The confidence in the qualifications and independence of the audit activities and professionals has been lost due to the financial scandals that have arisen over time. These scandals in the accounting and auditing fields caused both enterprises and investors to suffer from large amounts of losses and thus the need for reliable financial statements and corporate governance increased. Both investors and decision-makers need independent assurance to achieve transparent, reliable, and impartial financial information. The fulfillment of this requirement is possible through independent auditing activity and independent audit firms. Business management shall carry out the selection of independent auditors based on various criteria (fee, reputation, audit team, relations, etc.). In addition, it may also be necessary to periodically change an independent audit firm due to rotation or other reasons (fee, disputes, relationships, etc.). In this study, a ranking of the importance level of the evaluation criteria, for the selection and change of the independent audit firm in an enterprise in Borsa İstanbul (BIST) 100 in Turkey, was conducted. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), which is one of the multicriteria decision-making techniques, was used for ranking. In the hierarchy established for the selection of the independent audit firm, the main criteria of the “audit fee” and the “reputation and qualifications of the audit firm” have been established. According to the findings obtained as a result of binary comparisons, the first four ranks among sub-criteria are “provision of international service,” “quality of technical expertise of audit firm,” “industry expertise of audit firm,” and “suitability of fee offered by audit firm.” For the change of audit firm, four main criteria “audit fee,” “disputes arising during the audit process,” “relations with the audit firm,” and “rotation” are taken into consideration. For sub-criteria, first four criteria were “rotation of independent audit firm,” “rotation of independent auditor,” “audit firm’s inability to adequately practice proactive audit approaches,” and “inadequate communication.”
