This article first appeared in Auditores, the magazine of the Instituto de Censores Jurados de Cuentas de España (ICJCE), the professional body in Spain and a member of IFAC.

Why is the IESBA considering a review of the structure of its Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (the Code)?

Well, we have heard from a number of stakeholders, particularly small- and medium-sized practices (SMPs) and professional accountants working in small- and medium-sized entities (SMEs), about the challenges they face in understanding and applying the requirements in the Code. Let’s be clear—the Code contains robust standards on ethics for the accounting profession. But after years of evolution, the Code has become a complex set of standards, with sections that contain long paragraphs and sentences that many find difficult to understand and translate. At the same time, we have heard from our regulatory stakeholders about the need to increase the visibility of the requirements and prohibitions in the Code, and to clarify who is responsible for meeting them, in order to facilitate enforcement. So we are responding to the concerns by taking a fresh look at the structure of the Code to see if there are ways to enhance its readability, understandability, and accessibility, and assist in its enforcement. So, in essence, it is an effort at modernizing the Code.

However, I must make clear that our initiative to review the structure of the Code is not intended to introduce changes to the basic principles and rules in the Code. While we are considering the feasibility of making the requirements and content of the Code more accessible, by different means, we are NOT planning any changes to the Code itself in the short term. The changes in the structure of the Code will be for the long term, after we have launched a full consultation and achieved buy-in from our stakeholders.

In difficult times such as these, is the auditor providing enough assurance on the veracity of financial information supplied by companies? Is the audit profession helping to restore confidence?

The role of the audit profession has really never changed, in times of economic boom or bust—the profession has always been, and will continue to be, a watchdog protecting the public interest. That is why, in most jurisdictions, auditors are granted a statutory mandate to carry out audits. The essential responsibility of auditors is to express an independent opinion on the truth and fairness of a company’s financial statements. It is the independence with which auditors fulfill their role that gives credibility and adds value to their audit opinions. But in the difficult times we live in, there are continual challenges (or threats, to use our jargon) to auditors’ independence. The Code demands that auditors implement appropriate safeguards to protect their independence against such challenges. So, yes, the audit profession absolutely has a critical role to play in restoring confidence in the financial markets—and the public has a right to expect that it fulfills this role in full compliance with ethical requirements, including independence.

But let’s not forget that the environment in which auditors operate is dynamic, so new threats to their independence can always arise. That is why we must be on our guard and make sure that the Code is capable of evolving to address new challenges.

What are the main conflicts of interest that may be encountered by auditors during the planning stage?

First, let’s be clear that a conflict of interest creates a threat to the auditor’s objectivity and may create threats to other fundamental ethical principles. Conflicts of interest may arise in various circumstances, and I would not say that there are some types of conflicts that are necessarily more common than others. But in an audit context, some of the conflicts one might encounter include, for example, auditing royalties payable by the audit client to a licensor owned by the engagement partner’s immediate family, or using confidential information obtained when planning the audit of the client for purposes of a due diligence service for another client that is considering acquiring the audit client.

One of the main recent changes to the Code was better identification of the circumstances in which a professional accountant may encounter potential conflicts of interest. Are these circumstances newly identified or were they in need of better definition?

I would say it is closer to the latter. The Ethics Board concluded that it would be difficult to develop a definition that would be sufficiently broad to encompass the diverse activities of professional accountants but that would be sufficiently precise to avoid capturing situations that are not conflicts of interest. Accordingly, it determined that it would be more appropriate to provide a more comprehensive description of circumstances that might create a conflict of interest, together with supporting examples to facilitate implementation.

Issues related to auditors’ insider information are detailed in the Code. What are the improvements on this matter?

