随着经济发展和市场竞争的加剧，审计作为企业财务报表质量的重要保障，在经济监督中对于维护经济秩序、保障国家财政经济安全等方面的作用日益凸显。然而，资本市场上的审计失败事件时有发生，对资本市场的健康发展产生了一定影响，也进一步突显了审计质量的重要性。审计质量的高低关乎审计监督作用的发挥，高质量的审计能够及时发现和报告企业财务报告中的差错与舞弊，减少企业财务造假和欺诈行为的发生，从而维护市场秩序的稳定、保障投资者权益。审计风格是事务所内部统一的审计工作准则，统一的审计产出能够提高客户财报信息可比性，因此，审计风格一致性较强的事务所提供的审计服务质量较高。国内大型事务所通常拥有多个分所，这些分所在开展审计工作时可能会采取不同的风格和标准，研究总分所之间的差异有助于更好地理解事务所审计风格对审计质量的影响。基于此，本文以天健会计师事务所为例，探究国内事务所内部总分所之间在审计风格上是否存在差异，以及总分所审计风格差异是否会对审计质量产生影响。

本文以天健会计师事务所作为研究对象，运用案例研究法探讨了审计风格与审计质量的关系。首先，系统梳理了审计风格和审计质量的定义与衡量方法，并从事务所特征角度对影响审计质量的文献与理论进行了总结。其次，选取2018-2022年天健会计师事务所A股上市公司客户数据，计算天健会计师事务所总所及五大分所的审计风格一致性数值，并以总分所关键审计事项文本特征离散度和审计师签字集中度补充印证了审计风格的衡量结果。再次，从盈余平滑度、财务报表重述、审计意见类型以及审计费用四个维度分析了天健会计师事务所总分所审计风格与审计质量的关系，并分别从上市公司和事务所角度探究审计风格对审计质量的作用途径。最后，针对事务所如何强化审计风格一致性，进而提升审计质量提出了对策与建议。

本文的主要研究结论：（1）通过计算天健总分所审计风格一致性、关键审计事项文本特征离散度以及审计师签字集中度，证实了天健总分所在审计风格上存在差异，相较于分所，总所以三种方式度量的审计风格都更为一致；（2）天健总分所审计风格一致性在整体上呈现持续增强态势，其审计质量也表现为总体上升趋势，表明事务所审计风格与其审计质量有很强的相关性；（3）天健总所相较于其他分所审计风格一致性更强，其审计质量也更高并能够保持稳健；（4）审计风格通过提升审计客户财务报告信息质量和内部控制水平，以及激励事务所提升风险管控和审计投入水平两条途径提高了审计质量。针对上述结论，本文从强化事务所一体化管理水平和形成总分所统一的审计风格两个角度，提出了提升事务所审计质量的对策与建议。

With the development of the economy and the intensification of market competition, auditing, as an important guarantee of the quality of corporate financial statements, plays an increasingly prominent role in in economic supervision for the maintenance of economic order and the protection of national financial and economic security. However, audit failures in the capital market have occurred from time to time, which has a certain impact on the healthy development of the capital market and further highlights the importance of audit quality. The quality of auditing directly affects the effectiveness of auditing supervision. High-quality audit can timely detect and report errors and fraud in corporate financial reporting, reduce the occurrence of corporate financial counterfeiting and cheat, so as to maintain the stability of the market order and protect the rights and interests of investors. Audit style is the unified audit work standard within a firm, and a unified audit output can improve the comparability of client's financial report information. Therefore, firms with strong consistency in audit style provide higher quality audit services. Large domestic accounting firms usually have multiple branches, which may adopt different styles and standards when conducting audit work. Studying the differences between the general office and branch offices can help better understand the impact of audit style on audit quality. Based on this, this thesis takes Pan-China CPAs as an example to investigate whether there are differences in audit styles among the internal branches of domestic accounting firms, and whether differences in audit styles among the branches will affect audit quality.

This thesis selects Pan-China CPAs as the research object and uses case study method to explore the relationship between audit style and audit quality. Firstly, this thesis systematically reviews the definition and measurement of audit style and audit quality, and summarizes the literature and theories that affect audit quality from the perspective of firm characteristics. Secondly, this thesis selects client data of A-share listed companies of Pan-China CPAs from 2018 to 2022, and calculates the consistency values of audit style for the headquarter and the top five branches of Pan-China CPAs. Then, by the divergence of text feature indicators for key audit matters and the degree of signature concentration, it confirms and supplements the measurement of audit style. Next, earnings smoothness, financial restatement, audit opinion type and audit fee are used as indicators to reflect the impact of audit style on audit quality of Pan-China CPAs. It also explores the impact mechanism of audit style on audit quality from the perspectives of listed companies and accounting firms. Finally, strategies and suggestions are proposed for how accounting firms can strengthen the consistency of audit style and improve audit quality.

The main conclusions of this study are as follows: (1) By measuring the consistency of audit style, analyzing divergence of text feature indicators for key audit matters and the concentration of auditor's signature, it is confirmed that there are differences in audit style between Pan-China CPAs' headquarter and its branches. Compared with the branch offices, the audit style of headquarter is more consistent in all three measurement methods; (2) The consistency of the audit style of Pan-China CPAs has shows a continuous strengthening trend overall, and its audit quality also shows an overall improvement, indicating a strong correlation between the audit style of the accounting firm and its audit quality; (3) Compared to other branches, Pan-China CPAs' headquarter has a more consistent and coherent audit style, which makes its audit quality higher and can maintain stability; (4) The audit style improves audit quality by enhancing the internal control level of audit clients, reducing the level of earnings management, and incentivizing firms to enhance risk control and audit investment levels. In response to the above conclusions, this thesis proposes countermeasures and suggestions to improve the audit quality of Pan-China CPAs from two perspectives: improving the integrated management construction of accounting firms and forming a unified audit style for the headquarter and branch offices.

[1]毕秀玲, 陈帅. 科技新时代下的“审计智能+”建设[J]. 审计研究, 2019(06): 13-21.

[2]蔡春, 杨麟, 陈晓媛, 陈钰泓. 上市公司审计意见类型影响因素的实证分析——基于沪深股市2003年A股年报资料的研究[J]. 财经科学, 2005(01): 95-102.

[3]曹强, 胡南薇, 陈乐乐. 审计师流动与财务报告可比性——基于中国会计师事务所合并的经验证据[J]. 会计研究, 2016(10): 86-92+97.

[4]陈波. 经济依赖、声誉效应与审计质量——以会计师事务所分所为分析单位的实证研究[J]. 审计与经济研究, 2013, 28(05): 40-49.

[5]陈冬华, 周春泉. 自选择问题对审计收费的影响——来自中国上市公司的经验证据[J]. 财经研究, 2006(03): 44-55.

[6]陈骏, 时现. 审计全覆盖驱动下的审计技术方法创新研究[J]. 审计研究, 2018(05): 22-29.

[7]陈丽红, 李明艳. 事务所规模与关键审计事项披露[J]. 安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021, 45(05): 133-144.

[8]陈丽英. 非审计服务与财务重述——来自上市公司的证据[J]. 山西财经大学学报, 2009, 31(03): 112-117.

[9]陈琪. 不同会计师事务所合并方式下的资源整合问题[J]. 会计之友, 2011(29): 52-53.

[10]陈武朝, 张海燕, 范语辰. 审计师变更与审计质量——基于签字注册会计师未变更的经验证据[J]. 管理评论, 2020, 32(12): 204-220.

[11]葛逸云, 林树, 朱超. 审计师轮换类别与审计结果——基于“关系”的视角[J]. 南京审计大学学报, 2021, 18(06): 31-41.

[12]郭照蕊. 国际四大与高审计质量——来自中国证券市场的证据[J]. 审计研究, 2011(01): 98-107.

[13]雷宇, 林澄锋. 国家审计、会计师事务所变更与社会审计质量[J]. 会计与经济研究, 2023, 37(01): 65-80.

[14]李瑛玫, 修雪, 杨忠海. 非正式审计团队对审计质量的影响：规模至上还是质量优先?[J]. 审计与经济研究, 2021, 36(05): 57-66.

[15]李颖琦, 谷一铭, 戴宗倍. 推进会计师事务所一体化建设的思考——基于玛泽的经验借鉴[J]. 财务与会计, 2020(07): 55-57.

[16]刘成, 叶飞腾, 章奕玲. 审计资源共享与审计风格[J]. 财经科学, 2023(09): 131-148.

[17]刘洁, 扬爱冬. 浅谈规避会计师事务所合并所带来的风险[J]. 中国科技信息, 2005(20): 49.

[18]刘静, 徐梦. 审计师行业专长、关键审计事项及盈余管理[J]. 财会通讯, 2021(11): 45-49+78.

[19]刘明辉, 徐正刚. 中国注册会计师行业的规模经济效应研究[J]. 会计研究, 2005(10): 71-75+97.

[20]刘启亮, 刘波罗, 何威风等. 会计师事务所通过扩张“做强”了吗?[C]//中国会计学会教育分会. 中国会计学会2011学术年会论文集, 2011: 19.

[21]刘笑霞, 李明辉. 会计师事务所规模与审计质量——基于审计意见视角的经验研究[J]. 商业经济与管理, 2011(06): 74-82.

[22]刘颖斐, 张小虎. 企业诉讼风险与审计收费——基于关键审计事项披露视角[J]. 审计与经济研究, 2019, 34(06): 33-45.

[23]刘玉廷. 我国注册会计师行业改革与发展进程中新的里程碑——《关于加快发展我国注册会计师行业的若干意见》解读[J]. 财会学习, 2009(11): 12-17.

[24]刘玉廷. 中国会计改革八大领域全面推进[J]. 会计研究, 2010(12): 3-10.

[25]马晨. 数字经济对审计收费的影响——基于会计师事务所层面的研究[J]. 会计之友, 2024(02): 2-13.

[26]倪小雅, 张龙平. 整合审计、审计质量与审计收费[J]. 华东经济管理, 2015, 29(05): 113-117.

[27]漆江娜, 陈慧霖, 张阳. 事务所规模·品牌·价格与审计质量——国际“四大”中国审计市场收费与质量研究[J]. 审计研究, 2004(03): 59-65.

[28]申慧慧. 注册会计师职级与审计质量[J]. 审计研究, 2021(02): 80-91.

[29]史元, 罗云. 签字注册会计师重新上任会影响审计质量吗？——来自强制轮换签字注册会计师公司的经验证据[J]. 南京审计大学学报, 2019, 16(06): 10-18.

[30]宋衍蘅, 钱旭, 宋云玲. 审计风格、事务所规模与行业专长[J]. 中国注册会计师, 2017(12): 43-48+3.

[31]宋云玲, 宋衍蘅, 钱旭. 会计师事务所合并对审计风格的影响研究[J]. 审计研究, 2017(06): 58-66.

[32]唐建新, 付新宇, 陈冬. 会计师事务所扩张方式对审计质量的影响[J]. 审计与经济研究, 2015, 30(02): 3-12.

[33]唐凯桃, 刘雷, 赵琳. 三个审计师签字与审计质量[J]. 审计研究, 2021(02): 92-103.

[34]田高良, 陈匡宇, 齐保垒. 会计师事务所有基于关键审计事项的审计风格吗——基于中国上市公司披露新版审计报告的经验证据[J]. 会计研究, 2021(11): 160-177.

[35]田敬丽, 邓聪, 李秀珠. 新《证券法》实施对审计质量的影响[J]. 财会月刊, 2024, 45(09): 83-89.

[36]王兵, 冯静, 陈紫帆. CFO兼任审计委员会委员影响财务重述吗?[J]. 审计与经济研究, 2023, 38(01): 11-20.

[37]王兵, 辛清泉. 分所审计是否影响审计质量和审计收费?[J]. 审计研究, 2010(02): 70-76.

[38]王春飞, 吴溪, 曾铁兵. 会计师事务所总分所治理与分所首次业务承接——基于中国注册会计师协会报备数据的分析[J]. 会计研究, 2016(03): 87-94+96.

[39]王文华, 朱磊. 影响CPA审计质量的环境因素透析[J]. 上海大学学报(社会科学版), 2004(06): 56-59.

[40]吴水澎, 李奇凤. 国际四大、国内十大与国内非十大的审计质量——来自2003年中国上市公司的经验证据[J]. 当代财经, 2006(02): 114-118.

[41]吴溪, 曾铁兵, 王春飞. 审计客户重要性: 一项度量偏差及其影响[J]. 中国会计与财务研究, 2014(04): 49-89.

[42]吴溪, 王春飞, 李勃. 公共会计服务市场的竞争秩序——来自中国证券审计市场新设分所的证据[J]. 会计研究, 2018(12): 12-18.

[43]吴溪, 徐艳丽, 苏锡嘉. 不签署审计报告的审计团队成员影响审计质量吗?[J]. 审计研究, 2020(04): 58-67+79.

[44]吴溪. 会计师事务所合并与质量控制: 基于中天勤合并案例的经验分析[J]. 会计研究, 2006(10): 79-85+96.

[45]武晓玲, 张亚琼, 周水龙. 我国会计师事务所规模与审计质量关系研究[J]. 宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2007(04): 145-150.

[46]谢盛纹, 刘杨晖. 审计师变更、前任审计师任期和会计信息可比性[J]. 审计研究, 2016(02): 82-89.

[47]谢盛纹, 王洋洋, 张淑一. 审计师行业专长、产品市场竞争与财务重述——来自中国证券市场的经验证据[J]. 财经理论与实践, 2015, 36(05): 70-75.

