PracticeAuditWill EU exorcise Enron’s ghost?

Will EU exorcise Enron's ghost?

Seperating internal and external audit remains a key issue ten years on from Enron's collpase, claims IIA chief Dr Ian Peters

IN THE POST-FINANCIAL CRISIS era, bankers have replaced Enron and WorldCom as public totems of corporate mismanagement. As a result, particularly in the UK, it is easy to forget just how significant an event it was.

When Enron filed for bankruptcy on 2 December 2001, it had a devastating effect on its shareholders, many of them former employees betting their whole 401K pension pots on the company.  There were also far-reaching, and generally more useful implications for corporate governance practices.

In the UK, some of the key lessons of the Enron collapse were reflected in changed corporate governance practices, and ultimately written into the Combined Code (now the UK Corporate Governance Code).
One of the most important of these lessons has been the separation of a company’s internal and external audits.

The US Senate Committee’s investigation into Enron’s collapse highlighted its outsourcing of internal audit to its external auditors Arthur Andersen as a major factor in the company’s downfall. They said that it created a major conflict of interest that prevented the company’s dubious accountancy practices from being exposed earlier.

Today, it is widely accepted that it is good practice to ensure that internal and external audit functions are properly independent of each other.

The UK Corporate Governance Code requires companies’ audit committees to provide an explanation of how external auditor objectivity and independence is safeguarded if the company’s external auditor also provides it with non-audit services, including internal audit.

However, in recent years there have occasionally been instances when a company’s decision to place internal audit services with its external audit provider has been challenged.

It may theoretically be possible to design adequate Chinese walls to prevent conflicts of interest occurring, but investors are entirely justified in demanding extensive reassurance on these sorts of arrangements.

In the view of many, including the IIA, there is a strong case for going further still. We welcome the debate that will ensue from the EU’s proposals announced this week to ban audit firms offering internal audit services.

Dr Ian Peters, chief executive, Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors

Related Articles

The future of the audit industry: From masses of data, to meaning

Audit The future of the audit industry: From masses of data, to meaning

1y Acccountancy Age
Deloitte scoops GSK 'mega audit' from PwC

Audit Deloitte scoops GSK 'mega audit' from PwC

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
BDO appointed new auditor of Game Digital as Deloitte ditched

Audit BDO appointed new auditor of Game Digital as Deloitte ditched

1y Stephanie Wix, Writer
BDO's 'agility' makes it well placed to succeed - Eagland

Accounting Firms BDO's 'agility' makes it well placed to succeed - Eagland

1y Kevin Reed, Writer
Internal auditors earn more than external peers

Audit Internal auditors earn more than external peers

1y Stephanie Wix, Writer
Three ways audit executives can increase impact and influence

Audit Three ways audit executives can increase impact and influence

1y Richard Crump, Writer
Friday Afternoon Live: Accountants in government; audit market concentration; Top 40 Networks

Audit Friday Afternoon Live: Accountants in government; audit market concentration; Top 40 Networks

1y Kevin Reed, Writer