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

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

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 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.

Chartered Accountant Eamonn Hughes is playing a leading role in Bank of Ireland’s Responsible and Sustainable Business Strategy. Hughes tells Accountancy Ireland about the four-year plan and his goals as Chief Sustainability and Investor Relations Officer  Before joining Bank of Ireland Group in February as Chief Sustainability and Investor Relations Officer, Chartered Accountant Eamonn Hughes had a longstanding career as a sell-side market analyst with more than 25 years’ experience in capital markets and domestic banking.  Having worked most recently with Goodbody, the stockbroking firm, as Irish Banks and Insurance Sector Analyst and, before that, Head of Research, Hughes also had a clear view of the swift rise in environmental, social and governance (ESG) to the top of the financial agenda worldwide. “I could see that ESG was becoming hugely important in capital markets and the financial sector. The climate crisis, in particular, is a critical threat, but also a significant opportunity,” said Hughes. “For our planet, there is no Plan B, but the discussion about sustainability is not just about climate change. It is also about creating a more sustainable business model. Our vision at Bank of Ireland is to be the national champion in Ireland, to use our balance sheet and resources to drive positive change for a better, fairer society and improve the environment. “This gives me a very strong framework to think about my role, because, if we can deliver on our ESG strategy, we can ultimately deliver a more sustainable business model for all stakeholders and positive returns for investors. “The ESG agenda also involves regulators, so disclosure and risk management are very important—and there are reporting frameworks in place, but they are evolving very quickly. This is one of the challenges we face and is also why transparency and the availability of clear data is so important.  “With my background in capital markets, I can clearly see the mobilisation in capital, and I think the banking sector has a very obvious supporting role to play in society’s sustainability transition.” Investing in tomorrow Bank of Ireland published its Responsible and Sustainable Business Strategy in March 2021, a year before Hughes joined the group.  Bank of Ireland’s four-year Investing in Tomorrow strategy set out its own goals to support the green transition, alongside two additional pillars: enabling colleagues to thrive; and enhancing customers’ financial wellbeing. The Investing in Tomorrow green transition pillar included the setting of science-based targets aligning the bank’s lending portfolios with the Paris Agreement. The international treaty on climate change, adopted in 2015 at COP 21, set out a goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. “Data is key across all three pillars, because reporting is essentially an output of what we are doing in support of climate change, colleagues, customers and the organisation as a whole,” said Hughes. “We need to focus on how we interact with our stakeholders internally and externally and, in my role, investors are obviously a key priority. As investors now have to produce more disclosures themselves, they will need to engage more with us in terms of what we are doing on our own ESG journey.” Clear reporting strategy How Bank of Ireland communicates with, and reports to, stakeholders on the progress of its ESG strategy is a priority for Hughes in his role as Chief Sustainability and Investor Relations Officer. “Ultimately, we need to explain how we are meeting the targets set out in our strategy, and it is incumbent upon us to develop the capacity and skill sets we need to support reporting and strategy delivery,” he said. “My role is to support in delivering across all three pillars, which involves a lot of data-gathering internally, particularly from a regulatory and reporting perspective.” Detailed progress reports on ESG will now be a core part of Bank of Ireland’s annual reporting cycle. “We need to be able to demonstrate clearly that we are creating a sustainable business strategy, enabling colleagues to thrive in the organisation and enhancing financial well-being among customers, in addition to supporting the sustainable transition,” said Hughes. “Transparency is hugely important. There are a lot of differentials in this space, so we need to standardise our reporting; to be able to explain clearly and cohesively what we are doing and why.” Commercialisation is becoming increasingly important as Bank of Ireland continues to implement Investing in Tomorrow, Hughes said. “Like many banks, we are in the commercialisation phase of our ESG strategy with the creation of sustainable finance solutions for, and increasing engagement with, customers. We are supporting and incentivising customers through competitive rates to buy or build an energy efficient home or to retrofit their home or business to make it more energy efficient.” Sustainable finance fund Bank of Ireland recently announced a €3 billion increase in its Sustainable Finance Fund, which will bring it to €5 billion by 2024. The fund covers green propositions, including mortgages, home improvement loans and business  loans.  