Government Audit Materiality (Part One): How and Why is It Different from Corporate Audit Materiality – A Theoretical Matrix on Three Materiality Differences and Corresponding Contextual Reasons
Yining Zhou
Abstract
Open-access reader
Yining Zhou
Abstract
Open-access reader
This research is to explore materiality concept in government audit. Based on a case study on a local government audit office, this research discovers that: in judging material information, government audit differs significantly from corporate audit on three aspects, ‘tight materiality thresholds’, ‘focus on qualitative considerations’, and ‘income and expenditure as materiality-focused subjects’. And furthermore, it argues that these sharp differences result from inherent contextual situations in government audit: pressure from public accountability; high auditor status; power in collecting evidence; and public stakeholder interests. The outcome of the research conveys a message: materiality is contextual. It is uneasy, unreasonable and unnecessary to copy directly from corporate materiality models or guidelines to government audit; rather, the study on governmental context itself is necessary and unavoidable in developing government audit materiality guidelines.
OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This research is to explore materiality concept in government audit. Based on a case study on a local government audit office, this research discovers that: in judging material information, government audit differs significantly from corporate audit on three aspects, ‘tight materiality thresholds’, ‘focus on qualitative considerations’, and ‘income and expenditure as materiality-focused subjects’. And furthermore, it argues that these sharp differences result from inherent contextual situations in government audit: pressure from public accountability; high auditor status; power in collecting evidence; and public stakeholder interests. The outcome of the research conveys a message: materiality is contextual. It is uneasy, unreasonable and unnecessary to copy directly from corporate materiality models or guidelines to government audit; rather, the study on governmental context itself is necessary and unavoidable in developing government audit materiality guidelines.
Key concepts: Materiality (auditing), Audit, Accounting, Stakeholder, Business, Public relations, Sociology, Political science