Comment

COP29 concluded in late November with uneasy agreement on the controversial Baku Finance Goal pledging $300 billion in climate funding to developing countries, writes Susan Rossney COP29, the global climate summit, concluded in the early hours of 24 November in Baku, Azerbaijan. There were some positive developments, such as the deal reached on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to finally allow countries to trade carbon credits with each other. Most significantly, though, for this ‘climate COP’, was the final agreement called the Baku Finance Goal. In 2009, at COP15 in Copenhagen, parties agreed a collective goal for developed nations to provide $100 billion annually in climate financing to developing countries. The new goal agreed at COP29 ups the annual financial target to $300 billion, to be funded from public sources, with provision for the shortfall to be made up of funding from private sources. To say opinion was divided on this new goal is an understatement. While some parties are cautiously optimistic that the agreement would at least keep the core principles of the Paris Agreement alive, many more were outraged by how much the new goal falls short of what is actually needed. It is generally agreed that $1 trillion per year by 2030 (rising to $1.3tn per year by 2035) is needed to help developing countries build resilience, prepare for disasters and cut emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases. While this figure is enormous, it’s worth noting for context that $2.4 trillion was spent on weapons in 2023, and at least $1 trillion was spent in 2022 on subsidies to keep fossil fuel prices artificially low. Also worth noting is that the provision of financial support to developing countries for climate action serves both a moral and economic purpose for wealthier countries. The chaos caused by the climate and biodiversity crises to societies and economies is not limited to developing countries alone. This was demonstrated most recently by the 224 lives lost in Spain as a result of flooding linked to rising temperatures in the Mediterranean Sea. On 28 November, Spain’s government approved a new “paid climate leave” entitlement of up to four days to allow workers take time off if unable to travel to their place of work in the event of official warnings of extreme weather conditions. The Institute for Economics and Peace further predicts that one billion people face being displaced within 30 years due to the climate crisis, with huge impacts for both the developed and developing worlds. COP30 will take place in Belém, Brazil in 2025. Its focus will centre on efforts by each country to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change (the so-called ‘NDCs’ or ‘nationally determined contributions’). It remains to be seen if COP30 will achieve what G20 leaders have said it should – i.e. to be “our last chance to avoid an irreversible rupture in the climate system”. Susan Rossney is Sustainability Advocacy Manager at Chartered Accountants Ireland. Check out Chartered Accountants Ireland’s sustainability centre for signposts to a variety of resources available to businesses. Also, subscribe to the Institute’s fortnightly Technical Round Up and weekly Sustainability/ESG Bulletins, both in the weekly Chartered Accountants Ireland newsletter, and on LinkedIn.

Ongoing turmoil in Europe’s largest economy will be exacerbated by Donald Trump’s pledged import tariffs, highlighting the need for EU countries to pull together to withstand transatlantic  trade disruption, writes Judy Dempsey Pity Germany’s next government. Olaf Scholz’s successor will have no time to lose when the federal elections end on 25 February 2025, bringing Scholz’s bickering coalition to a close.  Now, the economy is the priority. Germany’s outgoing government believed the old industrial model just needed a bit of tinkering to effectively counter China’s ever-increasing economic presence – but those days are over.  Massive job cuts announced by Volkswagen and ThyssenKrupp (the traditional giants of the car and steel industry, respectively) demonstrate how this government and its predecessor, led by Angela Merkel, failed to prepare for the inevitable impact of de-industrialisation. The replacement of the combustible engine with electric alternatives – which China has rapidly embraced – has been a shock for German industry, which had mistakenly earmarked China as a reliable export market.  No more.  Germany’s high energy costs and fierce competition from Beijing have combined to catalyse the failure of Germany’s old industrial model – so Berlin’s next government must hit the ground running.  This means making the transition from an old industrial base to more modern sectors driven by digital culture.  It means grappling with a demographic crisis that will only cost more unless the government introduces a robust immigration policy to address the huge labour shortages affecting most sectors.  None of this will happen unless Germany’s next leader loosens the ‘debt brake’ constitutionally limiting government spending.  Germany is in dire need of public financing if it is to invest in defence, climate adaptation, security, housing, transport health and education.   The debt brake (and overbearing bureaucracy) has starved investment. The government already has a spending gap of €64 billion for 2025. If, between 2025 and 2030, defence spending targets were to rise from two to three percent of GDP, it would cost another €300 billion.  