Gestion de qualité au sein des cabinets: état des lieux et impacts du passage de ISQC1 à ISQM1

Abstract

The collapse of corporations such as Carillion and Thomas Cook has raised major concerns about audit oversight and the adequacy of quality management within audit firms. In response, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) replaced the International Standard on Quality Control 1 (ISQC 1) with a stronger, risk-based framework: the International Standard on Quality Management 1 (ISQM 1). This change marks a shift from a static and retrospective approach to one that is dynamic, proactive, and integrated. Despite its significance, this transition remains underexplored in academic literature, highlighting the relevance of this research.

This thesis analyzes the effects of the move from ISQC 1 to ISQM 1 within audit firms through a dual methodology. First, a literature review and normative analysis clarify theoretical foundations of audit quality, key institutional perspectives, and the main structural differences between the two standards. These elements support conditional hypotheses used in the empirical phase. Second, qualitative interviews with professionals from audit firms of various sizes, and with CSR representatives, provide insights into how ISQM 1 has affected internal processes, training, technology use, skills management, costs, and resistance to change.

Findings reveal a gradual transformation in organization and management driven by ISQM 1. Key outcomes include increased investment in training and digital tools, better documentation, stronger internal procedures, improved detection of deficiencies, and enhanced governance. Importantly, no widespread resistance to change or major increase in engagement complexity was reported. Adaptation paths vary based on firm size and maturity. ISQM 1 also supports a more forward-looking audit culture, promoting continuous monitoring and real-time risk assessment.

While the implementation of ISQM 1 creates opportunities to improve audit quality and restore trust, it also presents challenges, especially for smaller firms. This study contributes to both scholarly understanding and practical application of ISQM 1 and offers concrete recommendations for practitioners and regulators. Future research should assess its long-term effects and its interaction with emerging frameworks like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).