Introduction The agri-food industry operates in a rapidly changing and dynamic business environment, where farmers and food producers, from multinational to artisan, are continually required to innovate and adapt. Events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have increased complexity, disrupting food-supply chains and threatening food security. These circumstances have an impact on food production processes and consequently require a focus on sustainability. Sustainability is a key challenge facing all business sectors, not least the agriculture and food production industries. At a national and international level there is a huge focus on developing a sustainable food supply for a growing worldwide population. The United Nations (UN) forecasts a 34% increase in world population by 2050 and that an increase of 70% in food production will be required. Despite this, the UN reports that 30% of all food produced globally is lost or wasted. Greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions globally have increased by more than 60% between 1990 and 2022. The impact on climate change has been well documented, including increases in the frequency of flooding, droughts and wildfires. Such climate-change effects have serious consequences on food production and necessitate collaboration between all sectors of society to address the challenges presented. In Ireland, the economic importance of agriculture is clear. According to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the agri-food sector accounted for 9% (€18.78 billion) of total exports in 2022 and 6.5% of total employment or 164,900 jobs, mostly in rural areas. Farms and farmers also provide valuable sources of environmental assets (e.g. hedgerows, wetlands and woodlands) and contribute to preserving natural habitats and biodiversity. However, from an environmental sustainability perspective there is much debate about the high level of GHG emissions generated by the Irish agricultural industry and how this issue needs to be addressed. In this article, I do not debate the extent to which the agricultural industry contributes to Ireland’s GHG emissions problem, but rather focus on acknowledging that farmers and food producers need to be included in determining a solution.  I also believe that the accounting profession has a key role to play in assisting farm enterprises, and small and micro agri-food businesses, to create more sustainable enterprises and to contribute to a sustainable food supply.  Environmental sustainability in agriculture Environmental sustainability is at the forefront of national and international policy development in agriculture and food production. This is primarily driven by the UN Sustainable Development Goals, as several of them relate to agriculture and food production.  At EU level, the European Green Deal, through its “Farm to Fork Strategy”, has set out plans on how to improve sustainability and the environmental impact of the agri-food industry. These are being incorporated into reform of the common agricultural (CAP).  At a national level, the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 introduced a framework of sectoral GHG emissions (‘carbon’) budgets, to be subsequently developed and proposed by the Climate Change Advisory Council (CCAC). In July 2022 (after much debate) the sectoral emissions ceiling for agriculture was set at a level requiring an ambitious 25% reduction by 2030. Stakeholders acknowledge the fundamental challenge that environmental sustainability presents for the industry. They also acknowledge the key role that the industry must play in addressing the national environmental sustainability challenge. A financial perspective on sustainability in agriculture Sustainability in agriculture is multidimensional and is broadly comprised of three main pillars:  environmental sustainability,  social sustainability, and economic sustainability. Environmental sustainability refers to how agriculture and food production processes impact our environment, and is the most widely discussed pillar of sustainability, the contribution of the industry to GHG emissions attracting significant debate.  Social sustainability in agriculture relates to farming communities, and the many challenges they face, and how the industry’s sustainability affects wider society.  Economic sustainability is generally viewed as economic viability, i.e. whether a farming system can survive financially in the long term in a changing economic context. It is perhaps to the economic sustainability of agriculture that the role and contribution of accountants is most relevant.  The National Farm Survey (NFS) is conducted annually by Teagasc, the Agriculture and Food Development Authority. Highlighting the economic vulnerability of many farm enterprises in Ireland, the 2022 report classes 43% of Irish farms as economically ‘viable’, 32% as ‘sustainable’, and 25% as ‘vulnerable’. At the root of this economic vulnerability is rising inflation and increases in the cost of farm inputs (e.g. fuel, fertiliser and feed), reducing the profit margins of food producers.  The challenge for farm and food production enterprises is to balance economic with environmental and social sustainability. A phrase used in the industry is “it’s hard to be green when in the red”. The NFS statistics reveal a situation of economic vulnerability for many farm enterprises. Therefore, financial viability may understandably be their top priority, with environmental and social sustainability of secondary importance.  However, despite the uncertainty of economic conditions in the short term, the long-term focus on environmentally sustainable food production and its positive social impact should not be forgotten. When a holistic perspective is brought to the concept of sustainability, we realise that the pillars of economic, environmental and social sustainability are intertwined and cannot be simply viewed in isolation.  While there are many scientific solutions (e.g. soil and grassland management, fertiliser use, changes to feed additives, alternative energy sources, shorter animal-to-slaughter periods, etc.) proposed to farmers on how to reduce GHG emissions, there appears to be little known about, or consideration of, the financial impact of such changes to farm practices.  The onus of identifying the changes required to farm practices to reduce GHG emissions on farms is placed on individual farmers, and farm advisory services are available to assist in this regard. However, many of the scientific solutions to reduce on-farm emissions require investment and involve a cost to farmers when making the transition. There appears to be little focus from the advisory services on assisting farmers to assess the economic cost or benefit for them when implementing such changes to farm practices.  Though many farmers want to adapt their work practices to contribute to a reduction in GHG emissions, many experience a knowledge gap regarding the financial impact on their livelihoods. This is an area where improvement in advisory services is required. Bringing a focused financial perspective to sustainability, accountants can contribute to bridging this knowledge gap. I contend that the accounting profession must collaborate with stakeholders in the agriculture industry and lead the way in helping to create sustainable farm and food production enterprises.  A financial management perspective acknowledges that economic sustainability cannot be sacrificed, and is crucial for the survival of farming and food production. Rather, work practices need to change to meet the ‘triple-bottom-line’ agenda of economic, environmental, social sustainability. Farmers and food producers need to be supported and advised to achieve this more complex and yet balanced objective. The role of the accountancy profession It is paramount that farmers and food producers are educated about what sustainability means and the financial implications for their business. Accountants are one of the primary sources of trusted advice for small business owners, including farmers. Therefore, the accounting profession has the potential, and an existing platform, to lead on how farmers and food producers can improve their sustainability, in the broadest sense.  Accountants are unique in having a wide range of knowledge about sustainable work practices from dealing with a varied client base across multiple industries. They can share this with farmers and small agri-business owners.  Accountants could assist farmers and food producers by: identifying the business opportunities for farmers presented by the sustainability transition; conducting cost–benefit analyses of implementing environmental sustainability initiatives (e.g. alternative energy sources); calculating the payback or return on investments that reduce the GHG emissions of enterprises;  helping business owners to avail of financial supports available to meet the cost of sustainability initiatives; advising farmers on how to develop sustainable work practices in a cost-efficient manner; sharing knowledge gained from SMEs and larger companies (e.g. on how to conduct sustainability audits).  Resources are available to support accountants to work with clients in this regard. For example, Chartered Accountants Ireland provide online resources in its Sustainability Centre, where free-to-access publications such as Sustainability for Small Businesses – A Guide provide practical insights. Conclusion There are many ways the accountancy profession can contribute to assisting farmers and food producers meet sustainability targets. These insights are not only important for food and agricultural businesses but are equally relevant and transferrable to how the accounting profession could rise to the challenge of assisting businesses in other sectors of the economy meet the increasing demand to strive for improved sustainability.  Dr Michael Hayden, FCA, is an Assistant Professor of Accounting at Maynooth University  

Accountants will be the profession best placed to bring the necessary rigour to the analysis and governance of critical data in the age of AI, writes Sharon Cotter Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan has suggested: “We become what we behold. We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us”. This is important to remember today, when the spotlight is on the potential consequences, intended and unintended, of the artificial intelligence (AI) tools being shaped by humans. The rise of AI AI encompasses a vast range of computer science research. Since the 1950s, scientists have pursued the goal of building machines capable of completing tasks that normally require intelligent human behaviour.  Machine learning (ML), a subset of AI, enables machines to extract knowledge from data and to learn from it autonomously.  In the past decade, the exponential increase in the volume of data generated, captured, stored and available for analysis, coupled with advances in computing power, have created the impetus and means to rapidly advance ML, which in turn has facilitated the development of narrow AI applications.  In essence, narrow AI applications are computer programs, or algorithms, specifically trained, using very large datasets, to carry out one task, or a limited number of tasks. Best suited to tasks that do not require complex thought, narrow AI algorithms can often accomplish such tasks better and more swiftly than humans.  Most of the AI capability we use today is narrow AI – from Alexa and Siri, which carry out human voice commands, to ChatGPT and Bard, which generate output based on conversational text prompts, and Dall-E2, which generates visual images based on text prompts, to name but a few.  In the field of accounting, we can utilise coding languages and software tools such as Python, ‘R’ and Alteryx to generate predictive forecasts and models.  We often use these tools without realising that we are using elements of narrow AI. For example, these programming languages and software tools embed many of the statistical algorithms that allow us to easily carry out linear regression analysis, a common method of predicting future outcomes based on past data. Adapting to broaden our role The word ‘computer’ was first coined by the English poet Richard Brathwaite in 1613 to describe a person who carried out calculations or computations. For the next 350 years or so, most humans who needed to perform calculations used mental arithmetic, an abacus or slide rules until the widespread availability of electronic handheld calculators in the 1970s. As accountants, we have seamlessly adapted to the tools available to us – whether these are an abacus, double-analysis paper, a totting machine, or computer software tools like Excel and Alteryx.   The use of these tools, and the time saved by their use, have allowed us to broaden our role from recording, summarising and presenting the underlying economic transactions to providing a much wider range of useful information to decision-makers both within, and outside, organisations.  This is reflected in commentary from the professional accountancy bodies emphasising the importance of good organisational decision-making and suggesting that the core purpose of our profession should be to facilitate better decisions and identify the business problems that better decisions will resolve. Asking the right questions In 1968, Pablo Picasso is reputed to have said: “Computers are useless. They can only give you answers”. While the remark may have been dismissive of the then cumbersome mainframe computer, it does encapsulate the notion that the real skill lies in figuring out the right question to ask, as this requires both judgement and creativity.  