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

On 18 May 2023, the Institute responded to the International Ethics Standards Board (IESBA) invitation for comments on their “Proposed Revisions to the Code Addressing Tax Planning and Related Services”. The proposals to amend the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants are based on recommendations following extensive stakeholder engagement and review by the IESBA since 2019. The review was in response to increased public attention on the topic of tax avoidance, revelations arising from the “Paradise Papers” and the “Pandora Papers”, and global focus on the legality of tax mitigation schemes. The proposals define ‘Tax Planning and Related Activities’ as “a broad range of services designed to assist a client, whether an individual or an entity, in structuring the client’s affairs in a tax-efficient manner”. The IESBA builds upon the principles-based framework of the Code of Ethics and outlines the responsibilities of all professional accountants in respect of these services. Further requirements and guidance are included for Professional Accountants in Public Practice (PAPPs) and Professional Accountants in Business (PAIBs). The key IESBA proposals include: Outlining professional accountants’ public interest role in relation to tax planning services; Requirements in respect of any anti-avoidance legislation court or tax authority rulings, and addressing non-compliance with laws and regulations; Requirements for establishing a credible basis for tax planning advice and carrying out a ‘stand back test’ that considers “the reputational, commercial and wider economic consequences that could arise from the way stakeholders might view” the tax planning arrangement; Examples of ethical threats that can arise from providing tax planning advice, including potential steps professional accountants can take to either eliminate or safeguard against these; Requirements for communicating with clients or employers, including steps to take in the event of disagreement in respect of tax planning; and Requirements in relation to obtaining second opinions, referring or recommending third-party tax planning solutions or advisors. Some of the key points in the Institute’s response to the IESBA proposals focused on: The current size of the Code of Ethics and the opportunity to embed some of the proposals into existing requirements of the Code, including the Conceptual Framework; Concerns regarding the broad definition of ’tax planning’ and the necessity to include ‘related services’, which are typically more closely associated with routine compliance, such as the filing of tax returns and representing clients on compliance issues using tax authorities’ dispute-resolution mechanisms; Requesting further guidance on ‘credible basis’ and ‘stand-back’ tests, and positioning of these as part of the Conceptual Framework alongside other professional judgement requirements. Highlighting the important role of professional accountants in reducing the risk of unexpected tax costs for all taxpayers and ensuring higher compliance rates and collection of tax by assisting clients and employing organisations navigate complex local and global tax requirements; To consider the primacy and responsibility of local tax authorities in the enforcement of tax compliance, the policing of appropriate tax planning and their independent mechanisms to be first arbitrator in making a ruling rather than a court of law or a professional body; Highlighting the issue of competitiveness in the accountancy profession, the capacity of the profession to police and enforce new standards, and the need for a level playing field that ensures tax advisors who are not professional accountants are also accountable to high standards of ethical behaviour; and Providing suggestions in areas such as identifying threats and implementing adequate safeguards, the consideration of multiple uncertainties, and further considerations of the context and role of Professional Accountants in Business in respect of tax planning. The Chartered Accountants Ireland response to the IESBA is available here. The IESBA proposals are available on their website here. Níall Fitzgerald, Head of Ethics and Governance, Chartered Accountants Ireland  

The International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) has released final revisions to the International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including International Independence Standards) to further increase the Code’s robustness and expand its relevance in a world being fundamentally reshaped by rapid technological advancements and accelerating digitalization. These technology-related revisions will guide the ethical mindset and behavior of professional accountants in both business and public practice as they take advantage of the opportunities created by technology and adapt to new technology. Developed to remain relevant and applicable in the ever-evolving landscape of technology transformation, the revisions apply to the use of any technology, including to the extent possible, future technologies.  The revisions, which were informed by extensive fact-finding and stakeholder outreach: Strengthen the Code in guiding the mindset and behavior of professional accountants when they use technology. Provide enhanced guidance fit for the digital age in relation to the fundamental principles of confidentiality, and professional competence and due care, as well as in dealing with circumstances of complexity. Strengthen and clarify the International Independence Standards (IIS) by addressing the circumstances in which firms and network firms may or may not provide a technology-related non-assurance service to an audit or assurance client. The revisions to the IIS will be effective for audits and reviews of financial statements for periods beginning on or after December 15, 2024. The other revisions to the ethics provisions of the Code will be effective as of December 15, 2024. Early adoption is permitted.

