Search results

Firm management has an incentive to improve credit ratings to enjoy the reputational and financial benefits associated with higher credit ratings. In this study, the authors question whether audit effort in hours can be considered incrementally increasing with credit ratings. Based on legitimacy theory, the authors conjecture that firms with higher credit ratings will demand higher levels of audit effort to signal audit and financial quality compared to firms with higher levels of credit risk.

The authors conduct empirical tests using a sample of Korean-listed firms using a sample period covering 2001–2015.

The results show that firms with higher credit ratings demand higher audit effort in hours compared to client firms with lower credit ratings. The authors interpret that firms with higher ratings (lower risk) demand higher levels of audit effort in hours to reduce information asymmetry and to demonstrate that financial reporting systems are robust based on audit effort signaling audit quality. The authors also interpret that firms with lower credit ratings do not have incentives to signal similar audit quality. The authors also capture the “Big4 auditor expertise” effect by demonstrating that client firms audited by nonBig4 auditors demand additional audit effort with increasing credit rating compared to Big4 clients.

Audit effort is considered a signal of firm risk in the literature. This study’s results show evidence that audit effort is inversely related to firm risk.

The results show that audit hour information is informative and likely managed by firm stakeholders. Internationally, it is not possible to capture the audit demand of clients because listing audit hours on financial statements is not a rule. Given that audit hours can be considered informative, the authors believe that legislators could consider implementing a policy to mandate that audit hours be recorded on international annual reports to enhance transparency.

South Korea is one of few countries to list audit effort on annual reports. Therefore, the link between audit effort and credit ratings is unique in South Korea because it is one of few countries in which market participants likely monitor audit effort.

Audit hour reporting is rare internationally. Thus, to what extent shareholders have the power to influence audit effort/hour demand is a question left unanswered. This study aims to use unique South Korean data to determine whether the increasing power of the largest foreign/domestic shareholders and blockholders can influence audit hour demand.

In this study ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis is conducted using a sample of Korean listed firms over the 2004–2018 sample period.

The results show: as the percentage equity holding of the largest foreign shareholder and blockholder (>5%) increases, audit hour demand increases. As the shareholding of the largest domestic shareholder increases, audit hour demanded decreases. The association between audit fees/hours is not qualitatively indifferent, after controlling for the audit fee premium effect. Furthermore, the largest foreign shareholder is shown to demand increasingly higher levels of audit hours from Big4 auditors, relative to NonBig4. All results are consistent with audit demand theory.

Whilst previous studies offer audit fee/risk interpretations, this study extends the literature by developing a framework to explain why audit hour demands differ for specific groups. Because audit hour information is rare internationally, the study has important policy implications.

This study aims to investigate why and how shared service centres (SSCs) are implemented as well as how they affect audit firm practice and audit quality.

In this qualitative study guided by the theoretical framework of institutional theory, the authors conducted 25 semi-structured interviews in seven European countries, including 16 interviews with audit partners from Big 4 firms, 6 with audit team members, 2 with interviewees from second-tier audit firms and 1 with a member of an oversight body.

The authors show that the central rationale for audit firms to implement SSCs is economic rather than external legitimacy. The authors find that SSC implementation has substantial effects on audit practices, particularly those related to standardisation, coordination and monitoring activities. The authors also highlight the potential impacts on audit quality.

By exploring the motivation for and effects of SSC implementation amongst audit firms, the authors offer insights into the best practices related to subsequent change processes and audit quality.

This paper serves as an introduction to this special issue of Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal; an issue which embraces themes associated with social and environmental reporting (SAR) and its role in maintaining or creating organisational legitimacy. In an effort to place this research in context the paper begins by making reference to contemporary trends occurring in social and environmental accounting research generally, and this is then followed by an overview of some of the many research questions which are currently being addressed in the area. Understanding motivations for disclosure is shown to be one of the issues attracting considerable research attention, and the desire to legitimise an organisation’s operations is in turn shown to be one of the many possible motivations. The role of legitimacy theory in explaining managers’ decisions is then discussed and it is emphasised that legitimacy theory, as it is currently used, must still be considered to be a relatively under‐developed theory of managerial behaviour. Nevertheless, it is argued that the theory provides useful insights. Finally, the paper indicates how the other papers in this issue of AAAJ contribute to the ongoing development of legitimacy theory in SAR research.

COVID-19 induced uncertainty in the firms’ business transactions, financial markets and product-market competition, causing a severe organizational legitimacy crisis. Using the organizational legitimacy perspective and agency theory, this paper aims to study the relationship between prior corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, monitoring cost (MC) and firm performance.

This study uses a quarterly panel (16,924 firm-quarter observations from 61 countries for CSR and 53,345 firm-quarter observations from 55 countries for MC) for 14 quarters from January 2018 to June 2021. This study uses panel fixed-effect regression models to estimate the effect of CSR activities and MC (measured as audit fees) on firm performance during the COVID-19 period.

