THE IMPACT OF AUDIT QUALITY ON THE DISCLOSURE OF KEY AUDIT MATTERS UNDER ISA 701: A STUDY ON COMPANIES LISTED IN THE BIST 100 INDEX

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 106, 1 - 26, 15.04.2025

Dilek Çardak , Şükran Güngör Tanç

https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.1622370

Öz

This study aims to determine the direct and indirect effects of certain indicators of audit quality on key audit matters included in auditor reports within the scope of ISA 701. The dataset comprises information obtained from the independent auditor reports and annual reports of companies listed on the Borsa Istanbul 100 Index.
Analyses conducted using Structural Equation Modeling reveal a negative significant relationship between audit firm size and key audit matters, while a positive significant relationship is identified between the audit committee and key audit matters. Additionally, a positive significant relationship is observed between audit firm size and the audit committee, which is designated as a mediating variable, whereas a negative significant relationship is found between the auditor’s industry expertise and the audit committee. Furthermore, audit firm size and audit fees are shown to have a positive significant impact on key audit matters through the audit committee, whereas the auditor’s industry expertise exerts a negative significant effect.
The study concludes by addressing certain limitations and providing recommendations for future research on related topics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Independent Audit Quality , Key Audit Matters , Structural Equation Modeling , BIST 100

Bağımsız Denetim Kalitesinin Kilit Denetim Konularına Etkisi: BIST 100 Endeksinde Bir Analiz

Öz

Bağımsız denetim kalitesine ilişkin bazı göstergelerin BDS 701 standardı kapsamında denetçi raporlarında yer alan kilit denetim konuları üzerindeki doğrudan ve dolaylı etkilerini belirlemek amacıyla gerçekleştirilen bu çalışmanın veri setini Borsa İstanbul 100 endeksindeki işletmelerin bağımsız denetçi raporlarından ve faaliyet raporlarından elde edilen veriler oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma, bağımsız denetim kalitesinin kilit denetim konularının açıklanması üzerindeki etkisini Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi (YEM) ile analiz ederek, literatürde sınırlı olan bu ilişkiye yönelik sonuçlar ortaya koymaktadır. Mevcut araştırmalardan farklı olarak, denetim kalite göstergelerinin kilit denetim konularının sayısına etkisini inceleyerek hem akademik literatüre katkı sağlamakta hem de uygulayıcılara yeni bir bakış açısı sunmaktadır. Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ile yapılan analizler; denetim şirketi büyüklüğünün kilit denetim konuları ile negatif anlamlı, denetim komitesinin ise pozitif anlamlı bir ilişkiye sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Denetim şirketi büyüklüğü ile aracı değişken olarak belirlenen denetim komitesi arasında pozitif, denetçinin sektör uzmanlığı ile denetim komitesi arasında ise negatif anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, denetim şirketi büyüklüğü ve denetim ücretinin denetim komitesi aracılığıyla kilit denetim konularına pozitif, denetçinin sektör uzmanlığının ise negatif bir etkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bağımsız Denetim Kalitesi , Kilit Denetim Konuları , Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi , BİST 100

Kaynakça

• Adeyemi, S.B. – Fagbemi, T.O. (2010). “Audit quality corporate governance and firm characteristics in Nigeria”, International Journal of Business and Management, 5(5), 169-179.
• Alareeni, B.A. (2019). “The associations between audit firm attributes and audit quality-specific indicators: a meta-analysis”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 34(1), 6-43.
• Alhababsah, S. –Yekini, S. (2021). “Audit committee and audit quality: an empirical analysis considering industry expertise legal expertise and gender diversity”, Journal of International Accounting Auditing and Taxation, 42, 1-17.
• Ali, S. – Aulia, M.R.P. (2015). “Audit firm size auditor industry specialization and audit quality: an empirical study of Indonesian state-owned enterprises”, Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 6(22), 1-14.
• Ananda, C. – Faisal, F. (2023). “Audit fees audit tenure auditor industry specialization audit firm size and audit quality: evidence from Indonesian listed companies”, Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi dan Bisnis, 10(2), 213-230.
• Arens, A.A. – Elder, R.J. – Beasley, M.S.- Hogan, C.E. (2017). Auditing And Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach, Pearson Education Limited.
• Aslanoğlu, S. – Baskan, T.D. (2016). “Denetçilerin bağımsızlığının denetim kalitesine etkisi: BİST’de yapılan bir uygulama”, Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 16(48), 59-84.
• Baron, R.M. – Kenny, D.A. (1986). “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
• Bauwhede, H. – Willekens, M. – Gaeremynck, A. (2003). “Audit firm size public ownership and firms’ discretionary accruals management”, The International Journal of Accounting, 38(1), 1-22.
• Bédard, J. –Gonthier-Besacier, N. – Schatt, A. (2014). “Costs and benefits of reporting key audit matters in the audit report: the French experience”, International Symposium on Audit Research, 24, 1-24.
• Choi, J.H. – Kim, C. – Kim, J.B. – Zang, Y. (2010). “Audit office size audit quality and audit pricing”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 29(1), 73-97.
• Craswell, A.T. – Francis, J.R. – Taylor, S.L. (1995). “Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 20(3), 297-322.
• Çakır, V. – Çakır, V. (2007). “Televizyon reklamlarının algılanan değeri ve reklam tutumu ilişkisi: bir yapısal eşitlik modeli” İstanbul Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 37-58.
• DeAngelo, L.E. (1981). “Auditor size and audit quality”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3), 183-199.
• DeFond,M. – Zhang, J. (2014). “A review of archival auditing research”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2-3), 275-326.
• Dursun, Y. – Kocagöz, E. (2010). “Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ve regresyon: karşılaştırmalı bir analiz”, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (35), 1-17.
• Ghafran, C.O. – Sullivan, N. (2017). “The impact of audit committee expertise on audit quality: evidence from UK audit fees”, The British Accounting Review, 49(6), 578-593.
• Geçici, E. – Can, A.V. (2022). “Denetim kalitesi konusunda SSCI kapsamındaki dergilerde yayımlanmış makaleler ile Türkiye’de yapılan lisansüstü tezlerin bibliyometrik açıdan karşılaştırmalı analizi”, Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış Dergisi, 67, 129-158.
• Gençoğlu, Ü.G. – Ertan, Y. (2012). “Muhasebe kalitesini etkileyen faktörler ve Türkiye’deki durum”, Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 53, 1-24.
• Gerayli, M.S. – Yanesari, A.M.- Ma’atoofi, A.R. (2011). “Impact of audit quality on earnings management: evidence from Iran”, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 66(1), 77-84.
• Gunzler, D. – Chen, T. – Wu, P. – Zhang, H. (2013). “Introduction to mediation analysis with structural equation modeling”, Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 25(6), 390-394.
• Gutierrez, E.- Minutti-Meza, M. – Tatum, K.W. – Vulcheva, M. (2018) “Consequences of adopting an expanded auditor’s report in the United Kingdom”, Review of Accounting Studies, 23(4), 1543-1587.
• Handoko, B.L. – Pamungkas, H.R. (2020). “Effect of independence time budget pressure and auditor ethics on audit quality”, International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(9), 1-6.
• Jadiyappa, N. – Hickman, L.E. – Kakani, R.K. – Abidi, Q. (2021). “Auditor tenure and audit quality: an ınvestigation of moderating factors prior to the commencement of mandatory rotations in India”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 36(5), 724-743.
• Jaffar, N. – Ali, S.M. – Selamat, Z.B. – Alias, N. (2005). “The perception of the audit partners audit committee and investment analyst on the audit quality attributes in Malaysian”, Finance India , 19(2), 535.
