News

Michael Diviney and Níall Fitzgerald explore the ethical challenges arising from artificial intelligence (AI), particularly ‘narrow’ AI, and highlight the importance of ethics and professional competence in its deployment Earlier this year, artificial intelligence (AI) industry leaders, leading researchers and influencers signed a succinct statement and warning: “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.” Was this a publicity stunt? Well, probably not, as the generative AI ChatGPT was already the fastest-adopted application in history.  Was this an over-the-top, alarmist statement by a group possibly trying to steal a march on self-regulation of a rapidly emerging technology and growing industry?  Again, this is unlikely if one considers the warnings of pioneer thinkers like Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, Stephen Hawking and Astronomer Royal Martin Rees. They concur that there is an existential threat to humankind if human-level or ‘general’ AI is developed and the ‘singularity’ is reached when AI surpasses human intelligence.  Autonomous weapons and targeting are a clear risk, but more broadly, unless we can ensure that the goals of a future superintelligence are aligned and remain aligned with our goals, we may be considered superfluous and dispensable by that superintelligence.  As well as the extinction threat, general AI presents other potential ethical challenges.  For example, if AI attains subjective consciousness and is capable of suffering, does it then acquire rights? Do we have the right to interfere with these, including the right to attempt to switch it off and end its digital life?  Will AI become a legal entity and have property rights? After all, much of our economy is owned by companies, another form of artificial ‘person’. Ethical challenges from ‘narrow’ AI Until general AI is here, however – and there is informed scepticism about its possibility – the AI tools currently in use are weak or ‘narrow’ AI. They are designed to perform a specific task or a group of related tasks and rely on algorithms to process data on which they have been trained.  Narrow AI presents various ethical challenges:  Unfairness arising from bias and opacity (e.g. AI used in the initial screening of job candidates include a gender bias based on historical data – in the past more men were hired); The right to privacy (AI trained with data without the consent of the data subjects); Threats to physical safety (e.g. self-driving vehicles); Intellectual property and moral rights, plagiarism and passing-off issues in the use of generative AI like ChatGPT and Bard; and Threats to human dignity from the hollowing out of work and loss of purpose. Regulation vs. ethics Such issues arising from the use of AI, particularly related to personal data, mean that regulation is inevitable.  We can see this, for example, with the EU’s landmark AI Act, due to apply by the end of 2025, which aims to regulate AI’s potential to cause harm and to hold companies accountable for how their systems are used. However, as Professor Pat Barker explained at a recent Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB) webinar, until such laws are in place, and in the absence of clear rules, ethics are required for deciding on the right way to use AI.  Even when the regulation is in place, there are likely to be cases and dilemmas that it has not anticipated or about which it is unclear. Legal compliance should not be assumed to have all the ethical issues covered, and as AI is evolving so quickly, new ethical issues and choices will inevitably emerge.  Ethics involves the application of a decision-making framework to a dilemma or choice about the right thing to do. While such a framework or philosophy can reflect one’s values, it must also be objective, considered, universalisable and not just based on an instinctual response or what may be expedient. Established ethics frameworks include: the consequentialist or utilitarian approach – in the case of AI, does it maximise benefits for the greatest number of people?; and the deontological approach, which is based on first principles, such as the inalienable rights of the individual (an underlying philosophy of the EU’s AI Act). (The Institute’s Ethics Quick Reference Guide, found on the charteredaccountants.ie website, outlines five steps to prepare for ethical dilemmas and decision-making.)  A practical approach While such philosophical approaches are effective for questions like “Should we do this?” and “Is it good for society”, as Reid Blackman argues in Harvard Business Review, businesses and professionals may need a more practical approach, asking: “Given that we are going to [use AI], how can we do it without making ourselves vulnerable to ethical risks?”  Clear protocols, policies, due diligence and an emphasis on ethical risk management and mitigation are required, for example responsible AI clauses in agreements with suppliers. In this respect, accountants have an arguably competitive advantage in being members of a profession; they can access and apply an existing ethical framework, which is evolving and adapting as the technology, its opportunities and challenges change.  The Code of Ethics The International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) recently revised the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (Code) to reflect the impact of technology, including AI, on the profession. The Chartered Accountants Ireland Code of Ethics will ultimately reflect these revisions.  IESBA has identified the two types of AI likely to have the most impact on the ethical behaviour of accountants:  Assisted intelligence or robotic process automation (RPA) in which machines carry out tasks previously done by humans, who continue to make decisions; and  Augmented intelligence, which involves collaboration between human and machine in decision-making. The revisions also include guidance on how accountants might address the risks presented by AI to ethical behaviour and decision-making in performing their role and responsibilities.  