Evaluating the Change Process for Business Risk Auditing: Legitimacy Experiences of non-Big 4 Auditors

Abstract

SUMMARY The business risk auditing (BRA) approach was developed in the late 1990s and partly incorporated into audit standards in the early 2000s. As such, BRA was a significant innovation in audit methodology. In our interview study, we examine the experiences of 38 non-Big 4 auditors toward the theorization and diffusion of BRA. We use the widely recognized framework from Greenwood, Suddaby, and Hinings (2002), emphasizing the importance of legitimacy within an organizational field, to evaluate the change process toward BRA. First, we observe that the theorization of the new concept of BRA was often of limited success as many non-Big 4 auditors found it to be too complex and remained unconvinced that BRA was developed in response to problems with previous audit approaches (“moral legitimacy”). The lack of moral legitimacy can provide the underlying basis for resistance toward change. Second, auditors often expressed skeptical views about the benefits of BRA (“pragmatic legitimacy”), resulting in only limited use of nonmandatory BRA tools. Finally, we find that auditors were divided in considering elements of BRA as the natural way of doing audits (“cognitive legitimacy”). In all, our findings help to understand the role of regulatory mechanisms and of non-Big 4 audit firms in institutional processes in auditing.

Sport-for-All policies in sport federations: an institutional theory perspective

“…Furthermore, the model stresses the importance of the theorisation stage to legitimise new ideas and practices. According to Van Buuren et al (2017), the theorisation stage had been largely ignored by academics. Its inclusion in the model of Greenwood et al (2002) resulted in a broad recognition in the literature.…”

“…Its inclusion in the model of Greenwood et al (2002) resulted in a broad recognition in the literature. Nevertheless, the qualitative research of these scholars also revealed several weaknesses of the model among which the iterative characteristics of the process (Blackler & Regan, 2006;Munir, 2005;Van Buuren et al, 2017). For example, Munir (2005) states that theorisation (stage 4) is an ongoing process, rather than being just one stage in the process (Munir, 2005).…”

“…Greenwood et al (2002) outlined a stage-based model of change underpinned by the existing literature (Ashworth et al, 2007). Initially, the model of Greenwood et al (2002) was developed to investigate the impact of the changed institutional context on professional business services in Alberta (Canada), whereas at present, the model is widely cited in many other research domains (Van Buuren et al, 2017). The model particularly pays particular attention to how organisational fields move between competing institutional logics or how existing logics can be reinstitutionalised (Ashworth et al, 2007;Greenwood et al, 2002).…”

Over kwaliteitsborging van datagedreven controlemethodologie

“…De gevoelens van de legitimiteit van de verandering worden als essentieel verondersteld om een verandering tot een succes te maken. Uiteindelijk lijkt er bij de ontwikkeling en implementatie van de BRA-controleaanpak te weinig rekening gehouden te zijn met de legitimiteit van de vernieuwing (Van Buuren et al 2018):…”

The Business Risk Audit Approach and Audit Production Efficiency

“…The BRA approach has continual interest from the research community (see, e.g., Fukukawa et al ., , ; Abdullatif and Al‐Khadash, ; Fukukawa and Mock ; van Buuren et al ., , ; Curtis et al ., ; Wright, ). It also continues to have detractors and sceptics about its added value, mainly to the small to mid‐sized segments of the audit industry (Humphrey et al ., ; Curtis et al ., ).…”