19
Factors influencing the receiving of going concern audit opinion (study in Indonesia)
Factores que influyen en la recepción de la opinión del auditor sobre empresas en
marcha (estudio en Indonesia)
Dona Primasari
1
; Lego Waspodo
2
; Dira Oktaf Sonjayani
3
URL: https://revistas.uta.edu.ec/erevista/index.php/bcoyu/article/view/2494
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31243/bcoyu.43.2024.2494
Fecha de recepción: 18 de julio de 2023 Fecha de aceptación: 21 de junio de 2024
Abstract
This study aims to examine the effect of debt default, company size and audit quality to the acceptance of going concern audit
opinions. The type of research in this study is quantitative research. The population in this study are all of the property, real
estate, and building construction companies that are listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. The sampling method used in
this study was purposive sampling, so 16 company samples were obtained for four years (2016-2019). The data were analyzed
using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. The results of this study indicate that: (1) debt default does not have an
effect on the acceptance of going concern audit opinion; (2) company size has an effect on the acceptance of going concern
audit opinion; (3) audit quality doesn't have an effect on the acceptance of going concern audit opinion.
Keywords: debt default, company size, audit quality, going concern audit opinion.
Resumen
Este estudio tiene como objetivo examinar el efecto del incumplimiento de deudas, el tamaño de la empresa y la calidad de
la auditoría en la aceptación de opiniones de auditoría sobre empresas en funcionamiento. El tipo de investigación en este
estudio es la investigación cuantitativa. La población en este estudio son todas las empresas de propiedad, bienes raíces y
construcción de edificios que cotizan en la Bolsa de Valores de Indonesia. El método de muestreo utilizado en este estudio
fue el muestreo intencional, por lo que se obtuvieron 16 muestras de empresas durante cuatro años (2016-2019). Los datos
se analizaron utilizando estadísticas descriptivas y regresión logística. Los resultados de este estudio indican que: (1) el
incumplimiento de deudas no tiene un efecto en la aceptación de opiniones de auditoría sobre empresas en funcionamiento;
(2) el tamaño de la empresa tiene un efecto en la aceptación de opiniones de auditoría sobre empresas en funcionamiento;
(3) la calidad de la auditoría no tiene un efecto en la aceptación de opiniones de auditoría sobre empresas en funcionamiento.
Palabras clave: incumplimiento de deudas, tamaño de la empresa, calidad de la auditoria, opinión de auditoría sobre
empresas en funcionamiento.
1
Jenderal Soedirman University. Economics and Business. Purwokerto-Indonesia. E-mail: dona_primasari@yahoo.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0519-1451
2
University of Lampung. Economics and Business. Lampung-Indonesia. E-mail: legowaspodo@yahoo.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4337-915X
3
KSO Sucofindo-Surveyor Indonesia. Jakarta-Indonesia Country. E-mail: sonjayani.dira@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7473-5947
Esta publicación se encuentra bajo una licencia de Creative Commons
Reconocimiento - NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
Factors influencing the receiving of going concern audit opinion (study in Indonesia)
Factores que influyen en la recepción de la opinión del auditor sobre empresas en marcha (estudio en Indonesia)
Boletín de Coyuntura; Nº 43; octubre - diciembre 2024; e-ISSN 2600-5727 / p-ISSN 2528 - 7931; UTA-Ecuador; Pág. 19 - 24
20
Introduction
The financial reports published by the company are a form
of management's responsibility to company owners and
other users of financial statements regarding the
performance that has been carried out in a certain period.
The large number of cases of financial statement
manipulation carried out by large companies such as Enron,
Worldcom, Xerox has caused the public accounting
profession to receive a lot of criticism. The auditor is
considered to have participated in providing wrong
information, so that many parties feel disadvantaged. It is
possible that the cases above also occur in the property, real
estate and building construction sectors listed on the
Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX). One of the phenomena
found in the property, real estate and building construction
sectors was experienced by PT Eureka Prima Jakarta where
the company often experienced losses from 2012 to 2018
even though it had made profits in 2014 and 2016 until the
company did not distribute dividends to shareholders in
2018 because they still suffered losses in the previous year
(Fitria, 2019). However, for the last seven years, PT Eureka
Prima Jakarta has received an unqualified opinion. Based
on the number of cases, giving an audit opinion with a going
concern modification by the auditor is the impact of a
company's doubts about being able to maintain the viability
of its business. Going concern audit opinion is bad news for
users of financial statements. The difficulty of predicting the
going concern of a company is a problem that often arises,
causing many auditors to experience moral and ethical
dilemmas in providing audit opinions with going concern
modifications (Januarti and Fitrianasari, 2008). Problems
arise when there are many opinion errors (audit failures)
made by the auditor regarding the opinion (Mayangsari,
2003).
This study aims to examine the effect of debt default, firm
size, and audit quality on acceptance of going concern audit
opinions. This study has several differences from previous
studies. The difference in this study lies in the variable
company size with the reason that this variable has an
influence on giving a going concern audit opinion as stated
in Butarbutar's research (2017) that company size can
describe a company's ability both the ability to fulfill its
obligations and the company's ability to generate profits with
assets owned so that it can determine the granting of a going
concern audit opinion.
Agency theory (agency theory) is a theory that underlies the
company's business practices used so far which describes
the relationship between two individuals with different
interests, namely the principal (business owner or
shareholder) and the agent (company management).
Jensen and Meckling (1976) state that an agency
relationship is an agreed contractual relationship in which
one or more principals instruct another person to perform a
service on behalf of the principal and authorize the agent to
make the best decision for the principal. In relation to agency
theory and acceptance of going concern audit opinions,
agents are in charge of running the company and producing
financial reports as a form of management accountability.
These financial statements will later show the company's
financial condition and be used by the principal as a basis
for making decisions. Agents as parties who produce
financial reports, it is possible to manipulate data on the
condition of the company. Therefore, to prevent this from
happening, an independent party is needed as a mediator
between the principal and the agent whose function is to
monitor the agent's behavior whether it acts according to the
wishes of the principal (Dewayanto, 2011). Auditors must be
able to act independently so that the results of monitoring
management performance are objective and transparent.
The result of this supervision is in the form of receiving an
opinion on the fairness of the financial statements made by
the agent. Apart from opinions, the auditor must also
disclose the company's ability to continue as a going
concern. The more qualified the auditor, the greater the
possibility for the company to get a going concern opinion
because the auditor will be more careful in examining all the
events in the financial statements.
Based on agency theory, the principal assesses the
performance of the agent through the auditor to determine
the condition of the company. The auditor will conduct an
examination of the company, especially on debt activities.
From the results of research conducted by Praptitorini and
Januarti (2011), Dewi and Latrini (2018), Harris and
Merianto (2015), and Mughni (2018) show that debt default
significantly affects the acceptance of going concern audit
opinions. While researchAzizah and Anisykurlillah (2014),
and Butarbutar (2017) state that debt default has no effect
on acceptance of going concern audit opinion.
When the amount of company debt is very large, then a lot
of the company's cash flow is of course allocated to cover
the debt so that it will disrupt the continuity of the company's
operations. If this debt cannot be repaid, the creditor will give
a default status. Thus, it is in accordance with the agency
theory that the existence of information asymmetry causes
the granting of debt default status to be higher and the
possibility of a company getting a going concern audit
opinion becomes even greater. Based on the above
considerations, the following hypothesis is obtained:
H1: debt default has an effect on going-concern audit
opinion
The size of the company proxied by the total assets owned
shows the company's ability to maintain business continuity.