Professional competence and due care The Code requires an accountant to ensure they have an appropriate level of understanding relevant to their role and responsibilities and the work they undertake. The revisions acknowledge that the accountant’s role is evolving and that many of the activities they undertake can be impacted by AI.  The degree of competency required in relation to AI will be commensurate with the extent of an accountant’s use of and/or reliance on it. While programming AI may be beyond the competency of many accountants, they have the skill set to:  identify and articulate the problem the AI is being used to solve;  understand the type, source and integrity of the data required; and assess the utility and reasonableness of the output.  This makes accountants well placed to advise on aspects of the use of AI. The Code provides some examples of risks and considerations to be managed by professional accountants using AI, including: The data available might not be sufficient for the effective use of the AI tool. The accountant needs to consider the appropriateness of the source data (e.g. relevance, completeness and integrity) and other inputs, such as the decisions and assumptions being used as inputs by the AI. This includes identifying any underlying bias so that it can be addressed in final decision-making. The AI might not be appropriate for the purpose for which the organisation intends to use it. Is it the right tool for the job and designed for that particular purpose? Are users of the AI tool authorised and trained in its correct use within the organisation’s control framework? (One chief technology officer has suggested not only considering the capabilities of the AI tool but also its limitations to be better aware of the risks of something going wrong or where its use may not be appropriate.) The accountant may not have the ability, or have access to an expert with that ability, to understand and explain the AI and its appropriate use.  If the AI has been appropriately tested and evaluated for the purpose intended. The controls relating to the source data and the AI’s design, implementation and use, including user access. So, how does the accountant apply their skills and expertise in this context?  It is expected that accountants will use many of the established skills for which the profession is known to assess the input and interpret the output of an AI tool, including interpersonal, communication and organisational skills, but also technical knowledge relevant to the activity they are performing, whether it is an accounting, tax, auditing, compliance, strategic or operational business decision that is being made.  Data and confidentiality According to the Code, when an accountant receives or acquires confidential information, their duty of confidentiality begins. AI requires data, usually lots of it, with which it is trained. It also requires decisions by individuals in relation to how the AI should work (programming), when it should be used, how its use should be controlled, etc.  The use of confidential information with AI presents several confidentiality challenges for accountants. The Code includes several considerations for accountants in this regard, including: Obtaining authorisation from the source (e.g. clients or customers) for the use of confidential information, whether anonymised or otherwise, for purposes other than those for which it was provided. This includes whether the information can be used for training AI tools.  Considering controls to safeguard confidentiality, including anonymising data, encryption and access controls, and security policies to protect against data leaks.  Ensuring controls are in place for the coding and updating of the AI used in the organisation. Outdated code, bugs and irregular updates to the software can pose a security risk. Reviewing the security certification of the AI tool and ensuring it is up to date can offer some comfort.  Many data breaches result from human error, e.g. inputting confidential information into an open-access web-based application is a confidentiality breach if that information is saved, stored and later used by that application. Staff need to be trained in the correct use and purpose of AI applications and the safeguarding of confidential information. Dealing with complexity The Code acknowledges that technology, including AI, can help manage complexity.  AI tools can be particularly useful for performing complex analysis or financial modelling to inform decision-making or alerting the accountant to any developments or changes that require a re-assessment of a situation. In doing so, vast amounts of data are collected and used by AI, and the ability to check and verify the integrity of the data introduces another level of complexity.  The Code makes frequent reference to “relevancy” in relation to the analysis of information, scenarios, variables, relationships, etc., and highlights the importance of ensuring that data is relevant to the problem or issue being addressed. IESBA was mindful, when revising the Code, that there are various conceivable ways AI tools can be designed and developed to use and interpret data.  For example, objectivity can be challenged when faced with the complexity of divergent views supported by data, making it difficult to come to a decision. AI can present additional complexity for accountants, but the considerations set out in the Code are useful reminders of the essential skills necessary to manage complexity. Changing how we work As well as its hugely beneficial applications in, for example, healthcare and science, AI is proving to be transformative as a source of business value.  With a range of significant new tools launched daily, from personal effectiveness to analysis and process optimisation, AI is changing how we work. These are powerful tools, but with power comes responsibility. For the professional accountant, certain skills will be brought to the fore, including adaptability, change and risk management, and leadership amidst rapidly evolving work practices and business models. Accountants are well placed to provide these skills and support the responsible and ethical use of AI.  Rather than fearing being replaced by AI, accountants can prepare to meet expectations to provide added value and be at the helm of using AI tools for finance, management, strategic decision-making and other opportunities. Michael Diviney is Executive Head of Thought Leadership at Chartered Accountants Ireland Níall Fitzgerald is Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland

A recording of the 11 May 2023 event, “Championing Ethical Leadership Amid Competing Pressures”, is now available here. Run by The Economist Impact in association with the Global Accounting Alliance, of which Chartered Accountants Ireland is a member, the event included contributions from: Emily O’Reilly, European Ombudsman, European Union Audrey Morin, Group Compliance Director, Schneider Electric Amanda Belcher, Senior Vice President, Edelman Global Advisory Elia Yi Armstrong, Director, Ethics Office, United Nations, and Barry Melancon, Chair, Global Accounting Alliance Some key takeaways include: For organisations that want to be successful for all stakeholders, doing the right thing means having integrity, being aware of what must be done (in accordance with regulations, etc.) and what should be done, and balancing differing stakeholder expectations. Awareness of ethical issues is increasing, and while the ability to do the right thing is not generation-specific, some participants suggested that the younger generations are more active in questioning behaviour and decisions. Developing a code of ethics and ensuring it is embedded across the organisation and integrated into decision-making is essential for building trust. Some contributors provided insights on how their organisations have developed codes, one referring to it as their “Trust Charter”. Insights from global standard-setters and regulators in driving ethical behaviours and how private sector entities can interact to further progress initiatives in this area. The panel provided good advice for global organisations dealing with competing, or inconsistent, regulatory frameworks to ‘think through’ their fundamental values and allow these to guide decision-making. A discussion on the degree to which Milton Friedman’s statement “the business of business is business” resonates today. While the principles of business remain similar, the purpose and objectives of business have evolved. Insights on how to increase the effectiveness of organisational ethics and compliance programmes including: ethics training (bespoke to the organisation); confidential ethics helplines; robust protected disclosure policies and procedures; supply chain and partnership controls; and embedding an organisational culture of psychological safety that allows for frank discussion without risk of repercussion. A note of caution was shared about the risks of highlighting an organisation’s ethics strategy in marketing campaigns before properly embedding it within the culture. Watch the event in full here.

The Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB), which includes Chartered Accountants Ireland, launched new resources on ethics and a series of webcast interviews with professionals with diverse business experience at a fully booked webinar on Thursday 15 June 2023. The webinar, “Resilience Under Pressure”, presented highlights from a CCAB survey which revealed significant pressures to act unethically experienced by professional accountants. It also included a panel discussion, moderated by Iain Lowson, Chair of the CCAB Ethics Group, that explored a range of issues raised by the audience with Professor Pat Barker, Sam Ennis, Head of Tax in financial services, Sue Allan, CFO at Willerby Group, Carol Colley, deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer at Manchester City Council, and Ann Buttery, Head of Ethics, Policy Leadership at ICAS, who also presented guidance for professional accountants on speaking-up. Professor Pat Barker also contributed to the webcast interview series with Barry Doyle, Deputy President Chartered Accountants Ireland, Níall Fitzgerald, Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland, Dominic Hall, Group Head of Ethical Business Conduct at BAE Systems Plc, Malcolm Bacchus, Interim Finance Director, and Professor Chris Cowton, Associate Director at the Institute of Business Ethics. Examples of the issues discussed, including questions raised by the audience, include: The most common sources of pressure to act unethically for professional accountants; The impact of such pressures on professional and personal life; The most common unethical behaviours experienced by professional accountants; The role of regulation and personal responsibilities in driving ethical behaviours; Advice on addressing common issues such as toxic leaders, sharp practices or managing ethical conflicts; Making ethical decisions and promoting an ethical culture; The ethical challenges posed by technology, including artificial intelligence, and the ethics of sustainability. Watch a recording of the webinar and access other resources on the CCAB Website    

