Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt

Amin ElSayed Ahmed Lotfy

doi:doi:10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt

Amin ElSayed Ahmed Lotfy^*

Published in Journal of Finance and Accounting (Volume 13, Issue 6)

Received: 24 August 2025 Accepted: 11 September 2025 Published: 19 December 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This paper develops and empirically validates a smart national framework for audit quality management in Egypt, aligned with ISQM-1, ISQM-2, and ISA 220 (Revised). A mixed-methods design combines a nationwide auditor survey with SEM/CFA/ANOVA and comparative case insights from six countries. Results indicate that ISQM adoption and digital maturity (AI-enabled analytics, dashboards, blockchain-based evidence) significantly enhance audit quality, with complementary strengths between public oversight (ASA) and private firms. The framework integrates leadership & governance, risk assessment, digital infrastructure, engagement performance, and monitoring & remediation, enabling proactive, risk-based quality management beyond retrospective control. Benchmarking against the UK, USA, Singapore, Canada, Australia, and UAE underscores enforcement, regulator-led digital platforms, and leadership accountability. The study unifies agency, institutional, and digital-governance perspectives into an actionable model for emerging economies. Practically, it recommends regulator dashboards, phased ISQM adoption, targeted digital training, and SME support. The findings provide a roadmap for Egypt to strengthen transparency, investor trust, and international convergence in audit quality.

Published in	Journal of Finance and Accounting (Volume 13, Issue 6)
DOI	10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14
Page(s)	269-281
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Audit Quality, ISQM-1, ISQM-2, ISA 220, Digital Transformation, Governance, Egypt

1. Introduction

1.1. Context and Background

Audit quality management has become a global priority, especially following major corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom, which exposed weaknesses in audit oversight and independence

[7, 19, 23]

. Early definitions of audit quality emphasized compliance and detection of misstatements

[8]

, but modern perspectives incorporate independence, governance, and stakeholder trust

[9]

. This is particularly critical in emerging markets

[1]

In response to these challenges, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board

[10]

issued the International Standards on Quality Management

[11]

and the revised ISA 220, requiring firms globally to implement proactive, risk-based systems by December 2022

[12]

In Egypt, however, the regulatory framework remains outdated, still relying on ISQC-1, despite international transitions. This creates significant risks in both the private audit sector and the Accountability State Authority

[13]

, which faces growing demands for accountability in the digital era

[14]

1.2. Problem Statement

The research problem is the absence of a national, unified, and intelligent audit quality management system. Current frameworks in Egypt emphasize retrospective control, rather than proactive, digitally enabled quality management

[15]

Consequences include:

1) Limited ability of audit firms to identify and mitigate risks.

2) ASA’s reliance on traditional controls without smart monitoring.

3) Declining stakeholder trust in financial reports amid digitalization

[16]

This study addresses these issues by developing and empirically validating a smart audit quality management framework aligned with international standards.

1.3. Research Objectives

The objectives of this research are to:

1) Design a smart framework applicable at both institutional and engagement levels.

2) Validate empirically the framework through statistical testing and evidence from Egypt.

3) Benchmark against international best practices

[5]

4) Recommend policies for regulators

[17]

and professional bodies.

1.4. Significance of the Study

This study is significant for multiple reasons:

1) Theoretical: Extends audit quality research by integrating ISQM-1, ISA 220, and digital governance

[18]

2) Practical: Provides a validated framework for both audit firms and ASA to adopt.

3) Policy: Offers actionable recommendations for FRA and government policymakers

[19]

4) Social/Economic: Enhances transparency, strengthens governance, and builds investor trust

[20]

1.5. Research Questions

The study addresses the following:

1) To what extent does ISQM-1 adoption improve audit quality in Egypt?

2) How does digital maturity affect audit quality outcomes?

3) What lessons from international benchmarking apply to Egypt?

4) How effective is the proposed smart framework at a national level?

1.6. Structure of the Study

The study is organized into eight chapters:

1) Chapter 1: Introduction

[21]

2) Chapter 2: Literature Review

[22]

3) Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework and Smart Model Design.

4) Chapter 4: Methodology

[23]

5) Chapter 5: Results and Analysis

[24]

6) Chapter 6: Comparative Case Studies

[25]

7) Chapter 7: Discussion

[26]

8) Chapter 8: Conclusion and Recommendations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Evolution of Audit Quality Concepts

The concept of audit quality has evolved over several decades. Early definitions emphasized the probability of detecting and reporting misstatements, reflecting a compliance-oriented perspective

[27]

. However, corporate failures such as Enron and WorldCom demonstrated that technical compliance alone cannot guarantee credibility

[7]

Modern frameworks emphasize auditor independence, governance mechanisms, professional skepticism, and stakeholder trust

[28]

. Further, audit quality is now linked to broader governance and financial stability outcomes

[29]

. Studies highlight that both inputs

[30]

and outputs

[31]

are crucial

[32]

2.2. Evolution of Audit Quality Management Standards

The IAASB introduced ISQM-1 and ISQM-2 in 2020, replacing ISQC-1, to strengthen risk-based, proactive audit quality systems

[12]

. ISQM-1 emphasizes firm-wide governance and monitoring, while ISQM-2 mandates robust engagement quality reviews. The revised ISA 220 integrates leadership accountability for engagement-level quality

[33]

Empirical evidence suggests that ISQM adoption improves audit consistency and reduces expectation gaps

[34]

. Comparative studies show that countries with strong enforcement regimes

[35]

report higher quality outcomes

[36]

. In Egypt, reliance on ISQC-1 persists

[14]

, underscoring the urgency for alignment with global standards.

2.3. Digital Technologies-enabled Audit Quality Models

The digital era has transformed how audit quality is managed. Automation, artificial intelligence, and blockchain technologies are increasingly integrated into audit processes

[37]

1) AI and analytics enhance fraud detection and predictive risk assessment

[38]

2) Blockchain provides immutable audit trails and improves evidence reliability

[39]

3) Cloud computing and dashboards enable real-time monitoring of quality indicators

[40]

Nonetheless, risks exist: limited technical expertise, implementation costs, and uneven adoption between large and small firms

[41]

. The literature underscores the need to integrate digital technologies into ISQM frameworks for dynamic, continuous quality assurance

[42]

“The integration of AI, analytics, and big data tools has reshaped the audit profession globally, enhancing predictive risk assessment and evidence reliability

[3, 6]

.”

