The effect of intellectual capital on audit fees stickiness

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to evaluate the effects of intellectual capital (IC) efficiency and its components on audit fee stickiness (AFS), such as human capital (HC), organisational capital (OC), structural capital (SC) and relational capital (RC). Moreover, the moderating roles of audit industry specialisation (AIS), tenure and auditors’ market concentration are also estimated. Design/methodology/approach This study’s method is descriptive-correlational based on the information disclosed by listed firms on the Tehran Stock Exchange from 2012 to 2018 using 1,316 year-firm. The method used for hypothesis testing is linear regression using panel data. Findings The results show that all the intellectual capital components (ICCs), including HC, SC, OC and RC, negatively impact audit fees (AFS). Further analyses also show that the AIS moderates the relationship between ICCs and AFS. Originality/value This paper is one of the pioneer studies assessing the auditors’ response to the riskless environments driven by existing IC.

CFO’s Intellectual Capital and its Relationship with Financial Performance, An Analysis of Companies Listed on the Stock Exchange (BOVESPA)

“…The results of this study are in line with the findings of Carvalho et al (2017), Pew Tan et al (2007), and Salehi et al (2023). They identified that intellectual capital exerts a positive influence or correlation with market value, financial return, and the appropriate use of human resources and risk management.…”

“…Research by Salehi et al (2023)determines that increasing the quality of intellectual and social capital improves the use of human resources, the control system, innovation, and company performance. Their study indicates that intellectual and social capital growth will mitigate internal control vulnerabilities in the long term.…”

The effect of environmental credit rating on audit fees: A quasi-natural experiment from China

“…Controls include the following variables. Following the variable selection criteria in the previous literature, we choose the following control variables: enterprise size (Size) [ 49 ], asset–liability ratio (Lev) [ 26 ], return on assets (Roa) [ 73 ], property rights (Soe) [ 40 ], growth capability (Growth) [ 26 ], company value (TQ) 40], equity concentration (Largest) [ 25 ], operational complexity (Complexity) [ 51 ], board size (Board) [ 26 ], proportion of independent directors (Indep) [ 40 ], executive shareholding (Executives) [ 73 ], CEO duality (Dual) [ 40 ], audit opinion type (Opinion) [ 73 ], auditor change (Chang) [ 51 ], auditor type (Big4) [ 47 ] and audit effort (Workload) [ 51 ]. Table 1 defines all the variables.…”

Determinants of accounting information system effectiveness and moderating role of external consultants: Empirical research in the Ben Tre Province of Vietnam

“…Managers entrenched in AIS operations can ensure that the system adheres to external standards, further augmenting perceived effectiveness [ 5 , 55 ]. Meanwhile, agency theory underscores the responsibility of managers to act in the company's best interests [ 56 ]. Through the active engagement of managers in AIS operations, they can promote transparency and efficiency while restraining potential information asymmetry, thereby strengthening the effectiveness of AISs [ 38 , 57 ].…”