The Audit Committee as an Interactive Process: Insights on the AC Chairperson’s Power

References

• Beasley, M. S., Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & 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., Fearnley, S., & Hines, T. (2011). Reaching key financial reporting decisions: How directors and auditors interact. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Beattie, V., Fearnley, S., & Hines, T. (2014). Boundary spanning and gatekeeping roles of UK audit committees. Accounting and Business Research, 44(3), 315–343. doi: 10.1080/00014788.2014.898434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie, V., Fearnley, S., & Hines, T. (2015). Auditor-client interactions in the changed UK regulatory environment – a revised grounded theory model. International Journal of Auditing, 19, 15–36. doi: 10.1111/ijau.12031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bechky, B. A. (2011). Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations, and negotiated orders. Organization Science, 22(5), 1157–1167. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, entrepreneurs and institutional change: The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. Organizations Studies, 20(5), 777–799. doi: 10.1177/0170840699205004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckert, J. (2003). Economic sociology and embeddedness: How shall we conceptualize economic action? Journal of Economic Issues, 37(3), 769–787. doi: 10.1080/00213624.2003.11506613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bédard, J., & Gendron, Y. (2010). Strengthening the financial reporting system: Can audit committees deliver? International Journal of Auditing, 14(2), 174–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-1123.2009.00413.x
   Google Scholar
• Bertin, É, & Godowski, C. (2012). Le processus global d'audit : source de développement d'une gouvernance cognitive? [The global audit process: Source of development of a cognitive governance?]. Comptabilité-Contrôle-Audit, 18(3), 145–184. doi: 10.3917/cca.183.0145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binder, A. (2007). For love and money: Organizations’ creative responses to multiple environmental logics. Theory and Society, 36, 547–571. doi: 10.1007/s11186-007-9045-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouton, D. (2002). Pour un meilleur gouvernement des entreprises cotées: MEDEF AFEP-AGREF.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, N., & Kirwan, C. E. (2015). Audit committees: Practices, practitioners and praxis of governance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(4), 466–493. doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1925
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broye, G. (2009). Honoraires d'audit et comités d'audit : le cas de la France [Audit fees and audit committees: Some evidence from France.]. Comptabilité-Contrôle-Audit, 15(1), 199–224. doi: 10.3917/cca.151.0199
   Google Scholar
• Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., & Ye, Z.S. (2011). Corporate governance research in accounting and auditing: Insights, practice implications, and future research directions. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(3), 1–31. doi: 10.2308/ajpt-10112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castel, P., & Friedberg, E. (2010). Institutional change as an interactive process: The case of the modernization of the French cancer centers. Organization Science, 21(2), 311–330. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & 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
• Cohen, J., Krisnamoorthy, G., & 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. R., Hayes, C., Krishnamoorthy, G., Monroe, G. S., & Wright, A. M. (2013). The effectiveness of SOX regulation: An interview study of corporate directors. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 25(1), 61–87. doi: 10.2308/bria-50245
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. R., Krishnamoorthy, G., & 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 & Theory, 27(2), 181–198. doi: 10.2308/aud.2008.27.2.181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier, P., & Zaman, M. (2005). Convergence in European corporate governance: The audit committee concept. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(6), 753–768. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00468.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compernolle, T. (2009). La construction collective de l'indépendance du commissaire aux comptes : la place du comité d'audit [The collective construction of external auditor independence: The role of the audit committee]. Comptabilité Contrôle Audit, 15(3), 91–116. doi: 10.3917/cca.153.0091
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1980). Actors and systems: The politics of collective action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delbridge, R., & Edwards, T. (2013). Inhabiting institutions: Critical realist refinements to understanding institutional complexity and change. Organizations Studies, 34(7), 927–947. doi: 10.1177/0170840613483805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deloitte. (2004). Keeping directors on course. Audit committees – a better practice guide. Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Ireland/Local20Assets/Documents/Financial20services/ie_FS_KeepingDirectorsOnCourse_10.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Deloitte. (2013). Audit committee leading practices and trends. Retrieved from http://www.corpgov.deloitte.com/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/USEng/Documents/Audit20Committee/Audit20Committee20Resource20Guide/audit20committee20leading20practices20and%20trends.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ernst & Young. (2012, June). Audit committee: going beyond the ordinary. BoardMatters Quaterly. Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/US/en/Issues/Governance-and-reporting/Audit-Committee/BoardMatters-Quarterly--June-2012---Audit-committees---going-beyond-the-ordinary website
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2006). Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (Strasbourg, L 157/87, 9 June 2006).
