Thought Leadership articles

After a decade of little change, the tax regime for research and development in the UK has undergone a ‘credit style’ revamp, writes Liam McHenry  New research and development (R&D) rules for businesses in the UK with an accounting period beginning on or after 1 April 2024 have commenced. These entities are within the remit of the newly merged, research and development expenditure credit (REDC) expenditure scheme – with the exception of “highly R&D-intensive companies”. Companies with over 30 percent of their yearly expenditure qualifying for R&D tax relief can still claim under a restricted version of the SME scheme. Given this high bar, however, it is likely that only small technology start-ups will qualify.  For everyone else, the new rate will provide a benefit worth about 15p per £1 of qualifying expenditure, so not all is lost for those exiting the SME scheme, as a generous tax incentive remains for potential claimants. Reduced complexity? The stated aim of the merged scheme is to reduce complexity for claimants and their advisors. With two schemes remaining post-merger, however, the new scheme is actually more complex than its predecessor.  Subcontracted expenditure had previously been excluded under the RDEC scheme in any meaningful way. Under the new merged scheme, a new system has been put in place with the aim of rewarding whichever party decides to undertake the R&D activity. This adds a new dimension to determining the eligibility of qualifying R&D expenditure insofar as a subcontractor will now need to determine whether they believe their customer knew in advance that a project would require R&D activity. The theory is that this approach will remove the potential for both parties to claim on the same project, but it is easy to see how ambiguity might arise. When agreeing the terms of contracts with customers, claimants must pay additional attention to any clauses relating to intellectual property (IP) generation and whether they indicate that R&D will be required. Taking care at this stage could help claimants identify and preserve their right to claim the corresponding tax relief. Overseas expenditure A restriction on overseas expenditure was also introduced on 1 April 2024. Unless there is a compelling reason why the expenditure could not reasonably have been incurred in the UK, it will not be eligible for inclusion in the claim. However, recognising the unique position of Northern Ireland and its significant integration with the neighbouring Republic of Ireland, claimants can bypass this new restriction. By doing so, they could gain up to a maximum additional benefit of £250,000 every three years. This may require some additional administration, but it is still a welcome reprieve from the restriction, which would have been costly. Increased scrutiny This article offers a summary of the main rule changes coming into effect this month. In reality, there are more of which claimants should be aware. His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has dramatically increased its compliance efforts, with recent revelations from the Public Affairs Committee indicating that upwards of 20 percent of new R&D claims are now under scrutiny. While this fact alone should not be a major concern, it is worth noting that this increased scrutiny often comes with an aggressive stance, beginning with the assumption that R&D claims should be disallowed. The experience of one claimant to another can dramatically vary depending on which caseworker is allocated to the enquiry. Regardless, opening an enquiry can be a prolonged process before a conclusion can be reached. In the event of an unsuccessful enquiry defence, HMRC will be obligated to consider whether any penalties should be levied, depending on whether they determine that the claim was prepared carelessly. In addition, depending on the level of disclosure provided in previous claims made in recent years, HMRC can (and is actively encouraged to) look into these previous claims beyond the normal enquiry window. Planning ahead The implementation of the new R&D tax rules marks a significant shift for businesses heavily reliant on R&D activities for growth and innovation. As businesses adapt to the new regime, strategic planning and collaboration with tax advisors will be essential in maximising the benefits. Liam McHenry is Director of Tax at Grant Thornton

Recent comments by the CEO of America’s biggest bank suggest AGMs are losing power and relevance. David W Duffy delves into the details Annual general meetings (AGMs) are crucial in corporate governance. They are a legal necessity and provide a valuable opportunity for shareholders to speak to leaders. These days, however, criticism is surfacing in some companies that AGMs are becoming a nuisance. Activist pressure So, what exactly is turning the tide on AGMs and their perceived value? In short, the activist pressure exerted recently at some very high profile AGMs.  At Disney’s most recent AGM in early April, for example, shareholders were encouraged to vote in favour of a proposal that would see the entertainment giant pay for services for people choosing to detransition. The Disney proposition had no material impact on the company’s strategy, and JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon took issue.  According to Fortune, Dimon claimed that AGMs were falling victim to “spiralling frivolousness”, dominated by lobbyists, activists and interest groups, which bear little relation to the company’s strategic direction.  There’s no “right or wrong” for a statement like this; it is really just a measure of whether or not other corporate leaders agree.  