Auditing in times of change:
A qualitative study on how Covid-19
will affect audit quality
Master’s Thesis 30 credits
Programme: Master’s Programme in
Accounting and Financial Management Specialisation: Financial Accounting
Department of Business Studies
Uppsala University
Spring Semester of 2021
Date of Submission: 2021-06-02
Christoffer Johnsson
Nicklas Persson
Supervisor: Roland Almqvist
Acknowledgements
We would like to start by thanking our supervisor Roland Almqvist for all the support and
advice we have been given during this whole process. We would also like to thank all the
members in our seminar group for giving us valuable and relevant feedback. Last but not least,
we would also want to thank all of the respondents for taking their time to participate and share
their interesting experiences.
___________________ ___________________ Christoffer Johnsson Nicklas Persson
Abstract Purpose - This study explores how Covid-19 may affect audit quality and provide early
insights if the pandemic has already affected audit quality in Sweden.
Design/methodology/approach - This paper uses qualitative data obtained through semi-
structured interviews with eight Swedish authorized auditors within Big Four to explore
possible impacts on three key aspects for audit quality. These include Going-concern
assessments, Auditor-client relationship, and Auditor-independence.
Findings - Even though the Covid-19 pandemic is not over, it has had fewer effects on audit
quality than experts and researchers predicted. Even though the pandemic has changed the
communication and the relationship between the auditor and client, the findings state no
significant effect on audit quality within the auditor-client relationship. The same goes for
auditor-independence. However, the findings of this study indicate that making accurate going-
concern assessments has and will be more complex and thus threaten audit quality.
Practical contribution – We anticipate that auditors need to provide a greater focus on GC-
assessments as stakeholders require greater disclosure. Further, auditors and clients should gain
on the increased use of digital communication by using it as a complement to physical meetings
in the future.
Originality/Value - This study is, to the best of our knowledge, one of the first studies that
explore the potential impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on audit quality with empirical
evidence. Since this study is conducted in the middle of the pandemic (Spring 2021), the results
can be seen as indications for future researchers that beyond the pandemic seek to explain how
the Covid-19 pandemic affected audit quality as it is crucial for the audit community to follow
the consequences of the pandemic.
Keywords - Audit quality, Covid-19, Auditor-client relationship, Going-concern assessments,
Auditor-independence.
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research Problem .................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Purpose and Contribution ......................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Delimitations ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Covid-19.................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Audit Quality ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Four-factor model of audit quality ............................................................................................ 8
2.4 Modified conceptualization of Audit Quality ............................................................................ 9
2.5 Going-Concern assessments ................................................................................................... 10
2.5.1 The Complexity of GC-assessments ................................................................................ 11
2.5.2 Effects of Covid-19 ......................................................................................................... 12
2.6 Auditor-Client Relationship ................................................................................................... 13
2.6.1 The importance of Auditor-Client Relationship ............................................................... 13
2.6.2 Proactive relationship ...................................................................................................... 13
2.6.3 Reactive relationships ..................................................................................................... 14
2.7 Auditor-Independence ............................................................................................................ 15
2.7.1 Independence during unstable times ................................................................................ 16
2.8 Model of analysis ................................................................................................................... 16
3.0 Method ...................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Research Design .................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 20
3.4 Selection Criteria ................................................................................................................... 21
3.5 Pilot Interview ....................................................................................................................... 22
3.6 Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 23
3.7 Method Discussion ................................................................................................................ 23
3.7.1 Trustworthiness ............................................................................................................... 24
3.8 Ethical Consideration ............................................................................................................. 25
4.0 Empirical Findings .................................................................................................................... 26
4.1 Going-Concern assessments ................................................................................................... 26
4.2 Auditor-Client Relationship ................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Auditor-Independence ............................................................................................................ 35
4.4 Empirical reference-model ..................................................................................................... 37
5.0 Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 38
5.1 Going-Concern assessments ................................................................................................... 38
5.2 Auditor-Client Relationship ................................................................................................... 40
5.3 Auditor-Independence ............................................................................................................ 42
6.0 Conclusion and Discussion ........................................................................................................ 43
6.1 Suggestions for future research .............................................................................................. 44
List of References............................................................................................................................ 46
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ 54
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1: Illustration based on Duff's (2009) four-factor model. ......................................................... 9
Figure 2: Model of analysis ............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 3: Empirical reference-model ................................................................................................ 37
Table 1: Illustration of non-scientific reports.................................................................................... 19
Table 2: Respondents interviewed ................................................................................................... 22
1
1.0 Introduction
“The pandemic creates many financial, operational and personal difficulties. Professional
accountants must now, more than ever, remain focused on the public interest and their ethical
responsibilities.” (Dr Stavros Thomadakis, Chairman IESBA, 2020, p.1)
The role of auditing has since its introduction been a critical cornerstone in the world’s financial
systems. Swedish Inspectorate of Auditors (SIA) (n.d.a) empathized that auditors’
responsibility within external auditing is to scrutinize the company management and their
annual report together with its bookkeeping. As auditing assures that the company’s financial
statements are “true and fair”, auditing underpins the trust between the management of the
company and the company’s stakeholders (PwC, 2013).
Several researchers such as Wallace (2004), Jeacle (2014, 2017), and Andon et al. (2014) state
that the audit role is emerging and has become even more relevant in the last decade. Philipp
Hallauer, partner at KPMG Switzerland, also state in his article (KPMG, 2020b) that due to
rapid technological changes and an increase in external events, the call for more assurance from
auditors are higher today. Furthermore, the global head of audit at Mazars, David Herbinet,
explains that auditing is “more important than ever”, established on the fact that the complexity
of modern global business and the judgment of their accounts are higher today (Financial times,
2017a). With new emerging extensions that have been developed within auditing, the
legitimacy of the audits in new areas depends on the audit quality. Manita et al. (2020) explain
that the legitimacy will depend on the audit profession’s ability to master new technologies and
evolve audit practices, programs, and offers. This underlines the importance that audit quality
remains high.
From the accounting community’s perspective, audit quality is perceived as two components,
Audit Competence and Auditor-Independence (Ruiz et al. 2004). Ruiz et al. (2004) explain that
the probability of an auditor to discover and report different breaches in the client’s accounts
defines audit quality. However, Duff (2009) state in his article that in order to measure audit
quality in the best possible way, a four-factor model should be applied that distinguishes audit
quality in two parts, technical quality, and service quality. The concept of audit quality can be
conceptualized as a theoretical continuum ranging from very high to very low. In situations
where audit quality is perceived low, consequences can occur, and there will be a high risk for
audit failure (Francis, 2004). Further, Francis (2004) state that audit quality and audit failure
2
are related in terms of when audit failure rates are high, the audit quality is perceived low, and
vice versa. When audit failure occurs, it could impose negative consequences as stakeholders’
strategic and investment decisions will be based on incorrect information from the financial
reports.
Throughout history, the auditor’s role has evolved mainly because of audit failures due to
several unavoidable external events. Such as the Enron scandal, increased criminal activities,
rapid technological development, and the financial crisis of 2007–2008. (Duff, 2009; Owolabi
et al. 2016; Albitar et al. 2020; KPMG, 2020b). Events such as these create disruption within
the audit community and put society’s trust in auditors at risk (KPMG, 2020b). Hence, auditors
need to adapt to changes to ensure a high level of audit quality. The ongoing outbreak of Covid-
19 (This study was conducted Spring 2021) could be the latest and toughest external event that
may affect audit engagements and its community (Albitar et al. 2020).
1.1 Research Problem
Most of us are familiar with the current ongoing situation regarding the Covid-19 pandemic
which has a major impact on people’s day-to-day activities (Albitar et al. 2020). The pandemic
creates major negative consequences within most industries and has already had considerable
economic and financial effects worldwide (Goodell, 2020). Furthermore, Goodell (2020) states
that Covid-19 will have a global destructive economic impact. Together with market
uncertainty, these economic turbulences could affect investors’ confidence in companies’
financial performance and could lead to various financial distress (KPMG, 2020d). In times of
uncertainty, there is a great need for reliable information and transparency to regain trust, and
a part of that will be provided through financial reporting. (Deloitte, 2020a; EY, 2020). Hence,
it is important to recognize and identify all of the challenges that audit committees and auditors
face at this point (EY, 2020).
The Chairman of PwC, Bob Mortiz, states that “Auditing is harder than ever during a
pandemic” (Financial Times, 2020b). Mortiz bases the statement on the fact that judging if
companies can continue to operate and if they are free from errors or frauds is challenging as a
consequence of Covid-19. The others in Big Four share the fact that the Covid-19 pandemic
will have a fundamental impact on the audit community. As mentioned earlier, EY (2020)
states that auditors will possess an essential and challenging role during this pandemic. Deloitte
(2020a) writes in their article that they believe that now is the time for the auditor’s role to
evolve and for their profession to meet both the current and emerging needs of stakeholders.
3
KPMG agrees with its peers and states that the increasing uncertainty and risk in the current
environment of Covid-19 will have an impact on auditing (KPMG, 2020c).
SIA (2020b) believes that Swedish auditors must now, more than ever, keep hold of their focus
on their ethical and social responsibility. This increases the expectations and pressure from
society on auditors. Hence, auditors need to be ready to re-evaluate the level of threats and
revisit their actions to maintain auditor-independence. (IESBA, 2020). According to SIA
(2020b), auditors need to continue to meet international standards during the pandemic, which
may require more consideration by auditors to use alternative audit procedures to gather
adequate and effective audit evidence.
Furthermore, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) states that the Covid-19 pandemic will
bring unpredicted challenges to auditors within the EU and its members (ECA, 2020). Another
report by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) also foresees that the pandemic
will have complex consequences at audit engagement and financial reporting (IFAC, 2020a).
The report further states that there may be challenges for auditors to obtain sufficient audit
evidence to review the company’s management and financial statements regarding the current
situation.
One specific challenge that may occur or increase due to the Covid-19 pandemic is fraud. Bob
Neate, Head of UK audit at Mazars, explains that during the pandemic, some firms will use
this period to make their numbers look more favorable in the future, of which auditors must
consider that risk (Financial times, 2020c). A report from Deloitte (2020b) also states that the
risk of committing fraud may increase due to the pandemic. In the current environment, where
Covid-19 has caused significant financial and operational disruption, increased pressure on the
businesses may increase the opportunity to commit fraud (Deloitte, 2020b). This should be
interpreted as, considering the financial disruption of the economy due to Covid-19 and the
increased risk of fraud, accurate going-concern (GC)-assessments, i.e., do the auditors believe
that the client will continue in its current form with a minimum of a 12-month timeframe should
be more challenging for the management and auditors (Deloitte, 2020c).
The establishment of the different restrictions due to the Covid-19 pandemic is another
challenge that may affect the audit community. The Public Health Agency of Sweden has
during 2020 introduced restrictions and recommendations to employers to reduce the spread of
Covid-19. Some of these restrictions and recommendations consist of (i) encouragement of
remote working, (ii) postpone conferences and business trips or similar events and replace it
4
with digital tools, and (iii) allow the employees to have social distancing in meetings, at coffee
breaks and dressing room. (The Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2021). According to KPMG
(2020c), restrictions like these will change how clients and auditors interact with each other.
This could indicate that there will be a change in the auditor-client relationship since auditors
as well as clients must find alternative working methods and new ways to communicate. IFAC
(2020b) states that auditors have to be flexible, alert, and skeptical to maintain high quality.
It is evident, considering recent fact from some of the biggest auditing firms in the world,
independent organizations like ECA, IFAC and IESBA and Swedish authorities like SIA and
The Public Health Agency of Sweden, that the Covid-19 pandemic will bring tough challenges
to the audit community. As the consequences of these challenges and restrictions are yet more
or less unknown, it will be hard to foresee them. This could be interpreted as the risk of audit
failure may increase, meaning that the Covid-19 pandemic may be an external event that will
threaten audit quality in times when auditing is more vital than ever. Questions such as how
Covid-19 will affect audit quality in terms of making accurate GC-assessments, how travel and
meeting restrictions will affect the auditor-client relationship, and auditor-independence are to
our acknowledgment yet unknown. Therefore, we will specifically review how audit quality
will be affected by the Covid-19 pandemic on three aspects: GC-assessments, auditor-client
relationship, and auditor-independence. As the existing research in this area is almost non-
existing, since the pandemic is ongoing, we want to contribute to minimizing this research gap.
This leads us to the following research question:
How do auditors perceive potential effects from Covid-19 on audit quality in terms of going-
concern assessments, auditor-client relationship, and auditor-independence?
1.2 Purpose and Contribution
The purpose of this study is to explore how Covid-19 may affect audit quality but also provide
early insights if the pandemic has already affected audit quality. This is important and relevant
as audit quality should sustain high so that stakeholders can make rational investment decisions
on given information from the financial statements during uncertain times. As this study is
conducted at a point in time where we have not seen the full consequences of the ongoing
pandemic, the results can be seen as an indication for future researchers that beyond the
pandemic seek to explain how the Covid-19 pandemic affected audit quality. There is a limited
amount of research regarding this topic, mainly because the outbreak of Covid-19 started at the
beginning of 2020 and is ongoing. The few studies and reports published within this area are
5
convinced that there will be consequences on auditing and audit quality (Albitar et al. 2020;
Goodell, 2020). However, none of these studies has conducted a more elaborated study by
obtaining empirical evidence from authorized auditors to understand the effects of Covid-19
on audit quality. Hence, this paper contributes to the research community by discussing the
auditor’s role as an assurance and transparency provider during turbulent economic times.
Lastly, this study will give insights into the evolution of the audit profession, which can be of
importance for stakeholders, academic researchers, and the audit community.
