Objectivity and independence: the dual roles of external auditors and forensic accountants

James Di Gabriele and Marianne Ojo

MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany

Abstract: This paper is aimed at illustrating that certain capacities exist whereby the dual role of the external auditor (in undertaking internal audit roles as well as skilled persons roles) could be exercised to the optimal and maximum benefit of an entity or organisation. It also aims to accentuate on why a return to and focus on traditional auditing techniques, as well as auditing techniques which focus on internal controls is a much needed move. In so doing, it contributes to the extant literature by highlighting why such a move should be facilitated, as well as proposing means whereby such a move would be facilitated - namely, through a focus on benefits which could be derived where the external auditor is able to incorporate certain internal audit responsibilities. The paper also draws attention to safeguards which require due consideration if the ever important attributes of objectivity and independence are not to be compromised. Risks associated with the overlapping roles of testifying and consulting experts in Forensic Accounting will also be considered in this paper. Whilst the benefits and potentials of the dual roles assumed by external auditors are emphasized, as well as the need to ensure that safeguards operating to guard against a compromise of objectivity and independence are in place, authors' opinions in support of dual roles also take into consideration the utmost priority of ethical values. The paper hence also highlights the fact that such dual roles are appropriate in certain cases – as illustrated by justifications for limitations imposed by the Sarbanes Oxley Act and other relevant and applicable legislation – even though instances also persist where section 201 of Sarbanes-Oxley, with regard to internal audit outsourcing, may have been over-reactionary and may continue to hinder both companies and their auditors.

Keywords: independence; objectivity; Sarbanes Oxley Act; FSMA section 166; ISA 610; Amended Rule 26 (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: K2 M41 M42 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2013-03-11
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-law
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/44954/1/MPRA_paper_44954.pdf original version (application/pdf)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/69294/1/MPRA_paper_44954.pdf revised version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pra:mprapa:44954

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Joachim Winter ().