Purpose

This rich descriptive study examines auditors' client risk assessment (i.e. “key audit matters”/critical audit matters) disclosures in expanded audit reports of 328 Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 companies. The study compares auditor-identified client risks with corporate risk disclosures identified in audit committee reports, in terms of number and type of risks. The research also compares variation in auditor-identified client risks between individual Big 4 audit firms. In addition, the study examines auditor ranking of their client risks disclosed.

Design/methodology/approach

The study manually content analyses disclosures in audit reports and audit committee reports of a sample of 328 FTSE-350 companies with 2015 year-ends.

Findings

Audit committees identify more risks than auditors (23% more risks). However, auditor-identified client risks and audit-committee-identified risks are similar (80% similar), as are auditor-identified client risks between the individual Big 4 audit firms. Only ten (3%) audit reports rank the importance of auditor-identified client risks.

Research limitations/implications

Sample is restricted to one year, one jurisdiction, large-listed companies and companies audited by Big 4 auditors.

Practical implications

The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.

Originality/value

The paper mobilises institutional theory to interpret the findings. The findings suggest that auditor-identified client risks in expanded audit reports may demonstrate mimetic behaviour in terms of similarity with audit-committee-identified risks and similarity between individual Big 4 audit firms. The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.

中文翻译：

---

在扩展审计报告中披露审计师风险评估

目的

这项内容丰富的描述性研究考察了审计师在 328 家金融时报证券交易所 (FTSE) 350 家公司的扩展审计报告中披露的客户风险评估（即“关键审计事项”/关键审计事项）。该研究将审计师确定的客户风险与审计委员会报告中确定的公司风险披露在风险数量和类型方面进行了比较。该研究还比较了四大会计师事务所之间审计师识别的客户风险的差异。此外，该研究还检查了审计师对其所披露的客户风险的排名。

设计/方法论/途径

该研究对 2015 年末的 328 家 FTSE-350 公司样本的审计报告和审计委员会报告中的披露进行了手动内容分析。

发现

审计委员会比审计师发现更多的风险（多出 23% 的风险）。然而，审计师识别的客户风险和审计委员会识别的风险是相似的（80%相似），四大会计师事务所之间审计师识别的客户风险也是如此。只有十份 (3%) 审计报告对审计师识别的客户风险的重要性进行了排名。

研究局限性/影响

样本仅限于一年、一个司法管辖区、大型上市公司和由四大审计师审计的公司。

实际影响

该研究通过确定对审计师识别的客户风险披露的影响，为监管机构、审计师和财务报表使用者提供了重要的见解。

原创性/价值

本文运用制度理论来解释研究结果。研究结果表明，扩展审计报告中审计师识别的客户风险可能在与审计委员会识别的风险的相似性以及四大会计师事务所之间的相似性方面表现出模仿行为。该研究通过确定对审计师识别的客户风险披露的影响，为监管机构、审计师和财务报表使用者提供了重要的见解。