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

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

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