Auditing Standards as a Framework for the Analysis and Presentation of Economic Realities in Financial Reporting

Majid Ayyoobi

doi:10.63053/ijmea.43

Authors

Majid Ayyoobi Department of Management,Birjand Branch,Islamic Azad University, Birjand, Iran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63053/ijmea.43

Keywords:

Auditing Standards, Audit Assurance, Economic Realities, Financial Reporting

Abstract

In the evolving landscape of global financial reporting, auditing standards serve as a critical foundation for the analysis and presentation of economic realities. This paper explores the multifaceted role of auditing standards in shaping how auditors interpret, validate, and communicate financial truth. By distinguishing auditing standards from accounting standards, the paper clarifies their unique influence on the audit process and outcome. Key concepts such as audit effort, audit assurance, and stakeholder-driven demand are examined to highlight how standards help maintain consistency and quality amid varying expectations. The paper also addresses the economic justification for auditing standards in environments of uncertainty and information asymmetry, emphasizing their role in preventing both under- and over-auditing. Finally, it critically evaluates the unintended consequences of excessive standardization, warning against a checklist-driven culture that may weaken professional judgment and obscure the true economic substance of financial activity. The findings support a balanced application of standards — one that upholds regulatory integrity while preserving the auditor’s ability to provide context-sensitive and value-adding assurance.

References

J. E. Calfee and R. Craswell, “Some effects of uncertainty on compliance with legal standards,” Virginia Law Review, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 965–1003, 1984.

M. Causholli, Auditing Under the Credence Lens: Audit Profits and Audit Production in a Repeated Setting, Working paper, University of Kentucky, 2009.

M. Causholli and W. R. Knechel, “An examination of the credence attributes of an audit,” Accounting Horizons, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 631–656, 2012.

New York Society of CPAs, “WebTrust: A progress report,” The CPA Journal, vol. 69, no. 7, p. 13, 1999.

D. T. Otley and B. J. Pierce, “Auditor time budget pressure: Consequences and antecedents,” Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 31, 1996.

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting Performed in Conjunction with an Audit of Financial Statements, Auditing Standard No. 2, Washington, DC, 2004.

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), Statement regarding the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s approach to inspections of internal control audits in the 2006 inspection cycle. Available: http://pcaobus.org/Inspections/Documents/2006_05-01_Release_104-2006-105.pdf

D. Hay, W. R. Knechel, and N. Wong, “Audit fees: A meta-analysis of the effect of supply and demand attributes,” Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 141–191, 2006.

C. Holm and F. Thinggaard, Joint Audits: Benefit or Burden, Working paper, Aarbus Business School, 2010.

R. W. Houston, “The effect of fee pressure and client risk on audit seniors’ time budget decisions,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 70–86, 1999.

W. R. Knechel, G. Krishnan, M. Pevzner, L. Shefcik, and U. Vellury, “Audit quality indicators: Insights from the academic literature,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, forthcoming, 2013.