1.3 Delimitations
In order to compare the collected data from the respondents, they must have a similar
background, experience, and knowledge. Consequently, the respondents will be delimited to
authorized auditors who operate within Big Four auditing firms. The research scope of this
study will be delimited to Sweden as Big Four represent 90% of the market shares (SIA, 2020c).
Hence, the Big Four could also be representative of the perceived general audit quality in
Sweden, which makes Sweden an interesting country to apply this study in. (Svanström, 2015;
SIA, 2020c)
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 constitutes previous literature where Covid-19
and its impact on auditing will be presented, and audit quality will be studied as a modified
conceptualization. Section 3 highlights the methodological research method and a discussion
about the practical choices that have been made. Section 4 contains the empirical data, and
section 5 the analysis. Finally, Section 6 presents the conclusion with suggestions for further
research.
6
2.0 Literature Review
This chapter will present the limited existing research about Covid-19 effects on auditing and
its quality. A more detailed illustration of the term audit quality will be explained. Furthermore,
we will introduce the four-factor model of audit quality which the authors later modify in a
proper way for this study. Follow this, a literature review of GC-assessments, auditor-client
relationship, and auditor-independence will be illustrated. Finally, we will present our model
of analyses where the research phenomena will be conceptualized.
2.1 Covid-19
The existing research of Covid-19:s effect on the economy as well as auditing is limited.
However, Goodell (2020) is one of few researchers that has studied how Covid-19 will affect
society and the economy from a macro perspective. One of the obvious ways a pandemic
impacts the financial systems is by the substantial economic costs. Goodell (2020) anticipates
that some challenges that now are at the forefront of Covid-19 are: loss of employee
productivity, social distancing disrupting economic activity, impact on investments, and costs
to the health systems. More specifically, Goodell (2020) discusses how the impact of Covid-
19 will affect financing and cost of capital and argues that earlier studies illustrate that the cost
of capital will increase during disasters like Covid-19, which will tighten the financial
flexibility. With this in mind, fewer investments will be made, which will negatively affect the
growth of the global economy. The conclusion of Goodell’s (2020, p.4) study is that the
pandemic “is causing a direct global destructive economic impact that is present in every area
of the globe”. As auditing is a central aspect of the economy and the financial systems, it is
easy to argue that auditing and its quality will be affected. Goodell’s (2020) research paper is
relevant for this study since it is one of the few studies that have been made during the pandemic
and gives an overview of the possible consequences of Covid-19 on the financial markets.
Albitar et al. (2020) are, to our acknowledge at this date, the only research paper that studied
the effects of Covid-19 on audit quality. However, they only discussed the theoretical impact
of Covid-19 with a desk study method without empirical evidence. Still, they argue that the
impact of Covid-19 on auditing and its quality is enormous. As Covid-19 will bring
unprecedented challenges and uncertainty, companies may start to manipulate their earnings or
go bankrupt, bringing severe pressure on auditors to provide high-quality information to
stakeholders (Albitar et al. 2020). More specifically, Albitar et al. (2020) argue that Covid-19
will affect and challenge audit quality in five aspects: audit fees, GC-assessments, auditor
7
human capital, audit procedures, and audit personnel salaries. They conclude that “the effect
of the Covid-19 pandemic would be the toughest challenge for auditors and their clients since
the 2007-2008 global financial crisis” (Albitar et al. 2020, p.174). They further explain that
their study could be seen as a systematic picture for future researchers and complementary
when providing empirical evidence. Due to the lack of previous research, the study of Albitar
et al. (2020) is highly relevant since it indicates what areas could be affected within audit
quality.
Except for Goodell (2020) and Albitar et al. (2020), scientific articles and research papers are
almost non-existing in the area of Covid-19:s impact on auditing and audit quality. This
illustrates the research gap within this area. However, at the same time, the biggest auditing
firms in the world, i.e., Deloitte, EY, KPMG, and PwC, manifest that the impact of Covid-19
will be significant and impose tough challenges. As the auditing practitioners, i.e., the auditors
within Big Four, are evident in their reports that Covid-19 will cause them trouble, this is an
important research gap to fill. (Deloitte 2020a, 2020b; EY 2020; KPMG 2020a, 2020c, 2020d
and PwC 2020)
Given the importance that the role of auditing possesses, the international federation of
accountants (IFAC) and the financial reporting council (FRC) have conducted guidelines for
auditors on issues that may arise due to Covid-19. The report by IFAC (2020b) states that it
will be necessary for auditors to engage in early timeframe discussions about the audit process
as there will arise issues that have not been encountered earlier. The auditor-client relationship
will also most likely be affected by the restrictions on travel and the recommendations on
remote working, which also supports that the audit engagement between the parties should start
early. Both IFAC (2020b) and FRC (2020) highlight that alternative procedures to collect
sufficient audit evidence is essential as Covid-19 will affect the standard procedures. For
example, restrictions on travel may impact physical access, as the ability to obtain documents,
inventory counts, the test of controls, and the availability to meet client staff will be limited
(IFAC, 2020b). Another vital aspect that auditors must take into consideration due to Covid-
19 is their professional judgment and skepticism. There is a considerable risk that areas in
auditing, such as GC-assessments, accounting estimates such as impairments, fair value, and
judgments, will be challenging for auditors due to Covid-19. Even though little research has
been done in this area, it is clear that practitioners, the biggest auditing firms, and standard-
setters such as IFAC and FRC believe that Covid-19 will impact the audit community.
8
2.2 Audit Quality
In order to assess how Covid-19 will affect auditing and its quality, it is essential to underpin
the meaning of the term audit quality. Mansouri et al. (2009) explain that the main objective of
auditing is to achieve high audit quality, and without it, the audit practice is undermined. Even
though much research has been done on audit quality, no universal standard definition exists
and how to measure it (IAASB, 2011). Still, the most common definition of audit quality is
offered by DeAngelo, who defines audit quality as "the market-assessed joint probability that
a given auditor will both (a) discover a breach in the client's accounting system, and (b) report
the breach" (DeAngelo, 1981, p.186). This could be interpreted as the auditor needs a specific
competence to find potential errors of the client and possess apparent independence from the
client to ensure that the auditor reports the error.
As mentioned earlier, audit quality is a term that can vary from low to high, of which audit
failure occurs at the lower end of audit quality (Francis, 2004). Francis (2004) further explains
that audit failure can occur in two different circumstances; (i) when the auditor fails to issue a
qualified or a modified audit report, and (ii) when the auditor does not apply generally accepted
accounting principles, since both of these cases may mislead different stakeholders. On the
other end of audit quality, i.e., high audit quality, will lead to positive effects for stakeholders
and specifically investors. One of Francis's (2004) results claims that high audit quality
positively correlates to earnings quality. Earnings quality is defined as "Higher quality earnings
provide more information about the features of a firm's financial performance that are relevant
to a specific decision made by a specific decision-maker." (Dechow et al. 2010, p.344). This
could be referred to as a greater ability to predict future cash flows only based on the firm's
earnings and no other non-recurring items or other influential aspects (Menicucci, 2020). This
illustrates the importance of audit quality, as higher quality will lead to more straightforward
predictions by different stakeholders as the earning quality will also be high.
2.3 Four-factor model of audit quality
As earlier stated, audit quality is a complex term to define and measure, which has been a
trouble for theorists in many years (Herrbach, 2001). However, the results of Duff's (2009)
study states that using a four-factor model is the best way to measure audit quality. Duff (2009)
divides audit quality into two different elements, (i) technical qualities and (ii) service qualities.
The technical qualities consist of three factors: auditor-competence, auditor-independence, and
the auditor's technical relationship with its auditee. Within these three factors, each one was
included by different dimensions: competence (capability, assurance, and reputation),
9
independence (a uni-dimensional factor), and relationship (expertise and experience). The
service quality is itself the fourth factor which includes dimensions as empathy and
responsiveness but could be best described as non-audit services. Duff (2009) used this four-
factor model with a survey data approach to measure audit quality in the UK between 2002-
2005 when the audit environment underwent a significant change due to different reporting
scandals and new regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002
could be explained as a new regulation prohibiting auditors from helping clients with certain
non-audit services (Zhang, 2007). One of Duff's (2009) findings was that the technical qualities
got weaker, indicating that the dimensions in the technical qualities fail to sustain high in times
of change. Duff's (2009) research is relevant for this study since it creates a framework of
relevant aspects affected during times of change.
2.4 Modified conceptualization of Audit Quality
Figure 1: Illustration by Johnsson & Persson based on Duff's (2009) four-factor model.
As illustrated in figure 1, the authors have made a modified conceptualization of audit quality
based on Duff’s (2009) four-factor model. Since Service quality is based on non-audit services,
such as advisory services, it will be excluded from this study, as the main focus of this study is
only on the technical audit qualities. The modification of the four-factor model has been made
in a suitable way for this qualitative study. As mentioned in section 2.2, Duff (2009) explain
that technical qualities consist of three factors and one of these is auditor-competence.
Furthermore, Duff (2009) states that the term competence is not easy to observe or measure,
10
but competence is connected to assurance which is related to the auditor’s perceptions to detect
errors. Ruiz et al. (2004) complement this by explaining that the auditor’s ability to detect
financial distress and the probability of issuing GC-warning are reflected in the auditor’s level
of competence. Ruiz et al. (2004, p.601) further state that “Identifying a client as a potential
receiver of a GC-warning will depend on the client’s financial health and on the level of auditor
competence needed to detect it”. Hence, it is relevant to focus on GC-assessments when
evaluating auditor-competence. This is the reason why GC-assessments in this study illustrate
auditor-competence. Secondly, the term auditor-client relationship depends on the auditors’
experience and expertise with their clients and the shape of the relationship. Finally, the last
aspect of technical quality is auditor-independence which is an essential factor of audit quality.
As DeAngelo (1981) stated, it is not just about finding the breach; it is equally important to
report it. Without independence, audit quality is questionable (Mansouri et al. 2009). It is
essential to understand that similar to Duff’s four-factor model, even though the factors within
technical quality are distinct from each other, they are still correlated and therefore affect and
depend on each other.
2.5 Going-Concern assessments
As auditing can be perceived as a trust mechanism in society, assessments of GC from auditors
are vital. As auditors each year produce an audit report for their client, they must assess whether
the company is a GC, i.e., do the auditors believe that the client will continue in its current
form with a minimum of a 12-month timeframe (ISA 570, Revised). The standard (ISA 570,
Revised) further explains that if the auditor at any occasion disputes the client’s ability to
survive, they should issue a GC-warning. Initially, it is the management of the client that should
conduct a GC-assessment whereby it is the auditor’s responsibility to collect audit evidence
that is sufficient enough to assess if the management has made correct or incorrect assessment
(ISA 570, Revised). Some events or conditions that may produce a possible GC-warning by
the auditor are listed in ISA 570: the current liability position, inability to amortize loans as
they mature, negative operating profit, substantial low or negative cash flow, loss of a
significant customer are some of these.
GC-assessments are an essential aspect of audit quality, in fact, some studies imply that it could
be seen as a proxy or measurement for audit quality (Francis, 2004; Gros and Worret, 2014).
Francis (2004), whose study review the past 25 years research of audit quality, explains that
one way of determining if audit quality is high or low is to observe investors’ response to GC
reports. If the audit is of high quality, the response by investors from the GC report should be
11
extensive since it conveys valuable information. However, if the audit quality is low, a GC-
warning would have little informational value to investors, hence no or minor reactions
(Francis, 2004). Furthermore, Gros and Worret (2014) explain that auditors with a higher
probability to issue a GC-warning of their client can, from an objective point of view, be seen
as more independent and therefore provide higher quality.
Since the assessments by auditors of GC-warnings are vital to audit quality, they must possess
the right skills and experience to be accurate. Furthermore, since it is the management of the
client that firstly conducts a GC-assessment, it is also crucial that the auditor has sufficient
information about the client to agree or disagree with the assessment made by the management
(ISA 70, revised). In Gibbins et al. (2007) study, some interesting findings in terms of
knowledge between the client’s CFO and the auditor were discovered. When the CFO and the
auditor have two different views on an issue, the one party with the highest expertise and
competence goes “winning out” of the discussion. From the CFOs’ point of view, they possess
a higher volume of expertise and skills and can make better analyses of the company. This
shows that it should be necessary for auditors to possess equal competence in the client’s
operations to achieve the ability to stand up to the management in events of disagreement. If
not, it may lead to a worse ability to identify GC problems as the auditor fails to get a bigger
picture of the clients’ financial situations. (Gibbins et al. 2007).
2.5.1 The Complexity of GC-assessments
As previous literature illustrates, the importance of accurate GC-assessments is very high since
the consequences of the auditors’ decisions will have a considerable impact on shareholders
and other stakeholders. However, as the importance is high, the complexity is high. According
to some researchers, GC-assessments are among the most challenging tasks within the audit
work (Louwers et al. 1999; Arnold et al. 2001; Anandarajan et al. 2008). If an auditor conducts
a GC-warning, one could understand the implications and consequences to the shareholders.
However, one could also see the implications to shareholders when the auditor issues a GC-
warning for a company that later after 12 months are sustained strongly, respectively vice versa,
when the auditor does not issue a GC-warning for a company that during the next 12 months
goes illiquid. These two errors are named error type I (False positives) and error type II (False
negatives) (Francis, 2004). Francis (2004) further explains that both of these errors are a type
of audit failure as the audit report contained wrong conclusions.
12
An earlier study regarding error type II illustrates that 70% of the bankruptcies were not
preceded by a GC-warning, meaning that only three out of ten were given a correct GC report.
The auditor is not responsible for predicting bankruptcy since other aspects may play a role
that could not be predicted 12 months ago. However, error type II is still viewed as an audit
failure since there is a potential litigation risk for the auditor. Concerning error type I, another
study illustrates that, on average, six out of seven GC reports contain error type I. (Francis,
2004). Francis (2004) interprets this as auditors having a sense of “over issuing” GC-warnings
because of the low cost of error type I relative error type II. As type I can induce some degree
of customer dissatisfaction, type II can achieve higher costs than that, such as litigation.
However, error type I could trigger a wave of events that itself unintentionally pushes the client
into an actual bankruptcy. For example, when the auditor issues an incorrect GC-warning, that
warning itself could lead to lenders not willingly renewing or extending credits, and suppliers
may change their common agreements (Francis, 2004). Another complexity with issuing GC-
warnings, mainly with incorrect ones, i.e., error type I, is the risk of “auditor switching” where
the audit firm may potentially lose their client after an act of a GC-warning (Carcello and Neal,
2003; Humphrey et al. 2009; Louwers, 1998).
2.5.2 Effects of Covid-19
Albitar et al. (2020) and IFAC (2020b) are convinced that significant uncertainties that rise
from the Covid-19 pandemic will make it more difficult for auditors to scrutinize the
management’s assessment of GC reliably. Albitar et al. (2020) argue that many companies will
have a higher business risk due to the increased uncertainties attributable to the lack of liquidity.
Hence, because of the pandemic, we could expect a considerable impact on GC-assessments.
Furthermore, a report published from IFAC (2020c) states that the uncertainty associated with
the pandemic may put pressure on organizations as they will explore avenues to remain as a
GC. Avenues like those may create opportunities for fraudulent and illegal activities as
fraudulent applications for government support, product and benefit fraud, insurance fraud, and
financial statement fraud.
IFAC (2020b) highlights several challenges that auditors may have to consider when evaluating
management’s assessment of the company’s ability to continue as a GC. Firstly, all forecasts
and budgets made previous Covid-19 will most likely require a significant revision since they
are based on stable economic times. There could be changes within the terms of financing
facilities and government support and the rise of future obligations that have to be considered.
Furthermore, auditors have to evaluate to what extent a company relies on government support
13
and if that support would cover the short-term liquidity issues. There is also uncertainty
regarding consumer behavior if the same behavior will still apply after the crisis or change.
These complex issues contribute to difficulties when evaluating the degree of business
disruption. Lastly, there is insufficient reliable data regarding the potential length of the
economic downturn. Since forecasts of future cash-flow scenarios are based on assumptions
and not existing reliable data, these estimates will be highly uncertain. (IFAC, 2020b).
2.6 Auditor-Client Relationship
During the last decades, an increased number of regulators, lawmakers, and academic
researchers have paid considerably more attention to the auditor-client relationship
(McCracken et al. 2008; Choi et al. 2012). The Enron scandal and the collapse of the audit firm
Arthur Andersen in 2001 can be seen as a milestone and contributory to the increased focus
and research regarding the auditor-client relationship and its impact on audit quality (Choi et
al. 2012).
2.6.1 The importance of Auditor-Client Relationship
In general, the concept of relationships between two or several parties can be perceived as
complex. Principally, a relationship is always dependent on multiple willingness from the
different parties, and the relationship between the audit partner and their clients is not an
exception. (McCracken et al. 2008). As mentioned earlier, the auditor’s mission is to add
credibility and reduce information asymmetry between the company management and the
shareholders. However, there is also an information asymmetry between the auditor and client
(Rennie et al. 2010). Rennie et al. (2010) state that the members of client management have
significantly more knowledge about their organization compared to the auditor. This indicates
that the auditor is dependent on the degree of cooperation from the client in obtaining
information from the management to carry out the audit. Thus, the auditor has no other choice
but to provide their clients with some degree of trust. (Rennie et al. 2010).
2.6.2 Proactive relationship
McCracken et al. (2008) structure their research by dividing auditor-client relationships into
two different categories, proactive and reactive. Proactive relationships are characterized by
the client’s willingness to have close and continuous communication with the auditor. Within
these proactive relationships, the clients consult with the auditor throughout the year to deal
with potentially contentious issues at an early stage and produce a no-surprises audit. Hence,
proactive relationships are open, and issues are brought to the table. (McCracken et al. 2008).
Furthermore, McCracken et al. (2008) find that auditors define proactive relationships as ideal
14
and tend to make active moves to turn reactive relationships into proactive ones. Although
auditors make active moves to change the present reactive relationship to a proactive one, it
will take time for a relationship to mature into a proactive one (McCracken et al. 2008).
According to Johnson et al. (2002), there is a higher risk of a lower audit quality during the
first three years of the relationship. This could partly be explained by Francis’s (2004) study,
who argues that the audit quality may be lower initially for new audit engagements while
auditors acquire knowledge of the client. Furthermore, Duff (2009) conceptualizes this
knowledge about the client in the dimensions of expertise and experience. Expertise is defined
as the possession of relevant specialist knowledge by the auditor, focusing on the client’s
industry. Since McCracken et al. (2008) states that a proactive relationship is more open-
minded, this type of relationship would be more favorable for auditors when seeking expertise
and experience.
Based on the research above, it would be natural for big audit firms to actively act in order to
seek more proactive relationships with their clients. Choi et al. (2012, p.67) support this, whose
conclusion shows “that auditor-client geographic proximity or auditor locality has a positive
impact on audit quality”. Furthermore, this could be an explanation for “why local audits are
so prevalent, and Big Four audit firms have continuously expanded their practicing offices to
cities in which their clients are headquartered” (Choi et al. 2012, p.67). By getting closer to
their clients, auditors within Big Four have a better chance to gather knowledge about client-
specific characteristics. Characteristics such as client incentives, abilities, opportunities for
opportunistic earnings management, and client business risk entails audit risks. When auditors
are closer to their clients, they could develop such knowledge through various ways. Valuable
private information about the client’s firm could easily be obtained by informal talks with the
firm’s executives, employees, suppliers, customers, and competitors. By having local auditors
with proactive relationships, they can more frequently visit client firms and observe their
operations directly at a lower cost. (Choi et al. 2012). Further, Choi et al. (2012) argue that this
kind of social bonding mitigates information asymmetries, enhances monitoring effectiveness,
and benefits audit quality.
2.6.3 Reactive relationships
In relationships identified as reactive ones, the client does not typically consult with the auditor
regarding the appropriate treatment of the regulations. This kind of relationship usually results
in the auditor not identifying issues until late in the audit. This is mainly because the client
15
waits until year-end or later to tell the auditor about the issue. (McCracken et al. 2008). Carcello
et al. (1992) state that frequent communications between auditors and management and
frequent visits by the auditor to the client’s office are among the ten highest-rated attributes of
audit quality. Since frequent communications or frequent visits do not characterize reactive
relationships, the auditor will face a challenge in obtaining valuable information. Since there
is a low level of information exchange, it will be more auditors challenging to evaluate their
clients’ characteristics and incentives (Choi et al. 2012). Furthermore, Myers et al. (2003) state
that uncertainty regarding characteristics of the client increases the potential for audit failures
early in the auditor-client relationship.
2.7 Auditor-Independence
There has been a significant amount of previous research on possible impairments of auditor-
independence throughout history. The risk of auditor-independence impairment has also been
a longstanding concern for regulators, legislators, and market participants. (Ettredge et al.
2017). The most fundamental characteristic of auditing is that it will be done from an
independent point of view. As mentioned earlier, Mansouri et al. (2009) clarify that audit
quality is questionable without independence.
As previously mentioned, auditor-independence is correlated with GC-assessments and
auditor-client relationship and, therefore, affects and depends on them (Duff, 2009).
McCracken et al. (2008) discuss the importance regarding the shape of the relationship the
auditor has with the client and that a reactive relationship tends to take time to mature into a
proactive one. Considering that, it is also essential to understand that the length of the
relationship is one of the main factors discussed when evaluating independence. Francis, (2011,
p.134) states that “the auditor’s objectivity might become impaired by a long-term relationship
with a client and provide some support for the argument in Bazerman et al. (1997) that it is
difficult for auditors to be skeptical and objective toward their longstanding clients”.
Furthermore, Rennie et al. (2010) argue that the auditor-client relationship tends to be the factor
that may cause closeness between auditors and their clients. This could increase the risk that
the auditor drops his role as a protector for the shareholders and instead becomes the advocate
of the management of the audited firm (Haynes et al. 1998; Jenkins and Lowe, 1999). In line
with this, Bazerman et al. (1997) argue that auditors tend to be less concerned about inflicting
harm on anonymous stakeholders than on the management of the audited firm. This indicates
that auditor-client relationships could have a significant part within the level of auditor-
16
independence and that previous research has shown that there is a difficult balance between
having a proactive relationship and avoiding coming “too” close to their client.
2.7.1 Independence during unstable times
Auditors’ independence tends to be in a greater focus during and after crises that affect the
global economy and society. Humphrey et al. (2009) argue that the perception of the audit
profession all depends on its response to those challenges that arise from the crisis. Ettredge et
al. (2017) examined if auditors would compromise their independence to avoid issuing a GC-
warning to important clients during severe economic conditions. Further, they investigate the
relation between client fee pressure and auditor-independence using auditors’ GC-assessment
as their proxy for auditor-independence. Since a GC-warning could lead to high economic costs
for a client, independence can be viewed as an auditor’s willingness to take a position that
opposes client managers’ wishes, thereby risk losing the client (DeAngelo, 1981). This
indicates that if an auditor issues a GC-warning to their client during an unstable economic
environment, that could lead to even more severe times for the client. The findings in Ettredge
et al. (2017) study shows that during the financial crisis of 2007–2008, auditors were less likely
to issue GC-warnings to clients that exert fee pressure on the auditors. Furthermore, Ettredge
et al. (2017) concluded that auditors tended to avoid issuing GC-warning to essential clients
during the financial crisis. One could argue that it is during unstable economic times that
auditors should be most concerned about possible future client insolvency. It is also during
times like these that GC-assessment would be most beneficial for investors and other
stakeholders. (Ettredge et al. 2017).
2.8 Model of analysis
In the figure below, the research phenomena of this study are conceptualized together with the
analytical model. This study aims to explore how the Covid-19 pandemic may affect audit
quality in three specific aspects. These aspects are GC-assessments, auditor-client relationship,
and auditor-independence. In the figure below, a summarization is presented at each aspect of
what the extensive literature review concluded. It is crucial to understand how Covid-19 may
affect these aspects as the audit quality should sustain high in the audit report so that
stakeholders can make rational investment decisions on given information from the financial
statements. Furthermore, the analytical model is finalized with the audit report and stakeholders
to visualize how the three aspects affect audit quality that will later penetrate the audit report
and finally affect the stakeholders’ investment decisions. This illustrates the importance of this
17
study that stakeholders should be able to make rational investment decisions based on high
audit quality reports even under uncertain times.
Figure 2: Model of analysis (Johnsson & Persson)
18
3.0 Method
Within the method chapter, the study's approach to achieving the purpose is described.
Descriptions for the choice of research approach, the method for data collection, and the
selection of respondents are made here.
3.1 Research Design
The purpose of this study was to explore how Covid-19 may affect audit quality and provide
early insights if the pandemic has already affected audit quality. In order to answer our research
question, we decided to apply a qualitative research approach. Bryman & Bell (2015) stated
that qualitative research has its main focus on words with the objective to increase the
understanding and knowledge of the research context by exploring a social phenomenon.
Throughout history, professional auditing has been perceived as a socially constructed and
dynamic phenomenon (Power 1996; Power, 2003; Andon et al. 2015). Hence a qualitative
research method was suitable for this study since it aimed to investigate how authorized
auditors interpret and perceive the potential effects of the current situation. Further, the study
was also based on an abductive approach as it encounter an empirical phenomenon which
existing literature cannot account for. According to Bell et al. (2019), the abductive approach
involves back-and-forth engagements with the social world as an empirical source for
theoretical ideas, and with the literature. The study aimed to explore a new situation to identify
the potential effects on key aspects within audit quality (Saunders et al. 2012). Hence, an
exploratory approach inspired this study. It allowed us to collect qualitative data to identify
new issues and variables that arise from the Covid-19 pandemic (Bryman and Bell, 2015).
More thoroughly, Bell et al. (2019) argue that exploratory approach entails the collection of
qualitative data prior to collection of quantitative data. It is associated with investigations in
which the researcher wants to generate findings that could later be employed in a quantitative
investigation.
It is also essential to recognize that this approach has its limitations as it could be a challenge
to the authors to find suitable theoretical concepts in previous research. Hence, could the
research question the study intended to answer result in ambiguous results (Saunders et al.
2012). The reason for not using an explanatory approach is that one should be aware that the
current situation with the pandemic is ongoing and at an early stage. At this stage, the future is
still uncertain, and therefore it would be challenging to conduct an explanatory study of this
specific situation. An explanatory approach where the purpose is to explain rather than explore
19
the effects of Covid-19 on audit quality would be more appropriate in the aftermath of the
pandemic.
3.2 Data Collection
As it is the auditor's responsibility to sustain high quality of the audit, we perceived it logical
to build the study on a qualitative study through interviews with auditors. Bryman and Bell
(2015) explain that when it comes to investigating an individual's understanding of a
phenomenon, as in our case, an auditor tries to understand the potential effects from Covid-19,
a qualitative approach is suitable. Within our study, it was the knowledge and experience from
the auditors that were relevant to gain deep knowledge about the impacts of the Covid-19
pandemic on audit quality. Therefore, the collection of our empirical data consisted of
qualitative interviews.
Further, to collect relevant data for the literature review, we searched for keywords like; audit
quality, Covid-19, Auditor-client relationship, Going-concern assessments, and Auditor-
independence. These keywords were mainly carried out through searches in Scopus, Google
Scholar, Business Source Premier, and Emerald Insight. However, table 1 below illustrates
other reports, organizations, and newspapers where information was gained.
Table 1: Illustration of non-scientific reports
Source Function
Deloitte Global Audit firm
EY Global Audit firm
KPMG Global Audit firm
PwC Global Audit firm
International federation of
accountants (IFAC) Global organization representing the accounting profession
European Court of Auditors (ECA) Independent organization under the European Parliament
Financial reporting council (FRC) Independent organization that monitors the development of
international accounting and auditing standards
International Auditing and
Assurance Standards Board
(IAASB)
International standard-setting board
International Ethics Standards
Board for Accountants (IESBA)
Independent standard-setting board, develops high-quality
ethical standards for professional accountants worldwide.
20
Swedish Inspectorate of Auditors (SIA)
Swedish government's expert authority in matters of auditors and audit
The Public Health Agency of
Sweden Swedish state authority that has a national responsibility for
public health issues.
Financial Times One of the world's leading financial magazines
3.3 Interviews
As mentioned earlier, the collection of the primary empirical data was gathered from interviews
in which the shape was semi-structured. Compared to unstructured interviews, a semi-
structured approach allows some flexibility but is still more structured in its shape (Bryman
and Bell, 2015). With a semi-structured approach, it is possible to obtain rich information and
deep understanding from the interviews, which were the main reason why we chose it.
Furthermore, as we conducted interviews with one respondent at a time, a semi-structured
interview employs a blend of open- and closed-ended questions followed up by why or how
questions. This implies that rather than having standardized questions as in a survey, one will
create a dialogue around the topics and lead to totally unforeseen matters. (Adams, 2015). We
used open-ended questions in the interview guide to prevent the respondents from responding
‘yes’ or ‘no’. Instead, we gave them the freedom to express themselves more broadly.
Furthermore, since the approach of this study is of a qualitative and exploratory character,
Saunders et al. (2012) argue that a semi-structured approach is desirable. This allowed the
respondents to express more of their experience to capture as much understanding about the
research phenomenon.
However, there are a few challenges and disadvantages with semi-structured interviews.
Firstly, the approach is time-consuming to set up, conduct, and analyze the interviews properly
as the volume of notes is high and many hours of transcribing. Secondly, the interviewers must
be sensitive, nimble, and intelligent and possess a high knowledge about relevant issues within
the subject. (Adams, 2015).
All of the interviews were conducted digitally through Microsoft Teams considering the times
of the pandemic. Furthermore, the respondents were also located in different cities in Sweden,
making it time inefficient to travel and conduct personal interviews. Personal interviews would
be preferable, however, digital interviews with web cameras are a good substitute. Similar to a
personal interview, we still saw the respondents’ body language and expressions when
performing a digital interview. This gave the interviewers a more profound understanding of
21
where the body language interacts with the respondents’ answers. Furthermore, as Adams
(2015) stated, the reasonable maximum length for semi-structured interviews to prevent fatigue
for both respondent and interviewer is one hour of which this strategy was applied. To prevent
missing vital information from the respondents, we recorded all of the interviews with the
approval from the respondents. Furthermore, the interview guide is provided in the appendix.
3.4 Selection Criteria
Since the purpose of the study was to explore how Covid-19 may affect audit quality and
provide early insights if the pandemic has already affected audit quality, it was most
appropriate to interview those who were most familiar and experienced within that area. We
believed that those with the most experience could in detail identify and compare potential
effects from Covid-19 to similar past events and also have a greater opportunity to predict
future consequences. Hence, we created a criterion of authorized auditors and partners with
more than ten years of experience within the audit profession as respondents in this study.
These criteria were established in order to strengthen and provide solid empirical data.
Choosing only one particular group of respondents allowed us to compare the empirical data
between the respondents.
The respondents for the study were chosen by using a purposive sample combined with a
snowball sample. Purposive sampling was used to select the most relevant respondents and was
likely to yield appropriate and valuable information for the study. (Bell et al. 2019). We also
believed that given the study’s aims and objectives, some authorized auditors are more familiar
with the issue than others (Robinson, 2014). These were the main reasons for adopting this
purposive strategy for this study. Furthermore, a snowball sampling approach was used to
locate relevant sample members that were difficult for us researchers to access (Bell et al.
2019). By using the snowball approach, the authors avoided problems with achieving contact
with new respondents as the first respondents shared their network of auditors. By adopting
this approach, we were allowed to access respondents with deep knowledge and understanding
of the subject.
As mentioned in section 1.3, the respondents were only collected from Big Four since these
firms tend to hire auditors with similar backgrounds and hence to make better comparisons and
conclusions. Furthermore, Big Four dominates the Swedish audit market with 90% of the
market share for public companies. However, a consequence of this choice is that we cannot
generalize the result of this study at non-Big Four firms. Moving forward, the respondents were
22
identified through the audit firms’ websites and also LinkedIn. Some of the respondents were
identified and selected since they had published articles at the audit firms’ website that
discussed Covid-19 and its effects, indicating that they had a more profound knowledge
regarding the topic. Further, we asked if they had any potential colleagues or someone else in
their network that matches the criteria regarding knowledge and experience. This resulted in
additional respondents. The table below illustrates the respondents interviewed, including their
title, years of experience, and date of the interview. Finally, two respondents of each firm
(Deloitte, EY, KPMG, PwC) participated in the study, meaning that there is a balance of
representatives from Big Four.
Table 2: Respondents interviewed
Respondent Title Years of experience in the audit industry Date of interview
1 Office manager 21 2021-03-08
2 Partner 27 2021-03-09
3 Partner 33 2021-03-10
4 Partner 27 2021-03-12
5 Senior manager 11 2021-03-16
6 Partner 17 2021-03-17
7 Partner 22 2021-03-22
8 Partner 25 2021-03-29
3.5 Pilot Interview
A pilot interview which could be seen as a small-scale version of the planned interview was
conducted to test and prepare the research design. This kind of pilot interview gave us an
indication if our methods and ideas would work in practice. Mainly by evaluating how well the
theoretical framework and design fits the aim of the study (Yin, 2009). The benefits of
conducting a pilot interview were that we had the opportunity to make valuable adjustments
and revisions in the main study (Kim, 2010). Further, Kim (2010) argues that conducting a
pilot study with clear aims and objectives would promote the trustworthiness of a qualitative
research study. A senior auditor from one of the Big Four participated in the pilot interview.
This gave us insight into how the research topic would be received by the participants involved
and how well they were familiar with the concepts used during the interview. Lastly, the pilot
23
interview gave us an indication of what questions were more successful compared to others.
Hence, adjustments could be made to the insufficient questions.
3.6 Analysis
Empirical data gathered from the interviews were transcribed and later used as the basis for the
result and the analysis. Since qualitative research could generate enormous amounts of raw
data, there was a need to handle the inflow of the raw data. Hence we created a coding scheme
to counter that challenge. Given (2008) state that the coding scheme should be seen as a helpful
and recommended tool to assist the researchers in integrating structure and thinking in terms
of cause and impact. This was a way to break down the raw data to identify and label as many
concepts and ideas as possible. By doing this, we were given a better opportunity to identify
relationships. The coding scheme was based on the analysis model and consisted of keywords
and themes linked to each other (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). This gave us a structured way of
analyzing and drawing links between the empirical data and the analysis model. The coding
scheme has been specifically applied to use raw data as citations for each question. Then, we
tried to seek different kinds of keywords and key phrases that recur and relate to each other or
are in a contradiction. Finally, we tried to find holistic patterns and themes representing the
respondents’ experiences and answers for each element in the three different sections from the
different keywords. This is further elaborated in the appendix.
3.7 Method Discussion
One of the criticisms against the qualitative approach is that it is too subjective (Bryman and
Bell, 2015). Furthermore, the authors explain that the findings of the study could be in line with
the researcher’s subjective views and priorities about what is essential and significant.
However, as we wanted to obtain more profound knowledge about our research subject,
quantifying it by numbers was no option. Since we chose interviews as our methodology to
collect empirical data, there exists a risk that the respondents would respond and favorably
present their views. However, to minimize that risk, we conducted relatively open questions to
allow the auditors to express themselves with no room for “locked” answers. This allowed the
respondents to freely discuss the issues without being biased by the authors. Further, to
strengthen the objectivity of the empirical data, the data is presented in quotations together with
the authors’ analysis and interpretations of the respondents’ views. This means that the reader
can do an independent assessment as they follow the respondents’ citations and the authors’
analysis and interpretations.
24
3.7.1 Trustworthiness
An alternative approach to assessing the quality of a qualitative approach is to study the report’s
trustworthiness instead of reliability and validity. The authors of this study chose that approach
where trustworthiness is made upon four different sub-criteria: Credibility, Transferability,
Dependability, and Confirmability. (Bryman and Bell. 2015).
Credibility
Internal validity could be seen as equal to credibility, whereby it can be challenging to achieve
when one, by a qualitative approach, studies a social phenomenon. In order to achieve
credibility, while the social phenomenon has multiple realities and truths, the observed reality
must be described in a detailed and complete way (Bryman and Bell. 2015). To strengthen the
credibility of our empirical data, we chose authorized auditors, preferably partners, with a
broad and deep experience, minimum of ten years of auditing. This makes sure that
respondent’s views and opinions are of high credibility.
Transferability
As internal validity could be seen as equal to credibility, external validity could be seen as
equal to transferability (Bryman and Bell, 2015). According to the authors, a thick description
of the data is required to achieve transferability and ensure that the study can be contextualized
in other cases. With a qualitative approach, it could be challenging to generalize the results
since the findings are unique in terms of a particular place and time and specific respondents
(Bryman and Bell, 2015). To maximize the transferability of this study and make it as valid as
possible, we have recorded all the interviews to prevent missing vital information. Furthermore,
the respondents’ anonymity will help them speak freely without thinking of possible factors
that could hurt themselves or the company they represent. Providing the respondents with
anonymity were also a way of decreasing the risk of receiving biased answers, mainly within
the aspect of auditor-independence. As the respondents were only selected from Big Four
which covers about 90% of the Swedish audit market for public companies, the results of this
study can hence be easier to generalize (SIA, 2020c).
Dependability
According to Bryman and Bell (2015), dependability could be seen as a parallel with reliability,
ensuring that complete records and notes are being kept of all phases of the research process.
This interprets that the reader must be comfortable with the accuracy of each step of the study,
e.g., problem formulation, selection of respondents, coding scheme, and analysis decisions
25
(Bryman and Bell, 2015). To ensure that the accuracy of the dependability is high, we have
used peers, i.e., supervisor and opposing master students, that has given us monthly feedback,
which is the best tool to ensure dependability (Bryman and Bell, 2015).
Confirmability
The final aspect of trustworthiness presented by Bryman and Bell (2015) is confirmability
which can be seen as equal to objectivism. The authors further explain that to achieve good
confirmability, the focus must be to ensure that the researchers do not bias the research and act
reasonably when analyzing the results. We have earlier in this chapter explained how to
minimize the bias of the authors. Furthermore, at the end of each interview, the interviewers
made a summary to ensure that the interviewers have perceived the respondents’ answers
correctly.
3.8 Ethical Consideration
In the first contact with potential respondents, we ensured that the aim, purpose, and process
were well presented. We created a clear description of our expectations and how they could
contribute to the study. This was because we wanted to avoid all kinds of misunderstandings
and uncertainty regarding the respondents’ contribution. As mentioned earlier, there have also
been ethical considerations regarding the respondents’ option to receive anonymity. The
respondents were mainly given this to protect them from different factors such as citations that
could hurt their reputation or the company they represent. This is supported by Bryman and
Bell (2015), who argue that researchers should seek to minimize the risk that respondents get
harmed by participating in a study.
26
4.0 Empirical Findings
In this chapter, the empirical findings will be presented in thematic order, as follows; GC-
assessments, auditor-client relationship, and auditor-independence. The respondents’
experiences and opinions will be retold together with meaningful citations that encapsulate
their answers.
4.1 Going-Concern assessments
Pre Covid-19
All of the respondents are clear in their opinions that GC-assessments are an essential task of
audit quality. Respondent 2 (R2) explains that assessing a client’s GC is perhaps the most
important issue as it places enormous demands on their work by assessing whether the
companies can survive the next 12 months. R4 agrees and further explains that sometimes the
clients think that the auditors put too much focus on GC-assessments as the clients think it is
pretty obvious. Nonetheless, R4 means that they want quite a lot of audit evidence to see if
they can survive 12 months ahead. R3 expressed in a good way that the recipient of the financial
statements is of great need to know continued GC.
“It is a matter of course that the stakeholders who read our clients’ financial statements must be able
to rely on that information, above all going-concern” - R3.
R5 and R6 agree with the rest that assessments of GC are important, but the level of importance
depends on the clients’ capability to survive or not. R5 explains that when clients have had a
solid five-year period with good revenues, strong forecast, and good funding, GC-assessments
are not as crucial as they could be if the case were vice-versa. In the consideration if GC-
assessments are a difficult task, almost all of the respondents believed that. However, just as
some respondents explained that the importance of GC depends, it is the same case of
complexity. R3, R5, and R6 mean that the complexity could be almost non-existing if the
clients have outperformed in recent years, and nothing indicates that it will change.
Nevertheless, when the client has performed “normally” or even worse, the degree of
complexity increases. R2 addresses the complexity as:
27
“It is a very complex task. That we are in some way considered to be able to assess their market and
different conditions as well as the client’s management, which are specialists in their industry, is
super tough. It is a challenging task to look ahead. We can by definition not look into the future, but
we must go on what we have, and at the same time we must have a professional skepticism and
question the management if they have reasonable assumptions” - R2.
Challenges of Covid-19
There was a great unity from the respondents of whether Covid-19 has affected the assessments
of GC or not. All agreed that the complexity has and will increase as the estimation of their
clients’ continued GC is more challenging. R2’s opinion was entirely clear of the impact by
Covid-19.
“Going-concern assessments have never been as difficult as they are right now under Covid-19” -
R2.
However, almost all of the respondents, R1, R3, R4, R7, and R8, explicitly stated a big
difference between GC-assessments 2020 and the ones 2021. As the Covid-19 pandemic was
established in Sweden around March 2020 with an explosive pace, the respondents explained
that it was almost impossible both for the clients and themselves to make any accurate forecast
12 months ahead. R7 explained that auditors were about to sign different clients’ annual reports
around March and April 2020 when the pandemic exploded in Sweden. To assess GC, the
auditor must assess the client’s financial operations, liquidity, and equity 12 months ahead,
which were impossible at that time, R7 explained. Both R5 and R7 explicitly mentioned that
the auditor and their client must work with different scenarios, where scenario one was the
“worst case scenario” and that you then gradually produce other possible outcomes depending
on how the market reacts to the pandemic. Furthermore, both R2 and R7 addressed a dilemma
during 2020 when assessing the future yourself or calling your client’s CFO asking for future
predictions and forecast:
“I mean, no one could even say what will happen next month, how were we then to assess what will
happen in 12 months ahead?” - R2.
“If you contacted your client’s CFO and asked for a forecast of their GC, the CFO would have hung
up the phone in your ear because it was completely impossible” - R7.
28
As almost all of the respondents felt that the biggest challenge of making accurate GC-
assessments during 2020 was the uncertain future which made forecast 12 months ahead of
client’s cash-flow and liquidity hard, one common term of a challenge during 2021 and beyond
were the “new normal”. As all respondents mean that today it is at least possible for their clients
to make forecasts, the challenge for the auditors is to oppose their assumptions. R6 addresses
the challenge in a good way:
“Say that the client has assumed that in June it will gradually return to normal again as more and
more people are vaccinated and that in 2022 everything is as usual, then we as auditors must
challenge that assumption if it is really true, is it is reasonable, how can the company justify such a
position and is there an external source that contradicts?” - R6.
Furthermore, all of the respondents believed that the most vulnerable industries that have been
hit the hardest, i.e., the aviation industry, hotel and restaurant-chains, and retail-chains, provide
significant challenges in predicting long-term customer behavior. R1 puts that specific
challenge in words:
“The long-term perspective is very difficult to see, even as the “new normal” will be. For example, I
am responsible for a couple of restaurants, if the corona were to disappear in the fall thanks to good
vaccination, will people still eat as much to the same extent as before? Or have you got used to
ordering and cooking at home? And this does not just apply to restaurants, will we shop in stores the
same way or more e-commerce? Will we travel the same way or stay more at home?” - R1.
R1, R3, R4, R6, and R7 explain that questions like the ones above are fundamental for their
clients’ management and boards to answer and provide information and documents that
strengthen their assumptions. At the same time, the respondents further mean that the auditing
firms themselves must continue to dispute and possess professional skepticism at their clients’
forecasts and assumptions.
Fraud
Beyond the challenges that have been already displayed, i.e., making 12-month liquidity
forecasts and predicting “new normal”, the respondents enlighten different types of challenges
that have arisen due to Covid-19 that has and will affect GC-assessments. Precisely all of the
respondents except R1 believe that fraud has and will increase during Covid-19 times. R1
29
explains that the Swedish tax agency has good control for possible frauds and further means
that they have not internally talked about increased fraud risk. However, the rest of the
respondents mean that they have focused on monitoring the risk and developed new routines.
R2 explains that it exists two different kinds of fraud, easily explained:
“Companies can show that they are doing worse than they actually do to get more subsidies and
support from the state. And in the other way, if you sit in a bad seat, people are people, then there is a
risk that they deliberately fiddle with their capital or accounting “- R2.
R6 further explains that the possibilities for detecting fraud are more challenging in a digital
environment, which is the case due to Covid-19. Three out of the four auditing firms have
conducted the majority of their inventories digital since the pandemic started, whereby
respondents 2-8 explain that it is a good complement short-term. However, it brings more
significant risks of fraud. R6 explains that they introduced three criteria that must be fulfilled
in order to conduct digital inventories:
“1. One must have been at the warehouse before to know what it looks like. 2 It is required that we
still have to independently select samples to carry out a control inventory. 3 we must be able to attend
digitally so that we really see the surroundings with good connection. This resulted in the majority of
all inventories being carried out physically” - R6.
Another aspect that has increased the risk of committing fraud during Covid-19 is the
company’s financial covenants. R6 explains that companies have different loan terms with the
banks, called covenants, and the one toughest for the companies is the leverage ratio. R6 further
explains that you as an auditor cannot sign a “clean” audit report if the covenants are not
fulfilled or renegotiated with the bank. Hence, there is a risk of liberty fiddling with the
accounting. However, R7 further means that for the companies that performed very well during
2020, there is a risk of fraud with the covenants in the opposite way, and its equally important
to review:
“Say you manage your covenants for 2020, so instead of over performing on those key figures 2020,
bunker up instead and move the profits to 2021 because you do not how it will be then, then you
manage the conditions both years” - R7.
30
GC-warnings and Error type I & II
Precisely all respondents believe that GC-warnings will increase in the current and following
years as a direct consequence of Covid-19, with the background of companies being financially
distressed as well as an uncertain future. Furthermore, most of the respondents explain that you
as an auditor can warn about the GC in two different ways, either as an enlightenment, that
there exists uncertainty about the future, or as an own segment where you declare significant
uncertainty about your clients continuing GC. Moving forward, R8 explains that they have put
a lot more effort and focus of GC, hence being tougher to make GC-warnings:
“I think it will be trendier to issue warnings, you have woken up a bit, because now there are business
risks that did not exist before, you have been a bit blind due to a very long boom, as the risks that
exist today generally have not existed during a long time” - R8.
Furthermore, the respondents also mean that it has become more complex whether you should
conduct a GC-warning or not. R6 explains that they have spent hours after hours with other
partners to discuss this dilemma. R8 puts it into words why it has become more complex:
“Imagine a scale, at the top it is gold and green forests which makes it an easy assessment, at the
bottom it looks so bad that it also becomes a simple assessment, the most difficult are the ones in the
gray zone in the middle, what is really right or wrong to do? There are a couple of companies there
normally, however, that gray zone has grown tremendously during the pandemic” - R8.
As the unanimous were 100% from the respondents in the matter of increased GC-warnings,
the answers of which error that may be the most frequent was anything else but united. R4, R6,
R7, and R8 believe that error type I will be the most common mistake respectively, R1, R2,
and R5 believes in error type II, R3 declined to answer. The most common argument of error
type I is that, as stated earlier, it will be easier for auditors today to conduct GC-warnings given
the situation. However, R7 addresses another argument as the other also supported:
“I imagine that an auditor is rather safe than sorry as well, there is no auditor who wants to end up in
the situation of writing a clean audit report and then the company collapses in just a few months
ahead” - R7.
31
The respondents further develop that if the case above happens, there is a significant risk that
the shareholders feel befooled and hence a litigation risk. Therefore, they believe that this risk
is another aspect that indicates that error type I will be the most frequent. However, those
respondents that believe in error type II explain that, in general, you as an auditor want to avoid
as much as possible writing any unusual in the audit report. Especially now during the
pandemic since different prerequisites can change quickly where a GC-warning can harm the
client more. R1 addresses it as:
“Quite frankly, as an auditor, you want to avoid writing anything “out of normal” in the audit report,
in this case, a warning, because you do not want to sprinkle salt in the wounds or be the factor that
contributes to the snowball getting bigger, i.e., that more and more problems arise for the client after
our warning” - R1.
4.2 Auditor-Client Relationship
Pre Covid-19
Before getting deeper into the discussion of auditor-client relationships, it was essential to
pinpoint the respondents' thoughts on what defines an ideal relationship with their clients. The
results show that all the respondents were unanimous about what they think is vital in their
relationship with their clients. The respondents gave an overall definition of an ideal
relationship as keeping frequent contact with the client during the year, where they have
transparent discussions and open dialogue.
"You want an open dialogue and above all a transparent relationship" - R4.
"A good and strong relationship is defined by an ongoing dialogue during the year and a proactive
approach." - R6.
The results show that all the respondents thought it is essential to have a transparent relationship
since the auditor prefers that the client early in the audit process raises a red flag for different
problems and challenges. All the respondents also mentioned that they try to build trust so that
the clients feel confident and are not afraid to share information with the auditor. Further, the
respondents explained that trust and respect are two critical factors, and the clients have to feel
that they can contact the auditor and provide information. It could be that a key person has left
the organization or ask questions regarding government grants, unusual transactions, or
potential investments. R1 explains that this allows the auditor to prepare more and deal with
32
challenges at an early stage. R3 mentioned that it is common to discover errors when talking
to clients and not when reviewing documents. Furthermore, R4 explained that you become very
limited as an auditor in those cases where you cannot have an open dialogue. R6 explained
clearly what type of relationship that is preferred:
"I am usually very clear about the type of relationship I want to have with my clients. At the beginning
of the relationship, I explain that I appreciate that way of working and also that there is
transparency." - R6.
All the respondents, value personal contact very highly and argue that it gives a better overview
of how things are going for the client. R2, R4, R5, and R6 all agree that it is essential to be
clear at the beginning of the relationship with a new client in how they would like to work and
what kind of relationship they would like to have.
Challenges of Covid-19
According to all of the respondents, Big Four want to take responsibility for reducing the spread
of Covid-19 and therefore have internal recommendations not to visit certain clients and not be
in the office. Hence, the number of visits and physical meetings with their clients had decreased
dramatically and is almost non-existent when the interviews were conducted. However, a
majority of the respondents were evident in stating that the number of meetings was still the
same as before the pandemic, but now they were held through digital communication channels.
R5 did mention that some clients need more support during these times, and hence they have
more frequent contact with these clients.
However, all of the respondents have seen that the nature and form of the meetings have
changed. R4 mentioned that there are shorter meetings and slightly more efficient working
days, and it is much easier to book meetings with the clients and get in touch with the right
decision-makers in the company. The majority of the respondents mentioned that the meetings
are more structured and a little faster on the agenda. The focus is more direct on the issue
instead of the small social talk. The result of this is that the meetings have become much more
time efficient.
All of the respondents also thought the majority of their clients had a remarkable ability to
adapt and handle digital communication. Most of the respondents mentioned that they had
already come a long way in digitization even before the pandemic struck and that Big Four
have good routines regarding mastering the challenge of digital communication. R4 and R6
33
also said that for those clients who have a bit of a struggle with digitalization, they offer their
tools to the clients to make the process as smooth and efficient as possible.
"Covid-19 has resulted in that both we as an agency and our clients have realized new opportunities
in being more effective in the communication" - R6.
Furthermore, all of the respondents thought that there was a significant difference between how
the relationship to existing clients has been affected compared to new clients acquired during
Covid-19. According to R7, there has been a robust increase in efficiency but at the expense of
the relationship to the client. Based on this, R7 thinks that what they are doing is entirely
devastating:
"If you have had a relationship with a client for about ten years, it is not that difficult to maintain the
relationship. But new client relationships take an eternity to build if you are to do it digitally." - R7.
R6 explains the challenges more thoroughly. When it comes to new clients, it is challenging to
feel the situation. Further, R6 explains that the situation has made them realize how much they
interpret information through body language. How many signals they pick up when having a
personal meeting, such as how the client changes tone and receives different messages, it is
very difficult to capture these signals via digital meetings. It works for a short period, but it
would be very challenging if it becomes permanent. R8 agrees with R6 and thinks that meeting
restrictions disturb the relationship with existing clients and that the auditor loses a perspective
on what is going on this year. R8 explains that the damage does not only happen because they
have worked digitally for a year, but the damage also grows over time because they, as auditors,
will lose knowledge about their clients' business as time goes on.
Not being at place
The difference that all auditors thought was the biggest challenge was not being able to be at
place and get an overall feeling for clients' operations. All respondents agreed that meeting
employees at place provides extra information about the company. R4 explained that there is a
risk that the auditor does not receive the type of information that could be of high importance.
It is not about the client wanting to withhold that type of information, but more that they do not
think about it themselves. R4 thinks this is a difficult challenge and will undoubtedly mean that
you do not encounter these issues as early as before. Further, R4 explains that when the auditor
is at place, it is also easier to get in touch with other people who could provide valuable
information, such as salespeople who are aware of revenue streams.
34
"To be at place and see the customer's business, is a critical aspect”. - R5
R2 thought that being at place is an essential part of understanding the business as a whole.
The auditor must understand their clients' businesses. Just having a coffee and meeting an
employee can add some information about the company. This was also something that all of
the respondents mentioned: meetings at the coffee machines are an essential source of
information for the auditor. R7 said that it is at the coffee machines that you meet people you
do not usually meet. These informal meetings provide valuable information and being in place
creates an added value for the auditor. R8 also sees the increased risks that during the pandemic,
it is difficult to picture the client's activities because they cannot be in place with the client.
This opens up a more significant risk of fraud and unintentional errors and that the auditor
misses these kinds of issues.
