Moira Grassick explores the implications of the new gender pay gap reporting portal set to launch in Autumn 2025 Norma Foley, Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, has announced that a gender pay gap reporting portal will be launched in Autumn 2025.   This is a significant update for Irish businesses, as the Department estimates that about 6,000 companies will need to submit a gender pay gap report to the online portal this year.   Foley also indicated that the reporting deadline is expected in November.  Gender pay gap reporting to date The Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021 requires businesses to publish a report detailing the hourly gender pay gap in their business, across a range of specified metrics. The Act is part of a wider initiative to improve gender equality in Ireland and, more specifically, aims to bring about greater pay parity between men and women.  Initially, when the requirement was introduced in 2022, only companies with 250 employees or more were required to submit a gender pay gap report. This threshold has been increasing gradually each year and, in 2025, any company with 50 employees or more will be required to file a report.    The portal: what you need to know  Up until this point, companies have been required to post their gender pay gap reports either on their own website or somewhere else accessible to the public.   As well as submitting statistics and figures on gender-based pay information within the business, employers have also been required to publish an explanation for any gender pay gap that does arise from those findings.   With the introduction of the new portal, this system will change.   Once launched, employers will be required to upload their pay gap reports directly to the portal, and not just on their own website.   New reporting deadline  As well as announcing the upcoming launch of the portal, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality also suggested that the reporting deadline this year will take place in November, and not in December as was the case in previous years.   Employers will be required to gather their gender pay gap data on a ‘snapshot’ date in June, and to publish those results in November. The exact reporting date will depend on the snapshot date selected by the employer. For example, if a business chooses 5 June as their snapshot date, they will be required to publish the results on the portal by 5 November.   Transparency and accountability If your business employs 50 or more staff and you need to file a gender pay gap report in November, it's essential to understand the required publishing method. Once launched, you must submit your report directly through the online portal.  The portal's design could enhance public access to gender pay gap reports compared to before. Individuals will be able to search all gender pay gap reports on one platform, facilitating easier comparison of multiple reports simultaneously and enabling clearer conclusions and comparisons. Moira Grassick is Chief Operating Officer at Peninsula

Sustainable HR practices enhance corporate responsibility and workplace culture, attracting top talent and driving long-term success, writes Neil Hughes Sustainable HR can be viewed through two lenses. First, as a means to support initiatives that align with an organisation’s corporate social responsibility (CSR), and second, to create policies and practices that enable a sustainable workplace culture.  The Society for Human Resource Management recently reported that more than 65 percent of job seekers favour firms with sustainable HR practices. This creates a challenge for senior leaders and human resources (HR) functions to introduce sustainable HR practices that attract, retain and develop employees. Embedding sustainability across people practices HR functions can integrate sustainable HR methods throughout all people practices, including recruitment and onboarding, learning and development, performance management and hybrid working policies.  Introducing sustainable initiatives drives both operational and cultural change and supports the organisation in achieving CSR commitments and improving corporate image. Additionally, sustainable HR fosters a culture of responsibility, enhances employee engagement and contributes to long-term business success.  Recruitment functions that create sustainable ways of attracting, assessing and onboarding new staff will gain a significant competitive advantage in the ‘war for talent’. For instance, processes that are highly automated improve the candidate experience and contribute to sustainable practices.  We have seen a marked increase in HR functions designing and delivering learning and development (L&D) interventions that educate and upskill their employees on environmental and sustainable practices. L&D courses can be used to promote green initiatives such as reducing energy consumption and single-use plastics, promoting recycling, raising employee awareness and promoting action. Organisations that empower their employees with knowledge and skills in this area improve their ability to contribute to the company’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals. Some organisations offer the opportunity to achieve a diploma in business sustainability and provide courses that are CPD accredited.  We have also seen L&D functions become more aware of delivering learning in a sustainable way. For example, facilitating learning online rather than requiring staff to travel to face-to-face learning events. Driving engagement and long-term cultural change An important factor in our people’s motivation is their ability to make the connection between their work responsibilities and their organisation’s purpose and goals. HR functions can facilitate this connection by embedding the company’s values throughout all procedures, policies and initiatives. Additionally, sustainability can be linked to and reflected in performance evaluations.  Recognising employees who contribute to sustainability goals can incentivise further commitment across the workforce.  Importantly, HR functions should encourage employees to get involved and set the tone that achieving sustainability targets will be a collaborative effort. Employees will often have ideas that could prove valuable in enhancing the company’s approach, and establishing a space for them to comfortably share these ideas through an employee-led sustainability group can work well. Most employees recognise the social and environmental benefits of hybrid working. This is one of the most accessible and impactful sustainable HR practices that helps to reduce emissions while increasing flexibility and supporting individuals with an improved work-life balance. By implementing programmes that support physical and mental health, HR can help create a more resilient and productive workforce. All the evidence shows that sustainable HR practices benefit employee and organisational performance by improving retention, reputation, and engagement. It is clear that sustainable HR practices create a positive work environment. So, how will you begin? Neil Hughes is a Director in Grant Thornton’s People and Change Consulting practice

Who should drive your firm's growth? Mary Cloonan explores whether individual partners or a dedicated leader best fuels expansion Every ambitious firm wants growth, but who should take ownership of it? Is it down to individual partners, or does the firm need a dedicated leader to drive expansion? Many firms have treated growth as an afterthought. Yet, in today’s highly competitive market, this approach is insufficient. The firms that thrive are the ones that prioritise growth across the entire organisation, instead of depending solely on a handful of standout performers. There’s no single answer to the question of who should lead growth, but some models work, particularly in more mature markets like the US, UK, and Australia, where firms have refined their approach for years. Why growth needs to be intentional Growth isn’t just about winning new clients; it’s about maximising opportunities across the board and deepening existing relationships, expanding into new markets, and ensuring that every part of the firm contributes to revenue generation. Whether your firm is backed by private equity or partner-led, the real question is: are you making the most of the opportunities in front of you? Growth is often left to chance. Some partners excel at winning work, while others concentrate on execution. However, when growth relies solely on personal initiative, opportunities can be missed. Implementing a more structured approach ensures that business development isn’t just an added benefit – it’s built into the firm’s DNA. Three effective models for driving growth Firms take different approaches depending on their structure, leadership style, and ambitions. To ensure growth is prioritised and embedded, they use three models. 1. The Chief Growth Officer (CGO) model – a unified approach Appointing a Chief Growth Officer (CGO) can be a game-changer for firms that want a clear, structured approach to growth. This leadership role integrates business development, marketing, client experience and cross selling, ensuring that growth is planned, measured and executed effectively. Rather than simply focusing on new business, a CGO takes responsibility for the entire client journey:  Business development strategy – Aligning development, marketing and client expansion with the firm’s long-term goals. Client experience and retention – Ensuring clients receive excellent service, encouraging referrals and long-term loyalty. Cross-selling and collaboration – Breaking down silos and helping different service lines work together to identify opportunities. Market positioning and thought leadership – Raising the firm’s profile in key sectors to attract high-value clients. Data-driven growth insights – Using client and market data to identify trends and opportunities. This model works well for larger firms, particularly those with ambitious growth plans or PE investment. It ensures growth is handled strategically rather than left to individual efforts. 2. The partner-led growth model – with structure & accountability Many firms still prefer a partner-led approach to business development. This approach can work well if it has structure and accountability. Business development isn’t just left to chance in firms that succeed with this model. Instead, there’s a clear framework: Partners have individual growth targets that are measured and reviewed. Client expansion strategies are mapped out rather than being ad-hoc. There's support from marketing and business development teams to enable partners to focus on high-value relationships. Business development is built into the firm's culture, rather than being something squeezed in between client work. For this model to work, there needs to be a firm-wide commitment to growth, not just an expectation that some partners will bring in work while others don't. 3. The hybrid model – growth champions and collaboration A middle ground between a centralised CGO and a fully partner-driven model is to appoint “growth champions” within the firm. These are senior partners or directors who take responsibility for business development within their practice area or sector. They focus on: Developing relationships and identifying opportunities in their market. Encouraging collaboration between service lines to increase cross-selling. Working with marketing and BD teams to ensure the firm’s positioning aligns with market demand. This approach works well in mid-sized firms where partners are engaged in growth but need more structure and coordination. Your firm’s growth model The best approach depends on the size, ambition, and market focus of the firm: Smaller firms may not need a CGO but should have a structured growth committee. Mid-sized firms often benefit from a hybrid model that balances accountability with collaboration. Larger firms, particularly those preparing for a merger or acquisition or private equity investment, gain the most from a dedicated CGO. What matters most is that growth is not left to chance. Regardless of the model, firms that take growth seriously and build a strategy around it succeed. Your firm and culture Growth isn’t something that just happens. It’s something firms need to be intentional about. In a numbers-based world, there will only be one indicator to say what is right for your firm so tracking the growth KPIs is key to understanding what will work best in your firm with your culture. Mary Cloonan is Founder of Marketing Clever

Case reference Tax head  Legislation  Case stated requested  Matter under consideration    30TACD2025 Capital gains tax   Section 544 TCA 1997 Section 545 TCA 1997 Section 552 TCA 1997 Section 554 TCA 1997 Section 555 TCA 1997 Section 557 TCA 1997 Section 560 TCA 1997 Section 561 TCA 1997  No   The Appellant in this case was a partner in a partnership which had acquired land in 2009. The partnership built and developed a property at a total cost of €23,023,400 which included integrated plant and machinery at a cost of €5,506,195. The plant and machinery qualified in full for capital allowances and the Appellant claimed his proportionate share of the available capital allowances on his income tax returns. Over the period of ownership of the asset, there had been a part disposal and further capital additions leaving a base cost of €19,642,020. The partnership subsequently sold the property to a third party for €20 million; there was no apportionment of the sale price specified in the contract between land and plant and machinery. The property was used solely for the purposes of a trade or profession for the entire period of ownership. The Appellant completed a capital gains tax (CGT) return based on a disposal of a single asset being the land which included the buildings thereon and fixtures therein. The Appellant contended that the qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery was part of the acquisition cost and is an allowable deduction for the purposes of section 552(1). Revenue issued one CG50 clearance for the sale of the land and buildings including the integrated plant and machinery. Revenue submitted that the single asset sold consisted of two distinct elements from a tax perspective. One element was the plant and buildings which had qualified for capital allowances over the period of ownership and the second element being land which had not attracted capital allowances. Revenue stated that as the asset sold comprised of two different types of assets for tax purposes, separate CGT computations were required, and an apportionment was required under section 544 TCA to calculate the capital gain. Revenue argued that the loss accruing on the plant and machinery could not be factored in to reduce the capital gain. It was on this basis that Revenue had issued a notice of amended assessment. The Appellant submitted that when land is sold to a purchaser which necessarily includes all buildings and fixtures and fittings that are integrated into the building, they are an integral part of the building. The Appellant argued that he was therefore entitled to deduct qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery in the CGT calculation. The Appeals Commission held that the method adopted by Revenue was not provided for in Statute and therefore was incorrect.   39TACD2025 Corporation tax   Section 884 TCA 1997 Section 917 TCA 1997 Section 949 TCA 1997 Section 959 TCA 1997 Section 1077 TCA 1997 Section 1084 TCA 1997  No   The Appellant filed corporation tax returns (Form CT1) for the accounting periods 2021 and 2022 by June 2022 and April 2023 respectively and Notices of Assessment were issued by Revenue. The Appellant’s agent encountered IT filing acceptance issues when filing the iXBRL accounts and unknowingly the accounts did not file properly. In 2024, Revenue issued revised Notices of Assessments in respect of both years to include a surcharge for late submission of returns. This was on the basis that iXBRL accounts were not filed by the specified date. The Appellant only became aware on receipt of the revised Notice of Assessments that iXBRL accounts had not been filed. Revenue has issued tax clearance certificates for all years 2021 to 2024 prior to the issue of amended assessments. The Appellant argued that the non-filing of electronic accounts was not intended or deliberate, there was no loss to Revenue and that all taxes were paid on time. Once becoming aware of the issue, there was no unreasonable delay in remedying the matter and accounts were filed within a few days. Revenue stated the Appellant did not provide correspondence at the time of filing the iXBRL accounts for the accounting periods 2021 or 2022 of the technical difficulties encountered. The Appeals Commission held that Revenue correctly applied a surcharge under section 1084(2)(a)(ii) for failing to deliver a return on or before the specified return date. The Appeals Commission held that Revenue correctly applied a surcharge under section 1084(2)(a)(ii) for failing to deliver a return on or before the specified return date.

