Thought Leadership articles

The introduction of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of corporate reporting in the EU, but it will bring challenges for all involved, writes Daniel O’Donovan In an era where businesses are increasingly being scrutinised for their impact on the environment, society and their governance practices, the European Union (EU) has taken a leading role internationally by introducing the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).  The CSRD is due to be transposed into Irish law before mid-2024. Following its transposition, mandatory reporting requirements will become effective for, among others, financial years commencing on or after: 1 January 2024 for public interest entities in scope of EU non-financial reporting rules (with more than 500 employees); 1 January 2025 for other larger companies and public interest entities (with more than 250 employees); and 1 January 2026 for listed public interest SMEs, with ‘opt out’ possible until 2028. This is a pivotal moment in the evolution of corporate reporting across the EU, bringing with it significant challenges for all involved, not least for reporting entities, their audit committees and assurance providers. What are the key challenges?  While the CSRD is a welcome framework for enhancing transparency and accountability in corporate sustainability reporting – reflecting the EU’s commitment to fostering sustainable and responsible business practices – it introduces three significant challenges for business: First, the breadth of information that relevant businesses will be required to report under the 12 European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) introduced by the CSRD; Second, the need to implement the systems required to gather and record reliable sustainability data and information; and Third, the need to provide assurance over the sustainability reports required by the CSRD. Breadth of information to be reported The ESRS, developed by the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), aim to enhance the consistency, comparability and reliability of sustainability reporting among European reporting entities.  The scope of the ESRS is expansive, encompassing various elements that collectively contribute to a comprehensive understanding of an organisation’s environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance.  The key components driving the breadth of information required in this reporting are the: sustainability topics;  reporting boundary; double materiality concept; and  number of datapoints for disclosure within the ESRS. Sustainability topics The ESRS require disclosures about the following topics: climate change, pollution, water and marine resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, resource use and circular economy, own workforce, workers in the value chain, affected communities, consumers and end-users, and business conduct. As can be seen from this list, these are broad topic areas. The ESRS standards for each of these topics specify further subtopics in respect of which disclosures must be given. Furthermore, in respect of each of the topics and subtopics, disclosure is required about aspects of the topics as shown in the table below.  Reporting boundary The reporting boundary required by the ESRS is in stark contrast to what reporting entities are familiar with in the context of the financial reporting boundary used to produce annual financial statements, being within the reporting entity or group. The ESRS, however, require a reporting boundary that considers the entire value chain, from suppliers to end consumers, as shown in the figure below: This inclusive perspective ensures that the environmental and social impacts of a business are accurately captured, providing stakeholders with a complete picture of the organisation’s sustainability efforts, but it places a demanding requirement on reporting entities from a data collection standpoint. Double materiality Reporting entities in scope of the CSRD will be required to report on a double materiality basis. This means that they will have to report on impacts on and risks to them from a changing climate and other ESG matters (referred to as “financial materiality” as it is consistent with what entities report in the financial statements). In addition, they will report on the impact the entity itself might have on climate and other ESG matters (referred to as “impact materiality”). When compared with reporting in the financial statements, this concept doubles the challenge for reporting entities as all ESG topics must be considered from both perspectives. Gathering and assessing information and data about the reporting entity’s impact on the breadth of ESG topics is a new frontier for corporate reporting and one that the majority in the corporate reporting ecosystem have no experience of. Datapoints for disclosure It is clear that the scope of the information to be disclosed under the ESRS is far broader than the information to be reported in the financial statements. However, to underline this, the ESRS outline specific datapoints that reporting entities should disclose to provide transparency and facilitate comparability. As recently as October, EFRAG released a draft List of ESRS datapoints – Implementation Guidance, which includes all 1,178 disclosure requirements in the sector-agnostic ESRS published to date. The datapoints are standardised metrics that allow for consistency in reporting and enable stakeholders to assess the sustainability performance of different reporting entities. For instance, in the environmental domain, entities may report on their carbon footprint, energy consumption and waste generation. Social datapoints could include diversity and inclusion metrics, employee turnover rates, and health and safety performance. This new frontier of corporate reporting will generate tangible benefits for society at large and result in greater public interest therein but will not be without data capture challenges in the near future.  Sustainability information systems Given the significance of the breadth of sustainability information to be reported, the transposition of the CSRD into Irish law will have a profound impact on the information systems of entities within its scope. Moreover, the scale of the endeavour for those entities that will be required to report in early 2025 on the calendar year ended 31 December 2024 is enormous in terms of what must be achieved within a timeframe that is less than 18 months away.  Such entities need to determine what sustainability matters are material using the double materiality concept and are therefore required to be included in their sustainability report and start gathering, collating, aggregating and sorting the data in relation to 2024, which will be reported in early 2025.  Reporting entities will need to establish or enhance integrated data systems that allow for the collection and management of sustainability data. This could involve integrating sustainability data within existing enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems to ensure data consistency and accuracy. Additionally, tools may be needed, such as a materiality assessment tool to help systematically evaluate the importance of various sustainability information.  