KPMG’s 2015 Global Audit Committee Survey

According to a recent survey by accounting giants KPMG, audit committees around the world are seeking better technology information and more ‘thinking outside the box’ from members to improve their effectiveness.

The KPMG’s 2015 survey questioned 1,500 audit committee members from a total of 36 countries. Tim Copnell, KPMG UK Audit Committee Institute Chairman, said that some of the most interesting results from the survey were about the subject of improving audit committee’s effectiveness.

Copnell said;

“From a UK perspective we had 58% of respondents saying a greater diversity of thinking on the committee would improve its effectiveness and that is in an environment where all the codes and guidance and things coming out of Europe tell us again and again to have accountants and people with audit knowledge on the audit committee.

“They are saying fine there is a need for hard skills but actually there is also a big need for soft skills.”

Lack of technology knowledge

Although respondents pointed out that whilst they recognised that it is important to have audit committee members who have accounting and auditing skills, it is also of importance to have members with other varied skills. One particular worry was the general lack of technology knowledge in audit committees.

Cybersecurity concerns

Another finding from the survey was based around the quality of the information at the audit committee’s disposal. Respondents rated the quality of information that they receive regarding specific topics – when asked about cybersecurity, a whopping 90% of them aired concerns.

Copnell said;

“That is quite important, because these are the risks audit committees really engage with nowadays… it is one thing to debate these issues, but if the information the audit committee has is below par then that is quite a difficult position to be in.

“The whole audit reform environment of the last five years, not just in the EU, has been to create more clarity about what is the audit role and the advisory role and obviously to prohibit non-audit service with a view to maintain independence and objectivity.

“But at the same time they would argue that as a result of that process, the relationship between auditors and audit committee has changed such that the auditors no longer provide perhaps a richness of support as the audit committee would wish.”

Keep up to date with the latest news on our blog page and we love to hear your thoughts on Twitter and Facebook, too.