Comment

Moira Grassick explores the implications of the new gender pay gap reporting portal set to launch in Autumn 2025 Norma Foley, Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, has announced that a gender pay gap reporting portal will be launched in Autumn 2025.   This is a significant update for Irish businesses, as the Department estimates that about 6,000 companies will need to submit a gender pay gap report to the online portal this year.   Foley also indicated that the reporting deadline is expected in November.  Gender pay gap reporting to date The Gender Pay Gap Information Act 2021 requires businesses to publish a report detailing the hourly gender pay gap in their business, across a range of specified metrics. The Act is part of a wider initiative to improve gender equality in Ireland and, more specifically, aims to bring about greater pay parity between men and women.  Initially, when the requirement was introduced in 2022, only companies with 250 employees or more were required to submit a gender pay gap report. This threshold has been increasing gradually each year and, in 2025, any company with 50 employees or more will be required to file a report.    The portal: what you need to know  Up until this point, companies have been required to post their gender pay gap reports either on their own website or somewhere else accessible to the public.   As well as submitting statistics and figures on gender-based pay information within the business, employers have also been required to publish an explanation for any gender pay gap that does arise from those findings.   With the introduction of the new portal, this system will change.   Once launched, employers will be required to upload their pay gap reports directly to the portal, and not just on their own website.   New reporting deadline  As well as announcing the upcoming launch of the portal, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality also suggested that the reporting deadline this year will take place in November, and not in December as was the case in previous years.   Employers will be required to gather their gender pay gap data on a ‘snapshot’ date in June, and to publish those results in November. The exact reporting date will depend on the snapshot date selected by the employer. For example, if a business chooses 5 June as their snapshot date, they will be required to publish the results on the portal by 5 November.   Transparency and accountability If your business employs 50 or more staff and you need to file a gender pay gap report in November, it's essential to understand the required publishing method. Once launched, you must submit your report directly through the online portal.  The portal's design could enhance public access to gender pay gap reports compared to before. Individuals will be able to search all gender pay gap reports on one platform, facilitating easier comparison of multiple reports simultaneously and enabling clearer conclusions and comparisons. Moira Grassick is Chief Operating Officer at Peninsula

The Trump-Putin relationship is forcing NATO and the EU to shift from a competitive relationship to a strategic, collaborative mindset, writes Judy Dempsey In the wake of Russia’s 2022 invasions of Ukraine, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the European Union have both been forced to reassess their fundamental strategic roles as guardians of Europe as they explore collaborative responses to the crisis.  The real catalyst for this strategic shift is the actions of US President Donald Trump, rather than those of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Trump has shaken Europe, challenging its long-held belief that the US would always provide a protective umbrella. During his first term as US President, Trump criticised NATO’s European allies for underspending on defence, underscoring a perceived inequity in burden-sharing within the alliance.  Now, he has signalled his willingness to consider withdrawing the US from NATO altogether, questioning the reliability of Article 5, which commits the military alliance to defending any member country under attack.  Not anymore, Trump says—if they have not spent enough on their security. Weakened US support for NATO, or a complete exit from the alliance, would leave the EU vulnerable.   The decades-long transatlantic relationship would be dangerously undermined—a goal of successive Russian leaders.  Trump is doing Putin’s bidding by putting Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity on the negotiating table. In doing so, the US President has ignored how Russia has repeatedly broken the ceasefire Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to in March.  With this major shift in American foreign policy, NATO and the EU, including neutral countries such as Austria and Ireland, must move fast in several ways.  First, the Europeans cannot wait for Trump to weaken his commitment to the alliance. Major NATO and EU countries—Britain, France, Germany and Poland—need to form coalitions of the willing to prepare for an eventual withdrawal of the US from NATO.  NATO’s European ‘caucus’ needs to be strengthened, military capabilities assessed and the expenditure required to compensate for a potential US exit assessed. That won’t be easy, and it will be costly. Second, the EU Commission wants member states to embrace serious defence ambitions, another costly task, requiring time and clear communication with voters.  In the meantime, there is no reason the EU and NATO cannot share capabilities under the special “Berlin Plus” arrangements, giving the EU access to NATO assets and planning capabilities if the alliance is not militarily involved. Such a partnership could serve as a foundation for an EU-led coalition of the willing for Ukraine. Third, in light of the ongoing conflict, it’s crucial for the EU and NATO to increase their military, economic and political support for Ukraine.  NATO’s European members could take over from the US leadership of the Ramstein forum, known as the Ukraine Defence Contact Group. Established in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine, its 50 countries provide military support to Ukraine.  Finally, Germany and other countries are discussing Europe’s nuclear powers with France and the UK. This would have been unthinkable a few months ago, demonstrating just how much Trump’s relationship with Putin is upending the transatlantic relationship. Judy Dempsey is Nonresident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the April/May 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. 