The leaders of some companies could easily agree with Dimon, especially those at the helm of companies whose AGMs are rife with debate. In companies where AGMs are quieter – sometimes to the point of formality – leaders may not need to worry. Importantly, board members and other stakeholders must remember that anything is possible at an AGM. They could, for example: serve as a hotbed for debate; become a forum for topics considered politically charged (anything from geopolitics to religion to social issues to climate change); feature shareholder proposals put forward solely to make a point, win support or express anger; or seem like a waste of time to corporate leaders because of all the above.  None of this is a given, however. It is far more likely in bigger, global companies – household names consumers feel are so big that their impact stretches beyond their mission statement. In these scenarios, stakeholders generally want the company to take a stance on every political issue, and shareholder proposals at AGMs are part of this. Are AGMs fit for purpose? The threat of any of the above scenarios may mean that some companies’ AGMs are not fit for purpose. It depends on the goals of the people who attend. Companies can’t just get rid of AGMs, however.  AGMs are a cornerstone of business. They often serve as the one opportunity many small shareholders have to speak to the company’s leaders – and, by law, this chance must always be available.  An organisation considering changing its AGM must first examine its articles of association. These are usually where AGM rules like voting procedures and scheduling are found. Beyond this, there may be wiggle room. AGM options It is advisable that leaders and participants accept that the AGM will be active, full of differing opinions and multiple proposals that go nowhere, making it feel like a distraction. If you approach the situation with this prepared mindset, you might find it easier to register the elements of impactful processes beneath the noise.  It’s also advisable to get proactive about issues. You may be better prepared if you anticipate the problems that shareholders are likely to raise and discuss them at the executive and board levels. In the process, you could gain critical insights that shape your understanding of shareholder opinions and frame a more robust conversation. However, if an organisation still wants to change their AGM – and the articles of association allow it – boards can change things like length, the requirement for in-person attendance and the time balance between corporate leaders and shareholders. It must be noted, though, that if a board changes any of these elements, it may appear to be attempting to be creating barriers to debate and shareholders might not respond well. The bright side Many companies have seen their AGMs dominated by activist noise in recent years. While this issue can be addressed by making changes, the bottom line is that the AGM as a concept is here to stay. Organisations should view the “noise” as an invitation to develop relationship management skills and stay on top of emerging trends. These are hugely important for good corporate leaders, and a busy AGM could be the time to flex those muscles. David W Duffy is a founder of the Corporate Governance Institute

The Department for the Economy unveiled an ambitious plan to boost the Northern Ireland economy in 2021, but will it be up to scratch? Professor Anne Marie Ward, Dr Esmond Birnie and Dr Stuart Henderson crunch the numbers to find out if the 10x Economy vision can deliver. Some argue that the Northern Ireland (NI) economy has strong potential given its apparent unique trade position as a halfway house between Europe and Britain, combined with the Department for the Economy’s (DfE) ‘10x Economy’ policy, which targets innovation, inclusion and sustainability. Yet, despite experiencing 25 years of peace, NI continues to suffer from political uncertainty and lower economic productivity relative to Britain and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Moreover, ongoing uncertainties associated with Brexit continue to dampen potential foreign direct investment, which has been vital to the strong economy in ROI. It is against this backdrop that the DfE introduced a new growth policy in May 2021 aimed at achieving a 10-times better economy (‘10x economy’) by 2030.  The 10x vision is underpinned by objectives grouped into three pillars—innovation, inclusive growth and sustainability—and focuses on six priority sectors:  1. Agricultural technology (agritech); 2. Life and health sciences; 3. Advanced manufacturing and engineering; 4. Financial services and financial technology (fintech); 5. Software (including cybersecurity); and 6. Screen and low carbon.   The data The Northern Ireland Economic Trade Statistics (NIETS) is a new dataset that provides details on trade between NI and Britain for the first time. We have analysed this dataset, which covers the period 2014–2020 and comprises a sample of enterprises that are VAT or PAYE registered and trade in NI.  Approximately 5,000 to 7,000 enterprises respond to the survey annually. As part of our research, we examined the 10x priority sectors over the period 2014–2020.  Data on financial services and fintech are not included in the dataset and due to GDPR issues, we had to merge some of the 10x priority areas, ending up with four 10x sectors:  • Agritech;  • Health and life sciences; • Advanced manufacturing (including low carbon); and  • Software and screen.  Approximately 11.4 percent of the total sample is classified as being 10x. Here is a summary of our findings. Growth in sales and gross value added (GVA) As shown in Table 1, the 10x sectors of the NI economy were relatively resilient from 2014–2020 as total Gross Value Added (GVA) increased over the period, though agritech was negatively impacted by COVID-19.  Performance of the non-10x sectors improved over the period 2014–2019, as evidenced by increased total GVA (except traditional manufacturing, which declined by 20.35%). Most non-10x sectors were adversely impacted by COVID-19, however, except manufacturing and ‘other’ production.  Productivity Productivity is measured by the ratio sales per employment and GVA per employment. As illustrated in Figure 1, for 2014–2020, the wholesale and retail sector had the highest sales per employment, followed by agritech and other production. Other production has the highest GVA per employment, followed by construction, health and life sciences and software and screen. Agritech has the second lowest GVA per employment. External sales behaviour A country’s wealth is influenced by its ability to attract funds from external markets. To determine how NI is doing, we investigated the trade behaviour of NI enterprises using four ratios, which reflect the percentage of overall sales each business undertakes with Britain, ROI, the rest of the European Union (REU) and the rest of the World (ROW). The average percentage for each year (2014–2020) for the whole sample is provided in Table 2.  The most important external market is Britain, accounting for on average 11.75 percent of sales, followed by ROI (6.18%), ROW (2.69%) and REU (1.74%). Generally, the percentage of total sales to these external markets increased steadily over the period 2014–2019 and declined in 2020, coinciding with COVID-19. Patterns in the percentage of total sales to the four markets are further analysed by sector over the period 2014–2020 in Figures 2 to 5. Sectoral differences are evident. Generally, non-10x enterprises (the six to the left-hand side of each figure) are less engaged with external markets relative to 10x enterprises (the four to the right-hand side of each figure).   Differences in the relative importance of markets is also observed across sectors. For example, the ROI market is most important to the agritech sector (Figure 3), and the ROW market is most important to the health and life sciences sector (Figure 5), probably indicative of sales to the US. This sector is also very active in markets in the REU (Figure 4).  Note: When interpreting these results, be aware that the data is based on the largest enterprises in NI and the authors had to design their own 10x categories based on Standard Industrial Classification codes.   Will it work? The number of enterprises in NI that can be classed as ‘10x’ increased over the period from 619 in 2014 to 723 in 2020. They are contributing GVA to the economy and, importantly, most of their turnover is to external markets, which is beneficial for a small regional economy where local demand is limited.  These enterprises seem to be resilient, with little change in behaviour observed in the period after Brexit, and, with the exception of agritech, they continued to grow despite COVID-19 (though the data was only available for 2020).  In theory, the DfE’s ambitions are laudable. Cluster approaches have proven successful in other countries, including ROI, where foreign-owned high-tech enterprises pay higher wages, invest in R&D for future growth and have high exports.  Moreover, the vision of sustainable growth and prosperity for all (levelling up) aligns with more holistic concepts of economic growth that account for social and environmental concerns alongside economic prosperity.  There are concerns, however. This is an ambitious undertaking that will take time to implement. The 2030 target set by the DfE is tight, the support structures to fuel 10x growth are not yet fully established, ‘10x’ is not yet fully defined, ‘place’ is not yet fully defined and hence the data are not (yet) available to enable 10x to be identified and analysed by place.  This will hinder the ability to foster clusters and build networks, which are important for innovation. Also, change will be difficult due to existing established structures.  For example, most policy and government action is managed through Local Government Department (LGD) level structures. However, clusters of enterprises may cross LGD boundaries, complicating a joined-up approach.  In addition, economic and social development is not only managed by the DfE; many other bodies such as central government and local government departments, business networks and educational establishments, are involved. Role for accountants Accountants can play an important role in the success of the DfE’s policy and the future of the NI economy. Accountancy firms are present in most towns across the region. Accountants are part of local business networks and have first-hand knowledge of entrepreneurship and innovation within communities.  Moreover, accountants are well-equipped to facilitate the creation of priority clusters and expanding networks that enable local businesses to connect and grow both within and beyond their communities. This will be good for communities and for the accountancy profession.   *Note: The tables and diagrams in this article are from the authors’ full report, available on the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency website. Professor Anne Marie Ward, FCA, is Professor of Accounting at Ulster University; Dr Esmond Birnie is Senior Economist at Ulster University; and Dr Stuart Henderson is a Lecturer in Financial Services at Ulster University.

The explosive growth of AI has transformative potential but also raises critical privacy concerns that must be addressed, writes Pat Moran The world of artificial intelligence (AI) took a massive leap forward with the emergence of ChatGPT in November 2022. Since then, there has been a surge in the design and implementation of AI use cases across industries such as healthcare, retail, financial services, manufacturing and others. While the emergence of AI is transformative, this powerful tool is not without its challenges, particularly the profound privacy concerns it raises. As organisations eagerly harness the potential of AI, it is vital to know the associated privacy risks, such as: Data collection and breaches – As AI models evolve, their training datasets will likely grow, increasing the risk of personal and special category data being included. These datasets must be stored and processed securely while training AI systems. Algorithmic bias and discrimination – Biased algorithms may inadvertently perpetuate biases and lead to decisions that could negatively impact certain groups of people without the organisation’s intention to discriminate. Data subject requests – Once the AI systems are trained and deployed, responding to certain data subject requests becomes increasingly difficult. Transparency – As AI systems become commonplace in organisations, users will increasingly unknowingly interact with these systems, including instances where users are affected by automated decision-making. Regulatory requirements and industry standards – Even though AI is considered a novel technology, there are existing and upcoming regulations and standards that define and guide its usage. Organisations must demonstrate compliance with these regulations and standards to maintain customer trust and meet procurement standards in the market. Misuse of personal data in AI-enabled cyberattacks – Malicious actors have begun leveraging personal data such as audio clips and deep-fake content for advanced phishing attempts and other scams. Inaccurate responses – It is common for generative AI programs to respond based on probabilities identified within the data sets used to train the AI instead of actual, accurate data points. This can result in inaccurate responses and may cause issues if users do not verify the authenticity of the system’s responses. Organisational changes for AI To successfully traverse the concerns listed above while developing and integrating AI systems, organisations should consider the following best practices: AI governance: The teams involved in developing AI governance should be interdisciplinary, including teams in AI development, legal, privacy, information security, customer success and others. Privacy by design: The foundation of responsible AI lies in the concept of ‘privacy by design’, which states that data protection and privacy considerations must be implemented throughout the development lifecycle for any AI system. This includes incorporating privacy-enhancing technologies, ensuring appropriate security, compliance with regulatory requirements and other privacy-specific principles. Some AI systems have a ‘black box’-like nature, which makes it harder to detect and fix ethical, privacy and regulatory issues once deployed, increasing the need for privacy by design. Further, there might be other processes that pose too high a risk to move towards automation through AI and will require controls such as “a human in the loop”. Transparency: Users must be provided with clear and transparent communication in the form of privacy notices and other means including: confirmation that AI systems are used to process their data (including details of automated decision-making, if present); how their data is collected and processed; how long it will be stored; an outline of their rights, etc. The information helps users provide informed consent and builds trust in AI systems as well as the organisation. Fairness: An important step is to perform regular audits of AI systems to test their performance and ensure no bias or discrimination against users. The review should include the automated decision-making algorithm, and the process by which the algorithm makes decisions should be transparent and explainable. Data management: Ensure data ingested by the AI system during training is lawfully obtained, high-quality, and rigorous vetting and anonymisation have been performed. Technologies such as pseudonymisation or data aggregation should be implemented to ensure compliance with data minimisation and retention privacy principles. Up-to-date records of processing activities should also be maintained to ensure data is managed effectively throughout its lifecycle. Remember, organisations cannot use publicly available data to train AI systems without a valid lawful basis. Risk management, compliance and information security: A risk-based approach, including a data protection impact assessment, should be implemented to assess the level of risk involved before AI systems are deployed. The organisation should also sign off on the risk levels, controls and mitigations. AI compliance monitoring should be incorporated into the organisational, regulatory compliance programme or privacy programme. The wider organisational information security programme should include AI systems and their underlying data to prevent data breaches and malicious attacks. Technical and organisational measures such as encryption, data masking, password management, access controls and network security should be implemented. Employee training: As AI is a new technology, employees must be trained periodically on responsible AI usage. Training should include the privacy impact of AI systems, compliance with data protection regulations while using AI, misuse of personal data in AI-enabled cyberattacks and how to guard against it, and data protection best practices. Conclusion The advent of AI may be compared to the invention of the combustion engine. While organisations can move faster, they will also require stronger brakes. These brakes may address these multifaceted concerns, which necessitates a holistic approach, combining technological innovation, ethical practices, user empowerment and regulatory adherence. Organisations’ responsibility will be to innovate and ensure that innovation aligns with the values of privacy, ethics and user trust. Pat Moran is the Leader of Cybersecurity Practice at PwC.

In the complex landscape of corporate decision-making, understanding the differences between ESG and sustainability is crucial, writes Dan Byrne Corporate decision-making today involves a lot of talk about the environment, social and governance (ESG) and sustainability – precisely, how your company will fit into both movements. No one wants to discover they don’t know the difference between the two in the middle of a board meeting. While the two ideas share a lot of overlapping principles, they are different. It is essential to understand these difference because, once you sit down with colleagues to oversee core strategic decisions, you must have robust knowledge about the relevant topics. The difference between ESG and sustainability Sustainability is a principle dictating that, while we must look after the needs of our current society, it cannot be to the detriment of future generations. The concept of sustainability is so broad that it inevitably means different things in different boardrooms. The common thread in most organisations is that sustainability principles guide stakeholder expectations and, as a result, company strategy. ESG isn’t a principle; it’s a framework for measuring specific impacts and risks. It is a tool that can help investors and stakeholders to understand where their money is going. Why the confusion? There is a lot of overlap between ESG and sustainability, so organisations often file them under the same heading. In practice, companies embracing ESG will often commit to not harming the planet (environment), its people (social) or themselves (governance). While this should always be approached with the understanding that ESG is an investment metric and tool for analysing risk, it can be easy to generalise to the point that ESG is instead viewed as a sustainability metric or simply another name for sustainability itself. This is particularly true when companies focus on the “E” part of ESG. It’s popular across multiple industries and wins the backing of key stakeholder groups. An organisation’s focus on the environment creates a natural overlap with sustainability activities. Avoiding confusion in the future If you are in a board meeting and find yourself hovering around both topics, be sure not to hint that they’re the same with these tips: Remember that ESG is a collection of metrics; sustainability is a principle; If you’re talking about ESG, you will likely end up talking about numbers, quantities, reporting and investment opportunities. If you’re talking about sustainability, it’s expected more in the context of organisational goals, culture and policies; and Sustainability, in many respects, is the end goal. ESG is a pathway and a framework that will allow you to get there. Dan Byrne is a writer with the Corporate Governance Institute

As artificial intelligence and hybrid working reshape roles, accountants must begin to embrace IT, analytics and real-time data. Mark Lam explains why Bean counters, excel spreadsheets, sums and calculators – just some of the stereotypes and imagery that are associated with accountants. In 1955, General Electric began to use computers to perform accounting functions, and in 1978, VisiCalc, the first spreadsheet software allowing financial modelling, was developed. Since then, technology has continued to evolve and become more complex and central to the role of the accountant. A worker is only as good as the tools they are given to complete the tasks at hand and accountants are no different. Spreadsheet software itself revolutionised the profession, turning a “20-hour per week bookkeeping chore into a few minutes of data entry”. We have been seeing a more recent new shift in the profession in the past decade and this has been exacerbated in the years since the COVID-19 pandemic with the rise of hybrid working and artificial intelligence (AI). Technology has clearly advanced since the introduction of that first spreadsheet, with developments in computer systems and software connecting each function of the business to a single Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. Just like in the 1970s, accountants are going to need more IT skills in order to stay competitive in the current market. New roles for accountants have emerged, such as the project accountant, financial system accountant, system accountant or data accountant. All are technically the same role, requiring high levels of IT systems and process knowledge­ and functioning as the intermediary between the IT and financial functions of businesses.   Future skill requirements As digital transformation is becoming more of a hot topic, companies are seeking continued improvements in efficiency combined with the need for real-time data causing businesses to increase data collection and connectivity between business processes. ERP systems providing the solutions to these needs offer just one part of the answer. Business leaders increasingly want accurate real-time data and information to aid decision-making. Accountants are required, not only to understand how the systems work, but also produce meaningful reports for bosses. Employees who understand how these systems work can build processes around them and extract and present the relevant information to help management leverage ERP systems to best effect. To stay ahead of the curve, businesses need to consider the future skill requirements of their financial teams, just as accountancy bodies will have to consider the curriculum provided to trainees to meet those needs. Businesses that take on trainees may start to consider taking on those who come from an IT background instead of accountancy, for example. Accountancy firms should be able to train accountants but can’t train computer programmers, after all. It may be more important to have new skills at the organisation’s disposal rather than more traditional accountancy functions. Accountants have always been more than just bean counters, but now this stereotype is becoming a distant memory. Mark Lam is H&W Group Financial Reporting Manager at Vhi and Chartered Accountants Ireland Technology Committee Member The Chartered Accountants Ireland Technology Conference will aim to inform members about this change, to allow us to bravely step into the world of digital transformation having learned from our peers and industry experts. Industry leaders such as Microsoft and Sage will present on the best practice around digital transformation at the conference and there will be case studies from fellow accountants detailing their digital transformation journey and lessons learned. Sign up now.

As finance leaders grapple with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and its complex demands, IT collaboration will become increasingly important, writes David Codd Finance Directors and Financial Controllers are working hard to understand the implications of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and to put the necessary reporting in place in their businesses. But their colleagues in IT also have a vital part to play. This is an unusual challenge for IT, and it’s important to consider how to collaborate effectively. What are the pitfalls to avoid? And how can you build a strong partnership to deliver your sustainability reporting programme? The CSRD, finance teams and IT The CSRD will expand sustainability reporting which will become mandatory for publicly listed companies (plcs) in 2025 for 2024 performance and a year later for all large companies. Finance teams are now performing double materiality assessments and assessing what new measures and information will be required. However, the underlying data itself must be identified and sourced, its reliability established, and processes put in place to extract and interpret the data and report accurately on an ongoing basis. This has the potential to become very onerous. IT support will be critical to an effective and efficient process, i.e. high-quality reporting with minimum manual intervention. An unusual IT challenge This is an unusual challenge for IT departments for various reasons: The scope is exceptionally broad The activities that impact the environment are conducted across an organisation’s operations and – for Scope 3 emissions – through multiple steps in the supply chain. So, the systems and datasets your IT colleagues will have to work with are unusually disparate and will even fall outside the boundaries of the technology estate they control. The standards are still being rolled out IT project managers like clear definitions at the start of a project. However, the first sustainability reporting standards have only recently been released, and the taxonomy for digital reporting is a work in progress. Plus, the “limited assurance” concept will give rise to different interpretations of the quality of the audit trail needed. This is a big project without a conventional monetary business case Chief Information Officers usually have many more attractive-sounding initiatives in the pipeline than they can deliver at once. So, they work with their finance and functional colleagues to prioritise, and resources are allocated based on financial payback or loss avoidance. Your CSRD-driven reporting programme does not neatly fit these criteria.      How to manage risks There are several risks when working with an IT team on sustainability reporting. Confused responsibilities You usually work with a financial systems team, but IT business partners for supply chain or manufacturing operations will already have been partnering with sustainability managers to develop scorecards. Muddled ownership and communications can result in lost time. In a large business, reporting is a full-blown programme consisting of several streams. It needs experienced management to coordinate it and manage the relationship with you. I would also recommend that accountability for IT delivery sits with the head of financial systems, and the IT project manager should sit on the team. This keeps the ownership and lines of communication as simple as possible. Your IT team can’t resource the project Since the 2000s, IT resource has shifted from enterprise systems to ecommerce, data analytics and security. Enterprise resource planning systems teams have been staffed to make incremental changes on the basis that resources can be contracted in as needed. However, consulting firms are now experiencing heavy demand for their sustainability reporting expertise as deadlines approach. The work should be scoped out with IT as early as possible. Most of the scope can be clarified now. Finance and IT should accept that adjustments will be needed, but it’s wise to use resources now and make progress. In this case, perfect is the enemy of good. Motivation The tech community loves stimulating work – through either buying into a goal or working with innovative technology (and preferably both). You need enthusiastic professionals volunteering for this project, but you’re competing with exciting fields such as artificial intelligence and the possibility of going to other employers. The people you need have lots of options. Be aware of the nuanced differences between finance and tech culture and accept that you’re competing for talent. Reach out to the IT community in your business, explain that CSRD prevents greenwashing and that high-quality reporting is a noble undertaking that will help your business to show the world what you’re doing. True partnership is key Recognise the significant challenge presented for both IT and finance by the imperative to develop a quality, efficient sustainability reporting process at pace. A true partnership between finance and IT is the key to successful reporting. David Codd is a Non Executive Director and Strategy and Transformation Consultant

Kevin Empey explores the three phases of flexible work adoption, from foundational steps to future-focused strategies As we enter a new year, there is still a noticeable gap between desired employer policy and employee practice and expectations as to how flexible work arrangements should operate. This gap narrowed in 2023, with both employers and employees taking steps to make flexible working fit-for-purpose more standard practice, but the evolution of more flexible work models is far from over. The employment market in 2024 looks set to be split between two types of employers. First, there will be the employers who continue to be open about how and where work is done with an eye to emerging influences such as artificial intelligence (AI) and the four-day work week. Second, there will be those who revert to more ‘fixed’, pre-COVID work models and mindsets with minor concessions to demands for some form of hybrid working offering.  While other business and employment priorities take over the agenda in 2024, it doesn’t mean flexible work design is done and there is further change ahead.  In our experience, there are three distinct phases in the transition to flexible work models and how organisations are adapting to new and emerging realities. Phase 1: Base camp Some organisations (not many) are still in the early stages of settling on their flexible working vision. They are continuing to lay the groundwork for establishing new work models that cater to evolving work patterns and demands as well as organisational priorities. This phase involves embracing the basics, getting the framework up and running and also considering their flexible working strategy for frontline roles and work that cannot be done remotely. Phase 2: Integration Most businesses find themselves in this second phase. They have spent 12 to 24 months adapting to their declared approaches (the ‘what’) and are now in a position to refine and integrate their flexible models (the ‘how’) with the demands of their business. This involves addressing specific challenges encountered in recent months, bridging gaps between employer policies and employee preferences, and adapting legacy processes and definitions of productivity. The opportunity presented by this phase is to ensure that work redesign will be an ongoing expectation and reality and is just not about getting hybrid right. The risk of this phase is that employers allow poor habits and practices to set in and that the expectation and need for ongoing reform and improvement is not made clear.   Employees are also considering whether their employer’s flexible working models align with what they want. Continued flexibility and ongoing dialogue will be critical to keeping people on board.  Phase 3: Beyond hybrid Organisations that have reached this stage have moved beyond the hybrid conversation. They have integrated hybrid working into a broader flexible work model. Their experiences and approaches provide valuable insights into how this transition can best be managed. A critical theme in this phase is the shift in narrative, where the focus is not solely on the hybrid debate but on achieving work flexibility and adaptability more broadly across the organisation. This will include open work design conversations involving AI solutions, four-day work week options and other influences on how and where work can be done better and faster. This encompasses reforming processes, enhancing employee experiences, reconfiguring workplaces and aligning change with ongoing cultural and transformational agendas. In this phase, the emphasis also shifts to enabling teams to drive changes and improvements collaboratively rather than imposing them from the top down. Furthermore, continuing support for managers to lead ongoing change becomes paramount in ensuring sustained success. It is also quite common to see some organisations shift from one phase to another and back again, as they re-set strategies and solutions with employees and their people leaders. The future agenda  As we move forward into 2024 and beyond, the perspective is shifting beyond the mere transition to hybrid working models. Building on recent hybrid working experiences and fostering a culture of adaptability and agility will be transformative for both employers and employees, narrowing the gap between what employers offer and employees want. The journey towards a flexible and adaptive workplace is ongoing and will continue at pace, with new chapters and milestones on the horizon. Those organisations that prioritise learning from recent experiences and adapting to change as an ongoing habit will be best-equipped to succeed and minimise the employer/employee gap. Kevin Empey is the Managing Director of WorkMatters

With tech-enabled fraud on the rise in Ireland, businesses must carefully assess and manage potential risks, writes Sara McAllister Ireland is a hub for data storage and technology organisations and, as such, we are at the fore of innovation and transformation. There is a flipside, however. As this industry grows and technology evolves, so too do risks associated with fraud. Businesses and organisations in Ireland have become a greater target for fraudulent activity by criminals looking to exploit vast amounts of data created, shared and uploaded every single second. The challenge now is how best to identify, monitor and manage this risk. The National Risk Assessment 2023, published by the Irish government earlier this year, points to Ireland being especially vulnerable due to the scale of technological infrastructure developed here. Its exploitation by bad actors could cause significant disruption. A rise in the volume of fraudulent attacks carried out in Ireland speaks to the appetite of those looking to exploit weaknesses in infrastructure, industry or organisations. With this heightened focus on Ireland, business and organisational leaders here may find themselves under pressure to assess, manage and prepare for risks attached to operations, both in-house and outsourced. Artificial intelligence As new technologies come on stream, the focus on risk reduction will need to move at a faster pace. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have helped scale businesses via real-time automation, but this technology comes with its own risks. Ultimately, it is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, AI has been a game-changer in areas like audit and forensics, allowing businesses to deploy ‘needle in a haystack’ algorithms to identify anomalies and exposures. This is one of the reasons we are seeing an improvement in the detection of fraudulent activity. On the other hand, AI has allowed bad actors to identify new opportunities to carry out fraudulent attacks, penetrating weaknesses in the new and novel AI technology businesses are learning to use. Hybrid and remote work Most businesses have introduced remote and hybrid working processes in recent years, and many will continue to review these policies in line with changing business needs. A key consideration in this context is the risk associated with social engineering threats, which rely on human error and can be much more difficult to detect than other fraud-related risks. Where employees work remotely, evidence suggests they are less likely to consider the legitimacy of communications they receive by email, for example, and may be more inclined to respond to fraudulent requests that appear to have been sent by colleagues or superiors within their organisation, creating vulnerabilities across entire business networks as a result. Security training and awareness is the first line of defence against social engineering, yet many organisations fail to sufficiently consider the risks associated with employees working on-site and remotely. Fraud trends Several other trends are raising concern for businesses, too, beyond AI and hybrid working. Synthetic identity theft uses legitimate and fabricated information to exploit vulnerabilities and remains problematic for businesses as it is increasingly difficult to detect. Account takeover fraud remains prevalent and, as the number of personal online and social media accounts increase, so too do attacks by criminals attempting to gain access to personal data or bank details, often through stolen information. Crypto currency fraud, albeit less mainstream, also fundamentally exploits technology control weaknesses to attempt to steal coins, such as Binance Smart Chain, Ethereum and Bitcoin. Necessary risk assessment The heightened risk landscape is part of a changing cybersecurity picture where digital technology is constantly being attacked and weaknesses are identified and accessed by criminals to exploit data and information for their own gain. Fraud risk must always be a key factor for consideration when managing shared infrastructure, data breaches, preventing unauthorised access and engaging with third-party providers, among others. Industry and political stakeholders are acutely aware of the challenges in this space. Without the proper risk assessment, governance and control mechanisms in place, any single attempt at fraud could potentially put a business at the centre of a perfect storm with a highly damaging aftermath.  Sara McAllister is Partner and Head of Business Risk Services at Grant Thornton