Assessment Brief

Module Name: Strategic Audit

Assessment title: ES1 essay (2000 words) – Global audit environment

Weighting: 50%
Please read this assessment brief in its entirety before starting work on the Assessment Task.

The Assessment Task

You are required to research and prepare an essay on the global audit environoment by
answering the following two questions:

Question 1 (1,000 words, weight 45%):

Some believe that audit regulation by the state and profession is not necessary, they believe
that the market will automatically result in good audits being performed.
1. Do you agree with this statement.
2. Critically evaluate the regulatory framework for audit quality in the UK, comparing it with
the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the USA.
3. Which of the previous two frameworks is better? and why?

Question 2 (1,000 words, weight 45%):

Materiality is a fundamental concept in the risk-based approach to auditing financial
statements.
1. Describe the concept of materiality in auditing and how it can be measured
quantitively and qualitatively.
2. Identify how materiality can be used to form an overall audit strategy within the risk-
based approach to auditing.
3. Criticise the risk-based approach to auditing and identify how its shortcomings can be
minimised.

Layout of the Essay

INTRODUCTION – Here you provide an introduction to the domain of Global audit and within
it the role of the Audit Firm Governance, and an outline of the 2002 (SOX) and FRC (100-150
words)

1
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND– Here you provide a critical review of the different theoretical
perspectives on global audit and it’s environment and the realisation of field audit. (800-900
words)
MATERIALITY IS A FUNDAMENTAL AUDITING CONCEPT - The determination and application
of materiality in the conduct of an external audit is regulated by International Standards on
Auditing and Materiality Disclosures in Statutory Auditing. (800-900 words)
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS – Based on your literature review in this section
summarise your opinion regarding if audit regulation by the state and profession is needed or
not. In terms of materiality disclosures in statutory auditing would have far more drawbacks
than benefits and should therefore be avoided. (200-250 words)
REFERENCES - The reference list should combined of diverse sources that you read. Hence, it
is vital to focus on the diverse perspectives.
Note: Harvard referencing is required - all questions must be accompanied by enough research
and reference to published work.

Word limit

2000 Words (+/-10%).

Where the submission exceeds the stipulated word limit by more than 10%, the submission
will only be marked up to and including the additional 10%. Anything over this will not be
included in the final grade for the assessment item. Abstracts, bibliographies, reference
lists, appendices and footnotes are excluded from any word limit requirements.

Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of this assessment, you will be able to:
a)
Evaluate the history and current regulatory environment of auditing in a global context.

b) Successfully critique concepts in order to address the significance of the legal and professional
requirements in the performance of an audit.
d) Analyse the overall audit strategy and the effectiveness of the audit monitoring process in the
global environment.
e)
Devise and sustain an argument, supported by valid and significant, evaluated evidence.

Your grade will depend on the extent to which you meet these learning outcomes in the way
relevant for this assessment. Please see the grading rubric on NILE for further details of
the criteria against which you will be assessed.

Assessment Criteria

 Critically express your understanding of global audit environment.

 Excellence of critical analysis of audit firm governance code compliance with SOX 2002
and FRC 2016 as well as the materiality disclosures in statutory auditing.
 Fineness of recommendations and their justification.
 Professional and academic quality of written work and accuracy of referencing.

2
Assessment Support
Specific support sessions for this assessment will be provided by the module team and
notified through NILE. You can also access individual support and guidance for your
assessments from Library and Learning Services. Visit the Skills Hub to access this support
and to discover the online support also available for assessments and academic skills.

Academic Integrity and Misconduct

Unless this is a group assessment, the work you produce must be your own, with work taken
from any other source properly referenced and attributed. For the avoidance of doubt this
means that it is an infringement of academic integrity and, therefore, academic misconduct to
ask someone else to carry out all or some of the work for you, whether paid or unpaid, or to
use the work of another student whether current or previously submitted.

For further guidance on what constitutes plagiarism, contract cheating or collusion, or any
other infringement of academic integrity, please read the University’s Academic Integrity and
Misconduct Policy. Also useful resources to help with understanding academic integrity are
available from UNPAC - the University of Northampton’s Plagiarism Avoidance Course.

N.B. The penalties for academic misconduct are severe and include failing the
assessment, failing the module and even expulsion from the university.

Assessment Submission
To submit your work, please go to the ‘Submit your work’ area on the NILE site and use the
relevant submission point to upload your report. The deadline for this is 11.59pm (UK local
time) on the date of submission. Please note that essays and text-based reports should be
submitted as word documents and not PDFs or Mac files.

Written work submitted to TURNITIN will be subject to anti-plagiarism detection software.

Turnitin checks student work for possible textual matches against internet available resources
and its own proprietary database.

When you upload your work correctly to TURNITIN you will receive a receipt which is your
record and proof of submission. If your assessment is not submitted to TURNITIN, rather
than a receipt, you will see a green banner at the top of the screen that denotes successful
submission.

N.B Work emailed directly to your tutor will not be marked.

Late submission of work

For first sits, if an item of assessment is submitted late and an extension has not been
granted, the following will apply:

 Within one week of the original deadline – work will be marked and returned with full
feedback, and awarded a maximum bare pass grade.
 More than one week from original deadline – grade achievable LG (L indicating late).

For resits there are no allowances for work submitted late and it will be treated as a non-
submission.
3
Please see the Assessment and Feedback Policy for full information on the processes related
to assessment, grading and feedback, including anonymous grading. You will also find the
generic grading criteria for achievement at University Grading Criteria. Also explained there
are the meanings of the various G grades at the bottom of the grading scale including LG
mentioned above.

Extensions
The University of Northampton’s general policy with regard to extensions is to be supportive
of students who have genuine difficulties, but not against pressures of work that could have
reasonably been anticipated.

For full details please refer to the Extensions Policy. Extensions are only available for first sits
– they are not available for resits.

Mitigating Circumstances
For guidance on Mitigating circumstances please go to Mitigating Circumstances where you
will find detailed guidance on the policy as well as guidance and the form for making an
application.

Please note, however, that an application to defer an assessment on the grounds of mitigating
circumstances should normally be made in advance of the submission deadline or
examination date.

Feedback and Grades

These can be accessed through clicking on the Feedback and Grades tab on NILE. Feedback
will be provided by a rubric with summary comments.

Marking rubric
Criteria Level of achievement
G- No F- Fail C- Pass B- Merit A- Distinction
submission/ 0-49 50-59 60-69 70-100
no evidence
Q1: Audit 0-17 18 to 22 23 to 26 27 to 31 32 to 45
regulation/the Work No opinion on Good opinion on Very good opinion Excellent opinion
UK regulatory submitted is of audit regulation is audit regulation is on audit regulation on audit regulation
framework for no academic given. given. is given. is given.
audit quality/ value/ nothing Limited scope of Adequate scope of Clear scope of A detailed and
the Sarbanes- submitted discussion to discussion to discussion to concise scope of
Oxley Act (LOs explain the UK explain the UK explain the UK discussion to

4
a & e) 45% regulatory regulatory regulatory explain the UK
framework for framework for framework for regulatory
audit quality. audit quality. audit quality. A framework for
There is limited or Lacking or no useful discussion audit quality.
no discussion on discussion on the on the US Discussion on the
the US Sarbanes- US Sarbanes- Sarbanes-Oxley US Sarbanes-Oxley
Oxley Act. The Oxley Act. The Act. The Act is of a high
evaluation and evaluation and evaluation and standard. The
justification of both justification of justification of evaluation and
frameworks are not both structures is both structures is justification of both
discussed. limited in discussed in some structures is
discussed. detail. discussed to a high
standard
Q2: 0-17 18 to 22 23 to 26 27 to 31 32 to 45
Materiality/the Work Limited Adequate A good A very good
risk-based submitted is explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the
approach to of no concept of concept of concept of concept of
auditing/an academic materiality and its materiality and its materiality and its materiality and its
overall audit value/ nothing measurement. measurement. measurement. measurement.
strategy (LOs submitted Failed to Adequate Discussion is of a Discussion is of a
b, d & e) 45% demonstrate a understanding of good standard and good standard and
clear the role of demonstrates demonstrates clear
understanding of materiality in the clear understanding of
the role of risk-based understanding of the role of
materiality in the approach to the role of materiality in the
risk-based auditing and audit materiality in the risk-based
approach to strategy. risk-based approach to
auditing and audit Adequate critique approach to auditing and audit
strategy. Limited of the risk-based auditing and audit strategy. Very
critique of the approach. strategy. Good good critique of
risk-based Recommendations critique of the the risk-based
approach. to overcome risk-based approach.
Recommendations shortcomings approach. Recommendations
to overcome have been Recommendations to overcome
shortcomings are correctly to overcome shortcomings
not clearly explained. shortcomings chosen to explain
explained. have been are of a high
correctly technical level.
explained.
Academic/ 1-3 4 5 6 7 to 10
professional Work Poor command of Sound command Rigorous Authoritative
quality 10% submitted is academic/ of academic/ command od command of
of no professional professional academic/ academic/
academic conventions conventions professional professional
value/ nothing appropriate to the appropriate to the conventions conventions
submitted discipline discipline appropriate to the appropriate to the
discipline discipline