Change rarely announces itself politely. It shows up as a career crossroads, a new technology, or a shift in what clients and the public expect of us. Two recent pieces from Chartered Accountants Worldwide look at change from very different angles, but land on the same conclusion: the profession's real strength has never been in the tools we use. It is in the judgment we bring to them.
A career built on systems thinking
Kate van der Merwe's path into the profession does not follow a predictable line. She studied social science in South Africa, qualified as a chartered accountant in Ireland, and spent years working in pharmaceuticals and technology, including a stint at Google. By most measures, that is a complete and successful career. Kate did not see it that way. She returned to study, this time a master's in renewable energy and environmental finance, and used it to move into sustainability work, first at the NGO Trócaire, and now across a range of advisory and board roles focused on climate and social enterprise.
What stands out is not the list of roles. It is her thinking. Kate argues that environmental and social goals are not separate line items to manage independently, they are deeply interdependent, and treating them as isolated boxes to tick is exactly how organisations lose sight of the bigger picture. As she puts it, "The existing system is dying. It is going to change and what we do now will determine the new system that emerges."
That is a big claim, and it puts financial professionals right at the centre of it. Someone has to model the numbers, test the assumptions, and hold organisations accountable for the sustainability commitments they make publicly. Kate's story is a reminder that a chartered accountancy qualification is not a narrow path. It is a foundation flexible enough to carry someone into work that genuinely shapes how organisations respond to the biggest challenges of our time.
Trust in the age of AI
The second piece takes on a very different kind of change: artificial intelligence, and what it means for trust in the profession. The core argument is refreshingly clear. AI can meaningfully strengthen how accountants work, but it cannot replace professional judgment, scepticism, or ethical accountability. That responsibility stays with the accountant. It does not transfer to a vendor or an algorithm, however capable that algorithm appears.
The risks are real and worth naming: automation bias, where AI-generated findings get accepted too readily; gaps in understanding how client data is stored and used; a gradual erosion of the scepticism that has always defined good accounting; and the "black box" problem, where a system cannot explain how it reached a conclusion, making that conclusion hard to defend to a client or regulator.
None of this is a case against adopting AI. It is a case for adopting it properly, built on three foundations: human accountability that never gets delegated away, governance frameworks that are documented rather than assumed, and cybersecurity practices strong enough to protect the confidentiality clients rely on.
The common thread
Whether the change in question is a career redirected toward climate impact or a new tool reshaping daily practice, the constant is the same. Chartered accountants are trusted because they exercise judgment, uphold ethical standards, and take ownership of the work with their name on it. Technology and causes will keep evolving. That part of the job will not.