The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has reached a significant milestone in the periodic review of its financial reporting standards with the release of FRED 82 Draft amendments to FRS 102 The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland and other FRSs. This Financial Reporting Exposure Draft (FRED) forms part of the periodic review of the standards which happens approximately every five years. The FRED is now open to consultation and comments are requested by the FRC by 30 April 2023. In March 2021, the FRC commenced the periodic review with a request for views from stakeholders. The Institute's Financial Reporting Technical Committee responded to this request with some recommendations. Some of the key points to note from the FRED are; The draft proposals include significant changes to how leases are accounted for and proposes a model similar to that of IFRS 16 Leases  and will result in many leases which were previously expensed as operating leases now being classified as "right of use assets" within fixed assets. However, given the wide range of users of FRS 102 financial statements, there are simplifications proposed which are aimed at ensuring that these accounting requirements are proportionate and cost effective to apply. There are also some proposed exemptions from the rules for some assets.  The draft proposals include a new model of revenue recognition in FRS 102 and FRS 105. This is based on the principles of IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers and the five step model included in this standard. This aims to ensure that there will be more consistency in the reporting of Revenue and that the process for revenue recognition is clearer. The FRC have decided to defer its conclusion as to whether to align FRS 102 with the expected credit loss model of financial asset impairment in IFRS 9 Financial Instruments, but have indicated that they may revisit this when the IASB's IFRS for SMEs Accounting Standard goes through its periodic review process. The proposed effective date for the amendments is accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2025, with an option for early adoption. Along with the FRED, the FRC have also released some supporting documents including; FRED 82- at a glance FRED 82- Impact assessment Q&A A podcast providing an overview of the changes

Welcome to this week’s Technical Roundup. In developments this week, the Central Bank of Ireland has recently updated its sanctions webpage with an infographic and financial sanctions FAQs about which you can read more including a question on whether sanctions only apply to those on the sanctions lists; the European Banking Authority (EBA) recently published its roadmap on sustainable finance which outlines its workplan on sustainable finance and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) risks. Read more on these and other developments that may be of interest to members below. Auditing The Institute has responded to the consultation on ISA(Ireland) 600 Group audits. The FRC has launched its Audit & Assurance Sandbox, a collaborative space for approaching issues facing the audit and assurance industry, to support high quality audit and assurance work. The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) has published a new fact sheet on the interactions between International Standard on Audit (ISA) 220 (Revised), which addresses quality management at the engagement level, and ISA 600 on group audits. The fact sheet highlights aspects of a group audit that may be affected by ISA 220 (Revised) and International Standard on Quality Management 1 addressing quality management at the firm level. IFAC have released an implementation tool for auditors on risk of material misstatement.  Financial Reporting The FRC has issued Draft amendments to FRS 102 The Financial reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland and other FRSs – Periodic Review. FRED 82 proposes a number of changes resulting from the second periodic review of FRS 102 and other Financial Reporting Standards. The proposals include: a new model of revenue recognition in FRS 102 and FRS 105; a new model of lease accounting in FRS 102; and various other incremental improvements and clarifications. The FRED is accompanied by a consultation stage impact assessment. The FRC’s ‘What makes a Good Annual Report and Accounts’ sets out the attributes for a high-quality Annual Report and Accounts (ARA). IAASA has published its revised policy paper Publication of information regarding IAASA’s financial reporting supervision activities. This paper sets out IAASA’s policies on publication as well as the nature and extent of information to be published relating to the outcomes of its financial reporting supervision activities.  The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has released a webcast showing some of the main changes included in the recently released Exposure Draft on the Third edition of the IFRS for SMEs Accounting Standard. The IASB has also shared a presentation on the same topic from the World Standard Setters Conference, which was held in September. The IFRS Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) has released its November 2022 update. In his address to delegates at the 2022 EFRAG Conference entitled “Where is Corporate Reporting Going?”, Andreas Barckow, Chair of the IASB, spoke about the IASB’s relationship with EFRAG over the years as it celebrates its 21st anniversary. The UK Endorsement Board has adopted three narrow-scope amendments on 30 November 2022. These were published by the IASB in 2021 and have an effective date of 1 January 2023. The narrow-scope amendments relate to; Disclosure of Accounting Policies (Amendments to IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements and to IFRS Practice Statement 2 Making Materiality Judgements). Definition of Accounting Estimates (Amendments to IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors). Deferred Tax related to Assets and Liabilities arising from a Single Transaction (Amendments to IAS 12 Income Taxes). The UK Endorsement Board has approved and published its Due Process Handbook. The FRC has issued FRED 81 FRS 101 Reduced Disclosure Framework 2022/23 cycle. This proposes no changes to FRS 101 in the annual review. Comments are requested by the FRC up to 28 February 2023. The FRC Lab has released its last quarterly newsletter for 2022. This issue focuses on the year-end and the annual report season, and highlights some of our work that may assist preparers in meeting the challenges ahead. The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) have issued their November 2022 update. Insolvency Readers may know that for various reasons set out in the Companies Act 2014 (section 842), a court may disqualify a director. The Corporate Enforcement Authority is one entity which can initiate the procedure by way of a notice under S850. Also, the Authority can apply (under S820) for a declaration for restriction of a director.  