Boundary spanning and gatekeeping roles of UK audit committees

References

• AIU, 2008. Audit Quality Inspection: An Overview. London: Audit Inspection Unit, FRC.
   Google Scholar
• AIU, 2010. 2009/10 AIU Annual Report. London: Audit Inspection Unit, FRC.
   Google Scholar
• Aldrich, H. and Herker, D., 1977. Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2 (2), 217–230.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Najjar, B., 2011. The determinants of audit committee independence and activity: evidence from the UK. International Journal of Auditing, 15 (2), 191–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-1123.2011.00429.x
   Google Scholar
• APB, 2004. ISA (UK and Ireland) 260. Communication of audit matters with those charged with governance, International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 260. London: Auditing Practices Board.
   Google Scholar
• Barratt, R. and Korac Kakabadse, N., 2002. Developing reflexive corporate leadership: the role of the non-executive director. Corporate Governance, 2 (3), 32–36. doi: 10.1108/14720700210440071
   Google Scholar
• Beasley, M.S., Carcello, J.V., Hermanson, D.R. and Neal, T.L., 2009. The audit committee oversight process. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26 (1), 65–122. doi: 10.1506/car.26.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie, V. A., Fearnley, S. and Brandt, R., 2000. Behind the audit report: a descriptive study of discussion and negotiation between auditors and directors. International Journal of Auditing, 4 (2), 177–202. doi: 10.1111/1099-1123.00312
   Google Scholar
• Beattie, V.A., Fearnley, S. and Brandt, R., 2001. Behind Closed Doors: What Company Audit is Really About. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Beattie, V.A., Fearnley, S. and Hines, T., 2011. Reaching Key Financial Reporting Decisions: How UK Directors and Auditors Interact. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Beattie, V.A., Fearnley, S. and Hines, T., 2012. Do audit committees really engage with auditors on planning and performance? Accounting & Business Research, 42 (3), 349–375. doi: 10.1080/00014788.2012.698090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bédard, J. and Gendron, Y., 2010. Strengthening the financial reporting system: can audit committees deliver? International Journal of Auditing, 14 (2), 174–210.
   Google Scholar
• Bezemer, P., Maassen, G.F., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. and Volberda, H.W., 2007. Investigating the development of the internal and external service tasks of non-executive directors: the case of the Netherlands (1997–2005). Corporate Governance, 15 (6), 1119–1129. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00635.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böhm, F., Bollen, L.H. and Hassink, H.F., 2012. Spotlight on the design of European audit committees: a comparative descriptive study. International Journal of Auditing, 17 (2), 138–161 (doi:10.1111/j.1099-1123.2012.00461.x).
   Google Scholar
• Brown, R., 2000. Group Processes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Buijink, W., 2006. Evidence-based financial reporting regulation. Abacus, 42 (3/4), 296–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6281.2006.00202.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadbury Report, 1992. Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. London: Gee and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Carcello, J.V., Hermanson, D.R. and Ye, Z., 2011. Corporate governance research in accounting and auditing: insights, practice implications, and future research directions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 30 (3), 1–31. doi: 10.2308/ajpt-10112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicon, J.E., Ferris, S.P., Kammel, A.J. and Noronha, G., 2012. European corporate governance: a thematic analysis of national codes of governance. European Financial Management, 18 (4), 620–648. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-036X.2010.00542.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, T., 2011. The globalisation of corporate governance? Irresistible markets meet immovable institutions. In: A. Brink, ed. Corporate Governance and Business Ethics. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer, 3–30.
   Google Scholar
• Coffee, J.C., 2006. Gatekeepers: The Professions and Corporate Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G. and Wright, A.M., 2002. Corporate governance and the audit process. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19 (4), 573–594. doi: 10.1506/983M-EPXG-4Y0R-J9YK
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G. and Wright, A.M., 2008. Form versus substance: the implications for auditing practice and research of alternative perspectives on corporate governance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 27 (2), 181–198. doi: 10.2308/aud.2008.27.2.181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G. and Wright, A., 2010. Corporate governance in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era: auditors’ experiences. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27 (3), 751–786. doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01026.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier, P. and Zaman, M., 2005. Convergence in European corporate governance: the audit committee concept. Corporate Governance, 13 (6), 753–768. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00468.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Competition Commission, 2013. Statutory Audit Services for Large Companies Market Investigation: A Report on the Provision of Statutory Audit Services to Large Companies in the UK. Available from: http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/assets/competitioncommission/docs/2011/statutory-audit-services/131016_final_report.pdf [Accessed 4 December 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Davies, M. and Schlitzer, B., 2008. The impracticality of an international ‘one size fits all’ corporate governance code of best practice. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23 (6), 532–544. doi: 10.1108/02686900810882093
   Google Scholar
• Deloitte, 2011. Gems and Jetsam: Surveying Annual Reports. London: Deloitte.
   Google Scholar
• DeZoort, F.T., Hermanson, D.R. and Houston, R.W., 2003. Audit committee member support for proposed audit adjustments: a source credibility perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 22 (2), 189–205. doi: 10.2308/aud.2003.22.2.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeZoort, F.T., Hermanson, D.R. and Houston, R.W., 2008. Audit committee member support for proposed audit adjustments: pre-SOX versus post-SOX judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 27 (1), 85–105. doi: 10.2308/aud.2008.27.1.85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EC, 2011. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council: on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public interest entities. Brussels. COM (2011) 779/3. 2011/0359(COD). Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• van Essen, M., Engelen, P.-J. and Carney, M., 2013. Does “good” corporate governance help in a crisis? The impact of country- and firm-level governance mechanisms in the European financial crisis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21 (3), 201–224. doi: 10.1111/corg.12010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FEE, 2012. The Functioning of Audit Committees. Discussion Paper, Federation of European Accountants. Available from: http://www.fee.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=519&Itemid=106&lang=en [Accessed 24 March 2013].
   Google Scholar
• FRC, 2006a. The UK Approach to Corporate Governance. London: Financial Reporting Council.
   Google Scholar
• FRC, 2006b. The Combined Code on Corporate Governance. London: Financial Reporting Council.
   Google Scholar
• FRC, 2008. The Combined Code on Corporate Governance. London: Financial Reporting Council.
   Google Scholar
• FRC, 2010. The UK Corporate Governance Code. London: Financial Reporting Council.
   Google Scholar
• FRC, 2012. The UK Corporate Governance Code. London: Financial Reporting Council. Available from: http://frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/Corporate-Governance/UK-Corporate-Governance-Code-September-2012.aspx [Accessed 24 May 2013].
   Google Scholar
• García-Castro, R., Aguilera, R.V. and Ariño, M.A., 2013. Bundles of firm corporate governance practices: a fuzzy set analysis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21 (4), 390–407. doi: 10.1111/corg.12024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gendron, Y. and Bédard, J., 2006. On the constitution of audit committee effectiveness. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31 (3), 211–239. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2005.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbins, M., McCracken, S.A. and Salterio, S.E., 2007. The Chief Financial Officer's perspective on auditor-client negotiations. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24 (2), 387–422. doi: 10.1506/9208-G324-1R15-4U3H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbins, M. and Qu, S.Q., 2005. Eliciting experts’ context knowledge with theory-based experiential questionnaires. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 17, 71–88. doi: 10.2308/bria.2005.17.1.71
   Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M., 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3), 481–510. doi: 10.1086/228311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haka, S. and Chalos, P., 1990. Evidence of agency conflict among management, auditors, and the audit committee chair. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 9 (4), 271–292. doi: 10.1016/0278-4254(90)90003-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillman, A.J. and Dalziel, T., 2003. Boards of directors and firm performance: integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28 (3), 383–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICAEW, 2006. Effective Corporate Governance Frameworks. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
   Google Scholar
• ICAEW/BDO, 2011. The Buck Stops Here? New Challenges for Audit Committees. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, M. and Meckling, W., 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3 (4), 305–360. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KPMG, 2006. The Audit Committee Journey: A Global View 2005–6. London: KPMG.
   Google Scholar
• KPMG, 2010. International Survey of Audit Committee Members. Available from: http://www.kpmg.com.au/aci/docs/ACI-2010-Int-Aud-Committee-Member-Survey.pdf [Accessed 24 May 2013].
   Google Scholar
• KPMG, 2013a. Global Audit Committee Survey. Available from: http://www.kpmg.co.uk/pubs/Final-A4-web-global-aci-survey-2013.pdf [Accessed 24 May 2013].
