In the 2022 Forrester/Dun & Bradsheet study of over 260 decision-makers across the UK, US and Canada, four out of five (97%) respondents stated that their company’s current ESG strategy created a significant or transformational increase in revenue. In comparison, 81% of participants said their company had experienced negative consequences by failing to meet their ESG goals, the most common being increased operational risk (43%) and increased financial risk (38%).

With an increased drive towards sustainability and reaching global net-zero goals, companies must find the right balance of investing in their ESG strategy to drive long-term value, against short-term economic turmoil.

The business case for ESG

It’s crucial that companies recognise the direct value of focusing on ESG in their markets. In order to tackle material environmental and social issues, companies need to scale up their investments supporting these areas. This requires a clear understanding of not only the environmental and social benefits but also the associated financial benefits.

For instance, the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business examined the relationship between ESG and financial performance in more than 1,000 research papers from 2015 to 2020. They found that companies were 76% more likely to experience a positive or neutral correlation between a long-term focus on ESG and improved financial performance.

ESG helps illustrate where companies’ expenses are going and where they can improve their resource efficiency. In relation to identifying operational inefficiencies, companies can use ESG-related data to see where they may be spending more money than necessary to clean up their pollution and waste. They can then look into more cost-saving waste reduction strategies. Additionally, many businesses may have untapped financial benefits of ESG strategies that they’re currently not tracking such as avoided cost, where ESG-related data can help identify instances where less money is needed to be spent.

Access to consumers can also be dependent on how companies are demonstrating their ESG efforts. In fact, a 2021 PwC ESG consumer intelligence study revealed that globally 57% of consumers say companies should be doing more to advance environmental issues (e.g., climate change and water stress), 48% want companies to show more progress on social issues (e.g., D&I and data security and privacy) and 54% expect more from companies on governance issues (e.g., complying with laws and regulation and addressing widening pay gap). As a result, ESG reports that successfully meet customer standards can improve the chances of both retaining existing customers and expanding customer base.

Employees are also increasingly concerned about their employers' ESG efforts. For example, a 2020 Reuters survey of workplace culture found that of 2,000 UK office workers, 72% of multigenerational respondents expressed they were concerned about environmental ethics, while 83% of workers said their workplaces were not doing enough to address climate change. With there being significant costs associated with recruiting and retaining talent, it’s important that as with consumers, companies put the effort in meeting employee standards.

Focus on material ESG issues

Companies may be tempted to cover the universe of ESG issues, but this is not the best approach. Instead, they should understand which ESG issues are likely to have a substantial impact on enterprise value and finances of the company as well as the demand for its presence from stakeholders (i.e., material ESG issues).

ESG issues, such as business ethics, greenhouse gas emissions and community relations can be dependent on a company's sector, size, geographic location, among other factors and so it is important that executives understand which areas make the most sense to put their focus and resources into. For example, a company within the oil and gas industry will be focused on methane emissions while a company within the technology industry will not.

Understanding what the material ESG issues for a company are, begins with conducting an ESG materiality assessment. This is where companies can gain input from a broad range of stakeholders as to which ESG issues matter most -or are material. After gaining this input, and understanding connectivity to financial data, the company should obtain consensus with a cross-functional committee of leaders, management and the board.

There is greater value in focusing on doing the best work when it comes to material issues and related performances that matter most to a company and its stakeholders, as opposed to simply doing an okay job at everything. A study from Mozaffar Khan found companies focused on material issues would have a 6% outperformance on stock prices while those that focused on immaterial ESG issues or no ESG issues at all would underperform the market by -2.6%. Overall, it’s in the company's best interest to focus on material ESG improvement.

Data transparency and one source of truth

While ESG can allow businesses to identify cost-saving avenues, they need the right data to provide insights and help inform their decision on new opportunities. The future of ESG reporting will enable connectivity to financials and help companies calculate the impact of ESG efforts as opposed to merely reporting metrics.

To achieve this, companies can harness cloud-based technologies, providing a single source of truth for all financial and non-financial data. This means the data collection and reporting takes place within one central location, where everyone can collaborate in real-time in the same workspace with everything tracked, and everything linked between financial and non-financial.

In fact, Workiva’s 2022 survey found that globally, three out of four respondents expressed that technology was important for compiling and collaborating on ESG data, as well as validating data for accuracy (80%) as well as mapping disclosures to regulations and framework standards (85%).

Propelling ESG reporting into a transparent, innovation-friendly, actionable and dynamic environment will streamline the steps needed for a company to make informed decisions.

