Uncertainty around the economy, house prices and job security has kicked the ball firmly back into the corporate court.

As one of the highest profile accountants in the sustainability debate told me this week, these factors – and, perhaps most importantly, a lack of government leadership and clarity on the issue - has already caused a consumer greenlash.

So it begas the question: Will companies respond?

CFO Magazine in the States reports that about one in three of the 2,200 global executives who responded to a recent McKinsey survey say they place more importance on climate change than on most other global trends, motivated most often by reputation/brand-management concerns.

But those are words, not action. And while some organisations, not least The Sunday Times, are looking to recognise those companies that are taking a lead, rooftop wormeries are not going to change the world. The change that is required is more fundamental. And more profound.

I’ve been involved in a number of discussions this year about whether there is enough independent verification of sustainable reporting claims made by companies.

My view is that there is not. And I’m certainly not alone in that.

So I was gratified and troubled in equal measure to read yesterday that very few large companies are seeking authoritative verification for their sustainability reports.

Communications agency Black Sun says the majority of assurances are conducted by specialist environmental consultancies with only 13% done by an accountancy firm.

Now this could sound like special pleading for accountants, and an argument that only they are equipped to carry out these assessments. That’s not my point, though I expect it to be made by others.

I do believe though that it highlights the lack authority, independence and transparency in a fandamental aspect of the sustainability debate - and at an absolutely crucial point in time.

Investors, customers and other stakeholders deserve a reliable measure. But where will it come from?

The Financial Services authority doesn't feel right. Neither does the Auditing Practices Board. But is there another existing agency equipped to do so? The EC, perhasps? Or does it require a new body - and another layer of bureaucracy?

I'm not sure I have the answer. But I hope someone does.

The findings apply particularly to non-Big Four audit firms, 'which tend to have less consistency in their audit quality', according to the study by three academics of more than 8,000 enforcement releases from 2004 to this year.

It couldn't happen here, could it?

Anyway in this inaugural post: ACCA and AAT bury past rows, ICAEW ups member communication spending and is rapped by its auditor and those CIPFA council results are in. And in today's moan: why don't accountancy institutes better publicise their accounts?

Last week's ACCA / AAT tie-up means employer organisations already recognised by the ACCA approved employer programme can become accredited by AAT under its equivalent scheme, without having to go through AAT’s full assessment process.

Which is quite dull.

Unless you travel back in time to 1997 when an almighty row broke out between the two over the ACCA's plans to launch a competing exam. Labour MP Austin Mitchell weighed in (of course) demanding the ACCA investigates any possible conflict of interest.

Back then AAT president and Smith & Williamson partner John Newman said he was 'saddened' adding: 'There's always been cooperation between the accounting bodies over AAT. We've avoided the petty squabbles and turf wars we've seen elsewhere. We can only interpret this as direct competition, not that we are afraid of that. We are in the dark over what it is trying to do, but we would welcome any discussion.'

ICAEW education and training director, Phil Armitage, followed that with: 'We were surprised, especially as ACCA is a sponsoring body. We hadn't realised it was planning this - it all seems a bit odd. But ACCA has always maintained it's in the business of providing access to accountancy qualifications.'

In truth the relationship has thawed in recent years but they were nice quotes that I couldn't resist revisiting.

ICAEW UPS COMMUNICATION SPEND

Full marks to the ICAEW for delivering what looks like a pretty transparent annual review last week. Yes, a loss was made as disciplinary costs climbed, but more interesting, perhaps, was the revelation that the costs of communication soared by over 70%.

That's because of the decision to send Accountancy magazine to all members and students. The communication path seldoms runs smooth, however. The magazine received a rap over the kuckles from the Audit Bureau of Circulation last month for mis-classifying its new, all-member audience. A disciplinary of its own, you might say.

WHO'S OUT AFTER CIPFA COUNCIL ELECTIONS?

Among those not making the cut after the votes were counted for the CIPFA council elections (the white smoke emerged today) were Mal Singh, the highly regarded head of finance professionalism at The Treasury. He'll now be able to fully concetrate on his day job - not least in ensuring Whitehall belatedly meets its target for appointing finance directors across government departments.

And here are a few tips for anyone looking to join the council: make sure you have a background in audit or health. Candidates in those categories were elected unopposed. Being a CIPFA member would be a distinct advantage too.

MUST DO BETTER....

And finally a moan. Having a Royal Charter means you don't have to file accounts with Companies House, I learnt this week while searching for institute annual reviews. Most put them on their own websites but which I thought they could be more easily found collectively.

How wrong I was.

But is it right that accountancy institutes don't do so in this age of supposed transparency?

It may the letter of the law but doesn't feel quite like the spirit.

The majority studied here, though academically, they are a mixed bag. Over 60% of the group qualified in subjects outside of the traditional degree disciplines such as accounting, business and economics. That's no bad thing either.

Some 45% are female (which PwC says outperforms the sector’s average female application rate of 41%) and 31% are from an ethnic minority background. This, the firm boasts, exceeds the UK university population figures.

The firm is also tapping into the UK’s 'hidden' graduate talent pool of those who wait to get a proper job - 43% are aged 25 or over, with an average age of 24.4 (which is up on last year).

The fact that the firm has an April intake (September is its norm) is down to work / life balance issues – ‘a growing trend for recently qualified graduates wanting to travel or take time out, without postponing their career for a year’.

It’s the sort of broad cross section we would all want to see joining the profession. I do hope that in a decade’s time when the cream of this crop rises to the top (at PwC or elsewhere) it is equally representative. I always prefer to be optimistic about these things though the stats are less encouraging.

According to the Financial Reporting Council’s most recent analysis, the proportion of female members of the main UK institutes has risen steadily from 24% in 2000 to 29% in 2005. Yet the percentage of female students has been stable since 2000 at the considerably higher level of 48%. That’s a big drop-off that’s not easily explained.

The 2007 Accountancy Age Top 50 painted an equally grim picture. It revealed that on average women accounted for less than10% of partners within the firms and partners from ethnic minority groups (of either sex) only made up 5.9% of the total.

Not good. At this point I could thunder that too little has changed in the last decade to be overly optimistic. Instead I'll say that the PwC stats do make me hopeful.

You might recall that after his wife was told by Citibank that her credit card would not be replaced after it expired because she was, inter alia, no longer ‘eligible for credit from Citi Cards', he wrote that it was she who was in fact no longer prepared to enter into a financial business arrangement with the bank.

Among a number of reasons given was its ‘flawed’ business plan, ‘wildly optimistic’ valuation of sub prime exposure and ‘evidence of reckless and uninformed use of shareholder’s funds’.

The letter demanded the refund of his wife’s £4 credit balance.

Well, the debate has moved on.

The caustic reply to this follow-up adopts a similar tone:

'Citibank has proven itself to be financially irresponsible on a huge scale, and I would not like my reputation to be tarnished by association. If you cannot afford to repay the £4 you owe me, I shall write it off as a bad debt, grateful that it is not $18.1 billion.'

Good knock-about stuff, I'm sure you'll agree. Now it seems this FD is not alone in taking such a principled stance.

Another former FD and chief executive tells me how he was left fuming as he neared the end of his mortgage recently, normally a cause for celebration.

His bank wants £750 to return the deeds to his house. His preferred solution is different.

Keep charging him 1p a month to keep the mortgage going indefinitely. And the bank can keep the deeds.

If any other finance directors have grievances about their personal finances I'm happy to air them publicly. Just as long as they are entertaining.