The Effect of Non-Audit Services on Auditor Independence : A study on 11 food retail- and wholesale companies in the United Kingdom

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of non-audit services on auditor independence, and the importance of non-audit services as a source of income for audit firms in the United Kingdom. Design/method/approach – This study will examine 11 companies in the food retail- and wholesale industry during 2007 - 2014. Five indicators have been used; (1) Appointed auditor and provision of non-audit services to audit clients; (2) Auditor tenure; (3) Non-audit services in relation to total services; (4) Tax-services in relation to non-audit services, (5) Big Four’s revenue. Information has been collected using the quantitative approach through annual- and transparency reports. The threshold used to measure possible independence threats (self-review-, self-interest- and familiarity threat) has been set at 18,5 %. Findings – This study concludes that the jointly provision of audit- and nonaudit services possibly causes impairment of auditor independence, and that non-audit services is an important source of income for audit firms. The findings showed that in 99 %, companies purchased non-audit services from their statutory auditor. Non-audit services in relation to total services surpassed the threshold in 78 % of all financial years. Likewise, tax-services in comparison to non-audit services exceeded the threshold in 65 % of all financial years. The Big Four’s revenue from non-audit services to audit clients in relation to total revenue is almost constantly below the threshold. However, in all financial years except from one, total revenue from non-audit services surpassed revenue from audit services by far. Contribution – The study contributes to the ongoing discussion about nonaudit services effect on auditor independence. Originality/value – This study is one of few that provide detailed information about non-audit services in the food retail- and wholesale industry. It highlights social and ethical issues with regard to agency relationships.  

Audit report on the Iowa Water Pollution Control Works Financing Program and the Iowa Drinking Water Facilities Financing Program, joint programs of the Iowa Finance Authority and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for the year ended June 30, 2015

Audit report on the Iowa Water Pollution Control Works Financing Program and the Iowa Drinking Water Facilities Financing Program, joint programs of the Iowa Finance Authority and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for the year ended June 30, 2015

Audit report on Appanoose County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2015

Audit report on Appanoose County, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2015

Audit report on the Diamondhead Lake Rural Improvement Zone for the year ended June 30, 2016

Audit report on the Diamondhead Lake Rural Improvement Zone for the year ended June 30, 2016

Audit report on the Office of Treasurer of State, Iowa Educational Savings Plan Trust (Trust) for the year ended June 30, 2016

Audit report on the Office of Treasurer of State, Iowa Educational Savings Plan Trust (Trust) for the year ended June 30, 2016

Audit report on the Sundown Lake Rural Improvement Zone for the year ended June 30, 2016

Audit report on the Sundown Lake Rural Improvement Zone for the year ended June 30, 2016

Audit report on City of Little Sioux, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2013

Audit report on City of Little Sioux, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2013

Audit report on City of Little Sioux, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report on City of Little Sioux, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2014

Audit report on the Hiawatha Water Department, Hiawatha, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2016

Audit report on the Hiawatha Water Department, Hiawatha, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2016

Audit report on the City of Hiawatha, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2016

Audit report on the City of Hiawatha, Iowa for the year ended June 30, 2016

Should data monitoring committees assess efficacy when considering safety in trails in acute stroke?

The primary role of a trials Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) is to ensure the safety of enrolled patients. In stroke trials, safety is monitored typically by comparing death and stroke specific events between treatment groups. DMCs may also have the remit for monitoring efficacy depending on the aims of the trial. We hypothesised that functional outcome at end of follow-up, a measure of efficacy, is also a powerful measure of safety and tested this in a systematic review

Managing university records and documents in the world of governance, audit and risk: Case studies from South Africa and Malawi

There are enormous benefits for any organisation from practising sound records management. In the context of a public university, the importance of good records management includes: facilitating the achievement the university’s mandate; enhancing efficiency of the university; maintaining a reliable institutional memory; promoting trust; responding to an audit culture; enhancing university competitiveness; supporting the university’s fiduciary duty; demonstrating transparency and accountability; and fighting corruption. Records scholars and commentators posit that effective recordkeeping is an essential underpinning of good governance. Although there is a portrayal of positive correlation, recordkeeping struggles to get the same attention as that given to the governance. Evidence abounds of cases of neglect of recordkeeping in universities and other institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa. The apparent absence of sound recordkeeping provided a rationale for revisiting some universities in South Africa and Malawi in order to critically explore the place of recordkeeping in an organisation’s strategy in order to develop an alternative framework for managing records and documents in an era where good governance is a global agenda. The research is a collective case study in which multiple cases are used to critically explore the relationship between recordkeeping and governance. As qualitative research that belongs in the interpretive tradition of enquiry, it is not meant to suggest prescriptive solutions to general recordkeeping problems but rather to provide an understanding of the challenges and opportunities that arise in managing records and documents in the world of governance, audit and risk. That is: what goes on in the workplace; what are the problems; and what alternative approaches might address any existing problem situations. Research findings show that some institutions are making good use of their governance structures and other drivers for recordkeeping to put in place sound recordkeeping systems. Key governance structures and other drivers for recordkeeping identified include: laws and regulations; governing bodies; audit; risk; technology; reforms; and workplace culture. Other institutions are not managing their records and documents well despite efforts to improve their governance systems. They lack recordkeeping capacity. Areas that determine recordkeeping capacity include: availability of records management policy; capacity for digital records; availability of a records management unit; senior management support; level of education and training of records management staff; and systems and procedures for storage, retrieval and dispositions of records. Although this research reveals that the overall recordkeeping in the selected countries has slightly improved compared with the situation other researchers found a decade ago, it remains unsatisfactory and disjointed from governance. The study therefore proposes governance recordkeeping as an approach to managing records and documents in the world of governance, audit and risk. The governance recordkeeping viewpoint considers recordkeeping as a governance function that should be treated in the same manner as other governance functions such as audit and risk management. Additionally, recordkeeping and governance should be considered as symbiotic elements of a strategy. A strategy that neglects recordkeeping may not fulfil the organisation’s objectives effectively.

Are joint audits associated with higher audit fees?

In its October 2010 Green Paper on audit policy, the European Commission suggested that joint audits might be a way of improving the audit market in Europe. However, some parties consider that a joint audit system is not an efficient solution because the perceived improvements in audit quality, if any, are not commensurate with the significant increase in audit fees. We compare audit fees paid during the years 2007-2011 by listed companies in France, where joint audits are mandatory, with those paid by British and Italian companies. Theory suggests that audit fees in countries with high investor protection, such as the UK, are likely to be greater than those in countries with lower investor protection, such as France and Italy, ceteris paribus. However, we find significantly higher audit fees in France after controlling for well-documented auditor, client, and engagement attributes, which vary across countries. Furthermore, since we do not find statistically significant differences in the magnitude of abnormal accruals, the higher audit fees observed in France do not appear to be associated with higher audit quality.