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 2023)

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 2023 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 twenty-first 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. 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 trend. 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, 30 firms with PIE clients (out of 54) participated compared with 25 firms in last year's publication. Competition between the Big Four audit firms and their competitors remains a major focus. Last year, the five largest firms3 outside the Big Four audited 23 FTSE 350 companies; this year, they audited 25.

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 when exercising its functions:

  • Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and any other conduct prohibited by the Act
  • Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic4 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 2018 to 2022

Membership of the accountancy bodies continues to grow. The seven bodies in this report have nearly 400,000 members in the UK and ROI and over 600,000 members worldwide. The growth in membership between 2021 and 2022 was 2.1% in the UK and ROI, and 2.4% worldwide (Figures 1 and 2). In contrast, after increasing slightly last year, the decline in student numbers that we saw in 2020 in the UK and ROI returned for

  1. Between 2021 and 2022, student numbers in the UK and ROI decreased by 3.5% and by 2.0% worldwide compared to falls of 2.1% and 2.7% in 2020 and growth of 0.3% and 1.6% respectively last year. There are over 155,000 students in the UK and ROI and over 585,000 worldwide (Figures 1 and 2). The total number of students who became members worldwide also fell in 2020 by 7.8%, rebounded with an increase of 4.5% in 2021 and fell by 0.8% in 2023.

The number of audit firms registered with the Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs)5 continues to decline. The total number of registered audit firms was 4,310 as at 31 December 2022, compared with 4,745 in 2021 and 5,007 in 2020 respectively (Figure 21). Annual income generated from all members and students has increased continuously over the last five years for ICAEW. ACCA continues to have the highest income generated out of the seven bodies at £220m in

  1. ICAS however, earns the highest average income per member and student population at £681 in 2022 (Figures 16 and 17).

Overall, the accountancy bodies collect data on their members and students concerning seven of the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010; eight bodies collect data on age and sex, and seven on race, for example. Two 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 of professional accounting bodies: ACCA, CIPFA, ICAS, CIMA, AIA, ICAEW, AAT, and Chartered Accountants Ireland.

The audit firms 2020 to 2022

Figure 33 shows the fee income for audit and non-audit services for the 30 audit firms with Public Interest Entity (PIE) clients, for 2022 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.

After more moderate increases in fee income last year, the Big Four UK firms saw much higher increases in their total fee income of 11.9% in 2022 compared to an increase of 4.6% last year. Firms outside the Big Four have also seen an increase in their total fee income in 2022 of 18.5% compared to an increase of 5.9% in 2021 (Figure 36) but note that some of this increase is due to 24 non-Big Four firms auditing PIEs responding to our survey this year compared to 21 last year.

Audit fee income for the Big Four UK firms increased by 7.6% in 2022 compared with a 6.5% increase in the previous year. Audit fee income for audit firms outside the Big Four increased by 23.3% in 2022 compared with a 12.5% increase in 2021 (Figure 36), same caveat applies. Fees for non-audit work to audit clients decreased by 16.4% for the Big Four UK firms compared to an increase of 10.3% in

  1. In contrast, non-Big Four firms saw an increase in these fees of 6.2% in 2022 compared to a decrease of 6.8% last year (Figure 36) same caveat applies.

The average audit fee income per Statutory Auditor / Responsible Individual (RI) for the Big Four UK firms in 2022 was £2.45m compared to £1.21m for non-Big Four firms. The average for all firms with PIE clients was £1.97m, an increase of £0.14m (7.6%) compared to 2021 (Figure 37). In 2021, the five largest firms outside the Big Four (by number of listed audit clients) audited 10.0% (23) of the FTSE 250 companies; in 2022 they audited 11.2% (28). Three firms outside these five (and the Big Four), also audited 2.4% (6) of the FTSE 250 companies in 2022, compared with 1.6% (4) of the FTSE 250 companies in

  1. Also, one firm outside these five (and the Big Four) audited 1 of the FTSE 100 companies in 2022 (Figure 39).

With regard to diversity at audit firms, we have focused on senior management at each of the 30 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+ (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, socio-economic background, 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).

Section Two – Members and students of the Accountancy Bodies

Registered members and students in the UK and ROI

Figure 1 shows growth rates and the number of members and students in the UK and ROI, as at 31 December for the five years to 31 December 2022.

Figure 1: Members and students in the UK and ROI

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Growth of Members in the UK & ROI
Total numbers for 2022 109,625 85,953 12,347 139,050 28,546 20,660 1,406 397,587
% growth (21 - 22) 2.9 0.5 -0.8 2.5 3.7 2.2 2.0 2.1
% growth (18 - 22) 11.8 3.9 -0.8 8.1 17.6 9.1 -3.6 8.5
% compound annual growth (18 - 22) 2.8 1.0 -0.2 2.0 4.1 2.2 -0.9 2.1
ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Growth of Students in the UK & ROI
Total numbers for 2022 71,449 43,947 2,100 26,134 7,767 4,081 143 155,621
% growth (21 - 22) -5.0 -6.7 -0.8 4.5 1.4 -0.8 -0.7 -3.5
% growth (18 - 22) -12.8 -9.1 7.7 20.9 14.4 17.0 5.9 -5.2
% compound annual growth (18 - 22) -3.4 -2.3 1.9 4.9 3.4 4.0 1.4 -1.3

Registered members and students worldwide

Figure 2 shows growth rates and the number of worldwide members and students, as at 31 December for the five years to 31 December 2022.

Figure 2: Members and students worldwide

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Growth of Members Worldwide
Total numbers for 2022 243,302 117,183 13,872 166,397 31,683 23,504 10,699 606,640
% growth (21 - 22) 2.7 0.8 -0.9 3.1 3.5 1.1 6.3 2.4
% growth (18 - 22) 13.5 6.1 3.8 9.6 15.8 6.7 31.1 10.8
% compound annual growth (18 - 22) 3.2 1.5 0.9 2.3 3.7 1.6 7.0 2.6
ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
Growth of Students Worldwide
Total numbers for 2022 437,952 87,573 6,199 36,084 7,776 4,103 5,431 585,118
% growth (21 - 22) -1.9 -6.5 6.1 6.3 1.4 -1.2 -2.2 -2.0
% growth (18 - 22) 1.4 -25.7 30.5 25.7 14.5 17.6 -0.5 -2.3
% compound annual growth (18 - 22) 0.4 -7.1 6.9 5.9 3.4 4.1 -0.1 -0.6

Analysis of members and students of the seven7 Accountancy Bodies

The total membership of the seven accountancy bodies in the UK and ROI has continued to grow steadily by 2.1% from 2021 to 2022, the same rate as last year (Figure 1).

Growth rates of membership vary considerably at each of the individual accountancy bodies in the UK and ROI. ICAEW continues to have the largest number of members in this jurisdiction, and CAI, ACCA and ICAEW all grew by more than average at 3.7%, 2.9% and 2.5% respectively (Figure 1). However, the total number of students in the UK and ROI declined by 3.5% between 2021 to 2022 compared with an increase of 0.3% last year. ACCA has the largest number of students overall but saw a 5% fall in numbers between 2021 and

  1. ICAEW and CAI student numbers increased by 4.5% and 1.4% respectively (Figure 1).

The worldwide membership of the accountancy bodies has grown by 2.4% from 2021 to 2022 (Figure 2). Similar to the UK and ROI, overall, worldwide student numbers decreased by 2.0% from 2021 to 2022; this compares to an increase of 1.6% between 2020 and

  1. ICAEW, CIPFA and CAI all increased their numbers in 2022 though by 6.3%, 6.1% and 1.4% respectively (Figure 2).

Qualifications differ across the Recognised Qualifying Bodies (Figure 31). 45.9% of students in the UK and ROI and training with ACCA for their qualifications and just over 74% of total worldwide students (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 2018 to 2022.

Figure 3: Students to members worldwide, 2018 to 2022

ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
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
2022 12,987 3,728 169 5,062 1,265 625 1 23,837
% growth (21 - 22) -3.2 -10.3 -24.2 19.3 3.3 -17.2 -50.0 -0.8

ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAS and AIA have all seen a decline in the number of students becoming members in 2022 compared with

  1. Overall, the total number of students who became members worldwide has decreased by 0.8%. This compares with an increase of 4.5% from 2020 to 2021.

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 employment8 as at 31 December 2022.

Stacked bar chart comparing the employment sectors of members and students across different professional accounting bodies.

The Industry and Commerce sector employs the highest average percentage of members (54%) and the Working in Practice sector employs the highest average percentage of students (36%) across the accountancy bodies. AIA and CIMA members in the Industry and Commerce sector make up 87% and 73% of their respective total memberships. ICAS, CAI, ICAEW students in the Working in Practice sector make up 87%, 79%, 75% 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 AIA students are employed in practice.

Gender of 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 2018 to 2022.

Figure 5: Female members worldwide, 2018 to 2022

Since 2018, all the accountancy bodies except CIPFA have increased their percentage of female members worldwide. ICAEW experienced the largest increase of 2% points in this period. ACCA continues to have the highest percentage of female members of all the accountancy bodies.

The overall average percentage of female members worldwide has increased from 37% in 2018 to 38% in 2022.

Figure 6: Female students worldwide, 2018 to 2022

The overall percentage of female students (50%) is greater than the overall percentage of female members (38%).

ACCA had the largest percentage of female students in 2022 at 60%.

For 2018 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 2018 and 2022.

Figure 7: Age of members worldwide, 2018 and 2022

Stacked horizontal bar chart showing the age distribution of members for various accounting bodies in 2018 and 2022. 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 24%, 27% and 22% 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 2022, accounting for 28% of the total population; 51% are 45 and over.

  • An issuer whose transferable securities are admitted to trading on a UK regulated market;
  • 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;
  • 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 undertaking as that Article had effect immediately before exit day, were the United Kingdom a Member State.
  • '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.
  • '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.

    • Figure 7: Age of members worldwide, 2018 and 2022

    Stacked horizontal bar chart showing the age distribution of members for various accounting bodies in 2018 and 2022. 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 24%, 27% and 22% 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 2022, accounting for 28% of the total population; 51% are 45 and over.

    Figure 8: Age of students worldwide, 2018 and 20229

    Stacked horizontal bar chart showing the age distribution of students for various accounting bodies in 2018 and 2022.

    The chart displays age categories (Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, 45 and over, Not Stated) for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA for both 2018 and 2022.

    In 2022, 77% of all students from the seven accountancy bodies were under the age of 35 compared with 78% in 2018.

    ICAEW, ICAS and CAI had the highest percentage of students aged 34 or under at 97%, 96%, and 89%, respectively, in

    1. In comparison, CIPFA had the largest proportion of students aged 35 and over at 40%.

    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 we 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, 2022

    Bar chart showing the number of accountancy bodies that collect diversity information on members and students in 2022.

    The chart compares "Members" and "Students" across categories: Age, Disability, Pregnancy and Maternity, Race, Religion or belief, Sex, Sexual orientation, and Lower Socioeconomic background.

    In 2022, seven 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 two Equality Act indicators (marriage and civil partnerships and gender reassignment) were not recorded. In addition, two of the bodies recorded data on socio-economic background.

    Location of students

    Figure 10 shows the location10 (UK and ROI, and the rest of the world) of students of the accountancy bodies as at 31 December 2022.

    Figure 10: Location of students, 2022

    Stacked horizontal bar chart showing the location distribution of students for various accounting bodies in 2022.

    The chart displays the percentage of students in "UK & ROI" versus "Rest of the World" for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA.

    97% of AIA and 84% 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 time11 that individuals have been registered as students with these accountancy bodies.

    Figure 11: Profile of students worldwide, 2022

    Stacked bar chart showing the length of time students have been registered with accountancy bodies worldwide in 2022.

    The chart illustrates the distribution 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.

    CAI, ICAEW and ICAS had over 85% of their students complete their training in four years or less. Only 14%, 12% and 12% of their students were registered for more than four years as at 31 December 2022.

    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'.12

    Figure 12: Graduate entrants worldwide, 2022

    Bar chart comparing the percentage of members holding a degree versus a relevant degree for various accounting 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 and has its own Accounting Technicians and Bookkeeper membership. Figure 13 shows the number of AAT members and students, and the overall percentage growth from 2018 to 2022.

    Figure 13: AAT members and students, 2018 to 2022

    Members Students
    UK & ROI Worldwide UK & ROI
    2018 50,745 52,584
    2019 50,619 52,346
    2020 48,362 50,028
    2021 48,860 50,452
    2022 49,406 50,945
    % growth (21 - 22) 1.1 1.0
    % growth (18 - 22) -2.6 -3.1

    Bar chart showing AAT members and students in the UK & ROI and worldwide from 2018 to 2022.

    The chart presents bars for "Members UK & ROI", "Members Worldwide", "Students UK & ROI", and "Students Worldwide" for each year from 2018 to 2022, with values on the y-axis ranging from 0 to 100,000.

    The number of members in the UK and ROI, and worldwide increased by 1.1% and 1.0% respectively between 2021 and

    1. This is in contrast with a decrease in the number of students by 7.7% in the UK and ROI, and 8.2% worldwide.

    Age distribution of members and students

    Figure 14 indicates the age distribution of AAT members and students for 2022.

    Figure 14: AAT Age of members and students worldwide 2022

    Bar chart showing the age distribution of AAT members and students worldwide in 2022.

    The chart displays the percentage of "Members" and "Students" across age categories: Under 25, 25-34, 35-44, and 45 and over, with percentages on the y-axis ranging from 0% to 50%.

    The highest percentage of members (52%) are aged 45 and over while the highest percentage of students (61%) are under the age of 35.

    Resource Information

    Figure 15: AAT Resource information, 2018 to 2022

    £m 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
    Fees & Subscriptions 15.97 17.23 17.69 17.63 16.96
    Education & Exam Fees 12.25 12.68 10.39 12.60 12.57
    Regulation & Discipline 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.10
    Commercial Activities 0.56 0.56 0.45 0.51 0.93
    Other (Including Investment Income) 1.30 1.09 0.91 0.41 0.64
    Total Income 30.13 31.63 29.49 31.21 31.20
    Number of Staff 261 264 225 217 229

    Section Three – Resource Information on the Accountancy Bodies

    Resource income of the seven accountancy bodies

    Figures 16 and 17 show the total and average income from worldwide members and students of the accountancy bodies between 2018 and 2022,13 respectively.

    Figure 16: Total income worldwide, 2018 to 2022

    Line graph showing the total income worldwide for seven accountancy bodies from 2018 to 2022.

    The graph plots total income (£m) on the y-axis against years (2018-2022) on the x-axis for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA.

    ICAEW has experienced a continuous increase in their income for the last 5 years. ACCA has the highest income of the seven accountancy bodies, £220m in 2022.

    AIA have seen an overall decrease in their income between 2018 and 2022, down 1.5%.

    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, 2018 to 2022

    Line graph showing the average income per member and student worldwide for seven accountancy bodies from 2018 to 2022.

    The graph plots average income (£) on the y-axis against years (2018-2022) on the x-axis for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA.

    CAI and ICAS had the highest average income per member and student in 2022 with £669 and £681, respectively.

    The fluctuation in CAI's average income per member and student since 2018 is partly a result of the exchange rates applied (€1.115 in 2018, €1.171 in 2019, €1.1250 in 2020 and €1.1633 in 2021, €1.1732 in 2022).

    Breakdown of income

    Figure 18 provides an analysis of the streams of income for the accountancy bodies for 2022.

    Figure 18: Breakdown of income, 2022

    Stacked bar chart illustrating the percentage breakdown of income sources for different accounting bodies.

    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 and ICAEW. CIPFA's main source of income is from commercial activities (70%)14 and ICAEW earn more from Regulation & Discipline than Education & Exam Fees.

