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.

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