Proceedings

indicators reducing audit quality), and also to their incapacity to determine the
solution for audit quality improvement (Sutton, 1993). In this sense, the last quoted
author tried to validate a number of key factors on which audit quality depends. He
identified 19 factors. Further, Manita (2008) developed a tool for assessing audit
quality which is composed of 49 quality indicators assigned to different stages of
auditing. The author shows clearly that audit process is a complex one which needs to
be understood and observed on several dimensions. Manita’s study (2008) proves the
fact that the quality of audit process is not tributary only to technical aspects
characterizing auditors, but also to their quality characteristics (independence,
competence, expertise, ethics) as well as to organizational characteristics of audit
firms (audit team, organization of audit mission etc.). However, it is necessary to
specify the fact that the quoted study refers to a period prior to SOX introduction; this
event forced listed companies to establish audit committees. Manita has realized a
quantitative research using a sample of auditors which could not have had the same
education and perception on audit quality, as future audit committees’ members.
Cohen et al. (2002) interviewed 36 auditors in connection with corporate governance
influence on audit process, including the role of audit committees. After the
interviews, he concluded that auditors perceive management as the main header of
corporate governance. An important number of auditors interviewed considered audit
committees weak and ineffective. However, financial scandals and particularly the
failure of Arthur Andersen auditing firm, confirmed the insufficiency of this indirect
approach of audit assessment. Therefore, subsequent authors have addressed this
research question from a different perspective in order to make clear the way by
which this control system could be effective. They also intended to clarify audit
committee’s relevance for contributing to the reduction of audit failures. In this
respect, the paper draws attention to the need for studying an important aspect which
could influence the quality of financial information: that of communication and
collaboration between auditors and audit committees (Spira, 2003; Turley & Zaman,
2007). It seems that companies’ owners are very sensitive about the way in which
auditors communicate with audit committee’s members, about the identified risks and
the released results. On the other hand, this paper highlights the idea that audit
committees’ members prove respect to those auditors that take into account the risks
in question and the sensitive areas noticed during the audit process. This fact denotes,
in the eyes of audit committees’ members, the effectiveness and competence of
auditors.
This part of the present study concludes that company’s integrity depends, to some
extent, on the independence and competence of audit committees’ members.
However, independence and competence are not the only criteria to be taken into
account in measuring the quality of audit process.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
By making a review of literature addressing audit committee’s theme, I arrived to
better understand the audit committee’s role but also to propose some solutions for
improving financial information quality. This paper also takes into account the
problem of increasing the accuracy, integrity and conformity of financial statements
transmitted to the users from all levels. Audit committee has preoccupied researchers
for a long time. However, by studying a large part of the published works on this
subject, I noticed almost the absence of clear solutions concerning the effective
~ 27 ~