Nothing happens in a vacuum

Currently, the recession, geopolitical conflicts and other factors are taking place alongside ESG. This is why it is important that companies effectively weigh where priorities should lay to successfully navigate through uncertainty.

Dedicating efforts to ESG enables a greater understanding of risk and opportunities that can be cost-saving and opportunity-generating. Even amongst economic turmoil, businesses will need to continue to walk the talk when it comes to climate commitments, advancing social issues and addressing corporate governance.

Through effective ESG reporting, having one source of truth will bring together the financial and non-financial data to best inform decisions. With clear and transparent insight across the company, the particular ESG issues that are most fitting can be determined, and this will support in standing up to both existing and future scrutiny.

Mark Mellen is the Director of ESG Enablement at Workiva, the world’s leading platform for integrated regulatory, financial, and ESG reporting. Workiva simplifies complex reporting and disclosure challenges by streamlining processes and connecting data and teams. Learn more at workiva.com.

As I write, all kinds of noise about possible "outcomes" are playing out across the airways. A Turkish brokered ceasefire or maybe an "exit-ramp" for Putin, including a "No-Nato Membership for Ukraine" promise and Crimea in return for an advance back to the previous borders. The brutal reality is Ukraine is being progressively flattened. Their troops are taking heavy casualties. Raw recruits will be thrown into the meatgrinder to frustrate the Russian advance, but how much time they gain is debatable. It is desperately sad and tragic, but what choice do they have?

The reality is predicting outcomes in Ukraine remains guesswork.

Yet, for all the uncertainty, the death, wanton destruction, and the rising refugee crisis, the first thing we've learnt following the Russian invasion is markets are apparently impervious to negativity and risk. That won't last forever. Reality has a nasty habit of catching up and biting hard.

Take a close look at the numbers underlying stronger stocks – volumes are weak and unconvincing. The recent bond slide and flattening curve speak of a nasty and unpredictable recession to come.

The uncertainty hitting markets is greater than I've ever seen. Whether it's the end of the QE market picnic, Central banks hiking rates, the rising risk of monetary and fiscal policy mistakes, the pandemic, the approaching cost-of-living shock about to crush consumers, inflation, recession, or possible stagflation, broken and rebroken supply chains, rising geopolitical instability, and the largest most bloody European conflict since 1945 with a not intangible possibility of nuclear war.

But, where's the panic? The markets seem to be thriving.

The market is not a rational beast. Prices represent what market participants believe rather than the economic actuality. Mr Market is simply an enormous voting machine weighing the hopes, beliefs and opinions of every single market participant.

The market does not measure actual reality or facts. At the moment – it is discounting any pain likely to come. The fact prices remain "euphoric" tells us participants hope for positive outcomes – despite the multiple tensions facing us – and are therefore taking buy-the-dip-risks rather than battening down for a possible storm.

Mr Market is simply an enormous voting machine weighing the hopes, beliefs and opinions of every single market participant.

Events trigger consequences, and how these will play out is frankly a guessing game. Ripples from Ukraine threaten to swamp the whole globalised marketplace.

It's what's happening below the surface, out of sight, that matters. It may take many months for the consequences of the war in Ukraine to really impose themselves on market sentiment. Russia's move on Ukraine shocked the West. It will impose massive costs. Long-term sanctions will cripple Russia – perhaps fatally because of its hopeless demographics, creating yet more instability.

The two immediate threats in plain sight are food and energy security. We are in for a long period of price instability in both.

Ukraine accounts for a significant portion of agricultural production. It is literally the 'Breadbasket of Europe' and regional emerging markets in terms of wheat, soya, and sunflower oil. Food prices will rise. Equally importantly, potential food shortages in Africa could trigger a new refugee crisis into Europe, which may be aligned today on Ukraine but could struggle with a new destabilising wave of migrants.

Europe will wean itself off Russian oil and gas, but that will not be an overnight transition which means long-term price instability. It's already clear the Gulf States are happy to play off Russia versus the West. They have been waiting since the oil shock of 1973 for an opportunity to play neutral and keep prices high. They are also very aware Europe can't rely on the USA for its energy security. In the next presidential election, it's looking increasingly likely a pro-Trump populist Republican party will trend isolationist and at the very least pivot away from Europe.

Europe has limited time to effectively rearm, secure its energy and organise its own defences. It can be done and the signals are encouraging increased European cooperation and an invigorated EU. The risk is how will Europe fare if a global recession comes on the back of broken Chinese rooted supply chains, an inflation spike, or a new refugee crisis?

There is clearly more at stake than just markets. The next few months could see threat levels decline. On the balance of probabilities, is that likely? Not really. Trying to imagine Putin apologising just isn't realistic.

