Annexing New Audit Spaces: Challenges and Adaptations

Andon, Paul; Free, Clinton

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2610959

Cited by 28 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, many of Power's observations, on environmental audit, in particular, were made in the 1980s and 1990s context in which non-financial audit practices evolved in an entirely different manner to how sustainability assurance has advanced. Hence, future work could seek to further develop the ideas presented in this paper (and in Power's original ideas) in new and unique non-financial audit contexts (see Andon et al, 2015, Jeacle, 2017. Future researchers should also remain open, as we have done, to the possibility that preconceived views, assumptions, concepts and framings can be questioned using in-depth case-based evidence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Second, while this study has alluded to the socialisation of non-accountants in Big 4 environments, this was not its primary focus. Socialisation processes seek to simultaneously inculcate a specific way of thinking and performing in new audit spaces (Andon et al 2015) and this can significantly influence approaches to practice and the operationalisation of key assurance concepts. For example, the necessity for 'Chinese walls' deemed essential for financial audit to enhance credibility was underplayed in the provision of sustainability assurance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditional financial auditors, however, are not alone in this claim of having to reinvent themselves. For example, Andon et al (2015) note how other experts also had to reinvent themselves in order to thrive in Big 4 environments. This reinvention required them to fully embody the 'rules of the game' valued in Big 4 firms and to comply with norms and expectations about the manner in which audit work should be performed therein (Pentland 1993).…”

Section: Making New Areas Auditablementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Processes of auditability in sustainability assurance – the case of materiality construction

Canning

O’Dwyer

Γεωργακόπουλος

2018

Accounting and Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines how financial audit-styled concepts such as materiality are transferred to non-financial audit arenas. Drawing on a case study of assurors working within a Big 4 professional services firm, we uncover a number of interrelated features of the materiality determination and assessment process within sustainability assurance (assurance on sustainability reports). We illustrate how assuror flexibility, underpinned by assuror intuition, is central to uncovering assurance technologies deemed capable of addressing the materiality of ambiguous sustainability data. Assurors with no financial audit background retrospectively rationalise their intuition using the assumed authority of structured financial audit methodologies. This facilitates the tentative translation of financial audit knowledge to the sustainability assurance domain. Collaborative, holistic decision-making processes inform the assurors' continual construction of materiality and are characterised by alliances of (accountant and non-accountant) 'expert' assurors merging formal and tacit knowledge. These alliances seek social cohesion within sustainability assurance teams in order to establish a social consensus among assurors around the materiality determination and assessment process. Our analysis develops and extends Power's theorisation of how new areas are made auditable and advances our understanding of the more practical aspects of non-financial assurance services offered by Big 4 professional services firms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Making New Areas Auditablementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Processes of auditability in sustainability assurance – the case of materiality construction

Canning

O’Dwyer

Γεωργακόπουλος

2018

Accounting and Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An additional feature of this dynamic is the way in which professionals seek out new alliances and strategic relationships with institutions (or other professionals) that they perceive as being able to facilitate their expansionary aims (see Gendron and Barrett 2004, Shafer and Gendron 2005, Andon et al 2015. Consequently, professionals' efforts are often reciprocated by other powerful actors who stand to gain from also becoming dominant actors in a reconfigured field.…”

Section: 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While professionals' 'social skills' are critical to their ability to engage others in collective action, it also has to be recognized that building stable and solid networks of support is quite demanding (Larson 1977, Gendron and Barrett 2004, Shafer and Gendron 2005, Andon et al 2015. Indeed, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' efforts to enroll a diverse set of professional groups behind a global consulting credential failed to gain legitimacy among targeted supporters despite articulating a distinct boundary demarcating certified from non-certified consulting professionals (Shafer andGendron 2005, Fogarty et al 2006).…”

Section: Managing the Reproduction Of Professional Capitalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-theorizing the configuration of organizational fields: the IIRC and the pursuit of ‘Enlightened’ corporate reporting

Humphrey

O’Dwyer

Unerman

2016

Accounting and Business Research

121

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper studies the emergence of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and its attempts to institutionalize integrated reporting as a practice that is critical to the relevance and value of corporate reporting. Informed by Suddaby and Viale's [(2011). Professionals and field-level change: institutional work and the professional project. Current Sociology, 59, 423-442] theorization of how professionals reconfigure organizational fields, the paper delineates the strategies and mechanisms through which the IIRC has sought to enroll the support of a wide range of stakeholder groups for the idea of integrated reporting in order to deliver a fundamental reconfiguration of the corporate reporting field. The paper's analysis reinforces the significance to any such field reconfiguration of the reciprocal and mutual arrangements between influential professionals and other powerful actors but does so in a way that (a) refines Suddaby and Viale's theorization of processes of field-level change and (b) pinpoints the fundamental policy challenges facing the IIRC. Gieryn's [(1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781-795] notion of boundary work is operationalized to capture some of the complexity and dynamism of the change process that is not sufficiently represented by Suddaby and Viale's more sequentialist theorization. From a policy perspective, the paper demonstrates just how much the IIRC's prospects for success in reconfiguring the corporate reporting field depend on its ability to reconfigure the mainstream investment field. Ultimately, this serves to question whether the IIRC's conceptualization of 'enlightened' corporate reporting is sufficiently powerful and persuasive to stimulate 'enlightened' investment behavior focused on the medium and long term -and, more generally stresses the theoretical significance of considering connections across related organizational fields in institutional analyses of field reconfiguration efforts.

show abstract

Competing for the leading role: Trials in categorizing greenhouse and energy auditors

Andrew

2021

Critical Perspectives on Accounting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper considers the inter-professional rivalries that took place as the Australian federal government attempted to register a pool of greenhouse and energy auditors and establish a multidisciplinary team structure for emissions-related reporting and trading schemes from 2007-2019. Drawing on the notions of trials (Callon 1986;Latour 1987) and criticism in trials (Bourguignon & Chiapello 2005), we show how the government's attempts in classifying and determining expert roles and responsibilities from engineering, environmental, and financial backgrounds -with a preference for Big 4 accountants in leadership roles -triggered a series of multi-lateral trials of strength and responsibility, and essentially failed to meet its original purpose. By following the regulatory process, we articulate how terminology and measurement devices were mobilised by the regulator to enrol mixed expertise. We also examine how the envisaged identities, roles, and responsibilities were received by lobbyists from the three expert groups, and then how their concern, criticism, and resistance were acted upon and reacted to by the regulator. Our study reveals the dilemma the non-expert government faced in mediating the conflicting interests and goals of the three expert groups while fulfilling its regulatory and administrative roles. Our analysis shows how accountants' supervision style of delegating technical work and routines to subordinates evoked further controversy. The study contributes to our understanding of how trials between conflicting claims and criticisms influenced the shaping of auditor identities and responsibilities. The lessons learned in Australia provide useful insights into many other regulatory regimes in multidisciplinary fields.

show abstract

Annexing New Audit Spaces: Challenges and Adaptations

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Processes of auditability in sustainability assurance – the case of materiality construction

Processes of auditability in sustainability assurance – the case of materiality construction

Re-theorizing the configuration of organizational fields: the IIRC and the pursuit of ‘Enlightened’ corporate reporting

Competing for the leading role: Trials in categorizing greenhouse and energy auditors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About