Stay informed with free updates
Simply sign up to the Accountancy myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
The UK’s top accounting firms are pushing to end the industry regulator’s practice of routinely “naming and shaming” companies under investigation, after the financial watchdog ditched similar plans following pushback from banks.
The Big Four of Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC have discussed a co-ordinated effort to file complaints to the Financial Reporting Council over its policy of publicly announcing probes, along with mid-tier firms such as BDO, Grant Thornton and RSM, according to four people familiar with the matter.
The push — which also included complaints by firms Forvis Mazars and Crowe, and the ICAEW and ACCA professional bodies — was sparked by a consultation published by the FRC in October and due to close on Friday.
The sector has welcomed the regulator’s proposals to resolve some probes into audits faster, allow firms in some cases to conduct their own reviews under FRC oversight and to implement a higher threshold for opening investigations.
But the consultation set out no change to the watchdog’s current practice of announcing investigations when they begin, or the length of probes, which firms have said can place key audit partners under stress and tie them up for long periods.
When announcing an investigation, the FRC generally discloses the audit firm, the company audited and the year under review, which often makes the signing audit partner identifiable.
“The early publicity that the FRC pursues . . . is out of kilter with what is considered proportionate regulation,” said one person familiar with the lobbying effort. “There are situations where it’s crucial for the protection of the markets to make an early disclosure, but that shouldn’t be the default.”
Last year, the Financial Conduct Authority dropped plans to name and shame more companies it investigates, after a big backlash from the City of London.
The FCA had argued the changes would put it in line with the FRC and the Serious Fraud Office. But the financial watchdog abandoned the plans amid concerns they were driving business abroad at a time when the government is trying to boost economic growth.
Some firms privately argue the FRC should identify audit firms only if particularly egregious misconduct is ultimately found, while others say naming should occur only at the end of an investigation, once a breach has been established.
Another option being put forward by the industry would avoid naming the audited company, to prevent publication of the identity of individual partners.
The FRC said in a statement that while it “welcomed the strong engagement”, it could not comment on consultation responses before they had been submitted.
“We do make clear in the consultation document that we will be looking at reviewing our publications policy, which will of course draw from the feedback we receive throughout this process,” it said.
It was “very rare” for an individual to be named when an investigation began, the FRC added, noting that investors “rightly expect . . . robust enforcement action . . . where there are serious or significant failings”.
According to the regulator’s policies, an investigation is opened if initial inquiries give the FRC “reasonable grounds to suspect” misconduct or if enough information “raises a question” about a breach of any audit code.
ACCA declined to comment on the consultation but said it was “broadly supportive” of the proposals, which “provide proportionate and pragmatic alternatives to traditional enforcement routes”.
BDO, Deloitte, KPMG, RSM, Grant Thornton, Forvis Mazars and the ICAEW declined to comment. EY, PwC, and Crowe did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The FRC has responded to pressure from successive governments to rip up “anti-growth” rules, shifting to a more industry-friendly approach since Richard Moriarty became chief executive in 2023.
In that time senior figures associated with the FRC’s tougher stance have departed, including Elizabeth Barrett, former head of dispute resolution at law firm Slaughter and May.
The watchdog’s latest consultation follows a separate consultation on its audit supervision strategy in August last year, which also centred on offering more “proportionate” options.