Connect with us

Accounting

An ESG backlash erupts in Europe on world’s strictest rules

Published

on

For TotalEnergies SE Chief Executive Officer Patrick Pouyanne, the difference in the performance of his company’s stock and that of Exxon Mobil Corp., the largest U.S. producer of oil and gas, is in no small part explained by an acronym: ESG.

Exxon’s aggressive oil and gas strategy has been rewarded by investors, with its shares more than doubling in the past three years. For Europe’s second-biggest oil company, in contrast, pressure on the region’s asset managers to invest using environmental, social and governance standards has capped gains and prompted Pouyanne to flirt with the idea of listing shares in the U.S.

The French oil giant isn’t alone in pointing to the skewing effect of ESG regulations that critics say have put European businesses at a competitive and valuation disadvantage to their U.S. peers, with potentially long-lasting effects for the bloc’s economy. Companies from Mercedes-Benz Group AG to Unilever Plc are pushing back. The European Round Table for Industry, whose members have combined annual sales of €2 trillion ($2.2 trillion), says overly stringent regulations are “accelerating loss of competitiveness” and warn that members’ prospects “are better outside Europe.”

Storage tanks at the Northern Lights carbon capture and storage project, controlled by Equinor ASA, Shell Plc and TotalEnergies SE, in Blomoyna, Norway.
Storage tanks at the Northern Lights carbon capture and storage project, controlled by Equinor ASA, Shell Plc and TotalEnergies SE, in Blomoyna, Norway.

Andrea Gjestvang/Bloomberg

Over the past five years — a period during which Europe started formulating the world’s most ambitious ESG regulatory framework — the U.S.’s S&P 500 Index has soared more than twice as much as Europe’s benchmark Stoxx 600 Index. Although several factors — including the dominance of Big Tech — have contributed to the richer U.S. valuation, ESG requirements in Europe haven’t helped. 

European energy firms broadly trade at a 40% discount to their U.S. peers. If TotalEnergies were valued in line with the average big U.S. crude producer, its market capitalization would be boosted by $108 billion, based on earnings multiples calculated by Bloomberg.

TotalEnergies reaffirmed the views expressed by its CEO on Europe’s ESG policies, declining to say more. Exxon, for its part, said its strategy is to provide products the world needs, while it also invests $20 billion through 2027 in areas like carbon capture and low-emission fuels. 

Faced with diverging ESG rules between the U.S. and Europe, some companies have weighed their options. Commodities trader Glencore Plc, which recently said it’s abandoning plans to exit coal, has been touted as a potential candidate to ditch its London listing for New York. German utility RWE AG is among businesses directing more investments across the Atlantic than its home market, while Norwegian battery company FREYR Battery Inc. has moved its headquarters to the US.

“The biggest risk of the European approach is that it has put energy-intensive industry at a significant competitive disadvantage,” said Dimitri Papalexopoulos, chairman of Greece’s Titan Cement International SA and also of the European Round Table’s Committee on Energy Transition & Climate Change. “If Europe’s share of these global sectors is lost, others from elsewhere will simply pick it up and prosperity will go there.”

The number of EU companies in the Fortune Global 500 has shrunk. Europe’s share of worldwide aluminum production fell to 5% in 2022 from 30% in 2000. The bloc has gone from being a chemicals exporter to a net importer. 

“While EIIs (Energy Intensive Industries) in other regions face neither the same decarbonisation targets nor require similar investments, they benefit from more generous state support,” former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi said in his long-awaited report on EU competitiveness released Monday.

European officials acknowledge problems with the fast pace and complexity of the regulations rolled out since 2019, adding, however, that the measures are needed to avoid a dual climate and biodiversity crisis. “There are short-term pains, obviously, because it requires some effort, but the benefits are starting to emerge,” said Helena Vines Fiestas, chair of the EU’s Platform on Sustainable Finance and co-chair of the UN’s Taskforce on Net Zero. “We’re working really hard on simplifying and making things on the ground work.”

The U.S. has reams of environmental-protection rules, but its overall framework is dwarfed by the breadth and depth of the EU’s, particularly around disclosure. Also, the anti-ESG movement has thrived in the U.S., and if former President Donald Trump returns to the White House, his “drill, baby, drill” mantra looks set to lower the regulatory burden for producers. Even his rival Kamala Harris has backed off from her earlier call for a ban on fracking — the technique used to produce most U.S. oil and gas today. 

As the EU expands regulations — over the European Parliament’s last five-year term about 8,000 acts were adopted, many environment-related — the U.S. is offering incentives. President Joe Biden’s signature climate law — the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 — is a package of tax credits and rebates intended to propel investment in everything from electric vehicles to solar panels. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimated it could unleash as much as $3.3 trillion in spending, pitting what some call a US carrot against Europe’s stick.

Europe’s approach is more about “telling companies what to do,” said Tal Lomnitzer, a senior investment manager on the global  sustainable equity team at Janus Henderson Investors. 

