Warning

The content on this page has been converted from PDF to HTML format using an artificial intelligence (AI) tool as part of our ongoing efforts to improve accessibility and usability of our publications. Note:

  • No human verification has been conducted of the converted content.
  • While we strive for accuracy errors or omissions may exist.
  • This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a definitive or authoritative source.
  • For the official and verified version of the publication, refer to the original PDF document.

If you identify any inaccuracies or have concerns about the content, please contact us at [email protected].

FRC Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession (August 2022)

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) serves the public interest by setting high standards of corporate governance, reporting and audit, and by holding to account those responsible for delivering them.

The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance and Stewardship Codes and UK standards for accounting and actuarial work; monitors and acts to promote the quality of corporate reporting; and operates independent enforcement arrangements for accountants and actuaries. As the Competent Authority for audit in the UK, the FRC sets auditing and ethical standards and monitors and enforces audit quality. Our work is aimed at investors and others who rely on company reports, audit and high-quality risk management. The FRC is a transparent organisation that consults openly and reports to Parliament.

The content in this publication is provided for general information purposes only. Although the FRC endeavours to ensure the accuracy of the information provided by the accountancy firms and bodies in preparing this publication, the FRC has not performed a detailed review of information supplied. Accordingly, the FRC accepts no responsibility for any reliance others may place upon the information herein and it shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of the information contained within this publication nor from any action or decision taken as a result of using such information.

The FRC does not accept any liability to any party for any loss, damage or costs howsoever arising, whether directly or indirectly, whether in contract, tort or otherwise from any action or decision taken (or not taken) as a result of any person relying on or otherwise using this document or arising from any omission from it.

The Financial Reporting Council Limited 2022

The Financial Reporting Council Limited is a company limited by guarantee. Registered in England number

  1. Registered Office: 8th Floor, 125 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5AS
Contents

Foreword

This is the twentieth edition of Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession.

This publication provides statistical information and trends on the members and students in the accountancy profession. Information is obtained from the following accountancy bodies: the six UK Chartered Accountancy bodies, 1 the Association of International Accountants (AIA) ('the accountancy bodies') and the Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT) ('all bodies'). In the sections below, the tables on members show data for the UK and the Republic of Ireland (ROI) combined and worldwide data. We include the UK and ROI figures together, partly because members and firms are entitled to practise in both jurisdictions and partly because in some cases it is difficult for all bodies to separate the data. However, it should be noted that in the case of audit, practising rights in Ireland are subject to discreet obligations which mean only a limited number of firms and members are able to practise in both jurisdictions. The Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA) publishes information relating specifically to the ROI accountancy bodies, which can be found at http://www.iaasa.ie.

Where appropriate we highlight significant trends and explain possible limitations of the data; however, it is important to note that we do not check the accuracy of the information provided. Where there are notable trends in the data, we follow this up with all bodies and firms to verify that they are content with the information they provided, but we do not include commentary on the possible reasons for any particular trends. We stress that it is often difficult to make comparisons between the different accountancy bodies, or between the audit firms that audit public interest entities (PIEs), 2 given the differences in the way data is classified by those bodies and firms and because of different regulatory arrangements in the UK, ROI and rest of the world.

In this edition, 25 firms with PIE clients (out of 43) participated compared with 26 firms in last year's publication. Competition between the Big Four audit firms and the Challenger firms remains a major focus. This year, the five largest firms 3 outside the Big Four audited 23 FTSE 350 companies; this compares with 19 last year and 10 the year before.

As well as the competitiveness and resilience of the UK audit market, diversity at all bodies and audit firms continues to be high on the FRC's agenda. Consistent with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), the FRC must consider the following objectives in its oversight of all bodies:

  • Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act;
  • Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic 4 and people who do not share it; and
  • Foster good relations between people who share protected characteristics and people who do not share it.

In relation to diversity, we asked the PIE audit firms to provide information on the following nine diversity indicators: ethnicity, disability, religion/belief, sexual orientation, marital status, school type attended, first generation to attend university, being from a lower socioeconomic-background, and having caring responsibilities. We also requested data on gender, ethnicity, disability and sexual orientation in respect of senior management at the PIE audit firms.

Further details can be found in the Diversity section of this publication.

As always, we are grateful to those who took the time to complete our questionnaire on how we can continue to improve this publication, viewable here.

Section One – Main Highlights

The Accountancy Bodies 2017 to 2021

Membership of the accountancy bodies continues to grow. The seven bodies in this report have nearly 390,000 members in the UK and ROI, and over 590,000 members worldwide. The growth in membership between 2020 and 2021 was 2.1% in the UK and ROI, and 2.8% worldwide. This is in line with compound annual growth rates from 2017 to 2021 is 2.0% in the UK and ROI, and 2.7% worldwide. (Figures 1 and 2)

There are nearly 162,000 students in the UK and ROI, and over 597,000 worldwide. Between 2020 and 2021, student numbers increased by 0.3% in the UK and ROI, and by 1.6% worldwide. (Figures 1 and 2) This compares with compound annual growth rates from 2017 to 2021 of –0.4% for the UK and ROI and 0.3% worldwide. UK and ROI student numbers fell slightly for ACCA (−1.3%) and CIMA in 2021 (-1.7%) and worldwide student numbers also fell for CIMA (–5.2%). The number of audit firms registered with the Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs) 5 continues to decline. The total number of registered audit firms was 4,745 as at 31 December 2021, falling from 5,007 and 5,127 registered firms as at 31 December 2020 and

  1. (Figure 21) Since 2017, there has been a consistent annual increase in the income generated from all members and students worldwide for ICAEW. ACCA continues to generate the highest income of all the bodies at nearly £223m in

  2. CAI earns the highest average income from members and students at £682 per individual for 2021. (Figures 16 and 17)

Overall, the accountancy bodies collect data on their members and students concerning six of the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010; seven bodies collect data on age and sex, six on race, and five on disability, for example. Three of the bodies also collect data on socio-economic background (Figure 9). Figure 20 shows the number of bodies that collect diversity data on their own workforce in respect of the protected characteristics; all nine of the protected characteristics were used by at least one of the bodies to record diversity information on their workforce. All the bodies have diversity policies/statements in place.

Collection of logos for professional organizations, likely indicating partnerships or accreditations.

The audit firms 2019 to 2021

Figure 33 shows the total fee income, split by audit and non-audit services, for the 25 audit firms with Public Interest Entity (PIE) clients for 2021 year ends, that replied to our survey. Firms are listed in order of fee income from audit, rather than total fee income. All data is provided on a voluntary basis to the FRC. The Big Four firms continued to see an increase in their total fee income of 4.6% in 2021 compared to an increase of 2.7% in the previous year. Firms outside the Big Four have also seen an increase in their total fee income in 2021 of 5.9% compared to an increase of 13.1% in

  1. (Figure 36) Audit fee income for the Big Four firms increased by 6.5% in 2021 compared with a 7.9% increase in the previous year. Audit fee income for audit firms outside the Big Four increased by 12.5% in 2021 compared with a 20.9% increase in

  2. (Figure 36) Fees for non-audit work to audit clients increased by 10.3% for the Big Four compared to a reduction of 2.2% in

  3. In contrast, non-Big Four firms saw a decrease in these fees of 6.8% in 2021 compared to an increase of 6.1% the year before. (Figure 36) The average audit fee income per Statutory Auditor / Responsible Individual (RI) for Big Four firms in 2021 was £2.30m compared to £1.08m for non-Big Four firms. The average for all firms with PIE clients was £1.83m, an increase of £0.15m compared to

  4. (Figure 37) In 2020, the five largest firms outside the Big Four audited 7.6% (19) of the FTSE 250 companies; in 2021 they audited 10% (23). Two firms outside these five (and the Big Four), also audited 1.6% (4) of the FTSE 250 companies in 2021 compared with 0.8% (2) in

  5. (Figure 39)

With regards to diversity at audit firms, we have focused on senior management at each of the 25 PIE audit firms responding to our survey, highlighting those managers, directors and partners who are female, from black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds, have a disability, or are LGBTQ+. 6 (Figures 40 to 44) We asked the PIE audit firms whether they collect information on a range of diversity indicators for their workforce: age, race, disability, religion/belief, sexual orientation, marital status, school type attended, first generation to attend university, and caring responsibilities. The data and the staff completion rates on each indicator are set out in Figure

  1. The firms were also asked whether they have a diversity policy in place (Figure 47). This year we also asked whether PIE audit firms collect information on socio-economic background.

Section Two – Members and students of the Accountancy Bodies

Registered members and students in the UK and ROI

Figure 1 shows growth rates for the five years to 31 December 2021, and the number of members and students in the UK and ROI as at 31 December 2021.

Figure 1: Members and students in the UK and ROI Bar chart showing the number of members and students for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA for years 2017 to

  1. Each body has two bars for each year (Members and Students) showing values between 0 and 140,000.
Members in the UK & ROI ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Total numbers for 2021 106,561 85,517 12,451 135,681 27,530 20,211 1,379 389,330
% growth (20-21) 3.2 1.2 1.3 1.8 4.1 -0.1 6.0 2.1
% growth (17-21) 12.6 3.5 -1.4 7.2 15.2 9.1 6.7 8.1
% compound annual growth (17-21) 3.0 0.9 -0.4 1.8 3.6 2.2 1.6 2.0
Students in the UK & ROI ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Total numbers for 2021 75,188 47,101 2,116 25,014 7,662 4,112 144 161,337
% growth (20-21) -1.3 -1.7 0.1 7.3 4.2 7.1 3.6 0.3
% growth (17-21) -8.4 -2.4 13.9 19.4 15.1 7.2 13.4 -1.5
% compound annual growth (17-21) -2.2 -0.6 3.3 4.5 3.6 1.7 3.2 -0.4

Registered members and students worldwide

Figure 2 shows growth rates for the five years to 31 December 2021 and the number of worldwide 7 members and students as at 31 December 2021.

Figure 2: Members and students worldwide Bar chart showing the number of members and students worldwide for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA for years 2017 to

  1. Each body has two bars for each year (Members and Students) showing values between 0 and 450,000.
Members worldwide ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Total numbers for 2021 236,827 116,302 13,991 161,411 30,622 23,252 10,061 592,466
% growth (20-21) 3.5 1.6 5.9 2.3 3.5 0.8 5.5 2.8
% growth (17-21) 15.9 6.3 1.9 8.1 15.3 8.1 40.4 11.4
% compound annual growth (17-21) 3.8 1.5 0.5 2.0 3.6 2.0 8.9 2.7
Students worldwide ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Total numbers for 2021 446,232 93,696 5,842 33,958 7,668 4,154 5,556 597,106
% growth (20-21) 2.6 -5.2 10.6 7.3 4.3 7.9 3.3 1.6
% growth (17-21) 7.6 -26.4 32.7 21.9 15.1 7.9 3.6 1.2
% compound annual growth (17-21) 1.9 -7.4 7.3 5.1 3.6 1.9 0.9 0.3

Analysis of members and students of the seven 8 Accountancy Bodies

The total membership of the seven accountancy bodies in the UK and ROI rose by 2.1% in 2021 compared to 1.9% in

  1. Total membership has continued to grow steadily at a compound annual growth rate of 2.0% for the period 2017 to 2021. (Figure 1)

Growth rates of membership vary considerably at each of the individual accountancy bodies in the UK and ROI. Whilst ICAEW continues to have the largest number of members in this jurisdiction, AIA, CAI and ACCA showed the strongest rates of growth in 2021 at 6.0%, 4.1% and 3.2% respectively. Only ICAS saw a fall in 2021 of 0.1%. (Figure 1) The total number of students in the UK and ROI has increased by 0.3% from 2020 to 2021 compared with a decrease of 2.1% between 2019 and

  1. ACCA has the largest number of students but saw a decrease in numbers between 2020 and 2021 of 1.3%, whilst ICAS and ICAEW saw the largest % increases in 2021. (Figure 1) The worldwide membership of the accountancy bodies has grown by 2.8% from 2020 to 2021 and at a compound annual growth rate of 2.7% for the period 2017 to

  2. (Figure 2) Overall, worldwide student numbers increased by 1.6% from 2020 to 2021; this compares to a decrease of 2.7% between 2019 and 2020, with a compound annual growth rate of 0.3% between 2017 and

  3. (Figure 2)

Qualifications differ across the Recognised Qualifying Bodies (Figure 31). Just over 74% of the total worldwide student membership are training with ACCA for their qualifications. (Figure 2)

Students who became members

Figure 3 shows the number of students worldwide who became members as at 31 December for each of the years 2017 to 2021.

