Regulation, compliance and the Australian forensic accounting profession

Legacies of the Global Financial Crisis and major domestic corporate collapses – such as HIH Insurance Pty Ltd and One.Tel Ltd (telecommunications) – have significantly changed Australia‟s financial regulatory landscape. Legal requirements for auditors have attracted particular attention as have practice standards more broadly around disclosure and conflict of interest. Conversely, although successful detection and prosecution of breaches may rest in significant part on forensic accounting activities, Australia‟s practitioners in this field have no minimum training or qualifications standards other than the baseline requirements mandated by the country‟s three professional accounting bodies. For those unaffiliated with these organizations, no professional oversight exists. In Australia, growth in the forensic accounting industry has been in direct response to public demand for expertise in a broad range of fraud, forensic and business analytics areas in order to improve the corporate governance practices of Australian organizations. During the 1990s, Australian forensic accounting firms expanded and diversified into a number of different areas going well beyond just the examination of financial documents and involvement in financial litigation disputes. “Big 4” accounting firms such as PriceWaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst and Young formed independent forensic accounting or forensic services units; a number of mid-tier and „boutique‟ forensic accounting firms similarly expanded into forensic investigative, analytical and advisory services. By 2008, 800 forensic accountants were registered with the country‟s largest specialist forensic accounting group, the Forensic Accounting Special Interest Group (FASIG) of the ICAA1. Currently, obtaining more precise figures on numbers of forensic accounting practitioners is problematic: professional accounting bodies either do not keep a register or have ceased registering their forensic accounting members; lack of formal recognition, admission or certification processes complicate identification of candidates; and diversity of the skills sets the industry requires has meant the influx of non-accounting based specialists.

Social Compliance Accounting : Managing Legitimacy in Global Supply Chains

This book covers key discussions involving major US and European multinational companies (MNCs) that source products from suppliers in developing countries. Due to the transfer of production from developed to developing nations, there is an urgent need to establish social compliance as a new form of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and a means by which MNCs can meet expected social standards. The cases described are internationally relevant and can be seen to reflect or represent the behavior of many MNCs and their suppliers in developing nations. The discussion offers essential insights into how different levels of social compliance risk and pressure (including broader stakeholder concerns) move managers to adopt or embrace particular social compliance accounting, reporting and auditing strategies. The book will help readers to understand the major concerns, challenges and dilemmas faced by management in the supply chains of MNCs, and proposes measures that can be taken to resolve those dilemmas. Most importantly, it develops a systematic method of assessing the social compliance performance of suppliers to MNCs. This includes highly detailed accounts of the social compliance performance of suppliers within the clothing industry (in a developing nation) that supply goods to the extensive US and European markets. The book offers a valuable guide, not only for corporate managers but also for practitioners, researchers, academics, and undergraduate and postgraduate business students.

Nonprofit Boards in Australia: A Distinctive Governance Appoach

This article reports the findings into patterns of governance on nonprofit boards in Australia. The research surveys 118 boards, upon which serve a total of 1405 directors. The findings indicate that nonprofit boards can mimic some aspects of a shareholder approach to governance. But nonprofit boards, in the main, indicate priorities and activities of a stakeholder approach to governance. The features of `isomorphism' that arise largely stem from legislative requirements in corporate governance. Generally, nonprofit directors are influenced by agenda and motivations that can be differentiated from the influences upon director activity in the corporate sector. The study indicates that nonprofit boards prize knowledge and loyalty to the sector when considering board composition. The survey suggests nonprofits ``compensate'' for the demands placed upon them about fiduciary duty and due diligence responsibilities with the diverse intellectual expertise of non-executive directors. Nonprofit boards possess greater diversity than boards in the corporate sector; they include more women as directors than corporate boards and they include a greater proportion of directors from minority groups. While strategic issues feature significantly as a task of the nonprofit board, they distinguish themselves from their corporate counterparts by engaging in operational management. The findings indicate that, in the main, directors on nonprofit boards deliberate and operate in ways distinctive from their corporate counterparts. Such findings offer a contribution to the reform of Corporations Law in other countries and the likely consequence on boards outside the corporate sector.