Advertisement

Statutory Auditors’ Independence in Select Corporate Accounting Scandals Since 1990: A Comparative Study

  • Mitrendu Narayan Roy
  • Siddhartha Sankar Saha
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, an attempt has been made to critically review statutory auditor independence in five high profile accounting scandals selected from each of the five select countries and to conduct a comparative analysis of them. The five scandals occurred at Enron, Polly Peck International, Satyam, Zhengzhou Baiwen and ComRoad AG. The analysis shows that a lack of professional scepticism of statutory auditors is a major sign of impaired independence in a corporate failure. Fundamental issues governing audit procedure, such as appointment, remuneration, non-audit services, tenure, the role of the audit committee, the role of audit inspection mechanisms and the disciplinary framework have always played a significant role in controlling statutory auditor independence in each of those corporate accounting scandals. Hence, every time a scandal occurred, these fundamental issues were revisited by the regulatory authorities.

Bibliography

Books and Book Sections

  1. Banerjee, B. (2011). Corporate Creative Accounting in India: Extent and Consequences. In M. Jones (Ed.), Creative Accounting, Fraud and International Accounting Scandals (pp. 233–252). New York: Wiley PublicationGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakshi, S. (2004, February). Safeguarding Auditors Independence: The Profession at the Crossroad. Chartered Accountant, 52(8), 821–826Google Scholar
  3. Crutchley, C., Jensen, M., & Marshall, B. (2007). Climate for Scandal: Corporate Environment that Contribute to Accounting Fraud. The Financial Review, 42, 53–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fearnley, S., Beattie, V., & Brandt, R. (2005). Auditor Independence and Audit Risk: A Re-conceptualization. Journal of International Accounting Research, 4(1), 39–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gerotra, S., & Baijal, M. (2002). Prominent Peer Review Practice Around the Globe – Ensuring Quality Audit. Chartered Accountant, 51(1), 76–83Google Scholar
  6. Giroux, G. (2008). What Went Wrong? Accounting Frauds and Lessons from Recent Scandals. Social Research, 75(4), 1205–1238Google Scholar
  7. Maloo, M. (1993). The Expectation Gap and Risk of Audit: Who to Blame for Escalating Insurance Cost? Chartered Accountant, 42(2), 74–78Google Scholar
  8. Mukherjee, S. (2000). Fight Against Corruption by Accountants. Management Accountant, 35(7), 487–491Google Scholar
  9. Tillman, B. (2002). Enron Fallout Spurs Securities Fraud Bill. Information Management Journal, 34(4), 12Google Scholar
  10. Weber, J., Willenborg, M., & Zhang, J. (2008). Does Auditor Reputation Matter? The Case of KPMG Germany and Com Road AG. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(4), 941–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Zewski, S., & McCarthy, I. (2005). Response to Corporate Fraud in United States and Europe. Review of Business, 26(2), 15–23Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitrendu Narayan Roy
    • 1
  • Siddhartha Sankar Saha
    • 2
  1. 1.Goenka College of Commerce and Business AdministrationUniversity of CalcuttaKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Department of CommerceUniversity of CalcuttaKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations