SUMMARY In this research note, we examine the validity of the measures of auditor industry specialization in empirical archival audit research. Industry specialist auditors are auditors who have developed a specific expertise and are therefore able to provide high quality and more efficient services to their clients. Over the years, research scholars have developed a multiplicity of measures of industry specialization (ISP). We compare 30 ISP measures and find that the use of different ISP proxies results in inconsistent classifications of auditors as specialists. Using audit fee and earnings quality models, we further show that these inconsistencies have a significant effect on the inferences drawn from the models using ISP measures. We conclude that ISP measures exhibit a low degree of internal and external construct validity. This represents an important measurement challenge for researchers and casts some doubts on the robustness of prior empirical evidence found in auditor industry specialization research.

The publication of the European Commission Green Paper, "Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis" in October 2010, has stirred up a lively debate on the role of joint audits. This literature review identifies and evaluates, for the benefit of future research and regulators, existing evidence about joint audits. We find limited empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to increased audit quality, but some empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to additional costs. Overall, this paper indicates that joint audit should be seen as a mechanism that is embedded in a broader institutional context, and not be considered in isolation from other factors that might impact the audit market. The results indicate that various country-level characteristics are simultaneously at play. While joint audits can potentially enhance the audit market competition by allowing smaller audit firms to maintain larger market shares, the related impact on audit quality has not yet been clearly demonstrated and thus provides a promising avenue for future research.3

No abstract

Despite the increase in the acceptance of responsible investing (RI) in general (Allianz, in www. allianzglobalinvestors.com, 2010), the global community is still witnessing unprecedented levels of practices that can only be categorized as ''unsustainable''. It appears, then, that either the inroads made by the RI community have not kept up with the increase in unsustainable practices, or, that the RI process itself has been ineffective at producing meaningful change. The current study aims to investigate the practices used by pension plan sponsors to determine how they may enable, or interfere with, the adoption of implementation of RI. We adopt Framing Theory (Benford and Snow, Annual Review of Sociology 26: 2000), specifically the idea that particular frames find alignment when they resonate with their targets, by either bridging, extending, amplifying or transforming a domain. We extend research to include understudied practices by performing an analysis of 60 public pension funds in Canada. We find evidence of disconnect between the financial frame which dominates practices for compliance and evaluation, and the social frame of RI as a source of change. If the aim of RI is to produce long-term change, then a consideration of whether it aligns with extant practices is critical. We discover a variety of frame alignment tactics already employed in practice. We also find that, even within the dominant financial frame, opportunities for frame extension, amplification and transformation do exist, and examine how these are more (or less) possible depending on how the asset management structure is designed.

No abstract