This German malaise has serious consequences for Europe.  Last year, Germany had the highest level of intra-EU trade, contributing to 21 percent of the European Union’s exports of goods to other countries. What happens in the EU’s largest economy impacts the entire bloc. To make matters worse for Germany’s next Chancellor – and for the EU – is US President-elect Donald Trump’s stated intention to impose a 10 percent tariff on goods imported from Europe and 60 percent on goods from China.  Germany’s export-driven car industry, one of Trump’s targets, is particularly vulnerable and speeding up the manufacturing of electric-driven vehicles would only solve part of the problem. To escape tariffs, it is reasonable to expect the car industry to move manufacturing to the US. This is exactly what Trump wants.  However, back in Germany, the dwindling market in China for German cars could lead to further job losses.  Trump, too, will pile the pressure on Berlin and NATO allies to spend more on defence. It won’t be easy. Not only because of the costs involved but also because Germany’s far-right and far-left parties are opposed to NATO, opposed to supporting Ukraine and generally pro-Russia. All in all, Germany’s ability to deal with its finances, defence and investment issues will be complicated by the Trump administration.  Ultimately, EU countries need to pull together – even integrate – to withstand the pressures on the transatlantic relationship. Judy Dempsey is Nonresident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the December 2024/January 2025 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.

Ireland’s high beta economy makes us the EU member state most vulnerable to incoming US President Donald Trump’s planned import tariffs, writes Cormac Lucey   T he essential goal of financial management is for a firm to maximise its valuation while minimising risk as measured by volatility in that valuation. The measure of risk used by the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is beta. This measures the anticipated rise or fall of an individual stock price in proportion to the movements of the stock market.  A stock with a high beta is expected to undergo large share price moves relative to market moves.  If one were to view the economy of the Republic of Ireland as the equivalent of a stock, one might describe it as a high-beta economy.  Right now, it is exposed to several factors that significantly increase its riskiness relative to its economic neighbours.  Donald Trump and his declared policy of getting US multinationals to repatriate jobs back to the US represents the single biggest economic danger currently facing the Republic.  This is because Ireland’s success in attracting such jobs has laid the foundations for its current economic success.  It has long been understood that the multinational corporation (MNC) sector pays a disproportionate share of corporation tax in Ireland and a new report from the Revenue Commissioners confirms this.  According to Corporation Tax: 2023 Payments and 2022 Returns, the foreign MNC sector paid 87 percent of all corporation tax in Ireland in 2022.  According to an IDA Ireland report published in the same year, a total of 301,475 people were working for foreign multinationals in the country at that time.  According to the Central Statistics Office, meanwhile, of the 2,121,300 people working across the entire economy in 2022 – just 14.2 percent were employed by the MNC sector. Yet, thanks to the highly progressive nature of our income tax system and the much higher wages paid by our MNC sector, this cohort paid 54.6 percent of total income tax.  The cherry on the cake is that, according to Revenue, the MNC sector also accounted for more than half of all VAT payments (53.8 percent). A Danish employers’ study based on a model devised by the Oxford Economics business group stated that Ireland would be the EU member state hardest hit by a full imposition of Trump tariffs, with the potential loss of 30,000 jobs and GDP in 2027 at four percent below what it would otherwise be. This would represent a huge hit to the economy and to the public finances.  The new government’s honeymoon might not last very long. It’s also hard to imagine that Ireland can escape the attention of the incoming Trump administration when it was the focus of so much pre-election scrutiny.  While campaigning, Trump promised blanket levies of 20 percent on all US imports, as well as tariffs of 60 percent on those from China, suggesting his second-term policies could be even more disruptive to global trade than those of his first administration. The incoming Trump administration knows for sure that it will have two years, at least, while it enjoys a congressional majority. Any politically partisan battles it plans will be best fought (and won) in that period.  The Trump factor will add enormously to uncertainty in Irish economic policy in 2025. This level of uncertainty was already high with slowing economic growth in the UK, France, Germany and China, to name some large economies.  When things are improving, you want greater exposure to beta – but not when they are disimproving. When that happens, you want to fasten your seatbelt! *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the December 2024/January 2025 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.

