The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the United Nations Global Compact have launched 'SDG Leadership through Reporting', a new initiative to promote and advance corporate reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The two organisations will work together to develop a list of disclosures for tracking business contributions to the SDGs and they will release a publication on SDG-reporting. The launch will took place during the United Nations Private Sector Forum 2016, held on 19 September 2016 at the UN Headquarters in New York. For more information please see the press release on the GRI website.

With the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) set up by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) expected in December, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) have published a short paper considering how the reporting community could work together to support the successful implementation of climate-related financial disclosure through mainstream reporting channels. A happier horizon discusses the preparation of the reporting infrastructure, practical integration of climate change information into mainstream reports, and materiality. In conclusion the paper identifies that there is a crucial role for the reporting community to play to ensure the success of the TCFD’s recommendations. Please click for the press release and the publication on the CDSB website.

Please click through for direct access to the notes:

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

• IAS 8 amendments
• IFRS Implementation issues
• Conceptual Framework (education session)
• Financial instruments with characteristics of equity
• Agenda consultation

You can also access the preliminary and unofficial notes taken by Deloitte observers for the entire meeting.

The IASB will meet again on Thursday to further discuss its conceptual framework project.

Speaking at the conference, Sir Win Bischoff stated that “culture in business is a key ingredient in delivering long-term sustainable performance for all stakeholders including customers, communities, suppliers, employees and shareholders – ultimately society itself.”

He highlighted the role that the UK Corporate Governance Code has played on promoting better behaviours in business. But at the same time, he indicated the limits of the Code, i.e. “by itself, a code does not prevent inappropriate behaviour, strategies or decisions”. He stated that “Only the people, particularly the leaders within a business, can do that.”

He referred to the FRC's report 'Corporate culture and the role of boards', published in July this year, which highlights the vital role of the Board in establishing and delivering good behaviours.

He further indicated that “culture can be measured and much information is already available to do so”. He also stated that culture should be company specific and that “there is no one-size-fits-all” approach.

Concluding he stressed “there simply has to be increased and continuous focus on company culture”.

The full text of the speech can be obtained from the FRC's website.

The new re­quire­ments since 1 July 2015 include:

• The new IFRS 16 standard.
• Amend­ments to: IFRS 15, IFRS 2, IAS 7, and IAS 12.

The Green Book sells for £98 plus shipping for the two book set. More in­for­ma­tion and ordering details are available on the IASB's website.

The data in the paper provides evidence, mainly from existing practice in Canada, demonstrating what information users need to understand the economics of rate-regulated activities, and how this information factors into their decision-making. It concludes that in the case of rate-regulated entities, users take into consideration the financial effects of rate regulation when making their assessments. The paper also argues that rate-regulated assets command a premium in purchase price given the stable earnings and predictable cash flows they can offer.

Please click for access to the full paper on the AcSB website.

The terms of reference of the inquiry cover a wide variety of questions on three topic areas:

• directors' duties;
• executive pay; and
• the composition of boards.

Directors' duties

In relation to directors' duties, the committee will be considering the following questions.

• Is company law sufficiently clear on the roles of directors and non-executive directors, and are those duties the right ones? If not, how should it be amended?
• Is the duty to promote the long-term success of the company clear and enforceable?
• How are the interests of shareholders, current and former employees best balanced?
• How best should the decisions of Boards be scrutinised and open to challenge?
• Should there be greater alignment between the rules governing public and private companies? What would be the consequences of this?
• Should additional duties be placed on companies to promote greater transparency, e.g. around the roles of advisors. If so, what should be published and why? What would the impact of this be on business behaviour and costs to business?
• How effectively have the provisions of the 1992 Cadbury report been embedded? How best can shareholders have confidence that Executives are subject to independent challenge?
• Should Government regulate or rely on guidance and professional bodies to ensure that Directors fulfil their duties effectively?

Executive pay

In relation to executive pay, the committee will be considering the following questions.

• What factors have influenced the steep rise in executive pay over the past 30 years relative to salaries of more junior employees?
• How should executive pay take account of companies’ long-term performance?
• Should executive pay reflect the value added by executives to companies relative to more junior employees? If so, how?
• What evidence is there that executive pay is too high? How, if at all, should Government seek to influence or control executive pay?
• Do recent high-profile shareholder actions demonstrate that the current framework for controlling executive pay is bedding in effectively? Should shareholders have a greater role?

Composition of Boards

In relation to the composition of Boards, the committee will be considering the following questions.

• What evidence is there that more diverse company boards perform better?
• How should greater diversity of board membership be achieved? What should diversity include, e.g. gender, ethnicity, age, sexuality, disability, experience, socio-economic background?
• Should there be worker representation on boards and/or remuneration committees? If so, what form should this take?
• What more should be done to increase the number of women in Executive positions on boards?

Submitting evidence to the inquiry

Anyone wishing to submit evidence to the inquiry should do so via the Committee's Corporate Governance inquiry page by Wednesday 26 October 2016.

The FRC's review looked at the policies and procedures of the six largest UK audit firms. Overall, all are improving their processes for root cause analysis but some are more advance than others.

The FRC recommends that the firms should improve planning and training on the process, consider using individuals and techniques from outside the audit practice and adopt more consistent processes for investigating causes for internal and external inspections.

More details of the FRC's findings can be found in the full report, available from the FRC's website, along with a press release.

He listened to people. As he said in an interview reflecting on his role as Director of International Activities: ‘The purpose is not to attempt to boil down a single view but to get people together talking about issues. And what you find then is that thought leaders emerge and the quality of the response is much better’. And he maintained the same philosophy in his role as Chairman of the Interpretations Committee. He summed that role up with the words: ‘I am the Chair. I’m the facilitator, hopefully a consensus builder, but to have a vision or a mission I am not sure is appropriate’.

And he was also a man who looked for solutions. He was not going to hide behind a barricade of formality. Referring to the procedures of the Interpretations Committee and how it worked he once commented: ‘I think there is enough wiggle room, and there’s a technical term for you, in those criteria that if we see something that needs doing then we can find a way to do it’.

And as an archetypal American accountant at the London-based IASB he had developed a characteristically perceptive overview. He had been almost twenty years at the US standard-setting body, FASB, and he had been with the IASB almost since its inception. He would joke that he felt that the last time he had been a ‘real’ accountant must have been around the time ‘when Eisenhower was President’. But his view of the relationship between the FASB and the IASB was the real insight. ‘I think the IASB is culturally different than the FASB’, he said, ‘and all of that really stems from the fact that we have a hundred jurisdictions or so that are involved in our process and the FASB has only one. And that means that we have to create a different dynamic’. And he well understood the differences that this created. ‘I think it’s a mistake to characterise our standards at the IASB as principles based and the FASB standards as rules based’, he said. ‘I didn’t spend 17 years over there being unprincipled. As I say, it is a difficult balance between the appropriate level of assistance that you give people and keeping the standards to a manageable level’.

He will sorely missed in many ways and at many levels.