When the accounting check does not arise from an obligation

Not every need to check the figures requires a statutory audit engagement. A company may wish to subject specific financial and economic information to independent examination for reasons that do not coincide with a legal obligation: preparing for a negotiation, responding to a counterparty's request, verifying the reliability of an accounting area that raises doubts, or obtaining external confirmation before making a significant decision.

A voluntary audit meets this need, but with a feature that distinguishes it from a generic check: the scope is agreed before the work begins. The subject matter, the documents to be examined and the form of the result are defined at the outset, so that the work performed is consistent with the stated purpose. F.D.R. S.r.l., a statutory audit firm, provides voluntary engagements of this kind alongside the audit required by law, when a company wishes to obtain an independent examination of its financial and economic information.

The point is not to replace the statutory audit with a different label. It is to clarify what is being verified, on what basis and with what output, so that the client does not expect assurances different from those the engagement can actually offer.

The scope is written first, not adjusted during the work

In a voluntary engagement, the most concrete risk is the gap between what the client imagines and what the auditor can attest to. To reduce it, the initial phase serves to put certain essential choices in writing.

First, the subject matter: does the work cover the financial statements as a whole or part of them, such as a specific item, a transaction cycle, a revenue area or a financial and economic aggregate? The answer changes the volume of testing and the type of conclusions that can be reached.

Then the source information: which accounting documents, which records and which information flows the company makes available. An examination based on incomplete data, or data produced in a way that cannot be traced, limits the possibility of drawing conclusions, and this must be said before, not afterwards.

Finally, the form of the result: a written report, a summary document, a record of findings. F.D.R.'s service page specifies that objectives, documents and the form of the result are defined before the work begins. This approach is consistent with the agreed nature of the engagement: the result is not a standard product, but the answer to a defined question.

Understanding the company to plan proportionate testing

Even in a voluntary engagement, the check does not start from the figures but from the context that produces them. The approach described by F.D.R. begins with understanding the company: its activities, organisation, administrative flows and the manner in which the financial statement data are produced. This knowledge makes it possible to identify the areas requiring greater attention and to plan testing proportionate to the context.

This is a step with immediate practical value. If a company generates revenue through several non-integrated systems, the verification of revenue will require an examination of the transfers between systems; if inventories are managed through periodic counts, the work will focus on the quality of those procedures. The auditor does not apply the same package of checks to every engagement: the extent of testing is adapted to the risk profile of the subject matter examined.

During the work, accounting information, documents and relevant procedures are examined, while maintaining dialogue with the people responsible for the company's processes. This is an element often underestimated by those assessing the service: the quality of the evidence also depends on the company's willingness to involve those who actually manage the operations, not only those who sign the financial statements.

Evidence, limitations and the difference from the statutory audit

The checks are carried out according to the scope of the engagement and the applicable rules, with independence of judgement. In a voluntary engagement, however, the reference framework is not automatically the same as that of the statutory audit. The statutory audit is governed by Legislative Decree No. 39 of 27 January 2010 and is carried out in accordance with the applicable ISA Italia auditing standards; the statutory auditor's work covers the financial statements and concludes with an audit report on the terms provided by the legislation and the standards.

A voluntary engagement, by contrast, arises from an agreed need. This does not mean it can be carried out without method: it means that the scope of testing and the level of assurance the client can expect must be consistent with the defined subject matter. It is one thing to state that a specific item has been verified against a sample of documents; another to attest that the financial statements as a whole comply with the regulatory framework. Confusing the two levels creates unsustainable expectations.

On the technical sources side, it should be remembered that the auditing standards in force are published on the website of the Ragioneria Generale dello Stato, as indicated by the Consiglio Nazionale dei Dottori Commercialisti e degli Esperti Contabili in its section dedicated to the statutory audit of accounts. Anyone assessing a voluntary engagement may ask the auditor which technical references they intend to apply and how they intend to document the work: this is a legitimate question and helps to define the scope.

A hypothetical example: the verification of a specific area

Imagine a manufacturing company considering a credit line that wishes to subject the composition of revenue and trade receivables for a given period to independent examination. The voluntary engagement could be defined with these elements: subject matter limited to revenue and receivables; documents to be examined identified as invoices, contracts, bank statements and accounting records; sample testing of billing and collection cycles; a result consisting of a report describing the procedures performed and any anomalies identified.

In such a case, the client does not receive an opinion on the financial statements as a whole. They receive a defined set of findings, useful for supporting a negotiation or correcting an internal procedure. If issues emerged in areas not covered by the scope, the auditor may report them, but without automatically extending the work: any extension requires a new definition of the engagement.

This example is purely illustrative and does not describe a client case. It serves to show that the value of a voluntary audit lies in the correspondence between the request, the work performed and the result delivered.

The boundary with consultancy and other engagements

A voluntary audit is not consultancy. The auditor examines information and reports on it independently; they do not design solutions, make management decisions or replace company functions. Those seeking support in defining a business plan or a financial statement analysis aimed at a strategic choice are in a different scope, which requires a different structure of engagement and a separate assessment of the skills involved.

This distinction is not formal. A well-constructed voluntary audit engagement clarifies from the outset what the auditor can attest to and what remains outside. If the company also needs management support, the correct choice is to separate the two engagements, not to combine them into a single piece of work with uncertain boundaries.

A second boundary concerns the checks the company already performs internally. A voluntary audit does not automatically overlap with management control or internal administrative checks: it may take them into account as contextual elements, but it retains its own independence of judgement.

What to check before entrusting the engagement

For those assessing this service, certain questions help to distinguish a well-structured engagement from a generic one.

  • Is the subject matter described specifically? A formula such as "verification of the accounting records" is too broad; it is better to indicate the items, cycles or aggregates examined.
  • Is the expected result stated? Knowing whether the client will receive a written report, with what content and at what level of detail, prevents subsequent misunderstandings.
  • Are responsibilities clear? The company remains responsible for the accounting information; the auditor is responsible for the work performed according to the agreed scope.
  • Is there a proportionate work plan? Understanding the company and its flows is the prerequisite for calibrating the testing, not an incidental step.

F.D.R. S.r.l. operates as a statutory audit firm and, in the context of voluntary audits, structures the engagement on the basis of these elements. The final assessment, however, depends on the company's specific needs: there is no single format valid for every situation.

In conclusion

A voluntary audit is useful when the request for verification is clear and the scope is written before the work begins. It is not a reduced version of the statutory audit, nor a way to obtain an opinion on the financial statements without a statutory audit engagement. It is an agreed independent examination, whose value depends on the precision with which the subject matter, evidence and result are defined.

For those assessing the service, the question to ask is not only "how much does it cost", but "what will be verified, on which documents and what will I be able to read at the end". The answer to these three questions says more than any generic description.

Sources

General information content. For assessments relating to your company, it is necessary to examine the specific case.