As stakeholder engagement is a crucial part of a materiality assessment, systems or tools that can help track and manage interactions with stakeholders, ensuring that their perspectives and concerns are considered in the reporting process, will be necessary. Developing or strengthening internal controls and policies related to sustainability reporting information systems will be essential. Reporting entities will need to create processes and controls to ensure the accuracy, completeness and reliability of sustainability data, which will be sourced from all areas of the organisation and well beyond the finance function.  Reporting entities that are successful in achieving this will be better positioned to facilitate an independent assurance provider’s examination of their sustainability report. Assurance over sustainability reports Initially, the CSRD requires an independent assurance provider to express an opinion based on a limited assurance engagement as regards the compliance of the sustainability reporting with the requirements of this Directive, including compliance with the ESRS, the process carried out by the undertaking to identify the information reported pursuant to the ESRS, and compliance with the requirement to electronically tag the sustainability report. In later years, after an initial period, reasonable assurance over the sustainability report may be required. For reporting entities, facilitating a limited assurance engagement in the year of implementation of such a significant suite of sustainability reporting standards will require additional resources and does not come without the increased possibility of qualification given the complexity of the ESRS and the potential immaturity of reporting systems. The challenge for independent assurance providers is that at present no assurance standard is in existence that governs the performance of such an engagement.  The International Audit and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) is developing a standard and has released an exposure draft – International Standard on Sustainability Assurance 5000 – that seeks to address the performance of limited and reasonable assurance engagements over sustainability information.  The exposure daft is open for comment at present and a final standard is not expected until the second half of 2024.  While the development of the standard is welcome, the timeframe is extremely tight, and it is widely acknowledged that the exposure draft does not provide sufficient clarity in relation to the performance expectation of an independent assurance practitioner when performing a limited assurance engagement compared with a reasonable assurance engagement.  In the face of such unprecedented uncertainty, independent assurance providers may struggle to deliver high quality limited assurance engagements.  Challenges ahead The rate of recent extreme weather events in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe, and their impact on supply chains, provides a clear mandate to take better care of our environment. Most people are therefore likely to welcome the intent behind the CSRD’s introduction of sustainability reporting.  Sustainability reporting by entities will be on a basis far broader than financial statements. Additional resources will be needed to address the challenges outlined in this article, but time is running out fast; the time to act on these challenges is now.  Furthermore, the successful implementation of the CSRD regime in Ireland and across the EU requires considerable pragmatism and support from policymakers, standard-setters and regulators.  The new “gold rush” in which companies will seek to lead will be a race to capture data, integrate systems and assure sustainability reports. Undoubtedly, this marks a new frontier in corporate reporting – the ESG Rush! Daniel O’Donovan is a partner with KPMG and leads the firm’s Audit and Assurance Methodology team. He is also Chair of the Chartered Accountants Ireland Assurance and Audit Technical Committee

The publication of the National Philanthropy Policy will mark an important milestone in the evolution of this type of proactive giving in Irish society With a new National Philanthropy Policy due to be published later this month, the Department of Rural and Community Development will set out plans to create an ‘enabling environment’ for philanthropy in Ireland. For Philanthropy Ireland (PI), the representative body for the sector here, the policy’s publication marks a very important milestone in the evolution and perception of this type of proactive giving in Irish society on the cusp of the New Year. PI defines philanthropy as the act of giving money, goods, time or effort to support a charitable cause, usually over an extended period of time and in regard to a defined objective. “Irish philanthropy comes in different shapes and sizes, from small community grants to men’s sheds and new mothers’ groups to larger advocacy projects with a national remit,” explains Eilis Murray, Chief Executive of Philanthropy Ireland. “No matter what it looks like, philanthropy has touched every corner of Ireland, but it is still a relatively new concept here because our wealth is relatively new.  “Irish people are generous and support many social causes, but compared to the UK and Europe, philanthropy here is underdeveloped. Greater support from the State and public awareness can change that. “For context, there are about 8,000 grant-making organisations in the UK whereas, in Ireland, there are only around 100.” For Philanthropy Ireland, which has been working with Minister Joe O’Brien and the Department of Rural and Community Development to create the new National Policy on Philanthropy, its publication will be a welcome development. “We hope it will encourage more people with wealth to give and, equally, encourage those advising them to consider the potential of philanthropic giving or leaving a legacy,” says Murray.  For Liam Lynch, Tax Partner with KPMG and past President of Chartered Accountants Ireland, one of the biggest benefits of philanthropy is its potential to bring about positive change with real and lasting social impact. “Philanthropy provides the critical risk capital for projects and initiatives that benefit society and improve opportunities and outcomes for those who are disadvantaged in various ways,” Lynch says. “Some people are of the view that philanthropy shouldn’t exist and, instead, the State should administer all the money needed to fund good causes through the tax system. I don’t agree.  “There is a point of view and perspective philanthropy brings to the table that promotes innovation in a way the State and local government are just not set up to do. “There are services the State should be providing as standard to support social good. Philanthropy is about building on this in a strategic, outcome-driven way that can have a very positive impact on society.” For those who decide to become involved in philanthropic giving, it is often a deeply personal endeavour and one that reflects their personal convictions and values, according to PI. “Philanthropy can make a difference in so many areas, from tackling educational disadvantage and supporting employment opportunities, to health-focused initiatives – mental health, children’s or older people’s health, for example,” says Lynch. “Philanthropic giving can go towards promoting sustainability and the environment or protecting Irish culture and the arts. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The potential is enormous.  “That is why I would like to see more awareness and discussion of philanthropy, and philanthropists, in Ireland. I think we are generally very aware of the role of philanthropy internationally.  “My question is, why don’t we celebrate our own philanthropists as much and make a concerted effort to recognise the goodwill they are putting into doing good in society?” Frank Gannon – Lynch’s colleague at KPMG Ireland and a Partner in the firm’s Financial Services Group – sees similar benefits in philanthropic giving.  “For me, philanthropy means fulfilling the wish to give something meaningful to those who will benefit,” he explains. “Many people associate philanthropy with monetary donations, but there is much more to it than that.” Chartered Accountants Ireland’s members and trainees are well-placed to get involved in different types of philanthropic giving, Gannon says.  “Our members and trainees have all been educated to a certain level. Sharing our knowledge, information and know-how with those who have not had the same opportunities – and, in particular, those in socially deprived areas – can be a powerful tool,” he says.   “Social capital matters and a lot of Chartered Accountants have large networks of contacts. These networks can be leveraged to transform lives. Giving someone from a deprived area the opportunity to interview for a job could change the trajectory of their life with the positive knock-on effect extending to their family and wider community.”  For those whose philanthropic interest lies in monetary giving, meanwhile, Philanthropy Ireland offers a wealth of advice and information on what you need to know to get started. “There are many forms of monetary philanthropy, which is often considered within the overall context of wealth management and estate planning,” it advises. “Individuals, families and corporates often set up their own foundation or they link in with an intermediary philanthropic organisation that can support them in their grant-making decisions and provide governance and compliance support.” To find out more about Philanthropy Ireland, the organisations and initiatives it supports and the different philanthropic options on offer, log on to philanthropy.ie

As Chartered Accountants prepare for 2024, Ross Boyd outlines key measures to stay one step ahead in a challenging climate Whilst the dawn of a New Year brings with it a sense of hope and often optimism, accountants across the world should brace for a difficult 2024.  I established my practice over a decade ago, having earned my stripes for about 15 years before that, but in all that time I’ve never experienced such volatility and uncertainty.  The year that’s gone has presented the most complex economic test of a generation with the impact of two wars, Brexit and the pandemic completely transforming the business landscape.  I commend my fellow Chartered Accountants for powering through and continuing to do their best for their clients, and their own teams.  Chartered Accountants across the island will already be preparing for a tough 2024, aware of the implications of the current economic climate. The accountancy sector faces additional hurdles, including a skills shortage, retention issues, the continued rise of artificial intelligence and digital tools, and ongoing consolidation across the sector.  While changing business taxation is a big issue in the North, talent and technology are two common themes facing businesses across the island on the cusp of the New Year. Change continues at a relentless pace, and we must pause, embrace and adapt to remain relevant. Here are the key areas I recommend you focus on now, so that you can grow your business and continue to provide trusted and expert counsel to your clients.  Talent Labour shortages, paired with the capacity pressures these shortages cause, are likely to be the most pressing issues restricting growth across many sectors in 2024. Unfortunately, the war on talent is a trend our own sector will continue to battle too.  To put it bluntly, the sector’s image needs reinvention if it’s to continue attracting and retaining talent.  And to put it even more bluntly, investing in human capital is non-negotiable – after all, talent and growth are entirely correlated. As employers, we must adopt a two-pronged approach here.  First, we must invest in existing employees to support their continued contribution to the sector. I would advise any practice to objectively assess their employees’ skill sets and put the necessary plans in place to help them develop.  These development plans should look beyond ‘number crunching’ and financial recording to include a broader set of responsibilities, such as analysing forecasts, identifying emerging trends and networking.  It is crucial we ensure that the role of the Chartered Accountant isn’t limited or constrained, and that it is clearly positioned as that of strategic advisor. Second, we must focus on creating the type of organisation – and providing the kind of leadership – people want today.  Organisations that prioritise diversity, inclusion and flexibility are proven to have higher employee retention, and this is becoming even clearer post-pandemic as Gen Z becomes more present in the workplace.  Now aged between 11 and 26, this generation will account for 27 percent of the workforce by 2025.  At RBCA, we have spent a lot of time developing our graduate programme so that we can give our trainee recruits every opportunity to thrive, including supporting their interpersonal development. We also recently invested in a new office in Belfast to provide a physical environment that supports productivity and learning, and our annual Away Days continue to be invaluable to the culture of RBCA.  Technology  We have all come to understand the importance of digital tools in recent years and it is critical that, in 2024, we continue to use technology to improve both efficiency and security.  At RBCA, we moved to cloud computing in 2011 and we recently invested in new cloud technology, successfully tackling our tech stack. Some ill-advised pundits would argue that accountancy’s future is limited in our increasingly digital world, but our experience is that new accounting technologies have been complementary to our work.  Technology will never replace our profession, however. Why? Because, in my opinion, people will always buy into people.  Relationships and quality communications are the greatest tools at the disposal of today’s Chartered Accountant, providing that crucial competitive edge.  Often, we are so focused on our clients’ businesses and their success that we don’t focus enough on the resilience of our own, but it’s vital that we harness the passion and commitment that exists across the sector to thrive in the New Year.  Ross Boyd is founder and director of RBCA, a Belfast-based Chartered Accountancy 

Geopolitical uncertainty is reshaping boardroom priorities and acquiring the right expertise is crucial for strategic resilience, writes Dan Byrne Geopolitical risk: Is your board talking about it? If so, do they know how to handle it? The harsh reality is that many companies can’t do so properly. However, stakeholders are rarely patient when it comes to geopolitics. When something happens, they want a response from your corporate leadership.  The last thing your board needs to be is unaware of how to handle a situation, what to say, and how to adapt your strategy to changing global events. The challenge is processing that it’s all happening at once.  The news cycle is now dominated by the Israel-Hamas war. Before this started, the spotlight was on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and, before that, the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Meanwhile, we’ve got tensions between the West and China, the right-wing backlash against Brazilian and US elections, and unresolved Brexit issues – not to mention the protracted conflicts that are now so ingrained in the fabric of modern geopolitics. Every geopolitical crisis begins a new chapter of geopolitical pressure in corporate playbooks. The importance of geopolitical risk Assessing geopolitical risk is essential. It’s not going away and, depending on your company, it could be crucial to your strategy.  This doesn’t have to be direct – your company’s stance on a particular issue, for example. It can also be indirect – such as the businesses you work with within your supply chain. Many American companies have been shifting their manufacturing from China to other locations, such as Vietnam, out of fear that Chinese authorities could disrupt their business at the drop of a hat. Corporate leaders will be prodded by investors wanting to know if their company can survive through sanctions or consumers wanting to see their response to escalating conflict. The storm of questions will come; the challenge is how best to weather it. Expertise needed Experts in geopolitical risk will have the following skills: A deep understanding of corporate strategy and risk; Knowledge of global affairs, new or potential conflicts with global impacts, the intricacies of trade sanctions and the knock-on effects of government changes on international relations; and The ability to navigate through substantial geopolitical fallouts. The hard part is finding this expertise. Finding the right candidate to fill a board seat depends on multiple factors, like the availability of talent, training, networks, and an alignment of values. In some situations, this is a heavy ask.  It’s also worth noting that the market for geopolitical expertise is highly active right now as companies realise that they need to be prepared. Playing the long game Organisations should realise that the quest for geopolitical experience for your board may be a long game.  It can take time to find the talent that works well for your business – and it’s time that stakeholders may not always give you, pushing you for an answer and refusing to accept that you might need more time. That’s why it is essential to start now on geopolitical expertise if you haven’t already. If it feels like you’re playing catch-up, bear in mind that this won’t always be the case. Eventually, you will have the solid knowledge you need on your board to help you develop thorough answers to complex questions.  In reality, the world always moves faster than corporate governance is comfortable with, so it’s better to get ahead. Dan Byrne is a content writer at The Corporate Governance Institute

Successful digital transformation requires strong leadership. Dave Vincent outlines his tips for successfully embedding innovation in business Growing up in Belfast in the seventies and eighties, I was convinced that by 2020, we’d all be travelling around on flying cars or hoverboards and have a host of robot servants looking after us. Fast forward to the nineties, and I can vividly remember sitting in my university computer lab wrestling with the logic and code required to help teach a hungry virtual monkey how to get their hands on a hidden bunch of bananas. In 2023, while software applications and systems are significantly more developed than in the nineties, the reality doesn’t quite match the vision of the eighties (the hoverboard being the biggest disappointment). I couldn’t have dreamed of many of the developments that have instead taken place, however. Since the term ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) was first coined almost 70 years ago, we’ve seen wave after wave of technology-enabled innovation, from the rise of personal computing to the internet, mobile devices, augmented and virtual reality, the cloud, the metaverse, self-driving vehicles and now, generative AI. Each shift has captured the imagination, created new opportunities and raised further questions and challenges for business leaders. We are surrounded by technology, and every day, we can see that technology evolves and changes as it impacts how we live and do business. How can technology help? Some of the most frequent questions I hear from clients considering digital transformation are: “Where do I start?” “How do I create the most impact?” “What does success look like?” Rather than starting by asking or thinking about what a particular tool or technology can do, I prefer to reverse engineer the questions and ask: “What are you trying to do in your business or what problem would you like to solve, and how can a digital mindset or technology help?” As these new technologies continue to influence all areas of our business operations, customers and employees, companies need a new type of (digital) leader who can understand, interpret and navigate this digital transformation era. The digital leader Implementing new technology is challenging. The organisation seeking to embed the latest technology — and its staff — must unlearn old concepts and embrace the new systems. For digital leaders, this means adopting alternative leadership styles. In the past, leadership was about giving orders and making decisions. Digital leaders know that successful digital transformation is not just about adopting technology; it’s about transforming business and operating models, driving growth, enhancing competitive advantage and increasing business agility. Today’s leaders must be able to evaluate progress, priorities and business models continually and be prepared to change direction quickly. Digital leaders need to understand not only how systems and technology work but also how that technology will be received and used by staff, as well as how it will impact how employees work and the type of work they do. Digital leaders need to be able to effectively manage employees through shifts and changes