Accountancy Age blog: Accountancy Matters with Damian Wild Accountancy Age blog: Accountancy Matters with Damian Wild A blog from Accountancy Age

« May 2008 | Main |July 2008 »

Will PwC's next ten years be as profitable?

Happy birthday to PwC. Happy birthday to PwC. Happy birthday to Pw-Cee. Happy birthday to PwC.

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the merger of Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand (remember them?). It should be a cause for celebration. And to a degree it is. The merger created the blueprint for the modern accountancy colossus: a global assurance and advisory business built on solid audit foundations with plenty to offer the world's biggest and most ambitious companies.

But PwC, in the UK at least, is also in reflective mood.

Today also marks the inauguration of senior partner Ian Powell, only the third since the firm was created. But more than that it has a rival snapping at its heels for the first time, a regulator determined to inject more competition into the audit market and a business climate that is as unfriendly as it has ever seen.

Powell acknowledges as much in an interview with the Financial Times this morning.
'If you're number one and you're not agile, you're a target,' he says. 'We're a relatively conservative industry, and we've been a relatively conservative organisation . . . Now it's time for us to really start to use our position as market leader.'

So what challenges await Powell? Well, chief among them is the fact that PwC grew by 6% in the year to 30 June, taking its turnover to £2.1m. Deloitte is expected to announce it is within striking distance when it reveals its annual results later this year. Its anticipated 12% growth rate would see it break the £2bn barrier.

Meanwhile as a partner from the advisory side of the business, he'll know better than most that it faces a mountain to climb in the advisory market where only Deloitte - that pesky firm again - is taken seriously as a rival to the pure(r) play consultancies like Cap Gemini and Accenture.

And while few expect the Financial Reporting Council to extend the top end of the audit market any time soon, the depleted-to-decimated state of the markets PwC serves will keep Powell awake most nights for the foreseeable future. In truth he's not alone in that.

But, as he acknowledges himself, so long as PwC is the number firm all eyes will be trained in its direction.

Protection racket will fall on deaf ears

There's more noise around the issue of protecting the word accountant. ACCA member Alan Shooter has set up an online petition on the Downing Street website and a month on from its creation, he has attracted 50 signatures.

He is demanding - and these are his capitals, not mine - that we 'PREVENT UNQUALIFIED ACCOUNTANTS,TAX AND FINANCIAL ADVISORS PROVIDING SERVICES UNLESS THEY HAVE PROFESSIONALLY RECOGNISED QUALIFICATIONS'.

To put that level of support into some kind of context I took a look at other petitions created on 24 June.

Shooter has secured 13 more signatures than the petitioner seeking to 'utterly condemn and bring all pressure possible to bear to prevent Cadbury from outsourcing production to Poland' but 122 fewer than a campaigner seeking to 'allow exemptions for long established family businesses which will be hit by the scrapping of taper relief and the new blanket 18% capital gains tax'.

Although I have sympathy with the argument that use of the term accountant should be regulated I simply cannot see how it would work.

How do you define it? You would presumably adopt an existing definition of what makes a reputable accountant.

But even if you just pick a UK definition (which would be difficult given the international mobility of professionals) which would you choose?

Would you pick the CCAB definition of six institutes? Would you incorporate the Companies Act which would effectively add in another? Is it all institutes - of which there are many?

To succeed I suspect protection of accountants requires rationalisation of institutes. And given recent unhappy experiences I don't sense any appetite for that.

CSR will be first victim of the downturn

I'm speaking at the Oxford Union tonight in a debate entitled, provocatively, corporate social responsibility will not survive the economic downturn.

I'm speaking for the motion that many companies will water down their current commitments as they seek to reduce costs at a time of falling revenues. It's something I fear is inevitable.

There is of course danger surrounding the negative PR that may result, though in many cases this can be easily dealt with.

With soaring energy prices, green commitments can be maintained for cost reasons rather than CSR reasons.

And other parts of the CSR piece are much less likely to survive.

It's been easy to forget in recent months that there is much more to CSR than environmental sustainability.

To be a member of the FTSE4GOOD Index, for instance, eligible companies must do more than simply work towards a green goal.

They should develop positive relationships with stakeholders, uphold and support universal human rights, ensure good supply chain labour standards and counter bribery.

Yet there are already signs those other criteria are suffering.

More than one in three of the international business leaders surveyed last month by Ernst & Young reported a worsening of corrupt business practices.

At home, Boots is one of 14 (largely retail) companies to have come under fire for imposing a 'settlement fee' on smaller suppliers. And earlier this month Channel 4 pulled from its schedules a documentary about the ongoing sourcing of low-cost high street fashion.

Tonight's ICAEW-sponsored debate should be interesting. (Other speakers include Mallen Baker, development director of Business in the Community, Dr Robert Barrington,
director of governance & socially responsible investment with F&C Investments, Dr Kevin Money of Henley Management College, Owen Espley of Friends of the Earth and Miriam Kennet. co-founder of the Green Economics Institute.)

But it won't be victory on the night that matters.

If companies are serious about CSR it's essential it's not treated like a menu, with different options to be picked and refused at different times, depending on your mood.

Useful links: About | Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Top of the page
© Incisive Media Ltd. 2008
Incisive Media Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, is a company registered in the United Kingdom with company registration number 04038503