Ethics articles

As people across the world condemn the attack by Russia on Ukraine, they also want to show their support through donations and using their influence for humanitarian intervention. Professional accountants will find themselves in positions of influence with many stakeholders including clients, employers, employees, and local communities.  Níall Fitzgerald, Head of Ethics and Governance outlines some practical considerations for accountants and business leaders in this context:    Fundraising for humanitarian or other reliefs People and organisations are looking to help the millions of Ukrainians displaced by the invasion by donating directly or running fundraiser events. Be aware of fraud risk and recommend controls that ensure the safeguard of any monies raised and that they are used for the purpose for which they were raised. Ensure the necessary licences are obtained for any public fundraising activity. Be clear on the purpose for the funds and how they will be channelled to the beneficiaries. Ensure compliance with national charity law and check that charitable donations are only made to a properly registered charity in your jurisdiction. Social media Understandably, many people and corporates are sharing their views on Russia's  invasion of Ukraine via social media. The distinction between when a view is a personal view or that of the organisation where a person works is not always clear. If you are an officer of a company, e.g. a director, chief executive, or the public relations officer, and you are commenting on a matter related to your area of responsibility, then it is very difficult to separate your view from the corporate view. For this reason, many organisations will have clear corporate social media policies in place and that is the first reference point if in doubt. However, before reacting to a colleague's personal post, it is important to also consider their right to hold and express an opinion. There can be a cultural aspect to this within an organisation, especially where respect, tolerance, diversity and inclusion, and psychological safety are highly valued. The specific circumstances of the person expressing the view might also be taken into account, for example their emotional proximity to the issue.  Developing corporate positions Many organisations are using their influence for good by publicly denouncing the invasion of Ukraine, with some going further to withdraw from investments and business operations in Russia, and any dealings with Russian state-owned entities. These decisions are not always the most straightforward to implement. Legal and other expert advice should be sought to consider how an organisation can address contractual obligations, restructure, and relocate operations. Many Russian citizens are against the actions of the Russian Government, and Russian employees, contractors, etc., should receive fair treatment and not be discriminated against. Reporting progress and being transparent on these positions, including any setbacks, is very important as corporates will be held to account by stakeholders and members of the public to honour their commitments. Careful thought should be given before making any wide-sweeping statements. The global economy, with its complex interconnected markets, creates practical difficulties when seeking to divest of everything connected to Russia.   Whistleblowing and speaking up Clearly defined and well-communicated whistleblowing and speaking-up policies and procedures can increase an organisation’s awareness of any weaknesses in it’s internal controls and practices relating to sanctions, anti-money and anti-bribery and corruption compliance. Communicating to employees the organisation’s position in relation to this crisis and reminding them about whistleblowing and speaking-up policies and procedures, promotes a safe environment in which individuals feel comfortable to raise any concerns about the organisation’s actions, or inactions. Corporate reporting While the scale of the impact of this crisis on organisations will differ, it will dwarfed by the impact on millions of Ukrainians. Organisations have important social obligations and responsibilities to corporate stakeholders. Accountants should ensure transparency and accountability in corporate reporting by highlighting the impact of the crisis on the organisation’s operations, asset valuations and exposure to liabilities. Examples of the sources of this impact include: supply-chain disruption; the cost of ceasing operations in Russia or the conflict/invasion zones; rising commodity prices; inaccessibility of certain markets due to trade or travel restrictions; difficulty maintaining required levels of capital reserves; and loss of key customers. Accountants will have a central role in collecting, measuring, and reporting the necessary information and ensuring it is reported in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements and relevant reporting frameworks. They should also understand the limitations to their expertise and call for the involvement of experts where necessary. Directors and senior management will need to consider expert advice when making highly judgemental decisions on values and estimates and in determining the future implications for the organisation.    Boundaries between personal life and professional life Negative emotions, such as anger and fear, increase the risk of self-defeating behaviours. The developing situation in Ukraine will understandably evoke such emotions in many. In this context, it is useful to refer to guidance issued by the CCAB bodies, in July 2021, to help accountants consider and distinguish if their personal behaviour could be viewed as conduct that might discredit the profession. While the facts and circumstances of every situation will differ, the CCAB guidance provides some examples of such behaviours, including the use of seriously offensive or threatening language causing distress, or threatening behaviour, towards a client or a member of the public outside of the work environment.  This non-exhaustive list of considerations may need to be reconsidered as the crisis in Ukraine develops. In many situations, increasing ethical awareness or the ability to address an ethical dilemma requires reflection. Professional accountants may find it useful to refer to, or circulate to professional accountancy staff, the Chartered Accountants Ireland Ethics Quick Reference Guide available from our Ethics Resource Centre. This article was adapted for members overseas from an article written by Níall Fitzgerald on the Institute’s Ethics Resource Centre.

Background The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (the Department) has recently issued a document1 “Guidance Note for Core Funding Reporting Requirements Transitional Arrangements Year 1 and 2” (“the Department Guidance Note”) to entities providing childcare and early education services regarding the transitional arrangements for the application for funding under a new funding model called ‘Together for Better’.  These transitional arrangements will be in place for the next two reporting periods (years ended 31 August 2023 and 31 August 2024). Reporting regime This reporting regime includes a requirement that the childcare service providers (“client”) engage a professional accountant to submit a document called an ‘Income and Expenditure Template. CCAB-I have made the Department aware of the potential cost implications for an accountant providing this service to their client.  The following matters should be noted: The report is to cover expenses incurred on a cash basis for the year ended 31 August. The requirement is for expenditure incurred in the relevant period only, no accruals or prepayments. Income will be pre-populated in the online platform. Where your client has a different year end, time apportionment is not permitted. Important considerations for CCAB-I members CCAB-I has engaged with the Department over a number of months to discuss the nature and extent of work expected and the respective responsibilities of the client and the professional accountant and, in particular, the concerns regarding the request for the professional accountant to submit the report (as set out in the Department Guidance Note) on behalf of a client. There was positive engagement and much, but not all, of the feedback by CCAB-I on the process was reflected and incorporated into the final guidance. However, given the type of engagement, CCAB-I are making members aware of the potential issues and extant guidance which our members may consult. The Department Guidance Note sets out the responsibility for the data included in the report. See section 2 of the Guidance Note: “The Service Provider is responsible for fully complying with all financial transparency requirements in accordance with their Core Funding contractual obligations. The accountant relies on information provided by the Service Provider, who is responsible for disclosing all relevant information.” The Service Provider/client will make an online declaration on the platform provided by the Department that they have authorised a professional accountant2 to make the submission for them.  CCAB-I members are reminded of the relevant Code of Ethics issued by their professional body.  Independence The Department Guidance Note3 defines an accountant as someone who: "(a) has been admitted as, and is, a member of a prescriber accountancy body, (b) is currently practicing in the profession of accountant, (c) is not and never has been a principal officer or employee, or an owner or part owner, of the licensee in respect of whom he or she is preparing an accountant’s report, and (d) is maintaining such minimum level of professional indemnity insurance as is required by the prescribed accountancy body concerned." .Members should be cognisant of any conflicts with other engagements they may undertake for their clients.  When you are the Auditor  Where the accountant is the statutory auditor the Ethical Standard for Auditors (Ireland)4 applies and Section 5.129 prohibits the audit firm providing accounting services where the services would involve the firm undertaking part of the role of management or initiating transactions.  "S 1.24           In the case of a statutory audit, non-audit services shall not be provided that involve playing any part in management decision-taking of an entity relevant to an engagement. The firm shall not accept any engagement which includes the provision of services where it is probable that an objective, reasonable and informed third party would conclude that the firm or a covered person was playing a part in management decision-taking.  5.128          The provision of accounting services by the firm to an entity relevant to an engagement creates threats to the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons, principally self-review and management threats, the significance of which depends on the nature and extent of the accounting services in question and the level of public interest in the entity. 5.129            The firm shall not provide accounting services to an entity relevant to an engagement where: (a) the entity is a listed entity, relevant to an engagement by the firm, or a significant affiliate of such an entity; or (b) for any other entity: those accounting services would involve the firm undertaking part of the role of management, or initiating transactions; or the services are anything other than of a routine or mechanical nature, requiring little or no professional judgment.” When you are not the Auditor We recommend that members read the Department Guidance Note1 and that an appropriate letter of engagement and representation letter are in place where they undertake these engagements.  Members should refer to guidance documents issued by Chartered Accountants Ireland.  TA 06/2023 Grant Claims5 and the International Standard on Related Service ISRS 4400 (Revised) Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements6 which give guidance on engagement acceptance and continuance and some general advice on agreeing the terms of engagement.  1 https://earlyyearshive.ncs.gov.ie/downloads/download-corefunding/   2 A professional accountant is defined as a member of a Prescribed Accountancy Body that comes within the supervisory remit of IAASA, •              Chartered Accountants Ireland. (CAI) •              Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) •              CPA Ireland (CPA) •              Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA)  3 See Section of Guidance Note for Core Funding Reporting Requirements Transitional Arrangements Year 1 and 2. 4 https://iaasa.ie/wp-content/uploads/docs/media/IAASA/Documents/audit-standards/Ethical-Standard-Consultation/Ethical_Standard_Nov_2020_updated_June_3.pdf 5 https://www.charteredaccountants.ie/chariot/account/ta/TA06_2023.html 6 https://www.iaasb.org/publications/international-standard-related-services-isrs-4400-revised  

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