Mr Dombrovskis said that later this year he would present a renewed sustainable finance strategy, which would include a revision of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive. This would require companies to increase disclosure on their sustainable activities and give adequate reliable information on sustainability risks and opportunities. However, he said, not every detail can - or should - be fixed in law. There was also a need for clear reporting standards for companies to apply. Mr Dombrovskis went on to say:

So today, I can tell you that the European Commission will support a process to develop European non-financial reporting standards. I will soon invite the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group [EFRAG] to begin preparatory work for these standards as quickly as possible. The many overlapping international reporting standards and set-ups confuse companies and investors. They also find it expensive. The EU is well placed to address this situation – and show leadership in building consensus for a set of standards that can be widely accepted.

Mr Dombrovskis conceded that the European Commission cannot do this alone. Therefore, he stated, the best and most widely accepted elements of what exists today will be the starting point and expert assistance from those organisations and individuals who can best contribute to the process will be used. 

Review the Mr. Dombrovskis' speech on the European Commission's website.

IFRS for SMEs was first issued in July 2009. A first comprehensive review of the standard took place between 2012 and 2014. The IASB has now launched a second review with the objective of seeking views on whether and how to align the IFRS for SMEs with full IFRSs.

The Request for Information is divided into three parts:

• Part A contains strategic and general questions.
• Part B contains questions on specific sections of the IFRS for SMEs and their alignment with the full IFRSs; and
• Part C contains questions on new topics and other matters related to the IFRS for SMEs.

A summary of the questions asked in each Part is set out in the table at the bottom of the article.

The SMEIG is expected to review comments on the request for information and make recommendations to the IASB on possible amendments.

Click for:

• Press release (link to IASB website)
• Request for information: Comprehensive Review of the IFRS for SMEs Standard
• Snapshot overview of the request for information on the IASB website

The IPTF's discussion document for the November 19, 2019 meeting is now available and states the following view of the Task Force:

Countries with three-year cumulative inflation rates exceeding 100%:

• Argentina
• South Sudan
• Sudan
• Venezuela
• Zimbabwe

Countries with projected three-year cumulative inflation rates exceeding 100%:

• Islamic Republic of Iran

Countries where the three-year cumulative inflation rates had exceeded 100% in recent years:

There are no countries in this category for this period.

Countries with recent three-year cumulative inflation rates exceeding 100% after a spike in inflation in a discrete period:

• Angola
• Suriname

Countries with projected three-year cumulative inflation rates between 70% and 100% or with a significant (25% or more) increase in inflation during the current period

• Democratic Republic of Congo
• Liberia
• Yemen

The IPTF also notes that there may be additional countries with three-year cumulative inflation rates exceeding 100% or that should be monitored which are not included in the analysis as the necessary data is not available. An example cited is Syria.

The full list, including exact numbers, detailed explanations of the calculation of the numbers, and observations of the Task Force is available on the CAQ website. We also offer the overview of the IPTF's assessment of hyperinflationary jurisdictions at the end of our summary of IAS 29.

The document discusses best practices for enhancing cybersecurity preparedness and operational resiliency. Topics addressed include the following:

• Governance and risk management
• Access rights and controls
• Data loss prevention
• Mobile security
• Incident response and resiliency
• Vendor management
• Training and awareness

Review the press release and cybersecurity page on the SEC’s website.

The International Business Council (IBC) of the WEF discussed a proposal prepared by the Forum in collaboration with the Big Four accounting firms – Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC – titled Toward Common Metrics and Consistent Reporting of Sustainable Value Creation. The proposal recommends a set of core metrics and recommended disclosures. The intent is for the metrics to be reflected in the mainstream annual reports of companies on a consistent basis across industry sectors and countries.

The proposed metrics and recommended disclosures have been organized into four pillars that are aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and principal Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) domains. They are:

The metrics are drawn, wherever possible, from existing standards and disclosures such as GRI, SASB, TCFD, CDSB and others. Instead of reinventing the wheel by creating a new standard, they aim to amplify and elevate the rigorous work that has already been done by these initiatives, bringing their most material aspects into mainstream reports on a consistent basis.

Adoption of such recommended universal metrics and disclosures by IBC companies is intended to be a catalyst for greater alignment and synergy among existing ESG standards and ultimately a system-wide solution, such as a generally accepted international accounting or other reporting standard drawn from best practice.

Review the Consultation Draft Toward Common Metrics and Consistent Reporting of Sustainable Value Creation from the WEF's website.

