IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/euract/v25y2016i1p7-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do (Fe)Male Auditors Impair Audit Quality? Evidence from Going-Concern Opinions

Author

Listed:
  • Kris Hardies
  • Diane Breesch
  • Joël Branson

Abstract

Recent research indicates that there may be a relationship between the characteristics of the audit engagement partner and audit quality. In this paper, we examine the relationship between audit quality and the presence of a female or male audit engagement partner. We use the likelihood that an auditor issues a going-concern opinion (GCO), conditional on the client's financial situation, as an indicator of audit quality. Using a sample of 7105 financially distressed, private Belgian companies, we find that female auditors are, ceteris paribus, more likely to issue GCOs than male auditors. Our results also show that this effect is stronger when clients are either important (i.e. represent a material portion of the auditor's revenues) or high-risk (i.e. associated with increased uncertainties and risks). Collectively, these results indicate higher audit quality by female auditors.

Suggested Citation

  • Kris Hardies & Diane Breesch & Joël Branson, 2016. "Do (Fe)Male Auditors Impair Audit Quality? Evidence from Going-Concern Opinions," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 7-34, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:euract:v:25:y:2016:i:1:p:7-34
    DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2014.921445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09638180.2014.921445
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09638180.2014.921445?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:euract:v:25:y:2016:i:1:p:7-34. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/REAR20 .

    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.