Whistleblowing Mechanisms and Audit Response: The Moderating Role of Audit Committees

Abstract

Whistleblowing mechanisms are increasingly relied upon to surface misconduct signals that may reshape auditors’ risk assessments, yet the strength of audit response varies across firms. This article asks how whistleblowing system quality translates into observable audit responses and whether audit committees condition that relationship. Using a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2024, the study consolidates evidence on reporting-channel design, audit outcomes (fees, effort, reporting, and internal control evaluations), and governance oversight. The synthesis indicates that credible and timely allegations are most consistently associated with risk repricing and targeted assurance expansion, while weak investigative follow-through dilutes report informativeness. The discussion organizes findings into an evidence pathway linking allegation credibility, investigation and remediation documentation, and audit committee information governance. Overall, engaged audit committees strengthen escalation and remediation processes, enabling more precise audit adjustments, whereas limited involvement increases uncertainty and encourages broader, conservative audit responses. Practical implications and research priorities are identified.