Dinamika Audit Modern: Tinjauan Literatur tentang Kualitas Audit, Skeptisisme Auditor, Independensi, dan Konsekuensi Ekonomi dalam Era 2021–2025
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55606/jebaku.v5i3.5948Keywords:
Audit Digitization, Audit Quality, Auditor Independence, Economic Consequences, Professional SkepticismAbstract
This study aims to review the dynamics of modern auditing during the period 2021–2025 through a systematic literature review (SLR) approach to international studies that discuss audit quality, auditor independence, professional skepticism, and the economic consequences of audits. This study identified that audit quality is influenced by the interaction between internal factors—such as firm profitability, professional culture, and audit production design—with external factors such as regulation, market demand, and reputational pressure. Auditor independence remains a central issue, especially in the context of non-audit service delivery that raises a dilemma between objectivity and efficiency. Professional skepticism proves to be the primary protective mechanism in detecting material misrepresentation, while auditors' reputation contributes significantly to a decrease in the client's cost of capital. In the midst of digital transformation, auditors are faced with the demands of increasing technological competence and adjusting to risk-based regulations. Digitalization not only speeds up the audit process, but also expands expectations for transparency and accountability. These findings confirm that the future of auditing will be determined by the synergy between sustainable professionalism, adaptive regulation, and strategic use of technology. Thus, modern audits not only serve as a verification tool, but also as a strategic instrument in maintaining the integrity and credibility of global financial statements. This study makes a conceptual contribution to the development of audit policies and the establishment of standards of practice that are responsive to the dynamics of the contemporary business environment.
Downloads
References
Barbour, R. (2022). The future of audit: A personal perspective. International Journal of Auditing, 26(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12259
Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Sage.
Brandon, D. M., & Zhang, L. (2024). Do audit committees and auditors coordinate effort? Evidence from meeting minutes. The Accounting Review, 99(3), 349–378. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2022-043
Chen, C., Ding, Y., & Xu, Y. (2023). The impact of capital-market liberalization on audit reporting and pricing: Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Managerial Auditing Journal, 38(5), 733–757. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-04-2022-3533
Christensen, B. E., Glover, S. M., Omer, T. C., & Shelley, M. K. (2024). The economics of audit production: What matters for audit quality? The Accounting Review, 99(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2021-002
DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(81)90002-1
Erkens, D. H., Hung, M., & Matos, P. (2021). Economic consequences of mandatory auditor reporting to bank regulators. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 71(2–3), 101425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2021.101425
Francis, J. R., Pinnuck, M., & Watanabe, O. (2023). Audit-firm profitability: Determinants and implications for audit outcomes. European Accounting Review, 32(3), 567–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2023.2169735
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2021). Handbook of international quality control, auditing, review, other assurance, and related services pronouncements.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Lennox, C. S., & Li, B. (2025). Auditors’ reputational damage and audit clients’ cost of debt: Evidence from litigation against auditors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 44(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2308/AJPT-2021-074
Nelson, M. W., & Tan, H. T. (2025). Using field-based evidence to understand the antecedents to auditors’ skeptical actions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 44(1), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.2308/AJPT-2021-055
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Quick, R., & Warming-Rasmussen, B. (2022). Can prohibitions of non-audit services and an expanded auditor liability improve audit quality? International Journal of Auditing, 26(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12268
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2024, September 9). SEC approves PCAOB quality control standards. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2024-157
Velte, P. (2022). Auditors’ incentives and audit quality: Non-audit services versus contingent audit fees. European Accounting Review, 31(6), 1193–1215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2022.2066011
Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1986). Positive accounting theory. Prentice Hall.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jurnal Ekonomi Bisnis dan Akuntansi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.