The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, has recently issued new regulations effective from 9 December 2022, the Companies Act 2014 (Disqualification and Restriction Undertakings) Regulations 2022 and please click here for a useful summary from the Corporate Enforcement Authority on the purpose of the new regulations. Sustainability The European Banking Authority (EBA) recently published its roadmap on sustainable finance which outlines its workplan on sustainable finance and Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) risks. The EBA says that the roadmap explains its sequenced and comprehensive approach over the next three years to integrate ESG risks considerations in the banking framework and support the EU’s efforts to achieve the transition to a more sustainable economy. Please also click here for further information on the relevant EBA webpage and an interesting infographic on the key objectives of the roadmap. In its Joint Statement on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), Accountancy Europe has expressed its overall support for the CSDDD and have called on the EU co-legislators to strengthen certain provisions in the Directive. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) made some announcements following its meeting this week. These include an agreement on how to describe sustainability and its relationship to financial value creation, addressing natural ecosystems as it relates to climate, and the decision to consider the work of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and other existing nature-related standards and disclosures where they relate to the information needs of investors. While initially focused on setting rules on climate-related disclosures such as carbon emissions, the ISSB said that it will create rules relating to natural ecosystems after these are published. Find out more here. Other news Law Reform Commission publishes consultation paper on liability of clubs, societies and other unincorporated associations. Submissions are invited from all interested parties on the Commission's Consultation Paper on Liability of Clubs, Societies and other Unincorporated Associations. The Financial Conduct Authority in the UK has published a document (which is not FCA guidance) containing insights from the 2021 Cyber Coordination groups.(CCGs).   You can read more on the CCG forums on this FCA webpage  and while the matters were discussed at forums in 2021 they may be of interest in highlighting  the cyber risk landscape, as well as emerging cyber risks discussed. The FCA also announced this week that it has established a new advisory committee to the FCA’s Board to work on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues. Click here to read more details and here for the committee’s terms of reference .  The Pensions Authority has published its Engagement and audit findings report for 2022. The purpose of this report is to share observations on the key findings identified during the Authority’s engagement and audit activity in 2022 which included face to face meetings with a number of larger DC and DB schemes. It is expected that all trustee boards and their advisers will consider these findings and evaluate their own practices to establish if any improvements are required. The report is available here. The Pensions Authority also brings news this week of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) conclusion of its fourth European-wide stress test of IORPs (pension schemes). The 2022 exercise assessed the resilience of participating IORPs against a climate change scenario, representing the first climate stress test for IORPs in the European Economic Area. Details of the 2022 report is available here on the EIOPA website. The Irish Central Bank (CBI ) has recently updated its sanctions webpage with an infographic and financial sanctions FAQs about which you can read more here including a question on whether sanctions only apply to those on the sanctions lists? In the answer CBI says that where you identify that a sanctioned individual or entity owns or controls the individual/entity with whom you are transacting, you should fully assess the impact of this ownership or control. When conducting this assessment, you should refer to the EU Commission’s guidance on ownership and control. This guidance on ownership/control can be found in EU Best Practices which was updated in 2022. As previously advised, access to the Central Register of Beneficial Ownership for Companies (RBO) in Ireland was suspended for general access following a recent judgment by the European Court of Justice. The case found that the provision of the directives, whereby information on the beneficial ownership of companies incorporated within the territory of the Member States is accessible in all cases to any member of the general public, was invalid. The RBO has now been updated to allow restricted access to search the register to Designated Persons and Competent Authorities only, with very limited information being available to other parties. Further information and details on how to register as a designated person is available here. The Dept of Enterprise Trade and Employment last week issued its monthly enterprise newsletter. While many of the topics have already been brought to readers  of this bulletin click here to access the newsletter which contains information on topics such as the new entitlement to paid sick leave from 2023 , the Temporary Business Energy Support Scheme and Skills for Better Business - a new resource for SMEs. The Institute’s Professional Standards Dept (PSD) has issued its latest regulatory bulletin which you can access here. Readers attention is drawn in particular to the item on the Register of Overseas Entities (ROEs) in the UK. A critical element of the ROE regime is the requirement to verify, independently, elements such as the exercise of control. PSD warns that firms should carefully consider whether they should provide this verification work. Firms are reminded that the work required for verification under the ROE is not the same as the risk-based approach to client due diligence under the Money Laundering Regulations and PSD reminds firms that they should familiarise themselves with the differences. The bulletin also gives a link to an alert on the subject from the Accountancy AML Supervisors’ Group (AASG)  . For further technical information and updates please visit the Technical Hub on the Institute website. 

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.

Brendan O’Hora reports on the findings of the 2022 All-Member Survey Research is conducted to discover new information or reach a new understanding of something, so the Institute’s biennial membership survey is crucial. These have been two years of significant change, and as a membership organisation, it has never been more important for us to act on the findings in a comprehensive, targeted way for the benefit of 31,000 members globally.  The survey was conducted in May and June with over 1,800 members by independent research agency, Coyne Research. This level of participation helps us to build a very accurate picture of the member experience and is much appreciated. It allows us to make the most of this opportunity to check in with members, and to ascertain how we will respond and act on the findings.  This year, we also conducted qualitative research via eight focus groups. This exercise gave us a deeper understanding of member sentiment and reinforced that we are operating in very unusual times.  The operating environment The pandemic may be in retreat, but its effects persist. An ongoing adjustment to hybrid working, declining levels of resilience after extended periods of pressure, and changing priorities among younger members, many of whom qualified or spent their early years in a virtual environment, have had an impact. Compounding this are growing cost-of-living pressures.  The top challenge emerging from the survey for businesses was, unsurprisingly, the competition for talent, up significantly on 2020. Following this is inflationary pressure and increased labour costs. What is resonating with members  Looking at our membership as a whole, the qualification is very highly regarded and a source of great pride. The letters mean a lot to our members, and that pride also extends to the robustness and quality of the education provided.  In reviewing the findings, Bernie Coyne at Coyne Research noted that members are broadly positive about the way the Institute has responded over the last two years to the pandemic.  She said: “As in previous years, members were invited to rate a range of services, based on their experience and degree of satisfaction, with sentiment remaining consistent. Over seven in 10 members rated the webinars and online CPD options as good, with a 20 percent increase in those who experienced them since 2020. The range of specialist qualifications was also rated highly, as was Accountancy Ireland magazine, the weekly Tax News circular, and the knowledge hubs on the Institute’s website.”  The research also pointed to an increase in the number of members who have communicated with the Institute by phone and email since 2020. Roughly seven in 10 rate their experience in communicating positively. While there was strong uptake of the virtual alternatives on offer during the pandemic, there is confidence in returning to face-to-face events. Indeed, the research points to a desire, particularly among younger members, to engage and learn about how they can make their membership work for them and derive the greatest value from it.  Consistent with many of our peers globally, we have seen drops in key member metrics, such as satisfaction and relevance as well as likelihood to recommend the qualification. While, unsurprising, given these unusual times, it is an important alert for the Institute that is already prompting action.   How we are responding to the findings In a changed external environment, and armed with considerable insights, our challenge now is to reposition how we engage with members, with a particular focus on younger members at the start of their career, to optimise their experience of the profession. We are working closely with the Chartered Accountants Student Society of Ireland (CASSI) and the Young Professionals Committee in so doing.  Our members are some of the strongest advocates for the profession, and, at a time when there is a continuing shortage of qualified accountants, it is incumbent upon us to ensure the membership experience is a positive, rewarding, and relevant one for these most important advocates.  One of the ways we will be doing this in the coming weeks and months will be through a campaign to put the tools into members’ hands to make their membership work for them. It will feature real members speaking about how they’ve made the most of their membership and will be accompanied by an updated member section on the website to help users better access and understand what is available, from membership details to Continuing Professional Development, conferences, social events, and supports. Our focus is on giving more control of their experience to our members, so that this experience can be tailored and made to work for the individual.   In closing, I want to return to a theme I touched on at the outset—resilience in the face of sustained pressure. One-in-two respondents reported that COVID had a negative impact on their mental health, compared to 2020. Younger members were less likely to be aware of the Institute’s member support service CA Support, and we will be working to increase awareness of this important resource.  Brendan O'Hora is Director, Members, at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Jennifer Nickerson left a successful career in Dublin to co-found a whiskey distillery in rural Tipperary. She tells Accountancy Ireland about her inspiration, ambitions and lessons learned along the way When Jennifer Nickerson co-founded Tipperary Boutique Distillery in 2014, the Aberdeen-born Chartered Accountant had already risen through the ranks at KPMG in Dublin to become an associate director in the tax department just seven years after joining as a trainee. Tipperary Boutique Distillery is now exporting worldwide and employs seven people in south Tipperary with further plans for expansion. Here, Nickerson tells us about what inspired her move into entrepreneurship and her experiences establishing and growing a small business with global reach. Q: Tell us about your life and career prior to co-founding Tipperary Boutique Distillery—what prompted you to become a Chartered Accountant? I grew up in Scotland and my dad, Stuart, was a master distiller. He managed and worked as a consultant for some of Scotland’s best scotch producers, such as Glenfiddich, Balvenie and William Grant & Sons. You could say I grew up in the industry. I loved it, especially the passion the people working in it had. I went to college in Edinburgh for six years, studying Veterinary Medicine initially and then switching to Accountancy. I decided I didn’t want to work outside in the cold and wet.  I wanted to work in an office and I had this perception that a job in accountancy would be “nine-to-five”.  I was wrong about that, but after meeting my husband Liam and moving to Ireland to train, I found I really enjoyed the problem-solving aspect of the work. Numbers make sense. There is a “right answer” and that can be very satisfying.  I worked in the tax department at KPMG and did a lot of advisory work. The hours were long but there was great camaraderie and that makes for a really nice working environment. Q: So you had settled into this new career in Dublin and you were enjoying it. What prompted you to up sticks and move to rural Ireland to set up a whiskey distillery? I married a farmer—but I did tell him that I wouldn’t be moving to Tipperary unless there was work there that would interest me as much as what I was doing with KPMG in Dublin. We talked it through and my dad had already mentioned during a visit to Ballindoney, Liam’s family farm near Clonmel, that it would be the ideal setting for a whiskey distillery. We could grow grain, we had the land to build a distillery on, there was good quality water in Tipperary and good conditions for maturing whiskey as it’s a little bit warmer than Scotland. He really just mentioned it in passing, but it struck a chord. I’d had lots of experience putting together business plans and I was lucky that Liam had a steady job working for the county council. It was a calculated risk and we could afford to do it, so we went for it. Q: What was your vision for Tipperary Boutique Distillery starting out in 2014? Ultimately, we wanted to produce a world-class whiskey from grain to glass here on Ballindoney Farm.  We knew we had everything we needed, but we also knew it would take time, because distilleries are expensive and there is also the cost of laying down spirit for at least three years before it can be sold as whiskey. It wasn’t until 2020 that we finally had the funding raised, the facility built and the equipment installed to open our own distillery. We had started outsourcing Irish whiskey casks from other distilleries cut to bottling strength with water from our farm and released our very first expression way back in March, 2015.  After that, we started taking our own grain from the farm, having it malted and distilled by my dad at other facilities. Now, we are able to do everything apart from malting here in our own distillery. We grow our own grain, we mill, we mash, we ferment, we distill, we mature and we bottle here on the farm.  Q: Tell us about your markets? What countries do you sell to and where do you have the healthiest trade? We sell into Belgium, France, Canada, into several states in the US, and a little in Korea and Singapore. We were selling to Russia, but obviously not any more, and we were in discussions with distributors in Ukraine and Poland, but the impact of the war has scuppered both. Germany is our biggest market, Italy is great, and Belgium is a surprisingly steady little market as well.  In Ireland, we sell online ourselves at tipperarydistillery.ie and through Irishmalts.com, James J Fox, The Celtic Whiskey Shop, and through local retailers around the country. Q: What was it like moving from a successful career as a tax advisor in a Big 4 environment into the cut and thrust of entrepreneurship? Was it a good experience? It was massively humbling to be honest, but also incredibly rewarding. At the start, I did miss having colleagues to talk to and bounce ideas off. I really felt I was on my own and it took me a while to find my feet. My background in accountancy definitely helped a lot with the ‘form filing’—understanding bills and applying for licenses, things like that. At the same time, there were lots of things I didn’t know about, like where to get a barcode or source seals for bottles. It was a massive learning curve. Q: What are the most important lessons you have learned so far running your own business? I had no idea starting out how vitally important sales are. That sounds like a ridiculous statement, but it took a long time for me to shift my mindset away from numbers and deadlines to just getting out there and going after sales.  What I know now is that you can’t give up. It’s no good just sending out an email to a potential customer and waiting for them to come back to you. You have to keep trying and telling literally everyone you can how great your product is and why. That can be really hard because it’s very different to sitting in front of a computer as an accountant and working to a deadline. You have to be willing and able to stand up on a stage and say, “this is what we’re doing, we’re amazing and our product is the best”.  There is a theory that 80 percent of all sales in any business come from 20 percent of costumers. Based on my own experience, I’d have to agree with that. There’s really no point in chasing one-off sales. It’s far more important to focus on valued relationships than driving around trying to get a bottle into every bar in the country. On the other side of the coin, you have to chase your bills just as much. If you’re not getting paid, you’re in trouble. Q: How has the COVID-19 pandemic and the more recent war in Ukraine affected your business and how have you responded? As soon as the Pandemic hit, our orders from overseas plummeted. We had two pallets due to go to a distributor in a country that was very badly impacted by the pandemic and they ended up having to wait six months to take delivery. Irish people are brilliant though. They started buying more Irish whiskey during the pandemic and that really saved our business. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had a massive impact as well, because it caused major supply chain issues for us and other producers. We had to change our glass suppliers, and we had really big delays with cork supplies, the capsules for the top of the bottle seals, cardboard for packaging deliveries—you name it, everything was disrupted. Most of our suppliers I tried to keep, because we have good relationships with them and that’s really important in business. We were also probably lucky that we are quite a small operation, so we have been able to adapt more quickly than bigger producers. Q: The Irish whiskey industry has grown enormously in recent years—do you think there is room for further growth and what are your own plans from here? When we started back in 2014, there were something like six craft distilleries in Ireland, but by the time our own distillery was up-and-running in 2020, the number had risen to around 40.  The market grew so much in that time. There is a lot more competition now and a lot more diversity in the sector, but there are also a lot more customers buying Irish whiskey in Ireland and overseas. I think there is still scope for some growth in the market. Forty distilleries sounds like a lot, but Scotland has around 100. What we are seeing is that, as the market matures, there is less focus on cost and greater focus on quality. Each producer has to know their niche and communicate it well to the marketplace. For Tipperary Boutique Distillery, our plan now is to continue to sell in Europe, and expand our presence in America and Asia. We want to continue to grow sustainably and one day—hopefully soon—open our own visitor centre at our distillery here on Ballindoney Farm.

Wavering over support for Ukraine’s defence against Russia is not an option. The stakes are too high for Europe’s stability and unity, writes Judy Dempsey Russia’s war against Ukraine is approaching its tenth month. Despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s original aim of conquering Ukraine within days after his 24 February invasion, Russian troops have been forced to withdraw from strategic areas in eastern Ukraine.  It’s too difficult to speculate how and when this war will end, but there is already a sense of war fatigue among some governments and political parties in Europe and the United States—ignoring the fact that Russia has been escalating this war over the past few months and Ukraine must continue to fight for its independence. There is even some suggestion that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky should be persuaded to negotiate with Putin.  This would be a mistake.  Understandably, several EU countries—especially the Baltic States, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia—do not trust Putin’s intentions. They want Ukraine to continue regaining occupied territory and then negotiate from a position of strength. This kind of victory for Ukraine would have several outcomes for the region and the EU. A Ukrainian victory could deter Russia from spreading its military and political influence in Moldova, Georgia and Armenia. Such a victory would be a fillip to pro-European political movements in these countries.  As for Belarus, there is little chance that the political future of Alexander Lukashenka, who has imprisoned many Belarussians since their failed uprising over two years ago and repressed any kind of opposition, would survive.   A Ukrainian defeat, on the other hand, could encourage the Kremlin to extend its influence over Eastern Europe and consolidate Lukashenka’s regime which would, in the short-term, increase his grip on power. In the long term, this ‘stability’ based on repression would lead to instability.  In short, a victory by Ukraine could increase the stability of Eastern Europe. A Russian victory would lead to instability in the region. As for the EU, a return to Russia exerting its political and economic influence over Eastern Europe would have several consequences.  First, it would lead to new divisions on the European continent.  Second, as many EU countries have taken in Ukrainians, an unstable Eastern Europe would lead to new flows of refugees. Populist movements could exploit such a development.  Third, it would lead to deeper divisions inside the EU. The Central European countries would oppose any negotiations that would allow Putin to save face. Germany and France might be tempted to restore relations with the Kremlin—indeed, neither Berlin nor Paris have called unambiguously for Ukraine to win this war.  Fourth, given these differences, it is hard to see how the EU could ever agree to a strong and united foreign, security and defence policy. Russia’s war against Ukraine has exposed the level of distrust between the Central European and big EU member states. Small EU countries matter. Perhaps, for example, Ireland, Finland and Denmark, could form coalitions of the willing with the Central Europeans to maintain political, military and economic support for Ukraine.  Wavering over support for Ukraine is not an option. The stakes are too high for Europe’s stability and unity. Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe

Attracting, retaining and upskilling their people will be a top priority for Ireland’s chief financial officers in 2023. Colin Kerr reports As Irish businesses approach another year of uncertainty, Ireland’s chief financial officers (CFOs) are looking to workforce upskilling as a major “investment opportunity” in the 12 months ahead. The latest Deloitte CFO survey benchmarked the sentiment of 1,151 CFOs in 15 countries in Europe. Published in mid-November, the bi-annual survey sought the views of 75 senior finance executives in Irish business, in sectors ranging from construction, healthcare, and manufacturing, to retail, tourism and transport.  Seventy-two percent said upskilling was a major priority for them currently, while 96 percent identified attracting and retaining skilled talent as one of the biggest risks they would face in 2023. “This outweighs their assessment of other risks, such as the economic outlook for Ireland, the geopolitical outlook, supply chain logistics, and cyber risk,” said Danny Gaffney, Partner, Deloitte Ireland. “The survey also highlighted the point that a lot of CFOs are recognising the multiple benefits of upskilling at a macro level. As Irish businesses upskill their teams, it creates capacity within those teams and CFOs see the importance of that given the constrained talent market.” Businesses in Ireland are refocusing their workforce policies and planning talent attraction and retention, according to Deloitte’s findings. Eighty-five percent are looking at rolling out flexible working patterns, while 69 percent are reviewing their reward offering.  Sixty-eight percent, meanwhile, are investing in wellbeing and assistance programmes, and 59 percent are investing in sustainability initiatives, such as measures to reduce their carbon footprint. “Wellbeing and assistance programmes are actually getting leveraged to a greater degree. Going back to the hybrid discussion, the usual supports that are available onsite are not always available when you are working in a hybrid environment,” said Gaffney. “Having in place good wellbeing and assistance programmes is very useful to organisations in the hybrid environment where CFOs and their teams are not as well-connected as they would be onsite.” Gaffney advised that CFOs put a clear strategy in place when considering how best to upskill their team. “What we need are practical solutions where team members continue in their roles and can upskill around the working day, either in person or online,” he said. “At Deloitte, we are working with clients to help them meet this challenge, including an increasing focus on digital technologies. Personally, I would encourage CFOs to look at training as a better use of their internal capital than focusing on external resources, as a means to allow them to do some of the challenging things they are not doing at present.” The pursuit of digital finance strategies is one of the challenges facing CFOs. Upskilling existing employees can help to meet this challenge. “Getting upskilling right is essential. If you don’t get it right, it falls by the wayside and the business, the CFO and the internal teams all lose out as a result,” said Gaffney. “The biggest trap CFOs can fall into is making upskilling too complicated. The three pillars I would identify are: Show, Support, Assess. CFOs need to be sure the people on their teams are getting the specific training and development they need.” Communication is equally important, as is commitment, according to Gaffney. “It is a two-way street and both the CFO and their team need to be open, upfront and honest in advance of committing to training and upskilling,” he said.  “The business needs to understand the team motive and the individual team members, who are being upskilled, need to understand the business motive behind the process. Commitment is also key because—if we are talking about businesses trying to generate capability to create business value going forward—they need to be committed to ensuring the right conditions are in place for their teams to excel during and after the upskilling.” The growing trend towards hybrid working among businesses in Ireland offers its own potential opportunities. “Remote and online training is much more commonplace now than it was two or three years ago,” said Gaffney.  “With hybrid working, the big challenge a lot of businesses and organisations have faced, and continue to face, concerns connectivity. They can say, ‘we mandate you to be in the office on particular days each week,’ and that can lead to a reaction that may be very negative.  “On the other hand, there are workplaces that are more employee-led in terms of when people are required to come into the office. The challenge in this scenario is that these employees can feel disconnected from the organisation.  “Training is a brilliant way to make people feel connected. When training is made available to me through work, I feel that I am valued and more aligned to my role. This is because I can see that both my organisation and I understand what it takes for me to be successful.” The foremost challenge for many organisations is their CFO’s capacity to “absorb costs”, both new and existing, Gaffney said. “Rates of inflation will remain higher for a longer period of time, as the cost of debt rises and the appetite for risk declines, and organic growth is more of a focus for the CFOs over merger and acquisition (M&A) activity. “Reducing M&A activity may seem like something CFOs would look to do, but they should look at longer-term investments to mitigate current risks.”

