IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/corgov/v9y2001i4p286-297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relationship Between Governance Structure and Audit Fees Pre‐Cadbury: some empirical findings

Author

Listed:
  • Michael J. Peel
  • Mark A. Clatworthy

Abstract

In this paper we provide new evidence on the relationship between internal governance structures (board composition and ownership concentration) and audit fees of UK industrial quoted companies, before the recommendations of the Cadbury Committee were implemented. We also develop a new hypothesis derived from agency theory, in an attempt to explain the puzzling positive relationship between audit and non‐audit fees. In common with post‐Cadbury research, we find no significant evidence that board structure variables, including chairman/chief executive officer split and the proportion of non‐executive directors on the board, impact significantly on external audit fees. Also, while prior research has shown that the aggregated level of institutional and managerial ownership are negatively associated with audit fees, we find that only one constituent of this variable, namely directors’ ownership, has a significant impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael J. Peel & Mark A. Clatworthy, 2001. "The Relationship Between Governance Structure and Audit Fees Pre‐Cadbury: some empirical findings," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 286-297, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:9:y:2001:i:4:p:286-297
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-8683.00256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00256
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-8683.00256?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ben-Hassoun, Amira & Aloui, Chaker & Ben-Nasr, Hamdi, 2018. "Demand for audit quality in newly privatized firms in MENA region: Role of internal corporate governance mechanisms audit," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 334-348.
    2. Derek Matthews & Michael Peel, 2003. "Audit fee determinants and the large auditor premium in 1900," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 137-155.
    3. Mark A. Clatworthy & Howard J. Mellett & Michael J. Peel, 2008. "Changes in NHS Trust Audit and Non-Audit Fees," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 199-205, August.
    4. Ben Ali Chiraz & Cédric Lesage, 2010. "Ownership concentration and audit fees: do auditors matter most when investors are protected least?," Post-Print hal-00476923, HAL.
    5. Raúl Barroso & Chiraz Ben Ali & Cédric Lesage, 2018. "Blockholders’ Ownership and Audit Fees: The Impact of the Corporate Governance Model," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 149-172, January.
    6. Mary Kehinde Salawu, 2017. "Factors Influencing Auditor Independence among Listed Companies in Nigeria: Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) Approach," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(8), pages 191-203, August.
    7. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-417 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Li‐Ying Huang & Gene C. Lai & Erin Lu & Michael McNamara, 2020. "Auditor quality, audit fees, organizational structure, and risk taking in the US life insurance industry," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 23(2), pages 151-182, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Rewczuk Karol & Modzelewski Piotr, 2019. "Determinants of audit fees: Evidence from Poland," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 6(53), pages 323-336, January.
    11. Michael Peel & Roydon Roberts, 2003. "Audit fee determinants and auditor premiums: evidence from the micro-firm sub-market," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(3), pages 207-233.
    12. Beynon, Malcolm J. & Peel, Michael J. & Tang, Yu-Cheng, 2004. "The application of fuzzy decision tree analysis in an exposition of the antecedents of audit fees," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 231-244, June.

    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:bla:corgov:v:9:y:2001:i:4:p:286-297. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0964-8410&site=1 .

    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.