{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014150943396226415, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.630208333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The problematical nature of auditor independence: a historical perspective

ABSTRACT Much of the utility of the external audit derives from a presumption that professional auditors are independent and will therefore provide impartial opinions – premises that have often been challenged in recent decades. Focusing initially on a nineteenth-century phenomenon, the ‘continuous audit’, this study provides a historical perspective for reviewing contemporary concerns with the audit function by revealing that failings in auditor independence date from the naissance of the professional audit. It is shown that the continuous audit served primarily the needs of management. That is, in modern parlance, it was a form of management consulting carried out under the guise of an independent service for the benefit of shareholders. Eventually this deception proved unsustainable as the emergent audit profession sought to strengthen its claim to independence and company managers sought more cost-effective means for the routine monitoring of operations. Lack of independence and conflict of interest persisted, however, continuing to be masked by a rhetorical discourse that protected the occupational territory and authority of the audit profession through to the present day.