A mainstay of Ireland’s financial services landscape for over 60 years, our credit unions are entering an exciting phase with recent developments presenting new opportunities to adapt and change Credit unions are an important part of the financial services landscape. With offices a common feature of cities, towns and villages throughout Ireland, they play a key role in the day-to-day finances of many Irish people and communities. There are more than 3.6 million credit union members on the island of Ireland.  A history of credit unions Credit unions were first established in Ireland in the late 1950s and quickly became a repository for savings and a source of loans for many people. The total value of loans extended by credit unions in the Republic of Ireland is currently around €5 billion, with total savings coming to about €16 billion.  Average sector total reserves, as a percentage of total assets, is approximately 16 percent, which serves to underpin the confidence of their members, particularly in times of uncertainty and disruptive change. These institutions are not-for-profit financial co-operatives. They are owned and controlled by their members and therefore have a different business model to retail banks. Each credit union is independent, with its own board of directors, charged with overall responsibility for running the credit union.  Because they are part of the financial services sector, credit unions are governed by legislation in Ireland, principally the Credit Union Act 1997, as amended, and regulated by the Central Bank.  Significant amendments to the 1997 Act were introduced by the Credit Union and Co-operation with Overseas Regulators Act 2012, and this is the legislative regime under which credit unions currently operate. The credit union sector has been relatively stable in terms of any legislative or government policy changes. However, two recent developments, the Credit Union (Amendment) Bill 2022 and the Retail Banking Review (November 2022), present new opportunities for credit unions to adapt and change their business models and enhance their product and service offerings to members. The Credit Union (Amendment) Bill 2022 The first major legislative change for credit unions since the 2012 Act, the Credit Union (Amendment) Bill 2022 (the Bill) was published on 30 November 2022 following over two years of stakeholder engagement, with over 100 proposals considered. Highly technical and not an easy read, the Bill is currently before the Dáil, where proposals for amendments will be considered.  There is no fixed timeline for enactment and, post-enactment, commencement of sections may occur in phases, with the Central Bank of Ireland having to amend regulations to accommodate the new provisions.  The main provisions of the Bill involve: the establishment of ‘corporate credit unions’; amending the requirements and qualifications for membership of credit unions; altering the scope of permitted investments by credit unions; changes to the governance of credit unions; maximum interest rates on loans by credit unions; provision of services by credit unions to members of other credit unions; and participation by credit unions in loans to members of other credit unions. Collaboration between credit unions The introduction of ‘corporate credit unions’ should support greater collaboration between credit unions, facilitating a pooling of resources and greater access to funding.  A new form of regulated entity, their membership would be restricted to other credit unions, with lending allowed only to those members. Further collaboration is envisaged with a provision in the Bill allowing all credit unions to refer members to other credit unions to avail of a service that the original credit union does not provide.  While such referral is not mandatory, it is a new option for making additional services available to members—for example, a current account facility where the original credit union may be reluctant to provide this service to all members based on cost or other reasons.  Another provision enabling collaboration allows a credit union to participate in a loan to a member of another credit union. This will facilitate risk sharing associated with the loan and will make it easier for an individual credit union to offer larger loans to its members.  Regarding lending to businesses, and other organisations or associations, there is a further key provision in the Bill for “bodies” (incorporated or unincorporated) to be allowed join a credit union with the same rights and obligations as a “natural person” (member).  This is, however, subject to conditions that a majority of the members of the body would be eligible to join the credit union and the body meets the common bond requirement. Ultimately, this will make it easier for credit unions to lend to such bodies and is principally focused on SMEs. While none of these changes are mandatory, they do provide new options and opportunities for credit unions. Governance changes Regarding changes in governance, two provisions stand out: the option to appoint the manager (chief executive officer) of the credit union to the board; and  reduction of the minimum number of board meetings per year to six, down from the current 10.   The extent to which these changes will be adopted remains to be seen, as many credit union boards may be content with the existing practice.   Where a credit union decides to include its manager as a board member, the Bill proposes that this will be done by their direct appointment to the board and not by election at a general meeting of members.  The term can be for any length but cannot extend beyond the individual’s term as manager.  One restriction on the manager as a board member is that they cannot sit on the nomination committee of the credit union, the membership of which is restricted to board members who have been co-opted or elected at general meetings.  Similarly, regarding the frequency of board meetings, the board may be reluctant to change the current practice of having at least one meeting per month, concluding that it cannot adequately carry out its responsibilities with only six board meetings.  Because of the voluntary ethos of credit unions, the historically close involvement of board members with the credit union, and the relatively onerous responsibilities of boards, it may take some time before six board meetings is considered the norm. Other governance changes proposed by the 2022 Bill include reducing the number of board oversight committee meetings, removing the requirement for the board oversight committee to sign the audited annual accounts, and extending from annually to every three years the review of specific policies by the board. The Credit Union (Amendment) Bill 2022 includes substantive policy change in the areas of collaboration, members’ services, and governance. It seeks to give more power to credit unions to determine strategy and, when enacted, will require consequential changes to Central Bank regulations.  To fully exploit the options and opportunities enabled by its provisions will require significant work by the sector. The Retail Banking Review 2022 In November 2022, following its approval by Government, Minister for Finance, Paschal Donohoe, and Minister of State for Financial Services, Credit Unions and Insurance, Sean Fleming, published the report of the Retail Banking Review (the Review).  Driven by the departure of two major banks, Ulster Bank and KBC, this is a broad-ranging review of the retail banking sector in Ireland, including the credit union sector.  In relation to credit unions, the Review states: “Credit unions have a strong and trusted brand, they are present in communities throughout the country, and have been developing their product offering. The credit unions are already a significant player in consumer credit, and they are making inroads in the current account, mortgages and SME segments of the market. These developments, coupled with their collectively strong levels of capital and deposit bases, leads the Review Team to believe that credit unions could play a greater role in the provision of retail banking products and services in the coming years.” Referencing the Credit Union (Amendment) Bill 2022, the Review recommends that the credit union sector develop a strategic plan to deliver business model changes that would enable it to sustainably provide a universal product offering to all credit union members. Provided directly or on a referral basis, this would continue to be community-based. The Review suggests that such a strategic plan should show how credit unions can: viably scale their business model in key product areas such as mortgages and SME lending; invest in expertise, systems, controls, and processes to deliver standard products and services across all credit unions, while managing any risks arising and continuing to protect members’ savings; provide the option of in-branch services for members of all credit unions. Both the Bill and the Review point to new opportunities for credit unions and demonstrate confidence in their future as part of the Irish financial services sector. For these opportunities to be successfully managed, however, credit unions must continue to maintain high levels of governance so that legislators, the Central Bank, their members, and the wider community can have confidence in the sector.  Credit unions have done much for many people in Ireland for more than 60 years. These developments in legislation and government policy point to their continued and increasing relevance in the years ahead. Gene Boyd, FCA, is a risk management consultant and author of The Governance of Credit Unions in Ireland

Originally posted on Business Post 3 December 2023.  Nobody wants to be seen to profit from the housing crisis, but everyone loses out if we insist on retaining the tax status quo. You cannot profit from the housing crisis. This seems to be the guiding principle behind the reported resistance by Fine Gael to introducing any form of tax relief which might help address the property supply problems. This aversion to property tax incentives is a consequence of the great recession a decade ago. It doesn’t seem to be the amount involved that presents the problem, as much as the very notion that a property incentive could be part of a solution to a current market failure. Big income tax reliefs for rented residential accommodation, renewal projects for cities and towns, holiday cottages and student accommodation contributed to the property boom and subsequent crash. Many houses and apartments derived their value not from their location or the accommodation they offered, but from the attractiveness of the tax relief on their purchase. As a 2006 review of property tax incentives by Indecon, the economic consultants, put it, in addition to increasing investment in projects, “the tax incentives had led to an increase in site prices, financial returns to promoters and property prices”. That Indecon report was one of a number of reviews into tax incentives commissioned by the government in 2005, amid alarm that Ireland had (yet again) overdone the whole property tax break thing. The reversal of the tax reliefs agenda started in 2006, but by that time it was too late to manage the popping of the property bubble in an orderly way. The chaos that ensued in the following few years has eclipsed another memory: that these property incentives contributed to improved housing supply. Analysis by the Economic and Social Research Institute found that persistent increases in supply and demand from the early 2000s resulted in housing supply averaging 84,000 units per annum between 2005 and 2007. Think of how an average supply of 84,000 units per annum now would help the current situation. Of course, it is too simplistic to attribute supply levels of this order solely to a favourable tax