[48]徐浩萍. 会计盈余管理与独立审计质量[J]. 会计研究, 2004(01): 44-49+96.

[49]徐京平, 孙振杰. CPA审计、市场结构与审计质量[J]. 财经问题研究, 2021(04): 90-97.

[50]徐晓东, 叶子繁. 监管不确定性与审计决策——基于审计收费的证据[J]. 系统管理学报, 2024(04): 1-22.

[51]徐亚琴, 宋思淼. 审计师能识别企业的杠杆操纵吗?——基于审计意见视角的实证检验[J]. 审计研究, 2021(06): 102-115.

[52]许弟伟. 审计师行业专长、审计任期与审计质量[J]. 财会通讯, 2022(21): 36-39+64.

[53]闫焕民, 李瑶瑶, 王浩宇. 审计师团队行业专长与审计质量——基于“师-团队-所”三维交互视角的分析[J]. 山西财经大学学报, 2020, 42(12): 109-123.

[54]闫焕民, 赵豪东, 蒋航宇. 分所设立模式影响审计质量吗?[J]. 审计研究, 2023(06): 97-109.

[55]杨明增, 张钦成, 王子涵. 审计报告新准则实施对审计质量的影响研究——基于2016年A+H股上市公司审计的准自然实验证据[J]. 审计研究, 2018(05): 74-81.

[56]杨清香, 姚静怡, 张晋. 与客户共享审计师能降低公司的财务重述吗?——来自中国上市公司的经验证据[J]. 会计研究, 2015(06): 72-79+97.

[57]叶凡, 方卉, 于东, 刘峰. 审计师规模与审计质量: 声誉视角[J]. 会计研究, 2017(03): 75-81+95.

[58]叶凡, 史文, 刘峰. 审计风格: 一个探索性的分析框架[J]. 审计研究, 2022(01): 73-81.

[59]叶飞腾, 薛爽, 陈超. 基于质量控制和客户关系双重视角的审计项目负责人更换分析[J]. 财经研究, 2014, 40(03): 114-123.

[60]叶丰滢, 龚曼宁. 审计收费价格管制与审计质量——基于双重差分模型的检验[J]. 会计研究, 2020(12): 171-179.

[61]余玉苗, 宋子龙, 孙迪. 项目团队行业专长、审计报告时滞与年报审计质量[J]. 管理评论, 2021, 33(04): 248-258.

[62]曾昌礼, 李江涛, 张敏, 曾铁兵. 会计师事务所信息化建设能够提升审计效果吗?[J]. 会计研究, 2018(06): 3-11.

[63]张天舒, 黄俊. 金融危机下审计收费风险溢价的研究[J]. 会计研究, 2013(05): 81-86+96.

[64]张新民, 赵文卓, 陈帅. 分所业务增长与审计质量: 基于事务所内部治理视角[J]. 审计与经济研究, 2020, 35(04): 9-18.

[65]邹娟. 内部控制审计对企业应计与真实盈余管理的影响[J]. 财会通讯, 2020(21): 48-52.

[66]Altman E I. Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis and the Prediction of Corporate Bankruptcy[J]. The journal of finance, 1968, 23(4): 589-609.

[67]Antle R. The Auditor as an Economic Agent[J]. Journal of Accounting Research, 1982, 20(2): 503-527.

[68]Banker R D, Chang H, Kao Y C. An Empirical Study of the Impact of Information Technology Externalities on the Audit Production Function[J]. AMCIS 2002 Proceedings, 2002: 1.

[69]Becker C L, Defond M L, Jiambalvo J, et al. The Effect of Audit Quality on Earnings Management[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research, 1998, 15(1): 1-24.

[70]Bhattacharya U, Daouk H, Welker M. The World Price of Earnings Opacity[J]. The Accounting Review, 2003, 78(3): 641-678.

[71]Chen J Z, Chen M H, Chin C L, et al. Do Firms That Have a Common Signing Auditor Exhibit Higher Earnings Comparability? [J]. The Accounting Review, 2020, 95(3): 115-143.

[72]Choi J H, Doogar R K, Ganguly A R. The Riskiness of Large Audit Firm Client Portfolios and Changes in Audit Liability Regimes: Evidence from the U.S. Audit Market[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2010, 21(4): 747-785.

[73]DeAngelo L E. Auditor Size and Audit Quality[J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1981, 3(3): 183-199.

[74]DeFond M L, Francis J R, Wong T J. Auditor Industry Specialization and Market Segmentation: Evidence from Hong Kong[J]. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 2000, 19(1): 49-66.

[75]DeFond M L. The Association Between Changes in Client Firm Agency Costs and Auditor Switching[J]. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 1992, 11(1): 16-31.

[76]DeFond M, Zhang J. A Review of Archival Auditing Research[J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2014, 58(2-3): 275-326.

[77]Francis J R, Michas P N, Yu M D. Office Size of Big 4 Auditors and Client Restatements[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2013, 30(4): 1626-1661.

[78]Francis J R, Michas P N. The Contagion Effect of Low-Quality Audits[J]. The Accounting Review, 2013, 88(2): 521-552.

[79]Francis J R, Pinnuck M L, Watanabe O. Auditor Style and Financial Statement Comparability[J]. The Accounting Review, 2014, 89(2): 605-633.

[80]Francis J R, Reichelt K, Wang D. The Pricing of National and City-Specific Reputations for Industry Expertise in the US Audit Market[J]. The Accounting Review, 2005, 80(1): 113-136.

[81]Francis J R, Yu M D. Big 4 Office Size and Audit Quality[J]. The Accounting Review, 2009, 84(5): 1521-1552.

[82]Gipper B, Leuz C, Maffett M. Public Oversight and Reporting Credibility: Evidence from the PCAOB Audit Inspection Regime[J]. The Review of Financial Studies, 2019, 33 (10): 4532-4579.

[83]Hölmstrom B. Moral Hazard and Observability[J]. The Bell Journal of Economics, 1979, 10(1): 74-91.

[84]Hu, B, L Su, D Wu. Teamwork Experience and the Contagion of Audit Misbehavior. Working Paper, 2021.

[85]Jiu L, Liu B, Liu Y. How a Shared Auditor Affects Firm-Pair Comparability: Implications of Both Firm and Individual Audit Styles[J]. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 2020, 39(3): 133-160.

[86]Johnson W B , Lys T . The Market for Audit Services: Evidence from Voluntary Auditor Changes[J]. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 1990, 12(1-3): 281-308.

[87]Johnston J A, Zhang J H. Auditor Style and Financial Reporting Similarity[J]. Journal of Information Systems, 2020, 35(1): 79-99.

[88]Kawada B S. Auditor Offices and the Comparability and Quality of Clients' Earnings[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2014.

[89]Kenneth L. Bills, Quinn T. Swanquist, Robert L. Whited. Growing Pains: Audit Quality and Office Growth[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2016, 33(1): 288-313.

[90]Kim J B, Chung R, Firth M. Auditor Conservatism, Asymmetric Monitoring, and Earnings Management[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2003, 20(2): 323-359.

[91]Kothari J, Barone E. Advanced Financial Accounting: An International Approach[M]. Financial Times/Prentice Hall, 2010.

[92]Li L, Qi B, Zhang J. The Effect of Engagement Auditors on Financial Statement Comparability[J]. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 2021, 40(3): 73-104.

[93]Low K Y. The Effects of Industry Specialization on Audit Risk Assessments and Audit-Planning Decisions[J]. The accounting review, 2004, 79(1): 201-219.

[94]Menon K, Williams J D. The Use of Audit Committees for Monitoring[J]. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 1994, 13(2): 121-139.

[95]Palmrose Z V. Litigation and Independent Auditors: The Role of Business Failures and Management Fraud[J]. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 1987, 6(2):90-103.

[96]Pan Y, Shroff N, Zhang P. The Dark Side of Audit Market Competition[J]. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2023, 75(1): 101520.

[97]Pittman, J, L Wang, D Wu. Network Analysis of Audit Partner Rotation[J]. Contemporary Accounting Research, 2021, 39(2):1085-1119.

[98]Reichelt K J, Wang D. National and Office‐Specific Measures of Auditor Industry Expertise and Effects on Audit Quality[J]. Journal of Accounting Research, 2010, 48(3): 647-686.

[99]Reynolds J K, Francis J R. Does Size Matter? The Influence of Large Clients on Office-Level Auditor Reporting Decisions[J]. Journal of accounting and economics, 2000, 30(3): 375-400.

[100]Simunic D. The Pricing of Audit Services-Theory and Evidence[J]. Journal of Accounting Research, 1980, 18(1): 161-190.

[101]Skinner D J, Srinivasan S. Audit Quality and Auditor Reputation: Evidence from Japan[J]. The Accounting Review, 2012, 87(5): 1737-1765.

[102]Wang L, Wu D, Zhao Y. Network Connectedness and the Convergence of Audit Styles. Working Paper, 2022.

[103]Wang Y, Yu L, Zhao Y. The Association between Audit-Partner Quality and Engagement Quality: Evidence from Financial Report Misstatements[J]. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 2014, 34(3): 81-111.