Multi-Disciplinary Teams and Biased Evidence Processing: Implications from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assurance Setting

• In Event: Continental Breakfast - Research and Education Forum
  In Roundtable Session: Table 12: Auditor Judgment

Abstract

Responding to the increasing importance of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reports and the assurance thereof, our study seeks to understand a potential source of biased processing of evidence in multidisciplinary GHG assurance teams. A distinguishing feature of GHG assurance engagements is that the assurors perform their work in multidisciplinary teams in which the educational background of team members varies dramatically, with some members possessing financial audit-related expertise and other members possessing science-related expertise. We add to the limited knowledge relating to the performance of such teams by showing that audit senior-level assurors with a financial background inappropriately rely on an explanation for an unexpected fluctuation (a seeded error showing a decrease in GHG emissions when an increase would logically be expected) provided by a senior-level assuror with science-related expertise irrespective of whether the subject matter requires GHG-specific expertise. We also examine the role of the review process and find that the inappropriate reliance placed on a senior-level assuror with science-related expertise is moderated (exacerbated) by having a manager-level reviewer with financial audit-related (GHG science-related) expertise. The results of this study provide broader implications in an environment in which auditors are increasingly likely to work with individuals with subject-matter-specific expertise from both within and external to their audit team, across a broad range of evidence evaluation settings.

Authors

• Sarah Yeonjeung Kim, UNSW Australia

• Wendy Green, UNSW Australia

• Karla Johnstone, University of Wisconsin–Madison