Purpose: The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic review of research development on auditing in the European Union over the past decade and suggest future research directions. Design/methodology/approach: Following the PRISMA protocol, the authors systematically reviewed the relevant literature and conducted a qualitative content analysis of 107 studies on auditing in the European Union published between 2012 and 2023. Findings: The results indicate increased auditing literature in the European Union from 2012 to August 2023. Around 40% of the papers were focused on six nations: Germany, Spain, Italy, the UK, Sweden and France. Additionally, 35.5% of papers have been published in three major journals: Accounting in Europe, International Journal of Auditing and the European Accounting Review. Moreover, 82.24% of papers used quantitative methods, with a few using qualitative or mixed methods. Also, most of the studies in the sample endorsed the European Union’s auditing reforms, which included implementing a cap on nonaudit fees and enhancing the independence of audit committees. Contrary to this viewpoint, multiple studies have expressed disagreement with enforcing a total prohibition on nonaudit services, as certain services can enhance auditing quality. Similarly, other studies have contested the necessity of mandatory auditor rotation every 10 years, citing the significant additional expenses associated with this practice. Finally, further studies supported the European Union’s decision to make the joint audit voluntary, as it is related to high audit fees and low audit quality. Research limitations/implications: The limitations of this research primarily stem from the authors’ choices in selecting the database and defining the criteria for searching the studied papers. Practical implications: This paper offers valuable insights into the future research prospects in the European Union’s auditing field. Hence, this analysis can be helpful for researchers and practitioners in developing this field based on future research recommendations and the identified themes. Originality/value: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first study to systematically review the developments of the European Union auditing literature over the past decade.

Purpose – This study aims to investigate audit fees for nonfinancial listed companies under mandatory joint audit regimes, comparing the effects of different joint audit pair compositions in France (EU) and Morocco (MENA region). Design/methodology/approach – Using a sample of 397 nonfinancial listed companies (349 French, 48 Moroccan) from 2014 to 2023 (3, 970 firm-year observations), this study uses multivariate regressions in Stata to examine audit fee variations across six joint audit pair types: B4B4 (two Big Four firms), B4S1 (one Big Four with one non-Big Four international), B4S2 (one Big Four with one local), S1S1 (two non-Big Four international), S1S2 (one non-Big Four international with one local) and S2S2 (two local). Findings – Results reveal significant differences in audit fees across joint audit pairs in both France and Morocco, regardless of pair type or firm size. Notably, fees are consistently higher in France, which has stronger investor protection, than in Morocco. In terms of pair ranking in France, B4B4FR commands the highest fees, followed by B4S1FR and B4S2FR. There is no significant fee difference between B4B4FR and B4S1FR, supporting the preference for joint Big Four pairs among large companies. By contrast, in Morocco, B4B4MO has the highest fees, followed by B4S2MO; B4S1MO has the lowest. Non-Big Four pairs (S1S1, S1S2 and S2S2) show no significant fee differences in either country, suggesting that medium-sized companies rationally select two non-Big Four international auditors. Further analysis shows that, in France, Big Four premiums and interpair fee gaps narrow as firm size increases. Conversely, in Morocco, B4B4MO and S1S1MO are more competitively priced for small firms, while B4S1MO targets larger firms. Regarding industry specialization, it generally raises fees – except in B4S2 and S1S1 pairs (no effect) and in B4S1FR, where it reduces fees. Practical implications – This study offers significant insights for investors, policymakers and companies involved in joint audit frameworks, as well as those considering implementing joint audits, through an in-depth analysis of a crucial issue in joint auditing. Originality/value – To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first comparative study of joint audit fees for nonfinancial companies in mandatory regimes across developed (France) and emerging (Morocco) markets. It classifies joint audit pairs into six categories and investigates the effects of company size and auditor industry specialization on these fees.

This study investigates the effects of joint audit work allocation on audit quality, fees, and report delays. It analyzes data from 347 non-financial listed firms in France and Morocco. Audit fee shares serve as a proxy for workload distribution. The findings reveal notable differences between France and Morocco. At the macro level, there is no statistically significant relationship between joint audit work allocation and either audit quality or audit report delays in France. However, greater imbalances in work allocation are associated with higher audit fees. In Morocco, greater imbalances in the allocation of work are associated with lower audit quality, higher fees, and longer delays. At the joint audit pair level, most pairs in both countries exhibit no significant relationship between work allocation and audit quality, fees, or report delays. Nevertheless, specific French and Moroccan pairs with greater imbalances in work allocation experience higher audit fees and longer delays. Regarding company size, joint audit work allocation has a minimal effect on audit quality, fees, and delays among large firms. As unbalanced joint audits have parallels to single audits, our findings contribute to current discussions of their comparative advantages and disadvantages. This study provides valuable and practical insights for a wide audience, including investors, board members, practitioners, academics, and policymakers.