Useful, timely and relevant information for decision-making can only be produced if the right question is asked of the right data at the right time. On the face of it, this seems simple and straightforward, but in practice it is often much more difficult to achieve.  Deciding what question to ask requires knowledge of the business context, and an understanding of the issue being addressed as well as an ability to clearly articulate the issue. Critical thinking is key to identifying what answers are needed to identify the range of solutions for the issue at hand. Deciding what data is appropriate to use in the analysis requires an understanding of what data is available, where it is stored, how it is stored, what each data element selected represents, how compatible it is with other data, and how current that data is. It also requires knowledge of the limitations posed by using particular sets of data. Being able to generate the answer to the right question using the right data is only relevant if it can be produced at the point at which this information is needed. Sometimes, not all the data needed to answer the question is readily available, or available in the required format. Data from several sources may need to be combined and, where data is incomplete, judgement will be needed on the assumptions necessary to generate a relevant and timely set of data. Accountants are well-positioned The skills, experience and mindsets we develop as part of our professional training positions accountants well to provide the best possible decision-enabling information to decision-makers.  Scepticism is a key tenet of our profession. We look to spot anomalies in data and information, and to question the information by asking “does it make sense?” We are trained to be methodical, thorough and to look beyond the obvious. Training and experience enable us to develop our professional judgement, which we apply when determining what is relevant, appropriate and faithfully represents the underlying economic transactions.  We are adaptable and flexible in the tools we use, and aware of the need to stay up to date with the law and regulation applying to the storage and use of data. In short, we are valued problem-solvers and critical thinkers. Accountants’ ‘jurisdiction’ In his book The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor, Andrew Abbott uses the term ‘jurisdiction’ to represent the link between a profession and its work.  Jurisdiction is an important concept, as the acknowledged owner of a task is likely to be able to shape the characteristics of that task. In the context of accountants’ work, the term ‘jurisdiction’ means the extent to which organisations, and society, accept that due to their professional expertise, only specific roles and responsibilities should be carried out by accountants.  Within organisations, accountants’ jurisdiction is not static. The roles and responsibilities that fall within their remit can, and do, change.  The jurisdiction of accountants can be encroached upon. Others within the organisation may also have expertise allowing them to claim work once exclusively identified with accountants. Challenges to jurisdiction The emergence of new roles, such as data or information specialists, who collect, clean and analyse data, has meant that complex analysis of financial information can now be done by non-accountants.  Some organisations have explored ways in which operational managers and decision-makers can be given direct access to financial systems.  Known as ‘self-service’ menus, such direct access to information allows decision-makers to drill down into the detail of transactions – for example, to identify the underlying causes of deviations from budget, all without the need to consult with their colleagues in the finance department.  If an organisation transfers responsibility for data analysis and decision support to data specialists and/or decision-makers, then the jurisdiction of the accountant may be narrowed or reduced. Opportunities for role expansion Equally, however, accountants’ roles and responsibilities can be increased, resulting in their jurisdiction being broadened or expanded.  The expansion of an accountant’s role requirements can either result from increased job tasks and responsibilities, or from changes in the tools and technologies available to carry out these tasks and responsibilities.  Recent research and professional body commentary has, for example, explored the extent to which management accountants have embraced changes in their role or taken on wider responsibilities, such as business partnering.  Multiple elements such as role identity, the ability to embrace change in a positive way and developing strong communication skills, to name but a few, all contribute to the successful adoption of additional responsibility. Futureproofing with digital fluency The rapid and on-going development, enhancement and availability of software tools that can be used to capture, store, identify, slice and dice data, and present information in visual graphics, are forcing accounting professionals to consider the level of IT competency required to operate efficiently and effectively in today’s digital world.   Professional accountancy bodies emphasise the importance of digital skills in futureproofing the accountant’s role while many of the larger multinational companies espouse the need for finance staff to have good digital fluency. Challenges and opportunities Both encroachments and expansions to the jurisdiction of accountants bring their own set of challenges and opportunities.  Maintaining, and expanding, accountants’ jurisdiction over the integrity of data, and the provision of information for decision-making, should be a key part of the profession’s strategy in the digital age.  I believe that the ‘governance’ of data, rather than the use of specific AI tools, should be the focus of the accountancy profession when formulating strategies for its future direction. In addition to enhancing our digital skills, we need to consider strategies such as adapting and changing the role of the chief financial officer to include overall direct responsibility for data analytics.  The governance, management and analysis of data should be as important as traditional responsibilities in finance.  Governance of data requires rigour and objectivity to ensure that its integrity is preserved. We should noticeably stake our claim as the profession best placed to bring that rigour and objectivity to the governance and analysis of data used for decision-making.  Failure to consider such strategies may mean we increase the risk that encroachments rather than expansions to our role – our jurisdiction – will become a reality. We should strive to ensure that our future role is shaped by us rather than by these new digital tools and techniques. Sharon Cotter, FCA, lectures in accounting and finance at the University of Galway

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.