The EU’s Green Deal legally obliges the bloc to hit net zero emissions by 2050, with at least a 55% cut by 2030. The EU also has pledged to pour money into the green transition, including a plan to raise €1 trillion from public and private sources. In response to the IRA, Europe launched the Green Deal Industrial Plan in 2023, setting aside roughly $270 billion from existing EU funds. The bloc is also distributing billions to member states from its pioneering carbon market for addressing climate.

But the appeal of the U.S. program is sucking up investment, with more than 60 European and Asian companies announcing projects in the year after the IRA was passed, an analysis by Bank of America Global Research showed.

“A lot of corporates have found this scheme very attractive, very efficient, very quick to implement versus Europe, where things are a bit slower sometimes,” said Panos Seretis, head of global sustainability research at Bank of America.

Norway’s FREYR is limiting spending on a project in its Scandinavian market to instead focus investment in the US. German utility RWE earmarked €20 billion last year for the US, almost twice the spending plans for its home base. 

“The IRA creates a positive and stable investment environment with a simple regulatory framework,” RWE CEO Markus Krebber said.

For Estelle Brachlianoff, the CEO of French water-treatment company Veolia Environnement SA, “the US wins.” Dutch Bank ING Groep NV’s CEO, Steven van Rijswijk, said the U.S. is doing better on luring investments. European regulations are “out of touch, they put a break on investments,” said Repsol CEO Josu Jon Imaz San Miguel, an oil and gas producer shifting toward cleaner energy. He wants Europe to “learn a lot from what’s being done in the U.S.” 

Unlike the U.S., where the federal government can offer tax breaks, EU taxation rests with member states, leaving the bloc to work largely through loans and grants. 

Climate directives — with acronyms like CSRD, SFDR or CSDDD — have cemented Brussels’ reputation as the ultimate Hydra of bureaucracies. Its disclosure requirements have spawned a cottage industry of consultants, with ESG-reporting software revenue set to more than double to $2.1 billion between now and 2029.

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive will compel companies to provide more than 1,000 data points on everything from water consumption to boardroom diversity in supply chains, with more requirements to come. The Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, with reporting requirements for investors, faces an overhaul after criticism for not adequately defining concepts like “sustainability.” 

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive mandates detailed corporate transition plans and opens businesses to lawsuits if there are ESG violations in their value chains. For companies with hundreds of global suppliers, that can get “very complex,” said Sophie Tuson, head of the environmental unit at the London law firm RPC.

Compliance costs are soaring. Olga Smirnova, internal audit director at Heineken NV, says money spent by the Dutch brewer on ESG reporting has grown at an “exponential” rate. Desiree Fixler, previously a sustainability head at Deutsche Bank AG’s investment arm DWS before becoming a high-profile whistleblower, now denounces European ESG regulations on social media.

“Most companies are absolutely suffocating in the amount of data capture they have to do,” Fixler said.

While the EU has encouraged electric vehicles, investors in Porsche AG recently called on the luxury carmaker to slow its EV push, worried about returns. Mercedes-Benz and Volvo Car also are walking back some EV ambitions. EV sales in markets like Germany and Italy are in decline, BloombergNEF data shows. 

Despite the protestations, though, there are some who warn of a climate reckoning further down the road.

For now, “oil and gas may outperform, but if that sector doesn’t shrink, then the effects in terms of extreme weather and so on will cause absolute performance across large portfolios to actually be lower than it could otherwise have been,” said Eric Pedersen, head of responsible investments at Nordea Asset Management. 

Onerous as disclosure rules are, Johan Floren, senior ESG adviser at $100 billion Swedish pension fund AP7, says he needs them to do his job. “Without information, the market doesn’t work,” he said.

Some of Europe’s biggest financial firms are purging their books of ESG risks. BNP Paribas SA, the EU’s largest lender by assets, is restricting fossil-fuel finance. The $550 billion Stichting PensioensFonds ABP, Europe’s biggest pension fund, said in May it exited liquid assets in oil, gas and coal, a portfolio worth about €10 billion. It intends to offload a further €4.8 billion in illiquid fossil-fuel assets.

The fund will only invest in companies that “are on a pathway in the transition to a sustainable economy and companies that don’t harm climate or biodiversity,” Harmen van Wijnen, chairman of ABP’s board of trustees, told Bloomberg.

The EU may just be ahead of the game on ESG regulations. Efforts are underway to make sustainability-reporting global, with countries representing almost 55% of the world’s economy working on adopting disclosure requirements set by the International Sustainability Standards Board.

Some say there is no other way. After two decades of coaxing markets to address climate change, it’s clear voluntary measures have failed, said Simon Braaksma, senior director for sustainability at Royal Philips NV.

“The people who are crying, maybe they should roll up their sleeves and contribute more to addressing those societal issues,” he said.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Published

on

Mandatory ESG Reporting Standards Demand Standardized Non-Financial Audit Trails

Corporate accounting departments face an expanded regulatory mandate as mandatory sustainability and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting frameworks take full effect internationally. Governed by the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) IFRS S1 and S2 standards, enterprise financial controllers are now legally required to track, verify, and report non-financial data with the same internal controls and auditability as traditional financial statements.

The expansion shifts ESG compliance

This regulatory expansion shifts ESG compliance from marketing departments to corporate accounting offices. Financial managers are now responsible for gathering, consolidating, and verifying carbon emissions metrics, supply chain labor conditions, water usage, and climate risk exposures across multi-tiered corporate structures. These non-financial metrics must be integrated into standardized general ledgers to withstand rigorous third-party audit assurance processes.

To comply with these rigorous reporting mandates, accounting software providers have added dedicated ESG modules designed to aggregate data from IoT sensors, utility platforms, and vendor management systems. Controllers are implementing internal control frameworks—modeled after traditional COSO frameworks—to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of sustainability disclosures, protecting organizations against greenwashing penalties and litigation risks.

The transition requires significant cross-functional collaboration between accounting teams, legal counsel, and operational directors. Accounting professionals are expanding their technical expertise beyond financial ledgers to master carbon accounting methodologies, lifecycle assessment standards, and non-financial data governance protocols, fundamentally expanding the role of the modern corporate accountant.

Why This Information Matters
Mandatory ESG disclosures require companies to treat environmental and social metrics as audited financial records. Executives, accountants, and board members must institute formal tracking and assurance processes to satisfy legal mandates, maintain investor confidence, and mitigate regulatory non-compliance risks.

Continue Reading

Accounting

SEC’s Semiannual Reporting Proposal Faces Investor Pushback: What CFOs Need to Know

Published

on

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

A proposal from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to potentially shift some public companies away from quarterly financial reporting toward a semiannual model is drawing significant pushback from investors, even as it continues moving through the regulatory process. The debate has direct implications for corporate finance teams, auditors, and the broader transparency of U.S. capital markets.

What the SEC Proposed

According to a summary published by accounting advisory firm Cohen & Co., the SEC issued a proposed rule on May 19, 2026, aimed at simplifying financial reporting requirements for many U.S. public companies. The proposal would potentially reduce the frequency of certain mandatory disclosures from quarterly to semiannual, a structural change that has not been made to core U.S. reporting requirements in decades.

The proposal follows an extended debate within U.S. policy circles, with proponents arguing that reduced reporting frequency could lower compliance costs and free up management time for longer-term strategic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter results management.

Why Investors Are Pushing Back

Comment letters submitted in response to the proposal have been extensive, and according to Cohen & Co.’s review of the public record, investors “appear to be largely opposed” to the shift, viewing frequent interim reporting as a core benefit of U.S. capital markets relative to other jurisdictions.

Accounting and law firms have taken a more measured position, generally urging any changes to remain aligned with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), whose existing disclosure requirements and guidance are built around a quarterly reporting cadence. A shift to semiannual reporting without corresponding changes to FASB guidance could create friction between SEC filing requirements and GAAP-based disclosure expectations.

Lessons From the U.K. Experience

The debate is not without precedent. The United Kingdom moved away from mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies in 2014, returning to a semiannual disclosure requirement. According to Cohen & Co.’s analysis, that experience offers a cautionary data point: there was no measurable increase in capital expenditure or R&D investment following the change, while analyst coverage of affected companies declined as reliable interim information became less available — a particular risk for smaller and newly public companies that rely on analyst coverage to maintain investor visibility.

Practical Implications for Finance Teams

Beyond the debate over disclosure philosophy, the proposal carries practical complications. Many companies have debt covenants and credit agreements structured around quarterly financial delivery; a shift to semiannual reporting could require renegotiating those terms. Reduced reporting frequency would also extend the “window of market silence” between disclosures, a factor that governance and investor-relations teams would need to manage carefully to avoid information asymmetry.

Separately, and unrelated to the reporting-frequency debate, the SEC and FASB have continued finalizing more routine updates this year. New Accounting Standards Updates are taking effect for December 31, 2026, fiscal year-ends covering income tax disclosures, credit loss measurement, induced debt conversions, and stock compensation, according to Eide Bailly’s review of 2026 ASU activity. Additional guidance on paid-in-kind dividends and environmental credits is also on the near-term horizon.

What to Watch Next

The semiannual reporting proposal remains in the comment and review phase, and no final rule has been adopted as of this writing. Finance leaders should monitor the SEC’s regulatory agenda for further movement, while treating the current quarterly reporting requirement as the operative standard until any final rule is issued and an effective date is set.

Given the extent of investor opposition documented in the comment file, a full shift to mandatory semiannual reporting appears more likely to result in either a scaled-back compromise or continued study rather than swift adoption — though the SEC’s ultimate direction remains uncertain.

 

Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

on

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

Continue Reading

Trending