Skip to content

31 May, 2023

Subscribe Advertise About Us
  • My Account
  • Register
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
    • Categories

      • View All
      • Board Moves
    • ESG battle

      ‘Change fiduciary laws’ to end ESG battle in US

      Academics suggest a truce between left and right, based on separating political issues from investment...

    • McDonald's antibiotics News round-up: this week in governance

      Investors challenge McDonald’s over antibiotic use; Norges Bank’s ESG push criticised; diversity box-ticking; revolt at...

    • boost audit Corporate governance code review boosts internal controls

      UK watchdog’s proposals include giving audit committees greater reporting responsibilities and addressing ‘overboarding’.

  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • Climate finance

      How climate change alters the financial landscape

      To achieve sustainability, companies and boards will need to look not only to their operations,...

    • generative AI

      Five AI issues to consider right now

      We may not know what AI will mean for us all in the long term,...

    • sexual misconduct

      How to prevent sexual misconduct in your organisation

      Revelations about the CBI may be shocking, but there is no place for complacency and...

  • Comment
      • View all
    • hybrid AGM

      Hybrid AGMs maximise shareholder participation

      Avoid virtual-only annual general meetings: although pragmatic in an emergency, they water down shareholders’ rights.

    • ESG break up ESG: Should E and S break up with G?

      In the world of investing, maturity has revealed significant practical shortcomings in combining environmental, social...

    • controlling shareholders The politics and geopolitics of controlling shareholders

      Shareholders with a controlling interest influence not only financial matters but can also wield great...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • information resilience IT transformation sees boards moving to ‘continuous’ management

      Data analytics available on demand requires a resilient—and selective—approach to sharing information, a webinar panel...

    • life sciences podcast Reform of NHS levy ‘harms UK competitiveness’

      Boards in the pharmaceutical and life sciences sector face increasingly difficult decisions, according to a...

    • Board priorities 2023 Board priorities 2023: tact, trust and transparency

      We asked key figures what would help boards this year. The answers ranged from 'smarter...

  • Careers
      • View all
      • Selection
      • Board Moves
    • board survey 2023 Board appointments fell sharply in 2022

      Companies appear to be sticking with experienced leaders—to the detriment of progress—suggests FTSE 350 boardroom...

    • diversity statistics Diversity statistics challenged by new scorecard

      Companies can ‘hit the target, but miss the point’, say academics researching a more ‘holistic’...

    • CEO turnover CEO turnover rises steeply

      The researchers say political changes and business difficulties may have accelerated turnover, which has risen...

  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Corporate & Advisory Services
    • Mazars c-suite 2023

      Mazars C-suite barometer 2023

      The Mazars C-suite barometer is based on responses from more than 800 C-suite executives from...

    • CFO Career Survey Report

      Our survey, in December 2022, of almost 200 CFOs across the public, private and non-profit...

    • The Engagement Appeal: The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement

      The Engagement Appeal: The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement

      The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement highlights the need for greater engagement between companies and...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Selection
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology

Audit woes and reform wrangles

by Gavin Hinks on September 19, 2018

A fierce debate is underway over the future of audit. Could it be resolved with an independent body appointing company auditors?

Photo: Shutterstock

In July 2002 Lord Sharman, a former chairman of KPMG International, conceded in the pages of Accountancy Age, a trade publication for bean counters, that having a public sector body audit listed companies might be a good idea.

Almost exactly 16 years later and history repeats itself, more or less. Last week a partner with the international accountancy and audit firm Grant Thornton floated the idea that a public body should be appointing auditors to listed companies.

The two ideas are subtly different. Lord Sharman suggested the National Audit Office might audit companies or, at the very least, be auditor of “last resort”, mirroring the role of the Bank of England to lenders. Grant Thornton’s proposal is that a public institution, such as the PSAA, the body that appoints auditors for local authorities in England, should appoint auditors to companies.

While the methods differ slightly, the aim remains the same: use a public, independent body to improve competition among audit firms and break the link that means that auditors check the homework of the people who appoint them.

Lord Sharman’s idea, though reasonable in principle, and perhaps a little shocking for audit firms at the time, failed to fly. Is Grant Thornton’s proposal likely to meet with greater support?

While the methods differ slightly, the aim remains the same: use a public body to improve competition among audit firms and break the link that means that auditors check the homework of the people who appoint them.

Appointing auditors

It’s worth reviewing the role of the PSAA. Created in 2014, the PSAA (Public Sector Audit Appointments) selects auditors for around 500 separate bodies, structured around five-year contracts based on aggregate expenditure of £54.5m annually, including the body’s costs.

However, PSAA does not appoint auditors on a one-contract-at-a-time basis. To make the process more economic, PSAA awards a contract that includes a “block” of audits; firms tender to be auditor then the body allocates the audits. Auditors are therefore never pitching to audit a specific local authority, thereby neatly side stepping potential conflicts of interest.

PSAA does one other interesting thing. It vets proposals for auditors to supply non-audit services to local authorities. In other words, non-audit services have to be disclosed and approved by PSAA before they can happen.

Audit committee chairs faced with reorganisation like that could expect significant upheaval in their work and responsibilities.

But a body like the PSAA for listed companies is not the only idea around addressed at resolving what has become an audit crisis. Others have suggested the Big Four audit firms —KPMG, PwC, EY and Deloitte—limit their activities to a certain percentage of the audit market. Some have suggested 80%, others say 60% would be a more reasonably slice of the cake.

Elsewhere, there are proposals for joint audits: two audit firms working on each audit. This is what happens in many European countries where the argument is that it ensures independence and allows smaller audit firms the chance to develop their capacity by sharing work.

Yet another frequently floated solution is to have a committee of investors appoint the auditors. That might be difficult, given how fleeting the holding period is for some shareholders. But those managing tracker funds might be cajoled into becoming involved.

Yet another idea that has so far received little airtime in the current debate is the possibility reforming the ownership rules for audit firms. Currently, only qualified auditors can own audit firms. Paul Boyle, a former chief executive of the Financial Reporting Council—the body that regulates auditors and writes the UK’s corporate governance code—argues that a change in the rules would allow more entrants to the audit market, thus making it more competitive.

Audit market, audit quality

Many in the audit industry concede that these are plausible reform proposals. But the Big Four firms are expected to argue that they miss one big issue: they probably do little to address audit quality.

The argument goes that the reliability of audit is where the scandals come from, the latest being KPMG’s much criticised work on the audit of Carillion, the UK construction giant that failed at the beginning of this year. (This week it also emerged the firm has admitted “misconduct” over regulatory work it did for BNY Mellon, an investment bank).

The Big Four will argue that audit quality issues are being conflated with market issues. One won’t solve the other.

As one audit veteran told Board Agenda this week: “Having different players in a flawed system, doesn’t make the system any better.”

That leads to an argument that the underlying problem is a financial reporting system which now places too much store in telling the future and is accompanied by few obvious statements about the risk involved in compiling and, likewise, reviewing forward looking information. While companies are expected to devine the future, and auditors expected to sign off on it, big shocks remain likely.

“As one audit veteran told Board Agenda this week: “Having different players in a flawed system, doesn’t make the system any better.”

Whatever the arguments perhaps the bigger issue is whether government has the appetite, or bandwidth, to invest in significant change. History suggests it will plumb for incremental change, well short of anything significantly disruptive.

More than a decade ago Lord Sharman wrote: “I am completely confident that if audit firms rededicate themselves to their stated obligation of working on behalf of the shareholders then the wind of change will only have blown beneficially for corporate governance.” Sharman may be disappointed with audit as it is now. But his hope also jars with the current zeitgeist, or public sentiment, that companies must be run for a wider group of stakeholders than just stock owners. That alone could be enough to compel government into some form of action.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • Sir Donald Brydon on audit reform, career NEDs and board relationships
    November 26, 2021
    Sir Donald Brydon

    While bemoaning the "glacial" pace of audit reform, he hails the pandemic's transformation of communication between boards and employees.

  • Audit committee chairs 'are confusing quality of audit and quality of service'
    February 2, 2022
    Calculator on top of business report

    FRC report also warns that audit committee chairs have a "negative perception of joint audits", despite this being a key reform proposal.

  • Government publishes response to audit reform proposals
    May 31, 2022
    Magnifying glass on audit documents

    While directors will face sanctions for inadequate company reporting and audit committee duties, other key reforms have been watered down.

  • Queen's Speech fails to provide clarity on audit reform plans
    May 11, 2022
    Prince Charles reads the Queen's Speech on 10 May 2022.

    While the creation of ARGA is confirmed, details about other proposed changes are scant and uncertainty over timing remains.

For thoughtful journalism, expert insights on corporate governance and an extensive library of reports, guides and tools to help boards and directors navigate the complexities of their roles, subscribe to Board Agenda

audit, Deloitte, EY, Financial Reporting Council, Grant Thornton, KPMG, Paul Boyle, PSAA, PwC

Search


Sign up to our Newsletter

Receive independent news, thoughtful journalism & expert insights about leadership, corporate governance & key boardroom issues straight to your inbox every week.

SIGN UP

Follow Us

 

 

 

 

Most Popular

  • Corporate governance code review boosts internal controls
  • News round-up: this week in governance
  • New audit committee standards finalised
  • ESG: Should E and S break up with G?
  • Five AI issues to consider right now

Featured Partner Profile

Diligent

Diligent

Diligent Corporation, which was founded in 2001, is headquartered in New York, NY with a European HQ in London. Diligent’s modern governance platform empowers leaders and teams at every level of the organisation to digitally transform and create ...

Featured Partner Resources

The Engagement Appeal: The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement

The Engagement Appeal: The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement

This is the inaugural white paper from The Engagem...

Stakeholder Engagement: A Roadmap for UK Plc Boards

This guide aims to provide directors and their col...

Digital Boards: How Technology Adoption is Driving Culture Change and Resiliency

Digital tools proved their worth to boards during ...
Leadership in AI report

Leadership in AI

This report from Board Agenda and Mazars, in assoc...
Director's Guide to Internal Investigations

A Director's Guide to Conducting Internal Investigations

An internal investigation must be handled meticulo...
 

ADVERTISE – FREE CORPORATE LISTING

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
ADD

ADVERTISE – PROMOTE YOUR REPORTS & WHITEPAPERS

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
Add Resource

Register Free

Register to receive free article views, selected resource downloads, and all the latest news alerts straight to your inbox. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Corporate & Advisory Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
  • Sitemap
|