Thought Leadership News

Ahead of the publication and launch of a new history on 19 March, authors Brenda Clerkin, Brid Murphy and Martin Quinn outline more than a century of the Irish accountancy profession’s work in the public interest and look towards its future. Introduction The amalgamation of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (the Institute) and CPA Ireland in 2024 created a unified body to strengthen the accountancy profession’s voice and public interest role. CPA Ireland would have marked its centenary on 11 March 2026. In the spirit of this centenary and amalgamation, we were commissioned to write a history of the Irish profession since the Institute’s establishment in 1888. While prior histories have informed our efforts, we also offer updates and new insights. This article summarises our work, covering the changing nature of the accountant’s role, auditing, and technology – three pillars that have defined the profession’s trajectory over time. The expanding role of accountants When the Institute was formed in 1888, accountants’ work was largely confined to bookkeeping, insolvency, and some audit engagements. The Companies Act 1900 introduced a statutory requirement for all companies to appoint auditors, elevating the importance of audit and increasing this element of their work. The First World War broadened the profession’s remit. Accountants were instrumental in administering excess profits duty, with the Institute’s President, David Telford, in 1916 estimating that accountants prepared “80% or so of such returns”. Wartime conditions also accelerated the development of cost accounting, as governments curbed profiteering and ensured equitable pricing for war supplies. The brewer Guinness, for example, adapted its cost centre system to allocate war-related expenses (e.g. additional insurance costs of shipping to Great Britain), demonstrating the profession’s agility in responding to external shocks. More directly related to the war, prior histories of the Institute list 19 Irish accountants who died in active service. Our detailed research – made possible through digitised records of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission – has shown two were associated with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales but worked for Craig Gardner in Dublin. All 19 were honoured at the Institute’s 1918 Annual General Meeting. The interwar years saw Irish accountants become more embedded in industrial enterprises, exemplified by the Electricity Supply Board (ESB). Under Chief Accountant Friedrich Weckler, ESB’s accounting systems evolved to reflect the growing complexity of the organisation. By 1943, ESB’s accounts spanned 21 pages (up from four pages in 1927) and disclosed assets of £18.1 million (about €940 million in 2025 values). The Second World War, or  ‘Emergency’ in Ireland, reinforced accountants’ role in public administration. Government debates reveal their involvement in price control and rationing, underscoring the profession’s contribution to economic resilience during a period of scarcity. Post-war recovery and industrial expansion in the 1950s and 1960s introduced new challenges. The Companies Act 1963 (Ireland) and the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960 mandated group accounts and codified the ‘true and fair view’ standard, shifting accountants’ focus from mere compliance to professional judgement. Decimalisation in 1971 and accession to the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973 further expanded the profession’s responsibilities, requiring system upgrades and acquiring proficiency in new taxation structures such as VAT and corporation tax. The late 20th century witnessed exponential growth in demand for accountants, driven by globalisation and foreign direct investment. From this boom, some weaknesses in regulatory oversight ultimately emerged, leading to the establishment of the Irish Auditing & Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA) in 2006 – the UK’s equivalent body, the Financial Reporting Council dates from 1990. The 21st century brought further challenges. The adoption of the euro currency in 2002 required systems reconfiguration, while the mandatory implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for listed entities in 2005 represented a generational shift in financial reporting. The 2008 global financial crisis tested the robustness of these standards and intensified scrutiny of accountants’ role in safeguarding public trust. More recently, Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic introduced new layers of uncertainty, compelling accountants to confront, amongst other things, regulatory divergence, remote working, and accelerated digital transformation. Auditing: from watchdog to strategic assurance Since 1888, auditing has evolved from a rudimentary check on ledgers to a sophisticated assurance function. In the 19th century, audit reports were perfunctory, often comprising a sentence affirming that accounts were “properly drawn up”. The Companies Act 1900 transformed this landscape by mandating independent audits for all companies and prohibiting directors from serving as auditors. Subsequent legislation, notably the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908, strengthened auditors’ rights to access books and require explanations, embedding audit within the statutory framework.  