pwc.com.au/arcm

Opinion and insights on current industry issues for audit and risk committees

Issue 1, 2013

Audit quality

The debate, our views and the implications for audit committees

Response to ASIC’s findings page 2

How valuable do stakeholders find your reporting?

The evolution towards integrated reporting

An in-depth analysis page 6

Is your supplier risk management keeping pace with your strategic imperatives?

Supplier arrangements and risk considerations

The role of audit and risk committees page 9

Audit and Risk Committee Matters

2 | Audit and Risk Committee Matters: Issue 1, 2013 pwc.com.au/arcm

Throughout 2013 Peter van Dongen, PwC Australia’s Assurance Leader, will be considering the significant issues facing the audit profession and what these mean for members of audit and risk committees.

The first issue to be considered is audit quality. It’s been a much debated topic by many auditors and audit committees since ASIC issued its audit firm inspection findings in December 2012.

ASIC’s results painted an unflattering picture of audit quality in Australia and suggested that the audit profession, as a whole, has work to do to ensure that quality audits are consistently delivered to corporate Australia. In this article, Peter considers ASIC’s inspection findings, shares PwC’s views on audit quality and considers the implications for audit and risk committee members.

ASIC’s audit firm inspection findingsIn December 2012 ASIC issued the results of its annual inspection of 602 key audit areas across 117 audit files prepared by 20 audit firms in the 18 months to 30 June 2012. ASIC released its findings in two reports – a public inspection report that groups all the findings, and a private inspection report to each firm reviewed.

In its public report, ASIC identified three areas needing improvement in order to improve overall audit quality:

• the sufficiency and appropriateness of audit evidence

• the level of professional scepticism exercised by auditors

• the extent of reliance that can be placed on the work of other experts.

“These results are disappointing. Audit firms need to increase their efforts to improve audit quality and the consistency of audit execution.” ASIC Chairman, Greg Medcraft

In its private report to PwC, ASIC shared the findings from its review of 20 of our clients’ 2011-12 financial reports out of a selection of over 2,000 audits conducted nationally in that period. We are pleased to note that none of the financial reports reviewed by ASIC and audited by PwC needed to be restated.

Despite this, ASIC’s findings demonstrate that PwC must make improvements to certain processes and procedures to ensure we consistently deliver quality audits to clients.

Response to ASIC’s findings

“ASIC’s findings indicate there is more we can do to improve the quality of our audits. I believe there is also more we can do to illustrate the value of an audit and communicate that value to those outside the boardroom who are not present throughout the auditing process.”

PwC’s Assurance Leader, Peter van Dongen

Executing high-quality audits in full compliance with the legislation and our professional standards is the top priority of our business at PwC. Our audit partners and staff remain proud of the role we play to ensure reported information can be relied upon by the capital markets.

We have been encouraged that audit committees, like other members of the business and investment community, were surprised by ASIC’s audit inspection findings. Many audit committee chairs and members have since been in touch with us to share their perspectives on audit quality based on their first hand experience. These anecdotal stories have been in contrast to ASIC’s view.

This has led us to contemplate how we reconcile such disparate views.

Peter van Dongen

Managing Partner, AssuranceNational Assurance Leader

+61 (2) 8266 3378 peter.van.dongen@au.pwc.com

Audit quality: The debate, our views, the implications for audit committees

3 | Audit and Risk Committee Matters: Issue 1, 2013 pwc.com.au/arcm

For many audit committee members the critical outcome of the audit is whether the financial statements upon which the audit opinion is rendered are presented free of material error and reveal a true and fair view of the business. In turn, a regulatory review of audit files conducted after the audit process is complete is naturally limited to observing how the conduct of the audit is captured. This is acknowledged by ASIC in its public inspection report where it states “there will be instances where auditors detect material misstatements during the audit process and these misstatements are corrected before a financial report is completed and released.” These instances are not measured in a regulatory review. Indeed, only two instances where ASIC identified concerns with audit work, resulted in material changes to the underlying financial reports.

