Thought Leadership News

Mentorship is key for young accountants transitioning to business development, offering guidance on effective networking, client engagement and relationship-building, says Mary Cloonan The challenge can feel significant for young accountants stepping into roles with business development targets for the first time. New responsibilities, particularly those requiring skills like networking and relationship-building, are often far removed from their previous technical focus. This is where mentorship can help, providing guidance and support to help them grow into the demands of their new role. Business development requires more than technical expertise. It involves cultivating relationships, strategic thinking and communicating value—skills not typically part of an accountant’s formal training. A mentor can: Provide practical guidance: Teach the mentee how to approach client engagement, network effectively and communicate persuasively. Build confidence: Support them as they tackle new challenges and unfamiliar scenarios. Set the example: Offer insights through real-world experiences and professional behaviour. Align efforts with strategy: Help them understand how their contributions support the firm’s broader goals. Effective mentoring: seven steps Here are seven steps experienced accountants can take to be a good mentor. 1. Simplify the starting point Break down business development into manageable steps. Help your mentee see this as relationship-building exercise rather than purely sales-focused. Concentrate on: Recognising potential opportunities in their network. Understanding the firm’s unique value proposition. Developing a genuine interest in client needs. 2. Set measurable goals Define clear and realistic targets. For example: Attend one networking event per month. Schedule two introductory meetings with prospective clients. Contribute to a team pitch or proposal. These bite-sized goals can help to build momentum without overwhelming them. 3. Practice through role-play Simulated scenarios are invaluable for building confidence. “Practice” situations with your mentee, such as: Introducing themselves at events. Explaining the firm’s services to a potential client. Handling objections effectively. Role-playing in a safe environment can help to prepare them for real-world challenges. 4. Encourage observation Let your mentee shadow experienced professionals. Whether it’s a client meeting, negotiation or event, watching mentors in action is a powerful learning tool. Follow up with discussions to reinforce key takeaways. 5. Emphasise listening Strong business development is rooted in active listening. Encourage them to: Ask open-ended questions. Pay close attention to what clients are really saying. Build trust by understanding challenges from the client’s perspective. 6. Give constructive feedback Feedback is essential. Review your mentee’s performance after meetings or pitches— highlight strengths and suggest improvements. Recognising small wins can boost confidence and foster growth. 7. Highlight the bigger picture Help your mentee to connect their efforts with your firm’s success. Discuss how building relationships can drive growth, create opportunities for cross-selling and enhance career prospects. Benefits for both mentors and mentees An effective mentorship programme benefits everyone. Firms gain future leaders with technical and business development skills, while clients will likely experience better service through improved relationship management. For young accountants, developing these skills early can boost their confidence and open up potential avenues to career advancement. Mary Cloonan is Founder of Marketing Clever

With some organisations initiating a return-to-office mandate, what impact will this have on workers’ productivity and work quality? Ian Brinkley explores Few recent changes in the labour market have been so dramatic over such a short period as the rise in working at home during the pandemic. And much of that change has persisted in the post-pandemic period. In 2019, just four percent of employees in Ireland usually worked at home, while just over 11 percent reported doing some work remotely. By 2023, these figures had risen to 19 percent and 15 percent respectively, meaning about a third of all employees were involved in remote work, according to Eurostat. These percentages are relatively high compared to the overall standards in the EU. It is often argued that home-working makes workers more productive, improves job retention and increases job quality, such as work-life balance. It has certainly proved popular with workers, and there is some unmet demand from people who would like to work at home but cannot. However, the evidence to support these claims is not as clear-cut as we would like. Productivity While some studies have confirmed a positive impact on productivity, others have suggested it has no impact either way, and some find negative impacts. A 2023 survey from the CIPD found that while more employers reported a positive impact than a negative one, nearly half reported no impact one way or the other. Unsurprisingly, employers were much more enthusiastic about the potential positive impact on retention and recruitment than productivity. Many studies rely on self-assessment by individuals and employers as to whether they think employees are more productive at home, but do not measure actual output when working in the office versus remote work. We should not dismiss self-assessments, but they do make it hard to know just how big any positive or negative impact might be. What we can say is that in both Ireland and the UK, the rise in homeworking is not associated with better productivity performance across the whole economy. According to the Central Statistics Office, productivity performance since 2019 has been poor in both countries. It might be that any positive impacts of home working are being swamped by other changes in the economy, hampering productivity growth. Home working and work quality Homeworking may deliver more significant benefits as a flexible work option which employees value. However, the CIPD’s large-scale Good Work Index survey of workers in the UK does not show much change in most indicators of job quality between 2019 and 2024, despite the big rise in home working.  