The higher the total assets owned, the company is
considered to have a large size so that it is able to maintain
its business continuity. Large companies have better ability
to manage the company and produce higher quality financial
reports. The smaller the company scale, the smaller the
company's ability to manage its business. Based on the
results of these studies, the researchers proposed the
following hypothesis:
H2: company size has an effect on going concern audit
opinion
The auditor is responsible for providing high quality
information that will be useful for making decisions for users
D. Primasari et al. / Boletín de Coyuntura; Nº 43; octubre - diciembre 2024; e-ISSN 2600-5727 / p-ISSN 2528 - 7931; UTA-Ecuador; Pág. 19 - 24
Factors influencing the receiving of going concern audit opinion (study in Indonesia)
Factores que influyen en la recepción de la opinión del auditor sobre empresas en marcha (estudio en Indonesia)
21
of financial statements. Auditors who have good audit quality
are more likely to issue a going concern audit opinion if their
client has problems regarding going concern. An investor or
a client will definitely trust accounting data that has been
audited or presented more when the report has been audited
by an auditor who has high quality (Li, 2004). So it can be
assumed that large KAPs will have higher quality standards
in terms of auditor experience and international recognition
(Dewayanto, 2011).
Based on the results of these studies, the researchers
proposed the following hypothesis:
H3: audit quality affects going-concern audit opinion
The type of research used in this research is quantitative
research. Quantitative research emphasizes theory testing
by measuring research variables with numbers and
analyzing data using statistical procedures (Erlina, 2011).
This study uses secondary data documented from the
company's financial statements through the Indonesian
Stock Exchange website and the company's website.
The population is the whole object of research (Hartono,
2013). Population which is used in this study is the whole
company the property, real estate and building construction
sectors listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange. The
research sample was selected using the purposive sampling
method, which is a research sample determination
technique with several considerations of certain criteria that
aim to make the data obtained more representative
(Sugiyono, 2016).
Tests in this study using logistic regression analysis. In
logistic regression analysis, normality assumptions,
heteroscedasticity tests and autocorrelation tests are no
longer needed because logistic regression analysis has
conditions that do not require normality assumptions on the
independent variables, ignoring heteroscedasticity and
autocorrelation (Ghozali, 2009).
The analytical tool used in this research is logistic regression
analysis. The reason for using the logistic regression
analysis tool is because the dependent variable is in the
form of categories 0 and 1 (non-metric) and the independent
variables use a combination of continuous variables (metric
data) and categorical (non-metric data) which causes the
multivariate normal distribution assumptions to be fulfilled
(Ghozali, 2018). Therefore, logistic regression analysis does
not require data normality tests on the independent variables
(Ghozali, 2018).
The regression model formed in this study is as follows:
Information:
= Audit opinion going concern
α = Constant
β = Regression coefficient
DEBT
=
Default debt
SIZE = Firm size
QUALITY
= Audit quality
e = Errors
Results
The population used in this study are companies from the
property, real estate and building construction sectors listed
on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2018-2021 as many as
86 companies. Sampling was carried out using purposive
sampling technique. Of the 86 companies, there were
several companies that did not meet the research criteria
such as not being listed on the IDX during the observation
period, during the observation period they were in the
delisting process, did not publish fully audited annual
financial statements during the observation period, and did
not experience minimal losses once during the observation
period. Sampling can be seen in the table below.
Table 1. Selection of research samples
No.
Criteria
Amount
1.
Companies in the property, real estate and building construction
sectors that have been listed on the IDX 2018-2011
86
2.
Companies in the property, real estate and building construction
sectors were delisted during the study period
-3
3.
Companies that do not publish complete financial statements
during the study period (2016-2019)
-28
4.
Companies that do not experience a loss for at least one year in
the study period (2016-2019)
-39
Final sample quantity
16
Observation year
4
Number of observations
64
Source: own elaboration from data
processing results (2022)
From table 1 it can be seen that based on predetermined
criteria, a sample of 16 companies was obtained with four
years of observation. Thus, the number of observations
used in this study were 64 research samples. In this study,
52 out of 64 samples were tested, because 12 samples in
this study were outlier data.
