Sustainability 2022, 14, 15141. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215141 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Article Sustaining Investigative Audit Quality through Auditor Competency and Digital Forensic Support: A Consensus Study Hendra Susanto 1, *, Sri Mulyani 1 , Citra Sukmadilaga 2 and Erlane K. Ghani 3, * 1 Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Singaperbangsa Karawang, Karawang 41361, Indonesia 2 Faculty of Economics and Business, Padjadjaran University, Bandung 45363, Indonesia 3 Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Puncak Alam 42300, Malaysia * Correspondence: hendra.susanto@bpk.go.id (H.S.); erlanekg@uitm.edu.my (E.K.G.) Abstract: The increased public awareness of the impact of fraudulent activities has put pressure on corporations to practise better corporate behaviour. As a result, their stakeholders demanded that corporations increase the level of transparency that pertains to their corporate behaviour and provide them with sustainable assurance. One of the ways that they can improve the way they conduct business is by ensuring that their investigative audits are of a high quality. In this study, we investigate the factors that influence the quality of investigative audits. In particular, two factors are chosen, namely, auditor competency and digital forensic support. Using a questionnaire survey as the research instrument, the questionnaires were distributed to 150 investigative auditors who worked for the Indonesian Audit Investigative Board (BPK). This study shows that both factors significantly and positively influence investigative audit quality. The findings of this study can help related parties to better understanding the factors that contribute to investigative auditing and, as a consequence, suggest ways to improve the investigative audit quality. For BPK, which has the authority to conduct audits of the management and accountability of state finances, the findings serve as a fundamental insight into sustaining work integrity and professionalism. Keywords: auditor competency; digital forensic support; investigative audit; Indonesia 1. Introduction In Indonesia, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK) is given the mandate to audit state finances by Law No.15 of 2004, including the authority to perform financial audits, performance audits, and audits with specific objectives such as investigative audits. Investigative audits aim to reveal indications of state/regional losses and/or crime. When indications of state losses and/or crime are found, BPK should immediately report the matter to the law enforcers in accordance with the legislation (Law No.15 of 2004) for them to follow up with an enquiry or investigation [1]. Investigative audits are considered reactive because they are conducted after the discovery of an initial indication of an irregularity. An investigative audit can originate from the result of a financial audit, performance audit, or audit with specific objectives [1,2]. BPK may conduct an investigative audit upon BPK’s own initiative or at the request of authorised institutions such as the Corruption Eradication Commission, Police, Judiciary, and House of People’s Representatives. Over the years, BPK’s investigations have revealed the increasing number of fraud cases in state finances. Based on BPK’s Summary Report of Semester II/2017, until 31 December 2017, BPK had issued 16 investigative audit reports, with indications of state/regional losses amounting to IDR 5.18 trillion, as shown in Figure 1. The Deputy Chairman of the BPK for the period 2017–2019, Mr Barullah Akbar, stated that the BPK has taken several corrective steps to strengthen the impact of the audit results in order to address public doubts on the quality of the BPK’s audits. This was done Citation: Susanto, H.; Mulyani, S.; Sukmadilaga, C.; Ghani, E.K. Sustaining Investigative Audit Quality through Auditor Competency and Digital Forensic Support: A Consensus Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15141. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su142215141 Academic Editors: Yaowen Shan, Quanxi Liang and Meiting Lu Received: 22 October 2022 Accepted: 13 November 2022 Published: 15 November 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/license s/by/4.0/).