Ireland’s medium-sized businesses are more optimistic than their global peers but a more ambitious approach is needed to deliver their expectations, writes Patrick Dillon Ireland’s medium-sized businesses are uniquely optimistic in their outlook ahead of the upcoming US presidential elections and in the wake of the recent elections in France and the UK.  Just 17 percent see geopolitical disruptions as a barrier to growth, compared to 42 percent in the Eurozone and 49 percent globally. This confidence follows through in the main findings among the Irish respondents to our latest Grant Thornton International Business Report (IBR), which captures insights into the outlook of 10,000 mid-market firms across the globe.  Our Irish IBR respondents are optimistic about the outlook for the Irish economy in the 12 months ahead. Close to three-quarters (73%) of the Irish medium-sized companies we surveyed predict a positive future. The findings are reflective of the resilience of Irish companies that have had to navigate a polycrisis in a short period of time, trading through the pandemic, cost-of-living challenges and disruption to global supply chains. This is not just a case of looking at the world through rose-tinted glasses, however. Irish medium-sized companies are anticipating a healthy bottom line over the next year.  Close to three-fifths of the Irish companies we surveyed predict a rise in revenues (57%), profits (59%), and headcount (52%) in the 12 months ahead. While it is fantastic to see such a strong sense of confidence among this cornerstone of the Irish economy, if the last few years have taught us anything, it is that none of us knows what’s around the corner.  To this end, the companies that will continue to succeed in the future will be those that remain hyper-focused on staying one step ahead of the competition – and this is where our International Business Report makes for slightly more concerning reading.  There is a significant difference in attitudes to innovation among Irish firms compared to their international peers. Just under a quarter (24%) of Irish businesses are preparing to increase investment in research and development over the next twelve months compared to three-fifths (60%) of their global peers.  We found a similar gap in levels of planned technology investment, with just under half (48%) of Ireland’s medium-sized firms budgeting for an increase, compared to 67 percent globally. Ireland is a small pool compared to the ocean that is the global marketplace. If Irish firms are to realise their ambition and potential, then they need to look to new markets.  Investing in innovation is key to unlocking these opportunities, whether it is leveraging digital channels to reach customers in every corner of the world or developing tailored products or services for a specific customer segment internationally.  A confident economic outlook is great, but it doesn’t put money in your pocket. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, an investment in innovation pays the best interest.   Patrick Dillon is Head of Deal Advisory with Grant Thornton Ireland *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the August/September 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.

Revisions to International Standard on Auditing (Ireland) 600 will result in higher-quality group audits, but more work will be required to deliver this benefit, writes Noreen O’Halloran The International Standard on Auditing (ISA) (Ireland) 600 has been revised. Issued by the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA), the revised standard applies to the audit of group financial statements.  Effective for periods beginning on or after December 15, 2023, these revisions aim to enhance audit quality and address inconsistencies in practice. They bring some challenges, however.  The purpose of ISA (Ireland) 600 Revised (the revised standard) is to enhance the quality of the audit delivered, by ensuing better co-ordination and understanding  between the group auditor and the auditor of a group component.  Audit committees, along with group and component management teams, will also experience changes in how the group auditor conducts the group audit.  Roles and responsibilities Various definitions are amended within the revised standard. These include the definition of a component, which now includes entities, business units, functions or business activities, or some combination thereof, determined by the group auditor for the purposes of planning and performing audit procedures in a group audit.  This concept of the auditor’s view of a component marks a departure from the previous standard. Under the previous standard, a component was identified by the group auditor based on the level at which the group or component management prepared the financial information.  As a result, audit committees can expect to see some changes in the identification of the components for the purpose of the group audit. The group engagement partner is responsible for the work performed by the engagement team. The definition of “engagement team” within ISA (Ireland) 600 Revised includes component auditors.  Therefore, it must be clarified that the group engagement partner along with members of the engagement team – other than component auditors (i.e. the group auditor) – will take responsibility for the nature, timing and extent of the direction and supervision of the component auditor’s work and the review of such work.  To fulfil this obligation, in addition to engaging with group management, the group engagement partner will need to be more involved with component auditors and, potentially, component management.  The definition of “significant components” has been removed. This means that there is no longer a set quantitative threshold above which a significant component’s financial information must be audited.  Rather, a more risk-based approach is required. Emphasis has been given to the consideration of the risk of material misstatement at the assertion level of the group financial statements associated with components.  This will mean that more decisions are made by the group auditor in terms of the level of work that is to be performed by each component and by whom this work will be performed. Component auditors may, therefore, expect changes to the scope of their work compared to previous years. The definition of group financial statements has been clarified. The standard focuses on the concept of a consolidation process. This includes the aggregation of the financial information of business units and is wider than the definition of the consolidated financial statement in financial reporting. As a result, audit committees may see a change in the approach to auditing an entity with multiple branches or divisions, as this is now considered to be a group audit.  The standard emphasises the need for a comprehensive approach to auditing all components contributing to group financial statements, ensuring that the audit covers all relevant aspects of the group’s financial reporting. The clarity regarding the definition of a component (including the removal of the significant component), the involvement of the engagement team and the responsibility of the group auditor, may enhance the quality of the audit delivered.  However, additional time will be incurred by the group auditor as a result, who must now ensure that all component auditors are adequately supervised.  The changes to the definition of a component will provide greater flexibility for the group auditor when identifying components. However, this may result in the entity’s management receiving requests for information regarding components that were not previously in scope. Risk-based approach One of the most significant changes in ISA (Ireland) 600 Revised is the alignment of the standard with the principles in ISA (Ireland) 315 Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement.  This requires the group auditor to focus more on identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement at the group level when planning and performing the group audit, rather than simply defaulting to a full scope audit at the component level.  The alignment to ISA (Ireland) 315, and the requirement for the group auditor to take a more active role in identifying and assessing the risks of the material misstatement of group financial statements, will assist in improving audit quality.  It will also require more time, resources and effort on the part of the engagement team, however, and particularly the group engagement partner.  The group auditor will be heavily involved in identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement at the group level and planning the approach to the entire audit, rather than delegating this to the component auditor.  The additional time and effort required will be most evident in large groups with components in multiple locations. The entity’s management may also receive additional, or more granular, requests for information from either the group or component auditor to support the group auditor’s risk assessment procedures.  Communication and documentation ISA (Ireland) 600 Revised reinforces the need for two-way communication between the group auditor and component auditor to ensure that both parties are in sync.  The group and component auditor together comprise one engagement team, so a collaborative environment is essential. The revised standard also emphasises that all ISAs, including ISA (Ireland) 230 Audit Documentation, must be applied in a group audit.  In applying ISA (Ireland) 230, the group auditor must demonstrate in their documentation how they are directing, supervising and reviewing the component auditor’s work.  The group auditor must consider the scenarios where access to either individuals or information at the component auditor level is restricted and how these restrictions are overcome. Enhanced documentation and two-way communication from the beginning of the audit will improve audit quality.  However, it will also require more co-ordination and collaboration, which may be challenging, particularly for complex groups with many components.   Early communication will be essential to addressing the changes in scope, higher levels of group auditor involvement and in identifying any challenges to this involvement, including restrictions on sharing audit documentation electronically or at all, or restrictions on travel to a specific area.  To fulfil their supervisory role, the group auditor may need to navigate various obstacles, including different time zones and language barriers.  Other practical challenges may include how to ensure that component auditors are part of the discussions required by the other ISA (Ireland) standards, including the fraud discussion required by ISA (Ireland) 240. Professional scepticism The revised standard clarifies how the requirements in ISA 220 (Revised) Quality Control for an audit of financial statements – particularly the importance of professional scepticism – applies to achieving audit quality in a group audit.  The group auditor must exercise professional scepticism by remaining alert to inconsistent information from component auditors, component management and group management, regarding matters that may be significant to the group financial statements.  The group auditor must take appropriate actions when inconsistencies are identified. In addition, the group auditor must emphasise the importance of exercising professional scepticism to each of the engagement team members, including the component auditors.  Exercising professional scepticism at the component level may result in the group engagement partner needing to engage more extensively with component auditors and component management throughout the audit.  Crucial supervisory role The revisions to ISA (Ireland) 600 introduce more requirements for group auditors and their component auditors. This requires increased resources, enhanced communication, increased documentation and a greater emphasis on professional scepticism.  Audit committees and group and component management will also see an increase in the level or type of information required from the group or component auditor so that the group auditor can fulfil their requirements in accordance with ISA (Ireland) 600 Revised.  The need for greater group auditor involvement in the planning and risk assessment stages, and the two-way communication required, highlights the importance for all auditors to understand the new requirements and ensure that they have the skills and resources needed to meet them.  To align with the revised standard, group and component management may see a change in the type or nature of information requested by auditors.  The supervisory role the group auditor plays is crucial to the execution of high-quality group audits.  Both the group auditor and the component auditor will need to be familiar with the new requirements and align their audit methodologies accordingly, while group and component management should be willing to provide the additional information required by the auditor.  While the revisions to ISA (Ireland) 600 will undoubtedly increase the workload of both auditors and group and component management, it will result in higher quality audits. This will, in turn, generate greater benefits to the public interest and may avoid high-profile group audit failures in the future.   Noreen O’Halloran is Principle, Audit Quality and Professional Practice Department, KPMG Ireland

AI is revolutionising accountancy by automating routine tasks, enhancing data analysis and providing valuable insights for strategic decision-making. Conor Flanagan explains how Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force across various industries and accountancy is no exception. As AI technologies advance, they are reshaping the accounting landscape by enhancing efficiency, accuracy and strategic decision-making.  The emergence of AI can be traced back to the 1950s when pioneers like Alan Turing began exploring the concept of machine intelligence.  Turing’s famous “Turing Test” proposed that a machine could be considered intelligent if it could engage in conversation with a human without being distinguishable from a human interlocutor. Since the 1950s, AI has continued to evolve through different phases, including the notable period in the 1970s known as the “AI Winter” when there was a significant fall-off in funding and interest in the technology.  Since then, and coinciding with advances in computational power coupled with the development of machine learning algorithms, interest in AI has been reignited, with breakthroughs in natural language processing, computer vision and data analytics paving the way for more practical applications.  This progress, although impressive, has been somewhat dwarfed by the advent of Generative AI in recent years, with companies like OpenAI and its now infamous ChatGPT platform sparking widespread interest in the technology and its potential.  Generative AI has given rise to exciting new systems now capable of performing complex tasks, such as image recognition, language translation and content creation. And for the sceptics among us – no, this article was not written by ChatGPT. The Microsoft experience AI is revolutionising accountancy by automating routine tasks, enhancing data analysis and providing valuable insights for strategic decision-making. At the recent Chartered Accountant Technology Conference, held in January 2024, Daragh Hennelly, Senior Finance Director with Microsoft in Ireland, shared the story of how the company is unlocking business value through AI-enabled outcomes in finance. Microsoft began its AI journey over seven years ago, leveraging traditional AI to create models that could recognise patterns in data and use this to predict and act on potential outcomes, driving significant efficiency gains. Some examples include: Task automation and content creation Microsoft is using AI to automate tasks such as setting up purchase orders and logging expense reports. Streamlining processes and reducing risks Invoice approvals: AI assigns real-time risk scores to automate more than one million low-risk invoices and cuts the manual effort required for the rest by 50 percent, resulting in 125,000 hours of time saved for finance team members who can now use that time to focus on more strategic tasks. Journal entry anomaly detection: Machine learning algorithms have been built to review thousands of journal entries to detect anomalies with the aim of reducing reporting risks or misstatements.  Enhancing contract review efficiency: AI reads and scores thousands of contracts, reducing the time needed for manual review by 50 percent and allowing finance professionals to focus on high-risk contracts. The recurring theme in all these examples is how AI can be deployed to either automate manual tasks previously carried out by Microsoft’s finance team or unearth and present anomalies requiring additional review.  This demonstrates how AI can create efficiencies in finance functions and processes, but as accountants, we still need to be professionally trained to make decisions based on a smaller and more focused sample base.Over the past 18 months, in particular, the opportunity to transform business and finance processes has accelerated with the roll-out of Generative AI and its ability to create original content – such as text, images, video, audio or software code – in response to user prompts and requests. Today, Microsoft is adopting Generative AI to further enhance processes and unlock business value. This opportunity can be categorised across four main areas: Summarise information. Generate content. Recommend actions. Simplify tasks. 1. Summarise information Recap meeting transcripts to capture key points and assign actions. Distil collection agents’ call notes into actionable plans. Flag key terms in contracts related to payments, pricing and discounts. Synthesise complex workflow documents to highlight handoffs and commonalities. Summarise earnings scripts to identify significant trends and highlights. 2. Generate content Draft financial close decks and write analytical comments and insights. Write contractual language based on simple notes. Draft collection calls and follow-up emails in different languages with payment plan details. Write initial internal audit reports and investor relations earnings call scripts. Produce market sentiment analysis using transcripts from corporate earnings calls and central banking authorities. 3. Recommend actions Analyse financial close variances and recommend areas of the business to investigate variance drivers. Define collection strategy based on customer payment history. Evaluate audit workpapers and resolution disputes against audit controls.  