Audit committee perspectives on mandatory audit firm rotation: evidence from Canada
- 1k Downloads
This study examines audit committee (AC) members’ perspectives on mandatory audit firm rotation (MAFR), mandatory audit partner rotation, ways in which ACs monitor auditor independence and objectivity, and the costs associated with switching audit firms. In-person interviews with AC members in Canada were conducted to improve our understanding of the reasons underlying AC members’ positions on MAFR. All AC members interviewed in this study were adamantly opposed to MAFR. MAFR was perceived as a threat to their shareholder-granted authority to make audit firm appointment decisions. Participants believe that their professional judgment and observations are the most effective means of ensuring auditor independence and view MAFR as an unnecessary intervention. We explain these results using self-determination theory. Our findings were also used to develop a conceptual model of AC relationships with external auditors and financial management.
KeywordsMandatory audit firm rotation Audit committees Auditor independence Self-determination theory Canada
We thank Roberto Di Pietra (editor), our interview participants, and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful for the generous support provided by the Corporate Reporting Chair of the Accounting Department at the University of Quebec at Montreal. We would like to dedicate this article to our colleague and dear friend, Glenn Rioux. Thank you for your help Glenn, you will be truly missed.
- American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1992). Statement of position: Regarding mandatory rotation of audit firms of publicly held companies. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
- BDO Seidman LLP (BDO). (2003). Comment letter on the SEC’s proposed rules on auditor independence. File No. S7-49-02. January 13. New York: BDO.Google Scholar
- Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB). (2012). Enhancing audit quality: Canadian perspectives—auditor independence. http://www.cica.ca/enhancing-audit-quality-canadian-perspective/item68293.pdf.
- Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB). (2013). Enhancing audit quality: Canadian perspectives—conclusions and recommendations. http://www.cica.ca/enhancing-audit-quality-canadian-perspective/item74564.pdf.
- Canadian Securities Administrators. (2004). National instrument 52-110 audit committees. Toronto: OSCB.Google Scholar
- Creswell, J. (2003). Research design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- DeFond, M. L., & Francis, J. R. (2005). Audit research after Sarbanes–Oxley. Auditing A Journal of Practice and Theory, 24, 5–30.Google Scholar
- DeZoort, F. T., Hermanson, D. R., Archambeault, D., & Reed, S. (2002). Audit committee effectiveness: A synthesis of the empirical audit committee literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 21, 38–75.Google Scholar
- Dobija, D. (2013). Exploring audit committee practices: Oversight of financial reporting and external auditors in Poland. Journal of Management and Governance, 1–31.Google Scholar
- Ernst & Young. (2012). Respondents to PCAOB overwhelmingly oppose mandatory audit firm rotation. http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/TechnicalLine_BB2256_AuditFirmRotation_5January2012/$FILE/TechnicalLine_BB2256_AuditFirmRotation_5January2012.pdf.
- Guerrero, S., Lapalme, M-E., & Séguin, M. (2014). Board chair authentic leadership and nonexecutives’ motivation and commitment. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 1–14.Google Scholar
- Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1997). The Active Interview. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2011). Concept release on possible revisions to PCAOB standards related to reports on audited financial statements and related amendments to PCAOB standards: Notice of roundtable. http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket034/Concept_Release.pdf.
- Stefaniak, C. M., Robertson, J. C., & Houston, R. W. (2009). The causes and consequences of auditor switching: A review of the literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 28, 47–121.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Tysiac, K. (2014). Mandatory audit firm rotation rules published in EU. Journal of Accountancy http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/News/201410229.htm.
- U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). (2003). Required study on the potential effects of mandatory audit firm rotation. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar