Ethics news & articles

Barry McCall speaks to Níall Fitzgerald, Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland, about the findings of recent trust and ethics surveys commissioned by Chartered Accountants Worldwide and the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. New research carried out by Chartered Accountants Worldwide and Edelman Data and Intelligence (DXI) has found that trust in the accountancy profession remains strong after the turmoil of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study found that business decision-makers around the world consider Chartered Accountants among the most trusted professionals, catching up to doctors, engineers, nurses and teachers, and ahead of other prominent groups in society such as legal professionals and politicians. Furthermore, Chartered Accountants are the most trusted finance professionals ahead of bankers, financial advisors, economists, and insurance brokers. Edelman DXI began working with Chartered Accountants Worldwide in 2018 to track the attitudes of senior decision-makers (e.g. CEOs, directors, heads of function, etc.), but this marks the first time the results have been made publicly available. The 2021 study surveyed 1,450 business leaders across the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. “There is a lot to be proud of in these findings for the Chartered Accountancy profession in Ireland,” says Níall Fitzgerald, Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland. “The results point to an opportunity for Chartered Accountants to use their position of trust to tackle the challenges of the recovery after COVID-19 and build towards a sustainable future.” Among the key results of the research was the finding that performance on integrity has improved since 2019. However, scrutiny has also increased, with transparency more important in driving trust in Chartered Accountants. Chartered Accountants are also rated highly as business professionals. Most business decision-makers (84%) believe that Chartered Accountants have the skills and expertise to make businesses thrive today. Meanwhile, 81% are confident in Chartered Accountants’ ability to navigate a new operating environment in the future. At the same time, there is a growing expectation that they must also follow up with action. Overall, 85% of business decision-makers say it is important that Chartered Accountants demonstrate a track record of helping businesses thrive. Most respondents (70%) see Chartered Accountants as credible spokespeople on societal issues such as sustainability, diversity, equity and inclusion. But they also expect Chartered Accountants to follow through by driving sustainable environmental practices within businesses and doing more to foster diversity, equity and inclusion practices. Speaking at the global launch of the study in November, Chartered Accountants Worldwide chairman Michael Izza said: “Chartered Accountants are the first port of call for many businesses and saved many livelihoods during the pandemic. Over the next ten years, Chartered Accountants will play a leading role in tackling critical problems, including climate change, which is one of the biggest challenges humanity has faced. As problem solvers, Chartered Accountants can be counted on to find solutions to the world’s most complex economic and moral issues, including global warming and net-zero.” But the profession still has some work to do if it is to play that leading role on those critically important issues, according to Fitzgerald. “We can, of course, be proud of the results, but we have to be realistic as well,” he says. “When you drill down into the detail of the findings, you find that the most strongly positive results were about the ‘bread and butter’ activities, the things accountants are meant to be good at anyway.” He adds that being great at everyday things will not be enough in the new post-COVID decarbonising world. “Chartered Accountants are rated very highly for activities like accounts preparation, tax returns, data analysis, and general business advice, which we are trained for. Those are all things we are supposed to do, and while it is good to be held in high regard for them, we must ask ourselves why our core skills are not seen to be transversal into other important areas for business.” Those areas include adopting transformative new technologies like artificial intelligence and all aspects of the environmental, social and governance (ESG) agenda. “We need to up our game when it comes to those areas,” Fitzgerald continues. “At the moment, Chartered Accountants are not seen as the go-to people for ESG issues, diversity and inclusion, or becoming purpose-led as an organisation. While 60% of respondents said accountants had some part to play, no one said we were integral to the process. We might think we are, but others don’t. We need to work on that.” He doesn’t believe that should be viewed entirely negatively, however. “There are some very real opportunities opening up with the advent of new sustainability reporting standards and other regulations,” he notes. “These things are all about data and measurement, and those are things accountants are very good at. They are also very good at technical standards and translating them into processes and so on.” Fitzgerald also believes that the profession needs to reposition itself to capitalise on those opportunities. “Finance professionals in future will have to be seen as solutions providers in a wide range of areas. Large organisations seeking advice on their sustainability journeys can get it externally, but SMEs don’t have the money for that. So they have to look internally, and who better than their head of finance or external accountant to guide them on where they need to go? Sustainability has a direct bearing on finance, after all. For example, in the future, companies will find it very difficult to get bank loans or access investment capital if they are not on a verifiable sustainability journey. Accountants have the skills to do that. We are very good at taking standards, putting them into practice, and giving investors and lenders the assurances they need in many areas. In future, that will apply to sustainability as well.” Fitzgerald also points to another recent report from the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB), which surveyed accounting professionals in Ireland and the UK. It found that 27% had been put under pressure, or felt under pressure, to act in an unethical way in the last three years. The most common instances related to over-optimism concerning budgets and business cases, unreasonably downplaying risks in budgets, and categorising personal expenses as business expenses. In most cases (78%), the accountants concerned spoke up to prevent pressure to break the ethical code. Just 10% of those under pressure carried out the unethical task, while 25% did so but only partially. Interestingly, those figures correlate strongly with the 35% who said they didn’t turn to anyone for support or guidance. Fitzgerald advises any Chartered Accountant who feels under pressure to act unethically to reach out for help. “Chartered Accountants in Ireland have a fantastic network of 30,000 fellow members to call upon for assistance in cases like this,” he says. “Many will have encountered similar situations themselves and will be able to offer very practical advice. We also have resources on the Institute’s website, which provide guidance on reaching an ethical decision. “Generally speaking, the advice is to look after the small things before they grow. For example, don’t overlook things like overstating mileage. A disciplined approach to such things will help create a culture where the pressure to act unethically doesn’t arise.” Níall Fitzgerald is Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

In November 2020, the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA) issued a revised ethical standard for auditors,  Ethical Standard for Auditors (Ireland) 2020  (https://www.iaasa.ie/Publications/Auditing-standards). The revisions build on existing changes made to the standards in 2017 which implemented the requirements of the EU Audit Regulation and Directive.    The revised Ethical Standard includes a new requirement for audit firms to make reports of breaches of the Ethical Standard to the relevant competent authority and now explicitly prescribes reporting of breaches to those charged with governance. The purpose of the Technical Release (TR 02/2021) Reporting Breaches of Ethical Standard for Auditors (Ireland) 2020 is to alert members to these new requirements and to provide an example of the report that may be submitted to the Recognised Accountancy Body and IAASA. Please note the revised standard is effective from 15 July 2021.

In November 2020, the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA) issued a revised ethical standard for auditors (https://www.iaasa.ie/Publications/Auditing-standards ).  The revisions build on existing changes made to the standards in 2017 which implemented the requirements of the EU Audit Regulation and Directive.  The Institute have issued the attached Technical Alert (TA 02/2021) Guidance on the revised Ethical Standard for Auditors (Ireland) 2020 to highlight to members the key new requirements of the Ethical Standard applicable in Ireland and to add some clarification. In particular we draw attention to the effective date of the revised standard. The Ethical Standard for Auditors (Ireland) 2020 is effective from 15 July 2021. There are limited transition provisions.  These are set out on page 30 of the Ethical Standard and in Section 5 of the Technical Alert. Firms may complete engagements relating to periods commencing before 15 July 2021, in accordance with existing ethical standards, putting in place any necessary changes in the subsequent engagement period. Engagements to provide previously non-prohibited non-audit services entered into before 15 July 2021, and for which the firm has already commenced work may continue until completed in accordance with the original engagement terms, subject to the application of appropriate safeguards.   

In November 2020, the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA) issued revised ethical and auditing standards in a bid to support the delivery of high-quality audit and strengthen confidence in audit in Ireland. These new amendments, which were the subject of a formal consultation earlier in 2020, are effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 15 July 2021, with early adoption permitted This article,  from the recent Accountancy Ireland, summarises the main changes in the Ethical Standard (Ireland) for Auditors, the International Standards on Auditing (Ireland), and International Standard on Quality Control (Ireland) 1. The standards are available on IAASA's website.    

Níall Fitzgerald, Head of Ethics and Governance, writes:  Over 59% of member firms with audit registration on the island of Ireland carry out audits of non-profit organisations, including charities. It is reasonable to expect that an even greater number provide non-audit services to this sector. Many members in practice, and their staff, are also involved in the sector as trustees, volunteers, or donors.  This level of involvement is not surprising given the size of the sector.   According to the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), as of February 2020 there were approximately 6,122 non-profits with total income of £792m in Northern Ireland. In the Republic of Ireland, according to data available at the end of 2019 collated by Benefacts, there were approximately 32,841 non-profits. The total income determinable for 32% of these was €14.2bn (the remaining 68% being mostly smaller local non-profits for which relevant information was not publicly available). Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on the sector The financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on non-profits is not yet clear. Many non-profits entered 2020 with low reserves and some have been forced by the pandemic to pause operations, while others have experienced a surge in demand for their services. Accountants are playing an important role in supporting the recovery of this sector, such as assisting with obtaining grants and government supports. In a report published by Benefacts in May 2021, ‘Charities in Ireland 2021’, an uplift of over 10% in government funding was provided to charities in the Republic of Ireland. Some charities also benefited from increases in philanthropic donations. Five key considerations for accountants providing services to the non-profit sector Given the level of commitment of members in practice to the non-profit sector, the following considerations are a useful aide memoir for some of the common matters that can arise: 1. Determine if client is a charity or other non-profit All charities are non-profits but not all non-profits are charities. For example: an owners’ (or residents’) management company may establish as trading for the mutual benefit of its members, but it is not a charity, nor is it a non-profit established for a public benefit; and while a sporting organisation may be established as a non-profit, it may also be registered as a charity. If in doubt, confirm by reference to the registers of charities maintained by the Charities Regulator in the Republic of Ireland or the Charity Commission of Northern Ireland if the non-profit is a registered charity. When accepting a non-profit client, it is important to understand these nuances to determine the type of services you may be requested to undertake and also to understand its various governance structures that may impact on anti-money laundering vetting and other client acceptance procedures. 2. Avoid a principal-agent dilemma Many non-profit organisations are juggling various governance, secretarial, accounting, audit, and finance requirements, in the midst of delivering services. While some of the larger non-profits will have full time staff to manage these requirements, smaller organisations will have fewer resources (sometimes consisting of part time or volunteer staff). The board of trustees/directors bears the ultimate responsibility for the management and control of the organisation, but there is a level of reliance placed on the services of the accountant to fill any gaps in expertise. A principal-agent dilemma can arise in instances where the principal (the non-profit) can have different expectations to those understood by the agent (the accounting firm). This dilemma is more common in casual and informal business relationships, potentially exposing the fiduciary (the accountant) to greater risk. Where the accountant accepts appointment as auditor, they are a principal in their own right. Auditors need in the first instance to maintain their independence, and all additional services should be viewed in this context. Part of the solution is to ensure that a tailored engagement letter is put in place at the start of each business relationship, clearly stating services to be provided and each party’s responsibilities. The letter should be reviewed annually and updated when required. 3. Advising on governance requirements for charities Charities in the Republic of Ireland are required to apply the Charities Governance Code (the ‘Code’). In 2021, charities are required to report for the first time on compliance with the Code. The following key points address some common queries from charities: Charities are required to note in their annual return to the Charities Regulator whether they are compliant with the Code. If compliant with the Code, the charity should disclose this fact in its annual report, for example in the Trustees Report. The Code applies on a ‘comply or explain’ basis: if a Charity has not complied with any part of the Code, it is required to provide an explanation. Charities must annually complete a Charities Governance Code Compliance Record Form, available from the Charities Regulator website. The form is not required to be submitted to the Charities Regulator unless specifically requested as part of a monitoring exercise. The Charity Commission for Northern Ireland has produced guidance, factsheets, and other resources to support charities in maintaining good governance and meeting their statutory responsibilities. The Code of Good Governance, produced by the Developing Governance Group, while not a statutory code, has been widely endorsed as a practical resource for supporting charities in complying with governance best practice and their statutory obligations. Further information on governance requirements is available from the Charities Regulator (Republic of Ireland) and The Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. 4. Managing conflicts of interest If an accountant is asked to intervene in a dispute arising amongst trustees, staff, or volunteers of a non-profit, or between the non-profit and a third party (other than the accountant), it is important to determine whether there are any conflicts of interest to be managed. Given the often local nature of non-profits, and the level of community commitment and passionate support they receive, accountants should be particularly aware of disputes involving: other clients of the practice; any other partner or staff member in the practice; a close family member or friend of any of the above. In some cases, an accountant may be providing services to a non-profit that they support for personal reasons, e.g. a family member benefits from the service of the non-profit. In such cases, the accountant is encouraged to consider whether they can provide objective advice to resolve the dispute, or whether any preconception or bias may affect professional judgment to the extent they can no longer be objective. Section 310 of the Chartered Accountants Ireland Code of Ethics identifies certain measures that can be taken to safeguard threats caused by a conflict of interest. Some examples of measures include disclosing the conflict, obtaining consent, or resigning from the provision of services. Additionally, auditors have specific responsibilities under Ethical Standards applying to auditors. 5. Promoting transparency and filing full sets of financial statements Many non-profits rely on public funding and/or private donations. Many also rely on broad support networks, including volunteers and other voluntary services. In an era where scepticism is plenty and trust is guarded, accessibility of information and transparency can make a big difference in efforts to attract significant funds and other forms of support. To address this, non-profits who are incorporated should consider publishing and filing full statutory financial statements (e.g. FRS 102 or FRS 102 Charities SORP). Indeed, they may be obliged to do so. Unincorporated non-profits should consider a similar level of transparency regarding their annual accounts. The preparation of financial statements is ultimately the responsibility of the trustees/directors of the non-profit. They have statutory and fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the organisation and to have regard to its stakeholders. However, they may seek the advice of the accountant who, as a fiduciary advisor, has a responsibility to advise and act in the client’s best interests. Current corporate governance codes and best practice reinforce the importance of accountability and transparency in the non-profit sector and encourage standards that are higher than minimum compliance with the law. It is important to ensure that these requirements are considered in making decisions or providing advice affecting the preparation of financial statements. The Chartered Accountants Ireland Governance Resource Centre contains useful resources for trustees or directors of non-profits, such as the ‘Concise Guide of Ethics and Governance for the Charity and Not-for-profit Sector’ and the recently published ‘Owners’ Management Companies – A Concise Guide for Directors’.  

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published policy measures to avoid corruption and bribery in the COVID-19 response and recovery in May 2020. The focus of this brief is to help policy makers, donor agencies, law enforcement officials and the private sector ensure that the global response to the crisis is not undermined by corruption and bribery. The document highlights five important measures including: Respecting the rule of law: For example, Compliance with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and the related 2009 Recommendations ( Internal controls, ethics and compliance and foreign public officials), the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity, and other key instruments such as the 2016 Recommendation of the Council for Development Co-operation Actors on Managing the Risk of Corruption.   Address immediate risks in emergency procurement: Whilst remaining cautious of urgent needs, corruption risks should continue to be identified, assessed, and actively mitigated on an ongoing basis, including by raising awareness of mitigation strategies. Ireland’s Office of Government Procurement is called out as an example of good practice for developing an information note on good practices for contracting authorities during the COVID-19 outbreak.   Accountability and control of the economic recovery measures: Anti-corruption risk assessments should be integrated throughout programme design and delivery phases. Actual instances of corruption and bribery should be addressed comprehensively, using a whole-of-government or organisation approach where possible.   Business ethics, internal controls, and compliance: Ensure a risk-based approach to good governance, business integrity and internal controls. The use of business intermediaries should be carefully considered.   Enforcement of corruption and bribery cases: In particular, whistleblowers are critical and must be protected.The use of existing reporting mechanisms should be encouraged, and reports of misconduct taken seriously and investigated   Further guidance on each measure is available in the brief.

Barry McCall speaks to Níall Fitzgerald, Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland, about the findings of recent trust and ethics surveys commissioned by Chartered Accountants Worldwide and the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. New research carried out by Chartered Accountants Worldwide and Edelman Data and Intelligence (DXI) has found that trust in the accountancy profession remains strong after the turmoil of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study found that business decision-makers around the world consider Chartered Accountants among the most trusted professionals, catching up to doctors, engineers, nurses and teachers, and ahead of other prominent groups in society such as legal professionals and politicians. Furthermore, Chartered Accountants are the most trusted finance professionals ahead of bankers, financial advisors, economists, and insurance brokers. Edelman DXI began working with Chartered Accountants Worldwide in 2018 to track the attitudes of senior decision-makers (e.g. CEOs, directors, heads of function, etc.), but this marks the first time the results have been made publicly available. The 2021 study surveyed 1,450 business leaders across the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. “There is a lot to be proud of in these findings for the Chartered Accountancy profession in Ireland,” says Níall Fitzgerald, Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland. “The results point to an opportunity for Chartered Accountants to use their position of trust to tackle the challenges of the recovery after COVID-19 and build towards a sustainable future.” Among the key results of the research was the finding that performance on integrity has improved since 2019. However, scrutiny has also increased, with transparency more important in driving trust in Chartered Accountants. Chartered Accountants are also rated highly as business professionals. Most business decision-makers (84%) believe that Chartered Accountants have the skills and expertise to make businesses thrive today. Meanwhile, 81% are confident in Chartered Accountants’ ability to navigate a new operating environment in the future. At the same time, there is a growing expectation that they must also follow up with action. Overall, 85% of business decision-makers say it is important that Chartered Accountants demonstrate a track record of helping businesses thrive. Most respondents (70%) see Chartered Accountants as credible spokespeople on societal issues such as sustainability, diversity, equity and inclusion. But they also expect Chartered Accountants to follow through by driving sustainable environmental practices within businesses and doing more to foster diversity, equity and inclusion practices. Speaking at the global launch of the study in November, Chartered Accountants Worldwide chairman Michael Izza said: “Chartered Accountants are the first port of call for many businesses and saved many livelihoods during the pandemic. Over the next ten years, Chartered Accountants will play a leading role in tackling critical problems, including climate change, which is one of the biggest challenges humanity has faced. As problem solvers, Chartered Accountants can be counted on to find solutions to the world’s most complex economic and moral issues, including global warming and net-zero.” But the profession still has some work to do if it is to play that leading role on those critically important issues, according to Fitzgerald. “We can, of course, be proud of the results, but we have to be realistic as well,” he says. “When you drill down into the detail of the findings, you find that the most strongly positive results were about the ‘bread and butter’ activities, the things accountants are meant to be good at anyway.” He adds that being great at everyday things will not be enough in the new post-COVID decarbonising world. “Chartered Accountants are rated very highly for activities like accounts preparation, tax returns, data analysis, and general business advice, which we are trained for. Those are all things we are supposed to do, and while it is good to be held in high regard for them, we must ask ourselves why our core skills are not seen to be transversal into other important areas for business.” Those areas include adopting transformative new technologies like artificial intelligence and all aspects of the environmental, social and governance (ESG) agenda. “We need to up our game when it comes to those areas,” Fitzgerald continues. “At the moment, Chartered Accountants are not seen as the go-to people for ESG issues, diversity and inclusion, or becoming purpose-led as an organisation. While 60% of respondents said accountants had some part to play, no one said we were integral to the process. We might think we are, but others don’t. We need to work on that.” He doesn’t believe that should be viewed entirely negatively, however. “There are some very real opportunities opening up with the advent of new sustainability reporting standards and other regulations,” he notes. “These things are all about data and measurement, and those are things accountants are very good at. They are also very good at technical standards and translating them into processes and so on.” Fitzgerald also believes that the profession needs to reposition itself to capitalise on those opportunities. “Finance professionals in future will have to be seen as solutions providers in a wide range of areas. Large organisations seeking advice on their sustainability journeys can get it externally, but SMEs don’t have the money for that. So they have to look internally, and who better than their head of finance or external accountant to guide them on where they need to go? Sustainability has a direct bearing on finance, after all. For example, in the future, companies will find it very difficult to get bank loans or access investment capital if they are not on a verifiable sustainability journey. Accountants have the skills to do that. We are very good at taking standards, putting them into practice, and giving investors and lenders the assurances they need in many areas. In future, that will apply to sustainability as well.” Fitzgerald also points to another recent report from the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB), which surveyed accounting professionals in Ireland and the UK. It found that 27% had been put under pressure, or felt under pressure, to act in an unethical way in the last three years. The most common instances related to over-optimism concerning budgets and business cases, unreasonably downplaying risks in budgets, and categorising personal expenses as business expenses. In most cases (78%), the accountants concerned spoke up to prevent pressure to break the ethical code. Just 10% of those under pressure carried out the unethical task, while 25% did so but only partially. Interestingly, those figures correlate strongly with the 35% who said they didn’t turn to anyone for support or guidance. Fitzgerald advises any Chartered Accountant who feels under pressure to act unethically to reach out for help. “Chartered Accountants in Ireland have a fantastic network of 30,000 fellow members to call upon for assistance in cases like this,” he says. “Many will have encountered similar situations themselves and will be able to offer very practical advice. We also have resources on the Institute’s website, which provide guidance on reaching an ethical decision. “Generally speaking, the advice is to look after the small things before they grow. For example, don’t overlook things like overstating mileage. A disciplined approach to such things will help create a culture where the pressure to act unethically doesn’t arise.” Níall Fitzgerald is Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

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

A recent ICS survey has identified a serious gap in board members’ oversight of cyber-resilience. Bob Semple analyses the data and explains the practical steps board members can take to better protect their organisations. When it comes to cyber resilience, boards members’ lack of capability and confidence is undermining their ability to do their core job: directing and overseeing. That is the conclusion of a recent Irish Computer Science (ICS) survey of board members of Irish organisations (many of whom are Chartered Accountants). And when cyberattacks today are potentially as destructive as major natural disasters, that’s bad news. The ICS survey was undertaken to determine how well-protected Irish organisations are. What was found makes for sobering reading: one in three board members have received no cyber training in the last year; less than two in five have been properly briefed on cyber developments; an alarming three quarters have never participated in a test of their board’s cyber incident response plan (if it even exists); as many as one in six had no Statement of Risk Appetite at all, let alone one that properly reflected the board’s attitude to cyber-resilience; and one in ten respondents confessed they had never briefed staff on the importance their board attaches to cyber-resilience. 'Noses in, hands-off' (but check!) Good governance requires boards to adopt a 'noses in, hands-off' approach. But, as case law has reminded us, this does not absolve the board of its responsibility to ensure that tasks delegated to management are completed to their satisfaction. For their part, management must be able to identify: the assets they are trying to protect; the key risks affecting them; the controls that appropriately mitigate those risks; and the plans that enable the organisation to bounce back from an attack. The smartest organisations realise that they are past the point of being always able to repel the bad actors. Instead, the goal is to ensure that companies can recover quickly and effectively from a successful breach of defences. The ICS survey revealed serious gaps in each of these links in the chain of defence against cyberattacks. Assurance Increasingly, board members are asking: Where am I getting assurance about risks, controls and resilience? How valuable is that assurance? Is it sufficient for me as a board member? What other assurance should I be seeking? The ICS survey revealed that one in three respondents have never obtained formal assurance from management on these issues. Furthermore, only half of respondents said that they had obtained assurance after independent testing by a third-party. Practical guidance Cyberattacks are increasing in number, sophistication, and impact. Board members need to ask more questions, strengthen their defences, and get more assurance to ensure that their organisations are cyber-resilient. You can find the report – with details of the practical steps board members can take - here: www.ics.ie/cyberresilience. Bob Semple is a Director and Governance Consultant.

Kieran Moynihan explains how boards, and non-executive directors, in particular, can optimise decision-making during times of crisis.A veteran non-executive board director (NED) recently shared valuable insights into the workings of an experienced board dealing with the severe impacts of COVID-19 on the organisation. While this is quite an experienced board with battle-hardened veterans in both the executive and non-executive ranks, he indicated that they collectively struggled with the enormity of the challenge facing the organisation.While the board was quite mature in terms of risk management and business continuity planning, several significant decisions were required in a very short time frame. He was extremely complimentary of the efforts, understanding and commitment of the employees to the organisation as well as the outstanding leadership shown by the CEO and executive team. He also highlighted how much the NEDs “rolled up their sleeves” and provided great support in reviewing, challenging, and providing valuable input to the crisis management plan. He highlighted that the CEO witnessed a “new side” to the board whereby it demonstrated a huge commitment not only to the organisation, but in supporting the CEO and executive team as they implemented an elaborate crisis management plan under severe pressure.Unfortunately, some boards have not performed as well during the crisis. The core problem, I believe, is often the calibre of board members. Some are not strong enough to cope well in an emergency to add any strategic value to the executive team. This scenario continues to play out in boards across the world where, in some cases, board and executive teams have faced existential challenges in terms of their organisation’s survival. Amid the devastating impact on employees, an organisation’s financial health, and its shareholders and stakeholders, boards must stand up and be counted like never before.The following definition of crisis management from Deloitte caught my eye recently: “Crisis management is a special, strategic discipline that enables an organisation to leave ‘business as usual’ behind, and to enter a different mode of governance and operations, designed to get decisions made, implemented and communicated quickly, with clear – but different – designated authorities.” While a board has many broad types of responsibilities, the fundamental duty of a board is to make significant decisions. At a time of extreme crisis management, this acute responsibility comes to the fore. It represents a real test of a board of directors in terms of its calibre, decisiveness, effectiveness, judgement, and performance. The following factors can help a board optimise decision-making in the eye of a storm.Quality informationThe brutal reality of the COVID-19 crisis is that major decisions must be made in compressed time frames of days or, in extreme cases, hours. Many of these decisions have serious consequences for the organisation and its employees, customers, shareholders, and stakeholders. Board chairs have a critical role in enabling the board to overcome these compressed review/decision cycles and drive coherent and decisive decision-making.In normal times, quality information is the lifeblood of a board in terms of significant decision-making. In times of crisis, however, it is challenging for the CEO and executive team to create comprehensive board packs when you may have just 24 hours before the next virtual board meeting. In this context, quality is more important than quantity in terms of helping the board understand the logic behind significant proposals from the CEO and executive team.While not ideal, firefighting CEOs and executive teams rely heavily on gut instinct to choose from what appear to be radically different options. It is essential to provide the NEDs with your gut instincts and blunt assessment of the pros and cons of each option.Challenge, debate, and oversightWhen the stakes are high for significant board decisions, the board must maintain the highest standards of challenge, debate, and oversight. A CEO and executive team under severe pressure could undoubtedly get a big call wrong or struggle to create a coherent proposal for consideration by the board. Despite the challenging time frames for decision-making, NEDs must prepare for board meetings, ask hard questions, and add genuine value (in some cases, by identifying additional options or variations/combinations of options that will help the executive team see the wood from the trees).The board chair has a vital role in balancing the level of challenge, debate, and oversight with supporting the CEO and executive team. Genuine board diversity has been a very positive strength for boards as the broader range of thinking styles has enabled greater left-field thinking and more creative problem-solving, while significantly reducing the potential for group-think. At such a crucial time, shareholders, employees and stakeholders rely heavily on NEDs to provide such critical challenge, debate, and oversight to reach the best decisions.The trust equationThe COVID-19 crisis is testing the bonds in many board teams. In such fraught times, tensions can morph into damaging conflict, which boards can do without. While some high-performing board teams have managed this challenge in their stride, this crisis has also galvanised many board teams around a common purpose.A crisis of this magnitude shines a bright light on the ‘trust equation’ of a board. It can be challenging in such a volatile landscape, with so much uncertainty in each sector, to make concrete decisions. Decisiveness, however, is nevertheless a vital trait for a board in crisis management situations, and it is much more effective when the trust quotient is high. In order to strengthen trust, boards can extend a greater degree of latitude than normal to the CEO and executive team, enabling them to provide timely, insightful updates back to the board on the progress of major decision implementation.Changing courseOne of the most challenging aspects of the crisis for many company boards has been facing up to the requirement in specific sectors to make significant changes to the company’s business model and strategy. For companies that had a dominant market position for many years, it can be challenging to face up to the reality that the market has changed, customer requirements have changed, and in some cases, barriers to entry have been lowered with disruptive new technologies.'Independence of mind' is a critical quality in a NED whereby the board director who is not involved day-to-day is able to step back, take a cold, objective view on the organisation’s position, assess the options and implications of a major proposal being put forward by the CEO and provide a sound independent judgement. In this scenario, where an organisation is facing severe challenges to its existing strategy and business model, independence of mind in the NEDs plays a critical role as it can help the board and executive team face up to and address severe challenges to the existing strategy. Some boards might hope that everything will go back to normal but, for most sectors, things will never be the same. As a result, the organisations that adapt will stand a much higher chance of thriving in the years ahead. Throughout the crisis, I have seen several progressive NEDs utilise this time as an opportunity to evolve the overall mindset and level of ambition in the organisation. NEDs are ideally placed to catalyse this evolving growth mindset as in the majority of cases, the CEO and executive team are in firefighting mode and struggle to have the bandwidth to think strategically and grasp the growth opportunities that the organisation could be presented with.External expertiseWe are in uncharted waters in terms of crisis management. As a board gears up to make big decisions, it is vital that, where appropriate, key shareholders and stakeholders are consulted. They will be forced to live with the consequences of the board’s decisions for years to come.Besides the fact that this is the right thing to do, engagement builds support and is formally required in some instances. It will also provide valuable feedback that, in specific scenarios, may be incorporated into the board’s thought processes.It is also vital that, where needed, external expertise is sought to assist with significant decisions. This might be an existing advisory partner who understands the organisation and sector, or an independent sector expert who could provide an objective assessment of the options.Avoid ‘all-in’ decisionsI play chess at a competitive level, and one of the things you learn as you get more experienced is to avoid, wherever possible, making very committal decisions. This is particularly important when the chessboard is ‘on fire’ with severe complications, and it is simply not possible to calculate the variations. Instead, you seek to stay in the game and get through the next few moves. As the board position becomes clearer, you then make a more committal decision as you execute your plan.The COVID-19 crisis is changing by the hour. As governments struggle to balance the resumption of normal life with the associated public health risks, it is tough for the majority of boards to accurately predict how their sector will look in three months, not to mention one year from now. In some cases, companies are being forced to consider severe changes to their business model. Boards should avoid making premature decisions based on assumptions about how the COVID-19 crisis will influence customer behaviours, business models, and the overall business landscape. Like a game of chess, boards would be wise to develop a range of scenarios linked to the public health and associated economic impacts with appropriate trigger points.Understand the broader impactsAt the start of the year, many boards had made significant progress in increasing their focus on environment, social and governance (ESG) goals, employee engagement, and ‘doing the right thing’ in terms of focusing on the long-term, sustainable wellbeing of the organisation. This has since been severely tested in how boards signed-off on significant decisions impacting their employees, customers, and stakeholders.In some cases, the COVID-19 crisis is undermining much of the significant progress made with decisions favouring short-term shareholder interests at the expense of employees, other stakeholders, and the long-term sustainability of the organisation. Throughout the world, employees have demonstrated incredibly strong commitment and understanding to their organisations and customers. How boards respond to this commitment says a lot about the character, culture, integrity, and values of an organisation. It is encouraging to see a significant number of institutional investors highlight the importance of this for their portfolio of listed companies. In many respects, we saw ESG at its very best in the first few months of the crisis with so many employees and organisations stepping up to help society in its time of need.I strongly believe that the organisations that commit long-term to the core ESG principles of sustainability, partnering with their employees, going the extra mile for their customers and “doing the right thing to ensure the longer-term interests of the organisation” will be the organisations that flourish and thrive going into this uncertain future. The board has a critical leadership role in this. We are moving into an era where progressive boards are evolving into a far more thoughtful balancing of the interests of shareholders, employees and stakeholders. The COVID-19 crisis has crystallised the importance of this multi-stakeholder engagement model and is now firmly in the mindset of customers, prospective employees, partners and investors when they consider engaging with organisations.ConclusionSeven months on, boards continue to grapple with COVID-19 and struggle to make some of the most significant decisions ever made in the history of their organisation. Even the strongest, most high-performing boards struggle to get this right, so for any board members struggling right now, you are not alone.This is a time for board teams to pull together and work closely with the CEO and executive team. Through challenge and debate, you will collectively make the best decisions possible and help your employees, shareholders, and stakeholders envision a path to better days ahead.Key takeaways for boards and non-executive directorsAt a time of such crisis and volatility, it is vital for the board to regularly discuss what is happening with your customers, how the crisis is impacting them, how their requirements are changing both short-,  medium-and longer-term and how the organisation needs to adapt to support your customers.It has never been more vital for the executive reporting to the board to be high-quality, succinct and utilising executive summaries to enable the board members to prepare effectively for the board meeting and assist in the creation of a meeting that can focus on strategic and “move-the-needle” type discussions.Balance cost-cutting, productivity and risk mitigation with supporting innovation-led growth and strategy and business model shifts where needed.Be aware that boards are moving to agile approaches to strategy and budgeting using scenario planning and triggers that work better in situations of high uncertainty such as the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.Organisations, as they facing their greatest crisis, have never had such a strong requirement for board members to demonstrate a great work ethic and commitment to the board and organisation.Kieran Moynihan is Managing Partner at Board Excellence, which supports boards in Ireland, the UK and mainland Europe.

Níall Fitzgerald explains how boards can use the current crisis to take stock and, where appropriate, reflect new priorities.While the COVID-19 crisis continues, organisations are preparing for the uncertainty ahead. This process presents an opportunity for organisations to rethink their priorities, how they deploy resources, and the way they do things.In the months ahead, boards will face new challenges that can give rise to major concerns. This article examines some of those challenges, the responsibility of boards in facing them, and questions board members can ask to help focus on what is important.Going concernIrish and UK company law requires directors to act in the best interests of the company, which includes promoting its success and ensuring that it continues as a going concern. Past corporate collapses have revealed instances where directors failed in this duty. Failures attributed to directors include having unquestioning optimism rather than a challenging mindset and succumbing to groupthink.Given the current uncertainty, threats to going concern are more likely to feature higher on the risk register in many organisations. Oversight is a key role of the board, and this requires directors to have a questioning mindset, apply their skills, experience and knowledge to challenge management appropriately on their judgements, and ensure that they have sufficient evidence to support those judgements. Having a range of skills, experience and knowledge (in addition to diversity in other forms) on a board will help ensure that a range of perspectives and practicalities are considered. Basic good governance practices such as reviewing meeting papers in advance, arriving to meetings prepared, and an effective chair who allows sufficient time for discussion will make a big difference to the quality of the decisions or actions arising.In June 2020, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) published COVID-19 – Going Concern, Risk and Viability: Reporting in Times of Uncertainty. The paper highlights how challenges that would normally relate to building resilience and flexibility (e.g. sourcing short-term cash resources) have pivoted as a result of the pandemic to threats relating to survival and, therefore, going concern.Other examples of current threats and challenges to going concern include:further restrictions that limit the return to normal operations;restrictions placed on government (or other) capital;timing and continuation of government schemes and support packages;short-term impacts of pricing changes to revenue and expenses; andimpacts on human capital.An Institute article titled Going Concern Considerations for Members Preparing or Auditing Financial Statements in the Context of COVID-19 is available on the COVID-19 Hub on Chartered Accountants Ireland’s website.Social responsibility, and public and employee welfareDirectors have a duty under company law to have regard to the interests of employees and will therefore be involved in making important decisions in relation to workforce policies and practices. In addition, corporate governance codes (e.g. the UK Corporate Governance Code) and sustainability frameworks (e.g. an environmental, social and governance (ESG) framework) highlight how a board’s consideration of all stakeholder interests, including societal impact, is important to ensure the organisation’s long-term success.The COVID-19 crisis forced many organisations to rapidly transform the way they work. In many cases, anticipated obstacles to business continuity either did not arise or were overcome with adjustments to how work and people are managed, as well as investment in ICT infrastructure, connectivity and cybersecurity. In April 2020, The UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) released statistics revealing that 49% of adults in employment were working from home. In May 2020, an Irish survey of remote working during the COVID-19 crisis by the Whittaker Institute at National University Ireland Galway and the Western Development Commission revealed that 51% of respondents never worked remotely before the COVID-19 crisis. Of these, 78% would like to continue to work remotely.As public health restrictions are lifted, boards – or board chairs, at least – should engage with CEOs and executive management to support the restoration of operations and plan the safe return to the workplace of employees, suppliers and customers. Executive management and boards should be aware of, and follow, national and local government protocols issued on returning to the workplace.No plan survives the battlefield, so expect adjustments along the way. Updating the board and seeking direction at every turn is not practical, however. It might, therefore, be wise to establish an oversight working party with regular executive engagement and delegated responsibility for overseeing the implementation of plans to restore operations. Decision-making authority should be clearly defined to ensure issues are, where appropriate, referred to the board for a decision. As boards plan for the return to the workplace, directors should consider the following:what work can be done remotely?do certain internal policies need to be rewritten to support new or future ways of working?are there opportunities for automation or digitalisation?what impact could remote working have on organisational culture, and what changes are necessary to align it with the organisation’s mission, vision and values?Boards also have an opportunity to consider how their organisations can have a greater positive social impact. During the crisis, some organisations went further with social responsibility by redirecting their resources to provide support, services and products to the fight against COVID-19. Charities and other not-for-profit organisations excelled in meeting the social needs of many vulnerable people affected by the crisis. Many organisations incentivised staff to get involved in volunteerism to help with, or raise funds for, good causes. In fact, organisations such as Volunteer Ireland and the Royal Voluntary Service reported a surge in registrations, resulting in a surplus of volunteers.Sustainable ‘reset’An important principle set out in the UK Corporate Governance Code is for a board “to promote the long-term sustainable success of the company”. This involves considering how the organisation generates and preserves value, and contributes to wider society over the long-term. It also involves considering the sustainability of the business model – weighing up resilience with efficiency to achieve long-term success. In times of uncertainty, some efficiencies may be sacrificed to achieve resilience. A board’s macro perspective can make a significant contribution in helping the organisation achieve a balance between these two factors.As part of pre-recovery planning, many organisations will engage in horizon scanning to anticipate changes, sources of uncertainty, and future threats and opportunities. While the effect of the COVID-19 crisis on operations may dominate risk perception, organisations also have a unique opportunity to consider how they can rebuild better, greener, and for a more resilient, sustainable world. Boards are well-positioned to lead and encourage innovation on how organisations can adapt to expectations of sustainability from key stakeholders such as investors, customers and regulators. These expectations are apparent in changing social behaviour (e.g. support for global climate protests), investor conditions (e.g. ESG goals or investors’ adoption of Principles for Responsible Investment), and regulator mandates (e.g. the development of standards for ESG disclosures for financial market participants, advisers and products).The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a blueprint that can be used to define an organisation’s sustainability objectives. The World Economic Forum refer to this opportunity as the ‘great reset’. We all have a vested interest in averting further global crises. When boards are resetting their agenda to focus on new priorities, sustainability must be a key consideration in more ways than one.ConclusionOrganisations can expect further challenges in the months ahead. This is not ‘business as usual’ and boards are adapting as the situation unfolds. Whether an organisation is struggling or thriving in the uncertainty, key priorities for any pre-recovery strategy must include going concern, social responsibility, employee and public welfare, and sustainability.Níall Fitzgerald FCA is Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

How can charities, especially smaller ones, deal with the many challenges they are currently facing? Kathya Rouse identifies key areas where accountants may be needed to help charity clients. Like everyone else, charities are struggling to come to terms with their new normal. The unprecedented situation we find ourselves in, and uncertainty around the short-term outlook, makes planning for the future exceptionally difficult. Some charities are continuing to provide ongoing services, while other charities are operating limited or no services due to the current government restrictions. It seems likely that some level of social distancing will be in place for some time and many charities will need to come up with new ways to continue/recommence providing their services while adhering to the relevant government restrictions. Amid all this uncertainty, how can we, as accountants, help? Many smaller charities do not have the expertise among staff or trustees to deal with many of the challenges they are being faced with. We are more than “just” accountants to these clients – we are their trusted business advisors who can be relied on to provide independent advice. I have identified a few areas where you may be needed to help your charity clients: Provide a sounding board and listen to their concerns Despite many similarities between charities, each one will have different requirements right now, so aim to provide a bespoke solution for each charity.   Encourage them to develop a contingency plan to guide them through planning for their organisation during the life cycle of the current pandemic There are various free templates and guidance issued by some of the main charity sector support organisations, such as The Wheel and The Carmichael Centre, which you can direct clients to. The contingency plan should be a live document which remains under regular review. Advise charities around their governance requirements and their AGM There is conflicting advice around whether AGMs can be held entirely virtually under company law except where specifically allowed by the company’s constitution. You can play a key role in helping the charity figure out its position re quorum and use of proxies to overcome this hurdle. Get involved in the budgeting process Budgeting has never been more important, and you can provide your expertise through assisting in, or reviewing, the budgeting process. Like the contingency plan, the budget should also be a live document updated regularly. Empower the trustees Empower the charity trustees to make decisions around whether they can use their current accumulated reserves to make up for a temporary deficiency in resources by assisting them to ascertain their restricted and unrestricted funds. Stay up-to-date Ensure you stay on top of the various funding streams available to charities, such as the Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme and the new €40 million COVID-19 support fund, and make sure to keep your clients abreast of any available funding. Keep up to date with ongoing regulatory, professional and other guidance which may be of use to your clients. Chartered Accountants Ireland have collated a list of various guidance documents which are available on its website and is open to everyone, not just members. Make use of any reputable free resources available to you and your clients. Kathya Rouse is a Partner at McMoreland Duffy Rouse and a CA Support Board member.