Correspondence: Richard A Bernardi, Gabelli School of Business, Roger Williams University, One Old Ferry Road, Bristol RI 02809-2921, USA. E-mail: rbernardi@rwu.edu

¹is Professor of Accounting at Union Graduate College, Schenectady, NY. He has served as a Fulbright Scholar at the National University of Ireland at Galway, as a Faculty Resident for Arthur Andersen & Co. and as a national training instructor for KPMG. He was an inductee into the initial class of the American Accounting Association — Northeast Region's Hall of Fame. Dr Arnold received his PhD in Accounting from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1972.

²is Professor of Accounting at Roger Williams University, and is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who flew B-52s and FB-111s. Dr Bernardi received his PhD in Accounting from Union College in 1992. He was a professor of National Security Affairs at the US Naval War College and served as a national ethics training instructor for KPMG. He has published over 80 articles as well as received Teaching Excellence Awards from Roger Williams University and the State University of New York.

³is an associate professor of Accounting at West Virginia University's College of Business and Economics and is the co-editor of Work, Life Imbalance. Dr Neidermeyer received her PhD in Accounting from Virginia Commonwealth University in 1997. Her research focuses on decision making concentrating on gender and cultural issues. She is presently involved in various not-for-profit organisations in Africa to facilitate assistance for those impacted by the AIDS pandemic.

Received 19 January 2008; Revised 19 January 2008; Published online 3 July 2008.

Abstract

The central takeaway of this summary paper is that, even though auditing standards may be the same or harmonised such as in the European Union, there can be significant differences in the application of these standards across countries caused by each country's culture. The paper is especially cogent to stakeholders such as board members, executives and regulators who would otherwise expect consistent application of auditing standards on issues of auditor independence, confidentiality, materiality, and the underreporting of audit time and/or premature sign-off of audit procedures. Stakeholders from different countries should be cognizant of the potential for culture to influence the direction and outcome of audit results they might be called on to evaluate. Our research summarises the results of seven published articles that were based on a Western Europe sample of approximately 300 auditors from Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.