Audit firms should ditch sales culture

UK watchdog flags up concerns.

I have no problem with audit firms providing some consulting services to audit clients provided it does not impair an auditor’s independence but there’s one thing that grates me about the audit profession. It’s when firms use audit as a lead-in to sell more lucrative consulting services. What is icing to this distasteful cake is when audit staff are praised for their role in winning consulting work.

This month, a UK watchdog responsible for checking the quality of audit firms released inspection reports of a few larger firms, flagging concerns PKF and Mazars had been praising and/or rewarding audit staff that successfully sold ‘non-audit’ or consulting services to audit clients. There reports apply to inspections carried out in 2010.

In the PKF report, the AIU warned the firm should: "Ensure credit is not sought or given in appraisals for success in selling non-audit services to audited entities."

In the Mazars report, it was recommended the firm: "Ensure that staff and partner remuneration and evaluation decisions do not reflect success in selling non-audit services to audit clients… [and] there is greater focus on audit quality indicators in appraisals for audit partners and staff."

To single out Mazars and PKF based on one inspection report is unfair. Rumours about auditors up-selling consulting have been rife for many years. Consulting is more lucrative and less labour intensive than audit, and firms all over the world, particularly the Big Four – PwC, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG – are beefing up their consulting arms like never before.

The problem with firms providing too much consulting to audit clients is the fear that they become reliant on that revenue and it will affects an auditor’s ability to exercise professional judgement. There’s also the argument that auditor’s might feel uncomfortable auditing a colleague’s consulting or tax work.

Although most consulting services are prohibited to audit clients, firms are still earning a significant amount of revenue from this practice. In 2011, PwC UK earned £363m from non-audit services to audit clients, which is about 40 per cent of the fees it earns from audit, while Deloitte made £185m, which is 36 per cent of its audit revenue.

The independence of auditors is a big issue for the accounting profession because, rightly or wrongly, questions are being raised as to why auditors gave a clean bill of health to banks such as Lehman Brothers just before they collapsed.

The EC has proposed radical reforms that could force the largest accounting firms in Europe to break up their audit businesses from advisory and tax. If such a proposal were to pass into law, it could threaten the existence of the four major brands – PwC, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG – although intensive lobbying from the ‘Big Four’ should derail this idea.

Nevertheless, auditors of all sizes could make their lives a whole lot easier if they ditched the sales culture and focussed on ensuring their clients accounts are in check, rather than worrying about their own.

Arvind Hickman is the editor of the International Accounting Bulletin.

Photograph: Getty Images

Arvind Hickman is the editor of the International Accounting Bulletin.

Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's establishment suspects a Momentum conspiracy - they're right

Bernie Sanders-style organisers are determined to rewire the party's machine.  

If you wanted to understand the basic dynamics of this year’s Labour leadership contest, Brighton and Hove District Labour Party is a good microcosm. On Saturday 9 July, a day before Angela Eagle was to announce her leadership bid, hundreds of members flooded into its AGM. Despite the room having a capacity of over 250, the meeting had to be held in three batches, with members forming an orderly queue. The result of the massive turnout was clear in political terms – pro-Corbyn candidates won every position on the local executive committee. 

Many in the room hailed the turnout and the result. But others claimed that some in the crowd had engaged in abuse and harassment.The national party decided that, rather than first investigate individuals, it would suspend Brighton and Hove. Add this to the national ban on local meetings and events during the leadership election, and it is easy to see why Labour seems to have an uneasy relationship with mass politics. To put it a less neutral way, the party machine is in a state of open warfare against Corbyn and his supporters.

Brighton and Hove illustrates how local activists have continued to organise – in an even more innovative and effective way than before. On Thursday 21 July, the week following the CLP’s suspension, the local Momentum group organised a mass meeting. More than 200 people showed up, with the mood defiant and pumped up.  Rather than listen to speeches, the room then became a road test for a new "campaign meetup", a more modestly titled version of the "barnstorms" used by the Bernie Sanders campaign. Activists broke up into small groups to discuss the strategy of the campaign and then even smaller groups to organise action on a very local level. By the end of the night, 20 phonebanking sessions had been planned at a branch level over the following week. 

In the past, organising inside the Labour Party was seen as a slightly cloak and dagger affair. When the Labour Party bureaucracy expelled leftwing activists in past decades, many on went further underground, organising in semi-secrecy. Now, Momentum is doing the exact opposite. 

The emphasis of the Corbyn campaign is on making its strategy, volunteer hubs and events listings as open and accessible as possible. Interactive maps will allow local activists to advertise hundreds of events, and then contact people in their area. When they gather to phonebank in they will be using a custom-built web app which will enable tens of thousands of callers to ring hundreds of thousands of numbers, from wherever they are.

As Momentum has learned to its cost, there is a trade-off between a campaign’s openness and its ability to stage manage events. But in the new politics of the Labour party, in which both the numbers of interested people and the capacity to connect with them directly are increasing exponentially, there is simply no contest. In order to win the next general election, Labour will have to master these tactics on a much bigger scale. The leadership election is the road test. 

Even many moderates seem to accept that the days of simply triangulating towards the centre and getting cozy with the Murdoch press are over. Labour needs to reach people and communities directly with an ambitious digital strategy and an army of self-organising activists. It is this kind of mass politics that delivered a "no" vote in Greece’s referendum on the terms of the Eurozone bailout last summer – defying pretty much the whole of the media, business and political establishment. 

The problem for Corbyn's challenger, Owen Smith, is that many of his backers have an open problem with this type of mass politics. Rather than investigate allegations of abuse, they have supported the suspension of CLPs. Rather than seeing the heightened emotions that come with mass mobilisations as side-effects which needs to be controlled, they have sought to joins unconnected acts of harassment, in order to smear Jeremy Corbyn. The MP Ben Bradshaw has even seemed to accuse Momentum of organising a conspiracy to physically attack Labour MPs.

The real conspiracy is much bigger than that. Hundreds of thousands of people are arriving, enthusiastic and determined, into the Labour party. These people, and their ability to convince the communities of which they are a part, threaten Britain’s political equilibrium, both the Conservatives and the Labour establishment. When the greatest hope for Labour becomes your greatest nightmare, you have good call to feel alarmed.