Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics 1/2022

19.03.2021 | Original Paper

Consequences of Ethical and Audit Violations: Evidence from the PCAOB Settled Disciplinary Orders

verfasst von: Prabashi Dharmasiri, Soon-Yeow Phang, Ashna Prasad, John Webster

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We investigate the justifications provided by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) when sanctioning audit firms and individual auditors, as disclosed in the publicly released Settled Disciplinary Orders (SDOs). Employing responsive regulation theory, we seek to gain an understanding of violating behaviors by audit firms and individual auditors that attract regulatory responses ranging in nature from persuasive to punitive sanctions. Using 298 SDOs issued by the PCAOB from 2005 to 2020, we find that the frequency and severity of PCAOB sanctions at the firm level are positively associated with auditing standards violations, independence issues, and reckless behavior. At the individual auditor level, integrity violations and reckless behavior are positively associated with the frequency and severity of PCAOB sanctions. Our findings indicate that significantly higher financial penalties for individual auditors (audit firms) arise from manipulation of audit evidence (quality control criticisms). Further, the PCAOB financially penalizes Big 4-affiliated auditors and firms significantly more than their non-Big 4 counterparts. Other factors such as multiple individuals being implicated in an SDO and whether a firm and individual(s) are both implicated in the SDO are important considerations in sanction(s) imposed by the PCAOB. Overall, our findings suggest that the PCAOB adopts a responsive enforcement strategy when monitoring the auditors in their ethical and audit compliance efforts.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
SDOs can be triggered by the PCAOB’s inspection findings, whistleblowing, or any lack of cooperation with the regulator (Gilbertson and Herron 2009).
 
2
We utilize the term “auditor” to refer to both audit firms and individual auditors. While client characteristics can also be deduced, this is not standardized information across SDOs. Thus, we adopt an audit “firm-level” and “individual-level” unit of analysis.
 
3
Outside of the USA, it is common practice to have these two roles performed by separate organizations. For example, in Australia, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) sets auditing standards, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) regulates the profession. Section 101 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act 2002 (SOX 2002) outlines the PCAOB’s four primary responsibilities: (1) to register public accounting firms; (2) to establish auditing standards and standards of quality control, ethics, and independence; (3) to provide enforcement; and (4) to conduct inspections of audit firms.
 
4
For completeness, we employ the entire population (n = 241) for individual auditors when presenting the descriptive statistics.
 
5
We do not include year fixed effects (as deduced by the date of SDO publication) in the study for the following important reasons. (1) The publication of the SDOs on the PCAOB Web site does not coincide with either the year in which any preceding inspection took place or when the audit violation occurred at the client level (if it is a client-related SDO). Thus, including fixed effects based on the year of the SDO is not meaningful and would thus lead to erroneous conclusions; (2) the publication of the SDOs is made several years after the PCAOB observes the initial violation. For example, the SDO which focused on significant audit violations perpetrated by Deloitte Brazil was initially inspected in 2012, while the actual SDO released in 2016. The time lag would reduce reliance on any results reached after using year fixed effects; (3) the publications of SDOs are highly dependent on the PCAOB inspection program and environmental factors. For example, our updated sample shows that the Coronavirus pandemic impacted the number of SDOs published; with 10 SDOs published in 2020 (across January to September) compared with 21 SDOs during the same time in the previous year. (4) Our study aims to gain an understanding of the relationship between PCAOB sanctions and violations, and its perceived severity by the PCAOB. Including any time-invariant biases may work against this and is secondary to our primary research objective—we encourage future research in the area, which may entail a more qualitative approach.
 
6
Regarding sanctioned Big 4 firms, only 21 of the 209 (10%) firms are affiliated to the largest networks. EY had three member firms issued SDOs (i.e., Indonesia, Spain, and USA); KPMG had two member firms issued SDOs (i.e., Bermuda and Brazil); PwC had six member firms issued SDOs (i.e., Argentina, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, Spain, and USA). Deloitte is the most sanctioned audit firm network with members from eight countries receiving SDOs (i.e., Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Netherlands, South Korea, Turkey, and USA).
 
