Comparability

IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements – Best read

by

IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements

The IASB’s newly issued standard IFRS 18 mainly deals with the presentation of the income statement, balance sheet and certain footnotes. At the same time, certain aspects of the cash flow statement are modified. IFRS 18 does not change the recognition and measurement of the components of financial statements; therefore, the amounts reported as shareholders’ equity and net income are both unchanged. However, it will have a significant impact on the presentation and disaggregation of what is reported (primarily in the income statement and footnotes), including what subtotals companies must provide and how these are defined.

There are five main areas where we think the new standard will help investors as users of IFRS Financial Statements:IFRS 18 Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements

Operating–Investing–Financing classification

IFRS 18 aims to establishes a structured statement of profit or loss by implementing the following measures:

  • It introduces three defined categories for income and expenses: operating, investing, and financing.
    • Operating – income/expenses resulting from the company’s main business operations.
    • Investing – income/expenses from:
      • investments in associates, joint ventures and unconsolidated subsidiaries;
      • cash and cash equivalents;
      • assets that generate a return individually and largely independently (e.g. rental income from investment properties).
    • Financing – consisting of:
      • income/expenses from liabilities related to raising finance only (e.g. interest expense on borrowings); and
      • interest income/expenses and effects of changes in interest rates from other liabilities (e.g. interest expense on lease liabilities).
  • It mandates to present new defined totals and subtotals, including operating profit, thereby enhancing the clarity and consistency of financial reporting.

Entities primarily engaged in investing in assets or providing finance to customers are subject to specific categorisation requirements. This entails that additional income and expense items, which would typically be classified as investing or financing activities, are instead categorised under operating activities. Consequently, operating profit reflects the outcomes of an entity’s core business operations. Identifying the main business activity involves exercising judgment based on factual circumstances.

Read more

Category 11 Use of Sold Products – Best read

by

Category 11 Use of Sold Products

Category description – Category 11 Use of Sold Products includes emissions from the use of goods and services sold by the reporting company in the reporting year. A reporting company’s scope 3 emissions from use of sold products include the scope 1 and scope 2 emissions of end users. End users include both consumers and business customers that use final products.

The Scope 3 Standard divides emissions from the use of sold products into two types (see also table 11.1):

Category 11 Use of Sold Products

In category 11, companies are required to include direct use-phase emissions of sold products. Companies may also account for indirect use-phase emissions of sold products, and should do so when indirect use-phase emissions are expected to be significant. See table 11.1 for descriptions and examples of direct and indirect use-phase emissions.

Read more

Emissions over Time – The 1 Best read

by

Emissions over Time

The GHG Protocol is designed to enable reporting entities to track and report consistent and comparable emissions data over time. The first step to tracking emissions over time is the establishment of a base year. A base year is a benchmark against which subsequent emissions can be compared to create meaningful comparisons over time and may be used for setting GHG reduction targets.

To comply with the GHG Protocol principles of relevance and consistency, a reporting entity is required to establish and report a base year for its Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions. A base year is only required for Scope 3 emissions when Scope 3 performance is tracked or a Scope 3 reduction target has been set. That is the case whether the entity is reporting under the Corporate Standard or the Scope 3 Standard (see below How to apply the Corporate Standard, Scope 2 Guidance and Scope 3 Standard?).

How to apply the Corporate Standard, Scope 2 Guidance and Scope 3 Standard?

An entity reporting under the Corporate Standard is not required to disclose Scope 3 emissions. As a result, there are three options under the GHG Protocol for reporting Scope 3 emissions, as described in the following table, which is based on Table 1.1 in the Scope 3 Standard:

Option

Description

Applicable GHG criteria

1

A reporting entity reports its Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions and either (1) no Scope 3 emissions or (2) Scope 3 emissions from activities that are not aligned with any of the prescribed Scope 3 categories (the latter is very rare).

  • Corporate Standard

  • Scope 2 Guidance

2

A reporting entity reports its Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions and some, but not all, relevant and material Scope 3 GHG emissions in accordance with the Scope 3 calculation guidance but not with the Scope 3 Standard.

  • Corporate Standard

  • Scope 2 Guidance

  • Scope 3 Guidance

3

A reporting entity reports its Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions and all relevant and material categories of Scope 3 GHG emissions

Consider this!

The GHG Protocol encourages reporting entities to begin reporting GHG emissions information and improve the completeness and precision of that information over time.

While the GHG Protocol requires a company to establish and report a base year for its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, a reporting entity that recently started to report GHG emissions information and has not established an emissions reduction target may choose not to set a base year until the precision and completeness of their emissions inventory have improved.

In this situation, the reporting entity should disclose that a base year has not yet been established and the reason for not establishing a base year.

Read more

Metrics in use for ESG Reporting- 1 Best and complete read

by

Metrics in use for ESG Reporting

Here is a list of Metrics in use for ESG Reporting that companies can use to start communicating on the ESG issues. The metrics have been divided into four categories:

Each category contains recommended disclosure metrics (both qualitative and quantitative) that have been marked either as minimum disclosures (relevant to all companies) or additional disclosures (that might not be relevant to all companies).

The selection of recommended disclosure metrics has been informed by relevant regulatory initiatives i.e. the CSRD and the ESRS as well as the Warsaw Stock Exchange corporate governance code. Moreover, to address increasing investors’ data needs, they have been also aligned with the mandatory PAI indicators for corporate investments required by the SFDR (see mapping in the Appendix – Relevance of the Guidelines to investors). References have been added below each section to other frameworks and resources that companies may also consider (Appendix – Alignment with EU regulations and other frameworks).

It should be emphasized that the Guidelines do not provide an exhaustive list of indicators and topics. Rather they aim to offer less advanced companies a minimum set of carefully selected disclosure metrics that will help them to prepare for the upcoming requirements stemming from the CSRD and the ESRS and better respond to investors’ ESG data needs. Companies in scope of the CSRD should use the ESRS to prepare their disclosures on material sustainability topics.

Metrics in use for ESG Reporting – General information

General information metrics provide essential context to understand the company business activities and value creation model, it’s material ESG impacts, risks and opportunities, and how it is managing them.

General information

What should be disclosed:

I

M 1

Business model
  • Short description of the company business model and value chain.
  • Whether the company is active in the following sectors: fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas), controversial weapons along with related revenues.

Companies may consider including the following characteristics when describing their business model: economic activities; products and services offered; markets of operation, company size (in terms of workforce, business locations, revenue, etc.)

I

M 2

Sustainability integration
  • Whether and how sustainability matters are integrated in the company strategy and business model.
  • Resilience of the company strategy and business model(s) to material sustainability risks.
  • Policies and actions adopted to manage material sustainability matters.
  • Targets related to management of sustainability matters.

I

M 3

Sustainability governance
  • Governance bodies roles and responsibilities with regard to sustainability matters (e.g. in relation to risk management, target setting, sustainability disclosure).
  • Whether governance bodies are informed about sustainability matters, and how they are addressed by administrative and/or management bodies.
  • Whether incentive schemes are offered to members of governance bodies that are linked to sustainability matters.

I

M 4

Material impacts, Risk and Opportunities
  • The processes used to identify material impacts, risks and opportunities.
  • Sustainability due diligence process.
  • Outcome of the materiality assessment (identified material impacts, risks and opportunities).
  • How material impacts, risks and opportunities interact with the company strategy and business model.

I

M 5

Stakeholder engagement
  • Description of the company main stakeholders, and how the company engages with them.
  • How the interests and views of stakeholders are taken into account by the undertaking’s strategy and business model.

Metrics in use for ESG Reporting- Environmental disclosures

Environmental metrics cover issues that arise from or impact the natural environment.

Read more

The real meaning of Integrated reporting

by

The real meaning of integrated reporting

Integrated reporting is more than only aimed at informing interested stakeholders about performance achieved against targets, the vision and strategy adopted to serve the stakeholders’ interests, and other factors that can influence business performance in future.

Clearly regulations require companies to exercise transparency. However, a more fundamental reason for reporting lies in accountability: a company needs to account for the impact it has on the stakeholders it relates to. Not exercising such transparency would impose serious risks, including high financing costs to compensate for a lack of transparency or governance or, ultimately, losing the license to operate. By contrast, a transparent approach would not only improve reputation, but also would bind stakeholders such as employees to the company’s objectives.

The reason for including environmental and social factors in reporting

In today’s world companies play a significant role in shaping the future of society. Awareness of this has risen significantly over the last decades, resulting in changed attitudes towards the role business is expected to play.

It also resulted in changes in the views of business leaders about the role they want to play.

Business these days is seen more than ever as the agent of a wide group of stakeholders. Unlike the old paradigm that ‘the business of business is business’, companies accept wider accountability in current times towards the stakeholders whose interests they impact – no longer can companies focus only on the interests of those with a financial interest.

This wider accountability implies that companies have to fulfil the (information) needs of those who provide them with integrated reportingother economic resources such as labour, space, air or natural resources and those who enter into transactions with the organization such as customers. Therefore a company’s current performance and future ability to continue operations and achieve business growth needs to be evaluated on the basis of a comprehensive set of factors that influence these.

Read more

Transfer pricing – IAS 12 Best complete read

by

Transfer pricing
 for
transactions between related parties

A transfer price is the price charged between related parties (e.g., a parent company and its controlled foreign corporation) in an inter-company transaction. Although inter-company transactions are eliminated when consolidating the financial results of controlled foreign corporations and their domestic parents, for preparation of individual tax returns each entity (or a tax consolidation unit of more than one entity in the group in one and the same tax jurisdiction) prepares stand-alone (or a tax consolidation unit) tax returns.

See also:

IAS 24 Related parties narrative IFRS 15 Revenue narrative IAS 12 Income tax narrative

Transfer prices directly affect the allocation of group-wide taxable income across national tax jurisdictions. Hence, a group’s transfer-pricing policies can directly affect its after-tax income to the extent that tax rates differ across national jurisdictions.

Arm’s length transaction principle

Most OECD countries rely upon the OECD TP Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations, that were originally released in 1995 and subsequently updated in 2017 (OECD TP Guidelines). The OECD TP Guidelines reaffirmed the OECD’s commitment to the arm’s length transaction principle.

In fact, the arm’s length transaction principle is considered “the closest approximation of the workings of the open market in cases where goods and services are transferred between associated enterprises.” The arm’s length principle implies that transfer prices between related parties should be set as though the entities were operating at arm’s length (i.e. were independent enterprises).

The application of the arm’s length transaction principle is generally based on a comparison of all the relevant conditions in a controlled transaction with the conditions in an uncontrolled transaction (i.e. a transaction between independent enterprises).

Read more

Estimating fair value

by

Estimating fair value – To start this narrative on fair value measurement three things to keep in mind!!!!

  1. Fair value measurement is an estimation process, not a scientific method: Uncertainty is key, what are the expected cash flows, what type of industry is concerned, at what stage of the Business Life Cycle is the business valued. Some (groups of) assets (and liabilities) or (business) units will therefore always have more precise estimates of fair value than others.

  2. Bias will always mystify fair value estimates: Much as we pay lip service to the notion that we can estimate fair value objectively, bias will find its way into fair value estimates. Honesty about the bias is all that we

… Read more

Narrative reporting the right way

by

Narrative reporting

– whether in the form of an Operating and Financial Review (OFR), Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), a Business Review or other management commentary – is vital to corporate transparency. Key performance indicators (KPIs), both financial and non-financial, are an important component of the information needed to explain a company’s progress towards its stated goals, for all of these types of narrative reporting.

But despite this fact, KPIs are not well understood. What makes a performance indicator “key”? What type of information should be provided for each indicator? And how can it best be presented to provide effective narrative business reporting?

Setting the stage – two quotes

Although narrative reporting requirements remain fluid, reporting on KPIs is here to stay. I welcome any publication as a valuable contribution to helping companies choose which KPIs to report and what information will provide investors with a real understanding of corporate performance. Using management’s own measures of success really helps deepen investors’ understanding of progress and movement in business. Whether contextual, financial or non-financial, these data points make the trends in the business transparent and help keep management accountable. The illustrations of good practice reporting on KPIs shown here bring alive what is required in a practical and effective way.

KPIs – a critical component

Regulatory environment

The specific requirements for narrative reporting have been a point of debate for several years now. However one certainty remains: the requirement to report financial and non-financial key performance indicators.

Read more

IAS 16 Generation assets for Power and Utilities

by

Generation assets for Power and Utilities

– are often large and complex installations. They are expensive to construct, tend to be exposed to harsh operating conditions and require periodic replacement or repair. This environment leads to specific accounting issues.

1 Fixed assets and components

IFRS has a specific requirement for ‘component’ depreciation, as described in IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment. Each significant part of an item of property, plant and equipment is depreciated separately. Significant parts of an asset that have similar useful lives and patterns of consumption can be grouped together. This requirement can create complications for utility entities, because many assets include components with a shorter useful life than the asset as a whole.

Identifying components of an asset

Generation assets might comprise a significant number of components, many of which will have differing useful lives. The significant components of these types of assets must be separately identified. This can be a complex process, particularly on transition to IFRS, because the detailed record-keeping needed for componentisation might not have been required in order to comply with national generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). This can particularly be an issue for older power plants. However, some regulators require detailed asset records, which can be useful for IFRS component identification purposes.

An entity might look to its operating data if the necessary information for components is not readily identified by the accounting records. Some components can be identified by considering the routine shutdown or overhaul schedules for power stations and the associated replacement and maintenance routines. Consideration should also be given to those components that are prone to technological obsolescence, corrosion or wear and tear that is more severe than that of the other portions of the larger asset.

First-time IFRS adopters can benefit from an exemption under IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards. This exemption allows entities to use a value that is not depreciated cost in accordance with IAS 16, and IAS 23 Borrowing Costs as deemed cost on transition to IFRS. It is not necessary to apply the exemption to all assets or to a group of assets.

Read more

Basel Committee IFRS 9 Guidance

by

Basel Committee IFRS 9 Guidance

Expected credit losses continuously in focus

In December 2015, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (‘the Committee’) issued its Guidance on credit risk and accounting for expected credit losses (‘Basel Committee IFRS 9 Guidance’). The Guidance sets out supervisory guidance on sound credit risk practices associated with the implementation and ongoing application of expected credit loss (ECL) accounting frameworks, such as that introduced in IFRS 9, Financial Instruments.

The Committee expects a disciplined, high-quality approach to assessing and measuring ECL by banks. The Basel Committee IFRS 9 Guidance emphasises the inclusion of a wide range of relevant, reasonable and supportable forward looking information, including macroeconomic data, in a bank’s accounting measure of ECL. In particular, banks should not ignore future events simply because they have a low probability of occurring or on the grounds of increased cost or subjectivity.

In addition, the Basel Committee IFRS 9 Guidance notes the Committee’s view that that the use of the practical expedients in IFRS 9 should be limited for internationally active banks. This includes the use of the ‘low credit risk’ exemption and the ‘more than 30 days past due’ rebuttable presumption in relation to assessing significant increases in credit risk.

Obviously, banks keep in continued talks to their local regulator about the extent to which their regulator expects the (below) Banking IFRS 9 Guidance to apply to them.

Principles underlying the Banking IFRS 9 Guidance – in Summary

Supervisory guidance for credit risk and accounting for expected credit losses

Basel Committee IFRS 9 Guidance Basel Committee IFRS 9 Guidance Basel Committee IFRS 9 Guidance Basel Committee IFRS 9 Guidance Basel Committee IFRS 9 Guidance

Principle 1

Responsibility

A bank’s board of directors and senior management are responsible for ensuring appropriate credit risk practices, including an effective system of internal control, to consistently determine adequate allowances.

Principle 2

Methodology

The measurement of allowances should build upon robust methodologies to address policies, procedures and controls for assessing and measuring credit risk

Banks should clearly document the definition of key terms and criteria to duly consider the impact of forward-looking information including macro-economic factors, different potential scenarios and define accounting policies for restructurings

Principle 3

Credit Risk Rating

A bank should have a credit risk rating process in place to appropriately group lending exposures on the basis of shared credit risk characteristics

Principle 4

Allowances adequacy

A bank’s aggregate amount of allowances should be adequate and consistent with the objectives of the applicable accounting framework

Banks must ensure that the assessment approach (individual or collective) does not result in delayed recognition of ECL, e.g. by incorporating forward-looking information incl. macroeconomic factors on collective basis for individually assessed loans

Principle 5

Validation of models

A bank should have policies and procedures in place to appropriately validate models used to assess and measure expected credit losses

Principle 6

Experienced credit judgment

Experienced credit judgment in particular with regards to forward looking information and macroeconomic factors is essential

Consideration of forward looking information should not be avoided on the basis that banks consider costs as excessive or information too uncertain if this information contributes to a high quality implementation

Principle 7

Common systems

A bank should have a sound credit risk assessment and measurement process that provides it with a strong basis for common systems, tools and data

Principle 8

Disclosure

A bank’s public disclosures should promote transparency and comparability by providing timely, relevant, and decision-useful information

Principle 9

Assessment of Credit Risk Management

Banking supervisors should periodically evaluate the effectiveness of a bank’s credit risk practices

Principle 10

Approval of Models

Supervisors should be satisfied that the methods employed by a bank to determine accounting allowances lead to an appropriate measurement of expected credit losses

Principle 11

Assessment of Capital Adequacy

Banking supervisors should consider a bank’s credit risk practices when assessing a bank’s capital adequacy

Principles underlying the Banking IFRS 9 Guidance

Read more