COVID-19 has changed the face of banking globally, but what’s next? Billy O’Connell delves into the top 10 emerging trends shaping banking this year. The COVID-19 pandemic has irrevocably changed the banking industry. Customers have become more demanding on multiple fronts - from service fees to sustainability - banks have doubled down on technology, accelerating their innovation drive, and new entrants to the market have become more ambitious, broadening the scope of services they offer. Here are the ten trends most likely to impact banking globally and locally in the months ahead.  1. Everyone wants to be a ‘super-app’ Just as the smartphone consolidated our hardware needs within a single device, super-apps are consolidating many of our retail, social and other needs.  Most digital banking consists of checking balances, paying bills, and making deposits — functionality more and more big technology players are incorporating into broader platforms alongside other services like commerce and social networks.  How should traditional banks respond when faced with the expansion of Amazon, Meta, and others into financial services?  They can try to add non-banking functionality to their own services and compete head-to-head for customer attention or partner with a super-app to provide white-label services. A third option is to wall themselves off from the fray and defend their traditional franchise.  2. Green gets real Investors and regulators will need to see environmental promises being delivered as they urge financial firms to become better stewards of the planet.  Proposed rules will require independent verification, proving that banks are living up to their claims. They will face immense pressure to redirect credit away from carbon-heavy companies toward sustainable energy.  In Ireland, lending has become increasingly ‘green.’ The main financial institutions are evolving their product offerings, focusing on supporting environmentally-friendly economic activity. These products make a real difference as they actively guide consumers towards a change in their behaviours.  3. Innovation makes a comeback Globally, the decade after the great financial crisis was a period of retrenchment in which many banks pulled back from introducing new products and focused on getting the basics right. Start-ups and digital challengers have emerged, with new offerings leveraging innovative solutions to target specific customer pain points.  The growth of Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) providers is an example of this. However, banks are fighting back with creativity. Irish retail banks have invested significantly in the last five years in technology and innovation projects to deliver new digital services for customers.  We are seeing this in product innovation across the board – in the introduction of fully digitised customer journeys for personal lending and mortgages, instant account opening, data analytics and new digital capabilities to support SME lending.  During the pandemic, we saw retail banks improvising and innovating at speed as they leveraged their technology investments to respond with creativity and agility to the new challenges. 4. Fees Over the last several decades, banking fees have shifted from regular charges for services like account maintenance to in-built fees for facilities like overdrafts.  Fintech firms arrived, promising an array of services for the magical price of free, only to reveal later that revenue must come from somewhere.  Banks are creating features that put the users in charge of fee decisions. Fortunately, digital, AI and cloud capabilities are converging to provide the perfect platform for personalised advice that will help build consumer trust and involvement. 5. The digital brain gets a caring heart Before and during the pandemic, banks continued to invest heavily in digital technology to make banking more accessible, faster, and efficient. However, it is more difficult than ever to win customer loyalty.  Banks realise they have much to gain by learning to better understand and respond to customers’ needs and individual financial situations. Being well-positioned to meet customer needs through the challenges of the past 24 months has been important for banks and customers who needed their support.  Building on this momentum and focusing on AI and other technologies will be important to help banks predict customers’ intent and respond with more tailored messages and products. 6. Digital currencies grow up Several central banks worldwide are now launching digital currencies, and more are thinking about it. These are accompanied by maturing regulations around cryptocurrencies and a recognition that, while decentralised finance (DeFi) may still be in the experimentation phase, many of the core concepts of decentralised trust will likely have enduring value.  We will likely see more financial institutions and government agencies sharing data and ideas on how to incorporate aspects of this new type of money into the global financial system.  According to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CPCC) research, one in ten Irish investors (11%) held crypto assets or cryptocurrency like Bitcoin in 2021. The number jumps to one in four (25%) for those aged between 25 and 34, indicating the appetite amongst younger generations in Ireland for digital money.  7. Smart operations put zero in their sights In 2022, banks will apply artificial intelligence and machine learning to back-office processes, enabling computers to outperform humans in some tasks. This will, eventually, decouple bank revenue from headcount.  Banks have made incremental efforts to streamline their operations at a global level. These new technologies, along with the use of the cloud and APIs, can accelerate their efforts well beyond small efficiencies and toward the long-held dream of ‘zero operations’ where waste and latency are eliminated.  8. Payments: anywhere, anytime and anyhow Getting paid and sending money are now anytime, anywhere features we’ve come to take for granted. The next step in this payment revolution is for these networks to open up. China has already demanded that internet companies accommodate rival payment services. At the same time, proposed legislation in India would force digital wallets to connect and mandate that merchants accept payments from all of them.  Banks with payment offerings will have to compete and cooperate with rival banks, fintech, and other players as the world of networks opens up. We’ve seen this gathering momentum locally, with AIB, Bank of Ireland, KBC, and Permanent TSB coming together on a joint venture to create a real-time payments app. The continued investment highlights the desire to evolve in response to customer needs and compete with digital challengers, such as Revolut.  Customer trust is an essential factor in driving success in the financial services industry. If the banks can give consumers the digital functionality they crave, alongside reliability and service, they could leapfrog their challengers. 9. Banks get on the road again Just as individuals are relishing getting out from under pandemic travel restrictions, banks too will go wandering in search of growth both at home and abroad. In Ireland, we’re already seeing M&A activity from the core banks, causing a seismic shift in the entire landscape.  This includes Bank of Ireland’s takeover of the capital markets and wealth management divisions of Davy stockbroker and its purchase of KBC’s loan book; AIB’s acquisition of Goodbody Stockbrokers and its JV with Great West LifeCo; and Permanent TSB’s purchase of Ulster Bank’s loan book.  10. The war for talent intensifies Figures released from The Workhuman Fall 2021 International Survey Report indicated that almost half (42 percent) of Irish employees plan to leave their jobs over the next twelve months.  As technology has become a critical enabler for banks, a much-publicised shortage of engineering, data and security talent presents a real challenge. Younger workers, in particular, want flexibility and to be valued in their jobs.  Forward-thinking banks are developing integrated plans that holistically address their work and talent issues. They’re mapping the skills they need now and expect to need in the future and are using a variety of approaches to recruit and retain them. They are also re-assessing their structure, culture, and work practices to improve their appeal as employers.    Time for a different approach Decades from now, the most successful banks will be those that continuously shape their businesses to the needs of customers, employees, and other stakeholders. Their greatest asset will be their ability to identify opportunities and innovate efficiently.  Billy O’Connell is Head of Financial Services business at Accenture Ireland.

Irish CEOs are becoming increasingly concerned about the dangers posed by cyber-risk and many are taking steps to mitigate the potential threat to the bottom line.  Cyber-risk has moved up the corporate agenda, cited as the dominant risk facing business leaders this year in a new global CEO survey. Forty-nine per cent of the respondents in PwC’s 25th Annual Global CEO Survey identified cyber-risk as their top concern, up from 47 percent and second place in the same survey last year. Irish CEOs are even more concerned about cyber-risk than their global counterparts, the report has found, with 58 percent citing it as the top threat they face this year, compared to the global average of 49 percent. For Pat Moran, Partner and Cybersecurity Lead at PwC Ireland, these findings are no surprise.  When Moran joined PwC in 2016, his cybersecurity team had fewer than 10 people. Now, in response to rising demand from clients nationwide, the headcount has risen to more than 50. “Cybersecurity is a major issue now, but that wasn’t always the case. I remember working for a bank back when I started my career. We would carry out technology audits and present our findings to the audit committee, but we were generally at the bottom of the agenda,” said Moran. “Cyber-risk was seen as a very technical area; one that couldn’t really have any major impact on the wider organisation. These days, it’s very much the opposite.  “Everyone wants to know about potential cyber-risks – the audit committee, the management team, the board of directors. Cyber-security is seen as a major business issue, and with good reason.” The high-profile ransomware attack on the Health Services Executive (HSE) in 2021 had the effect of catapulting cybersecurity even further up the corporate agenda in Ireland. “The HSE incident was a major wake-up call for all organisations in Ireland in both the public and private sector,” said Moran. “It caused unprecedented disruption and people realised that, if something like this could happen to a critical public service like healthcare, it could happen to anyone. That was when the penny really dropped and organisations in Ireland started to sit up and think seriously about cyber-risk.” Eight-two percent of CEOs in Ireland have factored cyber-risks – including hacking, surveillance and misinformation – into their strategic risk management, according to PwC’s Annual Global CEO Survey. As Moran sees it, however, many are still unprepared for a potential cyber-breach and have yet to put systems in place to ensure business continuity and recovery. “The HSE attack really showed, not just the financial risk associated with a cyber-breach, but also the potential risk to an organisation’s reputation,” he said. “Dealing with a cyber-attack can be a nerve-racking experience. Just this week, I got a call from a client hit by a ransomware attack and they were really panicked.  “They weren’t sure what their next steps should be; how they should communicate the incident internally; who they should contact outside the organisation. They hadn’t figured out the chain of communication, and that really added to the upheaval they were facing.” Moran advised CEOs and management teams to examine the response from Paul Reid, CEO of the Health Service Executive, to the ransomware attack on the HSE to help formulate their own response strategy in the event of a similar cyber-attack on their organisation. “Paul Reid was out there front-and-centre, supporting the HSE messages going to the public and the media. That really helped to mitigate some of the impact,” said Moran. “The number of organisations reliant on their online presence and ability to do business online increased dramatically during the pandemic, and consumers and clients can be quite unforgiving when it comes to data breaches, in particular. “They get understandably nervous when an organisation with access to their data is compromised. The question is: ‘If security is an issue here, do I really want to be a customer?’”  How organisations communicate in the event of a data breach is, therefore, critically important, according to Moran.  “I think CEOs and boards do now understand that a cyber-incident or attack doesn’t just impact one part of an organisation. It impacts all parts of the organisation,” he said. “It impacts every employee. It impacts customers and suppliers. It impacts the leadership and the board and they need to play a really prominent role in any recovery from a major incident, and in planning for that recovery – not just in prevention.” The HSE attack was traced back to Conti, a ransomware group thought to be based primarily in Russia, which has since signalled its support for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s assault on Ukraine. So, what does this mean for the global cyberthreat landscape in 2022? “There is now an increased risk that there will be more cyberthreats and attacks coming from Russia,” said Moran. “Richard Browne, the Director of the National Cyber Security Centre, has advised that organisations be vigilant and monitor their networks for potential vulnerabilities, phishing or denial-of-service attacks.  “Speaking to our own US colleagues at PwC, there is definitely an expectation that we will see more attacks. Our guidance to clients is to increase monitoring activity and rehearse their incident response, so that – in the event of something happening – they can respond quickly, and people know in advance what their roles and responsibilities will be.”

Whistleblowers in Ireland will benefit from a raft of new protections laid out in an EU directive that is among the farthest reaching and most significant ever to be adopted by the bloc, writes Minister Michael McGrath. The benefits of protecting people of conscience who speak up about wrongdoing are clear — for both society and democracy. Whistleblowers play a crucial role in preventing corruption in both the public and private sectors, and workers are usually the first to recognise wrongdoing in the workplace.  An Association of Certified Fraud Examiners 2020 Report to the Nations found that 43 percent of fraud was detected through tip-offs. This compared to 15 percent through internal audit and just two percent through law enforcement.  More than half of these tip-offs came from people in a work-based relationship with the organisation they suspected of fraudulent activity.  Members of the accountancy profession can often be the first people to detect wrongdoing through their roles in industry, regulation, or audit. That is why all members of the profession must be aware of the EU Whistleblowing Directive, one of the farthest-reaching and most significant pieces of legislation ever to be adopted by the bloc.  The Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill will transpose the EU Whistleblowing Directive into law, setting out new legal obligations relevant to the profession in addition to the reporting requirements already applying under their professional codes. It will encourage, support, and protect workers in Ireland who speak up about wrongdoing in the workplace, bringing about significant changes to the legal obligations applying in both the public and private sectors. Protected Disclosures Act 2014 Many of the EU Whistleblowing Directive provisions are already in place in Ireland, thanks to the Protected Disclosures Act. The 2014 Act was an innovative piece of legislation for its time and remains highly regarded as one of the strongest whistleblower protection laws in the world.  A global study of whistleblower protection laws published last year by the International Bar Association and the Government Accountability Project ranked Ireland joint second in the world for the strength of its legislation.  The 2014 Act prohibits any form of retaliation against a worker who makes a protected disclosure. It establishes channels through which a disclosure can be made – to an employer, an independent regulator known as a prescribed person, a Minister (in the case of public sector workers), and, subject to more stringent criteria, through public disclosure.  The Act provides for redress for workers who are penalised for making a protected disclosure with the option to pursue it, either through the Workplace Relations Commission or the Courts. It also protects workers from civil and criminal liability for any disclosure of information necessary to report a wrongdoing. In most instances, a worker will make a report to their employer, the employer will address the wrongdoing, and the case will be closed. In Ireland, four out of every five workers who report wrongdoing do not suffer retaliation as a consequence of doing so.  Devastating consequences As the testimony given to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform during pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill last year made so clear, where retaliation does occur, and the protections of the legislation are broken, the consequences for whistleblowers and their families can be devastating. I am currently bringing The Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill that will transpose the EU Whistleblowing Directive before the Houses of the Oireachtas. This Bill will include provisions to address issues with our existing legislation as were committed to in the Programme for Government and will build upon and strengthen our existing legislative foundation by: widening the scope of persons entitled to protection for speaking up, to include volunteers, shareholders, board members and job applicants; requiring private-sector employers with more than 50 employees to establish formal channels and procedures for their workers to report concerns about wrongdoing. This will come into effect for companies with 250 or more employees initially and for companies with 50 or more from December 2023. Companies in certain sectors and public bodies are already required to have formal reporting channels in place; requiring the recipients of disclosures to follow a specific process and timelines to acknowledge, follow up on, and provide feedback to reporting persons;  requiring prescribed persons to be more proactive in promoting their role as external recipients of protected disclosures, making their reporting channels more transparent and accessible to workers who wish to report concerns about wrongdoing in the sectors they regulate; and establishing an Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner within the Office of the Ombudsman to take on the role of directing reports to the most appropriate persons to address the wrongdoing raised and take responsibility for a report if there is no appropriate person to deal with it. The Bill will clarify the interaction between protected disclosures and interpersonal grievances. For individual cases of bullying, for example, there are very clear employer obligations under employment law.  