企业可持续发展报告对审计师意味着什么?来自持续经营意见和可操纵性应计项目的证据

Ling Tuo, Shipeng Han, Z. Rezaee, Ji Yu
{"title":"企业可持续发展报告对审计师意味着什么?来自持续经营意见和可操纵性应计项目的证据","authors":"Ling Tuo, Shipeng Han, Z. Rezaee, Ji Yu","doi":"10.1108/ijaim-04-2022-0070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to address the unanswered question of whether corporate sustainability has an impact on auditors’ overall judgment and to provide incremental evidence that corporate sustainability reporting has significant effect on financial auditors’ judgment.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nFollowing prior research, the authors, respectively, apply auditors’ decisions on going-concern opinions and three discretionary accrual measures as proxies for auditor conservatism over financial risk and financial reporting risk. The authors collect corporate sustainability reporting and sustainability assurance data of U.S. firms from the global reporting initiative (GRI) database to construct and measure firms’ sustainability reporting activities.\n\n\nFindings\nThe authors find that nonreporting firms are more likely to receive going-concern opinions than the reporting firms. In addition, reporting firms have a larger scale of discretionary accruals than their nonreporting counterparts. The authors also obtain consistent findings that sustainability assurance or accounting assurance providers strengthen the effect of sustainability reporting on auditors’ judgment.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nFirst, using discretionary accruals as measures of auditor conservatism is controversial, as accruals are the joint product by auditors and clients. Second, binary variables as a measure of sustainability reporting activities limit the inference. Lastly, the findings based on limited samples may weaken the external validity.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe findings imply that firms engaging in sustainability activities are lower in financial or financial reporting risk. Firms can influence audit practitioners’ overall judgment through sustainability reports. Sustainability commitments and reporting have become a part of firms’ risk management.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThe findings imply that sustainability reporting could become an integrated part of regulated corporate disclosure. Sustainability assurance reduces social costs by lending credibility to sustainability reports.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis paper provides incremental evidence that sustainability reports provide useful information and signals that influence auditors’ professional judgment. The findings also suggest that sustainability assurance strengthens auditors’ confidence in using sustainability information, thus amplifying the effect of sustainability reporting on auditors’ judgment.\n","PeriodicalId":229587,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Accounting & Information Management","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What does corporate sustainability reporting imply to auditors? Evidence from going-concern opinions and discretionary accruals\",\"authors\":\"Ling Tuo, Shipeng Han, Z. Rezaee, Ji Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijaim-04-2022-0070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis study aims to address the unanswered question of whether corporate sustainability has an impact on auditors’ overall judgment and to provide incremental evidence that corporate sustainability reporting has significant effect on financial auditors’ judgment.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nFollowing prior research, the authors, respectively, apply auditors’ decisions on going-concern opinions and three discretionary accrual measures as proxies for auditor conservatism over financial risk and financial reporting risk. The authors collect corporate sustainability reporting and sustainability assurance data of U.S. firms from the global reporting initiative (GRI) database to construct and measure firms’ sustainability reporting activities.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe authors find that nonreporting firms are more likely to receive going-concern opinions than the reporting firms. In addition, reporting firms have a larger scale of discretionary accruals than their nonreporting counterparts. The authors also obtain consistent findings that sustainability assurance or accounting assurance providers strengthen the effect of sustainability reporting on auditors’ judgment.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nFirst, using discretionary accruals as measures of auditor conservatism is controversial, as accruals are the joint product by auditors and clients. Second, binary variables as a measure of sustainability reporting activities limit the inference. Lastly, the findings based on limited samples may weaken the external validity.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe findings imply that firms engaging in sustainability activities are lower in financial or financial reporting risk. Firms can influence audit practitioners’ overall judgment through sustainability reports. Sustainability commitments and reporting have become a part of firms’ risk management.\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nThe findings imply that sustainability reporting could become an integrated part of regulated corporate disclosure. Sustainability assurance reduces social costs by lending credibility to sustainability reports.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis paper provides incremental evidence that sustainability reports provide useful information and signals that influence auditors’ professional judgment. The findings also suggest that sustainability assurance strengthens auditors’ confidence in using sustainability information, thus amplifying the effect of sustainability reporting on auditors’ judgment.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":229587,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Accounting & Information Management\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Accounting & Information Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijaim-04-2022-0070\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Accounting & Information Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijaim-04-2022-0070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本研究旨在解决公司可持续性是否对审计师的整体判断有影响这一尚未解决的问题,并提供证据证明公司可持续发展报告对财务审计师的判断有显著影响。根据先前的研究,作者分别应用审计师对持续经营意见的决定和三个可自由支配的权责发生制措施作为审计师对财务风险和财务报告风险的保守性的代理。作者从全球报告倡议组织(GRI)数据库中收集了美国企业的可持续发展报告和可持续发展保证数据,构建和衡量企业的可持续发展报告活动。研究结果作者发现,不做报告的公司比做报告的公司更有可能收到持续经营意见。此外,报告公司比不报告的公司有更大的可自由支配应计项目规模。可持续保证或会计保证提供者强化了可持续报告对审计师判断的影响。首先,使用可操纵性应计利润作为审计师稳健性的度量是有争议的,因为应计利润是审计师和客户共同产生的。其次,二元变量作为可持续发展报告活动的衡量限制了推理。最后,基于有限样本的研究结果可能会削弱外部效度。实际意义研究结果表明,从事可持续发展活动的公司在财务或财务报告风险方面较低。事务所可以通过可持续发展报告影响审计从业人员的整体判断。可持续发展承诺和报告已经成为公司风险管理的一部分。社会意义研究结果表明,可持续发展报告可以成为受监管的公司信息披露的一个组成部分。可持续发展保证通过提高可持续发展报告的可信度来降低社会成本。原创性/价值本文提供了渐进式证据,证明可持续发展报告提供了有用的信息和信号,影响了审计师的专业判断。研究结果还表明,可持续发展保证增强了审计师使用可持续发展信息的信心,从而放大了可持续发展报告对审计师判断的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What does corporate sustainability reporting imply to auditors? Evidence from going-concern opinions and discretionary accruals
Purpose This study aims to address the unanswered question of whether corporate sustainability has an impact on auditors’ overall judgment and to provide incremental evidence that corporate sustainability reporting has significant effect on financial auditors’ judgment. Design/methodology/approach Following prior research, the authors, respectively, apply auditors’ decisions on going-concern opinions and three discretionary accrual measures as proxies for auditor conservatism over financial risk and financial reporting risk. The authors collect corporate sustainability reporting and sustainability assurance data of U.S. firms from the global reporting initiative (GRI) database to construct and measure firms’ sustainability reporting activities. Findings The authors find that nonreporting firms are more likely to receive going-concern opinions than the reporting firms. In addition, reporting firms have a larger scale of discretionary accruals than their nonreporting counterparts. The authors also obtain consistent findings that sustainability assurance or accounting assurance providers strengthen the effect of sustainability reporting on auditors’ judgment. Research limitations/implications First, using discretionary accruals as measures of auditor conservatism is controversial, as accruals are the joint product by auditors and clients. Second, binary variables as a measure of sustainability reporting activities limit the inference. Lastly, the findings based on limited samples may weaken the external validity. Practical implications The findings imply that firms engaging in sustainability activities are lower in financial or financial reporting risk. Firms can influence audit practitioners’ overall judgment through sustainability reports. Sustainability commitments and reporting have become a part of firms’ risk management. Social implications The findings imply that sustainability reporting could become an integrated part of regulated corporate disclosure. Sustainability assurance reduces social costs by lending credibility to sustainability reports. Originality/value This paper provides incremental evidence that sustainability reports provide useful information and signals that influence auditors’ professional judgment. The findings also suggest that sustainability assurance strengthens auditors’ confidence in using sustainability information, thus amplifying the effect of sustainability reporting on auditors’ judgment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Digital financial literacy and usage of cashless payments in Jordan: the moderating role of gender Digital financial literacy and usage of cashless payments in Jordan: the moderating role of gender Financial innovation and gender dynamics: a comparative study of male and female FinTech adoption in emerging economies Board gender diversity, audit quality, and the moderating role of political connections: evidence from the Gulf Co-operation Council Countries (GCC) Manager sentiment, policy uncertainty, ESG disclosure and firm performance: a large language model in corporate landscape
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1