English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Many prior research findings indicate that audit quality differs between the Big 4 and non-Big 4 audit firms using an indicator variable. However, most previous research focuses on only outcome measures, such as audit fees, going concern reports, and non-audit services. This study investigates audit quality differentiation between the Big 4 and non-Big 4 audit firms hypothesis from an audit objective point of view. One of the material objectives of Japanese internal control audit institutions is to facilitate assessment and improvement of internal controls by corporations themselves. The findings of this study indicate that the Big 4 audit firms accomplish this objective better than non-Big 4 audit firms. Consequently, most Big 4 clients do not disclose significant deficiencies (SDs), implying that they improve the quality of internal controls through internal controls auditing. This paper concludes that Big 4 firms produce a higher audit quality level than non-Big 4 firms, and this quality difference is related to how an audit objective is interpreted and implemented.

The Effect of Audit Objectives on Audit Quality—Why is There Little Disclosure of Significant Deficiencies in Japanese Internal Control Audits?