Níall Fitzgerald, Head of Ethics and Governance, shares his insights from the 11th Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Anti-Corruption and Integrity Forum (the ‘Forum’), which was held in Paris on 24–25 May 2023. The theme of the forum was “Action to impact, working together to strengthen integrity and fight corruption” and the issues addressed impact a range of policy areas and disciplines practised by professional accountants, including governance, responsible business conduct, taxation, investor and public confidence, reporting, risk management and compliance, and many others. Discussions took place on the stage and on the fringes amongst delegates and speakers where anti-corruption and integrity strategies, measures and implementation experiences across public and private sectors were openly shared.  Some of my key takeaways from the forum include: The evolving anti-corruption and integrity challenges: The opening remarks highlighted the evolving anti-corruption and integrity challenges of our time, including geopolitical instability and threats to democracy such as undue foreign influence and kleptocracy, the increasing polarisation of society and erosion of public trust because of disinformation, leadership failures and division, and the disconnect between anti-corruption commitments made and the measures that get implemented. Until recently the dialogue around corruption focused mainly on bribery, but now we face many forms of it from grand corruption on a global scale being executed in a strategic and co-ordinated way to other more common and smaller opportunistic frauds. The accountancy profession: Professional accountants play a significant role in detecting and preventing corruption, creating robust risk-based compliance systems, and improving the relationship between transparency and integrity through reporting and assurance. Some contributors cautioned that such actions can quickly become ineffective if not kept up to date with the fast-evolving ways and means of committing fraud. There were also some concerns that outdated systems or those with ineffective oversight can become enablers by allowing corruption to flourish undetected beneath a veneer of compliance. However, reporting and transparency are seen as key to promoting integrity. A memorable quote in this regard was “To achieve trust we need to reveal truth and transparency”! Technology for good, technology for bad: Many insights were shared on how technology is used to combat fraud and corruption, including what tools, if any, could be used and in what circumstances to use them. Digitalisation, artificial intelligence and data analytics were described as enablers and detractors in the detection and prevention of corruption and safeguarding the integrity of data. There was a lot of discussion about blockchain and tools that perform data analytics, text scraping, risk and data mining, network analysis and automated functions (e.g. bots). Fundamentally, it is not the tool that may be good or bad, rather how it is used, the integrity of its coding and how the output is interpreted. It is not good practice to invest in sophisticated tools without addressing the basic need of ensuring the integrity of the underlying data (e.g. that the data is relevant, reliable, organised and complete) or consider how the results will be interpreted. Contributors shared experiences that warned of the importance of testing for false positives generated by data analytic tools, the need to accurately define the problem to be addressed before deciding what, if any, tool is required, to focus on the weaknesses as well as the strengths during the selection of  tools during the procurement process (you don’t want to find out too late what it can’t do), and to perform a rigorous risk assessment in advance of implementing a tool. When it comes to assessing the risks and benefits of employing technology, the Devil is not just in the detail, but also in the coding!  Culture matters most: Corruption is essentially driven by human behaviour but enabled by many tools, schemes and systems. Humans are considered to have achieved many great feats, including finding water on Mars, and developing artificial intelligence, but we have still not managed to eradicate corruption. Industry leaders and regulators discussed their responses to combat corruption, including examples of measures taken to create a culture of integrity. Some key highlights from discussions around culture include: If organisations want to be trusted, then they must make integrity part of the strategy The right tone from the top is required, including leaders who are open and feel safe talking about corruption; acknowledging the complexities and that addressing corruption requires a multifaceted approach across the organisation Embedding responsibility for an organisation’s anti-corruption strategy across all areas of the business, ensuring it is not seen solely as a compliance function’s responsibility Include anti-corruption and integrity as factors to be considered in decision-making across the organisation, whether significant investment decisions, procurement choices or making sales A multi-stakeholder approach is essential for any integrity strategy. The main product of relationship building is trust and starting a dialogue is the early stages of developing this. Stronger collaboration: The importance of collaboration between the public and private sectors is essential to effectively combat corruption. This collaboration is evident at many levels for professional accountants, for example compliance with anti-money laundering and terrorist financing requirements. Discussions also emphasised how collaboration within both these sectors is as important for combatting corruption as for promoting integrity. This can include greater co-operation between government agencies in the public sector and competitors working together in the private sector to develop common best practice or deliver initiatives that tackle industry- or sector-specific corruption and promote greater integrity and trust.  Prevention is better than cure: Delegates heard some harrowing accounts of the human, societal and financial costs of corruption. The stakes are also considerably higher for organisations and the risks of corruption are strategic, operational and reputational. The governance required needs to be proportionate and relevant to the needs and resource flows of the organisation in the context of financial, social and human capital. Risk assessment is an important mechanism for an anti-corruption strategy, and there was an emphasis on reviewing and drawing conclusions from observing what people do, not just what they report. Many forum participants were forthcoming, sharing lessons learned from previous crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2008 financial crash. The case was convincing that prevention is better, and cheaper, than cure. Recovering, rebuilding and reforming with integrity in Ukraine: Government representatives of Ukraine, Deputy Speaker Oleksandr Korniyenko and Deputy Minister Serhiy Derkach, discussed plans to rebuild their country and how they are going to do so by driving corruption out of the system. They see this as essential for earning the trusty of a traumatised nation and ensuring that Ukraine is built back better than before is the least the people deserve. There was an open invitation for compliance experts and advisors to help Ukraine in this endeavour by providing anti-bribery and corruption training and assisting with the development of robust compliance systems. In addition, I spoke with several industry leaders and experts at the forum and members can expect to hear more from us on other topical issues such as beneficial ownership transparency, combatting corruption in the supply chain, support for the proposal to recognise “zero corruption” as the 18th sustainable development goal, and, in the sphere of sustainability reporting, the current practices and developments in anti-corruption reporting. These additional resources will be made available on the Chartered Accountants Ireland Ethics Resource Centre and/or the Governance Resource Centre in due course.  Members can access further details and recordings of some of the sessions from the forum on the OECD website.   A useful list of resources referred to at the forum include: OECD Public Integrity Indicators: A benchmark government measure to combat corruption and promote integrity, comparing government commitments to actions. Ireland and the United Kingdom are included in the data. Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI): A scoring based on the results of a series of corruption surveys and assessments measuring the perceived level of public sector corruption across approximately 180 countries. OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions: Establishes legally binding standards to criminalise bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions and provides for a host of related measures that make this effective. It is the first and only international anti-corruption instrument focused on the ‘supply side’ of the bribery transaction. Ireland and the United Kingdom are signatory countries. Understanding Anti-Corruption Reporting: Published by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and Transparency International UK, this report reviews anti-corruption corporate reporting by the largest publicly traded companies and highlights the urgent need for enhanced quality, reliability and comparability in this crucial area. It also raises a series of policy questions around jurisdictional differences, comparability, governance and the completeness and reliability of the information provided.  Stepping up the Game, Digital Technologies for the Promotion of the Fight Against Corruption – a Business Perspective: This OECD report provides an overview of various digital tools and how they are applied in practice and examples of how companies are deploying digital technology in corporate compliance and anti-corruption efforts. The Blue Dot Network: A voluntary certification scheme based on quality infrastructure standards as set out in the G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment, the G7 Charlevoix Commitment on Innovative Financing for Development, the Equator Principles and guidelines such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.                                   

Sustainability is often seen as the domain of large corporates but SMEs have the collective potential to be more powerful players. Sheila Killian explains why Social and environmental sustainability is often seen as more relevant to big multinational companies (MNCs) than to SMEs, small-to medium enterprises employing no more than 250 people. MNCs are more likely to have a sustainability strategy, and resources for its implementation, monitoring, reporting and communication.  They are more likely to report externally, integrating their reporting across sustainability and financial activities, and to be scored by ESG rating agencies.  This does not mean that MNCs carry all the responsibility or should reap all the benefits, however.  SMEs are enormously impactful in aggregate and have a huge amount to gain by getting involved. So, why and how should they engage? The potential impact of SMEs on sustainability SMEs have a massive collective impact. In Ireland, they account for seven jobs in 10. While large companies are commonly exporters, SMEs tend to serve their local region.  In terms of where people live, work, shop and spend their leisure time, smaller enterprises dominate. This amplifies both their responsibility, and the opportunities open to them. Because SMEs are embedded in their communities, they often make a huge contribution socially without realising it. This may lie less in strategy than in values.  David O’Mahony of O’Mahony’s Booksellers Ltd, a long-established independent bookshop in the south-west, sums up the position: “It’s only when you really think about it and put all the things together that you realise that there’s a lot more going on … [in corporate responsibility and sustainability] … than we would have probably realised ourselves.”  O’Mahony’s enjoys high social capital locally, gained through understated good work for the community and environment, derived from values and a sense of neighbourliness rather than from formal reporting.  