The worse the market sentiment, the better the profit opportunities and, right now, UK equities may represent “the trade of the decade”. Cormac Lucey explains why Diversity is regarded as an unambiguously good thing nowadays. Imagine the reaction you might get if you were to try to assert the contrary among your family or in your social group. But, for all that diversity is pushed and advocated, it can also sometimes be woefully lacking in our public discourse.  More than eyebrows may be raised if somebody states their support for Donald Trump or the UK’s decision to exit the European Union. But, in 2016, millions of sensible people voted for Trump and for Brexit.  Is it not odd that today their viewpoint is so universally dismissed? While being contrary is generally regarded as a negative social habit, it can pay rich dividends from an investment perspective: the worse the market sentiment is, the better the profit opportunities.  This is the credo of contrarian investing. Nathan Rothschild, a 19th-century British financier and member of the Rothschild banking family, is credited with saying that “the time to buy is when there’s blood in the streets”.  Brexit is widely regarded by “right-thinking people” as a self-inflicted wound. A June 2022 analysis by John Springford for the European Centre for Reform concluded that the UK economy had substantially underperformed post-Brexit compared to how it might have fared if the British public had not voted to leave the EU.  UK gross domestic product was 5.2 percent lower than it would have been if the UK had remained in the EU; investment was 13.7 percent lower; and goods trade was down 13.6 percent.  Since then, Boris Johnson has given way as Prime Minister to Liz Truss, and she has been replaced by Rishi Sunak. And there was that snap financial crisis triggered by Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget.  The UK has seldom looked so bad.  There isn’t exactly blood running on the streets, but it is pretty bombed out as a popular investment destination. That’s one reason why Rob Arnott, Chair of Research Affiliates, has argued that UK equities represent “the trade of the decade”. He states that “UK equities offer one of the most attractive risk-return trade-offs, priced to earn a return a notch higher than emerging market equities with significantly lower volatility”.  In essence, Arnott follows the Warren Buffett dictum about the equities market: “in the short-term, the market is a popularity contest; in the long-term, it is a weighing machine”.  As investor holding periods stretch out beyond five years, realised investor returns increasingly become a function of the price paid. So, while very expensive stocks can become even more expensive over a few years, as more time passes, they will increasingly struggle to generate strong returns.  Conversely, if you buy a deeply discounted asset (such as UK value stocks today), they may not initially show a great return but, over time, they should. In fact, with an asset this deeply discounted, there’s every chance it will outperform even in the short-term.  Arnott wrote his piece in early 2021 when he argued that, among the major equity markets, UK stocks were trading in the cheapest quintile of their historical norms based on both price-to-book and price-to-five-year average cash-flow ratios and in the bottom third, based on price-to-five-year average sales ratio. His previous big call—to invest in emerging market value stocks in 2016—generated returns of 80 percent in its first two years. Since announcing this trade of the decade, UK value stocks have risen by over 20 percent while the S&P index is marginally lower than it was, and the Nasdaq has dropped by over 20 percent.  Sometimes diversity of thought isn’t so bad after all. Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Developments at the United Nation’s 27th climate conference will have far-reaching implications for financial professionals and businesses worldwide. Susan Rossney digs into the details COP27, the international climate summit, concluded on 20 November after two weeks of negotiations. While last year’s COP saw the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation announce an International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), this year had less reporting-specific news.  One headline was the commitment by CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) to incorporate ISSB’s IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures Standard into its global environmental disclosure platform—another step towards greater comparability and coherence of global standards and reporting. On a macro level, though, COPs have a huge importance for businesses worldwide. ‘COPs’—Conferences of the Parties—are summits attended by the nearly 200 countries which have signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  At COPs, these countries discuss their existing efforts and future plans to deal with climate change and its effects. Any new agreements made at COP tend to be named after the host city, e.g. the ‘Paris Agreement’ (2015), the ‘Glasgow Climate Pact’ (2021). This year we have the ‘Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan’, named after the Egyptian city in which it took place. This plan set up a new loss and damage fund for vulnerable countries most severely impacted by the effects of unpreventable climate change (floods, drought, desertification, and land loss due to rising sea-levels). The inclusion was a landmark moment in global climate politics as it acknowledged that the world’s richer countries—and biggest carbon emitters—are responsible to the developing world for the harm caused by global warming. How to finance this loss and damage, specifically how finance would be channelled to the developing world, was a dominant and contentious topic at COP27. The scale of the finance required is truly enormous. At least $2 trillion a year will be needed by developing countries to enable them to transition from fossil fuels, invest in renewable energy and other low-carbon technology, and cope with the impacts of extreme weather. The final figure is likely to be multiples of that. Although COPs have been criticised as political talking shops, divorced from the lived experience of most citizens and businesses, they have a considerable impact. Close to 200 countries gathering to debate a global response to climate change keeps alive an issue that affects all citizens, albeit not equally.  It restates the importance of holding global warming to the levels agreed upon at the Paris Agreement—i.e. well below 2°C and preferably 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (we are currently at 1.1–1.2°C). What is decided at COP filters down to organisations through legislation and policy, like Europe’s ‘Fit for 55’ package, Ireland’s Climate Action Plans and sectoral targets, and through investors’ continued demands for projects that are aligned to climate targets to meet their own portfolio requirements.  