Dennis Howlett picked up on my theme of incredulity about the professions PR, noted here yesterday. He has said:
I am still firmly of the opinion that at least one of the Big Four will fail even though I know ICAEW members and colleagues who think I’m utterly wrong. I agree with Francine the weight of impending litigation is what will bring the situation to a head. The pile of lawsuits is simply too high and in the case of Satyam, will almost certainly require litigating in order to settle. That is one of what I believe will be a series of tipping points. Having said that, my opinion about which of the Big Four fails first varies depending on which news I’m reading at the time. There’s just too much bad news out there. Regardless, the die is cast.
As and when (not if) it happens, we will see a radical recasting of the profession. It will be a golden moment when it will be possible to think about how the profession might morph into something in which people can place genuine confidence once again and where a meaningful ethical compass drives the way they do business. That is for those who are not already thinking these matters through.
In the meantime, people like Richard, Francine, myself and Adrienne will keep plugging away at the issues — even if that means we individually and collectively sound like Cassandra. At times completely out of step with consensus thinking, at others apparently baying at the moon.
I suspect all four of us are optimists: we have to be or it would not be worth bothering. That’s why Dennis can write that great second paragraph. It’s what we want to do.
But sure as heck we’ve got some way to go: although it’s obvious things cannot and will not survive as they are now the majority remain with their heads in the sand.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“a meaningful ethical compass ”
don’t tell me. It translates as “that small number of people who share my set of beliefs”.
MF
I’ve been criticised for using the terms left and right in debate. Maybe those who say that are correct.
let’s use another terminology. I am a social being. I believe in society. I think it’s of benefit. I think societies share a moral compass. The reality is we live in societies.
You and your kin do not like society. You think it opposed to your best interest. Working in secrecy jurisdictions you seek to undermine it. You’re anti-social.
I side with the majority and recognise reality. You oppose it, anti-socially, seeking to promote the few.
Who is likely to have most on his side?
Richard
Richard,
The problem is in your definition of society. You seem to regard it as primarily being made up of large nation states who take large sums in tax off people and dispense services from the centre, without any accountability except an election every 4/5 years.
I think this is inefficient, environmentally unsound and fundamentally alienates people from their political structures.
I regard society as being comprised of levels of overlapping structures – starting with families, then friends, neightbours, villages, towns/counties and only then going on to countries. I believe in decentralising virtually everything, so that people are accountable to those who they interract with.
In fact, I’d go further – but this may be because I was born on an island – and say that countries are virtually meaningless. I am a citizen of my neighbourhood and then of the world. Environmental damage in the third world has a greater effect on my life than the efficiency of the NHS in Scotland. So my version of society jumps from a group of around 100,000 to the entire planet.
You say “societies share a moral compass”. What does that mean? The only time societies get to express a view on anything is at election time and Britain has not elected a particularly left win government in at least 35 years (if ever). So what is your evidence for believing that the moral compass of the nation is aligned to your own?
Insofar as England has a moral compass, it is clearly resolutely Tory. It is sceptical of government and of big ideas. It is the land of the pragmatist, always has been.
I am not anti-social. I have full confidence that what you call “secrecy jurisdictions” are acting lawfully and not seeking to undermine anything. What they are doing is to help people who are already wealthy to preserve and increase their wealth in legal ways. I have some reservations about whether that is entirely right, but no doubt at all that it is done lawfully in 99.9% of cases.
But I am hugely concerned at people who use phrases like “moral compass” (isn’t that what Gordon Brown has) and “socially useful” without indicating who they think they are speaking for and why they think they have the authority to claim the moral high ground.
I do care about society and I agree with you that it is hopelessly fractured at the moment. I just believe that the way you put it back together is not by strengthening the centre, but by building in from the edges.
Richard
I’m not sure what your definition of society is, but it isn’t one I recognise, nor does it seem to fit with the definitions given by the OED, which are:
“the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.” or “a particular community of people living in a country or region, and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.”
As far as I can tell, everybody who comments on here likes the idea of living in a society. The difference arises because some want to live in a society which is broadly voluntary in nature and where interactions between people are a matter for the individuals concerned, whereas others want to live in a society which is more heavily centrally controlled.
As for the Auditing issue, there is a fundamental flaw in the system, in that the person who is being made to buy the service isn’t the person who is intended to benefit from it. If the supplier is meant to be supplying a service which is at odds with the wishes of the paying customer, it’s bound to cause problems.
“As for the Auditing issue, there is a fundamental flaw in the system, in that the person who is being made to buy the service isn’t the person who is intended to benefit from it.”
what could be a solution for that? abandoning a form of enterprise such as corporations and leaving only individually and family-run businesses? or paying for auditing from the state’s budget?
Billy
To be honest, I’m not sure if I there is a simple answer.
I’ve never been comfortable with the limited liability status of corporations, but I don’t see a sudden compulsory shift to small scale production as being a practical or particularly proportionate response to the problem of auditing.
I don’t think it’s necessary for the state to pay for auditing. The problem as I see it isn’t so much that the company pays the auditor, but that the company chooses the auditor, which creates a conflict – if the auditor is too thorough, there is a risk that they might lose custom.
I suppose you could oblige companies to appoint their auditors through some kind of competitive tendering process, so that auditors are competing on price alone, but, as with all solutions, it would bring its own issues.