Science may have had the best intentions of the accounting profession, but he may have remained very elegant.
“Academics are not sufficiently heard in the public debate about the accounting profession.” This was the last statement in a discussion on this site. According to the academics themselves, this statement is incorrect. According to them, science is making itself sufficiently heard, but it is politics that does not or does not follow up on recommendations adequately. This does not seem to me the full story. There are examples where the science could have been more clear, I’ll mention three here.
First, the fundamental question, the role and mission of the financial auditor in the twenty-first century. The “meta” question that stands out above everything else. No one disputes that the certification of annual accounts has contributed to the correctness of business transactions over the past hundred years and that it also serves the public interest indirectly. But times are changing and so are the social challenges. Companies are expected to make a positive contribution to the transition to sustainability, social goals and above all to stewardship – the appropriate transmission of achievements to future generations. This is also possible, because of course companies did not stand idly by and them judgment advanced, backed by technological capabilities. Financial management itself – thanks to the same technology – increasingly commodity had become.
And with this change of play comes the question of the role of the auditor (or accountant if you prefer). That is, if the profession wants to maintain the same value in the public interest. Or not, of course, but then the auditor increasingly works for the sake of particular interests (shareholder, creditor, bank). Then the scope of the audit becomes comparable, for example, with an ISO certificate. But don’t be surprised if the profession’s protected status was once called into question.
These basic questions about changes in society will not be found in an accounting book, but in sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, and philosophy. Science that has managed to capture the spirit of the times and raise a mirror to us. He showed that 2022 requires something completely different than 1990 (before the Internet!), let alone 1960 or 1932. I’d like to read something about that in the current discussions. and then can passing by Fossilized dogmas about trust theory, principal/agent theories and fist-sized annual reports are being dismantled or thrown into the sea.
Thus, qualitative research in the basics is not given enough attention today (and this applies not only to accounting, by the way). Instead, we got quantitative research. So it is not surprising that the most unusual areas are being explored. At FAR, the annual meeting of scholars from around the world (I was still present at the physical meetings myself), the ‘link between theory and practice’ is sought. As mentioned, all kinds of topics are discussed. At that time (and still is) the relationship between the composition of audit teams and its impact on audit results was very popular. It’s good to learn about this, because these behavioral science ideas have been little discussed. But what is the practical value at the moment? Because of the great shortage, people are already happy if it is possible to form a team; Employees who drop out due to work stress, and of course the labor inspectorate that has been called to conduct an investigation. Then you never hear from her again.
And last – but not least – a full range of investigations, starting with the AFM, CTA and MCA and culminating in the investigation of catering managers. Of course (a lot) a lot has been said about this and I will certainly not repeat it here. Remarkably, many people outside the field and few academics participate in these committees. The unsatisfactory conclusion is that the profession is now filled with laws and regulations, huge audit burdens for organizations and an accountant who has to spend valuable time on file, which really should be for the client. Who would have thought that this would lead to a better decision – Ghost should know. This should be scientific ground beef.
The conclusion might be that science distributed a few pin-pricks and shrugs here and there and had the best of intentions, but it may have remained very neat. Maybe it was a company Treat Or even a straight leg would be better in place. The latter is not permitted, but the manner in which the profession has been stripped requires unconventional means. Indeed, in view of the urgency, it does not appear to be a question of want, but a ought, and all help is welcome. So I support an initiative to create a separate section on this site for contributions that emphasize the public interest.
“Twitter junkie. Lifelong communicator. Award-winning analyst. Subtly charming internetaholic.”