   Google Scholar
• Everitt, J. G. (2013). Inhabitants moving in: Prospective sense-making and the reproduction of inhabited institutions in teacher education. Symbolic Interaction, 36(2), 177–196. doi: 10.1002/symb.56
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FEE, ICAA, & Center for Audit Quality. (2013). Global observations on the role of the role of the audit committee. A summary of roundtable discussions. Retrieved from http://www.thecaq.org/newsroom/2013/05/07/new-report-finds-audit-committee-issues-transcend-geographic-borders
   Google Scholar
• Financial Reporting Council (FRC). (2016). The UK Corporate Governance Code, England. Retrieved from https://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Codes-Standards/Corporate-governance/UK-Corporate-Governance-Code.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Fiolleau, K., Hoang, K., Jamal, K., & Sunder, S. (2013). How do regulatory reforms to enhance auditor independence work in practice? Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(3), 864–890. doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedberg, E. (1993). Le pouvoir et la règle. Dynamiques de l’action organisée. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
   Google Scholar
• Gendron, Y. (2009). Discussion of ‘The audit committee oversight process’: Advocating openness in accounting research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26(1), 123–134. doi: 10.1506/car.26.1.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gendron, Y., & Bédard, J. (2006). On the constitution of audit committee effectiveness. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 31(3), 211–239. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2005.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gendron, Y., Bedard, J., & Gosselin, M. (2004). Getting inside the black box: A field study of practices in ‘effective’ audit committees. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 23(1), 153–171. doi: 10.2308/aud.2004.23.1.153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goyer, M. (2001). Corporate governance and the innovation system in France 1985–2000. Industry & Innovation, 8(2), 135–158. doi: 10.1080/13662710120072949
   Google Scholar
• Goyer, M. (2006). French speed dating? Short-term, impatient capital and the evolution of corporate governance in France. International Journal of Disclosure & Governance, 3(3), 197–212. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jdg.2040079
   Google Scholar
• Groysberg, B., & Bell, D. (2010). 2010 Board of Directors Survey. Heidrick & Struggles Women Corporate Directors (WCD). Retrieved from http://www.heidrick.com/PublicationsReports/PublicationsReports/HS_BOD_Survey2010.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hallet, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 52–74. doi: 10.1177/0003122409357044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallet, T., Shulman, D., & Fine, G. A. (2009). Peopling organizations: The promise of classic symbolic interactionism for an inhabited institutionalism. In P.S. Adler (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of sociology and organizational studies: Classical foundations. (pp. 486–509). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hallet, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Theory and Society, 35(2), 213–236. doi: 10.1007/s11186-006-9003-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancké, B. (2001). Revisiting the French model: Coordination and restructuring in French industry. In P. Hall, & D. Soskice (Eds.), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage (pp. 307–336). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hooghiemstra, R., & Van Manen, J. (2004). The independence paradox: (Im)possibilities facing non-executives directors in the Netherlands. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(3), 314–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2004.00372.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institut Français des Administrateurs. (2008). 100 instances of best practice for audit committees. IFA.
   Google Scholar
• Institut Français des Administrateurs. (2009). Comités d'audit et auditeurs externes. IFA.
   Google Scholar
• Karpik, L. (2010). Valuing the unique: The economics of singularities. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Legal determinants of external finance. Journal of Finance, 52(3), 1131–1150. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb02727.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1113–1155. doi: 10.1086/250042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lary, A. M., & Taylor, D. W. (2012). Governance characteristics and role effectiveness of audit committees. Managerial Auditing Journal, 27(4), 336–354. doi: 10.1108/02686901211217969
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lok, J., & De Rond, M. (2013). On the plasticity of institutions: Containing and restoring practice breakdowns at the Cambridge University boat club. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 185–207. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0688
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meunier, S. (2000). The French exception. Foreign Affairs, 79(4), 104–116. doi: 10.2307/20049812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H. (1979). An emerging strategy of ‘direct’ research, editorial. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 582–589. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3980555&lang=fr&site=ehost-live doi: 10.2307/2392364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morin, F. (2000). A transformation in the French model of shareholding and management. Economy & Society, 29(1), 36–53. doi: 10.1080/030851400360550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Piot, C. (2004). The existence and independence of audit committees in France. Accounting and Business Research, 34(3), 223–246. doi: 10.1080/00014788.2004.9729966
   Google Scholar
• Piot, C., & 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
• PriceWaterhouseCoopers. (2003). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Current Proposals by NYSE, Amex and NASDACQ. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/sarbanes-oxley/assets/final_so_wp_2-boardsac.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Radcliffe, V. S. (2010). Discussion of ‘The world has changed-have analytical procedure practices?’. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27(2), 701–709. doi: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01022.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salleh, Z., & Stewart, J. (2012). The role of the audit committee in resolving auditor-client disagreements: A Malaysian study. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(8), 1340–1372. doi: 10.1108/09513571211275506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarens, G., Christopher, J., & Zaman, M. (2013). A study of the informal interactions between audit committees and internal auditors in Australia. Australian Accounting Review, 23(4), 307–329. doi: 10.1111/auar.12024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spira, L. F. (1999). Ceremonies of governance: Perspectives on the role of the audit committee. Journal of Management & Governance, 3(3), 231–260. doi: 10.1023/A:1009926203363
   Google Scholar
• Spira, L. F. (2002). The audit committee: Performing corporate governance. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Turley, S., & Zaman, M. (2007). Audit committee effectiveness: Informal processes and behavioural effects. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(5), 765–788. doi: 10.1108/09513570710779036
   Google Scholar
• Viénot, M. (1995). The board of directors of listed companies in France. CNPF/AFEP.
   Google Scholar
• Viénot, M. (1999). Recommendations of the committee on corporate governance. Retrieved from http://www.ecgi.org/codes/documents/vienot2_en.pdf. AFEP/MEDEF
   Google Scholar
• Voronov, M., De Clercq, D., & Hinings, C. R. (2013). Institutional complexity and logic engagement: An investigation of Ontario fine wine. Human Relations, 66(12), 1563–1596. doi: 10.1177/0018726713481634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weimer, J., & Pape, J. C. (1999). A taxonomy of systems of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 7(2), 152–166. doi: 10.1111/1467-8683.00143
   Google Scholar
• Zaman, M., & Sarens, G. (2013). Informal interactions between audit committees and internal audit functions. Managerial Auditing Journal, 28(6), 495–515. doi: 10.1108/02686901311329892
   Google Scholar