This edition’s Chartered Accountants Tax Case digest looks at a case in which the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) and restored the previous decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) in finding that the taxpayer was not UK tax resident during the tax year having spent a number of days in the UK due to exceptional circumstances beyond her control that prevented her from leaving. The focus of the case was on the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the UK Statutory Residence Test (SRT) with the Court noting in its decision that this needs to be applied to individual circumstance as a whole whilst also highlighting that such circumstances can include the reaction of a taxpayer to matters such as the illness of a close relative, and other moral obligations. Commentators are arguing that this decision essentially appears to loosen the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test. At present it is unclear whether HMRC will appeal to the Supreme Court. The UK’s SRT is used to assess if an individual taxpayer is UK tax resident and took effect from 6 April 2013. This case is the first and only case to date in which the SRT has been the subject of an appeal through the UK court system. Background The case was an appeal by the taxpayer against the UT decision which held that the taxpayer was UK tax resident for the tax year ended 5 April 2016. During 2015/16, the appellant taxpayer had received a large dividend but did not include it on her self-assessment return on the basis that it was not taxable in the UK because she was not UK tax resident in that tax year as she was tax resident in Ireland. The concept of ‘days’ spent in the UK lies at the heart of the SRT. Ordinarily, every day when a person is present in the UK at midnight at the end of the day counts for the purposes of the test. However, certain exceptional days may not be counted. Under her particular circumstances, the second automatic overseas test was relevant meaning that as she was not UK tax resident for any of the preceding three tax years prior to 2015/16, as long as she spent fewer than 46 days in the UK in 2015/16, she would not be UK tax resident. Having spent 50 days in the UK during the tax year, the appellant relied on Schedule 45 para 22 (4) of Finance Act 2013 which provides that a day does not count as a day spent in the UK if a person would not be present in the UK at the end of the day but for exceptional circumstances beyond their control that prevent them from leaving the UK and they intend to leave as soon as those circumstances permit. On two visits totalling six days in December 2015 and February 2016 she was present in the UK at the end of the day because she felt compelled to stay to help her sister who was suffering from alcoholism, was suicidal and was failing to look after her children. She therefore argued that she had only spent 44 days in the UK in 2015/16 and was not therefore UK tax resident. HMRC argued that these reasons did not amount to exceptional circumstances, and that the appellant had not been prevented from leaving the UK. HMRC issued a closure notice amending her tax return to include the dividend as taxable income. The appellant appealed to the FTT which allowed her appeal finding that although the need to care for the consequences of her sister’s alcoholism and depression did not, of itself, constitute exceptional circumstances, the fact that the sister had minor children, for whom the appellant also cared, did in their view change the position. The FTT said that it was unnecessary for a legal obligation to care for the children to exist for there to be an exceptional circumstance and stated that moral obligations and obligations of conscience, including those arising by virtue of a close family relationship, can qualify as exceptional circumstances. Finally, the FTT concluded that those obligations may be strong enough to prevent a taxpayer from leaving the UK. HMRC appealed to the UT putting forward four grounds of appeal, all of which were accepted by the UT. The UT overturned the FTT decision finding that the circumstances of the two visits in question were not exceptional, and that the appellant was not prevented from leaving the UK on any of the days by exceptional circumstances. She was therefore UK tax resident in 2015/16 making the dividend taxable income in the UK. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on six grounds, including that the UT erred in law in its approach to the test as to whether the appellant was prevented from leaving the UK, and in holding that moral obligations cannot be or cannot be part of the exceptional circumstances. Decision At the heart of the taxpayer’s appeal was whether the appellant’s circumstances were exceptional and whether they prevented her from leaving the UK. The Court held that what prevents someone from leaving the country is not limited to certain defined categories such as a legal obligation or physical impossibility, noting that the statutory example of exceptional circumstances in Schedule 45 para 22 (5) of Finance Act 2013 which refers to a ‘sudden or life-threatening illness or injury’ is not specifically limited to the injury or illness of the taxpayer themselves, or of someone for whom they have a legal duty to care. A moral or societal obligation was suffice and in the Court’s view is likely to have also been intended by Parliament. The Court held that the UT had taken too narrow a view of what could constitute an exceptional circumstance and ruled that the moral or societal obligation that the illness of a relative imposes on a taxpayer can form part of the overall circumstance. This should also be taken account of in considering whether the circumstances as a whole are considered exceptional. The Court allowed the appellant’s appeal on all grounds and restored the decision of the FTT. The full judgment is available at: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/106?query=A+Taxpayer&court=ewca%2Fciv

David Reaney and Emma Robinson explore HMRC’s publication, ‘Help with VAT compliance controls—Guidelines for Compliance GfC8’ and consider the implications for businesses. GfC8 was published in September 2024, but its profile has fallen well short of what would be expected for a publication of this level of detail and potential significance. On 25 September 2024 HMRC published ‘Help with VAT compliance controls—Guidelines for Compliance GfC8’. This publication has 10 parts and, if printed, would exceed 40 pages in length. On the landing page for the publication, HMRC states: “These Guidelines for Compliance (GfC) set out HMRC’s recommended approach and are designed to help you understand our expectations as you plan, carry out, and review the accounting and compliance processes that ensure VAT is accurately declared by your business.” In this article we have summarised, at a high level, the content within the publication. This summary is not intended to provide knowledge of the detail but rather act as a series of prompts to spark the reader’s interest in exploring it further. We expect that many of these concepts should be familiar to larger businesses but perhaps less so for small or medium sized ones. In our experience the existence of this guidance is not widely known and with HMRC’s clear statement around expectations, especially in an environment of increased audit activity, it is important for businesses to ensure they have considered the application of this guidance to their business. 1. Overview—Key Takeaways In our view, the best way to understand and digest the content is to start with two key messages which are threads running through the content. HMRC expect businesses to have written processes and procedures for their VAT compliance. HMRC expects VAT to be included in an overall tax control framework which should include risks identified, controls to address the risks, an identified owner of the risks and processes to monitor the risks and the response on an ongoing basis. In our experience many businesses still do not have detailed written procedures for VAT compliance and a range of different approaches to tax control frameworks is applied. Given HMRC’s assumption that the ‘digital journey’ under Making Tax Digital for VAT is able to be evidenced, e.g. by flow diagram, we expect almost all businesses will have work to do to meet the HMRC expectations as outlined in GfC8. 2. Summary of Guidelines for Compliance GfC8 The guidelines encompass a range of topics designed to cover the tax compliance process and are set out into 10 different parts. The best way to understand how these fit together is to split them into (i) topics focused on the end-to-end VAT compliance process and (ii) topics which have been identified as specific risks within that process. A. End-to-end process 1. Purpose, scope and audience The guidelines are for UK VAT registered businesses who use invoice accounting, meaning they account for VAT when invoices are issued and received (essentially this will be all VAT registered businesses aside from those operating special schemes, e.g. cash accounting). They provide the taxpayer with HMRC’s recommended approach and are designed to help the taxpayer as it carries out and reviews the accounting and compliance processes to ensure VAT is accurately declared. 2. General approach to VAT compliance controls This section provides information on good practices to help manage VAT accounting and compliance processes which includes (but is not limited to): Risk management; Control design considerations; and Documentation for internal controls. 3. Order-to-cash The overall control objective of Order-to-Cash (‘O2C’) is the timely, complete and accurate recording of transaction and payments. O2C represents the typical set of business functions used to manage Business to Business customer orders from sales order, fulfilment, billing, customer payments and recording transactions in financial accounts.  4. Procure-to Pay The overall control objective of Procure-to-Pay (‘P2P’) is the timely, complete and accurate recording of transactions and payments received. P2P represents the typical set of business functions used to manage Business to Business purchasing processes and include purchase orders, receipt of supply, tax invoice being received, credit notes and discount adjustments and supplier payments. 5. Record to report Record to report (‘R2R’) is an accounting process which involves collecting, processing and presenting information to provide strategic, financial and operational analysis. It also covers the steps involved in preparing and reporting the overall accounts. R2R covers both external and internal reporting and generally, the R2R function is not engaged in processing transactions but instead focuses on the aggregation of existing data to meet reporting requirements. B. Specific risk areas identified 6. Employee expenses Often viewed as a high-risk area by HMRC, expenses processes exist for capturing, authorising and paying various kinds of reimbursed business costs to employees. HMRC has set out guidance for various control points on employee expenses relating to the system configuration, the expense process, business entertainment and auditing the expense claims. 7. VAT reporting Relevant for business who adopt invoice accounting, it includes detail on VAT reporting control objectives for the following categories (note this list is not exhaustive): Organisational unit structure, General ledger posting, Making Tax Digital for VAT regulations, VAT reports, Consolidation of return figures, and Manual adjustments.  8. VAT reporting—manual adjustments Manual adjustments to VAT reporting can occur for different reasons including consolidation of totals from separate business functions or systems. HMRC have included detail on control objectives for common types of adjustments including adjustments for errors and corrections, how to deal with one-off or irregular supplies such as disposal of assets, adjustments under the capital goods scheme or partial exemption restrictions and bad debt adjustments. 9. Outsourcing Businesses processes such as IT services, legal services, financial and accounting services can be outsourced as well as the businesses VAT compliance function. Even where the business chooses to outsource some functions this does not outsource the risk, and legal responsibility remains with the commissioning organisation. 10. Next steps It is expected that businesses may recognise new elements of good practice and it is HMRC’s view that implementing the guidelines can lead to improvements in systems and processes. Businesses are encouraged to take proactive steps to ensure compliance which might include: Reviewing and updating record-keeping practices; Implementing internal compliance audits; Developing a compliance strategy; Engaging with HMRC; and Stay informed about penalties.  3. Conclusion Despite its low profile to date, this guidance marks a key development in the UK's tax compliance landscape. By outlining clear expectations and emphasising the importance of transparency, accountability, and communication, these guidelines aim to foster a more compliant and efficient business environment. Businesses should take proactive steps to align with these guidelines, ensuring that they are well-prepared. With careful planning, businesses can navigate the new compliance framework successfully and avoid potential penalties for non-compliance. Referring back to the two key messages outlined above, we would encourage businesses to review internal written processes on controls and the overall tax control framework to ensure that these would at least meet, if not exceed, HMRC’s expectations. Perhaps the best way to assess your current position is to consider how you would demonstrate that you meet HMRC’s expectations should you be asked to do so in a VAT visit in the near future. Finally, we would encourage particular attention is paid to the specific areas of risk such as employee expenses. If you have queries about any specific section, please contact us. David Reaney FCA, CTA, is Indirect Tax Partner at KPMG Emma Robinson CTA, Indirect Tax Associate Director at KPMG

David Duffy discusses one Irish High Court case in relation to VAT waivers of exemption, as well as Revenue manuals on various matters. Right to deduct VAT In Killarney Consortium v Revenue Commissioners [2024] IEHC 732, the High Court upheld a decision of the Tax Appeals Commission (“TAC”) that a property owner was not liable to a clawback of VAT previously reclaimed as the relevant provisions of Irish VAT law were held to be in breach of EU law. The judgment considered the Irish VAT rules regarding waivers of exemption from VAT on lettings of property. A waiver was an election made by a landlord before 1 July 2008 to charge VAT on its lettings of property with a term of less than 10 years. While no new waivers could commence from 1 July 2008 onwards (as new VAT on property rules became effective on that date), pre-existing waivers continued to apply to lettings in property which had been acquired by the lessor before 1 July 2008. In addition, the legislation continued to provide for a clawback to Revenue of the excess of any input VAT reclaimed over output VAT paid in connection with a waiver, when it was subsequently cancelled. It was these waiver cancellation provisions that were the specific focus of the case. The taxpayer, Killarney Consortium, (the “Consortium”) purchased a property in 2004 for development and letting. The Consortium exercised the waiver of exemption and reclaimed VAT on the purchase of the property and associated costs. However, due to the property market downturn, the property remained vacant for significant periods and the VAT charged on rents was significantly less than the VAT reclaimed. The Consortium sold the property in 2017 at a significant loss. While was paid on the sale of the property, the VAT originally reclaimed still exceeded the VAT paid by approximately €590,000. Irish law provides that where a waiver has been exercised and is subsequently cancelled a clawback of the deficit is payable. Consequently, Revenue issued an assessment to the Consortium for the deficit amount. The Consortium appealed against the Assessment on the basis that the property had only and ever been used by it for taxable activities. It argued that EU VAT law made no provision for a clawback of VAT merely because the level of input VAT deducted exceeded the level of output VAT paid. The TAC had found in favour of the Consortium and determined that the assessment should be reduced to zero. The High Court, in upholding the decision of TAC, confirmed that where a business is fully engaged in taxable supplies (i.e. supplies of goods or services subject to VAT) it has a right to deduct input VAT incurred on purchases used for the purposes of those taxable supplies. This right to deduct arises irrespective of whether VAT charged on supplies exceeds VAT incurred on purchases. Provided VAT is chargeable on supplies, there is a right to deduct VAT incurred on costs associated with those supplies. The High Court held that the waiver cancellation was in these circumstances contrary to EU law and the principle of fiscal neutrality. The High Court referred to several cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union in support of its conclusion, including for example Feudi di San Gregorio Aziende Agricole SpA (C-341/22), where it was held that the right to deduct VAT cannot be limited by future economic performance. As such, the High Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner to disapply section 96(12) and reduce the Assessment to zero. We are not yet aware if the judgment will be further appealed by Revenue to the Court of Appeal. Revenue guidance updates Revenue have issued a number of new or updated guidance notes in relation to VAT since 1 January 2025. eBrief No. 001/25 updated the Tax and Duty Manual (“TDM”) on the management of special investment funds. This includes reference to changes in Finance Act 2024 which updated the definition of special investment funds to clarify that an alternative investment fund (“AIF”) managed by an Irish alternative investment fund manager (“AIFM”) comes within the scope of the VAT exemption for fund management. eBrief No. 001/25 issued a new TDM on the VAT treatment of heat pump heating systems. This again ties back to Budget 2025 and Finance Act 2024 changes to introduce the reduced 9% VAT rate to the supply and installation of heat pumps. The TDM notes that, “[t]he supply and installation of a heat pump heating system can include key equipment such as heating controls, radiators, underfloor heating emitters and the associated pipework where required to facilitate the effective/efficient operation of a heat pump.” eBrief No. 051/25 issued a new TDM on the VAT treatment relevant to taxi drivers. This confirms that while taxi services are exempt from VAT, VAT can nonetheless arise on related supplies such as taxi radio charges and facilitation fees charged by online platforms. David Duffy FCA, AITI, Chartered Tax Advisor, is Indirect Tax Partner at KPMG

