Olena
Antoniuk
National
University of Water and Environmental Engineering, Ukraine
E-mail: olenaproaudit@gmail.com
Natalya
Kuzyk
National
University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine
E-mail: kuzyk.n.p@nubip.edu.ua
Iryna
Zhurakovska
Lutsk
National Technical University, Ukraine
E-mail: i.zhurakovska@lntu.edu.ua
Roman
Sydorenko
Lutsk
National Technical University, Ukraine
E-mail: rom.sydorenko@gmail.com
Liudmyla
Sakhno
Dmitry
Motornyi Tavriya State Agrotechnological University, Ukraine
E-mail: sakhnolyudmila5@gmail.com
Submission: 8/21/2020
Revision: 8/31/2020
Accept: 9/8/2020
ABSTRACT
The authors conducted a study aimed to identify the role of «Big Four» («Big 4») audit firms in the public procurement market in Ukraine.The purpose of the article is to answer the questions: whether Ukraine is in a general trend of most countries in the concentration of audit market; what is the share of revenues of the «Big Four» audit firms in the performance of audit services in the public procurement system in Ukraine. First of all, in order to get answers to these questions, the authors conducted a study of the main trends in the development of the «Big Four» companies in Ukraine. It was found that the characteristic competitive environment in the market of audit services, the impact on competitiveness of pricing policy and regulatory requirements, relating to the acquisition of audit services by public sector entities through a public procurement system "ProZorro". An element of price regulation and compliance with the transparent conditions of the competitive environment is the participation of audit firms in the public procurement system. As a result of processing data on procurement of audit services for the period 2008-2019, the authors calculated key indicators that characterize the concentration of the audit market. Based on the data on the amount of remuneration for various types of audit services using the public procurement system "ProZorro", aspects of pricing policy and the role of the companies of the "Big Four" in the market were established. The values indexes indicate that the companies of the «Big 4» do not have a complete monopoly in the segment of procurement of audit services, having certain dominant positions in some years, and the indexes indicate a trend towards effective competition in the audit services market in Ukraine.
Keywords: Audit; Audit services; Audit market concentration; Public procurement market
1.
INTRODUCTION
The issues of the development of audit services on the quantitative and qualitative indicators remain the subject of consideration of scientists in many countries of the world. The «Big four» accountants continue to dominate the UK auditing market. EY, KPMG, PwC, and Deloitte — collectively known as the «Big Four» («Big 4») — audited 81.8% of all UK-listed businesses in 2018, according to figures from the Financial Reporting Council (FRC). The «Big four» also audited 100% of the FTSE 100, Britain’s 100 biggest listed businesses, up from 99% in 2017.
Scientific publications testify to
the research of the market of audit services in the Anglo-Saxon countries, but
to date, only a few studies are focused on the European countries. Attention is
paid to the study of the changes in the market of audit services in Ukraine.
However, in each country, the development of the market acquires national
peculiarities and characteristics. Evidence for this is the publication of
scientists from many countries devoted to the identification of trends in the
development of audit and other audit services.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
There is a serious problem of pricing of audit services, namely in terms of methods of determining it. There is no single system for calculating the cost of audit firm services in Ukraine, so auditors use their own pricing systems. Also, the large number of auditors in the market causes a decrease in the price of audit services due to the competition, which leaves the issue of pricing relevant. This is a factor of competition, an element of legal regulation, the basis for determining the quality of services based on the market value for money.
Prices have a significant effect on the independence of the auditor, especially when the price is a significant part of the total fees of the audit firm, as there is dependence on such a client and the risk of losing it.
A separate
area of research carried out by researchers abroad is related to
the analysis of the relationship between the size of the audit firm, quality of
services and pricing policy. Thus, the authors
(CHOI et al., 2010) using the
results of audit firms in the US over a five-year period found that
the size of the audit firm is a specific factor influencing the quality and
rewards at the level of audit firms and at the level of the territory of
activity. The size of the audit firm affects the number of clients, as well as
the fees received.
The results showed a close relationship between the size of the audit firm and the revenue received, and large branches of audit firms provide higher quality services compared to small local offices of audit firms. A study on the relationship between audit fees and audit quality (CHOI; KIM; ZANG, 2010) in 2010 indicates that there is no significant relationship between audit fees and the quality of audit services. The results of another study suggest those auditors' incentives to refrain from bias in the formulation of audit reports may vary depending on whether clients pay more or less than the usual fee for audit services.
