No abstract

Criticism of auditors and loss of confidence in their work result from auditors not meeting society's expectations of them; that is, from the audit expectation‐performance gap. Prior research found this gap has three components: a reasonableness, deficient standards and deficient performance gap. In 2008, research was conducted to identify differences in the audit expectation‐performance gap in the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand (NZ). A questionnaire was mailed to 1,610 participants in the UK and 1,555 in NZ, from the auditor, auditee and financial and non‐financial audit beneficiaries interest groups; usable response rates of 14 and 29 per cent, respectively, were obtained. The research found that the composition and structure of the gap in NZ and the UK were broadly similar but the gap was nearly 40 per cent wider in NZ. It is suggested that this difference may be traced to greater awareness of audit issues and more stringent monitoring of auditors' performance in the UK.

Investigation of changes in the audit expectation‐performance gap in New Zealand (NZ) and the United Kingdom (UK) revealed that, between 1989 and 1999, in both countries the reasonableness gap widened as developments in auditing's external environment stimulated an increase in society's unreasonable expectations of auditors but the deficient performance gap narrowed as monitoring of auditors' performance resulted in societal perception of improved performance. Between 1999 and 2008, in the UK, widespread discussion of the environmental developments and related audit issues, along with more stringent monitoring of auditors' performance, resulted in a narrowing of the reasonableness and deficient performance gaps. In NZ, lacking these factors, these gaps widened. Additionally, changes to auditing standards resulted in some ‘reasonably expected’ responsibilities becoming actual responsibilities of auditors and, in both countries, the deficient standards gap narrowed. The research findings illuminate the means by which the audit expectation‐performance gap might be narrowed.

No abstract

No abstract