Moves underway globally to reform the audit process should reduce the likelihood of corporate collapses and internal fraud, writes Paul Kilduff Whenever there is a sudden company collapse, a shocking fraud or a financial scandal, the details make the front pages of the newspapers and news sites, and the shareholders and the public rightly ask: ‘And where was audit?’ Work is presently underway to address this vital question. In the US, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) oversees the audits of public companies in order to protect investors. There are quality control standards in place covering personnel, ethics, engagement performance and client acceptance, but the chair of the PCAOB accepts that these are outdated and do not adequately promote audit quality.  The PCAOB’s plan is to close the gaps by updating the rules for how firms should police their audit work. It recently issued its 2022–2026 Strategic Plan for public comment, so these planned developments will take time. In the UK, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) develops and maintains auditing and assurance standards. The most recent annual report from the FRC on the quality of audit in the UK found that 33 percent of all audits reviewed needed improvement. This was an unacceptably high number of audits, according to the accounting watchdog. Of the 147 audits inspected by the FRC, 41 required ‘further improvements’ and seven needed ‘significant changes’.  The Institute of Internal Auditors believes the FRC findings underline the need for urgent audit reform and robust measures designed to increase audit quality. One solution is to put the FRC audit regulator on a statutory footing with enough new legal powers to do its job effectively. Sadly, the problem of audit quality remains, and it has impacted the work of the auditor for years. High-profile scandals When Nick Leeson single-handedly destroyed Barings Bank, I was an internal audit manager with HSBC in London. My first reaction was one of relief that the calamitous events had not occurred at our bank. My second reaction was one of concern that the bank’s internal audit team and external auditors in Singapore had not discovered the £869 million trading loss hidden by Leeson. Leeson outfoxed audit. When internal audit arrived from the London head office, he met them on the chaotic trading floor of SIMEX, he told them he was very busy, and he avoided the office and all meetings with the auditors. When external audit from a Big 4 firm asked him for a confirmation for a large bogus option trade, Leeson manufactured the confirmation from a page of headed bank notepaper, using scissors, glue, and a photocopier. The audit team was none the wiser as to his deceit. Wirecard AG, a Munich-based electronic payments provider, once valued at €24 billion, went kaput in 2020. The accounts of this listed company included a bank deposit in Singapore of €1.9 billion, which simply did not exist. The Financial Times reported that, instead of obtaining confirmation of the deposit directly from the bank, the auditors relied on documents and screenshots provided by a third-party trustee and by Wirecard staff.  This audit failure happened not once, but at three successive year-ends from 2016 to 2018. I qualified as an ACA many years ago, but even then, obtaining independent confirmation of bank deposits was covered in day one of audit training. The head of the German financial watchdog BaFin was critical of the audit work performed and said the Wirecard scandal was ‘a complete disaster’, adding: ‘It starts with looking at a complete failure of senior management and it goes on to the scores of auditors who couldn’t dig up the truth.’ In the UK, there are recent examples of previously robust companies, which had been audited by leading UK accounting firms, suddenly failing. The demise of retail chain BHS, travel agency Thomas Cook and construction giant Carillion had a major impact on the UK economy, costing the taxpayer millions. The Institute of Internal Auditors believes that stronger governance and audit can help to prevent such collapses occurring in the future, protecting jobs, pensions, investors and incomes. Necessary reform The necessary improvements to audit must deliver on several fronts. The audit profession must ensure that it attracts capable individuals with strong product knowledge, an inquiring mindset, and a character strong enough to deal with any management obstruction.  The improved audit approach must be documented in revised policies and procedures, which must be ingrained in audit work. Quality Assurance functions must be set up or enhanced in firms to ensure standards are met. The cost of implementing these audit reforms must be reasonable to bear, whether the auditor is in an internal audit function, a Big 4 audit firm or a small audit firm with a more limited budget. There is an expectation that audit reform must use all available technology to improve the quality and scope of audit work. In the past, audit sampling may have been acceptable, but with advanced Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAATs), 100 percent auditing is the likely optimal solution. Global audit reform must also consider the changing nature of work, and the associated risks. Few auditors thought three years ago that so many employees would now be working on a hybrid basis, relying on remote systems access for client verification, payments processing and other critical tasks.  When reform does arrive, there should be international convergence, so that the audit quality rules in the US, UK and other jurisdictions are consistent and align with international standards, thereby avoiding unnecessary differences and costly duplication that could weaken audit effectiveness.  In the meantime, accountancy bodies are providing new guidance to members.  New guidance  In the UK, the Institute of Accountants in England and Wales recently reported on the significant resources devoted to fraud-related activities within audit firms. It also acknowledged the public perception that auditors can and should be doing much more to deter and detect fraud and to prevent the unexpected failure of large companies due to fraud. It was Lord Justice Lopes who famously summed up the auditor’s duty in the case of Kingston Cotton Mills Co., where the company directors had fraudulently overstated the value of stock, by proclaiming: ‘An auditor is not bound to be a detective. He is a watchdog, but not a bloodhound.’  Lopes opined that the auditor cannot be liable for any wrongdoings they had no reason to suspect were taking place, but that landmark legal judgement was handed down in 1896. The expectation placed on both internal and external auditors is significantly higher today.  The auditor is not specifically expected to search out any fraud or deception in their audit, but if there are warning signs that all is not well, the auditor must investigate these to reach a satisfactory conclusion regarding the audit opinion.  While writing my latest banking book, I researched the case of Joseph Jett, a former bond trader with Kidder Peabody in New York, who created $350 million of phantom trading profits on the bank’s computer systems.  The subsequent post-mortem report stated that the internal auditors learnt that Jett had booked billions of dollars of unusual transactions, but no auditor followed up on this anomaly. The auditor had to explain his work in court, as audit workpapers were produced with hand-written annotations without evidence of action. This is not a situation any auditor would wish to defend.  I also came across Sir Allen Stanford and his Stanford Financial Group, based in Antigua, which was later revealed to be a giant Ponzi scheme. His bank at the time had a value of $8 billion, but it was audited by a small Antiguan audit firm with just ten staff. This should never have been acceptable. When corporate disaster does strike, it is easy to point the finger at the auditor, but this is often unfair. Every auditor comes to work with the intention of doing a good job. The aim of audit reform is to assist and guide the auditor in their work, rather than to make their work more onerous. The global audit reform process is underway, and it must deliver improvements to reduce the likelihood of further high-profile corporate disasters, which damage the reputation of the auditor. In the meantime, the auditor at large would do well to maintain a healthy sense of scepticism.  Paul Kilduff B.Comm FCA is an author and banker, who has worked with HSBC, Bank of Ireland, Bank of America, Barclays and Citibank. His eighth book, Stupid Bankers: The World’s Worst Banking Disasters Revealed, is available exclusively on Amazon UK in paperback and Kindle format

Irish Government finances are in surplus and Ireland’s debt-to-GDP ratio has stabilised, so why are there calls for higher taxes? asks Dr Brian Keegan It’s hard to avoid concern fatigue setting in. What with the war in Ukraine, the cost-of-living crisis, the continued Northern political stalemate, multiple dire warnings amplified at COP27 over climate change and another possible COVID-19 surge—the list of concerns seems particularly endless at the moment.   Some time ago, the commentator Marc Coleman projected that population growth—and, by implication, skills growth—would drive prosperity in Ireland. Coleman’s ideas have been given additional credence by the current situation in the UK. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s November budget looks towards an extended period of economic stagnation. British productivity has not grown in line with government spending in recent years. In the moribund British economy, there is a record low level of people out of work while the number of job vacancies is at a record high.   There is a straightforward, one-to-one relationship between economic growth and the growth in tax yield, which permits more government spending without further borrowing. When the growth in gross domestic product (GDP) stalls, so too do the tax figures.   In his book The Best is Yet to Come, Coleman pointed out some of the links between more workers, growth and greater resources for public services and benefits. Though the timing was unfortunate (the book was published just months before the 2008 financial crisis), Ireland is now indeed in a better place, at least economically, than it has been for many years. Government finances are in surplus and the debt-to-GDP ratio, at around 50 percent, is back under control.   Unlike the British situation where a Budget bordering on the austere was required to meet existing public spending commitments, without an intolerably high borrowing requirement, the recent Irish Budget took a cost-of-living crisis in its stride, with grant aid against soaring energy bills for households and businesses alike being met through current tax receipts. Nevertheless, a narrative has emerged that the burden of taxation in Ireland will have to increase.   Why this should be the case is not always specified. There are unquestionably problems with housing, health, and education, but it does not automatically follow that these problems arise from underinvestment. At the time of writing, close to half a billion euros set aside in 2022 for local authority housing remains unspent. This points to management or capacity problems, not funding challenges.   The much-heralded report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare has not had a huge impact on the political debate. This may be because it presents solutions in search of a problem. As research from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council has pointed out, “its work was not framed around any specific shortfall in funding that needed to be filled. Instead, it was guided by a broad intention to generate additional revenue”.   Even government politicians, who are rarely scathing about the output of an expert group, which the government itself commissioned, were dismissive of the recommendations. Clearly, there are some areas of the economy where additional tax funding will be required, if not immediately, in the medium-term.   Unless there is an unforeseen level of immigration of people of working age, the ratio of workers to pensioners is going in the wrong direction. Climate change management, ironically being driven more by energy security concerns than global altruism, will come with a price tag. The sustained high corporation tax take may have peaked. In Britain, the urgent need for higher taxation has been unanswerable. In Ireland, there needs to be a clear business case for any form of new or additional taxation. We have enough to be concerned about without the prospect of unnecessary taxes. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy and Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Chartered Accountant Eamonn Hughes is playing a leading role in Bank of Ireland’s Responsible and Sustainable Business Strategy. Hughes tells Accountancy Ireland about the four-year plan and his goals as Chief Sustainability and Investor Relations Officer  Before joining Bank of Ireland Group in February as Chief Sustainability and Investor Relations Officer, Chartered Accountant Eamonn Hughes had a longstanding career as a sell-side market analyst with more than 25 years’ experience in capital markets and domestic banking.  Having worked most recently with Goodbody, the stockbroking firm, as Irish Banks and Insurance Sector Analyst and, before that, Head of Research, Hughes also had a clear view of the swift rise in environmental, social and governance (ESG) to the top of the financial agenda worldwide. “I could see that ESG was becoming hugely important in capital markets and the financial sector. The climate crisis, in particular, is a critical threat, but also a significant opportunity,” said Hughes. “For our planet, there is no Plan B, but the discussion about sustainability is not just about climate change. It is also about creating a more sustainable business model. Our vision at Bank of Ireland is to be the national champion in Ireland, to use our balance sheet and resources to drive positive change for a better, fairer society and improve the environment. “This gives me a very strong framework to think about my role, because, if we can deliver on our ESG strategy, we can ultimately deliver a more sustainable business model for all stakeholders and positive returns for investors. “The ESG agenda also involves regulators, so disclosure and risk management are very important—and there are reporting frameworks in place, but they are evolving very quickly. This is one of the challenges we face and is also why transparency and the availability of clear data is so important.  “With my background in capital markets, I can clearly see the mobilisation in capital, and I think the banking sector has a very obvious supporting role to play in society’s sustainability transition.” Investing in tomorrow Bank of Ireland published its Responsible and Sustainable Business Strategy in March 2021, a year before Hughes joined the group.  Bank of Ireland’s four-year Investing in Tomorrow strategy set out its own goals to support the green transition, alongside two additional pillars: enabling colleagues to thrive; and enhancing customers’ financial wellbeing. The Investing in Tomorrow green transition pillar included the setting of science-based targets aligning the bank’s lending portfolios with the Paris Agreement. The international treaty on climate change, adopted in 2015 at COP 21, set out a goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. “Data is key across all three pillars, because reporting is essentially an output of what we are doing in support of climate change, colleagues, customers and the organisation as a whole,” said Hughes. “We need to focus on how we interact with our stakeholders internally and externally and, in my role, investors are obviously a key priority. As investors now have to produce more disclosures themselves, they will need to engage more with us in terms of what we are doing on our own ESG journey.” Clear reporting strategy How Bank of Ireland communicates with, and reports to, stakeholders on the progress of its ESG strategy is a priority for Hughes in his role as Chief Sustainability and Investor Relations Officer. “Ultimately, we need to explain how we are meeting the targets set out in our strategy, and it is incumbent upon us to develop the capacity and skill sets we need to support reporting and strategy delivery,” he said. “My role is to support in delivering across all three pillars, which involves a lot of data-gathering internally, particularly from a regulatory and reporting perspective.” Detailed progress reports on ESG will now be a core part of Bank of Ireland’s annual reporting cycle. “We need to be able to demonstrate clearly that we are creating a sustainable business strategy, enabling colleagues to thrive in the organisation and enhancing financial well-being among customers, in addition to supporting the sustainable transition,” said Hughes. “Transparency is hugely important. There are a lot of differentials in this space, so we need to standardise our reporting; to be able to explain clearly and cohesively what we are doing and why.” Commercialisation is becoming increasingly important as Bank of Ireland continues to implement Investing in Tomorrow, Hughes said. “Like many banks, we are in the commercialisation phase of our ESG strategy with the creation of sustainable finance solutions for, and increasing engagement with, customers. We are supporting and incentivising customers through competitive rates to buy or build an energy efficient home or to retrofit their home or business to make it more energy efficient.” Sustainable finance fund Bank of Ireland recently announced a €3 billion increase in its Sustainable Finance Fund, which will bring it to €5 billion by 2024. The fund covers green propositions, including mortgages, home improvement loans and business  loans.  Bank of Ireland’s inaugural standalone Responsible and Sustainable Business Report, published in June, tracked the progress of its ESG strategy in 2021. More than €1.8 billion in mortgages, home improvement loans and business loans had been drawn down from the Sustainable Finance Fund by the end of the year, the report stated. Thirty-five percent of all mortgages provided by the bank in 2021 were green, rising to 48 percent in the first half of 2022.  Bank of Ireland was also the largest provider of wholesale finance for electric vehicles in 2021, providing finance to 13 of the 15 car manufacturer franchises. The publication of the Responsible and Sustainable Business Report marked a significant “step-change in the tracking and transparency” of the bank’s ESG reporting, Hughes noted.  “Our stakeholders—including customers, shareholders, and regulators—are demanding far greater transparency as to how we are meeting our ESG commitments,” he said. “This report provides insight into our strategic approach, appraisal of our progress to achieve our purpose, and information on the key focus areas we plan to progress in the years ahead. Being clear on ESG, and showing how you are delivering what you sign up to, is now a commercial imperative for all lenders, including Bank of Ireland.” Science-based targets Bank of Ireland has also committed to setting science-based targets across portfolios and operations to align lending practice with the low carbon ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement. “We completed two successful green bond issuances in 2021, raising €1.25 billion with the capital used to finance green buildings, renewable energy projects and clean transportation,” said Hughes. “Thirty-five per cent of the mortgages we provided in 2021 were green and we have also launched a green mortgage product in the UK.” Bank of Ireland is providing finance for the development of at least 750 megawatts of renewable wind capacity across the island of Ireland. The bank is also in the process of decarbonising its own operations—reducing absolute emissions by 88 percent between 2011 and 2021. Social and governance Although supporting the green agenda is a major part of Investing in Tomorrow, the strategy also sets goals for investing in colleagues and enhancing customers’ financial wellbeing. “We recognise the supporting role we can play in Ireland’s response to the climate crisis, but the ‘S’ and ‘G’ are equally important when we consider ESG,” Hughes said. “We have a strategy to improve the financial wellbeing of our customers and to foster a financially inclusive society.” Bank of Ireland was, Hughes said, supporting customers to become more financially confident, while also working to simplify processes, so that the “financially marginalised have easier access to banking services.” Financial health and inclusion  Bank of Ireland is one of 28 banks around the world that have signed the Commitment to Financial Health and Inclusion published in December 2021 under the United Nations Principles for Responsible Banking (PRB). A first-of-its-kind initiative aimed at promoting universal financial inclusion and health in the banking sector, its launch closely followed the publication of the UN’s PRB Collective Progress Report. The report identified financial inclusion as the third most pressing sustainability challenge facing signatory banks, behind climate mitigation and adaptation. “This UN initiative is particularly important in an environment in which we have a cost-of-living crisis and customers are facing major challenges in the medium- to long-term. The question for us is, ‘how can we deliver this particular skill set and support our customers at a time when they really need it?’” said Hughes. Bank of Ireland is also helping customers to “live more sustainably” with the recent announcement of the roll out of bio-sourced debit and credit cards. Launched in October, the initiative will over time replace all plastic debit and credit cards issued by the bank, to help support the reduction of single-use plastic. “If we are to live in a more sustainable way, we need to do things differently, including through our everyday banking. The introduction of bio-sourced cards is a very practical way we can help our customers to reduce their environmental footprint,” Hughes said. “As a bank, we are working very closely with our customers on the sustainability transition. As they deliver, we deliver. It is a symbiotic relationship and an exciting place to be.”  

