IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rge/journl/v12y2024i1p77-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of auditor and auditee on mandatory audit fees in France

Author

Listed:
  • Sami Ben Larbi

    (University of Toulon, Kedge Business School, France)

  • Eustache Ebondo Wa Mandzila

    (Kedge Business School, France)

  • Jihene Meniaoui

    (University of the Opal Coast, France)

  • Ernesto Tapia Moor

    (Kedge Business School, France)

Abstract

This study employs a pluralistic theoretical framework, integrating the Resource-Based View, neo-institutional, and governance theories, to identify factors explaining joint audit fees. Utilizing a panel dataset of 116 firms over six years (totaling 696 observations) in France, we apply an extension of generalized linear models to handle non-independent observations. Considering both auditor quality and audited company characteristics, our research expands previous studies on French audit fees, which have predominantly focused on auditor quality. We find that joint audit fees are influenced by firm size, audit team composition, sector of activity, and client company size and director count. However, factors such as the choice of internal control framework, separation of control and management functions, and proportion of independent directors do not significantly impact joint audit fees.

Suggested Citation

  • Sami Ben Larbi & Eustache Ebondo Wa Mandzila & Jihene Meniaoui & Ernesto Tapia Moor, 2024. "The influence of auditor and auditee on mandatory audit fees in France," Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología (GECONTEC), Revista Internacional de Gestión del Conocimiento y la Tecnología (GECONTEC), vol. 12(1), pages 77-102, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:rge:journl:v:12:y:2024:i:1:p:77-102
    DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10936204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10936204
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5281/zenodo.10936204?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. Joseph V. Carcello & Dana R. Hermanson & Terry L. Neal & Richard A. Riley, 2002. "Board Characteristics and Audit Fees," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 365-384, September.
    2. Palmrose, Zv, 1986. "Audit Fees And Auditor Size - Further Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(1), pages 97-110.
    3. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    4. Mohammad Jizi & Rabih Nehme, 2018. "Board monitoring and audit fees: the moderating role of CEO/chair dual roles," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 33(2), pages 217-243, March.
    5. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    6. Richard N. Langlois & Nicolai J. Foss, 1999. "Capabilities and Governance: The Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 201-218, May.
    7. Nathalie Gonthier‐Besacier & Alain Schatt, 2007. "Determinants of audit fees for French quoted firms," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 22(2), pages 139-160, January.
    8. Mark A. Bliss, 2011. "Does CEO duality constrain board independence? Some evidence from audit pricing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 51(2), pages 361-380, June.
    9. repec:eme:maj000:maj-10-2016-1464 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:bla:kyklos:v:52:y:1999:i:2:p:201-18 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Ines Maraghni & Mehdi Nekhili, 2017. "Audit committee characteristics and audit fees: Evidence from France [Caractéristiques du comité d’audit et honoraires d’audit : cas des entreprises françaises]," Post-Print hal-01907594, HAL.
    2. Adi Masli & Matthew G. Sherwood & Rajendra P. Srivastava, 2018. "Attributes and Structure of an Effective Board of Directors: A Theoretical Investigation," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(4), pages 485-523, December.
    3. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    4. Ali Uyar & Cemil Kuzey & Merve Kilic & Abdullah S. Karaman, 2021. "Board structure, financial performance, corporate social responsibility performance, CSR committee, and CEO duality: Disentangling the connection in healthcare," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1730-1748, November.
    5. Neupane, Biwesh & Thapa, Chandra & Marshall, Andrew & Neupane, Suman & Shrestha, Chaman, 2024. "Do foreign institutional investors improve board monitoring?," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    6. Sarhan, Ahmed A. & Ntim, Collins G. & Al-Najjar, Basil, 2019. "Antecedents of audit quality in MENA countries: The effect of firm- and country-level governance quality," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 85-107.
    7. 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.
    8. Xinming Liu & Gerald J. Lobo & Hung‐Chao Yu, 2021. "Is Audit Committee Equity Compensation Related to Audit Fees?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 740-769, March.
    9. Chahine, Salim & Filatotchev, Igor, 2011. "The effects of corporate governance and audit and non-audit fees on IPO Value," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 155-172.
    10. Jihai Lu & Sohail Ahmad Javeed & Rashid Latief & Tao Jiang & Tze San Ong, 2021. "The Moderating Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in the Association of Internal Corporate Governance and Profitability; Evidence from Pakistan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-22, May.
    11. Amad Rashid & Basariah Salim & Halimah Nasibah Ahmad, 2021. "Internal Audit Effectiveness and Audit Committee Characteristics:Empirical Evidence from Pakistan," iRASD Journal of Management, International Research Alliance for Sustainable Development (iRASD), vol. 3(1), pages 1-13, june.
    12. 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.
    13. Shan, Yuan George & Troshani, Indrit & Richardson, Grant, 2015. "An empirical comparison of the effect of XBRL on audit fees in the US and Japan," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 89-103.
    14. Anthony Moung Yin Chan & Guoping Liu & Jerry Sun, 2013. "Independent audit committee members’ board tenure and audit fees," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 53(4), pages 1129-1147, December.
    15. Belkhir, Mohamed & Boubaker, Sabri & Derouiche, Imen, 2014. "Control–ownership wedge, board of directors, and the value of excess cash," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 110-122.
    16. Iman Harymawan & Aditya Aji Prabhawa & Mohammad Nasih & Fajar Kristanto Gautama Putra, 2021. "Risk Management Committee, Auditor Choice and Audit Fees," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, August.
    17. Sophie Audousset-Coulier, 2006. "L'influence du gouvernement d'entreprise et du co-commissariat aux comptes sur la détermination des honoraires d'audit des sociétés cotées françaises," Post-Print halshs-00548082, HAL.
    18. Umair Bin Yousaf & Muhammad Zubair Tauni & Imran Yousaf & Nancy Lixin Su, 2024. "Board competence and green innovation—Does external governance matter?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 3078-3102, May.
    19. Steijvers, Tensie & Niskanen, Mervi, 2014. "Tax aggressiveness in private family firms: An agency perspective," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 347-357.
    20. Helmi A. Boshnak, 2021. "The Impact of Audit Committee Characteristics on Audit Quality: Evidence from Saudi Arabia," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Mandatory audit fees; joint audit fees; Big Four/Non Big Four; auditor attributes; auditee attributes; influencing factors;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M1 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration
    • M15 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - IT Management
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:rge:journl:v:12:y:2024:i:1:p:77-102. 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: Dr. Luis Camilo Ortigueira Sánchez (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.gecontec.org .

    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.