It’s one thing to discuss the breadth of the UK government’s March 18 consultation paper, “Restoring Trust in Audit and Corporate Governance,” with its 98 questions spread over 232 pages, as I did recently in a conference mixing academics and practitioners.
It’s quite another, and thoroughly dispiriting, to observe the public silence on the likelihood of sustainable change in the model for large-company audits, so roundly criticized since the fall of Carillion back in January 2018—now more than three years ago.
On the available evidence, the Consultation is being kicked so far into the long grass that it would only be flushed by game drivers and a pack of hounds. One reason for pessimism is the absence of leadership and advocacy.
That’s disappointing, but no surprise. Transformative change always confronts the inertia, indifference, and resistance of those with self-interest in protecting the status quo.
For a list of those missing, start at the top. Kwasi Kwarteng, Boris Johnson’s cabinet secretary for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, has spent the last two months at photo ops and shout-outs on behalf of British business—particularly life sciences, technology, and renewable energy—without so much as a mention on his otherwise busy Twitter feed of the Consultation issued under his signature.
The flat-line level of commitment of Kwarteng and his boss at No. 10 Downing Street is readable in the silence on audit reform within the legislative program presented by the Queen in her traditional speech on May 11—an otherwise ambitious list spanning election schedules, national ID cards, and NHS funding. That matters, because the Consultation would rely on Parliamentary action to address such major topics as the re-engineering of the audit regulator itself, extension of the duties and accountability of company directors, and the liability regime under which changes to the scope of assurance might be implemented.
Given the complex process in booking law-making time on Parliament’s calendar, legislative silence today bespeaks extended future deferral at best, with likely default to indefinite inaction.
Further, while legislation for the replacement of the Financial Reporting Council lies in Parliamentary limbo, Sir Jon Thompson, chief executive of that discredited agency, has avoided taking the bully pulpit of his office to urge an activist role for his agency even under his place-holder leadership on the evolution of large-company reporting and assurance.
That multi-faceted topic, laid out in the perspicacious report offered in December 2019 by Sir Donald Brydon, “Independent Review Into the Quality and Effectiveness of Audit,” with its innovative proposal for the design and recognition of a newly-defined “corporate auditor,” lacks active sponsorship and looks unfortunately destined to gather dust. Sir Donald himself has done valuable and worthy service, but he speaks for no constituency—instead like Oscar Wilde arriving in America to confront its customs authorities, he has “nothing to declare but (his) genius.”
Elsewhere at the agency level, the aggressive position urged by the Competition & Markets Authority, that the dominant position of the Big 4 in auditing the FTSE 350 should be forcibly reduced, is left for dead by the Consultation, while the author of that view, then-CMA chairman Andrew Tyrie, was defenestrated in 2020 and has since returned to his political consultancy with a London law firm.
Nor can minority support be expected from the political opposition. Acerbic Labour MP Rachel Reeves, who chaired a BEIS select sub-committee with an aggressive report of its own and who was razor-like in gutting evidence presented by the large firm leaders, has been booted up to the post of Shadow Chancellor.
As for the large firms themselves, sliced and diced at the Reeves committee hearings and on the receiving end of the perpetual scandal-driven question, “where were the auditors?”—it remains the case that ever since the firms locked up their public company assurance franchise with passage of the American securities laws in the early 1930s, the profession has been reactive and defensive in its uneasy relationship with the regulators—an attitude manifest in the UK today in their gentle maneuvering through the process of “operational separation” of their audit and advisory practices.
With all these players retreated to the wings—cometh the hour, cometh the man?
More likely, to adapt the query attributed to Richard Nixon’s secretary of state Henry Kissinger in his sarcastic frustration about talking to Europe—if in search for an effective audit reform advocate, whom should we call?
[Ed. note: This article was originally published on Re:Balance on May 13. It has been re-published with permission.]
Jim Peterson is a 19-year veteran of Arthur Andersen’s internal legal group. He has been writing about the accounting firms and the Big Audit model since 2002, on his blog, Re:Balance, and in his two books, “Count Down: The Past, Present and Uncertain Future of the Big Four Accounting Firms” (2d ed. 2017) and “DOA: Can Big Audit Survive the UK Regulators?”