IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rcjaxx/v10y2022i3p345-366.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is integrated auditing superior to separate auditing? Evidence from China

Author

Listed:
  • Li Dang
  • Qiaoling Fang

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare audit effectiveness and audit efficiency between companies that have integrated auditing of internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) and financial statements and companies that have separate auditing. We analyse a sample of Chinese public companies that disclosed their ICFR audit reports from 2011 to 2015. Using the full sample, sub-samples, and a propensity score matching (PSM) sample, we consistently find that companies having integrated auditing exhibit higher financial reporting quality measured by excess non-operating income. The findings regarding audit efficiency are mixed, with limited evidence indicating that an integrated auditor is potentially able to complete two audits without further delay. Overall, our results seem to suggest that integrated auditing is superior to separate auditing in that it enhances audit effectiveness and might improve audit efficiency. Such superiority might be due to knowledge spillover when two related audit services are jointly provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Dang & Qiaoling Fang, 2022. "Is integrated auditing superior to separate auditing? Evidence from China," China Journal of Accounting Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 345-366, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rcjaxx:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:345-366
    DOI: 10.1080/21697213.2022.2105679
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21697213.2022.2105679
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21697213.2022.2105679?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rcjaxx:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:345-366. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rcja .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.