Martin Moloney, Secretary General of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, outlines his priorities for the year ahead Irishman Martin Moloney is Secretary General of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO). Headquartered in Madrid, Spain, the international body brings together the world’s securities regulators and is recognised as the standard setter for the securities sector worldwide. IOSCO develops, implements, and promotes adherence to internationally recognised standards for securities regulation, working closely with the G20 and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) on global regulatory reform. Accountancy Ireland sat down with Moloney to discuss his goals, priorities, and concerns for the year ahead. Q: What are the biggest risks facing investors around the world right now and how is IOSCO working with securities regulatory agencies to address these risks? The risks that investors face never really change. There are some fundamentals. You can hire the wrong advisers, you can pay them too much, you can choose the wrong times to get in or out of markets, and you can invest in the wrong things. These risks are the core risks for investors, and they have been for as long as financial markets have existed. The difficulty is that financial markets are constantly changing. New asset classes like crypto are emerging, and there are new ways in which intermediaries work on your behalf, but also earn fees for themselves. This creates new risks for investors. Also, as we saw from recent events in the UK, markets can go into sudden periods of stress and crash. We do our best, working with others, to try to make markets as resilient as they can be, to ensure that these episodes are few and far between insofar as we can. These are the big issues facing us currently. Really, it all comes down to integrity—being able to trust the price you see when you invest in the markets and ensuring that you are not being fooled by people who are trying to cheat you out of your money. Q: You have described the rise of cryptocurrency as an area fraught with risk, requiring “a lot of work” on the part of regulators. Can you tell us more? There is no doubt in my mind that we have reached a turning point in relation to crypto. This is not because of the so-called ‘Crypto Winter’. The value of crypto might go up or down, but that is not really the issue. The point that we all have to observe and recognise is that crypto has survived and has continued to survive over a number of years. It is reasonable to assume that it is not going away and, therefore, it has to be regulated. I am delighted to say that, since I have joined IOSCO, the organisation has moved forward with its policy in this area and is now very quickly developing a set of guidelines for the market on how different jurisdictions should regulate crypto and the common standards they should aim to achieve in doing so. We are seeing a number of regions, notably the United States and Europe, now moving towards developing legal frameworks. I have no doubt that this is far from the end of the matter, however—it is just the beginning. Crypto is going to evolve and change as people get on top of the technology and new opportunities emerge. The most important thing we must all keep an eye on here is the outcome for the investor. In the first years of crypto, a huge number of people lost money through fraud. Other people, who may not even have been aware of it, lost money through market manipulation, insider trading and various other dubious activities we know well. Very often, this has been driven by conflicts of interest. If you dig down into the principles articulated by IOSCO for financial markets many years ago, you will find us warning against many of the phenomena we are now seeing in crypto markets. Theft does not change. It might happen in a different location, but theft is still theft. Bad management is still bad management, no matter where it happens. It is up to us to re-articulate these very simple, but really important, ideas and explain how they can apply in the crypto space. It is also important for the crypto sector itself to come up with good solutions and technologically enabled solutions, so that its work can be supervised and that it can reach the same standard of regulation as the rest of the financial sector. There are a number of individuals, I think, within the crypto sector who have come to understand that they need to move positively towards a strong regulatory framework in order to bottom out their businesses and remain stable. If we do not start to see self-regulation within the crypto sector, then I think we will see more jurisdictions banning crypto. It is just not sustainable over the medium term to try to avoid the regulatory frameworks that apply to everyone else. It is one thing to see yourself as a different asset class. It’s quite another to see yourself as an entirely different industry when you are effectively doing the same thing. Q: So, you do believe that cryptocurrency has a long-term future provided that there is robust regulation in place across the board? I think there is some potential for this asset class, but it is going to become more challenging. I don’t have a crystal ball, so I try not to predict the future. I see some very interesting new products developing in the decentralised finance space, and I wonder if this is ultimately where crypto is going to go. We are all used to a simple model in which you get quite non-functional assets like Bitcoin being traded and people making money primarily out of the bubbles in Bitcoin. The use cases for crypto continue to be worked on extensively, however. So, every time you have one of those bubbles, what is actually happening is that money is being raised to allow people to invest in new potential use cases. There are now so many use cases that have come and gone, and failed ideas that have been touted and promoted, you could be forgiven for thinking that there are no use cases left for crypto—but that is probably wrong. I think people will continue trying to figure out good use cases for crypto. I don’t think it’s going away any time soon. Q: You have spoken recently about the greenwashing risk facing securities regulators—what can be done to address this? We put out a couple of reports in 2021 where we looked at the greenwashing issue in great detail, listing the different ways in which this phenomenon occurs. We had to acknowledge, however, that it is not just about ‘evil intent’. Activity that might be described as greenwashing often happens, because the market structures needed to adequately support sustainable finance are not yet in place. Sometimes, you do get people who are frankly trying to fool investors by issuing misleading information, but, equally, the markets as they stand are just not built for sustainable financing. Having identified the problem and having asked the industry to work as hard as possible to reduce the amount of greenwashing that now exists, we have had to acknowledge that the system itself needs to change. Regulators have to do it, governments have to do it, standard-setters have to do it—to create a better system to achieve true sustainable finance. If, for example, I am proposing an investment that has a strong impact in terms of reducing carbon emissions, I should get a better price on the market and a better investment price for that security than someone who comes to market with a security for a carbon-emitting project. We want the market to be sensitive to the environmental impact of different proposals, companies and products. They must have access to information that is reliable; that has been independently audited; and that brokers can bring together to compare stocks from different parts of the world and determine differential pricing based on their impact on the environment. Getting all of this right would be an incredibly hard job, so we have broken the job down into a number of elements. We will be progressively working on putting these building blocks in place over the next couple of years, in order to make sure that the process can be regulated and that people who don’t do the right thing can be held to account on the basis that they could have done the right thing and chose not to. Q: As the move to establish standards for environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting gathers pace, what is your take on the current efforts underway? We have a very close relationship with the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). We effectively oversee its work and, if we like what it is doing, we will endorse its standards, and recommend those standards to individual regulatory securities agencies around the world, so that these jurisdictions can adopt the standards as they see fit. The fundamental issue we are all facing is that a sustainable financial marketplace has to be a global marketplace. If you have fragmentation and you don’t have the same information sets available in different parts of the world, you cannot have a true comparison between different securities, and capital cannot flow to the best projects. It is no good for anyone if Europe is pristine, while the rest of the world is working in a different way. What happens in the Amazonian rainforest matters to all of us. Capital, therefore, has to flow from those places where it is abundant, such as Europe and North America, to locations in which the opportunities exist to do the right thing. What IOSCO has said to the countries we work with around the world is, “do this any way you want, but use the ISSB standards as a baseline and build your own approach on that foundation”. Put simply, you can do all you want in the ESG space, but unless we have a common core, we cannot create a global financial market that will bring about any real change. Q: Can you tell us about the work you are doing with the Financial Stability Board in relation to investment funds? This is a very big project for us. Investment funds are a crucial mechanism all around the world for people to get access to markets on a collective basis, but they can have a concerning impact on markets in periods of crisis. We have been doing work in this area since 2016. We have done a lot already, but there is more to do. A major focus for us next year will be trying to make sure that the kind of funds both ordinary individual investors and the more risk-averse institutional investors choose are safe in a crisis. We are trying to ensure that, if you are investing in a product that is riskier, it will be clear to you that it is more difficult to get your money out of it; that these kinds of investment funds are not the equivalent of a bank account. This is a typical example of what we do, but there are lots of others. We do a lot of work on cyber-resilience, and we are also very interested in the change in the behaviour of retail investors and their vulnerability to scams. One of the problems we face at the moment is that, while technology has made it easy or cheap for people to invest in the markets, it has also made it easy or cheap for fraudsters to get at many thousands of people. We need to figure out better and better ways to stop these fraudsters and prevent them in their designs. About Martin Moloney Prior to joining IOSCO as Secretary General in September 2021, Martin Moloney was Director General of the Jersey Financial Services Commission and, before that, he worked as a Special Adviser on Risk and Regulation to the Central Bank of Ireland, where he served for 16 years, previously heading up the Markets Policy, Markets Supervision, and Legal and Finance Divisions. Moloney began his early career working in industry with Barclays Bank and Bank of Ireland in London, before returning to Ireland to work with the Department of Justice, Department of Finance, the Irish Competition Authority. Born in Dublin, he has a master’s degrees in Business Law and Economic Policy, both from Trinity College Dublin.