Figure 3: Students to members worldwide, 2017 to 2021 Bar chart showing the number of students who became members worldwide for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA for years 2017 to

  1. Bars for each body show values between 0 and 16,000 across the years.
ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
2017 15,533 5,147 112 3,403 1,153 585 12 25,945
2018 14,756 3,598 133 4,525 996 801 5 24,814
2019 14,683 3,798 199 4,359 1,243 657 3 24,942
2020 12,450 3,933 183 4,444 1,189 794 6 22,999
2021 13,423 4,156 223 4,244 1,224 755 2 24,027
% growth (20-21) 7.8 5.7 21.9 -4.5 2.9 -4.9 -66.7 4.5

ICAEW, ICAS and AlA have all seen a decline in the number of students becoming members in 2021 compared with

  1. Overall, the total number of students who became members worldwide has risen from 2020 to 2021 by 4.5%. This compares with a decrease of 7.8% from 2019 to 2020.

Sectoral employment of members and students worldwide

Figure 4 shows the percentage of members and students worldwide for each of the seven accountancy bodies, according to their sectoral employment 9 as at 31 December 2021.

Figure 4: Sectoral employment worldwide, 2021

Stacked bar chart showing the percentage of members and students in different employment sectors (Other, Retired, Public Sector, Industry & Commerce, Working in Practice) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA. Each body has two bars representing Members and Students.

The Industry and Commerce sector employs the highest percentage of members (54%) and students (41%) across the accountancy bodies. CIMA and AlA members in this sector make up 73% and 87% of their respective total memberships.

Over three-quarters of students at ICAEW, CAI and ICAS are in practice (i.e. working at an accountancy firm). In contrast, 2% or less of CIMA, CIPFA and AlA students are employed in practice.

Female members and students worldwide

Figures 5 and 6 show the percentage of female members and students worldwide, respectively, as at 31 December for each of the years 2017 to 2021.

Figure 5: Female members worldwide, 2017 to 2021

Line graph showing the percentage of female members worldwide for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA from 2017 to 2021, with percentages ranging from 25% to 50%.

Since 2017, all the accountancy bodies have increased their percentage of female members worldwide. AlA experienced the largest increase of 3 percentage points, in this period. ACCA continues to have the highest percentage of female members of all the accountancy bodies.

The overall percentage of female members worldwide has increased from 36% in 2017 to 37% in 2021.

Figure 6: Female students worldwide, 2017 to 2021

Line graph showing the percentage of female students worldwide for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA from 2017 to 2021, with percentages ranging from 35% to 65%.

The overall percentage of female students (50%) is greater than the overall percentage of female members (37%).

ACCA had the largest percentage of female students in 2021 at 60%.

For 2017 to 2020, CAI and ICAS figures refer only to the proportion of female students in the student intake, not of the total student population.

Age of members and students worldwide

Figures 7 and 8 compare the age distribution of members and students as at 31 December 2017 and 2021.

Figure 7: Age of members worldwide, 2017 and 2021

Stacked bar chart showing the age distribution of members worldwide (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over, Not Stated) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA for years 2017 and 2021.

There were significant differences in the age profiles of the worldwide members of the seven accountancy bodies in

  1. ACCA, CAI and ICAS had relatively high proportions of members aged under 35 at 26%, 27% and 24% respectively, while CIPFA had the largest percentage of members aged 45 and over at 74%.

The largest proportion of worldwide members were aged between 35 to 44 in 2021, accounting for 29% of the total population.

Footnotes

Figure 7: Age of members worldwide, 2017 and 2021

A stacked bar chart showing the age distribution of members worldwide for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA in 2017 and

  1. Age categories include Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65 and over, and Not Stated. Most bodies show a significant proportion of members in the 35-44 and 45-54 age ranges.

There were significant differences in the age profiles of the worldwide members of the seven accountancy bodies in

  1. ACCA, CAI and ICAS had relatively high proportions of members aged under 35 at 26%, 27% and 24% respectively, while CIPFA had the largest percentage of members aged 45 and over at 74%.

The largest proportion of worldwide members were aged between 35 to 44 in 2021, accounting for 29% of the total population.

Figure 8: Age of Students Worldwide, 2017 and 202110

A stacked bar chart illustrating the age distribution of students worldwide for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA in 2017 and

  1. Age categories are Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45 and over, and Not Stated. Many bodies, particularly ICAEW and ICAS, show a very high percentage of students under 34.

In 2021, 39% of all students from the seven accountancy bodies were under the age of 25 compared with 38% in 2017. ICAEW, ICAS and CAI had the highest percentage of students aged 34 or under at 97%, 96%, and 88% respectively in

  1. In comparison, CIPFA had the largest proportion of students aged 35 and over at 49%.

Diversity information on members and students

We asked all bodies whether they collect data on the protected characteristics recognised under the Equality Act 2010, and this year also asked whether any of the bodies collected data on the socio-economic background of their members and students. Figure 9 shows the number of professional bodies that collect data on the protected characteristics and socio-economic background with respect to their members and students.

Figure 9: Diversity information collected on members and students, 2021

A bar chart showing the number of accountancy bodies that collect diversity information on members and students across various protected characteristics and socio-economic background in

  1. Categories include Age, Disability, Race, Religion or belief, Sex, Sexual orientation, and Socio-economic background. For most categories, around 6-7 bodies collect data on members, and 4-5 bodies collect data on students.

In 2021, six of the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, were used by at least one of the bodies to record data on members and students. The other three Equality Act indicators (marriage and civil partnerships, pregnancy and maternity, and gender reassignment) were not recorded. In addition, three of the bodies recorded data on socio-economic background.

Location of students

Figure 10 shows the location11 (UK and ROI, and the rest of the world) of students of the accountancy bodies as at 31 December 2021.

Figure 10: Location of students, 2021

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage distribution of students by location (UK & ROI vs. Rest of the World) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA in

  1. ACCA and AIA have a majority of students outside the UK & ROI, while ICAEW, CAI, and ICAS primarily have students within the UK & ROI.

97% of AIA and 83% of ACCA students were based outside the UK and ROI. In contrast, ICAS and CAI had 1% or less of students based outside the UK and ROI.

27% of all students from the accountancy bodies were studying in the UK and ROI.

Profile of students of the Accountancy Bodies worldwide

Figure 11 sets out on a worldwide basis the length of time12 that individuals have been registered as students with these accountancy bodies.

Figure 11: Profile of students worldwide, 2021

A stacked bar chart showing the percentage of students worldwide by length of registration time (≤ 1 Year, > 1 - 2 Years, > 2 - 3 Years, > 3 - 4 Years, > 4 - 5 Years, ≥ 5 Years) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA in

  1. The chart illustrates varying durations of student registration across the different bodies.

A high percentage of CAI, ICAEW and ICAS students complete their training in four years or less, with only 14%, 13% and 10% of their students, respectively, being registered for more than four years, as at 31 December 2021.

Graduate entrants to training

Figure 12 shows the percentages of students worldwide of each accountancy body who, at the time of registering as students, were (i) graduates of any discipline and, of those, (ii) graduates who held a 'relevant degree'.13

Figure 12: Graduate entrants worldwide, 2021

A bar chart showing the percentage of students holding a degree and a relevant degree for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA in

  1. The chart indicates that a higher percentage of students hold a general degree compared to a relevant degree across most bodies.

Comparisons of the percentage of students holding 'relevant degrees' are difficult to assess because the accountancy bodies use different definitions of a 'relevant degree'.

The accountancy bodies do not require entrants to hold a university degree and offer a range of entry routes.

ACCA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS and CIMA also have apprenticeship schemes intended for non-graduates/school leavers as an entry route into the accountancy profession.

The Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT)

Members and students in the UK and ROI and worldwide

AAT is used as an entry-level qualification by some of the chartered accountancy bodies included in this publication. Figure 13 shows the number of AAT members and students, and the overall percentage growth from 2017 to 2021.

Figure 13: AAT members and students, 2017 to 2021

Members UK & ROI Worldwide Students UK & ROI Worldwide
2017 45,537 48,580 64,777 77,649
2018 50,745 52,584 93,068 98,897
2019 50,619 52,346 87,482 92,094
2020 48,362 50,028 80,138 83,997
2021 48,860 50,452 79,611 83,245
% growth (20–21) 1.0 0.8 -0.7 -0.9
% growth (17–21) 7.3 3.9 22.9 7.2

A bar chart showing the number of AAT members and students in the UK & ROI and worldwide from 2017 to

  1. The chart displays four series: Members UK & ROI, Members Worldwide, Students UK & ROI, and Students Worldwide. Student numbers peaked in 2018 and declined, while member numbers increased and then stabilized.

The number of members in the UK and ROI, and worldwide increased by 1% and 0.8% respectively between 2020 and

  1. This is in contrast to a decrease in the number of students by 0.7% in the UK and ROI, and 0.9% worldwide.

Age distribution of members and students

Figure 14 indicates the age distribution of AAT members and students for 2021.

Figure 14: AAT Age of members and students worldwide 2021

A bar chart showing the age distribution of AAT members and students worldwide in 2021 across four age groups: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and over. Members are primarily in the 45 and over age group, while students are concentrated in the Under 25 and 25-34 age groups.

The highest percentage of members (52%) are aged 45 and over, while the highest percentage of students (62%) are under the age of 35.

Resource Information

Figure 15: AAT Resource information, 2017 to 2021

£m 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Fees & subscriptions 16.10 15.97 17.23 17.69 17.63
Education & exam fees 12.26 12.25 12.68 10.39 12.60
Regulation & discipline 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.06
Commercial activities 0.44 0.56 0.56 0.45 0.51
Other (including investment income) 1.13 1.30 1.09 0.91 0.41
Total income 29.96 30.13 31.63 29.49 31.21
Number of staff 256 261 264 225 217

Section Three – Resource Information on the Accountancy Bodies

Resource income of the seven accountancy bodies

We collected resource information on the seven Accountancy Bodies for year ends in

  1. Figures 16 and 17 show the total and average income respectively from worldwide members and students of the accountancy bodies between 2017 and 2021,^14 respectively.

Figure 16: Total income worldwide, 2017 to 2021

A line chart showing the total income worldwide (£m) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA from 2017 to

  1. ACCA consistently has the highest income, while other bodies show varying trends over the period.

Since 2017, ICAEW has experienced a continuous increase in their income. ACCA has the highest income of the seven accountancy bodies, £223m in 2021.

CIMA and AIA have seen an overall decrease in their income between 2017 and 2021, down 0.9% and 1.1%, respectively.

ICAEW figures have been updated for 2019, 2020 and 2021 to show post audit information.

Average income per body from members and students

The average income per member and student is calculated by dividing the income of each accountancy body, excluding 'Commercial activities' and 'Other' (Figure 18), by its total worldwide population of members and students.

Figure 17: Average income per members and students worldwide, 2017 to 2021

A line chart showing the average income per member and student worldwide (£) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA from 2017 to

  1. CAI and ICAS show the highest average income, while ACCA and CIMA are lower.

CAI and ICAS had the highest average income per member and student in 2021 with £682 and £671 respectively.

The fluctuation in CAI's average income per member and student since 2017 is partly a result of the exchange rates applied (€1.127 in 2017, €1.115 in 2018, €1.171 in 2019, €1.1250 in 2020 and €1.1633 in 2021).

Breakdown of income

Figure 18 provides an analysis of the streams of income for the accountancy bodies for 2021.

Figure 18: Breakdown of income, 2021

A stacked bar chart showing the breakdown of income by source for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA in

  1. Income streams include Fees & Subscriptions, Education & Exam Fees, Regulation & Discipline, Commercial Activities, and Other (Including Investment Income). Fees & Subscriptions and Education & Exam Fees are major components for most bodies, while CIPFA relies heavily on Commercial Activities.

Fees and subscriptions, taken together with education and exam fees from members and students, are the main sources of income for each of the bodies with the exception of CIPFA. CIPFA's main source of income is from commercial activities (68%).15

Fees and subscriptions and education and exam fees make up 94% of income for AIA.

Staffing of the Accountancy Bodies

Figure 19 shows the number of staff (full-time equivalent) employed worldwide by the seven accountancy bodies from 2017 to 2021.

