Abstract
Business rescue practitioners (BRPs) are subject to many allegations of abuse and, therefore, professional accreditation has become a pre-requisite. The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) licensing is linked to multiple professional bodies’ knowledge and practices but is not generic. This study was guided by one key question: What is BRPs’ accreditation’s current state in a multiple professional body occupation? We used data mapped to scholarly and documented policy sources, categorized results from extensive reading, and integrated critical constructs (after the deconstruction of concepts) to yield a conceptual framework to develop a comprehensive understanding of professional accreditation. The results confirm the existence of a legal framework and institutional arrangements that are not coherently applied because of the absence of a professional accreditation framework (PAF). The proposed conceptual framework captures the concepts of the business rescue domain, professionalism, competency, accreditation, and definition of key terms to provide an interpretive approach to the BRPs’ accreditation reality resulting in a PAF based on the integration of BRP tasks and services and accreditation, competency, and professionalism.
Highlights
Different scholars agree on immense interest in the practical application of accreditation (Hayward, 2006; Kehal, 2019)professionalism construct (Evetts, 2013; Kaslow et al, 2018; Svensson, 2006) and competency (Antonacopoulou &FitzGerald, 1996; Campos et al, 2019; Garavan & McGuire, 2001)
Competency frameworks for Business rescue practitioners (BRPs) have been referred to whenever debates on accreditation and regulations of business rescue practices are held (Papaya, 2014; Pretorius, 2014; Rajaram & Singh, 2018)
We considered articles published before if they had been cited in the selected sample and added more insights into the concepts, assumptions, and theories that inform the state of BRP accreditation
Summary
Different scholars agree on immense interest in the practical application of accreditation (Hayward, 2006; Kehal, 2019). Competency frameworks for BRPs have been referred to whenever debates on accreditation and regulations of business rescue practices are held (Papaya, 2014; Pretorius, 2014; Rajaram & Singh, 2018). The answers to the two questions are needed to shape the BRPs accreditation and create a professional development platform Taking it from a practical front, the Act requires BRPs to lead the business rescue (BR) process. Professional accreditation framework (PAF)is needed to: (i) guide the licensing of the BRPs drawn from multiple professional bodies; and (ii) promote BRPs competencies and professionalism implicit in the CIPC’s. The context of the BRP licensing practice of drawing BRPs from existing professional bodies indicates an absence of integration of competency and professionalism constructs It shows inadequate development of BRP as an occupation worth of professional pursuit. (iii) What should be the conceptual framework that should inform future research efforts toward a BRP PAF?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
