Joint Provision of Non-audit Services to Audit Clients: Empirical Evidences from India

Abstract

Executive Summary The provision of non-audit services (NAS) by an incumbent auditor has remained a highly contentious issue. One school argues that the joint provision does not impair an auditor’s independence. Instead, it reduces total costs, enhances the ability to detect material misstatements, increases technical competence due to knowledge spillovers and leads to intense competition. However, a substantial tranche of an audit firms’ income is derived from NAS, and the joint provision increases economic ties with the client. Therefore, another school of thought perceives that the joint provision impairs auditor independence. It is also alleged that auditors expect non-audit work after finishing the auditing job. Their independence is also affected by the risks of self-review. Extant literature reveals that the majority of the studies on the issue are archival and experimental. The studies are concentrated in the US, UK, Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, China, and some of the European Union Nations. The article examines the perspective of chartered accountants (CAs) on the joint provision of NAS in India. The study samples 119 CAs. The reliability of the survey result was measured using Cronbach’s α, and a score of 0.77 indicated acceptable internal consistency reliability. The data were analysed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann Whitney U test statistic. The summary of their suggestions for ensuring auditor independence is presented separately. The findings reflect that existing prohibitions imposed by the Companies Act, 2013, are not enough to ensure auditor independence, and the Management Services u/s 144 of the Act needs to be clearly defined. Practitioners do not support the proposition that joint provision should end and a separate category of professionals be mandated to render NAS. However, the recommendations include strengthening provisions to reduce the conflict of interest.