In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, the expectations placed on auditors and advisors are shifting significantly.
As finance functions within organizations embrace technological advancements, there is mounting pressure on public accounting firms to match or exceed the pace of change and sophistication of their clients to perform their expected role.
Recent industry research indicates clients are noticing this growing gap in capabilities. Businesses are actively seeking accounting firms offering a more progressive approach, with 55% wanting an audit that can scale and support their growth goals and expectations. Further, 67% feel audits can provide valuable insights in these areas, but feel the current process is hindering this (“What modern businesses want from their audits”).
Many accounting firms are excited by high-margin and high-growth advisory services. There is a huge amount of opportunity in this area, including services such as ESG, digital transformation, and AI strategy.
But how can a firm pitch a credible offering to a company in these areas if their core services such as audit and tax are still highly manual? Discussing cyber risks and data security feels disingenuous while their teams drown in spreadsheets as their desktop software synchronizes.
Public accounting firms need to eat their own dog food, digitally transforming their own business to provide a credible and broad suite of valuable compliance and advisory services to clients. These war stories and firsthand experiences are what bring to life the page in the sales brochure.
The Oakland Athletics show the way
Over the past decade, technology has made significant advances. Just look at the NASDAQ’s most valuable companies by market capitalization: Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and NVIDIA — all companies built on the value of technology and data.
Yet, in the auditing profession many firms remain cautious over new technology. Some recite that audit standards have not been updated to endorse such technologies and until this happens, they won’t change: “The audit standards are still written assuming the auditor cannot review all transactions and must sample, so why would I use data analytics to analyze all the transactions?”
This mindset has led many to stick to traditional methods, feeling unable to change despite the clear benefits that modern technology can offer.
This might be audit’s Moneyball moment.
The story of the 2002 Oakland Athletics is well known and has been told more broadly through the hit film “Moneyball,” starring Brad Pitt.
The rules of baseball do not significantly change from year to year. There was no major change ahead of the 2002 season. Yet one team decided to take a new approach to the game.
WrightStudio – stock.adobe.com
Rather than leaning on the traditional scouting approaches and views of those who had been in baseball all their lives, Billy Beane decided to embrace statistical analysis. As the general manager, he brought onto his team players undervalued by these traditional scouting methods. He adopted a data-driven approach to team-building and playing the game of baseball.
So, the rules of the game hadn’t changed, but one team decided to play the game differently within those existing rules. The Oakland Athletics chose to use data over the traditional approach. They set new records and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with teams that had far greater resources.
Now every baseball team has embraced what Billy Beane started, and we have seen the same in other sports like the football. “Analytics” was originally scoffed at by commentators and former players. Now it is an integral part of everything from draft selection to in-game strategy.
The audit standards are akin to the rules of baseball. The rules do not need to change for a better way to play the game to be possible. The standards do not need to change for there to be a better way of auditing.
Digital audits are a way of leveraging data, data analytics, and modern technologies to deliver more efficient and valuable audits, while safely complying with the existing audit standards.
The role of governing bodies: Ensuring innovation and progress
Professional bodies, regulators, and standard-setters play a crucial role in helping firms navigate change. Innovation within firms brings greater creativity and variation to the way traditional services like audit are being performed. While evolving the rulebook is required, the process to change audit standards is necessarily deliberate, considered, and therefore slow.
So, governing bodies must stay close to firms and the solution providers they are working with to drive innovation. Understanding new techniques as they are being conceived and trialed, not after they have matured and then witnessed in an audit inspection, could shorten this feedback loop by multiple years.
This level of transparency and collaboration requires trust. Professional bodies who see demand from their members for support as an opportunity to step in as a direct solution provider should be mindful of the impact. This changes relationships with solution providers and introduces conflicts to their role of advancing the profession.
In the U.K., there have been several positive initiatives aimed at fostering the collaborative advancement of the audit profession. Following comprehensive government-commissioned reports such as the Kingman and Brydon Reviews, UK audit firms have been redefining their operations and what an audit represents.
The Financial Reporting Council, the U.K.’s audit regulator, has launched sandbox and other experimentation initiatives to support firms exploring more innovative auditing techniques. The professional body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, has also embedded modern commercially available auditing technology directly within their accountancy exams to teach students digital auditing skills.
The U.S. could learn a lot from experiences on the other side of the Atlantic … .
The changing landscape of solution providers
For many years, public accounting firms have faced limited audit solution choice.
This lack of competition has caused the market to circle the drain. Accounting firms have felt trapped by audit methodologies written generations ago, housed in desktop software which survived the millennium bug. This has then caused a chronic underinvestment in the market by the incumbent providers.
But the rise of cloud computing is driving a movement towards smaller, more agile providers, often with Big Four experience. They have developed enterprise-ready platforms leveraging the infrastructure and security of Microsoft Azure and other cloud providers. This means David can take on Goliath — but this time with more powerful capabilities.
The competition brought by more agile solution providers benefits CPA firms by:
Offering more choice and new ideas;
Providing more implementation support and guidance; and,
Pressuring incumbents to modernize their offerings.
These solution providers are still evolving. Some come heavily backed by venture capital and private equity. Others have been successful in organically growing their business, as large firms early-adopted their solution. While the difference may seem subtle, the question remains whether in the long term these new vendors will take on, or be acquired by, the larger incumbent vendors. This may ultimately come down to product strategy. Those offering narrow point-solutions may more naturally become target acquisitions for the large vendors with holes in their offerings. Or as territory defense. Those building rival suites, or committing to progressive partnerships to create alternative suites will more likely go long and create a healthier competitive landscape into the future.
Stop talking about the future of audit
There is a generational change in motion within the audit profession. Almost every CPA firm will review, and likely change, their audit technology in the next three years.
They will ditch the desktop. But will they simply crawl to the cloud, doing the same work in a different place?
Or will they deploy digital, embracing data and automation to skip a step and make a more progressive change?
Firms that go digital will achieve greater efficiencies through automation. But more important, they will strategically position themselves to more easily embrace future technology advancements — embedding the skillsets and data disciplines required to capitalize on artificial intelligence and all the new innovations we are yet to experience.
And it is worth considering given the severe talent challenges — firms that are embracing technology are more attractive employers for those now looking to start and continue a career in accounting.
Traditional British pubs have a sign behind the bar stating the beer will be free tomorrow. But tomorrow never comes.
It’s time to stop listening to the theoretical presentations on the future of audit. The technology is here. More innovative innovation partners are here. CPA firms are implementing a digital audit approach and being successful.
The relevance of the audit service to the needs of modern business may be judged in future years on the strategic decisions that accounting firm leaders make over the coming years.
The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board is proposing to tailor some of its standards to align with recent additions to the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants’ International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants when it comes to using the work of an external expert.
The IAASB is asking for comments via a digital response template that can be found on the IAASB website by July 24, 2025.
In December 2023, the IESBA approved an exposure draft for proposed revisions to the IESBA’s Code of Ethics related to using the work of an external expert. The proposals included three new sections to the Code of Ethics, including provisions for professional accountants in public practice; professional accountants in business and sustainability assurance practitioners. The IESBA approved the provisions on using the work of an external expert at its December 2024 meeting, establishing an ethical framework to guide accountants and sustainability assurance practitioners in evaluating whether an external expert has the necessary competence, capabilities and objectivity to use their work, as well as provisions on applying the Ethics Code’s conceptual framework when using the work of an outside expert.
President Donald Trump’s tariffs would effectively cause a tax increase for low-income families that is more than three times higher than what wealthier Americans would pay, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
The report from the progressive think tank outlined the outcomes for Americans of all backgrounds if the tariffs currently in effect remain in place next year. Those making $28,600 or less would have to spend 6.2% more of their income due to higher prices, while the richest Americans with income of at least $914,900 are expected to spend 1.7% more. Middle-income families making between $55,100 and $94,100 would pay 5% more of their earnings.
Trump has imposed the steepest U.S. duties in more than a century, including a 145% tariff on many products from China, a 25% rate on most imports from Canada and Mexico, duties on some sectors such as steel and aluminum and a baseline 10% tariff on the rest of the country’s trading partners. He suspended higher, customized tariffs on most countries for 90 days.
Economists have warned that costs from tariff increases would ultimately be passed on to U.S. consumers. And while prices will rise for everyone, lower-income families are expected to lose a larger portion of their budgets because they tend to spend more of their earnings on goods, including food and other necessities, compared to wealthier individuals.
Food prices could rise by 2.6% in the short run due to tariffs, according to an estimate from the Yale Budget Lab. Among all goods impacted, consumers are expected to face the steepest price hikes for clothing at 64%, the report showed.
The Yale Budget Lab projected that the tariffs would result in a loss of $4,700 a year on average for American households.
Artificial intelligence is just getting started in the accounting world, but it is already helping firms like technology specialist Schellman do more things with fewer people, allowing the firm to scale back hiring and reduce headcount in certain areas through natural attrition.
Schellman CEO Avani Desai said there have definitely been some shifts in headcount at the Top 100 Firm, though she stressed it was nothing dramatic, as it mostly reflects natural attrition combined with being more selective with hiring. She said the firm has already made an internal decision to not reduce headcount in force, as that just indicates they didn’t hire properly the first time.
“It hasn’t been about reducing roles but evolving how we do work, so there wasn’t one specific date where we ‘started’ the reduction. It’s been more case by case. We’ve held back on refilling certain roles when we saw opportunities to streamline, especially with the use of new technologies like AI,” she said.
One area where the firm has found such opportunities has been in the testing of certain cybersecurity controls, particularly within the SOC framework. The firm examined all the controls it tests on the service side and asked which ones require human judgment or deep expertise. The answer was a lot of them. But for the ones that don’t, AI algorithms have been able to significantly lighten the load.
“[If] we don’t refill a role, it’s because the need actually has changed, or the process has improved so significantly [that] the workload is lighter or shared across the smarter system. So that’s what’s happening,” said Desai.
Outside of client services like SOC control testing and reporting, the firm has found efficiencies in administrative functions as well as certain internal operational processes. On the latter point, Desai noted that Schellman’s engineers, including the chief information officer, have been using AI to help develop code, which means they’re not relying as much on outside expertise on the internal service delivery side of things. There are still people in the development process, but their roles are changing: They’re writing less code, and doing more reviewing of code before it gets pushed into production, saving time and creating efficiencies.
“The best way for me to say this is, to us, this has been intentional. We paused hiring in a few areas where we saw overlaps, where technology was really working,” said Desai.
However, even in an age awash with AI, Schellman acknowledges there are certain jobs that need a human, at least for now. For example, the firm does assessments for the FedRAMP program, which is needed for cloud service providers to contract with certain government agencies. These assessments, even in the most stable of times, can be long and complex engagements, to say nothing of the less predictable nature of the current government. As such, it does not make as much sense to reduce human staff in this area.
“The way it is right now for us to do FedRAMP engagements, it’s a very manual process. There’s a lot of back and forth between us and a third party, the government, and we don’t see a lot of overall application or technology help… We’re in the federal space and you can imagine, [with] what’s going on right now, there’s a big changing market condition for clients and their pricing pressure,” said Desai.
As Schellman reduces staff levels in some places, it is increasing them in others. Desai said the firm is actively hiring in certain areas. In particular, it’s adding staff in technical cybersecurity (e.g., penetration testers), the aforementioned FedRAMP engagements, AI assessment (in line with recently becoming an ISO 42001 certification body) and in some client-facing roles like marketing and sales.
“So, to me, this isn’t about doing more with less … It’s about doing more of the right things with the right people,” said Desai.
While these moves have resulted in savings, she said that was never really the point, so whatever the firm has saved from staffing efficiencies it has reinvested in its tech stack to build its service line further. When asked for an example, she said the firm would like to focus more on penetration testing by building a SaaS tool for it. While Schellman has a proof of concept developed, she noted it would take a lot of money and time to deploy a full solution — both of which the firm now has more of because of its efficiency moves.
“What is the ‘why’ behind these decisions? The ‘why’ for us isn’t what I think you traditionally see, which is ‘We need to get profitability high. We need to have less people do more things.’ That’s not what it is like,” said Desai. “I want to be able to focus on quality. And the only way I think I can focus on quality is if my people are not focusing on things that don’t matter … I feel like I’m in a much better place because the smart people that I’ve hired are working on the riskiest and most complicated things.”