臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近幾年來，企業社會責任逐漸受到重視，先前研究已證實投入企業社會責任的公司與審計公費呈正相關，另外，審計市場集中度的上升也引發各界關切，且大家特別留心其與審計品質之關聯性，本研究預期審計品質的高低會影響到審計人員在面對從事企業社會責任活動這類高資訊透明度客戶時所投入的審計努力，並再進一步影響到審計公費，因此本文主要目的在探討審計市場集中度對於企業社會責任與審計公費間之調節效果，同時為了回應Francis et al. (2013)應關注四大審計市場間集中度之分布情形的建議，本研究將市場集中度劃分為某一、二家會計師事務所主導整體市場，與四大間市占率分布相對平均來探討。本研究之樣本期間為2011年至2017年，初步分析支持本研究假說，然而，在控制其他影響審計公費之變數後，調節效果變的不明顯，總結來說，較小程度上支持審計市場集中度會調節企業社會責任與審計公費間之關係。

In recent years, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has gradually received attention. Previous study has confirmed that companies investing in CSR are positively correlated with audit fees. In addition, the rise in the concentration of the audit market has also raised concerns, and everyone pays more attention on its relevance to audit quality. This study conjecture that the quality of the audit will affect the audit efforts of auditors in the face of clients with highly information transparency such as companies engaged in corporate social responsibility activities, and further affecting the audit fees. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to explore the moderate effect of audit market concentration on the relationship between CSR and audit fees. At the same time, in response to the suggestion of Francis et al. (2013) that we should pay attention to the distribution of the concentration of audit market among Big 4. This study divides the market concentration into one or two audit firms leading the overall market and relatively average market share among the Big 4. The sample period of this study is from 2011 to 2017. The preliminary analysis supports the research hypothesis. However, after controlling other variables affecting the audit fees, the moderate effect becomes less obvious. In summary, there is a lower degree of evidence to support that audit market concentration will moderate the relationship between CSR and audit fees.

第壹章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究架構 4
第貳章 文獻探討 5
第一節 企業社會責任與審計公費間之關聯性 5
第二節 審計市場集中度 6
第參章 研究方法 8
第一節 研究假說發展 8
第二節 變數定義 10
第三節 實證模型 13
第四節 研究期間、資料來源與樣本選取 15
第肆章 實證結果與分析 19
第一節 敘述性統計 19
第二節 相關係數分析 21
第三節 實證分析 23
第四節 額外測試 27
第伍章 結論與限制 31
第一節 研究結論 31
第二節 研究限制 31
參考文獻 32

李秀英、劉俊儒與楊筱翎 ，2011，企業社會責任與公司績效之關聯性，東海管理評論，第13卷第1期：77-111。
李建然、廖秀梅與黃雨頎，2010，審計公費與非審計公費之知識外溢效果，中華管理評論國際學報，第13 卷2 期：1-23 。
沈文華與林宇欣，2014，財務預警指標、規模與審計公費關係之研究－公司治理觀點，商業現代化學刊，第7卷第4期：337 -354。
林昭伶，2017，我國審計市場競爭與審計品質之關聯性研究，商管科技計刊，第18卷第4期：431-473。
官月緞、曹永翰與張玲玲，2017，審計市場集中度與審計品質之關聯性，台灣管理學刊，第17卷第2期：1-28。
張仲岳與曹美娟，2005，台灣上市公司審計公費之決定因素，當代會計，第6卷第2期：125-152。
許永聲、陳俊合與曾奕菱，2013，企業社會責任與信用公費評等，會計學報，第5 卷第1期 ：1-26。
陳耀宗、劉若蘭、林坤霖，2003，產業專家、客戶滿意度與審計公費之關聯性研究，會計評論，第37期：31-52
陳耀宗與吳姍穎，2004，審計產業專家、審計公費與會計師事務所規模：臺灣審計市場之實證，中華會計學刊，第5卷第1期：41-69 。
廖梅秀、王貞靜與戚務君， 2012，一套臺灣完整的審計公費資訊告訴我們什麼?中華會計學刊，第8卷第1期：49-88。
戴金鳳 ，2016 ，企業社會責任與審計公費，天主教輔仁大學會計研究所未發表之碩士論文。
薛敏正、郭振雄與劉沂佩，2009， 信息透明度對審計收費之影響，中國會計評論，第7 卷第2 期：207-224
Bain, J. S. 1968. Industrial Organization 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Beattie, V., A. Goodacre, and S. Fearnley. 2003. And then were four: A study of UK audit market concentration―Causes, consequences and the scope for market adjustment. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 11 (3): 250-265.
Boone, J. P., I. K. Khurana, and K. K. Raman. 2012. Audit market concentration and auditor tolerance for earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research 29 (4): 1171-1203.
Casey, R. J., and J. H. Grenier. 2015. Understanding and contributing to the enigma of corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance in the United States, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 34 (1): 97–130.
DeAngelo, L. E. 1981. Auditor independence, ‘low balling’, and disclosure regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3 (2): 113-127
DeAngelo, L. E. 1981. Auditor size and auditor quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3 (3): 183-199.
Dhaliwal, D. S., S. Radhakrishnan, A. Tsang, and Y. G. Yang. 2012. Nonfinancial disclosure and analyst forecast accuracy: International evidence on corporate social responsibility disclosure. The Accounting Review 87 (3)：723–759.
Francis, J. R., P. N., Michas, and S. E. Seavey. 2013. Does audit market concentration harm the quality of audited earnings? Evidence from audit markets in 42 countries. Contemporary Accounting Research 30 (1): 325-355.
Graafland, J. J. , H. Smid. 2004. Reputation, Corporate Social Responsibility and Market Regulation’.Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management XLIX:271–308.
Gul, F. and J. Tsui. l998. A test of the free cash flow and debt monitoring hypotheses: Evidence from audit pricing. Journal of Accounting & Economics 24 (2): 219-237.
Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling .1976. Theory of firm: Managerial behavior, agency cost, and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305-360.
Kallapur, S., S. Sankaraguruswamy, and Y. Zang. 2010. Audit market concentration and audit quality. Working Paper, Indian School of Business.
Lee, D. S. Y. 1996. Auditor market share, product differentiation and audit fees. Accounting and Business Research 26 (4): 315-324.
McGEE, J.S. 1958. Predatory price cutting: The standard oil (NJ.) case. Journal of Law and Economics: 137-159
Newton, N. J., D. Wang, and M. S. Wilkins .2013. Does a lack of choice lead to lower quality? Evidence from auditor competition and client restatements. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 32 (3): 31-67.
Pearson, T., and G. Trompeter. 1994. Competition in the market for audit services: The effect of supplier concentration on audit fees. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (1): 115-135.
Simunic, D. A. 1980. The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 18 (1): 161-190.
Su, Y. H. 2000. Auditor fees and auditor size: A study of audit market in Taiwan. Taiwan Accounting Review 1(1): 59-78
Telser, L.G. 1966. Cutthroat Competition and the Long Purse. Journal of Law and Economics. 9：259-277.