Comment

Developments at the United Nation’s 27th climate conference will have far-reaching implications for financial professionals and businesses worldwide. Susan Rossney digs into the details COP27, the international climate summit, concluded on 20 November after two weeks of negotiations. While last year’s COP saw the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation announce an International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), this year had less reporting-specific news.  One headline was the commitment by CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) to incorporate ISSB’s IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures Standard into its global environmental disclosure platform—another step towards greater comparability and coherence of global standards and reporting. On a macro level, though, COPs have a huge importance for businesses worldwide. ‘COPs’—Conferences of the Parties—are summits attended by the nearly 200 countries which have signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  At COPs, these countries discuss their existing efforts and future plans to deal with climate change and its effects. Any new agreements made at COP tend to be named after the host city, e.g. the ‘Paris Agreement’ (2015), the ‘Glasgow Climate Pact’ (2021). This year we have the ‘Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan’, named after the Egyptian city in which it took place. This plan set up a new loss and damage fund for vulnerable countries most severely impacted by the effects of unpreventable climate change (floods, drought, desertification, and land loss due to rising sea-levels). The inclusion was a landmark moment in global climate politics as it acknowledged that the world’s richer countries—and biggest carbon emitters—are responsible to the developing world for the harm caused by global warming. How to finance this loss and damage, specifically how finance would be channelled to the developing world, was a dominant and contentious topic at COP27. The scale of the finance required is truly enormous. At least $2 trillion a year will be needed by developing countries to enable them to transition from fossil fuels, invest in renewable energy and other low-carbon technology, and cope with the impacts of extreme weather. The final figure is likely to be multiples of that. Although COPs have been criticised as political talking shops, divorced from the lived experience of most citizens and businesses, they have a considerable impact. Close to 200 countries gathering to debate a global response to climate change keeps alive an issue that affects all citizens, albeit not equally.  It restates the importance of holding global warming to the levels agreed upon at the Paris Agreement—i.e. well below 2°C and preferably 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (we are currently at 1.1–1.2°C). What is decided at COP filters down to organisations through legislation and policy, like Europe’s ‘Fit for 55’ package, Ireland’s Climate Action Plans and sectoral targets, and through investors’ continued demands for projects that are aligned to climate targets to meet their own portfolio requirements.  Ireland will come under continued pressure from the EU to act on measures such as developing our renewable energy and tackling our carbon emissions. Changes are required across all sectors, and all businesses, including SMEs, will have to make changes. Accountants, as their trusted advisers, will need the knowledge to help businesses adapt and thrive in this new reality.   Susan Rossney is Sustainability Officer at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Irish Government finances are in surplus and Ireland’s debt-to-GDP ratio has stabilised, so why are there calls for higher taxes? asks Dr Brian Keegan It’s hard to avoid concern fatigue setting in. What with the war in Ukraine, the cost-of-living crisis, the continued Northern political stalemate, multiple dire warnings amplified at COP27 over climate change and another possible COVID-19 surge—the list of concerns seems particularly endless at the moment.   Some time ago, the commentator Marc Coleman projected that population growth—and, by implication, skills growth—would drive prosperity in Ireland. Coleman’s ideas have been given additional credence by the current situation in the UK. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s November budget looks towards an extended period of economic stagnation. British productivity has not grown in line with government spending in recent years. In the moribund British economy, there is a record low level of people out of work while the number of job vacancies is at a record high.   There is a straightforward, one-to-one relationship between economic growth and the growth in tax yield, which permits more government spending without further borrowing. When the growth in gross domestic product (GDP) stalls, so too do the tax figures.   In his book The Best is Yet to Come, Coleman pointed out some of the links between more workers, growth and greater resources for public services and benefits. Though the timing was unfortunate (the book was published just months before the 2008 financial crisis), Ireland is now indeed in a better place, at least economically, than it has been for many years. Government finances are in surplus and the debt-to-GDP ratio, at around 50 percent, is back under control.   Unlike the British situation where a Budget bordering on the austere was required to meet existing public spending commitments, without an intolerably high borrowing requirement, the recent Irish Budget took a cost-of-living crisis in its stride, with grant aid against soaring energy bills for households and businesses alike being met through current tax receipts. Nevertheless, a narrative has emerged that the burden of taxation in Ireland will have to increase.   Why this should be the case is not always specified. There are unquestionably problems with housing, health, and education, but it does not automatically follow that these problems arise from underinvestment. At the time of writing, close to half a billion euros set aside in 2022 for local authority housing remains unspent. This points to management or capacity problems, not funding challenges.   The much-heralded report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare has not had a huge impact on the political debate. This may be because it presents solutions in search of a problem. As research from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council has pointed out, “its work was not framed around any specific shortfall in funding that needed to be filled. Instead, it was guided by a broad intention to generate additional revenue”.   Even government politicians, who are rarely scathing about the output of an expert group, which the government itself commissioned, were dismissive of the recommendations. Clearly, there are some areas of the economy where additional tax funding will be required, if not immediately, in the medium-term.   Unless there is an unforeseen level of immigration of people of working age, the ratio of workers to pensioners is going in the wrong direction. Climate change management, ironically being driven more by energy security concerns than global altruism, will come with a price tag. The sustained high corporation tax take may have peaked. In Britain, the urgent need for higher taxation has been unanswerable. In Ireland, there needs to be a clear business case for any form of new or additional taxation. We have enough to be concerned about without the prospect of unnecessary taxes. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy and Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Russia’s War in Ukraine changed many assumptions held by European governments, but Judy Dempsey asks is Europe prepared to embrace significant strategic issues that will change the status quo? Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February could radically re-shape the European Union.  And it’s about time.  For too long, the EU and most member states were content in the comfort zone that did not have to deal with issues that would fundamentally change their way of doing things. These included energy, security, the future of enlargement and Russia. Until Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine, there was a tactic consensus that Europe could continue along the path of perceiving Eastern Europe through the prism of Russia and depending on Russian energy. The EU accepted the independence of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, not to mention Belarus. However, among many big member states, their sovereignty and independence were ambiguous.  While it was never publicly stated, this part of Europe, whose history and culture are unknown to many EU member states, was considered in Russia’s sphere of influence. In several ways, Russia’s all-out attack on Ukraine has changed that perception. First is the energy issue. It is only a matter of time before Europe will wean itself off Russian gas and oil. This dependence had given President Vladimir Putin immense leverage and blackmail over several EU countries, particularly Germany.  The EU, and German Chancellor Scholz’s Green coalition partners, say they now want to become independent from Russian energy as soon as possible. Despite the considerable pressure from German industry and its business lobbies tied to Russia, who wish to retain the status quo with Moscow, don’t underestimate this goal.  The reality is that Russia’s war in Ukraine has become the catalyst for speeding up Europe’s transition to renewable energy and alternative sources of supplies. As dependence on Russian gas decreases, so will the Kremlin’s geopolitical influence. Another impact of Russia’s aggression is security. Neutral Finland and Sweden are poised to join NATO. These two countries that have long cherished their neutrality now recognise that their security needs to be boosted. Joining NATO would fill a big security vacuum in Northern Europe, where Denmark and Norway are members of the US-led military alliance. The Baltic (NATO member) States will be more than reassured with Finland and Sweden on board. In short, Putin’s aggression in Ukraine has given NATO and the transatlantic alliance a new lease of life. It is changing the geo-security architecture of Europe. It will be interesting to see how Ireland deals with its long-standing neutrality stance.  Another big issue is enlargement that is tied to the future direction of Europe. President Emmanuel Macron’s speech at the conclusion of the Future of Europe conference set out how to make the EU more efficient by having a qualified majority voting system for certain policy issues and having a much closer, structural relationship with Eastern Europe.  But what about making the EU more politically integrated? This would require a treaty change that several member states oppose. However, this is where the war in Ukraine comes into play. European governments cannot retain the status quo when its own security and that of its eastern neighbours are at stake.  For a union with ambitions to be a global player, muddling through is no longer an option. It’s going to require a major shift in the mindset of EU countries to end Europe’s comfort zone that, until now, didn’t take its – nor Eastern Europe’s – security vulnerability seriously.  If it doesn’t make that shift, Europe will fail to use the war in Ukraine to develop a strong, integrated and secure Europe – with Eastern Europe as part of that house.  Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe.

Where can small businesses find the advice they need to keep growing? Trusted advisers, says Emma Jones.  My company solves problems for small businesses based on data sets and evidence that guides businesses from different localities and sectors to support that is proven to work for their peers. We shortcut a founder’s route to success through pointing them to the right intervention for their business, at the right time, boosting productivity by saving valuable hours searching for relevant advice.    One factor that has aided the move towards standardised and personalised advice is the number of businesses now operating on common platforms.  Take the e-commerce sector as an example: most online sellers use the same ‘stack’ of technologies, whether that is Big Commerce for sales, Facebook to drive advertising, or Google Analytics to measure results.  This means smart data companies can show a founder if they are selling more or less – or paying more or less for those sales – than competitors.  With insight in hand, a founder then wants advice on how to improve and get into the top tier of performers. Business owners want to simply be told ‘how’ and ‘where’ to spend their time and money. They are willing to share data on key company metrics in return for advice on how they can perform better.  This is where the role of trusted advisers comes in.  With a foundation of data, advisers can guide a business owner through a personalised support journey, with in-built accountability as the adviser takes on the role of a coach in setting out milestones for the business to deliver.  There is a key role for accountants in this as managing or raising money is integral to business progression. While we want to connect small business owners with the right support, we also want to connect them to the trusted experts who can help them to do the jobs that need to be done to spur growth.  Guiding business owners to make the right moves, based on data and insight, and connecting them to the right advisers can help to boost their efficiency, potentially delivering a similar benefit to the wider economy.  Emma Jones is Founder of Enterprise Nation.

The war in Ukraine will profoundly impact the defensive stance of the EU’s neutral countries. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine is changing Europe in ways the Kremlin did not build into its calculations when it sought to conquer its western neighbour.  NATO, the EU and the United States are united in their agreement over an unprecedented, punitive package of sanctions against Russia.  Individual NATO members are sending lethal weapons to Ukraine. NATO, which has boosted its defences in Poland, the Baltic States and Romania, has ruled out a no-fly zone over Ukraine. It fears retaliation from Putin, even the threat of a nuclear strike. Meanwhile, Europe has opened its doors to refugees. No more squabbling over who to admit or how many numbers will flow into each country compared to 2015, when former German Chancellor Angela Merkel gave shelter to over one million Syrian refugees fleeing the war. Germany has thrown away its ‘rule book’. The belief that wandel durch handel (change through trade) would bring Russia closer to Europe is over.  Social Democrat Chancellor Olaf Scholz has reached a Zeitenwende — a turning point — not only regarding Russia, but domestically as well. German defence spending has risen to two percent of gross domestic product, equivalent to about €100 billion a year. The anti-American and pacifist wings in Scholz’s party are also toeing the new line — for now. As for the EU, its foreign policy chief, Josip Borrell, said the bloc would send weapons to Ukraine. What a turnaround for a soft power organisation built on a peace project. This may see the EU transition from a soft power provider to a hard power player as it now urgently reassesses its security and defence stance.  This is where the neutral countries of Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Malta face challenging debates and decisions. All have signed up to the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. With the exception of Denmark and Malta, they are participants in the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), aimed at increasing defence cooperation among the member states. They benefit from the decades-long US policy of guaranteeing the security umbrella for its NATO allies in Europe. Somehow, the neutral countries are having their cake and eating it too, but for how much longer? Russia’s attack on Ukraine changes everything about the future role of Europe’s security and defence policy. This was confirmed during the informal summit of EU leaders in Versailles in March. Europe has to take defence seriously.  Neutral Finland and Sweden already cooperate very closely with NATO. Russia’s invasion is leading to intense debates about whether both should now join the organisation.  As for Ireland? The war in Ukraine is linked to the security of all of Europe, forcing neutral countries to confront the reasons for their continued neutrality.  Maintaining neutrality at a time when Europe’s security architecture and the post-Cold War era is being threatened is no longer a luxury monopolised by pacifists, or those who link neutrality to sovereignty. It is about providing security to Europe’s citizens and how to do it collectively.  Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said discussions about military neutrality are for another day. Neutrality, he said, “is not in any shape or form hindering what needs to be done and what has to be done in respect of Ukraine”.  Neale Richmond, Fine Gael TD, has described the neutrality policy as “morally degenerate,” calling for a “long-overdue, serious and realistic conversation” about it.  Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has attempted to straddle both sides here. “This does require us to think about our security policy,” he has said. “I don’t see us applying to join NATO, but I do see us getting more involved in European defence.” Martin did later concede: “The order has been turned upside down by President Putin.” Neutral Ireland – and the rest of the EU – now must draw the consequences. Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe.

Overdone stimulus at the height of the pandemic, supply chain disruption and Russia’s Ukraine invasion are all fuelling spiralling inflation. Central banks need to work harder to find the economic sweet spot, writes Cormac Lucey. Two years ago, as COVID-19 was first running rampant worldwide, our economic authorities resolved to prevent the resulting shutdowns from turning into economic depression by unleashing an unparalleled level of economic stimulus.  In the UK, the budget deficit shot up to 15 percent of GDP. In Ireland, the deficit approached 10 percent of modified gross national income. This fiscal support was accompanied by strong monetary stimulus.  Whereas UK broad money grew by six percent in the two years to June 2019, it rose by 22 percent in the two years to June 2021. The equivalent figures for the Eurozone were nine and 18 percent, respectively.  While a medical nightmare was unfolding for our health services from March 2020, from an equity investor’s perspective, the 18 months that followed represented a sweet spot, as authorities stuffed economic stimulus into their economies and asset prices were the first beneficiaries.  Since April 2020, UK stock prices (as represented by the FT 100 index) have risen by over 35 percent, while Irish shares (Iseq index) have jumped by over 40 percent. What’s bad for Main Street is often good for Wall Street.  Now, as the COVID-19 threat recedes, this threatens to go into sharp reverse. What’s good for Main Street risks being bad for Wall Street.  Sharp rises in inflation across the developed world are forcing central banks into withdrawing monetary stimulus and pushing interest rate increases. What lies behind this sudden burst in inflation?  First, levels of policy stimulus were overdone in some parts of the world. Whereas the growth in two-year money supply figures referenced above was nine percent in the Eurozone and 16 percent in the UK, it was 25 percent in the US. Guess who has the biggest inflation problem?  It is also notable that there is little or no marked inflation problem in South-East Asia, where the COVID-19-induced increase in money supply was minimal.  Second, supply chain problems, especially energy, have contributed significantly to recent inflation readings. Eurozone inflation in the 12 months to January was 5.1 percent. Excluding energy, it would have been just 2.6 percent.  Sharply rising energy prices are a symptom of the West shutting down conventional carbon-based sources of supply before alternative sources are ready to take up the slack.  This shortage has been aggravated by sanctions imposed on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. Over time, we should expect supply chain problems to be fixed and higher energy prices to be their own cure, suppressing demand and allowing for price stabilisation and reductions. The financial sweet spot of two years ago risks becoming a sour spot as central bankers rush to restore their credibility in the face of ever-higher inflation readings.  Jerome Powell, Chair of the US Federal Reserve, said recently, “The [Federal Open Market] Committee is determined to take the measures necessary to restore price stability. The American economy is very strong and well-positioned to handle tighter monetary policy.’’  Well, over fifty years ago, the then-Chair of the Federal Reserve, William McChesney Martin, said the central bank’s job was to “take away the punch bowl just when the party gets going.” His successors may not just have to take away the punch bowl, but also shove partygoers into a cold shower. There is a real danger that an already slowing US economy could be pushed into a recession by aggressive central bank tightening. Europe would be unlikely to escape the resulting economic fallout.  Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland.