The recent death of an EY Pune employee has brought to centre-stage discussions around work-life balance and how to handle work pressure. Without going into the details of what transpired in this particular case, it is time for serious introspection on what went wrong and what should be the remedies going forward.

Back in the 1980s, as bank audits used to go on for days articled clerks had no time to go home even for a breather. Work and pressure were handled with relative ease. In fact, the conversation among peers was usually like: “You were in client office for only 26 hours, but I was doing audit of a client for 28 hours.” Money and promotions were not the motivating factors but passion and the sheer joy of finalising a complicated audit was the tonic to spend those endless hours at the workplace.

A congenial joint family system also provided the perfect support to young CA articled clerks. Times have changed and so has the work ecosystem. Ambition and peer pressure for quick promotions are taking a heavy toll on the much needed work-life balance. Money and unreasonable deadlines are creating needless hardship to the auditing fraternity.

The rat race to announce quarterly results ahead of others shifts the burden to the auditors to complete the limited review/audit as quickly as possible. The pressure naturally gets pushed down to the lowest rungs. While it is unfortunate that the demands of audit timelines have consumed the precious life of a youngster, it is time to look at systemic and regulatory solutions to the problem staring at our face in the context of this unfortunate episode.

Reporting period

First and foremost, we need to seriously think of reverting to half-yearly reporting, from the present quarterly one, for listed companies. Mathematically at least, handling pressure twice a year is better than doing it four times a year. If six months is too long a gap, then quarter 1 and quarter 3 reporting can be self-certification by the CEO/CFO and duly approved by the audit committee and the board.

Secondly, there is a need to revisit the whole approach to uniform financial year ending March 31. Prior to 1987, companies had different financial years — some ending June 30, some December 31, etc.

The logic of a uniform financial year was applied when the gap between reported income and taxable income was disproportionately large and the need was to bridge the same. This situation is no longer relevant today and hence what is wrong if a company chooses to have its own financial year other than March 31?

This will undoubtedly ensure staggering of audit work pressure as also eliminate the so-called “peak audit months” and “lean audit months”. For tax purposes, the concept of Previous Year ended March 31 should continue as was the position prior to 1987. It is important to draw lessons from instances like these and improve the overall work culture as necessary.

Regulatory intervention may also be required for effective course correction. In this case, it is to improve the overall audit working ecosystem. A working group can be formed to look at the issue in a holistic manner rather than in a narrow, isolated way.

It is nobody’s case that youngsters should not work hard, particularly in the formative years, in the audit profession. But the regulatory and work ecosystem should ensure that the long working hours are enjoyable and not “punishing”

The death of the EY staff is a wake-up call for employers to thoroughly review the internal working environment, to make work both a rewarding and a pleasurable experience. There was this placard in a chairman’s office, which read: “Work 8 hours and sleep 8 hours but not during the same 8 hours.”

The writer is a chartered accountant