Leontia Doran takes a look at the key tax changes which take effect from April 2025 and looks ahead at what we can expect in the coming years.    The new tax and financial year always sees a plethora of previously announced tax technical and administrative changes; 6 April 2025 and the start of the new Financial Year 2025 on 1 April 2025 are no different. This article aims to provide a flavour of the key changes taking effect from April 2025 and looks ahead to some major changes in the coming years. Employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) From 1 April 2025, employers are required to pay an increased rate of the National Minimum Wage and just days later from 6 April, a range of changes to employer NICs is resulting in higher wage bills. From 6 April 2025, the rate of Employer NICs increased from 13.8 percent to 15 percent and the 0 percent Employer NICs threshold reduced from £9,100 to £5,000, although the Employer NICs employment allowance increased from £5,000 to £10,500. These increased Employer NICs costs rise more sharply for businesses with lower-income employees which particularly impact on businesses who rely on part time staff such as in the retail and care sectors but especially for hospitality businesses. End of the non-domicile regime From 6 April 2025, the rules for the taxation of non-UK domiciled individuals, and specifically the remittance basis (RB) for foreign income/gains, came to an end. However, any foreign income/gains that arose on/before the 5 April 2025 which fell under the remittance basis are taxed under the previous rules when remitted. The concept of domicile as a relevant connecting factor in the UK tax system has now been replaced by a tax residence-based system. The new regime provides 100 percent relief on foreign income/gains for new arrivals to the UK in their first four years of UK tax residence provided the individual was not resident in any of the 10 prior consecutive years. For Capital Gains Tax (CGT) purposes, past remittance basis users are able to rebase foreign assets held on 5 April 2017 to the value at the disposal date provided they were non-UK domiciled up to 5 April 2025. A new Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF) is also available for individuals who previously claimed the RB. This enables them to designate and remit at a reduced tax rate foreign income/ gains prior to 6 April 2025. The TRF is available for a limited period of three tax years commencing in 2025/26 at a 12 percent rate for the first 2 years and 15 percent in the final year. The domicile-based system of Inheritance Tax (IHT) has also been replaced with a new residence-based system for long-term residents owning non-UK property not previously within the scope of UK IHT. An individual is long-term resident when they have been UK tax resident for at least 10 of the previous 20 tax years and they will remain as such three to 10 years after becoming non-resident.  Business asset disposal relief (BADR) and Investors’ Relief (IR) As a result of the increased rates of CGT from 30 October 2024, BADR and IR both increased from 10 percent to 14 percent from 6 April 2025 and both will further increase to 18 percent from 6 April 2026. The lifetime limit (LL) for BADR remains at £1 million. In contrast, the LL for IR reduced from £10 million to £1 million for all qualifying disposals made on or after 30 October 2024. To compound these phased increases, anti-forestalling rules aim to limit potential planning in this area. Treatment of double cab pick-ups (DCPUs) From 1 April 2025 for Corporation Tax and 6 April 2025 for Income tax and NICs purposes, HMRC treats most DCPUs as cars, and not vans, for direct tax purposes. HMRC has therefore changed its policy on these vehicles potentially leading to increased tax bills for employers, employees and businesses. Previously HMRC treated a DCPU with a payload of one tonne or more as a van for the purposes of benefit-in-kind calculations, capital allowances, and certain deductions from business profits. In so doing, HMRC was following the definitions of ‘car’ and ‘van’ that apply for VAT purposes. From April 2025, a vehicle will therefore only be treated as a van if the construction of the vehicle at the time it was made means that it is primarily suited for the conveyance of goods. Tax reporting requirements At the start of each new tax year, HMRC’s self-assessment returns get a bit of a makeover to reflect any changes to legislation. This year, those changes will not only reflect some previously announced decisions but also help deal with late rate changes. CGT rate changes Last October, the Chancellor announced that for gains on assets other than residential property, the basic rate of CGT rate increased from 10 percent to 18 percent, and the higher rate from 20 percent to 24 percent with effect from 30 October 2024.  At that point HMRC had already updated the 2024/25 SA100 return therefore unrepresented taxpayers must use a HMRC calculator to calculate and report an adjustment figure to get the correct CGT position in their return. Agents using commercial software should check that this is reflected correctly in their client’s return.  For trustees/personal representatives, a new adjustment box will be added to that return and a similar calculator will be provided for taxpayers. As a result, HMRC has requested that trusts/estates wait until the 2024/25 SA900 return is published to ensure that the correct rate of CGT is used. Cryptoassets For the first time, individuals with cryptoassets are required to report income/gains arising on these transactions separately on their return. A policy first announced by the previous Chancellor in 2023, this aims to assist HMRC in making use of the data it expects to start receiving from 2027 about these transactions. 2025/26 tax returns  New regulations also bring in further changes for 2025/26. If an unincorporated business commences/ceases in the tax year, the taxpayer must include the date of commencement/cessation in their return. This could prove challenging in scenarios where the relevant date is not easily determined, for example where an individual has been trading under the trading allowance and first needs to begin reporting trading income. Also from 2025/26, director’s receiving dividends from close companies must include the following in their return: Name and registered number of the company; Amount of dividend received from the company (declared separately from other dividends); and Details of the highest percentage of share capital held in the year. Looking ahead It’s also important to look ahead and plan for what future changes are hurtling down the tax tracks at us. 2026/27 will be another exceptional year for tax practitioners with a wide range of changes previously announced and already expected to take effect from 6 April 2026. Mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind In January 2024 the previous Government announced that from 6 April 2026 employers will be required to report and pay Income Tax and class 1A NICs on most benefits in kind (BIKs) in real-time via the employer’s full payment submission, effectively introducing mandatory payrolling of BIKs. Feedback provided to the Government about this change mainly centred around the potential for increases in employer administrative burdens in relation to reporting all BIKs in real-time and that due to potential delays in receiving invoice details of BIKs provided by third parties, accurate real-time reporting would not be possible for invoices received after the end of provision of the benefit. As a result, the Government has announced some amendments as follows:  the real time reporting of and payment of tax on BIKs will not commence from April 2026 for employment related loans and accommodation but will for all other BIKs with voluntary payrolling available for these BIKs from April 2026, The P11D/P11D(b) process will still be available for those that do not want to voluntarily payroll employment related loans and accommodation which will be mandated in due course, an end of year process will be introduced to amend the taxable values of any BIKs that cannot be determined during the tax year. However, the taxable values of most BIKs will still need to be reported as accurately as possible during the tax year, and HMRC will continue to monitor the penalty position in 2026/27 whilst employers get used to the new process of reporting BIKs in recognition that there will inevitably be a period of adjustment in the first year. IHT future changes The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the 2024 Autumn Budget that following the April 2025 changes to IHT territoriality, there would be further significant changes to IHT in the next two tax years.  Firstly, controversial reforms were announced to the IHT reliefs, agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR) which are expected to commence from April 2026. A new £1 million allowance will apply to the combined value of property that qualifies for 100 percent BPR or 100 percent APR or both. After this £1 million allowance has been exhausted, relief will apply at a lower rate of 50 percent to the combined value of qualifying agricultural and business property, effectively resulting in a 20 percent rate of IHT. The Government has already stated that it will not be consulting on this policy change, however a technical consultation is expected to take place on the draft legislation and a consultation is currently open seeking views on aspects of the application of the £1 million allowance for property settled into trust. Chartered Accountants Ireland has already discussed its concerns in relation to these proposals with HMRC and has highlighted the particularly damaging impact for Northern Ireland businesses and farms. Secondly, the Budget announced that from 6 April 2027 most unused pension funds and death benefits will be included within the value of a person’s estate for IHT purposes. Pension scheme administrators will also become liable for reporting and paying any IHT due on pensions to HMRC. Making Tax Digital (MTD) for Income Tax MTD for Income Tax is now less than a year from commencement with the first quarterly returns due to be submitted to HMRC on or before 7 August 2026. From 6 April 2026, the first phase of mandation for this major project commences for unincorporated businesses and landlords with total gross income from self-employment (excluding partnership income) and property in 2024/25 exceeding £50,000. Those with total gross income exceeding £30,000 will be mandated from 6 April 2027. Other income sources are not counted when assessing if the MTD turnover limit for mandation has been breached. In the Autumn Budget, the Government announced that the total gross income limit will drop to £20,000, the timeline for which will be set out at a later date within the current Parliament with no timeline currently set for the mandation of partnerships. Currently, taxpayers can voluntarily sign up to participate in testing MTD for Income Tax ahead of mandation. If a taxpayer is exempt or chose not to sign up voluntarily during the testing period, they must continue to report income and gains in a Self-Assessment tax return. If certain conditions are met, a taxpayer may be automatically exempt from MTD and does not need to apply for an exemption. MTD requires mandated taxpayers to: maintain digital accounting records in a software product/spreadsheet (paper records will not satisfy the legislative requirements), and submit quarterly updates to HMRC by the seventh day of the month after each quarter end (5 July, 5 October, 5 January and 5 April unless calendar months are elected for), and finalise their tax position after the end of the tax year (the final declaration is due by 31 January after the end of the tax year). Quarterly updates must be submitted using functional compatible software which can interact with HMRC's API (application program interface). This will require the taxpayer to either purchase a suitable commercial software product or appoint an agent to submit information to HMRC on their behalf using such software. Quarterly updates are intended to be a simple summary of transactions and a final, year-end return will also be required within which any tax and accounting adjustments will be made. The due dates for paying tax will be unchanged. Agents and taxpayers should take action now to prepare for this major change and consider signing up voluntarily to testing in 2025/26 which is subject to a number of eligibility conditions. Agents should also plan ahead and consider the impact on their practice and the steps needed to prepare both their business and their clients. Leontia Doran is UK Tax Manager and Tax NI Subject Lead for Student Education with Chartered Accountants Ireland. Email: leontia.doran@charteredaccountants.ie

Maura Ginty of Gintax discusses the Start-up Relief for Entrepreneurs. She explains how this all too often overlooked relief is potentially extremely valuable to new-stage entrepreneurs leaving employment to commence their own business venture.  Start-Up Relief for Entrepreneurs (SURE) is an Irish income tax relief targeted at founders of new businesses who leave employment to start their own company full time. The relief works so the individual can receive a refund of Irish income tax paid over the prior seven years on an investment in their new company. A total of twenty-seven individuals claimed the relief in 2022, with only a slightly higher number of claimants in 2021 and 2020.  Anecdotal experience suggests that many more could have been entitled to the relief.  To my mind there are two primary reasons for this—the complexity and the investment requirement.  While in some respects these are valid concerns, they are not insurmountable, and should not be the immediate ‘dealbreakers’ they seem to have become.  This article gives a general overview of the relief and the key provisions that are likely to have an impact in practice. It does not attempt to be comprehensive and is intended to be a general overview to establish potential eligibility. First, some further background on the two challenges noted above. The headline challenges 1. The regime generally / complexity The SURE regime is complex and convoluted.  SURE is drafted as an add-on to the Employment Investment Incentive Scheme (EIIS) rules with the EIIS being the tax incentive scheme for third party individual investors in Irish SMEs. For SURE, a founder needs to meet specific SURE requirements in addition to general EIIS rules. The specific EIIS sensitivities are well trodden by now but to refresh: EIIS is niche area of tax law with any eligible investments triggering a tax risk for the business – even an administrative error can result in full clawback of investor tax relief as a company liability.  The EIIS regime is a form of EU State Aid, with many terms in Irish law imposed directly from EU regulation albeit with no formal definitions attaching to these terms (which would be the norm in Irish tax law). Helpfully, this is one of the few areas of tax law in which a taxpayer may request an advance opinion from the Revenue Commissioners.  However, there is no time limit for Revenue engagement, and this creates further uncertainty for clients (usually in midst of a fundraising round with a 31 December deadline). Notwithstanding the above, in my view, many of the peculiar EIIS sensitivities resulting from EU regulations should not impact a new stage business, such as a SURE company, particularly in cases where a founder was simply an employee with no other business or family business interests. Certainly, there are aspects which will require careful management, such as preparation of a formal business plan, but these should not lead practitioners and their clients to discount a SURE claim. 2. Requirements for founder to invest in share capital Another reason for low take up is the requirement for a founder to invest in actual share capital of the company.  In contrast, the default market practice tends to be the issue of nominal share capital to the founder with any further investment being simply lent by them to the company, as a director’s loan. The latter is straightforward and as the company generates cashflow, the loan can be repaid in a tax neutral manner.  The initial client conversation in relation to SURE usually stops on this topic. However, to my mind, two further factors need to be borne in mind: Where a company is to subsequently seek external investors, then it is often a commercial requirement that any directors loan is converted into share capital at that point in time.  In many cases, at that stage it is too late to claim SURE in relation to the founder investment. Even after a SURE investment, it is still possible for the founder to take a salary from the company which will enable them to finance their day to day living expenses at startup stage. While salary is taxable income, it should be noted that the effective Irish tax rate for a single individual on a €30,000 salary is circa 12 per cent (being USC, PRSI and income tax after credits). This can be contrasted favourably with SURE tax relief which now can result in maximum refund of up to 50 per cent of the amount invested. Overview of the relief On paper, the relief appears generous with a maximum relief in any single tax year of €140,000 but this can potentially be claimed over 7 separate years. As a result, technically a single cash investment of up to €980,000 would be eligible for relief.  The relief ideally suits an individual who had a substantial employment income in recent years (such as share option gains, termination payment or even simply a significant salary), has no other business interests and wishes to commence a new business. Tax relief available There were significant changes introduced to the EIIS regime, effective from 1 January 2024 as a result of amendments to the underlying EU regulation. Prior to this, the quantum of tax relief available was at a person’s marginal rate (up to 40 percent) for qualifying investments, subject to an overall cap. The new changes result in varying amounts of relief, depending on the particular stage of the business life cycle.    These changes now apply to SURE investments. I would expect that most qualifying SURE claims could be eligible for tax refunds at up to 50 per cent or 35 per cent of the amount of investment. The differing rates apply as follows: Where the company is not yet operating in any market, the rules operate so that an income tax refund of up to 50 per cent of the investment could be available (relief is available at 125 per cent of the amount invested;  the marginal income tax rate is 40 per cent).  The term “not operating in any market” derives from EU regulation and Irish Revenue regard this as an operation that has not yet made its first commercial sale.  Where a company is operating in a market, then a tax refund of up to 35 per cent could be available (relief available at 87.5 per cent of the amount invested). For the reliefs noted above (50 per cent and 35 per cent), the investment would need to be classified as “initial risk finance” which relates to early-stage companies (as defined). Most SURE eligible investments should be in this “initial risk” category. However, there is a technical provision for a lower rate to apply. In the context of the terms above, the requirements (as to first commercial sale/initial risk finance, etc.) technically need to be met by all entities within an “RICT group”—a concept derived from EU Regulation.  Further, many other EIIS conditions apply by reference to this concept. For SURE specifically, I would expect that a newly established business owned by an individual who had been in long term employment (with no other business interests) to be a standalone “RICT group”. Thus, the references in this article are to a singular company. SURE – headline conditions The key conditions for SURE are:  A company must be established carrying on a new business. There is two-year window to make the SURE investment and it must be made by 31 December in the second year after the company’s incorporation. The trade activity must be new, and the company cannot have taken over an existing trade, such as a sole trade.  The individual must: Have mainly employment (PAYE) income in the previous four years. Take up full-time employment in the new company - an existing employment can be retained for up to 10 hours per week (there is no stipulation as to salary level). Invest cash in the new company by acquiring shares - there is also a provision for relief on conversion of existing directors’ loans within a certain timeframe (this route will require an auditor’s statement). Retain the shares for at least four years. Hold at least 15 percent of the shares in the company. Not hold more than 15 percent of any other company (this requirement can rule out many employees who have had other business ventures). There is a requirement that the company carry on “relevant trading activities”—this definition includes most trades apart from those on an “excluded” list. Excluded trades include financing activities, professional services, and land dealing. Professional services are specifically defined and include legal, accounting and medical services.  The exclusion does not extend to engineering or computer programming. “Research and Development and Innovation” activities may also be permissible. The relief could apply to new tech startups or also to those entering traditional sectors, including consultancy services.  Specific EIIS requirements for SURE investments Qualifying company The company will need to be regarded as a “qualifying company” which is the same requirement as the current EIIS rules. This involves tests such as being an SME, satisfying the “undertaking in difficulty” test, and the requirement to have tax clearance. The conditions can be limiting—especially the requirement that the company cannot be under the control of another company—limiting flexibility for founders, or other controlling shareholders, with a holding company structure often their preference.  Qualifying investment Similarly, the EIIS “qualifying investment” requirements will need to be met—key here is that the money must contribute directly to the creation or maintenance of employment.  While the EIIS conditions requiring there to be no arrangements to reduce investor risk are still applicable, in practice they should not cause any commercial difficulty for a founding shareholder. The investment must be based on a business plan. In drafting the plan, consideration should be given to the scenario where EIIS is either to be offered or potentially offered to new external investors. Administrative requirements / clawback risk There are administrative requirements which need to be met including submission of a specific tax return (RICT return) by the company and provision of a Statement of Qualification (SQSURE3) to the founder. The actual technical administrative requirements are not unduly onerous, but it is critical they are met. Similar to EIIS, there is a provision which deems clawback of tax relief to be a liability of the company in certain cases, e.g. where the Statement of Qualification is incorrect, such that the company will not be considered a “qualifying company”. Summary In conclusion, while SURE relief offers significant potential benefits for founders of new businesses, its complexity and specific requirements (outside of commercial norms) have clearly limited the uptake. There has been much lobbying of Government to simplify the entire suite of investment reliefs, with particular focus on the prohibition of a holding company and for SURE specifically, its restriction to employees only. Given the lack of success to date, one would suggest that all stakeholders reconsider the SURE rules as they stand—especially for cases where founders are satisfied to progress with a standalone company. One also hopes the soon-to-be updated Irish Revenue guidance documentation on SURE/EIIS will better assist all parties navigate matters here. Maura Ginty is a Chartered Accountant and Chartered Tax Advisor with over 20 years of professional experience advising clients. She advises Irish and international businesses at all stages of development from start-up, expansion in Ireland and abroad, acquisition, day-to-day operations, and restructuring to succession and disposal.

In a unsettled world in which global temperatures continue to rise, accounting for sustainability has never been more important, writes Susan Rossney  On 26 February 2025, the European Commission proposed changes to the laws governing, among other things, sustainability reporting.  Regardless of any changes to sustainability reporting legislation, there will be little let-up in the momentum of the sustainability policy developments impacting those accountants working to embed sustainability in company strategies and operations. Accountants and sustainability  ‘Sustainability’ is a broad term, defined in 1987 by the United Nations (UN) as: “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.  Financial professionals often describe it as ‘ESG’—i.e. measuring an organisation against specific environmental, social and governance metrics.  The need to gather the data required to measure business performance, and allow investors to compare businesses, is one of the many reasons sustainability has become increasingly important for accountants.  Even before the introduction of legislation compelling disclosure of sustainability information, however, many businesses had been working hard to integrate sustainability into their operations. This is partly because it makes good business sense—reduced energy costs being just one of them—but also because businesses are run by and for people who appreciate that businesses depend on a functioning society. And society, in turn, needs functioning ecosystems—energy, raw materials and a healthy workforce with access to clean air, clean water, food and security.  The risk of the ‘wicked problem’  Climate change and biodiversity collapse are archetypal ‘wicked problems’, a term coined in the 1970s by design theorists Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber. Wicked problems describe planning and social policy problems that seem difficult or impossible to solve. They resist resolution. Like Whac-A-Moles, you hit one part of a wicked problem on the head and another one pops up to surprise you.  Solving wicked problems requires thousands of stakeholders to do “everything, everywhere, all at once,” as UN Secretary-General António Guterres has put it.  With all indicators pointing to a relentless rise in global temperatures, both mitigation (reducing harmful emissions) and adaptation (adapting to the effects of climate change—wildfires, floods, droughts, migration, costs etc) have never been more necessary for businesses to mitigate risks.  Systemic risks Systemic risks are the widespread and interconnected threats posed by the climate and biodiversity crises to the stability of financial systems and the global economy.  These risks include the world reaching so-called ‘tipping points’—levels of global warming and rising sea levels from which there is no return, for example.   A report commissioned by the European Central Bank in 2022 found that climate risk could substantially amplify losses in an interconnected financial system of banks, investment funds and insurers.  In a report published in December 2024, the European Central Bank and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority warned that climate change is increasing the frequency of natural disasters, resulting in multibillion euro costs left uncovered by insurance.  In January 2025, global reinsurer Aon disclosed that economic losses resulting from natural disasters in 2024 totalled $368 billion, marking 2024 as the ninth consecutive year of losses exceeding $300 billion.   Physical risks The physical risks to businesses can be both acute and chronic.  An example of an acute physical risk is a wildfire, such as the Los Angeles wildfires that took place in the US in January, which are likely to be one of the costliest natural disasters in US history.  A chronic risk could be a drought, such as those that cause water shortages in regions in which semiconductors are manufactured—a core component of enabling technologies critical to economic growth, national security and global competitiveness.  Along with the loss of life and suffering of those caught up in these physical events and their immediate and long-term aftermath, there are also risks to business. These include damaged assets, raw materials shortages, environmental degradation (such as those affecting tourism industries), resource scarcity, supply chain disruptions and business interruption.  Transition risks In the context of business and climate change, transition risks are the financial and operational uncertainties businesses face in the shift towards a low-carbon economy.  These transition risks include fluctuating costs and secure energy supply as the economy and societies transition to net zero. They also include increased operating costs for waste management and insurance and exposure to carbon tax liability, which is expected to rise to €100 per tonne of CO2 emitted in Ireland by 2030.  Recent reports from the World Economic Forum warn that climate inaction could cost businesses up to seven percent of annual earnings by 2035. Other risks include reputational risk and a threat to a company’s ‘social licence to operate,’ as well as legal challenges.  In 2024, London’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment reported that there are 2,666 ongoing climate litigation cases globally, noting a rise in the number of climate cases filed against companies. Another transition risk for businesses is their potential inability to secure lower-cost funding, as lenders and investors increasingly seek information on sustainability-related risks.  Equally, a company’s existing products or services could become obsolete in the transition, while competitors may gain an advantage by adopting new technologies and attracting or retaining valuable talent as more and more candidates vet companies’ ESG credentials before deciding to join or remain with a business.  This shift in preference towards more sustainably run companies extends to an organisation’s ability to tender for contracts, particularly in the public sector with the rise of green public procurement practices. In Ireland, for example, the Government published Buying Greener: Green Public Procurement Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2027 in April 2024 with the aim of driving green and circular procurement practices across the public sector. With annual public sector purchasing accounting for 10 to 12 percent of Ireland’s gross domestic product, this plan will likely influence a significant portion of economic activity and demand.  Regulations and policies Businesses must carefully consider sustainability-related regulations and policies that affect every level of the economy, from international to local. At the international level, treaties such as the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework join supranational policy initiatives, such as the EU Green Deal and EU Biodiversity Strategy, to ensure specific climate action and biodiversity protection commitments cascade to the national policy level.  Sustainability is one of the core pillars of Northern Ireland’s 10X Strategy where the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 requires at least 80 percent of electricity consumption in the region to be from renewable sources by 2030.  The Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for Government 2024-2027, Our Plan: Doing What Matters Most, prioritises the development of a globally competitive and sustainable economy while also focusing on protecting the environment.  The UK government recently published its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan in which it commits to achieving all 23 targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework at home. More recently, the UK government published the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs’ Corporate Plan for 2025-2027 which sets a strategic direction for its path towards a transition to a net-zero, nature-positive future. Ireland has implemented similar policies to achieve its climate and biodiversity targets through successive Climate Action Plans and sectoral targets for emissions. Additionally, under the fourth National Biodiversity Action Plan, a key objective is to engage 900 businesses in the Business for Biodiversity Ireland initiative by the end of 2025.  Other measures will prevent companies from making misleading claims about the environmental merits of their products and services, while also helping Ireland to transition to a circular economy.  Achieving the legally binding climate targets established under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2021, which aims to ensure Ireland meets its national emissions reduction targets, is critical from both a financial and a climate perspective.  In December 2024, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (IFAC) warned that the climate transition poses Ireland’s second largest budgetary challenge, second only to our ageing population.  In a 2025 joint report with the Climate Change Advisory Council, IFAC estimated that failure to meet our climate targets would incur penalties of up to €8 billion for Ireland and €26 billion for Europe. Alongside these policy developments, businesses will be required to gather more climate, nature and biodiversity information this year and beyond — and accountants in  the public and private sectors will play a critical role in managing it.  In a shock-prone world where all indicators point to a relentless rise in global temperatures, accounting for sustainability has never been more crucial.  Chartered Accountants Ireland’s Sustainability Centre offers guidance and resources for businesses. Additionally, members can subscribe to the Institute’s fortnightly Technical Round Up and weekly Sustainability/ESG Bulletins, both included in the weekly Chartered Accountants Ireland newsletter, and on LinkedIn.    Susan Rossney is Sustainability Advocacy Manager at Chartered Accountants Ireland

As the founder of Bleeper, the Dublin-based bike sharing venture, Hugh Cooney, FCA, is playing a crucial role in supporting and promoting sustainable travel in the nation’s capital A 2016 trip to China prompted a career change for Chartered Accountant Hugh Cooney who would go on to launch Bleeper, his Dublin-based dockless bike rental start-up, the following year. “It was when I was in China that I saw the world’s first standalone bike-sharing scheme,” Cooney explains.  “Up until then, it was all bikes at fixed locations. These standalone bikes each had smart locks which were opened by an app. I really liked the concept, and I spent the next four months or so looking at how to bring it to Ireland.” Path to accountancy His foray into sustainable entrepreneurship wasn’t Cooney’s first career shift. Prior to his 2016 trip to China, he had already lived in Shanghai for five years, working for property developer Treasury Holdings, before returning home to train as a Chartered Accountant. “I moved back to Ireland in 2010. The jobs market was tough at the time due to the global financial crisis. I didn’t want to stick with the property business and decided to add a qualification to my CV. I had always been interested in accountancy and had studied it at college,” he says. “I saw that Chartered Accountants Ireland had launched its Elevation Programme in 2009 to enable people to become Chartered Accountants without a training contract.  “I thought it would be perfect for me and signed up for it in 2010. I got a job in PwC’s corporate finance division, did my Final Accounting Exams in 2013 and became a qualified Chartered Accountant.” A subsequent role with KPMG saw Cooney working on aspects of the Irish Banking Resolution Corporation (IBRC) administration.  “I joined KPMG in 2014 and worked on the sale of IBRC non-performing loans in their transaction services division. We had to get the loan book into a condition where buyers were happy with the information provided,” he says. Then came that lightbulb moment in China and the launch of Cooney’s Bleeper business: “I left KPMG in April 2017 and Bleeper opened for business soon after,” he says. The birth of Bleeper The name for Bleeper came to Cooney one day as he was walking past the Luas stop on Dublin’s Harcourt Street.  “I heard the ‘ding ding’ sound of the Luas. The bikes make a bleep sound when they are unlocked, so I decided to call it Bleeper.” Start-up finance came from a mix of sources. “At the start, I had a joint venture with a Chinese company. They contributed the bikes and I raised money from friends and family as well. We started with a thousand bikes and the Chinese company also made the software we used.” Having the bikes, software and finance in place was just the beginning, however. It’s not possible to simply start a bike-sharing business in a city like Dublin without some form of permit or licence.  For Cooney, this ultimately came down to the introduction of a set of bylaws by Dublin City Council.  “Dublin city centre is so complex and there is such competition for road space, Dublin City Council needed to put some rules around it,” he explains, paying tribute to the speed with which council officials and elected members of the Strategic Policy Committee approved the bylaws.  “It usually takes a few years, but they started working on the bylaws in June 2017 and they were approved the following December.” The council then ran a competition for two licences, one of which was awarded to Bleeper. “We were allowed to put our first bike in the Dublin City Council administrative area in June 2018,” Cooney says. Regular Bleeper users can buy a pass, while less frequent users can pay as they go. The pay-as-you-go rate is €1 to unlock the bike and four cent per minute thereafter.  “Our average trip is 17 minutes, and most people pay us €1.68. Under the bylaws, the bikes have to be locked to a public bike rack,” Cooney explains. “We are fined if they’re not locked to the racks, and we pass that on to the customer concerned. There is a chain on the bike which they use to lock it to the rack. Compliance is very good—less than one percent of users don’t follow the rules.” Since its launch, Bleeper has grown to include electric bike leasing and sales divisions. “People can lease a bike just like a car,” Cooney says.  “They pay by the week and can give it back at a week’s notice. We found that some customers want to buy an electric bike, but they are not cheap. The entry level is €2,000 and they can go right up to €5,000.  “We opened a shop on Lower Bridge Street and people can come in and take a bike for a test ride before they buy. Business is good and we’ve been profitable for the last couple of years. We are growing revenue every year and hope to continue on that path.” Mobility Partnership Ireland Bleeper was one of the founding members of Mobility Partnership Ireland (MPI)—a coalition of shared transport providers launched four years ago—and Cooney was recently elected as MPI Chair for the year ahead.  “MPI started with three member firms, including ourselves, Moby and Yuko. We had realised that all commercial operators in the sustainable transport space were meeting the same State officials. It was time-consuming and inefficient. We decided to come together as a collective for lobbying purposes and to promote sustainable transport generally,” Cooney says. Definitions of sustainable transport can vary. “For me, it is anything that is not a single passenger car journey. A car with four people in it isn’t unsustainable. Anything that is not a single occupancy car journey can be sustainable. “If you read the Climate Action Plan, the goal is to enable 500,000 daily sustainable travel journeys by 2030. It’s not realistic to ask people to give up their cars. People have lots of reasons to hold onto their cars.  “But, if it’s a sunny day, we can get them to ask themselves if they need to drive to work that day. It’s not about whether people have a car or an electric vehicle. It’s about the amount of time they use it.” Promoting sustainable transport Cooney believes more should be done to promote the sustainable travel targets set out in the Climate Action Plan. “I don’t see the Government advertising their Climate Action Plan target for sustainable journeys. They need to get out there and break the target down into smaller steps,” he says. Commercially operated sustainable transport services should be supported as part of the this, Cooney adds.  “A lot of people think public transport is publicly owned and funded but there are lots of alternative commercial providers,” he says.  “It needs a bit of a shift in mindset. All of the incentives and subsidies tend to go to publicly owned services, but more consideration needs to be given to commercially operated sustainable transport services.” Since its launch four years ago, MPI has grown to eight member firms, including Aircoach and FreeNow.  “Our plan is to work closely with the Minister for Transport and the National Transport Authority as one group. We want to break down the ‘us and them’ mentality that currently exists,” Cooney says. “We can easily get to the 500,000 trips target in sustainable transport if we all work together, and I believe we can get way more than that if commercially operated sustainable transport services are supported. “We want to work with the government to get more people out of the default habit of jumping in the car for every trip.” It isn’t always easy to get these ideas across to Government, however. “The process of making pre-budget submissions is very costly and time-consuming for businesses,” Cooney points out.  “You don’t get written answers or clarity on why proposals have not been accepted. There should be a downloadable template on the Department of Finance website. That would make it easier for businesses to make submissions and easier for the department to run the process.  “It’s not unreasonable to ask that they make it easier and to give people feedback on their submissions. We have put forward ways of encouraging people to use alternatives to their cars but haven’t got any response.” On a more positive note, Cooney sees lots of potential for Bleeper to grow.  “Less than six percent of people in Dublin commute to work on a bike. In Amsterdam and Copenhagen, it’s closer to 50 percent. The government target for Ireland is 15 percent. Our goal is to play a big role in reaching that target,” he says. Interview by Barry McCall

