The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) has introduced an exposure draft (ED) that aims to provide specific guidance on auditing less complex entities (LCEs). The IRBA has commenced consultations with SMPs and, I must say, their approach to the implementation in South Africa is very cautious, and risks to audit firms, the profession and clients are being identified in great detail.

At LEAF, our mandate remains consistent: to provide our practitioners with the requisite tools and knowledge to effectively navigate these ever-evolving technical standards. The introduction of the LCE ED necessitates a recalibration of our strategies, particularly in the intricate balance between traditional ISA audits and LCE audits.

For those unacquainted with the term, ‘less complex entities’ refers to entities characterised by their less complex operations and structures. The LCE ED is an endeavour by the IAASB to offer auditing guidelines for such entities.

The following considerations are relevant in the near future, should this standard become effective.

• Alignment: With the introduction of the LCE ED, small audit firms must evaluate and refine their current methodologies to ensure they align with the new standards. This may necessitate comprehensive internal training programmes to facilitate a smooth transition.
• Evolution: Small audit firms need to understand that, while auditing methodologies regularly evolve, the foundational principles of auditing remain. The LCE ED is not a deviation, but rather an evolutionary step.
• Potential risks: Firms should critically assess the LCE standard, pinpointing any potential risks or ambiguities. For example, there may be nuances, such as the inadvertent omission of a critical ISA section, which could have particular relevance to the South African landscape or the circumstances of the engagement.
• Differences: Small audit firms must familiarise themselves with the specific distinctions between the LCE ED and traditional ISAs. Understanding these differences will be crucial in effectively tailoring audit approaches and procedures to the needs of the respective entities.
• Client communication: Given the new landscape, audit firms should prioritise transparent communication with their clients, clarifying how the new standard could impact their financial reporting, and what changes, if any, they might expect in the audit process. The LCE standard may allow more time for areas where clients require attention, which would otherwise have been spent on compliance with the additional requirements of the ISAs.
• Regulatory compliance: It’s imperative to ensure that the adoption of LCE ED does not inadvertently lead to non-compliance with any local regulatory requirements. Regular checks and consultations may be needed.
• Cost implications: Firms should assess the potential cost implications of transitioning to the LCE framework, considering both short-term training and methodology costs, and potential long-term efficiencies or savings.
• Technological adaptations: In the era of digitisation, the introduction of a new standard may also necessitate technological adjustments. Firms should assess if their current audit software or tools align with the LCE ED requirements.
• Maintaining audit quality: Despite the changes introduced by the LCE ED, the commitment to delivering high-quality audits must remain paramount.
• Stakeholder engagement: Engaging with stakeholders, including investors, clients and regulatory bodies, will be important in navigating the transition. Their feedback and perspectives can provide valuable insights, and facilitate a more seamless adoption of the LCE ED.

In essence, while the introduction of the LCE ED is a noteworthy development in the audit profession, its successful adoption hinges on the proactive initiatives and informed decisions of small audit firms. Familiarity with the differences between LCE ED and ISAs, coupled with a holistic understanding of the new standard, will be pivotal in this journey.