This study finds a U-shaped relationship between CSR and firm performance. This relationship is strengthened during COVID-19. In contrast, this study finds an inverted U-shaped relationship between firm MC and firm performance. However, this relationship is weakened during the pandemic.

This study contributes to theory and practice on maintaining organizational legitimacy and reducing agency costs during the pandemic. This study shows that firms’ prior legitimacy-gaining practices, such as CSR activities and MC, provide an opportunity to increase firm value. To balance agency costs and legitimacy benefits, firm managers also need to identify the optimal level of CSR activities and MC.

This study aims to examine the impact of corporate attributes on integrated reporting quality of top 100 listed firms in South Africa.

With a sample of the top 100 listed firms in South Africa, this paper drew insights from the legitimacy and stakeholder theory to examine the impact of corporate attributes on integrated reporting quality. This paper measured integrated reporting quality based on the International Integrated Reporting Council framework of 2013. Corporate attributes were determined taking into consideration three broad perspectives (board committee attributes, firm attributes and audit committee attributes). This paper analyzed the data using content analysis, ordered probit regression and logistic regression method.

Results indicate that board committee attributes, firm attributes and audit committee attributes have a positive and significant relationship with integrated reporting quality. Additional analysis reveals that external assurance contributes to the quality of integrated reporting. The findings empirically revealed that most South African firms have intensified efforts toward the quality and full disclosure of integrated reporting framework.

The study was limited to a sample size of 100 firms, which is country-specific, however, it sets the tone for future empirical research on the subject matter. This study provides an avenue for future research in the area of corporate attributes and integrated reporting quality in other emerging countries, especially other African countries.

The result of this study provides practical implications in the areas of good corporate governance, corporate reporting and integrated reporting. The empirical approach used in this study emphasizes the need for corporate organizations to introduce integrated reporting practices into their reporting cycle. The finding implies that non-compliance with integrated reporting by corporate organizations may have an adverse effect on corporate growth, corporate sustainability and corporate reputation in the long run.

The work extends prior research on the subject of integrated reporting in South Africa. Also, this study broadens the application of legitimacy and stakeholder theory in influencing corporate organizations to disclose relevant information that could aids stakeholders’ interest.

This paper aims to examine the role of social auditing in legitimising the relationship between the buyer and supplier firms rather than strengthening corporate accountability in the global supply chain.

Applying case study methodology and drawing on Suchman’s theory on societal legitimacy, it is argued that social audits are artefacts of legitimacy, and global firms dominate the buyer–supplier relationship across the supply chain. The analysis is based on data collected from different secondary sources, including Walmart’s corporate sustainability reports.

Using Walmart’s relationship with Tazreen Fashions Limited around the Tazreen factory fire incident as a case study, it explains that the practices which attempt to symbolically demonstrate accountability from social audits need to shift to a more continuous and sincere demonstration of accountability through the social audit process. For this to occur, the cognitive and pragmatic approaches that international buyers have previously used in auditing their supply firms’ social responsibility are no longer sufficient to achieve societal legitimacy. Instead, a moral turn needs to underpin the intentions and actions of these buyers to maintain legitimacy and demonstrate accountability across the supply industry in developing economies.

The findings of the study answer the questions raised in the extant literature about the expectation from social auditing and whether social auditing serves to ensure corporate accountability. The paper contributes to the policymaking discussion of how social auditing can be configured to include a legal provision to ensure that social auditing is not a parroting tool for corporations.

This paper seeks to examine the responses of New Zealand auditors to the promulgation of Audit Guidance Statement (AGS) 1010: The Consideration of Environmental Matters in the Audit of Financial Statements and the consequent impact on audit practice.

This study adopts an interpretive methodology. It draws on dual research methods – interviews with 27 senior auditors, and a critical analysis of AGS‐1010. Legitimacy theory informs the interpretation of the findings.

The findings point to significant gaps in the guidance AGS‐1010 provides and reveal its limited impact on practice, which seems to reflect “business as usual” in regard to the audit of environmental matters. However, AGS‐1010 does appear to serve a ceremonial, legitimating role by supporting practising auditors' efforts to appear responsive to concerns about this emergent accountability issue.

The findings highlight the practical challenges that exist in the audit of environmental matters, and point to the need to scrutinise the role of auditors in providing opinions on the financial reports of firms whose activities give rise to material environmental matters.

The findings suggest points for reflection for a profession that relies on maintaining its societal legitimacy, but which is failing to pursue or achieve best practice in the audit of environmental matters.

This paper presents a novel critique of AGS‐1010 and a first examination of how New Zealand auditors are dealing with environmental matters in light of this professional promulgation. The findings contribute to the international literature by exploring the relatively neglected role of the auditor in advancing the “greening of accounting”.

The audit of development funds that flow between development not-for-profit organisations (DNPOs) is virtually free from effective external regulation. When programme DNPOs subcontract development work to field DNPOs, they are under current international audit rules free to specify audit frameworks that are limited to the accuracy of the books. Questions of the efficacy of the development work can thus be bracketed off. This paper aims to develop an argument for improving the regulation of cross-national audits of DNPOs.

Based on a review of the applicable audit regulation and ongoing debates of legitimacy and accountability, this paper articulates a series of problems that should be considered in the regulation of cross-national DNPO audits with reference to their specific legitimacy communities.

The special consideration that is due to the beneficiaries of development activities suggests that cross-national DNPO audits should be regulated not just with reference to general audit and accounting rules. Consideration should be given as well to some of the key context variables that potentially have a bearing on the likelihood that the audited development programmes meet the claims of the legitimacy community of development. These can include the level and depth of accountability afforded to the beneficiaries, potentially conflicting legitimacy relationships, the nature of admissible records for the audit and the provisions for programme funds to cover the overheads of field DNPOs.

The managerial implications of this paper concern the regulation, commissioning and conduct of cross-national DNPO audits. The authors propose a series of remedies to the scoping of field DNPO audits in a cross-national context.

Focusing on the functioning of cross-border NPO audits, this paper adds an important facet to ongoing discussions about the accountability of current regulation to represent the new interdependencies brought about by the forces of globalisation.

Sustainability assurance services are carried out in a competitive market where a wide range of assurance providers operate without the need for any specific professional qualifications, competencies or skills. Assurance providers have heterogeneous professional backgrounds and experiences that lead to substantial diversity in sustainability assurance quality levels. This paper aims to provide an understanding of sustainability assurance quality. From a legitimacy perspective, the authors focus on the choice of assurance providers by exploring why a company voluntarily chooses an incumbent financial auditor to jointly provide audit and sustainability assurance services. The authors argue that to avoid the legitimacy threats undermining stakeholders’ confidence in the sustainability information disclosed, companies should only choose their incumbent financial auditors to provide sustainability assurance services when these auditors possess the professional attributes associated with sustainability assurance quality.

This study develops regression models for an international sample for 2007–2016, where the authors analyze why a company voluntarily chooses an incumbent auditor to jointly provide audit and sustainability assurance services from a legitimacy theory perspective.

Evidence confirms that the choice of incumbent auditors as assurance providers is more likely when these providers are more specialized in the industry. The authors also find that independence does not play a significant role in this decision. Therefore, an assurance provider’s industry specialization can be understood as an attribute that is associated with sustainability assurance quality and one which limits the legitimacy threats caused by a lack of sufficient sustainability knowledge.

Given that companies have complete freedom when choosing their assurance providers, the selection of a high-quality incumbent auditor is an indirect measure of social commitment and a mechanism to improve public trust. The results confirm that it is fundamental for firms to understand the situations when choosing an incumbent financial auditor to provide sustainability assurance services is the best way to ensure firm legitimacy while obtaining higher sustainability assurance quality due to the spillover effect. This paper provides useful evidence for firms and managers who can become aware that the legitimacy threat associated with the auditing profession’s questionable competence to conduct efficient sustainability assurance engagements can be reduced if they hire an incumbent financial auditor with greater industry specialization. For assurance providers, the results are especially useful, as they should know that companies will be more likely to choose their incumbent financial auditor when that auditor possesses certain professional attributes, like industry specialization. The ability to assimilate and exploit the knowledge gained through auditing activities can be improved even more by specialization, which enhances sustainability assurance quality.

From a social perspective, stakeholders perceive industry specialization as an indicator of the professional skills necessary to increase both the real and perceived quality of sustainability assurance services, thereby limiting the legitimacy threat arising from a lack of sustainability knowledge. The evidence also provides valuable results for regulatory bodies, as it shows that firms are not able to address the legitimacy gap caused by stakeholders’ perceptions that incumbent financial auditors can easily be controlled by companies. Thus, doubts arise as to whether this joint provision undermines auditor independence. Precisely, these doubts about assurance provider independence can erode public confidence in assurance and devalue the quality of the service. The results of this paper highlight the need to strengthen regulation on sustainability reporting and assurance. The advances and relevance of sustainable development in recent years and in future agendas require a firm commitment to sustainability reporting and assurance of quality, reliability, integrity and confidence.

First, this study contributes to recent empirical studies that focus on the role of sustainability assurance services in the legitimation process of corporate sustainability reporting. However, while that research analyzes how the legitimacy theory explains the voluntary adoption of sustainability assurance, this paper adds to the literature by presenting evidence about why certain incumbent auditors are appointed to carry out sustainability assurance services. Second, this paper contributes to the sustainability assurance quality literature. Third, unlike previous studies that have regressed various client-specific and institutional factors that influence firms’ decisions to choose assurance providers, this study contributes to the research by providing knowledge about a set of professional features that may explain the decision model of assurance providers selection from a legitimacy perspective.