to ensure that digital technology is used to deliver the best business outcomes. To make informed and pragmatic decisions about technology, digital leaders must be able to evaluate the impact technology can deliver for their organisations, use data to inform policy and decision-making, and proactively assess and manage risks related to data security. To drive digital innovation, leaders must be agile and flexible, creating a culture where innovation, collaboration and continuous learning can flourish and empower their teams to make data-driven decisions. To ensure focus and alignment, leaders must share a well-defined and compelling strategic vision, calling out what success looks like and showing the roadmap that will get there. It is also important to remember that leadership in the digital age is not just the responsibility of the nominated digital leaders and senior leadership teams, however. Every employee can be a digital leader. The future is digitally enabled Organisations can drive digital innovation and growth from the ground up by empowering staff at all levels to take ownership of, and show leadership in, their work.  The future of work is undoubtedly digitally enabled, and business leaders who are prepared to embrace this change and lead their teams effectively will be the ones to succeed. The digital age allows leaders to create more meaningful and purpose-driven work for their employees and promote innovation and growth for their organisations. Organisations can position themselves for continued success by investing in digital leadership development.  And maybe somebody will finally work out how to create the hoverboard of my dreams. Dave Vincent is a Director of Digital Transformation at Grant Thornton Northern Ireland

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

Michael Diviney and Níall Fitzgerald explore the ethical challenges arising from artificial intelligence (AI), particularly ‘narrow’ AI, and highlight the importance of ethics and professional competence in its deployment Earlier this year, artificial intelligence (AI) industry leaders, leading researchers and influencers signed a succinct statement and warning: “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.” Was this a publicity stunt? Well, probably not, as the generative AI ChatGPT was already the fastest-adopted application in history.  Was this an over-the-top, alarmist statement by a group possibly trying to steal a march on self-regulation of a rapidly emerging technology and growing industry?  Again, this is unlikely if one considers the warnings of pioneer thinkers like Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, Stephen Hawking and Astronomer Royal Martin Rees. They concur that there is an existential threat to humankind if human-level or ‘general’ AI is developed and the ‘singularity’ is reached when AI surpasses human intelligence.  Autonomous weapons and targeting are a clear risk, but more broadly, unless we can ensure that the goals of a future superintelligence are aligned and remain aligned with our goals, we may be considered superfluous and dispensable by that superintelligence.  As well as the extinction threat, general AI presents other potential ethical challenges.  For example, if AI attains subjective consciousness and is capable of suffering, does it then acquire rights? Do we have the right to interfere with these, including the right to attempt to switch it off and end its digital life?  Will AI become a legal entity and have property rights? After all, much of our economy is owned by companies, another form of artificial ‘person’. Ethical challenges from ‘narrow’ AI Until general AI is here, however – and there is informed scepticism about its possibility – the AI tools currently in use are weak or ‘narrow’ AI. They are designed to perform a specific task or a group of related tasks and rely on algorithms to process data on which they have been trained.  Narrow AI presents various ethical challenges:  Unfairness arising from bias and opacity (e.g. AI used in the initial screening of job candidates include a gender bias based on historical data – in the past more men were hired); The right to privacy (AI trained with data without the consent of the data subjects); Threats to physical safety (e.g. self-driving vehicles); Intellectual property and moral rights, plagiarism and passing-off issues in the use of generative AI like ChatGPT and Bard; and Threats to human dignity from the hollowing out of work and loss of purpose. Regulation vs. ethics Such issues arising from the use of AI, particularly related to personal data, mean that regulation is inevitable.  We can see this, for example, with the EU’s landmark AI Act, due to apply by the end of 2025, which aims to regulate AI’s potential to cause harm and to hold companies accountable for how their systems are used. However, as Professor Pat Barker explained at a recent Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (CCAB) webinar, until such laws are in place, and in the absence of clear rules, ethics are required for deciding on the right way to use AI.  Even when the regulation is in place, there are likely to be cases and dilemmas that it has not anticipated or about which it is unclear. Legal compliance should not be assumed to have all the ethical issues covered, and as AI is evolving so quickly, new ethical issues and choices will inevitably emerge.  Ethics involves the application of a decision-making framework to a dilemma or choice about the right thing to do. While such a framework or philosophy can reflect one’s values, it must also be objective, considered, universalisable and not just based on an instinctual response or what may be expedient. Established ethics frameworks include: the consequentialist or utilitarian approach – in the case of AI, does it maximise benefits for the greatest number of people?; and the deontological approach, which is based on first principles, such as the inalienable rights of the individual (an underlying philosophy of the EU’s AI Act). (The Institute’s Ethics Quick Reference Guide, found on the charteredaccountants.ie website, outlines five steps to prepare for ethical dilemmas and decision-making.)  A practical approach While such philosophical approaches are effective for questions like “Should we do this?” and “Is it good for society”, as Reid Blackman argues in Harvard Business Review, businesses and professionals may need a more practical approach, asking: “Given that we are going to [use AI], how can we do it without making ourselves vulnerable to ethical risks?”  Clear protocols, policies, due diligence and an emphasis on ethical risk management and mitigation are required, for example responsible AI clauses in agreements with suppliers. In this respect, accountants have an arguably competitive advantage in being members of a profession; they can access and apply an existing ethical framework, which is evolving and adapting as the technology, its opportunities and challenges change.  The Code of Ethics The International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) recently revised the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (Code) to reflect the impact of technology, including AI, on the profession. The Chartered Accountants Ireland Code of Ethics will ultimately reflect these revisions.  IESBA has identified the two types of AI likely to have the most impact on the ethical behaviour of accountants:  Assisted intelligence or robotic process automation (RPA) in which machines carry out tasks previously done by humans, who continue to make decisions; and  Augmented intelligence, which involves collaboration between human and machine in decision-making. The revisions also include guidance on how accountants might address the risks presented by AI to ethical behaviour and decision-making in performing their role and responsibilities.  Professional competence and due care The Code requires an accountant to ensure they have an appropriate level of understanding relevant to their role and responsibilities and the work they undertake. The revisions acknowledge that the accountant’s role is evolving and that many of the activities they undertake can be impacted by AI.  The degree of competency required in relation to AI will be commensurate with the extent of an accountant’s use of and/or reliance on it. While programming AI may be beyond the competency of many accountants, they have the skill set to:  identify and articulate the problem the AI is being used to solve;  understand the type, source and integrity of the data required; and assess the utility and reasonableness of the output.  This makes accountants well placed to advise on aspects of the use of AI. The Code provides some examples of risks and considerations to be managed by professional accountants using AI, including: The data available might not be sufficient for the effective use of the AI tool. The accountant needs to consider the appropriateness of the source data (e.g. relevance, completeness and integrity) and other inputs, such as the decisions and assumptions being used as inputs by the AI. This includes identifying any underlying bias so that it can be addressed in final decision-making. The AI might not be appropriate for the purpose for which the organisation intends to use it. Is it the right tool for the job and designed for that particular purpose? Are users of the AI tool authorised and trained in its correct use within the organisation’s control framework? (One chief technology officer has suggested not only considering the capabilities of the AI tool but also its limitations to be better aware of the risks of something going wrong or where its use may not be appropriate.) The accountant may not have the ability, or have access to an expert with that ability, to understand and explain the AI and its appropriate use.  If the AI has been appropriately tested and evaluated for the purpose intended. The controls relating to the source data and the AI’s design, implementation and use, including user access. So, how does the accountant apply their skills and expertise in this context?  It is expected that accountants will use many of the established skills for which the profession is known to assess the input and interpret the output of an AI tool, including interpersonal, communication and organisational skills, but also technical knowledge relevant to the activity they are performing, whether it is an accounting, tax, auditing, compliance, strategic or operational business decision that is being made.  Data and confidentiality According to the Code, when an accountant receives or acquires confidential information, their duty of confidentiality begins. AI requires data, usually lots of it, with which it is trained. It also requires decisions by individuals in relation to how the AI should work (programming), when it should be used, how its use should be controlled, etc.  The use of confidential information with AI presents several confidentiality challenges for accountants. The Code includes several considerations for accountants in this regard, including: Obtaining authorisation from the source (e.g. clients or customers) for the use of confidential information, whether anonymised or otherwise, for purposes other than those for which it was provided. This includes whether the information can be used for training AI tools.  Considering controls to safeguard confidentiality, including anonymising data, encryption and access controls, and security policies to protect against data leaks.  Ensuring controls are in place for the coding and updating of the AI used in the organisation. Outdated code, bugs and irregular updates to the software can pose a security risk. Reviewing the security certification of the AI tool and ensuring it is up to date can offer some comfort.  Many data breaches result from human error, e.g. inputting confidential information into an open-access web-based application is a confidentiality breach if that information is saved, stored and later used by that application. Staff need to be trained in the correct use and purpose of AI applications and the safeguarding of confidential information. Dealing with complexity The Code acknowledges that technology, including AI, can help manage complexity.  AI tools can be particularly useful for performing complex analysis or financial modelling to inform decision-making or alerting the accountant to any developments or changes that require a re-assessment of a situation. In doing so, vast amounts of data are collected and used by AI, and the ability to check and verify the integrity of the data introduces another level of complexity.  The Code makes frequent reference to “relevancy” in relation to the analysis of information, scenarios, variables, relationships, etc., and highlights the importance of ensuring that data is relevant to the problem or issue being addressed. IESBA was mindful, when revising the Code, that there are various conceivable ways AI tools can be designed and developed to use and interpret data.  For example, objectivity can be challenged when faced with the complexity of divergent views supported by data, making it difficult to come to a decision. AI can present additional complexity for accountants, but the considerations set out in the Code are useful reminders of the essential skills necessary to manage complexity. Changing how we work As well as its hugely beneficial applications in, for example, healthcare and science, AI is proving to be transformative as a source of business value.  With a range of significant new tools launched daily, from personal effectiveness to analysis and process optimisation, AI is changing how we work. These are powerful tools, but with power comes responsibility. For the professional accountant, certain skills will be brought to the fore, including adaptability, change and risk management, and leadership amidst rapidly evolving work practices and business models. Accountants are well placed to provide these skills and support the responsible and ethical use of AI.  