17 Sep 2009
KPMG’s audit chief has penned a strident defence of his firm’s controversial Rentokil service, arguing the arrangement was ethically sound and caters for the “unprecedented challenges” faced by businesses today.
Oliver Tant, KPMG’s UK head of audit, has sought to correct “misleading” comments about its much-discussed audit arrangement being used for FTSE 100 firm Rentokil Initial.
Controversy has centred on the potential mix of internal and external audit services the firm has offered, which has raised eyebrows across the audit industry in recent weeks.
Audit guidelines warn of two dangers when an external auditor takes on internal duties. The first concerns the potential for a company to audit its own internal work, while the second concerns auditors making management decisions.
Tant sees no issue with the arrangement and said it enhances the audit service. “This work does not replace, conflict with or undermine the independence of the external audit it simply extends our understanding of the business and its controls and hence the breadth and depth of insight we can offer,” he said.
He believes the package responds to the “unprecedented challenges in this economic climate”.
It was Rentokil’s 31 July announcement that it would switch its external
auditor
from industry heavyweight PricewaterhouseCoopers that first sparked debate. In
its half-yearly result Rentokil said it could shave 30% off its audit costs with
KPMG’s package which, it said, “integrated financial assurance process,
extending external audit coverage to some work undertaken by internal audit”.
Tant said the arrangement did not merge internal and external audit functions. “The service is not about merging the external and internal audit functions. A company can continue to have its own internal audit function.”
What Tant does not address, however, is whether the arrangement can be used overseas. An ongoing criticism is that it would be prohibited in the US and could be challenged in France.
This issue prompted John Flaherty, Ernst & Young’s UK head of assurance, to say he would steer clear of mirroring the arrangement.
“The way they have packaged and described it has brought them closer to the line of what is acceptable and not acceptable… each of the firms needs to take its own view about where that line is,” he said last month.
Further reading
You may also like
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
Visitor comments Add your comment
So that's all right then!
To quote from 'Private Eye'.
"So that's all right then!"
and
"Doubles all round!"
Posted by: Iain S, 17 Sep 2009 | 00:00
Dangerous strides
This is not encouraging.We should be able to understand why the restrictions were put in place in the first place. It should not matter who is packaging the external audit services well that it could be acceptable.What would have been the reaction from the Big Four if this was done by an audit firm in Kent or Surrey?
Posted by: Jimmy Gondwe, 24 Sep 2009 | 00:00