IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0300137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enterprise innovation and audit pricing: An evidence study from China’s A-share listed companies

Author

Listed:
  • Li Zhang
  • Wunhong Su
  • Shanqiu Liu

Abstract

Driven by innovation strategy, Chinese enterprises’ innovation investment, and research and development capability have been continuously improved, and the audit risk caused by this has attracted widespread attention from the academic community. This study takes China’s A-share listed companies from 2013 to 2021 as samples to empirically test the relationship between innovation input and audit pricing of Chinese enterprises. Research shows that the higher the innovation investment, the higher the audit cost. High-quality corporate governance, sufficient research and development personnel, research and development subsidies, and operating cash flow can all play a negative moderating role. A good innovation environment will weaken the positive influence between innovation input and audit fees. This study theoretically confirms the risk-oriented audit pricing mechanism, which is of great significance for optimizing enterprise innovation risk management and improving audit service levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Zhang & Wunhong Su & Shanqiu Liu, 2024. "Enterprise innovation and audit pricing: An evidence study from China’s A-share listed companies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0300137
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300137
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300137&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0300137?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    2. Ahsan Habib, 2013. "A meta‐analysis of the determinants of modified audit opinion decisions," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 28(3), pages 184-216, March.
    3. David C. Hay & W. Robert Knechel & Norman Wong, 2006. "Audit Fees: A Meta†analysis of the Effect of Supply and Demand Attributes," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 141-191, March.
    4. Hassan Yahia Kikhia, 2015. "Determinants of Audit Fees: Evidence from Jordan," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-42, February.
    5. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    6. Ahsan Habib, 2013. "A meta-analysis of the determinants of modified audit opinion decisions," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 28(3), pages 184-216, March.
    7. Martha Amram, 2005. "The Challenge of Valuing Patents and Early‐State Technologies," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 17(2), pages 68-81, March.
    8. repec:eme:maj000:02686901311304349 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Naqi Sayed, 2023. "Citation analysis of audit fee determinants literature," American Journal of Finance and Accounting, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(2), pages 71-89.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sudip Datta & Anand Jha & Manoj Kulchania, 2020. "On accounting’s twenty-first century challenge: evidence on the relation between intangible assets and audit fees," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 123-162, July.
    2. Jeffrey L. Callen & Xiaohua Fang, 2020. "Local Gambling Norms and Audit Pricing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 151-173, June.
    3. Beu Lee & George Gamble & Thomas Noland & Yuping Zhao, 2024. "The Effects of Regulated Auditor Tenure on Opinion Shopping: Evidence from the Korean Market," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-28, November.
    4. Naoum, Vasilios-Christos & Ntounis, Dimitrios & Papanastasopoulos, Georgios & Vlismas, Orestes, 2023. "Asymmetric cost behavior: Theory, meta-analysis, and implications," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    5. Kitto, Andrew R., 2024. "The effects of non-Big 4 mergers on audit efficiency and audit market competition☆," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1).
    6. Maria de Fátima Simões & Carla Carvalho, 2024. "Determinants of Qualified Audit Opinion: Empirical Study of Portuguese Private Sector Hospitals," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, 2019. "The Effect of Financial Constraints on Audit Fees," Capital Markets Review, Malaysian Finance Association, vol. 27(2), pages 59-87.
    8. Bhuiyan, Md. Borhan Uddin & Rahman, Asheq & Sultana, Nigar, 2020. "Female tainted directors, financial reporting quality and audit fees," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    9. Liwei Shan & Albert Tsang & Xiaoxue Zhang, 2024. "Transporting Audit Quality Across Countries: Returnee CEOs and Audit Fees," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 192(4), pages 845-874, July.
    10. Akihiro Yamada & Kento Fujita, 2022. "Impact of Parent Companies and Multiple Large Shareholders on Audit Fees in Stakeholder-Oriented Corporate Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    11. Ji, Xu-dong & Lu, Wei & Qu, Wen, 2018. "Internal control risk and audit fees: Evidence from China," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 266-287.
    12. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    13. Bamber, Matthew & McMeeking, Kevin & Petrovic, Nikola, 2018. "Mandatory Financial Reporting Processes and Outcomes," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 227-245.
    14. Kam-Wah Lai & Ferdinand A. Gul, 2021. "Do failed auditors receive lower audit fees from continuing engagements?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1159-1190, April.
    15. Costa, Mabel D. & Habib, Ahsan, 2023. "Local creative culture and audit fees," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    16. Sang Cheol Lee & Jaewan Park & Mooweon Rhee & Yunkeun Lee, 2018. "Moderating Effects of Agency Problems and Monitoring Systems on the Relationship between Executive Stock Option and Audit Fees: Evidence from Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, November.
    17. Chantziaras, Antonios & Dedoulis, Emmanouil & Leventis, Stergios, 2020. "The impact of labor unionization on monitoring costs," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 288-307.
    18. Leventis, Stergios & Hasan, Iftekhar & Dedoulis, Emmanouil, 2013. "The cost of sin: The effect of social norms on audit pricing," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 152-165.
    19. Wen, Fenghua & Chen, Meng & Zhang, Yun & Miao, Xiao, 2023. "Oil price uncertainty and audit fees: Evidence from the energy industry," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    20. Sun, Xuan Sean & Habib, Ahsan & Bhuiyan, Md. Borhan Uddin, 2020. "Workforce environment and audit fees: International evidence," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).

    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:plo:pone00:0300137. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.