!

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].

Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession (September 2024)

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 2024 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
• Section One – Main highlights
• Section Two – Members and students of the Accountancy Bodies
• Age of members and students worldwide
• Diversity information on members and students
• Location of Students
• Profile of students of the Accountancy Bodies worldwide
• Graduate entrants to training
• The Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT)
• Section Three – Resource Information on the Accountancy Bodies
• Diversity information on the workforce under the Equality Act 2010
• Section Four – Supervision of audit regulation
• Section Five – Audit firms
• Section Six – Data tables of the charts
• Section Seven – Glossary
• Financial Reporting Council

Foreword

This is the twenty-second 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 https://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, 33 firms with PIE clients (out of 41 UK and Irish PIE Auditors contacted) participated compared with 30 firms in last year's publication.

Consistent with the Growth Duty, in the exercise of its regulatory function the FRC must have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth. The data collected informs decision making and helps us to ensure that any action taken is proportionate. Competition between the Big Four audit firms (Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers) and their competitors also remains a major focus. Last year, the five largest firms ³ outside the Big Four UK and non-UK firms (EY Ireland, KPMG Ireland, KPMG Audit LLC, and KPMG Channel Islands) audited 25 FTSE 350 companies; this year, they audited 30.

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 Equality Act 2010
• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic ⁴ and people who do not share it, and
• Foster good relations between people who share protected characteristics and people who do not share it.

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

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

Section One – Main highlights

The Accountancy Bodies 2019 to 2023

Membership of the accountancy bodies continues to grow. The seven bodies in this report have over 405,000 members in the UK and ROI and over 616,000 members worldwide. The growth in membership between 2022 and 2023 was 1.9% in the UK and ROI, and 1.7% worldwide (Figures 1 and 2). The decline in student numbers that we saw in 2022 in the UK and ROI has continued for

1. Between 2022 and 2023, student numbers in the UK and ROI decreased by 0.2% but increased 0.1% worldwide compared to falls of 3.5% and 2.0% 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 fell by 5.9% in 2023 compared to a fall of 0.8% in 2022 and an increase of 4.5% in 2021 (Figure 3).

The number of audit firms registered with the Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs) ⁵ continues to decline. The total number of registered audit firms was 4,038 as at 31 December 2023, compared with 4,310 in 2022 and 4,745 in 2021 respectively (Figure 21). Annual income generated from all members and students remains relatively stable for all the bodies. ACCA continues to have the highest income generated out of the seven bodies at £246m in 2023, also showing the largest increase of 11.8% in

1. ICAS earns the highest average income per member and student population at £707 in 2023 (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. Four of the bodies also collect data on socio-economic background for students and three bodies for Members (Figure 9). Figure 20 shows the number of bodies that collect diversity data on their own workforce in respect of the protected characteristics; eight of the nine of the protected characteristics were used by at least two of the bodies to record diversity information on their workforce. All the bodies have diversity policies/statements in place.

ACCA Think Ahead CIPFA The Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy ic as CIMA AIA THE ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTANTS ICAEW aat CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IRELAND

The audit firms 2021 to 2023

Figure 33 shows the fee income for audit and non-audit services for the 33 respondents with Public Interest Entity (PIE) clients, for 2023-year ends. 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 the relatively high growth in total fee income of 11.9% last year, the Big Four audit firms again saw total UK fee income increase by 11.1% in

1. For firms outside of the Big Four, whilst total fee income increased by 13.2% in 2023, this was lower than the 18.5% increase in 2022 (Figure 36). This could be partly due to the net increase of one more non-Big Four firm responding to our survey this year.

Audit fee income for the Big Four UK firms increased by 19.5% in 2023 compared with a 7.6% increase last year. Audit fee income for audit firms outside the Big Four increased by 23.2% in 2023 compared with a 23.3% increase in 2023 (Figure 36), same caveat applies. The increase in audit fee income for non-Big Four firms was 18.3% on average. Fees for non-audit work to audit clients decreased by 8.9% for the Big Four UK firms compared to a decrease of 16.4% in

1. In contrast, non-Big Four firms saw a decrease in these fees of 4.5% in 2023 compared to an increase of 6.2% last year (Figure 36) same caveat applies. The decrease in fees for non-audit work to audit clients for non-Big Four firms was 4.4% on average.

The average audit fee income per Statutory Auditor / Responsible Individual (RI) for the Big Four UK firms in 2023 was £2.75m compared to £1.41m for non-Big Four firms. The average for all firms with PIE clients was £2.21m, an increase of £0.24m (12.18%) compared to 2022 (Figure 37). In 2023, the five largest firms outside the Big Four (by number of listed audit clients) audited 11.6% (29) of the FTSE 250 companies; in 2022 they audited 11.2% (28). Three firms outside these five (and the Big Four), also audited 4.0% (10) of the FTSE 250 companies in 2023, compared with 2.4% (6) 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 2023 (Figure 39).

With regard to diversity at audit firms, we have focused on senior management at each of the 33 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 2023.

Figure 1: Members and students in the UK and ROI

Growth of Members in the UK & ROI	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Total numbers for 2023	113,423	85,471	12,200	141,561	29,841	21,302	1,473	405,271
% growth (22 - 23)	3.5	-0.6	-1.2	1.8	4.5	3.1	4.8	1.9
% growth (19 - 23)	11.8	2.2	-1.0	8.1	17.6	10.0	13.0	8.2
% compound annual growth (19-23)	2.8	0.5	-0.3	2.0	4.1	2.4	3.1	2.0

Growth of Students in the UK & ROI	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Total numbers for 2023	72,370	40,797	1,937	28,348	7,867	3,916	144	155,379
% growth (22 - 23)	1.3	-7.2	-7.8	8.5	1.3	-4.0	0.7	-0.2
% growth (19 - 23)	-9.5	-15.9	-5.4	24.1	12.2	1.4	6.7	-5.5
% compound annual growth (19-23)	-2.5	-4.2	-1.4	5.5	2.9	0.3	1.6	-1.4

Annual growth rates of members and students in the UK & ROI for the last 5 years

Year	Total Members in the UK & ROI	Growth rate of Members in the UK & ROI %	Total Students in the UK & ROI	Growth rate of Students in the UK & ROI %
2019	374,432	2.1	164,352	0.1
2020	381,441	1.9	160,863	-2.1
2021	389,330	2.1	161,337	0.3
2022	397,587	2.1	155,621	-3.5
2023	405,271	1.9	155,379	-0.2

Registered members and students worldwide

Figure 2 shows growth rates and the number of worldwide ⁶ members and students, as at 31 December for the five years to 31 December 2023.

Figure 2: Members and students worldwide

Growth of Members Worldwide	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Total numbers for 2023	249,804	115,724	13,414	169,722	32,899	24,112	11,050	616,725
% growth (22 - 23)	2.7	-1.2	-3.3	2.0	3.8	2.6	3.3	1.7
% growth (19 - 23)	11.8	2.8	0.4	9.8	15.5	7.2	26.7	9.4
% compound annual growth (19-23)	2.8	0.7	0.1	2.4	3.7	1.8	6.1	2.3

Growth of Students Worldwide	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Total numbers for 2023	441,734	81,640	6,231	38,490	7,883	4,037	5,426	585,441
% growth (22 - 23)	0.9	-6.8	0.5	6.7	1.4	-1.6	-0.1	0.1
% growth (19 - 23)	-0.8	-23.7	24.6	27.3	12.4	4.3	-3.5	-3.1
% compound annual growth (19-23)	-0.2	-6.5	5.7	6.2	3.0	1.0	-0.9	-0.8

Annual growth rates of members and students worldwide for the last five years

Year	Total Number of Members Worldwide	Growth rate of Members Worldwide %	Total Number of Students Worldwide	Growth rate of Students Worldwide %
2019	563,656	3.0	603,984	0.9
2020	576,481	2.3	587,441	-2.7
2021	592,466	2.8	597,106	1.6
2022	606,640	2.4	585,118	-2.0
2023	616,725	1.7	585,441	0.1

Students who became members

Figure 3 shows the number of students worldwide who became members, as at 31 December for each of the years 2019 to 2023.

Figure 3: Students to members worldwide, 2019 to 2023

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
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
2023	12,988	2,210	165	5,052	1,394	624	4	22,437
% growth (22 - 23)	0.0	-40.7	-2.4	-0.2	10.2	-0.2	300.0	-5.9

Sectoral employment of members and students worldwide

Figure 4 shows the percentage of members and students worldwide for each of the seven accountancy bodies, according to their sectoral employment ⁷ as at 31 December 2023.

Figure 4: Sectoral employment worldwide, 2023

The Industry and Commerce sector employs the highest average percentage of members (54%) and employs the highest average percentage of students (35%) across the accountancy bodies. AIA and CIMA members in the Industry and Commerce sector make up 87% and 71% of their respective total memberships.

86%, 79% and 75% of ICAS, CAI and ICAEW students respectively are working in practice. This is in contrast to the other bodies where only 3% or less of their students are working 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 2019 to 2023.

Figure 5: Female members worldwide, 2019 to 2023 8

Since 2019, all the accountancy bodies except CIMA (which has remained constant at 36%) have increased their percentage of female members worldwide. AIA experienced the largest increase of 2% points in this period mainly down to a 5.4% increase this past year. ACCA now has the highest percentage of female members of all the accountancy bodies.

The overall percentage of female members worldwide is 40% in 2023 ⁸.

Figure 6: Female students worldwide, 2019 to 2023 9

The overall percentage of female students ⁹ (56%) is greater than the overall percentage of female members (40%).

ACCA had the largest percentage of female students in 2023 at 59%.

For 2019 to 2020, CAI and ICAS figures refer only to the proportion of female students in the student intake, not of the total student population.

Figure 6: Female students worldwide, 2019 to 2023⁹

The overall percentage of female students⁹ (56%) is greater than the overall percentage of female members (40%).

ACCA had the largest percentage of female students in 2023 at 59%.

For 2019 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 2019 and 2023.

Figure 7: Age of members worldwide, 2019 and 2023

There were significant differences in the age profiles of the worldwide members of the seven accountancy bodies in 2023. CAI, ACCA and ICAS had relatively high proportions of members aged under 35 at 26%, 23% and 23% respectively, while CIPFA had the largest percentage of members aged 45 and over at 75%, followed by CIMA, ICAEW and AIA at 62%, 59% and 59% respectively.

The largest proportion of worldwide members were aged between 35 to 44 in 2023, accounting for 28% of the total population, followed by members aged between 45 to 54 accounting for 24% of the total population.

Figure 8: Age of students worldwide, 2019 and 2023¹⁰

In 2023, 76% of all students from the seven accountancy bodies were aged 34 or under compared with 78% in 2019. ICAEW, ICAS and CAI had the highest percentage of students aged 34 or under at 97%, 97%, and 89%, respectively, in

1. In comparison, in CIPFA, of those students declaring their age (33% didn't) the largest proportion of students were aged 35 and over at 49%.

Diversity information on members and students

We asked all bodies whether they collect data on the protected characteristics recognised under the Equality Act 2010, and this year 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, 2023

In 2023, 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.

Location of Students

Figure 10 shows the location¹¹ (UK and ROI, and the rest of the world) of students of the accountancy bodies as at 31 December 2023.

Figure 10: Location of students, 2023

97% of AIA and 84% of ACCA students were based outside the UK and ROI. In contrast, ICAS and CAI had 3% and less than 1% of students based outside the UK and ROI.

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

Profile of students of the Accountancy Bodies worldwide

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

Figure 11: Profile of students worldwide, 2023

ICAEW, CAI and ICAS had over 85% of their students complete their training in four years or less. Only 12%, 15% and 15% of their students respectively were registered for more than four years as at 31 December 2023.

Graduate entrants to training

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

Figure 12: Graduate entrants worldwide, 2023¹⁴ & ¹⁵

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.

All bodies have schemes intended for nongraduates/ 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 2019 to 2023.

Figure 13: AAT members and students, 2019 to 2023

	Members		Students
	UK & ROI	Worldwide	UK & ROI	Worldwide
2019	50,619	52,346	87,482	92,094
2020	48,362	50,028	80,138	83,997
2021	48,860	50,452	79,611	83,245
2022	49,406	50,945	73,451	76,416
2023	50,923	52,524	60,439	62,942
% growth (22 - 23)	3.1	3.1	-17.7	-17.6
% growth (19 - 23)	0.6	0.3	-30.9	-31.7

The number of members in the UK and ROI, and worldwide both increased by 3.1% between 2022 and 2023. This is in contrast with a decrease in the number of students by 17.7% in the UK and ROI, and 17.6% worldwide.

Age distribution of members and students (AAT)

Figure 14 indicates the age distribution of AAT members and students for 2023.

Figure 14: AAT Age of members and students worldwide 2023

The highest percentage of members (51%) are aged 45 and over while the highest percentage of students (62%) are under the age of 35.

Resource Information

Figure 15: AAT Resource information, 2019 to 2023

£m	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
Fees & Subscriptions	17.23	17.69	17.63	16.96	20.53
Education & Exam Fees	12.68	10.39	12.60	12.57	13.71
Regulation & Discipline	0.07	0.05	0.06	0.10	0.10
Commercial Activities	0.56	0.45	0.51	0.93	0.52
Other (Including Investment Income)	1.09	0.91	0.41	0.64	0.11
Total Income	31.63	29.49	31.21	31.20	34.97
Number of Staff	264	225	217	229	252

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 2019 and 2023¹⁶, respectively.

Figure 16: Total income worldwide, 2019 to 2023

ICAEW has experienced a slight decrease in their income for the first time in the last 5 years. ACCA has the highest income of the seven accountancy bodies, £246m in 2023. ICAEW figures have been updated for 2019, 2020 and 2021 to show post audit information.

CIMA have seen an overall decrease in their income between 2019 and 2023, down 2.3%.

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, 2019 to 2023

Line chart showing average income per member and student worldwide for ACCA, CIMA, CIPFA, ICAEW, CAI, ICAS, and AIA from 2019 to 2023. The Y-axis ranges from £0 to £800.

CAI and ICAS had the highest average income per member and student in 2023 with £691 and £707, respectively.

The fluctuation in CAI's average income per member and student since 2019 is partly a result of the exchange rates applied (€1.171 in 2019, €1.1250 in 2020, €1.1633 in 2021, €1.1732 in 2022, and €1.1604 in 2023).

Breakdown of income

Figure 18 provides an analysis of the streams of income for the accountancy bodies for 2023.

Figure 18: Breakdown of income, 2023

Fees and subscriptions, taken together with education and exam fees from members and students, are the main sources of income for each of the bodies with the exception of CIPFA. CIPFA's main source of income is from commercial activities (71%)¹⁷.

Staffing of the Accountancy Bodies

Figure 19 shows the number of staff (full-time equivalent) employed worldwide by the seven accountancy bodies from 2019 to 2023.

Figure 19: Staffing, 2019 to 2023

Staffing	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
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
2023	1,334	438	231	780	176	174	18	3,151
% growth (22 - 23)	2.6	3.5	1.8	11.0	5.4	3.6	-5.3	4.8
% growth (19 - 23)	-3.5	-10.1	9.5	12.7	12.8	19.2	-14.3	1.8
% compound annual
growth (19 - 23)	-0.9	-2.6	2.3	3.0	3.1	4.5	-3.8	0.4

Overall, number of staff employed worldwide increased by 4.8% and ICAEW recorded the highest percentage growth rate of 11% from 2022 to 2023.

Diversity information on the workforce under the Equality Act 2010

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

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

Figure 20: Diversity information on the workforce, 2023

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 2023, all nine of the protected characteristics were used by at least two 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 – Supervision of audit regulation

Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs18)

Under the Statutory Audit and Third Country Auditor Regulations (SATCAR) 2016¹⁹ 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 register²⁰ 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 functions²¹.

---

Recognised Supervisory Bodies (RSBs)

Under the Statutory Audit and Third Country Auditor Regulations (SATCAR) 2016¹⁹ 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 RSBs¹⁸, 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 register²⁰ 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 functions²¹.

Number of firms registered with the RSBs

Figure 21 shows the number of registered audit firms for each RSB split by the number of principals²² at each firm, for each of the five years to 31 December 2023.

Figure 21: Total registered audit firms by number of principals, 2019 to 2023

Number of principals per firm	ACCA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	TOTAL
1	777	725	246	26	1,774
2-3	380	840	230	48	1,498
4-6	71	378	44	28	521
7-10	6	100	9	8	123
11-50	5	81	13	5	104
50+	0	13	3	2	18
Total as at 31.12.23	1,239	2,137	545	117	4,038
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

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 9.2% in 2022 (to 4,310) and 6.3% in 2023 (to 4,038).

None of the RSBs saw an increase in the total number of registered audit firms for any of the categories of number of principals per firm.

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, 2021 to 2023

	New applications	Referred to committee	Approved by committee	Voluntarily surrendered	Withdrawn by the RSB
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
ACCA	55	0	0	121	5
ICAEW	61	3	1	174	3
2023	CAI	17	1	1	49
ICAS	4	0	0	15	0
TOTAL	137	4	2	359	9

The RSBs saw a 9.6% increase in new applicants to become a registered statutory audit firm from 2022 to 2023 compared to 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 2021 to 31 March 2023 ²³, ²⁴ & ²⁵.

Figure 23: AQR monitoring, 2021/22 to 2023/24

Inspection Category	Audit Reviews 2021/22	Audit Reviews 2022/23	Audit Reviews 2023/24
Deloitte LLP	17	17	17
EY LLP	17	20	17
KPMG LLP	19	19	19
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP	18	17	17
Big Four firms	71	73	70
Adler Shine LLP	-	-	0
Anstey Bond	0	0	0
BDO LLP	12	13	13
Beever & Struthers	2	0	0
Begbies	1	0	0
Bennett Brooks	0	1	0
Blick Rothernberg	-	0	0
Bright Grahame Murray	-	-	1
BSG Valentine	0	1	0
Crowe U.K. LLP	2	1	1
Deloitte (NI) Limited	0	1	0
Deloitte Ireland LLP	-	0	0
Edwards Accountants	1	0	0
Edwards Veeder	0	1	0
EY Ireland	0	0	0
Gerald Edelman	0	0	1
Grant Thornton NI	0	0	0
Grant Thornton UK LLP	5	5	1
Gravita Audit II Limited (formerly Carter Backer Winter Audit Limited)	1	0	1
Haysmacintyre	0	1	0
Hazlewoods	1	0	0
HW Fisher	1	0	0
Jeffreys Henry	0	0	0
Johnsons Financial Management	0	0	0
Johnston Carmichael	0	0	2
King & King	3	0	0
KPMG Ireland	0	0	1
Kreston Reeves	0	1	0
LB Group	0	0	0
Macalvins Limited	-	-	0
Forvis Mazars (formerly Mazars LLP)	8	9	9
MHA Macintyre Hudson	0	2	1
Moore Kingston Smith	0	0	1
PKF Littlejohn	0	2	2
Pointon Young	0	0	0
Price Bailey	0	0	1
Royce Peeling Green	0	0	1
RPG Crouch Chapman LLP	-	-	0
RSM UK Audit LLP	1	2	1
Sedulo	-	2	0
Shipleys	0	1	0
UHY Hacker Young	0	0	0
Private sector audits	109	114	107
Crown Dependency (CD) audit firms	6	5	6
Total private sector audits reviewed	115	119	113
Third Country Auditors	4	5	5
Private sector audits (excluding CD and Third Country)	119	124	118
National Audit Office (NAO)	9	8	7
Local Audit	20	10	8
Foundation Trusts	4	0	0
Public Sector audits	33	18	15
Total audits inspected	152	142	133

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 2021 to 31 December 2023 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 years²⁶.

Figure 24: RSB monitoring and percentage of total registered Audit Firms, 2021 to 2023

		ACCA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	TOTAL
	Number	337	553	145	36	1,071
2021	%	21.9	22.5	24.0	25.2	22.6
	Number	207	484	115	14	820
2022	%	15.9	21.1	19.8	10.9	19.0
	Number	269	478	102	25	874
2023	%	21.7	22.4	18.7	21.4	21.6

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 2021 to 31 December 2023²⁷.

Figure 25: Monitoring visit reason, 2021 to 202328

		ACCA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	TOTAL
	2021	6	1	17	2	26
Requested by the registration/	2022	7	7	14	0	28
licensing committee	2023	1	5	16	1	23
	2021	77	112	36	11	236
Specifically selected due to	2022	33	190	18	3	244
heightened risk	2023	69	166	6	8	249
	2021	254	440	92	21	807
Cyclical visits	2022	167	287	83	11	548
	2023	199	307	80	16	602
	2021	0	15	3	2	20
Audit Firms with Public	2022	0	17	4	0	21
Interest Entities	2023	0	18	4	1	23

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 2021 to 2023.

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

• File grading: ICAEW, CAI²⁹ and ICAS³⁰ use the same definitions for grading full audit files. ACCA's definitions are set out on page 39. 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 40 (ACCA), page 41 (ICAEW), page 42 (CAI) and page 43 (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

ICAEW, CAI and ICAS:

1	No concerns regarding the sufficiency and quality of audit evidence or the appropriateness of significant audit judgements in the areas reviewed; only limited weakness in documentation of audit work; and any concerns in other areas are limited in nature (both individually and collectively).
(Good)
2	Only limited concerns regarding the sufficiency or quality of audit evidence or the appropriateness of significant audit judgements in the areas reviewed; and/or weaknesses in documentation of audit work are restricted to a small number of areas; and/or some concerns, assessed as less than significant (individually and collectively), in other areas.
(Generally acceptable)
3	Some concerns, assessed as less than significant, regarding the sufficiency or quality of audit evidence or the appropriateness of significant audit judgements in the areas reviewed; and/ or more widespread weaknesses in documentation of audit work; and significant concerns in other areas (individually or collectively).
(Improvement required)
4	Significant concerns regarding the sufficiency or quality of audit evidence or the appropriateness of significant audit judgements in the areas reviewed (not limited to the documentation of the underlying thought processes); and/ or very significant concerns in other areas (individually or collectively).
(Significant improvements required)

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA):

ACCA uses the following initial grade assessment in determining the overall outcome on audit work.

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

Summary of monitoring results by body

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

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

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

Figure 26: ACCA Gradings, 2021 to 2023

Firm Gradings		2021	2022	2023	File Gradings		2021	2022	2023
A & B	No	253	142	177	A Outcomes	No	22	1	4
Outcomes	%	75	69	66		%	5	0	1
C Outcomes	No	50	35	42	B Outcomes	No	338	297	279
	%	15	17	15		%	70	77	70
D	No	34	30	29	C Outcomes	No	123	90	113
Outcomes	%	10	14	11		%	25	23	29
P Outcomes	No	0	0	21	Ungraded/ Limited/ Restricted Review	No	0	0	0
	%	0	0	8

Firm grading (ACCA)³¹

A Outcomes	The firm complies with auditing standards, ACCA's Global Practising Regulations (GPRs), and the Code of Ethics and Conduct (CEC) and the Ethical Standards for Auditors (ESA) issued by the FRC.
(Good)
B Outcomes	The firm is eligible for audit registration; it complies with the GPRs, CEC and the ESA with a few minor breaches, and 50% or more of its audit files inspected, including all significant audits, comply substantially with relevant auditing standards.
(Satisfactory)
C Outcomes	The firm is eligible for audit registration and it complies with the GPRs, CEC and ESA but its quality controls over audit work are not effective and either the majority of the firm's audit files, or the significant audit files, inspected do not comply with relevant auditing standards.
(Unsatisfactory and improvements required)
D Outcomes	When a firm's work is considered very poor or if a firm has a second or subsequent unsatisfactory visit and there are no mitigating factors the visit is graded D, which indicates that regulatory action is required and will usually result in a referral to a Regulatory Assessor or the Admissions and Licensing Committee (ALC). Regulatory action in this context includes ACCA referring the findings of a monitoring visit to the Assessment Department to consider whether disciplinary action is appropriate. D outcomes do not always result from an inadequate standard of audit work, but could be for failure to meet the eligibility requirements for holding a firm's auditing certificate; they may also indicate a referral to the Assessment Department for other regulation breaches such as non-compliance with client money rules or with the terms of a regulatory order.
(Regulatory action required)
P Outcomes:	These are visits where the final outcome has not been determined at 31 December. This is a consequence of a process change associated with the introduction of the Audit Monitoring Committee, whereby the outcome is only determined once the firm has submitted its action plan and it has been assessed by ACCA and/or the Committee.

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW)

Figure 27: ICAEW gradings, 2021 to 2023

Firm Gradings		2021	2022	2023	File Gradings		2021	2022	2023
A & B	No	340	256	218	1 Outcomes	No	182	117	79
Outcomes	%	63	66	44		%	20	16	10
C	No	83	98	101	2 Outcomes	No	514	410	496
Outcomes	%	15	25	20		%	57	55	61
D	No	24	37	60	3 Outcomes	No	171	173	169
Outcomes	%	4	9	12		%	19	23	21
N	No	91	94	118	4 Outcomes	No	32	46	66
Outcomes	%	17		24		%	4	6	8
					Ungraded/ Limited/ Restricted Review	No	164	119	146

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 2021 to 2023

Firm Gradings		2021	2022	2023	File Gradings		2021	2022	2023
A & B	No	120	86	70	1 Outcomes	No	72	42	32
Outcomes	%	81	74	69		%	31	18	18
C Outcomes	No	14	6	5	2 Outcomes	No	127	85	102
	%	9	5	5		%	54	35	57
D Outcomes	No	14	25	27	3 Outcomes	No	31	28	26
	%	9	21	26		%	13	12	14
					4 Outcomes	No	5	16	20
						%	2	7	11
					Ungraded/ Limited/ Restricted Review	No	56	67	57

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 2021 to 2023

Firm Gradings		2021	2022	2023	File Gradings		2021	2022	2023
A & B	No	14	4	5	1 Outcomes	No	6	0	2
Outcomes	%	39	29	20		%	6	0	3
C Outcomes	No	22	10	18	2 Outcomes	No	68	9	38
	%	61	71	72		%	66	33	57
D Outcomes	No	0	0	2	3 Outcomes	No	19	13	17
	%	0	0	8		%	18	48	25
N Outcomes	No	0	0	0	4 Outcomes	No	10	5	10
	%	0	0	0		%	10	18	15
					Ungraded/ Limited/ Restricted Review	No	33	11	27

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 2021 to 2023 split by (i) number of new complaints, (ii) number of cases passed to the FRC Enforcement Division, (iii) number of cases referred to the Committee³², (iv) number of cases closed in the year and (v) average time taken to close a case³³.

Figure 30: Complaints, 2021 to 2023

		ACCA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	TOTAL
	2021	15	145	3	2	165
Number of new complaints	2022	1	125	8	1	135
	2023	10	147	10	4	171
	2021	0	0	0	0	0
Number of cases	2022	0	0	0	0	0
referred to the FRC	2023	0	0	0	0	0
	2021	0	28	10	1	39
Number of cases	2022	3	31	3	1	38
passed to the Committee	2023	2	27	5	1	35
	2021	4	152	13	1	170
Number of cases	2022	7	162	2	3	174
closed in the year	2023	4	163	16	1	184
	2021	5.6	14	0	1
Average time taken to	2022	8	16	10.7	21
close a case (in months)	2023	7.9	19	3.6	1

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 bodies³⁴ in the UK recognised to offer the audit qualification. RQBs must have rules and arrangements in place to register students and track their progress, administer examinations and ensure that appropriate training is given to students in an approved environment. The FRC reports annually to the SoS on the discharge of these functions. Figure 31 shows the number of students registered with each RQB as at 31 December 2021 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 qualification³⁵.

Figure 31: RQB students and members, 2021 to 202336

		ACCA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA
	2021	75,188	25,014	7,662	4,112	144
Number of students in the UK and ROI	2022	71,449	26,134	7,767	4,081	143
	2023	72,370	28,348	7,867	3,916	144
	2021	N/A	19,345	4,538	N/A	3
Number of students following the audit	2022	N/A	20,584	5,077	N/A	3
route or eligible for the audit qualification	2023	N/A	20,455	5,150	N/A	0
	2021	82	1,222	80	288	0
The number of members who were awarded	2022	100	1,278	57	414	0
the audit qualification	2023	92	1,353	29	433	0
	2021	2,824	103,893	9,329	12,242	9
The number of members who hold the audit	2022	2,746	103,458	9,350	12,751	9
qualification	2023	2,663	102,057	9,379	11,799	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 offices³⁷ in the UK and ROI over the period 2021 to

1. The pie chart represents the 2023 data in percentages by each body.

Figure 32: UK and ROI training offices, 2021 to 2023, and proportion of total training offices per body in 202338

		ACCA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA
	2021	3,250	4,949	581	402	10
Number of approved Training Offices in the	2022	3,154	5,201	591	428	10
UK & ROI	2023	3,082	5,461	617	444	10

Figure 32: UK and ROI training offices, 2021 to 2023, and proportion of total training offices per body in 2023³⁸

	ACCA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA
Number of approved Training Offices in the UK & ROI
2021	3,250	4,949	581	402	10
2022	3,154	5,201	591	428	10
2023	3,082	5,461	617	444	10

Section Five – Audit firms

This section covers audit firms with PIE³⁹ clients who responded to our survey. SATCAR 2016 designates the FRC as the Competent Authority responsible for the public supervision of statutory auditors⁴⁰. 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 33 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 UK firms with PIE clients for 2022 and 2023, while Figure 37 focuses on the audit fee income per responsible individual. Big Four non-UK Firms have been included in our survey for the second time this year and are shown separately in most figures but excluded from Figure 36 which looks at year-on-year trends⁴¹. 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 33: UK fee income of Audit Firms with PIE audit clients, 2023 (by fee income from audit)

UK firm name	UK structure	No. of principals43	No. of audit principals	No. of RIs44	Audit staff	Non-audit staff	No. of PIE audit clients	Fee income: audit (£m)46	Fee income: non-audit work to audit clients (£m)47	Fee income: non-audit clients (£m)	Audit Fee income: PIE clients (£m)	Audit Fee income: non-PIE clients (£m)	Total fee income (£m)
PwC48	LLP	995	172	339	1,101	6,414	294	965.00	179.00	2,995.00	383.00	582.00	4,139.00
KPMG (UK)48	LLP	793	162	321	996	4,263	174	840.00	96.00	2,024.00	260.00	580.00	2,960.00
Deloitte48	LLP	725	106	299	1,232	6,376	232	806.00	171.00	3,843.00	365.00	441.00	4,820.00
EY (UK)	LLP	864	132	259	806	6,099	216	737.00	160.00	2,858.00	217.00	520.00	3,755.00
BDO48	LLP	441	153	161	462	1,359	219	400.00	60.00	475.00	54.00	346.00	935.00
Grant Thornton (UK)	LLP	228	57	101	354	1,402	21	192.50	47.50	450.20	6.30	186.20	690.20
KPMG (Ireland)	Partnership	194	64	60	227	688	29	164.25	73.00	282.44	24.75	139.50	519.69
RSM	LLP	355	103	137	214	931	16	141.00	55.00	290.00	6.00	135.00	486.00
EY (Ireland)45, 49	Partnership	113	31	62	185	707	2	135.39	23.74	399.29	0.51	134.87	558.42
Forvis Mazars (formerly Mazars LLP)	LLP	171	66	67	222	487	82	132.80	24.90	176.90	31.30	101.50	334.60
Crowe UK	LLP	98	44	46	122	186	30	61.00	14.00	69.00	1.50	59.50	144.00
MHA Macintyre Hudson	LLP	104	64	52	127	108	47	52.00	19.00	31.00	5.00	47.00	102.00
PKF Littlejohn50	LLP	47	28	29	75	55	68	39.70	5.60	16.20	5.50	34.20	61.50
KPMG Channel Islands51	Limited Company	19	17	20	47	3	28	32.91	1.88	8.74	2.55	30.36	43.53
Haysmacintyre	LLP	36	25	34	59	46	2	29.30	7.00	16.00	0.10	29.20	52.30
Moore Kingston Smith	LLP	71	40	45	92	106	8	28.50	18.10	1.80	0.60	27.90	78.40
Johnston Carmichael	LLP	68	19	23	54	158	42	17.64	6.95	43.30	0.90	16.70	67.89
Kreston Reeves	LLP	46	22	24	34	77	6	12.72	4.54	26.02	0.16	12.57	43.29
Price Bailey	LLP	30	14	15	22	45	1	9.35	2.23	19.75	0.02	9.33	31.33
Beever and Struthers	Partnership	17	10	17	27	19	16	8.57	1.52	7.85	1.23	7.34	17.94
Hazlewoods	LLP	39	10	15	16	84	6	6.84	3.58	30.08	0.15	6.69	40.50
KPMG Audit51	LLC	4	4	5	9	1	7	6.57	1.14	5.00	1.12	5.45	12.71
Shipleys	LLP	19	14	13	31	23	1	5.46	1.24	11.23	0.17	5.30	17.93
Gerald Edelman	LLP	20	7	7	12	20	4	5.46	2.40	11.24	0.26	5.20	19.10
Grant Thornton (NI)	Partnership	7	2	3	11	47	4	4.81	1.57	8.37	0.27	4.54	14.76
Gravita Audit II (formerly Carter Backer Winter Audit Limited)	Limited company	15	6	7	11	14	2	4.20	1.02	9.31	0.70	3.50	14.54
Johnsons Financial Management52	Limited Company	2	1	1	3	5	2	2.02	0.43	2.72	0.23	1.79	5.17
LB Group	Limited Company	9	6	6	15	14	2	1.99	0.49	10.04	0.03	1.96	12.52
Bright Grahame Murray	Partnership	11	6	6	9	12	3	1.76	2.00	3.30	0.06	1.70	7.06
Royce Peeling Green	Limited Company	9	4	4	8	20	10	1.22	0.62	4.56	0.29	0.93	6.39
Macalvins	Limited company	4	3	4	5	9	1	0.41	0.07	2.46	0.01	0.40	2.94
Anstey Bond	LLP	6	2	2	5	3	2	0.41	0.21	1.00	0.02	0.39	1.62
Pointon Young	Limited company	2	2	2	3	-	1	0.12	0.01	0.35	0.03	0.09	0.48

Figure 34: Proportion of total fee income from audit and non-audit work for the Big Four firms, 2021 to 2023

Figure 35: Proportion of total fee income from audit and non-audit work for non-Big Four Audit Firms (with PIE audit clients), 2021 to 2023

Growth of fee income

Figure 36⁵³ shows the percentage growth rate of fee income for each of the years 2022 and 2023 for audit firms with PIE clients, split between (i) the Big Four UK 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 was one more audit firm in total outside the Big Four auditing PIEs this year compared to last year (25 compared to 24).

Figure 36: Growth of fee income, 2022 and 2023⁵⁴

In 2023, total fee income for Big Four UK firms and non-Big Four firms grew by less than last year but still rose by 11.1% and 13.2% respectively. Audit fee income for the Big Four grew by 19.5% in 2023, compared to 23.2% for the non-Big Four firms.

Fee income for non-audit work to audit clients fell by 8.9% for Big Four UK firms and 4.5% for non-Big Four firms in 2023 (even with one more non-Big Four firm answering our survey this year).

Audit fee income per Responsible Individual (RI)

Figure 37 illustrates audit fee income generated per Responsible Individual (RI) for 2021 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, 2021 to 2023

Audit Fee Income Per RI (£m)	2021	2022	2023
Big Four UK firms	2.30	2.45	2.75
Big Four non-UK firms	N/A	2.21	2.31
Average of all firms with PIE clients	1.83	1.97	2.21
Non Big Four firms	1.08	1.21	1.41

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, 2023 (by number of FTSE 100 audit clients⁵⁵ – 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 clients55	No. of FTSE 250 audit clients55	Total no. of other clients listed on regulated markets55	No. of AIM audit clients55
PwC	LLP	30 June	25	64	68	46
EY (UK)	LLP	01 July	24	49	59	16
Deloitte	LLP	31 May	22	43	33	15
KPMG (UK)	LLP	30 September	18	35	30	13
KPMG (Ireland)	Partnership	31 December	3	2	20	4
BDO	LLP	01 July	1	23	109	115
RSM	LLP	31 March	1	2	10	56
Anstey Bond	LLP	31 March	0	0	0	1
Beever and Struthers56	Partnership	30 September	0	0	0	0
Bright Grahame Murray	Partnership	05 April	0	0	1	0
Crowe UK	LLP	31 March	0	0	25	66
EY (Ireland)	Partnership	30 June	0	1	14	1
Forvis Mazars (formerly Mazars LLP)	LLP	31 August	0	4	22	16
Gerald Edelman	LLP	31 December	0	0	4	1
Grant Thornton (NI)	Partnership	31 December	0	0	4	0
Grant Thornton (UK)	LLP	31 December	0	5	6	39
Gravita Audit II (formerly Carter Backer Winter Audit Limited)	Limited company	30 April	0	0	1	0
Haysmacintyre	LLP	31 March	0	0	2	19
Hazlewoods	LLP	30 April	0	0	6	2
Johnsons Financial Management	Limited company	31 December	0	0	2	0
Johnston Carmichael	LLP	31 May	0	1	18	1
KPMG Audit	LLC	30 September	0	0	4	3
KPMG Channel Islands	Limited company	30 September	0	9	17	2
Kreston Reeves	LLP	31 May	0	0	9	7
LB Group56	Limited company	31 August	0	0	0	0
Macalvins	Limited company	31 March	0	0	1	0
MHA Macintyre Hudson	LLP	31 March	0	1	16	16
Moore Kingston Smith	LLP	30 April	0	0	7	11
PKF Littlejohn	LLP	31 May	0	0	55	87
Pointon Young	Limited company	31 March	0	0	1	0
Price Bailey	LLP	31 March	0	0	1	3
Royce Peeling Green	Limited company	31 December	0	0	6	0
Shipleys	LLP	30 April	0	0	5	6

Concentration of listed company audits57

Figure 39 illustrates the percentage of the audits of UK-listed (equity and debt) companies⁵⁸ undertaken by the Big Four UK firms, 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 2019 to 2023.

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, 2019 to 2023⁵⁹

	Big Four UK and non-UK Firms					Big Four non-UK Firms					Next Five Firms					Other Firms
	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023
FTSE 100	100.0	100.0	100.0	98.0	98.0	7.0	8.0	7.0	3.0	6.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0
FTSE 250	94.8	91.2	88.8	86.4	84.4	7.6	8.4	9.2	6.8	9.2	4.8	8.0	9.6	11.2	11.6	0.4	0.8	1.6	2.4	4.0
Other UK Main Market	73.7	67.2	57.5	49.4	44.7	0.4	0.3	0.4	0.7	1.0	16.8	22.8	28.2	29.1	29.0	9.5	10.0	14.3	21.5	26.3
All Main Market	79.0	74.1	54.4	46.8	40.4	5.0	4.8	0.4	0.6	8.6	13.6	18.4	20.2	20.8	19.8	7.4	7.5	25.4	32.4	39.8

Figure 39: Listed company audits concentrations, 2019 to 2023⁶⁰ (continued)

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+⁶¹. 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, 2023

For all four characteristics (Female, black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, disabled and LGBTQ+), Managerial level is the most diverse followed by the Directors and then Partners. The differences between the senior management levels are largest for gender and ethnicity.

Figure 41: Senior management, 2023 – Female leaders

All 33 firms who responded to this year's survey collect information on the number of female senior managers. In 2023, at firms with under 200 employees the percentage of female senior managers was highest at Manager level at 35.6%. The proportion was lower at Director level and Partner level at 17.6% and 14.6% respectively.

Firms with 200 to 2,000 employees had the highest percentage of female senior managers at Manager and Director level with 52.3% and 39.4% respectively, falling to 22.4% for Partners.

For all three sizes of firm, the percentage of female senior managers was the greatest at Manager level and lowest at Partner level, but with relatively more female Partners at the firms with over 2,000 employees.

Senior management, 2023 – Female leaders

All 33 firms who responded to this year's survey collect information on the number of female senior managers. In 2023, at firms with under 200 employees the percentage of female senior managers was highest at Manager level at 35.6%. The proportion was lower at Director level and Partner level at 17.6% and 14.6% respectively.

Firms with 200 to 2,000 employees had the highest percentage of female senior managers at Manager and Director level with 52.3% and 39.4% respectively, falling to 22.4% for Partners.

For all three sizes of firm, the percentage of female senior managers was the greatest at Manager level and lowest at Partner level, but with relatively more female Partners at the firms with over 2,000 employees.

Senior management, 2023 – from black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds

Firms with under 200 employees had the highest percentage of individuals from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds at Manager level at 25.3% and at Partner level at 11.5%. For those firms with more than 200 employees, ethnic diversity declines as seniority increases.

Senior Management, 2023 – with a disability

Overall declarations relating to senior management with a disability are low, with an average of 3.3% of all senior managers declaring a disability. PIE audit firms with under 200 employees had the largest number of disability declarations at partner level (5.2%). Firms with 200 – 2,000 employees had the lowest number of disability declarations at partner level (0.7%).

Senior management, 2023 – LGBTQ+

Overall declarations relating to LGBTQ+ are also very low, with an average of 1.3% 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 2023 split into six age categories.

Figure 45: Workforce ages, 2023 ⁶²

30 out of the 33 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 (46%).

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 rate ⁶³ of the relevant diversity indicator (represented via the line graph).

Figure 46: Diversity information on workforce, 2023

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 diversity indicators (75%).

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 (illustrated by the bar chart), and the percentage of firms that confirmed having such a policy in place (represented via the line graph) for 2021 to 2023.

Figure 47: Diversity policies, 2021 to 2023

In 2022, 83% of the 30 firms had diversity policies. In 2023, 82% of the 33 audit firms who responded to our survey had a diversity policy.

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

Year	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Number of members in the UK and ROI
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
2023	113,423	85,471	12,200	141,561	29,841	21,302	1,473	405,271
% growth (22 - 23)	3.5	-0.6	-1.2	1.8	4.5	3.1	4.8	1.9
% growth (19-23)	11.8	2.2	-1.0	8.1	17.6	10.0	13.0	8.2
% compound annual growth (19-23)	2.8	0.5	-0.3	2.0	4.1	2.4	3.1	2.0
Number of students in the UK and ROI
Year	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
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
2023	72,370	40,797	1,937	28,348	7,867	3,916	144	155,379
% growth (22-23)	1.3	-7.2	-7.8	8.5	1.3	-4.0	0.7	-0.2
% growth (19-23)	-9.5	-15.9	-5.4	24.1	12.2	1.4	6.7	-5.5
% compound annual growth (19-23)	-2.5	-4.2	-1.4	5.5	2.9	0.3	1.6	-1.4

Figure 49: Members and students worldwide

Corresponds to Figure 2

Year	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Number of members worldwide
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
2023	249,804	115,724	13,414	169,722	32,899	24,112	11,050	616,725
% growth (22 - 23)	2.7	-1.2	-3.3	2.0	3.8	2.6	3.3	1.7
% growth (19-23)	11.8	2.8	0.4	9.8	15.5	7.2	26.7	9.4
% compound annual growth (19-23)	2.8	0.7	0.1	2.4	3.7	1.8	6.1	2.3
Number of students worldwide
Year	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
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
2023	441,734	81,640	6,231	38,490	7,883	4,037	5,426	585,441
% growth (22 - 23)	0.9	-6.8	0.5	6.7	1.4	-1.6	-0.1	0.1
% growth (19-23)	-0.8	-23.7	24.6	27.3	12.4	4.3	-3.5	-3.1
% compound annual growth (19-23)	-0.2	-6.5	5.7	6.2	3.0	1.0	-0.9	-0.8

Figure 50: Sectoral employment worldwide, 2023

Corresponds to Figure 4

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Number of members
Working in Practice	52,802	1,987	159	47,068	9,155	5,821	472	117,464
Industry & Commerce	152,969	82,643	1,612	64,971	19,256	11,176	9,658	342,285
Public sector	24,246	6,825	6,124	5,015	1,681	1,120	34	45,045
Retired	13,371	16,980	3,339	30,095	1,917	4,710	630	71,042
Other	6,416	7,289	2,180	22,573	890	1,285	256	40,889
TOTAL	249,804	115,724	13,414	169,722	32,899	24,112	11,050	616,725
Number of students
Working in Practice	11,173	59	0	28,909	6,223	3,457	103	49,924
Industry & Commerce	136,380	48,983	816	1,800	115	152	2,963	191,209
Public sector	13,545	3,445	3,875	546	42	57	27	21,537
Other	280,636	29,153	1,540	7,235	1,503	371	2,333	322,771
TOTAL	441,734	81,640	6,231	38,490	7,883	4,037	5,426	585,441

Figure 51: Female members worldwide, 2019 to 2023

Corresponds to Figure 5

Year	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
% Female members worldwide
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%
2023	49%	36%	34%	32%	43%	36%	39%	40%

Figure 52: Female students worldwide, 2019 to 2023

Corresponds to Figure 6

Year	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
% Female students worldwide
2019	60%	49%	49%	45%	48%	41%	58%	50%
2020	61%	49%	49%	46%	48%	42%	57%	50%
2021	61%	48%	51%	46%	48%	43%	56%	50%
2022	60%	47%	51%	46%	48%	43%	56%	50%
2023	59%	46%	50%	46%	48%	37%	60%	56%

Figure 53: Age of members worldwide, 2019 and 2023

Corresponds to Figure 7

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2019
Under 25	972	143	9	368	9	73	50	1,624
25-34	57,841	14,971	503	28,395	8,247	5,347	746	116,050
35-44	78,588	36,336	2,041	31,429	9,343	5,889	2,569	166,195
45-54	52,428	31,795	3,321	33,709	5,638	3,747	2,786	133,424
55-64	20,711	16,021	3,193	28,693	3,020	3,145	1,138	75,921
65 and over	12,914	13,333	3,623	31,937	2,216	4,248	1,429	69,700
Not stated	0	18	679	0	6	46	0	749
TOTAL	223,454	112,617	13,369	154,531	28,479	22,495	8,718	563,663
2023
Under 25	884	93	11	663	11	56	39	1,757
25-34	57,709	12,014	640	34,412	8,497	5,480	955	119,707
35-44	84,309	31,663	1,836	34,327	10,691	6,681	3,419	172,926
45-54	61,995	35,110	2,650	31,179	6,835	3,854	3,651	145,274
55-64	28,163	19,737	3,485	31,633	3,944	3,101	1,611	91,674
65 and over	16,744	16,805	3,983	37,508	2,915	4,907	1,277	84,139
Not stated	0	302	809	0	6	33	98	1,248
TOTAL	249,804	115,724	13,414	169,722	32,899	24,112	11,050	616,725

Figure 54: Age of students worldwide, 2019 and 2023 ⁶⁴

Corresponds to Figure 8

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2019
Under 25	181,619	34,601	144	16,765	2,873	2,072	2,516	240,590
25-34	174,569	36,539	902	12,655	3,323	1,600	1,312	230,900
35-44	66,762	23,766	1,170	674	597	90	945	94,004
45 and over	22,236	12,063	1,009	147	188	19	851	36,513
Not stated	0	80	1,776	0	30	91	0	1,977
TOTAL	445,186	107,049	5,001	30,241	7,011	3,872	5,624	603,984
2023
Under 25	170,796	17,655	246	22,192	3,272	2,125	1,155	217,441
25-34	175,304	27,032	923	15,177	3,777	1,781	2,394	226,388
35-44	68,561	21,353	1,275	922	549	109	1,069	93,838
45 and over	27,073	13,694	1,755	192	284	22	808	43,828
Not stated	0	1,906	2,032	7	≤ 3	0	0	3,946
TOTAL	441,734	81,640	6,231	38,490	7,883	4,037	5,426	585,441

Figure 55: Location of students, 2023 ⁶⁵

Corresponds to Figure 10

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
UK & ROI	72,370	40,797	1,937	28,348	7,867	3,916	144	155,379
Rest of the world	369,364	40,843	4,294	10,142	16	121	5,282	430,062
TOTAL	441,734	81,640	6,231	38,490	7,883	4,037	5,426	585,441

Figure 56: Profile of students worldwide, 2023

Corresponds to Figure 11

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
≤ 1 Year	93,869	20,331	589	11,667	1,848	1,151	221	129,676
> 1-2 Years	67,410	14,063	532	9,715	1,643	992	492	94,847
> 2-3 Years	53,345	10,767	604	8,172	1,730	861	654	76,133
> 3-4 Years	38,373	7,136	602	4,142	1,504	432	656	52,845
> 4-5 Years	38,993	5,252	442	2,268	441	221	815	48,432
≥ 5 Years	149,744	24,091	3,462	2,526	717	380	2,588	183,508
TOTAL	441,734	81,640	6,231	38,490	7,883	4,037	5,426	585,441

Figure 57: Graduate entrants worldwide, 2023

Corresponds to Figure 12

	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA
Holding a degree	23%	40%	35%	71%	91%	91%	13%
Holding a relevant degree 66	4%	35%	18%	28%	79%	35%	11%

Figure 58: AAT age of members and students worldwide, 2023

Corresponds to Figure 14

	Members		Students
	Number	%	Number	%
Under 25	2,545	5%	21,190	34%
25-34	9,887	19%	17,778	28%
35-44	13,141	25%	15,204	24%
45 and over	26,950	51%	8,770	14%
Not stated	1	0%	0	0%
TOTAL	52,524	100%	62,942	100%

Figure 59: Total income worldwide, 2019 to 2023

Corresponds to Figure 16

£m	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
2019	212.7	60.6	26.9	132.2	27.9	18.8	1.6	480.7
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
2023	246.2	59.2	28.3	140.5	32.3	20.8	1.6	528.9

Figure 60: Average income per members and students worldwide, 2019 to 2023

Corresponds to Figure 17

£	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
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
2023	333	270	397	521	691	707	95	374
% growth (19–23)	5.7	10.5	-7.7	-7.6	7.5	3.6	-15.1	4.2

Figure 61: Breakdown of income, 2023 ⁶⁷

Corresponds to Figure 18

£m	ACCA	CIMA	CIPFA	ICAEW	CAI	ICAS	AIA	TOTAL
Fees & subscriptions	124.5	41.2	3.3	58.0	14.0	9.2	1.5	251.7
Education & exam	98.3	12.0	4.4	20.1	10.9	8.4	0.0	154.1
Regulation & Commercial activities	7.3	0.0	0.1	30.4	3.4	2.3	0.0	43.5
Other (including investment income)	6.6	5.4	20.1	16.9	2.8	0.5	0.0	52.3
TOTAL	9.5	0.6	0.4	15.1	1.2	0.3	0.0	27.1
	246.2	59.2	28.3	140.5	32.2	20.7	1.6	528.7

Figure 62: Growth of fee income, 2022 and 2023

Corresponds to Figure 36

Growth rate %		2022	2023
Total fee income	Big Four firms	11.9	11.1
	Non-Big Four firms	18.5	13.2
Audit fee income	Big Four firms	7.6	19.5
	Non-Big Four firms	23.3	23.2
Non-audit work to audit clients fee income	Big Four Firms	-16.4	-8.9
	Non-Big Four firms	6.2	-4.5
Non-audit work to non-audit clients fee income	Big Four Firms	15.6	10.1
	Non-Big Four firms	18.3	10.5

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:
• 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.
• Big Four: The four largest audit firms: PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), KPMG, Deloitte, and Ernst & Young (EY).
• CEC: Code of Ethics and Conduct (ACCA term)
• CIMA: Chartered Institute of Management Accountants

AAT: The Association of Accounting Technicians ACCA: Association of Chartered Certified Accountants AIA: Association of International Accountants AIM: The Alternative Investment Market is the London Stock Exchange's global market for smaller and growing companies ALC: Admissions and Licensing Committee (ACCA term) AQR: Audit Quality Review team – part of the FRC ARC: Audit Registration Committee (ICAEW term) Audit qualification: The qualification that is provided by an RQB to its members Audit services: * 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. Big Four: The four largest audit firms: PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), KPMG, Deloitte, and Ernst & Young (EY). 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 do not form part of the UK 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. Non-UK firms: EY Ireland, KPMG Ireland, KPMG Audit LLC, and KPMG Channel Islands. Next five: The five largest audit firms outside the Big Four (based on number of listed audit clients) are BDO, Crowe, Johnston Carmichael, Forvis Mazars (formerly Mazars) and PKF Littlejohn. PIEs: The Public Interest Entities (PIEs) are:

1. an issuer whose transferable securities are admitted to trading on a UK regulated market;
2. 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;
3. a person who would be an insurance undertaking as defined in Article 2(1) of Council Directive 91/674/EEC of 19 December 1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings as that Article had effect immediately before IP completion day, were the United Kingdom a Member State.

Principals: Partners or members of an LLP PSED: Public Sector Equality Duty introduced by the Equality Act 2010. The duty covers age, disability, sex, gender reassignment, 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 SATCAR 2016: 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. UK: United Kingdom UK GAAP: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice in the UK UK regulated market: An organised trading venue that is recognised under the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. 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 Linked in or X @FRCnews

---

---

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

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

3. The five largest audit firms outside the Big Four (based on number of listed audit clients) are BDO, Crowe, Johnston Carmichael, Forvis Mazars (formerly Mazars) and PKF Littlejohn. This value is taken from the 2023 AQR Scope Survey. The FTSE 350, other listed equity, listed debt, and public debt. ↩

4. Protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 for the PSED: Age, Disability, Gender Reassignment, Pregnancy and Maternity, Race, Religion or Belief, Sex, and Sexual Orientation. Marriage and Civil Partnership is also a protected characteristic for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 generally. ↩

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

6. 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. ↩

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

8. Until last year, the FRC asked the professional bodies to provide the percentage of female members worldwide. Hence, the total column was the average of the percentages of female members worldwide. This year, the FRC asked each body for the total number of their female members worldwide, hence the total percentage is calculated as female members of all the bodies worldwide divided by total members of all the bodies worldwide. ↩↩

9. Until last year, the FRC asked the professional bodies to provide the percentage of female students worldwide. Hence, the total column was the average of the percentages of female students worldwide. This year, the FRC asked each body for the total number of their female students worldwide, hence the total percentage is calculated as female students of all the bodies worldwide divided by total of students of all the bodies worldwide. ↩↩↩↩

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

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

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

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

14. For ACCA prior year calculations of the percentage of students holding a degree and relevant degree related to new entrants, whereas this year it is in relation to the total number of students worldwide. The percentage of total students worldwide holding a relevant degree at registration is an estimate. ↩

15. AIA figures are based on the number of new students holding a degree at registration and the number of new students holding a relevant degree at registration, whereas other bodies have provided data related current number of students. ↩

16. CAI's income has been converted from euros at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) average annual year-end rate. As at 31 December 2023 the rate was €1.1604. ↩

17. 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. ↩

18. 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. ↩↩

19. SATCAR 2016 provides that the FRC is the Competent Authority responsible for the public supervision 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. ↩↩

20. The RSBs keep a Register of Statutory Auditors (maintained by ICAEW), which can be found at: https://www.auditregister.org.uk/. 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. ↩↩

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

22. 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. ↩

23. 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. ↩

24. 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. ↩

25. 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. ↩

26. 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. ↩

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

28. There is a difference of 23 between the total for Figure 24 and Figure 25, the reason for this is the 23 PIE Audits which is not part of Figure 24. ↩

29. CAI implemented these file grades from September 2023 (change formally noted and approved by its QAC in January 2024). ↩

30. The file grading changes was approved by ICAS' Authorisations Committee in December 2023. ↩

31. The 2021 and 2022 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. ↩

32. 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. ↩

33. ACCA – The KPI (average time taken to close a case) relates to all complaints closed in the reporting year (not specifically audit cases). It is measured from the date allocated to an 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. ↩

34. ACCA, AIA, ICAEW, CAI and ICAS. ↩

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

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

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

38. ICAS 2022 figures restated by firm from 401 to 428. ↩↩

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

40. 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. ↩

41. 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 https://www.frc.org.uk/library/supervision/professional-bodies-supervision/key-facts-and-trends-in-the-accountancy-profession/. ↩

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

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

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

45. 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. ↩

46. Figures used for the fee income splits have been rounded to two decimal places; accordingly, the total fee income is calculated on this basis. ↩

47. 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. ↩

48. Audit fee income from PIE clients for these audit firms may include audit fees of PIE parent entities of the audited entities and their non-PIE subsidiaries. ↩↩↩↩

49. EY Ireland is unable to provide the figure of the 'Audit fee income: non-PIE clients' as required for Figure 33 and per the other firms. Its entry for column 'Audit fee income: non-PIE clients' for this table therefore includes data for non-PIE UK parents who pay for their UK PIE subsidiaries. For consistency, the table therefore shows in column 'Audit fee income: PIE clients' the income only for direct UK PIE clients (£0.514m). For reference, the audit fee income for direct UK PIE clients and UK PIE parents who pay for their UK PIE subsidiaries is £0.774m. ↩

50. PKF Littlejohn 2023 fees are currently unaudited in the transparency report. ↩

51. In January 2021, KPMG Channel Islands and KPMG Audit LLC merged to form KPMG in the Crown Dependencies. ↩↩

52. Please note figures for Johnsons Financial Management are subject to change as at the time of response to the KFAT questionnaire, their transparency report had yet to be released. ↩

53. 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). ↩

54. The Big Four UK firms are within the scope of Figure 36. ↩

55. 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 (94) and FTSE 250 (239) audit clients. ↩↩↩↩↩

56. Beever and Struthers and LB Group Limited have PIE clients which are not part of the listed categories mentioned in Figure 38. ↩↩

57. Includes international Main Market companies. ↩

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

59. Sum of Big Four UK and non-UK Firms, Next Five Firms, and Other Firms for the respective years add up to 100%. ↩

60. Sum of Big Four UK and non-UK Firms, Next Five Firms, and Other Firms for the respective years add up to 100%. ↩

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

62. 0.6% of staff choose to not provide this information and 0.4% of employees in audit firms reported having employees over 65 years of age. 3 out of the 33 firms do not collect data on the ages of their workforce. ↩

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

64. In compliance with the UK 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. ↩

65. 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. ↩

66. This footnote refers to the "relevant degree" row in Figure 57. The original PDF displayed it as a superscript "13" next to "degree". ↩

67. 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 Key Facts and Trends in the Accountancy Profession (September 2024)

Publication date 30 September 2024

Type Report

Format PDF, 25.4 MB

Download original