Industry tournament incentives and auditors' professional judgment
Industry tournament incentives and auditors' professional judgment
Purpose: this study examines whether CEO’s industry tournament incentives are associated with auditors’ professional judgements, particularly in determining key audit matters (KAM) and setting materiality levels (MAT).
Design/methodology/approach: we use a sample of UK firms and measure auditors’ judgment through the number of KAM and the MAT levels, where a higher number of KAM indicates a broader audit scope, and a lower MAT level suggests a more detailed audit inspection. The analysis also examines cases in which CEOs possess financial expertise and employs various alternative specifications and robustness checks to address potential endogeneity.
Findings: findings show that a larger industry tournament gap is associated with a decrease in KAM and an increase in MAT levels. However, this relationship is nuanced: when CEOs have a financial background, auditors perceive the higher in-industry pay gap as increasing business and fraud risks, prompting a deeper audit approach. Specifically, auditors lower materiality threshold and increase the depth of audit procedures to address these perceived risks. These findings underscore the importance of compensation and financial expertise dynamics in shaping audit practices.
Originality: while prior research has primarily focused on audit fees, this study offers novel insights by shifting the focus to auditors’ professional judgments. Specifically, it is the first to examine how industry tournament incentives influence auditors’ judgment, thereby providing new evidence on new channels, namely, the number of Key Audit Matters and Materiality levels, through which auditors respond to CEO industry tournament pressures. These channels are arguably less prone to measurement bias than audit fee-based. Furthermore, the study extends the literature by demonstrating how auditors adjust their judgments in response to CEOs’ financial backgrounds, which may serve as a signal of heightened strategic reporting risk.
Alsalami, Abeer
43947944-fa70-411d-8150-ce01509f78a0
Zalata, Alaa
0fc2c56d-97ad-44ce-ab31-63ca335dcef6
Malagila, John
9ba45e2e-06ea-4746-aeba-dc0dacdb4905
Alsalami, Abeer
43947944-fa70-411d-8150-ce01509f78a0
Zalata, Alaa
0fc2c56d-97ad-44ce-ab31-63ca335dcef6
Malagila, John
9ba45e2e-06ea-4746-aeba-dc0dacdb4905
Alsalami, Abeer, Zalata, Alaa and Malagila, John
(2025)
Industry tournament incentives and auditors' professional judgment.
Journal of Accounting Literature.
(In Press)
Abstract
Purpose: this study examines whether CEO’s industry tournament incentives are associated with auditors’ professional judgements, particularly in determining key audit matters (KAM) and setting materiality levels (MAT).
Design/methodology/approach: we use a sample of UK firms and measure auditors’ judgment through the number of KAM and the MAT levels, where a higher number of KAM indicates a broader audit scope, and a lower MAT level suggests a more detailed audit inspection. The analysis also examines cases in which CEOs possess financial expertise and employs various alternative specifications and robustness checks to address potential endogeneity.
Findings: findings show that a larger industry tournament gap is associated with a decrease in KAM and an increase in MAT levels. However, this relationship is nuanced: when CEOs have a financial background, auditors perceive the higher in-industry pay gap as increasing business and fraud risks, prompting a deeper audit approach. Specifically, auditors lower materiality threshold and increase the depth of audit procedures to address these perceived risks. These findings underscore the importance of compensation and financial expertise dynamics in shaping audit practices.
Originality: while prior research has primarily focused on audit fees, this study offers novel insights by shifting the focus to auditors’ professional judgments. Specifically, it is the first to examine how industry tournament incentives influence auditors’ judgment, thereby providing new evidence on new channels, namely, the number of Key Audit Matters and Materiality levels, through which auditors respond to CEO industry tournament pressures. These channels are arguably less prone to measurement bias than audit fee-based. Furthermore, the study extends the literature by demonstrating how auditors adjust their judgments in response to CEOs’ financial backgrounds, which may serve as a signal of heightened strategic reporting risk.
Text
Manuscript
- Accepted Manuscript
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 21 June 2025
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 503570
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/503570
ISSN: 0737-4607
PURE UUID: e46004b1-2a71-4efa-b3e7-a76272e0e09e
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 05 Aug 2025 16:49
Last modified: 06 Aug 2025 01:49
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Abeer Alsalami
Author:
John Malagila
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics