Quis auditoret ipsos auditores? Can auditors be trusted?

Abstract

This article explores the extent to which the audit profession and its practices promote public trust in audits. Differences between auditors and non-auditors as to beliefs about the role of a financial report audit have long been discussed under the term ‘expectations gap’. However, this prior debate has tended to focus on non-auditors’ alleged misunderstanding of audit processes without a corresponding understanding on the part of the profession as to why the public might place its trust in auditors. The study explores the nature of trust in an auditing context and notes that like any profession, auditing faces practical limitations but the inability to directly observe the conduct of audits combined with professional status create an ‘over trust’ expectation in the public. Changes in audit practices and culture have also exposed the profession to criticism. The article seeks to offer one approach by which the auditing profession can restore public confidence; namely, evidence-based practice, which has proven effective in improving the quality of practice in medicine. Adoption of a reflective evidence-based approach to audit practice offers the promise of greater audit quality and an improvement in the profession's accountability and public confidence.