The 20th century witnessed a steady professionalisation of audit practice. The ‘true and fair view’ requirement, first introduced by the UK Companies Act in 1948, and later incorporated in the Irish Companies Act 1963, elevated auditors’ responsibilities, demanding judgement beyond arithmetical accuracy. Influential publications such as Cooper’s Manual of Auditing (1966) codified best practice, emphasising system evaluation and internal controls over rote checking. Ireland’s accession to the EEC in 1973 further aligned audit standards with European norms, while the establishment of the Auditing Practices Committee in 1976 marked the beginning of formal standard-setting in the UK and Ireland. By the 1980s, auditing standards were consolidated under Statements of Auditing Standards (SASs), and the scope of audit extended to governance and risk management. The Cadbury Report (1992) and subsequent corporate governance codes reinforced auditors’ role in safeguarding stakeholder interests. The introduction of audit exemptions for small companies in 1995 (Northern Ireland) and 1999 (Ireland), while reducing compliance burdens, reshaped the audit market and prompted smaller practices to diversify into advisory services. The 21st century has seen auditing become increasingly regulated and internationally harmonised. IAASA now serves as Ireland’s competent authority for public-interest entity audits, with powers to inspect, sanction, and enforce compliance. EU Directives have introduced mandatory audit firm rotation and restrictions on non-audit services, while global convergence around International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) has enhanced comparability. Yet some post-Brexit divergences between UK and Irish ISAs illustrate the persistent tension between harmonisation and national autonomy. Audit reporting has also expanded dramatically. Contemporary audit reports for listed companies routinely exceed eight pages, incorporating key audit matters and disclosures on sustainability, governance, and risk. The advent of the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) signals a future where auditors will assure not only financial statements but also environmental and social metrics, reinforcing their role as guardians of trust in an era of heightened stakeholder scrutiny. Technology: from ledgers to artificial intelligence Technological innovation has been a key transformative force in accountancy. The journey from mechanical calculators to cloud-based platforms illustrates a profession experiencing perpetual change. As an example of early technology use in accounting in Ireland, in the 1930s firms such as Guinness pioneered the use of accounting machines (typewriters with mathematical functions), reducing clerical labour and accelerating ledger preparation. By the 1950s, electromechanical devices and punched-card systems enabled large-scale data processing, exemplified by the Irish Sugar Company’s adoption of the ICT1201 computer to manage complex contra transactions with thousands of farmers. The 1960s was the era of mainframe computing, with organisations such as the ESB and Aer Lingus deploying IBM systems for billing and reservations. These developments demanded new skills from accountants, who were required to understand data structures and machine logic alongside traditional bookkeeping. The 1970s saw the advent of minicomputers and, later, microcomputers, democratising access to computing power and paving the way for personal computers in the 1980s. Software packages such as Sage and TAS Books revolutionised small business accounting, while spreadsheets became ubiquitous tools for analysis and reporting. The 1990s introduced enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, integrating accounting with broader business processes. The proliferation of email and broadband facilitated real-time communication and remote collaboration, while the euro conversion and Y2K compliance projects underscored the profession’s reliance on technology. The 2000s witnessed the rise of cloud computing, enabling scalable, secure, and collaborative accounting solutions. Data analytics emerged as a core competency, allowing accountants to extract insights from vast datasets and support strategic decision-making. Today, artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain represent the frontier of technological change. AI-powered tools perform complex tasks such as anomaly detection, predictive forecasting, and natural language processing, augmenting accountants’ analytical capabilities. Blockchain offers immutable transaction records, reducing reconciliation and enhancing transparency. These innovations are reshaping audit methodologies, enabling continuous auditing and full-population testing. However, they also introduce ethical and governance challenges, requiring accountants to act as ‘sense-checkers’ of algorithmic outputs and custodians of data integrity. Education has evolved in tandem, with professional syllabi now including modules on AI, data analytics, cybersecurity, and sustainability reporting, and continuing professional development emphasising digital fluency and ethical oversight.  Looking to the future Reflecting on over a century of history can help us as a profession plan for the future. While the business environment is volatile and uncertain, and faces challenges – sustainability imperatives, rising costs, rapid technological change and talent challenges – history has shown the Irish profession be to adaptable, resilient and exhibiting trusted leadership. The profession has survived through political and economic shifts, war and conflict and financial crises. This resilience can endure and ensure profession continues to serve the public interest as it has done in the past.  Important Work: A History of Irish Chartered & Certified Public Accountants by Brenda Clerkin, Bríd Murphy and Martin Quinn is published on 19 March, when it will be launched at a special commemorative event at Chartered Accountants House, to which all members are invited.

