Last week, the UK Competition Commission published its provisional findings in its investigation into the provision of statutory audit services in the UK. Unsurprisingly, the findings show that there are obstacles to competition, as if we didn't know that already. Just in case you needed more evidence, some really interesting research in this month's Financial Director magazine's 2013 Audit Survey shows just how much harder the 'fifth' audit company has to work compared to the average of the big four . In fact, that's not the real story here, reassuring though it is that genuine competition in the provision of such an important service is firmly on the agenda now.

Reform in the audit market has long been needed. Investor-led proposals for audit reform were eloquently posited in November last year by a group of institutional shareholders and organisations spanning across borders, asset owners and managers alike. This, too, is not the real story, encouraging as it was to see investors organically working together to articulate their collective views on an issue important to shareholders in a collective 'public engagement'.

The real story, and the important link between these two developments, lies in the comments made by Laura Carstensen, Chairman of the Audit Investigation Group. In characterising the dynamics and effect of the audit selection process, she observed that "the result is a rather static market in which too often audits don’t fulfil their intended purpose and thus fail to meet the needs of shareholders".

And there it is, the central governance priority writ large: "The needs of shareholders".