Latest news

Liam Cotter charts the road ahead and critical importance of data for Irish organisations preparing for the AI revolution Right now, many organisations are experiencing caution, confusion—or both—in relation to artificial intelligence (AI). They are unsure about generative AI (GenAI), how it differs from previous AI iterations, and whether it can add value for them. With the first milestones of the European Union’s AI Act due to come into force in February 2025, focused on prohibiting AI systems posing unacceptable risk, organisations are concerned about falling foul of regulation. They are keen to ensure that any AI model introduced to help their business, undergoes rigorous testing to ensure it is fair and doesn’t have bias baked in. There are also more generalised fears regarding the cost of moving too quickly and developing the wrong solutions, however, as well as the “opportunity cost” of moving too slowly and thus failing to capture the benefits of the right opportunities. Data-based decisions Regardless of what stage an organisation has reached in its adoption of AI and GenAI, one thing holds true: the key to success is data. The only way to ensure quality AI outputs is to provide quality inputs. The way we manage and store data for the AI age differs from how we have done so in the past. Thus, even though the same fundamental rules apply, your data capture and entry systems may not be robust enough to handle AI demands and this could put you at a competitive disadvantage. Part of the problem with readying your data for AI transformation is the sheer amount of hard work involved, which may not appear not to offer a lot of value. This is because this work involves run-of-the-mill data generated from day-to-day operations. The key to the successful adoption of AI tomorrow is ensuring everybody in your organisation is aware of data management today. It is about ensuring everyone is measuring the quality of their data right across the organisation so they can stand over what it presents. For organisations that previously placed little value on the data they generate, this shift will require a culture change. It may also require different parts of the organisation to pool data—such as combining sales and stock databases rather than keeping them siloed, for example. In companies involved in mergers and acquisitions, it means ensuring you fully understand your data's lineage. The time to act is now The past 12 months have seen a growing realisation among organisations of the potential importance of AI as a lever for competitiveness. It is increasingly viewed as a valuable tool to drive digital transformation, enabling them to become more flexible, be faster to market, provide a better customer experience and more. Most of what AI will do has yet to be “dreamed up”. To put its scale in context, somewhere in the world, a data centre—the building block that powers the AI revolution—opens every two days. Organisations need to act to keep up. The first step is understanding the regulations and timeframes that are being rolled out under the EU AI Act. Next, identify use cases and develop them. Experiment—and if you are going to fail, fail fast. Get involved and discover the value in AI. People-powered data Understand the behavioural risks, too.  A lot of the work involved isn’t about technology at all. It’s about people. You can introduce the best technology in the world, but it's useless if staff don’t collect, curate and manage their data correctly. Everyone in your organisation must be able to stand by the accuracy of their data, which means good data practices must be applied to all business processes. In many organisations, this means investing in data capabilities, including staff training, and appointing a Chief Data Officer responsible for driving data literacy and good data management practices throughout the organisation, from the bottom to the top. To succeed, data management must be seen as a core, valuable component of what everyone does, regardless of their role. Break down the barriers Barriers to achieving effective AI readiness include an organisational culture that hasn’t yet caught up with the importance of data, allied to poor systems and processes that ensure people don’t understand the implications of getting it wrong. The real barrier is, however, that all of this takes work. Readying your data systems for AI is a pain, and sometimes, people can see no value in it. Once you can stand over your data, knowing it is of good quality and understanding its lineage, your organisation will likely be in pretty good shape because you can then move on and digitise your key business processes with confidence. The AI revolution starts and ends with data. Don’t underestimate the effort required to get good quality, well-managed data. It is the foundational work that cannot be avoided. Equally, don’t underestimate the impact. Once you have good data systems in place, you can confidently move forward and capture the full breadth of AI benefits that await.  Liam Cotter is Technology Practice Lead at KPMG