The
direction of foreign scholars in the study of pricing in the field of audit
services concerns the analysis of the organizational and legal form of the
client and the impact on the formation of the value of audit services (BILLINGS; XINGHUA; JIA, 2014), as well as the type of
audit services, in particular the study of Bloomfield and Shackman
(2008), Cahan et al. (2008).
In the geographical
context, the issues of pricing policy of audit services are relevant for
scholars from different countries, including Great Britain, Germany (BIGUS; ZIMMERMANN, 2008), New Zealand (ZHANG; EMANUEL, 2008) and others. In general,
such studies lead scientists to the conclusion that it is necessary to develop
a model for pricing audit services.
Particular emphasis on the
role of audit committees in selecting audit firms and agreeing on the cost of
audit services is made in the work of Aboott et al. (2010).
Some authors, Adelopo (2009) among them,
present the results of research on the existence of a positive relationship
between the cost of audit services and the cost of other audit services
provided by auditors to the client.
Authors Ojala et al. (2014) analyzed the relationship between audit
quality and the affiliation of audit firms. Yes, there is conflicting evidence
on this issue.
On
the one hand, audit firms have better knowledge of regional issues and provide
more services and advice than auditing financial statements.
On
the other hand, the authors suggest that when «Big Four» companies serve small clients, they do not
entrust this work to key auditors or transfer orders from one employee to
another, which cannot be considered as quality improvement. In contrast, other
audit firms are more careful about serving small clients, which correlate with
improved service delivery.
According
to Bierstaker,
Houston and Wright (2006) over the past
25 years, the audit environment has been intensely competitive as a result of
bidding, advertising and consolidation. In the past, many observers and
independent commissions responsible for evaluating the audit profession have
argued that a stable market, or even falling markets, has forced auditors to
rely heavily on other lucrative audit services, such as consulting, taxation,
but which can also raise the question of the independence of the auditor.
The purpose of the article is to answer
the questions: whether Ukraine is in a general trend of most countries in the
concentration of audit market; what is the share of revenues of the «Big Four» audit firms in the performance of audit
services in the public procurement system in Ukraine
3.
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
This theoretical paper is based on the study of literature about audit market concentration in Ukrane and the role of «Big 4» companies, namely in the public procurement market.
The main research methods are abstract-logical for theoretical generalizations of scientific research results and formulation of conclusions, economic and statistical calculations of concentration indices, Herfindahl-Hirschman index, entropy index to study the dynamics and the structure of the audit market. The publications on the previos year about audit market concentration and regulatory documents in Ukraine was adopted as a basis in order to form the hypothesis.
The article presents results of the empirical study, which used the official statistical information from special resourse «ProZorro» (DATABASE PROZORRO, 2020) during 2008-2019 years, as well as research of legal documents and documents of the professional organization of auditors of Ukraine (AUDIT CHAMBER OF UKRAINE, 2020). The introduction of e-procurement in Ukraine, including auditing services, using the «ProZorro» has enabled small and medium-sized businesses to participate in tenders, which has increased competition between participants, including «Big 4» audit companies. Thus, sources of information were obtained for further comparison.
Using the static database that characterizes the market of audit services in Ukraine, the indehes of consentration were established.
The research was quite representative to show the impact of big audit firm («Big 4») in the public procurement market in Ukraine. Thus, sources of information were obtained for further conclusions.
The market audit and audit services market in Ukraine has its own national and regional features, as it is represented by domestic and international audit firms, as it was mentioned in previous work of Khorunzhak et al. (2020).
The «Big Four» companies also operate in Ukraine.
Official data of the Audit Chamber of Ukraine (AUDIT CHAMBER OF UKRAINE, 2020) indicate an uneven distribution of audit services provided by audit firms (auditors), as well as significant fluctuations in the number and cost of services in different regions, which in most cases depends on the concentration of industrial enterprises, solvency of audit clients and their understanding of cost and the quality of audit services.
Most of the audit firms in Ukraine determine the cost of audit services based on the time spent by auditors required for the quality implementation of a particular type of work or service, their complexity and urgency. The scope of work depends on the complexity of the task, type and field of activity of the business entity, the quality of the organization of accounting and the work of its accounting service, the number of primary documents, the presence of atypical or specific business transactions, etc. It is a part of the management, especially for small audit firms (RODRIGUES, 2013).