Quite apart from the strict laws that exist in most jurisdictions regarding insider trading, the Code has always taken a strong position regarding the inappropriate use of insider information. In particular, paragraph 140.1(b) of the Code prohibits auditors from using confidential information acquired as a result of professional and business relationships to their personal advantage or the advantage of third parties. Equally, paragraph 340.3 of the Code prohibits professional accountants in business from using confidential information for personal gain. So the Code’s position on this matter is unequivocal, and that must be right. Insider trading, however, defined in national laws and regulations, is unethical and harmful to society, and must be rigorously sanctioned when it occurs.

Audit regulation is currently being discussed at different international strata, with particular focus on the question of independence. Don’t you think that compliance with the Code is enough to curtail the potential risks?

Well, the Ethics Board certainly believes the Code provides a robust set of independence rules for global application. We completed two significant projects four to five years ago that led to further strengthening of the independence requirements in the Code. So, many countries around the world, ranging from Australia, Brazil, and China to Japan and South Africa, have benchmarked or aligned their independence requirements with those in the Code. Even with respect to the EU, a February 2013 study from the Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens (FEE) revealed that the independence provisions in the Code are more robust with respect to audits of public interest entities (PIEs) than those in the current EU frameworks on auditor independence. So I believe the Code will stand up to scrutiny.

But of course, we have to respect the sovereignty of nations to review their independence frameworks as they consider necessary, particularly in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, to satisfy themselves that these continue to safeguard auditor independence. So I welcome the debates on independence in the various forums, and that can only be in the public interest. This is not to suggest that the Ethics Board is content with the status quo as far as the Code is concerned. Far from it, we have commenced projects to review the provisions in the Code, addressing long association of senior personnel with an audit client, and the provision of non-assurance services to audit clients. But let me be clear that we are not prejudging from these projects that changes will be needed in these areas. However, we want to make sure that our requirements continue to support auditor independence in a robust and appropriate way.

Do you consider it necessary for IESBA to open a debate on issues related to the independence of the auditor and on the provision of services other than audit, precisely now that these issues are being reviewed by other regulatory entities on an international basis?

It is important to remember that the Ethics Board does not set standards in a vacuum. We recognize that the external environment may evolve very rapidly and we must be prepared to take action as needed. So, we carefully monitor emerging issues or developments internationally that may be of relevance to our work, and discuss the implications of the most significant ones for our strategy and work program. We may decide after careful analysis of environmental developments and discussions with our stakeholders that adjustments to our strategy are necessary, as we did last year when we added four new work streams to our current strategy. But this doesn’t mean we commence a project to respond to every emerging issue or development—our resources are finite after all and must be carefully managed. However, as I noted above, we have already started projects in the areas of long association and non-assurance services to determine whether changes to the Code are needed to further strengthen auditor independence.

Do you deem it necessary for audit companies to strengthen their Chinese walls (professional confidentiality both for employees as well as a physical separation of the technologies or the working teams) among their different divisions? Please, could you detail any necessary procedures?

The Code’s provisions addressing the fundamental principle of confidentiality are clear. Paragraph 140.4 requires a professional accountant to maintain confidentiality of information within the firm. Paragraph 140.5 requires a professional accountant to take reasonable steps to ensure that staff under the professional accountant’s control and persons from whom advice and assistance is obtained respect the professional accountant’s duty of confidentiality. It is the responsibility of the audit firms to take whatever actions are necessary to comply with these requirements, including segregating teams on different engagements as needed, and protecting the confidentiality of documentation containing client information.

Do you think that setting a cap on the percentage of revenues that may derive from one single client as a general rule, both for public interest entities (PIEs) and small- and medium-sized entities (SMEs), resolves the independence problem? Or would it rather be desirable in the case of SMEs, so as to avoid this problem, to apply the safeguards of the IESBA Code, such as increasing quality controls?