7
RULES_FILINGS is omitted from the individual-level models in Tables 8 (column 3) and 9 (column 2) due to all individuals facing a monetary violation here. That is, four individual observations; these are not omitted in the other regressions that consider all sanctions issued within the SDO, including monetary sanctions.
 
8
For the individual-level analysis presented in Table 9, due to missing observations for the AGE variable, n = 51.
 
9
This is also evident in the correlation matrix, where the manipulation of evidence is significantly positively correlated with the non-cooperation in PCAOB inspections. Excluding the outlier Deloitte Brazil ($8 million monetary penalty, MONETARY_AMOUNT = 15.89) from the firm-level analysis (n = 144) results in qualitatively similar results for all variables of interest except COOPERATION (ß = 0.920, t-statistic = 1.39).
 
10
Upon excluding the outlier observation Deloitte Brazil (with an $8 million monetary penalty), all significant associations noted in Table 10 firm-level analysis remain unchanged.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Abernathy, J. L., Barnes, M., & Stefaniak, C. (2013). A summary of 10 years of PCAOB research: What have we learned? Journal of Accounting Literature, 32(1), 30–60.CrossRef Abernathy, J. L., Barnes, M., & Stefaniak, C. (2013). A summary of 10 years of PCAOB research: What have we learned? Journal of Accounting Literature, 32(1), 30–60.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Aobdia, D. (2018). The impact of the PCAOB individual engagement inspection process—Preliminary evidence. The Accounting Review, 93(4), 53–80.CrossRef Aobdia, D. (2018). The impact of the PCAOB individual engagement inspection process—Preliminary evidence. The Accounting Review, 93(4), 53–80.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Aobdia, D., & Shroff, N. (2017). Regulatory oversight and auditor market share. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 63, 262–287.CrossRef Aobdia, D., & Shroff, N. (2017). Regulatory oversight and auditor market share. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 63, 262–287.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ameen, E. C., Guffey, D. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1996). Gender differences in determining the ethical sensitivity of future accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5), 591–597.CrossRef Ameen, E. C., Guffey, D. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1996). Gender differences in determining the ethical sensitivity of future accounting professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5), 591–597.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford University Press. Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Bardach, E., & Kagan, R. A. (1982). Going by the book: The problem of regulatory unreasonableness. Transaction Publishers. Bardach, E., & Kagan, R. A. (1982). Going by the book: The problem of regulatory unreasonableness. Transaction Publishers.
Zurück zum Zitat Bishop, C. C., DeZoort, F. T., & Hermanson, D. R. (2017). The effect of CEO social influence pressure and CFO accounting experience on CFO financial reporting decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(1), 21–41.CrossRef Bishop, C. C., DeZoort, F. T., & Hermanson, D. R. (2017). The effect of CEO social influence pressure and CFO accounting experience on CFO financial reporting decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(1), 21–41.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Boone, J. P., Khurana, I. K., & Raman, K. K. (2015). Did the 2007 PCAOB disciplinary order against Deloitte impose actual costs on the firm or improve its audit quality? The Accounting Review, 90(2), 405–441.CrossRef Boone, J. P., Khurana, I. K., & Raman, K. K. (2015). Did the 2007 PCAOB disciplinary order against Deloitte impose actual costs on the firm or improve its audit quality? The Accounting Review, 90(2), 405–441.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Boone, J. P., Khurana, I. K., & Raman, K. K. (2019). Audit market response to PCAOB censures of US big 4 firms. European Accounting Review, 28(4), 621–658.CrossRef Boone, J. P., Khurana, I. K., & Raman, K. K. (2019). Audit market response to PCAOB censures of US big 4 firms. European Accounting Review, 28(4), 621–658.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Braithwaite, V. (2007). Responsive regulation and taxation: Introduction. Law & Policy, 29, 3–10.CrossRef Braithwaite, V. (2007). Responsive regulation and taxation: Introduction. Law & Policy, 29, 3–10.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Braithwaite, J. (2011). The essence of responsive regulation. UBC Law Review, 44(3), 475–520. Braithwaite, J. (2011). The essence of responsive regulation. UBC Law Review, 44(3), 475–520.