Rather than fearing being replaced by AI, accountants can prepare to meet expectations to provide added value and be at the helm of using AI tools for finance, management, strategic decision-making and other opportunities. Michael Diviney is Executive Head of Thought Leadership at Chartered Accountants Ireland Níall Fitzgerald is Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Sustainability is often seen as the domain of large corporates but SMEs have the collective potential to be more powerful players. Sheila Killian explains why Social and environmental sustainability is often seen as more relevant to big multinational companies (MNCs) than to SMEs, small-to medium enterprises employing no more than 250 people. MNCs are more likely to have a sustainability strategy, and resources for its implementation, monitoring, reporting and communication.  They are more likely to report externally, integrating their reporting across sustainability and financial activities, and to be scored by ESG rating agencies.  This does not mean that MNCs carry all the responsibility or should reap all the benefits, however.  SMEs are enormously impactful in aggregate and have a huge amount to gain by getting involved. So, why and how should they engage? The potential impact of SMEs on sustainability SMEs have a massive collective impact. In Ireland, they account for seven jobs in 10. While large companies are commonly exporters, SMEs tend to serve their local region.  In terms of where people live, work, shop and spend their leisure time, smaller enterprises dominate. This amplifies both their responsibility, and the opportunities open to them. Because SMEs are embedded in their communities, they often make a huge contribution socially without realising it. This may lie less in strategy than in values.  David O’Mahony of O’Mahony’s Booksellers Ltd, a long-established independent bookshop in the south-west, sums up the position: “It’s only when you really think about it and put all the things together that you realise that there’s a lot more going on … [in corporate responsibility and sustainability] … than we would have probably realised ourselves.”  O’Mahony’s enjoys high social capital locally, gained through understated good work for the community and environment, derived from values and a sense of neighbourliness rather than from formal reporting.  Why SMEs do not report Despite this implicit moral accountability, many SME owners do not think about reporting externally on their sustainability. This is often because they don’t see the value to be gained. Compared with MNCs, there is much less separation between ownership and management/control in SMEs.  Therefore, the need for both internal and external reporting is reduced because the main shareholders are already intimate with what is going on in the business, and employees are closer to the leadership.  Unless the business is considering raising external finance, there is little need to consider how potential investors might perceive it, and if there is a perception that customers are not interested in sustainability activities, these will not be reported.  It seems to come naturally to SMEs to be community-oriented, however, often because they are family-owned, and such behaviour reflects the origins and values of the family.  Such firms tend not to have formal, written codes of conduct, but instead propagate the personal values of their owners, who do not consider that a separate, published set of values and reporting on their social and environmental activities is necessary for business. Why SMEs should report One reason for SMEs to begin some form of sustainability reporting is so that they can compete with MNCs locally to attract and retain talented employees.  The labour market is tight, remote working has shifted the power balance, and younger generations are more focused on sustainability.  Increasingly, SMEs are framing their sustainability credentials more clearly, and connecting them with their employer brand so that they can attract the talent they need.  There is also a consumer angle. The challenge posed by behemoth online retailers to small, local bricks-and-mortar businesses is now well-rehearsed.  A small, independent business, like a bookshop, needs to clarify and articulate its values and personal touch as a competitive advantage.  This ‘personality’ needs to be communicated externally if it is to reach the right customers effectively. Sustainability reporting can convey a sense of what the company is all about, its values and purpose – its ‘soul’. A third reason, particularly applicable to SMEs operating in the business-to-business sphere, is that reporting on strong sustainability metrics confers an advantage in entering the supply chains of larger firms.  If, for instance, an MNC is moving towards zero-carbon, it is likely to require smaller companies in its supply chain to be also on that journey.  A fourth reason to report is the internal value to be gained from paying attention to sustainability. Measuring, reporting and constructing a narrative around social and environmental values will improve the culture of the business, and pave the way to greater innovation.  Hotel Doolin in County Clare is an example of a small business that tells its sustainability story effectively. It has shortened its supply chain by buying local produce.  The hotel harvests rainwater, it has eliminated single-use plastics, and uses environmentally low-impact energy and heating. It became Ireland’s first carbon-neutral hotel in 2019, under the Green Hospitality Programme, ahead of many larger competitors.  The business also promotes social sustainability, employing refugees, supporting local community groups and actively seeks to be a good employer. This has enhanced its reputation not only locally but nationwide.  Partnering with not-for-profits Smaller companies that are ambitious in terms of sustainability targets will inevitably want to achieve things that are beyond their capacity.  If, for example, a business decides to work on the water quality in the area in which it operates, it may lack in-house expertise, jeopardising its credibility with the local community. One solution may be a partnership with a not-for-profit organisation (NFP). NFPs often have the expertise to tackle social and environmental issues but lack the resources, whereas companies may have resources (money) but lack the knowledge. A partnership can achieve sustainability goals if the match is right.  The NFP needs to be operating in the area in which the company wants to make progress, and the company needs to align with the NFP’s approach to society and the environment.  Mutual respect and consultation are key. At worst, a partnership can be seen as a ‘fig leaf’ for the SME and can undermine the legitimacy of the NFP. At best, it can be truly impactful for all involved. SMEs’ supply chain responsibilities  MNCs are famously held responsible for the working conditions in which their goods are produced by companies in their supply chains. Scandals, including the sweatshop labour exposed in the 1990s to the Rana Plaza garment factory collapse in Bangladesh in 2013, have forced companies such as Nike, Gap and Nestlé to change their practices.  Bad practices persist today, however, even where goods are produced close to home. In 2020, for example, it was revealed that online vendor BooHoo was selling clothes made in extremely poor working conditions in Leicester in the UK.  For a small, independent retailer, this means that, unless it takes steps to assure itself of the origin of the goods it sells, the risk remains that all or some element/s of those goods may have been produced in sweatshop conditions.  Smaller firms may lack resources to monitor conditions in their suppliers’ factories. Nor are they likely to have the requisite buying power to impose a code of conduct on their suppliers. So, what can they do about the conditions under which the goods they sell are produced? The International Labour Organization has clarified that a firm has responsibility as far up the supply chain as it has ‘reasonable influence’.  Large firms can leverage direct buying power to positively impact supplier. Starbucks works with its coffee producers to bring them up to higher social and environmental sustainability standards, for example.  A small trader is, however, limited to choosing suppliers wisely, and using their influence when feasible, perhaps working with other firms in the sector. The key differences between the supply chain responsibility of MNCs and SMEs, then, relate to power and influence. This principle also applies to other areas of sustainability. More power means more responsibility and the potential to make a positive impact.  SMEs need to address all the key issues of fair pricing, employee welfare, human rights and environmental impact within their own operations and – as far as possible – outside of them, bearing in mind their levels of resources and power.  The key questions here are: “Are we doing all we reasonably can to achieve sustainable practice?” and “Are we seeking to improve?”  Sometimes, acting in concert with other SMEs, can achieve more. The outcome may not be perfection, but honest efforts in the right direction will carry collective weight.  Sustainability and the SME advantage While corporate sustainability is often seen as the domain of MNCs, SMEs – because of their numbers and connection with, and impact on, society – are potentially more important players.  Many SMEs do not report their sustainability policies for several reasons, including informality, time and resource pressures, unfamiliarity with reporting standards and frameworks, or because a strong internal locus of value and ethical behaviour is already vested in their owners and leaders.  However, SMEs generally have high levels of engagement with their local communities and implement sustainability on an intuitive basis, drawing on leaders’ personal values. Reporting these efforts can bring significant advantages externally and internally.  Despite a lack of resources relative to larger companies, the key to building sustainable value for SMEs lies in making the best choices that are within their power at a given time. Sheila Killian is Associate Professor at Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, and author of Doing Good Business: How to Build Sustainable Value

As we embark on shaping the next phase of work, there is a mix of concern and excitement about getting the transition right. Kevin Empey explores what leaders can do with this once-in-a-generation opportunity to mould the future of work here and now. After overseeing the most dramatic shift to work in modern history over the last two years, leaders are now centre stage again with the expectation to guide and lead organisations through an even more complex and tricky phase of work design. As many have remarked in recent months, it was one thing to get people out of the office against the backdrop of a pandemic and a standard set of rules and guidelines for everyone; it is quite another to get people back to a new model of work that is complicated by choice and continuous comparison with what everyone else is doing. Three work phases Most organisations moving to a hybrid or more blended model (remembering that there are thousands of jobs where remote working is not an option) typically agree that we are looking at progressing through at least three phases: Experimental: a tentative, almost experimental type experience that is currently underway for many, influenced by the changing realities of COVID-19. Transitionary: a more deliberate, test and learn and strategic phase, with a transition to different ‘target’ working models that are more sustainable and hopefully free of the constraints and concerns around COVID-19. Most agree that we are also not likely to get this transition perfectly right the first time. Bedding-down: the realities, lived experience and outcomes from the transition to new target models are truly revealed, understood, and implemented over the next couple of years. On the back of these three phases, leaders need to consider two things: The operational and logistical challenge of getting people safely through these phases; and The strategic challenge of creating a new work model, associated people processes, and a leadership approach and culture that is ultimately successful and purpose-built for the organisation and its future. Strategic agility The exact sequencing of these three phases and two workstreams will differ from organisation to organisation. However, there is one foundational quality that will maximise the success of this change-management experience and prepare the organisation and workforce for further inevitable disruption into the future. That quality is strategic agility. Strategic agility is a complex, ambiguous, vulnerable leadership challenge for everyone: organisational leaders, managers, human resources, and employees. But the transition to the next phase of work is also an invaluable case study of agility in action – a case study that we can learn from, experiment with, and embed into our ways of working. The longer-term prize for leaders and employees Over the next 6 to 12 months, the potential prize for organisations is not just a safe and successful transition to a new, post-COVID-19 work model. It is also about using the learning and experience of this transition (along with the lived experience of leaders and employees over the last 22 months) to help organisations develop and embed more agile ways of working, leading and thinking for the future. Being deliberate about developing these skills over the coming months will give us the ability to deal with any change, uncertainly and disruption. Importantly, it means our leaders and our workforces will be able to flourish and thrive in the longer-term future of work and not just respond and cope from one disruption to the next. Conscious development of the sustained and deliberate capability of agility at an organisational, team and individual level will be the long-lasting legacy of COVID-19. And this prize can be won through our combined work over the next year as we go through the experience of co-creating new, successful working models and working lives. Kevin Empey is the Founder and Managing Director of WorkMatters. He is also the author of Thrive in the Future of Work, published in 2021.