Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has driven the adoption of advanced technologies in auditing, including the use of drones for inventory observation. However, practitioners have expressed concerns about the additional litigation risks associated with these technologies. This study aims to investigate whether using drones for inventory observation may increase auditors’ legal liabilities. In addition, it explores how perceptions of conventionality and normalcy interact in auditor liability and their broader implications. Design/methodology/approach This research employs a 2×2 experimental design to examine the effects of inventory observation method (drones vs human staff) and consistency with audit industry norms (consistent vs inconsistent) on jurors’ negligence assessments. Participants assume the role of mock jurors in a hypothetical legal case involving allegations of insufficient inventory observation. The study manipulates the observation method and its alignment with industry practices with a view toward disentangling the constructs of conventionality and normalcy. Findings The findings show that jurors assign higher negligence to auditors using drones when their use is inconsistent with audit industry norms, compared to auditors relying on human staff. Conversely, when drone use aligns with audit industry norms, jurors attribute lower negligence compared to those not using drones. In addition, the results indicate that the perceived foreseeability of audit failure mediates this interaction effect. Originality/value This research contributes to the extant literature by addressing the distinction between the constructs of conventionality and normalcy. It also offers practical implications for auditors, emphasizing the importance of demonstrating due care when adopting new technologies to align with audit industry norms.
Kim et al. (Fri,) studied this question.