In an ideal world, all our work would be perfect. However, Moira Dunne argues that, with time constraints on our days, we sometimes have to let that perfectionist mentality go and settle for just good. Most people pride themselves on the high standards they achieve in their work lives. While aiming for perfection can help deliver quality work, the downside of such pressure can often outweigh the benefits. It can cause stress if we don’t have the time or skill to achieve the standard we want and impact our schedule as we tediously try to work out the assumed problems. Is perfection the enemy of productivity? Spending too long on one task may mean missing a deadline on another. Attempting to create the perfect project or document can be counterproductive to the business. However, sometimes it feels like it’s the only way to work. We do this for a few reasons: the desire for perfection and being seen to be the best enjoying the work and getting caught up in the ‘zone’ fear of criticism from colleagues and leadership workplace anxiety unclear deliverables In today’s hectic workplace, many people have more work to do than they have time to do it. Therefore, it is important to make the right decisions each day to use time in the best possible way. There are a few ways to do this. When good is good enough Sometimes, the standards we aim for are not required. While quality is important, it can be more productive to progress two tasks or projects to an acceptable level rather than perfect one to a very high standard no one asked for. For perfectionists, letting go in this way can be hard to do. It can help to get agreement in advance from a manager or a client about expectations and what needs to be delivered. This gives the perfectionist permission to complete the job even if the standard reached is not perfect in their eyes. Effort versus impact Every piece of work takes valuable time out of your day, so it is vital to consider the value being added. Is 80% of the current effort enough? Is the last 20% the ‘nice to have’ aspect of the task? Ask yourself: will anyone notice the final 20% of the work I do on this task? will this extra effort add any benefit for my clients or my colleagues? am I adding additional features because that’s the part of the work I enjoy? Splitting your task into two areas can help: the essential work (80%) and the additional work (20%). First, work towards 80% completion in the time allotted for the task. Then, once that is completed, add the 20% if time allows. Or move on, but return at a later point if you have flexibility in your schedule. Be decisive with time To be productive, it is important to have a plan for each day. Put time blocks in your schedule to work on critical pieces of work. This will help you limit the time spent on each task. Use a timer if necessary. When your time block is up, consider what is the best use of your time – to continue with the task, or move on to your next priority? If you have 80% of the work done, it may be time to put this task to rest. The key is to make mindful decisions about your work instead of getting engrossed in one task and losing track of time. Moira Dunne is founder of beproductive.ie.

Data has always been an integral part of any organisation, but the pandemic highlighted its importance. Now, companies must invest in the correct infrastructure to reap the benefits of data. Eoin O’Reilly explains. Data and technology had an interesting and important role to play in the battle against COVID-19. We all grew accustomed to seeing medical experts and scientists produce statistical models and projections to help guide policy decisions. People became familiar with epidemiological terms such as R-numbers and gained new knowledge of statistical models. When governments spoke about following the science, they actually meant following the data. This was particularly interesting for companies that had been hit with a severe shock. They had to move quickly to understand the impact of the pandemic on their business and plan a way forward. Many companies saw data as key to that. They had to use data to gain a new understanding of their customers, get products to those customers, reshape their supply chains, and create new ways of doing business. That also brought about a recognition that their data infrastructure may not have been ready for the challenge. Many organisations thought they were well set up but found difficulties with data quality issues (with systems not talking to each other) and low quality reports. The new understanding of the importance of data has also brought about a willingness to invest in addressing infrastructural deficits. Organisations appreciate the need to invest in the foundations if they are to reap the benefits of data. According to the EY Ireland CEO Imperative study, 84% of Irish CEOs anticipate significant investment in data and technology in the next 12 months. This is positive news and indicates that executives now see the value of data and know that it will impact their business. Before, they had to be convinced that data was worth investing in; now, they say it will help them connect with customers. In addition, they say that data will be at the front end of the business, where it will help serve the customer better and achieve competitive differentiation. Utilising the data However, just 63% of Irish CEOs said their organisations can deliver timely data-driven insights, enabling better internal and customer outcomes. So while many organisations have made considerable progress, a significant minority do not yet have that level of capability. In most cases, the systems and level of analytics in use are pretty basic and do not offer the capability required to enable better customer outcomes. This somewhat inflated view of their organisations’ capabilities may be due to a misunderstanding of data analytics’ true nature and power. That said, all the indications point to an appreciation of the need to invest more in data. But it cannot just be an add-on for the organisation. If companies are to compete against the new breed of digital-first firms, they will need to become data-first enterprises. Traditional vs digital-first companies The acceleration in value of global technology giants over the last six to nine months has been off the scale. The critical difference between those companies and their more traditional counterparts is that they have data and digital technology at their core. When considering a digital and data strategy for any organisation, everyone should ask: what approach would a digital-first organisation take? Even companies in regulated sectors are looking over their shoulders at potential born-digital competitors. Banks are already seeing parts of their business being cherrypicked by new data-led fintechs. The open banking directive gives these new competitors access to customer data, which they can use in new and imaginative ways. Traditional banks will have to step up lest they end up on the losing side of this data struggle. Overall, the results of the EY Ireland CEO Imperative Survey are very encouraging. They indicate that data is valued for its ability to help an organisation differentiate itself and its offerings and win in the market. That will drive further investment in the coming years. Eoin O’Reilly is Assurance Partner and Head of Data Analytics at EY.

Professional learning and development is key to career progression, but asking for financial support from your company can be difficult. Dearbhla Gallagher outlines how best to approach your employer when it comes to requesting support. Learning and development are critical in the workplace. As dramatic changes in technology have changed the way we work, employees can’t afford to rest on their laurels and ignore their professional development. Ongoing training is key to everyone’s professional progress. However, professional training can be expensive and not always within our budgets. It makes good sense to request financial support from your employer: many firms and companies generously support professional development if they can see the value of upskilling their workforce. Requesting training support demonstrates to your employer that you are committed to developing and growing in your role. But simply asking for financial support is not enough; your employer needs to see the potential for a clear return on investment. So, let’s take a look at a good approach to identifying and requesting support for your learning and development from your organisation. Do your research Start by doing your research. Do a self-assessment. Consider your skills deficiency in relation to not just your current role but the skills you need for the next promotion. Get feedback, ask your colleagues what training they undertook to progress in their own careers. Ask a mentor if they can help identify potential skills gaps that could prevent you from progressing. Be prepared to listen and take on board what your mentor is saying. Research training options and the costs. Can you commit? Do you have the time and energy for 3,000-word assignments after work and after the kids have gone to bed? Demonstrate the benefits The next step is to be able to demonstrate the benefits to your employer. They will want to see a strong case for increased productivity and performance. They will want to know if the training will improve the quality of your performance and output. Link your request for education funding to specific performance objectives. Think about the bigger picture – how will the investment in your training benefit the broader organisation? Is it possible, for example, that you can share what you have learned afterwards with a wider group of your colleagues by way of a presentation, thus avoiding the cost of sending multiple employees on the same course? Make a commitment Finally, investing in employee training is generally seen to increase employee loyalty and commitment to the organisation in the future. By and large, employers are very generous with training budgets, but they will want some level of comfort that you are not going to jump ship at the first offer with your newly acquired knowledge. You are more likely to get a positive response if there is a strong sense that you are committed to a future in the organisation. Dearbhla Gallagher is the HR & Learning and Development Manager at Baker Tilly.

What leadership lessons can we learn from the COVID-19 pandemic? Tom Armstrong outlines six key takeaways for business leaders. During WWII, Winston Churchill was credited with saying, “Never let a good crisis go to waste”. The recent COVID-19 pandemic is a crisis of a different type, but nonetheless, a crisis. So, what leadership lessons have managers learned during the pandemic? Informal processes are crucial For many, especially in large multinationals, on-boarding processes for new staff effectively broke down while working from home. Throughout the pandemic, management worked hard to ‘patch up’ this area by focusing on defining tasks and roles. However, informal processes are critically important for the on-boarding of new staff and cannot be replicated with the same level of impact in the virtual world. When one considers environment, culture, cohesion, mentoring and human connection, this concept becomes clear. Check your processes Taking stock of what processes work well and which do not is a constant in today’s rapidly changing world. However, this can sometimes be more aspirational than real, given the pressure of day-to-day operations. Working from home left leadership teams with no choice but to address this issue quickly. When we return to the new normal, or maybe even before we get there, it’s important to regularly check your processes to make sure they are still serving the business. Have more, not less (focused) meetings “Too many meetings” is a common complaint that predates the pandemic. While the number of meetings increased during the pandemic, the outcome was more contributions from participants and quicker resolution of challenges and issues. This could be because meetings were virtual and, therefore, didn’t have any distractions that one might have in an office, resulting in an increase in participation and productivity. The key is to conduct meetings that have focus. Plan and organise While having more meetings may have positive outcomes such as resolving issues speedily, the method behind this is well-structured meetings with goal clarity and clear accountability. Planning and organisation skills have improved considerably, for both leaders and employees, due to remote working. Set clear boundaries It’s not a surprise to hear people say that working from home during the pandemic has blurred the lines between home and work. For most, this is not a good development in terms of health and wellbeing. This issue impacts employees and leaders alike. Several managers learned the value of having clear boundaries between work and non-work. Start work, finish it and make sure a line exists for you and your team. Be agile and act decisively for all stakeholders The pandemic has ‘screamed’ loud and clear the need to be agile. Most organisations have adapted remarkably well, given the enormous challenges posed by the pandemic. One senior accountant I spoke with mentioned the importance of acting with agility in the interest of all stakeholders. Given the world’s environmental and social challenges, this emphasis on “all” stakeholders was refreshing and a timely side-effect. Tom Armstrong is the Accountant’s Executive Coach at Armstrong Executive Coaching.  

Climate-related reporting is here to stay, but what does it involve? Lorraine McCann and Natalia Carvalho outline the TCFD framework and how it can help Irish organisations prepare for financial risks related to climate change in the long-term. The far-reaching implications of climate change are undeniable. The most recent IPCC Report calls out the grim fact that humanity is “unequivocally” responsible for climate change, and without urgent action, the world’s 1.5 ºC goal will slip beyond reach. However, what is less well understood is the impact and risk it can pose to businesses, now and in the long-term. With pressure coming from governments across the globe, not to mention Ireland’s green agenda, the private sector needs to stand up and take note. While we have seen some momentum in Irish businesses over the past 18 months, especially in making commitments to meet or exceed their own emission targets, there is still more that needs attention, including the increased reporting requirements required by new climate-led regulation.  Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which provides recommendations and guidance to organisations on disclosing climate-related topics in their financial reporting, has driven much of the change in reporting for many years. By being among the first to guide organisations on how best to report their impact on climate change, the TCFD framework is widely becoming recognised as the global industry standard and the basis of much-needed regulation in this space. Comprising 32 task force members across the G20, the TCFD framework provides climate-related financial disclosures across four key pillars: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. The framework also acts as a means of providing transparency about a company’s climate-related risk exposures to key business stakeholders, such as investors, lenders and insurance underwriters. This is becoming increasingly important, especially as investors seek to support organisations with strong ESG agendas. In an attempt to assess how global organisations, including Ireland, are faring when it comes to following the guidelines laid out by the TCFD, EY recently commissioned the EY Global Climate Risk Disclosure Barometer to provide a global snapshot of the increasing corporate focus on climate risks and opportunities. The research, drawing on public disclosures of 1,100 companies across 42 countries, found that companies have continued to make progress in addressing the quality and coverage of climate-related financial disclosures, largely due to the fact that more regulators are making TCFD reporting mandatory as well as increased pressure from investors. Furthermore, the response from CPD, the not-for-profit organisation that runs the global disclosure system for investors, companies, cities, states and regions to manage their environmental impacts, now incorporates TCFD recommendations. The research also found that companies tended to score better on governance, metrics and targets than climate-related strategy and risk management. The results suggest that companies feel more comfortable sharing their carbon emissions targets than their carbon reduction pathways to get there.  The benefits of the TCFD framework There is no question that the way Irish organisations report key financial and non-financial data is changing, and the benefit is two-fold. First, more Irish organisations embrace sustainable business practices and operations due to the need to be more transparent about climate-related data. And second, by adopting the TCFD recommendations and including climate-related issues in mainstream annual financial reports, Irish organisations will be better equipped to quantify and prepare for the financial risks associated with climate change into the future.  Transparency is needed to educate organisations and their stakeholders about climate change’s far-reaching financial and macroeconomic impacts. Early preparation and transparency will result in market leadership, improved stakeholder relationships, and reduced risks.  Lorraine McCann is the Director of Climate Change and Sustainability Services at EY. Natalia Carvalho is a Senior Manager of Climate Change and Sustainability Services at EY.

With many of us preparing to go back to the office in some capacity, it’s important to be aware of the new work etiquette, especially when it comes to in-person meetings. Orla McAuliffe explains. Since March 2020, we’ve adjusted to masks, social distancing, hand sanitising, and working from home. Now, it’s time to readjust to public transport, social outings and in-house meetings. The changes in office life extend beyond the meeting room walls. Before you even enter a professional space – whether your own or someone else’s – you should take time to familiarise yourself with their interpretation of the guidelines. Wearing a mask in shared areas, sanitising at the appropriate place and time, maintaining distance, adhering to queues or one-way pathways, and ensuring you don’t overcrowd escalators or elevators are all now necessary basics of office etiquette. Helping people adjust to the new norm When scheduling a meeting in person, it’s important to remember that this will be a big adjustment for many. To cater for this, you must provide plenty of notice and make sure the meeting is necessary for everyone involved. Be clear about the running time so all parties can prepare accordingly. If it’s a longer meeting and refreshments are required, flag this in advance. People may want to bring their own or just not feel comfortable partaking straight away, as it inevitably involves removing one’s mask. Rules on the day On the day itself, your main responsibility as a host is to ensure that your guests are provided for, instructions are clear, and adaptations are made in a safe and non-judgmental way. As host, stand to greet people and let them know immediately what your preferred greeting is. Handshakes are still out, so whether you use a head nod or eye contact, clearly announce your intentions and give your guests time to respond. Make sure the room chosen is large enough for people to maintain distance, has been thoroughly cleaned, has visible sanitisation options and, ideally, can provide enough space so participants do not have to sit directly across from one another. If supplies are being provided, make sure they are clean and provide instructions as to whether guests are expected to dispose of them or keep them for repeated use. Guest etiquette As a guest, your responsibility is to follow the host’s guidelines and prioritise your own safety. Communicate your boundaries clearly and be aware that health and safety really do come first in the current climate. Nobody wants to be seen to cancel or postpone a meeting, but if you are sick, then that is absolutely what you need to do. Polite and prompt notice will always be appreciated, and people will be reassured that you are taking this seriously and respectfully. In general, many people are excited to see the return of in-person meetings. They are excited to see their colleagues again. Of course, this new frontier will be difficult – we won’t be sharing birthday cakes in the break room anytime soon, for instance – but well-managed meetings will be an important reassuring factor in a potential return to office life. Orla McAuliffe is the Founder and CEO of the Professional Training Centre.

To be prepared for this new legislation, eligible employers need to start analysing their data and planning accordingly. Aoife Newton tells us what needs to be done before 2022. Gender pay gap reporting legislation was recently signed into law in the Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021 (the Act). However, when and how the information will need to be reported is as yet unknown. In this regard, the regulations to give effect to the Act are eagerly awaited. The Act amends the Employment Equality Act 1998 by requiring regulations to be made by the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth as soon as reasonably practicable after the commencement of the legislation. The regulations will place reporting and publication obligations on private and public sector employers regarding their gender pay gap. They will contain much of the detail on the practicalities of the legislation. Which employers are affected? The legislation will not apply to all employers. Only employers that satisfy certain employee thresholds will be in the scope of the legislation. Where an applicable employer reports that a gender pay gap exists, the employer will be required to explain why the gender pay gap exists and detail the measures being implemented by the employer to reduce or eliminate the gap. Both private and public employers will be affected by the mandatory reporting obligations, but they will initially only apply to employers with 250 or more employees for up to two years after the commencement of the regulations. The scope of the mandatory reporting obligations will widen further to include employers with 150 or more employees on or after the second anniversary of the regulations and those with 50 or more employees on or after the third anniversary. Employers with less than 50 employees will not be required to report on their gender pay gap. What is required? Applicable employers will be required to report on the difference in remuneration between male and female employees, as set out below: the difference between both the mean and median hourly pay of male and female employees; the difference between both the mean and median bonus pay of male and female employees; the difference between both the mean and median hourly pay of part-time male and female employees; and the percentage of male and female employees who received bonuses and benefits-in-kind. Employers will also be required to simultaneously publish the reasons for differences in pay in the context of the above and the measures being taken or proposed to eliminate or reduce such disparities. In addition to the mandatory reporting requirements, other requirements may be contained in the regulations once published, including: the class of employer, employee and pay to which the regulations apply; how the number of employees and remuneration is to be calculated; and the form, manner and frequency with which information is to be published. The information will not be required to be published more than once per year. Enforcement An aggrieved employee can make a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) if an employer is not reporting on its gender pay gap. On receipt of a complaint, the WRC will investigate the complaint’s merits and may order the employer to take a specified course of action to ensure compliance with its reporting obligations. However, the WRC does not have the jurisdiction to order the employer to pay compensation to an employee or impose a fine on an employer. The Act provides for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) to apply to the Circuit Court or High Court seeking an order forcing an employer to comply with its reporting obligations. Employers that do not comply with such a court order may be held in contempt of court. The Act also provides that the IHREC, on receipt of a request from the Minister, can carry out (or invite a particular undertaking, group of undertakings, or the undertakings making up a particular industry or sector to carry out) an equality review or create and action an equality action plan. What to do now Minister Roderic O’Gorman has confirmed his intention to have the regulations in force by the end of 2021. He has also indicated that employers may be required to submit their information through a central website. Given that the regulations will likely be in force by the end of 2021, the legislation will probably apply to applicable employers from some date in 2022. Employers can prepare by collating and analysing their remuneration data to assess the extent to which gender pay gaps exist. This will help plan how to remove or reduce any such gaps before they are publicly obliged to report, the reasons for them, and what they are going to do about them. Aoife Newton is the Head of the Corporate Immigration and Employment Law team at KPMG.

While we’ve all suffered from ‘Zoom fatigue’, it’s still important to know when to turn on your camera. Susan Moylan explains. From the onset of the pandemic, our ways of working have changed dramatically. Some of us are working from bedrooms and dining rooms, with some being lucky enough to have dedicated home offices. Remote working has impacted the nature of our interactions, and this is common to us all. As human beings, we are social creatures, and we need interaction with others in some form or another. But what form that communication takes, or should take, is the question. Even though we have had access to a range of technological channels to communicate for some time now, up until 18 months ago, most thought that face-to-face interaction was the most effective form of communication. Once face-to-face was no longer an option, we were all challenged with the same choice: embrace the technology or get left behind. And that’s what we did – from family Zoom quizzes to virtual escape rooms with work colleagues. Most of us have embraced it all. As the pandemic has continued, though, ‘Zoom fatigue’ has set in. The extra concentration and focus required to communicate effectively in a virtual world has affected us all. This has had an interesting impact on our behaviours. Instead of reaching out to colleagues using technology to enrich the interaction (i.e. using video conferencing tools with cameras turned on), many tend to avoid this whenever possible, instead choosing to send emails or send a message via Teams or Slack. Are these methods the best way to communicate? No. Are they the easiest way to communicate? Quite possibly. Body language is key For communication to be effective, a message that has been transmitted must be understood as the sender intended it. We can check understanding by picking up on all verbal and non-verbal clues. Body language is critical in this process. In an environment where face-to-face contact is not an option, video conferencing can enable this process. And if you are reading this thinking, “of course”, I ask you to cast your mind back to last Friday. What was your most-used channel for communication? I would guess the most popular response is email followed by instant message. While I am not suggesting that these aren’t appropriate to use, seeing someone’s body language is key to ensuring that your effort to communicate has been effective. And, yes, being on camera in every call can be exhausting. But again, consider the message you are trying to get across and the recipient – sometimes, a call with cameras off is just fine. Tone of voice can do a lot of the heavy lifting. However, when the message is important and you aren’t very familiar with the person on the other side of the call, turning on your video can help get that message across. So, for every email or message you are about to send, ask yourself if it is the best way to get your message across. Sometimes it will be, but sometimes you will find that your interactions with others could be much richer by turning on your camera. Susan Moylan is an Associate Director of People & Change Consulting at Grant Thornton.

Julia Rowan answers your management, leadership, and team development questions. Q. I get no feedback from my boss unless he’s unhappy about my work. I work hard and give the people on my team plenty of feedback, but I feel very unsure of myself. A. Of course, your boss should give you feedback. You could try to change him, but (and sorry for the cliché) the only person you can change is yourself. So, let’s look at what’s happening for you: your boss is not communicating with you and you are telling yourself a story (he doesn’t appreciate me, my work is sub-standard) that undermines your confidence. What if you trusted yourself and told yourself a different story? For example, ‘Isn’t it great that my busy boss can cut to the chase about my work?’ or ‘Isn’t it interesting that somebody that senior does not see the importance of giving feedback?’ These stories free you from feeling bad about your boss’s behaviour and allow you to be easier with the situation. Funnily enough, when we lose our anxiety, what we are searching for often manifests. As there is little communication, it could be an idea to write a short weekly email to your boss outlining, for example: Three main things your team progressed/achieved this week; Three main priorities for next week; and Issues impacting the team. That way, you build up a record of communication about progress centred on goals and priorities. Then, your boss will be aware of what’s going on and can respond if he chooses. On another note, it may be useful to pay special attention to your longer-term career development. Think about what you really want in the short- to medium-term (lead a team, manage a project, broaden your capabilities, specialise) and find someone who can be a listening ear. Also, focus on building relationships across your organisation to create a wider network of people who can support you. Q. I’ve just been appointed to lead the dream team. They’re hard-working and talented. But I can’t believe they gave me the job, and I wonder if I’m the right manager for them. A. If this team is experienced and motivated, they don’t need much direction – you could focus on coaching and facilitating the team, both individually and as a group. Here are a few things you could do: Develop your coaching skills. Coaching is a great way to build people’s competence and confidence through questioning and listening. It also helps the leader to work from a more strategic place. Help the team become more self-sufficient by locating and sharing resources and encouraging team members to share challenges and opportunities. Use your team meetings to challenge the team. Ask them where they want to get to – both individually and as a team – and start planning your way there. More importantly, you need to give that imposter syndrome the heave-ho. You got the job for a reason (if it helps, ask the interviewers why they chose you), but leaders need to develop a special blend of ‘confident humility’ – the confidence to acknowledge their strengths and the humility to keep learning. We do everyone a favour when we acknowledge our strengths; by acknowledging them, we make them available to others. Julia Rowan is Principal Consultant at Performance Matters, a leadership and team development consultancy. To send a question to Julia, email julia@performancematters.ie.

Bríd Heffernan provides an update one year after the Monitoring Group issued its proposed reforms to international standard-setting boards. In July 2020, the Monitoring Group issued its much-anticipated paper outlining reforms to the international standard-setting boards – namely, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) and the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA). This article will reflect on the reforms proposed in the July 2020 Monitoring Group paper and analyse where the reforms stand one year on. The journey so far The Monitoring Group is a group of international financial institutions and regulatory bodies committed to advancing the public interest in international audit standard-setting and audit quality. The last set of reforms faced by the standard-setting boards were agreed to in 2003 by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and the Monitoring Group. These 2003 reforms created the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB), which was tasked with increasing investor and stakeholder confidence in the standard-setting boards and ensuring that standards are responsive to the public interest. The 2003 reforms put IESBA and IAASB under the oversight of the PIOB, thus making them independent of IFAC. This, in turn, led to IFAC providing support to the standard-setting boards. The proposed July 2020 reforms do not change this structure, but they do propose changes to address the Monitoring Group’s concerns. Effectiveness reviews were built into the 2003 reforms. Every five years or so, the Monitoring Group conducts an effectiveness review and makes recommendations to improve the system. In the early reviews, the recommendations were made and agreed upon, and enhancements were implemented. However, the most recent review in 2015 resulted in the 2017 Monitoring Group consultation paper. Since then, there has been extensive discussion between the Monitoring Group, IFAC and other stakeholders culminating in the issuance of the July 2020 Monitoring Group paper. Monitoring Group concerns The July 2020 Monitoring Group paper titled Strengthening the International Audit and Ethics Standard-Setting System set out recommendations for reforming the standard-setting process. Below is an overview of the Monitoring Group’s main concerns that led to the recommendations, which are also discussed later in this article. The public interest is not given sufficient weight throughout the standard-setting process. Stakeholder confidence in the standards is adversely affected as a result of the perception of undue influence of the accountancy profession on the following two grounds: IFAC’s role in funding and supporting the standard-setting boards and running the nominations process; and Audit firms and professional accountancy organisations providing the majority of standard-setting board members. Standards are not as timely and relevant as they need to be in a rapidly changing environment. IFAC’s response As IFAC operationally runs the standard-setting boards, the Monitoring Group’s concerns and recommendations directly impact IFAC. In an update to its members, IFAC’s Chief Executive, Kevin Dancey, stated that IFAC was focused on agreeing on a workable set of changes that would enhance stakeholders’ trust and confidence in the standard-setting process. These reforms also provide an opportunity for IFAC to address its own issues with the current process, which are: That PIOB members are almost exclusively from a regulatory background. IFAC believes that the PIOB should have a multi-stakeholder composition and perspective. That the PIOB must be more transparent, and there is a need for clarity on its role and the role of the standard-setting boards and how the PIOB carries out its mandate. 2020 recommendations  The July 2020 Monitoring Group paper proposals retain the two standard-setting boards with the same mandates, and they will be retained in a similar size (16 members, down from 18 members). The respective roles of the PIOB and the standard-setting boards are also clarified. The Monitoring Group’s proposals clarify that the standard-setting boards are responsible for developing, approving and issuing the standards. The role of the PIOB is oversight. Combined with making the workings of the PIOB more transparent, this is a step forward. Responsibility for ensuring that the standards were responsive to the public interest was a source of confusion in the past. Was this the responsibility of the standard-setting boards or the PIOB? The July 2020 Monitoring Group paper contains a public interest framework, which confirms that it is the standard-setting boards’ responsibility to certify that the standards are responsive to the public interest. The PIOB will also have to certify that the standards are responsive to the public interest as part of its oversight function. Both the PIOB and the standard-setting boards will have a multi-stakeholder composition. For the PIOB, this means that its members will not simply be representatives of the Monitoring Group members. And for the standard-setting boards, this will ensure a diversity of views at the standard-setting table. Recognition of the significant role of both IFAC and the accountancy profession is a key improvement over the 2017 consultation paper. Current practitioners can still become members of the standard-setting boards, up to a maximum of five practitioners. Impact of the changes on IFAC With respect to IFAC, its ongoing role has been acknowledged in the July 2020 Monitoring Group paper: IFAC will continue to provide operational support to the standard-setting boards, the only difference being that it will be set out in a formal service level agreement. IFAC’s role in adopting and implementing the standards, promoting the standards, and monitoring their adoption and implementation has been acknowledged as an important ongoing responsibility. There will be a change to the nominations process for IAASB and IESBA members, however. The process is currently run by the IFAC Nominating Committee, which is chaired by the IFAC president. To ensure adequate independence in the nominations process and ensure good governance, the July 2020 Monitoring Group paper recommends that the nominations process sit under the supervision of the PIOB. The legal structure will also change. Currently, the standard-setting boards are committees of IFAC. The July 2020 Monitoring Group paper calls for the standard-setting boards to sit under a separate legal entity, independent to IFAC. Furthermore, changes have been recommended to the staffing model for the standard-setting boards. The proposals call for an increased staff complement and for staff to have greater responsibility for drafting the standards with less responsibility in the hands of the standard-setting boards. Since IFAC provides operational support for the standard-setting boards, this request for an increased staff complement will impact IFAC. Transition planning phase It was assumed by many observers that, with the issuance of the July 2020 Monitoring Group paper, all would be known. However, five years after the initial review, the reform process is only at the end of the beginning, seeing as many of the details remain unresolved. According to IFAC, the July 2020 paper is a significant improvement on the proposals outlined in the 2017 consultation paper. It is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. It sets out several high-level recommendations and principles that can be worked with. Right now, IFAC and the Monitoring Group are in the transition planning phase of the reforms – but many outstanding items must yet be worked through. The transition planning phase consists of IFAC and the Monitoring Group developing an implementation plan by participating in 26 workstreams. The goal is to work through all outstanding issues and finalise the recommendations in 2021. The implementation of the recommendations will then take place over the next three years, up to 2024. The changes will be phased in to ensure a smooth transition and no disruption to the current standard-setting process. Funding of the reforms  It is clear from the July 2020 paper that there is no new funding model. The profession’s resources were stretched before COVID-19, and this limitation will be exacerbated post-pandemic. This represents a significant fiscal constraint on implementing the reforms. IFAC’s funding for 2021 is down 13.5% from 2018, and there is no improvement anticipated in the funding outlook beyond 2021. Therefore, a key challenge is to reconcile the cost of the Monitoring Group’s recommendations to the funding available. Next steps As noted, the process is currently in the transition planning phase. The goal is to resolve all outstanding issues in 2021 while reconciling the cost of the recommendations to the funding available and reaching a deal on the phased implementation of agreed changes by 2024. While there is a long way to go before the reforms are implemented, it is positive to see progress that ultimately serves the public interest. Bríd Heffernan is Associations & Institutions Leader at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Dr Margaret Cullen explains the characteristics of good directors, which in turn contribute to board effectiveness and sustainable companies. Although there is no comprehensive definition, the Companies Act 2014 describes a director as “any person who occupies the position of director by whatever name called”. While under previous company legislation, courts recognised some practical differences in capacity, role, duties and responsibilities, the distinction between categories of directors is not widely recognised in the Act. It is within governance codes and guidelines such as the UK Corporate Governance Code, the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies, and the Central Bank of Ireland Corporate Governance Requirements for Credit Institutions that this distinction is made. Executive directors are those involved in the day-to-day running of the company. Non-executive directors, on the other hand, are not actively involved in the day-to-day running of the company. They are typically appointed because they bring particular expertise that can contribute to the company’s success and sustainability. Within the non-executive director element of the board, there are non-executive directors (NEDs) classified as non-independent directors and those classified as independent non-executive directors (INEDs) because they meet the independence criteria specified within the applicable code. NEDs can be further delineated into directors employed within the group to which the company belongs and those who do not work for the group but do not meet the criteria necessary to be deemed independent. A principle enshrined in many corporate governance codes is that at least half the board should comprise NEDs whom the board considers independent. Adam Smith wrote in 1776 that executive directors or managers of companies, “being managers of other people’s money, cannot be expected to watch over it with the same vigilance with which they watch over their own”, thereby articulating the classic agency problem. This agency problem and its solutions constitute the crux of the most articulated corporate governance theory: agency theory. At the heart of agency theory is the assumption of managerial opportunism: that managers are motivated solely by self-interest, not by moral obligation. Thus, agency theorists advocate for monitoring devices, incentive mechanisms, and checks and balances to ensure managers do not abuse power to the detriment of shareholders. INEDs are one such mechanism. The conceptual underpinning of corporate governance codes around the world is the need to respond to this agency problem. Therefore, it is not surprising that principles related to INED representation on boards and INEDs chairing board committees are typically front and centre in these codes. Interestingly, agency theorists assert that the sole objective of a company (de facto the board) is to maximise returns for the shareholders. However, this assertion is inconsistent with directors’ duties under common law. There are, of course, alternative theoretical perspectives that articulate more positive assumptions on the character of managers – stewardship theory, for example. Although they advocate for INED representation on corporate boards, stewardship theorists’ advocacy relates to the advisory and guidance dimension that INEDs bring to the board rather than the need to protect the company from managerial misconduct. Anyone who has sat in my corporate governance class will know that I sit in this camp. I say this not because I am naive as to the propensity for poor behaviour within organisations. On the contrary – we have seen enough corporate governance scandals over the years to know that unscrupulous and greedy people can do bad things. However, for every scandal, thousands of companies survive, prosper, and make significant contributions to society and the economy. I hope that the current gusto in relation to company purpose and environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria will further influence companies’ societal and environmental footprint to the benefit of all. Sometimes, companies make headlines for a breakdown in controls or sub-optimal risk management rather than any deliberate attempt to defraud the company or customers. Unfortunately, the distinction between the former and the latter is not often made clear by – or to – stakeholders. NEDs are not involved in the day-to-day operations of the company. The entire board should work hard to create a governance framework (across the company and in the boardroom) bespoke to company context, where accountability is created and the board receives the information necessary to do its job. The board is entitled to rely on the integrity of information emanating from within this framework once it has no reason to suspect that the people providing this information are not fit and proper. Wilful blindness to inappropriate behaviour is, of course, not acceptable. If I start as an INED from a position of professional mistrust, however, I am starting from an impossible position. Trust must be at the heart of the board/management relationship. Therefore, the leadership qualities of the CEO/executive directors and the company’s culture are hugely influential on the standards of corporate governance within. INEDs must bring an appropriate balance of trust and professional scepticism to the boardroom. By taking on a pseudo devil’s advocate role, INEDs add an extra governance dimension, enabling the board to make effective collective decisions and/or determinations based on the information to hand that is considered in an honest and responsible way. Getting this balance right is the hallmark of a good director and requires INEDs to understand what being non-executive truly means. Stakeholders must also understand this. Readers of this article will be familiar with the long-standing debate on whether auditors should be viewed as watchdogs (who bark if they see something suspicious) or bloodhounds (who search for something suspicious). Confusion about this distinction serves to undermine the audit process. Equally, considering the collective responsibility of a board, the non-executive nature of INED roles needs to be understood for what it can – and should – entail. To quote my mentor and colleague, Professor Niamh Brennan, it’s “nose in, finger out”. Agency theorists look at corporate governance practices and behaviours through the lens of the agency dilemma. This is an abstraction at the level of the company and its governance structures rather than board behaviour. While recognising the different lenses that categories of directors bring to the boardroom (for example, the knowledge that comes with day-to-day executive involvement versus the information asymmetry attached to being non-executive), the most effective directors demonstrate objectivity and independence of mind. As so much governance is done outside the boardroom, this objectivity across executive directors and executive committee members sets companies up for long-term success. It manifests itself in executive meetings and discussion forums where challenge and debate are encouraged, management information is scrutinised, tactical and strategic opportunities and threats are acknowledged, alternatives are considered, and decisions requiring board approval and areas that would benefit from board-wide input are identified. In short, the executive directors and executive committee can go a long way towards setting the board and the company up for success. Apart from their specific domain of experience, INEDs bring an extra layer of objectivity (with the balance of trust and professional scepticism referred to earlier) to the board to contribute to collective board effectiveness. Group NEDs bring the group perspective (on strategy and risk appetite) and related challenge, requiring equivalent objective mindsets of other board colleagues. This is particularly important, as group NEDs must always act in the interest of the local company. While much is made of the concept of non-executive director independence related to a schedule of criteria, I have always argued that independence of mind across all aspects of governance and all categories of directors is critical to board effectiveness and sustainable companies. There are, however, other behavioural characteristics critical to board success. Several years ago, in the process of designing a governance programme, I had a brilliant discussion with another colleague of mine, Frank Ennis – an experienced independent non-executive director – on what makes a good director. We had previously agreed on the importance of independence of mind (the first ‘I’) for all directors. We explored the importance of technical skill, experience and knowledge to contribute to collective board strength, but determined that it is how these skills are harnessed rather than the skills themselves that are key. We landed on the second ‘I’, intelligence, referring to the capacity of each director not to allow anyone to insult theirs. This second ‘I’ reflects and extends beyond the professional scepticism discussed. Finally, we reflected on corporate governance failures related to fraud and deliberate, inappropriate actions by those in charge and questioned the lack of integrity. We also remembered a keynote speech made by Warren Buffet at Columbia Business School in 2009 when he observed: “Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it’s true. If you hire somebody without the first, you really want them to be dumb and lazy.” Thus, the third ‘I’ became integrity – never, ever compromise yours. We were mindful, of course, that living by the three ‘I’s can sometimes lead to a fourth ‘I’ in the form of isolation, but we agreed that this is a price worth paying. Dr Margaret Cullen is Founder and Principal of Think Governance Ltd. This article was written in collaboration with Frank Ennis FCA, independent non-executive director.

Jane O’Hanlon explains the common tax-related issues facing members in business and how to deal with them before Revenue comes knocking. As a tax advisor working in a specialised tax practice, I encounter similar tax issues in various businesses. This article will focus on the most critical issues and help ensure that your business is tax compliant. What should I do when Revenue knocks on my door? The answer to this depends on the nature of the knock! Any correspondence issued by Revenue must be looked at carefully to understand the purpose of the query. A letter might issue from Revenue with queries due to an incorrect entry on a tax return (referred to as an ‘Aspect Query’ letter). Where a business files a VAT return and is in a VAT recovery position, standard VAT verification letters are often issued by Revenue seeking documentation to support the VAT refund due. This type of correspondence is routine and while it should be dealt with promptly, it should not result in undue concern. If an error is discovered as you prepare your response, it is usually possible to make a ‘qualifying disclosure’ to Revenue. By making a qualifying disclosure, you can reduce the penalties payable, avoid prosecution, and avoid publication in the list of tax defaulters. A disclosure is unprompted if it is made before notification of a Revenue audit is received. Any disclosures in relation to items covered by the audit made after the audit notice is received is prompted, and the penalty reductions for unprompted disclosures are higher than for prompted disclosures. However, Revenue recently indicated that it intends to move disclosures made by a business under an ‘Aspect Query’ to the ‘Prompted Disclosure’ category. Although publication can still be avoided, higher rates will be applicable if penalties apply. When a Revenue audit letter issues, depending on the tax head and the period covered, the taxpayer should conduct a full review of all tax matters. Common problems include businesses making cash payments to casual staff without PAYE, incorrect claiming of VAT input credits, incorrect operation of benefit-in-kind (BIK), and incorrectly claiming a tax deduction for income or corporation tax purposes. When that audit letter is received, it is essential to at once consider whether the business will need to make a prompted qualifying disclosure. If it does, it can write to the Revenue auditor requesting time to prepare the disclosure. In my experience, the time spent at this stage is well worth it as it often results in the audit running more smoothly and concluding promptly. It is not in the interest of any business to have an audit process continue any longer than it needs to. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that a full disclosure, if needed, is made and that all supporting documentation is gathered and available to the auditor. Cooperation is the best policy. * Review your tax compliance position on VAT and PAYE. Cooperation is the best policy when dealing with Revenue and, if necessary, make a voluntary disclosure. What VAT can I recover? At a high level, VAT can only be recovered by a business providing VATable products or services. This means that the business charges VAT on sales to customers. You may think that a business providing only products or services subject to VAT can recover all VAT charged by its suppliers. However, that is not the case. It is never possible to recover VAT on the purchase of food and drink items for use in an office kitchen. I frequently encounter cases where VAT is being reclaimed on bottled water purchased by the business, for example. Similarly, if a business owner purchases items for personal use, VAT should not be recovered as that purchase has not been made to provide taxable (i.e. VATable) supplies. Furthermore, if a company carries on a trade and owns several rental properties, you must determine if the expense relates to the trade or the rental properties. For example, if repairs are carried out on the business premises and all supplies by the business are liable to VAT, the VAT charged can be recovered. However, if repairs are carried out on a rented residential apartment owned by the business, the VAT cannot be recovered as the rental income from the residential apartment is not liable to VAT. In summary, consideration must be given to each invoice to determine if the business can recover the VAT charged. In addition, businesses can recover 20% of the VAT incurred on the acquisition or leasing of a car, provided it is used for business purposes at least 60% of the time. Businesses must also be aware that, in most cases, the supplier will not have charged VAT when the business purchases goods or services from outside Ireland. The business must self-account for Irish VAT at the appropriate rate and claim an input credit if it is entitled to do so. If foreign VAT has been charged, the business should satisfy itself that this is correct before payment is made to the supplier. A business cannot include an input credit in an Irish VAT return for foreign VAT charged. A business can only include a claim for a VAT input credit where a valid VAT invoice has been received. Accounts payable staff should be trained to ensure that all invoices are valid VAT invoices before settling them. It is easier to seek a proper invoice from a supplier when the invoice has not yet been paid. * Check that you are correctly claiming VAT input credit on cars and foreign purchases. How long do I need to keep documentation for? In general, documents must be kept for six years after the tax year in question. However, that is not as straightforward as it may sound. For example, I know of one situation where an individual claimed capital allowances on a building, with the capital allowances available over seven years. The tax return covering the sixth year in which the allowances were available was selected for verification three years after the return was filed, and Revenue sought copies of documentation to confirm the nature and the availability of the allowances. In this case, the taxpayer needed to provide documentation from nine years earlier. The key point from a tax perspective is that the burden of proof rests with the taxpayer. Therefore, you need to ensure that you can prove your entitlement to a deduction for any expenses or any capital allowance claimed in your tax return. Many recent tax appeals decisions have referred to this point. An Appeals Commissioner cannot decide a case in favour of a taxpayer where the taxpayer cannot discharge the burden of proof. Regarding an asset that is a capital asset, it will be necessary to keep documentation for six years after the property is disposed of. If a property was bought in 2000 and sold in 2021, for example, documentation regarding the purchase of that asset must be retained until 2027. Doing so enables you to prove your entitlement to a deduction for the costs of acquisition incurred in 2000 in determining the capital gains tax payable (or indeed the capital loss) on the disposal of the asset. The retention of documentation is also important in the context of VAT and the Capital Goods Scheme. When an asset is disposed of, the vendor is often obliged to complete Pre-Contract VAT Enquiries (PCVE) as part of the sales process. The PCVE contain full details of the purchase/development of the property, how it has been used since it was acquired, and how it is currently being used. To determine the correct VAT treatment of the sale, there can be no gaps in terms of how the property has been used. It is easier to maintain this information on a contemporaneous basis rather than pulling together information on all prior years as you prepare to sell the property. * Review your document retention policy as in some cases, you may need to keep certain records for more than six years. How do I ensure compliance with BIK rules on the provision of company cars? Employers who provide employees with company cars are obliged to keep contemporaneous records of business mileage. BIK operates by applying a percentage rate to the original market value of the car provided to the employee (other than electric cars, where different rules apply). The applicable percentage depends on the annual business mileage driven by the employee and ranges from 30% down to 6%. If any rate other than 30% is used, the employer must be able to prove the business mileage. Where an employee is provided with a car, they must complete a monthly log of the business journeys for their employers. While the tax is payable by the employee, the obligation is on the employer to operate the tax correctly. In addition, if the vehicle provided is a commercial vehicle or a van, the appropriate BIK rate is 5% regardless of the business mileage. * Review how you are calculating PAYE on the BIK on company cars and keep appropriate contemporaneous records of staff business mileage. What information does my tax advisor need to prepare my tax return? Where your accountant prepares your business’s financial statements, they will generally have sufficient information to prepare an accurate tax return. Where the financial statements are prepared by the business and provided to the tax advisor, however, they will generally need answers to the following questions: Are all expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade? For example, consider business entertainment, charitable and political donations, personal expenditure, and expenses paid for by the business that may not relate to that business. Was the employer’s pension contribution paid during the year, or is there an accrual in the profit and loss account? A tax deduction is only available on a paid basis. Can you provide an analysis of professional and legal fees? Fees that relate to capital transactions (e.g. asset purchases/sales) are not deductible in calculating trading profits. Can you provide a schedule of fixed asset additions to include the date of acquisition, the cost of acquisition, and the nature of the asset? Also, can you provide a schedule of fixed asset disposals so that accurate capital allowances claims and balancing charges/allowances can be prepared? Can you provide a reconciliation of any finance lease creditors from the opening position to the closing position? Can you provide a schedule of directors’ remuneration split by director? Can you provide details of any dividends or distributions paid during the year? Can you provide details of any non-trading income? Where medical insurance is paid on behalf of the staff, can you provide details of the tax relief at source (TRS) amount and confirm whether the gross or net amount has been included in the profit and loss account? * Save time and fees by completing the checklist your tax advisor will need to prepare your tax return. These issues occur in a wide range of businesses. You should aim to ensure that your business is compliant with tax legislation on an ongoing basis. Careful consideration should be given to amending any errors you discover – before you get that knock on the door. Jane O’Hanlon is a Director at Purcell McQuillan and a Fellow of Chartered Accountants Ireland.

In an age of information overload, what websites and internet resources can someone who wants to keep up-to-date with the world of finance and financial management rely on? Here’s Cormac Lucey’s selection. For daily business news… The RTÉ website offers us the opportunity to read the daily survey of business and financial news published by the main Dublin stockbrokers. This is not just a useful survey of the previous day’s financial economic news, it also offers readers the opportunity to understand how financially literate readers view that news.   Visit www.rte.ie/news/markets/broker_reports (and check out Goodbody Stockbrokers). For detailed financial data on leading Irish corporates… I opened up an account with Davy Stockbrokers largely to get access to the company’s Weekly Book. That is a compendium of corporate data for quoted companies covering recent financial history, near-term financial forecasts and key valuation metrics. For avid financial number crunchers such as myself, it’s the equivalent of crack cocaine! Visit www.davy.ie  For an up-to-date overview of the Irish economy… The National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) borrows money on behalf of the State. That requires regularly updating international debt investors (who may buy Irish government debt) on economic developments here. Visit www.ntma.ie (and look for ‘Investor Presentation’).  For an overview of the Northern Ireland economy… EY’s Chief Economist, Neil Gibson, provides a regular and authoritative update on what is going on up North.  Visit www.ey.com (and search for ‘EY Economic Eye: Northern Ireland’). For a global economic overview from a monetary perspective… Simon Ward, Janus Henderson’s economic adviser, uses monetary and cycle analysis to assess economic and market prospects. Visit www.moneymovesmarkets.com For general trends in financial management… Two large international consultancies offer regular publications that combine a focus on the practical problems facing financial staff in corporations with intellectual rigour.  Visit www.mckinsey.com (and search for McKinsey on Finance, which offers readers a quarterly selection of useful and stimulating articles). Visit www.bcg.com/capabilities/corporate-finance-strategy/insights, which offers regular corporate finance updates. For current developments in international markets… The Financial Times has an excellent capital markets blog (www.ft.com/alphaville), and there is an offshoot of that (www.ftalphaville.ft.com/longroom/home) on which you can (once registered) access interesting research reports from the world’s top investment banks. Another website where you can access high-level research reports from investment banks is www.savvyinvestor.net (registration required). For the technical situation of main financial markets… Steve Blumenthal, executive chair of Capital Management Group, produces a useful technical survey of the main US markets each week.  Visit www.cmgwealth.com/ri-category/on-my-radar  For financial chatter, conspiracy theories and the occasional blinding insight... It’s all available here: www.zerohedge.com  Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Succeeding in your career is important, but so is your physical and mental well-being. Four Chartered Accountants describe their relationship with fitness and how it has benefited their lives in and out of the office. Barry Doyle Investment Director, MASV.com Running I was never really a big sports person growing up – I played a bit of tennis but that was about it. I found myself living in Australia back in 2010 and it was there that I started to get into running. It’s hard not to when the culture there is so outdoor-focused. I signed up to do a 10km and things progressed from there. By the time I left Australia three years later, I was running at least three times a week – if not more – and had even completed a few half marathons. Now, exercise is a huge part of my routine and it has only been heightened since the beginning of the pandemic. I won’t start my working day unless I have been for a run, swim, cycle or even a ‘morning commute’ – a walk around the neighbourhood after breakfast. Working from home has significant benefits, especially from a work-life balance perspective, but it’s so important to have a delineation between work and home.  I tend to try and follow a plan and set myself goals at the end of that so I can stay motivated. If there’s nothing to aim for, you always risk skipping your exercise; and while skipping it once is usually fine, having nothing to motivate you means you’re more likely to skip more often – believe me, I’ve been there!   There is no question about it, absolutely it has benefited me physically and mentally. I’m in good shape – I’m no Usain Bolt, but my routine helps to keep me in good shape (which is needed as I have a serious sweet tooth!) And from a mental well-being perspective, you only need to ask my wife who, whenever I start complaining or giving out, asks: “Have you being running yet today, or do you need coffee?” Exercise is a vital escape for me. I think it’s important to find someone to support you. Running can feel like a daunting task starting out, so being able to talk to someone while out running (even while walking or cycling) helps get you through it. What’s more, it’s a healthy, social interaction that’s good for the mind and body. Aisling McCaffrey Associate Director of Financial Services Advisory, Grant Thornton Rugby I play quite a lot of team sports; at the moment my focus is on touch and tag rugby. I train with my club once a week for two hours, play two or three 40-minute games during the week, and I have a session with the Irish Women’s Touch Rugby development squad on Sundays for two hours. Beyond training, I’m a big fan of a sea swim or a long walk with some good music to relax.   I only really found a love for team sports when I started working and was invited to play a social tag match. Prior to that, I would have gone to the gym to stay fit but I sometimes found it hard to motivate myself and if things got busy (in work or life), the gym was the first thing to be dropped. Being part of a team is so much more beneficial for my wellness – the interaction with my teammates on a regular basis is priceless and it allows me to let go of any stresses in my life, even if it’s just for the two-hour session. Unlike the gym, other people rely on me to be at training or a game, so it has also been really helpful to set boundaries and carve time out of my busy work schedule.  In terms of apps, I have been using a Whoop strap for the last few months to monitor strain and recovery and I’m really enjoying it. It puts more of an emphasis on recovery than trackers I’ve used before, so it has encouraged me to pay more attention to my sleep, hydration etc.  My advice for others would be to get out there and try lots of different things to find what works for you. Try to build a routine, but don’t be hard on yourself if it doesn’t always go to plan – focus on the benefits for you so that you will be keen to prioritise the activity. John O’Callaghan Senior Partner, BDO Triathlon/Ironman I was late to the party for fitness, not starting until my early 30s when I was living in Australia and my wife signed me up for karate to get me out of the house. When I came back to Ireland in 2003 at the age of 40, I really let things slide up to 2014. I was going to a gym in town and noticed indoor triathlon training. I joined and was immediately hooked. I set up a triathlon team in BDO and we had over 20 people training weekly with a coach. We all competed in Tri Athy in 2014. From there it progressed – I joined Belpark Triathlon Club and graduated to full distance Ironman in Hamburg in 2017 and again in Barcelona in 2019. I have qualified for the Irish age group team for European Full Distance (Iron) in Roth, Germany this September. As part of training, I started running marathons and qualified for Boston, Chicago and New York, which I will race over the next 12 months. I’m a strong believer in physical well-being, as it lets you shed the stresses of everyday life. It’s not about the races or winning, but more about a way of life. The races serve to keep you honest – you can’t miss sessions and you have to have some dietary control (a struggle) – but it’s really all about the training, which takes up 90% of the time. Technology plays its part in sport as in all areas. It’s useful as a guide, but I’m not fixated on the numbers. A former coach always said you need to be able to “race by feel” as tech breaks. I have a Garmin 935 triathlon watch and use the Training Peaks app with my coach as well as Strava. I also use a bike computer and power metre pedals, which measure power output. As a 57-year-old, I am at my fittest. It’s never too late to start. Pick some activity and don’t worry about being any good at it – if you enjoy it, that’s enough. You will meet a community of like-minded folk whatever you try.  Anastasia Myachina  Commercial Partner Manager, Chartered Accountants Ireland Cycling   Fitness and sport have been part of my life since early childhood. I was a professional rhythmic gymnast growing up, which is a very popular sport in my native Russia, and it has really instilled the importance of fitness in me.  I moved on to practicing martial arts when I went to college and trained my way up to second degree black belt in kick-boxing before discovering Crossfit, which was my passion for a long while.  My current routine and sport of choice is cycling, supplemented by strength training. I got my first road bike three years ago and never looked back. I joined a cycling club and go out for club spins at weekends, usually doing between 80-100km. I also have an indoor smart trainer, which was a lifesaver during the lockdown as it allowed me to do virtual cycles and even take part in racing. On top of that, I’m also a huge fan of walking and hiking so you’ll find me regularly scaling mountains (now that we’re able to venture out). It has hugely benefited not just my physical health, but my mental well-being as well. It allows me to clear my head and brings an enormous wave of endorphins, helping to relieve any feelings of stress and anxiety, which have been aplenty – especially during the pandemic. Whether I get up for a cycle first thing in the morning, go for a lunchtime stroll in between meetings, or finish the day off with a hike, I always make sure I get out and move.  Strava is my app of choice for tracking all my fitness activities. I use a bike computer to record my cycles and my watch for walks and hikes, which automatically upload to the Strava platform.  If I was to give any advice to others, I would say get outside and move no matter what your choice of activity is. Choose an activity because it makes you feel happy, and not because it’s a current fad and might make you ‘look good’. That’s the only way you will stick with it, and that’s the only way to get all the benefits.

As businesses across the island of Ireland grapple with the post-Brexit trading environment, any and all opportunities for growth should be grasped with both hands, writes Dawn McLaughlin. The new trading arrangements brought about by Brexit and the Northern Ireland Protocol have caused much economic and political upheaval and controversy since the turn of the year. We are all well versed by now in the arguments for and against the Protocol. However, it remains the case that businesses, in the main, are largely supportive of the new arrangements in the absence of any better solutions. While no one would claim that it is a perfect situation, for businesses in Northern Ireland – particularly those in the north-west border region – there are advantages. Being able to trade freely with the rest of the UK and into the EU and the rest of the island of Ireland is a distinct competitive advantage afforded to businesses on one side of the Derry-Donegal border that isn’t available to the other. Another positive consequence has seen north-south trade in Ireland boom since the start of 2021. It has increased by over 60%, according to the Central Statistics Office’s most recent figures. Some local businesses have begun trading with their southern neighbours for the first time, shifting supply chains and finding new markets and customers. However, many of these businesses will not have realised that they are technically exporting their goods or services, often considered to be the preserve of shipping products across the world. The Londonderry Chamber of Commerce, in collaboration with our partners at Invest Northern Ireland, Derry City and Strabane District Council, InterTradeIreland, and Enterprise North West, have established Growth North West. This partnership is developing new initiatives to help businesses grow their operations across several business areas, such as exporting and innovation. Focusing on the export journey first, experts will cover different aspects of the exporting process to show attendees how to make the most of the export opportunities available to them. Then, businesses can schedule a one-on-one appointment for a more bespoke review of their exporting needs and challenges. This covers everything from export documentation, logistics and sales prospecting to maximising social media and perfecting your pitch. Growth North West is a one-stop-shop for everything your business needs to begin expanding into new markets and trading with new customers. As well as a series of monthly webinars, a mapping exercise has been carried out detailing all available export support. As a sole practitioner, I know that keeping up-to-date with ever-changing programmes and supports is hugely time-consuming. So, to help Chartered Accountants add value and guide clients on their export journey, Growth North West will hold awareness sessions in the coming months. These sessions will be publicised through the Chamber and are open to all. We look forward to engaging with businesses of all kinds, shapes and sizes as they begin or expand their export operations. There are significant opportunities for our local firms, both beyond these shores and on our shared island. As we all grapple with the post-Brexit trading environment, any and all opportunities for growth should be grasped with both hands. Growth North West aims to deliver stimulation and growth opportunities for our region at a time of economic uncertainty and upheaval. Throughout the pandemic, firms have been innovating their services and pivoting their operations to stay afloat. Looking outwards at new export markets is one way our local businesses can positively react to both the effects of the pandemic and the UK leaving the EU. Dawn McLaughlin is Founder of Dawn McLaughlin & Co. Chartered Accountants and President of Londonderry Chamber of Commerce.

David Swinburne outlines the practical considerations for members as they prepare to deal with the Small Company Administrative Rescue Process. With the much-anticipated legislation for the Small Company Administrative Rescue Process (SCARP) ready to be enacted, it will be interesting to see how the process evolves. SCARP aims to rescue struggling businesses that form the backbone of the Irish economy – small and micro companies. These SMEs provide the greatest number of jobs in Ireland. The process, by and large, mirrors the successful examinership process, which has been around for 30 years. However, the costs associated with SCARP are expected to be significantly lower than those associated with examinership. Under SCARP, there is no automatic involvement of the Court. Therefore, the costs associated with legal representation for both the company and the examiner are not applicable. Under SCARP, a company does not have protection from its creditors. However, there is the comfort that the Court is there should it be required. Of course, if recourse to the Court is required, costs will increase. What should a company or its external accountant be doing now? In a typical examinership case, there is invariably some event that occurs at very short notice or an unforeseen shock that pushes the company into insolvency. This, in turn, leads to an urgent application to Court for protection and the appointment of an examiner. Thus, the process for the duration of the examinership becomes a pressure cooker. For SCARP to be successful, planning at a very early stage and engagement with an insolvency practitioner (known as the ‘process advisor’ under SCARP) is vital. The insolvency practitioner will need to quickly assess whether or not the company is a suitable candidate for SCARP. The company can only be a suitable candidate if it has the prospect of survival, which means that it must be viable. Before commencing the SCARP process, the company will therefore need to determine (in as far as it can) that there is a strong likelihood that it will emerge successfully out the other end. For this, it must have a viable core business and source sufficient financial resources to fund the SCARP (if its creditors are to be settled immediately instead of over a period of time). The company’s stakeholders will want certainty on the outcome for them. This will form their decision as to whether or not they will support, and therefore vote in favour of, the SCARP. Fail to plan, plan to fail Early engagement with an insolvency practitioner will also allow them to identify creditors that are likely to be more challenging to deal with in the SCARP due to the complexity of the contractual relationship between such a creditor and the company. Such creditors may include landlords and others to whom the company has more onerous obligations. These creditors can be dealt with under SCARP (subject to their consent). However, if the issues are likely to be difficult to resolve, an application to Court may be required. Identifying such creditors before the process begins will be crucial in setting out the options and, consequently, the further anticipated costs that may arise in dealing with them. Based on recent applications before the High Court, it is evident that the Court will want the company to endeavour to engage with creditors and attempt to resolve difficulties before bringing the matter before the Court. Therefore, the Court should not be the first port of call in resolving issues with any creditor. Excludable debt The possibility for State creditors (with a particular focus on Revenue, which is likely to be a creditor in any SCARP scheme) to opt-out of the process has generated mixed reactions. In my experience, however, Revenue is not a blocker. Instead, it is – and will continue to be – supportive of company restructurings, whether informal or formal (i.e. SCARP or examinership). For Revenue to take such a supportive stance, the company and its directors will need to have a compliant and transparent record in their dealings with Revenue. Therefore, companies must continue to meet their Revenue filing obligations – even in circumstances where the company has warehoused debt and is not in a position to discharge its ongoing taxes as and when they fall due. Directors’ duties Under SCARP, there is a requirement for the process advisor to report any offence to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Office for the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE). It is therefore vital that all directors act honestly and responsibly at all times. When will SCARP cases commence? There is a view that as long as COVID-19 State supports are in place, companies will not succumb to the pressure that they may face after the removal of all State supports. However, not all Irish entities are receiving State support. And those that are not are heavily reliant on their trading partners to discharge their obligations to ensure their own survival and future success. Formal insolvencies are at an all-time low. Given the impact of the last 17 months on the economy, you would expect insolvencies to have increased, not decreased. There is no doubt that the various extensive State supports, coupled with payment breaks and holiday periods from other key creditors and stakeholders, have ensured the continued survival of businesses that would otherwise have run out of cash. As the ‘new normal’ continues to be rolled out and we all adjust and adapt, creditors will be forced to become more active in their efforts to collect cash and recover amounts owing. This is when a company becomes vulnerable in terms of its future survival and direction, as its creditors start to take matters into their own hands. Control in terms of survival will quickly switch from being with a company to its creditor(s). Therefore, as highlighted above, early engagement with an insolvency practitioner and an assessment of SCARP as a credible option is a must. Time-frame The end-to-end time-frame for a SCARP is much shorter than examinership (70 days versus 150 days), which means that much preparatory work will take place before the SCARP is formally kicked off by the directors via a resolution and the appointment of the process advisor. Getting difficult and challenging creditors onside is time-consuming. If certain creditors are unlikely to be supportive before the commencement of the SCARP, it is more likely that they will object to it. This will result in an automatic application to Court to seek approval for the SCARP, which impacts the certainty of the outcome for the company, its employees, and its consenting creditors. What should I do next? If one of your clients is struggling now or is highly likely to struggle in the future, or you own or lead an SME that is eligible for SCARP (see sidebar), you should consult now with an experienced insolvency practitioner. David Swinburne FCA is an insolvency practitioner and Advisory Partner at FitzGerald Legal & Advisory, Cork. SCARP eligibility An SME will be eligible for SCARP if it satisfies two of the following three criteria: Turnover of up to €12 million; A balance sheet of up to €6 million; and/or Up to 50 employees.

Dr Brian Keegan takes the jobs theory of David Graeber to task, arguing that he fundamentally missed the point of the work that he deemed superfluous. As we emerge from pandemic lockdowns, people are realising that at least some of the work totems that we have subscribed to all our working lives were false gods. Many (though by no means all) businesses have recognised that working from home can be a successful and efficient way to carry out white-collar work, if only for some of the time. The tumbling of the ever-present-in-the-office totem may also foster a notion that a four-day working week, for the same pay, might be just as productive as the five-day week grind. The idea is not new. John Maynard Keynes theorised in the 1930s that, with the advent of technology, we could all possibly produce as much with just a two-day working week. At least one Irish trade union is taking up the short week cudgel, but among its most vociferous advocates was David Graeber, a professor at the London School of Economics and author of Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. Graeber is possibly best known for the latter, which outlines his theory on pointless jobs that exist, as he put it, just for the sake of keeping us all working. Graeber kept a “little list” of such occupations, though in practice, it was a long list of salaried professionals whose work he thought would not be missed were they to stop doing it. A world without nurses, refuse collectors, mechanics, teachers or dockworkers would soon be in trouble. Graeber wanted to know if the same could be said if we had no lobbyists, actuaries, telemarketers or legal consultants? Or even, perhaps, accountants. Most people, irrespective of what they do, have spent Graeber-esque days wondering if their jobs have any real meaning. Graeber’s theory may not differ from other economic or management theories that encapsulate a solitary insight but get pushed too far. The Peter Principle says that everyone ultimately gets promoted to their level of incompetence, beyond which they will go no further. That doesn’t, however, describe all career trajectories or the management structure of most successful organisations. Similarly, Parkinson’s law, which posits that work expands to fill the time available, also misses a fundamental point. As society progresses and demands higher standards, the same tasks take longer because the demand is there to do them better. Graeber’s theory falls down because it misses the point of the work he deems superfluous. Every society needs its members to share a commonality of goals, aspirations and standards. There are few processes slower and more tedious than the political process, with a small ‘p’ rather than a capital ‘P’. So many of the jobs dismissed by Graeber contribute to the creation of society’s culture, structure and shared understanding. That requires a degree of patience often lacking in an anarchic perspective like his. Many such jobs are also meaningful to those who do them and thus confer dignity to their time and effort. There is a maxim among anthropologists that fish don’t see the water they swim in, so the discipline’s contribution is to point it out. Equally, however, academics and theoreticians don’t always see that they themselves are swimming in an environment supported by the kind of work decried by Graeber. So, perhaps the real contribution of Graeber’s theory is to serve as a hazard warning for the rarefied academic environment from which it emanated. But then again, maybe a four-day week isn’t such a bad idea… Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy & Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Prof. Ciaran Connolly FCA and Dr Elaine Stewart draw on their recent research for an Institute report to examine the public sector’s proposed accruals-based accounting framework, which represents a significant shift for the Irish Government. Under the current system of Irish central government financial reporting, budget documents and financial reports are typically prepared on a traditional cash-accounting basis, with their institutional coverage mainly limited to central government. However, Ireland is one of the few remaining OECD countries to account and budget in government on a cash basis. While considered robust and reliable, it is argued that cash accounting alone does not enable the planning and asset management that an accruals-based system allows. Motivated by the 2008 global financial crisis and the OECD’s 2019 recommendations following its evaluation of Ireland’s fiscal reporting, forecasting and budgeting systems, the Irish Government sought to modernise its public sector accounting practices. On 27 May 2021, Michael McGrath TD, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform launched Chartered Accountants Ireland’s position paper on plans by the Irish Government to reform public sector accounting in Ireland. Researched by the authors of this article and drawing on the views of key stakeholders in the process, The Reform of Ireland’s Public Sector Accounting examines the proposed new accruals-based accounting framework, which represents a significant change to the way the Irish Government accounts. Recommendations to modernise public accounting systems are not confined to Ireland. Over the last 25 years, there has been a global shift towards accrual accounting in the public sector. While several governments (e.g. Australia, Switzerland and the UK) have adopted full accrual accounting, others (e.g. Italy, Philippines, South Africa and Spain) use a modified form. Some, such as Germany, have no immediate plans to do either. Regardless, the use of accruals in the public sector is growing. Of the 165 countries included in the International Public Sector Financial Accountability Index 2021 Status Report, published by IFAC and CIPFA, 49 (30%) use accrual accounting, with approximately half of these applying International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) either directly or as a reference point. By 2025, it is estimated that 83 (50%) of the 165 countries will operate accrual accounting, with around 73% using IPSAS to some extent. Governments across the globe, including those in Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Africa, are instigating IPSAS implementation projects. Meanwhile, in Europe, the European Commission is working with member states to develop European Public Sector Accounting Standards, with IPSAS used as the baseline. Moreover, a small number of countries have implemented consolidated accounts (e.g. Australia, New Zealand and the UK), something that is also included as part of the Irish Government’s proposed reforms (see Figure 1 above). The proposed reforms While acknowledging that cash accounting provides strong control over departmental expenditure, a number of reports, including the OECD’s 2019 report, have advocated significant reform to the current process of financial reporting in Ireland on the basis that: cash-based information alone is insufficient for understanding the public sector financial position; as audited Appropriation Accounts are required to be published within nine months after the period to which they relate, Ireland is among the slowest of OECD countries in making such reports available; and reports from central government, commercial and non-commercial state bodies are not consolidated. This presents difficulties, particularly where reports are prepared for EU bodies such as Eurostat. On 15 October 2019, the Irish Government announced a series of reforms to Ireland’s public sector accounting which, while retaining core elements of the existing cash-based system, include: introducing accrual accounting in central government departments and offices, applying IPSAS as the underlying framework; preparing central government consolidated financial statements; and harmonising accounting practices and standards across the wider public sector to enable the consolidation of all public sector entities into a ‘whole of government’ account. When implemented, it is expected that the reforms will underpin confidence in Ireland’s public finances and unlock value from the State’s assets while realising the benefits of professional financial management, timelier financial reporting, and a general improvement in economic and fiscal performance. Large-scale reforms, like those proposed, are rarely introduced in a single stage but are typically rolled out over many years, often in conjunction with new IT systems. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) is leading the reform process and has developed an action plan to introduce the reforms with a phased approach (see Figure 1). This begins with the application of IPSAS as the underlying framework to introduce accrual accounting in central government departments and offices (Part 1, 2019–2025). Next, the intention is to prepare central government consolidated financial statements (Part 2, 2025–2027), followed by the harmonisation of accounting practices and standards across the wider public sector (Part 3, 2027–2029), and finally, the consolidation of all public sector entities into a ‘whole of government’ account (Part 4, from 2030). The feasibility of this latter part depends on the degree of integration of accounting systems, especially outside central government, where many entities currently use different accounting standards (e.g. FRS 102) and operate separate IT systems. While factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and complications in developing the Financial Management Shared Services (FMSS) system have impacted the original timelines, progress has accelerated more recently. Purpose, approach and stakeholders’ views Drawing on the experience, progress and lessons learned from other countries and governments that have introduced similar reforms, together with the views of representatives from government departments, agencies and advisory organisations/individuals, the Institute’s position paper examines the driving forces, benefits, challenges and appropriateness of the reforms. The views expressed by interviewees are summarised in Figure 2. The consensus was that the reforms have been mainly driven externally by the OECD, as Ireland is one of the few OECD countries that continue to report on a cash basis. Internal motivations included the potential benefits arising from access to better information on public sector assets and liabilities, including pension obligations. Interviewees highlighted potential staffing, training and IT-related challenges associated with reform implementation, acknowledging that while the process has been slow to start, there is evidence that its pace is growing. However, despite this positivity, it was recognised that the timetable had slipped in a similar manner to that for the FMSS, with the successful introduction of the new system being considered integrally linked with the reform of Ireland’s public sector accounting (e.g. to facilitate the preparation of IPSAS-based departmental and ultimately ‘whole of government’ consolidated accounts). Other anticipated challenges included implementing the necessary legislative changes, with some questioning the logic of introducing accruals-based accounting while maintaining a cash-based budgeting system. While accepting the challenges, the vast majority of interviewees viewed the reforms positively. The consensus was that they could standardise how departments present their financial information, making them more professional and user-friendly. They could also facilitate the closing of accounts in a timelier manner so that the information is more relevant and provides better information for departments’ public representatives. The way forward Experience indicates that political support and leadership at the highest levels is critical if public sector accounting reforms are to succeed. Furthermore, research suggests that their success (however this is defined) is influenced by the extent to which they are shaped by private sector ideas, with the excessive use of private sector consultants often impacting negatively on the receptiveness to change. Thus, while the public sector is entwined with the private sector through outsourcing and privatisation, it remains distinct in terms of its stakeholders, objectives and outcome measures. Therefore, while the reforms have clear implications for departmental accounting functions, their success depends upon input and support from key stakeholders across the public sector so that they fit ‘the Irish public sector context’. Hence, engaging with, for example, departmental managers, statisticians, ministers and public representatives will help to identify the risks, gain political support, and secure buy-in. Relatedly, good project management and governance arrangements are critical to ensure the timely implementation of the accounting reforms (and FMSS) and that the delivery of government services is not unduly disrupted. This might involve piloting aspects of the reforms in some departments or agencies, including having dry-run or dummy years before the changes ‘go live’ to help identify needs and potential pitfalls. For example, training and developing the knowledge of preparers and users of the systems and information is essential. Knowledge transfer is also important to avoid ‘consultant dependency’ while capacity building (e.g. recruitment and training) is critical to project success. As noted above, DPER has developed a plan to implement the reforms in a phased manner over the next decade. Not unexpectedly, a number of issues will need to be considered further, if not resolved, during this period. For example, Ireland’s current constitutional arrangements require the preparation of cash-based Appropriation Accounts. However, there is evidence that ‘full’ accruals-based accounts can be advantageous, including the better management of assets and a greater awareness of obligations, which can facilitate more accurate planning and effective risk management. In addition, although few countries have adopted full accrual budgeting, with many applying a modified version, continuing to operate cash budgeting in tandem with accruals-based notes to the cash-based Appropriation Accounts may cause confusion and limit the potential benefits of the reforms. Although, evidence from the Northern Ireland experience suggests that accrual budgeting creates its own problems. Conclusion Ireland’s planned public sector accounting reforms are ambitious but appropriate and timely. They represent a significant statement of intent by the Irish Government to modernise the State’s public sector accounting practices and must remain a priority. While obstacles and redirections can be expected along the implementation journey, these should be viewed as opportunities to design a system that is fit for purpose and appropriate for the Irish context. For example, while the FMSS system implementation has been delayed, this presents an opportunity to ensure that it will support the preparation of IPSAS-based accounts and assist with the preparation of consolidated accounts, together with the information needed for the EU and Eurostat. Prof. Ciaran Connolly FCA and Dr Elaine Stewart, Queen’s University Belfast, are authors of The Reform of Ireland’s Public Sector Accounting, published by Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Myles Thompson has spent 35 years working in audit for KPMG and over ten years supporting the work of Accountancy Europe, culminating in his recent election as President. In this article, he shares his thoughts on operating in an environment of uncertainty, the challenges facing the profession, and the potential for accountants to make a big impact on the most pressing issues of our time. Today, the accountancy profession faces many competing demands. In that context, how do you prioritise particular issues for Accountancy Europe to pursue? Accountancy Europe has always had a clear strategy in terms of what it’s working on. That’s developed continuously and every two years, with a new president, it’s looked at again. About a year ago, when I knew I would be the president from 1 January, I worked with the Accountancy Europe team and the CEO to consider how we wanted to develop the strategy. We came up with six key strategic areas to work on: corporate reporting, audit and assurance, corporate governance, sustainability, COVID-19 recovery, and – linked across all these areas – the impact on SMEs. Even though they are very broad strategic areas, we then had to identify what’s important for our members and where we can make a difference. That informed our focus, taking into account the resources available at Accountancy Europe. In some instances, we agreed to work on a particular project because it’s vital for the profession, while in other cases, we would have liked to work on a project but, for various reasons, we couldn’t. So it is a prioritisation game. We also work through this process with Accountancy Europe’s board, which has representatives from ten countries, including Ireland. We discuss the strategic objectives and consider what we should be working on with the Accountancy Europe team, which frames how we work. But we’ve got to be agile. The European Commission has said that it will look at audit reform, for example, and we will have to adapt to that because it will be significant for the profession. Sustainability reporting and assurance is an emerging area of discussion and debate. What role do you see the profession playing in this space? Sustainability reporting is very high on the European Commission’s agenda. It has established a process to develop corporate sustainability reporting standards for Europe, and the IFRS Foundation is also looking at this. There are several roles in that sphere for the profession. First, we must work with the European Commission to help them develop appropriate corporate reporting standards. But we also have a role to play, especially as Accountancy Europe, in ensuring that the European Commission and the IFRS Foundation work together towards a global solution – because most of the companies this will impact are global. Regarding comparability, the problem is that various bodies developed standards, but they’re all slightly different. So, this is an opportunity for the European Commission and the IFRS Foundation to bring it all together in one global set of standards that the Commission is happy with and can use – and can build on. These standards will represent the baseline, but certain countries or regions will always want additional reporting on top of that. And I think that’s fine, as long as you have an agreed starting point. Investor groups are increasingly seeking environmental reporting, which provides significant momentum for companies – and then we move into the area of assurance. To get consistent, high-quality reporting by entities, you need assurance. The Commission has already announced that the reporting it will put in place will be subject to assurance. The profession, therefore, has a significant role to play in ensuring that this is not overly burdensome and that it’s proportionate to what we’re trying to achieve. Linked to that, we must recognise that many companies will not have the systems and processes necessary to develop the reporting required. It’s going to take time for companies to get the right processes and systems in place. From that perspective, the profession must work with these entities to get them ready for assurance. The time needed to get companies to report will be short in terms of the potential transition period. Indeed, the Commission has put forward a very ambitious timetable whereby companies will be reporting in two years based on revised standards. But we’ve got to recognise that when companies start to report in that initial period, there will be bumps in the road and they will need time to get that reporting process right. Assurance needs to follow after this, and perhaps companies will need a couple of years to work with their auditors before public assurance can be given. We don’t want assurance that simply keeps telling people that the reporting is wrong; that won’t help anyone, and companies will need time to get it right. The audit profession is facing reform in the UK, driven by the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) consultation process. Do you expect similar reforms at the EU level, particularly in light of the recent Wirecard scandal? Audit quality has improved enormously over the past 20 years, and we need to recognise that. There has been more regulation and scrutiny, and even the regulator admits that audit quality has improved. But of course, it needs to continue to improve.   It is easy to blame the auditors for a company failure, but the auditors aren’t the cause. The whole ecosystem needs to be looked at, from the entity’s corporate governance to the directors, the regulators, and the audit. So, it’s good that the UK’s BEIS consultation looks at that whole ecosystem and recognises that everybody in that process needs to improve. The UK consultation is important because the European Commission recently announced that it would look at the outcomes of the 2014 audit reform. They will consider whether it has made a difference in audit quality, concentration, and independence, but they will also look at the whole ecosystem. They recognise that this is not just about the audit. That is coming in the autumn, and it needs to involve all stakeholders – business, regulators and auditors – to thoroughly debate all views and perspectives, not least those of the accountancy profession. Commissioner Mairead McGuinness is saying the right words at the moment, that this must be done collaboratively. I’m sure they’ll look at the outcome of what is happening in the UK and the Netherlands. When it comes to the UK and Europe, I think some of the issues are very similar. For example, when you look at the audit firms, they will consider governance processes, independence and non-audit services, concentration, and improving regulation. However, some of the solutions may be different. Many possible solutions that have been discussed in the UK are very UK-specific, mainly because the regulator is the regulator of both companies and auditors. It handles both sides, and that’s unusual. In the US, for example, the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) oversees the companies while the PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) oversees the audit. Emerging from COVID-19, economies will have higher debt burdens. How will economies stabilise, and what role will the profession play in this regard? The first thing to say is that nobody knows what will happen. This is new territory for everybody, so we have to be flexible and learn as we go. But for me, the critical area where the profession can help is in working with the SME sector. So much regulation concentrates on listed public interest entities, but the SME sector constitutes 80% of the European economy. The accountancy profession is a key advisor to SMEs, and we are uniquely placed to help them deal with this crisis while working with governments and banks in various countries. There is a considerable concern that banks in most countries are being encouraged by their respective governments to give companies time, but it will be fascinating to see how banks react. As things start moving, will they suddenly decide against servicing a particular company or area? The number of UK companies that have gone insolvent in the past year has reduced dramatically because furlough schemes and banks have shored them up. However, those supports will eventually diminish, and there will be an increase in insolvencies down the line. The profession will be vital in helping companies through that chasm. In terms of advocacy for this important sector, Accountancy Europe has worked with the European Commission to push it on policies for SMEs. But this type of advocacy needs to happen on a country-by-country basis because it’s very difficult to have Europe-wide laws. The profession can act as the voice for many of these SMEs at a local level and work with SME groups. For example, Accountancy Europe works with SME United, a Brussels-based group representing SMEs in Europe. We need this kind of collaboration to get the best for companies. You have worked through many economic shocks during your more than 35 years at KPMG. What did these experiences teach you about leadership? I remember the 2008 banking crisis distinctly because I was trying to help audit clients through that process. It is similar to the current crisis in the sense that you have to be practical and transparent to identify the issues and solutions. In some instances, people assume that companies have suffered badly in a crisis. But many have reinvented themselves, they’ve emerged much stronger. They achieve that by being clear on their position and debt burden, for example. Of course, some companies will fail, but the profession must help these companies be transparent on issues like resilience and going concern. That’s why I’m a big supporter of companies talking about resilience in the context of what could happen in three to five years. I’m also a big advocate of detailed audit reports and robust audit reporting. We’ve driven that enormously over the last six years in the UK – talking about the risks and highlighting concerns. We must underline to investors what the issues are in a company, but it is also imperative to ensure that the board and directors are fair and balanced in what they say about a company’s performance and prospects. We can do a lot of work in that area in the future. If I was to share one piece of advice, it’s to cultivate your role as a professional advisor – whether you work in practice or industry – so that we can help companies develop and grow. We must see that as different from the auditor; the auditor must be independent and not part of the business. But when you’re not the auditor – and many SMEs don’t require an audit – the profession needs to be there as an advisor. We must help SMEs get through whatever crisis they’re in, help them with their supply chain, help them with their processes, help them deal with their debt burden, and make them as efficient as they can be. In short, we must strive to be trusted advisors to business. How has the work of Accountancy Europe changed over the term of your involvement? I’ve been involved with Accountancy Europe for over a decade. Accountancy Europe was historically very technically focused. It mainly responded to technical consultations, whether from the international standard-setters globally or the European Commission. But over the last five years, it has become much more strategic and much more involved in helping the Commission develop its agenda early in the process. One example is sustainability reporting. Accountancy Europe has been involved from the beginning in helping EFRAG, the group dealing with this issue. So while the technical activity remains, Accountancy Europe has become much more strategic in its focus, and that’s important. What other issues do you expect to come into focus for you and the accountancy profession in the years ahead? The profession has a lot on its plate with sustainability reporting and audit reform, to give two examples. But for me, the profession needs to keep improving and ensure that it deals with public and regulatory expectations, especially on the audit side. The profession could do more to explain its role in that respect. Whenever a company collapses, the focus often falls on the auditor, and the question is always: ‘why didn’t the auditor see it coming?’ If the profession continues to explain the role of audit and how it works, that would be helpful. But as I mentioned earlier, auditors don’t bring down companies. So, the profession needs to keep explaining its role and what it does, and that will be important as we work through the fallout from this crisis and in the years ahead. Myles Thompson is President of Accountancy Europe. Myles Thompson on… the expectation gap There should be an expectation that auditors are doing the job to the highest quality that they can. And I think that is a very important expectation that we should have. But I think it is also relevant to recognise that other stakeholders may well have a greater expectation of the profession than is currently required by the regulators and by standards. The expectation gap exists; it’s been there for many years. I don’t think the profession helped itself by not dealing with it or explaining the process. But we shouldn’t hide things and say: ‘well, that’s not our responsibility’. We need to explain what we do and what we can do. And if, in the end, society decides that we need to do more, that can be done. Audit is a risk-based process, and of course you can do more – you can lower the risks and test more, and we are doing more of that through technology. Technology may be crucial because when it’s used appropriately, it can be a really powerful tool in identifying unusual transactions. A large company may transact thousands of times a day, but we have artificial intelligence tools now that can analyse every transaction in every day of the year to see if something stands out. But we still need to understand the expectations of us as auditors and deal with that. Myles Thompson on… Brexit There are two areas to consider. First, we need to recognise that London is a significant capital centre, and many European companies are listed in London. So, we need to make sure that such companies can transact appropriately and work in that capital environment in the UK. Before, everything was equivalent, so we need to make sure that it works. And from a profession point of view, we need to ensure that we continue to have proper recognition of the profession across Europe. Because again, before Brexit, the qualifications in one country were recognised in others. Work is needed on this because there are many UK qualifications used by member bodies in other countries. If a qualification is not going to be recognised, then that could have a significant impact.  Thankfully, the biggest area of cooperation is between the UK and Ireland, which is being dealt with in an appropriate way. I see the relationship between the UK and Ireland as separate from that between the UK and mainland Europe because the UK and Ireland have always worked together very strongly. For example, Chartered Accountants Ireland is a member body for north and south, and many firms operate on that basis also. The profession works across borders, and it must continue to do so in that respect. So, I’m less worried about the UK and Ireland and more concerned about how the UK and continental Europe will work.

Digital proved to be a vital tool in helping businesses navigate the upheaval during COVID-19. But now, it needs to move from a tactical response to a key pillar of strategy, writes Cormac Hughes. Businesses crave certainty. After the past year, however, that precious commodity is in short supply. So how can organisations be ready for and respond to uncertainty, both to make themselves less vulnerable to risk and to be prepared to take advantage of opportunities that emerge in unpredictable times? The answer is digital transformation. However, those two simple words disguise a more complex readjustment. Going digital is not just about building a new website. That would be like applying a fresh coat of paint to your organisation’s existing building when in reality, it is a fundamental restructuring from the floorboards to the ceiling. It is a wholesale realignment that touches every part of an organisation and puts digital at the heart of its strategy. In this article, I will outline the benefits of this approach, identify the areas of your organisation most impacted by the change, and provide practical advice on the steps to take wherever you are on the journey. From survival to strategy The first thing to say is that we are not at the starting line for digital transformation; the race is already underway. Many organisations had to rapidly hit their full stride because they had no other choice: the COVID-19 pandemic turned the digital agenda from a marathon to a sprint. The move to remote and distributed workforces at scale was only possible with digital technology. In many cases, online channels became the default means of interacting with customers and suppliers. That so many managed the change so effectively without dropping the baton is a testament to people’s incredible spirit and collective effort. But the swift onset of that crisis meant that many of the solutions put in place were short-term and tactical in nature. Now, as we can all catch our breath and start looking to the future with some optimism, we have an opportunity to evaluate the lessons learned. And the biggest lesson of all is that digital is not an enabler of strategy but a driver of it. We can say this with confidence based on a global study of 2,860 executives in the commercial and public sectors, which Deloitte carried out earlier this year. This research concluded that digital is fast becoming the norm across all sectors. Nearly two-thirds of respondents believe that organisations that don’t digitise in the next five years will be “doomed”, so having the right strategy that takes advantage of digital possibilities and capabilities will ultimately differentiate the winners and losers. Digital maturity confers advantage Deloitte’s research showed that the more digitally mature an organisation is, the better able it is to navigate rapid change and the better it performed financially. 78% of leaders surveyed said that their organisations’ digital capabilities played a significant part in helping them stay resilient as the COVID-19 crisis evolved rapidly. A similar percentage reported that their digital transformation initiatives were already having a significant positive effect on their businesses. Against this backdrop, digital spending is increasing. This might seem counter-intuitive because many organisations came under financial pressure during the pandemic. Yet, according to a CEO survey by the technology research company Gartner, over 80% of organisations planned to boost their investments in digital transformation. The firm forecasts that spending on enterprise digital transformation will grow at a 15.5% compound annual growth rate from 2020 to 2023. The Deloitte study supports this finding: 69% of the leaders surveyed intend to commit more spending to digital transformation in response to the pandemic. Our figures also show that their budgets for digital transformation represent a higher percentage of their annual revenues than in prior years. The agility to react to new opportunities Digital transformation also changes the competitive field and creates new opportunities for organisations to differentiate themselves. With the experience of the past year, it is now clear that digitally sophisticated companies are especially well-placed to react to new customer trends or buying habits. At the same time, our study found that many commercial leaders believe that their main competitor in five years will be an emerging start-up or a ‘digitally native’ company that hasn’t needed to shed the legacy of older technology (more of which later). Fewer than one-third of our respondents believe that their biggest threat will come from a current competitor. It is worth emphasising here that the window of opportunity for embracing digital remains open. For example, several Irish retail banks recently announced plans to form a consortium to develop a money transfer app to compete with emerging fintech providers. The findings above hint at the extent of the dynamic situation, so we dug deeper into leaders’ perceptions of change. More than three in four leaders anticipate that their business will “change significantly” over the next five years and more so than the previous five. Instability, by its nature, brings uncertainty, and it is not surprising that more than half of respondents believe that the fast pace of technology change is “not good” for their organisations. In our opinion, this makes it even more important to take a proactive approach to digital transformation rather than just letting it happen. Against this backdrop, how do organisations further embed digital across the business? We have considered this question across several areas: talent, finance, operations, and customer. Let us look at each of these in turn. The talent opportunity The past year has had an enormous impact on how we think about the nature of work. Business leaders need to consider this from a multifaceted perspective: who does the work? What kind of work do they do? And where do they do it from? From our engagements with clients, many will need to assess the skills they have in their workforces today and map them to the capabilities they will need in the future. This could involve identifying candidates for training so they can take up new roles. The ability to work remotely could be an opportunity to recruit talent that would previously have been unavailable because those people lived beyond a commuting distance to an office. It is also a chance to re-frame HR practices, such as moving to a more flexible team-based model rather than having people work in fixed roles organised along rigid departmental lines. The finance opportunity The finance function plays a vital role in a digitally transformed business, but it too must change to carry out this newly expanded remit. Traditionally, the job of finance was to report on what had already happened. Now, finance must look forward and spend most of its time and resources on planning and forecasting. To do this effectively, it must be able to use powerful analytics tools that can sift through data and deliver the insights the business needs to drive its decision-making. When this is in place, finance can become a strategic business partner and apply analytical thinking to solve challenges. The operations opportunity Operations is the through-line connecting every part of an organisation, from the customer-facing online channels to support, order processing and fulfilment. When the customer engages through a website, online store, app, or chatbot, they judge the success of that interaction on the seamlessness of the experience. How swiftly can they complete a transaction? When is the product or service ready? What updates do they receive about the progress of their order? Data is the glue that binds all parts of an organisation together. Every aspect of the operation needs to be digitally enabled and connected to have the data it needs, in real-time, to fulfil the order and share relevant information with the customer. Then, operations can analyse this data to identify areas where it can continually optimise. These improvements can be internal (streamlining processes that employees must use) or external (delivering a more efficient service to customers). The customer opportunity This leads us neatly to the customer: top-performing digitally-enabled organisations realise it’s not all about them. They put the customer first, delivering an experience that’s easy, convenient, and secure. This helps strengthen customer loyalty and trust. At the same time, they also dig deeper to understand their customers’ needs. They know that although digital may be the default means of engagement in today’s world, there are nuances to different customer segments and groups. Looking closer at the behaviour of those groups uncovers distinctions that enable businesses to target their offerings more effectively, identify up-sell and cross-sell opportunities, and stay competitive at a time when the customer has never had more choice. The cloud imperative The four areas outlined above have one element in common: the cloud. This is fast becoming the dominant model for organisations to avail of IT services. Delivering technology and services through the cloud equips people to work from anywhere. It also enables finance to get data faster and move from historical reporting to forecasting while empowering all elements of operations to work together more effectively and deliver a seamless customer experience. Cloud offers a consumption-based pricing model that links IT spend to the demand for that service. It also offers speed: unlike legacy infrastructure, the cloud enables businesses to test new products and services far faster than before. And when an organisation’s IT platform is adaptable, that means its business is adaptable too. With no data centres or servers to maintain and run, leaders can focus purely on the business and reduce the need to ‘mind’ the technology. Cloud also makes it easier to access the latest technology such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and robotic process automation, and high-powered analytics that can identify new areas for improvement. This is a very wide-ranging agenda for any organisation, so it may be helpful to think of it as follows: first, set the strategic direction for operations, finance, talent, and customer-facing functions from one direction. In parallel, begin a managed transition from the business’s siloed and legacy technology systems today to cloud platforms that provide the agility and flexibility the business will need. Moving to the cloud provides the basis for the strategy to come to life, but it can be complex in an organisation with a lot of existing IT. When creating a roadmap to move to the cloud, four useful stages are: Step 1: Identify the business problem Determine where the biggest burning need exists in your business today, as this will have a strong technology element. Find a problem that is a priority and will let you cut through all the decisions you have to make in your cloud adoption journey. Step 2: Start small and target quick wins Start with a small project, work to tightly defined parameters, and measure business value as you build support at all levels of the business. For example, this might be a non-critical application or a legacy system nearing the end of its support contract. Use cloud’s agility to your advantage. The ability to launch new systems quickly shortens the typical procurement cycle to days. This means you can identify a project that will deliver quick wins, act as a proof of concept, and build momentum from there. Step 3: Apply lessons and expand Use the proof of concept to identify what has been learned, build a business case, and bring stakeholders on the journey as they become familiar with the cloud. Starting small also allows the enterprise to develop the people and process aspects necessary to succeed in cloud adoption. The technology alone is not enough; there needs to be a change in culture and skills in addition to transforming processes in the business to embrace agile ways of working. Step 4: Build capability in the business in parallel to IT As the cloud project develops, ensure that those in charge have identified the necessary skills in the team, whether they exist in the business today, and whether you need to supplement the team with external expertise. That can be achieved by recruiting or working with a partner that can supplement your resources. Bear in mind that the skills for successful cloud projects go beyond technology alone. Your cloud team should also cover governance and operating models so that you implement suitable structures that can evolve as your cloud adoption matures. What’s next? When the cloud underpins digital transformation, scaling becomes easier because the organisation no longer relies on the capacity of technology it acquired at a moment in time. It can be more agile by quickly identifying and responding to customer needs. Growth is returning, and tomorrow’s world is one of expanded skillsets, a workforce that’s no longer tied to one place, and a wide range of opportunity. No matter what change awaits, the digitally transformed business can be ready. Cormac Hughes is Head of Consulting at Deloitte Ireland. Prepare now for the next disruption Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, digital spending is still on the rise. Deloitte’s 2021 Digital Transformation Executive Survey reinforces this expectation of growth, with 69% of surveyed leaders globally planning to increase their financial commitments to digital transformation in response to the pandemic. This vigorous growth in digital transformation investment makes it even more critical for   enterprises to make digital transformation a foundation of their strategy. Organisations should assume that their competitors are just as committed to developing their digital capabilities right now. The winners will be those that successfully move digital from a tactical response to a key pillar of strategy. To do this, CEOs must make explicit choices about their strategy across several areas, including talent, finance, operations and the customer. Doing so will help improve efficiency, power new products and services, enable new business models, and ensure that the customer experience is easy, convenient, and secure. Ultimately, it is about being as ready as possible for what may be next as further disruptions will come.

If you’re assertive, you’re difficult. If you’re empathetic, you’re not taken seriously. What can women in leadership roles do to overcome the double-bind? Dawn Leane explains. The issue of how women are perceived in the workplace is regularly oversimplified, and the best example of this over-simplification is the concept of the ‘double-bind’. It is a dilemma in communication in which an individual receives two or more conflicting messages. In the case of gender balance, it highlights how women who succeed are held to a different standard than their male counterparts. To succeed, women must display the traits commonly associated with effective leadership, such as assertiveness. However, when women behave assertively, they may suffer a whole other set of consequences that men typically don’t experience. Being empathetic, looking for the win-win, or simply having a pleasant demeanour can prevent women from being taken seriously, while being direct, assertive, or openly ambitious often means that they are labelled as being difficult. Regarding the double-bind, women are told to ‘man-up’, that it doesn’t matter if they are liked as long as they are respected. But the challenge of the double-bind is not that women need to be liked; rather, there is a significant, long-term impact associated with it. The double-bind can prevent women from receiving the crucial feedback they need to progress. According to research conducted by McKinsey & Co. and LeanIn.org, managers were more likely to cite concerns about seeming harsh or provoking an emotional response when delivering critical feedback to women, meaning women aren’t getting the same guidance needed in the workplace as men. The double-bind also means that women face bias when they are giving feedback. Research found that employees’ job satisfaction dropped more when female managers delivered critical feedback than when male managers did. Once again, this bias existed in both female and male employees, but the male employees surveyed viewed their female managers as less competent after receiving criticism from them. Simply put: women cannot win, and these contradictory expectations are just as likely to come from other women as men. Addressing the double-bind The double-bind is an insidious barrier that women must overcome before women can even begin to be assessed on the quality of their work. However, there are some ways women can address it: Ask open questions and point out inconsistencies in expectations. For example, if a colleague calls you ‘bossy’, ask ‘compared to whom?’ If your contribution is overlooked until a male colleague makes the same point, don’t let it go. Instead, highlight the fact that you’ve already raised the point and are glad that your colleague agrees. Ensure that the relevant people know who you are and know your work. Then, find a sponsor to advocate on your behalf who can help raise your profile and highlight your work. It’s important to get issues out in the open. Otherwise, they will always stay outside the awareness of those who aren’t impacted. Every conversation, every email and every meeting is an opportunity to begin restoring the balance. Dawn Leane is the founder of Leane Empower.