IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rfa/aefjnl/v8y2021i1p32-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Audit Reform and Non-Audit Services in the Light of the Big-4 Transparency Reports – the EU Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Magdalena Indyk

Abstract

The aim of this article is to compare and contrast three different approaches towards non-audit services (henceforth “NAS”) based on- 1) researchers’ views, 2) the EU regulation, and 3) the provision of NAS by the Big-4 firms operating in twenty-seven EU member states. Therefore, the article includes- (i) a literature review of various NAS aspects, (ii) an analysis of the EU reform in terms of NAS, and (iii) an empirical analysis of NAS fees which have been disclosed in the Big-4 transparency reports for the period 2017-2019.The literature review shows- a) lack of consensus between researchers about the potential consequences of the NAS provision in general, b) quite limited or little evidence of the consequences of the NAS restrictions as part of the EU audit reform, c) ambiguity in terms of the NAS definition itself which results mainly from insufficient NAS disclosures and lack of a detailed NAS split.The EU regulators addressed these concerns only in very narrow aspects, i.e., through- (1) the NAS black list, (2) the NAS cap, and (3) the strong emphasis on public-interest entities (henceforth “PIEs”). What is more, NAS disclosure requirements in the transparency reports are limited only to two categories.Finally, the results of the empirical study indicate the significant differences at the NAS fee level among the EU member states. The analysis shows a particular importance of NAS fees from other clients as a substantial revenue stream for the Big-4 firms. The results suggest also a significant increase in this category in 2018 when NAS fees from other clients increased by net EUR809 million (13%). However, this strong trend was not confirmed in the following year.All in all, the study underlines deficiency in proper NAS disclosure and reporting which might be observed also in the case of transparency reports. All findings of this study may be another argument for regulators to address the problem of NAS in more detail starting from their advice on a NAS taxonomy which might be used then as a point of reference. It would be also beneficial for researchers exploring the NAS aspect and, thus, may enhance data and results comparability between studies. Additional disclosure requirements like NAS provided to PIEs or a recurring or non-recurring character of NAS would also support the better understanding and evaluation of the consequences of the EU audit reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Magdalena Indyk, 2021. "The Audit Reform and Non-Audit Services in the Light of the Big-4 Transparency Reports – the EU Perspective," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 8(1), pages 32-49, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:rfa:aefjnl:v:8:y:2021:i:1:p:32-49
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/aef/article/download/5084/5277
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/aef/article/view/5084
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giuseppe Ianniello, 2015. "The effects of board and auditor independence on earnings quality: evidence from Italy," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 19(1), pages 229-253, February.
    2. Mark L. DeFond & K. Raghunandan & K.R. Subramanyam, 2002. "Do Non–Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 1247-1274, September.
    3. Ana Zorio-Grima & Pedro Carmona, 2019. "Narratives of the Big-4 transparency reports: country effects or firm strategy?," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 34(8), pages 951-985, June.
    4. Quick, Reiner & Warming-Rasmussen, B. & Liempd, D. van, 2019. "Auditor-provided Nonaudit Services: Post-EU-Regulation Evidence from Denmark," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 118712, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    5. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    6. Iain Clacher & Alan Duboisée de Ricquebourg & Amy May, 2019. "Who gets all the PIE? Regulation of the statutory audit for private UK companies," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 32(5), pages 1297-1324, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Geiger, Marshall A. & Basioudis, Ilias G. & DeLange, Paul, 2022. "The effect of non-audit fees and industry specialization on the prevalence and accuracy of auditor’s going-concern reporting decisions," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    2. Dusica STEVCEVSKA SRBINOSKA, 2022. "Audit modifications in emerging markets: The Macedonian Stock Exchange," Romanian Journal of Economics, Institute of National Economy, vol. 55(2(64)), pages 43-69, December.
    3. Garcia-Blandon, Josep & Argiles-Bosch, Josep Maria & Castillo-Merino, David & Martinez-Blasco, Monica, 2017. "An Assessment of the Provisions of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 on Non-audit Services and Audit Firm Tenure: Evidence from Spain," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 251-261.
    4. Atasi Basu & Randal Elder & Mohamed Onsi, 2012. "Reported earnings, auditor's opinion, and compensation: theory and evidence," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 29-48, March.
    5. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    6. Kitto, Andrew R., 2024. "The effects of non-Big 4 mergers on audit efficiency and audit market competition☆," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1).
    7. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2013_013 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Liang Tan & Santhosh Ramalingegowda & Yong Yu, 2022. "Third-Party Consequences of Changes in Managerial Fiduciary Duties: The Case of Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1556-1572, February.
    9. Hwang, Seokyoun & Sarath, Bharat & Han, Seung-youb, 2022. "Auditor independence: The effect of auditors’ quality control efforts and corporate governance," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    10. Waymond Rodgers & Andrés Guiral & José Gonzalo, 2009. "Different Pathways that Suggest Whether Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions are Ethically Based," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 347-361, May.
    11. Chychyla, Roman & Leone, Andrew J. & Minutti-Meza, Miguel, 2019. "Complexity of financial reporting standards and accounting expertise," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 226-253.
    12. Ahsan Habib & Mabel D' Costa & Hedy Jiaying Huang & Md. Borhan Uddin Bhuiyan & Li Sun, 2020. "Determinants and consequences of financial distress: review of the empirical literature," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(S1), pages 1023-1075, April.
    13. Sarowar Hossain & Jeff Coulton & Jenny Jing Wang, 2023. "Client Importance and Audit Quality at the Individual Audit Partner, Office, and Firm Levels," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 59(2), pages 650-696, June.
    14. Chan, Lilian H. & Chen, Kevin C.W. & Chen, Tai-Yuan & Yu, Yangxin, 2012. "The effects of firm-initiated clawback provisions on earnings quality and auditor behavior," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 180-196.
    15. Mo, Phyllis L.L. & Rui, Oliver M. & Wu, Xi, 2015. "Auditors' going Concern Reporting in the pre- and post-bankruptcy Law Eras: Chinese Affiliates of Big 4 Versus Local Auditors," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-30.
    16. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:135-151 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Qasim Ahmad Alawaqleh & Nashat Ali Almasria, 2021. "The Impact of Audit Committee Performance and Composition on Financial Reporting Quality in Jordan," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 12(3), pages 55-69, May.
    18. Barnes, Paul, 2013. "The effects on financial statements of the litigation cost rule in a civil action for negligence against the auditor," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 170-182.
    19. Cao, June & Ee, Mong Shan & Hasan, Iftekhar & Huang, He, 2024. "Asymmetric reactions of abnormal audit fees jump to credit rating changes," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    20. Sophie Audousset-Coulier, 2009. "L'utilisation des honoraires d'audit pour mesurer la qualité de l'audit : théorie et évidence," Post-Print halshs-00460230, HAL.
    21. Lennox, Clive & Li, Bing, 2012. "The consequences of protecting audit partners’ personal assets from the threat of liability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 154-173.
    22. Beatriz García Osma & Belén Gill de Albornoz Noguer & Elena De las Heras Cristobal, 2016. "Opinion shopping: Partner versus firm-level evidence," Working Papers. Serie EC 2016-02, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rfa:aefjnl:v:8:y:2021:i:1:p:32-49. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Redfame publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.