Figure 19: Staffing, 2017 to 2021, FTEs

Staffing ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
2017 1,358 198 259 706 149 154 25 2,849
2018 1,362 190 216 741 150 161 23 2,843
2019 1,383 487 211 692 156 146 21 3,096
2020 1,404 383 196 707 161 151 19 3,021
2021 1,362 405 207 707 166 173 19 3,039
% growth (20–21) -3.0 5.7 5.6 0.0 3.1 14.6 0.0 0.6
% growth (17–21) 0.3 104.5 -20.1 0.1 11.4 12.3 -24.0 6.7
% compound annual growth (17–21) 0.1 19.6 -5.4 0.0 2.7 3.0 -6.6 1.6

In 2017, CIMA amalgamated with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Post-merger, in 2017 and 2018, CIMA was able to supply staff numbers for the UK only, rather than for the whole of the new Association; the 2019, 2020 and 2021 figures once again include CIMA staff worldwide.

Diversity information on the workforce under the Equality Act 2010

We asked the bodies whether they collect information in relation to all the protected characteristics under the Equality Act

  1. Figure 20 shows the number of bodies that collect this diversity information on their workforce.

Figure 20: Diversity information on the workforce, 2021

A bar chart showing the number of accountancy bodies that collect diversity information on their workforce in 2021, categorised by Age, Disability, Gender reassignment and civil partnership, Pregnancy and maternity, Race, Religion or Belief, Sex, and Sexual orientation. Most characteristics are recorded by 5-7 bodies, with fewer for Gender reassignment and civil partnership (1 body).

All the bodies confirmed that they have a diversity policy and/or statement in place. The policies cover a range of issues such as equality, inclusion and social mobility for both their workforces and external stakeholders. The policies also extend to dealing with bullying and harassment in the workplace.

In 2021, all nine of the protected characteristics were used by at least one of the bodies to record this diversity information on their workforce.

All the diversity policies are aimed at improving awareness of diversity and ensuring that no employee or applicant for employment is treated less favourably than another because of their protected characteristic.

There is no requirement for employees to disclose their diversity status to their employer.

Section Four – Oversight of audit regulation

Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs)16

Under the Statutory Audit and Third Country Auditors Regulations (SATCAR) 201617 the FRC is the designated Competent Authority for statutory audit in the UK. SATCAR 2016 sets out the responsibilities of the Competent Authority and permits the FRC to delegate some of the tasks required to fulfil its responsibilities.

The FRC delegates statutory tasks for the regulation of auditors of non-PIEs to the RSBs through delegation agreements. The FRC oversees the fulfilment of the 'Delegated Tasks', which include provisions for:

  • The application of technical standards and of other standards on professional ethics and internal quality control of statutory audits and statutory audit work (including provision for security compliance with those standards).
  • Registration: The application of the FRC's criteria for determining whether persons are eligible for appointment as statutory auditors, the registration of such persons, keeping the register18 and making it available for inspection;
  • Continuing professional development: Procedures for maintaining the competence of statutory auditors;
  • Audit monitoring: Monitoring of statutory auditors and the quality of audit work; and
  • Enforcement: Except for categories retained by the FRC, investigations and imposing and enforcing sanctions in relation to breaches of relevant requirements by statutory auditors.

The FRC also exercises delegated statutory functions under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 for the recognition, supervision and de-recognition of RSBs. The FRC reports annually to the Secretary of State (SoS) on the discharge of these functions.19

Number of firms registered with the RSBs

Figure 21 shows the number of registered audit firms for each RSB split by the number of principals20 at each firm, for each of the three years to 31 December 2021.

Figure 21: Total registered firms by number of principals, 2019 to 2021

Number of principals per firm ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
1 904 871 290 36 2,101
2-3 476 971 238 66 1,751
4-6 80 397 49 30 556
7-10 59 123 15 6 203
11-50 22 83 9 3 117
50+ 0 12 3 2 17
Total as at 31.12.21 1,541 2,457 604 143 4,745
Total as at 31.12.20 1,565 2,561 723 158 5,007
Total as at 31.12.19 1,577 2,636 750 164 5,127

The number of audit firms registered to carry out statutory audit work in the UK and ROI continues to fall. The number of registered audit firms fell by 2.3% in 2020 (to 5,007) and 5.2% in 2021 (to 4,745). The number of RSBs with registered audit firms with two to three principals fell from 1,808 in 2020 to 1,751 in

  1. None of the RSBs saw an increase in the number of registered audit firms that are sole practitioners.

Statutory audit firms

Figure 22 details the number of registrations by firms split by:

  • New applications: applications submitted to become a registered statutory audit firm;
  • Referred to a committee: applications referred by case managers to a committee to make a decision;
  • Approved by committee: committees can approve applications with conditions and restrictions if deemed necessary;
  • Voluntarily surrendered: where a registered statutory audit firm no longer wants to carry out statutory audit work; and
  • Withdrawn by the RSB: where an RSB's committee deems a firm unable to carry out statutory audits to the standard required.

Figure 22: Firm registrations, 2019 to 2021

New applications Referred to committee Approved by committee Voluntarily surrendered Withdrawn by the RSB
ACCA 87 2 2 131 6
ICAEW 116 4 2 261 6
2019
CAI 37 4 2 69 1
ICAS 5 1 1 12 1
TOTAL 245 11 7 473 14
ACCA 39 2 2 44 7
ICAEW 80 5 4 177 4
2020
CAI 27 6 4 52 2
ICAS 4 0 0 10 0
TOTAL 150 13 10 283 13
ACCA 76 0 0 93 7
ICAEW 84 6 5 179 8
2021
CAI 18 1 1 56 1
ICAS 1 0 0 15 1
TOTAL 179 7 6 343 17

The RSBs saw a 38.8% decrease in new applicants from 2019 to 2020, there was a 19.3% increase from 2020 to 2021.

  • New applications: applications submitted to become a registered statutory audit firm;
  • Referred to a committee: applications referred by case managers to a committee to make a decision;
  • Approved by committee: committees can approve applications with conditions and restrictions if deemed necessary;
  • Voluntarily surrendered: where a registered statutory audit firm no longer wants to carry out statutory audit work; and
  • Withdrawn by the RSB: where an RSB's committee deems a firm unable to carry out statutory audits to the standard required.

Figure 22: Firm registrations, 2019 to 2021

New applications Referred to committee Approved by committee Voluntarily surrendered Withdrawn by the RSB
ACCA 87 2 2 131 6
ICAEW 116 4 2 261 6
2019 CAI 37 4 2 69
ICAS 5 1 1 12
TOTAL 245 11 7 473 14
ACCA 39 2 2 44 7
ICAEW 80 5 4 177 4
2020 CAI 27 6 4 52
ICAS 4 0 0 10
TOTAL 150 13 10 283 13
ACCA 76 0 0 93 7
ICAEW 84 6 5 179 8
2021 CAI 18 1 1 56
ICAS 1 0 0 15
TOTAL 179 7 6 343 17

The RSBs saw a 38.8% decrease in new applicants from 2019 to 2020, there was a 19.3% increase from 2020 to 2021.

Monitoring of registered audit firms by the FRC's Audit Quality Review team

The FRC's Audit Quality Review team (AQR) monitors the quality of the audit work of statutory auditors and audit firms in the UK that audit Public Interest Entities (PIEs) and certain other entities within the scope retained by the FRC (these are currently large AIM/ Lloyd's Syndicates/Listed Non-UK).

Figure 23 below details the number of reviews of audits conducted by the AQR team during the years ended 31 March 2019 to 31 March 2021.21, 22 & 23

Figure 23: AQR monitoring, 2019/20 to 2021/22

Inspection category Audit reviews 2019/20 Audit reviews 2020/21 Audit reviews 2021/22
Deloitte LLP 17 20 17
EY LLP 14 19 17
KPMG LLP/KPMG Audit Plc 18 22 19
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 17 21 18
Big Four firms 66 82 71
BDO LLP 8 9 12
Grant Thornton UK LLP 9 7 5
Mazars LLP 5 7 8
PKF Littlejohn 0 4 0
MHA MacIntyre Hudson 0 3 0
Haysmacintyre 0 2 0
Crowe UK LLP 0 1 2
Gerald Edelman – 1 0
RSM UK Audit LLP 4 1 1
Jeffreys Henry – 1 0
Johnston Carmichael – 1 0
UHY Hacker Young 1 1 0
Beever and Struthers 0 0 2
Begbies Chartered Accountants 0 0 1
Bennett Brooks & Co 0 0 0
Blick Rothenberg – – –
BSG Valentine 1 0 0
Carter Backer Winter 0 0 1
Edwards Accountants 0 0 1
Edwards Veeder 0 0 0
Hazlewoods 0 0 1
HW Fisher – – 1
King & King – – 3
KPMG Audit LLC 0 0 2
Price Bailey 0 0 0
Shipleys 0 0 0
94 120 111
Crown Dependency (CD) audit firms 5 1 4
98 120 115
Third Country Auditors 5 1 4
Private sector audits 104 121 119
National Audit Office (NAO) 7 7 9
Local Audit 15 20 20
Foundation Trusts – 2 4
Public sector audits 22 29 33
Total audits inspected 125 150 152

Monitoring of registered audit firms by the RSBs

Figure 24 shows the number of monitoring visits conducted by the RSBs during the years ending 31 December 2019 to 31 December 202124 and the number of monitoring visits conducted as a percentage of the total number of registered audit firms at each RSB. There is a statutory requirement that the RSBs should monitor the activities undertaken by each registered audit firm at least once every six years.25

Figure 24: RSB monitoring and percentage of total registered Audit Firms, 2019 to 202126 & 27

ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
Number 348 533 107 31 1,019
2019 % 22.1 20.2 14.3 18.9 19.9
Number 186 410 107 29 732
2020 % 11.9 16.0 14.8 18.4 14.6
Number 338 553 145 36 1,072
2021 % 21.9 22.5 24.0 25.2 22.6

Bar chart showing RSB monitoring statistics by year: The chart visualizes the percentage of total registered audit firms monitored by each RSB (ACCA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS) over the years 2019, 2020, and 2021, mirroring the data presented in Figure

  1. The Y-axis ranges from 0 to 30, representing percentages. Each bar group represents a year, and within each group, bars are colored blue for ACCA, purple for ICAEW, green for CAI, and pink for ICAS.

Reasons for monitoring visits to registered audit firms by RSBs

Figure 25 shows the reasons for the monitoring visits to registered audit firms by the RSBs during the years ended 31 December 2019 to 31 December 2021.28 & 29

Figure 25: Monitoring visit reason, 2019 to 2021
ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
2019 4 9 35 2 50
Requested by the registration/ 2020 6 3 14 0 23
licensing committee 2021 6 1 17 2 26
2019 113 136 12 8 269
Specifically selected due to 2020 33 80 33 14 160
heightened risk 2021 77 112 36 11 236
2019 231 388 60 18 697
Cyclical visits 2020 147 327 60 15 549
2021 255 440 92 21 808
2019 0 0 0 3 3
Firms with PIEs visited with AQR 2020 0 0 0 0 0
involvement 2021 0 0 3 2 5

Since 17 June 2016, audit firms that audit PIEs are subject to review by the FRC's AQR team. Prior to this date, different arrangements applied where the RSBs were responsible for the monitoring of some of these firms. The RSBs have no involvement in the monitoring of PIE audits, although they may rely on the AQR team's whole firm procedures when monitoring non-PIE audits at those audit firms.

Gradings of monitoring visits to registered Audit Firms by RSBs

Figures 26 to 29 show the grades for the audit monitoring visits to the firms and full audit file reviews conducted by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI) and Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) during the years ended 31 December 2019 to 2021.

The RSBs continue to have different systems for grading the quality of firms and full audit files reviewed.

  • File grading: ICAEW, CAI and ICAS use the same definitions for grading full audit files. ACCA's definitions are set out below. The percentage of audit files provided in the tables for each of the RSBs is calculated on the basis of the number of files actually graded.
  • Firm grading: This grade is given following a review by an RSB's inspection unit. The grades and definitions used are set out below.
  • Other types of file review: Ungraded, limited and/or restricted are classifications for reviews conducted but not graded. An ungraded review is when a firm has no audit clients in a particular year. A limited and/or restricted review is a brief review of a specific risk or aspects noted from a previous visit.
File grading
ICAEW, 30 CAI and ICAS:
1 No concerns regarding the sufficiency and quality of audit evidence or the appropriateness of significant audit judgements in the areas reviewed; only limited weakness in documentation of audit work; and any concerns in other areas are limited in nature (both individually and collectively).
(Satisfactory)
2A Only limited concerns regarding the sufficiency or quality of audit evidence or the appropriateness of significant audit judgements in the areas reviewed; and/or weaknesses in documentation of audit work are restricted to a small number of areas; and/or some concerns, assessed as less than significant (individually and collectively), in other areas.
(Generally
acceptable)
2B Some concerns, assessed as less than significant, regarding the sufficiency or quality of audit evidence or the appropriateness of significant audit judgements in the areas reviewed; and/or more widespread weaknesses in documentation of audit work; and significant concerns in other areas (individually or collectively).
(Improvement
required)
3 Significant concerns regarding the sufficiency or quality of audit evidence or the appropriateness of significant audit judgements in the areas reviewed (not limited to the documentation of the underlying thought processes); and/or very significant concerns in other areas (individually or collectively).
(Significant
improvements
required)
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA):

ACCA uses the following initial grade assessment in determining the overall outcome on audit work.
A Outcomes The audit work appears appropriate in scope and extent with no significant deficiencies, forming a reasonable basis for the audit opinion.
B Outcomes Minor deficiencies were noted in the audit work, but these do not result in a significant risk of any material misstatements remaining undetected and the audit opinion is adequately supported by the work recorded.
C Outcomes There is serious non-compliance with applicable standards and/or deficiencies in the audit evidence recorded such that there is a significant risk that any material misstatements would remain undetected.

Summary of monitoring results by body

Each year a mixture of firms are selected for review; however, as firm selection changes annually, monitoring results are not directly comparable year on year.

Furthermore, the sample of firms monitored each year will often include a disproportionate number of weaker firms, selected due to the targeted selection of firms deemed to be high risk. This needs to be taken into account when interpreting the percentage of D outcomes at each body (D outcomes are defined below).

Outcomes reported in the below tables include a number of visits to audit registered firms that have no audit clients. These reviews are done on a desktop basis.

Figure 26: ACCA gradings, 2019 to 2021
Firm gradings 2019 2020 2021 File gradings 2019 2020 2021
A & B No. 264 142 184 A Outcomes No. 34
Outcomes % 76 76 54 % 6
No. 43 15 41 B Outcomes No. 471
C Outcomes % 12 8 12 % 74
No. 41 30 34 C Outcomes No. 128
D Outcomes % 12 16 10 % 20
No. 0 0 79 Ungraded/Limited No. 0
P Outcomes % 0 0 24 /Restricted review

Firm grading (ACCA) 31
A Outcomes The firm complies with auditing standards, ACCA's Global Practising Regulations (GPRs), and the Code of Ethics and Conduct (CEC) and the Ethical Standards for Auditors (ESA) issued by the FRC.
(Good)
B Outcomes The firm is eligible for audit registration; it complies with the GPRs, CEC and the ESA and 50% or more of its audit files inspected, including all significant audits, comply substantially with relevant auditing standards.
(Satisfactory)
C Outcomes The firm is eligible for audit registration and it complies with the GPRs, CEC and ESA but its quality controls over audit work are not effective and either the majority of the firm's audit files, or the significant audit files, inspected do not comply with relevant auditing standards.
(Unsatisfactory and When a firm's work is considered very poor or if a firm has a second or subsequent unsatisfactory visit and there are no mitigating factors the visit is graded D, which indicates that regulatory action is required and will usually result in a referral to a Regulatory Assessor or the Admissions and Licensing Committee (ALC). Regulatory action in this context includes ACCA referring the findings of a monitoring visit to the Assessment Department to consider whether disciplinary action is appropriate. D outcomes do not always result from an inadequate standard of audit work, but could be for failure to meet the eligibility requirements for holding a firm's auditing certificate; they may also indicate a referral to the Assessment Department for other regulation breaches such as non-compliance with client money rules or with the terms of a regulatory order.
improvements required)
D Outcomes
(Regulatory action
required)
P Outcomes These are visits where the final outcome has not been determined at 31 December. This is a consequence of a process change associated with the introduction of the Audit Monitoring Committee, whereby the outcome is only determined once the firm has submitted its action plan and it has been assessed by ACCA and/or the Committee.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW)
Figure 27: ICAEW gradings, 2019 to 2021
Firm gradings 2019 2020 2021 File gradings 2019 2020 2021
A & B No. 269 249 340 1 Outcomes No. 199
Outcomes % 54 58 63 % 25
No. 88 73 83 2A Outcomes No. 395
C Outcomes % 18 17 15 % 49
No. 43 33 24 2B Outcomes No. 151
D Outcomes % 9 8 4 % 19
No. 96 78 91 3 Outcomes No. 62
N Outcomes % 19 18 17 % 8
Ungraded/Limited No. 154
/Restricted review

Firm grading (ICAEW)
A Outcomes Where there are no instances of non-compliance with the Audit Regulations and no matters requiring follow-up action.
B Outcomes Where there are some instances of non-compliance with the Audit Regulations. ICAEW's Quality Assurance Department (QAD) are confident that the firm has the commitment and ability to correct the issue(s) and the firm's responses address the matters raised without the need for follow-up action.
C Outcomes Where there are instances of non-compliance and follow-up action is required:
* Submit information – additional details or evidence of the firm's actions previously agreed is required to demonstrate its commitment and ability to correct the issue.
* Accept withdrawal – non-compliance that would require a follow-up action if the firm had not proposed to withdraw from the audit registration (no need for a report to Audit Registration Committee (ARC)).
* Release from conditions and/or restrictions – some or no instances of non-compliance and confidence that previous conditions and restrictions can be lifted.
D Outcomes Where instances of non-compliance are likely to be serious or extensive and require a detailed report to ARC that can include three potential outcomes:
* Impose conditions and/or restrictions – non-compliance is likely to be serious or extensive and/or the firm's responses may be inadequate and/or raise doubts about the firm's ability/willingness to make the improvements.
* Withdrawal - reserved for the most serious situations when the firm's audit registration should be withdrawn.
* Committee consideration – to provide information to the committee when no conditions or restrictions have been proposed but the committee is required to consider the results of the visit.
N Outcomes Used for visits where no statutory audit work has been reviewed. For example, a firm continues with audit registration, but has no audit clients and no audit work has been reviewed; or a firm's withdrawal application is under consideration by QAD. This rating is also applied to Year 2 visits to large firms where no audit files are reviewed.
Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI)
Figure 28: CAI gradings 2019 to 2021
Firm gradings 2019 2020 2021 File gradings 2019 2020 2021
A & B No. 70 69 120 1 Outcomes No. 56
Outcomes % 62 79 81 % 31
No. 10 3 14 2A Outcomes No. 74
C Outcomes % 9 3 9 % 41
No. 33 15 14 2B Outcomes No. 28
D Outcomes % 29 18 9 % 16
3 Outcomes No. 21
% 12
Ungraded/Limited No. 45
/Restricted review

Firm grading (CAI)
A Outcomes Where no instances of breaches have been recorded.
B Outcomes Where breaches were noted, and the firm is deemed to have the ability (competence and resources) to address the issue(s) within the stated timescales.
C Outcomes There will generally be no matters to follow up on firms graded A and/or B.
Where breaches have been noted and the firm has undertaken actions to address the issues raised. In such instances, the firm is required to provide a written undertaking to cover the volunteered actions. The Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) will not impose conditions or restrictions; however, there is a need for further confirmation/follow-up.
D Outcomes Where breaches or issues have been identified which require consideration by the Head of Quality Assurance and by the QAC. There are four classes of D reports: D1, D2 and D3 reports are determined by the seriousness of the regulatory action, while D4 reports provide information to the QAC.
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS)
Figure 29: ICAS gradings 2019 to 2021
Firm gradings 2019 2020 2021 File gradings 2019 2020 2021
A & B No. 10 8 14 1 Outcomes No. 1
Outcomes % 32 28 39 % 1
No. 18 20 22 2A Outcomes No. 65
C Outcomes % 58 69 61 % 73
No. 3 1 0 2B Outcomes No. 17
D Outcomes % 10 3 0 % 19
No. 0 0 0 3 Outcomes No. 6
N Outcomes % 0 0 0 % 7
Ungraded/Limited No. 43
/Restricted review

Firm grading (ICAS)
A Outcomes Where no issues have been identified and no follow-up action is needed.
B Outcomes Where some regulatory issues were identified; however, these issues have been addressed adequately by the firm's closing meeting responses and no further action is required.
C Outcomes Where there are regulatory issues and there is a need for the firm to submit evidence of action taken in a restricted area. The 'C' grading is split into a 'C–' or 'C+' grading with 'C–' being more serious, where one or more of the issues identified are considered to be pervasive; whereas C+ is where findings are specific to particular individuals or files and do not indicate systemic problems.
D Outcomes Where the standard of compliance is such that the Authorisation Committee (AC) needs to consider appropriate follow-up action, such as imposition of conditions and restrictions or withdrawal of registration.

Complaints about auditors

Figure 30 shows the number of audit-related complaints received by the RSBs from 2019 to 2021 split by (i) number of new complaints, (ii) number of cases passed to the FRC (iii) number of cases referred to the Committee,32 (iv) number of cases closed in the year and (v) average time taken to close a case.33

Figure 30: Complaints, 2019 to 2021

ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
2019 10 156 8 7 181
Number of new 2020 1 117 11 4 133
complaints 2021 15 145 3 2 165
2019 0 0 0 0 0
Number of cases referred 2020 0 0 0 0 0
to the FRC 2021 0 0 0 0 0
2019 8 40 9 4 61
Number of cases passed 2020 3 35 6 4 48
to the Committee 2021 0 28 10 1 39
2019 8 123 12 7 150
Number of cases closed 2020 7 139 10 5 161
in the year 2021 4 152 13 1 170
2019 3.9 14 6.6 4.0
Average time taken to 2020 4.5 17 4.0 7.8
close a case (in months) 2021 5.6 14 0.0 1.0

The definition of the average time taken to close a case differs across the accountancy bodies. Some record their data having regard to cases that are opened and closed within a particular year, while other bodies take the total length for a case to be concluded.

Bar chart showing New Complaints (2019-2021):

This blue bar chart represents the number of new complaints received by ACCA, ICAEW, CAI, and ICAS for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021, mirroring the 'New applications' data from Figure 30.

Bar chart showing data distribution or magnitude across categories, with blue bars on a black background.

Bar chart showing Cases Referred to Committee (2019-2021):

This cyan bar chart represents the number of cases referred to committee by ACCA, ICAEW, CAI, and ICAS for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021, mirroring the 'Referred to committee' data from Figure 30.

Bar chart displaying data values with cyan bars of varying heights against a black background.

Bar chart showing Cases Closed in the Year (2019-2021):

This blue bar chart represents the number of cases closed in the year by ACCA, ICAEW, CAI, and ICAS for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021, mirroring the 'Number of cases closed in the year' data from Figure 30.

Bar chart with thin and wide blue bars representing data points or magnitudes against a black background.

Bar chart showing Average Time Taken to Close (2019-2021 - ACCA, ICAEW, CAI): This yellow bar chart represents the average time taken to close a case (in months) by ACCA, ICAEW, and CAI for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021, mirroring the 'Average time taken to close a case (in months)' data from Figure

  1. ICAS data is not shown on this chart as it uses a different basis.

Bar chart showing data values with yellow bars against a black background, some bars appearing to indicate negative values.

Bar chart showing Average Time Taken to Close (2019-2021 - ICAS): This pink bar chart specifically represents the average time taken to close a case (in months) by ICAS for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021, mirroring the 'Average time taken to close a case (in months)' data from Figure

  1. This chart isolates ICAS data due to its different calculation method.

Bar chart displaying data values with downward-pointing pink bars against a black background, indicating negative values or declines.