However, if a culture of bullying or intimidation exists within an organisation, this could represent the basis for a protected disclosure. Far from making the current system weaker, this Bill will make this distinction much clearer for an impacted worker.  Crucially, it will enhance the protections that will apply if a reporting person suffers retaliation for having made a protected disclosure. In civil proceedings concerning allegations of penalisation, we are reversing the burden of proof so it will fall to the employer, not the worker, to prove that the alleged act of penalisation did not occur because the worker made a protected disclosure. The provision of interim relief will be expanded to cover dismissal and other acts of penalisation. This is a significant development as it will allow workers who suffer serious detriment to obtain urgent relief where this is necessary. Criminal penalties will apply to persons who penalise or hinder reporting by whistleblowers or take vexatious proceedings against a reporting person, as well as for breaches of the duty to keep the identity of the reporting person confidential. Timeline for enactment Unfortunately, it was not possible to enact the new legislation before the transposition deadline of 17 December 2021. However, the necessary time must be taken to ensure that this critical legislation is right in providing protections for workers who report wrongdoing. I am confident the legislation will be in place in the near future. Strong legislation is an important component in any ecosystem designed to support and protect whistleblowers. It is also crucial to have the right organisational culture, however — one that encourages workers to speak up without fear of reprisal.  This will do more than any new legislation, policies or procedures to support and protect whistleblowers.  Driving cultural change in organisations is challenging, but it is something I, as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, am committed to doing in public sector organisations.  The wide reform programme my department is rolling out will support open, transparent and accountable organisations. Preparing for the new bill I would like to encourage all employers impacted by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill not to wait for the enactment of this new legislation before they respond.  There are some straightforward steps you can take now to prepare. My advice is to review and update your existing reporting channels and procedures, asking the following questions: Is there a designated, impartial person (or persons) responsible for their operation?  What new training do they need? Are the channels sufficiently secure? Are there published procedures for whistleblowing? Are these procedures easily accessible and understood by all workers? Do they provide for acknowledgement, follow-up and feedback within the timelines of the new Bill? How best can I communicate the new changes to all staff? My department is available to respond to questions and will be issuing further guidance material in the coming weeks. More information and the text of the Bill can be found online at: https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/e20b61-protected-disclosures-act-guidance-for-public-bodies/#eu-whistleblowing-directive Michael McGrath is Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform, a TD for Cork South Central, and a Fellow of Chartered Accountants Ireland.

The unsettling effect of the pandemic on the job market is being felt as much in the US as in Ireland, as employers grapple to attract candidates with the skills they need to stay competitive, writes Dr Brian Keegan. People are harder to manage. It’s a stark realisation, expressed by a very senior Irish Chartered Accountant at a Fortune 500 company.   The pandemic may have been the great leveller across the world, but the process of recovery will not be as homogenised.   Just as in Ireland, the US has been scarred socially and commercially by the misery of COVID-19.  Within some sectors of American industry, huge resources are being devoted to little else besides hiring.   The unsettling effect of the pandemic on workers is prompting, not just career change, but location change. From the employer perspective, the traditional skill sets, which might once have automatically qualified people for well-paid employment, are changing.   Anecdotally at least, from the many members I spoke to during the Institute’s St Patrick’s day delegation to the US, led by our President Paul Henry, the most sought-after skill is project management — with specialisation in finance or data analysis an added bonus.   Educational establishments are already picking up on this shift. One Ivy League university is developing micro-certification, which is an accreditation for completing very short courses in high-demand skill sets like data mining. This isn’t merely reflecting the state of the job market, but changes in corporate strategies. Progressive industries have had a digital strategy as a priority for several years. This is now morphing into a “mobile first” strategy.  The pandemic has fostered recognition that consumer and brand loyalty is not merely built by online capability but by ease of access. This means getting your customer order capture and service delivery platforms onto mobile phones.   There is less sense of urgency over resolving supply chain issues. The prevailing sentiment is that, if the pandemic proved anything from a commercial standpoint, it is that supply chain issues can be worked out no matter how severely they appear to have been disrupted in the first instance.   Efficiencies in purchasing and supply need the clever use of data, and data usage brings risks and challenges all its own. There seems to be a view that systems don’t have to be 100 percent secure, just more secure than those of competitors.   As one US-based member in a national leadership role in IT suggested, every system is breakable. The trick is to ensure that yours isn’t the easiest one to break. Despite the staffing challenges, the common thread running through all these observations is relentless expansion. The ‘animal spirits’ which the great economist JM Keynes credited as the prime mover of economic activity are being boosted by an overwhelming sense of relief that the pandemic may now, in fact, be over.   