Classic assumption test
Multicollinearity test
Table 2. Multicollinearity test
Variable
tolerance
VIF
Information
Debt
0.978
1.023
There is no multicollinearity
size
0.500
2.001
There is no multicollinearity
Quality
0.496
2.015
There is no multicollinearity
Source: own elaboration from data
processing results (2022)
Based on the multicollinearity test table above, it shows that
the variable debt default, company size, and audit quality do
not have a high relationship between the independent
variables, this can be seen from the tolerance value of each
variable> 0.10 and the value of each VIF <10. Therefore, the
regression model is free from multicollinearity symptoms.
Logistic regression analysis results
Table 3. Test results Hosmer and Lemeshow's goodness of fit test
Step
Chi-square
df
Sig.
1
12.904
8
0.115
Source: own elaboration from data
processing results (2022)
Based on the feasibility test of the regression model above,
the significance value of the Hosmer and Lemeshow test is
0.115 where the significance value is greater than 0.05. If
using the chi square value, the calculated chi square value
Factors influencing the receiving of going concern audit opinion (study in Indonesia)
Factores que influyen en la recepción de la opinión del auditor sobre empresas en marcha (estudio en Indonesia)
D. Primasari et al. / Boletín de Coyuntura; Nº 43; octubre - diciembre 2024; e-ISSN 2600-5727 / p-ISSN 2528 - 7931; UTA-Ecuador; Pág. 19 - 24
22
is 13.187 and the chi square table value is 12.904, which
means that the calculated chi square value < chi square
table. This shows that Ho's research model is acceptable
and the model is feasible to use in explaining the variables
in this study.
Hypothesis test
Hypothesis testing in logistic regression can be seen from
the table of hypothesis test results by looking at the
significant value compared to the significance value used by
the researcher, namely α = 5%. Where if the significance
level is <0.05 then H1 is accepted or cannot be rejected in
other words the independent variable has a significant effect
on the occurrence of the dependent variable, if the
significance level is > 0.05 then H1 is rejected. The following
table 4 describes the results of hypothesis testing using
logistic regression:
Table 4. Logistic regression test results
B
SE
Wald
df
Sig.
Exp(B)
Step
1
Debt
-
19.172
1123.731
0.000
1
0.999
0.000
Size
-0.063
0.019
10.558
1
0.001
0.939
Quality
-
19.150
10114.892
0.000
1
0.998
0.000
Source: own elaboration from data processing results (2022)
The regression model formed based on the results of the
logistic regression coefficient test as shown in table 10 is as
follows:
ɛ
The meaning of the logistic regression equation is as
follows:
1. The coefficient value of the debt default variable is -
19.172 indicating that every one unit increase in the debt
default value will result in a decrease in acceptance of
going concern audit opinion by 19.172.
2. The regression coefficient value of the company size
variable is -0.063, which means that assuming other
variables are constant, every one unit increase in the
company size value will result in a decrease in going
concern audit opinion receipts of 0.063.
3. The regression coefficient value of the audit quality
variable is -19.150 indicating that every one unit increase
in the value of audit quality will reduce the probability of
receiving a going concern audit opinion by 19.150.
Based on the equation above, it can be interpreted as
follows:
Hypothesis testing 1 (H1)
H1 states that debt default has an effect on going concern
audit opinion. The default debt which is symbolized by DEBT
has a significance value of 0.999 greater than 0.05, so it can
be concluded that H1 is rejected. This shows that debt
default has no effect on going concern audit opinion.
Testing Hypothesis 2 (H2)
H2 states that company size has an effect on going concern
audit opinion. Company size which is symbolized by SIZE
has a significance value of 0.001 which is smaller than 0.05,
so it can be concluded that H2 is accepted. This shows that
company size has an effect on going concern audit opinion.
Hypothesis Testing 3 (H3)
H3 states that audit quality influences going-concern audit
opinion. Audit quality, which is symbolized by QUALITY, has
a significance value of 0.998, less than 0.05, so it can be
concluded that H3 is rejected. This shows that audit quality
has no effect on going concern audit opinion.
Influence default debt against acceptance of going
concern audit opinion
This study provides empirical evidence that the first
hypothesis is not accepted because debt default has no
effect on going concern audit opinion. These results indicate
that debt default cannot be used as a predictor for auditors
in providing going concern audit opinions for companies.
