Which of the following is a consequence of accepting non-audit services without proper safeguards?

Accepting non-audit services without proper safeguards can significantly compromise the independence and objectivity of the auditor. This is because providing these services might create a situation where the auditor's judgment could be perceived as biased or influenced by the relationship with the client. Independence is a fundamental principle in auditing, as it ensures that auditors provide an unbiased assessment of the financial statements. If auditors engage in non-audit services, such as consulting or advisory roles, there’s a risk that their ability to objectively evaluate the financials may be questioned. This could lead to a conflict of interest, where the auditor’s financial interests might interfere with their professional responsibilities.

The other options do not accurately reflect the potential consequences of engaging in non-audit services without safeguards. Increased client trust in the audit process may not necessarily result from accepting these services; in fact, it could lead to skepticism regarding the auditor's impartiality. Higher revenue generation for the firm might be a short-term benefit, but it does not justify the longer-term risks to integrity and perception of the audit. Similarly, while clients might feel satisfied with a broader range of services, this does not address the core issue of compromised independence. Therefore, the potential loss of independence and objectivity is the most significant and immediate risk