Elaine Coughlan, one of Ireland’s most successful venture capital investors, tells us how her experience in accountancy and audit led to a high-flying career in technology Since qualifying as a Chartered Accountant and cutting her teeth in audit in the 1990s, just as the first wave of tech entrepreneurs in Ireland were beginning to access US capital markets, Elaine Coughlan has carved out an illustrious career in venture capital. Dublin-born Coughlan is the co-founder and joint Managing Partner of Atlantic Bridge, the global growth technology fund with more than €1 billion in assets under management across nine funds. For Coughlan, her career is a testament to both her training in finance and the power of human connection in business the world over. “Atlantic Bridge has over 35 companies we have successfully sold or ‘IPOed’ and I am immensely proud of that,” she says. “The wins drive you on because you can see what’s possible and those Irish entrepreneurs become role models for the next generation. I’m proud of the assets we have under management, and that Atlantic Bridge now has people in Dublin, London, Paris, Munich and Palo Alto in Silicon Valley. That is a truly global footprint, and it really helps us to scale our companies.” Early connections Coughlan credits the professional connections she made at an early stage in her career at Ernst & Young with setting her on the path to professional success. “Some of the people I met back in the nineties, our clients at the time, were hugely influential on me,” she says. Among those clients was Smurfit (now Smurfit Kappa), already a long-established industry leader in paper packaging production. “I was seconded from Ernst & Young to work with Smurfit when it was probably the number one Irish company in terms of market capitalisation and really blazing a trail in Irish business,” she says. “It is still a phenomenal company today, but for me at that time, Smurfit was just so ambitious and far-reaching in its approach to mergers and acquisitions, and the capital markets. I worked on fundraising and acquisitions with them and had early exposure to some of their senior executives—people like Gerry Fagan, their then-CFO.” Coughlan forged other crucial connections at the time with Bill McCabe, founder of CBT, the e-learning group, and Iona Technologies’ Chris Horn. “Bill and Chris were the first entrepreneurs in Ireland to float tech companies on the Nasdaq and, if you look at what they had in common with Smurfit, it was really that they were all entrepreneurial,” she says now. Coughlan would leave Ernst & Young to join Iona ahead of the company’s Initial Public Offering. “I knew then that practice probably wasn’t for me. That’s not to say that you can’t be entrepreneurial in practice, but the cut and thrust of the tech business pulled me in,” she says. “I remember traveling over to the US with CBT back in 1993 and that was it for me. There was such a sense of possibility.” Coughlan went on to join Parthus, the semiconductor IP company co-founded by Brian Long, and the pair formed an abiding partnership, co-founding both Atlantic Bridge and GloNav, the GPS company acquired in 2007 for $110 million. “All these years later, I am still in business with the same people, and they were the people that had an impact on me starting out. They were the people I learned from and the people who were generous with their time and their knowledge, and willing to give me experience and opportunities,” she says. For young Chartered Accountants starting out in their career, Coughlan has this advice: “Above all else, nurture your connections. These young professionals will already be well-qualified and proven in their ability and resilience, because training to become a Chartered Accountant is challenging in itself,” she says. “The question they have to ask themselves is ‘what differentiates me beyond that?’ It comes down to being able to combine your knowledge with strong relationships in ways that bring about better outcomes.” As Coughlan sees it, building solid sustainable relationships in business isn’t simply a case of networking and ‘transactional interactions’. “It’s about finding people who share your values and ethics, whose accomplishments and abilities you admire, and who have the ability to lead and inspire. You always have to be thinking long-term, not just about your next connection on LinkedIn,” she says. Supporting start-ups Coughlan’s commitment to supporting start-ups and advancing Ireland as a leading hub for technology development was recognised at this year’s Irish Accountancy Awards, at which she won the prize for outstanding contribution to the profession. “When we started Atlantic Bridge in 2004, we wanted to help tech companies in Ireland to scale successfully. Ireland is a small island and a small economy, so there are two things tech companies here need to scale—they need to move beyond the island to reach customers and they need access to capital,” she says. “We wanted to cross the Atlantic to the US, because it is the largest market in the world in terms of customers and capital markets. At the time, Ireland had a VC market of less than €100 million. It’s 10 times that size now, but back then, it was really small.” The primary focus for Atlantic Bridge today continues to be “deep tech” innovators in the business-to-business (B2B) space. “We’re not after instant gratification or overnight success. These are businesses with defensible research-intensive technologies that are primed to scale when the time is right,” says Coughlan. “Our investors are patient. They are looking for strong long-term returns, and we are very proud to have reached the stage where we have raised nine funds, because that is not an easy thing to do in this industry.” Coughlan warns, however, that we are entering a “new investment cycle”, in which surging inflation, rising interest rates, and the risk of recession, are all making investors more risk averse. “The outlook for Atlantic Bridge in the short-term will be cautious and tactical, but beyond that, we are optimistic and deeply committed to the technology trends we are seeing today that will make a difference in the future,” she says. “A lot of the technologies we’re investing in now are in climate change action—low-power, low-carbon enablers—and in medical technology and the digitisation of health, where we can meet unmet needs. We’re focusing on technologies like Artificial Intelligence and semiconductors—the fundamental building blocks that will be built into new products over the next three to five years.” Research and development As the economy enters uncertain terrain, Coughlan is urging the Government to continue investing in research and development (R&D). “Ireland has to continue to invest in R&D. We need to hold our nerve in continuing to invest in the best and brightest people and start-ups, because they will drive the next generation of growth,” she says. “Today, we are investing about 1.25 percent of GDP in R&D. We need to get that up to between 2.5 percent and three percent. The future economy will be knowledge-intensive and that requires knowledge-intensive people.” Coughlan is equally committed to the advancement of her profession, and proud of her own achievements as a Chartered Accountant. “The ‘bean counter’ perception is one too many people have of accountants, but I would probably be the last person you’d ask to do a P&L statement,” she says. “I can tell you if it is right or wrong though, because I understand the numbers and what they mean. I can interrogate and interpret any set of numbers and that is because I am a Chartered Accountant. All business now is run on data and our profession gives us a really strong grounding in using data to make decisions—and that is the future. “There are doors that are opened to you when you train as an accountant. You learn about process, structure, deadlines, and relationships. All of these skills are incredibly important. “You come out of it battle-hardened and resilient, and with all these options: to stay in practice; to focus on technical work; to go into consultancy; financial services; or business and entrepreneurship. The opportunities are phenomenal.” Growing up in Beaumont in north Dublin in the recession-hit 1980s, however, Coughlan had envisaged a different career for herself. It was a chance encounter that set her on the path to accountancy and a high-flying career in venture capital. Early career path “I was good at numbers at school and I studied accountancy for the Leaving Cert, but I wouldn’t say I was destined to be an accountant. I fully recognise now that it was my accountancy and audit experience that led me into the technology industry, but my real interest growing up was people,” she says. “I wanted to work in a people-focused environment, so I applied to study marketing and languages at DCU and went for a summer job at a small accountancy firm to keep me going in the meantime.” Coughlan didn’t get the summer job, but she was contacted by her interviewer and urged instead to consider accountancy as a full-time career. “It was 1989, unemployment in Ireland was something like 15 percent and so many people were emigrating to find work in the UK and the US,” she says. “I didn’t know anything about becoming a Chartered Accountant, but I wrote to the Institute and was offered a training contract with Ernst & Young. Here was this opportunity to have my fees paid and earn a wage with guaranteed work in a really tough economy. It was a great deal. That’s why I always say to this day, ‘what’s meant for you won’t pass you by’.”

Dawn Leane examines the main barriers to success experienced by women and what organisations can do to break the career inhibitors down In workshops organised after the publication of the research study carried out by Fiona Dent and Viki Holton for their book Women in Business: Navigating Career Success, women were asked to identify factors they believed had hindered their progress. Their responses are broadly categorised as follows: Limiting beliefs; Family issues; Work colleagues; Personal style and skills; Lack of organisational support; Gender issues; Taking the wrong career path; and Politics and bureaucracy. The most frequently mentioned issues focus on self-doubt and limiting beliefs. As this is a nuanced subject, it is important to distinguish between limiting beliefs and confidence.  Limiting beliefs vs confidence Beliefs are assumed truths developed over time from our direct experiences and observations. They usually don’t exist as explicit propositions. We may barely be aware of them, but they influence what we think, say, and do.  When they manifest self-doubt, they become limiting beliefs. An example of a limiting belief may be ‘I can’t handle conflict’, which could lead to a lack of assertiveness or the tendency to give in to others. Limiting beliefs can have a significantly negative impact on our ability to achieve our full potential. Confidence, however, can be significantly influenced by workplace culture. Women are regularly told that they should be more confident, which is particularly unhelpful as it puts the responsibility firmly back on women, as opposed to examining the environment as a contributing factor. One way in which the office environment can impact confidence is ‘backlash avoidance mechanism’, whereby women feel uncomfortable self-promoting due to perceived social consequences. Feedback and career development In the workshop, 59 percent of participants believed that men and women are judged unequally, particularly when it comes to feedback and development in the workplace. This is supported by the Women in the Workplace study—a study of US women in the workplace conducted by LeanIn.Org and McKinsey & Company—which found that women report receiving feedback much less frequently than their male co-workers. In fact, women are more than 20 percent less likely than men to receive difficult feedback, which is essential to improving performance. One reason cited by managers is their fear of an emotional response, which is less of a concern when giving feedback to male employees. Further, the feedback that women receive is often vague and non-specific. In their Harvard Business Review article, ‘Research: Vague Feedback is Holding Women Back’, Shelly J. Correll and Caroline Simard advised that “women are systematically less likely to receive specific feedback tied to outcomes, both when they receive praise and when the feedback is developmental.” They also found that when women did receive feedback, it was largely focused on their style of communication. Family issues While it is widely accepted that family issues can be a barrier to success, most participants in Dent and Holton’s research recognised that decisions made in relation to family life require compromise—and that it was typically the woman in the relationship who compromised out of personal choice. Many women accepted this as an inevitable consequence of motherhood and feel obliged to take responsibility and be available for their children. Managing employee long-term success The overarching message from these pieces of research is that what happens early in a woman's career significantly impacts her long-term success. It is important that both the career accelerators and inhibitors discussed in this series are considered by organisations when developing talent management and career development programmes. You can read the first two articles in this series: Empowering women for better balance in the workplace Four success factors for women in the workplace Dawn Leane is Founder of Leane Leaders and Leane Empower. 

Technology is shaping the future of financial services and creating exciting opportunities for innovative professionals at the heart of the fintech revolution As Chief Executive of Swoop Funding, Andrea Reynolds occupies a unique position at the nexus of fast-changing trends in financial services, emerging technologies, and the evolving role of the financial professional. The Chartered Accountant established Swoop in 2017 with Ciarán Burke, the company’s co-founder, to develop software that could help accountants identify the best funding options for SMEs. “The platform has been used now by 75,000 businesses to access funding, ranging from equity and grants to loans and tax credits. That’s given us an interesting overview of how much technology is changing the world of finance,” said Reynolds. Headquartered in Dublin, Swoop was founded in the UK where Reynolds had been working as a management consultant with KPMG in London before deciding to go into business with Burke. “At the time, everyone was moving to cloud accounting and open banking was coming down the line with the EU’s Revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2). We were seeing these new fintech lenders emerging, offering alternative funding to businesses and consumers,” she said. “In accountancy, you are trained to solve a problem by breaking it down into smaller elements, and that’s basically what I did with Swoop. I built a platform that could bring all of these funding options together in one place and do the heavy lifting for accountants advising SMEs.” Five years on, Swoop is on course for expansion in North America and other markets, having recently raised €6.3 million in Series A funding. “Finance is increasingly data-driven and borderless and that creates opportunities for fintechs like us, but different markets also have different strengths and weaknesses,” said Reynolds, pointing to her experience launching her own start-up in Ireland and the UK. “The idea for Swoop originally came from my experience navigating the funding system for SMEs in the UK, which is a lot more fragmented than the Irish system,” she said.  “The flipside is that the UK has been much more open to alternative finance, as have other European countries. That’s meant a lot more activity in non-bank lending, whether that’s crowdfunding, or loan finance from the likes of Wayflyer, Clearco or Youlend.” By comparison, Ireland is in ‘catch-up mode’, but it is catching up fast, said Reynolds. “Wayflyer is a huge fintech success story and there are other alternative lenders in the Irish market, like Linked Finance, Flender, and Accelerated Payments.  “Ireland already has a very strong fintech base in regulatory technology, anti-money laundering, ID verification, and Know Your Customer (KYC) technology. Where we still have to build up momentum is in the area of open banking.”  Automating auditing For David Heath, FCA, it was his early experience training as an auditor that sparked the idea for Circit, the fintech venture he co-founded in Dublin in 2015. “I trained with Grant Thornton, and it was a really great experience because the firm was so ambitious and the clients so varied, but as an entrepreneur, your starting point is always ‘what is the problem and how can we solve it?’  “For me, it was a case of thinking back to those early years in my career and digging into the processes that were the most challenging,” said Heath. “Auditors typically have a good relationship with their clients but getting the information they need from third party evidence providers is a big pain point.  “You have to verify the information your client gives you with an independent source—usually a bank, law firm or broker—and that process can take anywhere from three to six weeks.” Heath saw an opportunity to solve this problem with the advent of PSD2, using the EU’s open banking regulation to create a digital verification platform for auditors.  A cloud-based open banking platform, Circit connects auditors to their clients’ banks, solicitors, and brokers, allowing them to verify information within seconds.  Circit is approved by the Central Bank of Ireland as an Account Information Service Provider (AISP) under PSD2. It works with more than 300 accounting firms in Ireland and overseas and recently closed a €6.5 million funding round. “The funding will help us to increase our footprint and build out our open banking and regulated products, leveraging the license we have from the Central Bank of Ireland,” said Heath. “The problem we’re addressing may be niche, but it has global application.” Global ambition This global ambition is a common trait among Ireland’s most promising fintechs, according to Matt Ryan, a director in the Financial Services Consulting Group at Deloitte Ireland. “The ones to watch—the ones that do well quickly—tend to be thinking globally from day one. They have the talent and the funding, but they also know that Ireland is a very small market, so they are thinking in cross-border terms from the get-go,” said Ryan. Ryan points to Transfermate and Wayflyer as two such Irish fintech ventures whose global vision is paying dividends. A business payments infrastructure company founded in 2010, Transfermate closed a $70 million funding round in May, valuing the Kilkenny fintech at $1 billion. Wayflyer secured $300 million in debt financing in the same month following a $150 million Series B funding round, closed in February, which earned the Dublin start-up a $1.6 billion valuation and coveted ‘unicorn’ status. The pandemic effect The speed with which Wayflyer’s revenue-based financing and e-commerce platform succeeded globally reflects a wider trend in fintech. “The pandemic really accelerated the development of the sector as businesses and consumers suddenly moved online en masse,” said Ryan.  “Fintech was already a fast-growing market, but COVID-19 has made digital and contactless payments the norm and that has catapulted financial technology into a new era of growth.” While fintech awareness among consumers tends to centre on high-profile digital banks like Revolut and N26, the fintech sector globally, and in Ireland, is far more diverse.  “People usually think of full stack providers like Stripe and Revolut when they think of fintech, but that’s really not the whole story,” said Ryan. “Equally relevant are the technology companies selling services and solutions to financial institutions. “There are some very successful Irish companies in this space, such as TansferMate and Fenergo, which specialises in KYC technology for banks.” Fintech in Northern Ireland The established financial services sector is equally important to the fintech ecosystem in Northern Ireland, according to Alex Lee, Executive Chair of Fintech Northern Ireland (Invest NI). Figures published last year by Fintech NI found that there were 74 fintech companies in the region and 7,000 people employed in fintech jobs. “The financial services sector here has a good track record of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI), particularly over the last 15 to 20 years,” said Lee. “Large institutions like Citi, Allstate, CME, TP ICAP and Liberty Mutual have all established a meaningful presence here.” Together, these US multinationals form ‘the foundation’ on which Northern Ireland’s fintech sector has continued to build, Lee said.  “Attracting big international players has helped to grow out our fintech expertise and talent pool, because most of these companies have global technology development centres running out of Northern Ireland, and that has contributed to the rise of some really successful homegrown fintechs,” he said. FinTrU is one such success story. Founded in 2013, FinTrU develops regulatory technology for investment banks, ranging from legal, risk and compliance, to Know Your Customer (KYC). The Belfast-headquartered company employs 1,000 people and, in July, announced plans to create a further 300 jobs at a European Delivery Centre in Letterkenny, Co. Donegal. Another scaling success story in Northern Ireland is FD Technologies (formerly First Derivatives).  Founded in 1996, the Newry-headquartered data firm employs 3,000 people at 13 offices in Ireland and globally and recently announced plans to create 500 jobs at a new technology hub in Dublin. Northern Ireland is also continuing to attract FDI. In June, the Bank of London announced plans to establish a Centre of Excellence in Belfast, creating 230 jobs by 2026.  “We are making strides now and my hope is for a homegrown fintech ‘unicorn’ to come out of Northern Ireland. We’re not quite there yet, but I would like to see this ‘poster child’ for the sector emerge soon,” said Lee. Decline of the unicorn Such is the pace of growth in the fintech sector globally, however, that even the much sought-after ‘unicorn’ moniker is losing its lustre.  “In developed markets at least, I think there is a view that ‘unicorn’ status has lost some of its cachet,” said Ian Nelson, FCA, Head of Financial Services and Regulatory at KPMG Ireland, and a member of the board of the Fintech and Payments Association of Ireland. Even Stripe—perhaps the best-known ‘unicorn’ with Irish origins—has outgrown the label.  Established in Silicon Valley in 2010 by Limerick brothers Patrick and John Collison, the online payments giant’s $95 billion market capitalisation has soared beyond the $1 billion unicorn requisite. “Stripe is really now a ‘centicorn’, if you like, and there are numerous other fintechs in the same sphere, and ‘decacorns’ valued at $10 billion coming up behind them,” said Nelson. “At $1 billion, becoming a ‘unicorn’ has less meaning for fintech start-ups in developed markets, but it will continue to be an important building block for start-ups in emerging markets and less mature fintech hubs.” Among the other trends Nelson is keeping an eye on is the role technology will play in supporting environmental, social, and governance (ESG) capabilities in business. “Since COP26, we have seen a lot of attention directed towards fintechs with ESG capabilities,” he said.  “This really reflects the growing prioritisation of ESG in financial reporting and financial services generally. ESG is going to be a really important play in fintech. “We can expect to see more fintech companies focused on climate change, decarbonisation and the circular economy, and more jurisdictions setting up incubators specifically focused on ESG solutions.” Digital innovation in financial services Already a leader in payments globally, Ireland is now shaping the business environment for digital finance, writes Seán Fleming TD, Minister of State at the Department of Finance As Minister of State with responsibility for financial services, I lead the whole-of-government strategy for developing international financial services in Ireland, titled Ireland for Finance. I very much welcome this timely report on fintech.  In recent years, new entrants and long-standing financial institutions have looked to capture the opportunities presented by digital technologies.  Ireland is well-placed to benefit from the application of new technologies in the financial services industry. We have both a well-developed financial centre and a renowned technology sector.  This makes Ireland a centre of excellence for start-ups and big-name companies that want to establish operations in the European Union.  Ireland has shown leadership in shaping the business environment for digital finance. Important to this is Ireland’s education system, which has produced some of the finest innovators in the world. These graduates are leading the development of cutting-edge technologies.  The Government has an ambitious agenda for education. Two out of 15 Cabinet Ministers are dedicated to education and skills. Consecutive Governments have invested substantially in education, making it a cornerstone of Ireland’s economic strategy.   This economic strategy has created a strong mix of multinationals that have chosen Ireland as a place to do business. We have been very successful in supporting high-potential start-ups, with over 200 Irish fintech firms at various stages of development. Ireland is a leader in payments, and a number of firms have substantial development operations here. The digital finance ecosystem has expanded in recent years to include institutional financial services providers that have chosen Ireland to help them develop their fintech capability. The importance of fintech is reflected in the Ireland for Finance strategy. I identified Fintech and Digital Finance as one of the five themes in Action Plan 2022.  The Department of Finance’s Fintech Steering Group leads the cross-government approach with other departments and state agencies, and with representatives of the financial services and information technologies industries, and third-level researchers. Financial Services Ireland, the Ibec sector representing financial services companies, recently identified the future talent pipeline as being critically important. Particular areas they identify are fintech, digital finance and the environmental, social and governance agenda. I will shortly be publishing the updated Ireland for Finance strategy and fintech will be a key theme, and it will be at the centre of our work in the coming years.

Russia’s War in Ukraine changed many assumptions held by European governments, but Judy Dempsey asks is Europe prepared to embrace significant strategic issues that will change the status quo? Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February could radically re-shape the European Union.  And it’s about time.  For too long, the EU and most member states were content in the comfort zone that did not have to deal with issues that would fundamentally change their way of doing things. These included energy, security, the future of enlargement and Russia. Until Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine, there was a tactic consensus that Europe could continue along the path of perceiving Eastern Europe through the prism of Russia and depending on Russian energy. The EU accepted the independence of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, not to mention Belarus. However, among many big member states, their sovereignty and independence were ambiguous.  While it was never publicly stated, this part of Europe, whose history and culture are unknown to many EU member states, was considered in Russia’s sphere of influence. In several ways, Russia’s all-out attack on Ukraine has changed that perception. First is the energy issue. It is only a matter of time before Europe will wean itself off Russian gas and oil. This dependence had given President Vladimir Putin immense leverage and blackmail over several EU countries, particularly Germany.  The EU, and German Chancellor Scholz’s Green coalition partners, say they now want to become independent from Russian energy as soon as possible. Despite the considerable pressure from German industry and its business lobbies tied to Russia, who wish to retain the status quo with Moscow, don’t underestimate this goal.  The reality is that Russia’s war in Ukraine has become the catalyst for speeding up Europe’s transition to renewable energy and alternative sources of supplies. As dependence on Russian gas decreases, so will the Kremlin’s geopolitical influence. Another impact of Russia’s aggression is security. Neutral Finland and Sweden are poised to join NATO. These two countries that have long cherished their neutrality now recognise that their security needs to be boosted. Joining NATO would fill a big security vacuum in Northern Europe, where Denmark and Norway are members of the US-led military alliance. The Baltic (NATO member) States will be more than reassured with Finland and Sweden on board. In short, Putin’s aggression in Ukraine has given NATO and the transatlantic alliance a new lease of life. It is changing the geo-security architecture of Europe. It will be interesting to see how Ireland deals with its long-standing neutrality stance.  Another big issue is enlargement that is tied to the future direction of Europe. President Emmanuel Macron’s speech at the conclusion of the Future of Europe conference set out how to make the EU more efficient by having a qualified majority voting system for certain policy issues and having a much closer, structural relationship with Eastern Europe.  But what about making the EU more politically integrated? This would require a treaty change that several member states oppose. However, this is where the war in Ukraine comes into play. European governments cannot retain the status quo when its own security and that of its eastern neighbours are at stake.  For a union with ambitions to be a global player, muddling through is no longer an option. It’s going to require a major shift in the mindset of EU countries to end Europe’s comfort zone that, until now, didn’t take its – nor Eastern Europe’s – security vulnerability seriously.  If it doesn’t make that shift, Europe will fail to use the war in Ukraine to develop a strong, integrated and secure Europe – with Eastern Europe as part of that house.  Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has given rise to potentially complex financial reporting considerations for Irish companies with a presence in one or both territories. David Drought delves into the details of two areas of concern. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and resulting sanctions and counter sanctions imposed globally on and by Russia, have impacted certain companies.  Although the conflict is first and foremost an immense human tragedy for those involved, companies whose operations have been affected will need to consider the financial reporting implications.  Here, we consider two potential issues—the first being whether control of subsidiaries located in Russia has been lost, and the second being whether impairment tests of non-financial assets in the affected territories should be carried out. Do you continue to control your subsidiary?  Under IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, a company (investor) controls a subsidiary (investee) when it has power over the subsidiary, is exposed to variable returns from its involvement with the subsidiary, and can also affect those returns by exercising its power. Control requires power, exposure to the variability of returns, and a linkage between the two. Continuous control assessment  Suppose the facts and circumstances indicate that there are changes to one or more of the elements of the control model. In this scenario, an investor must reassess whether it continues to have control over the investee.  Here, companies will need to consider whether the consequences of the ongoing conflict lead to changes in investors’ relationships with investees in Russia. As a result of the effects of the ongoing conflict, for example, foreign investors may: face difficulties in repatriating funds from investees; exit or cease operations in these markets, either by choice or by being forced to do so because of sanctions imposed; or be impacted by potential new restrictions imposed on foreign owners – e.g. nationalisation of local operations. The hurdle for losing control of an existing subsidiary is generally high, but the loss of control of subsidiaries in the conflict-affected countries or regions should not be immediately presumed.  There is, for example, no exclusion from consolidation due to difficulties alone in repatriating funds from the subsidiary to the parent or the lack of exchangeability of currencies.  In considering the impact of these ongoing conflicts, management must consider these two critical elements of control: power and returns. Power When assessing power over the investee, an investor considers only substantive rights relating to an investee – i.e. rights that it has the practical ability to exercise.  Determining whether rights are substantive requires judgement. Whether there are any barriers due to the consequences of the ongoing conflict preventing the holder from exercising these rights should be considered (e.g. due to current sanctions a company may no longer be able to exercise rights previously available to it.) Returns When assessing returns, an investor evaluates if they are exposed to variable returns from involvement with an investee. The sources of these returns may be very broad and may include both positive and negative returns.  Sources might include dividend or other economic benefits, for example, remuneration for services provided to the investee, tax benefits or certain residual interests.  Management should consider whether the company’s exposure to the variability of returns has been impacted and needs to be reassessed. IFRS 10 does not establish a minimum level of exposure to returns to have control.  Where there has not been a loss of control, there may be other impacts to consider. These might include: possible impairment of the investment in the subsidiary; presentation of the subsidiary as held-for-sale or as a discontinued operation; or  possible impairment of the assets held by the subsidiary. Do I need to test my non-financial assets for impairment? Control in relation to other assets  Before considering impairment for companies with assets on the ground in Russia or Ukraine, it is necessary to assess whether they have, in substance, lost control of those assets.  Control in the context of assets generally means the practical ability to control the use of the underlying asset. If control has been lost, the asset is derecognised in its entirety, and no impairment is carried out. IAS 36 Impairment of assets  The standard requires management to assess whether there is any indication of impairment at the end of each reporting period.  Irrespective of any indicator of impairment, the standard requires goodwill, and intangible assets with indefinite useful lives (and those not yet available for use) to be tested for impairment at least annually. An annual test is required alongside any impairment tests performed as a result of a triggering event. Triggering events  The likelihood that a triggering event has occurred for non-current assets has increased significantly for companies that: have significant assets or operations in Russia or Ukraine; are significantly affected by the sanctions imposed and/or Russia’s counter-measures; are adversely affected by increases in the price of commodities; and/or are significantly affected by supply chain disruption. Impairment indicators  Indicators of impairment may come from internal or external sources, but the likelihood of some impairment indicators existing has increased for companies impacted by the Russia-Ukraine war. Some indicators that may arise include: the obsolescence or physical damage of an asset. For example, plants and operations in Ukraine may be subject to physical damage; significant changes in the extent or manner in which an asset is (or is expected to be) used which has (or will have) an adverse effect on the entity.  a significant and unexpected decline in market value; significant adverse effects in the technological, market, economic or legal environment, including the impact of sanctions on the entity’s ability to operate in a market; a rise in market interest rates, which will increase the discount rate used to determine an asset’s value in use; and the carrying amount of the net assets of an entity exceeding its market capitalisation. Falling stock prices may result in an entity’s net assets being greater than its market capitalisation. Abandonment or idle assets  Companies may have abandoned—or have considered a plan to abandon—certain operations or properties in Russia or Ukraine.  Some companies may have been forced to abandon owned or leased facilities in Ukraine as a result of the war, for example. In such cases, the company needs to accelerate or impair the depreciation of the property based on the revised anticipated usage or residual value. Assets lefts temporarily idle are not regarded as abandoned—for example, when a company temporarily shuts a manufacturing facility but intends to resume operations after military activities in the area abate.  Although temporarily idling a facility may trigger an impairment of that item (or the CGU to which it belongs), a company does not stop depreciating the item while it is idle—unless it is fully depreciated or is classified as held-for-sale. Companies should, however, consider the most appropriate depreciation method in this situation.  Disclosures When reporting in uncertain times, it is essential to provide the users of financial statements with appropriate insight into the key assumptions and judgements made by the company when preparing financial information. Depending on an entity’s specific circumstances, each area above may be a source of material judgement and uncertainty requiring disclosure. David Drought is a director in the Accounting Advisory team at KPMG in Ireland

Accountancy was well on its way to digital transformation long before COVID-19, but it can’t be denied that post-pandemic, the digitalisation of the profession has come a long way. Five members discuss their firm’s digital transformation and their role within it. David O’Connor Director Sheil Kinnear Our organisation operated, as many practices, did with an on-premises server and that worked well to a point but as demand for more flexibility grew as a response to the pandemic, it became an obvious option for us to take. In partnership with Datapac, moving to the cloud has futureproofed the business. We have learned to be more flexible and conscious of the risks around us. It has become more and more apparent that cyber security is a concern as we move toward a more paperless, digital environment. As a firm that does statutory audits, the ability to securely access our various software tools from anywhere was a huge incentive for us. I think there is an improvement in terms of what can get done no matter where you are. We are also benefitting from superior processing speeds both in the office and remotely. A challenge in our sector now is the transfer of knowledge. It’s huge in our business and people who work remotely still have to pass on that knowledge to trainees and other team members. This takes a lot more structure and scheduling.  I think there is a change towards more flexible working, but we do like to get together as a team and share knowledge and, because of that, it’s going to be hybrid going forward. Emer McCarthy  Group Strategy and Ecommerce Director Kilkenny Group We set up a “Go Digital” initiative a few years ago to transform as a company and become a true omnichannel retailer.  We defined a range of important steps and investments around channels, technology, and organisational restructuring to realise the omnichannel strategy.  We are one of the first to market with our VR store experience, giving potential shoppers worldwide an immersive, in-store experience from the comfort of their own homes. It allows our customers to engage with the Kilkenny Design brand in a completely new and unique way when the way we shop has undergone such a dramatic shift. COVID-19 has driven dramatic change in the digital space, and consumers have adapted accordingly. We have seen a decade of change over the last two years, and businesses need to continuously invest in experiences or processes via digital to meet and exceed the needs of the evolving omnichannel consumer.  Thankfully, we had commenced this journey before the pandemic, which allowed us to navigate an otherwise tricky trading period for bricks and mortar during the pandemic.   Our culture is very open to technology and the benefits that it brings. Embedding technology and new processes bring a level of change management but collectively, our culture has embraced the same by bringing our teams on the journey with us. Our environment has changed the need to adapt quickly to trends. COVID-19 has driven dramatic change in customers’ digital knowledge and use, which expedites the need to roll out pipeline projects sooner and plan to meet consumer needs three years in advance, at least. Louise Heffernan  Audit and Practice Manager Hugh McCarthy & Associates The pandemic exposed a weakness many firms weren’t prepared for and are now forced to adapt to, highlighting how behind some of us were in the digital age, primarily facilitating working remotely and having a strong online and digital presence.  We took this opportunity to begin a rebrand of the firm, working towards moving all systems online and providing additional training where needed.  We understand Rome wasn’t built in a day, but we are in the final stage of an online rebrand, transitioning to a paperless office and entirely cloud-based within four years.  My role in this has been writing and redesigning the website, developing a strategy with the marketing team, working with the IT team to develop a future cloud-based infrastructure, securing software that is online while ensuring GDPR compliance and setting out a four-year plan to go paperless while upskilling the team to ease with the gradual transition. The company has changed in so many ways. While our team chose to come back into the office, there is an option to work from home, providing a higher level of trust amongst the team and strengthening team communication. Giving the option to work from home also shows we value our employees and understand and appreciate the importance of life outside the office. Because of our digital focus, I have changed how I train the team, making sure all resources are available online while developing the team’s IT literacy. And my role has evolved – I now work with marketing and focus on long-term strategic planning while heavily analysing future costs. Bill O’Leary  Director  Goldbay Consulting Four years ago, I introduced accounting software to offshore wind energy consultants, delivering user-friendly automated features. Its reporting capability significantly enhanced the quality, relevance, and timeliness of our management information, which supported profitable business growth.  In March 2020, the pandemic forced us to change how we worked and the so-called “paperless office” had finally arrived.  My organisation implemented video conferencing software. Weekly and operational review meetings, and bi-monthly revenue assurance meetings with directors and senior fee earners were critical in managing revenue and cash flow during the pandemic.  More recently, our focus is on improving operating margin by using data management tools to extract, process and present project margin information in a graphical format to the leadership team. Collaboratively, we review project information, seek to understand the past better and work to agree on actions to modify future behaviour and increase performance.  Leveraging modern software and related digital processes have enabled me to provide the tools, coupled with knowledge, to empower our project leaders to make better informed financial decisions.  The benefits of digitisation and automation of processes are not always linear. As more simple and repetitive tasks are automated, the remaining work becomes more complex – which creates several challenges, such as increasing demands being placed on senior fee earners and the training and development staff becoming more complex.  The answer, which is nothing new, lies in how we use the wealth of digital information available today. How we extract, analyse, synthesise, present, communicate, discuss, understand, and act on the fruits of digital transformation is critical to unlocking the benefits of the digital revolution.  David Heath  CEO Circit At Circit, we have tried to create a culture of digital transformation from the company’s very beginning. With the assumption that technology will continue to evolve at pace, our team is encouraged to be tuned in to what is available in the market and trial services that they believe our organisation and people can benefit from.  This does not mean we implement every new tool we are aware of, but we do become better at monitoring the market, assessing the potential positive benefits of a new cloud service, and getting the timing right for making a change. By having a mentality of being adaptive, we can more easily advise and be an example for our customers who are also on their own digital transformation journey. Lockdowns and viruses have accelerated business trends already underway for companies, like moving to the cloud and modernising their IT departments, but it has also made them think about how their employees can work more efficiently. We’re moving from it being about ‘work from home’ to it being about entirely new ways of doing work.  For example, in the past few weeks, I’ve held investor meetings over video conference instead of in person, with the same – if not better – results.  Instead of thinking about who’s in an office, I’ve also been broadening the scope of who I chat with and when. On an average day, I’m probably talking to five times the number of people from different time zones than when I worked at the office. After all, anyone I want to communicate with is only a chat bubble and video call away. I think we will be forever changed, but now the challenge is to get the balance and team culture correct – one that is digital-first, security risk averse, being personable and willing to travel to in-person meetings to maintain a deeper connection with customers. 

The crypto slump has highlighted the risks posed by cryptocurrency as a speculative asset, but for professionals in finance, the immediate challenge is working out how best to account for it. Gavin Fitzpatrick and Mike O’Halloran dig into the details. Money, currencies and the methods by which people and businesses earn, store and exchange value have taken numerous forms throughout history.  The evolution of currency dates back many millennia, from the early days of bartering to modern methods, such as coins, notes, loans, bonds and promissory notes. Introduced in 2009 with the launch of Bitcoin, cryptocurrency is the latest evolution in this process. Despite a slow initial uptake, its popularity has risen dramatically in the past decade and, today, there are thousands of different cryptocurrencies in existence.  Views on their usefulness and longevity are somewhat fragmented, however. Investors who have been fortunate enough to acquire cryptocurrency at low prices sing its praises, whereas critics argue against its fundamentals and highlight the volatility of the cryptocurrency market. For companies and the accounting profession, however, the immediate challenge is working out how these assets should be accounted for. Here are some common questions worth bearing in mind. Is there a specific standard that accountants can apply to cryptocurrencies? In short, the answer here is no—nor do cryptocurrencies fit neatly into any existing standard. Accounting for cryptocurrencies at fair value through profit and loss may seem intuitive. However, such an approach is not compatible with IFRS requirements in most circumstances, as cryptocurrencies may not meet the definition of a financial instrument as per IAS 32.  Should cryptocurrencies be treated as another form of cash? IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows states that cash comprises cash on hand and demand deposits. IAS 32 Financial Instruments Presentation notes that currency (cash) is a financial asset because it represents the medium of exchange. While cryptocurrencies are becoming more prevalent, they cannot be readily exchanged for all goods or services.  IAS 7 also considers cash equivalents—short-term, highly liquid investments that are readily convertible to known cash amounts and subject to an insignificant risk of changes in value. Given the considerable price volatility in cryptocurrencies, entities have not sought to apply policies where they define holdings in crypto assets as cash or cash equivalents. In the absence of a specific standard, what guidance and methodologies can accountants follow when deciding how to account for these assets? In practice, accounting policies defined to deal with cryptocurrencies follow the principles of accounting for intangible assets or, in some cases, accounting for inventory.  Intangible assets IAS 38 Intangible Assets defines an intangible asset as “an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance”.  Identifiable – under IAS 38, an asset is identifiable if it “is capable of being separated or divided from the entity and sold, transferred, licensed, rented or exchanged.” Cryptocurrency holdings can be traded and are, therefore, identifiable. Non-monetary – IAS 38 defines monetary assets as “money held and assets to be received in fixed or determinable amounts of money.” The value of a cryptocurrency is subject to major variations arising from supply and demand. As a result, its value is not fixed or determinable. Without physical substance – as a digital currency, cryptocurrencies do not have physical substance. As a result of applying the above logic, many companies classify holdings in cryptocurrencies as intangible assets. In line with IAS 38, companies can use one of two approaches to account for intangible assets: Cost – cryptocurrency asset is carried at cost less accumulated amortisation and impairment. In applying this approach, companies must determine if the asset has a finite or indefinite useful life. Given that cryptocurrencies can act as a store of value over time, they have an indefinite useful life, meaning the asset would not be subject to an annual amortisation charge. Instead, an annual impairment review would be necessary. Revaluation – under IAS 38, intangible assets can be carried at their revalued amount as determined at the end of each reporting period. To adopt this approach, the asset must be capable of reliable measurement. While active markets are often uncommon for intangible assets, where cryptocurrencies are traded on an exchange, it may be possible to apply the revaluation model. In order to present increases and decreases correctly (i.e. determining how much is presented in other comprehensive income versus profit and loss), entities must be able to track movements in sufficient detail across their holdings. Establishing the cost of the crypto asset denominated in a foreign currency According to IAS 21 The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates, entities will record holdings in cryptocurrencies using the spot exchange rate between functional currency and the cryptocurrency at the date of acquisition.  As noted earlier, cryptocurrencies are not considered to meet the definition of monetary items. Therefore, holdings in cryptocurrencies measured at historical cost in a foreign currency will be translated using the exchange rate at the initial transaction date. Holdings measured using the revaluation approach shall be translated using the exchange rate applied when the valuation was determined.  Inventory As demonstrated, holdings in cryptocurrencies can meet the definition of intangible assets under IAS 38. However, within the scoping section of IAS 38, it is noted that intangible assets held by an entity for sale in the ordinary course of business are outside the scope of the standard. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that such holdings should be accounted for under IAS 2 Inventories. While the default treatment, under IAS 2, is to account for inventories at the lower cost and net realisable value, the standard also states this treatment does not apply to commodity broker-traders.  Such traders are required, under IAS 2, to account for their inventory at fair value less cost to sell, with changes in value being recognised in profit and loss.  Intuitively, it may seem appropriate for entities holding cryptocurrencies to follow the same accounting applied by broker-traders under a business model that involves active buying and selling.  However, since cryptocurrencies do not have a physical form aligning their accounting to a scope exception for commodity traders, it is a judgment call.  In practice, where there is a business model under which crypto assets are acquired to sell in the short term and generate a profit from changes in price or broker margin, the treatment described here from IAS 2 for broker-dealers has been applied.  Other considerations  So far, we have explored accounting for holdings of cryptocurrencies (IAS 38) and trading in cryptocurrencies (IAS 2). The standards referenced are not new.  To date, the IASB has focused on aligning accounting for cryptocurrencies to existing guidance, and practice has developed accordingly. While there is clear logic to the policies developed from this approach, there are still challenges.  For example, while applying the cost model of IAS 38 is straightforward, the balance stated in the financials may be significantly different to the market value. On the other hand, applying the revaluation model of IAS 38 can be difficult from the point of view of tracking movements in value to determine how much is presented in profit and loss versus other comprehensive income.  What about custodians? As recently as March 2022, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released their Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121.  The bulletin provides guidance for reporting entities operating platforms allowing users to transact in cryptocurrencies, while also engaging in activities for which they have an obligation to safeguard customers’ crypto assets.  Until now, custodians may have concluded that they do not control the asset they safeguard. However, the SEC believes that stakeholders would benefit from the inclusion of a safeguarding liability and a related asset (similar to an indemnification asset), both measured at fair value. This guidance is applicable to reporting entities that apply US GAAP or IFRS in their SEC filings. These entities are expected to comply in their first interim or annual financial statements ending after 15 June 2022. While this requirement applies to SEC filings, it is an essential development to be aware of. Challenges ahead Accounting policies designed to deal with cryptocurrencies have developed, in practice, from existing standards. While these policies are grounded in fundamental accounting principles, there are challenges.  As cryptocurrencies continue to become more prevalent, some of the key assumptions in these policies will be challenged.  For example, if the price of cryptocurrencies becomes less volatile, this would challenge the conclusion that they meet the definition of non-monetary assets under IAS 38. Instead, with less price volatility, it could be argued that they meet the definition of cash equivalents.  Given the current challenges and ongoing development of cryptocurrencies, many are calling for standard-setters to engage in a dedicated project to address these issues.  Gavin Fitzpatrick is a Partner in Financial Accounting and Advisory Services at Grant Thornton.  Mike O’Halloran is Technical Manager in the Advocacy and Voice Department of Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Where can small businesses find the advice they need to keep growing? Trusted advisers, says Emma Jones.  My company solves problems for small businesses based on data sets and evidence that guides businesses from different localities and sectors to support that is proven to work for their peers. We shortcut a founder’s route to success through pointing them to the right intervention for their business, at the right time, boosting productivity by saving valuable hours searching for relevant advice.    One factor that has aided the move towards standardised and personalised advice is the number of businesses now operating on common platforms.  Take the e-commerce sector as an example: most online sellers use the same ‘stack’ of technologies, whether that is Big Commerce for sales, Facebook to drive advertising, or Google Analytics to measure results.  This means smart data companies can show a founder if they are selling more or less – or paying more or less for those sales – than competitors.  With insight in hand, a founder then wants advice on how to improve and get into the top tier of performers. Business owners want to simply be told ‘how’ and ‘where’ to spend their time and money. They are willing to share data on key company metrics in return for advice on how they can perform better.  This is where the role of trusted advisers comes in.  With a foundation of data, advisers can guide a business owner through a personalised support journey, with in-built accountability as the adviser takes on the role of a coach in setting out milestones for the business to deliver.  There is a key role for accountants in this as managing or raising money is integral to business progression. While we want to connect small business owners with the right support, we also want to connect them to the trusted experts who can help them to do the jobs that need to be done to spur growth.  Guiding business owners to make the right moves, based on data and insight, and connecting them to the right advisers can help to boost their efficiency, potentially delivering a similar benefit to the wider economy.  Emma Jones is Founder of Enterprise Nation.

As demand for professionals in accountancy and finance continues to heat up, salaries are on the rise and flexibility is top of the agenda for candidates, writes Arlene Harris. Despite rising inflation and predictions of impending recession, “good accountants will always be in demand” and, as companies shrug off pandemic restraints and begin to plan ahead once again, the need for professionals in all areas of finance is on the rise. So says Trayc Keevans, Global FDI Director at Morgan McKinley Ireland. “We are in a market like no other, rich with opportunity. It is one of the best times I can remember for accountancy professionals living and working in Ireland,” said Keevans.  Businesses emerging from under the cloud of COVID-19 are being “more intentional” in their hiring for accountancy and finance positions, according to Keevans. “I think this is why we are seeing so much demand in the market. In some instances, companies have been focusing their efforts mainly on surviving the pandemic by ensuring that the accounts were prepared and controls in place. They were really paying attention to very little beyond that,” she said. “Now, they are hiring again—some with a preference for finance professionals with data skills, because financial planning and analysis (FP&A) is seen as providing business intelligence that can help shape the way forward for companies.” The pandemic has also brought about a shift in the perspectives and preferences of candidates in the profession. “The pandemic really made for a much more competitive market, because employees had more time to evaluate their current positions, to think carefully about the level of flexibility they wanted in their working lives, and the direction they wanted their careers to take,” said Keevans. As recruitment moved online, the virtual hiring process also became faster and more agile. “All of these factors have combined to contribute to the record movement of professionals—particularly in the past 18 months,” Keevans said.  In response, she said companies had been adopting “all manner” of retention stratagems to keep talent on board. “Some of this focus has been on compensation and benefits. The culture of counter-offers is at an all-time high, and this has brought about the need for companies to be more agile in all things pay- and perk-related.” As a result, demand for payroll professionals is particularly high at the moment. “We have seen a number of companies that had previously outsourced to payroll bureaus opting to bring this function back in-house,” said Keevans. “This has created significant demand for payroll specialists, not just with EMEA and MNC experience, but also with experience in indigenous organisations.” In addition to compensation and benefits, employers are also responding to changing attitudes to work-life balance and remote working among candidates post-pandemic. “As long as the demand for accountancy talent outweighs supply, we will see professionals continuing to vote with their feet,” said Keevans. “Any company that isn’t offering any form of hybrid working can expect to see their talent pipeline reduced by up to 80 percent based on current market demands. “The preference in the market is for two to three days in the office and the remainder remote.” Some professionals are taking the demand for greater flexibility even further, challenging employers to adopt a more innovative approach to remote working policies. “We’re starting to see talent challenging the flexibility offered by their employer to include working from locations overseas for a number of weeks of the year,” said Keevans. “This trend is still in its infancy and employers are being understandably cautious in assessing the risks and fairness of such an approach before agreeing to any request.  “They are aware that doing so would need to be referenced within the company’s policy documents on the scope of the hybrid/remote working offering.” Employers are showing greater flexibility in other ways too – recruiting more candidates with experience in sectors other than those they operate in. “Until there is a levelling in demand and supply, we expect to see continued flexibility on the part of employers regarding the sectoral experience they are likely to be flexible on when hiring new recruits,” said Keevans. “As it stands, we have seen employers in all sectors showing flexibility in this regard, with the exception of manufacturing, construction and to some extent, pharmaceutical.” Starting salaries Starting salaries for newly qualified accountants are currently averaging €60,000, up from €55,000 this time last year, while part-qualified accountants can expect to earn about €45,000 annually. “The single biggest area of demand we’re seeing right now is for Big Four newly qualified accountants, as well as those with two to three years’ post-qualified experience in multinationals,” said Keevans. Demand for newly qualified accountants is high in both industry and financial services, as is demand for internal auditors and risk professionals, financial analysts, and accounts payable and receivable. Among tax professionals, the highest demand among employers is for candidates at managerial and senior managerial level. “Here, professionals with five years’ qualified experience are securing salaries of between €80,000 and €90,000 plus benefits. That’s up from a range of €70,000 to €75,000 up to 12 months ago,” said Keevans. “The growth in the number of FDI multinationals setting up here, and wishing to have an in-house tax function, is a driving factor—as are the retention incentives the bigger firms are putting in place to retain their tax talent.”   Keevans said there had been a significant shift from contract to permanent recruitment in the market, a trend she expects will continue in the 12 months ahead.   “As the market starts to open back up, we hope to see more mobility in terms of talent coming into the country,” she said. “This would be welcome as a means to alleviate some of the pressure on the supply of accountancy professionals, particularly in the transactional space. “It is important here for companies to consider the potential to sponsor talent to get employment permits and visas, where required, before going to market to hire. This will help to ensure as broad a talent pool as possible, accessible in the most efficient timelines.”

Chartered Star Fiona Smiddy was inspired to set up her sustainable business by a life-changing trip that gave her a new perspective on the world.  It was during a five-month career break in 2018, spent traveling from Colombia and Panama on to Australia and New Zealand, that Fiona Smiddy hit upon the idea for her own business—an eco-friendly venture that would help people shop more sustainably. “I remember I was on this hilltop in Medellín in Colombia, and I looked down and saw this little kid who was flying what looked like a kite. I realised as I was looking at him that it wasn’t a kite. It was a plastic shopping bag attached to a string,” said Smiddy. “I thought how lucky we are in Ireland with the economy we have, the opportunities and the climate. A lot of us can buy what we need. When you visit countries where people have so much less in so many ways, you realise just how much it matters to try to make a difference.” A Chartered Accountant, Cork-born Smiddy is the founder of Green Outlook, an ethical retailer selling eco-friendly skin, hair, and personal care products online at greenoutlook.ie. Smiddy runs the business from Rathangan, Co. Kildare, stocking products from close to 40 sustainable brands, including Daughters of Flowers, Janni Bars, Moo & Yoo, Oganicules and Sophie’s Soaps.  Each has been selected to help visitors to the site shop consciously. Many of the products are plastic-free, and all are made with natural ingredients and sustainably sourced, the majority in Ireland. “I set up the business after I came home after traveling. I took over a website that was already up-and-running. The founders were leaving Ireland and I wanted to get started as quickly as possible,” said Smiddy. “I did a whole rebrand, started my own social media channels and really worked on promotion and publicity, building awareness and bringing more brands on board.” Her work with Green Outlook has earned Smiddy the title of 2022 Chartered Star. Awarded in April by Chartered Accountants Ireland, the designation recognises outstanding work in support of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).    As this year’s Chartered Star, Smiddy will now represent Ireland’s Chartered Accountancy profession at the One Young World summit in Manchester in September.  “My background in accountancy has been a huge help to me in getting my company off the ground. Once I knew that my future was going to be in sustainable business, I had this knowledge to hand right from the get-go, even down to simple things like filing VAT returns.  “I have been able to self-fund Green Outlook. I didn’t take anything out of the business for the first 18 months. I kept reinvesting and I think the financial knowledge I had really helped me to understand how important that was and get off to the right start.”  Recognising the important role Chartered Accountants can play in helping to combat the climate crisis, Chartered Star entrants must demonstrate how they are working towards, supporting, or living the values of any of the 17 UN SDGs.   Commenting on Smiddy’s win this year, Barry Dempsey, Chief Executive of Chartered Accountants Ireland, commended her “passion and commitment.” “As a profession and an Institute, we are fortunate and proud to be represented on the international stage by Fiona,” Dempsey said. “She follows in the footsteps of other Chartered Stars who have demonstrated passion and commitment in applying the skills and knowledge of the Chartered Accountancy profession to trying to address just some of the issues that the climate crisis presents.”  

As the recently appointed Vice-Chair of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), Sue Lloyd will play a key role in paving the way for a “global baseline” for reliable ESG investment criteria. Elaine O’Regan talks to the New Zealand-born former IASB Vice-Chair about what lies ahead in her new role.  Prior to taking up your role with the ISSB, you were Vice-Chair of the International Accounting Standards Board for six years. Looking back on it, what do you see as your most significant achievements in that role? Completing the international IFRS Standard for insurance contracts was definitely a high point, and also chairing the IFRS Interpretations Committee from 2017 to 2022, and making it more responsive. What does your appointment as Vice-Chair of the International Sustainability Standards Board mean to you professionally? How important do you think the work of the ISSB will be, and your role in it? I see this appointment as a really exciting opportunity for me professionally. Corporate reporting is at a real turning point where we are embracing the need for the broadest set of information about sustainability, risks and opportunities to help investors make informed decisions. I am really excited and honoured to be part of that process. The ISSB has a pivotal role to play in bringing more comparability and quality to reporting on sustainability risks around the world and building a more efficient system, both for the preparers, providing the information, and also for the investors consuming them. One of my key roles as Vice-Chair of the Board is to bring to bear the standard-setting approach of the IASB. My technical skills from that world, and my knowledge of financial reporting, will help me to bring that rigor to sustainability reporting for investors. How will the ISSB’s approach to standard-setting emulate or differ from that of the IASB? How will the two bodies coalesce and work together in the future? There will be a lot of similarity with the IASB, particularly in relation to due process and the thoroughness in which we approach our work. The ISSB wants to be really inclusive and build on the viewpoints of our stakeholders. We have that in common with the IASB. Obviously, the subject matter is different. Sustainability is a more nascent area of reporting, so we will have to work more closely with our ecosystem and really work with assurers and specialists in sustainability to build this new infrastructure for reporting. The ISSB is a sister board to the IASB, and that is great because it means we are part of the same foundation. It gives us the unique ability to sit together and work out the package of information we are asking for to meet investor needs, and to make sure that the reporting and the financial statements fit well together. When the IFRS talks about the ISSB establishing a “global baseline of sustainability standards” what does this mean, and why is it important for the ESG agenda globally? When we talk about a global baseline, what we really want to do is establish a set of disclosures that are sufficient to meet the needs of investors—to enable them to understand how sustainability, risks and opportunities affect the value of a company’s shares and its debt.  We want to provide a ‘set of information’ on companies around the world so that investors can make decisions based on consistent and comparable data. That is really what a global baseline means. It will happen in practice through a combination of two different mechanisms. One will be adoption or incorporation into the regulation in different countries, so that it becomes part of the mandatory reporting system for jurisdictions, in the same way that the IASB’s accounting standards have been mandated by jurisdictions around the world.  Complementing this, we expect there to be a lot of voluntary application of the standards, separate to the regulatory element, because this is a good way for preparers to understand what information is relevant to meet investor needs.   Tell us about the ISSB’s four core pillars – governance, strategy, risk management and metrics. How relevant is each one in the context of your overall mission? Our overall objective is to make sure that investors have the information they need to understand the effects of sustainability risks and opportunities on enterprise values, share price and the value of a company’s debt.  Our pillars are the prism we use to gather sustainability information from four different perspectives. One is how a company governs its risks, and how it is managing those risks and building them into its business strategy. We also look at the metrics they use to assess where they are now, to set their targets for the future and measure their progress in meeting their targets. This ‘package of information’ is designed to meet the investor’s needs, and, importantly, it is designed to encourage companies to think about how they govern and manage risks. How will the work of the ISSB support and help investors in respect of good environmental, social and governance (ESG) practice? What other ‘ESG stakeholders’ will benefit from your work? We know that there are different parties who are interested in information about sustainability, not just investors. We want to facilitate the provision of information to all of them. We want to make this an efficient reporting system for public policy purposes and for broader stakeholder groups beyond investors, for example. One of the aspects that we are focusing on here is what we call the “building block” approach.   This means that, when we are building our requirements, we have investors’ needs in mind, but we also want to make sure that others can add specific investor requirements onto our disclosures to meet broader needs. If we can avoid the need to have one set of disclosures for investors and a completely separate set for broader stakeholders, it is more efficient for those preparing the information. Tell us about the first draft ISSB standards, published in April. What do these draft standards provide for, how is the consultation process progressing and what will the next steps be? There are two documents. The first is the General Requirements Exposure Draft, which sets out the overarching requirements for what should be provided for in sustainability reporting.  It asks companies to provide information about all of their significant sustainability risks and opportunities relevant to enterprise value assessment.  It also sets out some other general ideas—for example, the fact that you should be able to understand how this information relates to the financial statements and the proposal that this information be provided at the same time as the financial statements. The second document is the Climate Exposure Draft, which sets out what specific disclosures should be provided by a company about climate risks and opportunity. This means that, if a company using the General Requirements Exposure Draft identifies climate risks and opportunities as a “significant” sustainability-related risk and opportunity, they can turn to the Climate Exposure Draft to find out what disclosures to provide.  That document is asking for information about the physical risks of climate change the company is exposed to—flood risk, for example—but also opportunities arising from climate change. If a company has developed a product, which may become more popular because of climate change, investors may want to hear about that as much as they would climate-related risk.  These drafts are out for comment until 29 July, 2022. Once we get the feedback, we will decide what we need to adjust, what we can keep as is, and then we will move on to the final requirements. How do you foresee the “roadmap” of additional draft standards rolling out beyond these first two? What standards are next on the agenda for consultation and what is the anticipated timeline for their introduction? Our next step will be to ask our stakeholders what they think we should prioritise after the General Requirements Exposure Draft and Climate Exposure Draft documents are approved.  We only have so much time, and the same is true for our stakeholders, so it is important to us to ascertain where the greatest needs lie. In other words, it is really up to the stakeholders to decide what we work on next. How will the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) build on work already carried out by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)? Our four core pillars (governance, strategy, risk management and metrics) are taken straight from TCFD recommendations, and they form the backbone of the proposals we have out for comment.  We have incorporated their structure and the climate disclosures included in the TCFD have been incorporated into our Climate Exposure Draft. We have built on SASB materials in two ways. Industry-based requirements in the appendix to the Climate Exposure Draft are taken from SASB’s industry-based standards.  We took the climate-related metrics and included those in the Climate Exposure Draft as part of the mandatory climate disclosures.  We are asking stakeholders to use SASB guidance to help them meet their disclosure requirements in the General Requirements Exposure Draft up until the time we draft more specific disclosure requirements of our own. How do you foresee the ISSB working alongside, and collaborating with, other standard-setting and regulatory bodies and initiatives like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG)? Having our proposals out for comment at the same time as the SEC and EFRAG proposals means that we have a unique opportunity to compare and contrast these different proposals and bring as much commonality as we can to our requirements. In an ideal world, we want to work together to build this global baseline and ensure as much consistency as possible with the SEC, EFRAG, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and others.  We have a Working Group tasked with doing so with the US, Europe and also China, Japan and the UK. We are encouraging our stakeholders to write to the SEC and to let the commission know if they think that the global baseline is important.  The GRI is also very important and is a really good example of the ‘building block’ process that I described earlier.  We have a Memorandum of Understanding with GRI. One of our aims is to work together to form a global baseline we both agree on to meet investor needs and to encourage GRI to add the additional pieces of information to meet the broader information needs.

Julia Rowan answers your management, leadership, and team development questions. I try to be a good leader to my team – I coach, give feedback, help them develop new skills, etc. A few things have happened at company level (e.g. policy changes, unpopular decisions, team members not getting a promotion), and I feel I am getting the blame. As a result, there’s a lot of negative talk about the company, and the spark has gone out of the team. How do I get it back? Leaders often find themselves working very hard to defend, explain, and compensate for organisational issues over which they have no control. You have done a lot of good legwork here, and now you need to trust yourself. Lean into the discomfort, acknowledge the difficulty, offer support and put the ball back in your team members’ court.  For example, if somebody talks about “crazy promotion decisions” you might say, “I’m sorry you did not get that role. How can I help you be successful next time?”  Or, if someone talks about “stupid policies”, you might say something like, “It’s tough when these things don’t make sense. Is there something I can do to help?”   The critical thing here is to catch the moment of the criticism and change your response from explanation to acknowledgement. This is easy to write but hard to do, and you will kick yourself more than once as you realise you’ve launched into an explanation. One day you’ll stop doing it – and your team will feel heard. You might consider respectfully bringing the issue up with the team: “I feel that some organisational issues are impinging on our motivation. At our next meeting, should we talk about how we get our mojo back?” Listen to each person and ask the team how they want to move on. My guess is that the team will have arrived at that point themselves. I am pretty good at my job, but my manager micro-manages me. Nothing can be complete without her checking it. She makes irrelevant changes to my work, and even internal documents are drafted and redrafted. Apart from the frustration, it takes up huge time. How can I get her to back off? There are a lot of ways to answer this: we could look at your performance, the pressure your manager is under from their boss and your manager’s personality.  We could say that trying to change other people is generally a waste of time. The only person you can change is yourself, meaning you need to decide to live with, address or leave the situation.  Suppose you want to address the situation. Try to see beyond your manager’s behaviour and look at her intention: what is she trying to achieve? What hopes and fears lie beyond her behaviour? What does her behaviour tell you about what is important? Connect her behaviour with her intention and use it. For example, when she delegates work to you, explore what is important to her (accuracy, completeness, speed, etc.). Then let her know that you have heard her concerns and priorities. My read of this situation is that she is concerned about being (seen to be) good enough. You should ask yourself how you can usefully connect with and ease those concerns.  Julia Rowan is Principal Consultant at Performance Matters, a leadership and team development consultancy. To send a question to Julia, email julia@performancematters.ie.

SMEs hit hard by the pandemic must now grapple with the economic fall-out of the war in Ukraine, signalling fresh uncertainty for the year ahead, so what’s the best plan of action? COVID-19 lockdowns, global supply chain disruption, inflationary pressure – and now the economic fallout from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  The headwinds facing Ireland’s small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) show no signs of easing as we enter the third quarter of 2022. Even as the year began, the imminent winding down of Government supports for COVID-hit businesses was already prompting speculation of a spike in insolvencies just around the corner. Now, Gabriel Makhlouf, Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland, has called on a “patient” approach from policymakers and creditors to help ensure that “unnecessary liquidations of viable SMEs are avoided over the coming months.” Speaking at a recent event in Dublin co-hosted by the Central Bank of Ireland, Economic and Social Research Institute, and the European Investment Bank, Makhlouf pointed to the need to “channel distressed but viable businesses towards restructuring opportunities and unviable businesses towards liquidation.” Uncertain outlook For those SMEs in the sectors hit hardest by the pandemic, the fresh economic turmoil sparked by the Ukraine invasion will be a cause for concern. “The outlook right now for SMEs generally in Ireland is very hard to determine,” said Neil McDonnell, Chief Executive of the Irish SME Association (ISME). “It will vary considerably from sector to sector, but after two bad years for hospitality and tourism due to the pandemic, the war in Ukraine is likely to mean volumes will remain low into the summer.”  Pandemic-related insolvencies have yet to spike. Research released by PwC in February found that Government support had saved at least 4,500 Irish companies from going bust during the pandemic, representing an average of 50 companies per week during the period. Insolvency rates are likely to rise in the months ahead, however, as pandemic supports are withdrawn from businesses with significant debts, and PwC estimates that there is a debt overhang of at least €10 billion among Ireland’s SMEs, made up of warehoused revenue debt, loans in forbearance, supplier debt, landlords, rates and general utilities.  “Government supports have to end at some point. We realise this, but it will be accompanied by a significant uptick in insolvencies. This is natural and to be expected, since 2020 and 2021 both had lower levels of insolvency than 2019,” said Neil McDonnell. “Aside from hard macroeconomics, however, we can’t ignore the element of sentiment in how businesses will cope. This is the third year in a row of bad news.” Confidence in the market Before taking on his current role as Managing Partner of Grant Thornton Ireland, Michael McAteer led the firm’s advisory services offering, specialising insolvency and corporate recovery. “What I’ve learned is that you really cannot underestimate the importance of confidence in the market,” said McAteer. “If we go back to 2008 – the start of the last recession – or to 2000, when the Dotcom Bubble burst, we can see that, when confidence is lacking, the pendulum can swing very quickly. “If you’d asked me a few weeks ago, before the Ukraine invasion, what lay ahead for the Irish economy this year, I would have been much more optimistic than I am now. “Yes, we were going to see some companies struggling once COVID-19 supports were withdrawn, particularly those that hadn’t kept up with changes in the marketplace that occurred during the pandemic, such as the shift to online retail – but, overall, I would have been confident. Now, it is harder to judge.” Government supports Neil McDonnell welcomed the recent introduction of the Companies (Rescue Process for Small and Micro Companies) Act 2021, which provides for a new dedicated rescue process for small companies. Introduced last December by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the legislation provides for a new simplified restructuring process for viable small companies in difficulty. The Small Company Administrative Rescue Process (SCARP) is a more cost-effective alternative to the existing restructuring and rescue mechanisms available to SMEs, who can initiate the process themselves without the need for Court approval. “We lobbied hard for the Small Company Administrative Rescue Process legislation. The key to keeping costs down is that it avoids the necessity for parties to ‘lawyer up’ at the start of the insolvency process,” said McDonnell. “Its efficacy now will be down to the extent to which creditors engage with it and, of course, it has yet to be tested in the courts. We hope creditors will engage positively with it.” McDonnell said further government measures would be needed to help distressed SMEs in the months ahead. “We already see that SMEs are risk-averse at least as far as demand for debt is concerned. Now is the time we should be looking at the tax system to incentivise small businesses,” he said.  “Our Capital Gains Tax (CGT) rate is ridiculously high, and is losing the Exchequer potential yield. Our marginal rate cut-off must be increased to offset wage increases.  “Other supports, such as the Key Employee Engagement Programme (KEEP) and the Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit need substantial reform to make them usable for the SME sector.” Advice for SMEs For businesses facing into a challenging trading period in the months ahead, Michael McAteer advised a proactive approach. “The advice I give everyone is to try to avoid ‘being in’ the distressed part of the business. By that, I mean: don’t wait until everything goes wrong.  “Deal with what’s in front of you – the current set of circumstances and how it is impacting your business today.  “Ask yourself: what do I need to do to protect my business in this uncertain climate, and do I have a plan A, B and C, depending on how things might play out? “Once you have your playbook, you need to communicate it – and I really can’t overstate how important the communication is.  “Talk to your bank, your suppliers, creditors, and your employees. Sometimes, we can be poor at communicating with our stakeholders. We think that if we keep the head down and keep plugging away, it will be grand.  “By taking time to communicate your plans and telling your stakeholders ‘here’s what we intend to do if A, B or C happens,’ you will bring more confidence into those relationships and that can have a really positive impact on the outlook for your business. “Your bank, your creditors and suppliers are more likely to think: ‘These people know their business. They know what they’re doing.’ If something does go wrong, they know that there is already a plan in place to deal with it.” Role of accountants Accountants and financial advisors will have an important role to play in the months ahead as distressed SMEs seek advice on the best way forward. “We are about to experience levels of inflation we have not seen since the 1980s. This will force businesses to address their cost base and prices,” said Neil McDonnell. “My advice to SMEs would be: talk to your customers, to your bank, and your accountant. Your accountant is not just there for your annual returns. They are a source of business expertise, and businesses should be willing to pay for this professional advice. No business will experience an issue their accountant will not have not come across before.” As inflation rises, SMEs are also likely to see an increase in the number of employees seeking pay increases, McDonnell added. “Anticipate those conversations, if they haven’t occurred already,” he said. “Any conversation about wages is a good time to address efficiency and productivity – is there more your business could be doing to operate more efficiently, for example, thereby mitigating inbound cost increases?”

The war in Ukraine will profoundly impact the defensive stance of the EU’s neutral countries. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine is changing Europe in ways the Kremlin did not build into its calculations when it sought to conquer its western neighbour.  NATO, the EU and the United States are united in their agreement over an unprecedented, punitive package of sanctions against Russia.  Individual NATO members are sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. NATO, which has boosted its defences in Poland, the Baltic States and Romania, has ruled out a no-fly zone over Ukraine. It fears retaliation from Putin, even the threat of a nuclear strike. Meanwhile, Europe has opened its doors to refugees. No more squabbling over who to admit or how many numbers will flow into each country compared to 2015, when former German Chancellor Angela Merkel gave shelter to over one million Syrian refugees fleeing the war. Germany has thrown away its ‘rule book’. The belief that wandel durch handel (change through trade) would bring Russia closer to Europe is over.  Social Democrat Chancellor Olaf Scholz has reached a Zeitenwende — a turning point — not only regarding Russia, but domestically as well. German defence spending has risen to two percent of gross domestic product, equivalent to about €100 billion a year. The anti-American and pacifist wings in Scholz’s party are also toeing the new line — for now. As for the EU, its foreign policy chief, Josip Borrell, said the bloc would send weapons to Ukraine. What a turnaround for a soft power organisation built on a peace project. This may see the EU transition from a soft power provider to a hard power player as it now urgently reassesses its security and defence stance.  This is where the neutral countries of Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Malta face challenging debates and decisions. All have signed up to the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. With the exception of Denmark and Malta, they are participants in the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), aimed at increasing defence cooperation among the member states. They benefit from the decades-long US policy of guaranteeing the security umbrella for its NATO allies in Europe. Somehow, the neutral countries are having their cake and eating it too, but for how much longer? Russia’s attack on Ukraine changes everything about the future role of Europe’s security and defence policy. This was confirmed during the informal summit of EU leaders in Versailles in March. Europe has to take defence seriously.  Neutral Finland and Sweden already cooperate very closely with NATO. Russia’s invasion is leading to intense debates about whether both should now join the organisation.  As for Ireland? The war in Ukraine is linked to the security of all of Europe, forcing neutral countries to confront the reasons for their continued neutrality.  Maintaining neutrality at a time when Europe’s security architecture and the post-Cold War era is being threatened is no longer a luxury monopolised by pacifists, or those who link neutrality to sovereignty. It is about providing security to Europe’s citizens and how to do it collectively.  Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said discussions about military neutrality are for another day. Neutrality, he said, “is not in any shape or form hindering what needs to be done and what has to be done in respect of Ukraine”.  Neale Richmond, Fine Gael TD, has described the neutrality policy as “morally degenerate,” calling for a “long-overdue, serious and realistic conversation” about it.  Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has attempted to straddle both sides here. “This does require us to think about our security policy,” he has said. “I don’t see us applying to join NATO, but I do see us getting more involved in European defence.” Martin did later concede: “The order has been turned upside down by President Putin.” Neutral Ireland – and the rest of the EU – now must draw the consequences. Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe.

As we cautiously return to the office, many leaders are considering afresh the changes they made to their management style during the pandemic. Four members outline how their organisation, team, and leadership outlook has changed since March 2020. Gareth Gallagher  Managing Director at Sacyr Concessions  The biggest challenge over the last two years was having to continue operating our assets fully in as safe a way as possible for our staff and the public, and we had to allow anyone who could work from home to work from home.  The government deemed keeping the toll roads safe and operational an essential service, so many of our staff had to work on site. Because of this, we had to continuously do risk assessments to keep our team safe and comply with public health guidelines, such as shift change patterns and fitting out internal structures in vehicles.  Now, though, the staff that had been able to work remotely have started coming back to the office a few days a week. It is nice to have physical meetings with people again, but everyone must remain flexible. There could be times when more face-to-face meetings are required.  The last two years have made it clear to people what is important to them, and that is why flexibility and a hybrid model is more important for job satisfaction than they might have been previously. The hybrid model gives people more autonomy over time and has been proven to work, but the last few years have also emphasised that in-person meetings are more efficient for certain work requirements.  Above all, the pandemic emphasised that communication is critical, and it has probably made me more conscious that I need to check in with people on a more regular basis.  Larissa Feeney  CEO and founder at accountantonline.ie The pandemic coincided with a period of rapid growth in our business. We were in the middle of hiring key staff and implementing new practice management software and about to launch other initiatives when COVID-19 struck, and the future suddenly looked very uncertain.  Fortunately, we already had quite an embedded blend of hybrid and fully remote models in place since 2018, so the move to being fully remote was technically straightforward.  Although we have an office presence in Dublin, Derry and Donegal, over 80 percent of our teams now work fully remotely, and the remainder almost all work hybrid.  The move to almost fully remote working came about by necessity but is hugely positive in many ways for us. I’ve learned that working from home does not suit everyone, and it is undoubtedly the case that regular, daily contact is essential across the teams.  I was concerned that remote staff would miss out on showcasing their talents, and people would become overlooked for promotion and development. However, we are working hard to avoid that with coaching, leadership training and career planning, which has had a positive impact on the visibility of talent development. We have hired an additional 20 people in the last two years. It is still strange but becoming much more normal for me to work with so many people I have not met in person yet. This year, we have planned a series of in-person meetings throughout the country for staff to meet in peer groups, and in May, we will have one larger gathering with all staff for the first time in two years.  Since March 2020, I have supplemented my communication style by scheduling skip level one-to-one video meetings with all individuals so that I can hear staff feedback. I have found that to be a great benefit in understanding their challenges, ideas and suggestions for improvement.  Working life might be easier if we all worked under the same roof, but there are significant personal benefits and cost and time saving to working remotely. Derek Mernagh VP Corporate Controller at KeepTruckin I am a Corporate Controller leading an accounting organisation based in the San Francisco area of the US. I went from sitting in-office with my team five days a week in early 2020 to now managing my team remotely in a matter of days.  I never imagined how the work culture I had gotten used to would change so drastically. I would have thought, at the time, that doing my job remotely would not be possible.  I changed jobs last year and have never met any of my current team in person. This has been a considerable change to adapt to, as I had been so used to in-person management and felt that knowing the team in person helped build stronger working relationships and trust.  Also, the dynamic of meetings was more open and transparent, as everyone had met each other in person, and I felt people were more comfortable in sharing their opinions. Building that connection with the team is more challenging in a remote environment, but I have learned to adapt.  We meet more often because we feel we should check-in due to the work from home environment, but this brings some challenges. “Zoom fatigue” is a real thing.  I try to check-in with my team using direct messages or group channels on collaborative tools like Slack to ask how they are and how things are going. I also have monthly team meetings that we try to make more light in content, so the team can get to know each other better.   There are advantages with the current work schedule that my team and I appreciate, such as no commute time, but finding a hybrid solution for the future where some connection is possible will be a perfect balance.  Una Rooney Corporate Accounting Manager at Allstate Northern Ireland In my company, we have always had the option of remote working; however, it was not often invoked. Since the pandemic, they have now adopted a hybrid working environment which I feel has created an innovative and energised work environment across all locations in Northern Ireland and America. Would I have answered this in the same way in June 2020? I’m unsure. Through the pandemic, we had enforced a work-from-home model. This presented challenges as an organisation and management group in finance, such as onboarding, ensuring people took leave, keeping employee engagement, maintaining a high standard of deliverables, and retaining relationships virtually.  In hindsight, as an already global team with team members in Chicago, we were achieving what we thought were challenges daily. We initially took more time and effort to think outside the traditional corporate box to adapt. I did become more deliberate in my actions and aimed to be seen as much as possible so the team could practice what I was preaching. I ensured I was taking breaks, upskilling remotely and always available for a call.  We did bingo, escape rooms, virtual team lunch, and breakfast for stateside members as a team. These activities were required to ensure collaboration and inclusivity since casual coffees and lunches were no longer on the table.  I know this kind of engagement isn’t for everyone but by providing a non-busy period, we were able to look after staff mental health while helping integrate new starts and build up relationships with other team members and myself as manager.  By building up this rapport and respect virtually, I felt we saw the deliverables and standards being maintained. Team members were open to asking questions, and I kept an open-door policy to ensure communication was still prevalent. We all made a forced change. Before, I was an office worker and never thought of hybrid as an option. Now, the working world is evolving and, if used correctly, can bring a highly-motivated and highly-productive finance team globally. 

Overdone stimulus at the height of the pandemic, supply chain disruption and Russia’s Ukraine invasion are all fuelling spiralling inflation. Central banks need to work harder to find the economic sweet spot, writes Cormac Lucey. Two years ago, as COVID-19 was first running rampant worldwide, our economic authorities resolved to prevent the resulting shutdowns from turning into economic depression by unleashing an unparalleled level of economic stimulus.  In the UK, the budget deficit shot up to 15 percent of GDP. In Ireland, the deficit approached 10 percent of modified gross national income. This fiscal support was accompanied by strong monetary stimulus.  Whereas UK broad money grew by six percent in the two years to June 2019, it rose by 22 percent in the two years to June 2021. The equivalent figures for the Eurozone were nine and 18 percent, respectively.  While a medical nightmare was unfolding for our health services from March 2020, from an equity investor’s perspective, the 18 months that followed represented a sweet spot, as authorities stuffed economic stimulus into their economies and asset prices were the first beneficiaries.  Since April 2020, UK stock prices (as represented by the FT 100 index) have risen by over 35 percent, while Irish shares (Iseq index) have jumped by over 40 percent. What’s bad for Main Street is often good for Wall Street.  Now, as the COVID-19 threat recedes, this threatens to go into sharp reverse. What’s good for Main Street risks being bad for Wall Street.  Sharp rises in inflation across the developed world are forcing central banks into withdrawing monetary stimulus and pushing interest rate increases. What lies behind this sudden burst in inflation?  First, levels of policy stimulus were overdone in some parts of the world. Whereas the growth in two-year money supply figures referenced above was nine percent in the Eurozone and 16 percent in the UK, it was 25 percent in the US. Guess who has the biggest inflation problem?  It is also notable that there is little or no marked inflation problem in South-East Asia, where the COVID-19-induced increase in money supply was minimal.  Second, supply chain problems, especially energy, have contributed significantly to recent inflation readings. Eurozone inflation in the 12 months to January was 5.1 percent. Excluding energy, it would have been just 2.6 percent.  Sharply rising energy prices are a symptom of the West shutting down conventional carbon-based sources of supply before alternative sources are ready to take up the slack.  This shortage has been aggravated by sanctions imposed on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. Over time, we should expect supply chain problems to be fixed and higher energy prices to be their own cure, suppressing demand and allowing for price stabilisation and reductions. The financial sweet spot of two years ago risks becoming a sour spot as central bankers rush to restore their credibility in the face of ever-higher inflation readings.  Jerome Powell, Chair of the US Federal Reserve, said recently, “The [Federal Open Market] Committee is determined to take the measures necessary to restore price stability. The American economy is very strong and well-positioned to handle tighter monetary policy.’’  Well, over fifty years ago, the then-Chair of the Federal Reserve, William McChesney Martin, said the central bank’s job was to “take away the punch bowl just when the party gets going.” His successors may not just have to take away the punch bowl, but also shove partygoers into a cold shower. There is a real danger that an already slowing US economy could be pushed into a recession by aggressive central bank tightening. Europe would be unlikely to escape the resulting economic fallout.  Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

The IAASB’s new quality management standards represent a fundamental shift in focus for auditors and firms must act now to prepare for the fast-approaching compliance deadline, writes Noreen O’Halloran. The suite of quality management standards released by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) will have a major impact on all audit firms, regardless of size, and now is the time to start getting your house in order. Effective from December of this year, these standards include a revised International Standard on Auditing – ISA 220 (revised) Quality Control for an Audit of Financial Statements and two new International Standard on Quality Management. These are ISQM 1 Quality Management for Firms that Perform Audits or Reviews of Financial Statements, or Other Assurance or Related Services Engagements; and ISQM 2 Engagement Quality Reviews.  Practitioners are required by these standards to have necessary systems designed and implemented by 15 December 2022, with the monitoring reviews performed within one year of this date.  Irish standards align The Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA) has released revised quality management standards aligned with those released by IAASB. By releasing new standards, the IAASB is addressing the need for the audit profession to perform quality engagements consistently.  These standards require audit firms to have in place a strong system of quality management that is robust, proactive, and scalable, enabling the consistent execution of high-quality engagements.  While these standards are welcome, they do impose additional time, effort and ultimately costs on audit firms. ISQM 1: the lowdown ISQM 1, the standard replacing International Standard on Quality Control 1 (ISQC 1), addresses a firm’s requirement to design a system of quality management to manage the calibre of engagements performed by the firm.  This standard applies to all firms performing audits or reviews of financial statements, or other assurance or related services engagements. A firm must now establish quality objectives, identify, and assess quality risks, and design and implement responses to address those risks.  This is a much more forward-looking, proactive approach than that currently required under ISQC 1. The process is expected to be iterative, requiring continuous improvement and revisiting.  ISQM 1 comprises eight components, two of which are process driven. These are the risk assessment process and the monitoring and remediation process.  The remaining six are quality objective components, comprising  governance and leadership, relevant ethical requirements, resources, acceptance and continuance, engagement performance, resources, and information and communication.  Audit firms must apply a risk-based approach in designing, implementing, and operating the components in an interconnected and coordinated manner, tailoring their approach to the specific risks arising for a firm. Risk assessment  Audit firms are required to establish quality objectives for each of the six quality objective components. Certain quality objectives are predetermined in ISQM 1.  Firms must also establish additional quality objectives responsive to the nature and circumstances of the firm or its engagements. Once the quality objectives are established, the firm will then need to identify and assess quality risks, taking into consideration the type of engagements carried out and the extent to which this work may create quality risks in relation to specific quality objectives.  Firms are likely to have some existing policies and procedures in place, which may continue to be relevant in meeting these new requirements.  Existing policies and procedures should not, however, be carried forward without first considering the specific requirements in ISQM 1 and the individual nature and circumstances of a firm and its engagements.  Gap analysis A gap analysis is a must for all firms to help them identify areas where they may need additional or different responses.  Not all risks identified will rise to the level of a quality risk as defined in ISQM 1. Quality risks are those that have a reasonable possibility of occurring and a reasonable possibility of individually, or in combination with other risks, adversely affecting the achievement of one or more quality objectives.  For example, in a small firm, where leadership may be concentrated in a single or a very small number of individuals the firm may identify a quality risk with respect to the Governance and Leadership component as staff may be reluctant to challenge or question the actions or behaviours of leadership, due to fear of reprisal.  After quality risks have been identified, firms must then design and implement a response to those specific risks.  Appropriate response The ISQM 1 identifies several specific responses required by a firm. Responses that are properly designed and implemented will mitigate the possibility that the quality risk will occur, resulting in the firm achieving its quality objective.  Take the previous example of a small firm with a single or very small number of individuals at leadership level, whose behaviours staff may be reluctant to challenge. The quality risk arising here might be addressed by obtaining anonymous periodic feedback from staff at all levels within the firm using focus groups and/or staff surveys.  Firms should keep in mind that the quality objectives for one component may support or overlap with those of another.  When establishing quality objectives, therefore, it can be useful to think of the components as interrelated or interdependent with each other.  Here’s one example. The quality objective in the information and communication component, regarding relevant and reliable information exchange throughout the firm, links with the ethical requirements component, regarding the communication of relevant ethical requirements applying to individuals within the firm.  The nature and circumstances of the quality objectives, the identified risk and the subsequent responses will differ from one firm to the next, depending on their size, network structure (when relevant) and the type of engagements they provide. Monitoring and remediation The monitoring and remediation process can be split into several elements, comprising: the design and performance of monitoring activities; evaluating findings and identifying deficiencies; evaluating identified deficiencies; responding to the identified deficiencies; and  communicating the findings.  Looking back at our earlier quality risk regarding staff reluctant to challenge or question the actions or behaviours of leadership, a potential response was that the firm might facilitate focus groups and/or staff surveys to gather anonymous feedback regarding the actions and behaviours of leadership.  Once sought, such feedback must then be monitored. The firm may collate the feedback and present it to leadership, including details of the actions required to address the feedback and a corresponding timeline for these actions.  The purpose of monitoring the activity here is to determine whether the response to the quality risk is appropriate. If deficiencies are identified as part of this monitoring, firms need to evaluate their severity and determine how pervasive they may be.  This will help firms to focus on the deficiencies giving rise to the most significant risks. They should also evaluate the root cause of these deficiencies. Root cause analysis is not a new concept to practitioners. Many will already be undertaking this process when deficiencies are identified.  However, for those firms not currently doing so, ISQM 1 requires a root cause analysis in respect of identified deficiencies. ISQM 2 and ISA 220 revised While ISQM 2 is a new standard released by the IAASB, many of its elements have been relocated from either ISQC 1 or ISA 220, addressing both the responsibilities of the firm and the engagement quality reviewer.  The engagement quality reviewer is part of the firm’s response, rather than the engagement team’s response to quality management.  The engagement quality reviewer is required to exercise professional scepticism, rather than professional judgement, which is the responsibility of the engagement team when obtaining and evaluating audit evidence.  Revisions have also been made to ISA 220 (revised), which remove the requirement for an engagement quality review (as that is now contained in ISQM 2), and also clarify and strengthen the key elements of quality management at the engagement level, including the responsibility of the engagement partner.  The engagement partner is responsible for managing and achieving quality at the engagement level. These changes include revision to the definition of the engagement team, to include all those who perform audit procedures on the engagement regardless of their location or relationship to the firm. There is also a new stand-back requirement for the engagement partner to determine that they have taken overall responsibility for managing and achieving quality on the audit engagement.  Ensuring compliance The IAASB’s new quality management standards represent a fundamental shift in focus from quality control to quality management, and all firms should act swiftly to prepare for these changes. Here are three steps you can take to help ensure compliance by 15 December 2022: Consider your current position against the new requirements, and identify areas where your firm could start to progress implementation plans, along with the individuals within the firm who need to be involved.  Look at your current resources and – particularly for non-network firms – consider whether additional resources might be needed, and if service providers may be required to fill any gaps.  For network firms, each individual firm is responsible for its own system of quality management, including design, implementation, and operation. Locally you may need to consider how the network requirements might need be adapted or supplemented by the individual firm to be appropriate.  Bear in mind that the new quality management standards provide an excellent opportunity to enhance the quality and consistency of audits.  These standards will drive firms to implement quality management consistently, supporting audits of a higher quality.  A word of warning, though: don’t underestimate the time, resources and investment needed to implement these standards. You will also need appropriate buy-in and a commitment to quality enhancement from those in leadership.  A great deal of change management may be required to effectively implement the new and revised standards. With the implementation date fast approaching, time is of the essence.   Noreen O’Halloran is a Director in the Department of Professional Practice at KPMG Ireland.