Connect with us

Accounting

For AI governance, execution lags far behind ambition

Published

on

While organizations understand AI governance and controls are important, actual implementation lags significantly behind, a gap attributed to problems not in technology but leadership and culture. 

Governance, risk and compliance solutions provider AuditBoard came to this conclusion as a result of a survey it conducted which found that over 80% of respondents said their organizations are either very or extremely concerned about AI risks but, at the same time, only 25% said they have fully implemented an AI governance program. Meanwhile, though 92% of respondents said they are confident in their visibility into third-party AI use, just 67% of organizations report conducting formal, AI-specific risk assessments for third-party models or vendors. That leaves roughly one in three firms relying on external AI systems without a clear understanding of the risks they may pose.

“AI systems are being deployed faster than oversight structures can keep up, leading to ad hoc governance, uneven accountability, and increased exposure to legal, ethical, and operational failures,” said the report. 

AI governance

And even when an organization does have a governance program, AuditBoard said the quality can vary greatly. For example, while organizations are prioritizing in things like AI usage monitoring (45%), risk assessments (44%), and third-party model evaluations (40%), practices that AuditBoard said are foundational—such as usage logging, model documentation maintenance and enforcement of access controls for AI systems—lags behind. 

“These are sophisticated processes that require  accurate data inputs, strong accountability frameworks, and well-defined governance policies. And yet, many of the building blocks that support such efforts—things like model inventories, usage logging, and approval workflows—are either missing or inconsistently applied,” said the report. 

Compounding problems is the fact that some organizations are automating these governance processes before routine controls are in place to support them, meaning that, rather than building upward from strong foundational practices, many organizations are trying to scale governance from the top down. 

“It’s an approach that risks embedding inconsistency, rather than eliminating it. What emerges is a kind of governance illusion: Automation gives the appearance of control, but without foundational processes and clear ownership, it may simply replicate gaps at scale,” said the report. 

This underscores another finding that fewer than 15% thought that the main problem was the technology itself; more often, respondents cited lack of clear leadership (44%), lack of internal expertise (39%) and limited resources (34%) as the main factors. 

“Most organizations are not struggling to find dashboards or compliance software; they’re struggling to determine who’s accountable, how teams should coordinate, and what workflows need to change. The issue is less about capability and more about clarity,” said the report. 

Overall, AuditBoard said organizations should move beyond principles and into execution by defining how policies apply to real-world scenarios (e.g. which teams review AI use cases, how model performance is monitored, and what happens when issues arise), with governance embedded into daily decisions, not just documents. Because AI governance isn’t owned by one function, the report said risk, compliance, product, legal, security, and engineering all need a seat at the table as well. If an organization does choose to automate its AI controls, they should do so strategically, not prematurely, with a focus on core controls like AI inventories, access approvals, and documentation standards before other steps. Considering even the best frameworks fail without user understanding, organizations are also urged to roll out training tailored by function and seniority. Finally, AuditBoard said organizations need to shift from annual reviews to continuous  updates, with teams structured to respond to new tools, risks, and regulatory changes as they emerge.

The survey included 412 respondents sourced from a leading global online panel provider. They were selected from the panel based on geographic and role-based quotas, as well as screening questions based on role in audit and compliance, decision-making role, company size, and how long they have been in their audit role. All participants were Audit, GRC, or IT decision-makers and purchase influencers working at companies with annual revenue of at least $100 million USD. Selected respondents were further screened based on self reported audit and compliance knowledge and attentiveness to survey questions.

Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

on

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

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

Trending