Accounting needs guidance – not just processes and software

A functioning accounting system has long been a matter of course in many companies. The processes are well-established, accounting software and payment processes are in place, and monthly financial statements are prepared reliably.

And yet, structural weaknesses often become apparent in practice – especially in investment companies, corporate groups, or portfolio companies with decentralized responsibility. Where clear tax and business management guidelines are lacking, accounting is formally correct – but without content control, integration, or strategic impact.

Technically sound – but disconnected in terms of content

The accounting system functions, but it is ineffective: there is a lack of economic integration, priorities, and the question of what to actually do with these figures.

This is not an exceptional case, especially in companies with external managers, outsourced accounting functions, or structures with separate responsibilities (e.g., between holding companies and operating units).

Accounting becomes a mere administration of business transactions – rather than the basis for corporate management. This can manifest itself in different ways in everyday life:

• No definition of materiality thresholds or accounting logic
• No guidelines on provisions or valuation issues
• No systematic approach to accruals or allocations
• Lack of correction mechanisms between accounting, legal, and tax

The role of structure providers

In these cases, a controlling authority is needed – not in the sense of control, but as a structuring factor.

Reliable accounting requires not only processes, but also framework conditions: What evaluations are expected? What accounting issues are still open? Who is responsible for decisions at the interface between accounting and tax planning?

Experience shows: failure to answer these questions creates gaps – not in the system, but in its effectiveness. The data is correct, but it does not lead to any economic impetus for action.

Growing importance in the context of group and investment structures

This topic becomes particularly relevant when several companies are managed under one roof – for example, in growing corporate groups, investor holdings, or family-run structures with a central holding company.

There is often a lack of uniform guidelines, interfaces with tax consulting, controlling, or management – and a lack of coordinated accounting policies. Decisions on accruals, capitalization, or provisions are made in isolation, without coordination – and ultimately lead to poor comparability, distortions in reporting, or problems with tax planning.

Accounting requires leadership – not just recording

Accounting is not an end in itself. It is the basis for reporting, control, and planning – provided it is structurally integrated.

This does not require a complex reorganization. Often, clarification is sufficient:

• Who determines the scope for valuation?
• What guidelines apply to monthly and annual financial statements?
• How is communication between accounting, tax consulting, and management structured?
• Which topics are standardized – and which require individual decisions?

An accounting team that is technically well equipped can achieve a lot – if it works with the right guidelines and feedback.

Reliable accounting is achieved when responsibility and structure work together

Whether in medium-sized corporate groups or in investment structures, the best processes only have an impact if they are part of an overall tax and economic management strategy.

Accounting without direction remains reactive. Structured accounting becomes a management tool. And that is precisely the difference that turns the balance in practice – not only in the annual financial statements, but also in day-to-day decision-making.