Key market indicators are flashing warning signs and investors should brace for turbulence, warns Cormac Lucey Timing global equity markets is not an easy task. But when several separate indicators signal caution, it may be time for alarm.  This is currently the situation regarding US equity markets as President Donald Trump launches his much-anticipated tariff wars on America’s allies.  Signal 1: US unemployment rate In the past, when the unemployment rate in the US started to rise after many years of steady falls, it has signalled a shift in the economic cycle, often presaging recession.  The US unemployment rate hit 4.1 percent in February, up considerably from its April 2023 low of 3.4 percent.  According to BCA Research, the investment research company, there has never been a situation in which the three-month moving average unemployment rate has risen by more than a third of a percent—as is now the case—without a recession following. Signal 2: The US yield curve The yield curve depicts the differing interest rates that apply to government debt of varying maturities.  When shorter-term debt yields higher returns than longer-term debt, it is usually the result of central banks raising short-term interest rates too high.  Recession generally follows shortly after the normal state of affairs, where longer-term interest rates exceed short-term rate returns. This normal state of affairs returned last December.  Signal 3: US price/earnings ratio  Right now, the Standard and Poor’s (S&P) forward price/earnings ratio (which compares today’s price to predicted—or forward—earnings) comfortably exceeds 20. That is one of the highest S&P ratios observed in a half-century.  In the past, higher prices have tended to anticipate lower investor returns. Signal 4: US cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio A significant drawback of the conventional price/earnings ratio is that when we compare a highly inflated share price to cyclically inflated earnings, the situation can appear okay.  The cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings (CAPE) ratio seeks to correct this defect by dividing equity prices by their average earnings over the previous decade.  This way, the CAPE avoids the risk that cyclically elevated earnings may make cyclically elevated share prices look normal.  The CAPE ratio currently stands at 36.34 times cyclically adjusted earnings. This puts current equity values among the highest ever recorded.  If return patterns observed in the past are replicated, we might expect real equity returns (after inflation) to come in just slightly above zero over the next 15 years. Signal 5: US price/book ratio  The price/book ratio compares the market price of the equity market to the book value of the net assets on the balance sheets of those companies on the market.  The US market’s price/book ratio is currently higher than it has ever been, even at the peak of the tech bubble in 2000. When we examine our five bear market indicators, we can see that they are each signalling caution, suggesting extreme prudence regarding equity returns in the near future.  This caution is only increasing in response to the trade tensions US President Donald Trump continues to unleash.  Signal 6: US trade tariffs I expect continued turbulence as Donal Trump continues to push the trade tariff agenda he unveiled to the world on 2 April.  We might hope for signs of compromise to lead a relief rally, but the upshot in the first instance has been upheaval in the markets.  While the tariffs may be the catalyst that has unleashed this upheaval, however, it is my view that they are not the ultimate cause of the recessionary/bear market conditions we are seeing emerge in the US.  I don’t expect to see equity markets bottom out until some time later this year or early next. Investor caution Equity markets do not follow a neat pattern. They often overshoot in one direction only to then overshoot in another. Just because six key signals are all neatly pointing in one direction doesn’t mean equities will immediately fall in value. In the medium term, however, it does suggest that future returns will be weak and that investors should be cautious. Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the April/May 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. 

