This table has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines from the NBA (new window), the Royal Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants. Figures are rounded to the nearest percentage. Definitions are provided in full below.
|
Indicator |
NBA reference |
Performance 2021/2022 |
Performance 2020/2021 |
|
Hours spent by partners on PIE engagements |
AQI 1.a |
8% |
8% |
|
Hours spent by partners on non-PIE engagements |
AQI 1.b |
7% |
7% |
|
Chargeable hours (as % of total hours worked) |
AQI 2 |
63% |
64% |
|
Investments in development of new audit technologies and tools |
AQI 3 |
5% |
3% |
|
Average training hours for each audit professional |
AQI 4 |
210 |
214 |
|
Retention of audit professionals |
AQI 5 |
83% |
87% |
|
GPS and Pulse survey results related to coaching and audit [1] |
AQI 6.a |
81% |
90% |
|
Culture survey |
AQI 6.b |
75% |
65% |
|
Technical resources support (as % of total assurance FTEs) |
AQI 7 |
6% |
7% |
|
Technical consultations (as % of all engagements) |
AQI 8 |
20% |
15%[2] |
|
Percentage of engagements involving EQCRs[3] |
AQI 9 |
30% |
31% |
|
Hours spent on EQCRs (as % of total hours) |
AQI 10 |
1% |
1% |
|
Hours spent by IT and other specialists on PIE engagements |
AQI 11.a |
16% |
16% |
|
Hours spent by IT and other specialists on non-PIE engagements |
AQI 11.b |
5% |
5% |
|
Result of external inspections |
AQI 12.a |
94% |
100% |
|
Result of internal inspections (% 'compliant' rating) |
AQI 12.b |
84% |
84% |
|
Independence violations[4] |
AQI 13 |
7% |
2%[5] |
|
Number of restatements (as % of auditor’s reports issued)[6] |
AQI 14 |
2% |
1% |
- 1The decrease in 2021/2022 is due to changes in methodology and increased focus on work volume and staffing.
- 2This figure has been adjusted from 14% for comparison purposes.
- 3The number of engagements during the year does not necessarily equate to the number of reports. An engagement may result in multiple reports. Moreover, reports may not be produced for engagements still active at the end of the financial year. EQCR assigned engagements including active engagements related to the respective clients as a % of the total legal audit engagements. See here for more information on our approach to audit quality.
- 4The increase in independence violations was due to heightened internal scrutiny. All violations in 2021/2022 related to untimely, incorrect or administrative registrations. None results in an actual breach of independence. In response, we have put in place additional monitoring, training and awareness programs, as well as initiating a root cause analysis. None results in an actual breach of independence. Therefore, the number of independence violations reported in the section ‘performance on quality’ is 0.
- 5Corrected from 1% following unintentional misreporting internally.
- 6No errors were detected in financial statements with impact on the issued auditor’s report. In 2021/2022, 44 material errors have been adjusted in the subsequent financial statements.
See here (new window) for more information on our approach to audit quality.
Abbreviations
EQCR – Engagement Quality Control Review(ers)
FTE – Full-time equivalent
GPS – Global People Survey
NBA – Royal Netherlands Institute of Chartered Accountants
PIE – Public Interest Entity (according to Dutch law)
All abbreviations (new window) used in this report may be found in the Appendix (new window).
Note on Quartermasters’ Audit Quality Indicators
In 2020, the Dutch government appointed two quartermasters to oversee reform in the audit sector. As part of their work, these quartermasters have drafted common audit quality indicators, applicable across the industry. We support the introduction of common indicators; we believe these will increase transparency and help build public trust. The two quartermasters have a three-and-a-half-year mandate. See KPMG N.V.’s website (new window) for further details and our response to public consultations on this matter.
- 1Please note we have changed the methodology for our culture survey, including for performance measurement (therefore, 2021/2022 is not directly comparable with the previous year). This follows a change in the independent, external supplier conducting the Culture survey. See also our People (new window) section.
- 2This figure has been corrected from 14%, misreported due to a counting error internally.
- 3Corrected from 1% following unintentional misreporting internally.
- 4Previously, this indicator was based on number of positive answers to culture survey.