IFRS Foundation Trustees: key acknowledgements not addressed in strategy

by Carol A Adams

Main points:

  • the IFRS Foundation Trustees’ response to feedback acknowledges some key findings of research;
  • some matters acknowledged by the Trustees are not (currently) incorporated into their strategy.

Research demonstrates the urgent need for mandatory sustainability reporting standards to achieve sustainable development and also that such standards need to be enforced and reporting externally assured. The debate has been around how to get to there.

The IFRS Foundation Trustees put out a Consultation Paper on Sustainability Reporting last year claiming that a new standards board under its umbrella should be the standard setter and that the focus should be on the “investor perspective”. Evidence based analysis was not provided, but see the independent analysis of reports leading up to its release here (Table 1).

Key acknowledgements

The brief summary of the feedback in the 577 responses to the Consultation Paper addresses some of the key issues that are supported by academic research and the experience of practitioners. In response to the feedback, the Trustees:

  • acknowledge increasing concern about the impacts of organisations on sustainable development (citing biodiversity, water scarcity and pollution as examples);
  • acknowledge that stakeholder concerns regarding the social and environmental impacts of companies influence value creation (or erosion) for investors;
  • recognise the need to consider opportunities arising from sustainable development issues as well as risks;
  • recognise that investors are interested in corporate actions to address climate change (and other sustainable development issues);
  • acknowledge the need for a conceptual framework to underpin standard setting;
  • recognise the need for a broad sustainability scope (whilst tackling climate disclosures first);
  • recognise the importance of narratives as well as metrics;
  • acknowledge the need to work with urgency;
  • acknowledge the need to broaden its stakeholder base.

The Trustees also state that:

… some respondents suggested the Trustees consider anchoring the development of IFRS sustainability standards to the UN’s SDGs, while still ensuring a focus on the information needs of investors. (p 18)

In fact some responses argued that anchoring to the UN SDGs requires a focus on both the impact of the organisation on sustainable development and value creation (or depletion) for the organisation and society.

Whilst a positive development, some of the key issues acknowledged by the Trustees are not addressed by their strategy.

The strategy gaps

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is shutterstock_508350772-1-1024x683.jpg

In their response to the feedback, the Trustees made frequent references to addressing enterprise value and the information needs of investors. They intend to work with the Value Reporting Foundation (the merged IIRC and SASB) and engage with CDP and GRI on the periphery.

… the Trustees expect the new board to build upon the well-established work of the TCFD and the work of leading standard-setters in sustainability and integrated reporting focused on enterprise value (p 17) [emphasis added]

But as they acknowledge, stakeholder concerns about the social and environmental impacts of companies influence value creation for investors. Addressing the sustainable development impacts of companies is also in the public interest. The Trustees argue that their strategy is in the public interest.

The Trustees recognise the importance for the public interest of reporting standards that address enterprise value—which capture expected value creation (or erosion) for investors in the short, medium and long term
and is interdependent with value creation for stakeholders in the context of social and environmental imperatives (p11)

Investors are interested in the impact of an organisation on sustainable development (hence their inclusion in all GRI’s governance bodies).

The Trustees commit to exploring the creation of a multi-stakeholder expert consultative committee to help the new board identify relevant sustainability topics. It is hard to imagine a private sector body doing this with credibility. The GRI has a credible and long established multi-stakeholder approach.

The Trustees seek to redefine “sustainability reporting” to be reporting on “ESG matters”.

Overall, the IFRS Foundation’s strategy appears to be designed to appeal to the US, where powerful forces seek to adhere to financial materiality. There appears to be an unstated ambition for the new Value Reporting Foundation to be subsumed within the IFRS Foundation. (The ‘technical readiness working group’ does not include CDP or GRI). The European Commission/EFRAG approach is fundamentally different to that proposed by the Trustees on all key aspects. (There is an interesting parallel with the development of financial reporting standards where the IASB made significant compromises in an attempt to gain acceptance in the Financial Accounting Standards Board in the US.)

Bridging the gap

If we are to achieve the SDGs, reporting needs to cover:

  • material impacts of an organisation on sustainable development (performance and targets);
  • sustainable development risks and opportunities;
  • how sustainable development matters are incorporated into strategy and the business model;
  • other aspects of management approach and governance oversight.

The Trustees’ strategy does not address all these matters. These ingredients of reporting to achieve the SDGs are reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals Disclosure (SDGD) Recommendations that develops a conceptual framework and reporting requirements drawing on the most used frameworks/Standards TCFD recommendations, Integrated Reporting Framework and GRI Standards (explained in the Feedback document on the consultation on the SDGD Recommendations).

The Trustees will set the strategic direction of the new board, but were not appointed for their expertise in sustainability reporting. It is increasingly accepted that corporate boards should include sustainable development in their skills matrix. The gap between what the Trustees acknowledge and their strategy needs to be addressed. It will not be addressed through the guidance of a ‘technical readiness working group’ that includes only those organisations with a focus on enterprise value.

The GRI and EFRAG will play a critical role in achieving harmonisation between these fundamentally opposed approaches. I believe the wider audience and focus on sustainable development will ultimately prevail because it has integrity, is informed by evidence and because national governments have committed to sustainable development. Research shows that the mega transformation to sustainable development does not occur where an organisation privileges a profit and financial materiality focus over a broader view of value for the organisation and society. 

The letter signed by Professors of Accounting researching sustainability reporting and Editors of all key journals publishing research in the field was unprecedented. There was no dissent about the summary findings of research.

Additional comments on this post are on LinkedIn

Note: This article draws on the feedback document only. It does not address the exposure draft to change the Constitution of the IFRS Foundation to accommodate an ‘International Sustainability Standards Board’.

US Council of Institutional Investors taking an interest in SEC position on climate and diversity disclosures

Main points: The US Council of Institutional Investors is considering views on climate change and diversity disclosure.Some key stakeholders have views that might be considered 'yesterday's thinking' in Europe with a limited view of what is … [Continue reading]

Sustainable development as our ‘north star’ in the harmonisation debate

by Carol A Adams Main points: provides a summary of what matters in the debate on the harmonisation of sustainability reporting; sustainable development/ the SDGs are taken as the guiding 'north star'. Definition of sustainability … [Continue reading]

Connecting the COVID-19 pandemic, ESG investing and calls for ‘harmonisation’ of sustainability reporting

by Carol A Adams and Subhash Abhayawansa Highlights: Summarises key materials informing efforts to harmonise sustainability reporting; Analyses approaches of key standard setters; Argues that:financial materiality should not be paramount in … [Continue reading]

Heading in the wrong direction: IFRS and its band

by Carol A Adams Main points: Recent contributions to the sustainability reporting debate are still contradictory.The key 'players' are heading in a direction that will not lead to transformation.Some organisations/individuals are welcoming … [Continue reading]

Accountability and Governance in Pursuit of Sustainable Development Goals: Conceptualising how governments create value

By Subhash Abhayawansa, Carol A Adams and Cristina Neesham Main points: Sets out the national accountability & governance structures required to track a nation's progress on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal. Draws … [Continue reading]

EU v IFRS: Fundamentally different approaches to sustainability reporting

by Carol A Adams Main points: The IFRS Foundation and EU/EFRAG approaches are opposed in all key aspects.The EU/EFRAG approach is likely to contribute to addressing sustainable development (including climate change). The IFRS Foundation … [Continue reading]

A prototype climate disclosure standard with a flawed conceptual framework

by Carol A Adams At the end of 2020 various organisations jointly released a ‘prototype’ climate-related financial disclosure standard cobbled together in some haste from existing offerings. Whilst anyone familiar with TCFD, integrated reporting … [Continue reading]

Issues, solutions and options for IFRS on sustainability reporting

Focussing on the issues, solutions and options for achieving them rather than the consultation questions posed, Professors Abdelsalam, Craig, Mueller, Slack and myself made this research-informed submission to the IFRS Foundation Trustees for Durham … [Continue reading]

Sustainable development is too important for self-interest and political posturing

by Carol A Adams and Charles H Cho In their Green Paper Richard Barker and Robert Eccles claim to contribute, in a “neutral way”, to the ongoing debate on sustainability reporting standards and who should set them. We are not neutral. We … [Continue reading]