The International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and The Institute of Internal Auditors (The IIA) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to create a formal basis for the advancement of risk management and internal controls toward a common goal of enhanced governance.

Signed today at The IIA’s International Conference, the IFAC-IIA MoU outlines a new plan for enhanced coordination, collaboration, and resource sharing that will draw on the strengths and expertise of the two organizations. Both are engaged in the restoration of public confidence in business reporting and enhancing governance processes in the private and public sectors.

“This Memorandum of Understanding further strengthens the important relationship between The IIA and IFAC. It represents our united commitment to serve the public interest and restore the confidence of the general public in business reporting,” said Richard Chambers, president and chief executive officer of The IIA.

As outlined in the MoU, IFAC and IIA recognize that the following are fundamental to an organization fulfilling its objectives, implementing reliable financial management and reporting, and serving its stakeholders and the public interest:

• The implementation of international auditing and accounting standards;
• Strong risk management practices, including the design and implementation of effective and efficient internal controls; and
• An effective governance process.

“IFAC welcomes this opportunity to continue our collaboration with The IIA,” said IFAC President Warren Allen. “Our professions are closely related, we share common goals, and address the same issues. Joining our efforts and voices therefore makes sense.”

Through the development of an Annual Work Plan, the organizations will create structures and processes appropriate to share information and best practices in government, risk management, and internal control as well as in audit methods and the application of international standards.

About IFAC
IFAC is the global organization for the accountancy profession, dedicated to serving the public interest by strengthening the profession and contributing to the development of strong international economies. It is comprised of 173 members and associates in 129 countries and jurisdictions, representing approximately 2.5 million accountants in public practice, education, government service, industry, and commerce.

About The IIA
Established in 1941, The IIA serves more than 180,000 members in 190 countries and is the internal audit profession's global voice, chief advocate, and principal educator. The Institute develops and maintains the International Professional Practices Framework for internal auditing, comprising the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, and certifies professionals through the globally recognized Certified Internal Auditor. Visit www.theiia.org for more information.

###

Interview translated into English by IFAC and conducted by El País in Spanish. For original in Spanish, see: Entrevista con Jörgen Holmquist Presidente del Comité Internacional de Ética del Sector de Auditoría (IESBA)

English translation: 

Jörgen Holmquist is the chair of the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA).

Question. Why is IESBA working on a revision of the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (the Code)?

Answer. The issue is not to modify the content of the Code but its structure. It is difficult to read and the purpose of the revision is to make it more accessible, particularly for the small and medium size audit firms. We are in consultation within the sector and regulators to see how we can improve the structure of the Code.

Q. Would you say auditors bear some responsibility for the financial crisis?

A. There are many parties responsible for this crisis: bankers, politicians, supervisors … Auditors also bear their share of responsibility. It is not as much a problem of independence or of ethics in front of their clients but rather of failures in the way audits were performed since the work of auditors should have resulted in better information to judge what was going on.

Q. Have lessons been drawn from the recent mistakes?

A. Auditors are reflecting on how to improve their work. It is still an ongoing process. From point of view of Ethics there are several things to be considered: how to strengthen independence, how to improve rotation rules, how to proceed when irregularities are identified…

Q. Are auditors contributing to restore confidence in the markets?

A. Confidence in auditors is important and necessary since one of the services they render is to make it possible for investors to trust corporate information. This service has not changed and I believe it is generally well accomplished, although in the cases where the role of the auditor is at question it is obviously necessary to find a solution.

Q. Revenues from services other than audit are increasing in many cases, does this put the auditor’s independence at risk?

A. We cannot generalise. It is clearly stated in the Code of Ethics that there are certain services that the auditor cannot provide. We are now reviewing these rules to see if they need to be strengthened.

Q. Would you be in favour of setting a limit to such services?

A. The real challenge is to find a balance between the different sources of income. Revenues from other services should not subsidise audit, rather audit fees should fully cover the cost of audit services. In cases where revenues from other services are very significant there could be a problem, but it is very difficult to say where to set the limit, since the appropriate limit differs depending on the circumstances. Transparency is very important in these cases: let the market know what pays what and then the Audit Committee of the company should decide on such matters.

Q. The European Union has been trying to increase competition in the market for years, what do you think about this?

A. The rotation of the audit firms is not the panacea, it has advantages but also disadvantages. To improve the way the sector works there are more important issues at stake. Moreover, we have to take into account that in the course of the auditor’s engagement with the company audit partners and directors of the company usually change.

Q. Do you believe there is real competition in this industry? How do you explain the increase of revenues of the big companies year after year despite the crisis?

A. It doesn’t surprise me that revenues are stable or increasing because the crisis brings forward demand for more services. If we take a close look to the sector we see a fair amount of competition between small and medium firms. It is maybe less so in the case of the big four where there is more concentration There should be a few more players at that level, but how can this be achieved? There is no easy answer to this question.

Q. There is the feeling that auditors profited from the problem and now they profit from the solution…

A. I see what you are saying but for me the issue is whether the auditors conduct themselves in an ethical manner and whether they produce quality work. Auditors’ workload has significantly increased because of the crisis which has led to more hours worked. The trend points to a reduction of hourly fees. I don’t believe that auditors as a general rule are profiting from the crisis.

Q. The big four are all Anglo-Saxon; do you think it would be interesting to promote a big European firm?

A. It is difficult to create a brand new company that can compete with the big four because what the clients require is a worldwide network that can provide services in any country where they have a presence. 

The IFAC Nominating Committee plays a vital role in establishing the expertise of the independent standard-setting boards, the IFAC Board, Compliance Advisory Panel, and IFAC committees by seeking out and identifying the best candidates for vacancies. Whether it is one of the independent standard-setting boards or an IFAC committee, the Nominating Committee examines nominations from around the world, analyzes experience and expertise, and considers diversity when recommending new members and leadership for the boards and committees, all while maintaining transparency and strict adherence to due process. The Nominating Committee, under the oversight of the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB), also strives to ensure sufficient nominations are received each year and helps professional accountancy organizations and other stakeholders establish an effective nominations strategy.

The Nominating Committee is comprised of two ex-officio members—the IFAC president and deputy president—and at least four non-ex-officio members, of whom no more than two can be IFAC Board members. There are currently two Board members on the committee—Ana Maria Elorietta and Japheth Katto—although during some years there have been none. For 2013, the non-Board members, or ordinary members, are Margaret Parker, Professor Judy Tsui, and Sir David Tweedie.

I asked committee members to share their experiences and thoughts on the work of the committee in order to increase the knowledge among our stakeholders of the work and diligence involved.

—Warren Allen, IFAC President

1. What made you interested in serving on the Nominating Committee?
   
   Ana Maria Elorrieta: Due to my accumulated knowledge of IFAC, I felt that I had a reasonable understanding of most of the needs at the board and committee level so I realized that I could contribute to the nominations process. Additionally, in so doing, I would be representing Latin America.
   
   Japheth Katto: I wanted to make a contribution to the leadership and governance of IFAC, its committees, and the independent standard-setting boards by being part of the selection of professionals serving on the boards and committees. In my view this is an important exercise as serving the public interest is the foundation of IFAC's mission.
   
   Margaret Parker: My member body contacted me to put my name forward. I was on a nominating committee in my state in Australia so was familiar with the overall requirements of a nominating committee at the local level.
   
   Sir David Tweedie: I believe passionately in global standards, whether they are in accounting, auditing, ethics, or education. If we are to gain acceptance for these standards, we need the very best people the profession can offer to draft them. I wanted to do my best to ensure that the [boards and] committees were filled by those who were respected thinkers in their particular specialisms and had an international outlook rather than being merely placemen.
    
2. Since you became a member, has your view of the Nominating Committee and its work changed? Has serving on the Nominating Committee been what you expected?
   
   Japheth Katto: I always knew that the committee played a very big role and that its job was not an easy one. However, I did not fully appreciate how intricate and complicated the process was, especially when you have many candidates who fit the criteria of "best person for the job."
   
   Margaret Parker: Serving on the committee has been much more than I expected. The rigor and concern for the public interest are foremost in the committee’s mind. I have also come to understand that the work of the committee is vital to the quality of volunteers on the boards and committees.
   
   The committee is very cohesive and cooperative, which adds to the overall enjoyment of the work. On a personal level, it has been a wonderful experience to be on an international committee where the members are from all over the world.
   