Guide users in setting up purchase orders, invoices, expenses and payments. Recommend policy adherence within workflows. 4. Simplify tasks Accelerate financing requests by automating credit checks and policy reviews. Review sourcing contracts to ensure compliance and reduce human error.  Automate Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) operational controls and summarise insights. Prioritise collection emails, tag disputes and identify resolution owners. Streamline tax and customs procedures by identifying compliance obligations from different global jurisdictions. Central to the success of this transformation of finance at Microsoft is a strong culture of encouraging and rewarding employees to leverage new technologies to transform finance processes. As Amy Hood, Microsoft’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, puts it, “by adopting innovative technologies, finance will strengthen its business leadership through compliance, accuracy and efficiency.”   Microsoft is at the forefront of the Generative AI wave, advancing ideas of what is possible and investing in AI solutions such as CoPilot. CoPilot is integrated into Microsoft’s applications (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook and Teams), working alongside the user with the aim of helping them to work more creatively and efficiently.  It is also enhancing business application products such as Power Platform, Business Central and Dynamics Sales, facilitating advanced data analytics and the creation of complex workflows using natural language that would previously have required the intervention of a developer.  AI’s other early adopters Outside Microsoft, there are other examples of organisations that have successfully implemented AI in their accounting processes, demonstrating the technology’s practical benefits in our field.  HSBC The multinational banking and financial services company has implemented AI to enhance its fraud detection capabilities. HSBC’s AI system analyses transaction data in real-time, identifying suspicious activities and flagging potential fraud cases. This has resulted in a substantial reduction in fraudulent transactions and improved security for customers. Xero The cloud-based accounting software provider uses AI to automate bookkeeping and financial reporting tasks for small and medium-sized businesses. Xero’s AI-driven platform can categorise transactions, reconcile bank statements and generate financial reports, saving time and reducing the risk of errors for business owners. AI and ethical risk While AI offers numerous benefits to the accounting profession, it also raises some ethical concerns. These issues must be carefully considered to ensure the responsible use of AI in accountancy. Data privacy and security AI systems rely on vast amounts of data to function effectively. This raises concerns about data privacy and security, as sensitive financial information may be at risk of unauthorised access or misuse. Organisations must implement robust data protection measures to safeguard against data breaches and ensure compliance with privacy regulations. Bias and fairness AI algorithms are only as unbiased as the data they are trained on. If the training data contains biases, the AI system may produce biased or unfair outcomes. This is particularly concerning in areas such as fraud detection and financial forecasting, where biased algorithms could lead to discriminatory practices. It is essential to ensure that AI systems are trained on diverse and representative datasets to minimise bias and promote fairness. Transparency and accountability AI systems often operate as “black boxes,” making it difficult to understand how they arrive at their decisions. This lack of transparency can be problematic in the context of financial reporting and auditing, where accountability is crucial. Organisations must strive to develop explainable AI models that provide clear insights into their decision-making processes. AI and the work of the accountant The automation of routine accounting tasks through AI has raised concerns about job displacement and the future of the accounting profession.  While AI can handle repetitive and mundane tasks, it cannot replace the strategic thinking and judgment accountants bring to the table.  That said, accountants may need to adapt to new roles and develop new skills to remain relevant in an AI-driven landscape. Like electricity, the roll-out of AI will have a major impact on every industry and many professions, but only those who embrace it will learn to harness its power. Accountants must be prepared to adapt to the changing landscape by acquiring new skills and knowledge. Continuous learning and professional development will be essential for accountants to thrive in an AI-driven world. This includes gaining proficiency in data analytics, machine learning and other emerging technologies. Rather than viewing AI as a threat, accountants should embrace it as a valuable tool that can augment their capabilities. By leveraging AI to handle routine tasks, accountants can focus on higher-value activities, such as strategic planning, financial analysis and advisory services. AI is undeniably transforming the field of accountancy, offering numerous benefits in terms of efficiency, accuracy and strategic decision-making.  From automated data entry and fraud detection to financial forecasting and auditing, AI is revolutionising traditional accounting processes. Its widespread adoption also raises important ethical questions, however. To fully realise the potential of AI while addressing this challenge, organisations must prioritise ethical considerations while also investing in reskilling and upskilling their people and fostering collaboration between humans and AI.  By doing so, the accounting profession can harness the power of AI to drive innovation and deliver greater value to clients and stakeholders. If you have found this article interesting, join us for the next Chartered Accountants Ireland Technology Conference on Friday 24 January 2025. Conor Flanagan is ERP Lead with Storm Technology and a member of the Technology Committee of Chartered Accountants Ireland