‘The system for examining accountants is not good’

More than five hundred employees of the accounting firm KPMG have cheated extensively with mandatory exams in the past five years. Employees at all levels shared the answers to the tests with each other, which are mandatory tests for accountants to retain their title.

This is a delicate matter, as Marcel Pfeiffer of Ninerode Business University knows. He explains that “accounting is a profession of integrity, and the outside world must be able to rely on the signature in the opinion of the accountant.” “And if such a person starts messing around and cheating on his exams, the gate is open.”

This not only harms the reputation of the profession, but also the integrity of the people involved. “KPMG’s reputation has a blemish now, but this is temporary and may be ignored again in the future, but the people involved really do have an integrity issue.”

inspectors checked

It is supported by Erik Bartelsmann, professor of economics at VU University Amsterdam, who would like to see accountants “get everything on the table to ensure the numbers are right”, based on their own ethics and professionalism. They are the controllers, and if we still have to put controllers on the controllers. If they don’t follow their own methods well, it’s a bit sad.

Also read | Last senior KPMG resigns due to fraud investigation

This is because the accountant title is a protected title. Bartelsmann: “They first have to attend a university education, and after that they register as a chartered accountant,” he explains. “If they are accepted, there are annual educational requirements that the accountant must meet.”

Not strict enough

And Bartelsmann says that’s been verified, too. Just not strict enough. “But you think this is not necessary for an accountant,” he explains. “Because they must adhere professionally to integrity.”

However, despite the fact that compliance with such tests is internationally mandatory, this is not the first time an integrity scandal has occurred, according to Pheijffer. And not at KPMG, either. “One of the largest cases ever occurred at KPMG in the United States,” he says. Plus, PwC and EY have similar cases in the United States, Canada, and Australia. So the system, which is based on a somewhat naive way of acting – trusting the accountant’s honesty – is not good.