Zurück zum Zitat Brown, P., Preiato, J., & Tarca, A. (2014). Measuring country differences in enforcement of accounting standards: An audit and enforcement proxy. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 41(1–2), 1–52.CrossRef Brown, P., Preiato, J., & Tarca, A. (2014). Measuring country differences in enforcement of accounting standards: An audit and enforcement proxy. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 41(1–2), 1–52.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Chung, J., & Trivedi, V. U. (2003). The effect of friendly persuasion and gender on tax compliance behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(2), 133–145.CrossRef Chung, J., & Trivedi, V. U. (2003). The effect of friendly persuasion and gender on tax compliance behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(2), 133–145.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dee, C. C., Lulseged, A., & Zhang, T. (2011). Client stock market reaction to PCAOB sanctions against a Big 4 auditor. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(1), 263–291.CrossRef Dee, C. C., Lulseged, A., & Zhang, T. (2011). Client stock market reaction to PCAOB sanctions against a Big 4 auditor. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(1), 263–291.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat DeFond, M. L. (2010). How should the auditors be audited? Comparing the PCAOB inspections with the AICPA peer reviews. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(1–2), 104–108.CrossRef DeFond, M. L. (2010). How should the auditors be audited? Comparing the PCAOB inspections with the AICPA peer reviews. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(1–2), 104–108.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat DeFond, M. L., & Lennox, C. S. (2011). The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 52(1), 21–40.CrossRef DeFond, M. L., & Lennox, C. S. (2011). The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 52(1), 21–40.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2–3), 275–326.CrossRef DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2–3), 275–326.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dillard, J. F., & Yuthas, K. (2002). Ethical audit decisions: A structuration perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(1–2), 49–64.CrossRef Dillard, J. F., & Yuthas, K. (2002). Ethical audit decisions: A structuration perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(1–2), 49–64.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ege, M., Knechel, W. R., Lamoreaux, P. T., & Maksymov, E. (2020). A multi-method analysis of the PCAOB’s relationship with the audit profession. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 84, 101131.CrossRef Ege, M., Knechel, W. R., Lamoreaux, P. T., & Maksymov, E. (2020). A multi-method analysis of the PCAOB’s relationship with the audit profession. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 84, 101131.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Eshleman, J. D., & Guo, P. (2014). Do Big 4 auditors provide higher audit quality after controlling for the endogenous choice of auditor? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33(4), 197–219.CrossRef Eshleman, J. D., & Guo, P. (2014). Do Big 4 auditors provide higher audit quality after controlling for the endogenous choice of auditor? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33(4), 197–219.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ford, C. (2013). Prospects for scalability: Relationships and uncertainty in responsive regulation. Regulation & Governance, 7(1), 14–29.CrossRef Ford, C. (2013). Prospects for scalability: Relationships and uncertainty in responsive regulation. Regulation & Governance, 7(1), 14–29.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Francis, J. R., & Yu, M. D. (2009). Big 4 office size and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1521–1552.CrossRef Francis, J. R., & Yu, M. D. (2009). Big 4 office size and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1521–1552.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gilbertson, D. L., & Herron, T. L. (2009). PCAOB enforcements: A review of the first three years. Current Issues in Auditing, 3(2), A15–A34.CrossRef Gilbertson, D. L., & Herron, T. L. (2009). PCAOB enforcements: A review of the first three years. Current Issues in Auditing, 3(2), A15–A34.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Isidro, H., & Sobral, M. (2015). The effects of women on corporate boards on firm value, financial performance, and ethical and social compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 1–19.CrossRef Isidro, H., & Sobral, M. (2015). The effects of women on corporate boards on firm value, financial performance, and ethical and social compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1), 1–19.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Juric, D., O’Connell, B., Rankin, M., & Birt, J. (2018). Determinants of the severity of legal and employment consequences for CPAs named in SEC accounting and auditing enforcement releases. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 545–563.CrossRef Juric, D., O’Connell, B., Rankin, M., & Birt, J. (2018). Determinants of the severity of legal and employment consequences for CPAs named in SEC accounting and auditing enforcement releases. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 545–563.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Knechel, W. R. (2016). Audit quality and regulation. International Journal of Auditing, 20(3), 215–223.CrossRef Knechel, W. R. (2016). Audit quality and regulation. International Journal of Auditing, 20(3), 215–223.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kreie, J., & Cronan, T. M. (1998). How men and women view ethics. Communications of the ACM, 41(9), 70–77.CrossRef Kreie, J., & Cronan, T. M. (1998). How men and women view ethics. Communications of the ACM, 41(9), 70–77.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Krishnan, J., Krishnan, J., & Song, H. (2017). PCAOB international inspections and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 92(5), 143–166.CrossRef Krishnan, J., Krishnan, J., & Song, H. (2017). PCAOB international inspections and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 92(5), 143–166.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lamoreaux, P. T. (2016). Does PCAOB inspection access improve audit quality? An examination of foreign firms listed in the United States. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 61(2–3), 313–337.CrossRef Lamoreaux, P. T. (2016). Does PCAOB inspection access improve audit quality? An examination of foreign firms listed in the United States. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 61(2–3), 313–337.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lane, R., & O’Connell, B. T. (2009). The changing face of regulators’ investigations into financial statement fraud. Accounting Research Journal, 22(2), 118–143.CrossRef Lane, R., & O’Connell, B. T. (2009). The changing face of regulators’ investigations into financial statement fraud. Accounting Research Journal, 22(2), 118–143.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Leng, F., Feroz, E. H., Cao, Z., & Davalos, S. V. (2011). The long-term performance and failure risk of firms cited in the US SEC’s accounting and auditing enforcement releases. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 38(7–8), 813–841.CrossRef Leng, F., Feroz, E. H., Cao, Z., & Davalos, S. V. (2011). The long-term performance and failure risk of firms cited in the US SEC’s accounting and auditing enforcement releases. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 38(7–8), 813–841.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lennox, C. S. (1999). Audit quality and auditor size: An evaluation of reputation and deep pockets hypotheses. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 26(7–8), 779–805.CrossRef Lennox, C. S. (1999). Audit quality and auditor size: An evaluation of reputation and deep pockets hypotheses. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 26(7–8), 779–805.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lennox, C., & Pittman, J. (2010). Auditing the auditors: Evidence on the recent reforms to the external monitoring of audit firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(1–2), 84–103.CrossRef Lennox, C., & Pittman, J. (2010). Auditing the auditors: Evidence on the recent reforms to the external monitoring of audit firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(1–2), 84–103.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lesage, C., & Wechtler, H. (2012). An inductive typology of auditing research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(2), 487–504.CrossRef Lesage, C., & Wechtler, H. (2012). An inductive typology of auditing research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(2), 487–504.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lowe, D. J., Reckers, P. M., & Whitecotton, S. M. (2002). The effects of decision-aid use and reliability on jurors’ evaluations of auditor liability. The Accounting Review, 77(1), 185–202.CrossRef Lowe, D. J., Reckers, P. M., & Whitecotton, S. M. (2002). The effects of decision-aid use and reliability on jurors’ evaluations of auditor liability. The Accounting Review, 77(1), 185–202.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lyubimov, A. (2019). How do audit fees change? Effects of firm size and section 404 (b) compliance. Managerial Auditing Journal, 34(4), 393–437.CrossRef Lyubimov, A. (2019). How do audit fees change? Effects of firm size and section 404 (b) compliance. Managerial Auditing Journal, 34(4), 393–437.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Lyubimov, A., Davis, L., & Trompeter, G. (2020). The impact of Sarbanes-Oxley section 404(b) exemption on earnings informativeness. International Journal of Auditing, 24(1), 3–23.CrossRef Lyubimov, A., Davis, L., & Trompeter, G. (2020). The impact of Sarbanes-Oxley section 404(b) exemption on earnings informativeness. International Journal of Auditing, 24(1), 3–23.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat May, P., & Winter, S. (2000). Reconsidering styles of regulatory enforcement: Patterns in Danish agro-environmental inspection. Law & Policy, 22(2), 143–173.CrossRef May, P., & Winter, S. (2000). Reconsidering styles of regulatory enforcement: Patterns in Danish agro-environmental inspection. Law & Policy, 22(2), 143–173.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2011). Regulatory enforcement styles and compliance. In C. Parker & V. L. Nielsen (Eds.), Explaining compliance: Business responses to regulation (pp. 222–244). Edward Elgar. May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2011). Regulatory enforcement styles and compliance. In C. Parker & V. L. Nielsen (Eds.), Explaining compliance: Business responses to regulation (pp. 222–244). Edward Elgar.
Zurück zum Zitat McAllister, L. K. (2010). Dimensions of enforcement style: Factoring in regulatory autonomy and capacity. Law & Policy, 32(1), 61–78. McAllister, L. K. (2010). Dimensions of enforcement style: Factoring in regulatory autonomy and capacity. Law & Policy, 32(1), 61–78.
Zurück zum Zitat Okleshen, M., & Hoyt, R. (1996). A cross cultural comparison of ethical perspectives and decision approaches of business students: United States of America versus New Zealand. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5), 537–549.CrossRef Okleshen, M., & Hoyt, R. (1996). A cross cultural comparison of ethical perspectives and decision approaches of business students: United States of America versus New Zealand. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5), 537–549.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Pawlowski, B., Atwal, R., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Sex differences in everyday risk-taking behavior in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 29–42.CrossRef Pawlowski, B., Atwal, R., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Sex differences in everyday risk-taking behavior in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 29–42.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Peecher, M. E., Solomon, I., & Trotman, K. T. (2013). An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(8), 596–620.CrossRef Peecher, M. E., Solomon, I., & Trotman, K. T. (2013). An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(8), 596–620.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Persons, O. S. (2006). The effects of fraud and lawsuit revelation on US executive turnover and compensation. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 405–419.CrossRef Persons, O. S. (2006). The effects of fraud and lawsuit revelation on US executive turnover and compensation. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 405–419.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Power, M. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 379–394.CrossRef Power, M. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 379–394.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Schminke, M. (1997). Gender differences in ethical frameworks and evaluation of others’ choices in ethical dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(1), 55–65.CrossRef Schminke, M. (1997). Gender differences in ethical frameworks and evaluation of others’ choices in ethical dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(1), 55–65.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Shroff, N. (2020). Real effects of PCAOB international inspections. The Accounting Review, 95(5), 399–433.CrossRef Shroff, N. (2020). Real effects of PCAOB international inspections. The Accounting Review, 95(5), 399–433.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Simnett, R., & Smith, A. (2005). Public oversight: An international approach to auditing. In T. Campbell & K. Houghton (Eds.), Ethics and auditing (pp. 45–62). ANU E Press. Simnett, R., & Smith, A. (2005). Public oversight: An international approach to auditing. In T. Campbell & K. Houghton (Eds.), Ethics and auditing (pp. 45–62). ANU E Press.
Zurück zum Zitat SOX. (2002). Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002. Public Law, 107–204. SOX. (2002). Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002. Public Law, 107–204.
Zurück zum Zitat Stigler, G. J. (1970). The optimum enforcement of laws. Journal of Political Economy, 78(3), 526–536.CrossRef Stigler, G. J. (1970). The optimum enforcement of laws. Journal of Political Economy, 78(3), 526–536.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.CrossRef Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Vermeir, I., & Van Kenhove, P. (2008). Gender differences in double standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 281–295.CrossRef Vermeir, I., & Van Kenhove, P. (2008). Gender differences in double standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 281–295.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Westermann, K. D., Cohen, J., & Trompeter, G. (2019). PCAOB inspections: Public accounting firms on “trial.” Contemporary Accounting Research, 36(2), 694–731.CrossRef Westermann, K. D., Cohen, J., & Trompeter, G. (2019). PCAOB inspections: Public accounting firms on “trial.” Contemporary Accounting Research, 36(2), 694–731.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Consequences of Ethical and Audit Violations: Evidence from the PCAOB Settled Disciplinary Orders
verfasst von
Prabashi Dharmasiri
Soon-Yeow Phang
Ashna Prasad
John Webster
Publikationsdatum
19.03.2021
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04786-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

Journal of Business Ethics 1/2022 Zur Ausgabe