Introduction The present enthusiasm for AI is rational, writes Emmet Kelly, but it needs to be balanced with proper governance, legal compliance, risk management, and human responsibility. Irish businesses are embracing artificial intelligence (AI) with enthusiasm. Across sectors such as professional services, finance, retail, manufacturing, logistics, as well as the public sphere, there is a widespread perception that AI, in a general sense, is a decisive productivity tool, capable of accelerating analysis, improving decision-making, and reducing operational friction. Most companies do not ‘adopt AI’ as a single initiative. Instead, they accumulate multiple AI systems over time – some explicit, some embedded, some user-driven, each with distinct risk profiles, data dependencies, and governance requirements. AI is not a single tool, nor a discrete system that can be cleanly ‘adopted’ or ‘switched on’. It is now a pervasive layer embedded across the software stack, the internet, and a set of tools to be easily accessed and used daily in the world of work. The principal challenge for companies therefore is not technical capability, but coherence: understanding where AI is present, what role it plays in decision-making, and how accountability is maintained across this fragmented landscape. The enthusiasm for AI is rational. AI systems continually demonstrate an impressive ability to summarise complex information, generate plausible text, detect patterns at scale, and automate tasks that previously required substantial human effort. However, this enthusiasm and use frequently outpaces a realistic appreciation of the complexity, opacity, and governance challenges that accompany AI deployment. For the accounting profession in particular – for whom judgement, verification and accountability remain foundational – this imbalance presents material risks. This article explores how Irish businesses are encountering AI in practice, why its complexity is often underestimated, and what recent research conducted by Amárach reveals about readiness among SMEs. Effective governance will require not only regulatory compliance, but a clearer understanding of the optimum relationship between humans and machines, one that preserves responsibility rather than attempting to outsource it. The illusion of simplicity For many organisations, the first encounter with AI is through publicly accessible systems such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Claude by Anthropic, or Gemini from Google. These large language models (LLMs) present AI as conversational, accessible, and apparently intuitive. Users ask a question, using ‘prompts’, and receive a fluent, structured response, from what appears to be a single, confident synthesis of vast amounts of underlying information. This interaction, or ‘chat’, creates a powerful illusion of simplicity. The complexity of the system, the scale of its training data, the probabilistic nature of the outputs, the constraints imposed by prompts, and the absence of any true understanding remains largely invisible. AI doesn’t understand anything. It merely matches words, numbers and context of the chat that best fits the data the AI is referencing. What appears to be a dialogue is a statistical process that predicts likely continuations of text based on patterns in data. The capacity to understand and interpret the quality and value of the AI response, or output, remains the responsibility of the human user. For professionals accustomed to contextual awareness, critical analysis and judgement, this distinction matters. LLMs do not ‘know’ when nuance is missing, when assumptions are incorrect, or when an answer is incomplete. They summarise, average, and generalise. In doing so, they may lose minority positions, edge cases, and context-specific considerations that are often critical in accounting, audit, tax, and governance work. AI in office and productivity software Beyond these publicly visible systems, AI is now embedded in many workplace productivity tools. Platforms provided by Microsoft, Google, and Apple increasingly incorporate AI-driven features: document drafting, spreadsheet analysis, email prioritisation, meeting summarisation, and even predictions of where trends in numeric data are likely to lead over time. Because these capabilities are integrated into familiar software, they are often perceived as incremental enhancements rather than as AI systems per se. Yet the AI governance implications still apply. For example, automated summarisation of discussions may omit critical qualifications or nuances. Predictive suggestions may reinforce historical biases. Decision-support features may subtly shape professional judgement without being formally recognised as decision-making inputs. The risk here is not malicious intent, but unexamined reliance. When AI-generated outputs are treated as neutral or authoritative simply because they are embedded within trusted tools, accountability can become blurred. AI in enterprise systems AI’s influence extends further into enterprise systems that underpin organisational operations. Enterprise resource planning (ERP), customer relationship management (CRM), and accounting platforms from providers such as SAP, Salesforce and Sage, now deploy AI for forecasting, anomaly detection, credit assessment, inventory optimisation, and workflow prioritisation. In these contexts, AI outputs can directly influence financial reporting, risk classification, and operational decisions. Yet they are often treated as system features rather than as models with assumptions, limitations, and potential points of failure. For accountants and finance leaders, this raises critical questions: Who validates these models? How are errors detected? What documentation exists? And how does professional responsibility apply when an AI-driven recommendation is followed? In-house AI models Larger organisations increasingly develop AI models ‘in-house’, using proprietary data to support functions such as fraud detection, credit-risk assessment, demand forecasting, and operational optimisation. These systems may be customised, powerful, and bring competitive advantage, but they also bring concentrated risk. In-house AI models depend entirely on the quality, scope, and representativeness of the data used to train them. They may reflect historical practices that are no longer appropriate, or embedded organisational biases. Without robust governance, policies, procedures, documentation, and on-going monitoring, such systems can quickly drift away from legal compliance and ethical acceptability. Regulation: the EU AI Act in context The European Union (EU) has sought to address these risks through the EU AI Act, which introduces a risk-based framework for AI governance. The EU AI Act emphasises transparency, human oversight, data quality, and accountability, principles that align closely with professional standards in accounting, auditing and assurance. However, regulation alone cannot resolve the underlying issues, as AI is no longer confined to discrete, easily identifiable systems. It will pervade software, services, and information flows from within an organisation, and often beyond. Organisations may be using dozens of AI-enabled tools without explicitly recognising them as such. Compliance, therefore, cannot be treated as a one-off assessment; it must become an on-going capability. Are Irish businesses AI-ready? Recent AI-readiness research conducted by Amárach Research in collaboration with InstaComply provides a clear picture of this structural gap. While the findings indicate strong enthusiasm for AI adoption among Irish SMEs, many of which are deploying AI at speed, there are also significant weaknesses in governance readiness. While many companies are experimenting with and deploying AI, far fewer have established clear ownership, policies, controls, and governance structures required to manage these systems safely, transparently, and in compliance with existing and emerging regulation. For example, only 37% have appointed a policy owner responsible for AI and data governance, while just 32% maintain risk registers that include AI-related risks. More than one-third have none of the basic structures that the EU AI Act will expect businesses to maintain. These findings do not show a failure of intent, but a structural gap. Use of AI is moving from an experimental phase to the operational core, yet the governance mechanisms needed to control it remain underdeveloped. The EU AI Act is not simply another compliance obligation – it requires a fundamental shift in how organisations must design, monitor, and document their automated systems. Taking responsibility Arguably, and as can be seen from our research findings, Irish businesses are engaging in “conversations with machines”, most often using LLMs, without fully understanding the mechanisms underlying the ‘conversation’ or the operations and quality of the machine with which the user is conversing. LLMs respond blindly based on the level, quality, and structure of the data that informs them. They do not challenge objectives, interrogate ethical implications, or assume responsibility for outcomes. Where complexity is poorly understood, responses tend to polarise. Some users may become distrustful, focusing on AI’s errors and limitations and rejecting its utility. Others may move in the opposite direction, treating AI outputs as authoritative and implicitly transferring responsibility to the system. Both kinds of behaviour present problems and risk. AI does not absolve individuals or organisations of responsibility, nor should it be dismissed as inherently unreliable. A useful analogy is that of tools in the physical world. The saying, “a bad workman blames his tools”, holds true for the use of AI, and a driver should not blame their car for their negligent driving. The workman remains bad, the driver negligent, and the tools and machines, just that: tools and machines. Responsibility remains with the human agent and the organisation deploying the tools. A new RACI model for human–AI collaboration What is required is a new articulation of responsibility, effectively, a new ‘RACI’ model that clarifies who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed when AI systems are used. This approach reflects a broader shift: compliance must move from static documentation to dynamic, operational governance, which embeds EU AI Act requirements, such as data quality, traceability, and human oversight, directly into development and operational processes as code. Human-in-the-loop approaches are not merely a regulatory preference; they are a practical necessity for maintaining standards, managing risks and sustaining businesses on the frontiers of rapidly changing, brimming with possibilities AI landscape. Conclusion: learning to drive the machine AI represents an extraordinary technological advance, and Irish businesses are right to explore its potential. But power without understanding presents risks. The accountancy profession, with its long-standing emphasis on judgement, accountability, and assurance, is well placed to lead a more mature, responsible and strategy-led engagement with AI. The challenge is not to slow innovation, but to learn to ‘drive’ these machines responsibly – within the limits of the law, ethics, business sense and professional judgement. AI is a tool, not an actor. Recognising that distinction will be central to protecting customers, clients, organisations, and public trust in the years ahead. Emmet Kelly is an AI data governance and compliance expert, and CEO of InstaComply, which empowers organisations to navigate regulatory complexity with smart automation.