Dee Moran, FCA, explores the potential impact of the European Commission’s much-anticipated Omnibus package on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive  26 February 2025 felt like doomsday for many immersed in sustainability. After weeks of rumours, the European Commission published its first Omnibus package of simplification measures for sustainability reporting and regulation. If approved, these measures will substantially water down the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and EU taxonomy for sustainable activities.   In publishing the proposals, the European Commission noted that they would enable businesses “to grow and create quality jobs, attract investments, get the necessary funds for their transition towards a more sustainable economy and help the EU meet the Green Deal’s ambitious objectives”. Many in the profession were dismayed by the introduction of the new CSRD simplification proposals, however, particularly those that had just published their 2024 annual reports with the required environmental, social and governance (ESG) information included for the first time.  Their companies have invested heavily in sustainability reporting and, depending on their size, could now potentially fall out of scope of the CSRD under the new proposals.   Their less prepared counterparts, meanwhile, will have felt some relief that their own tardiness in starting their sustainability journey and preparing for CSRD reporting has been rewarded. So, where does the Omnibus package leave the future of CSRD reporting? Some of the proposed amendments are outlined here, with a short analysis for each. Timeline: two-year delay The Omnibus measures propose delaying the deadline for CSRD reporting by two years—to 2027 for wave two companies, and 2028 for wave three. The two-year ‘stop the clock’ proposal has generally been welcomed as it would give companies more time to prepare for CSRD reporting.  There are concerns among some, however, that the two-year delay is too long, with some maintaining that a 12-month lag would have been more effective in maintaining momentum. Budgets are already approved for next year, but securing the budget for a second year might be more challenging.   Overall, however, the proposed delay is being viewed as a welcome means to provide a much-needed breather for companies.  Threshold: employee numbers The European Commission’s Omnibus package proposes raising the threshold for numbers employed by companies in scope of the CSRD from 250 to 1,000 (and either a turnover greater than €50 million or balance sheet total exceeding €25 million). This proposal would reduce the number of companies in scope of the CSRD across Europe by about 80 percent—from 50,000 companies down to about 7,000.  The 7,000 figure is also substantially lower than the 11,000 companies obliged to report under the Non-Financial Reporting Directive.  The higher employee threshold proposal has met with varying reactions in the profession, with many expressing that 1,000 goes too far, and that 500 employees and above would be more proportionate. This will no doubt be debated at length in the months ahead.  It is worth pointing out, however, that companies that would not fall in-scope of the CSRD under the new proposed threshold may still opt to voluntarily adopt the proposed standard. Voluntary SME standard The Commission has proposed that it will adopt, by way of a delegated act, a voluntary sustainability reporting standard (VSME) to facilitate reporting of sustainability information by companies that are not in-scope for the CSRD.  This will be based on the revised voluntary sustainability reporting standard for non-listed micro, small and medium enterprises (VSME) submitted by the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) to the European Commission in December 2024. Value chain cap The Omnibus measures propose the introduction of a ‘value chain cap’. This move would serve to limit the information CSRD reporters can request from non-CSRD reporters in their value chain with fewer than 1,000 employees. They would not be permitted to request any information exceeding that specified in the revised VSME. While this proposal could potentially diminish the comprehensiveness of sustainability reports, it would also reduce the sustainability reporting burden on smaller companies and—provided that the revised VSME standard is comprehensive—should still provide companies in-scope of the CSRD with the value chain information they need. Reasonable assurance standards The requirement to have assurance on a sustainability report is a fundamental part of the CSRD, with limited assurance in the first instance and the potential to move to reasonable assurance following a review.  The Omnibus package seeks to remove the requirement for reasonable assurance as a means to streamline the reporting process, while also maintaining some oversight.  This proposal has been largely welcomed as it would reduce the cost of compliance for CSRD reporters and would also be less burdensome.  Some stakeholders have, however, voiced concerns that removing the need for reasonable assurance over the longer term may compromise the trustworthiness and reliability of data.  Investors, in particular, have been vocal about their need for accurate data to reduce the risk of greenwashing. Reasonable assurance would provide an additional level of comfort. European Sustainability Reporting Standards The Omnibus package commits to simplifying the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), including a reduction in the number of data points, clarification of provisions deemed unclear and an improvement in consistency with other pieces of legislation. With in excess of 1,100 data points, the volume and complexity of the ESRS has raised many concerns, and Chartered Accountants Ireland was critical of the high number of ESRS data points in our response to the initial public consultation on the draft ESRS.  The Omnibus proposes to simplify the ESRS by reducing the number of data points and focusing on qualitative over quantitative information.  The Commission has asked EFRAG to commence the work of simplifying the ESRS and to provide their technical advice by 31 October 2025. It is important, however, that sufficient time is allowed for proper consultation with stakeholders. Sector-specific standards The Omnibus proposal reverses the existing plan for sector-specific standards to be developed and adopted by the European Commission, a move that would have increased the number of data points required for CSRD reporting.  Again, there are varying views on this proposal in the profession. Some maintain that sector-specific standards would lead to more relevant and meaningful disclosures in specific industries while also providing for more effective comparability.  Others cite increased cost and complexity as a potential negative, particularly for companies operating across multiple sectors.  Double materiality assessment The Omnibus proposal does not change the CSRD’s double materiality perspective, meaning that companies remaining in scope will have to report on how sustainability risks affect their business and their own impact on people and the environment. The retention of the double materiality assessment (DMA) is not surprising given that it is a key requirement under the CSRD.  While cost and the availability of data have been cited by some as barriers to completing the DMA, the recommended reduction in ESRS data points and proposed two-year reporting delay should assist reporters in meeting this requirement.      What happens next? It is important to remember that these Omnibus simplification measures are just proposals. The next step will see these proposals reviewed by both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.  A staggered approach to the proposed amendments would see the ‘stop the clock’ proposals be approved in the first instance to give companies clarity on their reporting requirements for 2025.  The European Council and the European Parliament have already approved this amendment.  The proposal now needs to be approved formally by the Council and signed by the Presidents of both Institutions. It will then be published in the Official Journal, which is expected by the end of June. Member States have until 31 December 2025 to transpose into their national laws. We have been advocating for speedy transposition of the Directive to the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment , which has committed to prioritising this.  Once the ‘stop the clock’ proposal has been approved, this will allow time for the other proposals to be debated, and for EFRAG to develop and present to the European Commission a revised set of ESRS and a new set of voluntary standards based on the VSME.  The revised ESRS are expected to be adopted as soon as is practicable, but no later than six months after the entry into force of a revised CSRD.  Our professional accounting team at Chartered Accountants Ireland will continue to review these proposals, engage with members, other professional bodies and relevant stakeholders, and respond to European Commission and EFRAG consultations on your behalf. Our priority, as always, will be to represent our members in lending our voice to continued progress in the sustainability agenda that is also proportionate and cost-effective for companies.  While the initial reaction to the Omnibus package of proposals was mixed, it has been encouraging to hear from many in the profession that a reduced scope would allow them to better focus on material matters and on gathering quality data, while the delayed timeline would also give them greater scope to prepare thoroughly for CSRD reporting.  Dee Moran, FCA, is Professional Accountancy Lead at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Martina Goss, FCA, continues to broaden her skill set to support sustainable entrepreneurship and ESG progress in Ireland and beyond Martina Goss, FCA, is leveraging her financial knowledge and expertise in business strategy and lean methodologies to help start-ups and SMEs succeed, innovate and build sustainable strategies aligned with Ireland’s climate goals. Here, she tells Accountancy Ireland about the career path that has seen her pivot from finance to supporting Ireland’s entrepreneurial community and more besides.  Q. What first sparked your interest in sustainability and the whole area of environmental, social and governance?  I have always had a love of nature. I grew up in rural Ireland and, today, I live in the countryside in Co. Louth surrounded by mountains, nature and wildlife.  A few years ago, I pivoted my career away from pure finance to what I do now, offering training and business coaching to start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). That shift brought me into contact with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and the entrepreneurs doing amazing things on the ground to progress these goals. I look at environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles in a holistic way. I’m not just interested in nature and climate change, but also in the human aspect—the ‘S’ in ‘ESG’ and, in particular, the focus of the fourth UN SDG on ensuring inclusive, equitable and quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all. To this end, I began working in 2023 as a facilitator with Global Youth Forum, a non-profit in Kenya that offers life-skills coaching, mentoring and sports programmes to young people with the aim of equipping them with the skills to improve their lives by securing a job or starting a business. Q. Tell us about that career pivot: what prompted it?  I started my career in practice before transitioning into industry where I held financial roles in many different organisations.  Then, in 2015, I did Chartered Accountants Ireland’s first ever Diploma in Strategic Finance and Business Analytics. That was the turning point for me.  By complete chance, while I was looking for a project for the course, I met an entrepreneur who was taking part in New Frontiers, Enterprise Ireland’s national entrepreneur development programme. He had a sustainable business idea for flood defence and wanted support from someone with a business background. I needed an idea for my diploma, so we did this match transaction.  At that stage, I knew I wanted to move beyond focusing solely on the numbers of a business. Fast forward a few years and I became the programme manager of New Frontiers at both Dundalk Institute of Technology and Invent, DCU’s commercialisation and technology transfer unit. Whilst managing that programme, I was introduced, not just to the world of start-ups and innovation but also entrepreneurs building sustainable businesses in alignment with the UN’s SDGs. Later, I reskilled as a Lean Start Up Coach, training with Ash Maurya, the founder of Leanstack in the US. He is the author and creator of the Lean Canvas, a business modelling tool used by businesses worldwide. Q. Can you describe the work you do today and the services you offer?  I work predominantly with start-ups and SMEs, helping them with their business strategy, reimagining their business models and innovating in a sustainable manner, so they can successfully launch or reinvent products and services. My work combines my expertise as a Chartered Accountant and Lean Start-up Coach and increasingly incorporates ESG. Last year, I completed my second course with Chartered Accountants Ireland, this time a certificate in sustainability strategy, risk and reporting. Innovation is a big focus for many of my clients. They understand the world is rapidly changing and they know they need to reassess their business model, but they may feel a little stuck or challenged as to where to start.  They may have new products or services they want to launch, or they might want to adapt what they are already doing to changing customer needs and market trends.  At the forefront of my work is the idea that you must always listen to the market—to what your customers want and the problem you solve for them.   We do a deep dive into their business model. We look at why the company exists—what problem does it solve for customers? What is its vision? What are its goals and strategy to compete?  We look at trends in the marketplace, we talk to the company’s customers and stakeholders. We use that information, both qualitative and quantitative, to reimagine the company’s business model and its products and services. The aim is to create a business model that is financially viable, desirable for its customers and sustainable for the planet.  Q. Where does ESG come into the work you do with these companies?  It comes back to that critical piece in any business strategy—listening to the market trends and responding to customer needs. Developing new products and services is the perfect opportunity to blend sustainability and innovation together into one. More people today are thinking about sustainable products and sustainable business practices because they are concerned about the climate crisis and the need to decarbonise our economies. This is a market trend, so, by embedding sustainable practices into their strategy and operations, start-ups and SMEs can help to ensure long term viability. There is a cost involved at the outset, but it is worth mentioning that, by incorporating Lean practices into their business model, businesses can eliminate costly waste. There is often so much waste in organisations. Lean start-up principles, when applied to new product development, can have a considerable ESG impact on a business because they fundamentally seek to minimise waste.  Q. What would you like to see happen now to support the advancement of ESG in Ireland and beyond?  From my perspective working with businesses, I think what is required to galvanise the ESG movement is a change in mindset. Businesses are run by people, so the shift in mindset is down to the individual—to each and every one of us.  This starts with small changes in our personal lives where we can embrace a more minimalist way of living, consume less and cut down on the excess in our lives. We buy too much. We have too much waste.  The Sustainable Progress Index 2025, published in February by Social Justice Ireland, ranked Ireland ninth out of 14 comparable EU countries overall, but placed us in the bottom five for nine SDGs, including responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). According to Social Justice Ireland, we continue to generate a significant amount of municipal waste per capita, while the recycling rate of our municipal waste and circular material use is low. So, I think we all need to think about our own consumption, and about what we can do to cut down on the waste we generate.  I believe that, if each one of us was just one percent better, the collective impact would be massive. These changes at an individual level can then feed into new businesses and start-ups launched by people with ESG principles at their core, in terms of what they are bringing to market or how their businesses operate with sustainability, minimal waste and other societal benefits at their core.  Critically, as Chartered Accountants, we have quite a vast skill set we can apply to helping businesses delivering ESG benefits. For younger generations, ESG is already instilled in their mindset. They care about the future of the planet, about climate change and a fair and just society.  Businesses today can’t afford to overlook this fundamental shift in what people and the market wants.  Real change comes when you believe in it and work towards it. 

