• Register
Return to: Home > News > Taking joint responsibility for corporate reporting failures

Taking joint responsibility for corporate reporting failures

Following AFM’s assessment during 2017-2018 on ‘quality change’ at PIE audit firms, Accon, BDO, Baker Tilly, Grant Thornton and Mazars over quality safeguards that failed to prevent or detect deficiencies in a number of statutory audits inspected, trust in auditors has declined after a number of these high-profile corporate reporting failures. However, according to newly appointed professor Olof Bik from Nyenrode Business University, external auditors are not the only ones to blame

According to Professor of Behavioural Research in Auditing Olof Bik, “We need to realise that auditors are human too and therefore there is no such thing as zero risk in conducting audit work. It is possible that these risks can never be fully addressed through regulation and professional intervention alone as these could even lead to unintended consequences.

 “When the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) reports to have found issues in the audit files of 45% of the selected audits, small or large and irrespective of any real economic significance in financial reporting quality, the public narrative is that 45% of audits fail.

 “The reality is that financial reporting quality – and therefore also financial reporting issues and failures – is a joint responsibility of at least a number of parties in the entire financial reporting and assurance supply chain.

 “As a result, the auditing profession should dare to cross their own divide by choosing financial reporting quality as its compass for audit quality which is in line with the expectations stakeholders and society has of the auditor.

“In the case of financial reporting quality issue or failure, it also casts a slur on the work of the auditor – but the auditor would also have a better story to tell: the reality that financial reporting quality – and thus also financial reporting issues and failures – is a joint responsibility of at least a number of parties in the entire financial reporting and assurance supply chain. Not only: where was the auditor? But also, where was the accounting department of the audited company? Where was management? Where was the internal auditor? All parties have a role to play.”

For further information the research is published in: Crossing the divide: Behavioural Research in Auditing

Top Content

    ARGA team, assemble!

    The new top team has been named that will see in root-and-branch reform at the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) as it transforms into the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA). Will the new duo be as dynamic as some are hoping? Robin Amlôt reports.

    read more

    FASB: a quest for simpler standards

    FASB chair Russell Golden addressed the IMA 2019 Annual Conference and Expo at the Sheraton San Diego Hotel and Marina, California, on 18 June. IMA immediate former chair-emeritus Alex Eng acted as moderator. Joe Pickard reports.

    read more

    The future of audit, and how to get there

    Two recent reports peer into the future of the audit profession. One analyses what an audit should offer, while the other looks at how the audit process will be carried out. Robin Amlôt takes a closer look at both.

    read more

    EFAA elects new president, focuses on digital future

    EFAA’s new president, Salvador Marin, outlined his key priorities for the next two years at the organisation’s 2019 annual general meeting, while outgoing president Bodo Richardt offered advice. Robin Amlôt reports.

    read more
Privacy Policy

We have updated our privacy policy. In the latest update it explains what cookies are and how we use them on our site. To learn more about cookies and their benefits, please view our privacy policy. Please be aware that parts of this site will not function correctly if you disable cookies. By continuing to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.