Communication is a key skill of leadership. You can’t become a great leader until you become a great communicator. When you connect with people, that is when it becomes authentic, allowing you to speak directly to people’s needs. The same is true of networking. Two attributes are critical to your networking abilities. To communicate effectively you need to build relationships and central to that is trust. Trust is vital for forging a connection and is underpinned by how people see you. How you see yourself and the world will be reflected in your attitude, and this will also determine how you are seen.  Trust Trust is paramount. Although sometimes hard to define, we all know when it is not there. Economic uncertainty and lost faith in business and globalisation means trust is no longer the default position for cynical consumers. The annual Edelman Trust Barometer that surveys 33,000 people in 28 countries (2025) has reported that trust in four institutions – government, business, media and non-profits – is at an all-time low. Two-thirds of respondents believe they are being lied to by traditional societal leaders. Interestingly, the report shows that people trust what employees say about their company more than what it says about itself. Contrary to what many believe, trust is not some vague, squishy element of human relations; rather it is a vital component of all our interactions with each other. Put simply, high trust is a dividend and low trust is a tax. In our increasingly low trust world, trust has literally become the new currency of our global economy. What is trust? Trust is not an event. Trust is not an entitlement – trust is earned. You don’t meet somebody today and trust them tomorrow. You can’t go from anonymity to a trusted confidante overnight. Trust is won by doing what you say you will do and doing that consistently and regularly. Trust is a fundamental component of how our world works. It is a leap of faith – a belief that what we expect to happen will happen because someone did what they were supposed to do. The dictionary definition of trust is “belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone to do something”. Trust can take years to win and be lost in a second. When damaged, trust takes a long time to regain. Networking plays a role in sales because to get a sale, two conditions must be met. First, you demonstrate that your product or service will benefit the buyer, fill their need and resolve a pain point. Secondly, you need to build a solid personal relationship based on trust.  "Trust is earned in the smallest of moments. It is earned not through heroic deeds, or even highly visible actions, but through paying attention, listening and gestures of genuine care and connection." —Brené Brown Networking is about giving to other people and adding value to their lives, comprising empathy and authenticity. In doing this, you develop trust and build a reputation for being trustworthy. People will then refer you to others, from short-term transactions come longer-term relationships. In an increasingly disconnected, fractured and untethered world characterised by an absence of trust, people search for beacons of trust and seek it in their networks. We crave belonging and want to belong to something bigger than ourselves. Companies now have to reshape their messaging around trusted employees and their networks. They need to appreciate that trust is not some mysterious element of human relations but is the foundation of everything we do – it is a hard-edged economic driver. High trust saves money and makes money.   Trust and reputation Reputation is important. It has been defined as what people say about you when you are not in the room. Reputation is a scoreboard kept by others. These other people grade your performance and tell the rest of the world. You cannot create your reputation alone, but you can influence it. ‘Reputational capital’ can be tracked and aggregated. As mentioned above, Edelman has studied trust for over 20 years and believes it is the ultimate currency in the relationship that all institutions, companies, brands, governments, NGOs and media build with their stakeholders. Trust defines an organisation’s licence to operate, lead and succeed. Trust is the foundation that allows an organisation to take risks and if it makes mistakes, to own responsibility and rebound from there. For a business, lasting trust is the strongest insurance against competitive disruption, the antidote to consumer indifference and the best path to continued growth. Without trust credibility is lost and reputation can be ruined.  “When you become leaders, the most important thing you have is your word, your trust. That’s where respect comes from.” —Michelle Obama In her book Presence Harvard Business School Professor Amy Cuddy writes that people ask two questions when they meet anyone. First, “Can I trust this person?” and secondly, “Can I respect this person?” Cuddy claims that trustworthiness is the most important factor in how people evaluate you. She says, “One thing I was always very conscious of was that people size up others in seconds and quickly decide whether they will like and trust the other person or not.” So the old cliché is true – you don’t get a second chance to make a first impression. Kingsley Aikins is founder of The Networking Institute. His new book, Networking Matters: The Power of Human Connection, is published by Chartered Accountants Ireland.