Skip to main content
Log in

The Impact of Religion on the Going Concern Reporting Decisions of Local Audit Offices

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We extend research on the effects of local audit office characteristics on audit quality by investigating whether audit offices in highly religious U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) exhibit going concern decisions that reflect heightened professional skepticism relative to audit offices in less religious MSAs. Prior research links religiosity to risk aversion and ethical development and suggests audit practice offices in more religious MSAs are more likely to issue going concern opinions because they will assess the effects of mitigating factors in a more skeptical manner. Our results indicate that audit practice offices located in highly religious MSAs are more likely to issue going concern audit opinions, consistent with a more skeptical assessment of mitigating factors. Additional tests provide direct evidence consistent with the argument that these audit offices are more risk averse in issuing going concern opinions. Our findings are relevant to auditors, audit clients, researchers, and regulators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For convenience, we use the terms “audit firm” and “audit office” interchangeably throughout the paper. Our analyses are conducted at the local audit practice office level.

  2. A related stream of behavioral literature examines the effects of social influence within audit firms on auditor judgment (e.g., Lord and DeZoort 2001; Thorne and Hartwick 2001). We extend this literature by examining the social influence that arises from the religiosity of the geographic area surrounding local audit practice offices.

  3. For parsimony, we refer to audit offices located in highly religious MSAs as “religious audit offices.”

  4. This result is similar to the finding in DeFond et al. (2011) that non-Big 4 auditors are more likely than Big 4 auditors to be affected by the local environment. Specifically, DeFond et al. (2011) show that only non-Big 4 auditors are more likely to issue going concern opinions when the engagement offices are closer to SEC regional offices.

  5. In highly religious locations, individual auditors are more likely to be religious, and they are more likely to be influenced by the religion of the community in which they live.

  6. We use the varimax rotation technique, and the factor loadings are as follows: REL_AFFILIATION 0.84, REL_IMP 0.96, and ATTEND_WEEKLY 0.92. Results are robust to alternative specifications of religiosity.

  7. We present results using both first-time going concern opinions (e.g., DeFond et al. 2002) and all going concern opinions in the Audit Analytics database.

  8. We retain observations that do not report an audit opinion on the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting and create a variable that equals 1 if the audit opinion on internal control effectiveness is unobservable and 0 otherwise. These observations are primarily non-accelerated filers.

  9. The correlation coefficients are greater than 0.50. As a robustness test, we drop College_Grad and Repub from the models and repeat all regressions. Inferences are not affected.

  10. The calculation is the natural exponential of (−0.074 − (−0.784)) × 0.455 minus one: e0.323– 1 = 0.381.

  11. As an additional analysis, we replace FEE_RATIO with the natural logarithm of audit fees and non-audit fees to control for the level of fee dependence, following Blay and Geiger (2013) and Ratzinger-Sakel (2013). The coefficient on Auditor Religiosity remains positive and significant at p < 0.01.

  12. The issues giving rise to lawsuits include accounting and auditing enforcement releases, accounting malpractice, financial reporting issues, and stock options backdating. These classifications are obtained from Audit Analytics.

  13. Inferences are not affected if we create an indicator variable equal to one if the client’s audit fees in year t are greater than the median of audit fees for all clients in year t and zero otherwise.

  14. For example, Table 2 Panel A shows that the percent of Republicans in an MSA and the religiosity of the MSA are highly correlated (0.612).

  15. Its minimum and maximum values are − 2.5 and 2.5 (in $1000).

References

  • Abbott, L. J., Parker, S., & Peters, G. F. (2003). The effects of post-bankruptcy financing on-going concern reporting. Advances in Accounting, 20, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman, E. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 23, 589–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman, E. I., & McGough, T. (1974). Evaluation of a company as a going concern. Journal of Accountancy, 138(6), 50–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (1988). The auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 59. New York, NY: AICPA.

  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2002). Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York: AICPA.

  • Barnett, T., Bass, K., & Brown, G. (1996). Religiosity, ethical ideology and intentions to report a peer’s wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(11), 1161–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behn, B. K., Kaplan, S. E., & Krumwiede, K. R. (2001). Further evidence on the auditor’s going-concern report: The influence of management plans. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20(1), 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blay, A. D., & Geiger, M. A. (2013). Auditor fees and auditor independence: Evidence from going-concern opinions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(2), 579–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowlin, K. O., Hobson, J. L., & Piercey, M. D. (2015). The effects of auditor rotation, professional skepticism, and interactions with managers on audit quality. The Accounting Review, 90(4), 1363–1393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, M., Leone, A. J., & Willenborg, M. (2004). An empirical analysis of auditor reporting and its association with abnormal accruals. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37, 139–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carcello, J. V., Vanstraelen, A., & Willenborg, M. (2009). Rules rather than discretion in audit standards: Going-concern opinions in Belgium. The Accounting Review, 84, 1395–1428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, E., Fargher, N. L., Geiger, M. A., Lennox, C. S., Raghunandan, K., & Willekens, M. (2013). Audit reporting for going-concern uncertainty: A research synthesis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(Supplement 1), 353–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Pyschology, 55, 591–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, M., Albrecht, S. L., Cunningham, P. H., & Pitcher, B. L. (1986). The dimensions of religiosity: A conceptual model with an empirical test. Review of Religious Research, 27(3), 226–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFond, M.L., J.R. Francis, and X. Hu. 2011. The geography of SEC enforcement and auditor reporting for financially distressed clients. Working Paper. University of Southern California, University of Missouri, University of Oregon. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1132885.

  • DeFond, M. L., & Lennox, C. (2011). The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 52(1), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFond, M. L., Raghunandan, K., & Subramanyam, K. R. (2002). Do non-audit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern opinions. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(4), 1247–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyreng, S. D., Mayew, W. J., & Williams, W. J. (2012). Religious social norms and corporate financial reporting. Journal of Business, Finance, and Accounting, 39(7–8), 845–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, A., Francis, J. R., & Stokes, D. J. (2003). The effects of firm-wide and office-level industry expertise on audit pricing. The Accounting Review, 78(2), 429–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firth, M., Mo, P., & Wong, R. (2012). Auditors’ organizational form, legal liability and reporting conservatism: Evidence from China. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1), 57–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J. R., Reichelt, K., & Wang, D. (2005). The pricing of national and city-specific reputations for industry expertise in the U.S. audit market. The Accounting Review, 80(1), 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J. R., & Yu, M. D. (2009). Big 4 office size and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1521–1552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup. (2011). In U.S., very religious Americans still align more with GOP. by Frank Newport. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148274/religious-americans-align-gop.aspx.

  • Geiger, M. A., & Raghunandan, K. (2002). Auditor tenure and audit reporting failures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 21(1), 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, M. A., Raghunandan, K., & Rama, D. V. (2006). Audit decision-making in different litigation environments: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, audit reports, and audit firm size. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25(3), 332–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, M. A., & Rama, D. V. (2003). Audit fees, nonaudit fees, and auditor reporting on stressed companies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 22, 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goh, B. W., Krishnan, J., & Li, D. (2012). Auditor Reporting Under Section 404: The Association Between the Internal Control and Going Concern Audit Opinions. Contemporary Accounting Research, Forthcoming.

  • Gow, I. D., Ormazabal, G., & Taylor, D. J. (2010). Correcting for cross-sectional and time-series dependence in accounting research. The Accounting Review, 85(2), 483–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grullon, G., Kanatas, G., & Weston, J. (2010). Religion and corporate (mis)behavior. Working paper. Rice University.

  • Guiral, A., Ruiz, E., & Rodgers, W. (2010). Ethical dilemmas in auditing: Dishonesty or unintentional bias? Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guiral, A., Ruiz, E., & Rodgers, W. (2011). To what extent are auditors’ attitudes toward the evidence influenced by the self-fulfilling prophecy? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(1), 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilary, G., & Hui, K. W. (2009). Does religion matter in corporate decision making in America? Journal of Financial Economics, 93(3), 455–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2001). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). Newyork: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (1998). Religiousness and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development vol. 2, the psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, J. (1994). Auditor switching and conservatism. The Accounting Review, 69(1), 200–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, G.,V., & Wang, C. (2014). The relation between managerial ability and audit fees and going concern opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory In-Press.

  • Layman, G. (1999). “Culture Wars” in the American party system: Religious and cultural change among partisan activists since 1972. American Politics Research, 27, 89–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layman, G. (2001). The great divide: Religious and cultural conflict in American party politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennox, C. (2000). Do companies successfully engage in opinion-shopping? Evidence from the UK. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29(3), 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, C. Y., & Tan, H. T. (2008). Non-audit service fees and audit quality: The impact of auditor specialization. Journal of Accounting Research, 46, 199–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longenecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W. (2004). Religious intensity, evangelical Christianity, and business ethics: an empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 373–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, A. T., & DeZoort, F. T. (2001). The impact of commitment and moral reasoning on auditors’ responses to social influence pressure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 215–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louwers, T. J., Messina, F. M., & Richard, M. D. (1999). The auditor’s going-concern disclosure as a self-fulfilling prophecy: a discrete-time survival analysis. The Decision Sciences, 30(3), 805–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, S. T., Omer, T. C., & Sharp, N. Y. (2012). The impact of religion on financial reporting irregularities. The Accounting Review, 87(2), 645–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A., & Hoffman, J. (1995). Risk and religion: an explanation of gender differences in religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, 63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D. A., Tetlock, P. E., Tanlue, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). Conflicts of interest and the case of auditor independence: Moral seduction and strategic issue cycling. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 10–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutchler, J. F. (1985). A multivariate analysis of the auditor’s going-concern opinion decision. Journal of Accounting Research, 23(2), 668–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutchler, J. F., Hopwood, W., & McKeown, J. M. (1997). The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(2), 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, L. A., Schmidt, J. J., & Wilkins, M. S. (2014). An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and Non-Big N auditors. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 43(1), 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. W. (2009). A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 28(2), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osoba, B. M. (2004). Risk, discounting, and religious choice: Evidence from panel data. Working Paper. University of Texas at El Paso.

  • Parboteeah, K. P., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. B. (2008). Ethics and religion: An empirical test of a multidimensional model. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 387–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghunandan, K., & Rama, D. (1995). Audit reports for companies in financial distress: Before and after SAS No. 59. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 14, 50–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratzinger-Sakel, N. V. S. (2013). Auditor fees and auditor independence—evidence from going concern reporting decisions in Germany. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(4), 129–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichelt, K. J., & Wang, D. (2010). National and office-specific measures of auditor industry expertise and effects on audit quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(3), 647–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, J. K., & Francis, J. R. (2001). Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30, 375–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. (2008). Auditor independence and auditor-provided tax service: Evidence from going-concern audit opinions prior to bankruptcy filings. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 27(2), 31–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, W., Guiral, A., & Gonzalo, J. A. (2009). Different pathways that suggest whether auditors’ going concern opinions are ethically based. Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 347–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, W. (1993). Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints, 13. Stata Press: College Station, TX.

  • Statement of Auditing Standard (SAS) No. 59. (1998). The auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. New York: AICPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R. (1996). Social norms and social rules. Columbia Law Review, 96(4), 903–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terpstra, D. E., Rozell, E. J., & Robinson, R. K. (1993). The influence of personality and demographic variables on ethical decisions related to insider trading. The Journal of Psychology, 127(4), 375–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, L., & Hartwick, J. (2001). The directional effects of discussion on auditors’ moral reasoning. Contemporary Accounting Research, 18(2), 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venuti, E. K. (2004). The going-concern assumption revisited: assessing a company’s future viability. The CPA Journal, LXXIV(5), 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J., & Willenborg, M. (2003). Do expert informational intermediaries add value? Evidence from auditors in microcap IPOs. Journal of Accounting Research, 41, 681–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahn, G. C. (1970). The commitment dimension. Sociological Analysis, 31, 203–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are thankful for helpful comments received from Kathleen Bentley, Jere Francis, Jaime Schmidt, and David Wood. We are grateful to Gallup, Inc. for providing data support and to Texas A&M University and the Mays Business School’s mini-grant support program for financial support. Thomas Omer acknowledges financial support from the Delmar Lienemann Sr. Chair of Accounting at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Y. Sharp.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 6.

Table 6 Determinants of auditors’ going concern reporting decisions (based on Carson et al. 2013)

Appendix 2

See Table 7.

Table 7 Variable definitions

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Omer, T.C., Sharp, N.Y. & Wang, D. The Impact of Religion on the Going Concern Reporting Decisions of Local Audit Offices. J Bus Ethics 149, 811–831 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3045-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3045-6

Keywords

Navigation