Kate van der Merwe, FCA, has carved out an impressive career in sustainability driven by her passion to effect positive societal and climate change  An abiding sense of adventure and curiosity has guided Kate van der Merwe’s career from accounting to sustainability, and from the corporate realm to the world of nonprofits, as she continues to pursue her passion to effect positive societal and climate change. Originally from KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa’s east coast, van der Merwe studied social science at the University of Cape Town before qualifying in Ireland as a Chartered Accountant and forging a successful career as a sustainability consultant. Driven to explore “I think it’s my background in social science that has made me so curious and driven to explore,” van der Merwe says. “The social sciences have a good dose of curiosity and exploration, but in the early stages of my career, I found myself struggling a bit to find roles in the messy ‘real world’.  “I lived in the UK on a working visa for two years after college and, being a South African, my mobility was restricted. I decided to go into Chartered Accountancy to open doors and cross borders. “At the time, I told my humanities-driven self that finance was the linchpin of economic systems, and it might one day allow me to effect some positive societal change.”  Van der Merwe relocated to Ireland in 2006 to train as a Chartered Accountant with a firm in Dublin. Her qualification in 2009 coincided with the onslaught of the global financial crisis, however, prompting her to return to Southern Africa, where she spent five months travelling around the region. “It really was a case of ‘when life gives you lemons’, because that trip was pivotal for me,” she says.  “It brought me back to my childhood surrounded by so much biodiversity. I was fortunate growing up that, during the holidays, we were able to go to the beach, to the mountains and, every now and again, to the bush.”  “Years later, my childhood experience would also become the driving force behind my interest in the social aspect of environmental, social and governance (ESG) principles. “The apartheid system was still in place when I was at primary school and then Nelson Mandela was released, and we had our first democratic elections in 1994. Those experiences instilled in me an awareness of the importance of social justice and equality.”  Early career Van der Merwe returned to Ireland in 2011 to take up finance roles, first in the pharmaceutical industry and then in the technology sector. “I joined Google and I was immersed in this environment in which values, such as sustainability, were on the agenda. Google was doing interesting work in renewable energy innovation at the time. “Then I received my naturalisation to become an Irish citizen, and that stability compelled me to think about what I could do to become an active participant in bringing about positive change. I started to find my voice.” At the time, van der Merwe says she felt an “urgent sense of responsibility” in the face of the burgeoning climate crisis and global biodiversity loss. She decided to embark on a master’s in renewable energy and environmental finance at UCD Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School, dropping to part-time hours with Google to facilitate her studies. “My master’s marked a sea change for me—a deliberate journey of exploration. The key was finding the strength to speak up about the things that are important to me, and that’s not necessarily easy to do,” says van der Merwe. Once her master’s was complete, she joined Trócaire, where she became Financial Planning and Analysis Manager, supporting the NGO’s carbon measurement and reporting processes, and developing organisational carbon budgets.  “I wanted to return to working with an NGO, on a short-term contract. I was looking for a total contrast to the powerful, cash-rich corporate world—a grounding experience, working in a much more resource-constrained environment. “Fortunately, thanks to my network, a nine-month role came through with Trócaire and I stayed with them for a year-and-a-half. “I really grew with Trócaire. It is an amazing organisation with many passionate, committed people who are so bold in how they approach the change they want to make. That perspective was invaluable.” Transformational projects In the years since—and now on the cusp of taking up a new role with Hometree, the nature restoration charity—van der Merwe has worked as a sustainability consultant, lending her considerable expertise to the advancement of transformational projects at the intersection of finance, social and environmental sustainability. Her advocacy efforts extend beyond this work, however, to a range of voluntary roles, including board member with the Irish Social Enterprise Network and advisory committee member with Friends of the Earth Ireland. Van der Merwe is also a member of Chartered Accountants Ireland Sustainability Working Group. “My approach is to use systems thinking to look at sustainability in a holistic way across a multitude of spaces, and to introduce this concept wherever I have a platform,” she says. “People often think of ESG solely from an environmental perspective, forgetting about the social piece. In actuality, both are highly interdependent and very much impact each other.  “Then, you have to look at the problem of who has a voice and who doesn’t? I am fortunate to have a voice, but others don’t. Often, decisions are made that impact them and they have no influence.” Van der Merwe has just completed a postgraduate certificate in climate entrepreneurship at Trinity College Dublin. “In everything I do today, I think back to that time just before I started my master’s in renewable energy and environmental finance when I felt like I was waiting for other people to come and save us all,” van der Merwe says. “I found my voice and now I want to continue to build my network, experience as much as I can and do as much as I can to change society for the better and support the fight against the climate crisis.  “I think a lot of people are nervous about taking action, or feel, like I did, that others will do it better on their behalf—but, right now, we are at an absolutely pivotal stage.  “The existing system—the old way of doing things—is dying. It is going to change and what we do now will determine the new system that emerges.  “We really need the silent majority to speak up to support ESG. We are the cavalry, and I don’t think we can afford to be complacent, particularly in the face of current developments, such as the backtracking we are currently seeing in the US under Donal Trump’s presidency.” Interview by Elaine O’Regan

NTR’s Marie Joyce, FCA, tells Accountancy Ireland about her career path to  sustainability and hopes and expectations for Ireland’s renewable energy future Marie Joyce, FCA, is Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer with NTR. Joyce joined the Irish infrastructure investment company in 2004 and was appointed to the role of Deputy Group Chief Financial Officer in 2010, followed by Group Commercial Director two years later. She assumed her current dual role in 2013 and is also an Independent Non-Executive Director to both daa plc and Staycity Group. QTell us a bit about yourself and why you decided to become a Chartered Accountant. Growing up on a working farm in rural Ireland in a family with six children, hard work and commitment were ingrained in us from an early age.  I’ve always been passionate about finance and nature, and I feel fortunate that my career allows me to combine both. That said, my career path wasn’t always clear-cut. I knew I wanted to be challenged every day and work towards something meaningful.  At that time, in 1990s Ireland, the jobs market looked very different to today. Career opportunities were thin on the ground.  I was fortunate to be selected by Arthur Andersen to train with the firm as a Chartered Accountant, and that training would ultimately become the foundation for my entire career. Since then, I’ve had the privilege of working across multiple sectors, from biotech to infrastructure and now clean energy transition.  What excites me most is navigating fast-paced change—whether it’s driving rapid growth, executing mergers and acquisitions or steering high-pressure restructurings.  The common thread in my career has been the ability to adapt, innovate and lead through transformation. Q. What does your work as Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer with NTR involve?  I have been with the NTR group for over 20 years working across Ireland, the UK and the US. Over the past decade, in particular, I have been instrumental in driving our growth and evolution. My role today with NTR encompasses three main strands of activity: Fundraising and acquisitions: product design (investment propositions), supporting fund launches and fundraising (in particular fund structuring, marketing and legal documents, negotiations and investor due diligence), approval of investment bids and acquisitions. Financial: managing our funds, including governance and risk, and their underlying investments, as well as investor reporting and investor relations.  Operations: managing risk, human resources, public relations, legal, information security and digital transformation. Q. What does NTR do? Tell us about the organisation.  NTR is a specialist renewable energy asset manager with close to five decades’ experience in infrastructure investment and management.  We specialise in acquiring, developing and operating sustainable infrastructure projects, focusing on wind, solar and energy storage across Europe.  We are based in Dublin and currently manage 1.4 gigawatts of energy across 66 locations in seven European countries. We have an additional 500 megawatts in development, totalling €2 billion in invested capital.  Q. What does it mean to you to be part of an organisation with this renewable energy legacy? NTR’s first investment in renewable energy dates back to 1999, so renewables are truly in our DNA.  I’ve always loved the idea of generating power from natural resources—wind, sun and water—without harming the environment.  Growing up in the countryside in Ballymoe, Co. Galway, we lived off the land, growing our own vegetables and raising our own meat, without fully realising the value of this organic, self-sufficient way of life.  As a society, this is what we need to return to—working with nature rather than against it—and I am proud to be part of NTR, an organisation with a longstanding commitment to clean power. Q. How important is Ireland’s renewable energy sector to the future of our economy?  I believe Ireland’s renewable energy sector can be instrumental to the future of our economy and climate goals. The Government’s Climate Action Plan has set targets to reduce Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions by 51 percent by 2030 and reach climate neutrality by 2050.  These goals are ambitious and the ongoing shift to renewable energy will be crucial in allowing us to achieve them. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought the issue of energy security to the fore for governments across Europe and Ireland is no different. Greater capacity to generate renewable energy ourselves here in Ireland would reduce our reliance on fossil fuel imports, thereby bolstering our energy security. Energy demand is rising, driven by the increasing electrification of an expanding economy and rising population. Renewables are the cheapest form of power available to meet this growing demand. Developing and constructing renewable energy infrastructure also creates direct employment.  Ireland has the potential to become a leader in renewable technologies and energy exports, particularly in offshore wind where we have a seabed 10 times the size of our landmass. Q. What do we need to do now to support the future of Ireland’s renewable energy sector?  At a national level, faster planning and permitting policies are needed for renewable energy infrastructure.  This is a major hurdle today. If our Climate Action Plan targets are to be met, reform of the planning system is urgently needed.  I would like to see national climate targets embedded in local planning policy. If the development of our renewable energy infrastructure were to be viewed as an overriding public interest, the true potential of renewable deployment in Ireland could be unlocked. Our grid needs continuous modernisation to meet the growing demands of the economy and accommodate a growing share of intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar.  The grid must become more flexible, with greater storage capacity and enhanced interconnectivity with other countries, such as the introduction of new interconnectors like our planned Celtic Interconnector with France.  Q. Who do you most admire in public life today in Ireland or globally?  Pascal Donohoe is a longstanding and skilled politician whose career trajectory I find particularly resonant as we are contemporaries.  His stewardship of Ireland’s economy through multiple crises stands out—from Brexit uncertainties to the COVID-19 pandemic and now, today, we could not be in better hands as he navigates Ireland through US President Donald Trump’s tariff war. His competence combined with measured, thoughtful communication are qualities that have become increasingly valuable in our current era of political polarisation.  Unusually for a politician, he also generally directly answers the questions that are put to him. Q. What are the three most important lessons you have learned in your own career?  The three most important lessons I’ve learned are: You are yourself and that is good enough—embrace your unique strengths, perspectives and style. A smile never goes astray—a positive attitude and a warm approach goes a long way. Enjoy the journey—life is short, celebrate the wins, get enough sunshine. Q. What advice do you have for Chartered Accountants starting out in their career today? Qualifying as a Chartered Accountant provides invaluable professional training that will set you up for life.  When I started my own career, I thought I was simply going to become “an accountant”.  However, what my training actually gave me were the skills to become a rounded business professional. As my career has progressed, I have been able to extend those skills into shaping, running and advising businesses.  The biggest surprise for me, looking back, is the realisation that my greatest career progress has often come about when things haven’t gone to plan.  Those challenging situations that pushed me outside my comfort zone—forcing me to grow, adapt and develop new skills—were pivotal in taking me to new levels, especially as a woman in finance and infrastructure—which, 30 years ago, was very much a man’s world.  So, my advice to those starting out today is to do your very best, enjoy the experience—and don’t be afraid to ask questions or put your hand up if you think something is not right.  

Supporting the diverse and intersectional experiences of individuals within the LGBTQIA+ and Ability communities is a must for employers in today’s workplace Making it in today’s professional world isn’t always easy, but some people have extra obstacles to overcome.  Mark Scully, FCA, founder of Braver Coaching & Consulting said that, as a neurodivergent person who was undiagnosed for some time, he had faced significant challenges at work as he “attributed all the fault” to himself for tasks he felt he could not do to the same level as his colleagues.  “That seriously impacted my mental health—I was kicking myself for not being able to do these tasks like everyone else,” Scully explained.  “I was continuously working harder or longer, trying to compensate, until I burnt out—and because I didn’t know I was neurodivergent, I was engaging in a lot of masking and compensation strategies in order to make the workplace more tolerable.  “Once I did find out that I am autistic, I was afraid to let people know because I didn’t know how they would take it or thought they would not believe me and would question my credibility.” A state of isolation With little to no talk of neurodiversity in the workplace at the time, Scully found himself feeling isolated and fearing what people may say if they found out. “I couldn’t see anyone there whom I could relate to as being neurodivergent. Of course, there are lots of famous, high-profile people who are neurodivergent— but I couldn’t relate to them. So, I felt very alone and didn’t feel like there was anyone I could turn to for help,” Scully said. Sensory differences also made work difficult for Scully, as he has hypersensitive hearing and found himself straining to understand what was being said at times.  “I was genuinely in fear of going to client lunches due to the noise levels in some places. I would struggle to hear anything at the table,” he said.  “Other issues included not understanding workplace norms or ‘unwritten rules’ and trying to understand what people were looking for or what their expectations of me might be, so I just assumed I had to be perfect. This all had a big impact on me, and I found it very challenging.” Despite these challenges, Scully followed an impressive career path as a qualified barrister, Chartered Accountant and Chartered Tax Advisor, who had ascended to director level in a Big Four practice by the time he was diagnosed with autism. “It was a big relief being diagnosed,” he said, “finally, I could have some compassion for myself and know that there are areas I’m not going to be as good as everyone else in. However, there are other areas I’m incredibly good at. It is just about focusing on the strengths and asking for help in other areas. I’m in a really good place now.” Removing fear from the conversation Feeling safe enough to ask for help or understanding from colleagues and managers is crucial, said Scully, as “fear needs to be removed from the conversation”.  “I was afraid to let anyone know I was neurodivergent, because I didn’t know how it would be accepted and, in that vacuum, I had built it up so much in my head,” he said.  “But when I did let people know, there was no bad reaction, and it was actually received well, but I didn’t know this in advance, and it makes you start fearing the worst. We need to talk about it so neurodivergent people know that they have support in the workplace and feel safe to ask for help.  “Managers may be terrified of saying the wrong thing, so while training on language is useful, it’s also important for them to know that it’s okay to make mistakes in one-on-one conversations as long as they have the right intention. It’s much better to talk about this and make mistakes than not talk about it all.  “Talk, engage and be curious. Nobody is expected to be an expert in somebody else’s neurodivergence, it’s totally unique to them. So, managers and HR people should learn about what neurodivergence means for that particular person by talking to them.  “They should look past the label and get to understand the person, their particular needs and their strengths as everyone is unique. It’s all about starting the conversation.  Following his own diagnosis, Scully went on to found Braver Coaching and Consulting (gobraver.com) to promote neurodiversity in Irish workplaces and provide executive coaching to young professionals, both neurotypical and neurodivergent. Organisation-wide benefits of neuro-inclusion Scully said that, by providing training and making the necessary accommodations, employers could help to improve mental health for neurodivergent people, delivering organisation-wide benefits.  “If people feel like they’re working in a place that accepts them, and they don’t have to engage in masking or compensation strategies each day, it will have such a benefit for their mental health, in my opinion,” he said.  “If an organisation is not talking about neuro-inclusion, then it is not serious about mental health.   “By taking steps to be more inclusive, companies should see increased employee retention and productivity, and there is substantial funding available to support employees with disabilities.” From a bottom-line return-on-investment perspective, it makes sense to have a culture of neuro-inclusion, Scully said.  “Learning how to be a neuro-inclusive manager just results in better managers for everyone, full stop. It’s also the right thing to do, from a reputational perspective, because graduates are looking at employers that they may potentially work for and they are very well-informed about diversity.  “In the battle for talent, neuro-inclusive workplaces will entice the exceptionally bright and wonderful graduates who can offer a diverse range of thought, creativity and strength.”   Celebrating love, acceptance and diversity Jaimie Dower, Executive Director, Audit Quality Programme at EY, agrees with Scully that employer support for all employees with diverse experiences, is crucial. As a transgender woman who has struggled with identity, Dower acknowledged the important role EY, her employer, had played in being “vocally and visibly an ally and advocate for LGBTQ+ inclusion for a long time”. “As an employee with 30 years’ experience with the firm, this was a source of immense pride for me,” Dower said.  “To work for a firm that acknowledges and celebrates love, acceptance and diversity really makes a difference.  “Work isn’t and shouldn’t be the most important part of our lives, but it is a place where we spend a huge amount of time, so the relationships and experiences we have there are key to our emotional and physical wellbeing.  “The knowledge that I work somewhere that people are free to be, and to bring their authentic selves to work, really matters.” Dower, who initially tried to keep her “authentic self a secret from all but closest family” decided to come out during the COVID-19 lockdown.  She received immediate support from work colleagues, but the process was not without challenge.  “As I started to navigate conversations with HR, our DE&I team and my friends and colleagues, I started to realise that the firm’s commitment to LGBTQ+ inclusion was not just lip service or pinkwashing, it was a genuine part of the culture of the firm and its people,” she said.  “Despite this, there are very distinct challenges I faced, which employers need to be conscious of.  “The first one was how to tell people. It’s important to allow people the space to work this out and to acknowledge that there is no ‘right’ way; no one-size-fits-all answer. I had support in planning those conversations. Clear boundaries and guidelines  “It is really important that there are clear boundaries with regard to what any individual wants to share. I didn’t want to be—and, emotionally, couldn’t have coped with being—a walking ‘Transgender 101’ class for everyone.  “It was important for that to be acknowledged. Another challenge was that I never anticipated the number of times I would need to update my name, gender marker and picture. What seems like a simple ask can sometimes become mired in a morass of procedure. There has to be a way to make this simpler. “The issue most people will be aware of is around bathrooms and it’s hard to explain how much mental and emotional space such a small thing now occupies in my life. It’s a consideration every time I go outside the door and the important thing is that employers are very clear in their policies and transparent on this.” The EY Executive Director said that there had been tough days but also “so much joy and positivity, including being able to assist in the refresh of EY Ireland’s Gender Identity, Expression and Transition Guidelines”.  And while her personal journey is not complete, Dower said she feels privileged to work for a firm where she is free to be herself—something which should be the norm. “We all have to work together to combat homophobia, biphobia and transphobia and to actively ensure acceptance and understanding in everything we do,” she said.  “Employers should consider ensuring that there are guidelines to cover discrimination of all sorts, and everyone should respect the pronouns of transgender or non-binary colleagues or friends. That’s just one conscious mindful step that can make someone feel respected, included and valued. “Any organisation that flies a flag that says ‘you can be yourself here’ is going to attract the best candidates and get the most from them.” This article has been produced in collaboration with BALANCE, Chartered Accountants Ireland’s LGBTQIA+ networking group, and the Institute’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee. To find out more about their work or how to get involved, contact Karin Lanigan, Head of Members Experience, tel: +353 1 637 7331, email: Karin.Lanigan@charteredaccountants.ie.

Stephen Prendiville explains how smart and responsible investment in infrastructure can have a transformative effect on societies With Ireland’s population set to swell to 5.7 million by 2040, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to use infrastructural planning to support a better future for all. So says Stephen Prendiville, FCA, Infrastructure and Real Estate Advisory Partner and Sustainable Infrastructure Leader at Deloitte Ireland. “New homes, jobs and amenities will be needed to meet both basic needs and deliver a good quality of life for all, and infrastructure is critical,” Prendiville says.  “We have a once-in-a-generation infrastructure investment requirement, and we need to deliver it in a manner aligned with criteria that will make it good for all.” As Prendiville sees it, smart and responsible investment in infrastructure can have a transformative effect on societies. “It’s about looking at infrastructural spend from the perspective of wider potential benefits, rather than just the ‘money lens’, and encouraging governments to improve how they prioritise infrastructure and support dialogue between key stakeholders to create a more sustainable economy and society,” he says. Sustainable infrastructure: early start In his work today with public and private sector clients, Prendiville’s focus is on ensuring we deliver our collective infrastructure requirements to reach climate neutrality by 2050 and improve society for future generations. His own interest in infrastructural planning emerged early in his career when he was training as a Chartered Accountant with KPMG in Dublin. “I owe my start to Michele Connolly at KPMG who gave me my first taste of infrastructure back in the 2000s,” Prendiville says. “I worked on some of the biggest projects in the country at the time, including our road network and the first iteration of Metro North. Then, like many towards the end of the noughties, we left Ireland after the financial crash and moved to Canada. It was there I got my first real experience of sustainable development in a live environment.”  Prendiville would remain in Canada for close to a decade, working with big cities, including Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Montreal, to deliver sustainability and resilient infrastructure goals.  “I was working with cities and municipalities utilising public transport to improve citizens’ lives and livelihoods by creating opportunities to bolster economic development and tackle social deprivation,” he says. “A lot of professionals working in infrastructure are driven by the tangible impact they can have, whether that relates to hospitals, schools, renewable energy or transport, but it wasn’t until the introduction of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2016 that I really had a solid framework for understanding sustainability in the context of infrastructure.”  The United Nations’ 17 SDGs (see panel on pg. 43) form the framework for achieving a better and more sustainable future for all by 2030. The 17 goals are interconnected—one cannot be achieved at the expense of another. “Looked at in totality, the SDGs are about advancing a wider sustainable outcome from a societal perspective,” Prendiville says. “If we’re going to challenge ourselves to deliver sustainable infrastructure, we have to always ask ourselves, ‘what am I not thinking about here in the context of what this project is?’ “It’s very easy to look at a wind farm solely as a clean energy project, for example. More than likely, it could offer other opportunities linked to the SDGs in the context of jobs, skills, biodiversity and habitat. That’s really where the concept of ‘infrastructure for good’ comes in.”  Infrastructure for good The Infrastructure for Good report was published in 2023 by Economist Impact with support from Deloitte and Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability in the US. The barometer benchmarked the capacity of 30 countries to sustainably deliver infrastructure addressing social, economic and environmental needs, across five pillars: Governance and planning. Sustainable financing and investment. Social and community impact. Economic benefits and empowerment. Environmental sustainability and resilience.  Among the 30 countries analysed, Canada and the UK performed best. The barometer revealed, however, that—while most countries prioritise governance and planning—the financing and execution of infrastructure projects is often insufficient to deliver positive social outcomes.  “Ireland placed sixth in the barometer, which is a good result, but we fell down in the area of community engagement and benefit realisation at a localised level,” Prendiville says. “This is really about the idea that a project is narrowly defined relatively early and, while the community is allowed to contribute to the public consultation, it is not necessarily involved in co-creating the solution, nor is the solution delivering additional community benefits.   “An example might be a new bypass delivered by a department: the benefits case for the bypass will be that it’s going to remove a certain number of vehicles from a town centre, improving quality of life for the community. “The flipside is that there will be no money for the town to actually grab the opportunity the new bypass presents and realise potential benefits. They will get the road, but their local authority will have to come up with the rest themselves. “That won’t necessarily happen though, because the local authority might have several other priorities they need to deliver. So, doing what’s needed to unlock those benefits might fall by the wayside.  “Put simply, when we define a project’s goals too early, and to the delivery agent’s mandate, we miss out on the opportunity to realise the full breadth of benefits that might exist. “The opportunity for Ireland is to be the standout country in getting this right and doing this better in the context of an infrastructure for good framework.” Once-in-a-generation opportunity The roll-out of Project Ireland 2040, the Government’s national planning and capital expenditure strategy, marked an important milestone in Ireland’s sustainable planning policy, Prendiville says.  Launched in 2018, Project Ireland committed €165 billion in capital investment to fund vital infrastructure in areas such as housing, transport, education, enterprise and climate action at a time of significant population growth. More recently, The Programme for Government 2025, published in January, recommitted to the Climate Action Plan goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, as well as fast-tracking planning for offshore wind development and increasing home retrofitting targets in the years ahead. “I take a lot of heart from the Programme for Government,” Prendiville says. “I think we have transitioned in terms of our thinking. We’re no longer asking, ‘what do we need to do?’ We know we need to act. “We know that, in the world around us, we have a fundamentally changing economy and disrupted economic model.  “As a country, we need to strengthen our infrastructure to support changes on the global stage and we have a social requirement to build sustainable infrastructure for a growing population. “We need to think in terms of proactive decarbonisation, housing and new communities, the new economic models, sectors and industries we need for our workforce, and our participation in Europe and on the global stage from the perspective of foreign direct investment. “We already know probably 90 percent of what we need to do, and now it’s about moving forward bravely with our execution–and the social license to undertake this generational build programme shouldn’t be taken for granted.   “We owe it to the future generations to get it done as fast as possible, but, ultimately, to get it done well so that it lasts the test of time.” Interview by Elaine O’Regan  

The Financial Reporting Council’s updated guidance on going concern reporting offers a more comprehensive framework for assessing risk in an era of heightened uncertainty, writes Aisling Treacy In today’s dynamic business environment, economic volatility and market disruptions have heightened the focus on “going concern” in financial reporting.  In the UK, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) plays a key role in setting standards and regulations. The FRC has updated its guidance on the Going Concern Basis of Accounting and Related Reporting (including Solvency and Liquidity Risks) (the Guidance), replacing the 2016 edition with immediate effect.  This update reflects the evolving business environment and provides a more focused framework for UK companies, building upon the 2016 edition used by directors across many jurisdictions, including Ireland.  The Guidance calls for greater transparency and more detailed risk disclosures, especially around solvency and liquidity challenges.  Directors should adopt a forward-looking approach, assessing current and future risks to ensure companies are prepared for uncertainties, while maintaining trust with investors and stakeholders. Guidance overview The Guidance builds upon the previous 2016 edition, expanding its scope to provide a more comprehensive framework for directors.  It is intended for all UK companies, excluding small and micro-entities, and includes companies adhering to the UK Corporate Governance Code. The Guidance consolidates various UK company law requirements, accounting and auditing standards, listing rules, the UK Corporate Governance Code and other relevant regulations.  It aims to help directors assess their company’s ability to continue as a going concern and ensure that any material uncertainties are appropriately disclosed. Disclosures should be proportional to the company’s risk profile, helping maintain transparency and supporting investor confidence. The following section outlines the key updates to the Guidance.  Key Guidance updates Focus on material uncertainties  The Guidance places greater emphasis on identifying and disclosing material uncertainties that could affect a company’s ability to continue as a going concern.  Directors should assess both immediate and emerging risks and outline strategies to mitigate them.  The Guidance integrates solvency and liquidity risks into material uncertainty disclosures for the first time, reflecting their importance to a company’s viability.  If doubt arises about the going concern assumption, directors must disclose related risks in line with the “true and fair view” requirement. For the first time, the FRC recognises four potential scenarios regarding the going concern basis of accounting. Previously, the Guidance outlined three:  No material uncertainty. Material uncertainty with appropriate disclosure. The going concern basis of accounting is not appropriate.  The updated Guidance introduces a fourth scenario where the going concern assumption is appropriate and there are no material uncertainties, but significant judgement was required to reach this conclusion.  Graphic 2 below outlines the decision-making process, highlighting the fourth scenario.  Broader view on solvency and liquidity  The Guidance broadens the focus on solvency and liquidity risks. Solvency refers to the company’s ability to meet its long-term obligations, focusing on business sustainability and capital maintenance.  In contrast, liquidity concerns the availability of cash and other resources needed to fund day-to-day operations.  Directors are encouraged to assess both aspects to identify potential risks and aim to manage cash flow effectively.  Forward-looking approach A more forward-looking approach is encouraged in assessing a company’s going concern status. This involves developing detailed financial forecasts and testing a range of scenarios, from normal to extreme worst-case conditions.  Techniques such as stress testing, sensitivity analysis and reverse stress testing can help evaluate potential adverse conditions such as economic downturns, inflation, interest rates and geopolitical events.  For example, management may simulate the impact of an economic recession, sudden regulatory change or a disruption to the supply chain, to assess how these events could affect the company’s ability to continue operating.  This proactive approach may help companies prepare for potential challenges and better position themselves to navigate uncertainty.  Revised approaches to materiality and disclosure placement   The Guidance introduces detailed changes to materiality and disclosure placement. Directors are encouraged to clearly explain the assumptions, methodologies and significant judgements in their going concern assessment.  For example, if uncertainty exists over meeting debt obligations due to fluctuating interest rates, directors should outline assumptions about future cash flow projections, liquidity risk assessments and judgements regarding financing.  Disclosures should be proportionate to material uncertainties, particularly those related to financial and liquidity positions. This means focusing on significant uncertainties, such as refinancing debt or sales downturn, while avoiding over-disclosure of less significant risk.  Directors should consider the placement of disclosures to facilitate effective communication. Grouping similar disclosures reduces duplication and highlights linkages. Cross-referencing ensures key information is accessible and demonstrates consistency throughout the annual report.  Broader applicability and group considerations  The Guidance applies to a wider range of companies, including those adhering to the UK Corporate Governance Code.  Directors of subsidiary companies should assess the ability of parent companies or fellow subsidiaries to provide support for the going concern basis, considering group arrangements such as cross-guarantees or cash pooling, which can expose subsidiaries to additional risks.  Subsidiaries should disclose significant judgements about the support they receive from parent companies or fellow subsidiaries and the risks associated with group-wide going concern assessments. Auditors’ responsibilities  The Guidance affects auditors by defining their role in evaluating the going concern assumption.  Auditors must assess whether the directors’ assumptions align with accounting standards and are adequately supported by disclosures.  If material uncertainties are not sufficiently addressed, they should challenge the directors’ judgements and ensure that material uncertainties are disclosed. What these changes mean for management 1. Strategic decision-making  The Guidance calls for a more strategic approach to going concern assessments. Management should integrate short-term liquidity and long-term sustainability assessments into strategic and risk management processes. Directors should consider future risks, including planned investments, economic changes and market conditions. 2. Communication and reporting Clear and transparent communication is a key focus. Companies should now disclose material uncertainties regarding going concern in a more detailed and accessible way. The company’s narrative regarding its financial health and strategic direction should align with the going concern assessment to ensure that investors and other stakeholders have confidence in the company’s prospects. 3. Risk management and scenario planning The Guidance emphasises scenario analysis and stress testing, requiring management to develop flexible risk management strategies. Simulating extreme events, such as recessions or supply chain disruptions, helps companies understand vulnerabilities.  Questions directors may ask of management  The following questions may help guide the navigation of the Guidance. While directors may have asked some of these questions in the past, the expanded Guidance encourages them to consider a wider range of factors.  Is the standard 12-month assessment period appropriate, or do we need a longer assessment period? Have we considered all material risks, including market volatility, regulatory changes and reputational risks? What significant judgements were applied in determining the going concern basis, and how are these disclosed? Have we assessed the impact of potential future disruptions, such as geopolitical risks and supply chain challenges, and incorporated forward-looking scenarios and stress tests to evaluate their effect on viability? Are financial forecasts and plans sufficiently robust to withstand adverse scenarios? Do we have access to sufficient liquidity and financing options in a crisis or downturn? Is the board engaged in the going concern process and actively reviewing the assumptions and conclusions? Have we documented the going concern process in a manner that is transparent? Is the audit committee involved in reviewing the going concern conclusion, ensuring that all material risks have been adequately assessed and disclosed? Are we effectively communicating our going concern assessment and related risks to stakeholders?  A more robust and transparent future The updates signal a shift towards more transparent, forward-looking financial reporting, responding to the changing risk landscape, including geopolitical and economic factors.  With the transition from the 2016 Guidance to the 2025 framework, directors are encouraged to apply this modernised and robust approach to going concern reporting.  The updated Guidance offers a clearer and more comprehensive framework for assessing risk in an era of heightened uncertainty.  Directors are encouraged to take this opportunity to strengthen their strategic approach, ensuring their companies are better prepared to face future challenges and adapt to an evolving risk environment.  Aisling Treacy is a Director with KPMG Ireland 

Fastcom Managing Director Lorraine Gribbons, FCA, reflects on her journey from auditing to leading a regional business, championing gender equity in leadership and the challenge of achieving work-life balance in the fast-moving telecoms industry I became Managing Director of Fastcom over eight years ago, bringing with me my background in Chartered Accountancy and a deep-rooted passion for driving business growth.  My foundation as a Chartered Accountant, with its emphasis on strategic thinking, attention to detail and problem-solving, proved instrumental as I transitioned into the telecoms sector.  Although I hadn’t initially envisioned a future in this industry, I found myself increasingly drawn to the challenge of scaling a regional business on a national level.  This challenge became my mission: how to expand Fastcom’s footprint across Ireland while remaining true to our Sligo roots.  I am very proud of the company’s achievements. Under my leadership, Fastcom has grown into one of Ireland’s most flexible telecoms providers, built on a foundation of innovation, regional pride and dedicated commitment to customer care.  My focus is on positioning the company as one of Ireland’s top technology leaders—not just in terms of the services we offer, but also in how we lead, innovate and support our people.  This includes continuing to break barriers—for women in leadership, regional businesses and anyone who dares to grow beyond what’s expected.  Robust career pathway As far back as I can remember, accountancy was what I wanted to do. I’m not sure where that came from, but it was always on my radar as the route I wanted to take and the qualification I would ultimately achieve.  I attended school in Sligo and then went on to study Business, Economics and Social Studies at Trinity College Dublin.  I had worked in an accountancy practice in Sligo in the summer following my first year at college and then went on to complete a summer work placement organised by Trinity after my third year, in the audit department of KPMG in Dublin.  This experience gave me great insight into what the trainee programme would be like and I started my training contract with KPMG after completing my degree the following year.  Qualifying as a Chartered Accountant gave me excellent education and training, providing valuable insight into business operations and a robust pathway for career progression and opportunities.  Once my training contract was completed, I decided to move back west to Sligo, where I worked as an Audit Manager with Gilroy Gannon for over 10 years before transitioning into industry with Fastcom. I became the company’s Managing Director soon after the move.  Women in leadership: moving beyond the exception Moving from the world of finance and accounting into telecoms, I’ve worked in two industries where women in leadership were once the exception, not the norm.  I’ve seen some progress in gender equity over the years, but it is slow, and there is definitely room for improvement.  I recall my accountancy training days, when many of the more junior staff members were female, but the senior roles were nearly always male-dominated. There are certainly more women at the top table now, and the conversations are evolving, but there’s still work to be done.  I would love to see more women in senior roles across all industries, as well as increased support at key transition points in a woman’s career, such as returning from maternity leave or aspiring to leadership.  Family responsibilities also play a part in the progress of gender equity, as balancing these with an evolving career can be a challenge.  Helping others reach their potential Mentoring and networking have played a huge role in my career, even if not always in formal ways.  I have been fortunate to have had people whom I could look to for mentorship; they have given me honest feedback and encouragement when I’ve needed it most at all stages of my career. Just as importantly, I’ve always believed in helping others reach their full potential in their own careers, wherever and whenever I can.  Networking, too, has opened unexpected doors, whether through industry events, local business groups, education sessions or informal chats over coffee.  The moving target of work-life balance Work-life balance is a bit of a moving target, isn’t it?  For me, it’s not about getting it right every day as I don’t think that’s possible. Some weeks are more work-intensive, while others allow for space to recharge.  My biggest challenge is switching off, as I find this very difficult to navigate.  When running your own business, you’re fully invested, and this sometimes spills over into downtime. For me, it does depend on what’s happening at work and how pressing any issues might be.  It’s something I know I always have to keep working on and be very conscious of.  As great as technology is, especially when working in a technical industry, the ability to disconnect from your phone and emails is vital during personal time.  I have learned over the years that rest is just as important as work for long-term success. You need to be able to refuel yourself to keep going and bring your best to the business.  With three children, my own “rest time” is still busy, but it’s  great for distracting me from the office and what’s going on at work.  Learning from your own team Over the years, I have found real value in professional development programmes, leadership courses and peer learning. Sometimes, though, the most impactful learning comes from within your own team.  Listening, collaborating and remaining open to diverse perspectives has enabled me to grow and develop personally.  I am always reading a wide variety of business materials and books to gather ideas for Fastcom and for myself personally, so that I can continue to thrive. Interview by Liz Riley  

Is the environmental, social and governance movement in decline? We ask three of our Chartered Stars, each recognised for their outstanding work in support of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, for their take on the future of ESG Evan O’Donnell Chartered Star 2024 Accountant with Avery Dennison   As a Chartered Accountant, I view the future of sustainability through both a financial and ethical lens.  Sustainability is increasingly becoming a key pillar of business strategies, and I believe that over the next decade, it will shift even more from a niche concern to a mainstream priority.  Companies and governments will need to integrate sustainability into their financial reporting, with transparent disclosures on environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics becoming standard practice.  The rise of green bonds, sustainable investing and carbon accounting will drive capital towards businesses that align with sustainability goals, creating a clear incentive for corporations to adopt responsible practices. Looking ahead, I hope to see a world in which sustainability is embedded in every financial decision.  Businesses should not only focus on reducing their environmental footprint but also consider the social equity and long-term resilience of their operations.  This shift will require a redefinition of value, where profit is measured alongside positive social and environmental impact, creating a more balanced approach to growth. The current transitional period in geopolitics presents challenges, however. With some countries backtracking on sustainability efforts, there is a risk of fragmentation in global initiatives.  While international collaboration is essential, the rise of protectionist policies and divergent priorities may hinder the overall progress of global sustainability targets.  As a result, I expect businesses to face increasing pressure to navigate this geopolitical uncertainty, balancing national interests with global sustainability standards. In the future, we will likely see greater local innovation in sustainability, with businesses and governments in different regions leading by example.  While there are challenges ahead, however, the growing recognition of the financial value of sustainable practices gives me hope that we will continue to move towards a more sustainable and inclusive future. Peter Gillen Chartered Star 2023 Sustainability Reporting Manager with AIB   In the future, I hope to see further consolidation of global sustainability reporting standards to simplify implementation for companies. While progress is being made, however, challenges remain. Existing EU legislation, such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and EU taxonomy for sustainable activities, continue to evolve. At the same time, new measures are emerging, such as China’s recently introduced corporate sustainability reporting standards.  Continued global engagement on consolidating these is critical to encourage more companies to report against these standards. Given recent geopolitical shifts and the decision by some nations to scale back their sustainability efforts, I was initially concerned all the progress made would be undone.  However, European companies increasingly recognise the “business” rationale for sustainability, no longer viewing it simply as altruism.  Even companies outside the CSRD’s scope should still see the benefits of managing climate risks, such as rising temperatures and sea levels.  This isn’t about pandering to a “woke” environmental, social and governance (ESG) agenda, it is about ensuring the long-term viability of one’s business. Despite the recent wave of anti-ESG sentiment, there are some who are refusing to accept calls for ESG to be omitted from investment decision-making.  In the UK, for example, the People’s Pension (one of the UK’s largest pension funds) recently moved £28 billion in assets from the US asset manager, State Street, noting that it wished to prioritise sustainability, active stewardship and long-term value creation for its near seven million members.  It remains to be seen whether other funds will follow suit.  I hope funding for pro-ESG funds continues to grow; not for political reasons, but to protect the financial futures of those whose pensions and savings are managed through funds.  It will also be interesting to observe whether asset managers continue to support ESG publicly or remain silent to avoid criticism (i.e. greenhushing). Fiona Hanafin Chartered Star 2022 Associate Director, Sustainability Advisory, Grant Thornton Sustainability is evolving from being viewed merely as a compliance requirement or ‘tick box’ exercise to a strategic driver of long-term business success.  I believe businesses that are proactive in addressing sustainability-related risks will gain a competitive advantage and thrive in an uncertain world.  Climate change continues to intensify at home and abroad, and businesses need to identify and address their individual physical and transition risks.  We’ve seen how extreme weather and floods can damage infrastructure and disrupt supply chains while shifting regulations create uncertainty.  To address these risks and build resilience, companies should adopt sustainable practices within their operations and integrate sustainability into their core values and decision-making processes.  Future-focused businesses that adopt sustainability, including social considerations within their strategy, will benefit from greater appeal among talented employees and environmentally conscious consumers. I hope business leaders across Ireland and Europe continue to embrace sustainability as a driver of growth and innovation. There are opportunities to be seized by reducing carbon footprints, adopting green technologies, diversifying supply chains and prioritising responsible stewardship.  Despite all the noise (regulatory and political), the fundamentals of sustainability have not changed. We are living beyond our means; our society needs to change.  Although the sustainability agenda has faced setbacks in some regions due to regulatory and political backlash, the global trend towards adopting sustainability initiatives and reporting continues to progress.  Investment in the energy transition remains strong, cand despite the proposed delay to the introduction of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive in the European Union, many companies are collecting data to ensure the availability of decision-making information.  Those aiming for long-term success will recognise that the broader global momentum driving sustainability is fuelled by market demand and risk mitigation.  With a well-informed sustainability strategy, businesses can protect their bottom line while making a positive global impact.

The Trump-Putin relationship is forcing NATO and the EU to shift from a competitive relationship to a strategic, collaborative mindset, writes Judy Dempsey In the wake of Russia’s 2022 invasions of Ukraine, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the European Union have both been forced to reassess their fundamental strategic roles as guardians of Europe as they explore collaborative responses to the crisis.  The real catalyst for this strategic shift is the actions of US President Donald Trump, rather than those of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Trump has shaken Europe, challenging its long-held belief that the US would always provide a protective umbrella. During his first term as US President, Trump criticised NATO’s European allies for underspending on defence, underscoring a perceived inequity in burden-sharing within the alliance.  Now, he has signalled his willingness to consider withdrawing the US from NATO altogether, questioning the reliability of Article 5, which commits the military alliance to defending any member country under attack.  Not anymore, Trump says—if they have not spent enough on their security. Weakened US support for NATO, or a complete exit from the alliance, would leave the EU vulnerable.   The decades-long transatlantic relationship would be dangerously undermined—a goal of successive Russian leaders.  Trump is doing Putin’s bidding by putting Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity on the negotiating table. In doing so, the US President has ignored how Russia has repeatedly broken the ceasefire Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to in March.  With this major shift in American foreign policy, NATO and the EU, including neutral countries such as Austria and Ireland, must move fast in several ways.  First, the Europeans cannot wait for Trump to weaken his commitment to the alliance. Major NATO and EU countries—Britain, France, Germany and Poland—need to form coalitions of the willing to prepare for an eventual withdrawal of the US from NATO.  NATO’s European ‘caucus’ needs to be strengthened, military capabilities assessed and the expenditure required to compensate for a potential US exit assessed. That won’t be easy, and it will be costly. Second, the EU Commission wants member states to embrace serious defence ambitions, another costly task, requiring time and clear communication with voters.  In the meantime, there is no reason the EU and NATO cannot share capabilities under the special “Berlin Plus” arrangements, giving the EU access to NATO assets and planning capabilities if the alliance is not militarily involved. Such a partnership could serve as a foundation for an EU-led coalition of the willing for Ukraine. Third, in light of the ongoing conflict, it’s crucial for the EU and NATO to increase their military, economic and political support for Ukraine.  NATO’s European members could take over from the US leadership of the Ramstein forum, known as the Ukraine Defence Contact Group. Established in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine, its 50 countries provide military support to Ukraine.  Finally, Germany and other countries are discussing Europe’s nuclear powers with France and the UK. This would have been unthinkable a few months ago, demonstrating just how much Trump’s relationship with Putin is upending the transatlantic relationship. Judy Dempsey is Nonresident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the April/May 2025 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees or the editor.