LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: HF5601
Following the collapse of Enron, the UK government set up a high level group of regulators and ministers to co-ordinate a review of the UK regulatory framework, including the key area of auditor independence. The Accountancy Foundation Review Board (Review Board), which was at the time responsible for the independent oversight of the UK accountancy professional bodies, took the leading role in the auditor independence review. A programme of research was set up by the Review Board and studies were provided by other bodies. The results of the research were compiled into a paper which underpinned the Review Board's recommendations for change. This was fed into the government review process. In this paper, the research is summarised and the Review Board's evidence-based recommendations are presented and compared with the government's final position. Few differences are found. Insights are provided into the nature of the regulatory reform process and the quality of the evidence which underpinned it.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Accountancy Age (2002), 'Speech by Sir Howard Davis at the World Economic Forum', New York. (Reported 14 February.) London: VNU Publications, pp. 22-23.
    • Accountancy Foundation (2002), Independent Regulation of the Accountancy Profession, London: Accountancy Foundation.
    • Arthur Andersen (2002), 'Volker outlines framework for new Andersen with governing board', www.arthurandersen.com/websiten. . .diaCentervolkerStmt32202, March 22, website visited 27 June, 2002.
    • APB (2003), Consultation Paper: Draft Ethical Standards for Auditors, London: APB Ltd.
    • Beattie, V., Fearnley, S. & Brandt, R. (2001), Behind Closed Doors: What Company Audit is Really About, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave.
    • Beattie, V., Fearnley, S. & Brandt, R. (1999), 'Perceptions of auditor independence: UK evidence', Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 67-107.
    • CGAA (2002), Interim Report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, URN 02/1092, Co-ordinating Group on Audit and Accounting issues, London: Department of Trade and Industry, July.
    • CGAA (2003), Final Report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, URN 03/567, Co-ordinating Group on Audit and Accounting issues, London: Department of Trade and Industry, January.
    • CAJEC (1996), Integrity, Objectivity and Independence, Milton Keynes: Chartered Accountants Joint Ethics Committee.
    • Companies Act (1985), Department of Trade and Industry, London: Stationery Office.
    • Companies Act (1989), Department of Trade and Industry, London: Stationery Office.
    • Companies Bill (2003), Department of Trade and Industry. London: The Stationery Office.
    • De Angelo, (1981), 'Auditor size and audit quality', Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 183-199.
    • DTI (2002), Review of the Regulatory Regime of the Accountancy Profession: A Consultation Document, London: Department of Trade and Industry, October.
    • DTI (2003), Review of the Regulatory Regime of the Accountancy Profession: Report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, London: Department of Trade and Industry, January.
    • EC, (2002), Statutory Auditors' Independence in the EU: A Set of Fundamental Principles. Brussels: European Commission Recommendation 2001/6942.
    • FRC (2003), Audit Committees: Combined Code Guidance: A report and proposed guidance by an FRC appointed group chaired by Sir Robert Smith, London: Financial Reporting Council Limited, January.
    • Higgs, D. (2003), Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors. London: Department of Trade and Industry, January.
    • Hinks, G. (2002), 'UK Accounting is top class', Accountancy Age, 4 July, p. 2.
    • House of Commons Treasury Committee (2002), The Financial Regulation of Public Listed Companies: Sixth Report of Session 2001-02. Volume 1: Report and Proceedings of the Committee., London: The Stationery Office Limited.
    • ICAEW (1995), Audit Regulations and Guidance. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
    • IFAC (2001), Independence: Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, New York: International Federation of Accountants.
    • ICAA (2002), Professional Statement F1: Professional Independence, Australia: Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia.
    • ICAO (2002), ICAO Rules of Professional Conduct, [available at http://www.icao.ca/public/ handbook/rules95.html], Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.
    • Kleinman, G. & Palmon, D. (2001), Understanding Auditor-client Relations: a multi faceted analysis, Wiener, Princeton.
    • Modernising Company Law (2002), Government White Paper. (July). London: The Stationery Office Limited.
    • Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002), Washington: One Hundred and Seventh Congress of the United States of America.
    • SEC (2000), Final Rule: Revision of the Commission's Auditor Independence Requirements, Washington: Securities and Exchange Commission.
    • SEC (2002), SEC Statement Regarding Andersen Case Conviction, Securities and Exchange Commission website, www.sec.gov/news/press/2002-89.htm visited 6.08.02.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article