IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v18y2025i3p108-d1595701.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Firm Complexity and the Accuracy of Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions in Emerging Markets: Does Auditor Work Stress Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Safaa Saleh

    (Accounting Department, Faculty of Business, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21526, Egypt)

  • Ahmed Diab

    (Accounting Department, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 12435, Saudi Arabia
    Faculty of Commerce, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef 62521, Egypt)

  • Osama Abouelela

    (Accounting Department, Faculty of Business, Alexandria University, Alexandria 21526, Egypt
    Accounting Department, Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh 11564, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

This study examines the direct and indirect effects of firm complexity on the accuracy of auditors’ going concern opinion (GCAO), and whether and how auditors’ work stress (AWS) can serve as a mediating variable in such a relationship. We analyzed a sample of 705 firm-year observations from 105 non-financial firms listed on the Egyptian Stock Exchange between 2017 and 2023. Binary logistic regression, OLS regression, and path analysis were employed to test the study hypotheses. The results suggested that firm complexity is negatively associated with GCAO accuracy but positively associated with AWS. Furthermore, a negative relationship was observed between AWS and GCAO accuracy. Finally, the analysis revealed that AWS mediates the relationship between firm complexity and GCAO accuracy. The findings remained robust across various sensitivity tests. Policymakers, audit firms, and investors can benefit from the findings, which emphasize the necessity of AWS mitigation techniques to improve GCAO accuracy and ultimately contribute to transparent financial reporting. This study provides unique evidence from a developing country on how firm complexity can indirectly impact the quality of auditors’ judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • Safaa Saleh & Ahmed Diab & Osama Abouelela, 2025. "Firm Complexity and the Accuracy of Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions in Emerging Markets: Does Auditor Work Stress Matter?," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-21, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:18:y:2025:i:3:p:108-:d:1595701
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/18/3/108/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/18/3/108/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Novrys Suhardianto & Sidney C. M. Leung, 2020. "Workload stress and conservatism: An audit perspective," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1789423-178, January.
    2. Dabboussi Moez, 2024. "Does Managerial Power Explain the Association between Agency Costs and Firm Value? The French Case," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, September.
    3. Wei Shi & Brian L. Connelly & Robert E. Hoskisson, 2017. "External corporate governance and financial fraud: cognitive evaluation theory insights on agency theory prescriptions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 1268-1286, June.
    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. Mataigne, Virginie & Meoli, Michele & Vanacker, Tom & Vismara, Silvio, 2025. "False signaling by platform team members and post-campaign venture outcomes: Evidence from an equity crowdfunding platform," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 40(1).
    2. Raffaele Morandi Stagni & Juan Santaló & Marco S. Giarratana, 2020. "Product‐market competition and resource redeployment in multi‐business firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(10), pages 1799-1836, October.
    3. He, Feng & Du, Hanyu & Yu, Bo, 2022. "Corporate ESG performance and manager misconduct: Evidence from China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    4. Zhang, Wei & Wang, Pengfei & Li, Yi, 2021. "Do messages on online stock forums spur firm productivity?," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    5. Ashton, John & Burnett, Tim & Diaz-Rainey, Ivan & Ormosi, Peter, 2021. "Known unknowns: How much financial misconduct is detected and deterred?," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Ying Schwarte & Ping He, 2024. "The effects of institutional investors and munificence on board chair orientations," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(4), pages 1049-1077, December.
    7. Stephen J. Smulowitz & Didier Cossin & Hongze Lu, 2023. "Managerial Short-Termism and Corporate Social Performance: The Moderating Role of External Monitoring," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(4), pages 759-778, December.
    8. Yusi Jiang & Tianyu Gong & Wan Cheng & Yapu Zhao, 2023. "Repression or indulgence? Distinctive government influence on firm financial and environmental misconduct in China," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(1), pages 379-402, February.
    9. Jianhong Chen & Wan‐Chien Lien & Danny Miller & Tianxu Chen, 2024. "Competitive Actions under Analyst Pressure: The Role of CEO Time Horizons," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1916-1945, July.
    10. Mehrzad B. Baktash & Uwe Jirjahn, 2023. "Are Managers More Machiavellian Than Other Employees?," Research Papers in Economics 2023-07, University of Trier, Department of Economics.
    11. Chenhao Hu, 2023. "The dual role of state shareholders in disclosed corporate misconduct: Evidence from China," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(3), pages 1732-1748, April.
    12. Patrick Velte, 2023. "The link between corporate governance and corporate financial misconduct. A review of archival studies and implications for future research," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 353-411, February.
    13. Yan Zuo & Shenyang Jiang & Jiang Wei, 2022. "Can corporate social responsibility mitigate the liability of newness? Evidence from China," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 573-592, August.
    14. Jun, Xiao & Ai, Junwei & Zheng, Lingfeng & Lu, Meiting & Wang, Jianye, 2024. "Impact of information technology and industrial development on corporate ESG practices: Evidence from a pilot program in China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    15. Emilie R. Feldman & Raphael (Raffi) Amit & Siwen Chen, 2024. "Hedge fund activism in family firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(7), pages 1273-1299, July.
    16. Wei Shi & Guoli Chen & Boshuo Li, 2023. "Problem Solving or Responsibility Avoidance? The Role of CEO Internal Attribution Tendency in Shaping Corporate Downsizing in Response to Performance Shortfalls," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1273-1301, July.
    17. Arpita Agnihotri & Saurabh Bhattacharya, 2019. "ESOPs AND NEW PRODUCT LAUNCH: CONDITIONAL EFFECTS OF FINANCIAL SLACK AND OWNERSHIP CONCENTRATION," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(03), pages 1-21, April.
    18. Seemantini Pathak & Codou Samba & Mengge Li, 2021. "Audit committee diversity and financial restatements," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(3), pages 899-931, September.
    19. Maria Goranova & Lori Verstegen Ryan, 2022. "The Corporate Objective Revisited: The Shareholder Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 526-554, March.
    20. Stefano Bonini & Justin Deng & Mascia Ferrari & Kose John & David Gaddis Ross, 2022. "Long‐tenured independent directors and firm performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(8), pages 1602-1634, August.

    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:18:y:2025:i:3:p:108-:d:1595701. 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.