1、 1 外文翻译 原文 The audit expectation gap:evidence from Lebanon Material Source: Managerial Auditing Journal Author: Yusuf Munir Sidani Introduction Many authors have discussed the continuing gap between what the users of financial statements expect from the auditing profession and what the auditors defi
2、ne as their role in the assurance process. While the role and responsibilities of the auditors have been passing through fundamental changes, especially after the debacles of the last few years, there is evidence from various studies that such a gap still exists. Despite the fact that audit responsi
3、bility has been detailed in auditing standards and the emerging requirements in some countries (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley in the USA), the gap does not seem to be narrowing. The audit expectation gap has been examined in many regions of the world, but the extent of such a gap has not been investigated in
4、many Middle-Eastern countries, including Lebanon. This study attempts to assess the attitudes and perceptions of accountants and non-accountants about the auditing profession in Lebanon, thereby uncovering the possible existence of an expectation gap. The expectation gap a brief background Liggio (1
5、974) is considered to be the first to use the term “Expectation Gap” in auditing to refer to the difference between levels of expected performance as understood by the auditor and as perceived by users of the financial statements (Koh and Woo, 1998;Siddiqui and Nasreen, 2004). Yet the gap has long e
6、xisted before the term was used. Epstein and Geiger (1994) contended that the expectation gap impacted the accounting profession from the very early days in the USA. Likewise, Humphrey and Turley (1992) indicated that the history of the expectation gap goes back to the start of company auditing in t
7、he nineteenth century. More recent studies have shifted from just assessing the causes of the expectation gap, into addressing the extent of its existence and the areas where it is most severe. 2 Previous research studies have presented different definitions as to what exactly is meant by the audit
8、expectation gap. Guy and Sullivan (1988) indicate that the audit expectation gap refers to the difference between what the public believes to be within the responsibilities of auditors and what auditors themselves believe to be within their responsibilities. Sikka et al. (1998) define the expectatio
9、n gap as representing the discrepancy between what the public expects from an audit and what the auditing profession prefers the audit objectives to be. McEnroe and Martens (2001) refer to the auditing “expectation gap” as signifying the difference between what financial statement users recognize as
10、 being part of the auditors responsibilities to be and what auditors consider their responsibilities involve. As such the public expects auditors to uncover errors and maybe evaluate management performance while auditors consider their role lies in evaluating the fairness of financial reporting (Ede
11、n et al., 2003). Porter (1993) commented that earlier conceptions of the expectations gap do not allow for sub-standard performance. Accordingly, she proposed that the gap, better titled “audit expectation-performance gap,” could be defined as the gap between societys expectations of auditors and au
12、ditors performance as perceived by society. As such, the expectation gap could be further subdivided into two components. The first component is titled “the reasonableness gap,” which is the gap between what society expects auditors to accomplish and what they reasonably could be expected to accompl
13、ish. The second component is designated “the performance gap,” which is the gap between what society can reasonably expect auditors to achieve and what they are perceived to achieve. The performance gap in turn is divided into two components: the first one being attributed to deficient standards, wh
14、ile the second one refers to deficient performance by the auditor. Despite the above distinction, many researchers have adopted the notion that the expectation gap refers to the difference between what the public and auditors perceive as pertaining to audit responsibilities (Gramling et al., 1996; M
15、cEnroe and Martens,2001; Sikka et al., 1998; Monroe and Woodliff, 1994; Koh and Woo, 1998; Dixon et al.,2006). Some studies agree with Porter (1993) in relation to the notion that part of the expectation gap relates to performance (Shaikh and Talha, 2003). While earlier exploratory studies have conc
16、entrated more on the notion that the expectation gap is more related to the publics unreasonable expectations from the audit profession, later studies have increasingly included performance as a potential cause of the expectation gap (De Martinis and Burrowes, 1996). The auditing 3 profession, in tr
17、ying to protect itself, had been continuously trying to correct users expectations but more initiatives have been made lately to meet those expectations (Fadzly and Ahmad, 2004). Some authors have critiqued modern research into the expectation gap area suggesting that the auditing profession seems t
18、o bias common understanding of the issue. In other words, as Sikka et al. (1998) contend, the assumption behind expectation gap research studies has been that the expectation gap exists and the one sure way to eliminate it is through transferring auditors understanding of their roles and responsibil
19、ities to the public. Irrespective of the criticisms, it can be argued that research on the audit expectation gap has developed significantly over the past few years. While earlier studies emphasized the potential causes of the expectation gap, more recent studies have addressed more specific issues
20、relating to the areas where such a gap is most intense. Several regulatory and professional initiatives have been undertaken in the past few years that would supposedly lead to a reduction in the expectation gap. Much more research is needed to assess whether such initiatives are reducing the gap or
21、 not. More recently Shaikh and Talha (2003) argued that the debacles of the last few years highlight the need to minimize the gap, in addition to enhancing the image of the profession from the perspective of the general public. They emphasized the role of education but also highlighted the role that
22、 should be played by professional accounting bodies, together with regulators, in narrowing the gap and thus avoiding the likes of Enron and WorldCom. International evidence on the expectation gap Several studies have investigated the existence of the expectation gap in various contexts in the UK, t
23、he USA, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and other regions. The results indicate that evidence of the existence of such a gap is substantial. Baronet al. (1977), for example, uncovered significant differences in the USA between auditors and users of financial statements pertaining to the auditors r
24、esponsibilities for uncovering illegal acts. Lowes (1994) study compared US auditor and judicial attitudes toward the auditing profession. It was found that an expectation gap existed between auditors and judges, with the latter group expecting more of the auditor. Epstein and Geiger (1994) surveyed
25、 a pool of US investors and found out that they held auditors to a higher level of assurance where almost half expected absolute, and not only reasonable, assurance that material misstatements 4 were not present. They suggest that such a gap can be partially narrowed through educating the public abo
26、ut the role and inherent limitations of an audit. Frank et al. (2001) found a large divergence in perceptions of US auditors and jurors pertaining to their expectations of the accounting profession. Koh and Woo (1998) suggested that prior research supported the existence of a substantial expectation
27、 gap in auditing. Their conclusion was interesting given the fact that they acknowledged that such a gap should be tackled through lowering publics expectations and raising auditor performance. McEnroe and Martens (2001) have also uncovered an expectation gap between US auditors and investors on suc
28、h items as responsibility for fraud detection and reporting. They suggest that education is the key to narrow the gap. Humphrey et al. (1993) established the existence of an expectation gap in the UK. The gap existed in several areas including the auditors role in relation to fraud detection and the
29、 extent of the auditor responsibility to third parties. Low (1980) also revealed the existence of an expectation gap in Australia. It was found that auditors and non-auditors differed significantly in their perceptions pertaining to such things as fraud detection. Likewise, Porter (1993) established
30、 the existence of an expectation gap in New Zealand which could be attributed to deficient standards in addition to unreasonable expectations from auditors and sub-standard performance by them. Here, Porter affirms the notion that the expectation gap co uld be attributed to a variety of factors and
31、a lot is gained when we are able to assess reasons behind such a gap. Best et al. (2001) found evidence of a significant expectation gap in Singapore in the areas of auditor liability for fraud deterrence and detection, maintenance of accounting records, freedom of the audited company from irregular
32、ities and auditor judgment in the choice of work procedures. Also in Singapore, Koh and Woo (2001) investigated the expectation gap between auditors and company managers and the results revealed a significant expectation gap with respect to company audit objectives in Singapore. In a study in Bangla
33、desh, Siddiqui and Nasreen (2004) found that a wide expectation gap existed, also pertaining to fraud and auditor responsibility. In another recent study in Malaysia, Fadzly and Ahmad (2004) uncovered wide expectation gaps and misconceptions about auditing. They found significant support of the exis
34、tence of an expectation gap, chiefly on issues relating to auditors responsibilities. The expectation gap was also found in the Republic of South Africa, especially in the areas of the role of auditors in fraud detection 5 (McInnes, 1994; Gloeck and Jager, 1993). Leung and Chau (2001) found that ban
35、kers in Hong Kong had higher expectations on the role of auditors in fraud detection. Dixon et al. (2006) uncovered the existence of a significant expectation gap in Egypt, especially in the areas of auditors responsibilities for fraud prevention and detection. It is noted that despite the developme
36、nt in our understanding of the audit expectation gap and its components (Porter, 1993), many studies do not make comprehensive assessments as to whether these gaps are due to unreasonable expectations or deficient standards or sub-standard performance. Although research has intensified in the past f
37、ew years uncovering the existence of the gap in many countries, much more needs to be done in that regard. Evidence is still scant when it comes to many developing countries. Within this context, this research study aims to investigate the extent to which such a gap may exist in Lebanon. 译文 审计期望差距：证
38、据来自黎巴嫩 资料来源 : Managerial Auditing Journal 作者： Yusuf Munir Sidani 1 简介 许多作者已经讨论过在审计工作中财务报表使用者的期望和审计师对他们自身的角色和职业的定义存在着差距。虽然审计师的角色和责任发生了根本性的变化 , 尤其是在过去的几年 里 , 有来自不同的研究证据表明 ,这种差距依然存在。尽管事实上在审计准则中已经详细说明了审计师的职责和一些国家提出了新的要求（例如美国的萨班斯 -奥克斯利法案），这个差距似乎不能被缩小。审计期望差距已经存在于世界的许多地区 , 但是在许多中东国家包括黎巴嫩，这种差距的程度还没有被研究。本研究试
39、图以评估的态度调查黎巴嫩的会计人员和非会计人员对审计行业的看法，由此揭示出可能存在的一个期望的差距。 2 期望差距 一个简短的背景 Liggio (1974) 被认为是第一个在审计工作中涉及到审计人员和财务报表使用者对审计 绩效的水平的理解之间产生差距而使用术语“期望差距”的人 (苏梅和 Woo,1998;西迪基和斯林 , 2004)。然而在这个术语出现之前已经存在了期6 望差距。爱泼斯坦和盖革 (1994)主张在美国很早以前审计期望差距就已经渗入到会计行业中了。汉弗莱和特利 (1992)也指出有历史表明期望差距的形成可以追溯到十九世纪公司审计的开始。最近的研究重心已经从评估期望差距的原因转移
40、到寻求期望差距存在的范围和最严重的领域。 先前的研究已经对什么是审计期望差距提出了不同的定义。盖伊和沙利文 (1988)表明审计期望差距是指公众认为的 审计师的职责与审计师自身认为的职责之间有差别。西卡等人 (1998) 定义审计期望差距是公众对审计的期望与审计人员的审计目标的差异。麦肯罗和马滕斯 (2001) 认为 审计期望差距是指财务报表使用者认为的审计职责与审计人员了解的职责之间有差距。公众期望审计人员能够揭露错误，可以评估管理绩效而审计人员考虑的是在评估财务报告时他们要坚持公正性 (Eden等 ,2003)。 波特 (1993) 评论之前的审计期望差距概念都没有考虑不符合标准的这种情况
41、。因此 ,她提出这种差距 ,更好的标题为审计期望绩效之间的差距 ,可以被定义为公 众对审计人员的期望和公众认为审计人员的绩效的差距。同样地 ,期望差距可以进一步地分成两个部分。第一个组成部分被命名为“合理差距”指的是公众期望审计师完成的与审计师可以完成的之间的差距。第二部分为“执行差距”指的是公众以合理的期望审计师去实现的成果与审计师可以达到的成果之间的差距。执行差距又分为两个部分，第一部分归因于不符合标准，而另一部分涉及到审计师执行能力的不足。 通过上述的区别 ,许多研究人员采用了期望差距是指公众和审计人员对审计职责的认识不同而产生差异这样一个概念 (格拉姆林等 ,1996;麦肯罗和马滕斯
42、,2001;西卡 等 ,1998;Monroe 和 Woodliff, 1994;苏梅和 Woo,1998;迪克森等 ,2006).一些学者同意波特 (1993)关于审计期望差距的组成部分与执行能力有关的观念 (谢赫和塔尔哈 , 2003).然而先前的探索性研究更多的集中于关于公众对审计工作的不合理期望有关的期望差距的概念 ,之后有越来越多的研究审计期望差距的潜在原因 (德马丁尼和伯罗斯 ,1996).审计工作正在试图保护本身 ,一直不断努力改正用户期望 ,最近已经实施了更多的措施去实现这些期望(Fadzly和艾哈迈德 , 2004). 一些作家批判了现代的审计期望差距的研究表明对审计职业的相
43、关问题的共识似乎产生了偏见。换句话说，例如西卡 等人 (1998)认为通过这个审计期望差距的研究学习到审计期望差距存在和唯一正确的解决方法是通过审计人员向社会公众宣传他们所扮演的角色和他们的职责去消除这个差距的。不管这些批评意见 , 在过去的几十年里可以说对审计期望差距的研究已经有了显著的发展。虽然早期的研究强调的是期望差距的潜在原因 ,最近的研究却更多的涉及到一些期望差距存在最多的领域的详细的问题。在过去的几年中已经开始找寻几7 个缩小审计期望差距的管理和专 业的解决方案。更多的研究需要去评估这样的举措能否缩小审计期望差距。 谢赫和塔尔哈 (2003) 说明过去的几年中除了增加公众对审计工作
44、的了解，还要强调缩小期望差距的要求。他们强调了教育的作用 ,同时也强调了应由专业会计机构与管理者一起缩小这个期望差距，从而避免发生安然和世通这样的事件。 3 期望差距的国际证据 对英国、美国、澳大利亚、新西兰、新加坡和其他地区的几项调查研究表明期望差距存在于不同期望背景下。结果表明这种差距存在的证据有很多。 例如巴罗内 等人 (1977)发现在美国审计人员和财务报表的使用者有关的审 计人员对于非法行为的责任之间存在着显著性差异。洛韦 (1994)的研究比较了我们审计师和司法部门对审计职业的态度，发现期望差距存在于审计人员和法官之间 , 对于后者的群体期望有更多的审计人员。爱泼斯坦和盖革 (19
45、94) 对 一群美国投资者的调查发现 ,他们有绝对保证有几乎一半的预期可以使审计人员到达更高的等级 , 不只有合理的 ,也保证不会出现重大的错报。他们表明这种差距可以部分地缩小通过教育公众关于审计工作的职责和内在局限性。 Frank 等 (2001) 发现我们观念中的审计师和与会计职业期望值有关的陪审员之间有一个 大的分歧。苏梅和 Woo (1998)表明先前的研究支持审计期望差距大量的存在。他们的结论肯定地给予了这个事实 ,他们认为这种差距应该通过降低公众的期望值和提高审计绩效来解决。麦肯罗和马滕斯 (2001) 还发现一个期望差距在审计师和投资者等项目之间 ,对于这些项目审计人员有责任发现
46、欺骗并且公告出来。他们认为教育是缩小这种差距的关键。 汉弗莱 等人 (1993) 在英国已经确定了期望差距的存在。 这个差距存在于多个领域 ,包括与审计师有关的欺诈行为的发觉和对第三者的审计责任的范围。Low (1980) 也揭示了在澳大利亚 存在着期望差距。他发现审计人员和非审计人员他们的观念里对于和欺诈的察觉相关的东西有明显的不同。波特 (1993) 也在新西兰确定了期望差距的存在 ,原因可能是除了来自于审计人员的不合理期望和他们不合格的绩效之外的不符合标准的情况产生的。此时，波特提出期望差距可能归因于很多的因素 ,当我们能够评估这个差距背后的原因时我们会获得很多。 Best等人 (200
47、1) 在新加坡的审计责任关于欺诈行为的障碍和检测、会计档案的维护、被审计公司由于不法行为和审计人员对工作流程的判断的自主性的领域找到显著的审计期望差距的证据。同样 在新加坡，苏梅和 Woo(2001) 调查了审计人员和公司的管理人员之间的期望差距，结果显示了在新加坡关于公司审计目标存在显著的期望差距。在一个孟加拉国的研究中，西迪斯和斯林 (2004) 8 发现存在与欺诈和审计师的责任有关的广泛的期望差距。 Fadzly 和艾哈迈德(2004)在马来西亚的一项最新研究发现存在着很大的审计期望差距和对审计的误解。他们发现审计期望差距的存在有明显的证据 ,主要涉及到对审计人员的责任。在南非尤其是审计
48、人员的舞弊方面也发现了审计期望差距 (麦克因尼斯 , 1994; Gloeck 和 雅格 , 1993)。 Leung和 Chau(2001) 发现香港的银行有较高的期望差距在审计人员的舞弊方面。迪克森等人 (2006) 在埃及发现有明显的审计期望差距的存在 ,尤其是在审计人员对舞弊的检举和预防的责任方面。 尽管我们对审计期望差距及其组成部分的认识有所提高 (波特 , 1993),许多的研究不可能全面地评价关于是否这些差距归因于不合理的期望或者是低于预期或者是没有达到合理的绩效。尽管在过去的几年中很多国家加大了对揭露差距存在的研究 ,但仍然有许多事情要去做，当谈到许多发展中国家时证据仍然不足。在这一背景下 ,该研究 旨在调查研究黎巴嫩的审计期望差距存在到达何种程度。
