Search results

This study aims to examine whether firms that appear to exhibit high sustainable outputs are more likely to pay higher audit fees than firms without such outputs.

The sustainability outputs are measured using a sustainable product portfolio consisting of four products: clean energy products, eco-design products (EDP), environmental products (EP) and sustainable building projects (SBP). The audit fee variable is measured by the natural logarithm of the total amount of audit fees. The study tests two models of the association between these outputs and audit fees; Model 1 tests this association in the absence of the moderating variable (sustainability committee), and Model 2 tests the association in the presence of the moderating variable.

An analysis of data on 261 European firms from the Refinitiv Eikon database from 2010 to 2019 shows that high sustainability outputs are significantly and positively associated with audit fees. More importantly, this association is moderated by the presence of a board-level sustainability committee, suggesting that this type of committee reflects a factor considered by auditors in their audit risk assessment practices. The findings indicate that in Model 1, one (EP) out of four variables has a significant and positive association with audit fees, while in Model 2 and in the presence of sustainability committee, two variables (EP and EDP) have a significant and negative association with audit fees. However, the robust analysis shows that three variables (EP, EDP and SBP) have significant and negative associations with audit fees.

The study findings have important implications for policymakers, auditors and firms’ managers. For policymakers, the findings provide support for the argument that sustainable attitudes incentivise firms to manage sustainable product profiles more effectively. As such, policymakers should incentivise firms to establish a sustainability committee and regulate its role and responsibilities. Auditors should coordinate with the sustainability committee to facilitate audit efforts and reduce audit fees.

Understanding the relationship between sustainable products and audit fees will allow firms to improve their portfolio of sustainable products. In addition, other social implications of this study relate to improving relationships with society by establishing a sustainability committee that is responsible to communicate with that society.

The results support the argument that firms should manage sustainable product portfolios more effectively. In addition, the results of the study highlight the importance of a new variable as a moderator, the sustainability committee, which has not been examined before.

This paper aims to examine whether the audit committee moderates the relationship between audit quality and market reactions.

Using fixed effects and the GMM model for robustness, the study used 472 publicly listed firms on South Africa’s Johannesburg stock exchange spanning a period of six years from 2014 to 2019.

Results obtained show that audit quality impacts market reactions through share price and adjusted market returns. And, that the audit committee moderates the relationship between audit quality and market reactions in South Africa’s publicly listed firms. An effective audit committee is expected to play a crucial role in overseeing the audit process, ensuring the independence of auditors and promoting transparency and accountability which in turn impacts asset prices.

The study implies that governments and regulatory bodies in other developing economies could strengthen regulations about companies’ Acts, how firms regulate themselves and more so audit committees. Firms can also strive to make sure that audit committees are staffed with experts to promote higher audit quality and investor attention to get access to the much-alluded capital.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the study adds value by being the first to explore the subject matter of the importance of audit committees in defining audit quality and market reactions in publicly listed firms. The research adds to the body of knowledge on corporate governance and audit quality. It provides a case study specific to the South African context, contributing to the global literature on these topics.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of audit committee characteristics on firm performance. In particular, the authors employ the random-effects variant of the Hunter–Schmidt meta-analyze procedure to analyze the effects of key audit committee attributes, namely audit committee independence, audit committee expertise, audit committee size, audit committee meeting along with big four impact on firm performance. The authors hope to gain a better understanding of the function of audit committees in enhancing firm performance and to uncover potential discrepancies in prior findings due to varying economic levels or performance metrics.

This study uses the Hunter–Schmidt method to conduct a meta-analysis of 39 previous studies published between 2012 and 2022 to investigate the relationship between audit committee characteristics and firm performance.

The results indicate that audit committee independence, expertise, size and affiliation with the big four have a significant and positive effect on firm performance, while audit committee meetings have a non-significant effect. Furthermore, findings suggest that companies should carefully consider the contextual factors that may impact the effectiveness of their corporate governance structures, such as economic level, when designing and implementing governance mechanisms.

This study is significant as it is the first to combine and analyze previous research on this topic and highlights the importance of certain audit committee characteristics in enhancing financial reporting quality and corporate governance.

The study of the relationship between external auditing services and investment deviation in a French setting has received relatively little research attention thus far. There are insufficient indicators to measure audit quality and then have a measurable link to investment efficiency. This study is motivated by such a research gap as well as the important role of auditing services in assuring investment efficiency. The purpose of this study is to test whether a good audit quality service improves corporate investment awareness in French-listed companies and contributes to establishing a comprehensive analysis framework for inefficient investment and how audit services have become an important tool to reduce the investment deviation of listed companies in France.

Based on a sample of 89 non-financial French firms listed on the Stoxx 600 Index from 2015 to 2021, this study uses feasible generalised least squares (FGLS) regressions to study the relationship between investment deviation and auditing service quality.