The tool has to fit the purpose. The level of public interest in the audit of a PIE will of course be different from the audit of an SME. So a one-size-fits-all approach may not necessarily be the right answer in every case. That is why I believe the threats and safeguards approach in the Code with respect to evaluating the impact of fees from a given client on independence is the right one. In particular, paragraph 290.220 of the Code states that when the total fees from an audit client represent a large proportion of the total fees of the firm expressing the audit opinion, the dependence on that client and concern about losing the client creates a self-interest or intimidation threat. The Code explains that the significance of the threat will depend on various factors such as the operating structure of the firm and the significance of the client qualitatively and/or quantitatively to the firm. The Code in this case requires the firm to evaluate the significance of the threat and apply appropriate safeguards to eliminate the threat or reduce it to an acceptable level. Among a number of possible safeguards could be to use external quality control reviews.

Of course, for PIEs, the Code already imposes a 15% cap on total fees from an audit client and its related entities relative to the total fees received by the firm as a whole. That is a position that the board believes is appropriate with respect to PIE audits.

How is the audit affected by the new definition of “engagement team” and to what extent has this been agreed with the ISAs?

The amendments to the definition of “engagement team” clarify the relationship between an external auditor’s use of internal auditors to provide direct assistance on the external audit in accordance with the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB)’s International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 610 (Revised 2013), Using the Work of Internal Auditors, and the meaning of an engagement team under the Code. The change to the definition should not affect audits because the sole purpose of the change is to eliminate a perceived inconsistency between the Code and the ISAs. In developing the change to the definition, I was pleased that the Ethics Board and the IAASB worked closely together to ensure that the amended definition would be fully consistent with the ISAs.

But of course, jurisdictions have different views on the appropriateness of using internal auditors to provide direct assistance on the external audit; the Code is not advocating one position or the other.

What sort of procedures will IESBA have to implement and maintain for the ISAs to be in agreement with the Code of Ethics?

Well, we certainly maintain close contact with the IAASB, and that is by necessity given that the Code and the ISAs are so closely linked. We have regular interactions with the IAASB at various levels—at the staff level, at the task force level (as we did on our project on the definition of “engagement team” and the IAASB’s project to revise ISA 610), and at the leadership level through quarterly meetings or teleconferences. We recognize the critical importance of these interactions as we are increasingly finding that issues being addressed on each board’s agenda have implications for the standards of the other board. I would also add that both boards have the benefit of the advice from their consultative advisory groups (CAGs), which have significant overlap in their memberships. As a result, the CAGs are often able to share ethics and audit perspectives on issues of mutual relevance to the two boards. So we do have processes internally to make sure that the Code and the ISAs stay aligned with each other as they evolve.

What are the main objectives for strengthening the Code in respect to the auditor’s actions upon encountering a breach of a requirement of the Code?

The Ethics Board released changes to the Code addressing a breach of a requirement of the Code in March 2013. The main objective of the project was to respond to a concern that the current provisions addressing an inadvertent breach of the Code, including independence requirements, could be misread as implying that all inadvertent breaches can be corrected by applying necessary safeguards. What we have now established in the Code is a robust framework, in particular for auditors to deal with breaches to the independence requirements of the Code. The provisions include strict requirements for communicating all breaches to those charged with governance and documentation.

What is the deadline to complete the revision of the Code of Ethics and to publish the final version?

The 2013 edition of the Handbook of the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants will be available in May. This edition will contain the revised pronouncements addressing conflicts of interest, a breach of a requirement of the Code, and the definition of “engagement team,” which will take effect next year.

Do you consider that in today’s difficult financial environment, the auditor is satisfactorily fulfilling its public interest role and complying with ethics principles, such as honesty, independence, objectivity, and professional best practice?

Even though I am not an auditor or accountant and have never worked as one, I strongly believe that the vast majority of the audit profession live up to those principles. It helps that most auditors are required, often by law or regulation as a condition of their license, to go through rigorous training and develop core competencies, including a full understanding of the fundamental ethical principles that are the bedrock of the profession and are embodied in the Code. It is a fact of life, however, that in a very small minority of cases, members of any profession succumb to pressure to act unethically. This is when I strongly feel the disciplinary and enforcement regime in the particular jurisdiction should take action to deal with these isolated cases and prevent the profession as a whole from being cast into disrepute.

If you had to choose one single, fundamental ethics principle to rule over the professional activity of all auditors, what would it be?

That would be a fruitless task because no one fundamental principle overrides all the others. The five fundamental principles (integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality, and professional behavior) that are established in the Code constitute one body of core principles that cannot be taken apart. Auditors must comply with each and all of them in every audit engagement they perform.

© Instituto de Censores Jurados de Cuentas de España (ICJCE). Spain. 2013.

This material belongs to ICJCE, therefore attributed to it all rights and related operating on it in any way, method or medium.

Welcome to a Special Edition of the Professional Accountants in Business Committee eNews—Accounting for Natural Capital.

1. Overview
2. Where Does the Accountancy Profession Fit it In?
3. A Macro View of Natural Capital Risk
4. Business Case for Natural Capital Management
5. The TEEB for Business Coalition
6. Tracking a Carbon Bubble
7. Innovative Organizations

8. Other Activities and Resources

1. Overview

Attention from the accountancy profession on natural capital accounting is rapidly increasing in response to concern about the potential for systemic risk of climate change and environmental externalities that affect organizational, market, and societal sustainability.

Sustainable economies depend on sustainable organizations. To be viable over time, the ecosystems and resources organizations depend on need to be maintained and enhanced. Yet when it comes to the natural environment, we are seeing a rapid depletion of capital and resources, as well as the risk of a financial “carbon bubble” due to the potential limitations on what percentage of global fossil fuel reserves can be burned (see Tracking a Carbon Bubble for additional information).

This loss of natural capital is posing a new array of threats and opportunities to business ranging from competition for access to resources, and tightening regulation. Therefore, the time has come for organizations in the public and private sectors to adapt to a world of increasingly scarce natural resources.

2. Where Does the Accountancy Profession Fit it In?

Factors that are economically invisible contribute to natural capital depletion. Many environmental impacts are externalities because they are not accounted for in market economics. Government and business alike are starting to recognize the importance of measuring and valuing natural capital. Widely accepted standards for measurement and valuation would help organizations implement natural capital management and facilitate consistency and comparability across organizations.

Natural capital assets broadly fall into two categories: those that are non-renewable and traded, such as fossil fuel and mineral commodities, and those that provide finite renewable goods and services for which no price typically exists, such as clean air, groundwater, and biodiversity. Natural capital is the stock of capital derived from biological diversity and ecosystems as well as natural resources such as fossil fuels.

Is Natural Capital a Material Issue? by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, KPMG, and Fauna and Flora International demonstrates the lack of a standardized business case for considering biodiversity and ecosystem issues as a barrier impeding companies from effectively determining risk and opportunity exposures. So too is a lack of awareness among accounting and business communities of natural capital issues.

Given the importance of biodiversity and ecosystems to business and society, the accountancy profession has an important role to play in raising awareness of the business case, and developing new valuation, accounting, and reporting approaches.

Organizations can position themselves for sustainable success by ensuring that risk and materiality assessments consider natural capital, and by going through a process of placing monetary values or measurements on what nature does for their business models. This leads to better business decision making by exposing significant costs and benefits that could materially impact the bottom line but that traditional financial analyses usually miss.

This eNews highlights what is being done and by whom to develop natural capital accounting as an integrated part of business decision making and reporting.

3. A Macro View of Natural Capital Risk

Trucost’s study, Natural Capital at Risk: The Top 100 Externalities of Business, provides a high-level indication of the priority sectors and regions where natural capital risk lies and, therefore, the largest natural capital risks and opportunities for business and investors. Highest impact externalities are the primary production (agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining, oil and gas exploration, utilities) and primary processing (cement, steel, pulp and paper, petrochemicals) sectors analyzed and are estimated to have externality costs totaling US$7.3 trillion, which equates to 13% of global economic output in 2009. The value of the Top 100 externalities is estimated at US$4.7 trillion or 65% of the total primary sector impacts identified.

The majority of environmental externality costs are from greenhouse gas emissions (38%) followed by water use (25%), land use (24%), air pollution (7%), land and water pollution (5%), and waste (1%). The report assessed more than 100 environmental impacts using the Trucost environmental model, which condenses them into six Environmental Key Performance Indicators (eKPIs) to cover water use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, waste, air pollution, water and land pollution, and land use.

4. Business Case for Natural Capital Management

Organisational Change for Natural Capital Management, released by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for Business Coalition, describes how business leaders can strategize and implement changes in organizational behavior related to valuing natural capital in their companies. The findings are threefold.

• A small group of pioneering companies who recognize the growing business case are moving natural capital management forward and expect to embed it into their business within the next three years. The rationale is they will be much better positioned than other companies to manage and thrive in the resource-constrained world. In particular, availability of freshwater, renewable energy, climate regulation, fiber, and food were identified as the most important natural capital risks over the next 3-5 years.
• Delaying the measurement and management of natural capital carries a significant business risk for companies in terms of the availability of key raw materials and maintaining sustainable competitive advantage.
• Current barriers to change at the organizational level include a lack of harmonized methods to measure, prioritize, and integrate natural capital into the business and organizations analyzing their impacts beyond their organizational boundary into their supply chains.

The 24 companies featured in the Corporate EcoForum report, The New Business Imperative: Valuing Natural Capital, are taking a lead by uniting in the view that immediate leadership to safeguard well-functioning ecosystems is a business imperative, not a matter of philanthropy. Companies cited in the report include Puma, Nike, Lockheed Martin, GM, Disney, Enterprise, TD, Coca Cola, Patagonia, Xerox, Unilever, Kimberly-Clark, and Marriott.

5. The TEEB for Business Coalition

The TEEB for Business Coalition is developing tools and guidance to successfully incorporate natural capital into strategy and decision-making processes. This involves companies reflecting the true social and environmental costs of depleting natural capital and creating benefits, such as restoring natural environments and developing social and human capital. The coalition is a global platform for supporting the development of widely agreed-on methods for natural and social capital valuation in business. This work involves considering a valuation framework that can define what to measure and why.

A number of organizations are supporting the coalition, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (a founding member), IFAC, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the World Wildlife Fund UK, and the Global Reporting Initiative, all of which are engaged in developing and furthering the coalition. IFAC is represented by PAIB Committee member Ian Rushby, who is also a trustee of the International Institute for Environment and Development.

TEEB for Business Coalition is holding its annual conference in Singapore November 18-19, 2013, in conjunction with the Responsible Business Forum. Additional details will be shared in later issues of the PAIB Committee’s eNews and on the TEEB for Business Coalition website.

6. Tracking a Carbon Bubble

The Carbon Tracker Initiative report, Unburnable Carbon, calculates that only 31% of the world's currently indicated fossil fuel reserves, which equate to 2,860bn tonnes of carbon dioxide, could be burned for an 80% chance of keeping below a 2°C global temperature rise, which is commonly regarded as the threshold within which to avoid dangerous climate change. For a 50% chance of 2°C or less, only 38% could be burned.

This information has potentially significant implication for loss of value to investors given how far reaching carbon is for financial markets—the top 100 coal and top 100 oil and gas companies have a combined value of US$7.42 trillion as of February 2011. Additionally, the countries with the largest greenhouse gas potential in reserves on their stock exchanges are Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom and the stock exchanges of London, Sao Paulo, Moscow, Australia, and Toronto all have an estimated 20-30% of their market capitalization connected to fossil fuels. Carbon and fossil fuels, and decisions regarding their use and value, can have significant impacts on financial markets and futures around the world.

This carbon bubble leads to a reporting challenge, particularly for fossil fuel companies. For these companies, it is not necessarily the scale of operational emissions that is the strategic challenge but the emissions associated with their products, which are currently locked into their reserves. The potential carbon footprints of reserves may not be adequately transparent with obsolete data masking the full risks facing fossil fuel reserves. Consequently, companies need to consider moving beyond simply annually reporting last year’s emissions flows to a more forward-looking analysis of carbon stocks.

