Annexes to COM(2020)807 - Activities of the IFRS Foundation, EFRAG and PIOB in 2019 - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2020)807 - Activities of the IFRS Foundation, EFRAG and PIOB in 2019. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2020)807  |
| date | December 14, 2020 |
3.2.Governance, transparency and public accountability
3.2.1.Governance of EFRAG following recommendation of the Maystadt report
The governance reform of EFRAG, which was implemented on 31 October 2014, increased the legitimacy and representativeness of the organisation and resulted in a more cohesive process for the participation of the EU in the standard setting process. The governance reform was completed in July 2016 with the official appointment by the EFRAG General Assembly of Jean-Paul Gauzès, former Member of the European Parliament, as EFRAG Board President following the nomination of the Commission 9 and as endorsed by the European Parliament and the Council. His mandate was renewed for a further three years ending 30 June 2022.
The European Supervisory Authorities and the ECB have opted to be official observers with speaking rights in the EFRAG Board instead of becoming full members. They have made an important contribution to EFRAG’s impact analysis notably in the area of financial stability.
The EFRAG Board reached all its conclusions in 2019 on a full consensus basis without having resort to majority voting. In 2017, in the spirit of the Maystadt report 10 , an observer seat was created for European organisations representing private investors (“end users”).
The EFRAG Board carries out a performance and effectiveness review of its own members under the oversight of the EFRAG General Assembly on an annual basis. The 2019 review, which covered a mixture of strategic, governance and operational issues, demonstrated that on balance the governance structure worked well, which resulted in increased credibility for the organisation. Some recommendations were adopted to further improve the effectiveness of EFRAG's activities in the future. The implementation of EFRAG’s communication strategy, and having a communication team in place under the leadership of the EFRAG Board President, has brought further progress on the visibility and credibility of EFRAG.
There were no issues with potential conflicts of interest. EFRAG’s Internal Rules set out requirements on conflicts of interest and the EFRAG Board has a Conflict of Interest Policy for Board members that is published on the EFRAG website. The objective of the policy is to ensure the credibility of EFRAG as an organisation working in the European public interest. The policy is intended to avoid situations where conflicts or perceptions of conflict may arise, that would: discourage free discussion; result in decisions or actions that are not in the best interest of the European public at large or of EFRAG; or give the perception that EFRAG has acted improperly. EFRAG Board members and EFRAG staff confirm yearly their independence in form of signed declarations.
3.2.2.Transparency rules
Evidence collected during 2019 shows that the EFRAG due process remains broadly in line with stakeholders needs. It is marked by a transparent flow of information among all parties involved. EFRAG continues to show its commitment to engage with the Commission in order to achieve even higher standards of transparency than it was applying in the past. This is essential to ensuring that new IFRS Standards respond to Europe’s needs.
The transparent public due process developed over time by EFRAG allows all European constituents to put forward their views for consideration by EFRAG and ensures that the diversity of accounting and economic models and views in Europe are taken into account in determining EFRAG’s positions.
Moreover, as part of its due process, EFRAG publishes draft positions for public consultation, undertakes field tests and other forms of effect analyses, organises outreach events (some of which are especially aimed at users) and undertakes special surveys, publishes the results in feedback statements and publishes final positions. EFRAG contributes to evidence-based standard setting by undertaking quantitative studies that inform the discussion on EFRAG’s comment letters and endorsement advice and which are gradually becoming a more important part of EFRAG’s research work.
Meetings of the EFRAG Board, EFRAG TEG and EFRAG Consultative Forum of Standard Setters (EFRAG CFSS) are held in public and the agendas and summaries of the meetings are published on EFRAG’s website. Also, the supporting agenda papers for the meetings of the EFRAG Board, EFRAG TEG and EFRAG CFSS are publicly available. Since March 2018, these public meetings have been webcasted allowing stakeholders to watch the discussions not only real time but also after the meetings have been held. The discussions of EFRAG TEG are supported by input received from EFRAG CFSS and the specialised EFRAG Working Groups and Advisory Panels.
The input received from the EFRAG User Panel is essential for the work of EFRAG. The diversified composition of these groups as well as the EFRAG Board and EFRAG TEG, both in terms of geographical and professional background ensures, in addition to the transparent public due process, that all different perspectives are properly taken into account by EFRAG.
The EFRAG Board receives a regular report of all meetings between EFRAG staff and other parties (other than routine administrative meetings). These reports in aggregated form are included in the final grant reports that EFRAG submits to the Commission.
EFRAG publishes every year an annual review providing transparency on its governance, financial structure and the main activities in the year concerned. The Annual Review 2019 was published on 19 May 2020 11 .
Finally, on 9 July 2019 the EFRAG Board approved a Public Transparency Register with all meetings and conferences of the President of the Board, the TEG Chairman and the CEO of EFRAG.
3.2.3.Broad representation and public accountability of EFRAG’s governance structure
In 2019, EFRAG Member Organisations’ feedback on the approach to the governance structure of EFRAG in promoting broad representation of interests and public accountability was in general positive. EFRAG remains vigilent to guarantee neutrality and objectivity in the decision-making process.
EFRAG strives for a proper geographical, professional background and gender balances in its Board, Technical Expert Group and its Working Groups and Advisory Panels and the European Lab Steering Group and its project task forces. EFRAG’s Internal Rules include requirements on a maximum number of members of the same nationality in the EFRAG Board and EFRAG TEG. These requirements have also been applied to the European Lab Steering Group. In addition, there are requirements for proper balance in terms of professional background and gender.
The members of the EFRAG Board are nominated by the EFRAG Member Organisations according to a system put in place following the Maystadt recommendations. For EFRAG TEG and its Working Groups and Advisory Panels and of the European Lab Steering Group and its project task forces, public calls for candidates are issued.
The number of applications differs widely. There is in particular a shortage in female candidates and candidates from Central and Eastern Europe but the situation is improving. On the latter, EFRAG has appointed an EFRAG TEG member from the Czech Republic in the 2020 EFRAG TEG rotation process effect from 1 April 2020. The management team consists entirely of female professionals. EFRAG has also been able to attract for the European Lab Steering Group and its project task force a higher number of female candidates and candidates from Central and Eastern Europe (see situation in details per 31 December 2019 in Appendix 4).
Although the overall results of these actions were positive, a few issues identified in earlier years remain of concern and need further improvement like the under-representation of users, preparers and investors. EFRAG should remain pro-active in seeking feedback from stakeholders less closely involved in EFRAG’s work and protect itself against any bias towards industry and other interests.
3.2.4.Early stage involvement of the European Parliament and the Council
EFRAG is sufficiently well know among the inner circle of stakeholders that have a direct interest in IFRS. But, its visibility seemed to decrease in 2019 amongst the policymakers like the European Parliament.
EFRAG would welcome the re-establishment of the ECON-IFRS Permanent Team in the European Parliament to exchange views and to alert significant issues. In 2019 contrary to the previous year, no exchange of views took place with the ECON Committee in a public meeting. EFRAG took into account the European Parliament’s resolution of 3 October 2018 on IFRS 17 in its work on the endorsement advice of IFRS 17.
EFRAG generally attends the Accounting Regulatory Committee (ARC) meetings and gives presentations at the request of the Commission of work in progress and particular topics. This allows the ARC to exchange views with EFRAG and to give early input. The ARC discusses the endorsement advice request letters, before they are submitted to EFRAG to ensure that all relevant issues are addressed.
Receiving input from the Parliament and ARC at an early stage allows EFRAG to cover the issues in its public consultations on draft comment letters or draft endorsement advice.
3.3.Diversification and balance of EFRAG’s financing structure
EFRAG is a publicly and privately funded organisation working in the European public interest. EFRAG has the legal form of an AISBL (Belgian international non-profit organisation). In 2019, the funding for EFRAG came from eight European Stakeholder Organisations and nine National Organisations, plus the European Commission. The breakdown of the cash contributions by member organisations is reported in Appendix 3.
In addition to cash funding, EFRAG receives contributions in kind provided by the unpaid members of EFRAG TEG, the EFRAG Board, the Working Groups and Advisory Panels as well as in form of free secondments to EFRAG’s secretariat.
EFRAG’s financial structure did not raise any particular concern in 2019. The total expenses and human resourses were below budget and the staff remained stable. However, it appears important that EFRAG will secure its longer-term funding structure and find additional sources of funding, not only following the reduction of contribution of the Accountancy profession in 2020 and the financial implication of the Brexit, but also considering possible negative impacts from the coronavirus on contributions from some organisations.
Aware of the problem, EFRAG is already seeking to broaden its membership base. Its President Jean-Paul Gauzès launched a task force to reflect about EFRAG’s long-term funding structure in 2019. EFRAG’s membership base should ideally cover all EU Member States. Support from all EU institutions and the Member States to encourage national organisations in countries to join would be of great support.
1.Public Interest Oversight Board
4.1.Activities overview
The global architecture of standard setting in the field of audit, assurance, ethics and education consists of a three-tier structure made up of Standard Setting Boards (SSB) supported by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), the independent oversight (PIOB), and accountability to a monitoring body of public authorities ( Monitoring Group ).
The PIOB is an independent external body, consisting of 10 members including its Chairman (the Commission has nominated 2 EU members of the 10) which oversees the standard setting on auditing, ethics and education for accountants. The relevant standards are the International Standards on Auditing (ISA), the Ethics standards for accountants, and the International Education Standards (IESs). The standard setting structure is a result of the 2003 IFAC Reforms 12 , which were developed as a response to high-profile corporate collapses and failures in financial reporting and auditing in a number of countries. A key reform was the establishment of the PIOB, aimed at increasing the confidence of investors and others by overseeing that the activities of the standard setting Boards related to auditing are properly responsive to the public interest.
The overall task of the PIOB is to guarantee that due process, oversight and transparency are respected and that the public interest is safeguarded along the process comprising the proposal, development and adoption of international standard for auditors.
The PIOB also approves the nominations of the members of the standard setting boards, it agrees with their strategies and work plans, it monitors the development of the standards and verifies that all elements mentioned in the public consultations are duly taken into account. Where needed, the PIOB recommends steps to ensure that the standards effectively respond to the public interest.
In 2019, the PIOB, as explained in its 15th Public Report published in May 2020, 13 has regularly communicated with the standard setting boards under its oversight (International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB); the International Accounting Education Standards Board (IAESB) and the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA), their three Consultative Advisory Groups, the Compliance Advisory Panel and the Nominating Committee and IFAC leadership.
Pursuant to the advice of the PIOB, the IAASB included in its strategy for the next four years information-gathering activities regarding both going concern and the auditor’s role in detecting fraud.
The IAASB adopted International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 315 (Revised). IAS 315 established more robust requirements and detailed guidance on identifying and assessing risk and emphasizing professional skepticism and data analytics, which the PIOB had identified as key public interest issues.
The PIOB also provided comments on the new proposed quality management standards currently under development by the IAASB to ensure higher-quality audits and reinforce the importance of professional skepticism.
The International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants issued by the IESBA is an essential tool combining fundamental principles and rules that steer professional accountants and their firms toward a business model that identifies and avoids potential ethical conflicts and threats to independence. The current practice of simultaneous provision of audit and consulting services is under extensive discussion. The PIOB has therefore encouraged the IESBA to widen the scope of a project on allowed and prohibited non-assurance services. In 2019, the IESBA issued a public consultation on an updated standard that would further limit offering non-assurance services to audited companies, together with another project for a new standard that would require auditors to address threats to auditors’ independence created by fee-related matters (the Fees project).
The PIOB has also actively participated in the Monitoring Group’s discussions on the reform of the current governance and oversight model of international audit-related standards and contributed to the development of a “Public Interest Framework” that would aim at providing a better mechanism for assessing how the public interest is captured throughout the standard setting process. The Monitoring Group published its recommendations to “Strengthen the International Audit and Ethics Standard-Setting System” on 14 July 2020. 14
4.2.Governance and accountability
The members of the PIOB are appointed by the Monitoring Group which is ultimately responsible for the overall governance arrangements in the field of International Standards on Auditing, assurance, ethics and education.
The Monitoring Group, of which the European Commission is a member, monitors how the PIOB carries out its public interest role with particular regard to the PIOB's oversight of the standard setting process.
As regards potential situations of conflicts of interest, PIOB members and staff need to abide by the PIOB Code of Conduct. The first principle of the PIOB Code of Conduct states that Board members and staff must not become involved in any matter in relation to which their judgement may be affected by a conflict of interest. Every year, each Board member signs a declaration of absence of conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interests have been reported by any of the PIOB´s Board members in 2019.
4.3.Developments in the diversification of funding in 2019
The funding of the PIOB is designed as to preserve its independence in fact and appearance. To achieve the public interest objective, proper diversification of stable funding sources would help not only to preserve its continuity but also to guarantee the PIOB’s independence. The importance of funding diversification was already recognised in the IFAC (International Federation of Accountants) reform of 2003 which was at the origin of the current international standard setting system, including the PIOB.
Since its creation in 2005 and until 2010 when the Community funding programme established by Decision 716/2009/EC became operative, the PIOB was financed exclusively by IFAC (apart from an in-kind contribution by Spain (i.e. the rental of the Madrid office).
The funds made available by IFAC in a given year constitute a maximum guaranteed contribution. The non-IFAC contributions substitute and thus reduce the IFAC contribution for that specific year. Ideally the IFAC funding portion of the total PIOB annual expenses should be less than half of the total. But it is been very challenging to find other public sponsors. For many years now the EU is the second biggest donor to the PIOB. In year 2019, PIOB’s revenue (monetray and in-kind contributions) amounted to EUR 1,858,346 and the EU contribution was EUR 338,000 or 18.18%. IFAC contributed EUR 1,201,028 or 64,62%.
Article 9.5 of the Regulation stipulates that if funding by IFAC in a given year reaches more than two-thirds of the total annual PIOB funding, the Commission must propose to limit its annual contribution for that year to a maximum of EUR 300,000. So far, this has not happened. Therefore, as the critical threshold stipulated in the Regulation (66.66%) has not been reached by the IFAC funding, the Commission does not need to review its 2019 contribution to the PIOB.
5. Conclusions and issues for future consideration
The present assessment of the funding programme carried out by the European Commission in 2019 confirms the relevance and the added value of the EU funding programme. It also confirms that the programme strengthens the legitimacy of the three beneficiaries (IFRS Foundation, EFRAG and PIOB) to serve the European public interest by developing and promoting European views in the field of financial reporting and auditing and ensuring these views are properly considered in the IASB and IFAC standard-setting processes.
As regards the IFRS Foundation, the IASB undertook measures to address the concerns arising from the pre-implementation phase of IFRS 17. It postponed the effective date by two years to 1 January 2023 and introduced targeted amendments to IFRS 17. However, the extent to which all European concerns have been considered can only be assessed once EFRAG submits its endorsement advise on the amendments to IFRS 17 to the European Commission.
Furthermore, the 2019 breakdown of funding of the IFRS Foundation shows that the gap between the financial contributions and the corresponding representation of jurisdictions within the board of Trustees and the IASB Board has further widened, starting from an already unbalanced situation. The “Americas” have a particularly low proportion of the total funding (5%) but have the same number of seats as the EU providing 38% of the total funding (Commisison and Member States) and a higher number of seats than Asia-Oceania providing 33% of the total funding.
As for EFRAG, the Commission has in particular appreciated the comprehensive effects analysis initiated by EFRAG's in order to support its future endorsement advice on IFRS 17 Insurance Contracts and its key role played to technically advise the Commission on alternative accounting treatments for long-term equity instruments, recommending the Commission to request the IASB to perform “expeditious” review of the non-recycling treatment of equity instruments in IFRS 9.
The PIOB’s independent oversight function exists to provide assurance to investors and others that audit-related standard setting has taken place in the public interest. The reform initiated by the Monitoring Group seeks to enhance the PIOB’s oversight role and to enlarge its funding base.
Appendix 1 – Summary of IFRS activities in 2019
| Standard | IASB Issue date | Application date | Publication date Official Journal |
| IFRS 17 – Insurance Contracts | 18/05/2017 | 01/01/2023 | |
| Amendment to IAS 28 – Long Term Interest in Associates and Joint Ventures | 12/10/2017 | 01/01/2019 | 11/02/2019 |
| Annual improvements 2015-2017 | 12/12/2017 | 01/01/2019 | 15/03/2019 |
| Amendments to IAS 19 – Plan Amendment, Curtailment or Settlement | 07/02/2018 | 01/01/2019 | 14/03/2019 |
| Amendments to references to the Conceptual Framework in IFRS Standards | 29/03/2018 | 01/01/2020 | 06/12/2019 |
| Amendments to IFRS 3 – Definition of a business | 22/10/2018 | 01/01/2020 | 22/04/2020 |
| Amendments to IAS 1 and IAS 8 – Definition of material | 31/10/2018 | 01/01/2020 | 10/12/2019 |
| Amendments to IFRS 9, IAS 39 and IFRS 7 – Interest Rate Benchmark Reform (Phase 1) | 26/09/2019 | 01/01/2020 | 16/01/2020 |
| Amendments to IAS 1 – Presentation of Financial Statements (Classification of Liabilities as Current or Non-current) | 23/01/2020 | 01/01/2023 | |
| Amendment to IFRS 16 – Leasing | 28/05/2020 | 01/06/2020 | |
| Amendments to IFRS 17, IFRS 9 and IFRS 4 – Deferral option | 25/06/2020 | 01/01/2023 | |
| Amendments to IFRS 9, IAS 39 and IFRS 7 – Interest Rate Benchmark Reform (Phase 2) | 27/08/2020 | 01/01/2021 |
| Projects reported in grant applications | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Comments |
| Better communication project | ||||
| Primary Financial Statements | Work Plan | Exposure Draft 17/12/2019 | Work Plan | Targeted improvement of the structure and content of the Primary Financial Statement. Exposure Draft Feedback expected in Q4 2020. |
| Disclosure Initiative – Principles of disclosures | Discussion paper 30/03/2017 | Project summary published on 03/2019 | Project completed. | |
| Disclosure Initiative – Targeted Standards-level Review of Disclosures | Work Plan | Work Plan | Work Plan | Project designed to test the disclosure requirements of IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement and IAS 19 Employee Benefits against the new guidance principles defined by the IASB. Exposure Draft postponed to H1 2021. |
| Disclosure initiative – Accounting Policies | Work Plan | Exposure Draft 01/08/2019 | Work Plan | Project designed to improve the disclosures pertainining to accounting policies by applying the materiality principle. Exposure Draft Feedback expected in Q4 2020 |
| Management Commentary | Work Plan | Work Plan | Exposure Draft expected in Q1 2021 | Project to revise and update the Practise Statement 1 Management Commentary as a complementary and supportive instrument to the financial statements. |
| Research projects | ||||
| Business combination under Common Control | Work Plan | Work Plan | Discussion Paper expected in Q4/2020 | Aims at reducing the diversity in accounting for business combinations under common control. |
| Discount rate | Work Plan | Project summary published 02/2019 | Project completed. | |
| Dynamic Risk Management | Work Plan | Work Plan | Work Plan | Macro Hedging research plan that aims at devising an accounting model to report the effect of hedging and dynamic risk management. Core Model Outreach expected in Q4 2020 before developing a second Discussion Paper. |
| Financial Instruments with Characteristics of equity | Work Plan | Discussion paper 06/2018 | Ongoing | Clarification for the presentation of financial instruments with both liability and equity features. Aims at clarifying the requirements of IAS 32 Financial Instruments:Presentation. Decision on Project Direction expected in Q4 2020. |
| Goodwill and impairment | Work Plan | Work Plan | Discussion Paper 19/03/2020 | Research project to ensure the timely recognition of goodwill impairment. Aims at improving the requirements of IAS 36. |