regime. In the previous decade when government got nervous about the housing market, the 1998 Bacon report identified that the key drivers of the housing market were economic growth, demography, cost of finance and the speed of the supply response. Now the problem driver is the lack of speed of the supply response, despite the recent interest rate rises. Unlike government interventions in the property market over the last 40 years, the tax system is not currently being used as a lever of government policy. While there have been adjustments to the stamp duty regime in favour of residential property development as compared to commercial development, and in recent weeks some tinkering with the refurbishment rules for landlords, there has been no broadly-based incentive introduced which might foster property supply. The Department of Finance’s own guidelines on tax incentives say that any new relief must be prompted by market failure, time-bound and re-evaluated on an ongoing basis to ensure that they continue to fulfil their intended purpose. How much more does the market need to fail by before tax reliefs are put back on the agenda? Previous tax reliefs have primarily been directed towards the buyer by granting future tax deductions from the purchase cost. Now the priority should be for measures that reduce development costs, ease cashflow concerns and make investment more appealing. During the pandemic we warehoused tax debt effectively to promote business survival. The same could be done for the construction sector by offering PAYE and Vat payment deferral associated with wages and materials costs incurred as units are built. Arrears would be collected when the housing development has been completed and sold. Another possibility would be to provide enhanced tax deductions for the cost of training workers in the construction industry. Boosting allowances for investment by builders in heavy plant, machinery and safety equipment could accelerate the supply of high-quality, affordable homes. Any such allowances should be time bound, and linked and targeted to the type of high density affordable housing most needed. The great advantage of tax incentives is that they can be delivered quickly. Yet we seem to be closing off any reasonable political discourse on approaches of this type purely on ideological grounds. Well publicised fire safety and structural safety construction defects in some existing developments don’t help the case for more incentives for developers. When interest groups put forward ideas for tax breaks, the most fervent advocates are usually those who will benefit most. Yet builders and developers are not the only ones who would benefit from reducing tax costs and barriers to residential property supply. Families need homes, and employers need their workers to have decent accommodation convenient to the workplace. It is politically difficult to get away from the notion that no one should profit from the housing crisis. But it is only the exchequer that profits if we insist on retaining the tax status quo. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

The roadmap for the EU Commission’s milestone Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive is taking shape and now is the time to start preparing for a brave new era in non-financial reporting, writes Conor Holland With the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) now approved by the European Council, entities in the EU must begin to invest significant time and resources in preparing for the advent of a new era in non-financial reporting, which places the public disclosure of environmental, social affairs and governance matters (ESG) matters on a par with financial information. Under the CSRD, entities will have to disclose much more sustainability-related information about their business models, strategy and supply chains than they have to date. They will also need to report ESG information in a standardised format that can be assured by an independent third party. For those charged with governance, the CSRD will bring further augmented requirements. Audit committees will need to oversee new reporting processes and monitor the effectiveness of systems and controls setup. They will also have enhanced responsibilities. Along with monitoring an entity’s ESG reporting process, and evaluating the integrity of the sustainability information reported by that entity, audit committees will need to: Monitor the effectiveness of the entity’s internal quality control and risk management systems and internal audit functions; Monitor the assurance of annual and consolidated sustainability reporting; Inform the entity’s administrative or supervisory body of the outcome of the assurance of sustainability reporting; and Review and monitor the independence of the assurance provider. The CSRD stipulates the requirement for limited assurance over the reported information. However, it also includes the option for assurance requirements to evolve to reasonable assurance at a later stage. The EU estimates that 49,000 companies across the EU will fall under the requirements of the new CSRD Directive, compared to the 11,600 companies that currently have reporting obligations. The EU has confirmed that the implementation of the CSRD will take place in three stages: 1 January 2024 for companies already subject to the non-financial reporting directive (reporting in 2025 for the financial year 2024); 1 January 2025 for large companies that are not presently subject to the non-financial reporting directive (reporting in 2026 for the financial year 2025); 1 January 2026 for listed SMEs, small and non-complex credit institutions, and captive insurance undertakings (reporting in 2027 for the financial year 2026). A large undertaking is defined as an entity that exceeds at least two of the following criteria: A net turnover of €40 million A balance sheet total of €20 million 250 employees on average over the financial year The final text of the CSRD has also set timelines for when the Commission should adopt further delegated acts on reporting standards, with 30 June 2023 set as the date by which the Commission should adopt delegated acts specifying the information that undertakings will be required to report. European Financial Reporting Advisory Group In tandem, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) is working on a first set of draft sustainability reporting standards (ESRS). These draft standards will be ready for consideration by the Commission once the Parliament and Council have agreed a legislative text. The current draft standards provide an outline as to the depth and breadth of what entities will be required to report. Significantly, the ESRS should be considered as analogous to accountancy standards—with detailed disclosure requirements (qualitative and quantitative), a conceptual framework and associated application guidance. Readers should take note—the ESRS are much more than a handful of metrics supplementary to the financial statements. They represent a step change in what corporate reporting entails, moving non-financial information toward an equilibrium with financial information. Moreover, the reporting boundaries would be based on financial statements but expanded significantly for the upstream and downstream value chain, meaning an entity would need to capture material sustainability matters that are connected to the entity by its direct or indirect business relationships, regardless of its level of control over them. While the standards and associated requirements are now largely finalised, in early November 2022, EFRAG published a revised iteration to the draft ESRS, introducing certain changes to the original draft standards. While the broad requirements and content remain largely the same, some notable changes include: Structure of the reporting areas has been aligned with TCFD (Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures) and ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board) standards – specifically, the ESRS will be tailored around “governance”, “strategy”, “management of impacts, risks and opportunities”, and “metrics and targets”. Definition of financial materiality is now more closely aligned to ISSB standards. Impact materiality is more commensurate with the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) definition of impact materiality. Time horizons are now just a recommendation; entities may deviate and would disclose their entity-specific time horizons used. Incorporation of one governance standard into the cross-cutting standard requirements on the reporting area of governance. Slight reduction in the number of data points required within the disclosure requirements. ESRS and international standards By adopting double materiality principles, the proposed ESRS consider a wider range of stakeholders than IFRS® Sustainability Disclosure Standards or the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published proposal. Instead, they aim to meet public policy objectives as well as meeting the needs of capital markets. It is the ISSB’s aim to create a global baseline for sustainability reporting standards that allows local standard setters to add additional requirements (building blocks), rather than face a coexistence of multiple separate frameworks. The CSRD requires EFRAG to take account of global standard-setting initiatives to the greatest extent possible. In this regard, EFRAG has published a comparison with the ISSB’s proposals and committed to joining an ISSB working group to drive global alignment. However, in the short term, entities and investors may potentially have to deal with three sets of sustainability reporting standards in setting up their reporting processes, controls, and governance. Key differences The proposed ESRS list detailed disclosure requirements for all ESG topics. The proposed IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards would also require disclosure in relation to all relevant ESG topics, but the ISSB has to date only prepared a detailed exposure draft on climate, asking preparers to consider general requirements and other sources of information to report on other sustainability topics. The SEC focused on climate in its recent proposal. The proposed ESRS are more prescriptive, and the number of disclosure requirements significantly exceeds those in the proposed IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards. Whereas the proposed IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards are intended to focus on the information needs of capital markets, ESRS also aim to address the policy objectives of the EU by addressing wider stakeholder needs. Given the significance of the directive—and the remaining time to get ready for it—entities should now start preparing for its implementation. It is important that entities develop plans to understand the full extent of the CSRD requirements, and the implications for their reporting infrastructure. As such, they should take some immediate steps to prepare, and consider: Performing a gap analysis—i.e. what the entity reports today, contrasted with what will be required under the CSRD. This is a useful exercise to inform entities on where resources should be directed, including how management identify sustainability-related information, and what KPIs they will be required to report on. Undertaking a ‘double materiality’ analysis to identify what topics would be considered material from an impact and financial perspective—as required under the CSRD. Get ‘assurance ready’—entities will need to be comfortable that processes and controls exist to support ESG information, and that the information can ultimately be assured. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive represents a fundamental change in the nature of corporate reporting—the time to act is now and the first deadline is closing in.