Audit evidence enables the auditor to express an opinion on the financial statements. To address the risk that the auditor may express an inappropriate opinion, the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures must be responsive to the assessed risks of material misstatement. The auditor must aggregate the levels of assurance obtained from different combinations of tests of controls, substantive analytical procedures and tests of details to respond to the assessed risks. These evidence planning decisions are complex and require professional judgement. Research has found that the extent of audit procedures is not linked to the assessed risks and that auditors may not know to aggregate evidence from different types of audit procedures. Research also supports the use of a structured audit methodology that includes decision models, to guide the application of professional judgement. This leads to the overall objective of this study: the development of an integrated audit evidence planning model to quantify the extent of audit evidence. The study employs a grounded theory model building approach, interpreting the relevant concepts and principles from the literature review into the development of the model. The integrated audit evidence planning model quantitatively relates the extent of audit evidence in a logical and structured manner with the risk assessment and three distinct overall levels of assurance needed to support the audit opinion. It uses the cumulative nature of audit evidence and the compensatory inter-relationship between tests of controls, substantive analytical procedures and tests of details to quantitatively aggregate the extent and levels of assurance from the different combinations of procedures to obtain reasonable assurance at the required overall level of assurance. The model provides a framework for influencing and guiding the exercise of professional judgement and is a practical and effective tool to benefit the users thereof when conducting an audit. Thus, the study models the extent of audit evidence with reference to the aggregation of different types and combinations of evidence and the linkage between the risk assessment and the extent of evidence that provides a flexible framework for the application of professional judgement regarding the gathering of audit evidence. / Auditing / D. Com. (Auditing)

Abstract in English, Afrikaans and Sepedi / The auditing profession is facing criticism for audit firms being associated with clients with a poor ‘tone at the top’ despite auditors being required to assess a company’s ‘tone at the top’, both prior to and during an audit. A problem arises if, should auditors perform an inappropriate ‘tone at the top’ assessment, they may be associated with an unethical company. Moreover, such an inappropriate assessment may result in an incorrect risk of material misstatement assessment and, consequently, an inappropriate audit opinion on the financial statements of the company. A qualitative research approach and a multiple case study design were used to understand how auditors assess a company’s ‘tone at the top’. An audit partner from six JSE-accredited audit firms and senior inspectors from the IRBA were interviewed. It was found that the participating auditors assess a company’s ethical leadership, ethical culture, the governance role of the audit committee and compliance with laws and regulations when assessing a company’s ‘tone at the top’ while adhering to quality control principles. Despite the participants acknowledging both that ‘tone at the top’ assessments are conducted during the pre-engagement and planning of an audit and that the audit engagement partner is responsible for these assessments, there was a lack of evidence in the audit files supporting these assessments. The study findings may enable audit firms to include guidance in their audit methodologies on ‘tone at the top’ assessments and in documenting such assessments and may also assist the IRBA in providing guidance and training to auditors on ‘tone at the top’ assessments. / Die ouditprofessie staar kritiek in die oë as gevolg van die feit dat ouditfirmas geassosieer word met kliënte met 'n swak “karakter aan die hoof”, ten spyte daarvan dat van ouditeurs vereis word om 'n maatskappy se “karakter aan die hoof” voor en tydens 'n oudit te assesseer. Die probleem is dat indien ouditeurs 'n onvanpaste assessering van die “karakter aan die hoof” uitvoer, hulle met 'n onetiese maatskappy geassosieer kan word. Boonop kan so 'n onvanpaste assessering aanleiding gee tot 'n verkeerde assessering van die risiko van wesenlike wanvoorstelling en, gevolglik, 'n onvanpaste ouditmening oor die finansiële state van die maatskappy. 'n Kwalitatiewe navorsingsbenadering en 'n veelvoudige gevallestudie-ontwerp is gebruik om te verstaan hoe ouditeurs 'n maatskappy se “karakter aan die hoof” assesseer. Onderhoude is met ouditvennote van ses ouditfirmas wat deur die JSE geakkrediteer word en senior inspekteurs van die IRBA gevoer. Daar is bevind dat die deelnemende ouditeurs 'n maatskappy se etiese leierskap, etiese kultuur, die beheerrol van die ouditkomitee en voldoening aan wette en regulasies assesseer wanneer 'n maatskappy se “karakter aan die hoof” geassesseer word terwyl aan gehaltebeheerbeginsels voldoen word. Ten spyte daarvan dat die deelnemers erken dat assesserings van “karakter aan die hoof” uitgevoer word tydens die vooraanstelling en beplanning van ’n oudit en dat die ouditaanstellingsvennoot verantwoordelik is vir hierdie assesserings, is daar 'n gebrek aan bewyse in die ouditlêers wat hierdie assesserings steun. Die studie se bevindings kan ouditfirmas in staat stel om leiding in hulle ouditmetodologieë in te sluit vir assesserings van “karakter aan die hoof” en om sodanige assesserings te dokumenteer, en dit kan die IRBA ook help om leiding en opleiding aan ouditeurs te gee vir sulke assesserings. / Profešene ya go hlakiša e lebane le tshekatsheko ka lebaka la difeme tša tlhakišo tšeo di amanywago le badirelwa ba ‘boikgafo le boetapele bja taolo’ bja go fokola, le ge bahlakiši ba nyakega go lekola ‘boikgafo le boetapele bja taolo’ bja khamphani, bobedi pele ga le nakong ya tlhakišo. Bothata bo tšwelela ge, go ka direga gore bahlakiši ba dire tekolo ya ‘boikgafo le boetapele bja taolo’ yeo e sego ya maleba, ba ka amanywa le khamphani ya go se be le maitshwaro. Gape, tekolo yeo e sego ya maleba, e ka tšweletša kotsi ya tekolo ya setatamente se se fošagetšego sa materiale gomme, ka gona, kgopolo ya tlhakišo yeo e sego ya maleba mo setatamenteng sa ditšhelete sa khamphani. Mokgwa wa dinyakišišo tša temogo le moakanyetšo wa tshepetšo ya dinyakišišo di šomišitšwe go kwešiša ka moo bahlakiši ba lekolago ‘boikgafo le boetapele bja taolo’ bja khamphani. Badirišani ba tlhakišo go tšwa femeng ya bahlakiši yeo e dumeletšwego ya JSE le bahlahlobibagolo go tšwa IRBA ba boledišitšwe. Go utollotšwe gore bahlakiši bao ba kgathago tema ba lekotše boetapele bja maitshwaro bja khamphani, setšo sa maitshwaro, mošomo wa taolo wa komiti ya tlhakišo le go obamela melao le melawana ge go lekolwa ‘boikgafo le boetapele bja taolo’ wa khamphani mola go latelwa mekgwa ya taolo ya boleng. Le ge bakgathatema ba amogela bobedi gore ditekolo tša ‘boikgafo le boetapele bja taolo’ di dirwa nakong ya peakanyo ya pele le thulaganyo ya difaele tša tlhakišo tšeo di thekgago ditekolo tše, ga se gwa ba le bohlatse ka mo difaeleng tša tlhakišo tšeo di thekgago ditekolo tše. Dikutollo tša dinyakišišo di ka thuša difeme tša tlhakišo go akaretša tlhahlo mo mekgweng ya bona ya tlhakišo mo go ditekolo tša ‘boikgafo le boetapele bja taolo’ le go ngwala ditekolo tšeo, gape di ka thuša gape IRBA ka go fa tlhahli le tlhahlo go bahlakiši mo ditekolong tšeo. / Business Management / M. Phil. (Accounting Sciences)