   Google Scholar
• KPMG, 2013b. The ACI Chair 100 Group: Summary of Discussions – Dialogue with Investors on Audit Committee Reporting and Audit Issues. Audit Committee Institute. Available from: http://www.kpmg.co.uk/pubs/280322_ACI_CHAIR_100_GROUP_acc.pdf [Accessed 24 May 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, P. and Zattoni, A., 2013. Editorial. How much do country-level or firm-level variables matter in corporate governance studies? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21 (3), 199–200. doi: 10.1111/corg.12025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. and Shleifer, A., 2008. The economic consequences of legal origins. Journal of Economic Literature, 46 (2), 285–332. doi: 10.1257/jel.46.2.285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leuz, C., 2010. Different approaches to corporate reporting regulation: how jurisdictions differ and why. Accounting and Business Research, 40 (3), 229–256. doi: 10.1080/00014788.2010.9663398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, J.W. and Hwang, M.I., 2010. Audit quality, corporate governance, and earnings management: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Auditing, 14 (1), 57–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-1123.2009.00403.x
   Google Scholar
• Marrone, J.A., 2010. Team boundary spanning: a multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36 (4), 911–940. doi: 10.1177/0149206309353945
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moizer, P. and Turley, S., 1987. Surrogates for audit fees in concentration studies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 7 (1), 118–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, M. and Tan, H.-T., 2005. Judgment and decision making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 24 (Supplement), 41–71. doi: 10.2308/aud.2005.24.Supplement.41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxley, M.G., 2007. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 – restoring investor confidence. Current Issues in Auditing, 1 (1), C1–C2. doi: 10.2308/ciia.2007.1.1.C1
   Google Scholar
• Perrone, V., Zaheer, A. and McEvily, B., 2003. Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organizational Science, 14 (4), 422–439. doi: 10.1287/orsc.14.4.422.17487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piot, C. and Janin, R., 2007. External auditors, audit committees and earnings management in France. European Accounting Review, 16 (2), 429–454. doi: 10.1080/09638180701391030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pucheta-Martínez, M.C. and de Fuentes, C., 2007. The impact of audit committee characteristics on the enhancement of the quality of financial reporting: an empirical study in the Spanish context. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15 (6), 1394–1412. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00653.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quick, R., Turley, S. and Willekens, M., 2007. Auditing, Trust and Governance: Developing Regulation in Europe. Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rupley, K., Almer, E. and Philbrick, D., 2011. Audit committee effectiveness: perceptions of public company audit committee members post-SOX. Research in Accounting Regulation, 23 (2), 138–144.
   Google Scholar
• Sabia, M.J. and Goodfellow, J.L., 2005. Integrity in the Spotlight: Audit Committees in a High Risk World. 2nd ed. Toronto, ON: Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
   Google Scholar
• Salleh, Z. and Stewart, J., 2012. The role of the audit committee in resolving auditor-client disagreements: a Malaysian study. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25 (8), 1340–1372. doi: 10.1108/09513571211275506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salterio, S.E., 2012. Fifteen years in the trenches: auditor-client negotiations exposed and explored. Accounting and Finance, 52 (Supplement), 233–286. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2012.00499.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2002. Available from: http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/SOact/soact.pdf [Accessed 3 October 2011].
   Google Scholar
• Seabright, M.A., Levinthal, D.A. and Fichman, M., 1992. Role of individual attachments in the dissolution of interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (1), 122–160. doi: 10.2307/256475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith Committee, 2003. Audit Committee Combined Code Guidance. London: Financial Reporting Council.
   Google Scholar
• Song, J. and Windram, B., 2004. Benchmarking audit committee effectiveness in financial reporting. International Journal of Auditing, 8 (3), 195–205. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-1123.2004.00090.x
   Google Scholar
• Spira, L., 1999. Ceremonies of governance: perspectives on the role of the audit committee. Journal of Management and Governance, 3 (3), 231–260. doi: 10.1023/A:1009926203363
   Google Scholar
• Turley, S., 2007. Developments in the framework of auditing regulation in the United Kingdom. In: R. Quick, S. Turley and M. Willekens, eds. Auditing, Trust and Governance: Developing Regulation in Europe. Oxford: Routledge, 205–222.
   Google Scholar
• Turley, S. and Zaman, M., 2007. Audit committee effectiveness: processes and behavioural effects. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20 (5), 765–768. doi: 10.1108/09513570710779036
   Google Scholar
• van de Ven, A.H., 1976. On the nature, formation, and maintenance of relations among organizations. Academy of Management Review, 1 (4), 24–36. doi: 10.2307/257722
   Google Scholar
• Westphal, J.D. and Zajac, E.J., 2013. A behavioral theory of corporate governance: explicating the mechanisms of socially situated and socially constituted agency. Academy of Management Review Annals, 7 (1), 605–659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, P., 2002. The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80 (1), 103–124. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar