Connect with us

Accounting

Why it’s time to rethink expense report workflows for company-paid credit cards

Published

on

For decades, employee expense reporting has followed a familiar path: employees submit reports, managers approve them and the accounting department performs a final review. This workflow made sense when employees paid for business expenses out of pocket and reimbursement was at the company’s discretion, but this legacy model breaks down when applied to company-paid credit cards.

When employees use a company-paid card, the purchase has already occurred and the company is contractually obligated to pay the card issuer. Yet, many organizations still require managers to “approve” these purchases via traditional expense reports. What exactly is the manager approving? There’s no disbursement pending. The funds are already committed.

Declining an expense report in this context doesn’t reverse the transaction. Instead, it blocks the transaction from reaching Accounting — creating reconciliation issues, delaying month-end close and compromising the accuracy of financial records. The act of declining becomes a symbolic gesture with real operational consequences.

Why managers decline reports

Managers typically decline expense reports for three reasons: budget enforcement, policy enforcement and accounting validation.

  1. Budget enforcement: In traditional reimbursements, a manager might decline a report to avoid reimbursing an unplanned or unauthorized expense. But with a company-paid card, the money is already spent. Expense reports are poor tools for budget control because they can’t prevent overspending — the purchases are discovered after the fact.
  1. Policy enforcement: Many organizations have policies that include both “hard” and “soft” rules. Hard policies cannot be overridden, such as a rule that dry cleaning is only reimbursable if the employee is on a trip of at least three nights. Soft policies allow for manager override — for example, a parking limit of $100 per day that can be exceeded with manager approval. For company-paid cards, enforcing either policy type requires downstream action, not approval or denial. Soft policy exceptions should be routed for manager review as part of an audit, not in the accounting workflow.
  1. Accounting validation: Some companies expect managers to verify the accounting accuracy of their employees’ entries, such as checking whether the right expense type or project code was used. However, this task is better suited for Accounting, which has both the context and the expertise to ensure transactions are coded correctly.

The breakdown in reconciliation

When a manager declines an expense report, the associated card transaction remains unresolved in the accounting system. It shows up on the monthly statement but hasn’t been coded, posted or documented. This creates a black hole in reconciliation. Accounting can’t finalize the books and auditors are left without a clear trail.

In trying to enforce policy or budget controls, the manager inadvertently makes the situation worse. The company must still pay the card issuer, but now lacks the accounting data and audit trail needed to properly report the expense.

Unauthorized purchases belong to HR, not accounting

Occasionally, employees make valid business purchases without proper pre-approval. For example, an employee might book a last-minute business trip for a client emergency without first getting approval. If the purchase complies with policy, the company typically reimburses the employee — despite the lack of prior authorization.This is not an accounting issue. It’s a management issue. Denying reimbursement for a legitimate business expense is rare and counterproductive. Instead, a situation like this is best addressed through HR channels — such as coaching or policy reinforcement — rather than blocking the reimbursement or reconciliation.

A more effective approach is to notify managers of purchases in real time. If they identify unauthorized activity, they can address it through HR, not by disrupting the accounting workflow.

A better model: parallel workflows

The solution is to stop treating manager approval as a proxy for audit. Instead, companies should implement two parallel workflows:

The accounting workflow: This workflow ensures that all company-paid card purchases, regardless of compliance, flow into the accounting system in time for reconciliation and payment. Employees are responsible for submitting their company-paid card purchases on an expense report. This includes providing required receipts, selecting the correct expense types and completing any additional reporting fields. Nothing about this step of the traditional expense report workflow changes. What does change is the manager’s role. Instead of reviewing expense reports to approve them, managers are removed from the workflow. This saves their time and prevents bottlenecks.

Accounting then takes over the review function, but only after the employee submits the expense report. Their job is to review reports for accounting accuracy and compliance — not to approve spend that has already occurred. Once approved, purchases flow into the accounting system.

The auditing workflow: In parallel, an audit process reviews company-paid credit card purchases for policy compliance, fraud and misuse. Auditing card transactions for fraud and policy violations is a specialized task, one that auditors and finance professionals are trained to handle. Unlike line managers, auditors know what to look for, have experience spotting patterns of misuse and work with clear documentation of the company’s expense policy. Shifting this task away from managers and into the hands of auditors not only saves managers time, it also results in more accurate and consistent compliance reviews.

If an audit determines that a transaction includes a nonreimbursable or personal expense, a correcting journal entry is made to reclassify part or all of the transaction and, if needed, record an employee receivable. For soft policy violations, the audit workflow may route the transaction to the manager for exception approval.

The path forward

The shift to company-paid credit cards has made the old reimbursement-based approval model obsolete. Organizations need workflows that reflect today’s purchasing reality: spend now, audit after. With parallel accounting and auditing workflows, companies can reconcile accurately, enforce policy effectively and ensure compliance without sacrificing operational efficiency.

It’s time to change outdated approval processes and build workflows that work for the modern finance organization.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Published

on

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Corporate accounting departments face an expanded regulatory mandate as mandatory sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting frameworks take full effect internationally. Governed by the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) IFRS S1 and S2 standards, enterprise financial controllers are now legally required to track, verify, and report non-financial data with the same internal controls and auditability as traditional financial statements.

The expansion shifts ESG compliance

This regulatory expansion shifts ESG compliance from marketing departments to corporate accounting offices. Financial managers are now responsible for gathering, consolidating, and verifying carbon emissions metrics, supply chain labor conditions, water usage, and climate risk exposures across multi-tiered corporate structures. These non-financial metrics must be integrated into standardized general ledgers to withstand rigorous third-party audit assurance processes.

To comply with these rigorous reporting mandates, accounting software providers have added dedicated ESG modules designed to aggregate data from IoT sensors, utility platforms, and vendor management systems. Controllers are implementing internal control frameworks—modeled after traditional COSO frameworks—to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of sustainability disclosures, protecting organizations against greenwashing penalties and litigation risks.

The transition requires significant cross-functional collaboration between accounting teams, legal counsel, and operational directors. Accounting professionals are expanding their technical expertise beyond financial ledgers to master carbon accounting methodologies, lifecycle assessment standards, and non-financial data governance protocols, fundamentally expanding the role of the modern corporate accountant.

Why This Information Matters
Mandatory ESG disclosures require companies to treat environmental and social metrics as audited financial records. Executives, accountants, and board members must institute formal tracking and assurance processes to satisfy legal mandates, maintain investor confidence, and mitigate regulatory non-compliance risks.

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

on

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

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

Trending