The audit reform in the United Kingdom: Challenges and the future

Subject. Intended to counter fraud and unreasonably high bonuses for top executives, the U.K. corporate governance and audit reform implies some changes so as to improve the financial transparency of companies, primarily, large and public interest entities. The reform is called to maintain the lucrativeness and competitiveness of the U.K. financial markets, creating a sustainable and manageable environment, which major long-term investors seek. Objectives. I review and summarize proposals set out in the reform as best-in-class practices, which may work in auditing and assurance in Russia and underlie respective changes. The reform may contribute to the auditing profession, help avoid accounting scandals and corporate failure. Methods. Studying the audit reform, I applied methods of analysis, generalization, and analogy. Results. Having analyzed the reform plan, I found valuable ideas concerning directors’ responsibilities, corporate reporting and auditing. The reform suggests that the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority should be established. The definition of public interest entities became broader. Audit boards are now to meet additional requirements. The audit market will be overhauled by segregating auditing and consultancy units of the Big Four companies and introducing statutory audit, which should be jointly performed by major and smaller entities, and tightening audit transparency rules. Hence, top executives will be more responsible and liable for financial reporting and increased transparency of internal control and trade account settlement principles. Such proposals should be adapted to the audit regulation practice in Russia and be applied with reference to the recent legislative novels. Conclusions. The quality of audit is critical for the economy and the public, since it ensures the national credibility as a capital market. Any sustainable economy needs a comprehensive approach, which combines the audit reform and corporate governance and accounting standards reform.

Democracy, accountability and audit: the creation of the UK NAO as a defence of liberty

PurposeThe study focusses on explaining why advocates for reform to state audit in the United Kingdom (UK) in the early 1980s, focussed on improving the links between the new National Audit Office (NAO) and Parliament, rather than on traditional notions of audit independence. The study shows how this focus on the auditor's link to Parliament depends on a particular concept of liberty and relates this to the wider literature on the place of audit in democratic society.Design/methodology/approachUnderstanding the issue of independence of audit in protecting the liberties and rights of citizens needs addressed. In this article, the authors investigate the creation of audit independence in the UK in the National Audit Act (1983). To do so, the authors employ a neo-Roman concept of liberty to historical archives ranging from the late 1960s to 1983.FindingsThe study shows that advocates for audit reform in the UK from the 1960s to the 1980s were arguing for an extension to Parliament's power to hold the executive to account and that their focus was influential on the way that the new NAO was established. Using a neo-Roman concept of liberty, the authors show that they believed Parliamentary surveillance of the executive was necessary to secure liberty within the UK.Research limitations/implicationsThe neo-Roman republican concept of liberty extends previous studies in considering the importance of audit for public accountability, the preservation of liberty and democracy.Practical implicationsPublic sector audit can be a fundamentally democratic activity. Auditors should be alert to the constitutional importance of their work and see parliamentary accountability as a key objective.Originality/valueThe neo-Roman concept of liberty extends previous studies in considering the importance of audit for public accountability, preservation of liberty and democracy.

The relevance of the European Audit Reform from the perspective of auditors

Este artículo tiene como objetivo extraer conclusiones sobre el impacto de la reforma europea de auditoría (REA) sobre el papel y la independencia de los auditores externos desde la perspectiva de estos profesionales en Portugal. Las medidas implementadas por REA fueron seleccionadas para su análisis con el fin de aclarar y definir mejor el papel del auditor, reforzar la independencia profesional y el escepticismo del auditor y aumentar la supervisión de los auditores. Los datos fueron recolectados a partir de un cuestionario enviado a los auditores (ROC), resultando en una muestra de 89 profesionales. Los hallazgos apuntan a niveles en general superiores al desacuerdo para las diferentes medidas implementadas por la REA, que se amplían en cuanto a las respuestas de los auditores que consideraban fundamental la introducción de la REA. Además, los hallazgos muestran que el papel que desempeña la ROC en la sociedad se destaca, según ellos, como el tema más relevante relacionado con las REA.

The Audit Reform and Non-Audit Services in the Light of the Big-4 Transparency Reports – the EU Perspective

The aim of this article is to compare and contrast three different approaches towards non-audit services (henceforth “NAS”) based on: 1) researchers’ views, 2) the EU regulation, and 3) the provision of NAS by the Big-4 firms operating in twenty-seven EU member states. Therefore, the article includes: (i) a literature review of various NAS aspects, (ii) an analysis of the EU reform in terms of NAS, and (iii) an empirical analysis of NAS fees which have been disclosed in the Big-4 transparency reports for the period 2017-2019.The literature review shows: a) lack of consensus between researchers about the potential consequences of the NAS provision in general, b) quite limited or little evidence of the consequences of the NAS restrictions as part of the EU audit reform, c) ambiguity in terms of the NAS definition itself which results mainly from insufficient NAS disclosures and lack of a detailed NAS split.The EU regulators addressed these concerns only in very narrow aspects, i.e., through: (1) the NAS black list, (2) the NAS cap, and (3) the strong emphasis on public-interest entities (henceforth “PIEs”). What is more, NAS disclosure requirements in the transparency reports are limited only to two categories.Finally, the results of the empirical study indicate the significant differences at the NAS fee level among the EU member states. The analysis shows a particular importance of NAS fees from other clients as a substantial revenue stream for the Big-4 firms. The results suggest also a significant increase in this category in 2018 when NAS fees from other clients increased by net EUR809 million (13%). However, this strong trend was not confirmed in the following year.All in all, the study underlines deficiency in proper NAS disclosure and reporting which might be observed also in the case of transparency reports. All findings of this study may be another argument for regulators to address the problem of NAS in more detail starting from their advice on a NAS taxonomy which might be used then as a point of reference. It would be also beneficial for researchers exploring the NAS aspect and, thus, may enhance data and results comparability between studies. Additional disclosure requirements like NAS provided to PIEs or a recurring or non-recurring character of NAS would also support the better understanding and evaluation of the consequences of the EU audit reform.