Do Auditing Standards Matter?

Abstract

Properly understanding the economic role of auditing standards is an important step toward improving both audit effectiveness and efficiency. In this essay, I observe that auditing standards are most important when an auditor may have an incentive to under-audit. While this conclusion may not come as a surprise, the conditions under which standards may, or may not, have a desirable effect on audit quality are less obvious. More specifically, I present a number of observations about what standards can do: Standards can (1) compensate for the lack of observability of the audit outcome by focusing on the audit process; (2) partially mitigate the information advantage possessed by the auditor as a professional expert that might motivate the auditor to under-audit; (3) counterbalance the diversity of demand across multiple stakeholders that might drive the audit to the lowest common denominator and create a market based on adverse selection; and (4) provide a benchmark that facilitates the calibration of an auditor's legal liability in the event of a substandard audit. However, I also present a number of observations about what standards should not try to do: Standards should not (1) discourage the use of judgment by auditors; (2) limit the potential demand for economically valuable alternative levels of assurance; (3) lead to excessive procedural routine or standardization in the conduct of the audit; and (4) be set based on an enforcement agenda. In the end, standards overreach may undermine the economic value of the audit to many stakeholders and lead to fee pressure for audit firms. Hopefully, these insights can inform future debates about the level and types of standards that are appropriate for the auditing profession.