Corporate Governance, Audit Quality and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Evidence from Internal Audit Outsourcing
Posted: 26 Jul 2005 Last revised: 13 Oct 2015
There are 2 versions of this paper
Corporate Governance, Audit Quality and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Evidence from Internal Audit Outsourcing
Corporate Governance, Audit Quality and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Evidence from Internal Audit Outsourcing
Date Written: August 31, 2005
Abstract
The objective of this study is to extend the current literature related to non-audit services by investigating the area of internal audit outsourcing to the external auditor. We posit that certain types of internal audit outsourcing (i.e. those which are non-routine, and thus tend to be non-recurring in nature) are unlikely to lead to economic bonding, while offering significant potential for improvements in audit coverage and scope when provided by the external auditor. Alternatively, outsourcing routine internal audit tasks is more likely to lead to economic bonding, as well as creating disincentives for internal auditor independence. We obtain data from a survey of 219 Chief Internal Auditors and from relevant proxy statements in the year 2000, prior to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our results are consistent with firms with strong audit committee governance being less likely to outsource routine internal auditing activities to the external auditor. The audit committee's authority to dismiss the chief internal auditor enhances this effect. However, the outsourcing of non-routine internal audit activities such as special projects and EDP consulting are not negatively related to audit committee effectiveness. Additionally, outsourcing of either type of internal audit activity to an outside service provider other than the external auditor is not related to audit committee effectiveness. Collectively, we interpret these findings as supportive of an effective audit committee's ability to monitor the sourcing of the firm's total (i.e. internal and external) audit coverage, while simultaneously exhibiting concern for external auditor independence. Our findings call into question the need for the existing restrictions on some types of internal audit outsourcing to the external auditor, particularly in light of other corporate reporting environment changes enacted by the SOX.
Keywords: Audit committees, internal audit outsourcing, non-audit services
JEL Classification: M41, M49, G34, G38
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Audit Committee, Board of Director Characteristics, and Earnings Management
By April Klein
-
Audit Committee, Board of Director Characteristics, and Earnings Management
By April Klein
-
Audit Committee Composition and Auditor Reporting
By Joseph V. Carcello and Terry L. Neal
-
Corporate Governance and Accounting Scandals
By Anup Agrawal and Sahiba Chadha
-
Audit Committee Characteristics and Auditor Reporting
By Joseph V. Carcello and Terry L. Neal
-
Earnings Management and Corporate Governance: The Roles of the Board and the Audit Committee
By Biao Xie, Wallace N. Davidson, ...
-
Restoring Trust after Fraud: Does Corporate Governance Matter?
-
Board Characteristics, Accounting Report Integrity, and the Cost of Debt
By Ronald C. Anderson, Sattar Mansi, ...
-
Does the Market Value Financial Expertise on Audit Committees of Boards of Directors?
By Mark L. Defond, Rebecca N. Hann, ...