scholarly journals Who gets all the PIE? Regulation of the statutory audit for private UK companies

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 1297-1324
Author(s):  
Iain Clacher ◽  
Alan Duboisée de Ricquebourg ◽  
Amy May
Keyword(s):  
Accounting Profession ◽  
Private Company ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Uk

Purpose While recently introduced EU regulation on the statutory audit of public interest entities (PIEs) aims to improve audit competition and quality, its success and impact depends on the definition of a PIE applied across the various EU Member States. In the UK, even though little is known about their auditing choices, these changes will not apply to most private companies despite their importance to the wider economy. The purpose of this paper is to provide an in-depth analysis of the private company audit market and examine the lobbying behaviour of the accounting profession around the definition of a PIE in the UK. Design/methodology/approach Using a large panel of independent private company audits in the UK and a textual analysis of submitted comment letters to a government consultation on the new regulation, this paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the audit market for private companies by measuring supplier concentration using four different measures of market share, and of the lobbying behaviour of the accounting profession. Findings There are two main findings. First, the private company audit market is characterised by low auditor switching rates along with a tight oligopoly of the largest independent private company audits maintained by the Big Four audit firms. Second, the lobbying behaviour of accounting and audit firms sought, and succeeded, to limit the scope of the definition of a PIE in the UK, consistent with the theoretical predictions of monopoly capitalism and the theory of professions. Originality/value The paper shows that the definition and scope of a PIE needs revisiting both within the UK and across all EU Member States, with a view to including more of these economically important private companies and highlights the policy challenge of increasing competition and choice in a concentrated audit market.

Eastern EU members hedge bets after Brexit vote

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Member States ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Migration Crisis ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Visegrad Group ◽  
The Eu

Subject Reactions to Brexit among eastern EU member states. Significance Leaders of the Visegrad Group (V4) of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia have called for a major institutional overhaul of the EU following the UK vote to leave the EU ('Brexit'). They singled out the EU's handling of the migration crisis as a key factor behind the 'Leave' victory in the UK referendum, and rejected calls from Brussels and several member states for closer integration, instead demanding that powers be repatriated to national capitals to restore citizens' trust and make the EU more democratically accountable. Impacts The V4 will seek to mend relations with Berlin, in the relatively favourable political constellation in Germany before the 2017 elections. V4 governments will aim to hold 'mini-lateral' consultations with the United Kingdom on the terms of its planned exit from the EU. Brexit will dominate Slovakia's EU presidency, with V4 coordinating their responses to help limit the negative fallout for the region.

scholarly journals How to regain public trust in audit firms? The case of the Financial Reporting Council

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Khaled Eldaly ◽  
Magdy Abdel-Kader
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
The Uk

Purpose This study aims to provide a better understanding of the role of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), as the unified regulator of the audit profession in the UK, in restoring public trust in audit profession in the UK. It further analyses the views of partners in the Big 4 audit firms on this role. Design/methodology/approach The research data were gathered by conducting 17 semi-structured interviews with the top management of FRC’s members and executive partners of the Big 4 firms in the UK. The interviews were complemented by analysing data available on the web pages of the Big 4 firms and published reports related to the FRC’s projects. Findings This study identified three main strategies followed by the FRC to promote the trust and enhance the choice of auditors in the UK audit market. These strategies are improving the audit quality, increasing the transparency of the big audit firms and reducing the barriers to compete in the big audit market. Practical implications An analysis of the FRC’s efforts may help auditors to identify what they are expected to do to improve the reliability of information provided in the capital market. Audit committees can get a better understanding of the criteria that they need to improve the process of auditors’ choice. Auditors will also better understand how and why current audit regulations have been issued. This may improve their satisfaction with regulations and standards, and their efficient implementation. Furthermore, it is believed that audit regulators need to get feedback additional to the formal feedback they receive to improve their performance and current regulations. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature by discussing the auditors’ criticism to the Audit Inspection Unit’s inspectors and the way the inspectors defend themselves. The findings suggest that partners of the Big 4 believe that the FRC’s projects effectively participate in improving the audit quality, as well as providing wider information about the audit firms to the public. However, different actions need to be taken to enhance the choice of auditors and increase the number of big audit firms that compete in the market.

