Audit Quality Determinants and The Moderating Role of Going ‎Concerns and Opinions in Indonesia’s Manufacturing Sector

  • Authors

    • Arfan Ikhsan Faculty of Economics, Universitas Negeri Medan, Sumatra Utara, Indonesia
    • Muhammad Rizal Faculty of Economics, Universitas Negeri Medan, Sumatra Utara, Indonesia
    • Putri Kemala Dewi Lubis Faculty of Economics, Universitas Negeri Medan, Sumatra Utara, Indonesia
    • Khairani Alawiyah Matondang Faculty of Economics, Universitas Negeri Medan, Sumatra Utara, Indonesia
    https://doi.org/10.14419/qfsz0z81

    Received date: October 16, 2025

    Accepted date: November 19, 2025

    Published date: December 7, 2025

  • Audit Quality; Client Satisfaction; Going Concern Opinion; Independence; Manufacturing Industry

  • Abstract

    This study aims to analyze the determinants of audit quality and their impact on client satisfaction, with the going con-‎cern opinion serving as a moderating variable. The research focuses on Indonesia’s manufacturing industry, where audit ‎quality plays a crucial role in ensuring the integrity of financial reporting and strengthening stakeholder trust. The pro-‎posed model examines seven independent variables: audit experience, client industry understanding, mastery of ‎accounting standards, audit team independence, prudence, field audit implementation, and compliance with ethical standards. The study involves 120 respondents representing manufacturing firms listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange ‎‎(IDX) during 2014–2024. Using a purposive sampling method, 21 sample firms were selected from data obtained via the ‎IDX website (www.idx.co.id). Data were analyzed quantitatively using the Structural Equation Modeling–Partial Least ‎Squares (SEM-PLS) method with SmartPLS software. The analysis tested instrument validity and reliability, direct relationships among variables, and the moderating effect of the going concern opinion. Findings indicate that six of the seven independent variables significantly and positively influence audit quality, with audit team independence emerging as ‎the most dominant factor, followed by audit experience and client industry understanding. Prudence shows no significant effect, although the relationship remains positive. Audit quality strongly enhances client satisfaction (β = 0.42; p < ‎‎0.001), and the going concern opinion positively moderates this relationship, suggesting that a high-quality audit process ‎strengthens clients’ perceptions of auditor professionalism. The results reinforce agency theory and quality theory, em-‎emphasizing competence, independence, and professional ethics as the core pillars of audit quality. Practical implications ‎include the development of audit quality enhancement guidelines, independence policy reinforcement, industry-specific ‎training programs, and constructive communication strategies for going concern opinions‎.

  • References

    1. Adams, M. B. (1994). Agency theory and the internal audit. Managerial Auditing Journal, 9(8), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686909410071133.
    2. Al-Khaddash, H., Nawas, R. A., & Ramadan, A. (2013). Factors affecting the quality of auditing: The case of Jordanian commercial banks. Interna-tional Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(11), 206–222.
    3. Alleyne, P., Haniffa, R., & Hudaib, M. (2022). Audit independence and quality in emerging economies: The moderating effect of regulatory en-forcement. Accounting Forum, 46(2), 175–194.
    4. Al-Twaijry, A. A. M., Brierley, J. A., & Gwilliam, D. R. (2003). The development of internal audit in Saudi Arabia: An institutional theory perspec-tive. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(5), 507–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(02)00158-2.
    5. Arena, M., & Azzone, G. (2009). Identifying organizational drivers of internal audit effectiveness. International Journal of Auditing, 13(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-1123.2008.00392.x.
    6. Arief Bahtiar, A., Meidawati, N., Setyono, P., & Putri, N. R. (2021). Determinants of going concern audit opinion: An empirical study in Indonesia. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.20885/jaai.vol25.iss2.art8.
    7. Averio, T. (2020). The analysis of influencing factors on the going concern audit opinion: A study in manufacturing firms in Indonesia. Journal (un-published manuscript). https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-09-2020-0078.
    8. Bonner, S. E., & Lewis, B. L. (1990). Determinants of auditor expertise. Journal of Accounting Research, 28(Supplement), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491243.
    9. Carcello, J. V., & Neal, T. L. (2020). Audit quality and going-concern reporting. Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(2), 1307–1334. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12560.
    10. Cheng, Q., Goh, B. W., & Kim, J.-B. (2019). Industry expertise and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 94(1), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52153
    11. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
    12. Christensen, B. E., Glover, S. M., & Wolfe, C. J. (2016). Do critical audit matter paragraphs in the audit report change nonprofessional investors’ decision to invest? Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 35(4), 65–77.
    13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    14. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
    15. DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(81)90002-1.
    16. DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2–3), 275–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002.
    17. Francis, J. R. (2011). A framework for understanding and researching audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50006.
    18. Francis, J. R. (2022). Audit quality research: Reflections on a half-century of inquiry. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 41(1), 1–30.
    19. Geiger, M. A., & Raghunandan, K. (2002). Auditor tenure and audit reporting failures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 21(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2002.21.1.67.
    20. Habib, A., Hasan, M. M., & Al-Hadi, A. (2022). Audit quality and going concern reporting: Evidence from emerging markets. Journal of Interna-tional Accounting Research, 21(3), 45–69.
    21. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7.
    22. Hartanto, M. C., Prajanto, A., & Nurcahyono, N. (2023). Determinants of going-concern audit opinions: Empirical evidence from listed mining firms in Indonesia. Journal of Accounting Literature (preprint). https://doi.org/10.26714/mki.13.1.2023.17-27.
    23. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation model-ing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
    24. IAASB. (2020). Staff audit practice alert: Going concern in the current evolving environment—Audit considerations amid COVID-19. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.
    25. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2020). Handbook of the International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including In-ternational Independence Standards). IFAC.
    26. International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 570 (Revised). (n.d.). Going Concern.
    27. Ismael, H., & Roberts, C. (2018). Audit quality and client satisfaction: Evidence from developing economies. Managerial Auditing Journal, 33(4), 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-08-2016-1425.
    28. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.
    29. Kaplan, S. E., & Mauldin, E. G. (2020). Ethical behavior in auditing: Evidence from experimental studies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 82, 101076.
    30. Knechel, W. R. (2007). The business risk audit: Origins, obstacles and opportunities. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(4–5), 383–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.005.
    31. Knechel, W. R., Krishnan, G. V., Pevzner, M., Shefchik, L. B., & Velury, U. (2013). Audit quality: Insights from the academic literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(1), 385–421. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50350.
    32. Nelson, M. W., & Tan, H. T. (2005). Judgment and decision making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24(S-1), 41–71. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2005.24.Supplement.41.
    33. OECD. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on firm solvency. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/ce08832f-en.
    34. Sirois, L. P., Bédard, J., & Bera, P. (2016). The informational value of key audit matters in the auditor’s report: Evidence from an eye-tracking study. Accounting Horizons, 30(3), 373–386.
    35. Sweeney, B., Arnold, D., & Pierce, B. (2010). The impact of perceived ethical culture of the firm and demographic variables on auditors’ ethical evaluation and intention to act decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(4), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0237-3.
    36. Tepalagul, N., & Lin, L. (2015). Auditor independence and audit quality: A literature review. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 30(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X14544505.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Ikhsan, A. ., Rizal, M. ., Lubis, P. K. D. ., & Matondang, K. A. . (2025). Audit Quality Determinants and The Moderating Role of Going ‎Concerns and Opinions in Indonesia’s Manufacturing Sector. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(8), 205-213. https://doi.org/10.14419/qfsz0z81