Bank of Ireland’s inaugural standalone Responsible and Sustainable Business Report, published in June, tracked the progress of its ESG strategy in 2021. More than €1.8 billion in mortgages, home improvement loans and business loans had been drawn down from the Sustainable Finance Fund by the end of the year, the report stated. Thirty-five percent of all mortgages provided by the bank in 2021 were green, rising to 48 percent in the first half of 2022.  Bank of Ireland was also the largest provider of wholesale finance for electric vehicles in 2021, providing finance to 13 of the 15 car manufacturer franchises. The publication of the Responsible and Sustainable Business Report marked a significant “step-change in the tracking and transparency” of the bank’s ESG reporting, Hughes noted.  “Our stakeholders—including customers, shareholders, and regulators—are demanding far greater transparency as to how we are meeting our ESG commitments,” he said. “This report provides insight into our strategic approach, appraisal of our progress to achieve our purpose, and information on the key focus areas we plan to progress in the years ahead. Being clear on ESG, and showing how you are delivering what you sign up to, is now a commercial imperative for all lenders, including Bank of Ireland.” Science-based targets Bank of Ireland has also committed to setting science-based targets across portfolios and operations to align lending practice with the low carbon ambitions set out in the Paris Agreement. “We completed two successful green bond issuances in 2021, raising €1.25 billion with the capital used to finance green buildings, renewable energy projects and clean transportation,” said Hughes. “Thirty-five per cent of the mortgages we provided in 2021 were green and we have also launched a green mortgage product in the UK.” Bank of Ireland is providing finance for the development of at least 750 megawatts of renewable wind capacity across the island of Ireland. The bank is also in the process of decarbonising its own operations—reducing absolute emissions by 88 percent between 2011 and 2021. Social and governance Although supporting the green agenda is a major part of Investing in Tomorrow, the strategy also sets goals for investing in colleagues and enhancing customers’ financial wellbeing. “We recognise the supporting role we can play in Ireland’s response to the climate crisis, but the ‘S’ and ‘G’ are equally important when we consider ESG,” Hughes said. “We have a strategy to improve the financial wellbeing of our customers and to foster a financially inclusive society.” Bank of Ireland was, Hughes said, supporting customers to become more financially confident, while also working to simplify processes, so that the “financially marginalised have easier access to banking services.” Financial health and inclusion  Bank of Ireland is one of 28 banks around the world that have signed the Commitment to Financial Health and Inclusion published in December 2021 under the United Nations Principles for Responsible Banking (PRB). A first-of-its-kind initiative aimed at promoting universal financial inclusion and health in the banking sector, its launch closely followed the publication of the UN’s PRB Collective Progress Report. The report identified financial inclusion as the third most pressing sustainability challenge facing signatory banks, behind climate mitigation and adaptation. “This UN initiative is particularly important in an environment in which we have a cost-of-living crisis and customers are facing major challenges in the medium- to long-term. The question for us is, ‘how can we deliver this particular skill set and support our customers at a time when they really need it?’” said Hughes. Bank of Ireland is also helping customers to “live more sustainably” with the recent announcement of the roll out of bio-sourced debit and credit cards. Launched in October, the initiative will over time replace all plastic debit and credit cards issued by the bank, to help support the reduction of single-use plastic. “If we are to live in a more sustainable way, we need to do things differently, including through our everyday banking. The introduction of bio-sourced cards is a very practical way we can help our customers to reduce their environmental footprint,” Hughes said. “As a bank, we are working very closely with our customers on the sustainability transition. As they deliver, we deliver. It is a symbiotic relationship and an exciting place to be.”  

