Noções de cepticismo profissional do Cpa no exercício das auditorias: uma perspectiva teórica
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22267/rtend.202102.150Palavras-chave:
auditoria contabilística, cepticismo profissional, independência profissional, código de ética da IFAC, parcialidade pessoalResumo
O ceticismo é uma doutrina filosófica que, na prática profissional, contribui para que os profissionais de contabilidade pública adquiram uma abordagem baseada em dúvidas sobre a veracidade e consistência das informações que eles devem revisar durante a realização de uma auditoría. Dúvidas que o levam a corroborar cada apoio encontrado no processo e que lhe permitem ter bases suficientes para emitir pareceres financeiros confiáveis. Este trabalho apresenta uma revisão literária que explora os elementos que influenciam o ceticismo profissional em contadores públicos que atuam como auditores. A pesquisa foi realizada com abordagem qualitativa descritiva e exploratória, com base na literatura existente. Neste estudo, verificou-se que independência, viés pessoal e conflitos de interesse são fatores-chave que melhoram ou prejudicam o ceticismo profissional na execução do trabalho de auditoría.
Downloads
Referências
(1) Andreas, H., Zarefar, A. y Rasuli, H. M. (2016). Analysis of factors affecting the auditors’professional scepticism and audit result quality-the case of indonesian government auditors. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research. 14(6), 3807-3817.
(2) Bachmann, R., Knights D. y Sydow, J. (2001). Trust and Control in Organizational Relations. Organization Studies, 22(2), V-VIII.
(3) Bazerman, M. H. y Loewenstein, G. (2001). Taking the bias out of bean counting. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 28.
(4) Bell, T. B., Peecher, M. E. y Solomon, I. (2005). The 21st Century Public Company Audit: Conceptual Elements of KPMG’s Global Audit Methodology. Sweden: KPMG International.
(5) Boyd, C. (2004). The structural origins of conflicts of interest in the accounting profession. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(3), 377-398. doi: 10.5840/beq200414325
(6) Byrnes, P. E., Al-Awadhi, A., Gullvist, B., Brown-Liburd, H., Teeter, R., Warren, J. D. y Vasarhelyi, M. (2018). Evolution of Auditing: From the Traditional Approach to the Future Audit. En Chan, D. Y., Chiu, V. y Vasarhelyi, M. A. (Ed.), Continuous Auditing (Rutgers Studies in Accounting Analytics). (pp. 285-297). Emerald Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/978-1-78743-413-420181014
(7) DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor Size and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics December, 3(3), 183-199. doi: 10.1016/0165-4101(81)90002-1
(8) Gay, G. (2002). Bridging the business dynamic into the audit. Australian CPA, 72(1), 66-68.
(9) Guénin-Paracini, H., Malsch, B. y Tremblay, M. (2015). On the operational reality of auditors’ independence: Lessons from the field. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(2), 201-236.
(10) Hernández, S., Fernández, C. y Baptista, P. (2003). Metodología de la Investigación. México D.F.: McGraw-Hill.
(11) Hurtt, K., Eining, M. y Plumlee, R. D. (2008). An Experimental Examination of Professional Skepticism. Doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1140267
(12) International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board-IAASB. (2014). ISA 200: Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance with International Standards of Auditing. New York: International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).
(13) International Federation of Accountants-IFAC. (2018). Código internacional de ética para profesionales de la contabilidad (incluidas normas internacionales de independencia). Recuperado de https://www.ifac.org/system/files/publications/files/Final-Pronouncement-The-Restructured-Code-ES.pdf
(14) Jenkins, J. G. y Haynes, C. M. (2003). The persuasiveness of client preferences: an investigation of the impact of preference, timing and client credibility. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 22(1), 143-154.
(15) Knechel, W. R., Niemi, L. y Zerni, M. (2013). Empirical evidence on the implicit determinants of compensation in Big 4 audit partnerships. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(2), 349-387. doi: 10.1111/1475-679X.12009
(16) Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J. y Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438-458. doi: 10.2307/259288
(17) Matthews, D. (2006). A History of Auditing: The Changing Audit Process in Britain from the Nineteenth Century to the Present Day. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
(18) Mayer, J. y Mussweiler, T. (2011). Suspicious Spirits, Flexible Minds:When Distrust Enhances Creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1262-1277.
(19) McKnight, D. H. y Chervany, N. L. (2001). Trust and Distrust Definitions: One Bite at a Time. En Falcone, R., Singh, M. y Tan, Y. H. (Eds), Trust in Cyber-Societies (pp. 27–54). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/3-540-45547-7_3
(20) Moore, D. A., Tetlock, P. E., Tanlu, L. y Bazerman, M. H. (2006). Conflicts of interest and the case of auditor independence: Moral seduction and strategic issue cycling. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 10-29. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.19379621
(21) Power, M. (1999). The Audit Society: Rituals of verification. New York: Oxford University Press.
(22) Quadackers, L., Groot, T. y Wright, A. (2014). Auditors’ Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(3), 639-657. doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12052
(23) Rennie, M. D., Kopp, L. S. y Lemon, W. M. (2010). Exploring Trust and the Auditor–Client Relationship: Factors Influencing the Auditor’s Trust of a Client Representative. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 29(1), 279-293. doi: 10.2308/aud.2010.29.1.279
(24) Reynolds, J. K. y Francis, J. (2001). Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30(3), 375-400.
(25) Richard, C. (2006). Why an auditor can’t be competent and independent: a French case study. European Accounting Review, 15(2), 153-179. doi: 10.1080/09638180500104832
(26) Rodgers, W., Guiral, A. y Gonzalo, J. A. (2009). Different pathways that suggest whether auditors going concern opinions are ethically based. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(3), 347-361. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9851-8
(27) Schul, Y., Mayo, R. y Burnstein, E. (2008). The Value of Distrust. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1293-1302. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.003
(28) Skinner, D. J. y Srinivasan, S. (2012). Audit Quality and Auditor Reputation: Evidence from Japan. The Accounting Review, 87(5), 1737-1765. doi: 10.2308/accr-50198
(29) Sukriah, I. y Inapty, B. A. (2009). Pengaruh Pengalaman Kerja, Independensi, Obyektifitas, Integritas dan Kompetensi Terhadap Kualitas Hasil Pemeriksaan. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi, 12, 3-9.
(30) Walters, J. E. y Dangol, R. (2006). Ethical implications of independent quality auditing. Asian Journal of Information Technology, 5(1), 107-110.
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Aquellos autores/as que tengan publicaciones con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:
Esta revista está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional License. Los artículos se pueden copiar, distribuir, adaptar y comunicar públicamente, siempre y cuando se reconozcan los créditos de la obra y se cite la respectiva fuente. Esta obra no puede ser utilizada con fines comerciales.
Para aumentar su visibilidad, los documentos se envían a bases de datos y sistemas de indización.
El contenido de los artículos es responsabilidad de cada autor y no compromete, de ninguna manera, a la revista o a la institución.