Put simply, the financial statements and the associated – often challenging – discussions underpinning the issuance of the audit opinion are the aspects of the audit that are highly visible to audit committees, but less accessible to ASIC.

In our view, audit quality consists of many elements, including the interactions the auditor has with the audit committee, management and other stakeholders; the audit team’s attitude towards audit quality; the audit team’s level of knowledge and experience; and the robustness and rigour of the audit process. All these elements are critical to delivering a quality audit, and all contain both intangible (eg engaging in challenging conversations with management) and tangible (eg documenting those discussions appropriately) aspects.

In my view, neither the intangible nor tangible aspects of the audit are more or less important than the other...it is essential that auditors get both aspects right. Only when we do that will we be addressing all stakeholders’ needs for surety of audit quality. We need to do better.

PwC’s specific response to ASIC’s findingsIn response to ASIC’s findings, PwC has committed additional investment to: • enhance internal training and guidance in the

specific audit areas highlighted by ASIC’s review and emphasise the critical importance of the audit team comprehensively documenting the actions undertaken throughout the auditing process

• strengthen our culture of quality by ensuring our firm’s leaders reinforce the importance of independence, objectivity, professional scepticism, and accountability for audit quality

• modify our performance review and compensation models to explicitly recognise individuals for achieving our firm’s audit quality objectives

• enhance the role of Quality Review Partners on the audits of listed companies.

Inte

ract

ions

the

audi

tor h

as

with

the

audi

t com

mitt

ee

& m

anag

emen

t

Compliance with auditing

standards and internal

methodologies

Robustness

and rigour

of the audit p

rocess

Know

ledge and experience

of the engagement team The attitudes of the

engagement team towards audit quality

At a glance: the elements that contribute to audit quality While compliance with auditing standards is clearly critical, and perhaps the most readily measurable element of an audit, we believe that all the aspects shown in figure 1.1 have a part to play in determining audit quality and must be considered in assessing the real value of an audit.

Figure 1.1: Elements that contribute to audit quality.

4 | Audit and Risk Committee Matters: Issue 1, 2013 pwc.com.au/arcm

What this means for the audit and risk committeeASIC’s findings remind me that the auditing profession has significant work to do to articulate the ‘real value’ of an audit and the important service auditors provide to corporate Australia and the capital markets.

Auditors apply their training, industry expertise and professional behaviours (such as scepticism) to engage with those preparing financial statements in a way that contributes to confidence in the capital markets. Yet it is clear that the auditor’s work is not always observable outside of the boardroom.

Identifying, quantifying and communicating the real value of an audit is therefore an immediate challenge for audit committees and auditors alike. In my experience, the audit profession has never been under more scrutiny: by regulators, policy-makers, non-executive directors, professional bodies and the media. Efforts to measure audit quality have expanded against a steadily rising regulatory bar and expectation.

The same could be said of the role of the audit committee. There continues to be significant (and often heated) debate about the roles and responsibilities of an audit committee at a time when investors and others have admitted not being fully aware of the ‘behind the scenes’ workings of that committee (Assurance today and tomorrow; global PwC survey of investors’ views, 2012). This has important implications for audit committees not least because it suggests the current role of audit committees is set to evolve.

For example, regulators are likely to be more focused on the content of discussions that take place in audit committee meetings (and therefore written up in board papers and minutes); the responsibilities of audit committees are likely to expand (eg the UK Financial Reporting Council has recently proposed new guidance for directors to implement the recommendations of the Sharman Panel of Inquiry into improving awareness of going concern and liquidity risks); and the interactions between the auditor and the audit committee may change with auditors demonstrating more clearly where they have challenged management’s assumptions (eg the UK’s revised Corporate Governance Code includes various new responsibilities for audit committees, including disclosure in the annual report of ‘the significant issues that it considered in relation to the financial statements and how these issues were addressed’).

Given this growing level of attention, it goes without saying that it would be of value to both the audit and business communities to have clear public understanding of the work of the auditor and of the audit committee.

With this in mind, I’d like to draw your attention to a report that was issued earlier this month by the Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB) following the release of its 2012 inspection into the quality of audits conducted by public accounting firms in Canada. The full report is available at www.cpab-ccrc.ca, but an extract from this report that has specific relevance to audit committees is shown overleaf.

I have had many conversations with audit committees, both chairs and members, about these issues and others since the release of ASIC’s inspection findings. I welcome the opportunity to talk to you about these matters if they are of interest; please call me directly or talk to your usual PwC contact to arrange a conversation.

“Audit committees can – and should – be key contributors to audit quality. Effective audit committees and auditors build confidence in the integrity of financial reporting. By doing so, they reduce financing costs and contribute to an efficient allocation of capital to fuel economic growth.”

(Extract from the Canadian Public Accountability Board’s Public Report on the 2012 inspections of audits; 5 April 2013).

5 | Audit and Risk Committee Matters: Issue 1, 2013 pwc.com.au/arcm

The audit committee – a key contributor to audit quality

CPAB believes that audit committees can – and should – be key contributors to audit quality. Effective audit committees and auditors build confidence in the integrity of financial reporting. By doing so, they reduce financing costs and contribute to an efficient allocation of capital to fuel economic growth.

The audit committee plays a critical role in creating the right environment for quality auditing. It is the audit committee’s responsibility to create an environment that accommodates an open discussion in a culture of integrity, respect and transparency between management and the auditors.

Audit committees are responsible for overseeing the work of the auditors. Among other things, they need to understand the audit strategy, be satisfied that it addresses the major risks, and make sure the auditors exercise appropriate professional skepticism. They also need to ensure that the auditor has an appropriately independent mindset from management and is truly objective. Ultimately, this will enable the audit committee to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the audit.

Audit committees should ask their auditors what they are doing to promote consistency of audit execution, whether additional resources are available if needed to do the audit, and who in the audit firm is accountable for the quality of the work done. Audit committees should consider meeting the engagement quality control review partner (second partner reviewer) as part of the audit process to understand what they did to ensure quality and address any issues that arose.

CPAB believes it is appropriate for audit committees to have a frank discussion with their auditors about what is considered to be a reasonable fee for audit services. However, if the quality of the audit is affected by a fee that is less than reasonable, the audit committee is doing a disservice to the shareholders. Audit committees need to ensure that audit fees are fair and that they are obtaining a quality audit. Investors want and expect a quality audit.

Audit committees can contribute to the solutions to many of the audit quality issues being debated internationally. This includes the risk that, over an extended period of time, audit firms may develop a close institutional relationship with their clients that could negatively impact auditor independence and professional skepticism.

Audit committees have told CPAB they want more transparency with respect to inspection findings in order to improve the effectiveness of their oversight role. In 2013 CPAB will be reviewing how it can increase transparency of inspection findings to audit committees in a way that will have a positive impact on audit quality.

An extract from the Canadian Public Accountability Board’s Public Report on the 2012 inspections of the quality of audits conducted by public accounting firms in Canada. Report issued on 5 April 2013. Full report available at www.cpab-ccrc.ca

6 | Audit and Risk Committee Matters: Issue 1, 2013 pwc.com.au/arcm

Stakeholders appear to be generally unsatisfied with the level of reporting they receive: it is considered too historically focused, and lacks useful descriptions of the business model, the factors that create and sustain value, and the management of risk. Compounding this is the emergence of new risks from the global and economic environment. Companies are responding to these challenges and are benefiting from a commitment to evolve their reporting.

Why should companies evolve their reporting? The global financial crisis has reignited criticism of the corporate reporting model from companies, investors, government and regulators, and this has been heightened by the fast-changing economy and its associated risks. The existing reporting framework is typically viewed as being focused on historical financial performance that gives undue prominence to the past, rather than providing insights into the sustainability of performance and the way in which companies plan to increase value.

Further, in this time of increased transparency, investors consider that less detailed reporting raises doubts about the quality of management and may lead to a lack of trust. Stakeholders are therefore using information outside management’s control to meet their needs and are demanding a greater level of information. Companies can therefore build trust by shifting from a compliance mindset to a practice of telling the story of the company’s business model and how it improves value creation.

In the past, strategies were validated when a company reported growth in financial performance. As there is now much greater volatility in financial performance, the link to the sustainability and success of a company’s strategy is less evident.

There is a concern that strategic information can be lost – if reporting does not become more relevant, insightful and reliable.

Nadia Carlin

Partner, AssuranceEnergy, Utilities and Mining Leader and Integrated Reporting Leader

+61 (3) 8603 6616 nadia.carlin@au.pwc.com

How valuable do stakeholders find your reporting?

7 | Audit and Risk Committee Matters: Issue 1, 2013 pwc.com.au/arcm

What is ‘integrated reporting’?An ‘integrated report’ is a concise communication about the way in which an organisation’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects lead to the creation and improvement of value, over the short, medium and long term.

Integrated reporting reflects and supports ‘integrated thinking’, defined as the ability of those within an organisation to understand the interconnections between the full range of functions, operations, resources and relationships which have a material effect on an organisation’s ability to create value over time.

Our perspective Financial reporting is well understood in most markets and is a valuable tool for communicating historical performance. However, we believe companies can complement this purpose by ensuring their reports link strategy, governance and performance. Making communication channels more effective in this way will create value for stakeholders, and benefit the companies themselves by developing stronger relationships and building trust.

Many initiatives are evolving globally on how existing reporting practices can be improved; for example:

• The UK’s Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) Department is developing proposals to encourage a greater emphasis on short, succinct and strategically focused reporting with the introduction of the requirement for a ‘strategic report’.

• The UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC) provides a forum for investors and companies to come together and develop pragmatic solutions for reporting needs. Two reports have been published to date and the FRC has mandated (on a comply-or-explain basis) that in annual reports audit committees report on certain aspects of the financial reporting process including the audit process.

• The International Integrated Reporting Committee (IIRC) is releasing a framework of principles, content and application to achieve integrated reporting in April 2013.

We believe there is a need for change, and that companies should implement a reporting approach that better considers the needs of stakeholders.

We are also aware of some challenges that companies may encounter when implementing an integrated reporting framework:

• Board and management responsibility for appropriate and unbiased explanation of strategy, risks and the business model will need to be clarified.

• Board and management responsibility for determining materiality, conciseness and integrity of data (including whether there is assurance over that data) will need to be clarified.

• The process required to change reporting may conflict with management’s attention on other business issues.

The success of integrated reporting will not be evident overnight, nor even in a year – reporting will evolve over time as companies begin to understand what their stakeholders need and how this can best be expressed. The overall objective of integrated reporting is not to be compliance based, but rather to be more effective so that stakeholders and the company will both benefit.

Who has adopted integrated reporting?Many companies have started to improve their reporting framework. The IIRC pilot includes over 80 companies globally, with an investor network of over 50 investors. In Australia, NAB, Stockland, and bankmecu Limited have entered into a pilot for integrated reporting with the IIRC. Each pilot participant has different reasons for focusing on improving reporting; however, each reports that an improvement in internal clarity, measurement and connectivity between divisions is a less obvious but important benefit.

A leading water management business in Europe, Shanks Group plc, had an objective in 2011 to make its annual report compelling, not just compliant. The lessons from their first year of the journey support an evolutionary approach, and their stakeholders are finding it helpful to have reporting on both risks and opportunities.

8 | Audit and Risk Committee Matters: Issue 1, 2013 pwc.com.au/arcm

The journey continues ...The journey towards better reporting will be different for each company and doubtless the desired future state will continue to evolve as well.

This means that achieving better reporting will be a function of each company’s ability to explain its strategy, risks and prospects in the context of the environment in which it operates and of its current financial performance. If this is done successfully, the outcome will be increased trust from investors as well as improved internal clarity about strategy and performance alignment.

Lessons from Shanks’ reporting journey

Shanks’ team shares some of the lessons learned as they look for further reporting improvements.

Be evolutionaryDon’t try to do it all in one year. You are always under pressure to get reports done, so be realistic.

Be relatively braveYou may think explaining your business model could be harmful, but if it’s done well, you gain benefits without giving anything up.

Set the timetableThis is key to making it work. Get the inputs from people in the organisation early and give yourself time to achieve a consistent style and messaging.

Be consistentThere may be obstacles to including information from investor presentations in the annual report, but overcoming them is worth the effort. Your website and online communications need to be consistent, too.

Clarity is keyBe sure about why you are taking your approach, and be consistent. For Shanks, the focus was on explaining things better.

Look to improve View better communication as a work-in-progress.

9 | Audit and Risk Committee Matters: Issue 1, 2013 pwc.com.au/arcm

Is your supplier risk management keeping pace with your strategic imperatives?

Corporates are increasing their use of third-party suppliers in the execution of key strategic imperatives. In many cases, these outsourcing and/or offshoring activities are becoming more extensive and sophisticated in order to capture the next level of service delivery, processing efficiency and/or cost savings. However, unless your supplier management framework has also evolved, you could face unexpected risks and not capitalise on potential benefits.

The current global economic environment requires today’s supply chains to balance efficiency with resilience in the face of continuing volatility and heightened levels of uncertainty. Outsourcing and offshoring have become key priorities for many Australian companies, who are increasingly seeking to outsource non-core activities for which they lack a distinct competitive advantage and in some instances, partnering with specialist suppliers to gain a lead on their competition. As a result, many businesses are beginning to rely on a complicated web of relationships and dependencies for everyday operations.

Today, supply chains typically include multiple partners, with services and sourcing often managed across several centres and organisations in different jurisdictions. Corporate functions such as finance, procurement, HR and IT are often globally distributed through outsourcing arrangements, sometimes involving multiple supplier relationships that may not be visible to the end-client, for example responsible third parties further outsourcing to fourth and fifth parties.

While this approach has produced real business benefits, it has also given rise to new exposures to risk. A number of high profile cases have illustrated the risks, not only of supply chain disruptions, but also of long-lasting financial and reputational damage through supplier failures. For example, data centre outages halt airline check-in and reservations, unethical and inadequate practices at off-shore suppliers resulting in regulatory and criminal investigations, and extensive delays in the supply of goods and services, amongst others.

Regulators in Australia and overseas have responded by intensifying their scrutiny of outsourcing arrangements, making it more important than ever to have a comprehensive supplier risk management regime in place.

What are the risks?Traditionally, supplier risk management focused on identifying and mitigating factors that had the potential to disrupt the value chain. However, the extent and complexity of recent outsourcing arrangements has increased the likelihood of these risks being realised. Some of these risks may include:• Reputational risk. The risk to your organisation’s

reputation due to a service or supply interruption, a supplier quality failure, or a supplier’s business practices – for example, an overseas supplier with substandard employment arrangements (ie social or ethical) or involvement with unlawful practices (ie arms distribution).

• Service interruptions. The risk that a supplier failure results in an interruption to customer service, sometimes immediate – for example, an IT failure that prevents customers from placing orders or interacting with your business online or a materials supplier is unable to deliver the purchased materials which prevents the ability to sell the anticipated amount of finished products.

• Information security and privacy. The risk that sensitive data, including customer data, is compromised by a cybersecurity failure in a supplier company (or a supplier’s supplier).

• Regulatory risk. The risk of non-compliance with the regulatory requirements and/or commercial undertakings associated with outsourcing/offshoring arrangements in the jurisdictions in which you operate.

• Commercial risk. The risk of financial loss or cost overruns from poorly managed outsourcing arrangements or supplier failures, and inaccurate billing from outsourced parties for the services provided.

Christopher Daniell

Partner, Assurance Systems and Process Assurance Leader

+61 (2) 8266 1682 christopher.daniell@au.pwc.com

10 | Audit and Risk Committee Matters: Issue 1, 2013 pwc.com.au/arcm

Increasingly, these risks are exacerbated by the growing complexity of the value chain, with suppliers relying on other suppliers (fourth parties) or offshoring arrangements to fulfil their contracts or requirements.

How do you manage risk while maximising value?Until recently, some organisations have managed supplier risk through a combination of centralised procurement and decentralised relationship management. Under this model, a centralised contract management office undertakes the initial risk assessment and controls pricing and contractual arrangements, before handing day-to-day management of supplier relationships to individual business units.

Unfortunately, this approach has proved increasingly inadequate. Organisations risk losing sight of the breadth of the services the supplier provides as they evolve over time, and personnel, processes and technology change, potentially resulting in organisations not receiving the best terms on their supplier arrangements.

What is needed is an overall framework that enables you to manage supplier risk throughout the sourcing lifecycle. A supplier risk management framework not only offers increased levels of control, it can also help your organisation maximise value by offering:• a more reliable and consistent process for managing

supplier risk• competitive differentiation through a transparent

purchasing policy that supports your corporate social responsibility guidelines

• increased operational efficiency and reduced costs through centralised contract management

• an enhanced ability to outsource non-core activities and partner with strategic suppliers on key activities

• a reduced need to replace failed suppliers.

The objective is to encourage cost-effective sourcing while ensuring the risks and accountability for end-to-end sourcing and service delivery are clearly defined, managed, monitored and understood by both your organisation and your suppliers.

Case study: Horse meat crisis hits food industry

The contextThe recent horse meat substitution scandal has shaken the global food industry and raised serious questions about supplier risk management in a sector characterised by increasingly complex and internationalised value chains.

The clientAn international FMCG company asked PwC for help in understanding the key economic, social and environmental risks facing its food (including meat) and commodity supply chains.

Our solutionWe developed a range of options to mitigate potential risks and reduce the business’s long-term exposure, including:• risk profiling and assessing their supply chain

to identify and quantify key sources of risk, dependency and vulnerability

• forensic investigations to identify what may have gone wrong and why

• performing controls and supplier audits and due diligence work to provide assurance as required

• deploying risk monitoring solutions to ensure compliance with agreed standards

• redesigning the supply chain structure, strategy and organisation to optimise between cost and resilience

We also helped them develop a detailed understanding of retailers’ requirements so they could focus on the key drivers that were pertinent to their relationships.

The outcomeThe client adopted a new approach to supply chain management, redesigning its strategy, structure and processes to create a robust supplier risk management framework.

11 | Audit and Risk Committee Matters: Issue 1, 2013 pwc.com.au/arcm

What is the role of the audit and risk committee?The audit and risk committee can help achieve this objective by ensuring management establish and maintain a supplier risk management framework in-line with your risk appetite and thresholds for outsourcing/offshoring, combining control with flexibility.

A successful framework starts with a sourcing policy that defines and manages key risks and is approved by the board based on the risk appetite. Ideally, it takes a risk-based approach, allowing senior managers to identify and oversee critical supplier relationships without imposing onerous procedures that could stifle other sourcing arrangements. Importantly, the list of critical suppliers may extend beyond major suppliers to include other, less visible businesses who nonetheless support essential operational activities.

After identifying key sourcing relationships and their risks, many organisations actively partner with their suppliers to reduce and manage those risks. This approach accords with the growing trend for regulators and consumers to hold organisations responsible for breaches by suppliers.

To help the audit and risk committee in its role of creating a supplier risk management framework, we offer the following questions to consider throughout the process.

Is your organisation managing supplier risk effectively?1. Does management have a centralised system for engaging and overseeing sourcing/

outsourcing arrangements?

2. Can management easily identify all the suppliers used within your organisation?

3. Can management easily identify all the business units using a particular supplier?

4. Does management routinely require suppliers to provide details of their own outsourcing and offshoring arrangements?

5. Does management regularly review and validate outsourcing arrangements to ensure suppliers continue to satisfy organisational standards?

6. Does management have an assurance process in place to ensure outsourcing policies are followed?

7. Are you comfortable that your organisation would be able to respond rapidly to a supply chain disruption?

8. Does management take a risk-based approach to assessing and managing supply chain risk?

9. How are you assured by management that you are operating within your supplier/ offshoring/ outsourcing risk appetite?

10. Have you captured the expected upside to the organisation from entering into the supplier relationship?

11. How are you assured that your organisation complies with the relevant jurisdictional/contractual compliance requirements triggered by your supplier/offshoring/outsourcing relationships?

12 | Audit and Risk Committee Matters: Issue 1, 2013 pwc.com.au/arcm

Additional thought leadership

Value Accounts Holdings 2013

To help you prepare your next set of financial statements, we have recently released the Value Accounts Holdings 2013 publication. For the first time ever we have also developed a Value Accounts Holdings 2013 app that can be used on your iPad or iPhone.

This free app includes: • direct links to relevant AASB, ASX and ASIC pronouncements• interactive annotation features • a sophisticated search function, and • an entirely offline capability.

To view instructions on how to install the App, or to download a copy of the publication, visit: pwc.com.au/valueaccountsholdings

Strength to strength: Enhancing the effectiveness of the audit and risk committee

Topics featured in the November 2012 edition of Audit and Risk Committee Matters include preparing for the risks of doing business in emerging markets, secure email communications and investor engagement.

World Watch, Issue 1 2013

Find out what’s on the minds of regulators, standard setters, business leaders and others as they set the course for improved governance, reporting and assurance.

2013 State of the Internal Audit professional study

Our 2013 study takes an in depth look at how internal auditors are responding to the changing needs and expectations of their businesses.

Audit Committee e-Guide

This e-Guide is designed to help members of the audit committee work through their responsibilities in a practical manner.

Risk appetite: bitten off more than you can chew?

This publication explores the influence of risk appetite on risk management and internal audit.

You may find these other PwC publications helpful in your role as an audit and risk committee member.

pwc.com.au/arcm

Audit and Risk Committee Matters November 2012How effective is your Audit and Risk Committee? p2 Should you be doing more to engage investors? p4 Are you prepared for the risks of doing business in emerging markets? p6

How secure are your email communications? p8

Strength to strength:Enhancing the effectiveness of the audit and risk committee

pwc.com.au

What do you value?

Risk appetite: bitten off more than you can chew?

Are real social values a passing trend?Or are people and ethics being put back at the heart of business? Governance opinion article page 6

Will integrated reporting make a difference? IIRC explains what’s happening and the impact it’s having on companies Reporting interview page 10

A key to creating value?Why British Land is changing the way it measures, manages and reports on its business Reporting case study page 16

Do investors value the audit?Survey uncovers what investors really think of the audit and assurance and whether it should evolve Assurance opinion page 19

World Watch

News and opinion on governance, reporting and assurance issues affecting business today

www.pwc.com/worldwatch

Issue 1 2013

To view any of the above publications, please visit: pwc.com.au/assurance/publications or click on the individual thumbnails.

© 2013 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the Australia member firm, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

PwC Australia helps organisations and individuals create the value they’re looking for. We’re a member of the PwC network of firms in 158 countries with close to 169,000 people. We’re committed to delivering quality in assurance, tax and advisory services. Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visiting us at www.pwc.com.au.

pwc.com.au/arcm

Your thoughtsWe value your feedback and comments. Please take a moment to share your thoughts with us by visiting:

pwc.com.au/arcmfeedback

Contact detailsIf you have any questions about the articles featured in this publication, please contact myself or the relevant author.

Peter van DongenManaging Partner, Assurance+61 (2) 8266 3378 peter.van.dongen@au.pwc.com