Thought Leadership News

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

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

Originally posted on Business Post 5 November 2022.  Conditions may be chaotic, but the outlook for the Irish exchequer is not necessarily bleak. We live in very strange times if a key determinant of economic success is whether or not the weather will be cold in Europe over the winter. Yet that is the unavoidable consequence of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine and the chaos it has created. Chaos is contagious, and dealing with it saps resources, but at least last week’s exchequer returns showed yet another bumper tax harvest in Ireland. It used to be the case that tax yields could be predicted fairly accurately by reference to GDP. If GDP increased, say by 5 per cent, then tax yields would also increase by about 5 per cent. This year at budget time, the GDP growth forecast was 10 per cent – but the tax yield growth forecast, at 19.2 per cent, is almost twice that. A few factors have put the sums askew in our favour. One is timing. A higher proportion of income tax and corporation tax gets collected in the last quarter of the year. Now that budget day routinely falls in October – and it was even earlier this year – predictions of the trend are more complicated. Another factor was the pandemic, which threw all forms of straightforward comparisons with previous years out the window. Thirdly, successive tax policies over the past ten years have narrowed the income tax base, meaning that fewer individuals pay the highest proportion of income tax. That makes calculating a reliable average tricky. As well as all this, we taxed our way out of the great recession mainly through higher Vat rates, but we have forgotten to reduce them. The standard Vat rate of 23 per cent in this country is among the highest in Europe, so a surge in price inflation also means a surge in Vat receipts. Corporation tax yields dominate the exchequer returns. Government never misses an opportunity to tell us how fragile that high yield might be, though there are good reasons for it. Many of the major companies established in Ireland are from the ICT or pharmaceutical sectors, which have shown extraordinary growth and profitability over the past several years. International corporate tax reforms since 2012 have restricted or eliminated opportunities for multinational corporates to locate profits in very low tax regimes, resulting in more tax being paid in this country. In some cases, capital allowances to encourage companies to establish here have expired, leaving more profits within the annual charge to corporation tax. So how might the current chaotic conditions really impact on government capacity to tax, and then spend? During the pandemic, those on higher wages were less likely to lose their jobs. However, this time there are clear signals that some jobs in the ICT sector are vulnerable. Twitter is letting staff go – as is Stripe, which has openly admitted it got it wrong on economic growth and cost management. There are also legitimate fears that some jobs in the lower-end services sectors and hospitality could go, as inflation, higher fuel bills and higher interest rates squeeze consumer spending. This month’s exchequer figures neither confirm nor challenge consumer spending trends, as Vat is paid every two months – and this wasn’t one of them. Despite this uncertainty, it does not automatically follow that the outlook for the Irish exchequer is bleak. International tax rules have not changed and are less likely to do so in an increasingly protectionist world. That is important for any small economy like Ireland’s that is dependent on foreign direct investment. Any disruption to our reliance for tax revenue on the corporate sector, high-income individuals or consumer spend will most likely be caused by poor domestic political decisions, rather than by outside influences. In a period of inflation, there tend to be greater opportunities for employment. It is counterintuitive, but there is an inverse relationship between inflation and the unemployment rate. Higher inflation leads to higher wages, leading to more attractive working conditions. This reality is borne out by a shortage of staff being felt across almost all sectors. It is not going to be easy to get through the current inflationary, fuel security and monetary crises, and it is right to highlight the risks that are not of our own making. But it is not right to identify these external risks without acknowledging that we would do most harm to ourselves with domestic policy mistakes. If we can improve our accommodation, health provision and migrant policy without recourse to increasing the national debt and without damaging confidence in the corporate and consumer sectors, we should be able to manage through the current chaos just fine. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland