IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v16y2023i2p60-d1039164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect the Timeliness of Audited Financial Information? Evidence from “100 Best Corporate Citizens”

Author

Listed:
  • Ebenezer K. Lamptey

    (Department of Accounting, Finance, and Economics, College of Business, Tarleton State University, Fort Worth, Crowley, TX 76036, USA)

  • Jin Dong Park

    (Department of Accounting, College of Business and Economics, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA)

  • Isaac Bonaparte

    (Department of Accounting, College of Business and Economics, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA)

Abstract

Companies are under immense pressure to integrate activities that will improve society and the environment with their business objectives. Such integration is likely to introduce complexity into the firms’ activities and impact the timeliness of the financial statements. Audit report lag is significant to investors as it directly impacts investor decision-making and investment fortunes. This study examines the association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and audit report lag. We measure CSR activities using a composite variable representing a firm’s inclusion on or exclusion from the annual list of “100 Best Corporate Citizens.” In the robust regression analyses with a sample of 3661 firm-year observations from 2011 to 2016, we found a positive and significant association between CSR activities and audit report lag after controlling for extraneous variables potentially influencing audit report lag. Furthermore, the additional results with the six CSR components in the list confirm our finding that, except for governance, all the other components, such as environment, climate change, human rights, employee relations, and philanthropy, have a positive and significant association with audit report lag. Our findings suggest that CSR activities introduce audit complexities and risks that compel auditors to assess a high risk of material misstatements, translating into more audit effort and longer times to complete audits.

Suggested Citation

  • Ebenezer K. Lamptey & Jin Dong Park & Isaac Bonaparte, 2023. "Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect the Timeliness of Audited Financial Information? Evidence from “100 Best Corporate Citizens”," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:2:p:60-:d:1039164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/2/60/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/2/60/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Victoria-Mihaela BRÎNZEA & Olimpia OANCEA & Marinela BÃRBULESCU, 2014. "The Corporate Social Responsibility- An Important Aspect For Consumers," Scientific Bulletin - Economic Sciences, University of Pitesti, vol. 13(1), pages 48-54.
    2. Andrei Shleifer, 2004. "Does Competition Destroy Ethical Behavior?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 414-418, May.
    3. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    4. repec:eme:aaaj00:09513571111184715 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Walid Ben‐Amar & Ines Belgacem, 2018. "Do socially responsible firms provide more readable disclosures in annual reports?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1009-1018, September.
    6. Blake E. Ashforth & Barrie W. Gibbs, 1990. "The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 177-194, May.
    7. Markus J. Milne & Suzana Grubnic, 2011. "Climate change accounting research: keeping it interesting and different," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24(8), pages 948-977, October.
    8. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    9. Sun Lee & Craig Carroll, 2011. "The Emergence, Variation, and Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Public Sphere, 1980–2004: The Exposure of Firms to Public Debate," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(1), pages 115-131, November.
    10. Carey, Peter & Liu, Li & Qu, Wen, 2017. "Voluntary corporate social responsibility reporting and financial statement auditing in China," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 244-262.
    11. Ying Cao & Linda A. Myers & Thomas C. Omer, 2012. "Does Company Reputation Matter for Financial Reporting Quality? Evidence from Restatements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 956-990, September.
    12. Collins C. Ngwakwe, 2012. "Rethinking the accounting stance on sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 28-41, January.
    13. Waris Ali & Jeffrey Wilson & Muhammad Husnain, 2022. "Determinants/Motivations of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure in Developing Economies: A Survey of the Extant Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-26, March.
    14. David B. Bryan & Terry W. Mason, 2020. "Independent director reputation incentives, accruals quality and audit fees," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(7-8), pages 982-1011, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ahmed Diab & Aref M. Eissa, 2023. "ESG Performance, Auditor Choice, and Audit Opinion: Evidence from an Emerging Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, December.

    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. Muhammad Farhan Malik & Yuan George Shan & Jamie Yixing Tong, 2022. "Do auditors price litigious tone?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1715-1760, April.
    2. Xingqiang Du, 2019. "Does CEO-Auditor Dialect Sharing Impair Pre-IPO Audit Quality? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 699-735, May.
    3. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_013 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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).
    5. Shao‐Chi Chang & Heng‐Yu Chang, 2015. "Corporate Motivations of Product Recall Strategy: Exploring the Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Stakeholder Engagement," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 393-407, November.
    6. Dorfleitner, Gregor & Kreuzer, Christian & Sparrer, Christian, 2022. "To sin in secret is no sin at all: On the linkage of policy, society, culture, and firm characteristics with corporate scandals," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 762-784.
    7. Bliss, Mark A. & Gul, Ferdinand A. & Majid, Abdul, 2011. "Do political connections affect the role of independent audit committees and CEO Duality? Some evidence from Malaysian audit pricing," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 82-98.
    8. A. Rashad Abdel†Khalik, 1990. "The jointness of audit fees and demand for MAS: A self†selection analysis," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 295-322, March.
    9. Lasse Niemi & W. Robert Knechel & Hannu Ojala & Jill Collis, 2018. "Responsiveness of Auditors to the Audit Risk Standards: Unique Evidence from Big 4 Audit Firms," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 33-54, January.
    10. Yi-Fang Yang & Lee-Wen Yang & Min-Ning Lee, 2015. "Service Quality, Size, And Performance Of Audit Firms: Consideration Of Market Segments And Business Strategies," The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 9(4), pages 51-66.
    11. Mark A. Clatworthy & Michael J. Peel, 2007. "The Effect of Corporate Status on External Audit Fees: Evidence From the UK," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1‐2), pages 169-201, January.
    12. Rind, Asad Ali & Abbassi, Wajih & Allaya, Manel & Hammouda, Amira, 2022. "Local peers and firm misconduct: The role of sustainability and competition," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Vivien Beattie & Alan Goodacre & Ken Pratt & Joanna Stevenson, 2001. "The determinants of audit fees—evidence from the voluntary sector," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 243-274.
    15. 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.
    16. Fleischer, Rouven & Goettsche, Max, 2012. "Size effects and audit pricing: Evidence from Germany," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 156-168.
    17. Joseph Weber & Michael Willenborg & Jieying Zhang, 2008. "Does Auditor Reputation Matter? The Case of KPMG Germany and ComROAD AG," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 941-972, September.
    18. Adelaide Martins & Delfina Gomes & Manuel Castelo Branco, 2020. "Managing Corporate Social and Environmental Disclosure: An Accountability vs. Impression Management Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    19. Scott Whisenant & Srinivasan Sankaraguruswamy & K. Raghunandan, 2003. "Evidence on the Joint Determination of Audit and Non‐Audit Fees," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 721-744, September.
    20. Fargher, Neil & Wee, Marvin, 2019. "The impact of Ball and Brown (1968) on generations of research," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 55-72.
    21. Perera, Luckmika & Jubb, Christine & Gopalan, Sandeep, 2019. "A comparison of voluntary and mandated climate change-related disclosure," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 243-266.

    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:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:2:p:60-:d:1039164. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.