Comparative analysis of international standards governing auditor–client relations

Maintaining auditor independence from the client is fundamental to enhancing the reliability of financial reporting, preventing conflicts of interest, and strengthening investor confidence in the capital markets. Various international frameworks, including the International Code of Ethics (IESBA) and International Standards on Auditing (ISA), have attempted to strengthen auditor independence and professional skepticism, but their application varies widely across jurisdictions. This study provides a comparative analysis of international standards governing the auditor – client relationship and assesses how different jurisdictions interpret, apply, and adapt the global audit framework. The study examines the contrast between the PCAOB’s enforcement mechanisms, pre-established EU regulatory constraints, and the IESBA’s flexible threat and protection approach, demonstrating how these mechanisms interact with national legal traditions, institutional oversight, and economic incentives. In addition, the study considers the significant impact of technological change on audit processes. The study concludes by offering policy recommendations for harmonizing global auditing rules, balancing the need for standardization with the flexibility of jurisdictions to accommodate economic and legal realities. This study contributes to the ongoing debate on global audit standardization by highlighting the need for a dynamic regulatory framework that can evolve with financial markets and technological innovation, ensuring that the audit profession remains a reliable guardian of financial integrity.

1. DeFond M.L., Zhang J. A Review of Archival Auditing Research // Journal of Accounting and Economics. 2014. Vol. 58 (2–3). P. 275–326. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002

2. Power M. The Audit Explosion // Demos. 1994. No. 7.

3. International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA). The IESBA Code – Overview of Parts and Sections. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2023. URL: https://www.ifac.org/system/files/publications/files/IESBA-Code-Part-Overview-2023.pdf

4. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). Handbook of International Quality Management, Auditing, Review, Other Assurance, and Related Services Pronouncements. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2023–2024. URL: https://www.iaasb.org/publications/2023-2024-handbook-international-quality-management-auditing-review-other-assurance-and-related

5. Fu C., Deng X., Tang H. Who cares about corporate fraud? Evidence from cross-border mergers and acquisitions of Chinese companies // Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting. 2023. Vol. 60, no. 2. P. 747–789. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156022-01111-6

6. DeAngelo L.E. Auditor independence «Low Balling» and disclosure regulation // Journal of Accounting and Economics. 1981. Vol. 3 (2). P. 113–127. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(81)90009-4

7. Ivanova M.N., Tylaite M., Zhu L. The impact of client bankruptcies on auditors’ judgment and future audit engagements // European Accounting Review. 2024. P. 1–28. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2024.2412693

8. Yasar A. Big four auditors’ audit quality and earnings management: Evidence from Turkish stock market // International journal of business and social science. 2013. Vol. 4, no. 17. P. 74–94.

9. Liu J., Lin B. Government auditing and corruption control: Evidence from China’s provincial panel data // China Journal of Accounting Research. 2012. Vol. 5, no. 2. P. 163–186. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2012.01.002

10. Eierle B., Hartlieb S., Hay D.C., Niemi L., Ojala H. Importance of country factors for global differences in audit pricing: New empirical evidence // International Journal of Auditing. 2021. Vol. 25, no. 2. P. 303–331. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12222

11. Sikka P. Financial crisis and the silence of the auditors // Accounting, organizations and society. 2009. Vol. 34, no. 6-7. P. 868–873. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.01.004

12. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) No. 537/2014 on Statutory Audit of Public-Interest Entities. Official Journal of the European Union. 2014. L 158/77. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0537

13. Adams C.A., Evans R. Accountability, completeness, credibility and the audit expectations gap // Journal of corporate citizenship. 2004. No. 14. P. 97–115.

14. House of Commons Committees. Carillion Inquiry: Findings on Audit Failures. Parliament of the United Kingdom. 2018. URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/769/769.pdf

15. Karmańska A. Artificial Intelligence in audit // Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu. 2022. Vol. 66, no. 4. P. 87–99. DOI: 10.15611/pn.2022.4.06.