After a frenetic three-week campaign, General Election 2024 has essentially left us where we began – with a likely Government led by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael albeit this time without the Greens.  The precise makeup of the final coalition is as yet unclear. However, given that the outgoing coalition’s collective seat take will likely not leave them far off the 88 seats needed to command a Dáil majority, it is safe to say that whoever gets the nod to make up the numbers won’t have the same bargaining power to influence policy as some previous smaller coalition partners may have had.  Against this backdrop, it’s safe to assume that the next Programme for Government will largely, if not entirely, be dictated by the policy priorities set out by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in their general election manifestos. So, what might this mean for small businesses?  Addressing the cost of doing business  In their respective pre-election pledges, both parties were keen to highlight their awareness of the rising costs of doing business. In Fianna Fáil’s case, they pledged to address this by establishing a new “Cost of Business Advisory Forum” to conduct a review of all current business costs and taxes.  According to the party’s manifesto, “this forum will be consulted before introducing new legislation or policies that affect small businesses.”  Likewise, in its manifesto, Fine Gael took a similar tack by reasserting its commitment to apply what it calls the “SME test” to any new legislation coming down the track – a test that would essentially require all departments to first assess the impact on small businesses of any new measures being proposed prior to enactment.  So, with both parties essentially singing from the same hymn sheet on the issue, it is likely that we will see the announcement of some sort of new initiative designed to limit the amount of new regulations that could further add to the cost burdens of small businesses.   Employers’ PRSI   Again on the issue of reducing business costs, both parties also made specific commitments to reduce the Employers’ PRSI burden where lower earning workers are employed.  While Fine Gael favoured a temporary, three-year PRSI rebate based on the number of lower-earning workers on a company’s payroll, Fianna Fáil pledged an outright reduction to the lower rate of employers PRSI by 1.5 percent.  The logic behind the latter proposal (we know this because the Institute’s pre-election manifesto originally proposed it) is to mitigate the concurrent 1.5 percent uptick in payroll costs due to hit many employers in late 2025 through the introduction of pensions auto-enrolment.  So again, with both parties essentially aligned here, it’s fair to say that a reduction or rebate of the lower rate of Employers’ PRSI in some format will also likely feature in the next Programme for Government.   VAT on hospitality  The issue of VAT on hospitality was a notably contentious issue in the run up to Budget 2024 with the Government ultimately refusing to reinstate the reduced nine percent rate despite extensive lobbying from the sector.  However, the way in which each party subsequently approached the issue in their election manifestos is perhaps telling of a policy fissure between the two.  Fine Gael clearly favours a reduction, albeit to a midway rate of 11 percent while Fianna Fáil is notably silent on the issue in its manifesto, instead placing its focus on maintaining VAT on gas and electricity bills at nine percent for the next five years.  How this difference in approach will ultimately play out in the final Programme for Government is as yet unclear. However, Fine Gael’s pledge to implement a reduction will no doubt have created an expectation from the hospitality sector that some sort of action will be taken on reducing the rate.  Energy supports  High energy costs continue to be an issue for many small businesses and the manifestos of both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have again sought to tackle this through further one-off grant schemes.  In Fianna Fáil’s case, the party has pledged to introduce a successor to the Increased Cost of Business/Power Up grant schemes to help hospitality and retail businesses deal with higher energy bills.  Likewise, Fine Gael has promised a new energy cost grant scheme, “to help businesses lower their energy costs, enabling them to operate more sustainably.” Given that the two parties appear to be broadly aligned on the issue, a new round of temporary energy support grants seems likely.  However, what is less clear is how the announcement of these relatively piecemeal measures will be received by businesses, particularly given the slow uptake of previous such schemes over the past two years. Stephen Lowry is Head of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

One of my direct reports manages a team of five. Nobody has complained about her, but there is a fairly high level of turnover on her team. She works incredibly hard to (mostly) very high standards. She sometimes spends too much time on unimportant issues and loses sight of the bigger picture. I have sat in on some of her team meetings: she is very task and deadline focused and quite tense. They are not bad meetings, but something is missing. She is very defensive around feedback and can get upset. A. It can be hard to help somebody who is well-intentioned, hard-working and, in their own eyes anyway, doing the right thing.  It sounds like she is quite anxious about her work or performance and the trick will be to find a balance between encouraging her (commitment, high standards, work rate) while ensuring that her singular focus does not hinder productivity or well-being.  While feedback may be part of the response, you may also need to broaden out her sense of what it is to be a manager, i.e. it’s not only about getting the work done, but also about motivating and developing people along the way.  It might also be useful to reflect on whether your direct report is clear on expectations, goals and priorities. It could be worth going back to first principles and discussing what else is important in their role (e.g. developing their direct reports).  You might also reflect on whether you keep them in the loop so they know what’s important for you. Weekly meetings where you (jointly) clarify priorities may be useful.  Assuming you have more than one direct report, and that you meet with this group from time to time, look at how you build connection and trust with them – creating a place where they can share challenges, reflect on learning (from failure as well as success), and discuss how they are working with their own reports, etc.  Each person’s real-life challenges can be a case study for the group to discuss. This encourages a growth-mindset and will help her, and her peers, reflect on what it means to be a leader. Share a resource on leadership (the book recommended below, maybe?) and discuss the ideas. You will probably also need to share feedback to encourage behavioural change. The success of this feedback will be dependent on three main factors:  Your relationship with the person – is there trust between you?   Their self-esteem – are they open to feedback and resilient?   Your skill in sharing feedback – ensuring feedback is balanced, using the right language, etc.  Building trust may allow you to find out what is driving her behaviour (e.g. perfectionism, anxiety, fear of failure, habit) which may open a deeper conversation. The BOFF model provides a useful framework for giving both positive and developmental feedback:  Behaviour: what have you observed? (heard, seen, experienced). This helps you describe rather than judge. Outcome: the impact of the behaviour Feelings: what you are happy about (or concerned about). Future: Next steps (for you, for them). It will be useful to approach the feedback with her, not from the point of ‘what’s not working’, but placing it in the context both of her career aspirations as well as developing her team.  Her development, her team’s development, her work-life balance, etc., should be standing items in your one-on-ones – and this will help you role model the type of behaviour you want from her. Julia Rowan is Principal Consultant with Performance Matters Ltd, a leadership and  team development consultancy. To send a question to Julia, email julia@performancematters.ie

Three Chartered Accountants weigh in on how the outcome of the US presidential election might impact the future of foreign direct investment in Ireland, exploring potential economic shifts and changes to the corporate tax regime Paraic Burke Head of Tax PwC Ireland Despite international uncertainties, Ireland’s economy continues to be one of the best-performing in Europe.  Employment remains at a historic high, our fiscal position is strong and inflation is easing. Global companies here continue to see the opportunities Ireland presents as a gateway to Europe and further afield, with a highly skilled workforce in a stable business environment.  The impact of the US election on Ireland’s FDI from a tax and business perspective is two-fold:   1. The US election should determine how the US responds to the stalled element of global tax reforms led by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. While Ireland and EU member states have enshrined Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Pillar Two into their domestic law, the US has not.  Depending on a complex series of political factors, we could see increasing tensions between the US and Europe, which could have big implications for Ireland. Under a clause in the Pillar Two agreement called the undertaxed profits rule (UTPR) – a way of ensuring that multinational companies pay the globally agreed 15 percent corporate tax rate on their profits – the Irish Government, like others across the EU, could find itself having to tax US profits.  This would not sit well with the US Government. If it is not dealt with, it could have serious trade implications for multinational companies exporting from Ireland. The outcome of the election will very likely have a significant impact on the US approach in this context. 2. This US election will also determine who deals with the potential expiration in 2025 of the individual tax rate cuts introduced by Donald Trump in 2017.  As part of the overall strategy in this context, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris has outlined a plan to raise the US corporation tax rate to 28 percent (currently at 21 percent), but this is likely to be politically impossible.  