Why SMEs do not report Despite this implicit moral accountability, many SME owners do not think about reporting externally on their sustainability. This is often because they don’t see the value to be gained. Compared with MNCs, there is much less separation between ownership and management/control in SMEs.  Therefore, the need for both internal and external reporting is reduced because the main shareholders are already intimate with what is going on in the business, and employees are closer to the leadership.  Unless the business is considering raising external finance, there is little need to consider how potential investors might perceive it, and if there is a perception that customers are not interested in sustainability activities, these will not be reported.  It seems to come naturally to SMEs to be community-oriented, however, often because they are family-owned, and such behaviour reflects the origins and values of the family.  Such firms tend not to have formal, written codes of conduct, but instead propagate the personal values of their owners, who do not consider that a separate, published set of values and reporting on their social and environmental activities is necessary for business. Why SMEs should report One reason for SMEs to begin some form of sustainability reporting is so that they can compete with MNCs locally to attract and retain talented employees.  The labour market is tight, remote working has shifted the power balance, and younger generations are more focused on sustainability.  Increasingly, SMEs are framing their sustainability credentials more clearly, and connecting them with their employer brand so that they can attract the talent they need.  There is also a consumer angle. The challenge posed by behemoth online retailers to small, local bricks-and-mortar businesses is now well-rehearsed.  A small, independent business, like a bookshop, needs to clarify and articulate its values and personal touch as a competitive advantage.  This ‘personality’ needs to be communicated externally if it is to reach the right customers effectively. Sustainability reporting can convey a sense of what the company is all about, its values and purpose – its ‘soul’. A third reason, particularly applicable to SMEs operating in the business-to-business sphere, is that reporting on strong sustainability metrics confers an advantage in entering the supply chains of larger firms.  If, for instance, an MNC is moving towards zero-carbon, it is likely to require smaller companies in its supply chain to be also on that journey.  A fourth reason to report is the internal value to be gained from paying attention to sustainability. Measuring, reporting and constructing a narrative around social and environmental values will improve the culture of the business, and pave the way to greater innovation.  Hotel Doolin in County Clare is an example of a small business that tells its sustainability story effectively. It has shortened its supply chain by buying local produce.  The hotel harvests rainwater, it has eliminated single-use plastics, and uses environmentally low-impact energy and heating. It became Ireland’s first carbon-neutral hotel in 2019, under the Green Hospitality Programme, ahead of many larger competitors.  The business also promotes social sustainability, employing refugees, supporting local community groups and actively seeks to be a good employer. This has enhanced its reputation not only locally but nationwide.  Partnering with not-for-profits Smaller companies that are ambitious in terms of sustainability targets will inevitably want to achieve things that are beyond their capacity.  If, for example, a business decides to work on the water quality in the area in which it operates, it may lack in-house expertise, jeopardising its credibility with the local community. One solution may be a partnership with a not-for-profit organisation (NFP). NFPs often have the expertise to tackle social and environmental issues but lack the resources, whereas companies may have resources (money) but lack the knowledge. A partnership can achieve sustainability goals if the match is right.  The NFP needs to be operating in the area in which the company wants to make progress, and the company needs to align with the NFP’s approach to society and the environment.  Mutual respect and consultation are key. At worst, a partnership can be seen as a ‘fig leaf’ for the SME and can undermine the legitimacy of the NFP. At best, it can be truly impactful for all involved. SMEs’ supply chain responsibilities  MNCs are famously held responsible for the working conditions in which their goods are produced by companies in their supply chains. Scandals, including the sweatshop labour exposed in the 1990s to the Rana Plaza garment factory collapse in Bangladesh in 2013, have forced companies such as Nike, Gap and Nestlé to change their practices.  Bad practices persist today, however, even where goods are produced close to home. In 2020, for example, it was revealed that online vendor BooHoo was selling clothes made in extremely poor working conditions in Leicester in the UK.  For a small, independent retailer, this means that, unless it takes steps to assure itself of the origin of the goods it sells, the risk remains that all or some element/s of those goods may have been produced in sweatshop conditions.  Smaller firms may lack resources to monitor conditions in their suppliers’ factories. Nor are they likely to have the requisite buying power to impose a code of conduct on their suppliers. So, what can they do about the conditions under which the goods they sell are produced? The International Labour Organization has clarified that a firm has responsibility as far up the supply chain as it has ‘reasonable influence’.  Large firms can leverage direct buying power to positively impact supplier. Starbucks works with its coffee producers to bring them up to higher social and environmental sustainability standards, for example.  