A strong organisational culture drives performance, retention and reputation. Laura Magahy outlines how to shape and sustain culture for competitive advantage Organisations ignore culture at their peril. We need only look back to the global financial crisis and recent controversies across several charity and public sector institutions to see the results of weak organisational culture. Peter Drucker may have never actually said, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”, but Ford Motor Company President Mark Fields certainly did when he put it on his office wall in 2006. This is much more than a catchy slogan. It underlines a critical truth: no matter how well-crafted a strategy might be, it will fail if the culture in an organisation doesn’t actively encourage its people to live it. In short, without a coordinated framework for supporting a culture that will drive the company’s vision forward, achieving it will not be possible. Conversely, organisations with a strong, positive and supported culture enjoy significant benefits, including improved performance, enhanced employee recruitment and retention and better overall reputation. The cultural wake-up call The 2008 global financial crisis cast a spotlighted cultural failings in financial institutions as a key contributing factor. By 2012, corporate culture began to be seen as a key strategic element to prevent future crises. In 2018, the Central Bank of Ireland conducted a behaviour and culture review of Irish banks. What followed was the establishment of the Irish Banking Culture Board, which was set up to drive cultural change in financial institutions. More recently, other high-profile scandals have led a number of public sector authorities, agencies and charitable bodies to look seriously at organisational culture as part of essential governance oversight and reputation protection. Defining and assessing organisational culture The challenge facing organisations is how to determine if they have the right culture and, indeed, what that culture should be. There is no identity for setting the ideal or target organisational culture. The nature of the individual organisation and the circumstances in which it operates are of fundamental importance and must be considered. For example, the culture required for a commercial, sales-focused organisation may be different to that of a public service provider; where a number of organisations are merging, they may need to define a new culture for the new entity; when a new agency is being established or has an expanded remit, they may need to reset their target culture. In all cases, the target culture must be aligned with what the organisation and its leaders want to achieve to support their mission, vision and values. Organisational culture, if not actively supported and monitored, tends to grow and evolve organically and frequently in unintended and unexpected ways. It is created through the behaviours that are displayed by both the top management and local leaders through their day-to-day actions. Four common culture types Broadly speaking, organisational culture will often fall into one of four general categories. Each is based on different value drivers, which depend on various factors, including whether the organisation is more internally or externally focused, how flexible and innovative it needs to be to deliver on its mission and what its risk appetite should be. Clan culture: Internally focused, promoting long-term cohesion, with core values of commitment, communication and staff development. Hierarchical culture: Also internally focused, prioritising efficiency, consistency and structure in the pursuit of a common goal. Adhocracy culture: Externally oriented, with a long-term vision; competitive, driven by innovation, agility and transformation. Market culture: Also externally focused, with a sharp emphasis on customer service, goal achievement, market share and profitability. In reality, most organisations exhibit a blend of these types. What really matters is if it is the right target culture for what the organisation needs and, if not, what the right one would be. Characteristics of strong vs. weak cultures Strong organisational cultures typically exhibit traits such as: Honesty and transparency; Strategic and forward-thinking approaches; Respect and accountability; Adaptability and reliability; and A shared sense of purpose. In contrast, weak cultures are often characterised by: Siloed thinking; Short-term focus; Low employee morale; High staff turnover; Over-concentration of power; and Lack of trust and engagement Cultural variation across departments It should be emphasised that uniformity of culture across different parts of an organisation is not necessarily critical for mission delivery. As long as the people within the organisation are aligned with the same goals and values, then cultural variation or sub-cultures across departments and divisions can co-exist. For example, adhocracy may suit a research and development department, while the sales operation may find a market culture more appropriate. As long as they share the behaviours and values of a strong, positive culture, they can work together in harmony or at least in a mutually supportive environment. Laura Magahy is Head of Public Sector Consulting at Forvis Mazars

Moira Cronin explains how the Digital Operational Resilience Act will impact Irish-based financial services providers, enhancing ICT risk management and digital resilience The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) came into effect on 17 January 2025. Designed to consolidate and upgrade information and communications technology (ICT) risk requirements in the financial sector, DORA applies common standards to all financial system participants. Its aim is to mitigate ICT and cyber risks across providers’ operations. So, what does this Act mean for financial services providers based in Ireland? Legal basis DORA removes obstacles to—and improves the establishment and functioning of the internal market for—financial services, by harmonising the rules applicable in ICT risk management, reporting, security control testing and ICT third-party risk. Subsidiarity The proposal harmonises the digital operational component of a deeply integrated and interconnected sector already benefitting from a single set of rules and supervision in most other key areas. For ICT-related incident reporting, only EU harmonised rules could reduce administrative burdens and financial costs associated with reporting the same ICT-related incident to different EU and national authorities. Proportionality Proportionality is designed in terms of scope and intensity through qualitative and quantitative assessment criteria. While the new rules cover all financial entities, they are also tailored to the risks and needs of their specific characteristics in terms of their size and business profiles. Proportionality is also embedded in the ICT and cyber-risk management rules, digital resilience testing, reporting major ICT-related incidents and oversight of critical ICT and cyber third-party service providers. Choice of instrument The measures needed to govern ICT and cyber risk management, ICT and cyber-related incident reporting, testing and oversight of critical ICT and cyber third-party service providers must be contained in the regulation to ensure that the detailed requirements are effectively and directly applicable in a uniform manner, without prejudice to proportionality and specific rules foreseen by this regulation. Three DORA requirements businesses should aim to achieve are: 1. ICT-related incident reporting One of the main requirements for financial entities is to establish and implement a management process to monitor and log ICT and cyber-related incidents, followed by an obligation to classify them based on criteria detailed in the regulation and further developed by the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) to specify materiality thresholds. Only ICT-related incidents deemed significant must be reported to the competent authorities. 2. Cyber operational resilience testing The capabilities and functions included in the ICT risk management framework need to be periodically tested for preparedness, identification of weaknesses, deficiencies or gaps and prompt implementation of corrective measures. This regulation allows for a proportionate application of digital operational resilience testing requirements depending on financial entities' size, business and risk profiles. 3. ICT and cyber third-party risk The regulation is designed to ensure a sound monitoring of ICT and cyber third-party risk; financial entities shall be required to observe several key elements in their relationship with ICT and cyber third-party providers, remaining fully responsible for complying with and discharging all obligations. To this end, contracts governing this relationship will be required to include: At least a complete description of services; An indication of locations where data is processed; Full-service level descriptions accompanied by quantitative and qualitative performance targets; Relevant provisions on accessibility, availability, integrity, security and protection of personal data; Inspection and audit by the financial entity or an appointed third-party; Clear termination rights; and Dedicated exit strategies. As such, DORA should be taken into consideration in close coordination with NIS Directive version 2, CBI Operational Resilience Guidelines and the EU Critical Infrastructure Directive. DORA is part a package of digital finance measures designed to further enable and support the potential of digital finance in terms of innovation and competition while mitigating the risks arising from it. It aligns with the European Commission's priorities to make Europe fit for the digital age and build a future-ready economy that works for the people. Moira Cronin is Digital Risk Partner at PwC Ireland

Two distinctly opposing leadership ideologies now exist, but could one damage your organisation? Michael O'Leary explores the current state of leadership Thirty years ago, the late Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State, listed 18 lessons for leaders in a presentation titled A Leadership Primer. He talked about authenticity, optimism, challenging others and not being afraid to be challenged back. Fast forward to 2025. A friend with a successful track record as a leader and entrepreneur says he fears the examples young people are now exposed to by political leaders around the world –namely, their values, naked self-interest and fervent intolerance for people different from themselves. Beyond Powell’s single set of leadership principles, we now have two diametrically opposing “successful” leadership ideologies – one which engages others around common goals, innovation and adaptability and the other around a populist, narcissistic personality, sewing divisiveness and confrontation. Growth in disinformation on social media and in vested print media has spurred an undesirable social contagion of the latter, meaning organisations now need to consider how to combat these external influences on their internal leadership behaviours. As the global economy stumbles, having a positive, optimistic and thriving organisation culture is essential. Who you recruit as a leader determines your culture. Here are the three leadership traits we see too often in geopolitics and how to avoid hiring them. Trait 1: Strict dogma and rigid perspective Even leaders who deliver results occasionally believe that to get things done, they need to do it themselves. The consequences include a feeling of exclusion for employees and that their opinions are not wanted. This erodes collaboration and disengages the team over time. Hire leaders who can give examples of adapting on the move and can describe in detail how they brought their teams on a new journey. Look for leaders who have recognised when to pivot and have engaged with their teams to work out a new direction or multi-pronged approach. Trait 2: Intense control and single-mindedness In extreme cases of dictatorial leadership, curiosity is deliberately stifled. The leader seeks to control matters tightly to their agenda. Curiosity has deep riches; it is the key to continuous improvement, innovation and building connections between people. Leaders should inspire their teams to be open-minded and look for new ways of achieving outcomes. Ask your potential leadership hires to outline examples of where they have completely let go of an issue and had it worked through by a team or team member to the point of resolution. Look for leaders who can respond quickly when asked to give an example of inquisitiveness. Trait 3: Investing only in self Fear of the unknown can drive irrational levels of support for geopolitical leaders, even in the face of their aberrant conduct. Within the context of organisational leadership, self-absorbed leaders are dangerous to team or group morale. Their staff turnover will often be higher as their lack of authenticity undermines their credibility. How self-aware is the leader you are interviewing? Are they attuned to their emotions and impact on others? Can they give examples of areas in which they need development? Do they rely too heavily on their charisma? While it can be useful in motivating others, it can also suggest a potential for arrogance and the need to be at the centre of attention. Though the world and our organisations currently face an unusual number of difficulties, organisation leaders with the right traits understand how to insulate against malign influences and navigate challenges. Their ability to bind intellectual agility to practical demonstration is what makes them outstanding leaders. They do this by behaving in a diametrically opposing manner to those political leaders who seek personal gain at an extreme cost to their citizens. Michael O'Leary is Chairperson at HRM Search Partners

Emma Broderick explains how suppliers of virtual events must account for VAT where customers are located, complicating compliance The EU VAT treatment of live streaming and virtual events services has changed with effect from 1 January 2025. Suppliers of such events will need to consider whether it will be necessary to account for VAT in multiple EU jurisdictions and how to efficiently manage any associated registration ‘footprint’. A virtual event isn’t defined in VAT law, but could include live-streamed events or other online events that involve people interacting in a virtual environment rather than meeting in a physical location.  The change is intended to apply VAT where the service is consumed, in line with the normal place of supply rules for business-to-business (B2B) services and similar rules for electronically supplied services provided on a business-to-consumer (B2C) basis. New measures Currently, VAT is levied on live-streamed events, including virtual events, where that event takes place. This means that live-streamed events are subject to VAT in the country in which the event is taking place, even if the viewers are located in a different jurisdiction. This is the case regardless of the business or non-business status of the customer. From 1 January 2025, EU law applies VAT to such events where the viewer, or customer, is located. This operates as follows: For B2B supplies, the EU business recipient may be required to self-account for reverse charge VAT in their EU country of establishment. For B2C supplies, the supplier will be responsible for collecting and remitting VAT in the EU country where the customer is located. This is intended to bring the VAT treatment of virtual events into alignment with that of other telecommunication, broadcasting and electronically supplied services (including streaming services or the delivery of other pre-recorded content). A pan-European €10,000 threshold applies for EU and NI businesses, and a nil threshold applies for non-EU established businesses. This change follows an amendment to the VAT place of supply rules for certain events services in Directive 2022/542. Irish law has not yet been amended to implement these changes, but we anticipate a statutory instrument to this effect will be issued in the coming weeks. Going forward The VAT treatment of events provided on a B2C basis will change considerably and bring about increased costs of compliance for businesses providing such B2C virtual services. The provider of the online events may need to register and charge VAT in each EU country where their final customers reside. Suppliers of live-streamed and virtual events will need to think about how to identify the location of their consumers and understand the impact of being subject to VAT in another EU jurisdiction. There is a VAT registration simplification available, known as the VAT One Stop Shop, to facilitate one single-EU-wide registration to remit output VAT on supplies, but there remains a challenge of monitoring differing VAT rates across the EU and pricing, contracting and invoicing decisions associated with this. The impact on cross-border B2B supplies should be less significant, as business customers should be able to self-assess for VAT on the reverse charge basis in their country of establishment, but suppliers will still need to consider invoicing and relevant VAT reporting requirements. Emma Broderick is a tax partner at Grant Thornton

As 2024 breaks temperature records, Derarca Dennis explores how businesses are advancing net zero strategies and why urgent climate action is essential In November, the EU climate monitor Copernicus reported that 2024 was "virtually certain" to be the hottest year on record, with warming above 1.5C, highlighting that the world was passing a "new milestone" in temperature records. These statistics, among countless others, highlight the critical need for immediate and sustained action to reduce emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change. As the global climate crisis intensifies, the urgency for businesses to commit to and achieve net zero carbon emissions has never been more critical. The EY State of Sustainability 2024 report sheds light on the progress organisations are making towards sustainability. However, as events of recent weeks and months have shown us, every business, person and country need to do more. The global climate crisis is arguably the most pressing challenge of our time. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events and the degradation of natural ecosystems are just a few of the devastating impacts of climate change. A revision of National Defined Contributions (NDCs) is an absolute requirement as we know already that we will surpass 1.5C if we continue on current NDCs. As major contributors to global emissions, the actions businesses take to reduce their carbon footprint can have a profound impact on the overall trajectory of climate change. While part of a much bigger and very complex picture, by committing to net zero targets, businesses can help drive the systemic changes needed to transition to a low-carbon economy, protect natural resources and ensure a sustainable future for all. The EY State of Sustainability report shows that increased focus on sustainability is evident in the high rate of adoption of formal sustainability strategies among businesses. According to the report, 70 percent of respondents have approved and implemented a sustainability strategy, with the same number reporting alignment between that strategy and the overall business strategy. This alignment is crucial as it ensures that sustainability is integrated into the core operations and decision-making processes of the organisation. However, 35 percent of respondents feel their organisation is not doing enough, a notable rise from 17 percent in 2022. While it’s positive to see the overall trajectory of sustainability in business in Ireland moving in the right direction, it’s equally heartening to see that organisations are beginning to understand that there is much more to do. One of the most encouraging findings from the report is that 55 percent of organisations are aiming for net zero science-based targets, with 40 percent having established a clear roadmap towards achieving net zero. Leadership plays a crucial role in driving sustainability efforts, with 53 percent of organisations assigning C-suite responsibility for sustainability. In 67 percent of these cases, the CEO or managing director leads the initiative, while in 22 percent, the responsibility falls to the chief sustainability officer or head of sustainability. The assignment of sustainability responsibilities to senior leaders underscores the high priority businesses place on achieving their net zero targets. This commitment from the top is a clear signal to employees, customers and stakeholders of an organisation’s dedication to sustainability. And we need more leaders to follow suit to set the tone from the top if we, as a collective business community, are to play our part in halting the climate crisis. Why business emissions reductions matter Businesses are significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions, creating emissions through electricity and other energy use, manufacturing, transportation, agriculture and food waste, among others. By reducing their emissions, businesses can: Mitigate climate change: Lowering emissions helps to slow the rate of global warming, reducing the frequency and severity of climate-related disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. Protect ecosystems: Reducing emissions can help preserve biodiversity and protect ecosystems that are vital for maintaining the planet's health and resilience. Drive innovation: The pursuit of net zero can spur innovation in clean technologies and sustainable practices, creating new business opportunities and driving economic growth. Enhance reputation: Companies that lead in sustainability can enhance their brand reputation, attract environmentally conscious consumers, and gain a competitive edge. Ensure regulatory compliance: As governments worldwide implement stricter environmental regulations, businesses that proactively reduce their emissions will be better positioned to comply with new laws and avoid penalties. The adoption of formal sustainability strategies, risk and materiality assessments, clear KPIs, and accountability, along with a strong commitment to science-based targets, are all essential steps towards achieving net zero. While there is more to do, it is very encouraging to see all the progress made in the past two years and great to see business leaders continuing to commit to building a better future for all. Derarca Dennis is Assurance Partner and Sustainability Services Lead at EY