Employment may be holding up for now but rising recessionary signals point to troubled times ahead, writes Cormac Lucey For some time now, recessionary signals have   been building up. Looking back over half a century, recessions tend to follow a distinct path.  First, central banks raise interest rates and tighten financial conditions. Second, the sectors most exposed to interest rates – construction and property – begin to suffer.  Third, the next most exposed sectors – banking and finance – undergo financial stress. And finally, deflationary pressures hit the general economy and the employment market suffers.  Midway through 2023, we have already hit stages one, two and three.  After a slow start, the European Central Bank has raised rates at a faster pace than ever before. The property sector is already suffering. Shares in the Irish Residential Properties REIT have dropped by about 40 percent over the last nine months.  And while the share prices of Irish banks have been holding up well, there is an air of subdued panic across the entire banking sector following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, Credit Suisse and First Republic.  Like characters in an Agatha Christie thriller, banks are anxiously wondering who will be next to be written out of the script.  So far, though, labour markets remain firm. In March, Ireland’s unemployment rate was 4.3 percent, a smidgen above the 3.9 percent minimum achieved in 2000/2001.  There are two features of this economic cycle that may be delaying the labour market’s rendezvous with recession. These features apply to Ireland and across the Western world.  First, following the massive fiscal splurge to cushion the economic effects of COVID-19, people on both sides of the Atlantic have hefty cash positions, making them less sensitive to interest rate hikes.  The latest Central Bank of Ireland quarterly financial accounts show that, comparing September 2022 with March 2020, Irish households’ financial assets have grown by €79.6 billion (19%) while their net worth has grown by €253.5 billion (32%). Second, lockdown mandates to stay at home, greater vulnerability to COVID-19 as one gets older, and the State’s pandemic splurge appear to have led a significant cohort of people to accelerate the move to retire.  With fewer people at work, full employment can be achieved with fewer total jobs.   But the main reason the unemployment dog has yet to bark is that employment is a lagging economic indicator.  Changes in employment trends happen after changes in the direction of economic output. When the economy moves from growth to contraction, employers do not immediately cut their workforce. They wait until they are sure that they must.  Many employers rushed to downsize during the pandemic and then found it difficult to recruit again once recovery arrived. Similarly, employers won’t immediately rehire once economic recovery kicks in. They will put staff on overtime while assessing the situation. On his True Insights website, investor Jeroen Blokland has observed that, on average, the US unemployment rate rises by four percentage points in the aftermath of a significant Federal Reserve tightening cycle. “Unemployment tends to start rising after the Fed is done hiking,” he noted.  Blokland reckons there is an average gap of about 20 months between the final Fed interest rate hike and the ensuing peak in unemployment.  Even if the Fed announced in June that it had completed raising rates, we might have to wait until March 2025 to reach peak unemployment. With Ireland having undergone significant private sector deleveraging since the financial crash, there is little likelihood of a self-feeding credit crunch, but our economy is highly dependent on a small number of US multinationals.  It has been reported that, last year, Apple paid €8 billion in corporation tax to the State. This represents about €1.3 million per employee. It contrasts with the roughly €60,000 Apple paid on corporation tax for each employee outside Ireland.  It’s a fragile foundation on which to build the public finances.  Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Sustainability is often seen as the domain of large corporates but SMEs have the collective potential to be more powerful players. Sheila Killian explains why Social and environmental sustainability is often seen as more relevant to big multinational companies (MNCs) than to SMEs, small-to medium enterprises employing no more than 250 people. MNCs are more likely to have a sustainability strategy, and resources for its implementation, monitoring, reporting and communication.  They are more likely to report externally, integrating their reporting across sustainability and financial activities, and to be scored by ESG rating agencies.  This does not mean that MNCs carry all the responsibility or should reap all the benefits, however.  SMEs are enormously impactful in aggregate and have a huge amount to gain by getting involved. So, why and how should they engage? The potential impact of SMEs on sustainability SMEs have a massive collective impact. In Ireland, they account for seven jobs in 10. While large companies are commonly exporters, SMEs tend to serve their local region.  In terms of where people live, work, shop and spend their leisure time, smaller enterprises dominate. This amplifies both their responsibility, and the opportunities open to them. Because SMEs are embedded in their communities, they often make a huge contribution socially without realising it. This may lie less in strategy than in values.  David O’Mahony of O’Mahony’s Booksellers Ltd, a long-established independent bookshop in the south-west, sums up the position: “It’s only when you really think about it and put all the things together that you realise that there’s a lot more going on … [in corporate responsibility and sustainability] … than we would have probably realised ourselves.”  O’Mahony’s enjoys high social capital locally, gained through understated good work for the community and environment, derived from values and a sense of neighbourliness rather than from formal reporting.  Why SMEs do not report Despite this implicit moral accountability, many SME owners do not think about reporting externally on their sustainability. This is often because they don’t see the value to be gained. Compared with MNCs, there is much less separation between ownership and management/control in SMEs.  Therefore, the need for both internal and external reporting is reduced because the main shareholders are already intimate with what is going on in the business, and employees are closer to the leadership.  Unless the business is considering raising external finance, there is little need to consider how potential investors might perceive it, and if there is a perception that customers are not interested in sustainability activities, these will not be reported.  It seems to come naturally to SMEs to be community-oriented, however, often because they are family-owned, and such behaviour reflects the origins and values of the family.  Such firms tend not to have formal, written codes of conduct, but instead propagate the personal values of their owners, who do not consider that a separate, published set of values and reporting on their social and environmental activities is necessary for business. Why SMEs should report One reason for SMEs to begin some form of sustainability reporting is so that they can compete with MNCs locally to attract and retain talented employees.  The labour market is tight, remote working has shifted the power balance, and younger generations are more focused on sustainability.  Increasingly, SMEs are framing their sustainability credentials more clearly, and connecting them with their employer brand so that they can attract the talent they need.  There is also a consumer angle. The challenge posed by behemoth online retailers to small, local bricks-and-mortar businesses is now well-rehearsed.  A small, independent business, like a bookshop, needs to clarify and articulate its values and personal touch as a competitive advantage.  This ‘personality’ needs to be communicated externally if it is to reach the right customers effectively. Sustainability reporting can convey a sense of what the company is all about, its values and purpose – its ‘soul’. A third reason, particularly applicable to SMEs operating in the business-to-business sphere, is that reporting on strong sustainability metrics confers an advantage in entering the supply chains of larger firms.  If, for instance, an MNC is moving towards zero-carbon, it is likely to require smaller companies in its supply chain to be also on that journey.  A fourth reason to report is the internal value to be gained from paying attention to sustainability. Measuring, reporting and constructing a narrative around social and environmental values will improve the culture of the business, and pave the way to greater innovation.  Hotel Doolin in County Clare is an example of a small business that tells its sustainability story effectively. It has shortened its supply chain by buying local produce.  The hotel harvests rainwater, it has eliminated single-use plastics, and uses environmentally low-impact energy and heating. It became Ireland’s first carbon-neutral hotel in 2019, under the Green Hospitality Programme, ahead of many larger competitors.  The business also promotes social sustainability, employing refugees, supporting local community groups and actively seeks to be a good employer. This has enhanced its reputation not only locally but nationwide.  Partnering with not-for-profits Smaller companies that are ambitious in terms of sustainability targets will inevitably want to achieve things that are beyond their capacity.  If, for example, a business decides to work on the water quality in the area in which it operates, it may lack in-house expertise, jeopardising its credibility with the local community. One solution may be a partnership with a not-for-profit organisation (NFP). NFPs often have the expertise to tackle social and environmental issues but lack the resources, whereas companies may have resources (money) but lack the knowledge. A partnership can achieve sustainability goals if the match is right.  The NFP needs to be operating in the area in which the company wants to make progress, and the company needs to align with the NFP’s approach to society and the environment.  Mutual respect and consultation are key. At worst, a partnership can be seen as a ‘fig leaf’ for the SME and can undermine the legitimacy of the NFP. At best, it can be truly impactful for all involved. SMEs’ supply chain responsibilities  MNCs are famously held responsible for the working conditions in which their goods are produced by companies in their supply chains. Scandals, including the sweatshop labour exposed in the 1990s to the Rana Plaza garment factory collapse in Bangladesh in 2013, have forced companies such as Nike, Gap and Nestlé to change their practices.  Bad practices persist today, however, even where goods are produced close to home. In 2020, for example, it was revealed that online vendor BooHoo was selling clothes made in extremely poor working conditions in Leicester in the UK.  For a small, independent retailer, this means that, unless it takes steps to assure itself of the origin of the goods it sells, the risk remains that all or some element/s of those goods may have been produced in sweatshop conditions.  Smaller firms may lack resources to monitor conditions in their suppliers’ factories. Nor are they likely to have the requisite buying power to impose a code of conduct on their suppliers. So, what can they do about the conditions under which the goods they sell are produced? The International Labour Organization has clarified that a firm has responsibility as far up the supply chain as it has ‘reasonable influence’.  Large firms can leverage direct buying power to positively impact supplier. Starbucks works with its coffee producers to bring them up to higher social and environmental sustainability standards, for example.  A small trader is, however, limited to choosing suppliers wisely, and using their influence when feasible, perhaps working with other firms in the sector. The key differences between the supply chain responsibility of MNCs and SMEs, then, relate to power and influence. This principle also applies to other areas of sustainability. More power means more responsibility and the potential to make a positive impact.  SMEs need to address all the key issues of fair pricing, employee welfare, human rights and environmental impact within their own operations and – as far as possible – outside of them, bearing in mind their levels of resources and power.  The key questions here are: “Are we doing all we reasonably can to achieve sustainable practice?” and “Are we seeking to improve?”  Sometimes, acting in concert with other SMEs, can achieve more. The outcome may not be perfection, but honest efforts in the right direction will carry collective weight.  Sustainability and the SME advantage While corporate sustainability is often seen as the domain of MNCs, SMEs – because of their numbers and connection with, and impact on, society – are potentially more important players.  Many SMEs do not report their sustainability policies for several reasons, including informality, time and resource pressures, unfamiliarity with reporting standards and frameworks, or because a strong internal locus of value and ethical behaviour is already vested in their owners and leaders.  However, SMEs generally have high levels of engagement with their local communities and implement sustainability on an intuitive basis, drawing on leaders’ personal values. Reporting these efforts can bring significant advantages externally and internally.  Despite a lack of resources relative to larger companies, the key to building sustainable value for SMEs lies in making the best choices that are within their power at a given time. Sheila Killian is Associate Professor at Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, and author of Doing Good Business: How to Build Sustainable Value

With the Central Bank of Ireland’s consultation on the Individual Accountability Framework drawing to a close later this month, Níall Fitzgerald reviews the scope and effectiveness of similar regimes already in place in other parts of the world Following the 2008 financial crisis, global governance and regulatory reforms in the financial services sector have had a significant impact on how financial institutions, such as banks, insurance companies and investment firms, are run.  The EU has been at the forefront of regulatory change in financial services in Ireland since the creation of the Banking Union, which includes the European Supervisory Mechanism, and significant regulatory developments from rule-setters such as the European Banking Authority.  The Central Bank of Ireland has also put in place governance requirements for all financial institutions and implemented fitness and probity standards. These have included regulations requiring minimum competencies for individuals working in certain roles and, in some cases, regulatory pre-approval before individuals can be appointed to certain management positions, such as – to name just a few – board director, head of compliance, head of internal audit and chief risk officer. The proposed Central Bank of Ireland Individual Accountability Framework (IAF) is an extension of the current suite of regulations and efforts to address cultural failings and ensure better governance, performance and accountability among financial services firms.  The IAF is not the first of its kind, however, and while it has some unique features, it also shares similarities with regimes of this nature operating in other parts of the world.  UK: Senior Managers and Certification Regime The UK introduced the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR) in 2016. Following a three-phase roll-out over three years, the SM&CR now applies to banks, insurance companies and a large portion of the remaining regulated financial services firms in the UK. This regime introduced: Prescribed responsibilities for certain roles; Requirements for firms to follow when allocating those roles to individuals, including: applying a certification process (up to obtaining pre-approval from the Regulator for an appointment to a role); and  the introduction of individual conduct rules. Hong Kong: Manager-in-Charge Regime In Hong Kong, The Securities and Futures Commission introduced the Manager-in-Charge (MIC) Regime for licensed corporations in 2017.  The regime did not bring in any new sanctions and was implemented by way of circular, rather than legislation, but it provided the regulator with additional powers of enforcement and the ability to hold individuals to account. A key objective of the MIC regime is to enable Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission to assess culture within the licensed organisation.  The regulator attributes non-compliance with elements of the regime – e.g. failure to assess whether individuals have discharged their responsibilities appropriately, as evidence of cultural failings. Australia: Banking Executive Accountability Regime  Australia’s Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR) came into effect in 2018, applying to the directors of, and the most senior and influential executives within, banks and authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs). The regime introduced prescribed responsibilities for certain roles, an accountability framework, and a list of accountability obligations, which look a lot like conduct rules.  The regime also introduced a requirement for relevant firms to defer a portion of the variable remuneration of any person found to be non-compliant with the regime until an investigation concludes, whether or not any or all of the remuneration is subject to clawback.  Singapore: Individual Accountability and Conduct Guidelines  The Individual Accountability and Conduct (IAC) Guidelines were introduced in Singapore in 2021. Like the MIC regime in Hong Kong, Singapore’s IAC Guidelines are not supported by underlying legislation and are described as “best practice standards”.  The level of adherence to IAC Guidelines among the financial institutions will impact the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s overall risk assessment of the relevant organisation or individual.  These guidelines focus on embedding a strong culture of responsibility and ethical behaviour by ensuring individual accountability and a supportive governance framework within regulated organisations.  Prevention is better than cure While there are similarities between the accountability regimes outlined above, none is the same.  The instances of enforcement action taken under these regimes are very low and, if prevention is better than cure, this may be a good measure of success.  Just one enforcement action was taken against an individual for non-compliance during the first four years of the UK’s SM&CR, for example. Following a review of Australia’s Banking Executive Accountability Regime, and amid public criticism citing the lack of enforcement action, the Australian government is currently proposing the wider reaching Financial Accountability Regime (FAR).  The FAR contains additional requirements and extends the regime beyond banks to other financial service providers regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.  Elsewhere, the United Arab Emirates does not have a specific accountability regime. However, its laws and regulations, which pre-date 2016, give financial services regulators enforcement powers to hold individuals to account and apply sanctions.  Looking at just one member of the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, the Dubai Financial Services Authority has taken enforcement action against 32 individuals since 2016. The majority of these cases have related to individuals providing investment services.  Perhaps it is still too early to reliably judge the effectiveness of these various models of individual accountability regimes.  Sometimes, there is a benefit in not being first past the post in introducing a regime of this nature and being able to stand back and learn from global experiences.  With our Individual Accountability Framework, Ireland is building on a solid foundation of banking regulations and governance requirements. The IAF is only one of many regulatory changes impacting financial services providers. Other requirements on the way include the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and the inevitable evolution of governance codes, and other regulations, addressing sustainability and other emerging risks.  World-class standards are laudable, but their true outcome is only evident when we have a high level of public trust and a financial services sector that is efficient and competitive, driving a better future for society and a prosperous economy. Níall Fitzgerald, FCA, is Head of Ethics and Governance at Chartered Accountants Ireland Impact of individual accountability on organisational culture Chartered Accountants Ireland welcomes the timely publication by the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) of the Individual Accountability Framework (IAF) draft regulations and guidance, and the certainty of action required for Irish financial services firms, writes Níall Fitzgerald.  The framework contains measures, including conduct standards and prescribed responsibilities, designed to enhance customer-focused cultures and embed responsibility and ethical behaviour across financial services in Ireland.  While it promotes the necessity for cultural change, the CBI agrees that more is required to achieve this. Insights from the introduction of similar measures in other jurisdictions show that an individual accountability regime better impacts on organisational culture when supported by: Promoting individual accountability but emphasising collective decision-making Being accountable as individuals for actions and behaviour is not new. Professionals are accountable to codes of ethics. There are also many laws and regulations that hold individuals accountable for their roles in an organisation, such as fiduciary duties of directors. However, many organisations thrive on collaboration, teamwork and diversity, which improve collective decision-making. Individual accountability is not designed to override this, and emphasising other positive behaviours, such as these, supports the objectives of the IAF. Promoting a ‘just culture’ and avoiding a ‘blame culture’ A blame culture focuses on identifying culprit/s, penalising them, and moving forward on the assumption that the same issue/s won’t happen again, because an example has been set.  A just culture acknowledges that mistakes and underperformance can occur, but that both are better addressed by reflecting on what went wrong and focusing on what can be learned to improve future outcomes.  Individual accountability exists in both scenarios, but the latter will have a more positive impact amongst the workforce, helping to achieve the objectives of the IAF. Promoting trust and integrity Certain informal reactions to a regime such as the Individual Accountability Framework can undermine its objectives. In some jurisdictions individuals with prescribed responsibilities prepare personal compliance files, for example, privately maintained outside of the firm’s documentation system.  A ‘cover your actions’ (CYA) approach has developed in these jurisdictions, whereby there is a tendency to give advice formally (e.g. in writing), which would differ if given informally (e.g. verbally).  Notwithstanding the risk of breaching privacy and confidentiality rules, these informal practices are indicative of low levels of trust and integrity within a firm.  Embedding a culture of psychological safety can deter this risk and foster greater trust within the organisation.

As this year’s annual LGBTQ+ celebration begins, we talk to six BALANCE members about their experiences in life and work As Pride celebrations kick off all over the world this month, six members of BALANCE, the Institute’s LGBTQ+ Allies network group, tell us about their experiences and what employers can do to support true equality.  Eimer Proctor Senior Manager When I first came out, Pride felt like a celebration and a safe space to be myself. Over the years, I’ve come to appreciate that this is not always possible, but I respect the path that has been forged by others to get us where we are today. During Pride 2023, I will remember those who lost their lives and stand in solidarity with my LGBTQ+ community around the world who still face persecution and continue to fight for their right to be who they are. It’s eight years since Ireland achieved marriage equality, and yet it was only in January 2020 that the law in Northern Ireland finally caught up. Given our current political situation in Northern Ireland, it’s unlikely that we will see any further advancements in LGBTQ+ rights and equality in the near future.  I find this very concerning given the rise in hate crimes, conversion therapy and anti-trans rhetoric in the media. It is up to everyone to help end discrimination for the LGBTQ+ community and promote equality.  There has been some great progress in recent years concerning diversity and inclusion in the workplace, but there is still work to be done to protect LGBTQ+ employees and at the heart of this is education.  Employers can introduce diversity and inclusion policies and practices, for example appoint diversity champions and work with employees to help them understand the appropriate language they should use in the workspace. Liaising with employees in the LGBTQ+ community and their allies is vital to understanding the obstacles the members of this community face every day. This, in turn, facilitates a greater understanding of how and why diversity and inclusion policies can directly impact business.  Those employees will, in time, become more comfortable to be themselves within their workplace, as they navigate the corporate world with the full support of their employer. Having these policies in place will also help to attract talented candidates, who will be carefully considering organisations with a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion.  Conor Hudson Finance Director It’s a general perception that Pride means ‘celebration’ and ‘party’. And, yes, this is a part of Pride – a platform to be yourself and express yourself, but still people are also joining Pride to ‘protest’ and it is important to remember that Pride started as a protest. Equality for LGBTQ+ colleagues in the workplace isn’t about sticking up a rainbow flag at the start of June.  Last year, in my organisation, a colleague and I launched an LGBTQ+ Employee Resource Group (ERG) with the intention of discussing Pride. While the initial reaction was positive, one response we received was, “We support LGBTQ+ rights; why do we still need to talk about Pride?” This remark justified why we needed an ERG – to increase visibility and offer a safe space to LGBTQ+ colleagues and colleagues with LGBTQ+ family. It is important for employees to feel part of an open and inclusive workplace from day one and allyship helps support this.  One of the actions we have taken to demonstrate visible allyship is to create MS Teams backgrounds and badges to highlight that this person identifies as an ally. We have found these a useful tool during recruitment and first introductions.  Allyship and open workplaces not only positively impact LGBTQ+ colleagues but can also support colleagues with LGBTQ+ friends and family.  Creating safe spaces for allies is equally important. They can’t be expected to know all the answers and they should be able to ask genuine questions without being judged. This culture not only creates open environments for LGBTQ+ colleagues, but also for other intersectional aspects of diversity. Hugo Slevin Head of Function Pride is a great day for us as an LGBTQ+ community, along with our allies, to come together and show unity, and strengthen through open visibility. It is always around this time of year that we start hearing the same question, “Why do we still have Pride?”, but I think it remains such an important day as shown by events over the past 12 months. First, we continue to witness attacks against our community members in ever-increasing numbers. Attacks across Europe are currently at a 10-year high and recent media coverage in Ireland has again brought this sharply into focus.  As a community, we should be able to feel safe in expressing and being who we are. Pride is very much our time to come together and have a platform to vocalise and display these concerns. We have also witnessed attempts to control the narrative on gay rights across the globe. Of significant concern has been what appears to be a regressing of rights in parts of the US, where this downward trend seems set to continue.  Even in Ireland, we have seen attacks on libraries and the cancelling of drag events in the last 12 months. Pride is the time of year during which our voices can be heard, and we stand against deliberate attempts to silence our community. Finally, Pride is fun! The streets of Dublin come alive – there is a real sense of occasion and happiness in the air. We get to walk the streets, dance and celebrate with our family, friends and co-workers. Jonathan Totterdell Major Programmes, Financial Services Pride in 2023 means a day of visibility and courage for both the progress we have made and the long path ahead for LGBTQ+ people around the world.  Recent events such as anti-LGBTQ+ Bills being passed in Florida and – closer to home, the rise of the far right and their anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric – remind us that progress can be rolled back quickly, and it is imperative that those who live in relative safety can make some noise for those who can’t, without fear of repercussions. Over the past decade, I think we have seen some huge successes with gay marriage, a more open culture and a focus by corporates among Ireland to bring diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) to the C-suite. The financial services sector has been making really impressive strides. While there is a business case for DE&I, and many studies have shown that it leads to improved return on investment, I would like to see corporates in Ireland mature on this front, continue to grow their social consciousness, and see DE&I as a positive without the need to prove its financial return. Employers are expected to be ‘all in’ on DE&I in 2023, having the uncomfortable conversations that sometimes come with this topic, appointing champions and including DE&I as part of their leadership ethos. Inclusion is key on the DE&I agenda. You can have a diverse workforce, but without active inclusion, you will be missing a vital ingredient.  One thing I practice is to try to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak up at meetings and contribute ideas and viewpoints to decision-making. When people feel comfortable, they will be able to communicate their ideas more effectively.  Padraig Kilkenny Finance Manager For me, Pride is first and foremost a celebration. It is also an opportunity to reflect on the struggles for equality, not only in our own country, but for LGBTQ+ people across the world.  There is no doubt that Ireland has made considerable progress in terms of LGBTQ+ rights and fostering greater equality in recent years. Landmark victories such as the 2015 Marriage Equality Referendum and gender recognition legislation have increased visibility and acceptance across Irish society.  The Ireland of today reflects a society that embraces diversity and supports LGBTQ+ rights. This has never been more evident than at Chartered Accountants Ireland with initiatives such as the BALANCE network and, more generally, with its support for diversity and inclusivity initiatives. Personally, I am fortunate that I have never felt discriminated against in the workplace, but this is not to say that discrimination does not exist. What I have found helpful in my career is having LGBTQ+ representation at senior levels of the organisation and feeling that I have support from my colleagues and leadership.  I think this support can come in many forms from the highest levels where diversity and inclusion form part of the organisation’s strategy, values and by extension its culture, to more practical efforts, such as establishing and enforcing inclusive policies that protect LGBTQ+ employees from discrimination in areas like recruitment, promotion and benefits. Effective allyship is more than just having policies and strategies in place. It is about supporting and advocating for the rights, well-being and inclusion of LGBTQ+ employees.  Everyone should understand and challenge their own biases through education and listen to LGBTQ+ colleagues, valuing their experiences, and amplifying their voices and perspectives in discussions and decision-making processes.  Pride is a great marker in the calendar for employers to stop and reflect where they are on this journey to foster and support real equality across the board. Áine Crotty Audit and Outsourcing Manager As a leader of a team in my workplace, I believe in the power of people and the true potential that is inside each and every one of my colleagues regardless of their gender, age, sexual orientation, etc.  Therefore, being an ally to my LGBTQ+ colleagues is important to me because it supports them in reaching their full potential.  Non-LGBTQ+ professionals need to be aware of their actions and any potential bias they might have – without the awareness, there cannot be any action or change.  I would recommend attending events such as those organised by BALANCE so you can become aware of the issues your LGBTQ+ colleagues are facing.  There are also some fantastic resources and training out there about unconscious bias that will enable you to change the language you use or how you perceive and treat your colleagues.  After awareness comes accountability. As a non-LGBTQ+ professional, hold yourself accountable to making your work environment a more inclusive place for your colleagues. Make a commitment to yourself and others to change how you act with your LGBTQ+ colleagues for the better. Become an ally and be open and proud of that fact. Letting your colleagues know that you are an ally, and that you fully support them, can make them feel more comfortable in the workplace and allow them to speak more freely about any issues or discrimination they might be facing. It is widely known and accepted that culture comes from the tone at the top. Leaders, whether it be partners or senior executive management team members, need to bring DE&I to the forefront of their agenda. They need to live and breathe what they believe in and what they are trying to achieve for their employees. They need to lead by example and visibly demonstrate their belief in equality for all.

Ann-Marie Costello became the first female partner on the Corporate Finance Team at Grant Thornton earlier this year. Her advice to other women? Back yourself and take opportunities I grew up in a family of medical professionals, so accountancy was not necessarily the expected path. I actually changed from veterinary to commerce and German the day before the CAO application process closed, so my career could have been very different.   Opting to do a degree in commerce and German gave me time to decide what I wanted to pursue as a career. I found I really enjoyed the economics and accountancy modules, so it felt like a natural progression to go on to do the Master of Accounting at UCD Smurfit School before taking up a training contract with KPMG Corporate Recovery.  At the time, the accountancy ‘milk round’ was more geared towards traditional audit and tax routes, so joining an advisory team was the path less taken, but I really wanted the commercial experience that came with it.  Hitting the ground running Having a solid background in accountancy meant I could hit the ground running in Corporate Recovery and I had great training working on trading insolvencies. After qualifying and becoming a manager with KPMG, I left Ireland for a year of ‘anti-reality’, travelling the world.  When I returned, I met with Grant Thornton’s Debt Restructuring Team, who were pivoting away from insolvency. I liked the team and the idea of working to bring businesses back onto a stable footing.  After a few years, I transitioned to Corporate Finance and I made Partner in January of this year, becoming the first female partner in the department.  These days, my work is focused on helping shareholders to position themselves for the sale of a business and to maximise value. Most of my work has an M&A or due diligence focus.  So, in my career so far, I have been able to work with businesses across the entire economic cycle. Fall-off in female talent It just so happens that the areas in which I have worked have been particularly male-dominated, especially at senior levels.  My intake and training contract had a healthy mix of female versus male trainees but, from the manager level onwards, I saw a fall-off in female talent.  The reasons for the fall-off vary, ranging from the lack of a clear path for career progression, lack of support or mentorship, and movement from practice to industry, to work-life balance considerations and family commitments.  The diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) agenda was not well-developed when I was training, and as that has begun to change in more recent years, I think that it has brought some significant benefits. I do believe we have seen a move towards greater equity at senior levels – although the pace of change is slower than we may like, I think we’re getting there. We do need more balanced representation to attract younger generations – the ‘if you can’t see it, you can’t be it’ adage.  Greater supports are needed in the form of allyship and mentorship, as well as ensuring the wider conditions to support talent retention are met – these include issues such as childcare, paternity leave (both availability and take up) and flexible working.  There are wider societal shifts that need to become the norm to level the playing field further. Gender pay gap reporting Gender pay gap reporting has been a welcome development in terms of driving good behaviours within business and providing employees with greater transparency.  However, nothing can substitute the conversations on the ground that can provide you with clarity as to where you stand.  Conversations regarding remuneration, promotion and performance are often uncomfortable, so we sometimes tend to avoid broaching these subjects.  Time and time again, recruiters and HR teams tell me that, as women, we often undersell ourselves and have lower expectations for remuneration. We need to value our contributions more.  Do your research, back yourself and don’t be afraid to step out of your comfort zone to take on opportunities as they present themselves. Learning the skills for success At some point in your career, you will need to do more than just to be ‘good at the job’. At that stage, developing your career becomes about your network, your profile and your leadership. It is important to learn to have confidence in yourself and to value your input. This often comes with surrounding yourself with the right people, so don’t be afraid to talk – to your peers, your friends and your network. You will only ever regret the things you didn’t do, or say, so speak up and say ‘yes’ to opportunities for development. In my own experience, navigating career development and parenthood is not without its challenges. You need all the support you can get and to always try to look after yourself.  We just had our second baby towards the end of last year, a year during which I was also going through the partnership process, as well as taking on the role of Chairperson of Chartered Accountants Ireland Leinster Society.  I took on a lot, but there were several opportunities that presented themselves around the same time and, weighing it all up, I chose to go for them. I am lucky in that I have huge support from my family and, in particular, my husband, who had to pick up some of the slack. The role of mentoring and networking I sincerely believe that mentoring and sponsorship are key to development, and I’m glad to see so many businesses providing necessary resources and supports in these areas.  It’s important to have someone who can mentor you – someone who will tell it how it is, act as your sounding board and provide constructive criticism.  It is equally important to have a sponsor within your organisation – someone who will support you and guide you in your career development. I would encourage these relationships to be with both male and female mentors and sponsors.  It can often be helpful to have a mentor outside of your work environment to speak to about your work and personal development. Chartered Accountants Ireland provides a mentorship programme for members, which is a helpful resource. Networking can seem like a daunting task, particularly with the reopening of society post-pandemic. However, it really is never as bad as it seems.   The network of people Chartered Accountants will have from their time at university and training will be huge, and the Irish accountancy profession is particularly well-connected at home and abroad.  Try to keep this network active. You never know when you might be able to help someone, or when they might be able to help you.

The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation is just a few weeks away but is it a case of too little, too late for a fledgling market already in disarray? asks Peter McGuigan In a few weeks, the EU’s long-awaited Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) will come into force, following agreement by EU policymakers last year.  Once formally enacted into EU law, the clock will start ticking for European issuers of stablecoins and crypto asset service providers (CASPs), who will have 12 months and 18 months, respectively, to prepare for implementing the new requirements. In many ways, MiCA is another example of the EU’s determination to be at the forefront of shaping the regulatory framework for digital or data-related industries – like the EU General Data Protection Regulation – while striving to further develop its overarching policy objective of “open strategic autonomy”.  At its core, and similar in some ways to other pieces of financial regulation, MiCA aims to create a “risk-based regime” that balances consumer and investor protection, financial stability and monetary sovereignty concerns, whilst supporting innovation within the EU.   Perhaps most importantly, it will also create legal certainty for crypto providers seeking to develop their activities in the EU.  Concretely, MiCA’s objectives will be operationalised through specific rules for issuers of both unbacked crypto assets and stablecoins. These rules cover authorisation, issuance, disclosure, governance, capital and own fund requirements, to name a few. The regulation also lays down a harmonised framework concerning CASPs, such as wallets and exchanges. CASPs will now be required to seek an authorisation in the EU before they can offer their services and will have to adhere to bespoke governance and satisfy market abuse regulation.  Can MiCA stabilise the crypto market? Since the collapse of FTX in the US last year and wider crypto volatility, views continue to be split between those who argue that the industry should be prohibited or pushed to failure, and others who advocate in favour of developing robust requirements to effectively bring it under the purview of financial regulators.   The reality, as recently outlined by the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland, Gabriel Makhlouf, is that the crypto industry is not going away, and that it is therefore sensible to put in place a set of industry-specific rules designed to support innovation and protect consumers. It is, of course, difficult to determine with exact precision if MiCA could have completely prevented recent failures in the crypto market.  There is, however, a strong case to be made that it would have provided much more robust oversight and transparency for supervisors – enabling them to react and identify areas of concern much sooner.  In tandem, rules concerning the segregation of client funds and crypto assets, enhanced disclosure requirements and stricter requirements on conflicts of interest – as envisioned by MiCA – would have undoubtedly made the sector more resilient in a time of stress, and discouraged misconduct.   Despite these positive provisions, it remains to be seen whether MiCA can curtail future upheavals in the crypto market and keep pace with rapid technological innovation. Arguably, two areas will be crucial to the success of the framework:   The need for a globally co-ordinated approach to regulation so that failures in other markets are not transmitted into the EU as a result of interconnectedness; That EU policymakers are able to produce useable technical standards and guidelines to support MiCA’s application in practice.   Policymakers push for alignment Positively, at a global level, policymakers – through the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision – are already working on producing more horizontal principles and requirements for the sector.  Last year, for example, the Basel Committee published its position on the prudential treatment of banks’ exposures to crypto assets, while discussions are also ongoing among EU policymakers about how risk weights might be assigned to the asset class before the global standards are in place.  However, whatever capital requirements are assigned within the EU, it will be crucial that they are aligned with global standards in order to preserve a level playing field.  Work on MiCA’s technical standards and guidelines is expected to begin later this year, before supervisors need to enforce the rules in mid-2024 and early 2025.  As the legislation is a regulation, it should remove most of the risk of regulatory arbitrage within the EU, but it is crucial that all Competent Authorities take a harmonised approach with respect to licensing application processes. This is especially important as existing Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs), which fall under national frameworks, will need to transition to the pan-EU regime.  Comments made in May by the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Hester Peirce acknowledge that the US risks falling behind Europe without clear crypto rules.   Ultimately, time will tell if MiCA is a success or not, but at least the EU has been the first jurisdiction globally to identify the risks and opportunities presented by the crypto asset sector. This regulation sets a solid basis on which to further build upon.  Peter McGuigan is Head of EU Affairs at the Banking & Payments Federation Ireland