Cross-border business is currently undergoing a huge transformation. Along with taking care of the environment, multinational groups are radically changing their strategy, setting sustainable development goals, and undertaking to considerably reduce their carbon footprint and to develop a socially responsible business according to the best governance practice. The inclusion of environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria in a business development strategy gives cross-border companies a competitive advantage. In an unprecedented transition to the Green Deal, multinational groups are investing significant amounts and seeing their cost base rise. This article explores which of the companies in a group should cover costs incurred in planning, adopting and implementing their ESG strategy and related measures, looked at from a transfer pricing perspective.

Today’s reality shows that environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters are becoming central to new corporate strategies, increasing the importance of the role ESG leaders and experts play in organisations and their governance structure. A modern ESG leader not only has to understand the interaction between the various ESG matters and their impact on the company’s lines of business but must also be able to integrate ESG in the company’s operations, inspiring the other staff to action. PwC’s latest survey “Empowered Chief Sustainability Officers” offers insights into how the role of an ESG leader has evolved over time and how ESG leaders can make a tangible difference in their companies by combining the various ESG aspects with the company’s operations, thereby helping the company transform and undertake more sustainable operations. A key finding of the survey is that organisations whose governance structure has a clearly defined role of the ESG leader are able to achieve higher indicators in sustainability areas.

A taxpayer assessing his transfer pricing (TP) compliance might find that a transaction with a related party is not arm’s length according to a preliminary comparability analysis. When analysing each case separately, however, we sometimes find that the taxpayer has failed to take all necessary preventive measures to mitigate TP risk. One of those measures involves assessing the need to make comparability adjustments.