Agency theory as the relationship between the principal and
the agent can be implemented more broadly, one of which
is the auditor and the auditee. Auditing plays an important
role in monitoring contracts and reducing the risk of
information asymmetry. In addition, auditing is a way to
reduce agency costs caused by moral hazard. According to
agency theory, it is indicated that the company will reduce
agency problems by increasing debt. The greater the debt
owned, the company must reserve more cash to pay interest
and loan principal so that it will reduce unused funds. From
the shareholder side, the debt policy has an influence on the
disciplinary behavior of managers. Debt will reduce agency
conflict and increase firm value. An increase in debt will
increase the ratio leveraged, thereby increasing the
likelihood of financial distress or bankruptcy. This
bankruptcy fear drives managers to be more efficient, thus
improving agency costs. However, debt will increase the
marginal cost. Additional debt funds cause shareholders to
be forced to accept riskier projects (Jensen & Meckling,
1976).
Default debt is the company's failure to pay its principal and
interest debts when they fall due. When the amount of a
company's debt is very large, a lot of the company's cash
flow is of course allocated to cover its debts, so that it will
disrupt the continuity of the company's operations. If this
debt cannot be repaid, the creditor will give default status
(Januarti, 2008). Debt default status can increase the
likelihood of the auditor issuing a going concern audit
opinion. However, based on the results of this test, it shows
that debt default has no effect on receiving a going-concern
audit opinion. This result is contrary to the hypothesis that
has been made by researchers, namely debt default has an
effect on going-concern audit opinion.
The absence of debt default on the receipt of a going
concern audit opinion also shows that there are other factors
used by the auditor in considering the debt default status of
a company, such as considering the company's ability to
settle in the next period because the company can extend
its loan term, and obtain loan facilities from other sources,
as contained in the sample of this study, namely inPT.
Binakarya Jaya Abadi, Tbk, PT Pikko Land Development,
Tbk, PT Nusa Construction Engineering, Tbk. This also
Factors influencing the receiving of going concern audit opinion (study in Indonesia)
Factores que influyen en la recepción de la opinión del auditor sobre empresas en marcha (estudio en Indonesia)
D. Primasari et al. / Boletín de Coyuntura; Nº 43; octubre - diciembre 2024; e-ISSN 2600-5727 / p-ISSN 2528 - 7931; UTA-Ecuador; Pág. 19 - 24
23
shows that the auditor in giving a going concern audit
opinion is not only based on the company's failure to pay its
principal or interest debt at maturity, but is more likely to look
at the company's overall financial condition.
The results of this study support the findings of research
conducted by Butarbutar (2017), Astari and Latrini (2017)
Azizah and Anisykurlillah (2014), and Irfana and Muid (2012)
which state that debt defaults do not affect the going concern
audit opinion.
Effect of company size on acceptance of audit opinion
going concern
This study provides empirical evidence that company size
has an effect on audit opinion going concern. These results
indicate that the smaller the size of the company, the greater
the likelihood that the auditor will provide a going concern
audit opinion to provide information to the public.
According to agency theory, larger firms will have greater
agency costs than smaller firms. Agency costs are costs
incurred by the owner of the company for monitoring the
actions of managers so that they do not act for their own
benefit or act on the will of the company. In addition, the
larger the company will increase the demand for more
information disclosure to the public so that by increasing
information disclosure it will further reduce information
asymmetry (Jensen & Meckling, 1976).
This study uses the natural logarithm of total assets as a
proxy for company size. Company size is a scale that
classifies companies into large or small companies. In line
with Pradika's research (2017) it is stated that the larger the
size of the company, the less likely the company is to receive
an audit opinion going concern. In this study, the property,
real estate and building construction sector companies with
the highest natural logs were 29,977, namely at PT Bukit
Darmo Property Tbk and the company is spared from going
concern audit opinion.
Companies with high total assets indicate that the company
is classified as a large company because the company's
cash flow is positive and is considered to have good
prospects in a relatively long term. Large companies are
seen as capable of preparing supporting facilities such as
more advanced technology and stronger management
compared to small companies so that large companies have
a better ability to solve their financial problems. In addition,
large companies also have more access and trust from the
public so that they can support the survival of their
companies in the future for a long period of time. This
causes the auditor to tend not to issue a going concern audit
opinion on large companies. The results of this study are
supported by Butarbutar (2017), Pradika (2017), Adhityan
(2017), and Minerva et al. (2020), which state that company
size influences audit opinion going concern.
The influence of audit quality on acceptance of audit
opinion going concern
This study provides empirical evidence that audit quality has
no effect on audit opinion going concern. The results of this
test are contrary to the hypothesis that has been built. This
indicates that audit quality is proxied by KAP reputation,
indicating that KAPs affiliated with the big four and non-big
four KAPs will continue to provide good audit quality and be
independent in issuing going-concern audit opinions.
According to agency theory, an auditor with good quality will
have the ability to detect irregularities in the accounting
system carried out by company management and report
them in audited financial statements. The financial
statements that have been audited by the auditor are
expected to be trusted and used by the principal. KAP that
has scaled big four considered to have better audit quality
so that if there is an indication the company is getting a going
concern audit opinion, the auditor does not hesitate to give
it. However, the results of this study indicate that audit
quality has no effect on going concern audit opinion.
According to Praptitorini and Januarti (2007) when an
auditor already has a good reputation, the auditor will try to
maintain his reputation and avoid things that can damage
his reputation, so that they are always objective in their work.
This explanation can be used to interpret the results of this
study because auditor specialization can be used to build
auditor reputation. In this study, the majority of companies
use audit services from KAP non big four. Out of a total of
52 samples, only 15 samples used the services of the big
four KAPs, while the other 37 samples used audit services
from non-big four KAPs.
Based on the empirical evidence obtained, it can be
concluded that the auditor's scale does not affect the size of
the possibility of the auditor to provide an audit opinion going
concern. Big four and non big four KAPs will remain
objective and maintain independence in giving their audit
opinion. This is because every KAP in carrying out an audit
of financial statements must be based on the applicable
Public Accountant Professional Standards (SPAP) and
Financial Accounting Standards (SAK). KAPs that already
have a good reputation will continue to strive to improve their
audit quality by carefully considering the conditions and
events that exist in relation to providing an appropriate audit
opinion. Giving an audit opinion that is in accordance with
the conditions of the company actually proves that the KAP
does indeed maintain the quality of its audit so that it is able
to gain the trust of the users of the independent auditor's
report. In this way, the KAP's reputation will also increase.
Not only the big four KAPs who want to maintain their
reputation, but the non-big four KAPs also want to improve
their reputation. If a company is indeed in trouble and there
is doubt about its ability to maintain its viability, it will be
given a going concern audit opinion. The results of this study
are supported by Mughni (2018), Astari and Latrini (2017),
Praptitorini and Januarti (2011), and Suharsono (2018)
which state that audit quality does not affect audit opinion
going concern.
Conclusions
This study aims to calculate the effect debt defaults,
company size and audit quality on acceptance of going
concern audit opinions in property, real estate and building
construction sector companies listed on the IDX in 2018-
Factors influencing the receiving of going concern audit opinion (study in Indonesia)
Factores que influyen en la recepción de la opinión del auditor sobre empresas en marcha (estudio en Indonesia)
D. Primasari et al. / Boletín de Coyuntura; Nº 43; octubre - diciembre 2024; e-ISSN 2600-5727 / p-ISSN 2528 - 7931; UTA-Ecuador; Pág. 19 - 24
24
2021. Based on the data analysis and discussion that has
been carried out, the following conclusions can be drawn:
a. Default debt does not affect the acceptance of going
concern audit opinion in property, real estate and
construction sector companies.
b. Company size influences acceptance of going concern
audit opinions in property, real estate and building
construction companies.
c. Audit quality has no effect on acceptance of going
concern audit opinions in property, real estate and
construction companies.
References
Chen, K. C., & Chruch, B. K. (1992). Default on Debt
Obligations and the Issuance of Going-Concern
Report. Auditing: A Journal Practice and Theory,
Vol.11 No.2, 30-49.
CNN Indonesia. 2018. Kasus SNP Finance, Bank Mandiri
Pidanakan Deloitte Indonesia.
https://www.cnnindonesia.com/ekonomi/201809251
91223-78-333175/kasus-snp-finance-bank-mandiri-
pidanakan-deloitte-indonesia, diakses tanggal 6
September 2019.
Craswell, A. T., Francis, J. R., & Taylor, S. L. (1995). Auditor
Brand Name Reputations and Industry
Specializations. Journal of Accounting and
Economics, 297-322.
DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor Size and Audit Quality.
Journal of Accounting and Economics, 183-199.
Dewayanto, T. 2011. Analisis Faktor-faktor yang
Mempengaruhi Penerimaan Opini Audit Going
Concern pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang
Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Fokus Ekonomi,
Vol. 6 No. 1, 81-104.
Dewi, I., & Latrini, M. (2018). Pengaruh Financial Distress
dan Debt Default pada Opini Audit Going Concern.
E-Jurnal Akuntansi Universitas Udayana, Vol. 22,
No. 2, 1223-1252.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment
and review. The Academy of Management Review
Vol 14 No.1, 57–74.
Foroghi, D. (2012). Audit Firm Size and Going Concern
Reporting Accuracy. Interdiciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 3, No. 9.
Harris, R., & Merianto, W. (2015). Pengaruh Debt Default,
Disclosure, Opini Audit Tahun Sebelumnya,
Ukuran Perusahaan dan Opinion Shopping
Terhadap Opini Audit Going Concern. Diponegoro
Journal of Accounting, Vol. 4 No. 3, 2337-3806.
Januarti, I. (2009). Analisis Pengaruh Faktor Perusahaan,
Kualitas Auditor, Kepemilikan Perusahaan
Terhadap Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern
(Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa
Efek Indonesia). Simposium Nasional Akuntansi
12 (SNA 12), Palembang: 4-6 November.
Jensen & Meckling. (1976). The Theory of The Firm:
Manajerial Behaviour, Agency Cost, and
Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial and
Economics Vol. 3, 305-360.
Joanna, L. H. (1994). The Effect of Experience on Consesus
of Going Concern Judgement. Behavioral
Research in Accounting, Vol 6.
Khaddafi, M. (2015). Effect of Debt Default , Audit Quality
and Acceptance of Audit Opinion Going Concern in
Manufacturing Company in Indonesia Stock
Exchange. International Journal of Academic
Research in Accounting, Finance, Vol. 5 No.1, 80-
91.
Kholifah, S. (2015). Effect of Quality Audit, Opinion
Shopping, Debt Default, Growth Companies and
Financial Conditions to Acceptance of Audit
Opinion Going Concern. Journal of Accounting
Vol.1 No.1, Fakultas Ekonomi Jurusan Akuntansi
Universitas Pandanaran.
Koh, H. C., & Tan, S. S. (1999). A Neural Network Approach
to the Prediction of Going Concern Status.
Accounting and Business Research Vol.29 No.3,
211–216.
Ruiz-Barbadillo, E., Gomez-Aguilar, N., De Fuentes-
Barbera, C., & Garcia-Benau, M. A. (2004). Audit
quality and the going-concern decision-making
process: Spanish evidence. European Accounting
Review, 13(4), 597–620.
Venuti, E. K. (2007). The Going Concern Assumption
Revisited: Assessing a Company’s Future Viability.
The CPA Journal Online.
Factors influencing the receiving of going concern audit opinion (study in Indonesia)
Factores que influyen en la recepción de la opinión del auditor sobre empresas en marcha (estudio en Indonesia)
D. Primasari et al. / Boletín de Coyuntura; Nº 43; octubre - diciembre 2024; e-ISSN 2600-5727 / p-ISSN 2528 - 7931; UTA-Ecuador; Pág. 19 - 24
