跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.9.169) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/18 21:37
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:林影宜
研究生(外文):Lin Ying-Yi
論文名稱:受查企業公司治理及控制環境對委任決策影響之研究
論文名稱(外文):The Effects of Audit Client Corporate Governance and Control Environment on the Engagement Decision
指導教授:李東峰李東峰引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立彰化師範大學
系所名稱:會計學系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:會計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2005
畢業學年度:93
語文別:中文
論文頁數:122
中文關鍵詞:公司治理控制環境委任決策執業風險風險傾向
外文關鍵詞:Corporate GovernanceControl EnvironmentEngagement DecisionAuditor''s Business RiskRisk Propensity
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:241
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
國內外相繼發生之企業弊案,均顯示公司治理及控制環境與企業舞弊間具有重大的關連性。由於會計師一旦與企業發生關連,往往成為企業弊案中,社會大眾連帶指責的對象。因此,為了降低執業風險,會計師應該要根據客戶的公司治理及控制環境來慎選客戶。本研究的目的,在探討受查企業的公司治理及控制環境評估,以及查核人員的風險傾向,對查核人員進行執業風險評估與委任決策的影響。本研究以實驗研究法,以台灣地區四大會計師事務所審計部門之查核人員為樣本,發放634份問卷,得到215份有效樣本,有效回收率33.91%。研究結果彙總如下:(1)查核人員對於受查企業公司治理及控制環境評估,與執業風險評估間,具有顯著反向關係,而對委任決策亦具有顯著的正向影響。(2)查核人員執業風險評估對於公司治理及控制環境評估,與委任決策的關係,具部份中介影響。(3)與預期相同的是,查核人員的風險傾向愈高,查核人員的執業風險評估愈高。查核人員的風險傾向對委任決策的直接正向影響並不顯著。(4)查核人員執業風險評估對於查核人員風險傾向,與委任決策的關係,不具中介影響。本研究結論認為來自於受查企業之公司治理及控制環境所形成之執業風險評估,可以解釋查核人員委任機率約51.1%的變異,顯示受查企業之公司治理及控制環境的相關訊息,可以做為委任決策有效的篩選準則。另外,查核人員的風險傾向不會對於委任決策造成直接或間接影響,未來的研究可進一步探討其可能原因。
Corporate financial scandals exposed recently, revealed the associations of corporate government and control environment with management frauds of financial reporting. The public accountant firm has to bear the public critics, once its name was related to any fraudulent company as client. For the reason that the conditions of corporate governance and control environment of the potential client may be the red flags for financial report misstatement, the public accountant firms may filter clients cautiously with the client’s corporate government and control environment conditions for effective elimination of audit risk. The goal of this study is to investigate the effects of an auditor’s evaluations of the conditions of corporate government and control environment of the potential client on the auditing engagement acceptance decision, and the influences of auditor’s risk propensity on the auditor’s business risk evaluations and engagement acceptance decision were tested in this study as well. The empirical data were collected with an experiment procedure that participated with 634 auditors in the Big 4 accounting firms in Taiwan. There are 215 effective data items with the effective response rate of 33.91% for further analysis. The findings were listed as follows: (1) Auditor’s evaluation of the corporate government and control environment of a potential client had negative effects on the auditor’s business risk evaluation, and the probability of engagement acceptance as well. (2) The positive relationships between the auditor’s evaluation of corporate government and control environment on the potential client engagement acceptance were significantly mediated by the auditor’s business risk assessment. (3) The empirical data support neither the predication of the positive association between the auditor’s risk propensity and the evaluation of auditor’s business risk or the effects of auditor’s risk propensity on the probability of audit engagement acceptance of a potential client. These findings suggest that the evaluation of auditor’s business risk was significantly affected by the conditions of corporate government and control environment of a potential client, and explain about 51.1% variance of the auditor’s engagement acceptance intention. The result indicates the conditions of corporate government and control environment of a potential client could be the effective criteria for auditing engagement filtering. The contradiction of empirical data with theoretical prediction of the effect of auditor’s risk propensity on the engagement decision may need for further study.
目次
中文摘要 I
Abstract II
致謝 III
目次 IV
表目錄 VI
圖目錄 VII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究計畫 2
一、 研究目的 2
二、 研究範圍 4
第三節 預期研究貢獻 7
第四節 論文之章節安排 7
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 委任決策 9
一、 委任決策的定義 9
二、 委任決策的重要性 9
三、 委任決策的評估流程 11
第二節 執業風險對委任決策的影響 17
一、 委任風險 17
二、 審計風險 18
三、 客戶的企業風險 18
四、 執業風險 19
第三節 公司治理及控制環境對執業風險及委任決策的影響 30
一、 公司治理與控制環境的定義 30
二、 受查企業公司治理與控制環境對執業風險的影響 30
三、 受查企業公司治理與控制環境對委任決策的影響 34
第四節 風險認知與風險傾向對委任決策的影響 44
一、 風險認知對委任決策的影響 46
二、 風險傾向對風險認知的影響 49
三、 風險傾向對委任決策的影響 49
四、 風險認知對風險傾向與決策之間的中介影響 50
第三章 研究設計 51
第一節 研究模式 51
第二節 變數定義與測量 52
一、 自變數 52
二、 依變數 56
三、 變數定義及測量彙總表 57
第三節 研究假說 58
一、 受查企業公司治理及控制環境對執業風險的影響 58
二、 受查企業公司治理及控制環境對委任決策的影響 59
三、 執業風險對委任決策的影響 61
四、 風險傾向對執業風險的影響 62
五、 風險傾向對於委任決策的影響 63
第四節 研究設計 64
第五節 資料分析 65
一、 敘述性統計 65
二、 研究假設檢定 66
第四章 資料分析 68
第一節 樣本基本資料 68
第二節 變數測量檢查 70
第三節 實驗操弄效果分析 70
第四節 假說檢定 75
第五節 敏感性測試 78
第五章 結論與建議 85
第一節 結論 85
第二節 理論意涵 87
第三節 實務啟發 89
第四節 研究限制與未來研究方向 89
參考文獻 94
附錄、問卷 103
1. 王金山,談財務資訊透明度,彰化師範大學會計學系EMBA班企業經營管理理論與實務專題演講談話記錄,2005年4月23日。
2. 吳修辰 (2005年1月3日),專訪勤業眾信會計師事務所總裁談太電案教訓—避免財務弊病,首重獨立的稽核人員,商業週刊,893,70-72。
3. 沃克(2002年3月11日),分析,Arthur Anderson譽毀名滅?BBC中文網。2005年3月29日,取自:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/trad/hi/newsid_1860000/newsid_1866900/1866964.stm
4. 林坤鎮(2002年),國際證券暨期貨市場簡訊:從美國Enron公司事件看會計師業者之自律與利益衝突之迴避。證管雜誌,20,2005年3月29日,取自:http://www.sfb.gov.tw/reference/magazine/9104/SS2.htm
5. 林杰兒 (2004年9月13日),會計師接案 飢不擇食?經濟日報,第A7版稅務法規。
6. 林杰兒 (2005年6月1日),魏永篤:勤業眾信 審慎篩選客戶。經濟日報,第A2版經濟要聞。
7. 林柄滄 (2002年),新新會計大戰,臺北市:林柄滄。
8. 邱金蘭、林杰兒 (2004年12月17日),12位會計師遭金籲會處分,經濟日報,第A1版。
9. 范碧珍 (2002年10月),張忠謀:不談管理,公司治理才重要,突破雜誌,279,98。
10. 陳依蘋、鄭惠之 (2004年),專業組織的未來—會計師、律師向前走!會計研究月刊,226,30-40。
11. 萬敏婉 (2004年11月1日),公司治理,說穿了就是「實」,遠見雜誌,221,248-251。
12. 謝偉姝、林杰兒 (2005年3月11日),遠離風險—會計師嚴選客戶,經濟日報,第A7版稅務法規。
13. 魏永篤,企業舞弊與會計師偵測,彰化師範大學管理學院座談會談話記錄。2004年12月20日。
14. 羅子強,公司治理,2004年會計理論與實務研討會談話記錄,2004年10月24日。
15. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), (1983), Audit risk and materiality in conducting an audit, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47 AU 312.02. New York, Y: AICPA.
16. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), (1988), Consideration of control structure in a financial statement audit, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 55. New York, NY: AICPA.
17. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), (1993), Audit Risk Alert, New York, NY: AICPA.
18. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), (1994a), Acceptance and continuation of audit clients, Practice Alert No. 94-3. New York, NY: AICPA.
19. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), (1994b), Client acceptance and continuance procedures for audit client, New York, NY: AICPA.
20. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), (1995), Consideration of internal control in a financial statement audit: An amendment to statement on auditing standards no. 55. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 78, New York, NY: AICPA.
21. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), (1997a), System of quality control for a CPA firms accounting and auditing practice, New York, NY: AICPA.
22. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), (1997c), Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82, New York, NY: AICPA.
23. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), (1998), Consideration of the Internal Control Structure in a Financial Statement Audit, Statement on Auditing Standards No. 55, New York, NY: AICPA.
24. Apostolou, B. A., Hassell, J. M., Webber, S. A., & Summers, G. E. (2001), The relative importance of management fraud risk factors, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13, 1-24.
25. Arthur Andersen, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young, KPMG Peat Marwick, & Price Waterhouse, (1992), The liability crisis in the United States: Impact on the accounting profession, Statement of Position, New York, NY.
26. Asare, S. K., Cohen, J. R., & Trompeter, G. M. (2002), The effect of management integrity and non-audit services on client acceptance and staffing decisions, Working paper, University of Florida.
27. Asare, S., & Knechel, W. R. (1995), Termination of information evaluation in auditing, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 21-31.
28. Asare, S., Hackenbrack, K., & Knechel, W. R. (1994), Client acceptance and continuation decision. In Auditing Symposium XII: Proceedings of the 1994 Deloitte & Touche/ University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems, edited by R. P. Srivastava, 163-178, Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
29. Ayers, S., & Kaplan, S. (1998), Potential differences between engagement and risk review partners and their effect on client acceptance judgments, Accounting Horizons, 12(2), 139-153.
30. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
31. Beasley, M. S. (1996), An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of director composition and financial statement fraud, The Accounting Review, 71(4), 443-465.
32. Beasley, M. S., Carcello, J. V., & Hermanson, D. R. (1999), Fraudulent financial reporting: 1987-1997, New York, NY: COSO.
33. Bedard, J. C., & Johnstone, K. M. (2004), Earnings manipulation risk, corporate governance risk, and auditors' planning and pricing decisions, The Accounting Review, 79(2), 277-304.
34. Bell, T. B., Bedard, J. C., Johnstone, K. M., & Smith, E. F. (2002), KRiskSM: A computerized decision aid for client acceptance and continuance risk assessments, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 21(2), 97-113.
35. Bell, T. B., Landsman, W. R., & Shackelford, D. A. (2001), Auditor's perceived business risk and audit fees: Analysis and evidence, Journal of Accounting Research, 39(1), 35-43.
36. Bernardi, R. A. (1994), Fraud detection: the effect of client integrity and competence and auditor cognitive style, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 13(1), supplement, 68-84.
37. Brockhaus, R. H. (1980), Risk-raking propensity of entrepreneurs, Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520.
38. Bromiley, P. (1991), Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance, Academy of Management Journal, 34(1) 37-59.
39. Carcello, J .V., & Neal, T. L. (2000), Audit committee composition and auditor reporting, The Accounting Review, 75(4), 453-467.
40. Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G.. P. (2001), Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities, Academy of Management Journal, 44:5, 937-959.
41. Cohen, J. R., & Hanno, D. M. (2000), Auditors' consideration of corporate governance and management control philosophy in preplanning and planning judgments, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(2), 133-146.
42. Cohen, J. R., & Trompeter, G. M. (1998), An examination of factors affecting audit practice development, Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(4), 481-504.
43. Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. M. (2002), Corporate governance and the audit process, Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(4), 573-594.
44. Colbert, J. L., Luehlfing, M. S., & Alderman, C. W. (1996), Engagement risk, The CPA Journal, 66(3), 54-56.
45. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), 1992, Internal control-Integrated framework, Jersey City, NJ: AICPA.
46. Dan Simunic, A. (1980), The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence, Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1), 161-190.
47. Dan Simunic, A., & Stein, M. T. (1990), Audit risk in a client portfolio context, Contemporary Accounting Research, 6(2), 329-343.
48. DeFond, M. L., & Jiambalvo, J. (1991), Incidence and circumstances of accounting errors, The Accounting Review, 66(3), 643-655.
49. Deis Jr., D. R. & Giroux, G.. (1996), The effect of auditor changes on audit fees, audit hours, and audit quality, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Spring, 15(1), 55-76.
50. DeZoort, F. T., & Salterio, S. E. (2001), The effects of corporate governance experience and financial-reporting and audit knowledge on audit committee members' judgments, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20(2), 31-47.
51. Economist, (2004), Called to account, 373(8402), 69-71.
52. Emby, C., (1994), Framing and presentation mode effects in professional judgment: Auditors' internal control judgments and substantive testing decisions, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 13, 102-115.
53. Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H., (1988), Attitude toward risk and the Risk-Return Paradox: Prospect theory explanations, Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 85-106.
54. Houston, R. W., Peters, M. F., & Pratt, J. H. (1999), The audit risk model, business risk and audit-planning decisions, The Accounting Review, 74(3), 281-298.
55. Houston, R. W., Peters, M. F., & Pratt, J. H. (2002), How auditors price business risk: A framework and experiment, Working paper, University of Maryland.
56. Huss, H. F., & Jacobs, F. A. (1991), Risk containment: exploring auditor decisions in the engagement process, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 10(2), 16-32.
57. Johnstone, K. M. (2000), Client-acceptance decisions: Simultaneous effects of client business risk, audit risk, auditor business risk, and risk adaptation, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(1), 1-25.
58. Johnstone, K. M., & Bedard, J. C. (2002), Client acceptance decisions: Evidence of risk management through specialist personnel and engagement pricing, Working paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
59. Johnstone, K. M., & Bedard, J. C. (2003), Risk management in client acceptance decisions, The Accounting Review, 78(4), 1003-1025.
60. Johnstone, K. M., & Bedard, J. C. (2004), Audit firm portfolio management decisions, Journal of Accounting Research, 42(4), 659-690.
61. Johnstone, K. M., Bedard, J. C., & Ettredge, M. L. (2004), The effect of competitive bidding on engagement planning and pricing, Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(1), 25-53.
62. Kaplan, S. E., & Reckers, P. M. (1984), An empirical examination of auditor’s initial planning process, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 4(1), 1-19.
63. Kinney, W. R., Jr. (2000), Information quality assurance and internal control for management decision making, Boston, Irwin; McGraw-Hill.
64. KPMG. (1999), Fraud survey results 1999, New York, NY: KPMG.
65. Latham, C. K., & Linville, M. (1998), A review of the literature in audit litigation, Journal of Accounting Literature, 17, 175-213.
66. Levitt, A. (1999), Levitt plays up shareholder rights to directors, Investor Relations Business, 1.
67. MacCrimmon, K. R., & Wehrung, D. A. (1990), Characteristics of risk taking executives, Management Science, 36(4), 422-435.
68. MacDonald, E. (1997, April 25), More accounting firms are dumping risky clients --Big six worry about their reputations and chance of costly litigation, Wall Street Journal, pp. A.2.
69. March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987), Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33(11), 1404-1418.
70. McMullen, D. A. (1996), Audit committee performance: An investigation of the consequences associated with audit committees, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 15(1), 87-103.
71. McNamara, G., & Bromiley, P. (1997), Decision making in an organizational setting: Cognitive and organizational influence on risk assessment in commercial lending, Academy of Management Journal, 40(5) 1063-1088.
72. Pratt, J., & Stice, J. D. (1994), The effects of client characteristics on auditor litigation risk judgments, required audit evidence and recommended audit fees, The Accounting Review, 69(4), 639-656.
73. Public Oversight Board (POB), (1993), Issues confronting the accounting profession, Stamford, CT: POB.
74. Public Oversight Board (POB), (1994), Strengthening the professionalism of the independent auditor, Stamford, CT: POB.
75. Public Oversight Board (POB), (2000), Panel on audit effectiveness report and recommendations, Stamford, CT: POB.
76. Reckers, P. M., & Shultz, J. J. Jr. (1993), The effects of fraud signals, evidence order, and group-assisted counsel on independent auditor judgment, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 5, 124-144.
77. Schneider, S. L., & Lopes, L. L. (1986), Reflection in preferences under risk: Who and when may suggest why, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12(4), 533-548.
78. Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992), Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior, Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9-39.
79. Sitkin, S. B., & Weingart, L. R. (1995), Determinants of risky decision-making behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity, Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1573-1592.
80. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981), The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science, 211(30), 453-458.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top