Mandatory Disclosure of Engagement Partner Identity: Insights from Practice*

Abstract

ABSTRACTThis study uses semistructured interviews to gain insights from 19 practicing Canadian audit partners into the practical implications of the engagement partner identity mandate requiring firms to disclose the identity of the engagement partner(s) auditing Canadian publicly traded companies. Building on prior literature that suggests accountability can reach a ceiling, we explore whether audit partners perceive incremental increases in accountability pressures to be effective in increasing audit quality. Based on the existing literature, we propose a nonlinear relation between accountability and performance (audit quality, in the current context), reflecting this ceiling effect. We find partners believe they are reaching, or are at, a ceiling level of accountability and that further initiatives to increase their accountability are ineffective in eliciting procedural changes in the audit or the audit's outcome. Contrary to regulators' motives for the disclosure, our interviewed partners do not believe the transparency of publicly disclosing their names will further increase their level of accountability or overall audit quality. We document that one possible reason for the disconnect is that partners are less concerned with managing external reputation than with managing internal reputation, which they believe has a more direct impact on their careers. We also discuss partners' perceptions of the required disclosure's impact on individual reputations, client risk choices, personal safety, and partner recruitment. We offer suggestions for future research building on the partners' insights.