IFRS 8 – broad based concern in the EU Parliament

Posted on

The European Parliament has now discussed IFRS 8. The resolution to adopt was subject to heavy amendments before the committee - and from across the political spectrum. Just read them and you'll see. No one can believe that this standard has been accepted without a mauling - or that civil society has not now made its voice heard laud and clear on this issue.

I do not know the outcome as yet - and am a little distracted to be blogging this with a Sky News camera over my shoulder as we wait for the Pre Budget Report, but look at some of these suggested amendments and you'll see how deep the concern is:

Amendment by Margarita Starkevi?®iute

1a. Believes that convergence of accounting standards shall not be pursued in a hasty manner but shall be carried out by signing a framework agreement with IASB on convergence of accounting standards;

Amendment by John Purvis
Amendment 5

1a. However considers it vital that management continues to provide segmental information sufficient to allow users to assess the risks and drivers of the business in terms of geography and business sector;

And those from Publish What You Pay got onto the agenda:

Amendment by Peter Skinner

3a. Notes that the European Commission services report on IFRS 8 acknowledges that NGO stakeholders "made a strong case for country-by-country disclosures"; notes that the IASB has disclosed its sympathy for the objective of such a campaign, and has identified a likely vehicle for the development of an accounting standard for single country reporting by the extractive industry companies;

Amendment by Peter Skinner

Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Requests therefore that the European Commission go beyond voluntary guidelines and support the development of an appropriate accounting standard requiring country-by-country reporting by extractive companies;

As did some that were outright critical:

Amendment by Wolf Klinz and Margarita Starkevi?®iute

2a. Expresses reservation as to the Commission's analysis that disclosure of geographical information would in practice not be reduced compared to IAS 14 and asks the Commission to report back to the Parliament on the outcome of the discussion with the IASB on this issue within the next six months;

Amendment by Wolf Klinz and Margarita Starkevi?®iute

1a. Regrets that the impact assessment carried out by the Commission did not take sufficiently into account the interests of users as well as the needs of small and medium-sized companies located in different European countries and companies operating only locally;

At the very least the IASB is being given a bloody nose by the European Parliament. And quite right too.

Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:

You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.

And if you would like to support this blog you can, here: