CPPA use has risen sharply in Ireland in the last two years against a backdrop of price volatility and an increasing focus on the role corporates must play in reaching net zero, writes Robert Costello A Corporate Power Purchase Agreement (CPPAs) is a long-term contract under which a corporate (offtaker) agrees to buy some or all of its electricity directly from a renewable energy generator.  There are two main types of CPPAs in Ireland: Financial (virtual) CPPA – this agreement acts as a financial hedge that enables the corporation to support renewable energy projects and secure a stable energy price without physically trading power. Physical CPPA – the corporate receives physical delivery of electricity from the generator, generally through the grid. Benefits of CPPAs The State’s climate action plan aims to reduce emissions by 51 percent by 2030 and deliver 80 percent renewable electricity by 2030. It includes a target of 15 percent of electricity demand to be delivered by CPPAs. CPPAs offer an alternative route to market for generators who were excluded from the Renewable Electricity Support Scheme (RESS), were unsuccessful in RESS or for whom the terms and conditions are not commercially viable. The long-term stable income that comes with a CPPA with a financially strong counterparty gives generators the financial certainty they need to secure debt funding to build new projects.  Meanwhile, corporates benefit due to: Budget certainty, particularly given volatile market prices; Delivering additionality – the renewable energy project would not have been built without the corporate's involvement (via the CPPA); and Guarantees of origin (GOs). Key commercial considerations When negotiating a CPPA, corporates must consider that CPPAs are typically long-term contracts (about 15 years), although some short-term contracts (less than five years) have been agreed in the Irish market in the past year. The offtakers forecast energy needs to determine the size of the asset with which it can contract for some or all of the output. There are four types of contract: pay-as-produced; shaped; baseload; and pay-as-consumed. Pay-as-produced contracts are the least risky for developers (as generation is not fully predictable). Other forms of contract need a significant premium from the offtaker as the generator is taking the volume risk. CPPAs can be fixed-priced, variable or a combination of both. Fixed pricing increases cash flow certainty for both parties, helping with budgeting, project financing and protecting margins. However, it can expose offtakers if there are significant wholesale market price declines, as they are locked in at higher prices. Fostering growth CPPAs present a pathway to achieving Ireland’s ambitious climate action goals. By facilitating direct transactions between corporations and renewable energy generators, CPPAs not only contribute to decarbonisation efforts but also foster economic stability and growth. However, navigating the complexities of CPPAs requires careful consideration of key commercial factors. From contract duration to pricing mechanisms, each element demands strategic planning to mitigate risks and maximise benefits for all stakeholders. In essence, CPPAs represent more than just contractual agreements; they embody a collaborative approach towards a greener, more sustainable future. By harnessing the collective power of corporates and renewable energy generators, Ireland can accelerate its journey to a low-carbon economy while fostering innovation and resilience in the energy sector. Robert Costello is a Partner with PwC

Irish support for EU membership remains strong despite concerns about the direction it is taking and declining trust in political institutions, writes Noelle O Connell Despite a slight decline of four percent from 2023, the overwhelming majority of people in Ireland (84%) and Northern Ireland (76%) believe Ireland should remain a member of the European Union, according to the EU Poll 2024 from European Movement Ireland. While support for EU membership remains strong, however, the 2024 results indicate a notable decline in both jurisdictions on the question of whether or not the EU is moving in the right direction – down from 58 percent in 2023 to 49 percent this year. Voter concerns Ireland’s continuing support for EU membership is welcome at a pivotal time for Europe. This year’s less favourable findings on several key issues are of concern, however, and serve as a timely reminder of the continual need for public engagement, dialogue and communication on EU affairs. It also highlights the need for the EU to listen to voters’ concerns. Areas of low satisfaction with the EU’s performance include its response to issues such as migration, the war in Ukraine and the Israel-Gaza conflict. Forty-six percent of respondents in Ireland and 44 percent in Northern Ireland ranked the EU’s performance on the issue of migration as its weakest. The timing of this survey coincides with the debate on the new EU Migration and Asylum Pact. The EU’s performance on trade and business continues to score well among respondents at 46 percent in Ireland and 55 percent in Northern Ireland. This underlines the positive public perception of the Single Market and its benefit to the economies in the North and south. Political popularity Of concern in this year’s poll is the growing lack of trust in political institutions in Ireland and Northern Ireland, which could reflect a wider global trend of increasing polarisation in public and political discourse. When asked which of the institutions they trusted most, 34 percent chose the Irish Government and 26 percent the EU. A significant majority (40 percent) stated none of the above. In Northern Ireland, trust in the EU came in at 28 percent, while trust in the Irish Government ranked higher than the UK Government at 24 percent compared to just eight percent, with the Northern Ireland Executive being included this year for the first time. Thirty-one percent said they did not trust any of the institutions listed. Expanding the EU This year marks the 20th anniversary of the biggest ever enlargement of the European Union when ten countries became members under the Irish presidency in 2004. We welcome the consistently strong support across the island of Ireland for EU enlargement, with 57 percent in favour of more countries joining the Union. Noelle O Connell is CEO of European Movement Ireland 

Stephen Lowry delves into details of the upcoming referendum on Ireland’s proposed participation in the Unified Patent Court  In the wake of referenda on family and care, voters were due to decide on another important constitutional referendum on 7 June. Although the vote has since been postponed by the Government, voters will be asked whether they approve of Ireland’s proposed participation in the Unified Patent Court (UPC).  First mooted in 2013 with the signing of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), the UPC is a new international court with exclusive competence to grant ‘unitary patents’ – a new form of patent that gives uniform protection across all participating European countries on a one-stop-shop basis.  Currently within its jurisdiction are 17 EU Member States, though this number is expected to increase over the coming months as more countries move to ratify the UPCA.  Before Ireland can join the UPC, an amendment to the Constitution is needed as doing so will involve a transfer of jurisdiction in patent litigation from the Irish courts to an international court.  So, what’s to be gained from joining the UPC?  1. Reduced cost and administrative burden  At present, there is no single European patent valid in all Member States. Instead, individual patents must be held in each country where the patent is to be applied.  Applications can be made to either the national patent office in each country or as a single application to the European Patent Office (EPO).   Rather than acting as a one-stop-shop for patent litigation, however, the EPO can essentially only grant a bundle of national patents for the countries designated by the patent application.  If subject to challenge, these patents must then be litigated separately in the national courts of each country in which they are granted – thereby potentially giving rise to legal costs across a number of jurisdictions as well as risking the prospect of different legal outcomes.  By contrast, the UPC will instead allow applicants to apply for a single patent, which will be valid across multiple Member States, upon which it will be the sole arbiter.  2. Boost to FDI and export activity If the referendum is carried, the Government has signalled its intention to establish a local division of the UPC in Ireland. Doing so would mean Ireland would be the only common law, native English-speaking jurisdiction with a UPC.  Coupled with Ireland’s already attractive tax regime for research and development, the establishment of a local UPC would arguably further boost the State’s profile as a location of choice for inward investment.  Moreover, access to a streamlined European patent protection system would likely act as a useful incentive for Irish businesses to expand exports to a greater number of countries previously out of reach because of the costs of securing multi-jurisdictional patent protection.  3. Impact on the domestic economy  Estimates provided to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment indicate that the establishment of a local division of the UPC in Ireland would contribute at least €415 million, or 0.13 percent in GDP growth, per annum by way of increased patent development activity.  Consequently, the establishment of the UPC can also be expected to generate increased expenditure and employment in legal, professional and other related technical advisory services.  Whether the referendum will be carried  will, however, ultimately depend on the Government’s ability to engage the public on the merits of adopting a streamlined patent court – a difficult task on such a niche subject.  Stephen Lowry is Public Policy Manager with Chartered Accountants Ireland

By realising the full potential of consistent networking, accountants can achieve personal and professional growth. Jean Evans explains why Consistency matters when you start networking. Working out what networks provide a consistent platform with which to engage is a crucial part of the magic sauce to leveraging and getting strategic with your networking efforts. Consistency is crucial for successful networking for several reasons: 1. Consistency builds trust Consistency helps establish trust and reliability among your network connections. When you consistently show up, deliver on promises, and maintain a certain level of professionalism, others are more likely to trust you and be willing to engage with you further. 2. Consistency keeps you relevant Regular interaction with your network helps you stay top-of-mind. If people consistently see your updates, contributions, or engagement within the network, they are more likely to think of you when opportunities arise. 3. Consistency demonstrates commitment Consistency demonstrates your commitment to your network connections, that you value the relationship and are willing to invest time and effort into maintaining it. This can lead to stronger and more meaningful connections over time. 4. Consistency builds credibility Consistency in networking activities, such as attending events, sharing valuable insights, or offering assistance, helps to build credibility. When others consistently see your expertise and willingness to help, they are more likely to view you as a credible and knowledgeable resource in your field. 5. Consistency expands opportunities Consistently engaging with your network expands your opportunities for new connections, collaborations, and career advancements. Regularly networking and nurturing relationships increase the likelihood of coming across new opportunities and being referred for relevant ones. 6. Consistency creates reciprocity Consistent networking efforts often lead to a culture of reciprocity within your network. When you consistently support and provide value to others, they are more likely to reciprocate by offering their support, advice, or opportunities when needed. 7. Consistency makes you adaptable Networking is not just about what you can get from others but also about what you can offer. Consistently engaging with your network allows you to adapt to changes in your industry or profession and remain relevant. It also opens opportunities for learning from others and gaining new perspectives. Reap the benefits Overall, networking consistency helps foster strong relationships, build credibility, and create opportunities for personal and professional growth. You can reap the benefits of a strong and supportive professional community by consistently investing time and effort into nurturing your network connections. Jean Evans is a Networking Architect and founder of NetworkMe

After a decade of little change, the tax regime for research and development in the UK has undergone a ‘credit style’ revamp, writes Liam McHenry  New research and development (R&D) rules for businesses in the UK with an accounting period beginning on or after 1 April 2024 have commenced. These entities are within the remit of the newly merged, research and development expenditure credit (REDC) expenditure scheme – with the exception of “highly R&D-intensive companies”. Companies with over 30 percent of their yearly expenditure qualifying for R&D tax relief can still claim under a restricted version of the SME scheme. Given this high bar, however, it is likely that only small technology start-ups will qualify.  For everyone else, the new rate will provide a benefit worth about 15p per £1 of qualifying expenditure, so not all is lost for those exiting the SME scheme, as a generous tax incentive remains for potential claimants. Reduced complexity? The stated aim of the merged scheme is to reduce complexity for claimants and their advisors. With two schemes remaining post-merger, however, the new scheme is actually more complex than its predecessor.  Subcontracted expenditure had previously been excluded under the RDEC scheme in any meaningful way. Under the new merged scheme, a new system has been put in place with the aim of rewarding whichever party decides to undertake the R&D activity. This adds a new dimension to determining the eligibility of qualifying R&D expenditure insofar as a subcontractor will now need to determine whether they believe their customer knew in advance that a project would require R&D activity. The theory is that this approach will remove the potential for both parties to claim on the same project, but it is easy to see how ambiguity might arise. When agreeing the terms of contracts with customers, claimants must pay additional attention to any clauses relating to intellectual property (IP) generation and whether they indicate that R&D will be required. Taking care at this stage could help claimants identify and preserve their right to claim the corresponding tax relief. Overseas expenditure A restriction on overseas expenditure was also introduced on 1 April 2024. Unless there is a compelling reason why the expenditure could not reasonably have been incurred in the UK, it will not be eligible for inclusion in the claim. However, recognising the unique position of Northern Ireland and its significant integration with the neighbouring Republic of Ireland, claimants can bypass this new restriction. By doing so, they could gain up to a maximum additional benefit of £250,000 every three years. This may require some additional administration, but it is still a welcome reprieve from the restriction, which would have been costly. Increased scrutiny This article offers a summary of the main rule changes coming into effect this month. In reality, there are more of which claimants should be aware. His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has dramatically increased its compliance efforts, with recent revelations from the Public Affairs Committee indicating that upwards of 20 percent of new R&D claims are now under scrutiny. While this fact alone should not be a major concern, it is worth noting that this increased scrutiny often comes with an aggressive stance, beginning with the assumption that R&D claims should be disallowed. The experience of one claimant to another can dramatically vary depending on which caseworker is allocated to the enquiry. Regardless, opening an enquiry can be a prolonged process before a conclusion can be reached. In the event of an unsuccessful enquiry defence, HMRC will be obligated to consider whether any penalties should be levied, depending on whether they determine that the claim was prepared carelessly. In addition, depending on the level of disclosure provided in previous claims made in recent years, HMRC can (and is actively encouraged to) look into these previous claims beyond the normal enquiry window. Planning ahead The implementation of the new R&D tax rules marks a significant shift for businesses heavily reliant on R&D activities for growth and innovation. As businesses adapt to the new regime, strategic planning and collaboration with tax advisors will be essential in maximising the benefits. Liam McHenry is Director of Tax at Grant Thornton

Recent comments by the CEO of America’s biggest bank suggest AGMs are losing power and relevance. David W Duffy delves into the details Annual general meetings (AGMs) are crucial in corporate governance. They are a legal necessity and provide a valuable opportunity for shareholders to speak to leaders. These days, however, criticism is surfacing in some companies that AGMs are becoming a nuisance. Activist pressure So, what exactly is turning the tide on AGMs and their perceived value? In short, the activist pressure exerted recently at some very high profile AGMs.  At Disney’s most recent AGM in early April, for example, shareholders were encouraged to vote in favour of a proposal that would see the entertainment giant pay for services for people choosing to detransition. The Disney proposition had no material impact on the company’s strategy, and JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon took issue.  According to Fortune, Dimon claimed that AGMs were falling victim to “spiralling frivolousness”, dominated by lobbyists, activists and interest groups, which bear little relation to the company’s strategic direction.  There’s no “right or wrong” for a statement like this; it is really just a measure of whether or not other corporate leaders agree.  The leaders of some companies could easily agree with Dimon, especially those at the helm of companies whose AGMs are rife with debate. In companies where AGMs are quieter – sometimes to the point of formality – leaders may not need to worry. Importantly, board members and other stakeholders must remember that anything is possible at an AGM. They could, for example: serve as a hotbed for debate; become a forum for topics considered politically charged (anything from geopolitics to religion to social issues to climate change); feature shareholder proposals put forward solely to make a point, win support or express anger; or seem like a waste of time to corporate leaders because of all the above.  None of this is a given, however. It is far more likely in bigger, global companies – household names consumers feel are so big that their impact stretches beyond their mission statement. In these scenarios, stakeholders generally want the company to take a stance on every political issue, and shareholder proposals at AGMs are part of this. Are AGMs fit for purpose? The threat of any of the above scenarios may mean that some companies’ AGMs are not fit for purpose. It depends on the goals of the people who attend. Companies can’t just get rid of AGMs, however.  AGMs are a cornerstone of business. They often serve as the one opportunity many small shareholders have to speak to the company’s leaders – and, by law, this chance must always be available.  An organisation considering changing its AGM must first examine its articles of association. These are usually where AGM rules like voting procedures and scheduling are found. Beyond this, there may be wiggle room. AGM options It is advisable that leaders and participants accept that the AGM will be active, full of differing opinions and multiple proposals that go nowhere, making it feel like a distraction. If you approach the situation with this prepared mindset, you might find it easier to register the elements of impactful processes beneath the noise.  It’s also advisable to get proactive about issues. You may be better prepared if you anticipate the problems that shareholders are likely to raise and discuss them at the executive and board levels. In the process, you could gain critical insights that shape your understanding of shareholder opinions and frame a more robust conversation. However, if an organisation still wants to change their AGM – and the articles of association allow it – boards can change things like length, the requirement for in-person attendance and the time balance between corporate leaders and shareholders. It must be noted, though, that if a board changes any of these elements, it may appear to be attempting to be creating barriers to debate and shareholders might not respond well. The bright side Many companies have seen their AGMs dominated by activist noise in recent years. While this issue can be addressed by making changes, the bottom line is that the AGM as a concept is here to stay. Organisations should view the “noise” as an invitation to develop relationship management skills and stay on top of emerging trends. These are hugely important for good corporate leaders, and a busy AGM could be the time to flex those muscles. David W Duffy is a founder of the Corporate Governance Institute

With the first reporting deadline for CESOP around the corner, it is critical that your company is fully prepared, writes Emma Broderick From 2024, all European Union (EU) payment service providers (PSPs) will be required under legislation to record and report transactional data in excess of 25 cross-border payments quarterly. This includes banks, electronic money institutions and other regulated payment institutions. The information given will be stored in a centralised European database – the Central Electronic System of Payment (CESOP) – and all information will be made available to anti-fraud experts. This has been brought in to help combat e-commerce VAT fraud. The first reporting deadline is 30 April 2024, meaning payment service providers have less than two weeks to file the report. Here are five key points to consider when helping payment service providers. The Central Electronic System of Payment (CESOP) report must be filed in the country where the PSP provides a payment service according to the payment license. For many providers offering payment services in multiple countries under an EU passport, a CESOP report must be filed in each country. Registration is required in most countries, but the manner of registration differs. In some countries, the PSP must apply to access the CESOP portal, while tax registration is required in other countries. Sometimes, the PSP must apply for a certificate. Unfortunately, in a few countries, it is necessary to have all three. The CESOP registration for Irish-resident PSPs can be completed using the online system operated by the Revenue Commissioners (Revenue). Revenue has also developed a Non-Resident Registration app for PSPs resident outside Ireland. In some cases, filing the CESOP report requires the use of special software, an electronic certificate, special encryption or an electronic signature. For example, in the Netherlands, you must have a public key infrastructure (PKI) government certificate and access to the Digipoort bestandsuitwisseling FTP. In Ireland, a PSP can engage the services of an intermediary to prepare and file the CESOP report without the PSP having to use any further technical tools. That is also the case in many other countries. There is a standard XML format for preparing and filing the CESOP report, but a specific heading is required in several countries. Revenue will have guidance on the headings needed for Ireland. The data in the CESOP report must comply with the CESOP requirements. There are various ways to check this. The European Commission website has a CESOP validation module, for example. However, please be aware that the European Commission has recently released new explanatory notes on the requirements of the file. The explanatory notes state that PCPs must consolidate all transactions for a single account under the same payee. Reporting per payment instead of per payee results in an incorrect report. Next steps We recommend PSPs establish the countries in which a CESOP report must be filed as soon as possible. If those countries require registration, it is important to do this immediately to meet the 30 April deadline. Although the market has asked for this, there is currently no general extension, which means many countries will continue to maintain the 30 April deadline. It is a good idea to test the data that will be filed to avoid it being rejected or returned with error messages. Emma Broderick is a Director with KPMG

Ireland’s placement in this year’s PwC Private Business Attractiveness Index has been helped by our start-up ecosystem and talent but challenges remain in other areas, writes Colm O’Callaghan Ireland ranks ninth among 33 EMEA countries as a location for private businesses to thrive, according to this year’s PwC Private Business Attractiveness Index. This is higher than Ireland’s 2022 ranking in 14th place, but below last year’s ranking in seventh place.   The index ranks the relative attractiveness of the environment and conditions needed for private businesses to thrive based on ten categories. These include: Macroeconomics. Private business landscape. Tax and regulatory environment. Sustainability and climate. Social responsibility and governance. Public health. Education. Skills and talent. Technology and infrastructure. Start-up ecosystem. While sustainability and climate, social responsibility, governance and public health all impact this year's rankings, three categories correlate highly with the countries’ overall ranking. These are private business landscape, technology and infrastructure, and start-up ecosystem. Virtually all jurisdictions in the higher positions perform strongly in these areas, more than making up for their lower scores in other categories. Conversely, tax and regulatory regimes and macroeconomic data categories – or even GDP per capita – have less bearing on the overall performance in the index. The index confirms that countries need to focus continually on the fundamentals that support an attractive environment for businesses in order to encourage and attract entrepreneurs and business founders. Trends in Ireland Several positives are driving Ireland’s attractiveness as a place for private businesses to thrive: It is in sixth place for ‘start-up ecosystem’; It is in ninth place for ‘education, skills and talent’; and It is in tenth place for ‘tax and regulatory environment’, up from 20th in 2021. Some concerning trends have outweighed these positives this year, however. Ireland’s ranking for ‘macroeconomics’ has fallen to sixth place this year, down from first last year. This is a significant slide, much of it stemming from the cost of living crisis and the fact that rising costs in the private business sector were most keenly felt in 2023. In this regard, Ireland ranked 30 out of 33 for the cost of electricity and 29 out of 33 for the cost of living metrics, impacting its overall macroeconomic standing. Ireland also scores 13th place and eighth, respectively, for ‘sustainability and climate’ and ‘social, responsibility and governance’. Ireland's overall fall by two positions to ninth place in this year’s index reflects the intense pressure some private businesses are under and the urgent need for continued support for this important sector of our economy.  In recent years, private businesses have had to deal with the pandemic followed by a period of steep inflation, high interest rates, electricity price rises and other cost pressures, often while working with restrained cash flows. Private businesses now face further cost pressures ranging from an increased minimum wage, pension auto-enrolment and employer PRSI hikes all coming together. It is good news that the Minister for Finance has announced that the interest rate on tax debt (frozen since the pandemic) has been cut to zero and that the Revenue Commissioners has indicating that it will take a flexible approach to the repayments. However, new and creative long term solutions may still be needed to help businesses service or repay the debt due while continuing to grow.  A key driver of Government over the next 12 to 24 months must be simple, clear and longterm policy measures aimed at supporting private businesses and further encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation. In particular, Ireland needs to do more to help support indigenous private businesses to become world leaders in their sector. Supporting businesses to invest in their finance teams and performance-led transformation could, for example, help them scale and internationalise faster. Business owners could also be given access to the reduced 10 percent rate of Entrepreneur Relief on the payment of a salary instead of having to sell their business. This would encourage the retention of businesses in the private sector and help to create more world-leading companies in Ireland under private ownership. Overall, if the Government can introduce a clear, simple and stated policy to help private businesses flourish and grow, doing so could make a long-term contribution to Ireland’s economy and naturally hedge our dependency on foreign direct investment. Colm O'Callaghan is a partner with PwC Private

Navigating capability issues in the workplace demands both empathy and procedural diligence. Gemma O’Connor explores how to address poor performance fairly Your employees are human; just like anyone, their work performance may dip occasionally. If this becomes an ongoing issue, an informal chat with the employee can often help shed light on what may be affecting their ability to complete their duties. Once the cause is identified and the employee receives suitable support, their performance will hopefully improve. After this, no further action will be necessary. However, if this informal approach does not work, it may be time to address the employee’s capability to do their job. What is capability? Capability in the context of employment law refers to an employee's skill, aptitude, health or any other physical/mental quality that allows them to complete their duties. Employment law recognises that employers may need to dismiss staff who no longer have the capability to complete their work. To understand whether an employee's poor performance may be due to their capability, you must ascertain if it is the case that they cannot do the work versus will not do the work. The latter may fall under the category of conduct. Capability policy A capability dismissal may be lawful if an employee does not have the capability, competence or qualifications to perform the work they are employed to do. A capability policy clearly outlines how the business will address capability issues that arise in the workplace. To do this, you will need to take steps to support your employees in working effectively. An informal discussion with the employee will often prevent the need for formal disciplinary action. A mutually agreed performance management solution should be explored first to help the employee overcome any capability issues. Performance-related capability dismissal The procedure to establish the basis for the dismissal must comply with the rules of natural justice and the terms of your written disciplinary procedures. In competency cases, you must outline the nature of the performance issues you need the employee to improve on. To determine whether a dismissal related to employee competency is fair, management should ask themselves if the employee is incapable of carrying out the job, and if so, do they have reasonable grounds to support that belief? Before moving to dismiss on the grounds of competence, you must first highlight the performance issues to the employee and grant them an opportunity to improve. With the right training and support, the employee may turn things around. Medical capability dismissal In many cases, the incapability of an employee to continue performing their job may result from ill health. Even if the employer's conduct is caused by ill health, dismissal will not necessarily be unfair, although it may also mean that the employer should take greater steps to avoid dismissal than would otherwise be the case. Before dismissing someone on the grounds of medical capability, you should obtain detailed medical evidence confirming that the employee’s return to work or recovery is unlikely. A dismissal based on medical capability must follow the principles of natural justice. You should: make sure you fully possess all material facts concerning the employee’s condition; ensure the employee receives fair notice that the question of a medical capability dismissal is being considered; and provide the employee with an opportunity to prove their case; if the employee isn't capable after a medical expert deems them so, ensure you explore reasonable accommodations that could render the employee fully capable (for instance, changing hours of work, etc). Unfair dismissal laws and capability Most unfair dismissal claims arise when an employer fails to follow fair procedures prior to confirming a dismissal. The Workplace Relations Commission will examine the following questions in an unfair dismissal claim, which are also applicable in cases involving capability: Did the employer believe that the employee was guilty of misconduct as alleged? If so, did the employer have reasonable grounds to sustain that belief? Did the employer carry out as much investigation into the matter as was reasonable before dismissing the employee? If so, was the penalty of dismissal proportionate to the alleged misconduct? The best way to minimise the risk of unfair dismissal claims is to have thorough disciplinary policies and procedures in place and to follow them strictly before confirming a dismissal. Gemma O’Connor is Head of Service at Penisula Ireland

Businesses can only grow if owners are able to give time and attention to new ideas. Moira Dunne outlines how you can win back time to put towards developing your business In most businesses, the primary focus is on customer satisfaction and delivering products and services to the highest standard. To stay competitive and evolve, however, businesses must also continuously develop and improve their offerings. Coming up with new ideas to innovate isn’t a problem for many business owners who are able to carve out time to work on them – but for others, doing so can be a challenge. So, what is the best way to prioritise business ideas within the cut and thrust of a busy day, often while juggling urgent requests from important stakeholders? We know that, if we don’t develop the business, it can stagnate. This can lead to anxiety that makes us want to do everything at once, resulting in decreased productivity and little business growth. Win back time To include longer-term development activities in your schedule, you need to start working smarter to free up some time each week. There are three simple steps that can help you take back time to focus on bigger projects that can ultimately move the dial for your business. 1. Think Think about what you need to do to develop the business. Do you need a strategy? Do you need to improve your products? How can you innovate in new areas? Start capturing those great ideas that swirl around your head on paper. Then, review the list, prioritise and make a plan to deliver. 2. Understand Before you can win back time, you first need to understand where time is currently wasted. By using a simple time log template or any task tracker app, you can gain insights into your time usage. Popular apps include ToDoist.com, Monday.com or Zapier.com. This exercise can reveal patterns and trends that allow you to adjust your focus and activities to win back time – this time can then be redirected into higher-value business activities. 3. Identify Winning back time each week may require some hard decisions. Consider the following: What is the best use of your skill, knowledge and experience? Do you spend too much time on tasks that could be delegated? Do you focus on the operational work because the more strategic projects are harder to think about or work on? Are you reluctant to delegate because you don’t think tasks will be done to your standard? These are all common challenges when a business wants to grow and develop. You may decide to let go of tasks you enjoy working on. You may have to trust others within the team to step up and do the job. Be prepared to train some team members to achieve the long-term gain that benefits the business. Changes you can make today Actions you can take to win back time today will vary from business to business. Here are some for your consideration: Complete high-value tasks early in the week to give you momentum and motivation, which will also minimise the odds of getting pulled off track. Spend less time on low-value tasks by batching them together to complete at set times in the day. Leave the low-focus tasks until your low-focus time of day. Give yourself permission to say no. Protect time for high-value work by establishing routines, such as days without meetings or time blocks when you do not look at emails. Delegate or outsource what you can. Include regular reviews and feedback to ensure success. Share a document with the whole team to capture new ideas on an ongoing basis. Review this document at a set time, list and prioritise, then select the key ideas to progress. Moira Dunne is Founder of beproductive.ie

The research and development tax credit encourages new ways of thinking… just not, as it seems, from everyone, writes Dr Brendan McCarthy The most recent Worldwide R&D Incentives Reference Guide from EY demonstrates how most of the 46 jurisdictions discussed in the guide give preferential tax treatment to business research and development (R&D) expenditure in broadly similar ways. Subject to maintaining detailed records, eligible companies can typically offset the credit against their other tax liabilities or claim a refund in the form of cold, hard cash. When we consider the amount of money large pharmaceutical, medical device and other similar companies are likely to invest in R&D on an ongoing basis, it should come as no surprise that this credit can often run into many hundreds of thousands of euros, facilitating even further investment in R&D by both multinational companies and SMEs year after year. Ireland remains an outlier, however, in two important respects. First, for accounting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2024, eligible companies in Ireland can now claim a credit of 30 percent (previously 25%) of qualifying R&D expenditure, payable in three annual instalments. This amount exceeds that offered by most Western countries (in some cases by double digits) and is twice that offered by New Zealand, a similarly sized economy. However, apart from the level of the credit itself, what sets the Irish regime even further apart from most other jurisdictions is the concept of ‘key employees’. Recognising the reality that it is not companies that have innovative ideas but rather the people working for them, eligible companies have a further option: they can choose to use the credit to reduce the income tax liabilities of their R&D workers. Not all workers are eligible. Irish legislation stipulates that they must spend at least half of their time working in R&D, cannot be company directors, and cannot hold more than a five percent stake in their company. In other words, they must be bona fide R&D workers and cannot have a vested interest in the idea's success. Opting to surrender the credit in this way presents a dual benefit – not only does the company stand to benefit from the R&D underway, but the wider workforce is also incentivised to continue their good work. Even the most well-meaning of provisions can have unfortunate consequences, however. Having satisfied the criteria of being a key employee, the legislation states that the individual’s effective tax rate, after claiming the credit, can be no lower than 23 percent. This stipulation inevitably favours those paying tax at the higher rates (predominantly, the more senior and thus higher-paid workers), effectively leaving those paying the lower rates (the lower-paid, junior staff) out in the cold. Research has shown that employee input, or ‘voice’, can make a positive contribution to an organisation through, amongst other things, increased innovation, the identification of new and more efficient work practices, and the early detection and prevention of problems. This is irrespective of the employee’s rank or tenure within the organisation. Yet, this same research has also shown that employees, particularly those at the most junior levels, frequently withhold their voice on a wide variety of matters. One of the primary reasons for this is an overwhelming sense of futility, fuelled by an awareness of their low rank or position and a sense of ‘it’s not my place’. The requirement that the R&D worker’s effective tax rate can be no lower than 23 percent arguably adds fuel to this fire. By favouring those on higher incomes, the message seems to be that innovative ideas from lower earners are not worth the company’s time or investment. This baffling provision is not only overtly managerially biased but is patently contra to the spirit of the legislation, the primary objective of which was the promotion of new ideas and new ways of thinking. Moreover, it is hopelessly out of date. The provisions governing the R&D tax credit were first introduced into Irish tax two decades ago. Together with one of the lowest corporation tax rates on trading profits in the world, it remains central to the country’s efforts in attracting foreign direct investment. By leading the way in championing the contribution of ‘key employees’ and recently increasing the amount of the credit from 25 to 30 percent, successive Irish governments have not only shown a continued commitment to the R&D tax credit regime but also a willingness to make adjustments to its provisions, in a more equitable pursuit of its overall objective. So, it is fair to say that the Irish R&D tax credit encourages new ways of thinking… just not, as it seems, from everyone. It’s time we gave this some thought. Dr Brendan McCarthy is Assistant Professor in Tax at the University of Limerick

Tax must be considered as part of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive’s double materiality assessment, explains Aidan Lucey The aim of the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is to drive accountability and transparency by mandating companies operating in the EU to disclose information on material sustainability topics publicly. Even if companies have reported non-financial data in the past, they will likely need to expand the nature and extent of their disclosures. For some companies, tax could be considered a material sustainability topic, given the significance of tax contributions to society and heightened investor scrutiny. This means they will need to disclose information on tax publicly, too. Therefore, companies must understand the specific tax disclosures that may be required under CSRD. CSRD and double materiality Companies within the scope of CSRD are required to make disclosures on material sustainability topics in accordance with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). The ESRS covers sustainability topics across environmental, social and governance pillars and prescribe specific disclosure requirements. To determine the sustainability topics to be disclosed, companies must carry out a double materiality assessment. This involves assessing a company’s impact on the environment and society (“impact materiality”) and an assessment of how sustainability topics may affect the future performance of the company (“financial materiality”). If a sustainability topic is material to a company, but is not addressed by the ESRS, the company must still disclose information about it to enable readers to understand its sustainability-related impacts, risks and opportunities. Tax as a material topic Interestingly, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), which developed the CSRD standards, explicitly calls out tax as one of the topics on which organisations could make disclosures. In determining what sustainability topics are material for a business and its stakeholders, companies must consider many factors. While materiality considerations will differ for every organisation based on their specific sustainability and stakeholder profile, a range of factors could make tax a material consideration. These are outlined below. Social impact Tax is not just a cost of doing business, it is also a social responsibility. The taxes paid by an organisation, including those that it collects on behalf of governments, can represent its biggest monetary contribution to society. Those taxes fund public services, green infrastructure and community projects. Consequently, tax can be seen as a powerful indicator of a company’s societal impact. To assess this impact, stakeholders are demanding a greater level of tax transparency. They want to understand a company’s approach to tax, how tax matters are governed, and how much taxes are paid. Investors Tax is being factored into investor considerations when assessing the sustainability of a business. An organisation’s approach to tax can pose significant risks that affect investment returns in the medium and long term. To address these concerns, investors are taking steps to influence companies to make more comprehensive tax disclosures that will allow them to evaluate not only financial aspects but also governance and reputational risks associated with their approach to tax. Some investors have released codes of conduct encouraging transparency on tax from investee companies. Others have filed shareholder motions mandating tax disclosures under GRI 207, a specific tax standard released by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to enable companies to disclose tax as part of their sustainability reporting. Tax disclosures under the CSRD can provide companies with an opportunity to build trust with investors, customers and society. Even where a company concludes that tax is not a material topic in its own right—possibly because other sustainability topics are viewed as higher priorities—tax disclosures could be considered under an existing ESRS. Tax disclosures required Where an organisation deems tax a material topic, EFRAG has indicated that GRI 207 could be used as the basis for its tax disclosures. GRI 207 consists of four categories of disclosures: Disclosure 207-1: Approach to tax. This requires an organisation to disclose details on its tax strategy, who oversees it, and how it aligns with its broader sustainability strategy. Disclosure 207-2: Tax governance, control, and risk management. This requires the disclosure of information about an organisation’s tax governance structure and how tax risks are identified, managed and monitored. Disclosure 207-3: Stakeholder engagement and management of concerns related to tax. This disclosure considers how an organisation engages with its stakeholders on tax matters. Disclosure 207-4: Country-by-country reporting. This disclosure requires an organisation to report on quantitative data, including its revenue, tax, and business activities on a country-by-country basis. A double materiality assessment is an essential step towards CSRD compliance. Full engagement between tax departments and sustainability teams will ensure that tax impacts, risks and opportunities are identified and considered in the double materiality assessment. Aidan Lucey is Tax Leader for CSRD at PwC Ireland

What will tomorrow bring for the role of the Chartered Accountant and what changes are already taking hold today? Accountancy Ireland talks to four members of ACA Professionals about their experiences and expectations The role of the accountant is evolving and with it the expectations and perceptions of younger generations building careers in the profession. Here, four members of the Institute’s ACA Professionals Committee tell us about their hopes and aspirations for the future and career experiences today. Brendan Brophy I grew up in Perth, Australia, and studied business and accounting at Edith Cowan University, later obtaining a master’s in finance from University College Dublin. I qualified as a Chartered Accountant in 2016 and have since worked in both accounting and taxation. I am currently Senior Cost Accountant with Square and Chair of the ACA Professionals Committee of Chartered Accountants Ireland. I started my university journey in 2010 with a general interest in business, carrying a nascent curiosity about companies and their financial workings. My exact career direction was unknown until I encountered my first accounting lecture, however. That introduction to the foundational principles of accounting really resonated. It was during my first year at university that I had the privilege of attending a presentation by Chartered Accountants Australia. The session explored the prestigious career path offered by the ACA qualification, highlighting its value as an international career passport. Continuous learning The journey to becoming a Chartered Accountant, while enjoyable, has also posed distinct challenges. It requires extensive commitment to ongoing study and capacity to get to grips with deep knowledge across all facets of the discipline. What has surprised me most hasn’t been the rigour of the qualification process, but the ongoing need for continuous learning and adaptation post-qualification. The field of accounting is continuously evolving across standards, business practices, regulatory frameworks and technology. Expertise considered cutting-edge five years ago may no longer suffice today, so staying ahead of the curve is not merely an option, but a necessity for Chartered Accountants. Right now, technology is one of the most significant drivers of change in our field, redefining the boundaries of what’s possible. Advances in technology are outpacing existing regulatory frameworks, presenting both challenges and opportunities,and requiring us to anticipate and adapt to changes rather than respond to them retrospectively. Prime examples include artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency. The imperative for accountants today is to have a proactive mindset, enabling us to foresee emerging trends and incorporate them into our practices. Agents of change Becoming a Chartered Accountant is not just about mastering the intricacies of finance and accounting; it is about earning a pivotal seat at the decision-making table within any organisation. This privileged position allows Chartered Accountants to influence key business decisions directly, facilitating change that extends beyond the confines of a single company to impact the broader industry and regulatory environment. The role we play in guiding financial strategy, ethical standards and sustainable practices enables us to be agents of change, influencing economic outcomes and contributing to the shaping of regulatory frameworks that govern our profession and the business world at large. Anne Carter I studied business and accountancy at Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology and went on to qualify as a Chartered Accountant with DHKN in Galway in 2017. In between, I worked in retail banking, travelled to Australia and New Zealand on a Working Holiday Visa and moved to London for two years, where I earned a diploma in sound engineering. My journey to becoming a Chartered Accountant was triggered by my curiosity to understand the nuts and bolts of how businesses operate, and by my interest in maths and accounting from a young age. The opportunities for professional development associated with the ACA qualification really attracted me; the scope for continued learning and career advancement. The qualification opens doors. I saw it as a pathway to hone my skills, gain valuable experience and continue to develop. During my training contract with DHKN, I worked across audit, accounts preparation, income tax and corporation tax and, after qualifying, I moved to Dublin to join the internal audit function at GameStop. I have been with CRH plc now since 2018 and currently work on our Strategic Projects Team. Potential of technology I think technology has a lot of potential to allow our profession to develop broader skillsets and move more into advisory work, strategic decision-making and the actual interpretation of financial data. Artificial intelligence, automation and data analytics are all transforming the way accountants work and the services we provide. This will only increase over the next decade as more of the time-consuming or manual tasks we do today become automated. My career advice to younger members and students is to be open to change and to exploring different areas or opportunity within the field of accounting – adopt a growth mindset, set career goals, take ownership of your professional development and seek out advice and feedback from managers and peers. Claire Doyle I grew up in a small village called Leitrim in Co. Down and studied accounting at Queen’s University Belfast. I am also currently studying for a post-graduate diploma in sustainable financial technology and innovation at Maynooth University. I qualified as a Chartered Accountant in 2019 with KPMG in Belfast and I am currently International Tax Manager with PTC Therapeutics at its international headquarters in Dublin. At 17, I really struggled to understand what I should do for my career. My mother was a teacher, my father had set up his own business and my older brothers either worked, or were pursuing careers, in construction. Having watched them having to emigrate during the recession, I knew I wanted to pursue a qualification that would deliver high-quality jobs, global reach and allow me to carve my own path. Turning point During my second year at university, tragedy struck our family when we lost my brother Ryan in Australia. This really became the turning point in my life and the direction of my career. In the following months, I decided to apply for a year-long work placement with KPMG in Dublin so I would have the experience to know that becoming a Chartered Accountant was definitely the right path for me. It was a real eye-opener and ultimately brought me one step closer to starting my training contract with KPMG in Belfast. After my training contract ended, I decided to move into industry and take up a position that would allow me to gain more practical in-depth experience in the life science sector. Childcare reform Right now, I think childcare reform is needed across the island of Ireland to support working parents and reduce the financial burden and stress associated with finding a place for children and keeping parents in the workforce. Key to the retention of working parents in our profession and others is ensuring that there are adequate provisions in place to allow for reduced working hours. If a working parent decides to reduce their hours, I don’t believe this should mean that they have to condense five days of work into four. Transformative role I believe that accounting as a profession has the power to promote financial transparency, accountability and sustainability. Chartered Accountants are seen as trusted advisors. We can help our companies to understand their impact and reporting obligations across the three pillars of environmental, social and governance (ESG) and educate them on important matters, such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Our ability to influence policy and advocate on behalf of the public is vitally important to supporting the Government in determining realistic targets in support of Ireland’s Climate Action Plan. The Institute’s collaboration with Chartered Accountants Worldwide allows us to amplify our impact and drive progress towards the achievement of the SDGs. Sinéad Nolan I studied both business and accounting and finance at undergraduate level and then did a master’s in accounting at Maynooth University. I qualified as a Chartered Accountant in 2017 with RSM Farrell Grant Sparks, which merged with Grant Thornton during my training contract. I then worked with the National Transport Authority as a Rural Transport Finance and Governance Accountant for one year before joining AXA Insurance in the role of Financial Accountant and, for a time, worked on the planning and analysis team and on secondment to the strategy team. I knew from an early age that I wanted to become a Chartered Accountant. I gained invaluable experience during Transition Year through work experience with O’Brien & Co. in Rathmines. I will be forever grateful for the accounting experience Tom O’Brien gave me back then at just 16 years of age. From day one at college, it was communicated to us how highly regarded the Chartered Accountant qualification is. The international recognition and respect the ACA qualification is held in really appealed to me. The work opportunities that come with it are endless. Welcome change ESG and, in particular, sustainability are becoming more important, especially among younger generations starting their career. Chartered Accountants and companies today are actively working to achieve their sustainability goals. I believe Chartered Accountants can bring about powerful change, especially with regards to sustainability, by encouraging social responsibility and the adoption of sustainable practices among entities of all sizes. I also see positive change with regards to gender equality in our profession and beyond, which is very welcome, and I believe we will see more women in senior positions in the future. I am lucky enough to see this in action at AXA Ireland, where there is a culture that fosters inclusion and a better working world for women.

Navigating the complexities of sustainability leadership demands a multifaceted approach, writes Catherine Duggan More companies are grappling with a rising regulatory burden and heightened stakeholder expectations regarding sustainability, presenting the need for a captain to lead the team. Here is a selection of the components that can help make this role successful. 1. Knowledge of the business The impacts, risks and opportunities sustainability presents for each business are unique. Understanding sustainability, along with intimate knowledge of your business operations, stakeholders and future strategic plans, is critical to ensuring the successful integration of the sustainability agenda. 2. Commercial mindset Perhaps more than other disciplines, sustainability tends to attract people who are passionate about the topic and driven by the need to be change-makers. While enthusiasm is certainly necessary, particularly on more challenging days, the ability to consider and incorporate commercial aspects into the wider conversation can prove more effective than passion alone. 3. Risk management While sustainability may be a developing area of expertise in companies, risk management is not. The risk posed by the transition – or failure to transition – to a more sustainable economy can and should be considered through existing risk management processes, enhanced skill sets and frameworks. Being familiar with the vocabulary and the approach that is being taken can help with the incorporation of sustainability considerations. 4. Communication management Many of the sustainability regulations that are being introduced focus on disclosing sustainability-related information to facilitate stakeholder decision-making. The implications of these disclosures must be understood in the wider context of any supervisory oversight. In addition, consistency of investor messaging and alignment with previous external disclosures, public commitments and marketing campaigns are crucial factors for the effective management of external communications. 5. Stakeholder management Getting internal stakeholders onside is the most fundamental skill required to develop and deliver a credible sustainability programme. The ultimate goal of a sustainability function is that it should become business as usual, part of everyone’s day job. Until that point, support is required from all parts of the business at a time when resources are often already at capacity. The ability to tailor messaging to specific functions, outlining the drivers, risks, opportunities and executive support, is critical. 6. Change management All parts of the business will eventually feel the impact of sustainability through the implementation of a new strategy, regulation, processes or responsibilities. Agnostic of sustainability, change management is required to embed this level of transformation and support into the culture of an organisation. 7. Resilience While sustainability aims to deliver long-term resilience for people, the planet and profit, a degree of personal resilience is required to chart the path. In a fluid regulatory environment, an organised and curious mind is needed to develop best practices. A support network is also important to ensure the workload is shared. Building a sustainable future together While the above list may seem unrealistic, it’s important to emphasise sustainability’s ‘team’ nature and the need for support from across the organisation. Identifying a resource proficient in all of the skills outlined above is a challenge. Securing someone with working knowledge of some or all of these areas – and who can upskill – is more achievable. Few people today began their career with the intention of becoming a sustainability professional, but there is now a growing community forging a new path for their companies, with the aim of highlighting the reality that we are all in the same boat and the water is rising. Catherine Duggan is Director of Sustainability at Grant Thornton

Ireland’s CFOs continue to prioritise cost control and efficiency over investment in AI but will they pay the price further down the road? asks Derarca Dennis As Ireland’s Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) step up to future-proof the finance function, their role in leveraging technology to improve efficiencies is becoming increasingly pivotal. According to the EY Ireland CFO Survey 2024, finance leaders are not just looking to elevate business performance, they are also actively seeking to tap into the potential of technology while simultaneously strengthening their collaborative alignment with Chief Technology Officers (CTOs). The continued focus on technology investment is unsurprising, considering that 47 percent of respondents identified manual processes and controls as an area where time is used least efficiently in the finance function. It is perplexing that such a high number of respondents continue to cite manual processes and controls as an area for improvement in the finance function. This suggests that organisations have some way to go in their automation efforts, and significant further investment in technology will be required over the coming years. AI and the finance function Despite the investment in technology, the survey results for artificial intelligence (AI) indicate that it is a low priority for organisations right now. Finance leaders in Ireland are still at the very early stages of Generative AI (GenAI) adoption and are firmly focused on using cost reduction and efficiency gains to realise growth. AI use remains modest, with just 26 percent claiming to have leveraged it for enhanced efficiency, automating manual tasks and risk detection, among other use cases. The uptake of GenAI is even lower at just 15 percent. This may come as a surprise to some. While GenAI has been commanding the headlines over the past 15 months, the technology is still not at the stage where it can be employed to carry out advanced functions in finance departments. CFOs are naturally exercising caution until they see some applications proving that GenAI can be trusted in terms of output and security. Just six percent of respondents say they will leverage advanced AI to enhance the finance function or acquire AI skills in the next two years. The figure for a longer five-year span is only moderately higher, with nine percent saying they will integrate AI and advanced AI into the finance function in that timeframe. The results of the survey indicate that organisations are still at the discovery and use case definition stage in relation to AI. Automation It is surprising that greater use has not been made of the technology for automation purposes, given the continued inefficiencies created by manual processes and controls in finance functions. Interestingly, the survey shows a fairly significant budget increase is anticipated, albeit from a low base, for advanced AI (including GenAI) from one to 3.2 percent in the next two years. This suggests an openness to applying the technology as soon as use cases are identified and better understood. Not all AI solutions are expensive or require custom development. To get their organisations to accelerate the AI journey, CFOs can recommend adopting pre-built AI solutions that drive cost efficiency. Cybersecurity In their role as strategic business partners, CFOs must do more than just comprehend the organisation’s risk tolerance; they are also responsible for steering the budget towards areas that need more attention. Just 39 percent of the respondents in the EY Ireland survey say they have ramped up investment in security tools, compared with 60 percent in 2023. This may indicate a degree of complacency regarding cybersecurity, or it could be that investments have begun to plateau following significant increases in recent years. In a very welcome finding, 31 percent of the respondents say they instituted a cybersecurity task force compared with the eight percent in 2023. CFOs’ north star The relatively low priority given to technology-driven transformation and the low rate of AI adoption in finance functions is surprising given current talent shortages. Right now, cost control and efficiency remain the north star for finance leaders in Ireland. Derarca Denis is Assurance Partner and Sustainability Services Lead at EY Ireland 

Amid rising cyber threats, integrating cybersecurity into the due diligence process for business acquisitions is becoming increasingly important, writes Mark Butler With the recent rise in digital data breaches, cybersecurity’s critical role in due diligence engagements during business acquisitions cannot be underestimated. Embedding a cybersecurity-focused lens into the due diligence framework is an essential part of helping accountants and their clients tackle and manage potential vulnerabilities before investing proactively. This approach can strengthen defence against cyber threats, support informed, strategic decision-making and enhance a company’s resilience in the face of digital-age risks while ensuring full visibility of the purchaser’s potential exposure. The urgency of prioritising cybersecurity due diligence hinges on four key considerations: Assessing the business’s technological framework In today’s digital-driven business environment, a company’s technological infrastructure is integral to its operational success. Cybersecurity due diligence offers a deep dive into the resilience of the business’s networks, systems and software, revealing potential vulnerabilities. This critical assessment aids in understanding the implications and costs associated with securing or upgrading technological assets post-acquisition, facilitating strategic planning and integration efforts. Ensuring the security of sensitive information The acquisition process provides access to sensitive data, from client details and intellectual property to financial records and employee information. A focused cybersecurity due diligence process is crucial for evaluating how robust the target company’s data protection measures are. Early identification of security gaps enables the implementation of stringent safeguards, thus securing the integrity and confidentiality of vital data assets against potential breaches. Mitigating financial and legal exposures Cybersecurity breaches carry operational risks and significant financial and legal ramifications. A thorough cybersecurity due diligence process can uncover potential liabilities arising from data breaches, regulatory non-compliance and other legal challenges. Forearmed with this knowledge, acquirers can better negotiate the terms of the acquisition, allocate resources for addressing identified risks, and adjust the purchase price to reflect any investments needed to improve cybersecurity. Safeguarding business continuity and brand reputation Maintaining business continuity and reputation is paramount for a successful acquisition. Cyber incidents can severely disrupt business activities, erode customer trust and damage brands. By incorporating cybersecurity due diligence, potential threats can be identified and mitigated through comprehensive incident response planning. This proactive strategy ensures that appropriate measures are in place to minimise the impact of cyber threats on the company’s operational integrity and reputation. Prioritising cybersecurity within the due diligence framework is not merely a precautionary measure; it is a strategic business imperative that gives the purchaser adequate visibility of the acquired business. It can support a thorough assessment of technology-related risks, fortify the protection of sensitive data, mitigate potential financial and legal consequences, and protect the viability and reputation of the business. Finding expertise in cybersecurity can be difficult, however. I advise seeking out recognised specialists offering comprehensive assessments that adhere to international standards. This approach during the due diligence process can help accountants and their clients to understand and proactively address the cybersecurity challenges that come with business acquisitions, laying the groundwork for long-term success. Mark Butler is Managing Partner at HLB Ireland

Julia Rowan answers your management, leadership and team development questions Q. I manage a team of four people in a large organisation. Up until recently, we all got on and worked well together. However, the mood has changed. The work is getting done, and everyone is polite, but I am being shut out. I think this is in response to company-wide changes during which we lost a popular team member. I had no control over this. A. One of the key things leaders do is act as a buffer between the hard shell of the organisation – with its policies, structures and procedures – and the social and emotional needs of individuals. It is a tough gig.  Right now, it sounds like your team is angry with the organisation. Sadly, they are not going to tackle the CEO, so you are getting the flack. When change is perceived negatively, there is a lot of blame. Leaders often get sucked into explaining, defending and rationalising – which only makes things worse. In reality, people are frightened and worried. They are wondering, ‘Can I cope with the changes?’, ‘Will I be next?’ They are placing blame at your feet to hold those fears at bay. While you may be unable to control the changes your company decides to make, you can help your team to navigate them.  Allow people to air their fears – and listen without judgement. Underneath it all, your team does not blame you. They understand that changes need to be made to keep organisations competitive. When you listen, people will start talking about what is important to them, and this is where you can have a connected conversation. I suggest you raise this issue at a team meeting. Say that you have noticed a change in the team mood and feel it would be useful to discuss this in one-to-ones or at the next team meeting.  If people bring up the issues, connect with them where they are. Prepare to listen and absorb. You might have to listen to a rant – at the end of a rant, there is often an apology and an acceptance of the need to move on.  When the time is right, agreeing on how to move forward may be useful. Have some ‘connecting’ questions ready, for example: What is important for you/the team? What could I/we have done differently? What do you want from me/from each other at this time? What can I help you with?  How do we support each other? How do we want to move forward? Finally, it may be important to look at how your team member left. Did you and the team get a chance to mark that properly? If not, the team may like to fix that. Julia Rowan is Principal Consultant with Performance Matters Ltd, a leadership and team development consultancy. To send a question to Julia, email julia@performancematters.ie

Three Chartered Accountants tell us how they use performance metrics to enhance organisational efficiency beyond traditional benchmarks Niamh McCarthy Finance Business Partner Primark Relying solely on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) can mean ignoring the human elements that impact performance. Focusing only on a project’s outcomes might meet KPIs, but it can also make people feel that their wellbeing or personal development is not a priority. In my experience, the best way to ensure a balance between quantitative metrics and qualitative assessments is to set clear expectations when setting annual goals, provide feedback and coaching more regularly than in one-off annual reviews so that everyone is aligned, and add weighting to both quantitative and qualitative metrics based on their importance to the company.  Subjective factors such as employee behaviour, teamwork and communication skills are crucial in performance evaluations.  These measures can influence a company’s culture as employees feel heard and that they can collaborate with their peers. These positive behaviours drive a positive culture. The more positive employees feel, the more productive they tend to be.  Careful consideration is required before implementing alternative performance measures to ensure clear definitions of the metrics. Transparency is a must to ensure everyone understands the metrics that are being used.  A standardised approach is also needed for all employees. To achieve this, the managers setting these performance measures need adequate and uniform training to ensure consistency for everyone.  Employees should be involved in their goal-setting every year, of these goals must align with the company’s values and objectives. There should be a sense of ownership over these so that they are not just ‘given’ to the employee but they instead feel that they have created them, can drive them and ultimately achieve them.  These goals should be reviewed regularly – not just annually – to ensure that they are still relevant. Otherwise, you risk employees feeling disconnected from their own objectives or those of the business.  Unlike traditional performance metrics focused solely on quantitative outputs, alternative performance measurement methods often take a more holistic approach.  Various factors are considered, such as skills, behaviours, contribution to the team and alignment with company values. This comprehensive assessment provides employees with a more nuanced understanding of their strengths and potential areas for improvement, facilitating targeted development efforts.  Employees who feel they can grow and develop within a company are more likely to actively contribute to the business. The more you give back to employees in terms of recognising their development and wellbeing, the more they will give back in turn. Mark Riseley Strategic and Financial Consultant/Fractional CFO My lens is formed from a career working for high-growth scale-ups where change is constant, requiring systems, data, processes and (most importantly) people to flex as the company grows.  Traditional KPIs are often unsuited to measuring capacity to scale efficiently, for both people and companies, and do not capture a company’s true enterprise value along that path. Some alternate measures of performance include: Time management – In high-growth environments, time may be a team’s most valuable commodity. Does the company measure time, quantity and output generated by meetings?  Data – What is high-quality data, and what is just noise? Instead of just measuring data output, measure the speed and efficiency of decisions to determine which data is worth keeping. Adaptability to a culture of change – Identify, hire and measure based on key personality traits, such as decision-making capacity, adaptability/flexibility, resilience, trust, diligence and communication skills, rather than just the known skills of the profession. Effectiveness of organisational design – Is the organisation’s design scalable, or does it need to pivot to enable growth? Does it allow executives to delegate/empower decision-making? Check employee turnover to determine the effectiveness of your organisation’s outlay. Common goal – Is the common goal clear? Do companies measure the clarity of messaging, such as doing spot checks on the elevator pitch, for example? Do performance measures flow from the corporate to departmental and individual level? Make sure all messaging is aligned. Enterprise value – Is enterprise value (EV) clear, measured and reported? Is there a consequence to hitting forecasts? The ability to do this can mean the difference between a rear-view EV and a front-view EV. Are margins increasing, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness of scaling systems, processes and people? To ensure that alternative performance measures align with organisational goals and contribute to overall success, companies must clearly define their goals, objectives and values so that employees fully understand and can align them with their own goals, objectives and values.  Alignment and collaboration between different departments and teams within the organisation will ensure alternative performance measures are consistent and mutually reinforcing. Success is more likely if all employees feel they are working towards a common goal aligned with the company’s goals.  Yier Hu Senior Associate in Management Consulting KPMG   There are certain limitations to relying solely on KPIs for performance measurement. Although KPIs provide quantitative metrics to measure performance, they tend to overlook crucial perspectives essential for a comprehensive evaluation.  At KPMG, we recognise the importance of looking beyond KPIs to ensure a thorough approach to performance measurement. The quantitative matrix can fail to account for a series of subjective factors, such as employee behaviour and communication skills. These intangible elements offer valuable insights into employee performance and should be considered alongside quantitative measures. KPMG employs its own separate benchmark for performance measurement, analysing performance from six distinct perspectives: client, people, innovation, financial strength, public trust, quality and development. We advocate for measuring performance from multiple perspectives, recognising the importance of a holistic approach. These alternative measurements assess the benefits an employee brings to clients while also evaluating their contributions to the working environment.  From the people perspective, we focus on how the team studies and improves, how to be a strong mentor to the team, how to build internal communication and culture and how to make everyone feel like a part of the team.  From an innovation perspective, we prioritise building trust with the team and client, supporting the team to identify opportunities, and leading by example. This is crucial and creates long-term value while also enhancing overall satisfaction within the company.  By embracing a multi-dimensional approach to performance measurement, organisations can gain a more nuanced understanding of their employees’ contributions and foster a culture of continuous improvement and growth.

Growing support for extremist and smaller parties across Europe could change the fundamental composition of the new European Parliament, writes Judy Dempsey Elections to the European Parliament (EP) take place every five years. Until recently, the outcomes were predictable. The conservative European People’s Party has dominated with the Progressive Alliance of Socialists, albeit with declining numbers, and Democrats (S&D) coming in second.  Their decline reflects waning support for mainstream parties and an increasing fragmentation of European party systems at national and European levels.  This time round, the EP election is about how the growing support for extremist and smaller parties across Europe could change the composition of the parliament and the EU. Integration is taking a back seat. The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) reckons the major winner in the EP elections will be the radical right Identity and Democracy (ID) group.  “We expect it to gain 40 seats and, with almost 100 MEPs, to emerge as the third largest group in the new parliament,” states ECFR.  The political elites across Europe are nervous as far-right parties in France, Germany, Austria, Portugal, Hungary, Italy and other countries are campaigning hard to strengthen their presence in the EP. And, despite backroom deals and trade-offs taking place inside the EP regarding which countries will become EU commissioners, a different political constellation could upset the way things have been done in the past. The political status quo across Europe is changing. The 2009 global financial crisis dented the belief that the EU was on a permanent trajectory towards prosperity. The wars in Syria that led to well over a million people seeking refuge in Europe in 2015 created divisions inside the EU regarding identity and values. COVID-19 and Russia’s war in Ukraine dented the unity and self-confidence of the EU even further.  More importantly, as EU leaders grapple with these global issues, they must respond to their electorates back home.  Citizens want security, affordable housing, better access to good schools, healthcare and other public services. These services are under pressure as governments, struggling with inflation, weigh up the cost of spending or saving more.  The far-right, nationalist and far-left parties, from the comfort of not being in office, exploit these crises. They want their governments to stop sending weapons to Ukraine; to stop the inflows of asylum seeks or refugees fleeing wars, famine and the effects of climate change. They question the costs of protecting the environment.  In short, the sense of security that characterised most of (Western) Europe after 1945, and even after the reunification of Germany after 1991, is being replaced with an uncertainty that populist and far-right and far-left parties are tapping into.  They challenge the status quo that oversaw the establishment of today’s EU.    If they gain many seats in the EP, they will not want to leave the EU. The financial benefits are too big and support for the EU is still high across the bloc. Instead, they want to change the EU from within.  The issue for these parties is sovereignty. Like Brexit, they want to ‘regain’ their national sovereignty but remain in the EU.  Yet EU membership requires ceding some sovereignty in return for certain benefits. With few exceptions, EU leaders shy from selling those benefits to their citizens. Their reluctance plays into the hands of the far right and the far left.   Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe

Patrick Gorry delves into the findings of the European Commission’s Market Monitoring Report and revisits the broader context and impact of EU audit reform On 5 March 2024, the European Commission published its triennial Market Monitoring Report, analysing Public Interest Entity (PIE) audit data from 2019 to 2021 across 27 Member States as well as Norway.  A decade after the enactment of European Union (EU) audit reform legislation, the report underscores the persistent market dominance of the main firms in PIE audits, resulting in limited choices for auditors. Background and objectives of EU audit reform The introduction of EU audit reform stemmed from several key drivers and broader contextual factors.  Amidst the global financial crisis of 2008, weaknesses in financial reporting and corporate governance practices were exposed, prompting the EU to prioritise enhancing the integrity and transparency of audit processes.  In 2014, the EU adopted two legislative instruments: Directive 2014/56/EU, which amended Directive 2006/43/EC on the statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (the Audit Directive), and Regulation No. 537/2014 on specific requirements regarding the statutory audit of PIEs (the Audit Regulation).  The legislation was led by several key EU institutions, including the EU Commission, EU Parliament, EU Council, European Securities and Marketing Authority (ESMA) and national regulatory authorities in EU Member States.  While the overarching goal was to increase the quality of statutory audits, the four primary objectives set out for the reform were to: Reinforce auditor independence; Promote market competition; Enhance transparency for investors; and Strengthen pan-European supervision. Measurement of success  To evaluate the legislation’s effectiveness, we must examine each objective. Reinforcing auditor independence The legislation mandates the rotation of audit firms for PIEs after a specified period to help address familiarity and independence issues, promote fresh perspectives and improve audit objectivity.  It also restricts audit firms from providing certain non-audit services to their audit clients and imposed limits on fees for such services.  These measures aim to promote independence, prevent conflicts of interest and uphold audit integrity. The legislation has strengthened auditor independence by enforcing mandatory rotation for auditors of PIEs. This has reduced conflicts of interest and enhanced audit objectivity.  Stricter rules regarding non-audit service provision have further bolstered auditor independence, ensuring a focus on high-quality audit services. Mandatory rotation has, however, faced criticism for potential unintended consequences, such as increased costs for companies and concerns about the disruption of longstanding audit relationships.  The Market Monitoring Report revealed limited choice in tenders within the EU audit sector: 16 percent of the tenders had just one bid and 59 percent left PIEs with a limited choice of two to three bids.   In the same report, 51 percent of surveyed audit committees that had undergone auditor changes indicated that it was too early to evaluate the impact of auditor rotation or that no assessment had been made at the time the Commission issued the questionnaire.  Furthermore, 22 percent of audit committees rated the impact of auditor rotation as ‘neutral’, while 12 percent rated it ‘positive’. Promoting market competition The legislation aims to promote market competition and diversity in the audit sector by encouraging smaller audit firms to participate in PIE audits. It is meant to drive innovation, enhance audit quality and offer clients a broader selection of service providers. To achieve this, the legislation mandates regular rotation or tendering of audit engagements to stimulate competition.  It also promotes joint audits to facilitate smaller firms’ involvement and enhance market competition.  Additionally, the legislation aims to increase transparency in the audit market by publishing data on audit firm market share and concentration. Despite these efforts, market concentration remains a challenge. Larger firms continue to dominate, limiting the entry of smaller firms and hindering diversity among service providers.  While the largest firms’ dominance in the number of PIE audits has fallen slightly, they still control a significant portion of the market from a fee perspective.  Interestingly, a growing demand for joint audits indicates a potential shift in the market landscape toward increased diversity. The Market Monitoring Report highlighted the continuing imbalance: In terms of total turnover among audit firms, the largest four firms collectively accounted for approximately 80 percent of the market, consistent with previous reports from the European Commission. Despite a decline in their share of PIE audits, these firms still hold a dominant position, capturing 86 percent of revenue from this source.   Joint audits now account for 16 percent of the PIE market, up from nine percent in 2018. This trend is evident across an increasing number of Member States, with five additional countries adopting joint audits since 2018, bringing the total to 13. Among the six Member States with the most diversified PIE audit markets, joint audits are prevalent in five: France, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Greece. The findings relating to European market concentration are replicated in the Irish market. The Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority’s most recently published Annual Audit Programme and Activity Report put the market share of the four largest firms at 87 percent.  Enhancing transparency for investors The legislation mandates increased audit reporting transparency, requiring additional information disclosure.  This increased transparency aims to improve communication between auditors, clients and stakeholders, providing a more comprehensive view of the audit process. The new rules have significantly improved the informational value of audit reports, which is a key success of the legislation.  The mandates have improved communication between auditors, clients and stakeholders, ensuring investors can access relevant information to make informed decisions.  However, challenges remain in effectively communicating audit findings to investors. Discussions are ongoing concerning further enhancements to meet the investors’ evolving needs.  Strengthening pan-European supervision The reform introduced measures to enhance governance and oversight of audit firms, including establishing regulatory bodies and oversight mechanisms to monitor compliance with audit standards. The objective was to improve the consistency and effectiveness of audit supervision across Europe. The legislation has undoubtedly increased cross-border cooperation and information sharing among national competent authorities.  Harmonising audit standards and practices across Member States has aligned regulatory requirements, fostering a unified framework for audit supervision while improving quality and consistency at the European level. However, one of the main challenges of strengthening pan-European supervision is the divergence in implementation of the audit regulation and oversight practices across Member States. Future audit reform EU audit reform represents progress, but there’s still work ahead. While successes are evident, challenges persist, notably the dominance of major audit firms. The 2022 EU Commission study on the impact of the audit reform highlights improvements in harmonising national frameworks. However, it underscores lingering disparities in the transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU audit legislation across countries. The legislation has profoundly impacted audit firms and the profession by reshaping regulatory requirements and enhancing independence, quality standards and transparency within the EU.  Yet, ongoing evaluation is necessary to ensure continued progress in the improvement audit quality, transparency and governance. Recent high-profile accounting scandals, such as the Wirecard bankruptcy in Germany, underscore the need for further reform, especially amid increasing demand for sustainability reporting and digital audits.  With a new EU Commission and Parliament taking office imminently, however, further legislative developments are unlikely in the near term.  On the other hand, the Market Monitoring Report identifies potential challenges, including inflationary pressures, rising interest rates, geopolitical instability and the growing use of data analysis tools and artificial intelligence, which will require attention sooner or later.  One thing appears certain – what audit will look like in another 10 years will dramatically differ from what it looks like today. Whether an EU Audit Reform 2.0 is one of key change drivers remains to be seen. Patrick Gorry is a Partner in the Audit and Assurance Financial Services Group of Mazars Ireland

John Hansen talks us through his career as a Chartered Accountant and new role as Chair of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland John Hansen is the newly appointed Non-Executive Chair of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland. Formerly Partner in Charge at KPMG in Belfast and KPMG’s international representative to KPMG Greece for two years, Hansen is also currently Non-Executive Chair of Titanic Quarter Limited. He sits on the business funding committee of Invest NI and holds directorships in several other companies. Tell us a bit about yourself and why you became a Chartered Accountant?  I grew up in Belfast. My father worked at the Ulster Museum and my mother at the Royal Victoria Hospital. I am married to Linda and have two daughters and four grandchildren. I studied economics with accountancy at Queen’s University but wasn’t really sure at that time what I wanted to do after graduating. I drifted towards accountancy because people told me it was a versatile qualification that could provide a solid grounding for lots of different business-related careers and would give me options. They were right!  I took part in the graduate recruitment process in my final year at university and opted to join Coopers and Lybrand, which would eventually morph into PwC.  I started out working in insolvency for a year or so, which I really enjoyed. Then I requested a move so I could gain more accounts experience and was sent to Omagh for a year – another great experience. After that, I returned to insolvency and stuck with it for the rest of my career, eventually moving into forensic work, which became my greatest interest. I went on to head up Coopers and Lybrand’s Insolvency Division before joining the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland (now Invest NI) on secondment. The secondment opportunity gave me fantastic consultancy and commercial experience and became a real turning point for me professionally.  I was able to expand my skill set significantly, learning so much about business and what makes companies ‘tick’. I also met some wonderful people during that time, some I still count as friends today.  Did you have a career plan starting out? Has your career unfolded as you anticipated? I wouldn’t say I had a career plan as such. I wanted to pass my exams – and I did, apart from one small hiccup, which I put down to too much partying! – and then see where opportunities might take me. Work life led me down the insolvency and forensics path, and my career sort of developed from there. I recall when I was approached with an offer to join McClure Watters by the firm’s two partners. The idea of moving from a safe environment to a start-up division was daunting, but I decided to accept and believe it was from there I developed a reputation as a leading insolvency practitioner. Due to the firm’s relatively small size (compared with the Big Four), the really big jobs didn’t tend to come my way. So, when I was approached to join KPMG in Belfast to head up its restructuring and forensics division, I again opted to make the move.  It wasn’t an easy decision from a personal perspective. I had a wonderful time working with McClure Watters, but my time with KPMG turned out to be equally fulfilling, and I ultimately became Partner in Charge of KPMG in Northern Ireland. On retirement from that position, I was approached to take on the role of KPMG International’s representative to KPMG Greece for two-and-a-half years during the Covid pandemic. Some of the biggest challenges for me in my career have been the difficult decisions to leave existing roles and move to new organisations. It wasn’t easy. Every move involved serious soul-searching, but with hindsight, each move propelled my career forward.  What is your proudest achievement during your tenure as Partner in Charge of KPMG in Northern Ireland? I was Partner in Charge at KPMG in Northern Ireland from 2015 to 2019 and, during that time, we moved the business to fantastic new premises in the Soloist Building at Lanyon Place while also delivering business growth of over 30 percent.  Relocating to the new office really reinvigorated our people and allowed me, in part, to leave a legacy for those who continue to work with KPMG in Northern Ireland now and in the future. Among the people you have worked with, who has been your biggest inspiration?  I remember my first meeting with John Ross, my boss at Coopers and Lybrand. He asked me a technical question, I answered it and he then enquired as to whether I had checked all relevant legislation, guidance notes and checklists before arriving at my response. There was just one technical note I had overlooked. John told me to go away and research the subject matter “properly”.  My answer to the issue remained unchanged, but this time around, John accepted it because I had done the research “properly”! Never again in my time with him did I make the same mistake. Since then, my approach has always been to leave no stone unturned in arriving at any decision. Is there any career advice you would offer your younger self if you could? Do whatever you can to surround yourself with good people, whether you are starting out (which can be challenging, as you tend to inherit people at this point in your career) or when building a team.  I have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with fantastic people and that has only ever benefited me.  It is important to be transparent and open in your work and to operate with integrity at all times. Your reputation is everything.  I have always worked hard to build lasting relationships and have always picked up the phone to answer calls – you just never know who might be calling!  What I’ve learned is that the smallest leads can develop into the biggest assignments. I have also tended to deal with what I can see in front of me – viewing each ask as a number of small, manageable tasks, even when others may have viewed it as a major challenge. As a result, throughout the years, I hope I have developed a reputation as someone who can solve difficult problems and who is honest, trustworthy and direct. I consider myself commercially minded and have always had a reasonable amount of common sense (I hope!).   The experience I gained in my career, together with the esteem in which the Chartered Accountant brand is held, are the reasons I believe I’ve been approached to take on non-executive roles in the years since leaving KPMG.  In your experience, how has the role of the accountant evolved since you first joined the profession? The accountancy profession has become more regulated over the years and accountants today tend to work in silos more than might have been the case when I started my career, driven by considerably more lines of business. With the emergence of new service lines and increasing public and professional accountability, the role of the accountant – in Northern Ireland, in particular – has become more challenging. I would view the whole area of risk management for accountants in a very different light today than I did when I started out. What prompted you to become involved in non-executive directorships? My first directorship was with Wilsanco Plastics in Dungannon, Co. Tyrone. I had worked with the owner previously and he got in touch.  I remember the conversation well. I said, “You want me to help you and you will pay me for something I have never done before?” and he said, ‘I trust you,’ – end of conversation!” I have been Non-Executive Chair of Titanic Quarter Limited for close to three years, working with two great executive directors pioneering sustainable development at Belfast’s Maritime Mile. We have an ambition to increase investment to over £2 billion. I am now also taking on the role of Chair of the Institute of Directors (IoD) in Northern Ireland. I have been on the committee of the IoD in Northern Ireland for four years and I am looking forward to my new role. I find non-executive work very enjoyable. I don’t need to be ‘full time’, and I enjoy the interaction with executive teams.  I can focus on strategy, relationships and the bigger picture – knowing the detail, but without having to get into the execution of that detail.  Being able to advise and challenge based on the experiences I have gained over the years really allows me to add value.  Tell us about the work of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland? The Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland has a small team of great people delivering big things, led by Kirsty McManus and Heather White who are fantastic.  We represent our members’ views on policy, economic and business activity in Northern Ireland.  We offer great networking opportunities covering topics like governance, legislative and governmental developments, which are essential to ensuring that those who hold directorships do the best job possible.  We take ‘the pulse’ of our membership and represent their views, needs and priorities in the political arena.  We also offer professional development opportunities and a pathway to achieving Chartered Director status.  Gordon Milligan, the outgoing Chair of the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland, carried out fantastic work in developing the organisation during his tenure.  I want to continue to grow our membership and continue to develop the fantastic training and certification opportunities we offer our members. Ultimately, we are all about connecting, influencing and developing.