PracticeConsultingMaking responsible provisions

Making responsible provisions

By Jon Grant

The Auditing Practices Board has recently published Bulletin 1998/10, which encourages auditors of listed companies to describe their responsibilities towards different elements of the annual report.

Once, the audited financial statements and the directors’ report were the annual report. Today, the accounts typically make up less than 40% of the reports of larger listed companies. Operating reviews, chairmen’s statements, remuneration and corporate governance reports form most of the pages.

Auditors have different responsibilities for the different aspects of the annual report. Understanding what auditors do on corporate governance is perhaps the greatest challenge. Currently, this is not explained in the annual reports of many listed companies. The responsibilities statement will fill this gap. Although useful, this will, I fear, only go part-way to help users appreciate what auditors can realistically do in relation to corporate governance.

When the Cadbury Code was incorporated into the Listing Rules, an obligation was placed on auditors to review compliance with those aspects of the code that were capable of objective verification. At the time, this amounted to 11 out of 19 provisions – a reasonably high proportion. Yet, since then, this has changed to only 7 out of 45 provisions.

Auditors have generally indicated that they would prefer the requirement to review the seven provisions of the Combined Code to be dropped. Shareholders and companies, however, have indicated that they saw some benefit in the review, especially in relation to internal financial controls.

In 1999, we can expect guidance on directors’ responsibilities regarding the expanded Hampel definition of internal controls. Inevitably, there will be an active discussion regarding the level of assurance auditors can provide in relation to the expanded definition of control and what companies will be prepared to pay for. The outcome of this debate may cause the value of the current regime to be reappraised.

Jon Grant is technical director of the APB

Related Articles

5 tips for SMEs to protect cash flow

Accounting Software 5 tips for SMEs to protect cash flow

5m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
Tyrie on Finance Bill 2017: ‘Making Tax Policy Better’

Consulting Tyrie on Finance Bill 2017: ‘Making Tax Policy Better’

11m Stephanie Wix, Writer
Managing partner Q&A - the year ahead: Richard Toone, CVR Global

Accounting Firms Managing partner Q&A - the year ahead: Richard Toone, CVR Global

12m Kevin Reed, Writer
Deloitte 'self-imposes exile' on government contracts to defuse PM row

Accounting Firms Deloitte 'self-imposes exile' on government contracts to defuse PM row

12m Kevin Reed, Writer
Managing partner Q&A - the year ahead: Julie Adams, Menzies

Accounting Firms Managing partner Q&A - the year ahead: Julie Adams, Menzies

12m Kevin Reed, Writer
Friday Afternoon Live: Deloitte's tech thing; PAC wants HMRC 'contingencies'; and Sports Direct

Business Regulation Friday Afternoon Live: Deloitte's tech thing; PAC wants HMRC 'contingencies'; and Sports Direct

1y Kevin Reed, Writer
Friday Afternoon Live: HMRC complaints rise; Deloitte scoops big audits; and corporate reporting woes

Audit Friday Afternoon Live: HMRC complaints rise; Deloitte scoops big audits; and corporate reporting woes

1y Kevin Reed, Writer
New head of equity capital markets for KPMG

Accounting Firms New head of equity capital markets for KPMG

1y Stephanie Wix, Writer