| Rate regulated activities | Work Plan | Work Plan | Exposure Draft expected in Q4 2020 | The project aims at accounting for the effect of rate regulations when companies pricing policies are regulated. |
| Extractive activities | Work Plan | Work Plan | Research project to consider an upgrade of IFRS 6 Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Ressources. Review research in H1 2021. | |
| Pension Benefits that Depend on Asset Return | Work Plan | Work Plan | Research project to develop proposals to make a narrow-scope amendment to IAS 19 Employee Benefits for pension benefits that depend on asset returns. Review research in Q4 2020. | |
| Post-implementation Review of IFRS 10, IFRS 11 and IFRS 12 | Work Plan | Work Plan | The review aimed at assessing the impact of IFRS 10 Consolidated Financial Statements, IFRS 11 Joint Arrangements and IFRS 12 Disclosures of Interests in Other Entities. Request for Information expected in Q4 2020. | |
| Maintenance projects – Narrow scope amendments | ||||
| Accounting policies and Accounting Estimates (Amendments to IAS 8) | Work plan | Work plan | An amendment expected in Q4 2020 | Clarifications on the distinction between accounting policies and estimates. |
| Accounting policies changes (Amendment to IAS 8) | Work plan | Exposure Draft 26/03/2018 | Work Plan | Designed to lower the impracticability threshold regarding retrospective application of voluntary changes in accounting policies. Decision on Project Direction expected in Q4 2020. |
| Availability of a refund (Amendments to IFRIC14) | Work plan | Work plan | Work Plan | Clarifications when third parties have rights to make particular decisions about a company's defined benefit plan |
| Fees in the 10 percent test for Derecognition (Amendment to IFRS 9) | Work Plan | Work Plan | Amendment issued on 14/05/2020 | Project completed. |
| Lease Incentives (Amendment to Illustrative Example 13 accompanying IFRS 16) | Work Plan | Exposure Draft 05/2019 | Amendment issued on 14/05/2020 | Project completed. |
| Improvements to IFRS 8 - Operational segments | Exposure Draft 29/03/2017 | Project summary 02/2019 | Project terminated following the feedback from the Exposure Draft consultation. | |
| Property, Plant and Equipment: Proceeds before Intended Use (Amendments to IAS 16) | Exposure Draft 20/06/2017 | Work plan | Amendments issued on 14/05/2020 | Project completed. |
| Taxation in Fair Value Measurements (Amendments to IAS 41) | Work plan | Amendments issued on 14/05/2020 | Project completed. | |
| IBOR Reform and the Effects on Financial Reporting | Phase 1 issued on 26/09/2019 | Phase 2 issued on 27/08/2020 | Project completed. | |
| Onerous Contracts – Cost of fulfilling a contract (Amendment to IAS 37) | Exposure Draft 13/12/2018 | Amendment issued on 14/05/2020 | Project completed. | |
| Subsidiary as a First-time Adopter (Amendments to IFRS 1) | Work Plan | Amendments issued on 14/05/2020 | Project completed. | |
| 2019 Comprehensive Review of the IFRS for SMEs Standard | Work plan | Work plan | Second comprehensive review of the IFRS for SMEs Standard. | |
| Deferred tax related to assets and liabilities arising from a single transaction (Amendments to IAS 12) | Exposure Draft 17/07/2010 | Work Plan | Change in the requirements relating to the accounting for deferred tax when an entity accounts for transactions such as leases or decommissioning obligations by recognizing both an asset and a liability. Decision on Project Direction expected in November 2020. | |
| Lack of Exchangeability (Amendments to IAS 21) | Work plan | Work plan | Amendents to address the spot exchange rate an entity uses when exchangeability between two currencies is lacking. Exposure Draft expected, but not date yet set. | |
| Provisions—Targeted Improvements | Work plan | Work plan | Proposals for three targeted improvements to IAS 37 Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets. Aligning the definition of a liability and requirements for identifying liabilities with the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting; and clarifying two aspects of the measurement requirements. Decision on Project Direction expected, but no date yet set. |
Appendix 2 – Breakdown of the 2019 funding of the IFRS Foundation
| Breakdown of funding of the IFRS Foundation | ||||||
| Financial contributors | Contribution 2019 | Contribution 2018 | Contribution 2017 | Number of trustees | Evolution at constant exchange rate | |
| 2019/2018 | 2018/2017 | |||||
| International Auditing Firms | 19.8% | 24.0% | 34.7% | -29.7% | -31.8% | |
| European Commission | 20.7% | 18.5% | 16.5% | 0.5% | 2.0% | |
| EU Member States | 17.8% | 17.2% | 15.9% | 6 | -6.5% | -4.0% |
| Asia/ Oceania | 33.5% | 30.8% | 23.9% | 6 | -0.8% | 7.9% |
| Americas | 5.1% | 6.1% | 5.8% | 6 | -21.4% | -10.8% |
| Africa | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.5% | 1 | -94.8% | 0.0% |
| Other | 3.0% | 2.7% | 2.6% | 3 | -2.5% | -5.4% |
| Total | 22 | -10.6% | -9.7% |
Source: IFRS Foundation
Appendix 3 – Breakdown of the 2019 funding of EFRAG
| CONTRIBUTIONS 000 EUR | ||
| 2019 | 2018 | |
| European Stakeholder Oganisations | ||
| Accountancy Europe | 240 | 300 |
| BUSINESSEUROPE | 125 | 125 |
| INSURANCE EUROPE | 75 | 75 |
| EBF | 75 | 75 |
| ESBG | 75 | 75 |
| EACB | 75 | 75 |
| EFAA | 25 | 25 |
| EFFAS | 15 | 15 |
| Total | 705 | 765 |
| National Organisations | ||
| France | 350 | 350 |
| Germany | 350 | 350 |
| UK | 350 | 350 |
| Italy 15 | 290 | 290 |
| Sweden | 100 | 100 |
| Denmark | 50 | 50 |
| Netherlands | 50 | 50 |
| Spain | 50 | 50 |
| Luxembourg | 10 | 10 |
| Total | 1600 | 1600 |
Source: EFRAG
Appendix 4 : Gender balance information in EFRAG per 31 December 2019
| Group | Percentage male | Percentage female | Percentage Central and Eastern Europe | Number of nationalities | |
| EFRAG Board | 76% | 24% | 0% | 9 | |
| EFRAG TEG | 81% | 19% | 0% (from 1 April 2020 6%) | 8 (from 1 April 2020: 9) | |
| EFRAG TEG working groups and Advisory Panels | 81% | 19% | 2% | Between 5 and 14 | |
| European Lab Steering Group | 59% | 41% | 12% | 13 | |
| European Lab Project Task Force | 52% | 48% | 13% | 13 | |
| EFRAG Secretariat Management Technical staff Support staff | 0% 50% 0% | 100% 50% 100% | 0% 14% 0% | 3 10 3 |
Source: EFRAG
(1)
OJ, L 105, 8.4.2014, p.1.
(2)
OJ, L 129, 19.5.2017, p.24.
(3)
Last appraisal of the Programme was included as Annex 3 to the annual 2019 Report related to the activities of the IFRS Foundation, EFRAG and PIOB in 2018, 29.10.2019, COM/2019/549 final.
(4)
A8-0172/2016 Report on International Accounting Standards (IAS) evaluation and the activities of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) and the Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB).
(5)
The financing provided by the European Union also supports the timely update of the IFRS taxonomy which in turn serves as an input to the European Single Electronic Format.
(6)
Please see the following link: https://www.ifrs.org/groups/international-accounting-standards-board/pages/board-member-external-engagement .
(7)
Recital 7
(8)
Since 2015 the Securities and Exchanges Commission does not contribute anymore to the funding of the IFRS Foundation. The funding from the United States only stems from voluntary contributions from private organizations.
(9)
See Commission Decision of 22.05.2019, C(2019) 3760 final
(10)
Should IFRS Standards be more “European”? Report by Philippe Maystadt – October 2013
(11)
Please see the following the link:
https://efrag.org/About/AnnualReports
(12)
IFAC is the private body representing accountants and auditors worldwide.
(13)
https://ipiob.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/PIOB-Fifteenth-Public-Report-2019-1.pdf
(14)
https://www.iosco.org/about/monitoring_group/pdf/2020-07-MG-Paper-Strengthening-The-International-Audit-And-Ethics-Standard-Setting-System.pdf
(15)
For part of 2018 OIC seconded a staff member to EFRAG, with an annual equivalent of 60K euro