Conal Kennedy, Head of Practice Consulting, writes: In Practice Consulting, we often take calls and emails from members about difficulties and challenges that arise in practice. One of the most common queries surrounds the rights and obligations of the various parties when there is a change of professional adviser. When a client decides to move from one accounting firm to another, both parties should cooperate to make the transition as smooth as possible. However, complications and difficulties can arise when one of the parties has a grievance. Sometimes, the relationship between the firm and the client may have lasted many years, and its ending can come as an unpleasant surprise to the existing accountant, the worse so if they have not been fully paid for all work done. On the other hand, the new accountant may be very pleased to gain a new client, and may be surprised in their turn by difficulties posed by the incumbent. In some rare instances, incoming accountants do not do all that is required of them under the Code of Ethics, particularly around professional enquiries. In Practice Consulting, we receive communications from members on both sides of the fence. We provide information and guidance to the member, bearing in mind of course that there are two sides to every issue. Let’s look at a typical scenario and discuss some of the issues and possible misconceptions, with the details anonymised but addressing problems that are common enough. As always, we need to concentrate on the key matters in a generalised way, so if you are faced with this scenario yourself, please go to the Sections 320 of the Code of Ethics for the full requirements and guidance. In our example, a firm has made contact with Practice Consulting, explaining that they have recently taken on a new client. The client is a limited company, who needs a non-audit accounts preparation assignment and tax compliance work carried out. The firm has sent the professional enquiry letter to the previous accountant. However, the outgoing accountant has written back to the firm and the client to say that they have not been paid for a certain piece of work, and are withholding clearance and keeping possession of all records until they have been paid in full. What are the rights and obligations of the parties? In the first instance, there is no such thing as “professional clearance” as such. No accounting firm can prevent another accounting firm from working for a client, and therefore no firm can give or withhold clearance. The incoming accountant is obliged to carry out professional enquiries to determine if there is any professional reason why they should not take up the appointment. This is the purpose of the “any professional reason” letter, to which the outgoing accountant should respond, with the approval of the client. The new agent should make their best efforts to obtain responses to the letter, including re-sending the letter by registered mail, if necessary. However, if they do not receive a response following reasonable efforts, and their other enquiries are sufficient to indicate that there is no valid reason not to take up the assignment, then they may proceed. In this instance, the existing accountant would appear to be attempting to take a lien, meaning a right to retain possession over certain documents that they have in their possession until they have been paid. Whilst this right still exists, it is really only applicable in quite narrow circumstances. Firstly, the outgoing accountant is obliged to co-operate with the successor to ensure that the client’s interests are not prejudiced, including the client’s obligation to comply with its legal obligations if there is no other means to do so. This may in effect mean the that the incumbent accountant is obliged to forward any missing information to ensure that tax compliance and filing obligations are met, or other interests are protected, and therefore the right of lien may be largely irrelevant in respect of the core accounting records of the entity. Secondly, in the case of an incorporated client, insofar as any of the documents held by the outgoing accountant constitute the accounting records of the company, then company law requires that these should be returned to the directors of the company. The fact that the outgoing accountant has not been paid does not affect either of the obligations mentioned above. Insofar as the accountant proposes to take a lien, this only applies to documents that have been worked on and for which the accountant has not been paid. In the case above, it would appear that the outgoing accountant is obliged to hand over the key accounting records that it holds, and to separately seek payment of the outstanding fees. The outgoing accountant should also respond to the professional enquiry letter. When we discuss the above rights and obligations with members who contact us, the members occasionally observe that the advantage appears to be with the incoming accountant. In fact, the Code of Ethics cannot override the obligation of the client to comply with legislation, or give the existing accountant rights that contradict company law. The message that members should draw is that their rights to refuse cooperation in the event of non-payment are quite limited, and they should organise their credit control policies accordingly. Many firms have a policy of limiting their exposure to large outstanding fees through direct debit and staged payment arrangements with clients. In the case of audit clients, the incoming auditor has certain rights to access information held by the outgoing auditor. The circumstances in which these rights apply differ slightly between ROI and UK, but are a legal right of the incoming auditor, and the application of them differs somewhat from the ethical obligations discussed above. If you have questions in connection with this issue or other practice related issues or dilemmas, please contact Practice Consulting and we will endeavour to give you the information and guidance that you need.