Background

The issue was originally addressed as part of the annual improvements project 2010 -2012 cycle. Exposure Draft ED/2012/1 Annual Improvements to IFRSs (2010—2012 Cycle), published in May 2012, proposed amendments to IAS 1.73 to clarify that a liability is classified as non-current if an entity expects, and has the discretion, to refinance or roll over an obligation for at least twelve months after the reporting period under an existing loan facility with the same lender, on the same or similar terms. During 2013, however, the IASB decided not to finalise the amendment, but instead pursue a narrow-scope project to refine the existing guidance in IAS 1 on when liabilities should be classified as current.

In February 2015, the Board published its proposals in the Exposure Draft  ED/2015/1 Classification of Liabilities (Proposed amendments to IAS 1). The Board discussed feedback on the ED from December 2015 to September 2019, pausing the project between 2016 and 2018 while it finalised revisions to the definition of a liability in the Conceptual Framework. As a result of these discussions, the Board made no fundamental changes to the proposed amendments but decided to clarify some aspects of them.

Amendments

The amendments in Classification of Liabilities as Current or Non-Current (Amendments to IAS 1) affect only the presentation of liabilities in the statement of financial position — not the amount or timing of recognition of any asset, liability income or expenses, or the information that entities disclose about those items. They:

• clarify that the classification of liabilities as current or non-current should be based on rights that are in existence at the end of the reporting period and align the wording in all affected paragraphs to refer to the "right" to defer settlement by at least twelve months and make explicit that only rights in place "at the end of the reporting period" should affect the classification of a liability;
• clarify that classification is unaffected by expectations about whether an entity will exercise its right to defer settlement of a liability; and
• make clear that settlement refers to the transfer to the counterparty of cash, equity instruments, other assets or services.

Effective date and transition

The amendments are effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2022 and are to be applied retrospectively. Earlier application is permitted.

Additional information

Review the press release on the IASB's website.

This was the fifth consecutive annual review of disclosure related to women on boards and in executive officer positions conducted by the participating jurisdictions. 

The data was compiled from public documents filed on SEDAR and includes the name, industry and year-end of the 641 non-venture issuers who were included in the review sample. These issuers had year-ends between December 31, 2018 and March 31, 2019, and filed information circulars or annual information forms by July 31, 2019.

Review the press release on the CSA's website and the data on the the OSC's website.

To manage all relationships well, board directors need the ability to inspire and influence others. They often need to be good problem-solvers, which can be challenging when it’s difficult to predict how people will respond or be able to work together.

Review the article on the BoardEffect's website.

The EDs are aimed at strengthening the non-assurance services (NAS) and the fee-related independence provisions of the International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including International Independence Standards) (the Code). The EDs represent a key milestone in two major strategic commitments of the IESBA in its current strategy and workplan.

Among the key changes proposed to the NAS provisions are:

• A prohibition on providing NAS to an audit client that is a public interest entity (PIE) if a self-review threat to independence will be created;
• Further tightening of the circumstances in which materiality may be considered in determining the permissibility of a NAS;
• Strengthened provisions regarding auditor communication with those charged with governance (TCWG), including, for PIEs, a requirement for NAS pre-approval by TCWG; and
• Stricter requirements regarding the provision of some NAS, including certain tax and corporate finance advice.

The NAS ED also includes enhanced guidance to assist firms in evaluating the level of threats to independence when providing NAS to audit clients. 

Among the key proposed changes to the fee-related provisions are:

•  A prohibition on firms allowing the audit fee to be influenced by the provision of services other than audit to the audit client;
• In the case of PIEs, a requirement to cease to act as auditor if fee dependency on the audit client continues beyond a specified period; and
• Communication of fee-related information to TCWG and to the public to assist their judgments about auditor independence.

The Fees ED also includes enhanced guidance on identifying, evaluating and addressing threats to independence in relation to other fee-related matters, including the proportion of fees for services other than audit to the audit fee.

Review the press release and exposure drafts on the IESBA's website.

The Lab’s report provides practical guidance and examples on how companies can provide improved information to investors. It encourages companies to think of the workforce as a strategic asset and explain how it is invested in. Alongside the report, the Lab also published a summary of the report covering questions companies should ask themselves about their reporting on workforce matters.

Review the following additional information on the FRC's website:

• Press release
• Financial Reporting Council Workforce-related corporate reporting — Where to next?