Recognised Qualifying Bodies (RQBs)

The FRC also exercises delegated statutory functions under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 for the recognition, supervision and decognition of those accountancy bodies responsible for offering the audit qualification (RQBs) in line with the requirements of Schedule 11 of the Act. There are five bodies34 in the UK recognised to offer the audit qualification. RQBs must have rules and arrangements in place to register students and track their progress, administer examinations and ensure that appropriate training is given to students in an approved environment. The FRC reports annually to the SoS on the discharge of these functions. Figure 31 shows the number of students registered with each RQB as at 31 December 2019 to

  1. It also shows the number of members who were awarded the audit qualification and the number of students following the audit route or eligible for the audit qualification.35

Figure 31: RQB students and members, 2019 to 2021

ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA
2019 79,937 22,842 7,009 3,862 135
Number of students in the UK 2020 76,208 23,309 7,351 3,839 139
and ROI 2021 75,188 25,014 7,662 4,112 144
2019 N/A 18,657 3,640 N/A 3
Number of students following the 2020 N/A 18,705 3,862 N/A 3
audit route or eligible for the audit 2021 N/A 19,345 4,538 N/A 3
qualification
2019 58 1,219 266 170 0
The number of members who were 2020 100 1,082 572 1,148 0
awarded the audit qualification 2021 82 1,222 8036 288 0
2019 2,954 105,306 8,874 11,496 9
The number of members who hold 2020 2,941 104,654 9,446 12,409 9
the audit qualification 2021 2,824 103,893 9,329 12,242 9

The audit qualification of some members may be counted twice – firstly by the body awarding the qualification, and then again if they become a member of another body while retaining their initial qualification.

Approved training offices

Figure 32 shows the total number of approved training offices37 in the UK and ROI over the period 2019 to

  1. The pie chart represents the 2021 data in percentages by each body.

Figure 32: UK and ROI training offices, 2019 to 2021, and proportion of total training offices per body in 2021

ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA
Number of approved 2019 3,415 4,552 697 405 10
training offices in the 2020 3,383 4,694 594 413 10
UK & ROI 2021 3,250 4,949 581 402 10

Pie chart showing the proportion of total training offices per body in 2021:

This pie chart visualizes the distribution of approved training offices in the UK & ROI among different accountancy bodies for the year 2021. * ICAEW accounts for 53.8%. * ACCA accounts for 35.4%. * CAI accounts for 6.3%. * ICAS accounts for 4.4%. * AIA accounts for 0.1%.

Pie chart representing data distribution.

5. Audit firms

This section covers audit firms with PIE38 clients who responded to our survey. The FRC as Competent Authority has ultimate responsibility for the performance and oversight of the audit regulation tasks, as mandated originally by EU Regulation 537/2014 and EU Directive 2006/43/EC (as amended), and applied in the UK.39 The FRC cannot by law delegate the Regulatory Tasks of audit monitoring and enforcement pertaining to PIEs.

The information in this section has been provided on a voluntary basis and we would like to thank all the firms that responded to our requests. Some of this information is publicly available (for example firms that are Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) must file accounts at Companies House if they meet the statutory requirements). Figure 33 shows the fee income for audit and non-audit services for the 25 audit firms with PIE audit clients that responded to our request for the year ended

  1. This year we also include the fee incomes from PIE clients and non-PIE clients, and the breakdown of audit staff and non-audit staff at the firms in Figure 33. Firms are listed in order of their audit fee income, rather than by total fee income. This is not a league table. Not all accountancy firms have PIE audit clients, therefore firms without PIE audit clients are not approached to provide information for this publication. It is possible that there are firms not included in this publication that have a higher audit fee income than those that are listed in the tables below.

Care is needed if making detailed comparisons between firms using the information in Figure 33, as some firms do not analyse their fee income this way and have made an informed estimate of the figures. In addition, firms may classify their audit and non-audit income in slightly different ways. Figures 34 and 35 analyse the detailed fee income from Figure 33 for the Big Four firms and for many of the audit firms outside of the Big Four respectively.40

Figure 36 shows the percentage growth of fee income for firms with PIE clients for 2019/20 and 2020/21, while Figure 37 focuses on the audit fee income per responsible individual. Figure 38 shows those audit firms that audit companies listed on the FTSE 100, FTSE 250, other regulated markets and the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) as at each firm's financial year end for

  1. Figure 39 looks at the concentration of listed companies, split between the Big Four, the next five firms41 and a select number of audit firms that carry out statutory audits as at 31 December for the past five years.

In relation to diversity, we asked the firms to provide information on the following nine diversity indicators: race, disability, religion/belief, sexual orientation, marital status, school type attended, first generation to attend university, socio-economic background and caring responsibilities (Figure 46). This is the first year we have asked the firms whether they provide information on socio-economic background. We also requested data on gender, race, disability, and sexual orientation in respect of senior management at the PIE audit firms (Figures 40 to 44). A separate analysis of age can be found in Figure 45, which aggregates all the firms' workforces. Of the firms asked, approximately three-quarters have diversity policies in place, with some firms having set diversity targets for their staff, boards and committees (Figure 47).

Figure 33: UK fee income of audit firms with PIE audit clients, 2021 (by fee income from audit)

UK firm name UK structure No. of principals42 No. of audit principals No. of RIs43 Audit staff Non-audit staff No. of PIE audit clients Fee income: audit (£m)44 Fee income: non-audit work to audit clients (£m)45 Fee income: non-PIE audit clients (£m) Fee income: PIE clients (£m) Fee income: non-PIE clients (£m) Total fee income (£m)
PricewaterhouseCoopers46 LLP 914 169 327 968 5,577 409 790 201 2,566 303 487 3,557
KPMG LLP 533 133 311 886 3,391 293 646 150 1,637 225 421 2,433
EY UK LLP 717 122 234 678 4,876 266 595 156 2,003 177 418 2,754
Deloitte LLP 674 106 262 1,047 6,526 321 573 288 3,002 249 324 3,863
BDO LLP 370 131 151 466 985 212 276 91 363 36 240 730
Grant Thornton UK LLP 201 52 96 320 1,085 27 146 49 376 4 141 570
RSM LLP 357 104 127 183 743 25 99 53 223 9 90 375
Mazars LLP 141 49 62 154 390 57 83 21 130 24 59 234
Crowe UK LLP 83 40 43 92 148 18 41 12 49 1 40 102
MHA MacIntyre Hudson LLP 84 53 44 85 86 21 28 19 28 4 24 75
Haysmacintyre LLP 38 27 34 55 38 5 21 6 11 0 21 38
PKF Littlejohn LLP 35 21 21 37 48 50 19 4 18 2 17 41
Johnston Carmichael LLP 60 13 23 35 153 18 11 6 38 0 10 55
UHY Hacker Young LLP 30 14 17 25 36 9 8 4 7 0 8 19
Price Bailey LLP 26 10 13 18 40 1 7 2 19 0 7 28
Gerald Edelman LLP 16 7 7 - - 1 6 2 7 0 6 14
Beever and Struthers Partnership 17 10 13 22 14 12 5 1 6 1 4 13
Shipleys LLP 14 10 13 26 17 2 4 1 10 0 4 15
Hazlewoods LLP 27 10 13 16 56 5 4 3 24 0 4 31
Carter Backer Winter LLP 17 6 9 10 15 1 2 1 12 0 2 15
Bennett Brooks & Co Limited company - - 3 4 27 2 1 0 7 0 1 8
BSG Valentine LLP 8 2 4 3 7 1 1 0 5 0 1 7
Begbies Chartered Accountants Limited company and Partnership 10 9 9 - - 1 1 0 3 0 1 4
Edwards Accountants (Midlands) Limited company 3 3 3 8 4 1 1 0 2 0 1 3
Edwards Veeder Limited company 4 4 4 6 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

Figure 34: Proportion of total fee income for the Big Four firms, 2019 to 2021

A bar chart showing the proportion of total fee income for the Big Four firms from 2019 to 2021, broken down into Audit Fee Income, Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients, and Fee Income from Non-Audit Clients. - In 2019: Audit Fee Income (74.4%), Non-Audit work to Audit Clients (19.3%), Non-Audit Clients (6.3%). - In 2020: Audit Fee Income (73.7%), Non-Audit work to Audit Clients (20.3%), Non-Audit Clients (6.0%). - In 2021: Audit Fee Income (73.0%), Non-Audit work to Audit Clients (20.7%), Non-Audit Clients (6.3%).

Figure 35: Proportion of total fee income for audit firms with PIE audit clients outside the Big Four firms, 2019 to 2021

A bar chart showing the proportion of total fee income for audit firms with PIE audit clients outside the Big Four firms from 2019 to 2021, broken down into Audit Fee Income, Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients, and Fee Income from Non-Audit Clients. - In 2019: Audit Fee Income (57.7%), Non-Audit work to Audit Clients (28.3%), Non-Audit Clients (14.1%). - In 2020: Audit Fee Income (56.6%), Non-Audit work to Audit Clients (30.2%), Non-Audit Clients (13.2%). - In 2021: Audit Fee Income (56.2%), Non-Audit work to Audit Clients (32.1%), Non-Audit Clients (11.6%).

Growth of fee income

Figure 3647 shows the percentage growth rate of fee income for each of the years 2019/20 and 2020/21 for audit firms with PIE clients, split between (i) the Big Four audit firms and audit firms outside the Big Four and (ii) between audit and non-audit income.

Audit firm population changes year-on-year based on those firms with PIE clients that choose to respond to this survey.

Figure 36: Growth of fee income, 2020 and 2021

A bar chart illustrating the percentage growth of fee income for Big Four and Non-Big Four firms in 2020 and 2021 across different categories: Total Fee Income, Audit Fee Income, Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients Fee Income, and Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients Fee Income. - For Total Fee Income (2020, 2021): Big Four firms (4.6%, 5.9%), Non-Big Four firms (5.9%, 12.5%). - For Audit Fee Income (2020, 2021): Big Four firms (6.5%, 10.3%), Non-Big Four firms (12.5%, -6.8%). - For Non-Audit Work to Audit Clients Fee Income (2020, 2021): Big Four firms (-2.0%, 3.7%), Non-Big Four firms (-5.9%, 5.3%). - For Non-Audit Work to Non-Audit Clients Fee Income (2020, 2021): Big Four firms (3.7%, 5.3%), Non-Big Four firms (5.3%, 0%).

Total fee income grew by 4.6% for Big Four firms and 5.9% for non-Big Four firms. Audit fee income growth was stronger at 6.5% for Big Four firms and 12.5% for non-Big Four but lower than last year's growth rates in both cases.

Fee income from non-audit work for audit clients increased by 10.3% for Big Four firms (after a fall last year) but declined by 6.8% for non-Big Four firms. For non-audit work for non-audit clients, fee income increased by 3.7% for Big Four firms and 5.3% for non-Big Four firms.

Audit fee income per Responsible Individual (RI)

Figure 37 illustrates audit fee generated per Responsible Individual (RI) for 2019 to

  1. This information is split between the Big Four firms and the audit firms outside the Big Four.

Figure 37: Average audit fee income per RI, 2019 to 2021

Audit Fee Income Per RI (£m) 2019 2020 2021
Big Four firms 2.07 2.23 2.30
Average of all firms with PIE clients 1.61 1.68 1.83
Non-Big Four firms 0.85 0.89 1.08

A line chart showing the average audit fee income per Responsible Individual (RI) from 2019 to 2021 for Big Four firms, average of all firms with PIE clients, and Non-Big Four firms. - Big Four firms: 2.07 in 2019, 2.23 in 2020, 2.30 in 2021. - Average of all firms with PIE clients: 1.61 in 2019, 1.68 in 2020, 1.83 in 2021. - Non-Big Four firms: 0.85 in 2019, 0.89 in 2020, 1.08 in 2021.

There has been a continual increase in the average income per RI for all firms since 2004, when we began our data collection for this publication.

Figure 38: Concentration of listed company audits, 2021 (by number of listed clients48 – FTSE 100, FTSE 250, UK equity listed on regulated markets and the Alternative Investment Market (AIM))

UK firm name UK structure Year end No. of FTSE 100 audit clients48 No. of FTSE 250 audit clients48 Total no. of other clients listed on regulated markets48 No of AIM audit clients48
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 30 June 26 74 73 80
EY UK LLP 02 July 23 42 66 16
KPMG49 LLP 30 September 23 39 45 23
Deloitte LLP 31 May 21 47 119 24
BDO LLP 02 July 1 17 131 166
Grant Thornton UK LLP 31 December 0 4 9 62
MHA MacIntyre Hudson LLP 31 March 0 2 1 9
RSM LLP 31 March 0 1 13 56
Crowe UK LLP 31 March 0 0 19 44
Mazars LLP 31 August 0 0 16 16
PKF Littlejohn LLP 31 May 0 0 7 70
Hazlewoods LLP 30 April 0 0 5 4
Price Bailey LLP 31 March 0 0 1 3
BSG Valentine LLP 30 September 0 0 1 1
Edwards Veeder Limited Company 31 March 0 0 1 1
Begbies Limited company and Partnership 31 March 0 0 1 0
Carter Backer Winter LLP 31 March 0 0 1 0
Gerald Edelman General partnership 31 March 0 0 1 0
Haysmacintyre LLP 31 March 0 0 0 18
UHY Hacker Young LLP 31 December 0 0 0 9
Shipleys LLP 30 April 0 0 0 5
Johnston Carmichael LLP 31 May 0 0 0 2
Beever and Struthers Partnership 30 September 0 0 0 0
Bennett Brooks & Co Limited Company 31 August 0 0 0 0
Edwards Accountants Limited company 31 March 0 0 0 0

Concentration of listed company audits

Figure 39 illustrates the percentage of the audits of UK-listed (equity and debt) companies undertaken by the Big Four firms, 51 the next five firms (based on the number of listed audit clients) and other audit firms as at 31 December for each of the years 2017 to 2021.

For the purposes of Figure 39, where a listed company is audited by an audit firm from the Crown Dependencies it has been given the same classification as its UK counterparts.

Figure 39: Listed company audits concentrations, 2017 to 2021

| | Big Four firms (%) | Next five firms (%) | Other firms (%) | |:--------------|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----|:-----| | | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | | FTSE 100 | 99.0 | 100.0| 100.0| 100.0| 100.0| 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | FTSE 250 | 96.8 | 96.0 | 94.8 | 91.2 | 89.2 | 3.2 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 7.6 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 1.6 | | Other UK Main Market | 74.2 | 77.8 | 73.7 | 67.2 | 57.5 | 16.0 | 15.3 | 16.8 | 22.8 | 28.2 | 9.8 | 6.9 | 9.5 | 10.0 | 14.3 | | All Main Market | 80.0 | 81.8 | 79.0 | 74.1 | 54.9 | 12.6 | 12.7 | 13.6 | 18.4 | 20.2 | 7.4 | 5.5 | 7.4 | 7.6 | 25.0 |

A bar chart showing the concentration of listed company audits from 2017 to 2021, broken down by Big Four firms, Next five firms, and Other firms. Categories include FTSE 100, FTSE 250, Other UK Main Market, and All Main Market. - FTSE 100: Big Four firms dominate with near 100% share, while Next five firms and Other firms have 0%. - FTSE 250: Big Four firms show a declining trend from 96.8% (2017) to 89.2% (2021). Next five firms increased from 3.2% (2017) to 10.0% (2021). Other firms remain low. - Other UK Main Market: Big Four firms declined significantly from 74.2% (2017) to 57.5% (2021). Next five firms increased from 16.0% (2017) to 28.2% (2021). Other firms also increased from 9.8% (2017) to 14.3% (2021). - All Main Market: Big Four firms declined from 80.0% (2017) to 54.9% (2021). Next five firms increased from 12.6% (2017) to 20.2% (2021). Other firms increased significantly from 7.4% (2017) to 25.0% (2021).

Diversity of senior management at PIE audit firms

Figure 40 shows the diversity of senior management at PIE audit firms at three different levels of seniority: managers, directors and partners, including the percentages that are female, are from black, Asian and Minority ethnic backgrounds, have a disability, or identify as LGBTQ+.52

Figures 41, 42, 43 and 44 further break down this information across different sizes of audit firms: firms with under 200 employees; firms with between 200 and 2,000 employees; and firms with over 2,000 employees.

Figure 40: Senior management diversity, 2021

A bar chart showing the percentage of Managers, Directors, and Partners across different diversity indicators in 2021: Female, Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, Disabled, and LGBTQ+. - Female: Managers (46%), Directors (35%), Partners (17%). - Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds: Managers (17%), Directors (10%), Partners (8%). - Disabled: Managers (2%), Directors (4%), Partners (2%). - LGBTQ+: Managers (1%), Directors (2%), Partners (5%).

Partners were generally the least diverse among the senior management levels with the exception of those who identify as LGBTQ+ where there is a higher percentage of LGBTQ+ partners than managers or directors.

Figure 41: Senior management, 2021 – Female leaders

A bar chart showing the percentage of female senior managers in 2021 across three firm sizes: Under 200 employees, 200 - 2,000 employees, and 2,000+ employees, at Manager, Director, and Partner levels. - Managers: Under 200 employees (26.7%), 200 - 2,000 employees (50.4%), 2,000+ employees (40.0%). - Directors: Under 200 employees (20.8%), 200 - 2,000 employees (41.7%), 2,000+ employees (33.3%). - Partners: Under 200 employees (7.9%), 200 - 2,000 employees (21.7%), 2,000+ employees (20.0%).

25 firms collect information on the number of female senior managers. In 2021, the percentage of female senior managers at firms with under 200 employees was highest at manager level (26.7%). The proportion was less at director (20.8%) and partner level (7.9%).

Firms with 200 to 2,000 employees had the highest percentage of female senior managers at manager and director level with 50.4% and 41.7% respectively.

For all three sizes of firm, the percentage of female senior managers was the greatest at manager level and lowest at partner level.

Figure 42: Senior management, 2021 – from black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds

A bar chart showing the percentage of senior managers from black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds in 2021 across three firm sizes: Under 200 employees, 200 - 2,000 employees, and 2,000+ employees, at Manager, Director, and Partner levels. - Managers: Under 200 employees (15%), 200 - 2,000 employees (13%), 2,000+ employees (17%). - Directors: Under 200 employees (4%), 200 - 2,000 employees (12%), 2,000+ employees (11%). - Partners: Under 200 employees (12%), 200 - 2,000 employees (8%), 2,000+ employees (8%).

Firms with over 2,000 employees had the highest percentage of individuals from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds at manager level at 17.7% whereas firms with 200 – 2,000 employees had the highest percentage at director level at 12.0%. Firms with under 200 employees had the highest percentage at partner level at 12.5%.

Figure 43: Senior management, 2021 – with a disability

A bar chart showing the percentage of senior managers with a disability in 2021 across three firm sizes: Under 200 employees, 200 - 2,000 employees, and 2,000+ employees, at Manager, Director, and Partner levels. - Managers: Under 200 employees (1%), 200 - 2,000 employees (4%), 2,000+ employees (4%). - Directors: Under 200 employees (8%), 200 - 2,000 employees (1%), 2,000+ employees (4%). - Partners: Under 200 employees (3%), 200 - 2,000 employees (0.5%), 2,000+ employees (2%).

Overall declarations relating to disability are low, with an average of 3.1% of all senior managers declaring a disability. PIE audit firms with under 200 employees had the largest number of disability declarations at director level (8.3%). Firms with 200–2,000 employees had the lowest number of disability declarations at partner level (0.5%).

Figure 44: Senior management, 2021 – LGBTQ+

A bar chart showing the percentage of senior managers identifying as LGBTQ+ in 2021 across three firm sizes: Under 200 employees, 200 - 2,000 employees, and 2,000+ employees, at Manager, Director, and Partner levels. - Managers: Under 200 employees (0%), 200 - 2,000 employees (0.5%), 2,000+ employees (2.3%). - Directors: Under 200 employees (0%), 200 - 2,000 employees (3.5%), 2,000+ employees (2.0%). - Partners: Under 200 employees (0%), 200 - 2,000 employees (5.0%), 2,000+ employees (1.8%).

Overall declarations relating to LGBTQ+ are also very low, with an average of 1.1% of all senior managers disclosing that they identified as LGBTQ+. Firms with under 200 employees told us that either they had no LGBTQ+ senior managers or did not collect this information.

Age of the workforce at PIE audit firms

Figure 45 shows the number of staff at audit firms in 2021, split into six age categories.

Figure 45: Workforce ages, 202153

A pie chart illustrating the age distribution of the workforce at PIE audit firms in 2021. - Under 25: 20% - 25-34: 39% - 35-44: 18% - 45-54: 13% - 55-64: 8% - 65 and over: 1%

21 out of the 25 firms collect data on the ages of their workforce. The majority of staff employed at audit firms are aged between 25 and 34 on average (39%).

Diversity information collected by the PIE audit firms (workforce)

Figure 46 shows the number of audit firms that collect diversity information on their staff (illustrated by the bar chart) and for those that do, the average completion rate54 of the relevant diversity indicator (represented via the line graph).

Figure 46: Diversity information on workforce, 2021

A combined bar and line chart showing the number of firms collecting diversity information (bars) and the average completion rates (line) for various diversity indicators in 2021. - Ethnicity: 16 firms, 81% completion rate. - Disability: 16 firms, 78% completion rate. - Religion/Belief: 13 firms, 66% completion rate. - Sexual orientation: 13 firms, 70% completion rate. - Marital status: 10 firms, 73% completion rate. - School type attended: 9 firms, 70% completion rate. - First generation to attend university: 9 firms, 69% completion rate. - Socio-economic background: 8 firms, 57% completion rate. - Caring responsibilities: 7 firms, 69% completion rate.

17 firms reported they collect at least one of the above diversity indicators.

Ethnicity and disability are the most collected diversity indicators (16 firms), with ethnicity also having the highest rate of completion of all the indicators (81%).

PIE audit firms with a diversity policy

Figure 47 shows the number of audit firms that made returns on whether they have a diversity policy (shown by the bar chart), and the percentage of firms that confirmed having such a policy in place (illustrated via the line graph) in 2020 and 2021.

Figure 47: Diversity policies, 2020 and 2021

A bar chart showing 'Number of Firms' on the left y-axis and 'Percentage with a Diversity Policy' on the right y-axis for 2020 and 2021.

  • 2020: Approximately 26 firms reported (blue bar), with ~73% having a diversity policy (light blue line).
  • 2021: Approximately 25 firms reported (blue bar), with ~77% having a diversity policy (light blue line).

In 2021, 77% of the 25 audit firms who responded to our survey had a diversity policy. In 2020, 73% of the 26 firms had diversity policies.

The information received from the firms in respect of their policies includes several aspects of diversity such as social mobility, equal opportunity and respect, and inclusion policies.

Section Six – Data tables of the charts

The following tables provide the data that is used to create the corresponding figures in this publication.

Figure 48: Members and students in the UK and ROI Corresponds to Figure 1

Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Number of members in the UK and ROI
2017 94,622 82,587 12,630 126,560 23,905 18,528 1,292 360,124
2018 98,049 82,762 12,450 128,626 24,275 18,934 1,458 366,554
2019 101,476 83,657 12,327 130,928 25,374 19,366 1,304 374,432
2020 103,293 84,539 12,292 133,332 26,447 20,237 1,301 381,441
2021 106,561 85,517 12,451 135,681 27,530 20,211 1,379 389,330
% growth (20-21) 3.2 1.2 1.3 1.8 4.1 -0.1 6.0 2.1
% growth (17-21) 12.6 3.5 -1.4 7.2 15.2 9.1 6.7 8.1
% compound annual growth (17–21) 3.0 0.9 -0.4 1.8 3.6 2.2 1.6 2.0
Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Number of students in the UK and ROI
2017 82,124 48,263 1,857 20,946 6,655 3,837 127 163,809
2018 81,902 48,329 1,949 21,618 6,789 3,488 135 164,210
2019 79,937 48,520 2,047 22,842 7,009 3,862 135 164,352
2020 76,208 47,904 2,113 23,309 7,351 3,839 139 160,863
2021 75,188 47,101 2,116 25,014 7,662 4,112 144 161,337
% growth (20-21) -1.3 -1.7 0.1 7.3 4.2 7.1 3.6 0.3
% growth (17-21) -8.4 -2.4 13.9 19.4 15.1 7.2 13.4 -1.5
% compound annual growth (17–21) -2.2 -0.6 3.3 4.5 3.6 1.7 3.2 -0.4

Figure 49: Members and students worldwide Corresponds to Figure 2

Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Number of members worldwide
2017 204,336 109,415 13,735 149,298 26,562 21,503 7,166 532,015
2018 214,319 110,493 13,358 151,761 27,367 22,028 8,164 547,490
2019 223,454 112,617 13,362 154,531 28,479 22,495 8,718 563,656
2020 228,771 114,492 13,207 157,812 29,596 23,062 9,541 576,481
2021 236,827 116,302 13,991 161,411 30,622 23,252 10,061 592,466
% growth (20-21) 3.5 1.6 5.9 2.3 3.5 0.8 5.5 2.8
% growth (17-21) 15.9 6.3 1.9 8.1 15.3 8.1 40.4 11.4
% compound annual growth (17–21) 3.8 1.5 0.5 2.0 3.6 2.0 8.9 2.7
Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Number of students worldwide
2017 414,562 127,241 4,401 27,866 6,662 3,849 5,365 589,946
2018 431,821 117,817 4,749 28,700 6,792 3,488 5,458 598,825
2019 445,186 107,049 5,001 30,241 7,011 3,872 5,624 603,984
2020 435,088 98,833 5,280 31,656 7,352 3,851 5,381 587,441
2021 446,232 93,696 5,842 33,958 7,668 4,154 5,556 597,106
% growth (20-21) 2.6 -5.2 10.6 7.3 4.3 7.9 3.3 1.6
% growth (17-21) 7.6 -26.4 32.7 21.9 15.1 7.9 3.6 1.2
% compound annual growth (17–21) 1.9 -7.4 7.3 5.1 3.6 1.9 0.9 0.3

Figure 50: Sectoral employment worldwide, 2021 Corresponds to Figure 4

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Number of members
Working in Practice 60,598 1,985 279 45,943 8,255 5,920 454 123,434
Industry & Commerce 131,375 84,810 2,021 63,300 18,364 10,467 8,753 319,090
Public Sector 20,743 9,136 6,503 4,829 1,546 1,079 28 43,864
Retired 11,693 15,782 3,181 27,970 1,398 4,496 608 65,128
Other 12,418 4,589 2,007 19,373 1,059 1,290 218 40,954
TOTAL 236,827 116,302 13,991 161,415 30,622 23,252 10,061 592,470
ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Number of students
Working in Practice 36,838 92 0 25,871 5,982 3,554 104 72,441
Industry & Commerce 187,155 53,459 801 1,747 93 179 3,010 246,444
Public Sector 39,734 3,144 3,670 569 55 51 28 47,251
Retired 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 93
Other 182,505 36,908 1,371 5,771 1,538 370 2,414 230,877
TOTAL 446,232 93,696 5,842 33,958 7,668 4,154 5,556 597,106

Figure 51: Female members worldwide, 2017 to 2021 Corresponds to Figure 5

Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
% Female members worldwide
2017 46% 35% 32% 28% 41% 34% 34% 36%
2018 47% 35% 33% 29% 42% 34% 36% 37%
2019 47% 36% 33% 29% 42% 34% 36% 37%
2020 48% 36% 33% 30% 42% 35% 37% 37%
2021 48% 36% 33% 30% 42% 35% 37% 37%

Figure 52: Female students worldwide, 2017 to 2021 Corresponds to Figure 6

Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
% Female students worldwide
2017 57% 48% 48% 43% 47% 44% 58% 49%
2018 58% 49% 48% 44% 47% 40% 58% 49%
2019 60% 49% 49% 45% 48% 41% 58% 50%
2020 60% 49% 49% 46% 48% 42% 57% 50%
2021 60% 48% 51% 46% 48% 43% 56% 50%

Figure 53: Age of members worldwide, 2017 and 2021 Corresponds to Figure 7

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
2017
Under 25 1,046 109 0 246 10 39 50 1,500
25-34 53,213 17,041 621 26,244 8,261 5,596 705 111,681
35-44 73,801 36,771 2,078 31,070 8,534 5,117 2,378 159,749
45-54 46,906 29,203 3,762 35,258 5,151 3,704 2,035 126,019
55-64 17,911 14,289 2,943 26,841 2,689 3,130 876 68,679
65 and over 11,459 11,972 3,393 29,639 1,917 3,917 1,122 63,419
Not stated 0 30 938 0 0 0 0 968
TOTAL 204,336 109,385 13,735 149,298 26,562 21,503 7,166 531,047
ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
2021
Under 25 1,171 146 4 472 ≤ 3 66 65 1,930
25-34 59,973 13,715 616 30,816 8,158 5,401 1,005 119,684
35-44 81,258 35,022 2,214 32,758 10,291 6,513 2,983 171,039
45-54 56,109 34,125 3,083 32,142 6,144 3,599 3,098 138,300
55-64 24,197 18,096 3,480 30,730 3,468 3,160 1,310 84,441
65 and over 14,119 15,175 3,810 34,672 2,549 4,513 1,594 76,432
Not stated 0 23 784 0 6 0 6 819
TOTAL 236,827 116,302 13,991 161,590 30,622 23,252 10,061 592,645

Figure 54: Age of students worldwide, 2017 and 202155 Corresponds to Figure 8

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
2017
Under 25 154,431 44,241 98 15,396 2,427 2,202 2,438 221,233
25-34 173,875 45,463 866 11,561 3,331 1,380 1,361 237,837
35-44 65,359 24,680 915 738 649 76 1,084 93,501
45 and over 20,897 11,660 786 171 228 ≤ 3 482 34,243
Not stated 0 1,197 1,736 0 ≤ 3 172 0 3,132
TOTAL 414,562 127,241 4,401 27,866 6,662 3,849 5,365 589,946
ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
2021
Under 25 179,519 24,963 133 19,781 3,266 2,102 2,443 230,551
25-34 173,090 31,459 943 13,299 3,513 1,877 1,350 224,923
35-44 68,182 22,500 1,302 703 605 88 944 94,306
45 and over 25,441 12,887 1,536 175 250 12 819 41,100
Not stated 0 1,887 1,928 0 34 75 0 3,924
TOTAL 446,232 93,696 5,842 33,958 7,668 4,154 5,556 594,804

Figure 55: Location of students, 202156 Corresponds to Figure 10

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
UK & ROI 75,188 47,101 2,116 25,010 7,662 4,112 144 161,333
Rest of the world 371,044 46,595 3,726 8,948 6 42 5,412 435,773
TOTAL 446,232 93,696 5,842 33,958 7,668 4,154 5,556 597,106

Figure 56: Profile of students worldwide, 2021 Corresponds to Figure 11

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
≤ 1 Year 94,450 18,003 599 10,537 1,811 2,001 218 127,619
> 1-2 Years 81,849 15,306 766 7,055 1,730 911 445 108,062
> 2-3 Years 60,409 12,422 645 6,738 1,677 509 637 83,037
> 3-4 Years 49,232 8,962 511 5,207 1,385 326 667 66,290
> 4-5 Years 35,358 6,083 145 2,196 398 192 778 45,150
≥ 5 Years 124,934 32,920 3,176 2,225 667 215 2,811 166,948
TOTAL 446,232 93,696 5,842 33,958 7,668 4,154 5,556 597,106

Figure 57: Graduate entrants worldwide, 2021 Corresponds to Figure 12

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA
Holding a degree 36% 50% 27% 75% 91% 87% 30%
Holding a relevant degree 19% 40% 14% 27% 77% 42% 26%

Figure 58: AAT age of members and students worldwide, 2021 Corresponds to Figure 14

Members Students
Number % Number %
Under 25 2,315 5% 26,078 31%
25-34 9,433 19% 25,848 31%
35-44 12,308 24% 19,594 24%
45 and over 26,394 52% 11,724 14%
Not stated 2 0% 1 0%
TOTAL 50,452 100% 83,245 100%

Figure 59: Total income worldwide, 2017 to 2021 Corresponds to Figure 16

£m ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
2017 202.0 58.9 24.1 120.0 26.8 17.5 1.8 451.1
2018 208.8 55.4 26.0 125.4 28.1 17.8 1.7 463.2
2019 212.7 60.6 26.9 135.9 28.6 18.8 1.6 485.1
2020 223.4 56.2 26.4 137.5 28.6 19.0 1.6 492.7
2021 222.8 56.3 26.6 141.4 29.7 18.7 1.7 497.2

Figure 60: Average income from members and students worldwide, 2017 to 2021 Corresponds to Figure 17

£ ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
2017 315 214 403 525 707 651 136 345
2018 307 218 381 547 664 658 117 345
2019 315 244 425 564 660 683 112 359
2020 306 239 438 561 669 695 107 354
2021 312 242 424 545 682 671 102 357
% growth (17-21) -0.9 13.0 5.2 3.8 -3.6 3.2 -24.5 3.4

Figure 61: Breakdown of income, 202157 Corresponds to Figure 18

£m ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Fees & subscriptions 115.1 38.6 3.3 53.6 11.9 8.5 1.5 232.5
Education & exam fees 91.9 12.2 5.1 17.4 11.1 7.5 0.1 145.3
Regulation & discipline 6.3 0.0 0.0 35.5 3.1 2.4 0.0 47.3
Commercial activities 5.2 5.3 18.0 16.9 2.7 0.2 0.0 48.3
Other (including investment income) 4.3 0.2 0.2 18.0 0.9 0.1 0.1 23.8
TOTAL 222.8 56.3 26.6 141.4 29.7 18.7 1.7 497.2

Figure 62: Growth of fee income, 2020 and 2021 Corresponds to Figure 36

Category Firm Type 2020 2021
Total fee income Big Four firms 2.7 4.6
Total fee income Non-Big Four firms 13.1 5.9
Audit fee income Big Four firms 7.9 6.5
Audit fee income Non-Big Four firms 20.9 12.5
Non-audit work to audit clients fee income Big Four Firms -2.2 10.3
Non-audit work to audit clients fee income Non-Big Four firms 6.1 -6.8
Non-audit work to non-audit clients fee income Big Four Firms 1.7 3.7
Non-audit work to non-audit clients fee income Non-Big Four firms 10.9 5.3

Section Seven – Glossary

This glossary provides definitions of many of the acronyms, abbreviations and some key terms used within the Key Facts and Trends publication:

  • AAPA: Association of Authorised Public Accountants
  • AAT: The Association of Accounting Technicians
  • ACCA: Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
  • AIA: Association of International Accountants
  • AIM: The Alternative Investment Market is the London Stock Exchange's global market for smaller and growing companies
  • ALC: Admissions and Licensing Committee (ACCA term)
  • AQR: Audit Quality Review team – part of the FRC
  • ARC: Audit Registration Committee (ICAEW term)
  • ARD: Audit Regulation Directive
  • Audit qualification: The qualification that is provided by an RQB to its members
  • Audit services: Audit services are:
    • reporting required by law or regulation to be provided by the auditor;
    • reviews of interim financial information;
    • reporting on regulatory returns;
    • reporting to a regulator on client assets:
    • reporting on government grants;
    • reporting on internal financial controls when required by law or regulation; and
    • extended audit work that is authorised by those charged with governance performed on financial information and/or financial controls where this work is integrated with the audit work and is performed on the same principal terms and conditions.
  • BAME: Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (used to refer to members of non-white communities in the UK).
  • Big Four: The four largest audit firms in the UK: PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), KPMG, Deloitte, and EY.
  • Next five: The five largest audit firms outside the Big Four (based on number of listed audit clients) are BDO, Grant Thornton, PKF Littlejohn, RSM and Crowe
  • CEC: Code of Ethics and Conduct (ACCA term)
  • CIMA: Chartered Institute of Management Accountants
  • CIPFA: Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy
  • CPD: Continuing Professional Development
  • Crown Dependencies: Territories that are under the sovereignty of the British Crown but does not form part of the UK
  • FRC: Financial Reporting Council
  • FTSE 100: An index composed of the 100 largest companies listed on the London Stock Exchange (LSE)
  • FTSE 250: An index containing the 101st to 350th largest companies by market capitalisation on the London Stock Exchange (LSE)
  • GPRs: Global Practising Regulations (ACCA term)
  • IAASA: Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority
  • ICAEW: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
  • ICAI/CAI: Institute of Chartered Accountants Ireland
  • ICAS: Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
  • LGBTQ+: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer/Questioning + Others
  • LSE: London Stock Exchange
  • LSE Main Market: International market for the admission and trading of equity, debt and other securities
  • Non-audit services: 'Non-audit services' comprise any engagement in which an audit firm provides professional services to:
    • an audited entity;
    • an audited entity's affiliates; or
    • another entity in respect of the audited entity, other than the audit of financial statements of the audited entity.
  • PIEs: On 17 June 2016, the Public Interest Entity (PIE) definition included entities governed by the law of a member state whose transferable securities (equity and debt) are admitted to trading on a regulated market in the EEA, credit institutions and insurance undertakings
  • Principals: Partners or members of an LLP
  • PSED: Public Sector Equality Duty introduced by the Equality Act 2010. The duty covers age, disability, sex, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, and sexual orientation
  • QAC: Quality Assurance Committee (CAI term)
  • QAD: Quality Assurance Directorate (ICAEW term)
  • RI: Responsible Individuals/statutory auditor have been awarded the recognised professional qualification in audit and hold a practising certificate. An RI can sign an audit report on behalf of his/her firm
  • ROI: Republic of Ireland
  • RQB: Recognised Qualifying Body – there are five bodies in the UK recognised to offer the Audit Qualification in line with the requirements of Schedule 11 to the Companies Act 2006
  • RSB: Recognised Supervisory Body – these bodies can register and supervise audit firms in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 10 to the Companies Act 2006
  • UK: United Kingdom
  • UK GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice in the UK
  • UK regulated market: An organised trading venue that operates under Title III of MiFID
  • Year end: An accounting procedure undertaken at the end of the year to close out business from the previous year and carry forward balances from the previous year

Modern high-rise buildings with many windows, some lit up, in an urban environment.

Financial Reporting Council

8th Floor 125 London Wall London EC2Y 5AS +44 (0)20 7492 2300

www.frc.org.uk

Follow us on Twitter @FRCnews_or Linked in

  1. Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI/CAI), Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) and Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS). ↩

  2. Public Interest Entities (PIEs) are: (a) an issuer whose transferable securities are admitted to trading on a UK regulated market; (b) a credit institution within the meaning of Article 4(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which is a CRR firm within the meaning of Article 4(1)(2A) of that Regulation; (c) a person who would be an insurance undertaking as defined in Article 2(1) of Council Directive 91/674/EEC of 19 December 1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings as that Article had effect immediately before exit day, were the United Kingdom a Member State. ↩

  3. The five largest audit firms outside the Big Four (based on number of listed audit clients) are BDO, Grant Thornton, PKF Littlejohn, RSM and Crowe. ↩

  4. Protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010: Age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race (this includes ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality), religion or belief (including an absence of religion or belief), sex, and sexual orientation. ↩

  5. To be an RSB, the body must satisfy the recognition criteria as set out in Schedule 10 of the Companies Act 2006. Individuals and audit firms that wish to be appointed as a statutory auditor in the UK must be registered with an RSB. There are four RSBS: ACCA, ICAEW, CAI and ICAS. ↩

  6. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer/Questioning + Others. ↩

  7. The location of members and students is based on the registered address supplied to the accountancy bodies and may be either the place of employment or the place of residence. ↩

  8. The statistics for AAT are shown separately on pages 20 and 21. ↩

  9. (i) 'Other' for members includes those who are unemployed, taking a career break, undertaking full-time study, on maternity leave and any members who are unclassified, for example having not provided the information. In the case of CAI, all such members are included in their most recent employment where available. The ICAEW includes members working within the charity sector under 'Public Sector'. For ICAS, the figure for Industry and Commerce includes students working in the public sector. (ii) 'Other' for students includes those who are not employed, employed in sectors not mentioned, those in full-time education, independent students for whom no information on their employment is available and those individuals who have passed their final exams and are entitled to membership but have not yet been admitted. ↩

  10. ICAEW figures relate to the age of the student intake, not the ages of all students. ↩

  11. The location of students is based on the registered address supplied to the accountancy body and may be either their place of employment or their place of residence. ↩

  12. There is no common basis between the accountancy bodies for determining the length of time between registering as a student and achieving the requirements for membership. It is therefore difficult to draw comparisons across the accountancy bodies as they offer different types of qualifications. ↩

  13. The accountancy bodies' definitions of a 'relevant degree' are as follows: - ACCA - Accounting, or Finance. - CIMA - Accountancy, Business Studies, or Business Administration & Finance. - CIPFA - Accountancy. - ICAEW - Accountancy, Accounting, Finance, Accountancy & Finance, or Accounting & Finance. - CAI - Accounting, Business, or Finance. - ICAS - Accountancy, Accounting, Finance, Accountancy & Finance, or Accounting & Finance. - AIA - Accountancy, Accounting, Business, Finance, or Business & Finance. ↩

  14. CAI's income has been converted from euros at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) average annual year-end rate. As at 31 December 2021 the rate was €1.1633. ↩

  15. CIPFA derives significant income from its trading subsidiary, which has been included within the commercial activities' category. The activities of the trading subsidiary include consultancy, events, publications and training. ↩

  16. To be an RSB, the body must satisfy the recognition criteria as set out in Schedule 10 of the Companies Act 2006. Individuals and audit firms that wish to be appointed as a statutory auditor in the UK must be registered with an RSB. There are four RSBs: ACCA, ICAEW, CAI and ICAS. ↩

  17. The FRC, as Competent Authority, has ultimate responsibility for the performance and oversight of the audit regulation tasks mandated by EU Regulation 537/2014 and EU Directive 2006/43/EC as amended by SATCAR 2016. ↩

  18. The RSBs keep a Register of Statutory Auditors (maintained by ICAS), which can be found at: http://www.auditregister.org.uk/Forms/Default.aspx. This register contains information on statutory auditors and audit firms in the UK and ROI. It is possible to perform searches by RSB, firm, location and/or individual. ↩

  19. This is included as a separate report on the FRC's oversight responsibilities, which can be found at: www.frc.org.uk/ ↩

  20. Principals are partners or members of an LLP. Principals in firms may hold their position individually (sole practitioner) or share the responsibilities of serving as principals with other employees. ↩

  21. Crown Dependencies (CDs) – Guernsey, Isle of Man and Jersey have delegated power and responsibility for monitoring the performance of audits of major Market Traded Companies (MTCs) to the FRC. An MTC is a company incorporated in one of the CDs with issued securities admitted to trading on a regulated market in the EU. ↩

  22. National Audit Office (NAO) – The FRC as the Independent Supervisor of the Comptroller and Auditors General carries out monitoring of Companies Act audit work conducted by the NAO. The FRC carries out this function under delegation of the Statutory Auditors (Amendment of Companies Act 2006 and Delegation of Functions) Order 2012. ↩

  23. Local Audit - As the SoS has delegated powers and responsibilities to the FRC in respect of Local Audit and by virtue of Schedule 5 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, the FRC is required to report annually on the discharge of its duties. ICAEW is the only body registered to carry out audits of local public bodies. ↩

  24. Of the 338 firms monitored by ACCA in 2021, 7 were on-site monitoring visits and 331 were on a remote monitoring basis. ↩

  25. Audit firms that have only audited entities subject to the small companies' regime in any of the previous five years should be inspected at least every ten years. A risk-based approach to inspections is agreed with the FRC if the audit firm has not carried out a statutory audit in any of the previous five years. ↩

  26. ACCA 2019 figure includes 114 desktop reviews undertaken instead of on-site monitoring reviews. ↩

  27. The number of monitoring visits conducted by the ACCA and ICAEW was impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, affecting their ability to conduct site inspections in 2020. In 2021 ICAEW were able to address the shortfall in 2020 as well as achieve necessary inspections for 2021 to continue compliance with the six year cycle. ↩

  28. From 2017, for C rated firms (see Gradings of Monitoring Visits below) that had to submit evidence of improved audit quality after their previous visit, ICAEW started to transition revisiting these firms after three to four years. This replaced and enhanced the previous approach of conducting a mid-cycle desktop review for such cases. ↩

  29. The term 'Cyclical visits' denotes visits that take place within the frequency stated in Schedule 10 of the Companies Act 2006 (as amended). ↩

  30. ICAEW has changed its gradings to align with AQR namely 1,2,3 and 4 (2A effectively became 2, 2B became 3 and 3 became 4). The definitions (the text) remains the same for ICAEW, CAI and ICAS. ↩

  31. The 2019 and 2020 figures have been restated to reflect the final visit outcome following assessment of the firm's action plan by ACCA and/or the Audit Monitoring Committee. ↩

  32. Cases referred to the Committee relate to: ACCA's Disciplinary Committee and Consent Orders Committee (2019 only); ICAEW's Investigations Committee and referred to the Disciplinary Committee; CAI's Conduct Committee, Disciplinary Committee and Appeals Committee; and ICAS' Investigation Committee. ↩

  33. ACCA – The KPI (average time taken to close a case) relates to all complaints closed in the reporting year (not specifically audit cases). It is measured from the date allocated to an investigating officer or 14 days from the date that the complaint is received by the Professional Conduct Department, whichever is sooner, to the date the investigation is concluded, minus external deferral periods. ICAEW – The KPI (average time taken to close a case) is measured by the total number of months it takes in total for a case to close. ICAS – The KPI (average time taken to close a case) is measured by the number of cases opened and closed in a calendar year. CAI - In previous years this figure was provided in respect of cases that were opened and closed in the reporting year. ↩

  34. ACCA, AIA, ICAEW, CAI and ICAS. ↩

  35. Where N/A is stated, the information is not collected by the relevant body. ↩

  36. CAI have changed the basis of calculation of members who were awarded the audit qualification, hence the drop in number in 2021. ↩

  37. ICAS figures include a number of group authorisations. ICAS treats group authorisations as one office. ↩

  38. Public Interest Entities (PIEs) are: (a) an issuer whose transferable securities are admitted to trading on a UK regulated market; (b) a credit institution within the meaning of Article 4(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which is a CRR firm within the meaning of Article 4(1)(2A) of that Regulation; (c) a person who would be an insurance undertaking as defined in Article 2(1) of Council Directive 91/674/EEC of 19 December 1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings as that Article had effect immediately before exit day, were the United Kingdom a Member State. ↩

  39. The legislative framework for the Competent Authority has been amended to reflect the UK's departure from the European Union. This legislation includes the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; the Statutory Auditors, Third Country Auditors and International Accounting Standards (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/1392); the International Accounting Standards, Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/335); the Companies and Statutory Auditors etc. (Consequential Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/523); the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendments) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1247); and the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation and Limited Liability Partnerships etc. (Revocations and Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/153). ↩

  40. Information on fee income by audit for earlier years can be found in previous editions of Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession, available at www.frc.org.uk – Key Facts and Trends ↩

  41. The five largest audit firms outside the Big Four (based on number of listed audit clients) are BDO, Grant Thornton, PKF Littlejohn, RSM and Crowe. ↩

  42. Principals are partners or member of an LLP. ↩

  43. Statutory Auditors/ Responsible Individuals (RIs) are those individuals who are registered to sign audit reports and can include Audit Principals and Employees. ↩

  44. Figures used for the fee income splits have been rounded to the nearest decimal; accordingly the total fee income is calculated on this basis. ↩

  45. Paragraph 5.8 of the FRC's Revised Ethical Standard (June 2016) defines 'non-audit services' as comprising any engagement in which a firm, or a member of its network, provides professional services to (1) an audited entity; (2) an audited entity's affiliates; or (3) another entity, where the subject matter of the engagement includes the audited entity and/or its significant affiliates, other than the audit of financial statements of the audited entity. ↩

  46. PricewaterhouseCoopers have made us aware of the number of PIE audit clients that are incorporated outside the UK or EU. This figure has been included for KFAT 2022. ↩

  47. This information is based on the information provided to the FRC and which is shown in the detailed table on fee income of audit firms with PIE clients (Figure 33). ↩

  48. The number of clients reported relates to entities whether incorporated in the UK or elsewhere that are audit clients of the UK firm. The figures for 'Other clients listed on regulated markets' include clients that have equity listed on one or more regulated markets. Given client information is reported as at each audit firm's year end, there are slight discrepancies in the total figures for the FTSE 100 (93) and FTSE 250 (223) audit clients. ↩↩↩↩↩

  49. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit plc. ↩

  50. Includes international Main Market companies. ↩

  51. Includes Big Four network firm offices, whether located in the UK or elsewhere. ↩

  52. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer/Questioning + Others. ↩

  53. 1% of staff choose to not provide this information. ↩

  54. Completion rates refer to the percentage of staff in a firm who completed a diversity questionnaire. ↩

  55. In compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), statistics in relation to three individuals or fewer are expressed as ≤ 3 to mitigate the risk of those individuals being identified. ↩

  56. The location of students is based on the registered address supplied to the accountancy body and may be either their place of employment or their place of residence. ↩

  57. ACCA Other income includes net investment income of dividends, realised gains on investments and unrealised losses on investments. CAI income figures may differ due to rounding errors when converting from euros to pounds. ↩

File

Name FRC Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession (August 2022)
Publication date 27 September 2023
Type Report
Format PDF, 1.8 MB
Download original
Back to top