From Informative to Generic: A Systematic Literature Review of Boilerplate KAM (Key Audit Matters)

Nahlia Hanifah; Trianandari Prasetya Nugrahanti

doi:10.58421/gehu.v5i1.1063

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v5i1.1063

Authors

Nahlia Hanifah Perbanas Institute Jakarta
Trianandari Prasetya Nugrahanti Perbanas Institute Jakarta

Keywords:

Boilerplate Disclosure, Communicative Value, Key Audit Matters, Professional Judgement ISA 701, Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

The implementation of ISA 701 on Key Audit Matters (KAM) aims to increase the transparency and communicative value of auditor reports and reduce audit expectation gaps. However, empirical findings suggest that KAM disclosure is increasingly dominated by boilerplate textual practices in the form of redaction uniformity and narrative repetition, which have the potential to degrade the informative value of KAM and make it merely a form of formal compliance. This study aims to systematically synthesize the latest empirical literature to assess the impact of KAM boilerplate on the communicative value of auditor reports and to identify the factors that encourage its occurrence. The research method used is a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of 18 reputable journal articles indexed in Scopus and published between 2021 and 2025. The results of the synthesis show that the majority of studies found that KAM boilerplate practices significantly lower communicative value, weaken market reactions, and risk creating pseudo-transparency. However, some studies have shown that KAM remains informative when auditors face high audit and litigation risk and actively apply professional judgment. The determinants of KAM boilerplate were identified at five main levels: auditor characteristics, the routine and organizational structure of KAP, client characteristics, the regulatory and institutional context, and linguistic factors. This study concludes that the main problem with KAM lies in implementation practices rather than the design of the ISA 701 standard.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

IAASB, “International Standard On Auditing 701 Communicating Key Audit Matters in the Independent Auditor’S Report,” IAASB, pp. 1–35, 2016.

L.-P. Sirois, J. Bédard, and P. Bera, “The Informational Value of Key Audit Matters in the Auditor’s Report: Evidence from an Eye-Tracking Study,” Account. Horizons, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 141–162, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.2308/acch-52047

S. Hsieh, C. B. Custodio, and M. A. Vasarhelyi, “The Textual Similarity of KAM Disclosures for Spanish Companies,” Int. J. Digit. Account. Res., vol. 21, pp. 183–202, 2021, doi: 10.4192/1577-8517-v21

A. Seebeck, “Back to where it started?—Do expanded auditor’s reports become sticky, generic and boilerplate over time?,” Int. J. Audit., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 536–561, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12343

P. J. Dimaggio and W. W. Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisted : Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields The Iron Cage Revisited : Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in,” Am. Sociol. Rev., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 147–160, 1983, doi: 10.17323/1726-3247-2010-1-34-56.

M. Power, The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

J. Bédard, N. Gonthier-besacier, and A. Schatt, “Consequences of Expanded Audit Reports: Evidence from the Justifications of Assessments in France,” Audit. A J. Pract. Theory, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 23–45, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-52339

M. Elmarzouky, K. Hussainey, and T. Abdelfattah, “The key audit matters and the audit cost: does governance matter?,” Int. J. Account. Inf. Manag., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 195–217, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1108/IJAIM-08-2022-0178

Q. Wang, L. Zhang, Q. Ma, and C. Wu, “No The impact of financial risk on boilerplate of key audit matters: Evidence from China,” Res. Int. Bus. Financ., vol. 70, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102390

B. E. Christensen, S. M. Glover, and C. J. Wolfe, “Do Critical Audit Matter Paragraphs in the Audit Report Change Nonprofessional Investors’ Decision to Invest?,” Audit. A J. Pract. Theory, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 71–93, Nov. 2014, doi: 10.2308/ajpt-50793

E. Purssell and N. McCrae, How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review. Springer, 2024.

T. Carle, N. Pappert, and R. Quick, “Text Similarity, Boilerplates and their Determinants in Key Audit Matters Disclosure,” Corp. Ownersh. Control, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 49–62, 2023, doi: 10.22495/cocv20i2art4

J. R. E. Pelzer, “Processing change: A qualitative study examining the frontstage and backstage of audit firms contemplating the implementation of critical audit matters,” Int. J. Audit., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 769–796, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12248

S. Kuster, “The determinants of linguistic features in key audit matters : Empirical evidence from Europe,” Int. J. Audit., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 582–614, 2024, doi: 10.1111/ijau.12344

L. Parte and Y. Pérez-pérez, “How difficult is to understand the extended audit report ? How difficult is to understand the extended audit report ?,” Cogent Bus. Manag., vol. 9, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2022.2113494

L. M. Rousseau and K. M. Zehms, “It’s a matter of style: The role of audit firms and audit partners in key audit matter reporting,” Contemp. Account. Res., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 529–561, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12902.

H. Wu, X. Shi, and X. Zhang, “Peer effect of key audit matters disclosure,” China J. Account. Res., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1–30, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.cjar.2025.100445

M. Minutti-Meza, “The art of conversation: the expanded audit report,” Account. Bus. Res., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 548–581, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2021.1932264

A. Seebeck and D. Kaya, “The Power of Words: An Empirical Analysis of the Communicative Value of Extended Auditor Reports,” Eur. Account. Rev., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1185–1215, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2021.2021097

K. M. Dwyer, N. M. Brennan, and C. E. Kirwan, “Disclosure of auditor risk assessments in expanded audit reports,” J. Appl. Account. Res., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2026, doi: 10.1108/JAAR-07-2022-0181

M. K. Bepari, A. T. Mollik, S. Nahar, and M. N. Islam, “Determinants of Accounts Level and Entity Level Key Audit Matters: Further Evidence,” Account. Eur., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 397–422, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2060753

T. Abdelfattah, M. Elmahgoub, and A. A. Elamer, “Female Audit Partners and Extended Audit Reporting: UK Evidence,” J. Bus. Ethics, vol. 174, no. 1, pp. 177–197, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04607-0

W. Maroun and A. Dubois, “How auditors identify and report key audit matters - An organizational routines perspective,” Br. Account. Rev., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 1–17, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2023.101263

M. Hosseinniakani, C. Overland, and N. Samani, “Do key audit matters matter? Correspondence between auditor and management disclosures and the role of audit committees,” J. Int. Accounting, Audit. Tax., vol. 55, pp. 1–21, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2024.100617

M. Cameran and D. Campa, “Key audit matters as insights into auditors’ professional judgement: Evidence from the European Union,” J. Account. Public Policy, vol. 51, no. 1, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2025.107311

P.-C. Chiu, D. Wu, J. Xue, and L. N. B. Yau, “Are All Auditors the Same? KAM Topic Selection and Audit Procedure Choices in the United Kingdom,” J. Int. Account. Res., pp. 1–33, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.2308/JIAR-2023-040