On the other hand, if elected as US President for a second term, Trump has mentioned a reduction in the US corporate tax rate to 15 percent – although, again, this is likely to be impossible given the overall US fiscal position.  In addition, Trump has regularly stated that he may adopt a policy of applying tariffs on all US imports, a move that could greatly disrupt global trade, including Irish exports.  Cormac Kelleher International Tax Partner Forvis Mazars The upcoming presidential election in the US, due to take place in November, is delaying US companies in making their foreign direct investment (FDI) decisions.  Uncertainty over upcoming trade policy is causing new and existing US businesses to pause decision-making. However, it has not stopped firms from exploring and readying themselves for investment decisions in 2025. If the US introduces or strengthens existing tax repatriation programs post-election, as seen in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, it could incentivise US companies to bring profits and operations back home, possibly reducing FDI in Ireland.  However, given Ireland’s low corporate tax rate (12.5%) and status as a key EU hub for the technology and pharmaceutical sectors, US firms might still find Ireland an attractive location for their European operations. It will be interesting to watch the level of US engagement with the OECD’s BEPS 2.0 tax proposals.  This year has delivered probably the most significant level of tax reform practitioners are likely to witness.  The effective 15 percent rate has caused multinational groups to grapple with a plethora of complex and challenging legislation. Despite initial positive soundings from the US Treasury, achieving sufficient political appetite for the introduction of BEPS 2.0 (Pillar Two) has proved elusive.  The rules, however, will result in US-headquartered groups being affected by the global minimum tax rules from 2026 onwards.  If Pillar Two plans continue to have momentum, commentators will watch with interest to see how the US will react and whether retaliatory measures will be introduced. While tax policy is an important feature of Ireland’s FDI offering, there are many other features that are equally attractive and important to organisations when seeking to establish an international presence.  This is particularly important for firms establishing their first presence outside the US.  Ireland will continue to be an important cog in the global international tax expansion plans of US-based multinational groups. Fundamentals – including making Ireland an attractive location for people to relocate to – will play a greater role in years to come. Catherine Drysdale Consultant Barden Ireland's job market is highly interconnected with global trends and events. There are a number of key factors impacting the employment industry in Ireland at present, including the upcoming US election and potential impact on FDI, geopolitical conflicts, climate initiatives, uncertainty regarding policy and regulatory changes and interest rates and inflationary impacts. How these directly impact talent looking for opportunities within US companies headquartered in Ireland will be sector dependent. Certain sectors, for example, will be impacted more significantly by policy and regulatory changes including technology, pharmaceutical and financial services industries.   The challenges for acquiring talent may include: Changes in visa policies and global mobility restrictions; Cautious spending that could result in longer, more complex hiring processes coupled with the risk that companies will prioritise hiring local talent in the US due to shifting labour policies or cost-saving measures; A shift to contract opportunities, a trend we have already witnessed, reflecting employers’ desire for flexibility and a cautious approach to permanent hires; and Increased competition among jobseekers for a reduced number of opportunities, potentially leading to longer lead time to secure new roles. The stance companies are taking on hybrid and remote working arrangements remains in flux. We saw the recent announcement from Amazon CEO Andy Jassy regarding a mandatory full-time return to office. Whether others follow suit remains to be seen.  Organisations could adopt permanent remote working policies. While this may open up opportunities for a broader talent pool and flexible working arrangements, professionals in the Irish market would likely face increased competition from the global talent pool, potentially leading to downward pressure on salaries as companies seek cost-effective labour. With potential changes in the US economic environment post-election, given their established presence in Ireland, US companies with operations here may need to adjust their salary structures to remain competitive in attracting top talent, particularly if remote work opportunities expand.  A focus on enhancing their existing localised talent acquisition strategies, coupled with a strong emphasis on employer branding to showcase corporate culture and values, will help to make positions more attractive in a competitive market.