"There is a lot to learn through the informal conversations at the coffee machine. The digital meeting
is great, but the physical meeting is even better." - R5.
"There is an added value in being at place. Unfortunately, you lose that part. A personal meeting is
unbeatable." - R3.
The importance of the office
All respondents agree that there is certainly an ongoing debate within the Big Four about the
importance of offices during these times but that it was also a relevant discussion even before
Covid-19. R4 said that there had been a trend among Big Four to reduce the number of offices
in general even before the pandemic to decrease costs and increase efficiency. Furthermore,
R3 explains that it has turned out that it is possible to work remotely and digitally, so it may be
the case in the future that the agencies cut down on local offices and start a "large office" that
revises most of the work. As all respondents are aware of the discussion, everyone is also clear
that if the agencies cut down the number of offices, it must be done with caution. R5 does not
think that digital meetings and a “large office” will completely replace physical meetings in
the future. This is mainly since Big Four will still strive for physical contact because the
agencies aim to build strong relationships with their clients.
"Clients want personal contact, so the offices play an important part in that." - R5.
"Closeness means a lot to many clients." - R4.
35
R1 explains that it is essential that you remain close to your clients and that it would be a
mistake to cut down on offices. R3 is also on the same line, and think it is crucial in the future
that the responsible auditor is locally located as the face outwards. At the same time, R3 also
thinks that much of the work can be done in other places and not necessarily from local offices.
R4 entirely agrees with R3 by stating that some auditors must be located close to the client
because the client must have the opportunity to meet their responsible auditor at any time.
Nevertheless, R4 is completely convinced that the teams they have will consist of auditors from
all different parts of Sweden. R8 thought that cutting down on offices and keep working from
home or at a "large office" would lead to them getting further away from their clients, and it
will have a negative impact on audit quality.
4.3 Auditor-Independence
Importance of auditor-independence
The results show that all the respondents thought auditor-independence is one of the most
critical aspects of the audit profession. R4 defined it as if the auditor’s independence is
questioned, one has already gone the wrong direction. However, only R1, R2, R5, and R6
thought auditor-independence was especially important during uncertain times, especially
regarding GC-assessments. R6 explained that it becomes even more critical in uncertain times
like these that you dare to challenge the management’s assessments and estimates.
“Now, it is important to have integrity and also stand up for your opinions and thoughts. The
independence is really tested properly” - R2.
R3, R4, R7, and R8 pinpointed that auditor-independence is always essential no matter what.
R4 explained that if the independence would be questioned, you as an auditor and agency will
become uninteresting in the market, resulting in losing all the agency’s clients. This makes it
relatively easy to stay independent in cases where the client threatens to change auditors.
“It is always important, no matter what time we are in. It is one of the most important cornerstones of
our work.” - R3.
Pressure from clients
R5 said that it could possibly be that auditors experience a higher level of pressure during
unstable times. R1 mentioned that there had been situations before Covid-19 where the client
has issued threats to replace R1 as an auditor if R1 would comment on a certain part, e.g., the
36
firm’s GC. R7 explained that if you end up in tough discussions where the client exerts
pressure, it affects independence, where you may have to ask yourself the question of whether
to leave the client:
“Of course, we have ended up in pressured discussions, but then it is important that you stand up for
yourself with your high integrity.” - R7.
However, all the respondents mentioned a difference in the strength to withstand the pressure
from clients between the Big Four compared to smaller audit firms because of the broad client
base. R4 mentioned that the Big Four are strong and can afford to be independent compared to
smaller agencies. Clients are super important, but an individual client may not be as important
for Big Four compared to smaller auditing firms. R5 is also on the same line and mentioned
that there is a higher risk that smaller agencies may face clients who will threaten to change
auditors since they are more dependent on individual clients. R8 was very clear in his statement
that if they had a client who does not agree with their assessment or would force the auditor
not to write something in the audit report, that client is not worth having. R8 thought that there
would only be positive outcomes by leaving such a type of client.
“We are not so dependent on individual clients, we have more client requests than we can handle.”
- R4.
Effects from Covid-19
R1, R4, R5, R6, and R8 mentioned that there are indications that due to non-existent physical
meetings, auditors have distanced themselves from their clients. Further, these respondents said
that this could indicate that it will be easier to make tough decisions. However, R8 also added
that in some cases, it could also be easier to make tough decisions for clients with whom you
have a close and good dialogue. R5 explained that since the auditors do not go to as many
lunches with their clients and do not have any marketing activities, there will not be any risk
that they develop some form of more profound friendship. R5 further explains that it has
become a bit more formal and not as much about building relationships. However, R5 also
added that auditors in the Big Four have strong integrity and are very good at differentiating
between the social and the professional.
R6 and R7 mentioned that new issues and situations arise for the clients during these times. R7
mentioned that auditors want to help their clients, and in a situation like the Covid-19
37
pandemic, when there is much pressure, the auditor can feel personally committed to the client.
At this point, the auditor starts entering areas that an auditor should not be close to. R6 also
recognized this risk which could threaten the auditor’s independence if performing services
such as advice that are not compatible with the role as an auditor. R7 mentioned that the auditor
should always be there and support their clients but must be careful not to take over their
problems and responsibilities. On that theme, R7 believes that the pandemic may have
contributed to situations that increase the risk of entering assignments that an auditor should
not enter. Further, R7 believes that this is certainly something that has occurred in the industry
as a whole:
“Although you see a lot of new smart services that you could deliver, you should also be careful about
making money from a pandemic.” - R7.
4.4 Empirical reference-model
Figure 3: Empirical reference-model (Johnsson & Persson)
38
5.0 Analysis
In this section, the empirical findings will be deeper analyzed and compared to the literature
review with the model of analysis as framework.
5.1 Going-Concern assessments
As auditing can be perceived as a trust mechanism where the results from auditors GC-
assessments are a prerequisite from stakeholders, the quality of those assessments must be
sustained at a high level even during uncertain times. However, the results of this study indicate
that the Covid-19 pandemic has and will affect the conditions for auditors to make accurate
GC-assessments as the respondents have experienced an increase in complexity. A more
specific and interesting result was that the majority of the respondents addressed the complexity
that the pandemic caused in 2020 were different compared to the challenges that exist in 2021
and beyond. As the standard ISA 570 (revised) illustrates, the management should conduct
forecasts with a minimum of a 12-month timeframe assessing the company’s liquidity, of
which the results of this study imply that those kinds of forecasts were quite impossible during
2020. Hence, as the respondents expressed, it was complicated for an auditor to review and
make their assessments of their clients GC. This is quite interesting since the results from
Gibbins et al. (2007) study states that the one-party between the auditor and the client’s CFO
with the most knowledge and expertise about the client’s operations goes winning out of a
discussion. Suddenly, as the situation was during 2020, no party knew anything about how it
will be from 12 months ahead. This is in line with what Albitar et al. (2020) and IFAC (2020b)
addressed, that significant uncertainties that arise from the Covid-19 pandemic will make it
more difficult for auditors to review the management’s assessments of GC reliably.
Since the cornerstone within GC-assessments is to ensure whether the client can continue 12
months ahead in its current form whereof those assessments are based on liquidity forecasts,
that were not possible during 2020, one can genuinely see the complexity whereby much
indicates that the accuracy of those assessments was insufficient. Furthermore, the results
shows that the lesson that could be learned within this issue, is instead of trying to predict 12
months ahead at best of knowledge, the management as well as auditors should make scenario-
analyses. This means that one has hedged oneself to different scenarios in how the pandemic
may develop, of which one has a plan for a continued GC within each scenario.
39
However, as earlier mentioned, the results indicate that the challenges that occur now (2021)
due to Covid-19 differ compared to those in 2020. As the results show, predicting future
customer behavior that later settles as the “new normal” is the biggest challenge, where auditors
must obtain a professional skepticism and dispute their clients’ alleged assumptions. This is in
line with the predictions from IFAC’s (2020b) report that there is an uncertainty if the same
behavior will still apply after the crisis or if it will change. This will contribute to more
difficulties when evaluating the degree of business disruption. The complexity of this is
fascinating, especially in the vulnerable industries that suffer from “crowd restrictions”, that
the management of those companies may put pressure on their assumptions, that the “normal”
will return soon when the vaccination is established. However, as mentioned before, it is
impossible to predict future customer behavior, meaning that it will be complex for auditors to
dispute or accept their clients’ predictions. Think of a scenario when a client’s continuing GC
depends on their assumptions that within the near future, their liquidity will increase
tremendous as the restriction will diminish and the society will go back to normal. This puts a
considerable amount of pressure on the auditor to either dispute or accept that type of
assumption, where the decision can have a devastating effect. To summarize, the challenges
that exist today are not as urgent as they were at the beginning of 2020 as now one can make
fairly forecasts. However, the results still indicate that making accurate GC-assessments will
be more challenging, due to the unknown “new normal”.
Just as IFAC (2020c) stated, the result indicates that incentives for fraud have increased due to
Covid-19 as companies in general are more financially distressed. Companies, especially those
in vulnerable industries, try to find avenues to remain as GC, for example, fiddle with
accounting to fulfill the financial covenants. Unlike the challenges described before, the risk
of fraud has always existed, but due to the digital environment, the results indicate that fraud
will be harder to detect, for example digital inventories. This implies that as the risk of
committing fraud has increased as well as detecting fraud has decreased, it is essential for
auditors to review this risk as various frauds can affect the outcome of the accuracy in GC-
assessments and in the end, audit quality.
Since all the respondents believed in an increase of GC-warnings as well as the decision of
conducting a warning or not has become more complex, it indicates that more errors and
mistakes may increase. As GC-warnings may increase and become trendier, as the results
indicate, the most frequent error should be type I. Still, three out of eight of the respondents
40
believed in error type II as they believed that auditors in general would avoid conducting GC-
warnings as it can harm their client more given the situation. This is in line with the results of
Francis’s (2004) study that the warning itself can be the one factor that puts the client in
bankruptcy. The results also indicate with the findings of Carcello and Neal (2003), Humprhey
et al. (2009), and Louwers (1998), that issuing a GC-warning may potentially lead to “auditor
switching”, i.e., losing their client, whereby you do not conduct a warning. However, four out
of eight respondents believe that error type I will be the most frequent, with the arguments of
conducting GC-warnings will be trendier given the situation, but also to protect themselves
from a potential litigations risk. This is also in line with the result from Francis’s (2004) study,
that the cost of error type I is lower relative to error type II, hence one should rather “over
issuing” than “under issuing” GC-warnings. As the results are mixed, it illustrates the
complexity of how Covid-19 may affect GC-warnings. Still, to provide high audit quality, it is
essential to conduct accurate GC-assessments following accurate GC-warnings. However, the
results strongly indicate that it will be more challenging to be accurate than pre-Covid-19.
5.2 Auditor-Client Relationship
The results from this study are very consistent with previous research on what characterizes a
good and bad relationship. The respondents gave an overall definition of an ideal relationship
as keeping frequent contact with the client during the year. Hence, the ideal auditor-client
relationship is characterized by transparent discussions and open dialogue. This is in line with
McCracken et al. (2008) which state that the ideal relationship is proactive and is characterized
by the client's willingness to have close and continuous communication with the auditor.
Furthermore, the results show that frequent communication and visits are essential aspects
contributing to a better opportunity to perform high audit quality. These results are in line with
the findings in Carcello et al. (1992).
However, the results also show that the number of visits and physical meetings with clients has
decreased dramatically and is almost non-existent due to Covid-19. That would mean that one
of the highest-rated attributes of audit quality has been lost. Since the number of visits and
physical meetings is non-existent, this could indicate a lower level of information exchange.
This will make it more difficult for auditors to evaluate their clients' characteristics and
incentives (Choi et al. 2012). Hence, that could indicate that the existing proactive relationships
are changing into more reactive ones and a higher risk of audit failure. However, the results
also show that the number of meetings is still the same but has been replaced by digital
41
meetings. This means that there is still frequent communication between the auditors and the
client. The clients' good ability to adapt and handle digital communication also mitigates the
challenge of the transition from physical to digital meetings.
Furthermore, the results show that not being able to visit the client also makes it more difficult
for the auditor to understand the business and gather valuable information. Mainly because
they do not meet the employees within the organization. This is in line with Choi et al. (2012),
who argues that valuable information about the client's firm could easily be obtained by
informal talks with the firm's executives, employees, suppliers, and customers. The informal
talks by the coffee machine are an essential source of information for the auditor. If these talks
and meetings do not happen, it will be a more significant challenge and will probably mean
that the auditor does not encounter issues as early as before. Hence, the auditor does not have
the opportunity to mitigate information asymmetries and enhance monitoring effectiveness
through social bonding. Myers et al. (2003) argue that uncertainty regarding the client's
characteristics increases the potential for audit failures. That could be the case since it is more
difficult for auditors to understand the business during Covid-19.
Furthermore, the results also indicated a difference between existing and new clients and how
they are affected. In those cases where the auditor already has well-established expertise and
experience, the risk of audit failure due to the non-existing visits is much lower. This could be
explained by Johnson et al. (2002) and Francis (2004), who found a higher risk of a lower audit
quality during the first three years of the relationship. Further, the results show that it is not
that difficult to maintain mature relationships through digital communication. This means that
those auditor-client relationships that have been established several years ago are not that
affected compared to newly created relationships.
Similar to previous literature, the results show that clients want personal contact, so the offices
play an essential part. However, Choi et al. (2012) stated that Big Four have continuously
expanded their practicing offices to cities where their clients are headquartered. This is not
entirely in line with the results from this study since it showed a trend among Big Four to
reduce the number of offices in general. Despite these differences, the result and Choi et al.