A small trader is, however, limited to choosing suppliers wisely, and using their influence when feasible, perhaps working with other firms in the sector. The key differences between the supply chain responsibility of MNCs and SMEs, then, relate to power and influence. This principle also applies to other areas of sustainability. More power means more responsibility and the potential to make a positive impact.  SMEs need to address all the key issues of fair pricing, employee welfare, human rights and environmental impact within their own operations and – as far as possible – outside of them, bearing in mind their levels of resources and power.  The key questions here are: “Are we doing all we reasonably can to achieve sustainable practice?” and “Are we seeking to improve?”  Sometimes, acting in concert with other SMEs, can achieve more. The outcome may not be perfection, but honest efforts in the right direction will carry collective weight.  Sustainability and the SME advantage While corporate sustainability is often seen as the domain of MNCs, SMEs – because of their numbers and connection with, and impact on, society – are potentially more important players.  Many SMEs do not report their sustainability policies for several reasons, including informality, time and resource pressures, unfamiliarity with reporting standards and frameworks, or because a strong internal locus of value and ethical behaviour is already vested in their owners and leaders.  However, SMEs generally have high levels of engagement with their local communities and implement sustainability on an intuitive basis, drawing on leaders’ personal values. Reporting these efforts can bring significant advantages externally and internally.  Despite a lack of resources relative to larger companies, the key to building sustainable value for SMEs lies in making the best choices that are within their power at a given time. Sheila Killian is Associate Professor at Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, and author of Doing Good Business: How to Build Sustainable Value

With the Central Bank of Ireland’s consultation on the Individual Accountability Framework drawing to a close later this month, Níall Fitzgerald reviews the scope and effectiveness of similar regimes already in place in other parts of the world Following the 2008 financial crisis, global governance and regulatory reforms in the financial services sector have had a significant impact on how financial institutions, such as banks, insurance companies and investment firms, are run.  The EU has been at the forefront of regulatory change in financial services in Ireland since the creation of the Banking Union, which includes the European Supervisory Mechanism, and significant regulatory developments from rule-setters such as the European Banking Authority.  The Central Bank of Ireland has also put in place governance requirements for all financial institutions and implemented fitness and probity standards. These have included regulations requiring minimum competencies for individuals working in certain roles and, in some cases, regulatory pre-approval before individuals can be appointed to certain management positions, such as – to name just a few – board director, head of compliance, head of internal audit and chief risk officer. The proposed Central Bank of Ireland Individual Accountability Framework (IAF) is an extension of the current suite of regulations and efforts to address cultural failings and ensure better governance, performance and accountability among financial services firms.  The IAF is not the first of its kind, however, and while it has some unique features, it also shares similarities with regimes of this nature operating in other parts of the world.  UK: Senior Managers and Certification Regime The UK introduced the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR) in 2016. Following a three-phase roll-out over three years, the SM&CR now applies to banks, insurance companies and a large portion of the remaining regulated financial services firms in the UK. This regime introduced: Prescribed responsibilities for certain roles; Requirements for firms to follow when allocating those roles to individuals, including: applying a certification process (up to obtaining pre-approval from the Regulator for an appointment to a role); and  the introduction of individual conduct rules. Hong Kong: Manager-in-Charge Regime In Hong Kong, The Securities and Futures Commission introduced the Manager-in-Charge (MIC) Regime for licensed corporations in 2017.  The regime did not bring in any new sanctions and was implemented by way of circular, rather than legislation, but it provided the regulator with additional powers of enforcement and the ability to hold individuals to account. A key objective of the MIC regime is to enable Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission to assess culture within the licensed organisation.  The regulator attributes non-compliance with elements of the regime – e.g. failure to assess whether individuals have discharged their responsibilities appropriately, as evidence of cultural failings. Australia: Banking Executive Accountability Regime  Australia’s Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR) came into effect in 2018, applying to the directors of, and the most senior and influential executives within, banks and authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs). The regime introduced prescribed responsibilities for certain roles, an accountability framework, and a list of accountability obligations, which look a lot like conduct rules.  The regime also introduced a requirement for relevant firms to defer a portion of the variable remuneration of any person found to be non-compliant with the regime until an investigation concludes, whether or not any or all of the remuneration is subject to clawback.  