Corporate Governance and Auditor Independence in Saudi Arabia: Literature Review and Proposed Conceptual Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to propose a theoretical framework that explains the relationship between internal corporate governance mechanisms namely audit committee and board of directors, and auditor independence. It is a descriptive study that explored the Saudi corporate governance reforms and the Saudi auditing market. In recent years, Saudi Arabia has been pursuing corporate governance reforms, as evidenced by the setting up of the Capital Market Authority (CMA) in 2003 and the publication of the Saudi Corporate Governance Code (SCGC) in 2006. In the Saudi Organization for Certified Public Accountants (SOCPA), the accounting standards committee holds the responsibility of developing and reviewing accounting and auditing standards in the country. According to the agency theory, corporate governance mechanisms and external audit have a key role in improving the process of financial reporting. Basing the primary argument on the above premise, this study attempted to achieve the following objectives; 1) to explore the issue of auditor independence, and 2) to determine the extent of the effect of corporate practices in Saudi Arabia on the external audit independence. This conceptual work’s outcomes revealed that the regulatory authorities and the CMA have to expend more efforts to improve the awareness and appreciation level of effective corporate governance practices among major internal mechanisms (audit committee and board of directors) and external mechanisms (external auditors) of corporate governance in Saudi Arabia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".