(2012) are still partly in line regarding the specific finding that the auditor need to remain close
to the client. During Covid-19, it has turned out that it is possible to work remotely and
digitally, so it may be the case that the agencies will cut down on local offices in the future.
42
The result of this study and previous literature agrees that if these decisions are made too
quickly and are not necessarily elaborated, the relationship with the client may suffer and thus
audit quality.
5.3 Auditor-Independence
The result showed without doubt that auditor-independence is one of the most essential aspects,
which is in line with Mansouri et al. (2009). Hence, there is strong support for the statement in
Mansouri et al. (2009) that audit quality is questionable without independence.
The result in this study indicated that due to the non-existent meetings with clients, auditors
had distanced themselves, and hence it is easier to make tough decisions. This could partly
support Rennie et al. (2010) since they argue that a tight auditor-client relationship tends to be
the factor that may cause closeness between auditors and their clients. Haynes et al. (1998) and
Jenkins and Lowe (1999) argued that closeness could lead to the auditor dropping the role as a
protector for the shareholders and instead of becoming the advocate of the management of the
audited firm. However, this is not in line with the result since it shows that auditors in Big Four
have strong integrity and are good at distinguishing between the social and the professional
parts of a relationship. Still, one should be aware of that this result could be biased since the
respondents probably would not confess that there would exist a risk of dropping the role as a
protector. The result also shows that there is still an increased risk that the pandemic has
contributed to new issues and situations which could put the auditor in difficult positions.
Situations like those may cause the auditor to feel personally committed to the client.
Furthermore, in those situations where the auditor would feel personally committed to the
client, there could be an increased risk that the independence would be impaired. As mentioned
in the analysis of GC-assessments, there are some indications that auditors in general will avoid
conducting GC-warnings as it can harm their client more, given the situation. This result gives
some support for the findings in Ettredge et al. (2017) study. However, Ettredge et al. (2017)
do not find any significant difference between Big Four firms and non–Big Four firms. The
results from this study are contradictory since it indicates that because Big Four has a solid and
broad client base, individual clients are not in a position where they can exert pressure and
threats. This indicate that auditor-independence is still strong within the Big Four during
Covid-19. Hence, that would indicate no significant impact on auditor-independence and in the
end, audit quality.
43
6.0 Conclusion and Discussion
Our purpose was to explore how Covid-19 may affect audit quality and provide early insights
if the pandemic has already affected audit quality. The findings of this study indicate that the
Covid-19 pandemic had various effects on the aspects that constitute audit quality, i.e., GC-
assessments, auditor-client relationship, and auditor-independence. The biggest threat to
sustain high audit quality is GC-assessments as the pandemic has deteriorated the conditions
for making accurate assessments. As (i) more GC-warnings will be conducted for the
companies in vulnerable industries, (ii) more companies are placed in the “grey zone” of
whether the auditor should conduct a GC-warning or not, (iii) 12-months forecasts were not
possible to conduct during 2020, and (iiii) assessing the “new normal” in the nearest future is
rather complex. All of these aspects have emerged due to Covid-19 that will lead to less
accurate GC-assessments. Less accurate GC-assessments will constitute more errors where the
findings illustrated mixed results of the frequency of error type I & II. This indicates that
auditors will either “over-issuing” or “under-issuing” GC-warnings. Hence, the auditor’s
ability to ensure accurate GC-assessments has and will decrease. Consequently, stakeholders
cannot trust those assessments at the same level as pre-Covid-19, indicating that audit quality
may decrease. Hence, this study contributes with the fact that auditors must increase their focus
of GC as stakeholders should require greater disclosure of those.
In contrast, the findings illustrate that the auditor-client relationship has not been equally
affected. Even tough auditors have lost a crucial aspect of the added value by being in place,
the restrictions from the pandemic will result in auditors having less knowledge about their
clients in the long-term, and it is significantly more challenging to build new proactive
relationships digitally, audit quality has not deceased. This is mainly due to (i) digital meetings
work well, (ii) there are the same number of meetings, (iii) the clients are well adapted, and
above all, (iiii) it is possible to maintain a proactive relationship. Although the communication
channels and the nature of the meetings have changed, the relationships remain the same and
thus, no significant effect on audit quality has been observed. However, if the Big Four were
to succeed in gathering and mastering all the positive aspects of digital development that
Covid-19 has accelerated, it would mean a much better opportunity for auditors to produce
higher audit quality in the future. Hence, this study contributes with the fact that digital
meetings should be seen as a complement rather than a substitute for physical meetings in the
future.
44
The findings also show that since the auditor and the client are more distanced from each other,
it would be easier for the auditor to make tougher decisions, which would mean fewer cases
where the auditor’s independence would be questioned. However, during unstable times like
Covid-19, the risk increases that (i) clients will make threats to change auditor in cases where
the auditor would choose to remark on, for example, the client’s GC (ii) the risk that an auditor
feels more personally involved and forced to help the clients (iii) auditor taking on assignments
that could be considered outside the auditor’s area of responsibility. However, the study
indicates that these risks would probably be more significant among non-Big Four firms
because they are more dependent on their individual clients than Big Four. Even though more
situations are created where independence could be threatened, this study indicates that
independence is strong among Big Four and that Covid-19 has no significant impact on auditor-
independence and thus no effect on audit quality. Lastly, this study contributes by identifying
potential factors that could diminish the auditor-independence due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
To summarize, the Covid-19 pandemic has had fewer effects on audit quality than experts and
researchers predicted, as some of them anticipated that the Covid-19 pandemic would bring the
most demanding challenges for auditors since the financial crisis 2008/2009. However, the
findings of this study still indicate that non-accurate GC-assessments are the greatest threat to
audit quality. Hence, we believe that a considerable focus and perhaps, a reform of the GC
procedure, will occur. Down below are the major changes we expect to see within GC-
assessments:
Greater disclosure by management about GC-assessments in the annual reports.
Conducting scenario-analysis instead of a 12-month forecast.
Greater responsibility from auditors at GC-assessments.
Greater responsibility from auditors at fraud.
6.1 Suggestions for future research
As stated in our purpose and method, this study is of an exploratory approach, where the
findings of this report provide early insights and indications of how Covid-19 will affect audit
quality with a qualitative approach. Hence, we suggest that within a timeframe of 3-5 years,
when the pandemic has hopefully ceased and the complete consequences from the pandemic
have been revealed, one should conduct quantitative research of measuring effects at audit
quality. For example, how accurate GC-assessment was post-Covid-19 versus pre-Covid-19
where the findings in this study can be used as indications. It could also be interesting to
45
examine within the same timeframe how the pandemic affected auditing fees, if for example,
the cost of auditing has increased or decreased relative to audit quality.
46
List of References
Adams, W., 2015. Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews. Handbook of Practical Program
Evaluation, pp.492-505.
Albitar, K., Gerged, A., M., Kikhia, H., and Hussainey K. 2020. Auditing in times of social
distancing: The effect of COVID-19 on auditing quality. International Journal of Accounting
and Information Management.
Anandarajan, A., Kleinman, G. and Palmon, D. 2008, “Novice and expert judgment in the
presence of going concern uncertainty”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 345-
666.
Andon, P., Free, C. & Sivabalan, P. 2014. The legitimacy of new assurance providers: Making
the cap fit. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(2), pp. 75-96.
Andon, P., Free, C. & O’Dwyer, B. 2015. Annexing new audit spaces: challenges and
adaptations. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(8), pp. 1400-1430.
Arnold, V., Collier, P.A., Leech, S.A. and Sutton, S.G. 2001, “The impact of political pressure
on novice decision makers: are auditors qualified to make going concern judgements?”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 323-338.
Bazerman, M,. Morgan K.P, Loewenstein G.F. 1997 The impossibility of auditor
independence, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 89–94.
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. 2019, Business research methods, Fifth edn, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. 2015, Business research methods, 4.th edn, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
Carcello, J. V., R. H. Hermanson, and N. T. McGrath. 1992. Audit quality attributes: The
perceptions of audit partners, preparers, and financial statement users. Auditing: A Journal of
Practice & Theory 11 (1): 1–15.
47
Carcello, J. and Neal, T., 2003. Audit Committee Characteristics and Auditor Dismissals
following “New” Going-Concern Reports. The Accounting Review, 78(1), pp.95-117.
Choi, J., Kim, J., Qiu, A. and Zang, Y., 2012. Geographic Proximity between Auditor and
Client: How Does It Impact Audit Quality?. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory,
31(2), pp.43-72.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
DeAngelo, L., 1981. Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics,
3(3), pp.183-199.
Dechow, P., Ge, W. and Schrand, C., 2010. Understanding Earnings Quality: A Review of the
Proxies, Their Determinants and Their Consequences. SSRN Electronic Journal,.
Deloitte, (a) 2020. Answering the call for change in the audit and financial reporting landscape.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/audit/Covid-19/answering-the-call-for-
change.html> [Accessed 13 January 2021].
Deloitte, (b) 2020. Internal Controls: COVID-19 Considerations For Auditors.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ch/en/pages/audit/articles/internal-controls-covid-19-
considerations-for-auditors.html> [Accessed 5 January 2021].
Deloitte, (c) 2020. What is the impact of COVID-19 on your going concern assessment?.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/audit/deloitte-au-audit-
what-impact-covid19-going-concern-assessment-210720.pdf> [Accessed 25 May 2021].
Duff, A., 2009. Measuring audit quality in an era of change. Managerial Auditing Journal,
24(5), pp.400-422.
Eca.europa.eu. 2020. EU’S Public Health And Economic Response To COVID-19 To Be
Reviewed By Auditors. Available at:
48
<https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/NewsItem.aspx?nid=13821> [Accessed 5 January
2021].
Ettredge, M., Fuerherm, E. E., Guo, F., & Li, C. 2017. Client pressure and auditor
independence: Evidence from the “great recession” of 2007–2009. Journal of Accounting and
Public Policy, 36(4), 262–283.
EY, 2020. Leo van der Tas. Five financial reporting issues to consider as a consequence of
COVID-19. Available at: <https://www.ey.com/en_gl/assurance/five-financial-reporting-
issues-to-consider-as-a-consequence-of-covid-19> [Accessed 11 January 2021].
Financial Times (a), Herbinet, D., 2017. Complexity Of Global Business Makes The Audit
More Important Than Ever. Ft.com. Available at:
<https://www.ft.com/content/4fc8638c-3179-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a> [Accessed 5 January
2021].
Financial Times (b) Kinder, T., 2020. Pwc Boss Warns Auditing Is Harder Than Ever During
Pandemic. Ft.com. Available at:
<https://www.ft.com/content/ea2d92f5-655b-4f04-a0a4-9f9af8648e48> [Accessed 2 January
2021].
Financial Times (c) Vincent, M., Kinder, T. and Beioley, K., 2020. Home Working Leaves UK
Businesses Vulnerable To Fraud. Ft.com. Available at:
<https://www.ft.com/content/1ef7ebab-8c33-4d6a-a7c0-66047f73f482> [Accessed 5 January
2021].
Francis, J., 2004. What do we know about audit quality? The British Accounting Review,
36(4): 345-368.
Francis, J., 2011. A Framework for Understanding and Researching Audit Quality.
AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), pp.125-152.
Frc.org.uk. 2020. About the FRC I COVID - 19 I COVID-19 Bulletin March 2020 I Financial
Reporting Council. Available at:
49
<https://www.frc.org.uk/about-the-frc/covid-19/covid-19-bulletin-march-2020> [Accessed 23
February 2021].
Gibbins, M., McCracken, S.A. and Salterio, S.E. 2007, "The Chief Financial Officer's
Perspective on Auditor‐Client Negotiations", Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 24,
no. 2, pp. 387-422.
Given, L, 2008. Raw Data. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods
Goodell W. J. 2020. “COVID-19 and finance: Agendas for future research”. Finance
Research Letters.
Gros, M. and Worret, D. 2014 ‘The challenge of measuring audit quality: some evidence’, Int.
J. Critical Accounting, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.345–374.
Haynes, C., Jenkins J, Nutt S., 1998. The relationship between client advocacy and audit
experience: an exploratory study, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 2, pp. 88–104.
Herrbach O, 2001. Audit quality, auditor behaviour and the psychological contract, European
Accounting Review, 10:4, 787-802
Humphrey, C., Loft, A. and Woods, M., 2009. The global audit profession and the international
financial architecture: Understanding regulatory relationships at a time of financial crisis.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6-7), pp.810-825.
IAASB, 2011. Audit quality: An IAASB perspective. Available at:
<https://www.iaasb.org/publications/audit-quality-iaasb-perspective> [Accessed 23 February
2021].
IESBA, 2020. Covid-19: Ethics and independence considerations. Available at:
<https://www.ethicsboard.org/publications/covid-19-ethics-and-independence-
considerations> [Accessed 25 May 2021].
50
IFAC. (a) 2020. COVID-19: Ethics & Independence Considerations. Available at:
<https://www.ethicsboard.org/focus-areas/covid-19-ethics-independence-considerations>
[Accessed 11 February 2021].
IFAC. (b) 2020. Summary of Covid-19 Audit Considerations. Available at:
<https://www.ifac.org/knowledge-gateway/supporting-international-
standards/discussion/summary-covid-19-audit-considerations> [Accessed 10 February 2021].
IFAC. 2015. International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 570 (Revised), Going Concern. [online]
Available at:
<https://www.iaasb.org/publications/international-standard-auditing-isa-570-revised-going-
concern-3> [Accessed 23 January 2021].
Jeacle, I. 2014. “And the BAFTA goes to […]”: the assurance role of the auditor in the film
awards ceremony. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(5), pp. 778-
808.