    Staffing of the Accountancy Bodies

    Figure 19 shows the number of staff (full-time equivalent) employed worldwide by the seven accountancy bodies from 2018 to 2022.

    Figure 19: Staffing, 2018 to 2022

    Staffing ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    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
    2022 1,300 423 227 703 167 168 19 3,007
    % growth (21–22) -4.6 4.4 9.7 -0.6 0.6 -2.9 0.0 -1.1
    % growth (18–22) -4.6 122.6 5.1 -5.1 11.3 4.3 -17.4 5.8
    % compound annual growth (18–22) -1.2 22.2 1.2 -1.3 2.7 1.1 -4.7 1.4

    In 2017, CIMA amalgamated with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 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 Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

    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, 2022

    Bar chart showing the number of accountancy bodies collecting diversity information on their workforce in 2022.

    The chart displays the count (from 0 to 8) of accountancy bodies for each protected characteristic: Age, Disability, Gender reassignment, Marriage and civil partnership, Pregnancy and maternity, Race, Religion or belief, Sex, and Sexual orientation.

    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 2022, 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 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 (RSBs15)

    Under the Statutory Audit and Third Country Auditor Regulations (SATCAR) 201616 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 statutory 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 Eligibility Criteria for determining whether persons are eligible for appointment as statutory auditors, the registration of such persons, keeping the register17 and making it available for inspection.
    • Continuing professional development: The application of procedures for maintaining the competence of statutory auditors.
    • Audit monitoring: Except for categories retained by the FRC, the 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.18

    Number of firms registered with the RSBs

    Figure 21 shows the number of registered audit firms for each RSB split by the number of principals19 at each firm, for each of the five years to 31 December 2022.

    Figure 21: Total registered firms by number of principals, 2018 to 2022

    Number of principals per firm ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
    1 821 807 272 30 1,930
    2-3 401 896 240 54 1,591
    4-6 71 388 40 31 530
    7-10 6 109 15 6 136
    11-50 4 85 12 5 106
    50+ 0 13 2 2 17
    Total as at 31.12.22 1,303 2,298 581 128 4,310
    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
    Total as at 31.12.18 1,627 2,812 783 172 5,394

    Line chart showing the total number of registered audit firms from 2018 to 2022.

    The chart plots the number of firms (from 2,000 to 6,000) on the y-axis against years (2018-2022) on the x-axis, showing a declining trend from 5,394 in 2018 to 4,310 in 2022.

    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 5.2% in 2021 (to 4,745) and 9.2% in 2022 (to 4,310).

    None of the RSBs saw an increase in the number of registered audit firms in any of the categories.

    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 withdrawn: 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, 2020 to 2022

    New applications Referred to committee Approved by committee Voluntarily surrendered Withdrawn by the RSB
    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
    ACCA 49 0 0 128 4
    ICAEW 59 0 N/A 212 7
    2022 CAI 13 1 0 34
    ICAS 4 1 1 21
    TOTAL 125 2 1 395 12

    The RSBs saw a 19.3% increase in new applicants from 2020 to 2021 mainly driven by a large increase of firms registering with ACCA; however, there was a 30.2% decrease from 2021 to 2022.

    Figure 22: Firm registrations, 2020 to 2022

    New applications Referred to committee Approved by committee Voluntarily surrendered Withdrawn by the RSB
    ACCA 39 2 2 44 7
    ICAEW 80 5 4 177 4
    2020 CAI 27 6 4 52
    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
    ICAS 1 0 0 15 1
    TOTAL 179 7 6 343 17
    ACCA 49 0 0 128 4
    ICAEW 59 0 N/A 212 7
    2022 CAI 13 1 0 34
    ICAS 4 1 1 21 0
    TOTAL 125 2 1 395 12

    The RSBs saw a 19.3% increase in new applicants from 2020 to 2021 mainly driven by a large increase of firms registering with ACCA; however, there was a 30.2% decrease from 2021 to 2022.

    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 2020 to 31 March 2022.20, 21 & 22

    Figure 23: AQR monitoring, 2020/21 to 2022/23

    Inspection Category Audit Reviews 2020/21 Audit Reviews 2021/22 Audit Reviews 2022/23
    Deloitte LLP 20 17 17
    EY LLP 19 17 20
    KPMG LLP/KPMG Audit Plc 22 19 19
    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 21 18 17
    Big Four firms 82 71 73
    Anstey Bond 0 0 0
    BDO LLP 9 12 13
    Beever and Struthers 0 2 0
    Begbies Chartered Accountants 0 1 0
    Bennett Brooks & Co 0 0 1
    Blick Rothenberg - - 0
    BSG Valentine 0 0 1
    Carter Backer Winter 0 1 0
    Crowe UK LLP 1 2 1
    Deloitte (NI) Limited 0 0 1
    Edwards Accountants 0 1 0
    Edwards Veeder 0 0 1
    EY Ireland 0 0 0
    Gerald Edelman 1 0 0
    Grant Thornton NI 0 0 0
    Grant Thornton UK LLP 7 5 5
    Haysmacintyre 2 0 1
    Hazlewoods 0 1 0
    HW Fisher - 1 0
    Jeffreys Henry 1 0 0
    Johnsons Financial Management 0 0 0
    Johnston Carmichael 1 0 0
    King & King - 3 0
    KPMG Audit LLC 0 2 0
    KPMG Ireland 0 0 0
    Kreston Reeves 0 0 1
    LB Group 0 0 0
    Mazars LLP 7 8 9
    MHA MacIntyre Hudson 3 0 2
    Moore Kingston Smith 0 0 0
    PKF Littlejohn 4 0 2
    Pointon Young 0 0 0
    Price Bailey 0 0 0
    Royce Peeling Green 0 0 0
    RSM UK Audit LLP 1 1 2
    Shipleys 0 0 1
    UHY Hacker Young 1 0 0
    120 111 114
    Crown Dependency (CD) audit firms 0 4 5
    120 115 119
    Third Country Auditors 1 4 5
    Private sector audits 121 119 124
    National Audit Office (NAO) 7 9 8
    Local Audit 20 20 10
    Foundation Trusts 2 4 0
    Public Sector audits 29 33 18
    Total audits inspected 150 152 142

    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 2020 to 31 December 2022 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.23

    Figure 24: RSB monitoring and percentage of total registered Audit Firms, 2020 to 2022 24

    ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
    Number 186 410 107 29
    2020 % 11.9 16 14.8 18.4
    Number 337 553 145 36
    2021 % 21.9 22.5 24 25.2
    Number 207 484 115 14
    2022 % 15.9 21.1 19.8 10.9

    Bar chart showing percentage of monitoring visits by RSB, 2020-2022.

    The chart displays the percentage of monitoring visits conducted by each RSB: ACCA, ICAEW, CAI, and ICAS. ICAEW consistently shows the highest percentage of visits, followed by CAI and ACCA, with ICAS having the lowest percentage.

    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 2020 to 31 December 2022.25

    Figure 25: Monitoring visit reason, 2020 to 2022

    ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
    2020 6 3 14 0 23
    Requested by the registration/ 2021 6 1 17 2 26
    licensing committee 2022 7 7 14 0 28
    2020 33 80 33 14 160
    Specifically selected due to 2021 77 112 36 11 236
    heightened risk 2022 33 190 18 3 244
    2020 147 327 60 15 549
    Cyclical visits 2021 254 440 92 21 807
    2022 167 287 83 11 548
    2020 0 0 0 0 0
    Firms with PIEs visited with AQR 2021 0 0 3 2 5
    involvement 2022 0 0 0 0 0

    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 ACCA, ICAEW, CAI and ICAS during the years ended 31 December 2020 to 2022.

    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 on page 35. 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 on page 36 (ACCA), page 37 (ICAEW), page 38 (CAI) and page 39 (ICAS).
    • 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

    ICAEW26, CAI and ICAS:
    1
    (Good)    		 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).
    2A
    (Generally acceptable)    		 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.
    2B
    (Improvement required)    		 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).
    3
    (Significant improvements required)    		 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).

    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.

    Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA)

    Figure 26: ACCA Gradings, 2020 to 2022

    Firm gradings 2020 2021 2022 File gradings 2020 2021 2022
    A & B No 142 253 116 No 7 22 1
    A Outcomes % 76 75 56
    Outcomes % 76 75 56 No 15 50 31
    C Outcomes No 15 50 31 No 208 338 273
    % 8 15 15 B Outcomes % 76 70 75
    No 58 123 91
    D Outcomes No 30 34 24 C Outcomes % 21 25 25
    % 16 10 12 No 0 0 36
    P Outcomes No 0 0 36 Ungraded/Limited/ No 0 0 0
    % 0 0 17 Restricted Review

    Firm grading (ACCA) 27
    A Outcomes
    (Good)    		 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.
    B Outcomes
    (Satisfactory)    		 The firm is eligible for audit registration; it complies with the GPRs, CEC and the ESA with a few minor breaches, and 50% or more of its audit files inspected, including all significant audits, comply substantially with relevant auditing standards.
    C Outcomes
    (Unsatisfactory and improvements required)    		 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.
    D Outcomes
    (Regulatory action required)    		 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 in 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.
    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 & Wales (ICAEW)

    Figure 27: ICAEW gradings, 2020 to 2022

    Firm gradings 2020 2021 2022 File gradings 2020 2021 2022
    A & B No 249 340 256 No 150 182 117
    1 Outcomes % 57 63 53
    Outcomes % 57 63 53 No 73 83 98
    C Outcomes No 73 83 98 No 425 514 410
    % 17 15 20 2 Outcomes % 57 57 55
    No 115 171 173
    D Outcomes No 33 24 37 3 Outcomes % 16 19 23
    % 8 5 8 No 78 91 94
    N Outcomes No 78 91 94 4 Outcomes % 7 4 6
    % 18 17 19 No 132 164 119
    Ungraded/Limited/
    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 2020 to 2022

    Firm gradings 2020 2021 2022 File gradings 2020 2021 2022
    A & B No 69 120 86 No 81 72 42
    1 Outcomes % 79 81 74
    Outcomes % 79 81 74 No 3 14 6
    C Outcomes No 3 14 6 No 50 127 85
    % 3 9 5 2A Outcomes % 33 54 50
    No 15 14 25
    D Outcomes No 15 14 25 2B Outcomes % 11 13 16
    % 18 9 21 No 5 5 16
    3 Outcomes % 3 2 9
    Ungraded/ Limited/ No 38 56 67
    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. There will generally be no matters to follow up on firms graded A and/or B.
    C Outcomes 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 2020 to 2022

    Firm gradings 2020 2021 2022 File gradings 2020 2021 2022
    A & B No 8 14 4 No 4 6 0
    1 Outcomes % 28 39 29
    Outcomes % 28 39 29 No 20 22 10
    C Outcomes No 20 22 10 No 49 68 9
    % 69 61 71 2A Outcomes % 63 66 33
    No 1 0 0
    D Outcomes No 1 0 0 2B Outcomes % 22 18 48
    % 3 0 0 No 0 0 0
    N Outcomes No 0 0 0 3 Outcomes % 10 10 19
    % 0 0 0 No 26 33 11
    Ungraded/ Limited/
    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 2020 to 2022 split by (i) number of new complaints, (ii) number of cases passed to the FRC Enforcement Division, (iii) number of cases referred to the Committee28, (iv) number of cases closed in the year and (v) average time taken to close a case.29

    Figure 30: Complaints, 2020 to 2022

    ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS TOTAL
    2020 1 117 11 4 133
    Number of new complaints 2021 15 145 3 2 165
    2022 1 125 8 1 135
    2020 0 0 0 0 0
    Number of cases referred to 2021 0 0 0 0 0
    the FRC 2022 0 0 0 0 0
    2020 3 35 6 4 48
    Number of cases passed to 2021 0 28 10 1 39
    the Committee 2022 3 31 3 1 38
    2020 7 139 10 5 161
    Number of cases closed 2021 4 152 13 1 170
    in the year 2022 7 162 2 3 174
    2020 4.5 17 4 7.8
    Average time taken to close 2021 5.6 14 0 1
    a case (in months) 2022 8 16 10.7 21

    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.

    Recognised Qualifying Bodies (RQBs)

    The FRC also exercises delegated statutory functions under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 for the recognition, supervision and de-recognition 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 bodies30 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 2020 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.31

    Figure 31: RQB students and members, 2020 to 202232

    ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA
    2020 76,208 23,309 7,351 3,839 139
    Number of students in the UK 2021 75,188 25,014 7,662 4,112 144
    and ROI 2022 71,449 26,134 7,767 4,081 143
    2020 N/A 18,705 3,862 N/A 3
    Number of students following 2021 N/A 19,345 4,538 N/A 3
    the audit route or eligible for 2022 N/A 20,584 5,077 N/A 3
    the audit qualification 2020 100 1,082 572 1,148 0
    The number of members who 2021 82 1,222 80 288 0
    were awarded the audit 2022 100 1,278 57 414 0
    qualification 2020 2,941 104,654 9,446 12,409 9
    The number of members who 2021 2,824 103,893 9,329 12,242 9
    hold the audit qualification 2022 2,746 103,458 9,350 12,751 9

    The audit qualifications 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 offices33 in the UK and ROI over the period 2020 to

    1. The pie chart represents the 2022 data in percentages by each body.

    Figure 32: UK and ROI training offices, 2020 to 2022, and proportion of total training offices per body in 2022

    ACCA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA
    2020 3,383 4,694 594 413 10
    Number of approved Training 2021 3,250 4,949 581 402
    Offices in the 2022 3,154 5,201 591 401
    UK & ROI

    Pie chart showing the proportion of total approved training offices per body in 2022.

    The chart illustrates the distribution of approved training offices in the UK and ROI for 2022 by professional accounting body. ICAEW accounts for 55.6%, ACCA for 33.7%, CAI for 6.3%, ICAS for 4.3%, and AIA for 0.1%.

    Section Five – Audit firms

    This section covers audit firms with PIE34 clients who responded to our survey. SATCAR 2016 designates the FRC as the Competent Authority responsible for the public oversight of statutory auditors.35 The FRC cannot by law delegate the Regulatory Tasks of audit monitoring, investigation and imposing and enforcing sanctions 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 30 audit firms with PIE audit clients that responded to our request for the year ended

    1. 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 in 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

    2. Figure 36 shows the percentage growth of fee income for firms with PIE clients for 2021 and 2022, while Figure 37 focuses on the audit fee income per responsible individual. Big-Four firms outside the UK have been included in our survey for the first time this year and are shown separately in Figure 34 but excluded from Figure 36 which looks at year-on-year trends36. Care is also needed in interpreting the trends in fee income of those firms outside the Big Four who audit PIEs as the composition of those firms can, and often does, vary from year to year. Figure 38 shows the concentration of listed clients by audit firm for those audit clients (companies) listed on the FTSE 100, FTSE 250, UK equity listed on regulated markets and Alternative Investment Market (AIM) as at each firm's financial year-end for

    3. Figure 39 looks at the concentration of listed companies, split between the Big Four, the Big Four non-UK, the next five firms37 and other 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). 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).