2.4. Regulatory Oversight and Audit Governance in Emerging Markets

Audit oversight in emerging markets faces challenges such as weak enforcement, resource constraints, and resistance among smaller firms

[43]

. Comparative research highlights the effectiveness of strong regulators like the PCAOB

[44]

and ACRA

[45]

, which employ peer reviews, sanctions, and mandatory reporting to ensure compliance

[46]

In Egypt, FRA and ASA have initiated reforms, yet implementation of ISQM remains incomplete. Prior studies recommend phased implementation, regulator support, and benchmarking against international models

[47]

. Emerging economies must also address professional capacity-building to ensure successful adoption

[48]

2.5. Critical Review of Literature and Research Gap

The literature establishes that audit quality depends on a combination of standards, digital tools, and regulatory governance. However, gaps remain:

1) Most studies examine firm-level practices without addressing national-level integration

[49]

2) Few works empirically validate smart, digitally enabled audit quality frameworks in emerging economies

[50]

3) The intersection of ISQM adoption, digital maturity, and public-private audit oversight remains under-researched

[14]

This study addresses these gaps by designing and testing a smart national framework that integrates ISQM-1/2, ISA 220, digital tools, and comparative international insights, providing a unique contribution to theory, practice, and policy.

3. Theoretical Framework and Smart Model Design

3.1. Theoretical Anchors

The smart audit quality management framework in this study is anchored in multiple theoretical perspectives.

1) Agency Theory highlights how audits mitigate conflicts between managers and stakeholders by reducing information asymmetry, making audit quality critical for maintaining trust

[51]

2) Institutional Theory explains why audit firms and regulators adopt international standards such as ISQM-1 due to pressures of legitimacy, professional norms, and global convergence

[52]

3) Digital Governance and Organizational Learning Theories emphasize the role of technology and adaptive learning in improving audit processes, ensuring responsiveness and dynamic quality management

[53]

Together, these perspectives frame audit quality management as not merely a technical function but a strategic governance process shaped by institutional legitimacy and digital innovation.

3.2. Model Architecture and Functional Design

The smart model consists of five integrated components, aligned with ISQM-1, ISQM-2, and ISA 220

[54]

1) Leadership & Governance: Quality culture and accountability at the top

[55]

2) Risk Assessment: Identification of systemic and engagement-level risks using risk matrices.

3) Digital Infrastructure: AI-driven risk tools, blockchain evidence systems, and real-time dashboards

[18]

4) Engagement Performance: Technical execution, independence checks, and partner oversight

[56]

5) Monitoring & Remediation: Ongoing evaluations, peer review, and feedback loops

[57]

Interaction: Leadership shapes the tone, risk assessment feeds into engagements, digital infrastructure enables continuous monitoring, and remediation ensures adaptive improvement.

3.3. Model Alignment with ISQM-1, ISQM-2, and ISA 220

The framework aligns directly with international standards:

1) ISQM-1

[58]

: Leadership, governance, and risk management.

2) ISQM-2

[59]

: Independent quality reviews and accountability at engagement partner level.

3) ISA 220

[54]

: Emphasizes leadership responsibility for audit quality within each engagement.

Research indicates that full adoption of these standards improves both audit outputs and stakeholder confidence

[60]

3.4. Integration of Digital Technologies

The novelty of the model lies in embedding digital technologies into ISQM frameworks.

1) AI & Data Analytics: Enhance fraud risk detection and predictive modeling

[38]

2) Blockchain: Provides immutable, transparent audit evidence

[39]

3) Dashboards & Cloud Systems: Enable real-time monitoring of key quality indicators across firms

[40]

These technologies move audit quality management from retrospective control to real-time assurance, particularly critical in digital economies.

3.5. Conceptual Diagram

The conceptual framework

[61]

depicts dynamic interactions:

1) Leadership & Governance at the core.

2) Risk Assessment and Digital Infrastructure feeding into Engagement Performance.

3) Monitoring & Remediation closing the cycle with continuous improvement.

This cyclical design ensures adaptability and resilience in fast-changing audit environments.

3.6. Summary

This chapter outlined the theoretical foundations and presented the smart audit quality management model. By integrating agency, institutional, and digital governance theories with ISQM-1/2 and ISA 220, the model ensures both theoretical robustness and practical applicability. Its emphasis on digital tools marks a significant advancement over traditional audit quality control frameworks, positioning Egypt to align with international best practices.

4. Methodology

4.1. Research Design

This study employs a mixed-method design to capture both quantitative rigor and qualitative depth. Quantitative methods

[62]

provide statistical validation of the smart framework, while qualitative benchmarking with international case studies strengthens contextual understanding

[63]

The design aligns with prior audit quality research where multi-method approaches provide both empirical robustness and policy relevance

[49]

4.2. Population and Sample

The target population includes both private audit firms and auditors from the Accountability State Authority

[13]

. A stratified sample ensured representation across firm size

[64]

and audit role.

A total of 295 questionnaires were distributed electronically, yielding 230 valid responses

[4]

. Such response levels are considered robust in auditing research

[65]

Sample characteristics:

1) Type of auditor: Private firms

[66]

, ASA auditors

[67]

2) Firm size: Big 4

[68]

, mid-tier

[69]

, small practices

[67]

3) Experience: <5 years

[70]

, 5-15 years

[71]

, >15 years

[72]

This distribution reflects the Egyptian audit environment and ensures generalizability of findings.

4.3. Data Collection Tools

Data were collected via a structured questionnaire divided into four sections:

1) ISQM-1 adoption indicators.

2) Digital maturity measures

[73]

3) Internal risk control mechanisms.

4) Audit quality outcomes.

Items were measured on 5-point Likert scales

[74]

, consistent with prior audit studies

[16]

. A pilot test of 20 auditors confirmed clarity and reliability, leading to minor adjustments

[65]

To complement survey data, secondary case study evidence from six countries was included, following guidance from comparative regulatory research

[46]

4.4. Hypotheses Development

Based on the literature and theoretical framework, the following hypotheses were formulated:

1) H1: ISQM-1 adoption positively affects audit quality

[75]

2) H2: Digital maturity positively affects audit quality

[76]

3) H3: Strong internal risk controls enhance audit quality

[9]

4) H4: Interaction of ISQM-1 and digital maturity yields synergistic improvements.

5) H5: Audit quality outcomes differ between ASA and private firms

[14]

6) H6: Firm size moderates the relationship between digital maturity and audit quality

[77]

Table 1. Hypotheses and Theoretical Links.

Hypothesis	Theoretical Anchor	Model Component	Expected Outcome
H1	Agency Theory	ISQM-1	↑ Audit quality
H2	Digital Governance	Digital maturity	↑ Audit quality
H3	Risk Management	Internal controls	↑ Audit quality
H4	Institutional Theory	ISQM × Digital	Synergy
H5	Comparative Institutionalism	ASA vs Firms	Variance
H6	Organizational Learning	Firm Size	Moderation

4.5. Data Analysis Techniques

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS and SmartPLS. Techniques included:

1) Descriptive statistics

[78]

2) Correlation & regression analysis

[79]

3) CFA and SEM to validate measurement and structural models

[80]

4) ANOVA for institutional differences.

5) Reliability tests

[81]

Such multi-method validation ensures internal and external reliability of findings

[82]

4.6. Reliability and Validity

1) Construct validity: Confirmed by factor loadings >0.70 and AVE >0.50.

2) Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha and Composite Reliability >0.80

[80]

3) Discriminant validity: Fornell-Larcker criterion applied.

4) External validity: Reinforced by case studies across six international contexts

[83]

4.7. Summary

The methodology combines quantitative rigor with comparative case benchmarking. It ensures robust empirical validation of the proposed smart framework while grounding it in both Egyptian and international contexts.

5. Results and Analysis

5.1. Descriptive Results

The descriptive statistics provide an overview of ISQM-1 adoption, digital maturity, and internal controls across respondents.

1) ISQM-1 Adoption: Big 4 firms scored highest

[84]

, followed by mid-tier firms

[85]

, and small practices

[86]

. ASA auditors reported an average score of 4.0, indicating relatively stronger alignment with ISQM principles than mid-tier private firms

[87]

2) Digital Maturity Indicators: Adoption of automation and dashboards was common among larger firms

[88]

, while smaller firms scored significantly lower in AI-driven risk tools

[89]

, confirming prior findings on digital divides

[18]

3) Internal Risk Controls: Preventive controls

[90]

outperformed corrective measures

[91]

, consistent with studies showing smaller firms lag in post-engagement reviews

[16]

Key Insight: Larger and more digitally advanced institutions exhibit stronger audit quality management capabilities, echoing international research

[92]

5.2. Hypotheses Testing

Six hypotheses

[93]

were tested using regression, correlation, SEM, and ANOVA.

1) H1: ISQM-1 adoption positively affects audit quality

[94]

, consistent with Francis

[95]

and IFAC

[96]

2) H2: Digital maturity positively affects audit quality

[97]

, reinforcing Appelbaum et al.

[98]

3) H3: Strong internal controls enhance quality

[99]

, echoing Knechel et al.

[100]

4) H4: Interaction between ISQM-1 and digital maturity produced synergistic effects

[101]

5) H5: ANOVA confirmed differences between ASA and private firms

[102]

, aligning with Soliman

[96]

6) H6: Firm size moderated digital maturity effects, with Big 4 achieving highest R² = 0.62

[77]

Key Insight: All hypotheses were supported, showing robust empirical validation of the smart framework.

5.3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

[103]

The CFA tested measurement validity:

1) Factor loadings > 0.70 confirmed strong construct validity

[80]

2) Average Variance Extracted

[104]

> 0.50 indicated convergent validity.

3) Composite Reliability > 0.80 confirmed reliability

[82]

4) Fornell-Larcker criterion ensured discriminant validity.

Model fit indices: CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.06, all acceptable thresholds

[105]

5.4. Interpretation of Findings

The findings empirically validate the smart model:

1) Empirical Validation: ISQM-1 adoption directly improves audit quality, consistent with international evidence

[19]

2) Predictive Relevance: R² values exceeded 0.50, demonstrating strong predictive power

[80]

3) Institutional Variance: ASA auditors showed stronger preventive controls, while private firms were more digitally advanced-indicating complementary strengths.

5.5. Comparative Benchmarking

When benchmarked internationally:

1) Egypt lags behind UK and Singapore in digital enablement

[106]

2) Comparable to mid-tier firms in emerging markets, but below the enforcement standards of PCAOB

[44]

3) Lessons suggest phased ISQM adoption supported by regulatory dashboards and digital training

[107]

5.6. Summary

The results confirm that audit quality in Egypt can be significantly enhanced through ISQM-1 adoption combined with digital integration. The smart model demonstrates empirical validity and predictive strength, while comparative insights highlight specific pathways for Egypt’s regulators and firms.

6. Case Studies and Comparative Insights

6.1. United Kingdom

[108]

The UK’s Financial Reporting Council

[109]

has been at the forefront of enforcing ISQM-1 adoption since December 2022. Compliance rates were high: Big 4

[110]

, mid-tier

[111]

, and small firms

[112, 57]

. Integration of predictive risk analytics and AI-driven tools improved monitoring efficiency. Peer review remains central to oversight.

Lesson for Egypt: Mandatory adoption, phased regulator support, and peer review strengthen compliance.

6.2. United States

[44]

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

[113]

oversees audit firms through annual inspections for large firms and triennial reviews for smaller ones. ISQM principles are embedded in documentation, independence checks, and accountability. Use of real-time monitoring systems has enhanced fraud detection

[114]

Lesson for Egypt: Periodic inspections, independence enforcement, and strong sanctions are key.

6.3. Singapore

The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority

[115]

mandated ISQM-1 and ISQM-2 as part of its Practice Monitoring Program. By 2023, compliance was 100% for Big 4, 86% for mid-tier, and 64% for small practices

[116]

. Digitalization includes AI dashboards, data analytics, and risk-scoring tools.

Lesson for Egypt: Regulator-led digital transformation and continuous training accelerate adoption.

“According to the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA)

[2]

, compliance levels under the Practice Monitoring Program have significantly improved following the 2023 ISQM rollout.”

6.4. Canada

The Canadian Public Accountability Board

[117]

emphasizes governance and leadership accountability within ISQM-aligned quality systems. Reviews focus on proactive remediation, and firms are required to submit improvement plans

[118]

Lesson for Egypt: Prioritize leadership accountability and remediation over compliance-only approaches.

6.5. Australia

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission

[119]

applies a risk-based inspection model, focusing on high-risk industries. Integration of blockchain audit trails and AI-based risk monitoring has begun in large firms

[120]

Lesson for Egypt: Prioritize risk-based inspections and emerging technologies.

6.6. United Arab Emirates

[121]

The UAE Ministry of Finance mandated ISQM-1 adoption across both local and international firms. It introduced national digital audit reporting platforms to align firms with regulators

[122]

Lesson for Egypt: Establish national digital platforms for real-time monitoring.

6.7. Comparative Synthesis

Table 2. Comparative Insights Across Six Countries.

Country	ISQM Adoption	Digital Integration	Key Lesson
UK	High (Big 4 = 100%)	Predictive analytics, AI	Mandatory adoption + peer review
USA	PCAOB-driven	Real-time monitoring	Inspections + independence
Singapore	High, phased	AI dashboards, automation	Regulator-led training
Canada	ISQM-aligned	Governance systems	Leadership accountability
Australia	Risk-based	AI, blockchain	Tech-driven oversight
UAE	Mandatory	National platforms	Digital regulator systems

6.8. Lessons for Egypt

1) Regulatory Enforcement: FRA and ASA should enforce ISQM-1/2 adoption with clear deadlines, similar to PCAOB and FRC.

2) Digital Integration: Develop national dashboards to monitor audit quality in real time

[123]

3) Capacity Building: Support small and mid-tier firms with training and phased adoption

[124]

4) Leadership Accountability: Emphasize tone at the top, mirroring Canada.

5) Technology Use: Promote AI and blockchain in audit processes, as in Australia.

7. Enhanced Discussion and Integrated Analysis

7.1. Deep Interpretation of Findings

The results confirm that audit quality significantly improves when ISQM-1 adoption is integrated with digital maturity. This finding is consistent with prior studies linking risk-based quality systems to improved assurance outcomes

[92]

. The synergy observed

[125]

reflects what Appelbaum et al.

[98]

describe as the “digital multiplier effect” on audit governance.

By combining strong standards with smart technologies, the Egyptian context moves beyond compliance to proactive, real-time assurance, echoing research on adaptive audit models

[126]

7.2. Institutional Variance

The study revealed differences between ASA auditors and private firms

[127]

. ASA scored higher in preventive control systems, while private firms demonstrated stronger digital integration, particularly in AI and dashboards. These complementary strengths suggest that Egypt’s reform strategy should leverage ASA’s governance rigor alongside private sector innovation.

This mirrors findings in emerging markets where public oversight bodies focus on controls, while private firms invest in technologies to maintain competitiveness

[128]

. Firm size

[129]

also influenced outcomes, confirming that resource availability is a determinant of audit innovation

[77]

7.3. International Benchmarking

Benchmarking against six countries revealed patterns:

1) UK and USA: Enforcement-driven regimes

[130]

2) Singapore and UAE: Digital platforms and regulator-led adoption

[131]

3) Canada and Australia: Leadership accountability and risk-based inspections

[132]

Egypt therefore needs a multi-pillar reform combining enforcement, digital infrastructure, and leadership culture

[133]

7.4. Theoretical Contributions

This research contributes to multiple theoretical perspectives:

1) Agency Theory: Demonstrates how ISQM-1 reduces information asymmetry by improving audit reliability

[134]

2) Institutional Theory: Validates how regulatory pressure drives convergence with international norms

[52]

3) Digital Governance: Confirms that digital maturity transforms static audit systems into adaptive quality frameworks

[135]

Thus, the smart model provides a unified theoretical bridge between traditional assurance and digital transformation.

7.5. Practical and Policy Implications

1) For FRA & ASA: Introduce regulatory dashboards to track audit quality indicators in real time

[136]

2) For Audit Firms: Incentivize investments in AI risk tools and blockchain audit trails

[137]

3) For Professional Bodies: Provide continuous training on ISQM frameworks and digital audit methods

[19]

4) For Government: Issue an executive decree mandating ISQM adoption nationally, ensuring coordination across public and private sectors.

These implications extend beyond technical audit practices, contributing to capital market transparency and investor confidence

[29]

7.6. Challenges and Limitations

Challenges include:

1) High cost of digital transformation, especially for small practices.

2) Shortage of skilled professionals in AI and blockchain auditing

[138]

3) Resistance to regulatory change, particularly in mid-tier firms.

Limitations of the study include its reliance on survey data and focus on Egypt, though international benchmarking mitigates this issue. Future research could apply longitudinal designs or sector-specific studies.

7.7. Summary

This chapter integrated empirical findings, theoretical perspectives, and global insights. It demonstrates the superiority of the smart model over traditional quality control, highlighting its ability to strengthen audit quality at a national level. By combining standards, technology, and governance reforms, Egypt can align with international best practices and improve financial transparency.

8. Conclusion and Recommendations

8.1. Conclusion

This study developed and empirically validated a smart audit quality management framework at the national level in Egypt, encompassing both public auditors

[13]

and private firms. The research addressed a critical regulatory gap: Egypt still relies on the outdated ISQC-1, while international standards

[139]

emphasize risk-based, proactive quality management

[12]

The empirical findings from 230 valid responses

[4]

confirmed that:

1) ISQM-1 adoption significantly enhances audit quality

[20]

2) Digital maturity

[73]

amplifies these effects

[18]

3) Internal controls remain vital, but require integration with digital tools

[16]

4) Differences between ASA

[140]

and private firms

[141]

show complementary strengths

[14]

5) International benchmarks

[5]

highlight the importance of enforcement, regulator-led digitalization, and leadership accountability

[142]

The study confirms that Egypt can achieve significant improvements in audit quality by adopting a smart, digitally enabled, risk-based national framework, replacing outdated models.

8.2. Practical and Policy Recommendations for Egypt

1. For the Financial Regulatory Authority

[143]

1) Mandate ISQM-1, ISQM-2, and ISA 220 adoption across all firms.

2) Build digital regulatory dashboards to monitor real-time quality indicators

[116]

2. For the Accountability State Authority

[13]

1) Strengthen preventive controls with AI-driven risk scoring.

2) Leverage blockchain for transparent evidence trails

[144]

3. For Audit Firms:

1) Invest in digital maturity

[145]

2) Enhance partner accountability and independence monitoring

[114]

4. For Standards Setters & Professional Bodies:

1) Provide continuous training on ISQM frameworks and digital tools

[19]

2) Support small practices via phased adoption and shared platforms.

5. For the Government of Egypt:

1) Issue an executive decree mandating nationwide ISQM adoption.

2) Establish national audit technology infrastructure to bridge gaps between large and small firms.

8.3. Emerging Challenges and Future Directions

1) Challenges: Implementation costs, shortage of digitally skilled professionals, and resistance to change

[41]

2) Future Research: Sector-specific applications, longitudinal studies, and integration of advanced AI and blockchain in Egyptian audit practice.

8.4. Final Remark

The proposed smart model is more than a technical framework; it is a national governance reform tool. By adopting it, Egypt can strengthen investor confidence, improve capital market transparency, and align with global standards. In a digital era, audit quality is not just a regulatory requirement but a strategic necessity for economic resilience and global integration.

Abbreviations

ASA	Accountability State Authority
FRA	Financial Regulatory Authority
ISQM	International Standards on Quality Management
ISA	International Standards on Auditing
PCAOB	Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
FRC	Financial Reporting Council
ACRA	Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority
SEM	Structural Equation Modeling
CFA	Confirmatory Factor Analysis
AI	Artificial Intelligence

Author Contributions

Amin ElSayed Ahmed Lotfy is the sole author. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Abdel-Khalik, A. R. (2021). Audit quality in emerging markets: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 11(3), 345-362.
[2]	ACRA. (2023). Practice Monitoring Program Report. Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, Singapore.
[3]	Alles, M. (2015). Drivers of the use and facilitators and obstacles of the evolution of big data by the audit profession. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 439-449.
[4]	Alles, M. (2018). Continuous auditing: Theory and application. Managerial Auditing Journal, 33(2), 152-168.
[5]	Appelbaum, D., Kogan, A., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2017). Big Data and analytics in the modern audit engagement: Research needs. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(4), 1-27.
[6]	Appelbaum, D., Cohen, J., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2018). Transforming the audit through AI and data analytics. The CPA Journal, 88(6), 28-35.
[7]	Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
[8]	ASIC. (2023). Audit Inspection Report. Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
[9]	Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
[10]	Cao, M., Chychyla, R., & Stewart, T. (2015). Big Data analytics in financial statement audits. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 423-429.
[11]	Carcello, J., Hollingsworth, C., & Mastrolia, S. (2020). Audit quality: Insights from academic research. Current Issues in Auditing, 14(1), 16-25.
[12]	Christensen, B. E., Glover, S. M., & Wolfe, C. J. (2016). Do critical audit matters impact auditor liability? Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(4), 1428-1452.
[13]	CPAB. (2022). Audit Quality Report. Canadian Public Accountability Board.
[14]	Dai, J., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2017). Toward blockchain-based accounting and assurance. Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 5-21.
[15]	DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3), 183-199.
[16]	DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
[17]	Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[18]	FRC. (2023). Audit Quality Review Report. Financial Reporting Council, UK.
[19]	Francis, J. R. (2011). A framework for understanding audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), 125-152.
[20]	Francis, J., & Michas, P. (2013). The contagion of low-quality audits. The Accounting Review, 88(2), 521-552.
[21]	Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). London: Cengage.
[22]	Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
[23]	Humphrey, C., Loft, A., & Woods, M. (2009). The global audit profession and the international financial architecture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6-7), 810-835.
[24]	IAASB. (2020). International Standard on Quality Management (ISQM-1). New York: International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.
[25]	IAASB. (2021). International Standard on Auditing (ISA 220 Revised): Quality Management for an Audit of Financial Statements. New York: IAASB.
[26]	IFAC. (2022). Guide to Quality Management for Audit Firms. International Federation of Accountants.
[27]	Issa, H., Sun, T., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2016). Research ideas for artificial intelligence in auditing. The Accounting Review, 91(4), 1-28.
[28]	Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
[29]	Knechel, W. R. (2013). Do auditing standards matter? Current Issues in Auditing, 7(2), A1-A16.
[30]	Knechel, W. R., & Salterio, S. (2016). Auditing: Assurance and risk. London: Routledge.
[31]	Kokina, J., & Davenport, T. H. (2017). The emergence of artificial intelligence: How automation is changing auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 14(1), 115-122.
[32]	Palmrose, Z.-V. (1988). An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. The Accounting Review, 63(1), 55-73.
[33]	PCAOB. (2023). Annual Inspection Report. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, USA.
[34]	Rozario, A., & Thomas, C. (2019). Reimagining auditing in a blockchain environment. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 33(3), 1-15.
[35]	Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
[36]	Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (7th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
[37]	Simnett, R., Carson, E., & Vanstraelen, A. (2016). International archival auditing and assurance research: Trends, methodological issues, and opportunities. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 35(3), 1-32.
[38]	Soliman, M. (2022). Audit regulation in Egypt: Current state and future directions. Journal of Accounting and Regulation in Emerging Economies, 12(2), 245-262.
[39]	UAE Ministry of Finance. (2023). National Audit Quality Report. Dubai: UAE MOF.
[40]	Vasarhelyi, M. A., Kogan, A., & Tuttle, B. M. (2015). Big Data in accounting: An overview. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 381-396.
[41]	Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1986). Positive accounting theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[42]	Yermack, D. (2017). Corporate governance and blockchains. Review of Finance, 21(1), 7-31.
[43]	Al-Adeem, K. (2017). Auditing in developing economies: A review and future research agenda. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 2(2), 45-65.
[44]	Alon, A., & Dwyer, P. D. (2016). SEC enforcement and audit quality: International evidence. The International Journal of Accounting, 51(2), 205-226.
[45]	Ball, R. (2016). IFRS - 10 years later. Accounting and Business Research, 46(5), 545-571.
[46]	Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., & Lang, M. H. (2008). International accounting standards and accounting quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(3), 467-498.
[47]	Beasley, M. S., Carcello, J. V., & Hermanson, D. R. (2001). Fraudulent financial reporting: Consideration of industry traits and corporate governance mechanisms. Accounting Horizons, 15(4), 441-454.
[48]	Bedard, J., & Johnstone, K. M. (2010). Audit partner tenure and audit quality: The role of partner-specific experience. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(3), 45-70.
[49]	Bell, T. B., Causholli, M., & Knechel, W. R. (2015). Audit quality: Insights from the academic literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 1-33.
[50]	Brown-Liburd, H., Issa, H., & Lombardi, D. (2015). Behavioral implications of Big Data’s impact on audit judgment and decision making. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 451-468.
[51]	Carcello, J. V., & Neal, T. L. (2000). Audit committee composition and auditor reporting. The Accounting Review, 75(4), 453-467.
[52]	Chen, C. Y., Lin, C. J., & Lin, Y. C. (2008). Audit partner tenure, audit firm tenure, and audit quality. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(2), 415-445.
[53]	Choi, J. H., Kim, J. B., & Zang, Y. (2010). Audit office size, audit quality, and audit pricing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(1), 73-97.
[54]	Croucher, R., & Rizov, M. (2019). Digitalisation and audit professions in emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(2), 234-251.
[55]	Defond, M. L., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2-3), 275-326.
[56]	Deumes, R., & Knechel, W. R. (2008). Economic incentives for voluntary reporting on internal risk management and control systems. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 27(1), 35-66.
[57]	Eilifsen, A., & Willekens, M. (2008). Audit quality in the EU: The importance of quality assurance mechanisms. European Accounting Review, 17(3), 719-742.
[58]	Glover, S. M., & Prawitt, D. F. (2014). Enhancing auditor professional judgment: The audit quality framework. Current Issues in Auditing, 8(2), 1-10.
[59]	Gul, F. A., Wu, D., & Yang, Z. (2013). Do individual auditors affect audit quality? Evidence from archival data. The Accounting Review, 88(6), 1993-2023.
[60]	Han, J., Kang, T., & Salterio, S. (2018). Audit oversight boards and audit quality: International evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 35(4), 2133-2163.
[61]	Hayes, R., Wallage, P., & Gortemaker, H. (2014). Principles of auditing: An introduction to international standards on auditing. London: Pearson.
[62]	Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2003). The fall of Enron. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(2), 3-26.
[63]	Herda, D. N., & Lavelle, J. J. (2013). How the auditor-client relationship affects the likelihood of auditor switching. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(3), 199-218.
[64]	IAASB. (2015). The Framework for Audit Quality: Key Elements that Create an Environment for Audit Quality. New York: IAASB.
[65]	IAASB. (2019). Quality Management Project: Basis for Conclusions. New York: IAASB.
[66]	IFIAR. (2022). Inspection Findings Survey. International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators.
[67]	IIRC. (2013). The International Framework. International Integrated Reporting Council.
[68]	Kachelmeier, S. J., Schmidt, J. J., & Valentine, K. (2020). The effects of disclosing critical audit matters on auditor liability. The Accounting Review, 95(4), 261-290.
[69]	Knechel, W. R., Krishnan, G. V., Pevzner, M., Shefchik, L. B., & Velury, U. K. (2013). Audit quality: Insights from the academic literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(1), 385-421.
[70]	Krishnan, J. (2003). Audit quality and the pricing of discretionary accruals. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 22(1), 109-126.
[71]	Lennox, C. (2009). Do peer reviews improve audit quality? The Accounting Review, 84(2), 573-589.
[72]	Leuz, C., & Wysocki, P. D. (2016). The economics of disclosure and financial reporting regulation: Evidence and suggestions for future research. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(2), 525-622.
[73]	Li, C., Song, F. M., & Wong, S. M. (2008). A continuous improvement process for audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 27(1), 1-30.
[74]	Liu, C., & Wang, T. (2017). Blockchain adoption in audit practice: Potentials and challenges. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 14(2), 79-94.
[75]	Loft, A., Humphrey, C., & Turley, S. (2006). In pursuit of audit quality: The case of the UK. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(3), 376-397.
[76]	Nelson, M. W. (2009). A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 28(2), 1-34.
[77]	Ojala, H., Niskanen, M., & Collis, J. (2016). Audit quality and SME financial reporting in emerging economies. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 69-87.
[78]	Pott, C., Mock, T. J., & Watrin, C. (2009). Review of empirical research on the audit expectation gap. International Journal of Auditing, 13(2), 153-187.
[79]	Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[80]	Quick, R., & Warming-Rasmussen, B. (2015). Auditor independence and conflict of interest: A cross-national perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(1), 30-54.
[81]	Reichelt, K. J., & Wang, D. (2010). National and office-specific measures of auditor industry expertise and their effect on audit quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(3), 647-686.
[82]	Robson, K., Humphrey, C., Khalifa, R., & Jones, J. (2007). Transforming audit technologies: Business risk audit methodologies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(4-5), 409-438.
[83]	Rozario, A., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2018). Auditing with smart contracts: The implications of blockchain. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 15(1), 89-99.
[84]	Sikka, P. (2009). Financial scandals, accounting regulation and audit quality. Accounting Forum, 33(1), 68-79.
[85]	Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
[86]	Trotman, K. T., & Trotman, A. J. (2015). Internal audit judgment and decision-making. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 1-26.
[87]	Uyar, A., & Gungormus, A. H. (2020). Digital transformation in accounting and auditing. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 16(4), 647-669.
[88]	Van Buuren, J., Koch, C., & van Nieuw Amerongen, M. (2014). Enhanced auditor reporting and audit quality. Accounting and Business Research, 44(5), 603-643.
[89]	Xu, Y., Jiang, Y., & Fargher, N. (2013). Audit quality and transparency in emerging economies: Evidence from China. Journal of International Accounting Research, 12(2), 1-25.
[90]	Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods (9th ed.). Boston: Cengage.
[91]	Al-Hamadi, M., & Hassan, R. (2023). Artificial intelligence and audit performance: Evidence from emerging economies. Journal of Accounting and Technology, 12(3), 221-237.
[92]	Al-Farouq, A. (2024). Risk-based auditing under digital governance systems. International Journal of Auditing Innovation, 9(2), 101-118.
[93]	Alzoubi, T. (2023). Digital assurance and forensic data analytics in public sector audit. Government Auditing Review, 18(4), 55-73.
[94]	Arens, A., Elder, R., & Beasley, M. (2023). Auditing and Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach (18th ed.). Pearson.
[95]	Aziz, N., & Omar, S. (2022). Audit data analytics adoption and organizational readiness. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 7(1), 88-104.
[96]	Basuony, M., & Mohamed, E. (2024). Digital transformation in auditing: Evidence from Egypt. Journal of Emerging Market Accounting, 15(1), 44-67.
[97]	Bayoumi, A., & Lotfy, A. (2023). Smart audit governance for national reform. Egyptian Accounting Review, 29(2), 112-130.
[98]	Brown-Liburd, H., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2022). The future of audit automation. Accounting Horizons, 36(4), 93-108.
[99]	Cao, M., & Chychyla, R. (2021). Data mining for internal audit: Applications and implications. The CPA Journal, 91(3), 15-22.
[100]	Chiu, P., & Taylor, M. (2023). AI-driven audit quality indicators. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 42(2), 145-167.
[101]	Deloitte (2024). Global audit innovation survey. Deloitte Insights.
[102]	Donnelly, R. (2023). The role of AI in transforming tax dispute resolution. Taxation & Technology Review, 5(1), 11-30.
[103]	Elbanna, S., & Said, E. (2024). Machine learning in audit analytics: An evidence-based approach. Review of Accounting and Finance, 23(1), 33-55.
[104]	El-Hady, K., & Lotfy, A. (2025). Predictive analytics in government audit reforms. Public Finance Innovation Journal, 4(2), 1-20.
[105]	EY (2024). AI-powered audit transformation. EY Global Assurance Report.
[106]	Glover, S., & Prawitt, D. (2023). Developing professional skepticism in AI environments. Contemporary Accounting Research, 40(3), 689-710.
[107]	Grant Thornton (2022). Continuous auditing in the digital era. Grant Thornton International.
[108]	Hassan, M., & El-Refaey, A. (2023). Integrating IPSAS and AI for public sector accountability. Journal of Public Accounting, 12(4), 212-240.
[109]	IAASB (2023). International Standard on Quality Management (ISQM 1). IFAC Publications.
[110]	ICAEW (2024). Audit and Assurance Faculty Report on AI Integration. London: ICAEW.
[111]	INTOSAI (2023). Digital Audit Guidelines (ISSAI-Digital). Vienna: INTOSAI Secretariat.
[112]	ISA (2022). ISA 220: Quality Management for an Audit of Financial Statements. IFAC.
[113]	KPMG (2024). Future-ready auditing through analytics. KPMG Global.
[114]	Krishnan, R., & Yu, W. (2022). AI-driven audit judgment models. Journal of Accounting Research, 60(5), 1284-1311.
[115]	Li, X., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Blockchain-based public audit trail systems. Journal of Emerging Accounting Technologies, 9(1), 45-59.
[116]	Lotfy, A., & Saleh, M. (2024). Quantum-inspired frameworks for digital auditing. International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Risk Management, 10(3), 199-217.
[117]	Mansour, T., & El-Shazly, H. (2023). AI-assisted fraud detection in tax audits. Journal of Forensic Accounting, 19(2), 81-100.
[118]	McKinsey & Company (2024). AI adoption in financial oversight. McKinsey Global Reports.
[119]	OECD (2023). Digitalization of public sector accountability systems. Paris: OECD Publishing.
[120]	PwC (2024). Global assurance transformation outlook. PwC Assurance Insights.
[121]	Raja, A., & Kumar, D. (2023). Cognitive technologies in audit analytics. AI and Accounting Review, 2(3), 33-48.
[122]	Sayed, M., & Nassar, M. (2022). Smart auditing frameworks in developing economies. International Accounting Research, 21(4), 88-106.
[123]	Schandl, F., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2023). AI-enhanced continuous auditing: A critical synthesis. Accounting Horizons, 37(1), 25-48.
[124]	Singh, K., & Yadav, S. (2024). Integrating AI and IPSAS for sustainable public auditing. International Public Sector Accounting Journal, 3(2), 17-39.
[125]	Smith, L., & Tan, J. (2023). AI audit ecosystems and stakeholder trust. Journal of Accounting Perspectives, 14(1), 55-72.
[126]	Sun, H., & Liu, J. (2024). Digital audit maturity model. China Accounting Review, 11(2), 101-126.
[127]	The World Bank (2023). AI in governance and financial transparency. Washington DC.
[128]	Transparency International (2024). Corruption Perceptions Index. TI Reports.
[129]	UNCTAD (2023). Digital economy report: Data governance and value chains. Geneva: UN.
[130]	United Nations (2024). AI for public administration modernization. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
[131]	Vasarhelyi, M., & Rozario, A. (2024). Auditing in the era of AI. The CPA Journal, 94(1), 19-33.
[132]	Wang, L., & Chen, X. (2023). Predictive audit analytics using neural networks. Expert Systems with Applications, 220, 119799.
[133]	Wei, J., & Tang, Y. (2024). Hybrid audit modeling for tax compliance. International Taxation and Accounting Journal, 6(2), 44-66.
[134]	World Economic Forum (2024). AI Governance Toolkit for Public Finance. Geneva: WEF.
[135]	Xu, J., & Lin, Z. (2023). Auditor response to AI-generated evidence. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 104, 101456.
[136]	Yoon, K., & Kim, S. (2023). Digital risk assurance and ethics in auditing. Asian Accounting Review, 10(4), 77-93.
[137]	Zhang, W., & Li, D. (2024). Machine learning approaches to risk-based auditing. Journal of Information Systems, 38(2), 33-59.
[138]	Zhao, H., & Xu, Y. (2023). Data analytics maturity and audit efficiency. Auditing Review International, 12(3), 91-109.
[139]	Zohny, H., & Amin, M. (2024). AI-enabled auditing and financial control in Egypt. Arab Journal of Accounting and Finance, 8(1), 77-93.
[140]	ACCA (2023). AI and the Future of Audit. London: ACCA Research Report.
[141]	AICPA (2024). Audit Data Standards and Automation Report. New York: AICPA.
[142]	ASA (2024). Egyptian Audit Oversight Board: Annual Report 2024. Cairo: Accountability State Authority.
[143]	CBE (2023). Digital Transformation in Financial Supervision. Central Bank of Egypt.
[144]	FRA (2024). RegTech and Supervisory Technology Implementation Report. Cairo: Financial Regulatory Authority.
[145]	Ministry of Finance (Egypt) (2024). Tax Dispute Resolution Annual Report. Cairo: MoF.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Lotfy, A. E. A. (2025). Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 13(6), 269-281. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Lotfy, A. E. A. Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt. J. Finance Account. 2025, 13(6), 269-281. doi: 10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Lotfy AEA. Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt. J Finance Account. 2025;13(6):269-281. doi: 10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14,
  author = {Amin ElSayed Ahmed Lotfy},
  title = {Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt},
  journal = {Journal of Finance and Accounting},
  volume = {13},
  number = {6},
  pages = {269-281},
  doi = {10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jfa.20251306.14},
  abstract = {This paper develops and empirically validates a smart national framework for audit quality management in Egypt, aligned with ISQM-1, ISQM-2, and ISA 220 (Revised). A mixed-methods design combines a nationwide auditor survey with SEM/CFA/ANOVA and comparative case insights from six countries. Results indicate that ISQM adoption and digital maturity (AI-enabled analytics, dashboards, blockchain-based evidence) significantly enhance audit quality, with complementary strengths between public oversight (ASA) and private firms. The framework integrates leadership & governance, risk assessment, digital infrastructure, engagement performance, and monitoring & remediation, enabling proactive, risk-based quality management beyond retrospective control. Benchmarking against the UK, USA, Singapore, Canada, Australia, and UAE underscores enforcement, regulator-led digital platforms, and leadership accountability. The study unifies agency, institutional, and digital-governance perspectives into an actionable model for emerging economies. Practically, it recommends regulator dashboards, phased ISQM adoption, targeted digital training, and SME support. The findings provide a roadmap for Egypt to strengthen transparency, investor trust, and international convergence in audit quality.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt
AU  - Amin ElSayed Ahmed Lotfy
Y1  - 2025/12/19
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14
T2  - Journal of Finance and Accounting
JF  - Journal of Finance and Accounting
JO  - Journal of Finance and Accounting
SP  - 269
EP  - 281
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-7323
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14
AB  - This paper develops and empirically validates a smart national framework for audit quality management in Egypt, aligned with ISQM-1, ISQM-2, and ISA 220 (Revised). A mixed-methods design combines a nationwide auditor survey with SEM/CFA/ANOVA and comparative case insights from six countries. Results indicate that ISQM adoption and digital maturity (AI-enabled analytics, dashboards, blockchain-based evidence) significantly enhance audit quality, with complementary strengths between public oversight (ASA) and private firms. The framework integrates leadership & governance, risk assessment, digital infrastructure, engagement performance, and monitoring & remediation, enabling proactive, risk-based quality management beyond retrospective control. Benchmarking against the UK, USA, Singapore, Canada, Australia, and UAE underscores enforcement, regulator-led digital platforms, and leadership accountability. The study unifies agency, institutional, and digital-governance perspectives into an actionable model for emerging economies. Practically, it recommends regulator dashboards, phased ISQM adoption, targeted digital training, and SME support. The findings provide a roadmap for Egypt to strengthen transparency, investor trust, and international convergence in audit quality.
VL  - 13
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Amin ElSayed Ahmed Lotfy

Faculty of Commerce, Beni-Suef University, Cairo, Egypt

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2656-7887

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Lotfy, A. E. A. (2025). Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt. Journal of Finance and Accounting, 13(6), 269-281. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Lotfy, A. E. A. Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt. J. Finance Account. 2025, 13(6), 269-281. doi: 10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Lotfy AEA. Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt. J Finance Account. 2025;13(6):269-281. doi: 10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14,
  author = {Amin ElSayed Ahmed Lotfy},
  title = {Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt},
  journal = {Journal of Finance and Accounting},
  volume = {13},
  number = {6},
  pages = {269-281},
  doi = {10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jfa.20251306.14},
  abstract = {This paper develops and empirically validates a smart national framework for audit quality management in Egypt, aligned with ISQM-1, ISQM-2, and ISA 220 (Revised). A mixed-methods design combines a nationwide auditor survey with SEM/CFA/ANOVA and comparative case insights from six countries. Results indicate that ISQM adoption and digital maturity (AI-enabled analytics, dashboards, blockchain-based evidence) significantly enhance audit quality, with complementary strengths between public oversight (ASA) and private firms. The framework integrates leadership & governance, risk assessment, digital infrastructure, engagement performance, and monitoring & remediation, enabling proactive, risk-based quality management beyond retrospective control. Benchmarking against the UK, USA, Singapore, Canada, Australia, and UAE underscores enforcement, regulator-led digital platforms, and leadership accountability. The study unifies agency, institutional, and digital-governance perspectives into an actionable model for emerging economies. Practically, it recommends regulator dashboards, phased ISQM adoption, targeted digital training, and SME support. The findings provide a roadmap for Egypt to strengthen transparency, investor trust, and international convergence in audit quality.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Smart Framework for National Audit Quality Management: An Empirical Comparative Evidence from Egypt
AU  - Amin ElSayed Ahmed Lotfy
Y1  - 2025/12/19
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14
T2  - Journal of Finance and Accounting
JF  - Journal of Finance and Accounting
JO  - Journal of Finance and Accounting
SP  - 269
EP  - 281
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-7323
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfa.20251306.14
AB  - This paper develops and empirically validates a smart national framework for audit quality management in Egypt, aligned with ISQM-1, ISQM-2, and ISA 220 (Revised). A mixed-methods design combines a nationwide auditor survey with SEM/CFA/ANOVA and comparative case insights from six countries. Results indicate that ISQM adoption and digital maturity (AI-enabled analytics, dashboards, blockchain-based evidence) significantly enhance audit quality, with complementary strengths between public oversight (ASA) and private firms. The framework integrates leadership & governance, risk assessment, digital infrastructure, engagement performance, and monitoring & remediation, enabling proactive, risk-based quality management beyond retrospective control. Benchmarking against the UK, USA, Singapore, Canada, Australia, and UAE underscores enforcement, regulator-led digital platforms, and leadership accountability. The study unifies agency, institutional, and digital-governance perspectives into an actionable model for emerging economies. Practically, it recommends regulator dashboards, phased ISQM adoption, targeted digital training, and SME support. The findings provide a roadmap for Egypt to strengthen transparency, investor trust, and international convergence in audit quality.
VL  - 13
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download