pisco_log
banner

Study on the Impact of Carbon Trading Mechanisms on Audit Fees

Hualin Li

Abstract


On March 11, 2021, the Fourth Session of the 13th National People's Congress adopted the Resolution on the Outline of the 14th
Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and the Long-Range Objectives Through the Year 2035. This resolution explicitly incorporates carbon peaking and carbon neutrality into development goals, fundamentally aiming to pursue a sustainable development
path for the Chinese nation and better build a community with a shared future. Against the backdrop of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality,
China has gradually established the world's largest carbon market. With the rapid development of the low-carbon economy, China's carbon
emissions trading market is also rapidly emerging and maturing. Under the carbon trading mechanism, carbon information disclosure, as the
foundation for carbon accounting and trading, plays a pivotal role in the market. It enables the communication of corporate emissions reduction information both internally and externally. Enhancing the quality of carbon information disclosure can provide enterprises with competitive advantages, establish corporate image, attract investment, and increase enterprise value. High-quality disclosure reduces information
asymmetry. This reduction, in turn, lowers potential litigation and liability risks for auditing entities, thereby decreasing the risk premiums
they charge and ultimately reducing audit fees. This paper explores the logical chain: improved disclosure quality under the carbon trading
mechanism reduces information asymmetry, which lowers audit fees.

Keywords


Carbon trading; Information disclosure quality; Information asymmetry; Audit fees

Full Text:

PDF

Included Database


References


[1] Liu Ye, Zhang Xunchang. Carbon Emission Trading System and Corporate R&D Innovation: An Empirical Study Based on the Triple

Difference Model [J]. Economic Science, 2017, (03): 102-114.

[2] Li Nan, Zhang Lu, Liu Zhuankuo. Impact and Mechanism of Carbon Emission Trading on Corporate Default Risk [J/OL]. Systems Engineering Theory and Practice: 1-37.

[3] Zhou Chang, Cui Yeguang, Zhao Xingzhu. Impact of Carbon Trading on Corporate Reputation [J]. Accounting Research, 2024, (03):

124-137.

[4] Wang Huiying, Wang Ziyao. Policy Effects and Impact Mechanisms of Carbon Emission Trading in China's Pilot Cities [J]. Urban Development Research, 2021, 28(06):133-140.

[5] Song Deyong, Zhu Wenbo, Wang Banban. Micro-Empirical Evidence from Enterprises Covered by China's Carbon Trading Pilot: Carbon Emission Trading, Allowance Allocation Methods, and Corporate Green Innovation [J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2021, 31(01): 37-47.

[6] Li Luqi, Wu Shi, Tian Yuan. Carbon Emission Trading and Corporate Green Technological Innovation [J/OL]. Forum on Statistics and

Information, 1-11.

[7] He Shengbing, Zhou Huarong, Tian Yinhua. Impact of Carbon Trading on Corporate Performance: The Case of the Clean Development

Mechanism [J]. Journal of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, 2015(03):3-10+158.

[8] Zhou Chang, Cai Haiqing, Liu Meijuan. Micro-level Financial Effects of Carbon Emission Trading on Enterprises: A PSM-DID Test

Based on the "Porter Hypothesis" [J]. Journal of Finance and Economics, 2020(03):68-77.

[9] Wang Feng, Ge Xing. Does Low-Carbon Transition Impact Employment? Empirical Evidence from Low-Carbon City Pilot Programs [J].

China Industrial Economics, 2022(05):81-99.

[10] Zeng Yamin, Song Yaoqing, Yang Haisheng. Individual Auditor Team Centrality and Audit Pricing [J/OL]. Accounting and Economic

Research, 1-16.

[11] Yang Shuhui, Xie Ke'er. Do Auditors Pay Attention to Fair Value Hierarchy Disclosure? Evidence from Accounting Firms' Industry Expertise [J]. Accounting Research, 2022(11):155-167.

[12] Jiu Lili, Liu Yuanyuan. Auditor-Client Matching, Auditor Change, and Audit Fees [J]. Audit Research, 2018(02):64-71.

[13] Zheng Jun, Lin Zhonggao, Peng Lin. The Impact of Large Client Dependency on Auditor Risk Decision-Making [J]. Journal of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, 2017(02):77-86.

[14] Zhou Zejang, Ding Xiaojuan, San Ziyao. ESG Rating Discrepancies and Audit Risk Premium [J]. Audit Research, 2023(06):72-83.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.70711/frim.v4i1.8546

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.