Being good by doing good: an analysis of audit fees, philanthropic initiatives and board gender diversity among Chinese listed firms

Abstract

Purpose Despite the acknowledged significance of the relationship between audit fees and corporate philanthropic initiatives, the existing literature has not yet reached the desired level of providing explicit evidence on how this relationship can be moderated by board gender diversity. This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing debate by using a panel data set comprising 905 Chinese listed firms over a five-year period from 2015 to 2019. Design/methodology/approach To generate solid findings and overcome the potential endogeneity bias, various econometric estimators, namely, ordinary least squares, two-step generalized method of moments, robust two-stage least squares and subsample analysis, have been carefully used. More interestingly, the study’s results remain consistent across different estimation methods. Findings The results reveal a statistically significant positive link between audit fees and corporate charitable giving. More interestingly, this connection strengthens with a higher representation of women directors on the board, particularly when there are three or more female directors. Furthermore, the results suggest that nonstate-owned firms exhibit greater motivation to participate in charitable giving initiatives compared to state-owned counterparts. Practical implications Stakeholders from various groups should attentively recognize the importance of gender-diverse boards as a dynamic factor impacting the association between audit fees and corporate charitable giving. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the crushing majority of the preceding research has not delved deeply into the critical role of board gender diversity in the relationship between audit fees and corporate charitable donations. Hence, this study provides a profound understanding of how audit fees predict corporate philanthropic initiatives.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.