Relationships Between Corporate Control Environment and Stakeholders That Mediate Pressure on Independent Auditors in France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to examine how relationships between corporate control environments and stakeholders mediate the different dimensions of pressure on auditor independence. In France, two (joint) auditors are required by law for listed companies. In this context, we analyze the experiences of higher-echelon professionals of audit firms, controllers, and managers who could elucidate the essence of pressure on auditor independence in their lived environment. An interpretative approach and empirical analysis were adopted for this study to expand on the literature and proffer an answer to the following research question: How does the relationship between a control environment and a stakeholder mediate the pressures on auditor independence? Interviews involved seven participants, mainly higher-echelon professionals of Big Four firms, as well as two members of auditee organizations, and a member of an audit committee. In addition, the narratives from the documents gathered from the EU audit legislation implementation database constitute our data corpus. Thematic coding was used to organize the results. The findings reveal that control environment best practices and down-to-earth corporate governance policies, participated in by both auditors and audited organizations, cushion the pressures on auditors. This, in turn, presents a positive and significant impact on auditor independence. Overall, the dimensions that mediate the pressures on auditors are as follows: the consciousness of pressure in itself; the reputation and experience of the audit firm; and the interactions between the auditors and corporate governance. Other factors include the cordiality of the relationship between the auditor and corporate management and the resulting healthy end of the negotiation between auditors and auditees. This study contributes to the theory and practical discussion of the relationships between the corporate control environment, corporate governance, auditing, and pressure on auditor independence.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".