Comment: The latest scandal to emerge from our banks raises some serious questions. The more obvious ones - such as how banks can overcharge certain customers, what controls were in place, who knew what and when - have already been raised, writes Roger Acton

Regulators and banks themselves have put reviews in place and reports are promised within weeks.

The one question that has not been asked, however, is why these scandals occur in the first place. Is it just greed? Is it mere incompetence? Maybe. But maybe not. Corporate Ireland has not yet questioned the environment in which the banks and other financial institutions find themselves.

The main banks are expected to turn in annual profits that are now measured in terms of billions rather than millions of euro - €1.0 billion profit this year must become €1.2 billion next year and €1.5 billion the year after and so on.

Costs are continually driven downwards and each profit centre is under extraordinary pressure to perform. All of this takes its toll.

Is it any wonder that mistakes occur when there is such pressure to get the numbers right? Will anyone shout stop? Will the doctrine of enough ever apply?

No, of course not. But maybe it is time for all of us to take stock and ask ourselves what it is we want from our corporate sector.

Irish public companies must operate by the same rules as their international competitors. Business is multinational, indeed global, and unless it competes it is dead in the water.

Part of the problem may be that bank customers do not operate the same practices when it comes to dealing with a supplier of banking services that they do with suppliers of bricks, beer or bicycles - namely that if they feel that they're paying too much, they look elsewhere for cheaper supplies.

A report in the UK by the Competition Commission in 2002, which looked at the supply of banking services to small and medium-sized enterprises, said there had been a creation of a "complex monopoly" led by the major banks.

The report found the major banks guilty on 10 counts of restricting or distorting competition in small business banking.

It also said that, with the understanding that many SMEs were reluctant to switch to new accounts, banks were free to impose additional charges without fear of losing their customers. Even in the case of overcharging, estimated to cost small businesses £725 million (€1.09 billion) annually, banks remained confident that their custom would be maintained.

The commission concluded that SMEs held a strong belief that they would gain little, if any, financial benefit by searching out a better deal from a competing bank.

The UK government responded to the Commission's report by imposing "temporary" price controls. By cutting excessive charges, it was hoped that new competitors would be encouraged to join the marketplace. By the time the UK director-general of fair trading has reviewed the controls in 2005, the UK government expects that a flourishing marketplace will ensure that they are no longer required.

But if a new market has not emerged small businesses may find themselves battling to ensure that controls are kept in place.

If we are to avoid going down the same regulated market route, maybe it is time for our corporate leaders to be more upfront about how they see the future. For example do they see an end to the treadmill of presentations to investors, followed by results followed by more presentations, followed by more results?

Expectations for ever increasing profits are fuelled. We have witnessed some public companies going private in recent years with a key benefit being the freedom to perform away from the long shadow of the markets and investors.

It is interesting to note that these firms attract less scandal than their publicly listed cousins. Is this just coincidence or does environment play a greater role than we realise?

If our corporate leaders have an alternative vision as to what makes a successful company then let's hear it. I am sure that many value the concepts of good corporate citizenship, being good employers, adding shareholder value, providing for research and development and so on, but we don't hear it too often, at least not in public.

The focus on the bottom line to the exclusion of everything else demeans us all. Are we really so lacking in confidence and in imagination that we turn a blind eye to the other features that will sustain a company, build its reputation and genuinely add value to society?

Will we continue into the future measuring the success of a company by its headline profits only? Will those who are in a position to lead a debate on our business environment now do so? I certainly hope so.

Roger Acton is head of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants Ireland.