Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
01 August 2023 | Story Kekeletso Takang | Photo Supplied
Business Acumen Day 2023
The UFS School of Accountancy hosted a panel discussion in the Centenary Complex with the topic ‘The audit profession’s response to the financial reporting scandals of the past decade: Has enough been done?’. Panellists included Prof Bernard Agulhas, Rob Rose, and Patricia Stock, and the session was facilitated by Prof Philippe Burger and Conrad de Wee.


Auditing firms in South Africa should go back to basics and emphasise accountability in revamped corporate structures to avoid repeats of the big auditing scandals of the past decade such as the Steinhoff, VBS, Tongaat Hulett, and Bosasa scandals. This was some of the opinion expressed during a panel discussion hosted by the University of the Free State (UFS) School of Accountancy and featuring auditing and accountancy experts. 

The discussion tackled the topic ‘The audit profession’s response to the financial reporting scandals of the past decade: Has enough been done?’, and featured a panel of experts including Rob Rose, Financial Mail Editor and author of Steinheist; Prof Bernard Agulhas, former CEO of the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA) and current Adjunct Professor of Auditing at the UFS; and Patricia Stock, audit partner and CEO of MGI RAS and former South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) board member. 

The event took place on 19 July 2023 in the Centenary Complex on the UFS Bloemfontein Campus. It was facilitated by Prof Philippe Burger, Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, and Conrad de Wee, Chairman of the SAICA Central Region Council and Senior Manager at auditing firm Mazars.

Prof Agulhas said a lot has been done to prevent a repeat of the root causes of the financial reporting scandals of the past decade. “Everyone has responded. The profession, regulators, universities, labour markets, the public, and professional bodies.” Still, he said a lot more needs to be done. “We have to go back to basics. Look at the framework, ISA standards, skills, and competencies. Professionals must be adaptable and responsive. Firms must set the tone at the top and create a conducive environment. Establish a culture of accountability. We have to go back to behavioural competencies. Universities can also investigate the inclusion of forensic auditing as part of the curriculum.” 

The panel felt that accountability is central to going back to basics. Rose said he believes businesses need to change their organisational cultures. “The likes of Glencore and Tiger Brands are making an immense effort to revamp. There are numerous ways companies can go about it, including setting the tone at the top and establishing accountability structures in-house. Also, not only having fraud-detection systems, but also implementing them.”

He also questioned why no one is holding bankers accountable for failing to uncover recent corporate scandals. “In the case of Tongaat Hulett, how did they miss all the issues through their risk assessment? At the end of the day, they should also be held accountable.”

Where it all went south

Prof Burger said the World Economic Forum had for seven years, until 2017, rated South Africa number one for the strength of auditing and reporting standards. “And then we started to see things go wrong, with the likes of state capture, Steinhoff, VBS, and others. In light of this, has enough been done to equip external auditors to deal with fraud in organisations, and to ensure that they act in the interest of the public?” 

Prof Agulhas, speaking from his experience as a regulator, said, “Initially, South Africa was one of the few developing countries to adopt international standards. For seven years, we have received a good rating from the World Economic Forum. But if we can be honest, while our professional qualifications are among the best in the world, we were not that good at implementing these standards due to behavioural issues on the part of certain accountancy/ auditing professionals.” 

Stock, sharing her perspective as an audit practitioner, commented: “We are noticing a growing trend among firms to improve on reporting, and audit committees are holding professionals accountable. While this is said, we should also acknowledge that there is a need to look at the whole ecosystem relating to financial reporting.”

Auditing in the era of artificial intelligence

When questioned about the impact of technological advances on auditors, Stock said she believes artificial intelligence and technology integration offer the auditing profession a wonderful opportunity. She stressed that technology will not replace human capital. “We need critical thinkers and value creators. Technology won’t replace that, especially where Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) is concerned.” 

Interaction between universities and industry

Prof Burger posed the question, “When looking at the interaction between universities, industry, and trainees, would you say this model is still fit for purpose, and are these individuals ready?”

Stock responded, “The profession needs the diversity of minds. We need their enquiring minds. We need to hear the voices of our trainees. In fact, one of the scandals of the past decade was picked up by a trainee, but was unfortunately ignored by the more senior staff.” 

Where we are now

The panel discussion was attended by stakeholders from the School of Accountancy, which included managers and directors of various auditing and accounting firms, representatives of professional bodies, members of management from large businesses, and university staff members. Interactive polls and the opportunity to submit questions allowed guests to participate in the discussion, which ended with a consensus that while much effort has been made to restore the credibility of the auditing profession, there is still further work to be done. 

The panel discussion was made possible with the financial support of Standard Bank.

News Archive

MBA Programme - Question And Answer Sheet - 27 May 2004
2004-05-27

1. WHAT MUST THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE (UFS) DO TO GET FULL ACCREDITATION FOR THE MBA PROGRAMMES?

According to the Council on Higher Education’s (CHE) evaluation, the three MBA programmes of the UFS clearly and significantly contribute to students’ knowledge and skills, are relevant for the workplace, are appropriately resourced and have an appropriate internal and external programme environment. These programmes are the MBA General, the MBA in Health Care Management and the MBA in Entrepreneurship.

What the Council on Higher Education did find, was a few technical and administrative issues that need to be addressed.

This is why the three MBA programmes of the UFS received conditional accreditation – which in itself is a major achievement for the UFS’s School of Management, which was only four years old at the time of the evaluation.

The following breakdown gives one a sense of the mostly administrative nature of the conditions that have to be met before full accreditation is granted by the CHE:

a. A formal forum of stakeholders: The UFS is required to establish a more structured, inclusive process of review of its MBA programmes. This is an administrative formality already in process.

b. A work allocation model: According to the CHE this is required to regulate the workload of the teaching staff, particularly as student numbers grow, rather than via standard management processes as currently done.

c. Contractual agreements with part-time staff: The UFS is required to enter into formal agreements with part-time and contractual staff as all agreements are currently done on an informal and claim-basis. This is an administrative formality already in process.

d. A formal curriculum committee: According to the CHE, the School of Management had realised the need for a structure – other than the current Faculty Board - where all MBA lecturers can deliberate on the MBA programmes, and serve as a channel for faculty input, consultation and decision-making.

e. A system of external moderators: This need was already identified by the UFS and the system is to be implemented as early as July 2004.

f. A compulsory research component: The UFS is required to introduce a research component which will include the development of research skills for the business environment. The UFS management identified this need and has approved such a component - it is to take effect from January 2005. This is an insufficient element lacking in virtually all MBA programmes in South Africa.

g. Support programmes for learners having problems with numeracy: The UFS identified this as a need for academic support among some learners and has already developed such a programme which will be implemented from January 2005.

The majority of these conditions have been satisfied already and few remaining steps will take effect soon. It is for this reason that the UFS is confident that its three MBA programmes will soon receive full accreditation.

2. WHAT ACCREDITATION DOES THE UFS HAVE FOR ITS MBA PROGRAMME?

The UFS’s School of Management received conditional accreditation for its three MBA programmes.

Two levels of accreditation are awarded to tertiary institutions for their MBA programmes, namely full accreditation and conditional accreditation. When a programme does not comply with the minimum requirements regarding a small number of criteria, conditional accreditation is given. This can be rectified during the short or medium term.

3. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACADEMIC CORE OF THE UFS’s MBA PROGRAMMES?

No. The UFS is proud of its three MBA programmes’ reputation in the market and the positive feedback it receives from graduandi and their employers.

The MBA programmes of the UFS meet most of the minimum requirements of the evaluation process.

In particular, the key element of ‘teaching and learning’, which relates to the curriculum and content of the MBA programmes, is beyond question. In other words, the core of what is being taught in our MBA programmes is sound.

4. IS THE UFS’s MBA A WORTHWHILE QUALIFICATION?

Yes. Earlier this year, the School of Management – young as it is - was rated by employers as the best smaller business school in South Africa. This was based on a survey conducted by the Professional Management Review and reported in the Sunday Times Business Times, of 25 January 2004.

The UFS is committed to maintaining these high standards of quality, not only through compliance with the requirements of the CHE, but also through implementing its own quality assurance measures.

Another way in which we benchmark the quality of our MBA programmes is through the partnerships we have formed with institutions such as the DePaul University in Chicago and Kansas State University, both in the US, as well as the Robert Schuman University in France.

For this reason the UFS appreciates and supports the work of the CHE and welcomes its specific findings regarding the three MBA programmes.

It is understandable that the MBA review has caused some nervousness – not least among current MBA students throughout the country.

However, one principle that the UFS management is committed to is this: preparing all our students for a world of challenge and change. Without any doubt the MBA programme of the UFS is a solid preparation.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept