arbiter
JournalsAccount

ESG rating disagreement and audit fees: evidence from China

Dongliang Yuan

Managerial Auditing Journal2025https://doi.org/10.1108/maj-07-2024-4408article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.54

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine whether environmental, social and governance (ESG) rating disagreement is related to future audit fees. The authors hypothesize that ESG rating disagreement increases audit risk and audit input, which in turn increases audit fees. Design/methodology/approach This paper measures firm ESG rating disagreement on the basis of ESG rating data from 10 rating agencies. A total of 25,064 observations from China from 2010 to 2023 are used, and ordinary least squares is used to test the impact of ESG rating disagreement on audit fees. Findings This paper finds that ESG rating disagreement positively affects audit fees by increasing audit risk and audit input, and that internal controls and analyst forecast accuracy mitigate the positive relationship between ESG rating disagreement and audit fees. Further tests show that both foreign ESG rating divergence and rating divergence on ESG segmentation dimensions have a positive impact on audit fees. Heterogeneity analysis reveals that the effect of ESG rating disagreement on audit fees is greater at high auditor industry expertise levels, large-scale audit firms, state-owned enterprises, high annual report readability, high ESG media coverage and high industry competition. Originality/value The research in this paper provides new empirical evidence on the economic consequences of ESG rating disagreement and the factors influencing audit fees, and it offers new perspectives for understanding the relationship between ESG rating disagreement and audit fees in emerging capital markets.

9 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/maj-07-2024-4408

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{dongliang2025,
  title        = {{ESG rating disagreement and audit fees: evidence from China}},
  author       = {Dongliang Yuan},
  journal      = {Managerial Auditing Journal},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/maj-07-2024-4408},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

ESG rating disagreement and audit fees: evidence from China

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.54

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.52 × 0.4 = 0.21
M · momentum0.72 × 0.15 = 0.11
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.