Jeacle, I. 2017. Constructing audit society in the virtual world: the case of the online
reviewer. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(1), pp. 18-37.
Jenkins, J. G. and Lowe, D. J. 1999 Auditors as advocates for their clients: perceptions of the
auditor–client relationship, Journal of Applied Business Research, 15(2), pp. 73–78.
Johnson, V., Khurana, I., Reynolds, J.K., 2002. Audit firm tenure and the quality of financial
reports. Contemporary Accounting Research (Winter), 637–660.
Kim, Y., 2010. The Pilot Study in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Social Work: Research and
Practice, 10(2), pp.190-206.
KPMG (a). 2020. COVID-19: Potential impact on financial reporting. Available at:
<https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2020/03/covid-19-financial-reporting-resource-
centre.html> [Accessed 23 January 2021].
KPMG (b). 2020. Auditing in focus. Available at:
51
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/ch/pdf/blc-auditing-in-focus.pdf>
[Accessed 13 January 2021].
KPMG (c). 2020. COVID-19 Financial reporting: Statutory audit implications. Available at:
https://home.kpmg/au/en/home/insights/2020/03/business-implications-of-covid-19-
coronavirus/financial-reporting/statutory-audit-implications.html> [Accessed 2 February
2021].
KPMG (d). 2020. Hot Topic: Coronavirus SEC provides coronavirus-related disclosure
guidance. Available at:
<https://frv.kpmg.us/content/dam/frv/en/pdfs/2020/hot-topic-coronavirus-sec-disclosure.pdf>
[Accessed 2 February 2021].
Louwers, T.J, 1998. The Relation between Going-Concern Opinions and the Auditor's Loss
Function. Journal of Accounting Research, 36(1), p.143.
Louwers, T.J., Messina, F.M. and Richard, M.D. 1999, “The auditor’s going-concern
disclosure as a self-fulfilling prophecy: a discrete-time survival analysis”,Decision Sciences,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 805-823.
Manita, R., Elommal, N., Baudier, P. and Hikkerova, L., 2020. The digital transformation of
external audit and its impact on corporate governance. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 150, p.119751.
Mansouri, A., Pirayesh, R. and Salehi, M., 2009. Audit Competence and Audit Quality: Case
in Emerging Economy. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(2).
McCracken, S., Salterio, S. & Gibbins, M. 2008. Auditor–client management relationships and
roles in negotiating financial reporting, Accounting Organizations and Society, 33(4): 362–
383.
Menicucci E. 2020. Earnings Quality: How to Define. In: Earnings Quality. Palgrave Pivot,
Cham.
52
Myers, J., Myers, L. and Omer, T., 2003. Exploring the Term of the Auditor-Client
Relationship and the Quality of Earnings: A Case for Mandatory Auditor Rotation?. The
Accounting Review, 78(3), pp.779-799.
Owolabi S, A. Jayeoba O, O. and Ajibade A, T. 2016. Evolution and development of auditing.
Unique Journal of Business Management Research Vol. 3(1), pp. 032-040
Power, M. 1996. Making things Auditable. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2(2),
pp. 289-315.
Power, M. 2003. Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 28(4), pp. 379-394
PwC, 2020. COVID-19: Considerations for audit committees Available at:
<https://www.pwc.ie/issues/covid-19/considerations-for-audit-committees.html>[Accessed
25 May 2021].
PwC, 2013. Understanding A Financial Statement Audit. PwC, pp.1-18. Available at:
<https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/audit-services/publications/assets/pwc-understanding-
financial-statement-audit.pdf> [Accessed 3 January 2021].
Rennie, M., Kopp, L. and Lemon, W., 2010. Exploring Trust and the Auditor-Client
Relationship: Factors Influencing the Auditor’s Trust of a Client Representative. AUDITING:
A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(1), pp.279-293.
Robinson OC., 2014. Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and
practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology 11(1): 25–41.
Ruiz-Barbadillo, E., Gómez-Aguilar, N., De Fuentes-Barberá, C. and García-Benau, M., 2004.
Audit quality and the going-concern decision-making process: Spanish evidence. European
Accounting Review, 13(4), pp. 597-620.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A., 2012. Research methods for business students.
Pearson Education UK.
53
Svanström, T., 2015. Time Pressure, Training Activities and Dysfunctional Auditor Behaviour:
Evidence from Small Audit Firms. International Journal of Auditing, 20(1), pp.42-51.
Swedish Inspectorate of Auditors (SIA) (a), n.d. Revisorns ansvar. Available at:
<https://www.revisorsinspektionen.se/vanliga-fragor-och-svar/ansvar-och-uppgifter/>
[Accessed 13 January 2021].
Swedish Inspectorate of Auditors (SIA) (b), 2020. Coronavirus information, covid-19.
Available at:
<https://www.revisorsinspektionen.se/publikationer/information-med-anledning-av-
coronaviruset-covid-19/> [Accessed 13 January 2021].
Swedish Inspectorate of Auditors (SIA) (c). Marknadsandel för revision av företag av allmänt
intresse. Available at:
https://www.revisorsinspektionen.se/publikationer/marknadsandel-for-revision-av-foretag-
avallmant-intresse/> [Accessed 24 March 2021].
The Public Health Agency of Sweden, 2021. National general advice and recommendations for
reducing the spread of covid-19. Available at:
<https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/smittskydd-beredskap/utbrott/aktuella-utbrott/covid-
19/skydda-dig-och-andra/rekommendationer-for-att-minska-spridningen-av-covid-19/>
[Accessed 19 January 2021]
Wallace, A.W. 2004. The economic role of the audit in free and regulated markets: A look
back and forward. Research in Accounting Regulation, 17, pp. 267-298.
Yin, K. R. 2009. Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications
Zhang, I., 2007. Economic Consequences of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. SSRN Electronic
Journal,.
54
Appendix
Interview Guide
As the theoretical reference frame illustrated, three main aspects forms audit quality, i.e., GC-
assessments, Auditor-client relationship, and Auditor-independence. Accordingly, these three
aspects will constitute the interview guide. The first section of the interview guide (question 1-
3) starts with background questions about which role they possess and experience within
auditing. Further, the following section handles GC-assessments (questions 4-12). The first
questions, 4 and 5, address if they believe GC is essential and agree with prior research, stating
it is one of the most complex areas in auditing. After introducing the topic, question 6 is quite
a broad question where the authors will discuss with the respondent how Covid-19 will affect
GC-assessments. Further, questions 7 and 8 handle information and knowledge about the client,
which is a crucial aspect to make accurate GC-assessments and if that has been affected due to
Covid-19. Questions 9-12 are more specific ones with different targets within GC-assessments.
Question 9 is about if the risk of fraud will increase and how it will affect the GC process if
that is the case. Question 10 focuses on how the uncertain future will affect the GC-assessments
concerning historical information. Finally, Question 11 and 12 tries to provide if the auditors
believe that GC-warnings will increase due to Covid-19 and if error I (when an auditor issues
a GC-warning to a client that subsequently does not go bankrupt) or error II (when an auditor
do not issue a GC-warning to a client that later goes bankrupt) will be the most common.
The third section addresses questions linked to the auditor-client relationship. The first two
questions, 13-14, give an overview of the respondents' thoughts on the auditor-client
relationship. This is important in order to compare previous research with the respondents'
thoughts of an ideal relationship. Further questions 15-18 focuses on the consequences of
meeting and travel restrictions. The last questions within this theme, 19-21, focus on
communication and trust challenges when searching for valuable information. The last section
consists of questions related to auditor-independence. The first questions, 22-24, focus on the
role auditor-independence possesses during Covid-19 and what challenges auditors will face.
The last questions, 25-26, addressed how the restrictions have had a positive, negative or
neutral impact on auditor-independence.
55
Background
1. Name?
2. Number of years of experience in the auditing profession?
3. Current position and/or title?
Theme 1: Going- concern assessments
4. Do you consider GC-assessments as an important part of the audit? Why/Why not?
5. Do you consider GC-assessments as a difficult task? Why/Why not?
6. Do you believe GC-assessments may be/is more difficult due to Covid-19? Why/Why not?
7. Do you believe that you always have enough knowledge and information about the client
and its operations to make a proper going concern assessment? Why/Why not?
8. Do you believe it will be/is harder to get sufficient information about the client due to Covid-
19? Why/Why not?
9. Do you believe that more companies will commit fraud or earnings-management due to
Covid-19? (Financial-stress due to Covid-19?) Why/Why not?
9a. If yes: How will that affect your audit-process in times of GC-assessments? More
resources? More time?
10. To what extent do you consider historical information compared to a company’s future
plans during the going concern assessment?
a) Has this changed due to the Covid-19? Why/Why not?
11. Do you believe that GC-warnings/opinions will increase the following year/years due to
Covid-19?
56
12. Which error (Type I or II) do you believe will occur more than the other due to Covid-19?
Why?
Theme 2: Auditor-client relationship
13. What do you think characterizes and defines an ideal relationship with your clients?
14. With the term audit quality in mind, how important is the personal contact with your clients?
15. Has the number of visits to clients decreased during Covid-19? How often was it before
Covid-19 and how many are there now?
16. Do you manage to get an overall feeling from the whole company when you can not be at
place and talk to employees, etc.?
17. How important is it from your perspective to meet different types of people in the
organization?
18. All of the Big Four has a relatively strong office network in Sweden in order to come close
to their clients. How do you think the strength of the office's presence has been affected by the
restrictions imposed by Covid-19?
19. Has there been any change in the process of obtaining information from your clients during
Covid-19?
20. Previous research mentions that there is information asymmetry between auditors and
clients. This means that the auditor must to some extent trust the client. Has the trust in the
client changed? Have you as an auditor felt that you had to transfer more trust to your clients
during Covid-19?
21. How good is the clients' ability to handle digital communication? Do these meetings run
less or more often than before Covid-19?
57
Theme 3: Auditor-independence
22. Do you experience that independence is an important aspect during uncertain times as now?
Why/Why not?
23. Are there any auditor-independence issues that have arisen with respect to Covid-19?
24. Has the challenge of staying objective and independent become easier or more difficult
during Covid-19?
25. Do you think that changes in the relationship and the number of physical meetings with the
clients due to restrictions have had any impact on your independence?
25b: Has your independence to your client become higher due to travel and meeting restrictions
as well as work from home recommendations?
26. Is there anything that you want to add regarding the subject, that we have not discussed so
far?
58
Coding-scheme In the figure below, a short description is presented of how we have analyzed the answers given
by the respondents. We have chosen to illustrate the coding-scheme in this way rather than
insert the actual analysis since that would be tremendously extensive. Instead, the authors want
to explain the approach with a description that conceptualizes the procedure. However, an
example is illustrated below for questions 5 and 16-17 with some of the respondents' opinions
to show how the authors have analyzed the transcriptions.
Aspects Empirical data Key words/phrases Themes
In this box the three
different aspects
are applied, i.e.,
either Going-
concern
assessments,
Auditor-client
relationship, or
auditor-
independence.
In this box different
answers from the
respondents are
inserted as citations.
We have chosen
answers from each
respondent that
represent their views of
each question.
Here we try to find
different
words/phrases that
either relate or
contradict to each
other. The reason for
this is to become
easier to analyze the
empirical data.
From the different
keywords we try to
seek different
themes and patterns
that arise within the
different areas of
each aspect. This
will give us an
overview of what
the different
respondents feel in
total of each
aspect.
GC-assessments
Question 5
“Yes I think so, different
types of industries and
companies have and will go
very badly and at the same
time does not know what it
will be like in the future.
The uncertainty about the
future will make it difficult
for us auditors.” - R1
“Just as the situation is, it
has never been so difficult. I
mean, no one can even say
what will happen next
month, how are we then to
assess what will happen in
12 months ahead?” - R2
“Extremely much more
difficult now, as the future
is very uncertain. You want
the companies to be careful
in their assumptions, almost that they should take into
account a worst-case
Uncertain future
Companies has/may be financial distressed
Difficult assessing future
Important to be careful in
your assessments
More complex
assessing the client´s
GC due to uncertain
future
59
scenario than that you are
far too optimistic. - R6”
Auditor-client
relationship
Question 16-17
“You hear and pick up things, to hear what kind of
order there is on the firm.
Much better to be at place”
- R1
“It is very important that
you as an auditor
understand businesses. Just
having a coffee and meeting
an employee can add some
information about the
company” - R2
"It means a lot not to be
able to be at place. Meeting
people at the client's
headquarter provides extra
information about the
company. You hear things
and pick up things that can
be useful in our audit when
we need to identify risks
and the risk of errors." - R3 “There is an added value in
being at place and getting
an overall feeling of the
client's business” - R5
“For me, it is very important to be out with the
client because I talk to a lot
more people then compared
to now. Many people you
meet at the client's place
could contribute with very
useful knowledge and
information that could be
useful for me as auditor” -
R7
Business understanding
Informal meetings
Valuable information
Value adding
Auditor-independence Question 22-23
“Then I think the Big Four
are so strong that they can
afford to be independent
compared to smaller agencies. Clients are super
important, but an individual
client may not be as
important compared to
smaller auditing firms.” -
R3
“We are not so dependent
Strong and broad client
base
60
on individual clients, we
have more client requests
than we can handle. Would
the independence be
questioned, you become uninteresting in the market,
that risk is much greater.
This would result in you
losing all your clients. This
makes it quite easy to stay
independent in cases where
the client threatens to
change auditors.” - R4
“But then I think that
auditors in the Big Four have strong integrity and
are very good at actually
being able to differentiate
between the social and the
professional”- R5
Integrity
Difference between
Big Four and non-Big
Four