“Big 4 fee premium” and audit quality: latest evidence from UK listed companies

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 680-707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Domenico Campa
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Listed Companies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
The Uk

PurposeUsing the most recent observations (2005‐2011) from a sample of UK listed companies, This paper aims to investigate whether Big 4 audit firms exhibit a “fee premium” and, if this is the case, whether the premium is related to the delivery of a better audit service.Design/methodology/approachUnivariate tests, multivariate regressions and two methodologies that control for self‐selection bias are used to answer the proposed research questions. Data are collected from DataStream.FindingsFindings provide consistent evidence about the existence of an “audit fee premium” charged by Big 4 firms while they do not highlight any significant relationship between audit quality and type of auditor with respect to the audit quality proxies investigated.Research limitations/implicationsEvidence from this paper might signal the need for legislative intervention to improve the competitiveness of the audit market on the basis that its concentrated structure is leading to “excessive” fees for Big 4 clients. Findings might also enhance Big 4 client bargaining power. However, as the paper analyses only one country, generalizability of the results might be a limitation.Originality/valueThis study joins two streams of the extant literature that investigate the existence of a “Big 4 audit fee premium” and different levels of audit quality among Big 4 and non‐Big 4 clients. Evidence supports the concerns raised by the UK House of Lords in 2010 that the concentrated structure of the audit market could be the driver of “excessive” fees for Big 4 clients as it does not find differences in audit quality between Big 4 and non‐Big 4 clients.

The challenge of Populist Radical Right Parties to Europeanization – the cases of Estonia and Latvia, 2018-2021

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-175
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kuczyńska-Zonik ◽  
Peteris F. Timofejevs
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Recognition ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
East European ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Definition Of

Over the last two decades, family law has undergone changes in Western Europe, widening the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. In addition, some East European countries offer a legal recognition of civil unions of same-sex couples, while others do not offer any legal recognition at all. This diversity in family law has been recently challenged by developments at the European level. It is argued here that this constitutes an adaptational pressure on those European Union (EU) member states that do not offer any or offer only formal recognition of same-sex couples. We examine two cases when member states faced such an adaptational pressure, namely Estonia and Latvia, focusing on the interplay of two types of factors. First is that of formal institutions which, due to their constitutional role or their expertise in the EU law, may act as facilitators of legal changes. On the other hand, there are also political actors which have tried to constrain such an adaptation. We examine here especially the role of two political parties which have made a considerable effort to oppose the change in the two countries. It is argued here that the ideological orientation of these parties explains, at least partly, their opposition to the ongoing Europeanization of family law. The paper concludes with a discussion of the main findings and their implications.

Practice of the member states of the European Union in the field of anti-corruption regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmytro S. Melnyk ◽  
Oleg A. Parfylo ◽  
Oleksii V. Butenko ◽  
Olena V. Tykhonova ◽  
Volodymyr O. Zarosylo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Content Analysis Method ◽  
The Eu

Purpose The experience of most European Union (EU) Member States has demonstrated effective anti-corruption practices, making the EU one of the leaders in this field, which can be used as an example to learn from in the field of anti-corruption. The purpose of this study is to analyze and identify the main features of anti-corruption legislation and strategies to prevent corruption at the national and supranational levels of the EU. Design/methodology/approach The following methods were used in the work: discourse and content analysis, method of system analysis, method of induction and deduction, historical-legal method, formal-legal method, comparative-legal method and others. Using the historical and legal method, the evolution of the formation of anti-corruption regulation at the supranational level was revealed. The comparative law method helped to compare the practices of the Member States of the EU in the field of anti-corruption regulation. The formal-legal method is used for generalization, classification and systematization of research results, as well as for the correct presentation of these results. Findings The main results, prospects for further research and the value of the material. The paper offers a critical review of key EU legal instruments on corruption, from the first initiatives taken in the mid-1990s to recent years. Originality/value In addition, the article analyzes the relevant anti-corruption legislation in the EU member states that are in the top 10 countries with the lowest level of corruption, namely: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg.

scholarly journals Features of transformation of legal entities in the conditions of Brexit

2021 ◽  
pp. 531-538
Author(s):  
Olha Ovechkina
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Actual Location ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Legal Entities

In connection with the decision to withdraw the UK from the EU a number of companies will need to take into account that from 1 January 2021 EU law will no longer apply to the United Kingdom and will become a "third country" for EU Member States, unless the provisions of bilateral agreements or multilateral trade agreements. This means that the four European freedoms (movement of goods, services, labor and capital) will no longer apply to UK companies to the same extent as they did during the UK's EU membership. The purpose of the article is to study, first of all, the peculiarities of the influence of Great Britain's withdrawal from the European Union on the legal regulation of the status of European legal entities. Brexit results in the inability to register European companies and European economic interest groups in the UK. Such companies already registered before 01.01.2021 have the opportunity to move their place of registration to an EU Member State. These provisions are defined in Regulations 2018 (2018/1298) and Regulations 2018 (2018/1299).British companies with branches in EU Member States will now be subject to the rules applicable to third-country companies, which provide additional information on their activities. In the EU, many countries apply the criterion of actual location, which causes, among other things, the problem of non-recognition of legal entities established in the country where the criterion of incorporation is used (including the United Kingdom), at the same time as the governing bodies of such legal entities the state where the settlement criterion is applied. Therefore, to reduce the likelihood of possible non-recognition of British companies, given the location of the board of such a legal entity in the state where the residency criterion applies, it seems appropriate to consider reincarnation at the actual location of such a company. Reducing the risks of these negative consequences in connection with Brexit on cross-border activities of legal entities is possible by concluding interstate bilateral and multilateral agreements that would contain unified rules on conflict of law regulation of the status of legal entities.

The integrated assessment of RES cooperation between the EU and its neighbours

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Welisch ◽  
Gustav Resch ◽  
André Ortner
Keyword(s):  
Renewable Energy ◽  
North Africa ◽  
Renewable Energy Sources ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Western Balkans ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Good Resource ◽  
The Eu

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to provide estimation results for feasibility of renewable energy source (RES) deployment in Turkey, the Western Balkans and North Africa. From these results, the potential for cooperation in renewables production between the countries and the European Union (EU) is assessed and evaluated, in a mid- (2030) and long-term (up to 2040) perspective. Design/methodology/approach The authors focus on the quantitative assessments undertaken on the extent to which RES cooperation can create mutual benefits, identifying costs and benefits for both sides, but in particular with respect to RES target achievement (2020 and 2030) at EU level. The potentials for RES generation in Turkey, North Africa and the Western Balkans are calculated under different policy pathways, taking into account different levels of economic and non-economic barriers that could occur. Findings Overall, the authors found that increasing RES deployment in the three analysed regions and initiating or intensifying cooperation with EU28 Member States leads to mutual benefits. Concretely, these benefits become apparent in terms of the EU Member States importing renewable energy sources for electricity with a good resource quality and adding on to their targets for RES deployment. At the same time, substantial savings occur for the EU, in turn leading to income and investments in the cooperating regions. Originality/value The assessment underlying this paper is the first of its kind to the authors’ knowledge that opens up the geographical spread in comparison to merely assessing cooperation between Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. Furthermore, the multitude of policy parameters analysed provides detailed and robust insights concerning a broad variety of different possible scenarios.

Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit:

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radovan Malachta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk

The paper follows up on the arguments introduced in the author’s article Mutual Trust as a Way to an Unconditional Automatic Recognition of Foreign Judgments. This paper, titled Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit: Overview discusses, whether there has been a loss of mutual trust between the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit. The UK, similarly to EU Member States, has been entrusted with the area of recognition and enforcement of judgements thus far. Should the Member States decrease the level of mutual trust in relation to the UK only because the UK ceased to be part of the EU after 47 years? Practically overnight, more precisely, the day after the transitional period, should the Member States trust the UK less in the light of legislative changes? The article also outlines general possibilities that the UK has regarding which international convention it may accede to. Instead of going into depth, the article presents a basic overview. However, this does not prevent the article to answer, in addition to the questions asked above, how a choice of access to an international convention could affect the level of mutual trust between the UK and EU Member States.

Part III Practical Challenges, 8 European Antitrust Criminalization and the First Challenge of Design: Defining the Criminal Cartel Offence

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Whelan Peter
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This chapter analyses the first challenge of design for European antitrust criminalization: defining the criminal cartel offence itself. There are two problematic issues concerning the definition of a criminal cartel offence, both of which must be understood—if not resolved—by legislatures that are serious about the effective enforcement of their criminal cartel laws. First, the impact of Regulation 1/2003 on the design and operation of a national cartel offence needs to be articulated. This is an issue which is unique to the EU Member States. Second, the legislature which is responsible for drafting a given national criminal cartel law is required to make a decision about how to deal with ‘acceptable’ cartel activity. The challenge for the drafters of a criminal cartel offence is how to ensure that 'acceptable' cartel activity is carved out of the criminal offence without making the offence unworkable in practice.

Narratives of the Big-4 transparency reports: country effects or firm strategy?

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 951-985
Author(s):  
Ana Zorio-Grima ◽  
Pedro Carmona
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Voluntary Disclosure ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Firm Strategy ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Country Effects ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
The Uk

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine whether audit firms use transparency reports (TRs) as a tool to standardize their brand image or whether the semantic and content analysis in these reports indicates a higher importance of country effects. Design/methodology/approach The sample includes 28 TRs published in English by the Big-4 audit firms from five EU countries (the UK, Ireland, Luxemburg, Hungary and Malta), as well as in the USA and Australia. Findings Using content analysis, this research finds that there is variation in the language used in TRs both across audit firms and jurisdictions. Most TRs from different countries of the same firm tend to be clustered, suggesting that audit firms use transparency reporting as a strategy to differentiate themselves from their competitors. In fact, EY and KPMG seem to have more standardized internal procedures and standardized information. Regarding country effects, the results indicate that TRs in the UK are longer and show more detailed information. Originality/value Overall, this research is innovative in the sense that it applies a new methodological approach to an emerging topic such as audit transparency reporting. It identifies emerging topics of voluntary disclosure, such as financial data of the firm, gender and ethnic origin of employees, community involvement or sanctions, among other topics of interest which might be explored in detail by future research to understand the construction of the profession.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document