Purpose This study aims to investigate how external auditors properly classify the requirements of ISA 701 for key audit matters (KAM) compared with an emphasis of matter or other matters (EOM) in ISA 706 and going concern (GC) in ISAs 706 and 570. Such investigation is important to assess whether the explanatory matters included in ISAs 701, 706 and 570 are appropriate for external auditors so they can properly classify identified audit matters as either KAM, EOM or GC matters and considering the relationship among them. Design/methodology/approach The research used questionnaires sent to a sample of external auditors in five audit firms with international affiliations including two of the Big 4 audit firms. The Z-test for two proportions is conducted to assess whether external auditors were confused when interpreting the explanatory matters included in the ISAs. Findings The research suggests that the current ISA 701 explanations may not adequately help some auditors in their aim of properly identifying all KAM from among the different matters they reach during their audit. When classifying EOM and GC, most of the external auditors misclassified them as KAM. Practical implications This is a timely study. The results have implications for standard setters and regulators through revising the explanations included in the different audit reporting standards including ISA 701 and considering the relationships among them. Originality/value According to the authors’ knowledge, this study is considered among the first that surveyed the appropriateness of the explanations included in ISAs for KAM, EOM, GC and how auditors perceive such explanations when forming their opinion about their clients’ financial statements.

Purpose This paper aims to investigate how auditors’ characteristics affect key audit matters (KAMs) in the new audit report. It also provides an understanding of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on different audit reporting decisions and audit quality in specific industries. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses a survey based on actual audit case studies extracted from the management letters of clients in an audit firm with international affiliation to test the proposed hypotheses. Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests are conducted to analyze variance in responses among different groups of auditors regarding their selection of audit report sections required for each audit matter. The Wilcoxon signed rank test analyses difference in the auditors’ responses pre- and post-COVID-19 implications. Findings Most of the developed hypotheses were only partially accepted where industry specialization, professional qualifications of the auditors and the effects of COVID-19 had some effects on the ability of auditors to recognize and disclose KAMs. Auditor position is the most factor that significantly influenced the recognition of KAMs in the new audit report resulting in higher audit quality. This was specially the case with auditors specializing in manufacturing and financial institutions. Originality/value The current research illustrates that during the pandemic, auditors were more effective in recognizing KAMs compared to other audit matters, thus enhancing users’ confidence in both the audit and the financial reporting processes. The results are useful to regulators and auditors as they provide a better understanding of the factors that may impact communicating KAMs in the new audit report under COVID-19.