Quel est l'avenir des "petits cabinets d'audit belges" dans le contexte normatif actuel: focus sur la nouvelle norme ISQM1 et son interaction éventuelle avec la norme ISQC1 et sur la réforme européenne de l'audit?

Abstract

This thesis studies the future of “small audit firms” in the current prescriptive context with a focus on the new ISQM1 and the ISQC1 standards together with the Reform of the EU Statutory Audit Market. The qualitative methodology used in this final-year dissertation is based on an iterative approach. It means that I used repetitively the same questionnaire for the interview of the six statutory accountants that I met. First of all, I have emitted the need of having a qualitative and exhaustive definition of a “small audit firm”. This way, you can know exactly which type of audit firm you are dealing with instead of constantly doubting. However, the interviewees disagree, as statutory auditor16 is a professional activity17. Therefore, big and small audit firms are both expected to deliver the same audit quality, no matter their affiliations. The only difference between a small and a big audit firm lies in their ability to mutualize their costs. Furthermore, the audit sector is facing three major challenges: the strict respect of ISAs, the computerization and the preservation of the audit quality with the influx of more restrictive standards. As long as a total harmonization of economic laws in Europe does not come into force, the "small Belgian audit firm" will still have its place in the audit market thanks to the continued demand for "proximity" firms. Therefore, small audit firms have to meet two essential criteria to ensure their continued existence in order to face the current administrative and regulatory constraints.  Firstly, the small firm must have a minimum critical size of ten people, including at least two statutory accountants. This way, they will be able to comfortably organize their quality control and mission reviews.  Secondly, the quality of an audit depends on the skills, knowledge and resources of the auditor. Even if technology is not a directly determining factor of the quality of an audit, it is a necessary tool to improve its profitability. Smaller firms have to keep up with their clients’ pace of digitalization in order to maintain optimal efficiency and competitive fees. In conclusion, isolated auditors need to merge or to network to survive. Indeed, they need to draw inspiration from large audit firms by pooling certain costs related to human resources, IT resources, administrative tasks, the system of quality management, etc. in order to stay competitive and survive in this constantly moving prescriptive context.