Effect of perceived value on customer satisfaction on audit services of financial statements: Case study of auditing companies in Hanoi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2024.1243Keywords:
Perceived value, audit of financial statements, customer satisfaction, VietnamAbstract
This study investigates the impact of perceived value on customer satisfaction on the financial statement audit services of independent auditing firms in Hanoi.The study used quantitative research design, interpretation, and use of a survey questionnaire with a Likert-type scale to measure perceived value (including quality value, value based on price, human value, emotional value, and social value) and customer satisfaction. The survey was distributed to a random sample of 302 respondents, including CFOs; Accounting Managers; Business Owners; Audit Committee Members; and Internal Auditors of 168 selected client companies of different industries and sizes. Regression results with a standardized beta coefficient show that all five dimensions of perceived value have a positive impact on customer satisfaction, with Quality Value and Emotional Value having the strongest impact. Based on the research results, some recommendations are made for auditing companies such as prioritizing quality, improving emotional value, optimizing prices, building strong relationships with customers and leveraging social value to increase customer satisfaction. customer satisfaction on financial reporting audit services, so that auditing companies can improve competitive advantage and build long-term relationships with customers
References
1. IAASB. International Standards on Auditing. International Federation of Accountants; 2018.
2. VACPA. Vietnam Association of Certified Public Accountants. 2020 [cited 2023]. Available from: http://www.vacpa.org.vn/
3. Kotler P, Keller KL. Marketing Management. 15th ed. Pearson; 2016.
4. Alnajjar B. Determinants of audit client satisfaction: An empirical investigation. Int J Audit. 2014;18(1):1-19.
5. Reichheld FF, Sasser WE. Zero defections: Quality comes to services. Harv Bus Rev. 1990;68(5):105-111.
6. Jones TO, Sasser WE. Why satisfied customers defect. Harv Bus Rev. 1995;73(6):88-99.
7. Louwers TJ, Ramsay RJ, Sinason DH, Strawser JR, Thibodeau JC. Audit quality and client satisfaction: Evidence from a large post-audit survey. Account Rev. 2018;93(1):1-22.
8. Causholli M, Reynolds-Moe L. Client satisfaction and audit quality. Auditing. 2011;30(2):1-22.
9. Knechel RW, Salterio SE, Ballou B. Auditors' client acceptance decisions: A review and synthesis. Auditing. 2013;32(supp1):189-213.
10. Zeithaml VA. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark. 1988;52(3):2-22.
11. Chen CX, Yang TZ, Cheng CY. The impact of perceived audit quality on auditee satisfaction and loyalty: The mediating role of perceived value. Int J Audit. 2015;19(2):119-134.
12. Cronin JJ, Brady MK, Hult GTM. Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J Retail. 2000;76(2):193-218.
13. Fornell C, Johnson MD, Anderson EW, Cha J, Bryant BE. The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, purpose, and findings. J Mark. 1996;60(4):7-18.
14. Nguyen TT, Pham TT, Nguyen TA. The impact of service quality on customer satisfaction and loyalty in retail banking: Evidence from Vietnam. Int J Bank Mark. 2019;37(2):339-358.
15. Le TT, Ho TA, Nguyen TT. Determinants of customer satisfaction in e-commerce: A case study in Vietnam. J Electron Commer Res. 2020;21(2):125-142.
16. Hung PH. Audit Service Quality And Loyalty To Audit Firms: Empirical Evidence From Vietnam. J Posit Sch Psychol. 2022;6(7):5266-5281.
17. Tran TT, Nguyen TT, Ho TA. The role of perceived value in customer satisfaction and loyalty: Evidence from the legal services industry in Vietnam. J Serv Mark. 2020;34(2):217-232.
18. Monroe KB. Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1990.
19. Sheth JN, Newman BI, Gross BL. Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. J Bus Res. 1991;22(2):159-170.
20. Sweeney JC, Soutar GN. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J Retail. 2001;77(2):203-220.
21. Phạm HH. Đo lường chất lượng kiểm toán báo cáo tài chính thông qua ảnh hưởng của các nhân tố= Measurement of the auditquality of financial statements through the factors' effects. 2022.
22. Huy HP, Mạnh DT. Ảnh hưởng của các nhân tố bên ngoài đến chất lượng kiểm toán của kiểm toán độc lập. Tạp chí Kinh tế và Phát triển. 2022;(299(2)):25-35.
23. Oliver RL. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J Mark Res. 1980;17(4):460-469.
24. Fornell C. A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. J Mark. 1992;56(1):6-21.
25. Anderson EW, Fornell C, Lehmann DR. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. J Mark. 1994;58(3):53-66.
26. McDougall GHG, Levesque T. Customer satisfaction with services: Putting perceived value into the equation. J Serv Mark. 2000;14(5):392-410.
27. Adams JS. Towards an understanding of inequity. J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1963;67(5):422-436.
28. Bolton RN, Lemon KN. A dynamic model of customers' usage of services: Usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. J Mark Res. 1999;36(3):171-186.
29. Bollen KA. Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological bulletin. 1990 Mar;107(2):256-284.
30. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Experimental designs using ANOVA. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole; 2007 Dec 6.
31. Behn BK, Carcello JV, Hermanson DR, Hermanson RH. The determinants of audit client satisfaction among clients of Big 6 firms. Account Horiz. 1997;11(1):7-24.
32. Cameran M, Moizer P, Pettinicchio A. Customer satisfaction, corporate image, and service quality in professional services. Serv Ind J. 2010;30(3):421-435.
33. Hay D, Knechel WR. The effects of advertising and solicitation on audit fees. J Account Public Policy. 2010;29(1):60-81.
34. Carcello JV, Hermanson RH, McGrath NT. Audit quality attributes: The perceptions of audit partners, preparers, and financial statement users. Auditing. 1992;11(1):1-15
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Vu Thuy Ha, Pham Huy Hung (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
