Risk disclosures are among the most important types of nonfinancial
information valued by investors. Risk disclosures are mostly narrative
and proprietary in nature; consequently, their accuracy and assurance is
highly important to prevent disclosures from becoming boilerplate and
losing their relevance. By exploiting the unique features of a setting
where risk disclosure is mandatory and under a positive assurance
requirement, we investigate whether the quality of audited risk
disclosures is associated with the type of audit firm (Big-4 vs.
non-Big-4), the characteristics of the audit firm, and the attributes of
the audit partner. Our results show an association between risk
disclosure quality and auditors, but not in the expected ways. After the
enforcement of a regulation requiring a detailed description of risks
in the Operating and Financial Review (OFR) and a positive assurance of
external audit over these disclosures, we do not document any
significant Big-4 effect. The quality of risk disclosures is associated
with the attributes of the audit partner, namely, familiarity with
different client risk disclosures, industry expertise, and gender,
independently from affiliation with a Big-4 audit firm. Along these
lines, we extend recent evidence on the audit partner effects in the
assurance of nonfinancial narrative information.