산업분류와 동일 산업 내 기업의 동질성 = Industry Classification and Firms Homogeneity in the Same Industries

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구에서는 국내 산업분류 체계에서 기업들이 성격이 유사한 그룹으로 분류되고 있는지를 분석하여 국내 기업의 산업분류의 적정성에 대해 논의하고자 한다. 산업분류는 제조업과 전문, 과학 및 기술서비스업으로 한정하여 두 산업에 속한 기업들에 대해서 동질성 테스트를 수행하였다. 기업의 회계정보를 이용하여 동질성 테스트를 수행해야 하는데, 기업별 회계정보로서 산업분류의 역할이 중요한 발생액 모형의 구성 요소인 총발생액, 매출과 매출채권 증분의 차이, 그리고 유형자산을 선택하였다. 분석 결과, 제조업에 속한 기업들의 동질성이 전문, 과학 및 기술서비스업에 속한 기업들보다 상대적으로 더 높다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구의 결과는, 산업분류가 기업 수준의 분석뿐만 아니라 기업이 속한 산업 수준의 분석을 가능하게 함으로써 기업에 대한 이해도를 높이는데 매우 유용한 체계이지만, 산업 내 기업의 동질성을 전제로 한다는 한계점이 있으므로 연구 목적에 맞게 산업분류 영향을 고려해야 한다는 점을 시사한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study aims to discuss the appropriateness of domestic industrial classification by analyzing whether companies are grouped into similar categories within the domestic industry classification system. The industry classification was limited to the manufacturing industry and the professional, scientific, and technical services industry, and a homogeneity test was conducted on companies belonging to these two industries. A homogeneity test was performed using companies' accounting information, selecting total accruals, the difference between sales and accounts receivable increments, and tangible assets, which are critical components of the accrual model, to represent the role of industry classification. The analysis results confirmed that the homogeneity of companies in the manufacturing industry is relatively higher than that of companies in the professional, scientific, and technical services industry. The findings of this study suggest that while the industry classification is a highly useful system that enhances the understanding of companies by enabling analysis at both the company level and the industry level to which the company belongs, it has limitations as it assumes the homogeneity of companies within an industry. Therefore, the impact of industry classification should be considered according to the research objectives.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 S. Bhojraj, "What’s my line? A comparison of industry classification schemes for capital market research" 41 (41): 745-769, 2003

2 C. Kile, "Using industry classification codes to sample high-technology firms: Analysis and recommendations" 24 (24): 35-58, 2009

3 K. Hrazdil, "The role of industry classification in estimating discretionary accruals" 40 : 15-39, 2013

4 J. P. H. Fan, "The measurement of relatedness : An application to corporate diversification" 73 : 629-660, 2000

5 K. Kahle, "The impact of industry classifications on financial research" 31 (31): 309-332, 1996

6 조형진 ; 송보미 ; 최종학, "The effect of the level of competition in audit market on audit quality and audit fees" 43 (43): 1473-1505, 2014

7 송보미, "The effect of audit market concentration on audit quality : Focused on audit committee expertise" 38 (38): 47-73, 2020

8 R. N. Clarke, "SICs as delineators of economic markets" 62 : 17-31, 1989

9 S. Kothari, "Performance-matched discretionary accrual measures" 39 (39): 163-197, 2005

10 E. Fama, "Industry costs of equity" 43 (43): 153-193, 1997

11 L. Chan, "Industry classifications and return comovement" 63 (63): 56-70, 2007

12 이문영, "Holding company system and performance : Is it a formal change or a substantial one?" 44 (44): 231-264, 2019

13 J. R. Francis, "Does audit market concentration harm the quality of audited earnings? Evidence from audit market in 42 countries" 30 (30): 322-355, 2013

14 D. Guenther, "Differences between COMPUSTAT and CRSP SIC codes and related effects on research" 18 (18): 115-128, 1994

15 P. Dechow, "Detecting earnings management" 70 (70): 193-225, 1995

16 T. C. Huang, "Audit market concentration, audit fees, and audit quality: Evidence from China" 35 (35): 121-145, 2016

17 J. L. Gunn, "Audit market concentration, audit fees, and audit quality : A cross-country analysis of complex audit clients" 38 (38): 1-21, 2019