The dots are connecting

The dots are connecting

IFRS Foundation completes consolidation with Value Reporting Foundation

The August 1 consolidation of the Value Reporting Foundation – i.e., the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) + the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) – into the IFRS Foundation was a foundational (no pun intended) milestone for those in the corporate sustainability reporting space. The absorption (for lack of a better word) by the IFRS Foundation of SASB and IIRC was to support the IFRS Foundation’s new International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB) work to develop a comprehensive global baseline of sustainability disclosures for the capital markets. Going forward, the ISSB strongly encourages companies to use the SASB Standards and to adopt the Integrated Reporting Framework to drive high-quality corporate reporting. On this latter point, I have previously underlined that the ISSB is assuming joint responsibility for the Integrated Reporting Framework with its sister board the IASB (International Accounting Standards Board) and that they are working to integrate this framework into their standard-setting projects and requirements. In a separate release, the ISSB mentioned receiving more than 1,300 comment letters on its two proposed IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards following the 120-day comment period that ended on 29 July, including more than 600 responses to its draft climate disclosure standard and close to 700 responses to its draft general requirements disclosure standard. The release of the final version of these standards is expected before the end of 2022.

Read the press release

Putting Financial Reporting Standards Into Practical Perspective

This is the third of three articles exploring the history of financial accounting standards to provide a frame of reference when considering the creation of sustainability disclosure standards (currently well underway). This instalment very appropriately explores the usefulness of standards. As the article states, financial standards are useful because “they provide the social construct for the measurement of financial performance”. Companies provide a lot of information in addition to their financial statements to help convey how (well) they are doing, and investors collect a lot of information in addition to these statements to conduct their analysis and make their investment decisions. But “the financial statements based on standards create a common language for dialogue and engagement. For the most part the words in the language are understood and accepted by both parties which spares them time discussing exactly how each number in the income statement and balance sheet was produced.” Perhaps most importantly, the article reminds us that “standards aren’t a silver bullet. They don’t set targets, […] they simply give guidance how such targets should be developed, measured, reported, and then provide a standard for reporting on the extent to which a target has been achieved. Whether targets are set, and the progress on them, will depend on many other factors, such as pressure from investors and NGOs, government regulations, and executive compensation.” In other words, these are disclosure standards, not management standards. They are much needed, indeed. Yet while they are necessary, they are not sufficient to drive behaviour change in companies to truly integrate sustainability to their business model. Having said this, perhaps the project of embedding integrated reporting into standards (mentioned in the previous item) – and then having these standards embedded into regulations – will facilitate this behaviour change. Food for thought.

Read the article

Here's a great excerpt explaining what investors do to come to their investment decisions:

“Investors do their own work to ascertain the meaning of the numbers reported in the financial statements. They have their own views of GAAP vs. non-GAAP earnings, they put these in the context of their own earnings’ expectations, they analyze the other information companies provide, they speak to fiduciaries and other important corporate stakeholders, they do extensive comparative analysis between the company and its competitors (such as adjusting for differences in depreciation schedules), they purchase data from various sources (such as ESG ratings), they do their own proprietary research (such as talking to industry experts, doing customer surveys, and accessing data from sites such as Glassdoor), they look at industry and market trends, they consider the impact of exogenous factors like growth and interest rates, and they put accounting data in the context of market data, like calculating the price/earnings ratio.”        

FAF Strategic Plan Draft for Public Comment

We missed it when it came out last May, but the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) had released its strategic plan draft outlining its goals and objectives. The FAF is the organization responsible for the oversight, administration, financing, and appointment of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). In turn, the FASB is responsible for establishing the financial accounting and reporting standards used by companies in the US that follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)). It is both a little surprising and extremely noteworthy to find that FAF Goal # 6 is to “engage with stakeholders, regulators, and Congress to determine the appropriate way, if any, for the organization to contribute to future sustainability reporting.” It seems that the FAF’s intention, for now, is to understand and monitor the fast-changing landscape of sustainability reporting and evolving market needs, and to engage with other standard-setting bodies such as the IFRS Foundation. This is a really good start. Is anyone else seeing the dots connecting?

Read the strategic plan draft

No alt text provided for this image

?

Embedding ESG and sustainability considerations into the Three Lines Model

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) together with The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) have published a guidance document to help companies integrate ESG and sustainability considerations into their strategy and business model. It very cleverly uses the IIA’s “Three Lines Model” to identify the three roles that together are responsible for strong governance and risk management:

  1. The governing body
  2. Management
  3. Internal audit

This is a very useful tool, that reads well and provides recommendations and key questions for companies to ask themselves when seeking to increase integration of ESG and sustainability considerations, and it clarifies a lot questions about ‘who should do what’. This will help when comes time to implement integrated thinking and reporting, mentioned in the items above.

Access the document

No alt text provided for this image

PRI review of trends in ESG reporting requirements for investors

The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) carried out a review?of the global ESG reporting landscape for investors. Homing in on “investment-related ESG reporting”, it found:??

  • Investment-related ESG reporting requirements are growing but not in all jurisdictions, and the gap between low-regulation and high-regulation jurisdictions appears to be growing
  • A move from “tell me” (i.e., policies and activities) to “show me” (i.e., strategic implementation and outcomes) reporting
  • ESG issue-specific reporting is growing
  • Alignment with TCFD is generalized
  • We are a long way from global consensus on investment-related ESG reporting

In terms of the level of regulation, the regions are broken down as follows:

  • High-regulation jurisdictions: the EU, France, Hong Kong, and the UK
  • Medium-regulation jurisdictions: Australia, China, and Japan
  • Low-regulation jurisdictions: Canada and the US

The PRI is currently in the process of reviewing its reporting in order to develop a universally applicable reporting framework that is better aligned with jurisdictional reporting requirements and can evolve to meet the future needs of its signatories. ??????

On all counts, the parallels between corporate and investor sustainability reporting are notable.

Read the report

P.S.: We're going on vacation for two weeks, and we'll be back for the week ending August 26. Enjoy the rest of the summer!

Gillian Marcelle, PhD

CEO and Founder, Resilience Capital Ventures LLC

2 年

Very important post…. But “the financial statements based on standards create a common language for dialogue and engagement. For the most part the words in the language are understood and accepted by both parties which spares them time discussing exactly how each number in the income statement and balance sheet was produced.” Perhaps most importantly, the article reminds us that “standards aren’t a silver bullet. They don’t set targets, […] they simply give guidance how such targets should be developed, measured, reported, and then provide a standard for reporting on the extent to which a target has been achieved. Whether targets are set, and the progress on them, will depend on many other factors, such as pressure from investors and NGOs, government regulations, and executive compensation.” This is a must read….

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了