Despite the significant influence of the
representatives of the "Big Four" on the competition and the
structure of the audit services market in Ukraine, their corporate strategies,
positioning and competitiveness indicators of domestic scientists have not been
studied. The strategies of audit firms, or rather networks of independent audit
firms united under multinational brands, can be most fully analyzed in Ukraine,
which allows to assess their effectiveness and identify shortcomings and
reasons for their loss of competitiveness. Revenues of each of the four
companies during 2016–2018 steady growth (table 1).
At the same time, during 2016–2018, the rating of
brands by income level remained unchanged:
Table 1: Revenues of the Big Four companies for the
period 2016-2018, billion dollars
Company |
Income received, billion dollars |
||
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
|
Deloitte |
36,9 |
38,8 |
43,2 |
PwC |
35,4 |
37,7 |
41,3 |
Ernst&Young |
29,6 |
31,4 |
34,8 |
KPMG |
25,4 |
26,4 |
28,9 |
Total |
127,3 |
134,3 |
148,2 |
Source: Big 4 Accounting Firms Ranking (2019)
Regulators
around the world and especially in Europe struggle with difficulties in the
development of competition due to the large differences in the workload of the «Big Four» and mid-level audit firms.
For
example, UK regulators have repeatedly tried to address this issue, but have
not been able to find concrete solutions. In the UK, the Audit Competition
Commission has been set up according to which it is difficult for companies to
compare alternatives to existing auditor.
Because of this they prefer continuity of work with a single auditor to
incurring significant costs when changing auditors. In the process, companies
invest in a relationship of mutual trust and confidence. They do not want to
leave a long –team relationship, which will lead to the loss of the benefits of
continuity.
Big
Four audit firms dominate the markets, and firms outside of this group find it
difficult to demonstrate sufficient experience and, knowledge, and get contract
as a result. According to research by
the British Competition Commission on the auditing profession, evidence of the
so-called "restrictive conditions" is published, when the company's
management is not allowed to choose auditors from among firms that are not part
of the "Big Four".
The issue of
setting the price for audit services remains an urgent problem. The presence of
a different price range for the same service raises a number of questions in
terms of the laws of the market, so the lack of mechanisms for setting the
price of the audit complicates the understanding of its value to the client and
slows down the ordering process.
The
lack of both, national practical experience and the theoretical developments on
this issue necessitates the analysis of approaches to its solution, taking into
account the experience of other countries.
The
lack of sufficient theoretical work on this issue requires an analysis of
approaches to determining the value of not only the audit of financial
statements, but also audit services.
The
importance of considering this issue is emphasized by the adoption of the Law
of Ukraine "On Auditing of Financial Statements and Auditing" dated
21.12.2017, № 2258-VIII, where the cost of audit services is subject to
regulation much more widely than in the previous version.
The
study of articles of the Law of Ukraine "On Audit of Financial Statements
and Auditing" indicates the following aspects that need to be considered
by the auditors in the formation of the cost of audit services:
·
the contract for the provision of audit services provides
for the client, scope of audit services, amount and terms of payment;
·
formation of the amount of the contribution as a
percentage of the amount of remuneration under each contract for the provision
of audit services for mandatory audit to other legal entities which are not
enterprises of public interest;
·
application by auditing entities of the remuneration
policy for personnel involved in the performance of statutory audit tasks,
which would provide incentives to ensure the quality of work. At the same time,
it is necessary to differentiate fees for services not related to the mandatory
audit of financial statements and not to take them into account when forming
the price of the audit for the client;
·
personal records must be kept for each client whose
financial statements are audited, which must include the amount of remuneration
received for statutory audit services and remuneration received for other
services in each financial year;
·
taking into account the restrictions associated with
the fee for the audit of financial statements from one client and the
simultaneous provision of non-audit services;
·
taking into account the restrictions associated with
the formation of the total amount of remuneration received from the company of
public interest for each of the last three years in a row;
·
a ban on the provision of services for the statutory
audit of financial statements to an enterprise of public interest, if the total
amount of remuneration received from this enterprise annually exceeds 15
percent of the total net income from the provision of services by such audit
entity for five years in a row;
· imposition of a
fine on the subject of audit activity, which is determined from the amount of
the remuneration under the contract for the provision of audit services;
· the auditing
entity that conducts a mandatory audit of the financial statements must have
contract of civil liability insurance to third parties. The minimum amount of
insurance should be 10 percent of the amount of remuneration received under contracts
for the provision of audit services for statutory audit.
The
introduction of e-procurement in Ukraine, including auditing services, using
the public procurement system "ProZorro",
has enabled small and medium-sized businesses to participate in tenders, which
has increased competition between participants. All interested parties were
given access to monitoring the procurement process, and participants were given
the opportunity to appeal unfair decisions. Based on the data on the amount of
remuneration for various types of audit services using the public procurement
system "ProZorro", aspects of pricing
policy and the role of the companies of the "Big Four" in the market
were established (Table 1, Figure 1).
For this purpose, special indices were calculated: concentration indexes, Herfindahl-Hirschman index and entropy index.
Concentration index
Herfindahl-Hirschman
index
Industry concentration index
Entropy index
The
industry concentration index is useful for assessing the relationship between
market share fluctuations and the absolute importance of the share of the
largest market participant; in our case we are interested in the companies of
the «Big 4». The value of this index can be in the
range from 0 to 1, and the higher the value of the coefficient, the more
monopolized the market.
Thus, the concentration index
characterizes the inequality in the market, and depending on the values of the
market concentration ratio is divided into four groups:
1)
complete monopoly at coefficient values of
about 100%;
2)
the dominance of individual firms with
coefficient values from 50 to 90%;
3)
limited oligopoly with a coefficient of
50-60%;
4)
effective competition when the value of
the coefficient is less than 40%.
Additional
to use within the study is the entropy index, which allows reducing the
importance of market shares of large companies, to assess the importance of
small and medium-sized companies in the market of procurement of audit
services. The higher the value of the entropy index, the higher the level of
uncertainty from the economic point of view in the market and the lower the
probability of monopoly formation.
To
assess the level of monopolization of the audit services market on the public
procurement platform in Ukraine, the Herfindahl-Hirschman
index also used: (0 - minimum concentration, 0-0.1 - low concentration; from
0.10 to 0.18 average level of concentration, more than 0.18 - high level of
concentration).
Table 2: Indicators of
the Big Four companies in the process of procurement of audit services and
audit services in Ukraine, thousand UAH
Year |
Ernst & Young (Ukraine department) |
KPMG (Ukraine department) |
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (Ukraine department) |
PricewaterhouseCoopers ( Ukraine department) |
«Big 4», total |
Other firms |
Total |
«Big 4»,% |
2008 |
2510 |
- |
- |
- |
2510 |
14353,1 |
19373,1 |
12,96 |
2009 |
8592 |
990,8 |
- |
- |
9582,8 |
7105,8 |
26271,4 |
36,48 |
2010 |
2222 |
3500 |
- |
- |
5722 |
1719,5 |
13163,5 |
43,47 |
2011 |
17000 |
- |
- |
- |
17000 |
2427 |
36427 |
46,67 |
2012 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
7710,3 |
7710,3 |
0,00 |
2013 |
22568,9 |
- |
- |
- |
22568,9 |
1234 |
46371,8 |
48,67 |
2014 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
160 |
160 |
0,00 |
2015 |
19807,9 |
- |
- |
- |
19807,9 |
289,6 |
39905,4 |
49,64 |
2016 |
4440 |
- |
6597 |
11580 |
22617 |
5701,5 |
50935,5 |
44,40 |
2017 |
28318,6 |
7577,2 |
4150 |
- |
40045,8 |
23810,1 |
103901,7 |
38,54 |
2018 |
82321 |
- |
12564 |
- |
94885 |
32332,6 |
222102,6 |
42,72 |
2019 |
622,1 |
- |
- |
622,1 |
10575,1 |
11819,3 |
5,26 |
Source: compiled by the authors on the
basis of DATABASE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT SYSTEM «PROZORRO», Ukraine (2020)
The
concentration index characterizes the position of the largest audit firms in
the audit services market. The values of this index indicate that
the companies of the «Big 4» do not have a complete monopoly in the segment of procurement of audit
services, having certain dominant positions in some years, and the index
indicates a trend towards effective competition in the audit services market in
Ukraine.
The values of the Herfindahl-Hirschman index also confirm this conclusion,
indicating the average level of monopolization of the industry, and in some
years with a tendency to low (Table 2).