• Kavut, F. – Güngör, N. (2018). “Bağımsız denetimde kilit denetim konuları: BİST-100 şirketlerinin 2017 yılı analizi” Muhasebe Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16, 59-70.
• Kaya, H.P. (2019). “Türkiye’de denetim alanında yazılmış olan doktora tezlerinin değerlendirilmesi”, Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(2), 556-576.
• Kilgore, A. – Radich, R. – Harrison, G. (2011). “The relative ımportance of audit quality attributes”, Australian Accounting Review, 21(3), 253-265.
• Klueber, J. – Gold, A. – Pott, C. (2018). “Do key audit matters ımpact financial reporting behavior?” SSRN 3210475.
• Lawati, H.A. – Hussainey, K. (2022). “The determinants and impact of key audit matters disclosure in the auditor’s report”, International Journal of Financial Studies, 10(4), 1-18.
• Lennox, C. (1999). “Are Large auditors more accurate than small auditors?”, Accounting and Business Research, 29(3), 217-227.
• Li, H. – Hay, D. – Lau, D. (2019). “Assessing the impact of the new auditor’s Report”, Pacific Accounting Review, 31(1), 110-132.
• Little, H.T. – Lehkamp, J.M. (2018). “The development of audit quality indicators”, Archives of Business Research, 6(1), 8-25.
• Loughran, M. (2010). Auditing for Dummies, John Wiley and Sons.
• Lowensohn, S. – Johnson, L.E. – Elder, R.J. – Davies, S.P. (2007). “Auditor specialization perceived audit quality and audit fees in the local government audit market” Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 26(6), 705-732.
• Meydan, C.H. – Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları, Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara.
• Musil, C.M. – Jones, S.L. – Warner, C.D. (1998). “Structural equation modeling and its relationship to multiple regression and factor analysis”, Research in Nursing and Health, 21(3), 271-281.
• Oghuvwu, M.E. – Orakwue, A.C. (2019). “Determinants of key audit matters disclosure”, Accounting and Taxation Review, 3(3), 69-77.
• Oktay, S. (2013). “Bağımsız denetim etkinliğinin arttırılmasında denetim hizmetinde kalite ve kalite kontrol: ABD düzenlemeleri”, Maliye ve Finans Yazıları, 1(100), 42-94.
• Palmrose, Z. (1988). “An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality”, The Accounting Review, 63(1), 55-73.
• Pinto, I. –Morais, A.I. (2019). “What matters in disclosures of key audit matters: evidence from europe”, Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 30(2), 145-162.
• Reid, L.C. – Carcello, J.V. – Li, C. – Neal, T.L. – Francis, J.R. (2019). “Impact of auditor report changes on financial reporting quality and audit costs: evidence from the United Kingdom”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 36(3), 1501-1539.
• Richard, C. (2006). “Why an auditor can’t be competent and independent: a French case study”, European Accounting Review, 15(2), 153-179.
• Tritschler, J. (2013). Audit Quality: Association Between Published Reporting Errors and Audit Firm Characteristics, Springer Science and Business Media.
• Salehi, M. – Fakhri Mahmoudi, M.R. – Daemi Gah, A. (2019). “A meta-analysis approach for determinants of effective factors on audit quality: evidence from emerging market”, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 9(2), 287-312.
• Segal, M. (2019). “Key audit matters: insight from audit experts meditari”, Accountancy Research 27(3), 472-494. Soltani, B. (2007). Auditing: An International Approach, Pearson Education, Boston.
• Suseno, N.S. (2013). “An empirical analysis of auditor independence and audit fees on audit quality”, International Journal of Management and Business Studies, 3(3), 82-87.
• Suttipun, M. (2021). “Impact of Key Audit Matters (KAMs) reporting on audit quality: evidence from Thailand”, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 22(5), 869-882.
• Velte, P. (2018). “Does gender diversity in the audit committee influence key audit matters’ readability in the audit report? UK evidence”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(5), 748-755.
• Velte, P. (2020). “Associations between the financial and ındustry expertise of audit committee members and key audit matters within related audit reports”, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 21(1), 185-200.
• Yalçın, N. (2020). “Raporlanan kilit denetim konularının sayısını etkileyen faktörler: Borsa İstanbul’da bir uygulama”, İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(4), 4220-4230.
• Wuttichindanon, S. – Issarawornrawanich, P. (2020). “Determining factors of key audit matter disclosure in Thailand”, Pacific Accounting Review, 32(4), 563-584.
• https://wwwiaasborg/publications/international-standard-auditing-isa-701-new-communicating-key-audit-matters-independent-auditors. (Erişim Tarihi: 14.09.2023)
• https://www.kgk.gov.tr. ( Erişim Tarihi:10.08.2021)
• https://wwwkgkgovtr/Portalv2Uploads/files/Duyurular/v2/TDS/TDS_2024_Seti/BDS_700_kys_600_degisiklikleripdf . ( Erişim Tarihi: 15.12.2023)