After running an FGLS regression model for two firm groups (overinvestment and overinvestment groups) and testing for a set of control variables, especially COVID-19, the findings show a non-linear correlation between audit service and corporate investment deviation. Both underinvestment and overinvestment decisions are negatively and statistically significantly impacted by audit indicators. Furthermore, involving a high-quality specialised auditor may enhance overall monitoring and lead to a lower investment deviation level. Overall, the empirical results show that a high-quality audit service enhances the investment efficiency of French-indexed companies.

This study offers crucial information that audit regulators can use to better appreciate the advantages of high audit quality and to take seriously the policy issues that affect it. Board members are urged to provide excellent audit quality that improves investment efficiency with careful consideration.

This study contributes to the existing audit literature by illuminating the effect of audit quality services on investment deviation to show a deeper understanding of the factors that contribute to the differences in prior studies’ findings in the field of audit quality impacts.

The current study uses an advanced machine learning method and aims to investigate whether auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based as less risky. More specifically, this study aims to explore the association between principles-based accounting standards and audit pricing and between principles-based accounting standards and the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion.

The study uses an advanced machine-learning method to understand the role of principles-based accounting standards in predicting audit fees and going concern opinion. The study also uses multiple regression models defining audit fees and the probability of receiving going concern opinion. The analyses are complemented by additional tests such as economic significance, firm fixed effects, propensity score matching, entropy balancing, change analysis, yearly regression results and controlling for managerial risk-taking incentives and governance variables.

The paper provides empirical evidence that auditors charge less audit fees to clients whose financial statements are more principles-based. The finding suggests that auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based less risky. The study also provides evidence that the probability of receiving a going-concern opinion reduces as firms rely more on principles-based standards. The finding further suggests that auditors discount the financial numbers supplied by the managers using rules-based standards. The study also reveals that the degree of reliance by a US firm on principles-based accounting standards has a negative impact on accounting conservatism, the risk of financial statement misstatement, accruals and the difficulty in predicting future earnings. This suggests potential mechanisms through which principles-based accounting standards influence auditors’ risk assessments.

The authors recognize the limitation of this study regarding the sample period. Prior studies compare rules vs principles-based standards by focusing on the differences between US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and international financial reporting standards (IFRS) or pre- and post-IFRS adoption, which raises questions about differences in cross-country settings and institutional environment and other confounding factors such as transition costs. This study addresses these issues by comparing rules vs principles-based standards within the US GAAP setting. However, this limits the sample period to the year 2006 because the measure of the relative extent to which a US firm is reliant upon principles-based standards is available until 2006.

The study has major public policy suggestions as it responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks such as climate change.

The study has major public policy suggestions because it demonstrates the value of principles-based standards. The study responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US SEC, to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information as business transactions and investor needs continue to evolve globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the IASB Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks like climate change. The study fills the gap in the literature that auditors perceive principles-based financial statements as less risky and further expands the literature by providing empirical evidence that the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion is increasing in the degree of rules-based standards.

This paper examines the organizational resilience of audit firms during the early stages of COVID-19. The unexpected restrictions placed on travel and on-site working created unanticipated barriers for auditors in Hong Kong. The authors expect that auditors with greater organizational resilience can respond to unexpected situations and restore expected performance levels relatively quickly.

The authors utilize a sample of 1,008 companies listed on Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) with a financial year-end of December 31. The authors identify five proxies contributing to organizational resilience: auditor size, industry specialization, diversity, geographic proximity to the client and auditing a new client. The authors use audit report timeliness as this study's main dependent variable.

This study's full-sample results suggest that larger auditors, industry specialists and auditors with closer relationships to clients issued more timely audit reports during the pandemic. The analysis of a subsample of companies that initially published unaudited financial statements reveals that industry expertise and longer auditor-client relationships significantly reduced the need for year-end audit adjustments. Finally, the authors find that larger auditors were more likely to offload clients, whereas industry specialists were more likely to retain clients.

The results of the paper suggests that audit firm characteristics associated cognitive abilities, behavioral characteristics and contextual conditions are associated with audit firm organizational resilience and, consequently, helps auditors respond unexpected changes in the audit environment.

The findings of the paper are informative for those involved in audit firm management or auditor hiring and retention decisions.

This study is the first to link organizational resilience to the performance of audit firms in a time of unexpected events. The authors connect three auditor and two auditor-client dimensions to the organizational resilience of the audit firms.

This study aims to investigate the association between executives with foreign backgrounds and the audit fees paid by the Chinese-listed firms over the period from 2010 to 2020.

To examine the association between executives’ foreign experience and audit fees, this study constructs the following empirical model: Lnfee_i,t = β₀ + β₁Foreign background_i,t + ∑β_j Control_i,t + YearFE + IndFE + ε_i,t (1).

This study finds that auditors charge higher fees for firms hiring more executives with foreign backgrounds. The results are robust to a battery of robustness checks, including fixed effects, alternative measures of independent variable, controlling for other characteristics of executives and auditors and entropy balancing method.

This study sheds light on how executives’ foreign backgrounds affect audit fees, enriching the literature on executive heterogeneity and audit fees and providing important implications for audit practitioners.

This paper aims to examine the effect of carbon emissions on audit fees. The authors hypothesize that firms in cities with higher carbon emission levels have lower reporting transparency, higher return volatility or are subject to higher reputation risk, causing them to be charged higher audit fees for auditing services.

The authors use panel data of 25,960 firm-year observations from a sample of Chinese firms. The carbon emission data for each Chinese city are obtained from the China Emission Accounts and Datasets for Emerging Economies. This paper adopts a multiple regression model to study the impact of carbon emissions on audit fees.

The authors find that firms located in cities with higher carbon emission levels and firms with more carbon emissions are charged, on average, a higher audit fee. This audit fee effect of carbon risk is transmitted by lessened information transparency and elevated financial risk within these firms. This paper shows that auditors consider carbon risk in their audit fee decisions and other factors that could influence audit risk and effort.

This study draws a connection between carbon emissions and audit fees. It is especially relevant due to the increasing importance of environmental factors in the audit risk assessment. In addition, the findings suggest that a firm implementing a proactive environmental strategy benefits the economy and decreases the costs to the firm for services such as auditing.

This study aims to investigate whether organizational complexity (hereafter firm complexity) increases audit report lag (ARL) in a unique environment of GCC countries.

The research study uses a panel data set of 6,084 firm-year observations of nonfinancial firms from GCC economies from 2009 to 2022. First, the study uses an ordinary least square estimator to examine the association of firm complexity with ARL. Second, for robustness purposes, the study applies the propensity score matching technique.

This research study finds that the firms’ complexity increases ARL. Supporting the argument that auditors respond to firm complexity with increased effort, the authors find a positive relation of firm complexity with ARL. This relationship is augmented by auditor change, auditors’ tenure, auditor-qualified opinion and adoption of IFRS. In addition, the authors also find that Big-4 and audit firm industry specialization curtail the positive impact of firm complexity on ARL.

Firms in the GCC have less time to complete their audit and complex firms are likelier to have bigger ARLs. This study provided evidence regarding the curtailing effect of audit quality in GCC. Our findings suggest policymakers and reformers choose improved audit quality to reduce the possibility of larger ARL.

This study enriches the scholarship by presenting a mechanism for reducing the ARL of complex firms through higher audit quality. This study contributes to agency theory by emphasizing audit quality’s important role in emerging markets.

The study examines the changes in audit market concentration, auditor choice and audit quality in Russia following International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption. Scholars have called for further examination of the effects of IFRS adoption on auditors, with an emphasis on the importance of analyzing emerging markets that are characterized by enforcement challenges and lack of proper infrastructure. It focuses on a unique feature of Russian companies – dual audits under Russian Accounting Standards (RAS) and IFRS – and investigates changes in audit concentration and audit quality for the two audit markets.

The authors rely on the audited financial statements of Russian public companies and perform pre-/post-IFRS adoption estimation using a logit regression to ascertain whether public firms change auditors from local firms with limited IFRS expertise to those with global reputation, namely Big 4 audit firms. Further, they examine whether the change in audit market concentration post-2012 affects audit quality as proxied by companies' propensity to receive a modified audit opinion and discretionary accruals. Auditor attributes were hand-collected from audited financial statements and matched with financial variables from Datastream.

The IFRS audit market was dominated by the Big 4 audit firms prior to 2012, and there is strong evidence that audit market share (concentration) increases for IFRS reports but not for RAS reports. In addition, companies are more likely to choose a Big 4 audit firm for an RAS audit, conditional upon a Big 4 firm conducting the IFRS audit. The authors do not find evidence of decrease in the probability of audit firms issuing a modified audit opinion under either RAS or IFRS, indicating that, in the Russian setting, increased auditor concentration post-IFRS adoption does not lead to enhanced risk or decline in audit quality. Moreover, they find that discretionary accruals decline post-2012. Overall, the findings indicate that the concern of global regulators regarding audit market concentration is not justified.

The Russian reporting environment is unique and generally characterized by significant agency problems, and the study’s estimation sample is not large, compared to prior studies conducted predominantly in Western jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the authors shed light on the audit concentration phenomenon within emerging markets, for which empirical evidence is scarce. Future research could explore the impact of other capital market events and exogenous shocks, not limited to IFRS adoption, on the characteristics of Russia's audit market.

The IFRS reporting regime is commonly associated with enhanced reporting quality and improved information transparency among public companies. Yet, impairment of audit quality as a result of IFRS-driven increase in audit market share of Big 4 can potentially negate these capital market effects. This study shows that the concerns of global regulators are not valid and that audit quality does not change with increased share of Big 4 post-IFRS adoption.

Dual audits, whereby companies must prepare two sets of financial statements per the IFRS mandate, are not unique to Russia, and the evidence of IFRS reporting on the structural changes in the audit market and implications for audit quality under a dual regime is scarce. Accordingly, the study's findings are important and timely and are expected to aid regulators of countries that have announced or are contemplating the adoption of IFRS for public reporting purposes.