This sense of relief is dangerous. Tragically, we have jumped out of the frying pan of the pandemic into the fire of war in Europe.   Not to diminish the horrible loss of life, the evil and unjustifiable attack by Russia on Ukraine may well cause even greater economic disruption across Europe than the pandemic.  Grain will be scarcer because Ukraine was the breadbasket of central Europe. The worldwide shortage of microprocessors will be exacerbated because key elements in their manufacture, notably Neon, were major exports from a stable and increasingly prosperous pre-war Ukraine.   The West has correctly chosen to punish Russia for its actions with sanctions, but effective sanctions cut both ways. The commercial priorities we had planned as we recover from the pandemic will have to change to reflect the invasion of Ukraine. The only saving grace is that people, though they may well indeed be harder to manage, are adaptable. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy and Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Mairead McGuinness, EU Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability and Capital Markets Union, talks to Elaine O’Regan about her role in implementing sanctions to stop the “Kremlin war machine”, her ongoing contribution to the future of sustainable finance  and her role in laying the foundations for the Capital Markets Union. You’re 18 months into your role as EU Commissioner. What do you see as your most important achievements so far, and what are your priorities now? I am responsible for sanctions and their implementation by the Commission and this is top of my agenda right now, given the terrible war in Ukraine and the need to respond to Russian aggression. We want to cut off funding to the Kremlin war machine.  We’ve listed hundreds of individuals, including Vladimir Putin, his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and dozens of oligarchs, which means their assets are frozen. They can’t be provided with funds, and they are also subject to travel bans.  We’ve cut Russian access to EU capital markets, including a full asset freeze on three Russian banks with strong links to the Russian state, excluding seven key Russian banks from Swift, and blocking Russia’s EU-held foreign exchange reserves.  We also have measures on energy, transport, dual-use technologies, trade, visas for diplomats and disinformation. And, we have sharpened sanctions against Belarus, so it cannot be used by Russia to evade our sanctions.  At the same time, we’ve been working closely with our partners, including the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan and others, to impose comprehensive and complementary measures that ensure Russia’s illegal actions bear a high cost. The focus now is on making sure that the sanctions are properly implemented so they are as effective as possible – and we stand ready to put more sanctions in place as the situation evolves. Beyond this, over the past 18 months my work on sustainable finance and the contribution of finance to tackling climate change has been important, as well as work on building up the Capital Markets Union to give companies across the EU better access to finance.  I’m also passionate about using my role to highlight the importance of financial literacy. People should understand how the financial system works, how they can make the best use of their money, and be confident enough to ask the right questions about their personal finances. The Ukraine invasion has placed energy supply at the forefront of the EU agenda. How do you expect the situation in Ukraine, and its impact on the flow of energy supply globally, to influence the policy initiatives laid out in the EU Green Deal?  Russia’s aggression against Ukraine makes a rapid transition to clean energy more urgent than ever. We’re too dependent on Russian gas. We must have a reliable, secure, and affordable supply of energy for Europe.  We already have the Green Deal indicating where we need to go, but Russia’s aggression has brought into very sharp focus our vulnerabilities and why we need to accelerate the transition to a more sustainable economy.  The Commission adopted a plan in March – REPowerEU – with new ways to ramp up green energy production, diversify supplies, and reduce demand for Russian gas.  The financial system has a key role to play in the Green Deal. The goal is both “to green finance” and “to finance green” to help the financial sector become sustainable and to make sure that the financial sector provides the money for business to become sustainable.  We’ve put clear and consistent rules in place, namely the EU Taxonomy, a disclosure regime for non-financial and financial companies; and investment tools, including benchmarks and standards like the European Green Bond Standard.  We are now increasingly moving to the implementation phase to make sure these rules are effective.  How far along is the Taxonomy at this point, and what are the next steps in the pipeline for the year ahead? What do companies operating in the EU need to know? The Taxonomy helps signpost the way for private investment to contribute to our climate goals: it provides clear definitions for sustainable economic activities. Companies can use it to plan their transition and to show the market what they are doing.  Last year, we adopted the first rules on activities that make a substantial contribution to adapting to and mitigating climate change.  They cover 170 economic activities, representing about 40 per cent of listed companies in the EU, in sectors responsible for around 80 per cent of direct greenhouse gas emissions in Europe.  The rules are applicable from January 2022. We have also specified how market players should disclose the extent that their activities are taxonomy-aligned. We’ve put forward proposals for how gas and nuclear can make a contribution to the transition to sustainability. We have not designated gas and nuclear as “green”, but we have recognised the specific role certain nuclear and gas activities can play in the transition to full sustainability, subject to very strict conditions and phase-out periods. This proposal is now under scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Member States. We have work to do on including more sectors in the Taxonomy and we will be preparing details on the four remaining environmental objectives – water quality, circular economy, biodiversity, and pollution prevention. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) is expected to put its first set of standards to public consultation later this month. How do you foresee the EU Commission working with the ISSB to progress the wider ESG reporting agenda?  The EU has been the global leader on sustainable finance. We are ahead when it comes to the contribution of the financial system to tackling climate change. So, we’ve gone further than others, and we’ve done that faster – which is important given the urgency of the climate challenge. But, of course, the climate challenge is global, and markets are global too. So, we are fully engaged in efforts on global standards. EU sustainability reporting standards have shown the way, to a great extent, and informed the international context.  We see global standards as a common baseline that allow us to go further to meet the ambition set out in the EU Green Deal.  At a practical level, the body that drafts EU accountancy and sustainability standards – the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) – has established close cooperation with the ISSB. The CSRD proposal – and the reporting standards that will be part of it – will ensure that corporates disclose sustainability information that underpin the rest of the sustainable finance agenda.  EU standards must be coherent with the EU’s political ambitions and with our existing framework for sustainable finance, including the Taxonomy and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation.  From the beginning, EU standards will cover all ESG topics under a double materiality perspective – companies will have to report about how sustainability issues affect them and about their own impact on society and the environment.  In contrast, the standards set by the ISSB only look at risks to companies, but not at the impact of companies, and in the first instance they are focusing on climate.  EU standards will build on and contribute to global standardisation initiatives. We should build on what exists, and seek as much compatibility as possible, while also meeting Europe’s specific needs. At the recent IIF Sustainable Finance Summit, UBS Chairman Axel Weber said “banks can be a facilitator of channelling money into the right uses for a carbon transformation of the economy, but it’s not a banking issue.” What’s your take on this stance? All financial institutions, including banks, but others too, need to play their part in the transition to climate neutrality and improve their environmental performance as part of their financing, lending, and underwriting activities.  Financial institutions should integrate EU sustainability goals into their long-term financing strategies and investment decision-making processes.  We will help them accelerate their contribution to the transition, by reinforcing science-based target setting, disclosure and effectiveness of decarbonisation action, but also monitoring the financial sector’s commitments. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is being viewed as a crucial step in bringing sustainable reporting on par with financial reporting. It will require assurance on non-financial statements, however. Who do you foresee this responsibility falling to? The CSRD proposal requires statutory auditors to give an opinion on sustainability reporting – the idea is to ensure that the sustainability information disclosed is credible.  This will require statutory auditors to have the necessary skills in the assurance of sustainability reporting, helping to ensure that financial and sustainability information is connected and consistent.  We are mindful of the potential risk that the audit market could become even more concentrated, however. That’s why the proposal allows Member States to accredit independent assurance service providers to verify sustainability reporting. The proposal for the EU Green Bond Standard was published by the European Commission in July 2021 as part of the Strategy for Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Economy. Tell us about this proposed regulation.  Green bonds offer a great opportunity for financial markets to directly support the transition to a climate-neutral economy. They bring issuers reputational benefits and sometimes also a lower cost of funding.  They give investors transparency about how companies allocate their money. So green bonds make business sense as well as climate sense — and the market is booming. Last year, after many years of on average 40 percent growth, issuance increased by another 65 percent compared to the previous year.  However, there are some challenges. As new issuers enter the market, there is less consensus on what is green. This means more effort for issuers to prove their green credentials, and more work for investors to check them.  Companies acting as external reviewers of green bonds help investors navigate this complex landscape, but the wide range of methodologies they use can also be a source of confusion.  That’s why in July 2021, the Commission adopted a legislative proposal for a European green bond standard, as part of its work to guide investors towards greener investments. The overall aim is to create a new gold standard available to all green bond issuers on a voluntary basis.  While building on market best practice on reporting and external review, this standard would add two important new elements. First, full alignment with the EU Taxonomy, to ensure that funds raised by these bonds are spent on economic activities that are sustainable. Second, supervision by ESMA of external reviewers that provide opinions on the alignment with the standard.  There is already a lot of interest from both issuers and investors. But, in the end, success depends on whether we keep the environmental ambition high, and the unnecessary burden on issuers low. Negotiations are ongoing in the European Parliament and the Council, and we are hoping that an agreement can be reached as soon as possible.   You recently indicated that a bill to introduce a digital euro may be tabled in the EU in early 2023, providing a legislative framework for the ongoing work of the European Central Bank on a digital version of the euro. What are the potential benefits of introducing this digital euro? A digital euro would be to complement cash – which remains vital – and other means of payment provided by the private sector.  A digital euro would provide a digitalised form of money backed by a central bank, which would be designed to allow everyone to use it, from the tech savvy to those excluded by the financial system. How exactly it should be designed to meet those goals is currently being examined.  Other countries are working on or are already issuing central bank digital currencies, and the use of stablecoins is increasing. A digital euro would strengthen the EU’s ability to determine its own course and maintain the autonomy of EU monetary policy.  The digital euro raises challenges, but also opportunities. This is why we are working hand in hand with the ECB and listening to all stakeholders on this key project.  The ECB would be responsible for issuing any digital euro, while the Commission would need to put forward the legislative framework to allow the ECB to do so.  Currently, we are looking at early 2023 to introduce the proposal to give time for the Parliament and EU Member States to work before the ECB would decide how and whether to issue a digital euro. The EU is responding to the need for improved online security for cryptocurrencies with the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation and Digital Operational Resilience Act. What do you see as the biggest risks in this area? Unfortunately, the level of operational resilience in the crypto-asset space is not good enough. There are also a lot of hacks and thefts.  The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) will bring crypto into the regulated space and will mean that crypto service providers are covered by financial services legislation.  MiCA will put in place consumer protection measures and limit the risk of fraudulent behaviour in the market.  The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) is for the whole of the financial services sector, to ensure ICT risks are better managed by financial companies. When MiCA enters into force, crypto service providers will have to adhere to the highest levels of operational resilience, as they will also be covered by DORA. DORA and MiCA are currently part of negotiations between the EU institutions. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has dampened the global economic outlook, prompting predictions of spiralling price hikes not seen since the 1980s and looming recession. But, is it too soon to predict with any accuracy what really lies ahead? Professor Anthony Foley investigates. After two years of economic uncertainty because of the pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and its associated sanctions, have unsettled our markets once again, lowering projected GDP growth rates and increasing global inflation rates in 2022 and, to a lesser extent, in 2023.  However, the exact scale of the impact is as yet uncertain. It will depend on several factors, including the duration of the conflict, developments in economic sanctions — both in terms of impositions on Russia and its own retaliative measures — and the nature of any possible peace deal.  Together, Russia and Ukraine comprise a relatively small part of the global economy, making up about two percent of GDP internationally. They are important players in the markets for certain products, accounting for about 30 percent of global exports of wheat, 20 percent of corn, roughly 20 percent of fertilisers, 20 percent of natural gas and 11 percent of oil.  Both countries also have substantial uranium reserves and are significant suppliers of the inert gases used to make semiconductors and the titanium sponge used in aircraft manufacturing.  On top of that, Russia is a major supplier of the palladium used in the catalytic converters for cars and the nickel used in batteries and steel, while Ukraine is among the world’s foremost producers of sunflower oil and sugar beet. Mechanisms of the economic impact of war There are several mechanisms through which war has an economic impact. Trade flows are suppressed, hitting integrated global supply chains. The rising cost of commodities like gas, fertiliser and oil upends business cost models and lowers real consumer income.  Even had there been no response from the rest of the world to the Russian invasion, Ukraine would still be unable to maintain existing supplies of products, such as wheat and minerals, to the global market. This alone would result in supply chain disruption and price hikes for certain products.  Uncertainty, in general, suppresses economic growth, muting confidence and lowering consumer spending and enterprise investment — and this is especially true of the current situation in Ukraine. The intervention of the West thus far, through economic sanctions imposed on Russia and Belarus, has increased the economic impact of the war by limiting trade engagement with Russia.  Russia may retaliate against these sanctions by restricting gas supplies or defaulting on sovereign debt, which would further deepen the economic impact.  Energy prices were rising even before the Ukraine invasion, but the war has now accelerated the rate of inflation. Even if a country has no direct trade link with Russia, it will be affected by ongoing global price hikes.  Countries with trade links to Russia will have lower growth rates, curtailing their capacity to trade with other countries – even those with no direct trade links to Russia — triggering further global economic impact. Hundreds of western companies have opted to cut business ties with Russia, even if not required by official sanctions, including big brand names like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Nike. In addition, there are implications for the public finances of those countries taking refugees from and sending aid to Ukraine. If a peace settlement is reached, there will then be the cost of rebuilding Ukraine.  Irish trade with Ukraine & Russia Ireland exported goods worth €627 million to Russia in 2021 (just 0.4% of its total exports) and imported goods worth €598.1 million from Russia. In the same period, goods exported to Ukraine totalled €91.7 million, while imports came to €70.2 million.   The imports of goods are dominated by petroleum and petroleum products (€231 million), coal and coke (€140 million) and fertilisers (€134 million). These three imports are 84 percent of total Irish imports from Russia.  The value of services traded with Russia is much higher, however. Ireland’s service exports to Russia were valued at €3,242 million in 2020 (i.e. 1.3% of total service exports). The value of services imported to Ireland from Russia in the same year was €360 million. The main services exported to Russia were computer services (€1,840 million), operational leasing (€926 million), financial services (€81 million) and insurance (€27 million). The main service imports from Russia were business services. Service exports to Ukraine were €647 million in 2020, and imports were €49 million. Impact on economic growth and inflation There is significant uncertainty about the magnitude and duration of the economic impact of the war. However, the OECD, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in the UK and the European Central Bank (ECB) have all recently attempted to quantify the economic impact.  The OECD estimates that in 2022, the war will reduce global growth by about one percent, from 4.5 percent to 3.5 percent. Global 2022 inflation will increase by 2.5 percent from 4.2 percent to 6.7 percent.   The Euro area economic growth will drop by about 1.4 percent from 4.3 percent to about 2.9 percent. Euro area inflation will increase from 2.7 percent to about five percent in 2022. The estimated impact on the US is almost one percent off the growth rate and 1.5 percent on the inflation rate. The assessment by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in the UK is a little more optimistic but broadly similar to that of the OECD. Global growth this year may fall by 0.5 percent, while inflation could rise by about three percent.  Next year’s impact will not be as drastic, but it is something to watch out for. In 2023, we will see about one percent less in growth and an added two percent on the inflation rate. Euro area growth this year will fall by 0.9 percent, and inflation will rise from 3.1 percent to 5.5 percent. Euro area growth would be about 1.5 percent lower in 2023, and inflation would be about 0.8 percent higher.  Three economic scenarios The ECB recently undertook a detailed analysis of the economic impact and presented three scenarios (Table 1). In December 2021, the ECB forecast a GDP growth rate of 4.2 percent and 3.2 percent for the Euro area in 2022. These figures were revised in March, following the Russian invasion, to GDP growth of 3.7 percent and inflation of 5.1 percent.  This “baseline projection” assumes that current disruptions to energy supplies and suppressed confidence are temporary and that global supply chains are not significantly affected.  The ECB also produced forecasts based on two more negative but possible scenarios.  The adverse scenario assumes a worsening in all three impact mechanisms of trade, prices and economic confidence. The severe scenario assumes a more significant and prolonged increase in commodity prices, leading to second-round inflation and financial system impacts.  The differences between the severe scenario and the pre-war forecasts here are substantial. The growth rate drops by almost half from 4.2 percent to 2.3 percent, and the inflation rate more than doubles from 3.2 percent to 7.1 percent.  Of course, we do not yet know what the eventual impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine will be. We can be sure there will be lower growth, and inflation will rise. On the most extreme assumptions, growth could almost halve, and inflation could more than double compared with the forecasts for the Euro area before the invasion. The ECB has also considered the potential longer-term impact of the Ukraine invasion on growth and inflation in the Euro area into 2023 (Table 2).  The news here is relatively positive, in that growth is closer to the ECB’s pre-war forecast of 2.3 percent on the severe assumptions, compared to 2.9 percent in December 2021. The same is true for inflation — 2.7 percent on the severe assumption compared to 1.8 percent in December 2021. Possible economic impact on Ireland Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the economy was expected to perform well in 2022. The Stability Programme Update, published by the Department of Finance in April 2021, forecast GDP growth of five percent this year, followed by 3.5 percent in 2023.  Modified domestic demand was expected to grow by 7.4 percent this year and 3.8 percent next. Inflation was expected to be 1.9 percent in 2022 and 1.5 percent in 2023. Up until the invasion of Ukraine, this forecast was expected to be exceeded.  The forecasts underestimated the rise in inflation, however – the October 2021 budget forecast Irish inflation rates of 2.2 percent in 2022 and 1.9 percent in 2023.  Using the relativities of the severe ECB scenario, Ireland might face a growth rate of about 3.5 percent instead of around six percent in 2022 and inflation of eight percent instead of four percent.  The good news is that growth is still likely in Ireland and the Euro area because of the relatively high growth rates before the effects of the war.  Of course, particular sectors face a more daunting situation. Ireland’s aircraft leasing sector has high exposure to Russia, and it is uncertain how this will play out in terms of aircraft recovery.  International tourism was expected to rebound after COVID-19 in 2022, but the war may have a dampening effect, particularly in the case of US tourists. Many enterprises in Ireland have had to pause or end their business activities in, and trade contacts with, Russia. Ireland must now cope with the financial requirements of taking in possibly 100,000 Ukrainian war refugees. However hard this may be, consider the position of Poland with millions of refugees to support. The major immediate economic problem is the very high inflation rate to which the war has contributed but is not entirely responsible. How will consumers and producers cope with the price increases? To what extent can the Government shield households from the effects of rising energy prices?  It is already clear that the economic impact of the war is substantial, and the scale and duration of the impact are still unclear, but, as of now, we should be able to avoid recession. Over the longer term, the economic impact will depend on whether there is a return to the pre-war normal (which is unlikely) and what the new normal will be in terms of trading blocs, continuing sanctions, higher defence spending, cyberwar, political tensions and bank payment systems. Anthony Foley is Emeritus Associate Professor of Economics at Dublin City University Business School.