Connect with us

Accounting

Audit quality: Moving from a document to a system

Published

on

How often and how much does your firm think about quality? Every auditor is, by nature, committed to quality. Every firm has final quality control steps built into its production process. However, with the latest AICPA quality management standard, SQMS 1, firms will have to take a more holistic approach to quality. 

And with the Dec. 15, 2025, deadline for implementation rapidly approaching, this thinking needs to change quickly. 

Under the previous quality standards, firms had to create a quality control document. Most firms drafted these by making a few changes to a one-size-fits-all resource, resulting in a static document that sat on a shelf. 

This QCD was dusted off for peer review every three years. As far as we can tell, peer review rarely checks to see if this document is still relevant and whether it has been updated since its creation. Peer reviewers were not required to verify that the firm followed the QCD. The QCD was largely a checkbox on a peer review checklist. 

In contrast, SQMS 1 requires firms to develop a dynamic quality management system that must be tailored to every firm. The standards require firms to address eight components to develop a holistic system to proactively improve quality in audit and assurance engagements. The AICPA practice aids warn that a copy-and-paste approach will not work, and we concur with this assessment. 

As we have worked with firms over the last two years to help them create a firm-specific QMS, we’ve noticed a few areas where firms struggle with this project. Our hope with this article is to provide some clarity so firms will have an easier time meeting the upcoming deadline. 

A QMS is a system, not a document

One approach we have encountered is finding and replacing the word “document” in their QCD with “management system.” The problem with this approach is their QCD was a static set of aspirational policies that were rarely woven into a culture of quality at the firm. They often use vague terms like “periodically” and “timely” for the frequency of evaluating and responding to risk events, and rarely spell out the responses to those risk events. 

In contrast, a QMS is a dynamic framework of interacting objectives with policies and procedures to monitor quality and risk events and to remediate problems when they arise. The standards call for ongoing monitoring at regular intervals with root cause analysis and remediation when something goes wrong and results in a risk event. 

While monitoring naturally takes place throughout the year, an annual review of the QMS is recommended. When a risk event is identified, either during the year or as a result of the annual monitoring process, the timeframe to carry out root cause analysis and remediation is linked to the risk severity ranking. 

Your QMS needs to include a mechanism for tracking risk events. When an event occurs, you will need to perform a root cause analysis. A process we recommend to firms is the “Five Whys” method. First, you describe the issue and ask why that happened. Then, ask why that first event happened. By the time you reach the fifth iteration and the fifth why, you should be able to identify the root cause of the problem, which should guide you to a remediation process that will need to be incorporated into the QMS on a go-forward basis. 

Unlike QCDs, which were rarely updated, a QMS needs to be updated at least annually to scale with your firm. Your QMS can be a tool to make your firm better. Some firms are using their newly created QMS as a reason to disengage from poor-fit clients. 

A QMS is tailored to your firm

As we have worked with firms to develop their QMS, we’ve come across QCDs that don’t reflect reality at those firms. One firm’s QCD stated that bonuses and other compensation would be based on quality work, but there was no mechanism to do so. We noted one firm that had identified issues during their annual inspections over the years, but hadn’t taken any action on them or communicated them to the department. 

Some QCDs say the firms won’t do government audits or employee benefit plan audits, but they did lots of those audits, or vice versa. Another firm said its mission and values were to be posted on a placard throughout the office, but we didn’t see that anywhere. 

Every firm is different, so every firm needs to create its own specifically tailored QMS that reflects the nature of engagements performed by that firm. As we wrote previously, we advocate SMART objectives, which are specific, measurable, actionable, relevant and timely. For example, instead of a QCD’s assertion of a commitment to ethical leadership, a QMS objective might require quarterly leadership meetings to reinforce professional standards, review ethics cases, and address quality concerns. The procedures and tracking for that objective can now guide where the agenda and relevant documents for the leadership meetings are stored, improving internal processes and cleaning up file management.

A QMS is more than words

Most firms find that developing their quality objectives and the accompanying policies, procedures and remediation processes requires a great deal of discussion, wordsmithing and deep thinking to create the documents that serve as their QMS. 

Make no mistake, this will be a major undertaking, so if you haven’t started by now, you need to start today. 

However, it would be a grave mistake to think that once the email with the final document is sent out to the team, the work is complete. Because this is a quality management system, you need to consider how this will change your firm’s operations. 

  • How will this system support the development of a culture of quality? 
  • What changes will be needed to ensure your firm is fully committed to quality? 
  • What areas will require additional resources? 
  • What meetings will need to be scheduled to review risk events, and how often do these meetings need to happen? 
  • What will be the process for reviewing and updating your QMS? 

These are just a few questions you will need to consider so quality becomes an everyday consideration, not simply a step for the QA person. 

Quality is not the only goal

While the emphasis for firms this year is on quality, this is only one of the three sides of an equilateral triangle that creates stable and successful firms. The other two sides are client service and profitability. Without balance on all three sides, firms struggle. 

You can have the best QMS system in the world, but have so much bureaucracy that it slows the system down, so you lose clients and endanger profitability. You could put so much attention on keeping clients happy that you jeopardize profitability and quality. Or you might push profitability to the point of making clients unhappy and skimping on quality. 

The best QMS system operates smoothly and identifies issues quickly while enabling you to focus on what you’re best at. It supports providing value to your clients, which allows the firm to be profitable.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

on

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Modernizing Internal Controls: Machine Learning and Continuous Monitoring in Auditing

Published

on

Internal audit departments and corporate risk managers are modernizing internal control frameworks by shifting from periodic sampling techniques to continuous monitoring and machine learning analytics. As operational data volumes increase across enterprise organizations, automated control testing ensures financial integrity, prevents corporate fraud, and streamlines annual audit engagements.

The Limitation of Periodic Audit Sampling
Historically, internal and external auditors evaluated internal controls by reviewing random samples of financial transactions—often analyzing less than five percent of total ledger entries. In complex enterprise environments, periodic sampling methods carry inherent risks of overlooking localized financial misstatements, unauthorized disbursements, or operational control breakdowns.

In 2026, progressive internal audit functions are utilizing automated continuous monitoring platforms that evaluate one hundred percent of financial transactions in real time. Continuous control auditing systems continuously monitor general ledger entries, procurement approvals, and expense reimbursements across all operating subsidiaries.

AI-Powered Fraud Detection and Anomaly Identification
Machine learning models trained on historical corporate financial data excel at identifying subtle transactional anomalies that indicate potential fraud or operational error. Automated systems instantly flag duplicate invoice payments, unapproved vendor creation, unusual journal entry timing, and unauthorized override of authority thresholds.

When an anomaly is detected, the automated auditing platform generates an instant risk alert, allowing internal audit teams to investigate root causes immediately. Early detection prevents minor operational errors from escalating into material weaknesses in financial reporting.

Streamlining External Audit Preparation
Continuous internal control monitoring delivers significant benefits during annual external financial audits. External audit firms can review continuous audit logs and automated control testing documentation, reducing the time required for manual field testing.

This integrated approach lowers overall audit compliance fees, reduces administrative burdens on corporate accounting staff, and provides senior management and audit committees with real-time visibility into the organization’s overall risk profile.

Core Implementation Guidelines
1. Transition to 100% Data Testing: Replace legacy sampling methods with automated continuous audit monitoring systems.
2. Deploy Anomaly Detection Algorithms: Implement machine learning models to identify unauthorized transactions and operational control overrides.
3. Align Internal and External Audit Workflows: Coordinate continuous control testing protocols with external auditors to optimize annual compliance cycles.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Tax Compliance and Global Regulatory Harmonization in 2026

Published

on

Corporate tax accounting departments are navigating an era of unprecedented regulatory complexity as global tax harmonization frameworks take full effect alongside real-time digital tax reporting mandates. Tax directors and accounting teams are adopting cloud-based tax compliance automation tools to manage multi-jurisdictional tax liabilities and satisfy stringent reporting rules across international jurisdictions.

Implementation of Global Minimum Tax Provisions
The implementation of international tax reform agreements—notably the Pillar Two global minimum tax framework—has reshaped multinational corporate tax planning. Multinational enterprises with consolidated revenues exceeding established thresholds must ensure an effective tax rate of at least 15% across every jurisdiction in which they operate.

Accounting teams are implementing specialized tax calculation modules integrated directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms. These automated tools calculate effective tax rates per country, identify top-up tax liabilities, and generate standardized compliance documentation required by national tax authorities.

Real-Time Digital Invoicing and E-Reporting Mandates
Tax authorities across Europe, Latin America, and Asia-Pacific have enacted mandatory electronic invoicing (e-invoicing) and continuous transaction controls (CTC). Under these systems, corporate transaction data must be submitted electronically to government portals in real time at the point of sale or invoice issuance.

This shift toward continuous digital tax reporting eliminates traditional annual tax audits in favor of ongoing automated compliance monitoring. Accounting departments are upgrading invoicing software to ensure seamless XML data formatting, digital signature authentication, and real-time validation against tax authority databases.

Automation and Data Analytics in Corporate Tax Strategy
To keep pace with dynamic tax legislation, tax departments are transitioning from reactive compliance teams to proactive strategic advisors. Machine learning algorithms analyze corporate transactional data to identify tax credits, research and development (R&D) incentives, and cross-border transfer pricing adjustments.

By automating routine tax return filings and calculations, corporate tax directors can focus on long-term capital structuring, evaluating the tax implications of corporate mergers, and optimizing international supply chain networks.

Strategic Priorities for Tax Executives
1. ERP System Upgrades: Ensure enterprise software is capable of generating real-time, granular tax data required for global minimum tax compliance.
2. E-Invoicing Integration: Implement scalable e-invoicing platforms to satisfy regional continuous transaction control regulations.
3. Strategic Tax Analytics: Utilize predictive tax modeling tools to evaluate structural changes in corporate operations and cross-border trade.

Continue Reading

Trending