Connect with us

Accounting

Low-effort AI “workslop” increasingly irritating workers

Published

on

AI can, in theory, make people more productive, efficient and smarter at work. But the results of a recent study show this is not guaranteed to be the case, as a significant number of people report receiving low quality AI “workslop” outputs that paradoxically increase the amount of work they have to do. 

The authors of the study, who discuss their findings in the Harvard Business Review, define “workslop” as “AI generated work content that masquerades as good work, but lacks the substance to meaningfully advance a given task.” For example, reports that look polished and read well but make no sense, computer code missing vital context, or a slide deck that looks fine until you realize half the information is outright wrong. 

Of 1,150 U.S.-based full-time employees across industries polled, 40% report having received such content in the last month. Typically, those who receive it have to then spend time verifying information, correcting errors, and otherwise doing work that the person who sent it should have already done. One subject said they had to waste time following up on information and checking it against their own research, and then had to waste even more time setting up meetings with other supervisors to address the issue, and then finally they wasted even more time simply by having to redo the work entirely. Another said an email, while nicely written, was very unclear and so had to spend time tracking down all the relevant people for additional clarification. 

Human in the loop 3
Efficient AI robot working in the office and lazy employees having a coffee break

StockPhotoPro – stock.adobe.com

Employees said such low-effort, low-quality content makes up about 15.4% of all content they receive at work. The researchers noted that people spend an average of one hour and 56 minutes dealing with each instance of workslop. Based on participants’ estimates of time spent, as well as on their self-reported salary, the researchers found that these incidents carry an invisible tax of $186 per month per person. 

As one might imagine, people do not like getting this content, and they think less of the people who send it to them. When asked how it feels to receive workslop, 53% report being annoyed, 38% confused, and 22% offended. When asked about their feelings towards those who generated the content in question, about half viewed them as less creative, capable and reliable than they did before receiving the output. Further, 42% said they were less trustworthy and 37% said they were less intelligent. Further, 32% said they are less likely to want to work with the sender again in the future. 

Where does this content come from? Mostly between peers, at 40%, but not entirely. The study found 18% was from direct reports to avengers and 16% was from managers to their team members or even higher up in the chain than that. While workshop occurs across industries, researchers found that professional services and technology are disproportionately impacted.

The insidious effect of workslop, said the researchers, is that it shifts the burden of the work downstream, requiring the receiver to interpret, correct, or redo the work. In other words, it transfers the effort from creator to receiver. It was described as passing the cognitive buck, not so much doing work but shifting it around the organization. 

Part of the blame comes from organizations themselves, as the researchers believe this phenomena is fed by unclear AI mandates—while organizations are advocating for people to use AI all the time, not everyone specifies how, as they lack discernment in how the technology is applied. They also said there is a mindset difference in how people use AI, divided between what they called pilots and passengers. Basically, pilots are much more likely to use AI purposefully to enhance their own creativity and achieve their goals. Passengers, in turn, are much more likely to use AI in order to avoid doing work entirely. 

The researchers said that leaders need to address both the mindset and the mandate issues if they want to get the most from AI. 

“Workslop may feel effortless to create but exacts a toll on the organization. What a sender perceives as a loophole becomes a hole the recipient needs to dig out of. Leaders will do best to model thoughtful AI use that has purpose and intention. Set clear guardrails for your teams around norms and acceptable use. Frame AI as a collaborative tool, not a shortcut. Embody a pilot mindset, with high agency and optimism, using AI to accelerate specific outcomes with specific usage. And uphold the same standards of excellence for work done by bionic human-AI duos as by humans alone,” said the paper. 

AI strategy still work in progress

These findings call to mind recent data released by Wolters Kluwer at its recent North America conference, which found that while 86% of North American finance leaders report that their organizations are either beginning to explore AI use cases (53%), or are piloting AI in select areas (33%), ROI and strategy efforts lag behind. 

The survey found that only 24% of respondents said their finance leadership is fully aligned on the strategic role of AI. A larger portion, while 43% reported partial alignment, with engagement varying across leaders. Meanwhile, 9% said leadership is misaligned, 8% noted no alignment, and 16% were not sure of the level of alignment. Wolters Kluwer said this highlights the need for finance leaders to develop and clearly communicate a unified vision on how they expect AI to shape their finance operations.

These mixed results could be a consequence of the mixed feelings finance leaders have regarding AI. The survey found that while 14% said they are very comfortable with their organization’s level of AI investment, a larger number 38% reported being only somewhat comfortable. Further, 17% felt AI investment was too low, but 28% were not sure, highlighting the need for more clarity around AI budgeting decisions

“Finance leaders are clearly recognizing the potential of AI, but the journey from exploration to scaled deployment is complex” said Madhur Aggarwal, executive vice president and general manager of corporate performance management at Wolters Kluwer. 

 

Seventy-nine finance leaders responded to this survey, conducted on Sept. 17, 2025, during the North America CCH Tagetik inTouch25, in Houston, Texas.

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