7. Innovative Organizations

Becoming Net Positive

An increasing number of companies, including Coca Cola and retail organizations Kingfisher and Ikea, are striving to become net positive, which means that they will give back more than they take in relation to critical environmental and social factors upon which their business models depend.

For example, for a do-it-yourself (DIY) business such as Kingfisher, timber is an essential raw material. It depends on a forest area approximately the size of Switzerland. It aspires to create more forest than it needs to develop products. Beyond timber, Ikea strives for resource independence, by encouraging all waste be turned into resources; energy independence, by being a leader in renewable energy, and becoming more energy efficient throughout its operations and supply chain. Coca Cola aims to return as much water to nature as it uses in its products and their production.

Indian conglomerate ITC reports that it is carbon positive (by sequestering or storing twice the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that it emits through, for example, farm forestry initiatives, which add to plantation sizes); water positive (by creating three times more rainwater harvesting potential than the net water consumed by its operations); and waste positive (by recycling its own paper and fly ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, as well as buying other company’s waste paper to use in its paperboard operations).

The key success factors behind such initiatives include:

• providing vision, leadership, and commitment from the top of the organization to be sustainably successful;
• applying a financial mindset by establishing a business case and understanding how sustainability actions contribute directly to business value, either through revenue generation, cost control, risk management, or innovation;
• setting aspirational and challenging goals and targets;
• connecting sustainability goals to strategy by identifying significant drivers and subjecting these aspects to a systematic management process that involves setting and cascading targets and performance measures to facilitate the delivery of vision and strategy;
• collaborating closely with customers and suppliers;
• measuring the drivers of business externalities, such as greenhouse gas emissions and resulting impacts, such as climate change (this involves data collection, analysis, and interpretation, and integrating data requirements into management and/or accounting systems); and
• communicating with stakeholders through high-quality reports and disclosures.

An Innovative Approach to Disclosure: PUMA Environmental P&L Methodology

In 2011, PUMA became the first major company to release an environmental profit and loss (P&L) statement and put an economic value on greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption (see PAIB Committee eNews July 2011 for more information). PUMA started on its journey to establish how much it would need to pay for the services nature provides so that PUMA can produce, market, and distribute footwear, apparel, and accessories made of leather, cotton, rubber, or plastic for the long term. A P&L methodology utilizes the essence of an accounting framework when monetizing environmental impacts. The economic valuation of PUMA’s environmental impact provides a wake-up call and reveals where it has to direct its sustainability initiatives to make real improvements in reducing its footprint. These include identifying more sustainable materials, investigating the development of broadly-accepted definitions of sustainable cotton and rubber, and looking for additional opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts.

8. Other Activities and Resources

• Corporation 2020 is a movement that calls for new ways for corporations to operate given that the legal status and business persona of today’s corporation are almost a hundred years old.
• Forum for the Future is an independent non-profit that works globally with business and government to inspire new thinking, build creative partnerships, and develop practical solutions.
• Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)’s Approach for Reporting on Ecosystem Services: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into an Organization’s Performance Disclosure suggests indicators organizations could use to assess and report their impacts on ecosystem services. In cooperation with the United Nations Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre and the Dutch consultancy firm CREM, GRI highlights approaches for developing sustainability reporting indicators to help companies report their impacts and reliance on ecosystem services. Additionally, the fourth generation of the GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (G4) is available on the GRI website.
• Natural Capital Declaration is a declaration by finance-sector CEOs representing commitments made at the Rio+20 Earth Summit to work toward integrating natural capital considerations into financial products and services. The Declaration is convened and facilitated by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, the Global Canopy Programme, and the Center for Sustainability Studies of the Business Administration School of the Getulio Vargas Foundation.
• The Prince of Wales’ Accounting for Sustainability Project includes an initiative on valuing natural capital and is a co-founding member of the TEEB Business Coalition.
• The B Team is a not-for-profit initiative that has been formed by a group of global business leaders to create a future where the purpose of business is to be a driving force for social, environmental, and economic benefit.
  • UK Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Assets (DEFRA)’s Ecosystem Markets Task Force was established to respond to the continuing degradation of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity and highlights efforts by the UK government to become a global leader in measuring natural capital.
  • World Bank Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) is a global partnership to promote sustainable development by ensuring that the national accounts used to measure and plan for economic growth include the value of natural resources.
  • The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)’s Framework for Corporate Ecosystem Evaluation provides a framework for improving corporate decision making through valuing ecosystem services. The guide puts into operation TEEB’s Mainstreaming the Economic of Nature, released in October 2010, which also includes reference to the international mining company Rio Tinto, which adopted a net positive impact on biodiversity as a long-term goal.
  • WBCSD also recently published Eco4Biz: Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Tools to Support Business Decision Making. The report provides a guide to help companies sift through an emerging family of tools to help them assess and manage their impacts and dependencies on natural capital. Eco4Biz also features a decision tree with two questions corporate managers might ask: a) At what scale would you like to carry out an assessment—global, landscape (including individual site and portfolio of sites), or product level? and b) What outputs would best support your decision-making—a map (including supporting reports), a quantitative value, or a score showing priority areas?

More than 150 attendees from 14 countries, including ASEAN, gathered on May 7, 2013 at a symposium to discuss strategies for building investor confidence through a strong financial reporting infrastructure that supports the integration of the ASEAN capital markets.

Highlights from the IESBA's June 10-12, 2013 meeting in New York.

0:33 Overview
2:00 Structure of the Code
5:42 Responding to a Suspected Illegal Act
9:34 Strategy & Work Plan

The International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), the global organization for the accountancy profession with 172 members and associates in 129 countries, and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) today issued for public comment a Consultation Draft for an International Framework on governance in the public sector.

The draft Good Governance in the Public Sector encourages better service delivery and improved accountability by establishing a benchmark for good governance in the public sector.

“The function of good governance in public sector entities is to ensure that they act in the public interest at all times,” said IFAC CEO Fayez Choudhury. “This obligation forms the basis for this principles-based Framework and requires a strong commitment to integrity, ethical values, and the rule of law as well as openness and comprehensive stakeholder engagement.”

“The sovereign debt crisis underlined the fact that the public sector plays a major role in society. Public expenditure forms a significant part of gross domestic product and public sector entities are substantial employers and major capital market participants,” added CIPFA Chief Executive Steve Freer. “The impact and the nature of their outputs, as well as their financing through taxation, puts a premium on strong, effective governance.”

The Framework is not intended to replace national and sectoral public sector governance codes. Instead, it is designed as a reference document for those who develop and set national governance codes for the public sector when updating and reviewing their own codes. Where codes and guidance do not exist, the Framework provides a shared understanding of what constitutes good governance in the public sector and a powerful stimulus for positive action.

This Consultation Draft was developed after an initial review of relevant governance literature and with input from a group of representatives from relevant international organizations (the International Reference Group, which is listed in the Framework). Public sector representatives and other stakeholders are encouraged to respond to the proposed Framework to help improve its applicability to entities at all levels internationally.

How to Comment
CIPFA and IFAC invite all stakeholders to comment. To access the Consultation Draft and submit a comment, visit the Publications and Resources section of the IFAC website at www.ifac.org. Comments on the Consultation Draft are requested by September 16,2013.

IFAC President Warren Allen speaks in support of 2013, the year of the accountants, an initiative by the accountancy profession in Brazil and Conselho Federal de Contabilidade and the Instituto dos Auditores Independentes do Brasil

IFAC CEO Ian Ball presents at the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Trinidad & Tobago (ICATT) conference, Staying Ahead of the Curve.