Figure 1: Participation of the «Big 4» audit firms in the process of procurement of audit and audit services in 2008-2018
Source: compiled by the authors on the basis of DATABASE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT SYSTEM «PROZORRO», Ukraine (2020)
Table 3: Concentration indexes
Year |
Concentration index, (CR4), % |
Herfindahl-Hirschman index (ННІ) |
Industry concentration index (CCI) |
Entropy index, % |
Concentration indexes
( the
indicator «Revenue») |
||||
2008 |
12,96 |
0,017 |
0,130 |
6,62 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
2009 |
36,48 |
0,108 |
0,330 |
12,23 |
2010 |
43,47 |
0,099 |
0,291 |
16,31 |
2011 |
46,67 |
0,218 |
0,467 |
8,89 |
2012 |
0,00 |
0,000 |
0,000 |
0,00 |
2013 |
48,67 |
0,237 |
0,487 |
8,76 |
2014 |
0,00 |
0,000 |
0,000 |
0,00 |
2015 |
49,64 |
0,246 |
0,496 |
8,69 |
2016 |
44,40 |
0,076 |
0,210 |
20,35 |
2017 |
38,54 |
0,081 |
0,286 |
16,85 |
2018 |
42,72 |
0,141 |
0,377 |
13,26 |
Concentration indexes
(the indicator «Тоtal of orders») |
||||
2008 |
33,33 |
0,111 |
0,333 |
9,16 |
2009 |
33,33 |
0,062 |
0,246 |
14,46 |
2010 |
40,00 |
0,100 |
0,319 |
14,79 |
2011 |
50,00 |
0,250 |
0,500 |
8,66 |
2012 |
0,00 |
0,000 |
0,000 |
0,00 |
2013 |
25,00 |
0,063 |
0,250 |
8,66 |
2014 |
0,00 |
0,000 |
0,000 |
0,00 |
2015 |
33,33 |
0,111 |
0,333 |
9,16 |
2016 |
22,86 |
0,020 |
0,088 |
14,38 |
2017 |
7,26 |
0,002 |
0,042 |
6,46 |
2018 |
5,20 |
0,002 |
0,046 |
4,30 |
Source: compiled by the authors on the basis of DATABASE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT SYSTEM «PROZORRO», Ukraine (2020)
5.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based
on the data on the amount of remuneration for various types of audit services
using the public procurement system «ProZorro», aspects of
pricing policy and the role of the companies of the "Big Four" in the
market were established.
The
concentration indexes characterize the position of the largest audit firms in
the audit services market.
The
values indexes indicate that the companies of the «Big 4» do not have a complete monopoly in the
segment of procurement of audit services, having certain dominant positions in
some years, and the indexes indicate a
trend towards effective competition in the audit services market in Ukraine.
The
values of the Herfindahl-Hirschman index also confirm
this conclusion, pointing to the average level of monopolization of the
industry, and in some years with a tendency to low.
Competition
forces to maintain the qualifications of staff, to attract employees of the
firm who are best suited for the tasks, and, therefore, training is one of the
most important factors in the competitiveness of the firm. Performing certain
types of tasks requires special skills, may be associated with hiring auditors
with special skills, which affects the ability to perform and offer the service
which adds arguments for staff development.
The
personnel issue remains to be difficult one, as training and professional
growth of staff can affect a firm's ability to maintain consistent
productivity. Audit firms can ensure their level of productivity by training
employees with a strong initial training period. However, competition is
beneficial and forces mid-level audit firms to be competitive by providing
services other than auditing.
ABBOTT, L. J.; PARKER, S.; PETERS, G. F.; RAGHUNANDAN, K. (2010) An Empirical Investigation of Audit Fees, Nonaudit
Fees, and Audit Committees. Contemporary Accounting
Research, v. 20, n. 2, p. 215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1506/8YP9-P27G-5NW5-DJKK.
ADELOPO, I. (2009) Modelling issues in the relationship between audit and non-audit fees. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, v. 10, n. 2, р. 96-108. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1283099. Access: 11 June 2020.
ANTONIUK, O.; CHYZHEVSKA, L.; SEMENYSHENA, N. (2019). Legal regulation and trends of
Audit services: what are the differences (evidence of Ukraine). Independent Journal of Management &
Production, v. 10, n. 7, 673-686. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v10i7.903.