Ireland will come under continued pressure from the EU to act on measures such as developing our renewable energy and tackling our carbon emissions. Changes are required across all sectors, and all businesses, including SMEs, will have to make changes. Accountants, as their trusted advisers, will need the knowledge to help businesses adapt and thrive in this new reality.   Susan Rossney is Sustainability Officer at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Moves underway globally to reform the audit process should reduce the likelihood of corporate collapses and internal fraud, writes Paul Kilduff Whenever there is a sudden company collapse, a shocking fraud or a financial scandal, the details make the front pages of the newspapers and news sites, and the shareholders and the public rightly ask: ‘And where was audit?’ Work is presently underway to address this vital question. In the US, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) oversees the audits of public companies in order to protect investors. There are quality control standards in place covering personnel, ethics, engagement performance and client acceptance, but the chair of the PCAOB accepts that these are outdated and do not adequately promote audit quality.  The PCAOB’s plan is to close the gaps by updating the rules for how firms should police their audit work. It recently issued its 2022–2026 Strategic Plan for public comment, so these planned developments will take time. In the UK, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) develops and maintains auditing and assurance standards. The most recent annual report from the FRC on the quality of audit in the UK found that 33 percent of all audits reviewed needed improvement. This was an unacceptably high number of audits, according to the accounting watchdog. Of the 147 audits inspected by the FRC, 41 required ‘further improvements’ and seven needed ‘significant changes’.  The Institute of Internal Auditors believes the FRC findings underline the need for urgent audit reform and robust measures designed to increase audit quality. One solution is to put the FRC audit regulator on a statutory footing with enough new legal powers to do its job effectively. Sadly, the problem of audit quality remains, and it has impacted the work of the auditor for years. High-profile scandals When Nick Leeson single-handedly destroyed Barings Bank, I was an internal audit manager with HSBC in London. My first reaction was one of relief that the calamitous events had not occurred at our bank. My second reaction was one of concern that the bank’s internal audit team and external auditors in Singapore had not discovered the £869 million trading loss hidden by Leeson. Leeson outfoxed audit. When internal audit arrived from the London head office, he met them on the chaotic trading floor of SIMEX, he told them he was very busy, and he avoided the office and all meetings with the auditors. When external audit from a Big 4 firm asked him for a confirmation for a large bogus option trade, Leeson manufactured the confirmation from a page of headed bank notepaper, using scissors, glue, and a photocopier. The audit team was none the wiser as to his deceit. Wirecard AG, a Munich-based electronic payments provider, once valued at €24 billion, went kaput in 2020. The accounts of this listed company included a bank deposit in Singapore of €1.9 billion, which simply did not exist. The Financial Times reported that, instead of obtaining confirmation of the deposit directly from the bank, the auditors relied on documents and screenshots provided by a third-party trustee and by Wirecard staff.  This audit failure happened not once, but at three successive year-ends from 2016 to 2018. I qualified as an ACA many years ago, but even then, obtaining independent confirmation of bank deposits was covered in day one of audit training. The head of the German financial watchdog BaFin was critical of the audit work performed and said the Wirecard scandal was ‘a complete disaster’, adding: ‘It starts with looking at a complete failure of senior management and it goes on to the scores of auditors who couldn’t dig up the truth.’ In the UK, there are recent examples of previously robust companies, which had been audited by leading UK accounting firms, suddenly failing. The demise of retail chain BHS, travel agency Thomas Cook and construction giant Carillion had a major impact on the UK economy, costing the taxpayer millions. The Institute of Internal Auditors believes that stronger governance and audit can help to prevent such collapses occurring in the future, protecting jobs, pensions, investors and incomes. Necessary reform The necessary improvements to audit must deliver on several fronts. The audit profession must ensure that it attracts capable individuals with strong product knowledge, an inquiring mindset, and a character strong enough to deal with any management obstruction.  The improved audit approach must be documented in revised policies and procedures, which must be ingrained in audit work. Quality Assurance functions must be set up or enhanced in firms to ensure standards are met. The cost of implementing these audit reforms must be reasonable to bear, whether the auditor is in an internal audit function, a Big 4 audit firm or a small audit firm with a more limited budget. There is an expectation that audit reform must use all available technology to improve the quality and scope of audit work. In the past, audit sampling may have been acceptable, but with advanced Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAATs), 100 percent auditing is the likely optimal solution. Global audit reform must also consider the changing nature of work, and the associated risks. Few auditors thought three years ago that so many employees would now be working on a hybrid basis, relying on remote systems access for client verification, payments processing and other critical tasks.  When reform does arrive, there should be international convergence, so that the audit quality rules in the US, UK and other jurisdictions are consistent and align with international standards, thereby avoiding unnecessary differences and costly duplication that could weaken audit effectiveness.  In the meantime, accountancy bodies are providing new guidance to members.  