Singapore: Individual Accountability and Conduct Guidelines  The Individual Accountability and Conduct (IAC) Guidelines were introduced in Singapore in 2021. Like the MIC regime in Hong Kong, Singapore’s IAC Guidelines are not supported by underlying legislation and are described as “best practice standards”.  The level of adherence to IAC Guidelines among the financial institutions will impact the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s overall risk assessment of the relevant organisation or individual.  These guidelines focus on embedding a strong culture of responsibility and ethical behaviour by ensuring individual accountability and a supportive governance framework within regulated organisations.  Prevention is better than cure While there are similarities between the accountability regimes outlined above, none is the same.  The instances of enforcement action taken under these regimes are very low and, if prevention is better than cure, this may be a good measure of success.  Just one enforcement action was taken against an individual for non-compliance during the first four years of the UK’s SM&CR, for example. Following a review of Australia’s Banking Executive Accountability Regime, and amid public criticism citing the lack of enforcement action, the Australian government is currently proposing the wider reaching Financial Accountability Regime (FAR).  The FAR contains additional requirements and extends the regime beyond banks to other financial service providers regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.  Elsewhere, the United Arab Emirates does not have a specific accountability regime. However, its laws and regulations, which pre-date 2016, give financial services regulators enforcement powers to hold individuals to account and apply sanctions.  Looking at just one member of the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, the Dubai Financial Services Authority has taken enforcement action against 32 individuals since 2016. The majority of these cases have related to individuals providing investment services.  Perhaps it is still too early to reliably judge the effectiveness of these various models of individual accountability regimes.  Sometimes, there is a benefit in not being first past the post in introducing a regime of this nature and being able to stand back and learn from global experiences.  With our Individual Accountability Framework, Ireland is building on a solid foundation of banking regulations and governance requirements. The IAF is only one of many regulatory changes impacting financial services providers. Other requirements on the way include the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and the inevitable evolution of governance codes, and other regulations, addressing sustainability and other emerging risks.  World-class standards are laudable, but their true outcome is only evident when we have a high level of public trust and a financial services sector that is efficient and competitive, driving a better future for society and a prosperous economy. Níall Fitzgerald, FCA, is Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland Impact of individual accountability on organisational culture Chartered Accountants Ireland welcomes the timely publication by the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) of the Individual Accountability Framework (IAF) draft regulations and guidance, and the certainty of action required for Irish financial services firms, writes Níall Fitzgerald.  The framework contains measures, including conduct standards and prescribed responsibilities, designed to enhance customer-focused cultures and embed responsibility and ethical behaviour across financial services in Ireland.  While it promotes the necessity for cultural change, the CBI agrees that more is required to achieve this. Insights from the introduction of similar measures in other jurisdictions show that an individual accountability regime better impacts on organisational culture when supported by: Promoting individual accountability but emphasising collective decision-making Being accountable as individuals for actions and behaviour is not new. Professionals are accountable to codes of ethics. There are also many laws and regulations that hold individuals accountable for their roles in an organisation, such as fiduciary duties of directors. However, many organisations thrive on collaboration, teamwork and diversity, which improve collective decision-making. Individual accountability is not designed to override this, and emphasising other positive behaviours, such as these, supports the objectives of the IAF. Promoting a ‘just culture’ and avoiding a ‘blame culture’ A blame culture focuses on identifying culprit/s, penalising them, and moving forward on the assumption that the same issue/s won’t happen again, because an example has been set.  A just culture acknowledges that mistakes and underperformance can occur, but that both are better addressed by reflecting on what went wrong and focusing on what can be learned to improve future outcomes.  Individual accountability exists in both scenarios, but the latter will have a more positive impact amongst the workforce, helping to achieve the objectives of the IAF. Promoting trust and integrity Certain informal reactions to a regime such as the Individual Accountability Framework can undermine its objectives. In some jurisdictions individuals with prescribed responsibilities prepare personal compliance files, for example, privately maintained outside of the firm’s documentation system.  A ‘cover your actions’ (CYA) approach has developed in these jurisdictions, whereby there is a tendency to give advice formally (e.g. in writing), which would differ if given informally (e.g. verbally).  Notwithstanding the risk of breaching privacy and confidentiality rules, these informal practices are indicative of low levels of trust and integrity within a firm.  Embedding a culture of psychological safety can deter this risk and foster greater trust within the organisation.