You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Reply: Reports of Solving the Conflicts of Interest in Auditing Are Highly Exaggerated
Max H. Bazerman, Don A. Moore, Philip E. Tetlock and Lloyd Tanlu
The Academy of Management Review
Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan., 2006), pp. 43-49
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159184
Page Count: 7
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Financial audits, Conflicts of interest, Management audits, Auditor independence, Cost benefit analysis, Financial accounting, Legal evidence, Accounting fraud, Audit committees, Auditing
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Nelson argues that we should trust the auditing profession and collect more data before taking action to reform the auditing system. We argue that the risk of doing nothing is greater than the risk associated with reform, and that the arguments Nelson makes have been exploited by the auditing industry to defend a system that destroys the independence of audits for the financial benefit of the auditors themselves.
The Academy of Management Review © 2006 Academy of Management