首页> 外文期刊>Organization Studies >Can Audit (Still) be Trusted?
【24h】

Can Audit (Still) be Trusted?

机译:审核(仍然)可以信任吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This paper analyses audit as an exemplar of an expert system. The paper explores the premise that systemic trust in audit has been damaged and requires repair, looking specifically at the role of the institutionalized mechanism of the public inquiry. This is examined empirically in relation to the interaction between the heads of the Big Four accounting firms in the UK and the House of Lords Economic Select Committee in the course of the recent parliamentary investigation into the UK audit market, prompted by the global financial crisis. In particular, the paper seeks to understand how there can be transfer of trust, following Sztompka (1999), between different levels and between agents in a system. In this case, the Big Four - as privileged market participants - require re-legitimation from agents that are part of the political and legal apparatus. We therefore argue that re-legitimation of the Big Four's privileged market position is dependent on transfer of trust.
机译:本文将审计作为专家系统的范例进行分析。本文探讨了前提,即对审计的系统信任已被破坏并且需要修复,特别是着眼于公共调查制度化机制的作用。在最近由全球金融危机引发的议会对英国审计市场的调查中,对英国四大会计师事务所负责人与上议院经济选择委员会负责人之间的互动关系进行了经验检验。特别是,本文试图理解遵循Sztompka(1999),如何在系统中的不同级别之间以及代理之间进行信任转移。在这种情况下,作为特权市场参与者的四大巨头需要从作为政治和法律机构一部分的代理商那里重新合法化。因此,我们认为,“四大”特权市场地位的重新合法化取决于信任的转移。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号