Cormac Lucey examines recent election turmoil in Romania, questioning the fragility of democratic processes and need for greater scrutiny in safeguarding electoral integrity We pride ourselves that our modern societies are democracies, but what if this is a comforting illusion? What if the foundations of our democracies are considerably more fragile than we imagine? Some recent developments suggest that caution is warranted. Last November, Romania held its first round of presidential elections. As nobody secured an overall majority, the second run-off round was due to be held on 8 December.  On 6 December, however, the Romanian Constitutional Court annulled the election, alleging Russian interference in the first-round outcome, which had been won by Calin Georgescu, a “Romanian far-right politician, agronomist and prominent conspiracy theorist, who worked in the field of sustainable development”, according to Wikipedia. Four days earlier, on 2 December, the Court had confirmed the first round results despite vote-rigging allegations.  It appears that intelligence agency reports alleging that TikTok had been used to spread political disinformation caused the Romanian Constitutional Court to change its mind. The election is now scheduled to be re-run in May, six months after the original, aborted election.  There are at least four concerns I have with this chain of events.  First, elections have always been battlegrounds of contention. One should not be able to cancel a democratic election without hard evidence of sustained manipulation. Is the assertion that untruths were told on TikTok now sufficient to overturn the election results of a democracy?  Second, the intelligence types asserting that social media fatally undermined the recent Romanian election are the same sort of people who claimed, in the run-up to the 2020 US election, that the disclosure of Hunter Biden’s emails had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation”. We now know that those emails (suggesting criminal behaviour by members of the Biden family) were true.  Those intelligence operatives who untruthfully dismissed the emails in 2020 were granted a pre-emptive Presidential Pardon by Joe Biden as he departed the White House.  Third, if democracy is as important as we are regularly told it is, why is Romania delaying the re-run of its cancelled November 2024 election until May 2025?  Fourth, while the mass media in Britain and Ireland cover in astonishing detail every twist and turn in American politics, there has been almost total silence regarding the cancellation of the results of a modern European democracy on pretty flimsy grounds.  It brings to mind the warning issued by Alexander Solzhenitsyn—the Russian dissident, Nobel laureate in literature and author of “The First Circle” and “The Gulag Archipelago”—shortly after he first arrived in the Western world in 1978 having been let out of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn said: “The Western world has lost its civic courage…Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elite, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society.” The UK’s 2016 vote to exit the European Union and last year’s vote for Trump to reprise his role as US President were as much votes of no confidence in those countries’ ruling political establishments, as they were votes in favour of the outcome.   There is a danger, in an ever more atomised world, that we—part of the ruling and intellectual elite—take democracy for granted, assume that everyone else is doing their job properly and fail to do our bit to sustain the system.  As Chartered Accountants, we are highly trained guardians and interpreters of fact at a time when the facts are increasingly in dispute. Maybe it’s time for us to speak a little louder in public debate.  Cormac Lucey is an economic commentator and lecturer at Chartered Accountants Ireland *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the February/March 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. 

Urgent policy action is needed to protect the EU from Trump’s protectionist foreign policy and rescue a West increasingly beholden to China and Russia, writes Judy Dempsey  The years after the devastating Second World War shaped the cooperative relationship between the US and Europe. Washington launched the German Marshall Fund to put what was then Western Europe back on its feet.  Inspiring European figures led by French foreign minister Robert Schuman, and supported by the US, founded the European Coal and Steel Community—the precursor to today’s European Union (EU). This was a special era. For Europe, after the nightmare of the Holocaust and Nazism followed by Stalinism, it was about forging an ideology based on peace, democracy, economic prosperity and integration—all in a divided Europe.  In Washington, multilateral institutions prospered. They included the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation, and US support for United Nations (UN) bodies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organisation and other multilateral agencies.  More recently, the US, the EU and many other countries ‘updated’ their approach to multilateralism with the signing of the Paris Agreement. This legally binding international treaty on climate change was adopted by 196 parties at the UN Climate Change Conference in 2016.  By contrast, US President Donald Trump’s inauguration speech this year dispensed with aspects of multilateralism and cooperation, making transnationalism and bilateralism his administration’s leitmotiv.  Trump has walked away from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organisation, and intends to slap heavy tariffs on EU exports to the US unless, of course, European companies move across the Atlantic…or Europeans buy more American energy…or Europeans spend a whopping five percent of their gross domestic product on defence to take on the costs of their own security.  They will also be encouraged to buy American military equipment. Most European leaders have professed shock at Trump’s pronouncements—as if they didn’t know what to expect. They say they want to get on with the new US administration, but on what basis? Trump is no admirer of the EU. He challenges the bloc’s ideological edifice, built on accountability, the rule of law and fundamental values such as an independent media, an independent judiciary, human rights and asylum—and multilateralism.   These qualities don’t have a ‘shop price’. Trump’s policies do. His focus is on deals and trade-offs.  This may suit some EU countries, such as Hungary and Slovakia, whose leaders are pro-Putin—although it is worth noting here that Hungary, under Prime Minister Viktor Orban, is becoming a hub for Chinese investments which may not please Trump.  There is also Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the only European leader to attend Trump’s inauguration. She could be pivotal in making the EU-US relationship constructive. Further, European countries are unprepared to strategically work together for their collective security, whether or not they are neutral. Russia’s war on Ukraine should have provided adequate warning to European countries, particularly Germany, to prepare for Europe’s security, the security of Ukraine and their eastern neighbours. It hasn’t. With some exceptions, European countries such as Poland, Denmark and the Nordic states understand the threats posed by Russia. The same cannot be said for the European perception of Trump’s new ‘transactional’ administration which lacks the post-1945 focus on Atlanticism. Instead, Europe’s liberal elites continue to resort to their complacent comfort zones.  Criticising Trump does not provide the basis for concrete policy safeguarding multilateralism, protecting Europe and rescuing a West increasingly beholden to China and Russia. Who in Europe is taking the lead? Judy Dempsey is Non-resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the February/March 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. 

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.