   Judy Tsui: I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the Nominating Committee has established such comprehensive and consistent procedures and processes for all the nominations. The PIOB observer, in particular, serves as a monitor of public interest.
   
   Sir David Tweedie: I have been astounded at the thoroughness of the work of the committee. It seeks to be scrupulously fair—it examines the CVs very carefully, then ensures that not one committee member has an undue influence in the result. I have found the work of the committee and its staff extremely professional—far exceeding anything else I have experienced with nominating committees.
    
3. The competition for membership on boards and committees is very high; how does the committee select the “best” candidates for positions?
   
   Ana Maria Elorrieta: This is really a very important activity. We first analyze the profile of the best candidate in accordance with the boards’ and committees’ needs. Then we analyze the CVs received and try to match one to the other. The analysis of the CVs is very detailed work performed individually by each Nominating Committee member, so when we discuss as a group, each member has a point of view on the best candidates. Then we complete our knowledge of the candidates through the interviews to provide the basis for the final decision. It is a very comprehensive process.
   
   Japheth Katto: In arriving at the best candidate for the position, the committee's guiding criteria is the candidate's knowledge, experience, and ability to add value to the board or committee. Before the final decision, other factors, such as geographical and sector (Big 4, small- and medium-sized practices, professional accountants in business, etc.) representation are taken into account. Clearly, it wouldn't be in the public interest if all or most members of a board or committee were from the Big 4 or one region. Diversity is important.
   
   Margaret Parker: The committee members read all the CVs submitted via the Call for Nominations. We also consider the requirements of the boards and committees for which we are recommending candidates. It is, therefore, important for nominees to include their experience relevant to the particular board in their CV. The committee members individually rank the nominees prior to our meeting. At our next face-to-face meeting, a technical voting system is used to rank the nominees who are then chosen for either telephone or face-to-face interviews.
   
   Committee members, together with board/committee chairs, conduct telephone interviews, gleaning the candidates’ experience of the work of the board/committee, their relevant work experience, and what they may bring on a personal level. Written reports of the interviews are provided to the Nominating Committee for further consideration in choosing the recommended nominee.
   
   In making the final choice, all aspects of the “best” person for the job are considered—relevant experience required by the board/committee, regional representation, gender representation, and English language skills.
   
   Sir David Tweedie: Once the CVs have been read by the individual members, we all vote electronically at the same time and then select for interview those nominees that receive the highest number of votes. We usually interview twice as many candidates as there are vacancies. The interviews are carried out by a Nominating Committee member and the chair of the committee [in question]. The notes on these interviews are then passed to the whole committee at the next meeting where the interview results are debated. If there are doubts about the caliber of those interviewed other candidates may be sought from member bodies.
    
4. How is your role as an ordinary (non-Board) member different from a Board member? How is your role as a Board member different from an ordinary (non-Board) member?
   
   Ana Maria Elorrieta: The difference between a Board member and non-Board member is that we have the input from the Board, including suggestions and concerns related to the other boards and committees. This includes discussions around strategy and risks. We can add this perspective to the Nominating Committee discussion.
   
   Japheth Katto: I think as a Board member, I bring the perspective of the Board as a whole. I will know the Board's thinking based on previous experience and on ongoing consultations between the Nominating Committee and the Board.
   
   Margaret Parker: I don’t believe my role as an ordinary member is different from a Board member. We all have a say in the decision making, all have a vote in choosing the candidates for interview, all have an opportunity to provide input after an interview. The Board members will have wider experience with IFAC, which occasionally will impact our decisions; however, generally, there is no difference.
   
   Sir David Tweedie: In most cases, there is no difference between the two roles. The Board members, however, are more experienced with the workings of IFAC—they can explain IFAC policies and answer questions about individuals who have served on IFAC boards/committees in the past or explain the history of certain applications.
    
5. What does serving the public interest, which is embedded in IFAC’s mission, mean to you as a member of the Nominating Committee?
   
   Ana Maria Elorrieta: To serve the public interest is to act with an objective and balanced view and avoid influence of any type. It means to think strategically and with a long-term view, looking to protect the society and not any individual part.
   
   Japheth Katto: Simply put, serving in the public interest means selecting those candidates that are going to work not in the interest of their nominating organization or their employers or regions, who are not going to allow [themselves] to be unduly influenced, and who are going to act with integrity in the interest of the global profession and the public that it serves.
   
   Margaret Parker: To me, serving the public interest means making decisions that are best for the whole rather than a part of the whole. This can be applied from a wide perspective, such as making decisions that are best for the world rather than a particular country or region, or doing what is best for a group rather than the individual. When applying this philosophy to the nominating [process], it means making decisions that are in the best interest of the public at large, rather than the accountancy profession in particular, or a particular region, country, or individual.
   
   Sir David Tweedie: The public interest should be in the DNA of every accountant. In looking at candidates, I look for those that have clearly been involved in public policy issues, have written articles advocating professionalism, or have given time to move the profession forward. Public interest to me is acting in a neutral, unbiased way to present transparent information to society at large and to act with integrity and objectivity without regard to particular interests. I look for this in those who are nominated for the [boards or] committees.
    
6. How does the committee ensure due process in its actions?
   
   Ana Maria Elorrieta: There is a clear and objective process that is carefully followed. There are discussions at each phase, to reaffirm the adequacy of the decisions taken at each stage of the process. Every member is free to contribute and discuss.
   
   Japheth Katto: The committee has procedures and processes that are agreed [to], including Terms of Reference [which are approved by the IFAC Council and the PIOB]. It makes consensus decisions and documents its processes. In addition, its work is observed by the PIOB.
   
   Judy Tsui: Due process is ensured through:
   
   • Open, detailed, and rigorous discussions;
   • Adhering to anonymous electronic voting [to derive a shortlist of candidates];
   • Adhering to the principle of candidate selection based on the “best person for the job” and meeting geographical and gender diversity when possible once the candidates meet performance criteria; and
   • Maintaining the practice of having the board/committee chair and Nominating Committee members conduct telephone interviews for selecting board/committee members, and conducting in-person interviews for selecting IFAC Board and Nominating Committee members, and board/committee chairs.
   Margaret Parker: The committee members are very conscious of working in the public interest and according to the Terms of Reference of the committee. Members of the staff of IFAC who are familiar with the Constitution and regulations surrounding the work of the committee are also in attendance at the meetings to provide input where necessary. However, the meetings of the Nominating Committee are overseen by a member of the PIOB who ensures due process is followed and that the public interest is protected.
   
   Sir David Tweedie: See the answer to question three. Sometimes, however, excellent candidates simply are unable to obtain a place on a committee by virtue of the fact that their country or region is over represented and views from other parts of the world are necessary to give balance to that committee. In such cases, the unsuccessful candidates are frequently advised to reapply for a position. Due process isn’t simply looking for the best candidates but seeking to achieve a balanced composition on any board or IFAC committee.

IFAC President Warren Allen presented “Driving Sustainable Organizational Success” at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of the Caribbean’s (ICAC) 31st Annual Caribbean Conference held June 28 in Barbados.

IFAC believes that high-quality reporting lies at the heart of strong and sustainable organizations, financial markets, and economies, as the disclosure of useful information is crucial for the various internal and external stakeholders who need to make informed decisions regarding an organization’s capacity to create and preserve value. As organizations depend on their stakeholders for their sustainable success, it is in their interest to provide high-quality reports.

The SMP Committee submitted this comment letter to the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB)'s Consultation Paper, A Framework for Audit Quality. 

The pace of change and increased complexity in audit and financial reporting standards over the past few years has been dramatic and may weigh disproportionately on smaller accounting practices who typically audit smaller entities. This burden is being exacerbated by the difficult economic environment, which is prompting clients to put pressure on their accountants to lower fees. As a result, it is getting harder for practices to maintain sufficient profitability from audit work.

The good news is that automation, made possible by recent developments in technology and by process improvements, can help practices simultaneously boost the quality and efficiency of their audit work—in turn, lowering costs and ensuring its profitability. 

Increasing Audit Quality          

Automating your micro-entity audit practice provides an opportunity to improve audit quality at both firm-wide and individual engagement levels. At the firm level, setting up standardized templates helps ensure that all phases have been completed in every audit. Customized checklists can be updated as needed and incorporated into individual engagement files at the beginning of every engagement.

File automation can significantly increase quality at the engagement level as well. If you import data from one application program to another, data conversion errors should be eliminated and grouping and arithmetical errors can be minimized.

A word of caution: as every audit is unique, make sure you customize each and every file. The generic firm template is a great place to start but it is only a start. Customization for things such as industry characteristics and internal controls are as essential as fully automating the underlying file structure.

Boosting Engagement Efficiency

Much of the tangible output of auditing is very similar from file to file: individual practitioners typically use common file structures and similar checklists and forms. In addition, commercial audit file, spreadsheet, word processing, and database platforms often allow for seamless and rapid data sharing between applications and client files. None of these features are new, but are you using them to maximum advantage? There are many easy-to-implement ways to increase the efficiency of every micro-entity audit. The trick is to be creative and use your imagination. Here are a few suggestions.

Pre-Engagement Phase

When using commercially available software for micro-entity audit engagements, you can:

• Roll forward last year’s electronic file almost instantly;
• Call the client, or send an email, to discuss timing, and ask if there were significant events/changes over the past year; and
• Assuming not, email an engagement letter, an audit strategy letter, and a list of the materials you will need when you visit the client to begin the audit. All of these documents should have been already prepared as part of the file update.

Engagement Processing and Assembly

Following the pre-engagement phase, ask your client to email you a trial balance in a format you can import into the audit file.

Fieldwork Phase

An efficient automated audit of a micro-entity might progress as follows:

Arrive at the client’s office with the rolled-forward audit file. After an initial discussion with the client, update your rolled-forward schedules, documenting your knowledge of the client’s business for any industry, environment, and entity control changes since last year.

Program the engagement and performance materiality calculations and sample size calculations, based on the imported trial balance.

Review the multi-year account analyses (e.g., key ratio analysis such as gross profit percentage), all of which can be pre-programmed.

Print confirmations required and have them signed at your client’s office.

Review for relevance and complete the rolled-forward engagement checklists. (Again, a word of caution: avoid falling into the trap of simply repeating last year’s procedures without having first used your professional judgment).

Draft key points for communication to management and those charged with governance as required by International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 260, Communication with Those Charged with Governance, and ISA 265, Communicating Deficiencies in Internal Control to Those Charged with Governance and Management, at the client’s office as they arise and review them with the client to ensure you have your facts right.

Forming an Opinion Phase

Review the post-fieldwork analytical review automatically updated for your audit adjustment.

Email the adjusted trial balance and proposed audit adjustments to your client.

Email the client the letter of representation and an updated ISA 260 audit summary document.

Email/mail a copy of the signed auditor’s report and an invoice once appropriate personnel have accepted responsibility for the statements.

The above assumes you have taken time to standardize data fields across all your client files. Client names and address fields, year-end and other dates, and other standard documentation can all be programmed into a master file containing individual templates for correspondence, planning lists, etc. Firm-wide standardization is essential if you want to maximize efficiency with automation.

Be Smart About the Automation Process

There are a number of cautions to heed before embarking on even a modest automation project.

1) Be realistic. The initial automation process will likely take longer than you think.

2) Spend time up-front to get it right. If you have an error in your template, you will have to fix it each time you use it. That significantly increases the cost of automation.

3) Aim for consistency across clients. Using standardized templates for analytical schedules, financial statements, statement coding, and file indexing avoids having to reinvent the wheel on every micro-entity audit engagement.

Summary

Automation of your practice is an exacting process requiring project management skills and a significant time commitment from senior members of the firm. If you have the discipline to make it happen, automation will pay off over the long term many times over.

IFAC Resources

IFAC hosts a range of resources and tools, including guides and articles, to help implement audit and quality control standards: See Resources and Tools at www.ifac.org/SMP. 

In “How accounting standards such as IPSASs will return the UK to growth,” Paul Williams reports how a senior member of ACCA’s Global Forum believes public sector finances will play a critical role both in economic recovery and preventing future crises. 

Kristian Koktvedgaard has been appointed chair of the Consultative Advisory Group (CAG) to the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA or the Ethics Board). The Ethics Board is an independent standard-setting board that develops and issues, in the public interest, the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants for global application by professional accountants operating both in business and in practice.

The IESBA CAG^* is an independent body that provides the forum in which the representatives of its various member organizations—including regulators, preparers, and others with an interest in international ethics standards for professional accountants, including auditor independence—provide advice on technical and public interest matters relating to the drafts of the Ethics Board’s standards and strategy.

As a senior advisor focusing on auditing and accounting with the Confederation of Danish Industry, Kristian Koktvedgaard currently represents BUSINESSEUROPE on the IESBA CAG and the CAG of the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. He was elected by the IESBA CAG membership to succeed the current chair, Richard Fleck, who has served as the first independent chair of the IESBA CAG since May 2006. Kristian Koktvedgaard’s appointment—a three-year term effective July 1, 2013—has been approved by the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB), which oversees the activities of the Ethics Board and of the CAG.

The chair of the CAG acts as the primary representative of those who use or rely on the Ethics Board’s standards and guidance and encourages a deeper understanding by the Ethics Board of the public's needs and expectations. The chair of the IESBA CAG provides leadership direction to the CAG, overseeing the achievement of the CAG's objectives. As the CAG’s liaison with the PIOB, the Ethics Board, and identified key stakeholders, the chair is also responsible for communicating the views of the CAG to these bodies and conveying the views of these bodies to the CAG.

“I congratulate Mr. Koktvedgaard on his appointment to this important role,” said Mr. Fleck. “His broad knowledge and experience working on ethics, audit, and accounting issues will be great assets to the CAG as it provides public interest input to the Ethics Board.”

Commenting on the appointment, Jörgen Holmquist, chair of the Ethics Board, said, “Kristian’s experience and expertise as a senior advisor on policy matters relating to the accountancy profession will serve him well in leading the CAG to provide effective public interest input to the development of our standards and guidance. I very much look forward to working with him in his role as chair of the CAG.”

Kristian Koktvedgaard is a member of the Danish Accounting Council and the Danish disciplinary tribunal for State Authorized and Certified Public Accountants. He is also actively involved in the Danish Accounting Forum, a body that brings together Danish stakeholders to discuss accounting issues. In addition, he is a member of the BUSINESSEUROPE Accounting Sounding Board and has represented BUSINESSEUROPE in audit matters on numerous occasions. Previously, he served on the Danish Supervisory Authority on Auditing.

Kristian Koktvedgaard stated, “The IESBA CAG plays a vital role in enabling all those concerned in the work of, or services provided by, professional accountants—regulators, preparers, users of financial information, and other participants in the financial reporting supply chain—to have a voice in the development and maintenance of standards that ensure a high level of ethical conduct by professional accountants. It is critical for the credibility of professional accountants to have these constituents involved in the setting of high-quality ethics standards for the profession. I am truly honored that my colleagues on the CAG have appointed me to lead the CAG in this role, and I look forward to the challenge. I also would like to take this opportunity to recognize the vision, leadership, and commitment that Richard Fleck brought to the CAG over the past seven years.”

About the IESBA

The International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) is an independent standard-setting board that develops and issues, in the public interest, high-quality ethical standards and other pronouncements for professional accountants worldwide. Through its activities, the IESBA develops the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants, which establishes ethical requirements for professional accountants. The structures and processes that support the operations of the IESBA are facilitated by IFAC. Please visit www.ethicsboard.org for more information.

About IFAC

IFAC is the global organization for the accountancy profession dedicated to serving the public interest by strengthening the profession and contributing to the development of strong international economies. IFAC is comprised of 173 members and associates in 129 countries and jurisdictions, representing approximately 2.5 million accountants in public practice, education, government service, industry, and commerce.

^*IESBA CAG Members (As at July 1, 2013)

Asian Financial Executives Institutes

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision

BUSINESSEUROPE

CFA Institute

European Commission

European Federation of Accountants and Auditors for SMEs

European Financial Executives Institutes

Fédération des Experts-Comptables Européens

Gulf States Regulatory Authorities

Institute of Internal Auditors

International Association of Insurance Supervisors

International Corporate Governance Network

International Organization of Securities Commissions

International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions

National Association of State Boards of Accountancy

North American Financial Executives Institutes

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Sri Lanka Accounting and Auditing Standards Monitoring Board

UK Financial Reporting Council

World Bank

World Federation of Exchanges

IESBA CAG Observers (As at July 1, 2013)

IFAC Small and Medium Practices Committee

US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board