    UK firm name UK structure No. of principals38 No. of audit principals No. of RIs39 Audit staff Non-audit staff No. of PIE audit clients
    PwC LLP 941 167 337 1,023 5,983 297
    KPMG LLP 691 152 309 989 4,004 192
    Deloitte LLP 678 105 269 1,060 6,233 255
    EY UK LLP 779 122 229 744 5,558 225
    BDO LLP 407 129 152 420 1,207 217
    Grant Thornton UK LLP 216 54 98 343 1,159 20
    KPMG (Ireland)40 Partnership 163 65 62 217 636 29
    EY (Ireland)41 Partnership 98 29 58 178 671 2
    RSM LLP 358 103 130 222 877 18
    Mazars LLP 157 57 66 188 451 72
    Crowe UK LLP 86 40 44 108 161 24
    MHA Macintyre Hudson LLP 89 55 44 105 100 28
    PKF Littlejohn LLP 34 20 19 54 38 62
    Haysmacintyre LLP 38 27 33 60 45 3
    Moore Kingston Smith LLP 64 38 42 72 79 3
    UK firm name UK structure Fee income: audit (£m)42 Fee income: non-audit work to audit clients (£m)43 Fee income: non-audit clients (£m) Fee income: PIE clients (£m) Fee income: non-PIE clients (£m) Total fee income (£m)
    PwC LLP 818.0 195.0 2,862.0 291.0 527.0 3,875.0
    KPMG LLP 709.0 98.0 1,916.0 221.0 488.0 2,723.0
    Deloitte LLP 649.0 209.0 3,425.0 267.0 382.0 4,283.0
    EY UK LLP 626.0 163.0 2,440.0 227.0 399.0 3,229.0
    BDO LLP 324.0 73.0 411.0 43.0 281.0 808.0
    Grant Thornton UK LLP 167.1 52.4 428.3 3.8 163.3 647.8
    KPMG (Ireland)40 Partnership 143.7 65.6 304.2 13.2 130.5 513.5
    EY (Ireland)41 Partnership 122.0 17.0 278.0 0.4 121.6 417.0
    RSM LLP 116.0 55.0 254.0 5.0 111.0 425.0
    Mazars LLP 109.8 25.5 152.5 43.2 66.6 287.8
    Crowe UK LLP 49.0 14.0 64.0 1.1 48.0 127.0
    MHA Macintyre Hudson LLP 37.7 18.9 25.0 5.7 32.0 81.6
    PKF Littlejohn LLP 25.1 6.3 16.1 3.1 22.0 47.5
    Haysmacintyre LLP 24.6 6.7 14.6 0.3 24.3 45.9
    Moore Kingston Smith LLP 22.6 14.8 27.8 0.2 22.4 65.2
    UK firm name UK structure No. of principals38 No. of audit principals No. of RIs39 Audit staff Non-audit staff No. of PIE audit clients
    Johnston Carmichael LLP 61 14 22 39 160 30
    Kreston Reeves LLP 41 20 22 34 76 3
    Price Bailey LLP 26 10 14 22 53 2
    Beever and Struthers Partnership 17 10 15 25 14 16
    Hazlewoods LLP 31 10 15 19 66 6
    Shipleys LLP 18 13 14 22 16 6
    Gerald Edelman LLP 17 8 8 5 6 2
    Grant Thornton (NI)44 Partnership 7 2 3 10 37 3
    Carter Backer Winter LLP 17 5 8 10 17 2
    LB Group Limited company 9 6 6 14 12 3
    Bennett Brooks & Co Limited company - - 3 3 27 1
    Johnsons Financial Management45 Limited company 2 1 1 2 4 1
    BSG Valentine LLP 9 2 4 3 8 1
    Royce Peeling Green Limited company 9 4 4 8 20 6
    Begbies Limited company and Partnership 10 9 9 - - 1
    UK firm name UK structure Fee income: audit (£m)42 Fee income: non-audit work to audit clients (£m)43 Fee income: non-audit clients (£m) Fee income: PIE clients (£m) Fee income: non-PIE clients (£m) Total fee income (£m)
    Johnston Carmichael LLP 14.7 5.5 41.7 1.5 13.2 61.9
    Kreston Reeves LLP 11.3 3.9 23.6 0.1 11.2 38.8
    Price Bailey LLP 8.2 2.6 19.2 0.0 8.1 29.9
    Beever and Struthers Partnership 7.2 1.2 7.2 1.1 6.1 15.6
    Hazlewoods LLP 4.6 2.4 28.1 0.1 4.5 35.2
    Shipleys LLP 4.3 1.2 10.0 0.1 4.2 15.5
    Gerald Edelman LLP 3.5 5.3 6.3 0.1 3.4 15.1
    Grant Thornton (NI)44 Partnership 3.2 1.2 8.2 - 3.2 12.6
    Carter Backer Winter LLP 2.4 1.4 11.1 0.1 2.3 14.9
    LB Group Limited company 1.4 0.2 8.8 0.0 1.4 10.4
    Bennett Brooks & Co Limited company 1.3 0.5 6.6 0.0 1.3 8.4
    Johnsons Financial Management45 Limited company 1.0 - 3.4 0.2 0.8 4.4
    BSG Valentine LLP 0.9 0.3 6.1 0.1 0.9 7.3
    Royce Peeling Green Limited company 0.9 0.6 4.1 0.1 0.8 5.6
    Begbies Limited company and Partnership 0.6 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.6 4.6

    Figure 34: Proportion of total fee income for the Big Four firms, 2020 to 2022

    Bar chart showing percentage breakdown of audit and non-audit fee income for Big Four firms in UK and non-UK regions across 2020, 2021, and 2023.

    Figure 35: Proportion of total fee income for Audit Firms with PIE audit clients outside the Big Four firms, 2020 to 2022

    Stacked bar chart illustrating the percentage breakdown of fee income for audit firms with PIE audit clients outside the Big Four from 2020 to

    1. It shows Audit Fee Income, Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients, and Fee income from Non-Audit Clients.

    Key Observations: * Audit Fee Income: 30.2% (2020), 32.1% (2021), 33.4% (2022). * Fee Income from Non-Audit work to Audit Clients: 13.2% (2020), 11.6% (2021), 10.4% (2022). * Fee income from Non-Audit Clients: 56.6% (2020), 56.2% (2021), 56.2% (2022).

    Growth of fee income

    Figure 3646 shows the percentage growth rate of fee income for each of the years 2021 and 2022 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. Please note that part of the increases in fee income for non-Big-Four firms is explained by the fact that there were three more audit firms in total outside the Big Four auditing PIEs this year compared to last year (24 compared to 21).

    Figure 36: Growth of fee income, 2021 and 2022

    Bar chart showing year-over-year percentage change (2021 to 2022) in different fee income categories for Big Four UK and Non-Big Four firms.

    In 2022, for all firms with PIE clients, there was an increase in the growth rate of total fee income, with an increase of 11.9% for Big Four UK firms compared with an 18.5% increase for the non-Big Four firms. Audit fee income for the Big Four increased by 7.6% in 2022, whereas non-Big Four firms saw a 23.3% increase.

    Fee income for non-audit work to audit clients decreased by 16.4% for Big Four UK firms while it increased by 6.2% for non-Big Four firms in 2022 (recognising that 3 more non-Big Four firms answered our survey this year).

    Audit fee income per Responsible Individual (RI)

    Figure 37 illustrates audit fee income generated per Responsible Individual (RI) for 2020 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, 2020 to 2022

    Audit Fee Income Per RI (£m) 2020 2021 2022
    Big Four UK firms 2.23 2.30 2.45
    Big Four non-UK N/A N/A 2.21
    Average of all firms with PIE clients 1.68 1.83 1.97
    Non-Big Four firms 0.89 1.08 1.21

    Line chart showing trends in average fee income (£m) from 2020 to 2022 for Big Four UK, Big Four non-UK, average PIE firms, and Non Big Four firms.

    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, 2022

    (by number of FTSE 100 audit clients47 – 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 clients47 No. of FTSE 250 audit clients47 Total no. of other clients listed on regulated markets47 No of AIM audit clients47
    PwC LLP 30 June 25 65 71 56
    EY UK LLP 01 July 24 50 61 18
    KPMG48 LLP 30 September 20 39 39 17
    Deloitte LLP 31 May 19 47 120 23
    KPMG (Ireland) Partnership 31 December 3 1 19 6
    BDO LLP 01 July 1 19 118 165
    RSM LLP 31 March 1 1 14 55
    EY (Ireland) Partnership 30 June 0 1 16 1
    Grant Thornton UK LLP 31 December 0 4 7 49
    Mazars LLP 31 August 0 2 17 17
    Crowe UK LLP 31 March 0 0 26 61
    MHA Macintyre Hudson LLP 31 March 0 1 2 12
    Haysmacintyre LLP 31 March 0 0 0 17
    PKF Littlejohn LLP 31 May 0 0 11 76
    Johnston Carmichael LLP 31 May 0 1 10 2

    Figure 38 continued: Concentration of listed company audits, 2022

    (by number of FTSE 100 audit clients – 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 clients47 No. of FTSE 250 audit clients47 Total no. of other clients listed on regulated markets47 No of AIM audit clients47
    Kreston Reeves LLP 31 May 0 0 2 2
    Price Bailey LLP 31 March 0 0 2 3
    Gerald Edelman LLP 31 December 0 0 2 0
    Beever and Struthers Partnership 30 September 0 0 0 0
    Shipleys LLP 30 April 0 0 7 4
    Hazlewoods LLP 30 April 0 0 6 2
    Carter Backer Winter LLP 31 March 0 0 1 0
    Bennett Brooks & Co Limited company 31 August 0 0 0 0
    BSG Valentine LLP 30 September 0 0 1 1
    Begbies Limited company and Partnership 31 March 0 0 1 0
    LB Group Limited company 31 August 0 0 0 0
    Moore Kingston Smith LLP 30 April 0 0 3 9
    Grant Thornton (NI) Partnership 31 December 0 0 3 0
    Johnsons Financial Management Limited company 31 December 0 0 1 0
    Royce Peeling Green Limited company 31 December 0 0 2 0

    Concentration of listed company audits49

    Figure 39 illustrates the percentage of the audits of UK-listed (equity and debt) companies undertaken by the Big Four firms50, the Big Four non-UK firms, 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 2018 to 2022.

    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 (FTSE 100, FTSE 250, other UK main market and all main market) as its UK counterparts.

    Figure 39: Listed company audits concentrations, 2018 to 2022

    | | Big Four Firms | Big Four non-UK Firms | Next Five Firms | Other Firms | | :-------------------- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- | | | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | | FTSE 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 98.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | | FTSE 250 | 96.0 | 94.8 | 91.2 | 88.8 | 86.4 | 6.8 | 7.6 | 8.4 | 9.2 | 6.8 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 8.0 | 9.6 | 11.2 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 2.4 | | Other UK Main Market | 77.8 | 73.7 | 67.2 | 57.5 | 49.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 15.3 | 16.8 | 22.8 | 28.2 | 29.1 | 6.9 | 9.5 | 10.0 | 14.3 | 21.5 | | All Main Market | 81.8 | 79.0 | 74.1 | 54.4 | 46.8 | 0.4 | 5.0 | 4.8 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 12.7 | 13.6 | 18.4 | 20.2 | 20.8 | 5.5 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 25.4 | 32.4 |

    Bar chart showing market representation (%) across different firm categories (Big Four, Next Five, Other) and market indices (FTSE 100, FTSE 250) from 2018-2022.

    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+.51

    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, 2022

    Bar chart showing percentage representation of Managers, Directors, and Partners across different diversity characteristics: Female, ethnic minority, disabled, and LGBTQ+.

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

    Figure 41: Senior management, 2022 – Female leaders

    Stacked bar chart illustrating the percentage of female senior managers across three seniority levels (Managers, Directors, Partners) for different firm sizes (Under 200 employees, 200 - 2,000 employees, 2,000+ employees).

    Key Observations: * Managers: Under 200 (31.4%), 200-2000 (45.0%), 2000+ (38.0%). * Directors: Under 200 (31.5%), 200-2000 (28.0%), 2000+ (23.0%). * Partners: Under 200 (12.1%), 200-2000 (22.0%), 2000+ (26.0%).

    30 firms collect information on the number of female senior managers. In 2022, the percentage of female senior managers at firms with under 200 employees was highest at director level and manager level with 31.5% and 31.4% respectively. The proportion was less at partner level (12.1%).

    Firms with 200 to 2,000 employees had the highest percentage of female senior managers at manager and director level with 45.0% and 28.0% 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, 2022 – from black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds

    Stacked bar chart showing the percentage of senior management (Managers, Directors, Partners) from black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds, broken down by firm size (Under 200 employees, 200 - 2,000 employees, 2,000+ employees).

    Key Observations: * Managers: Under 200 (7.0%), 200-2000 (14.5%), 2000+ (20.4%). * Directors: Under 200 (8.0%), 200-2000 (12.0%), 2000+ (12.0%). * Partners: Under 200 (8.0%), 200-2000 (6.0%), 2000+ (9.0%).

    Firms with over 2,000 employees had the highest percentage of individuals from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds at manager level at 20.4%. Firms with under 200 employees had the highest percentage at partner level at 8.0%.

    Figure 43: Senior Management, 2022 – with a disability

    Stacked bar chart showing the percentage of senior management (Managers, Directors, Partners) with a disability, broken down by firm size (Under 200 employees, 200 - 2,000 employees, 2,000+ employees).

    Key Observations: * Managers: Under 200 (0.8%), 200-2000 (3.4%), 2000+ (4.8%). * Directors: Under 200 (5.8%), 200-2000 (3.0%), 2000+ (4.2%). * Partners: Under 200 (2.2%), 200-2000 (0.6%), 2000+ (3.4%).

    Overall declarations relating to senior management with a 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 (5.8%). Firms with 200 – 2,000 employees had the lowest number of disability declarations at partner level (0.6%).

    Figure 44: Senior management, 2022 – LGBTQ+

    Stacked bar chart showing the percentage of senior management (Managers, Directors, Partners) identifying as LGBTQ+, broken down by firm size (Under 200 employees, 200 - 2,000 employees, 2,000+ employees).

    Key Observations: * Managers: Under 200 (0.0%), 200-2000 (1.9%), 2000+ (2.6%). * Directors: Under 200 (0.0%), 200-2000 (1.6%), 2000+ (2.7%). * Partners: Under 200 (0.0%), 200-2000 (4.9%), 2000+ (1.6%).

    Overall declarations relating to LGBTQ+ are also very low, with an average of 1.6% 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 2022 split into six age categories.

    Figure 45: Workforce ages, 202252

    Pie chart showing the age distribution of staff at audit firms in 2022: * Under 25: 20% * 25-34: 39% * 35-44: 18% * 45-54: 13% * 55-64: 7% * 65 and over: 2%

    27 out of the 30 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 rate53 of the relevant diversity indicator (represented via the line graph).

    Figure 46: Diversity information on workforce, 2022

    Bar chart showing the number of firms collecting diversity information and line graph showing firms' completion rates for various diversity indicators.

    Number of Firms collecting data for: * Race: 22 * Disability: 20 * Religion / Belief: 19 * Sexual Orientation: 19 * Marital Status: 19 * School Type Attended: 15 * First Generation to Attend University: 13 * Socioeconomic background: 12 * Caring Responsibilities: 10

    Firms' Completion Rates for: * Race: 78% * Disability: (approx) 65% * Religion / Belief: (approx) 60% * Sexual Orientation: (approx) 60% * Marital Status: (approx) 55% * School Type Attended: (approx) 45% * First Generation to Attend University: (approx) 65% * Socioeconomic background: (approx) 50% * Caring Responsibilities: (approx) 55%

    23 firms reported that they collected at least one of the above diversity indicators.

    Race is the most collected diversity indicator (22 firms), with race also having the highest rate of completion of all the indicators (78%).

    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 2021 and 2022.

    Figure 47: Diversity policies, 2021 and 2022

    Bar chart showing the number of firms with a diversity policy and line graph showing the percentage of firms with a diversity policy for 2021 and 2022.

    Number of Firms: * 2021: 25 firms * 2022: 30 firms

    Percentage with a Diversity Policy: * 2021: 77% * 2022: 83%

    In 2022, 83% of the 30 audit firms who responded to our survey had a diversity policy. In 2021, 77% of the 25 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

    (total figures and percentages)

    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

    Number of members in the UK and ROI

    Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    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
    2022 109,625 85,953 12,347 139,050 28,546 20,660 1,406 397,587
    % growth (21-22) 2.9 0.5 -0.8 2.5 3.7 2.2 2.0 2.1
    % growth (18-22) 11.8 3.9 -0.8 8.1 17.6 9.1 -3.6 8.5
    % compound annual growth (18-22) 2.8 1.0 -0.2 2.0 4.1 2.2 -0.9 2.1

    Number of students in the UK and ROI

    Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    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
    2022 71,449 43,947 2,100 26,134 7,767 4,081 143 155,621
    % growth (21-22) -5.0 -6.7 -0.8 4.5 1.4 -0.8 -0.7 -3.5
    % growth (18-22) -12.8 -9.1 7.7 20.9 14.4 17.0 5.9 -5.2
    % compound annual growth (18-22) -3.4 -2.3 1.9 4.9 3.4 4.0 1.4 -1.3

    Figure 49: Members and students worldwide Corresponds to Figure 2

    Number of members worldwide

    Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    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
    2022 243,302 117,183 13,872 166,397 31,683 23,504 10,699 606,640
    % growth (21-22) 2.7 0.8 -0.9 3.1 3.5 1.1 6.3 2.4
    % growth (18-22) 13.5 6.1 3.8 9.6 15.8 6.7 31.1 10.8
    % compound annual growth (18-22) 3.2 1.5 0.9 2.3 3.7 1.6 7.0 2.6

    Number of students worldwide

    Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    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
    2022 437,952 87,573 6,199 36,084 7,776 4,103 5,431 585,118
    % growth (21-22) -1.9 -6.5 6.1 6.3 1.4 -1.2 -2.2 -2.0
    % growth (18-22) 1.4 -25.7 30.5 25.7 14.5 17.6 -0.5 -2.3
    % compound annual growth (18-22) 0.4 -7.1 6.9 5.9 3.4 4.1 -0.1 -0.6

    Figure 50: Sectoral employment worldwide, 2022 Corresponds to Figure 4

    Number of members

    Number of members ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    Working in Practice 52,309 1,967 122 46,602 8,839 5,602 490 115,931
    Industry & Commerce 148,379 85,238 2,028 64,102 18,354 11,005 9,308 338,414
    Public Sector 23,789 8,695 6,505 5,002 1,566 1,111 32 46,700
    Retired 12,532 16,614 3,157 28,829 1,962 4,664 621 68,379
    Other 6,293 4,669 2,060 21,862 962 1,122 248 37,216
    TOTAL 243,302 117,183 13,872 166,397 31,683 23,504 10,699 606,640

    Number of students

    Number of students ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    Working in Practice 36,147 86 0 26,921 6,175 3,552 101 72,982
    Industry & Commerce 183,646 51,493 887 1,752 110 134 3,089 241,111
    Public Sector 38,989 3,183 3,897 560 38 54 29 46,750
    Retired 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 84
    Other 179,170 32,727 1,395 6,851 1,453 363 2,499 224,458
    TOTAL 437,952 87,573 6,179 36,084 7,776 4,103 5,718 585,385

    Figure 51: Female members worldwide, 2018 to 2022 Corresponds to Figure 5

    % Female members worldwide

    Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    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%
    2022 48% 36% 33% 31% 43% 35% 37% 38%

    Figure 52: Female students worldwide, 2018 to 2022 Corresponds to Figure 6

    % Female students worldwide

    Year ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    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%
    2022 60% 47% 51% 46% 48% 43% 56% 50%

    Figure 53: Age of members worldwide, 2018 and 2022 Corresponds to Figure 7

    2018

    ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    Under 25 1,157 148 0 403 ≤ 3 25 47 1,783
    25-34 57,246 15,740 542 27,930 7,947 5,210 704 115,319
    35-44 76,507 36,536 1,986 31,225 8,979 5,713 2,393 163,339
    45-54 49,832 30,447 3,533 34,562 5,436 3,729 2,608 130,147
    55-64 19,261 14,951 3,070 27,640 2,870 3,145 1,044 71,981
    65 and over 10,316 12,631 3,532 30,541 2,128 4,206 1,349 64,703
    Not stated 0 40 695 0 6 0 19 760
    TOTAL 214,319 110,493 13,358 152,301 27,369 22,028 8,164 548,032

    2022

    ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    Under 25 989 140 8 648 9 34 47 1,875
    25-34 58,428 13,215 570 32,981 8,456 5,174 1,106 119,930
    35-44 82,769 33,956 2,049 33,517 10,511 6,687 3,176 172,665
    45-54 59,222 34,838 2,791 31,520 6,363 3,668 3,196 141,598
    55-64 26,166 18,922 3,523 31,428 3,656 3,073 1,397 88,165
    65 and over 15,728 16,086 3,905 36,303 2,682 4,866 1,675 81,245
    Not stated 0 26 1,026 0 6 2 102 1,162
    TOTAL 243,302 117,183 13,872 166,397 31,683 23,504 10,699 606,640

    Figure 54: Age of students worldwide, 2018 and 202254 Corresponds to Figure 8

    2018

    ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    Under 25 170,686 41,040 125 15,211 2,636 1,839 2,443 233,980
    25-34 173,679 39,460 871 12,596 3,348 1,257 1,271 232,482
    35-44 66,045 24,910 1,066 724 603 99 917 94,364
    45 and over 21,411 12,199 919 169 167 17 827 35,709
    Not stated 0 208 1,768 0 38 276 0 2,290
    TOTAL 431,821 117,817 4,749 28,700 6,792 3,488 5,458 598,825

    2022

    ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    Under 25 174,791 21,805 244 21,177 3,208 1,972 2,478 225,675
    25-34 171,120 29,402 739 13,946 3,716 1,961 1,397 222,281
    35-44 66,867 20,901 1,118 786 552 111 984 91,319
    45 and over 25,174 12,549 1,331 167 269 15 859 40,364
    Not stated 0 2,916 2,747 8 31 44 0 5,746
    TOTAL 437,952 87,573 6,179 36,084 7,776 4,103 5,718 585,385

    Figure 55: Location of students, 202255 Corresponds to Figure 10

    Location of students, 2022

    ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    UK & ROI 71,449 43,947 2,100 26,134 7,767 4,081 143 155,621
    Rest of the world 366,503 43,626 4,099 9,950 9 22 5,288 429,497
    TOTAL 437,952 87,573 6,179 36,084 7,776 4,103 5,431 585,118

    Figure 56: Profile of students worldwide, 2022 Corresponds to Figure 11

    Profile of students worldwide, 2022

    ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    ≤ 1 Year 85,131 16,639 637 11,446 1,810 1,921 221 117,805
    > 1-2 Years 70,588 14,389 654 9,228 1,709 890 471 97,929
    > 2-3 Years 50,610 10,431 707 6,023 1,628 572 673 70,644
    > 3-4 Years 50,341 8,765 542 5,184 1,509 226 689 67,256
    > 4-5 Years 37,673 5,488 430 2,067 449 197 805 47,109
    ≥ 5 Years 143,609 31,861 3,209 2,136 671 297 2,859 184,642
    TOTAL 437,952 87,573 6,179 36,084 7,776 4,103 5,718 585,385

    Figure 57: Graduate entrants worldwide, 2022 Corresponds to Figure 12

    Graduate entrants worldwide, 2022

    ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA
    Holding a degree 37% 48% 29% 71% 91% 89% 30%
    Holding a relevant degree 18% 40% 15% 29% 78% 36% 26%

    Figure 58: AAT age of members and students worldwide, 2022 Corresponds to Figure 14

    AAT age of members and students worldwide, 2022

    Members Students
    Number % Number %
    :------------ :--------- :--- :--------- :---
    Under 25 2,414 5% 23,757 31%
    25-34 9,374 18% 22,908 30%
    35-44 12,655 25% 18,558 24%
    45 and over 26,502 52% 11,189 15%
    Not stated 0 0% 4 0%
    TOTAL 50,945 100% 76,416 100%

    Figure 59: Total income worldwide, 2018 to 2022 Corresponds to Figure 16

    Total income worldwide, 2018 to 2022

    £m ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    2018 208.8 55.4 26 125.4 28.1 17.8 1.7 463.2
    2019 212.7 60.6 26.9 132.2 27.9 18.8 1.6 480.6
    2020 223.4 56.2 26.4 136.2 28.6 19 1.6 491.4
    2021 222.8 56.3 26.6 141.4 29.7 18.7 1.7 497.2
    2022 220.3 59.4 28.5 142.1 30.1 19.3 1.6 501.3

    Figure 60: Average income per members and students worldwide, 2018 to 2022 Corresponds to Figure 17

    Average income per members and students worldwide, 2018 to 2022

    £ ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    2018 307 218 381 547 664 658 117 345
    2019 315 244 430 564 643 683 112 359
    2020 306 239 438 561 669 695 107 354
    2021 312 242 424 545 679 671 102 357
    2022 313 250 414 581 669 681 105 367
    % growth (18–22) 1.9 14.7 8.5 6.3 0.7 3.4 -10.3 6.5

    Figure 61: Breakdown of income, 202256 Corresponds to Figure 18

    Breakdown of income, 2022

    £m ACCA CIMA CIPFA ICAEW CAI ICAS AIA TOTAL
    Fees & subscriptions 117.7 39.8 3.3 55.3 12.5 8.7 1.6 238.9
    Education & exam fees 88.9 11.5 5.0 18.5 10.6 7.6 0.1 142.2
    Regulation & discipline 6.6 0.0 0.0 43.9 3.3 2.5 0.0 56.3
    Commercial activities 5.4 4.9 20.0 18.0 2.6 0.2 0.0 51.1
    Other (including investment income) 1.7 3.3 0.2 6.4 1.0 0.1 0.0 12.7
    TOTAL 220.3 59.4 28.5 142.1 30.0 19.1 1.7 501.1

    Figure 62: Growth of fee income, 2021 and 2022 Corresponds to Figure 36

    Growth of fee income, 2021 and 2022

    Growth rate % 2021 2022
    Total fee income Big Four UK firms 4.6 11.9
    Non-Big Four firms 5.9 18.5
    Audit fee income Big Four UK firms 6.5 7.6
    Non-Big Four firms 12.5 23.3
    Non-audit work to audit clients fee income Big Four UK Firms 10.3 -16.4
    Non-Big Four firms -6.8 6.2
    Non-audit work to non-audit clients fee income Big Four UK Firms 3.7 15.6
    Non-Big Four firms 5.3 18.3

    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:

    • 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)
    • 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: 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, Johnston Carmichael 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: The Public Interest Entity (PIE) definition is set out in the Companies Act 2006 and SATCAR 2016 and includes entities whose transferable securities (equity and debt) are admitted to trading on a UK regulated market, 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 re-assignment, 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 Individual/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

    Abbreviations and Definitions

    RI Responsible Individual/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

    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:

         ↩

      1. The five largest audit firms outside the Big Four (based on number of listed audit clients) are BDO, Grant Thornton, PKF Littlejohn, Johnston Carmichael and Crowe. This value is taken from the 2022 AQR Scope Survey. The FTSE 350, other listed equity, listed debt, public debt and AIM are taken into consideration. ↩

      2. 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. ↩

      3. 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. ↩

      4. 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. ↩

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

        6.  ↩

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

        2. 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. ↩

        3. 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. ↩

        4. 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. ↩

        5. CAI's income has been converted from euros at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) average annual year-end rate. As at 31 December 2022 the rate was €1.1732. ↩

        6. 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. ↩

        7. 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. ↩

        8. SATCAR 2016 provides that the FRC is the Competent Authority responsible for the public oversight of statutory auditors (and other tasks related to statutory audit) under SATCAR 2016. SATCAR 2016 implements obligations in EU Regulation 537/2014 and EU Directive 2006/43/EC as amended by EU Directive 2014/56/EU. ↩

        9. 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. ↩

        10. This is included as a separate report on the FRC's oversight responsibilities, which can be found at: https://www.frc.org.uk/about-us/reports-plans-and-budgets/annual-reports-to-the-secretary-of-state/ ↩

        11. 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 partners or members. ↩

        12. 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 or a UK regulated market. ↩

        13. 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 pursuant to a delegation by Statutory Auditors (Amendment of Companies Act 2006 and Delegation of Functions etc.) Order 2012. ↩

        14. Local Audit – The SoS has delegated powers and responsibilities to the FRC in respect of Local Audit (The Local Audit (Delegation of Functions) and Statutory Audit (Delegation of Functions) Order 2014). By virtue of this delegation order and 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. ↩

        15. 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. ↩

        16. The number of monitoring visits conducted by all the RSBs were impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, affecting their ability to conduct site inspections in 2020. ↩

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

        18. 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) remain the same for ICAEW, CAI and ICAS. ↩

        19. The 2020 and 2021 figures were restated to reflect the final visit outcome following assessment of the firm's action plan by ACCA and/or the Audit Monitoring Committee. ↩

        20. Cases referred to the Committee relate to: ICAEW's Investigations Committee and referred to the Disciplinary Committee; CAI's Conduct Committee, Disciplinary Committee and Appeals Committee; and ICAS' Investigation Committee. ↩

        21. 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 investigations 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. ↩

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

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

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

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

        26. 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 undertaking as that Article had effect immediately before exit day, were the United Kingdom a Member State. ↩

        27. SATCAR 2016 implements EU Regulation 537/2014 and EU Directive 2006/43/EC as amended by EU Directive 2014/56/EU. EU Regulation 537/2014 relates to the audit of PIEs and forms part of retained EU law under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2019. As amended it will continue to apply in the UK as domestic legislation. SATCAR 2016 was also amended to reflect the UK's withdrawal from the EU. ↩

        28. 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. ↩

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

        30. Principals are partners or members of an LLP. ↩↩

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

        32. Information supplied by KPMG (Ireland) relates to any entities where KPMG Ireland provide an audit opinion regardless of country of incorporation and as such includes entities incorporated in Ireland with UK listings. ↩↩

        33. In the Republic of Ireland, there are five Partnerships; Ernst & Young Chartered Accountants, Ernst & Young Business Advisors, Ernst & Young Business Advisory Services, Ernst & Young Business Consultants and Ernst & Young Consultants all of which are regulated by Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI). Ernst & Young Chartered Accountants is the only firm authorised as an audit firm. ↩↩

        34. Figures used for the fee income splits have been rounded to one decimal place; accordingly, the total fee income is calculated on this basis. ↩↩

        35. 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. ↩↩

        36. The 3 PIEs noted for Grant Thornton NI 2022 are those that the firm were appointed to but did not sign, and hence they have no associated revenue with these PIEs for 2022. ↩↩

        37. Johnsons Financial Management do not track non-audit work to audit clients. ↩↩

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

        39. 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 (92) and FTSE 250 (231) audit clients. ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

        40. Includes both KPMG LLP and KPMG Audit Plc. ↩

        41. Includes international Main Market companies. ↩

        42. Includes Big Four, next five firms, and other firms network audit offices, whether located in the UK or elsewhere. Big Four Firms and Other Firms includes UK and non-UK. ↩

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

        44. 1% of staff choose to not provide this information. 2 out of the 27 firms that collect data on the ages of their workforce do not collect the data in the age ranges stated so have been excluded from this figure. ↩

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

        46. 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. ↩

        47. 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. ↩

        48. 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 2023)
    Publication date 27 September 2023
    Type Report
    Format PDF, 3.3 MB
    Download original
    Back to top