This is a bit of a puzzle. It could be that many of the people who shifted to homeworking since 2019 – mostly those in managerial, professional and technical occupations –already had good jobs, so moving to a different location did not greatly change their response.  For example, those who did work at home occasionally reported much higher levels of autonomy over how they did their work than those who did not, but it is likely that they would have said the same even if they had been working in the office.  These headline comparisons are instructive but not conclusive. We need to look at reported work quality for workers in similar jobs, with a mix of some working at home and some working in the office. It may also be that the standard work quality questions do not fully capture all the benefits of home-working to employees. The future of home-working There have been high-profile reports that some major employers – often in the US – are either insisting their workers return to the office or limit the number of days they can work at home. In the UK, civil servants working at home have also attracted criticism, albeit without much evidence of any detrimental impacts. The 2023 CIPD survey found that senior managers expressed concern about home working in about 40 percent of all employers surveyed. However, concerns about getting people back into the office when needed, managing teams, and reduced opportunities for communication, collaboration and innovation were more common than concerns that employees either could not be trusted or were less productive at home. On balance, home-working probably does have positive impacts on both productivity and work quality, but to date they have been modest. The shift to homeworking is here to stay despite attempts in some organisations to reign it back. The CIPD 2023 survey found that 20 percent of employers were putting in active steps for more hybrid working over the next 12 months. For many organisations, a better option will be to manage home-working more effectively rather than risk making themselves less competitive in labour markets by limiting a flexible work option that many employees have come to see as an expected and valued part of the work offer. As more organisations learn how to get the best out of home-working employees, perhaps homeworking will eventually start to move the dial on aggregate labour productivity. Ian Brinkley is a labour market economist and commentator

The Irish Corporate Governance Code represents a progressive approach to ensuring best practice among companies listed on Euronext Dublin and enhances the reputation of ‘Ireland Inc’ globally. Níall Fitzgerald and Louise Gorman explain why Did you know that Ireland hosts one of the most extensive corporate governance infrastructures in Europe?  In Ireland, there are specific governance codes applicable to listed companies, charities, state bodies, financial services institutions, funds and sports organisations.  This is in addition to other entity-specific requirements that may also apply – charities may have to comply with multiple governance requirements as a condition of receiving state funding, for example.  Yet, until recently, Irish listed companies have relied on the best practice principles of the UK Corporate Governance Code (UK Code).  It is therefore worth considering the extent to which the recent publication of the Irish Corporate Governance Code 2024 (Irish Code) presents a new opportunity to tailor best practice in corporate governance to Irish listed companies. The Irish Code will apply initially to a small number of companies listed on Euronext Dublin, the Irish Stock Exchange, for financial years commencing 1 January 2025. Those dual-listed in both Ireland and the UK have the option to either follow the Irish Code or the UK Code in respect of their Irish listing.  The introduction of the Irish Corporate Governance Code is nonetheless significant.  Four years on from the UK’s departure from the European Union (EU), the Irish Code signals that the time has come for Irish companies to follow a path aligned with EU policy and practice, while remaining loyal to the overarching best practice principles established by the UK. It also reflects welcome proactivity in protecting and enhancing the reputation of ‘Ireland Inc’ on the global stage.  Historically, many corporate governance codes and laws internationally have been introduced in response to corporate failings.  By contrast, the Irish Code has emerged out of a desire to ensure that best practice is suitably tailored to the specific circumstances of Irish listed companies.  This comes at no cost to our competitiveness. We retain our well-established ‘comply or explain’ principles-based approach, while also remaining globally connected via our EU membership. Further, we host a US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board presence relating to both Irish companies listed on US Stock Exchanges and US listed companies operating in Ireland. What does this mean for Irish companies? Irish companies already complying with the UK Code will, for the most part, maintain their existing governance practices. They will need to address some specific Irish Code requirements, however. The extent of any differences here will vary depending on each company’s governance policies and structures.  Some companies may find the adjustment process less challenging, particularly those already preparing for the new UK Code applying from 1 January 2025 (apart from Provision 29, which applies from 1 January 2026).  The UK Code served as the basis for developing the Irish Code. Euronext Dublin has made changes only where necessary to ensure proportionality and relevance.  To enhance the principle-based approach, Euronext Dublin has also taken the decision not to include some of the more prescriptive requirements driven largely by the UK regulatory environment.  Maintaining close alignment makes sense as the UK Code is highly regarded and sets a high standard for corporate governance that is emulated internationally.  Our table illustrates some of the key differences between the Irish and the UK Code. Some of these differences, and what they mean for Irish companies, are further explained below. Internal control and risk management: A significant new requirement in the UK Code is included within Provision 29. This requires boards to provide a “declaration of effectiveness” on internal controls, identifying any ineffective controls as of the balance sheet date. Compliance will require boards to establish an independent framework to monitor and assess their internal control and risk management systems. The Irish Code also requires boards to review and report on the effectiveness of these systems, but it is less detailed, not requiring specific declarations or publication of ineffective controls at the balance sheet date. Audit committees: The UK Code requires audit committees to adhere to the Financial Reporting Council’s (FRC) “Audit Committees and the External Audit: Minimum Standard.” In contrast, the Irish Code outlines the roles and responsibilities of audit committees, which are consistent with Companies Act 2014 (Section 167) requirements, without reference to an additional standard, specifying that their work should be detailed in the annual report. Maintaining the principle-based approach in this area is practical, as best practices for audit committees are evolving in accordance with emerging recommendations on audit tendering oversight and sustainability reporting coming from bodies such as the FRC and Accountancy Europe. Less prescriptive and more proportionate: The Irish Code retains core principles, such as workforce engagement, but leaves it to boards to choose the most appropriate methods for their companies’ needs. This facilitates greater flexibility relative to equivalent parts of the UK Code which specify detailed considerations or criteria. The Irish Code aligns some provisions with those in smaller EU capital markets, enabling a proportionate governance approach. For example, while one of the criteria for assessing non-executive directors’ independence in the UK Code requires a five-year employee cooling-off period to be considered, the Irish Code sets this at three years, balancing market size and available talent. Regulatory oversight and enforcement: Like the UK, the Irish Code relies on the market mechanism. It aims to promote high standards of integrity, transparency and accountability. Investors and stakeholders can evaluate disclosures and make comparisons across companies in assessing corporate governance quality. These assessments then inform decisions and actions taken in the markets, such as the decision to buy or sell shares. The implication of this in the UK experience is that the FRC has no sanctioning authority in instances of weak compliance; sanctioning is left to the market mechanism. The FRC does, however, conduct thematic reviews to guide improvements in corporate reporting and governance. Ireland currently has no equivalent body for corporate governance assessment. However, the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority reviews annual reports for EU Transparency Directive compliance, without a specific corporate governance focus. While sanctions do not apply for weak governance compliance, Euronext Dublin can impose sanctions or suspend listings for violations of the listing rules. The Financial Conduct Authority in the UK has a similar approach.   The Irish Code and the UK Code: key differences Workforce engagement  The Irish Code requires boards to explain workforce engagement methods and their effectiveness, without mandating a specific method as in the UK Code. Additionally, it requires a board review of policies for raising concerns. This requirement aligns with the OECD Corporate Governance Principles 2023.  Threshold for addressing shareholder dissent The threshold for consulting with shareholders on a dissenting vote against a board recommendation is set at 25 percent under the Irish Code (20% in the UK Code). Unlike the UK, there is no requirement to provide a six-month shareholder update on the consultation, but it should be addressed in the next annual report. Non-executive director independence  When considering the independence of a non-executive director (NED), the criteria relating to previous employment by the company is whether they have been an employee of the company within the last three years (compared to five years in the UK Code). Board appointments The Irish Code does not include the UK Code restriction on the number of appointments a non-executive director has in a FTSE 100 or other significant undertaking. The Irish Code requires all commitments to be considered when determining whether the NED has the capacity to fully commit to the board. Company Secretary The Irish Code further elaborates on the role of the Company Secretary in ensuring a good information flow within the board, its committees and between management and non-executive directors – recording accurate minutes, facilitating induction and assisting with professional development of non-executive directors. Board evaluation The Irish Code replaces the UK Code reference to FTSE 350 companies with “companies with a market capitalisation in excess of €750 million” in the requirement to conduct an external board evaluation at least once every three years. Board skills and expertise The Irish Code includes an additional requirement for the nomination committee to use the results of a board evaluation to identify the board’s skills, knowledge and expertise requirements. This should be reflected in board succession plans, professional development plans and steps taken to ensure the board has access to the skills, knowledge and expertise it requires. This requirement is consistent with good governance practices in other EU countries, e.g. the 2020 Belgium Code on Corporate Governance. Diversity and inclusion Whereas the UK Code includes reference to UK equality legislation for diversity characteristics, the Irish Code requires companies to have a diversity and inclusion policy regarding gender and other aspects of diversity of relevance to the company and includes measurable objectives for implementing such a policy. The Irish Code requires this policy to be reviewed annually. Audit Committee To ensure consistency with the Companies Act 2014, the requirement for one member of the Audit Committee to have “recent and relevant financial experience” is changed to “competence in accounting or auditing”. Reference to “financial reporting process” is replaced with “corporate reporting process” to better reflect the audit committee’s role in monitoring financial and non-financial reporting, e.g. sustainability reporting. Reference to the UK specific Financial Reporting Council guidance on “Audit Committees and the External Audit: Minimum Standard” is also removed. Internal controls and risk management systems The Irish Code does not include the UK Code provision for the board to include a declaration of effectiveness of material controls, but the requirement to monitor the company’s internal control and risk management systems and review their effectiveness remains.  Remuneration Under the Irish Code, share awards in long-term incentive plans must vest over at least three years, unlike the UK’s five-year minimum. Malus and clawback provisions should be described generally in annual reports, and executive pensions require thoughtful comparison to workforce pensions, with less prescriptive rules than the UK Code. What next for the Irish Code?  Euronext Dublin is in the process of revising the Listing Rules to give effect to the new Irish Code and is further streamlining the requirements.  An Irish Corporate Governance Panel will be established, with responsibility for reviewing and advising on changes to the Irish Code in the context of the evolving corporate governance landscape in Ireland, the UK and Europe alongside other factors.  What impact the Irish Code will have remains to be seen. It represents a sensible approach to building on the reputation and quality of the UK Code, and while there are some differences between the Irish and UK Code, they are mostly aligned.  We have been careful to note that the Irish Code initially applies only to a small number of companies, so one may be forgiven for questioning its true significance. Nonetheless, key issues on the European regulatory horizon suggest that it may mark the start of a greater departure from the UK’s approach to governance.  The recent transposition of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive into Irish law provides another example of this as the CSRD’s required disclosures on governance introduce an EU influence into governance in Irish companies.  Future revisions to the Irish Code may further reflect this newly established autonomy in governance in Ireland, particularly as we adopt the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and other directives the European Commission will inevitably introduce over time.  Currently, best practice principles for Irish private companies are limited to voluntarily following the UK’s Wates Corporate Governance Principles for Large Private Companies. Just as the UK Code has influenced these principles, the Irish Code may provide a basis for further extension to large private entities.  There is also a strong argument that any evolution in corporate governance guidance deserves due consideration, particularly as boards deal with increasing risks and opportunities from environmental, social, economic and technological developments.  As it happens, there are no immediate plans to draft guidance to support the Irish Code, and the FRC’s Corporate Governance Code Guidance should, in the short term, be sufficient to fill the gap.  Experts in the area have long noted that attention tends be paid to corporate governance only when a failure occurs.  Given the level of public scrutiny such failures attract, and the associated reputational costs borne by board members, any Irish listed company director should be asking themselves if they can really afford not to pay attention to the new Irish Corporate Governance Code. Níall Fitzgerald, FCA, is Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland Louise Gorman is Assistant Professor at Trinity Business School