Auditors rate CEO misconduct as more significant when thinking like investors
A study suggests auditors are more likely to consider CEO misconduct as material when adopting an investor perspective. The research indicates that professional roles influence how auditors assess executive behavior.
The finding highlights a potential bias in auditing practices and raises questions about the consistency of materiality assessments.
- institution
- Poole
Taken from the source as published — check the details before acting on them.
Study method
The research involved analyzing auditors' evaluations of executive misconduct under different perspectives, focusing on how their professional roles affect their judgments.
Sample size
The study did not specify the number of auditors involved, but it notes that the findings are based on a limited sample and require further validation.
Common questions
How did the researchers conduct their study?
They examined auditors' evaluations of CEO misconduct under different perspectives, focusing on how their professional roles influenced their judgments.
What are the limitations of the study?
The study does not provide specific details on the number of participants or the exact methods used, and it acknowledges the need for further research.
Sources
- Q&A: Investor perspective prompts auditors to rate CEO misconduct as more significant Phys.org · phys.org
Headlines and links belong to the publishers listed above. The summary above is written by The Science Brief; see how this works.
