上市公司ESG评级与审计报告决策——基于信息生成和信息披露行为的视角

ESG Rating of Listed Companies and Audit Report Decision-making: Based on the Perspectives of Information Generation and Information Disclosure

唐凯桃,宁佳莉,王垒

2023 第 25 卷 第 02 期 页码 107-121

DOI: 10.16538/j.cnki.jsufe.2023.02.008

PDF全文下载 HTML全文

摘要

ESG与高质量发展理念高度契合,是反映企业可持续发展水平的重要指标。文章以2010—2020年A股上市公司为研究对象,从企业行为视角出发,考察ESG评级是否会引起审计师关注,并体现在审计报告行为决策中。研究发现,上市公司ESG评级能够影响审计师审计报告行为决策,上市公司ESG评级越高,审计师出具正面审计报告的概率越大,采用PSM、工具变量法等缓解内生性问题后,上述结论依然成立。机制检验发现,ESG评级能够通过影响信息生成行为(改善企业经营管理)、信息披露行为(降低信息不对称),进而影响审计师审计报告行为决策。异质性分析表明,当企业所处地区制度规制强度越大、企业性质为非国有和非污染企业以及内部控制越有效时,ESG评级对审计报告行为决策的正向影响越明显。分项检验发现,环境保护(E)、公司治理(G)维度的表现能有效降低审计师出具负面审计报告的概率,但社会责任(S)维度表现对出具负面审计报告的影响有限。研究结论为监管部门、上市公司提高企业管理水平、改善资本市场信息环境提供了可行建议,同时为审计师规避审计风险、提高审计工作效率提供了决策依据。

ESG is highly compatible with the concept of high-quality development and is an important indicator to measure the sustainable development level of enterprises. With the proposal of the “carbon peak” and “carbon neutral” strategic objectives by the central government, the ESG performance of enterprises has gradually become a hot topic in the theoretical and practical circles. The existing literature focuses on the relationship between ESG performance and enterprise development, and there are few studies extend the economic consequences of ESG to market intermediary. Based on this, taking China’s A-share listed companies from 2010 to 2020 as the research object, this paper examines whether ESG rating will attract auditors’ attention and be reflected in the decision-making of audit report, and its internal mechanism, and further discusses the differential performance of the relationship between the two in different situations from the external institutional environment and internal enterprise characteristics. The study finds that, ESG rating can affect auditors’ decision-making on audit report. Auditors prefer to issue positive audit report for enterprises with high ESG rating. After replacing variables, changing sample size, adding control variables, PSM matching, instrumental variable method and other robustness tests, the conclusion is still valid. The mechanism test shows that information generation behavior and information disclosure behavior play an intermediary role in the above impact relationship. That is, ESG rating can reduce the probability of being issued negative audit report by influencing information generation behavior (improving enterprise operation and management) and information disclosure behavior (reducing information asymmetry). The heterogeneity analysis shows that the positive impact of ESG rating on audit report decision-making is more obvious when the intensity of local institutional regulation is stronger, or the enterprise is non-state-owned, non-polluting, or with a more effective internal control. The sub-item test shows that the performance of environmental protection (E) and corporate governance (G) dimensions can effectively reduce the probability of receiving negative audit report, but the performance of social responsibility (S) has a limited impact on audit report decision-making. The conclusions enrich the literature on ESG economic consequences and the influencing factors of audit report decision-making, providing a new research method for ESG economic consequences from the perspective of corporate behavior, and deepening the recognition that corporate behavior affects audit report decision-making. In addition, this paper provides feasible suggestions for regulators and listed companies to improve the enterprise management level and the information environment of the capital market, and provides a decision-making basis for auditors to avoid audit risks and improve audit efficiency.

参考文献

1 蔡春, 谢柳芳, 马可哪呐. 高管审计背景、盈余管理与异常审计收费[J]. 会计研究,2015,(3). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-2886.2015.03.010
3 陈承, 王宗军, 叶云. 信号理论视角下企业社会责任信息披露对财务绩效的影响研究[J]. 管理学报,2019,(3). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-884x.2019.03.017
10 洪金明, 林润雨, 崔志坤. 企业风险承担水平、审计投入与审计意见[J]. 审计研究,2021,(3). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-4239.2021.03.012
14 刘运国, 刘梦宁. 雾霾影响了重污染企业的盈余管理吗?——基于政治成本假说的考察[J]. 会计研究,2015,(3). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-2886.2015.03.012
15 潘海英, 朱忆丹, 新夫. ESG表现与企业金融化——内外监管双“管”齐下的调节效应[J]. 南京审计大学学报,2022,(2). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-8750.2022.02.002
22 王彪华, 唐凯桃, 陈凯歌. 签字审计师超额配置与分析师关注[J]. 中国软科学,2021,(11). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-9753.2021.11.001
34 张俊瑞, 余思佳, 程子健. 大股东股权质押会影响审计师决策吗?——基于审计费用与审计意见的证据[J]. 审计研究,2017,(3). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-4239.2017.03.015
35 周方召, 潘婉颖, 付辉. 上市公司ESG责任表现与机构投资者持股偏好——来自中国A股上市公司的经验证据[J]. 科学决策,2020,(11). DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-4885.2020.11.006
36 Aouadi A, Marsat S. Do ESG controversies matter for firm value? Evidence from international data[J]. Journal of Business Ethics,2018,151(4):1027–1047. DOI:10.1007/s10551-016-3213-8
37 Aras G, Crowther D. Governance and sustainability: An investigation into the relationship between corporate governance and corporate sustainability[J]. Management Decision,2008,46(03):433–448. DOI:10.1108/00251740810863870
39 Charfeddine L, Khediri K B. Financial development and environmental quality in UAE: Cointegration with structural breaks[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,2016,55:1322–1335. DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.059
40 Chen S M, Sun S Y J, Wu D H. Client importance, institutional improvements, and audit quality in China: An office and individual auditor level analysis[J]. The Accounting Review,2010,85(1):127–158. DOI:10.2308/accr.2010.85.1.127
41 Cheng B T, Ioannou I, Serafeim G. Corporate social responsibility and access to finance[J]. Strategic management journal,2014,35(1):1–23. DOI:10.1002/smj.2131
42 Eccles R G, Ioannou I, Serafeim G. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance[J]. Management science,2014,60(11):2835–2857. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
43 Faccio M, Masulis R W, McConnell J J. Political connections and corporate bailouts[J]. The journal of Finance,2006,61(6):2597–2635. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.01000.x
45 Yuan X Y, Li Z F, Xu J H, et al. ESG disclosure and corporate financial irregularities-Evidence from Chinese listed firms[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production,2022,332:129992. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129992