Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Sasan Habibi ¹
• Rezvan Hejazi ¹
• nezam addhn rahimian ¹
• morteza asadi ²
• liela zamani ¹

¹ Department of Accounting and Auditing, Faculty of Management and Financial Sciences, Khatam University, Tehran, Iran

² Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Society of Certified Public Accountants ,Tehran , Iran

Abstract

The reporting of Key Audit Matters (KAMs) represents a fundamental shift in modern auditing standards, aimed at enhancing the transparency of financial reports and improving communication between auditors and stakeholders. Despite the mandatory adoption of International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 701 in Iran, there is a noticeable lack of a localized and coherent framework that captures the economic, cultural, and professional complexities affecting the KAM reporting process. This gap has led to operational and judgmental challenges, undermining the effective implementation of the standard. Therefore, this study aims to develop and present a comprehensive model for KAM reporting from the perspective of auditors in Iran.
 

Introduction

Despite the many benefits of reporting on key audit matters, the implementation of this standard in practice faces several challenges. These challenges at the global level include the complexity of identifying and selecting key audit matters, the balance between transparency and confidentiality, professional pressures and stakeholder expectations, implementation costs, and cultural-supervisory differences. However, the global literature has been produced mainly in the context of stable economies with integrated supervisory systems, and its direct generalizability to unconventional economic-political environments (such as Iran, which is affected by international sanctions, chronic inflation, and currency fluctuations) is theoretically uncertain and, in practice, requires testing and adjustment.
In Iran, given the adoption of the ISA701 standard by the Auditing Organization since 1401, these challenges have taken on a different and more complex form in the context of specific economic conditions (such as chronic inflation, currency fluctuations, and sanctions) and the characteristics of the auditing profession (such as differences in the level of preparedness of audit firms, conservative culture, and regulatory restrictions). Therefore, relying solely on foreign literature and models without considering these local factors can lead to a formal and ineffective implementation of the standard.

Methodology

This study employed a mixed-method sequential exploratory design. In the qualitative phase, a grounded theory methodology was used. The qualitative population consisted of technical managers, senior executives, board members of the Audit Organization, partners and managers of Tehran Stock Exchange-approved audit firms, and audit committee members of listed companies, selected through theoretical sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data analysis was performed through open, axial, and selective coding, leading to the development of a conceptual paradigm model. Subsequently, this model was tested in the quantitative phase using 130 valid questionnaires. In the quantitative phase, a researcher-made questionnaire was developed directly from the qualitative findings, including Likert-scale items, open-ended questions, and scenario-based questions. The questionnaire was distributed among senior auditors and audit managers from the Audit Organization and audit firms.

Findings

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the research hypotheses. The qualitative analysis identified five main categories within a paradigm model, including causal conditions, contextual conditions, intervening conditions, strategies, and consequences. The core phenomenon was identified as "Key Audit Matters Reporting." The quantitative results confirmed that legal requirements and professional judgment (causal conditions) have a positive and significant effect on the KAM reporting process. Furthermore, strategies such as interaction with the audit committee and enhancing transparency lead to two distinct types of consequences: internal consequences (including increased audit fees, extended audit time, and improved documentation quality) and external consequences (including reduced information asymmetry, strengthened investor confidence, and enhanced professional legitimacy). The distinction between these two categories shows that despite the cost-intensive nature of this process for audit firms (internal consequences), its achievements at the capital market level (external consequences) justify accepting this professional responsibility. The structural model demonstrated good fit, with strategies having the strongest impact on consequences. All research hypotheses were confirmed at a high confidence level. The explained variance for the core phenomenon and for the consequences indicated a strong model. This study provides a comprehensive, locally developed model for KAM reporting in Iran. The findings confirm that KAM reporting in Iran extends beyond a technical requirement to become a tool for risk management and the reconstruction of auditors' social capital in a volatile economic environment. The model highlights that external consequences (e.g., reduced information asymmetry, enhanced investor confidence, improved professional legitimacy) significantly outweigh the internal costs (e.g., increased fees, longer audit times), thereby justifying the adoption of this professional responsibility.
 The results of structural equation modeling confirmed the positive and direct significance of causal variables on KAM reporting and validated the mediating and consequential roles of the extracted constructs. The study emphasizes that effective implementation of ISA 701 in Iran requires localized guidelines, continuous professional training, improved auditor-manager interaction, and the establishment of an industrial database of reported KAMs.

Innovation in research

The main innovation of this research is the separation of consequences into two levels: internal and external. Regarding internal consequences (costs and risk), the findings showed that reporting major issues increases fees and processing time.

Keywords

• Key Audit Matters (KAMs)
• Auditing Standard 701
• Grounded theory
• Internal and External Consequences
• Investor Confidence
• Iranian Economic Environment

Main Subjects

• Audit Quality