AUDIT CHAMBER OF UKRAINE (2020) Reports of the Audit Chamber of Ukraine to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Available: <http:// www.apu.com.ua/zvit-do-kmu>. Access: 1th June, 2020
BEATTIE, V.; FEAMLEY, S. (2002). Auditor Independence and Non-Audit
Services: a Literature Review. Institute of Chartered
Accountants in England & Wales: London, UK. ISBN 9781841521381.
Available: http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/33531/.
Access: 10 June 2020.
BIERSTAKER, J; HOUSTON, R.; WRIGHT, A. (2006) The Impact of competition on audit planning, review and performance. Journal of Accounting Literature, v. 25, n. 1, p. 1-58. Available: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285696970_The_impact_of_competition_on_audit_planning_review_and_performance>. Access: 18 June 2020.
BIG 4 ACCOUNTING FIRMS RANKING (2019). Available: <https://big4accountingfirms.com/big-4-accounting-firms-ranking>. Access: 16 June 2020.
BIGUS, J.;
ZIMMERMANN, R-C. (2008) Non‐Audit
Fees, Market Leaders and Concentration in the German Audit Market: A
Descriptive Analysis. International journal of Auditing, v. 12, n. 3, p. 159-179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-1123.2008.00378.x
BILLINGS, B. A.;
XINGHUA, G. X.; JIA, Y. (2014)
CEO and CFO equity incentives and the pricing of audit services. Auditing: a Journal of Practice
& Theory, v. 33, n. 2. P. 800-817. DOI: 10.1108/MAJ-08-2014-1063.
BLOOMFIELD, D.; SHACKMAN, J. (2008) Non-audit services fees, auditor characteristics and earnings restatements. Managerial Auditing Journal, v. 23, n. 2, p. 125-141. Available: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227429781_Non-audit_service_fees_auditor_characteristics_and_earnings_restatements>. Access: 19 June 2020.
CAHAN, S.F.; GODFREY, J.M.; HAMILTON, J.; JETER, D.C. (2008) Auditor Specialization, Auditor Dominance, and Audit Fees: The Role of Investment Opportunities. The Accounting Review, v. 83, n. 6, p. 1393-1423. DOI: 10.2307/30243801
CHOI, J.-H.; KIM, J.-B.; ZANG, Y. (2010) Do abnormally high audit fees impair audit guality? Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, v. 29, n. 2, p. 115-140. Research Collection School Of Accountancy. Available: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soa_research/12. Access: 25 June 2020.
DATABASE PROZORRO (2020) Public procurement system «ProZorro».Available: https://e-tender.ua/prozoro?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyPz05Nb-6gIVSNiyCh1X2gmSEAAYASAAEgKG3fD_BwE. Access: 27 June 2020.
KHORUNZHAK, N.; BELOVA, I.; ZAVYTII, O.; TOMCHUK, V.;
FABIIANSKA, V.
(2020) Quality control of auditing: Ukrainian
prospects. Independent Journal of Management & Production, v. 11, n. 8, p. 712-726. DOI:10.14807/ijmp.v11i8.1229.
OJALA, H.; NISKANEN, M.; COLLIS, J.; PAJUNEN, K.
(2014) Audit quality and decision-making in small companies. Managerial Auditing
Journal,v. 29, n. 9, p. 817-800. DOI: 10.1108/MAJ-08-2014-1063.
RODRIGUES, P. C. C. (2013) Studying the stocks management of a small company of the services. Independent
Journal of Management & Production,
v. 4, n. 1, p. 71-95. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v4i1.49.
SLOBODYANIK, Y.; KONDRIUK, L.;
HAIBURA, Y. (2019) The strategy of institutional reform
of the supreme audit institution: the case of Ukraine. Independent Journal of
Management & Production, 10(7), 872-896. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14807/ijmp.v10i7.916.
TEPALAGUL, N.; LIN, L. (2015) Auditor
independence and audit quality: a literature review. Journal of Accounting,
Auditing & Finance, v.
30, n. 1, p. 101-121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X14544505.
ZHANG B.; EMANUEL, D. (2008) The provision of non-audit services and earnings conservatism: Do New
Zealand auditors compromise their independence? Accounting
Research Journal,
v. 21, n. 2, p. 195-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/10309610810905953.