal, 9(8), 18–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vicknair, D., Hickman, K., & Carnes, K. C. (1993). A note on audit committee independence: Evidence from the NYSE on “grey” area directors. Accounting Horizons, 7, 55–57.Google Scholar
  79. Willekens, M., Vander Bauwhede, H., & Gaeremynck, A. (2004). Voluntary audit committee formation and practices among Belgian listed companies. International Journal of Auditing, 8, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wiwattanakantang, Y. (1999a). An empirical study on the determinants of the capital structure of Thai firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal (Tokyo), 7, 371–403Google Scholar
  81. Wiwattanakantang, Y. (1999b, November). The effects of ownership structure and corporate governance on the performance of Thai firms. Department of Economics, Hitotsubashi University.Google Scholar
  82. Zhuang, J., Edwards, D., Webb, D., & Virginita Capulong, Ma. (2000). Corporate governance and finance in East Asia: A study of Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand (Vol. 1). Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting, Faculty of Business AdministrationKasetsart UniversityKasetsartThailand
  2. 2.Manchester Businesss SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations