Ethical issues related to the provision of audit and non-audit services: Evidence from academic research

Audit standards require auditors to conduct audits being independent in mental attitude from their clients. Regulators and financial statement users are concerned that auditors compromise their independence by allowing clients that contract for consulting services, i.e., non-audit services, more financial statement discretion relative to clients that demand relatively little nonaudit services from their auditor. This paper begins by discussing the role of auditing in the capital markets and the various stakeholders that rely on audited financial information in making their capital allocation decisions. The paper continues by explaining the ethical dilemma inherent in audit contracts in general, and more specifically, how the provision of non-audit services threatens auditor independence. The paper concludes by summarizing research studies that report conflicting evidence that there is a violation of auditor independence due to the provision of non-audit services to audit clients.