The audit committee (AC) literature has witnessed significant growth and evolution leading to ongoing debates and controversies surrounding the functions of ACs. The study uses bibliometric analysis (scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews protocol) to create a scientific map of ACs using 922 papers from the Web of Science database from 1998 to 2022. The analysis uses specialized tools like Biblioshiny and VOSviewer for performance analysis and academic mapping. The results show that particularly AC is a dynamic area of study, with the United States having the highest number of publications and the United Kingdom being the most influential contributor. The cluster analysis of bibliographic connections reveals prominent themes in the document, and the authors reveal that corporate governance, AC, directorship, board composition, firm performance, and earning management themes are in trend and individual ACs’ functions have been less explored.
AbbottL. J., ParkY., & ParkerS. (2000). The effects of audit committee activity and independence on corporate fraud. Managerial Finance, 26(11), 55–68.
2.
BellucciM., Cesa BianchiD., & ManettiG. (2022). Blockchain in accounting practice and research: Systematic literature review. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(7), 121–146.
3.
BezoA., & DibraR. (2023). Financial system audit and governance after the financial crisis. Calitatea, 24(194), 403–408.
4.
BhasinM. L. (2016). Strengthening corporate governance through an audit committee: An empirical study. Wulfenia Journal, 23(2), 2–27.
5.
BravoF., & Reguera-AlvaradoN. (2019). Sustainable development disclosure: Environmental, social, and governance reporting and gender diversity in the audit committee. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 418–429.
6.
BronsonS. N., CarcelloJ. V., HollingsworthC. W., & NealT. L. (2009). Are fully independent audit committees really necessary?Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 28(4), 265–280.
7.
BuallayA., & Al-AjmiJ. (2020). The role of audit committee attributes in corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 21(2), 249–264.
8.
CollierP., & GregoryA. (1999). Audit committee activity and agency costs. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 18(4–5), 311–332.
9.
DingY., ChowdhuryG. G., & FooS. (2001). Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis. Information Processing and Management, 37(6), 817–842.
10.
DumayJ., BernardiC., GuthrieJ., & DemartiniP. (2016, September). Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. Accounting Forum, 40(3),166–185.
11.
DwekatA., Seguí-MasE., & Tormo-CarbóG. (2020). The effect of the board on corporate social responsibility: Bibliometric and social network analysis. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 33(1), 3580–3603.
12.
EcimD., MarounW., & Duboisee de RicquebourgA. (2023). An analysis of key audit matter disclosures in South African audit reports from 2017 to 2020. South African Journal of Business Management, 54(1), a3669.
13.
EY. (2020). COVID-19: Audit committee considerations in uncertain times. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/assurance/assurance-pdfs/ey-covid-19-audit-committee-considerations-in-uncertain-times.pdf?download
14.
FarajiO., AsiaeiK., RezaeeZ., BontisN., & DolatzareiE. (2022). Mapping the conceptual structure of intellectual capital research: A co-word analysis. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 7(3), 100202.
15.
FernandoJ. M., LiL., & HouY. (2020). Corporate governance and correlation in corporate defaults. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 28(3), 188–206.
16.
García-SánchezI. M., Martínez-FerreroJ., & García-MecaE. (2017). Gender diversity, financial expertise and its effects on accounting quality. Management Decision, 55(2), 347–382.
17.
HabibA. (2022). Publishing literature reviews. Pacific Accounting Review, 34(3), 399–405.
18.
HasanS., KassimA. A. M., & HamidM. A. A. (2020). The impact of audit quality, audit committee and financial reporting quality: Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 10(5), 272.
19.
HuJ., & ZhangY. (2015). Research patterns and trends of recommendation system in China using co-word analysis. Information Processing and Management, 51(4), 329–339.
20.
International Federation of Accountants. (2019). Implications for audit committees arising from COVID-19. Altamonte Springs.
21.
KalbersL. P., & FogartyT. J. (1993). Audit committee effectiveness: An empirical investigation of the contribution of power. Auditing, 12(1), 24.
22.
KatmonN., MohamadZ. Z., NorwaniN. M., & Al FarooqueO. (2019). Comprehensive board diversity and quality of corporate social responsibility disclosure: Evidence from an emerging market. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(2), 447–481.
23.
KehindeF. H., & OsifoO. U. (2017). Effective whistle-blowing mechanism and audit committee in Nigerian banking sector. Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 5(1), 18–26.
24.
KılıçM., & UyarA. (2022). Thematic structure of accounting research by co-word analysis. International Journal of Bibliometrics in Business and Management, 2(1), 1–41.
25.
KleinA. (2002). Economic determinants of audit committee independence. The Accounting Review, 77(2), 435–452.
26.
KPMG. (2020). US GAAP recent emerging issues. Accounting and Auditing Updates, 45, 13–16.
27.
LeeG., & FargherN. L. (2018). The role of the audit committee in their oversight of whistle-blowing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(1), 167–189.
28.
LinnenlueckeM. K., MarroneM., & SinghA. K. (2020). Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses. Australian Journal of Management, 45(2), 175–194.
29.
LopesA. I., & PenelaD. (2022). From little seeds to a big tree: A far-reaching assessment of the integrated reporting stream. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(6),1514–1542.
30.
MarounW. (2020). A conceptual model for understanding corporate social responsibility assurance practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(1), 187–209.
31.
McMullenD. A., & RaghunandanK. (1996). Enhancing audit committee effectiveness. Journal of Accountancy, 182(2), 79–81.
32.
OussiiA. A., KlibiM. F., & OuertaniI. (2019). Audit committee role: Formal rituals or effective oversight process?Managerial Auditing Journal, 34(6), 673–695.
33.
PaulJ., LimW. M., O’CassA., HaoA. W., & BrescianiS. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), O1–O16.
34.
PozzoliM., PaganiA., & PaoloneF. (2022). The impact of audit committee characteristics on ESG performance in the European Union member states: Empirical evidence before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371, 133411. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133411
PriesF., & ScottS. (2018). Costs and benefits of key audit matter reporting for smaller public entities: The Australian experience. https://www.uoguelph.ca/lang/sites/default/files/Australian%20KAM%20Experience%2020180905.pdf
37.
Pucheta-MartínezM. C., & García-MecaE. (2014). Institutional investors on boards and audit committees and their effects on financial reporting quality. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(4), 347–363.
38.
RamanR., SubramaniamN., NairV. K., ShivdasA., AchuthanK., & NedungadiP. (2022). Women entrepreneurship and sustainable development: Bibliometric analysis and emerging research trends. Sustainability, 14(15), 9160.
39.
RinaldiL., UnermanJ., & de VilliersC. (2018). Evaluating the integrated reporting journey: Insights, gaps and agendas for future research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 31(5), 1294–1318.
40.
SahaR., & KabraK. C. (2019). Does corporate governance influence firm performance? Evidence from India. Economics and Business Review, 5(4), 70–89.
41.
SedighiM. (2016). Application of word co-occurrence analysis method in mapping of the scientific fields (case study: the field of informetrics). Library Review, 65(1/2), 52–64.
42.
SellamiY. M., & FendriH. B. (2017). The effect of audit committee characteristics on compliance with IFRS for related party disclosures. Managerial Auditing Journal, 32(1), 603–626.
43.
SetiawanN., RohemahR., & AuliaI. F. (2023). Independence for Internal Auditors: Is it Necessary?Jurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Auditing, 10(2), 25–34.
44.
SharmaP. K. (Ed.). (2015). Codes and standards of corporate governance. InCorporate governance practices in India (pp. 28–42). Palgrave Macmillan.
45.
SunJ., & LiuG. (2014). Audit committees’ oversight of bank risk-taking. Journal of Banking & Finance, 40(C), 376–387.
46.
UyarA., KilicM., KoseogluM. A., KuzeyC., & KaramanA. S. (2020). The link among board characteristics, corporate social responsibility performance, and financial performance: Evidence from the hospitality and tourism industry. Tourism Management Perspectives, 35, 100714. 10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100714
47.
Van EckN. J., & WaltmanL. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111, 1053–1070. 10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7
48.
ViedmaE. H., RoblesJ. R. L., GuallarJ., & CoboM. J. (2020). Global trends in coronavirus research at the time of COVID-19: A general bibliometric approach and content analysis using SciMAT. El Profesional de la Informacion, 29(3), 11.
49.
WilbanksR. M., HermansonD. R., & SharmaV. D. (2017). Audit committee oversight of fraud risk: The role of social ties, professional ties, and governance characteristics. Accounting Horizons, 31(3), 21–38.
50.
ZhouH., Owusu-AnsahS., & MagginaA. (2018). Board of directors, audit committee, and firm performance: Evidence from Greece. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 31, 20–36. 10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2018.03.002
51.
ZupicI., & CaterT. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472.