New guidance  In the UK, the Institute of Accountants in England and Wales recently reported on the significant resources devoted to fraud-related activities within audit firms. It also acknowledged the public perception that auditors can and should be doing much more to deter and detect fraud and to prevent the unexpected failure of large companies due to fraud. It was Lord Justice Lopes who famously summed up the auditor’s duty in the case of Kingston Cotton Mills Co., where the company directors had fraudulently overstated the value of stock, by proclaiming: ‘An auditor is not bound to be a detective. He is a watchdog, but not a bloodhound.’  Lopes opined that the auditor cannot be liable for any wrongdoings they had no reason to suspect were taking place, but that landmark legal judgement was handed down in 1896. The expectation placed on both internal and external auditors is significantly higher today.  The auditor is not specifically expected to search out any fraud or deception in their audit, but if there are warning signs that all is not well, the auditor must investigate these to reach a satisfactory conclusion regarding the audit opinion.  While writing my latest banking book, I researched the case of Joseph Jett, a former bond trader with Kidder Peabody in New York, who created $350 million of phantom trading profits on the bank’s computer systems.  The subsequent post-mortem report stated that the internal auditors learnt that Jett had booked billions of dollars of unusual transactions, but no auditor followed up on this anomaly. The auditor had to explain his work in court, as audit workpapers were produced with hand-written annotations without evidence of action. This is not a situation any auditor would wish to defend.  I also came across Sir Allen Stanford and his Stanford Financial Group, based in Antigua, which was later revealed to be a giant Ponzi scheme. His bank at the time had a value of $8 billion, but it was audited by a small Antiguan audit firm with just ten staff. This should never have been acceptable. When corporate disaster does strike, it is easy to point the finger at the auditor, but this is often unfair. Every auditor comes to work with the intention of doing a good job. The aim of audit reform is to assist and guide the auditor in their work, rather than to make their work more onerous. The global audit reform process is underway, and it must deliver improvements to reduce the likelihood of further high-profile corporate disasters, which damage the reputation of the auditor. In the meantime, the auditor at large would do well to maintain a healthy sense of scepticism.  Paul Kilduff B.Comm FCA is an author and banker, who has worked with HSBC, Bank of Ireland, Bank of America, Barclays and Citibank. His eighth book, Stupid Bankers: The World’s Worst Banking Disasters Revealed, is available exclusively on Amazon UK in paperback and Kindle format

Irish Government finances are in surplus and Ireland’s debt-to-GDP ratio has stabilised, so why are there calls for higher taxes? asks Dr Brian Keegan It’s hard to avoid concern fatigue setting in. What with the war in Ukraine, the cost-of-living crisis, the continued Northern political stalemate, multiple dire warnings amplified at COP27 over climate change and another possible COVID-19 surge—the list of concerns seems particularly endless at the moment.   Some time ago, the commentator Marc Coleman projected that population growth—and, by implication, skills growth—would drive prosperity in Ireland. Coleman’s ideas have been given additional credence by the current situation in the UK. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s November budget looks towards an extended period of economic stagnation. British productivity has not grown in line with government spending in recent years. In the moribund British economy, there is a record low level of people out of work while the number of job vacancies is at a record high.   There is a straightforward, one-to-one relationship between economic growth and the growth in tax yield, which permits more government spending without further borrowing. When the growth in gross domestic product (GDP) stalls, so too do the tax figures.   In his book The Best is Yet to Come, Coleman pointed out some of the links between more workers, growth and greater resources for public services and benefits. Though the timing was unfortunate (the book was published just months before the 2008 financial crisis), Ireland is now indeed in a better place, at least economically, than it has been for many years. Government finances are in surplus and the debt-to-GDP ratio, at around 50 percent, is back under control.   Unlike the British situation where a Budget bordering on the austere was required to meet existing public spending commitments, without an intolerably high borrowing requirement, the recent Irish Budget took a cost-of-living crisis in its stride, with grant aid against soaring energy bills for households and businesses alike being met through current tax receipts. Nevertheless, a narrative has emerged that the burden of taxation in Ireland will have to increase.   Why this should be the case is not always specified. There are unquestionably problems with housing, health, and education, but it does not automatically follow that these problems arise from underinvestment. At the time of writing, close to half a billion euros set aside in 2022 for local authority housing remains unspent. This points to management or capacity problems, not funding challenges.   The much-heralded report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare has not had a huge impact on the political debate. This may be because it presents solutions in search of a problem. As research from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council has pointed out, “its work was not framed around any specific shortfall in funding that needed to be filled. Instead, it was guided by a broad intention to generate additional revenue”.   Even government politicians, who are rarely scathing about the output of an expert group, which the government itself commissioned, were dismissive of the recommendations. Clearly, there are some areas of the economy where additional tax funding will be required, if not immediately, in the medium-term.   Unless there is an unforeseen level of immigration of people of working age, the ratio of workers to pensioners is going in the wrong direction. Climate change management, ironically being driven more by energy security concerns than global altruism, will come with a price tag. The sustained high corporation tax take may have peaked. In Britain, the urgent need for higher taxation has been unanswerable. In Ireland, there needs to be a clear business case for any form of new or additional taxation. We have enough to be concerned about without the prospect of unnecessary taxes. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy and Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland

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.”