At the core, the tensions boil down to how effectively the Liberal-democratic West can counter the threats of resurgent autocratic nationalism from China, Russia and the risks others play the opportunity to their best advantage. Crisis for one player is an opportunity for another. Hence the shift back into defence and energy stocks. If the big one is coming, let's not deny it, but prepare for it.

Russia, frankly, isn't even a player in the Game of Geopolitics anymore. They've broken themselves on Ukraine.

The force that balanced the tension twixt the autocratic East and the Liberal Democratic West since the last cold war was always commerce and the opportunity for poorer nations to raise themselves on the back of trade. It happened for China. The big threat from Ukraine is that it represents the end of globalisation. It seems to be happening as supply chains remain under pressure.

The big unknown is China. It clearly wants to internalise and continue to grow its economy, secure its borders, and expand its economic hegemony. It can do so in partnership with the West. Or it can choose conflict – which is what the Generals fear. That China will take the opportunity to engage in a land-grab on Taiwan and risk economic estrangement. But, based on what they've seen in Ukraine and the effect of Russian sanctions, we can hope they favour trade.

Russia, frankly, isn't even a player in the Game of Geopolitics anymore. They've broken themselves on Ukraine. The sanctions will leave its energy industry in tatters as expertise and spare parts dry up. It may remain a major supplier of global instability through cheap weapons, immoral mercenaries, and unpredictability, yet Putin's throw of the dice in Ukraine increasingly looks like a losing gamble. How he plays his last few cards to sustain his kleptocracy is the known unknown.

The immediate threat is Russian unpredictability. The long-term hope is China sees a better future as part of a post-Ukraine globalised economy, which is all back to guessing. What happens next?

Assetz Capital investors are predicting the worst economic quarter of the year, according to the Q3 Investor Barometer.

Last quarter, the peer-to-peer lending platform surveyed its 29,000-strong investor base. When asked ‘how will the economic situation impact you in the next three months’, only 9% thought it would be positive, while 40% thought it would be negative.

This compares poorly to Q1 (13% positive, 36% negative) and Q2 (10% positive, 31% negative), as the potential future relationship models with the EU post-Brexit start to become clearer.

Stuart Law, CEO at Assetz Capital said: “While the government may release statistics that claim the economy is in good health, our investors are not as bullish. In fact, with confidence fading in the government’s ability to secure a good Brexit deal, our investment community is expecting this quarter to be the worst of the year.

“Until this uncertainty is lifted, we expect that conventional means of business investment will continue to stall, breeding further concern for the economy. Although peer-to-peer lending has inherent risks, it now represents the best opportunity for SMEs to secure growth capital, drive employment and give the economy a shot in the arm.”

(Source: Assetz Capital Limited)

Ahead of the Russia 2018 World Cup semi-finals kick off tonight, Dun & Bradstreet have revealed that when it comes to economic risk ratings its clear who wins. Below are graphics ahead of the match tonight between France & Belgium, and tomorrow between England & Croatia.

Below you can also see a thorough table of all countries in the World Cup that accounts for FIFA rankings vs. their D&B Country Risk rating vs. the GDP per capita global ranking.

In light of Donald Trump’s dramatic withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal, Katina Hristova examines how the pullout can affect the global economy.

As with anything that he isn’t fond of, US President Donald Trump hasn’t been hiding his feelings towards the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between Iran and the five permanent members of The United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Pulling the US out of the agreement on the nuclear programme of Iran, which was signed during Obama's time in office, is something that Trump has been threatening to do since his 2016 election campaign. And he’s only gone and done it. Earlier this month, he announced America’s immediate withdrawal, saying that the US will reimpose sweeping sanctions on Iran’s oil sector and that “Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States”. And as if this isn’t alarming enough, President Trump has also said that the US will require companies to ‘wind down’ existing contracts with Iran, which currently ranks second in the world in natural gas reserves and fourth in proven crude oil reserve, in either 90 days or 180 days. This would hinder new contracts with Iran, as well as any business operations in the country.

Since Washington’s announcement, signatories of the Iran Nuclear Deal, still committed to the agreement, have embarked on a diplomatic marathon to keep the deal alive. On 25 May, Iran, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia met in Vienna in a bid to save the agreement.

So how will this hurt the global economy?

Deals worth billions of dollars signed by international companies with Iran are currently hanging by a thread. The main concern on a global scale is that the US’ decision threatens to cut off a proportion of the world’s crude oil supply, which has already resulted in an increase in oil prices, with crude topping $70 a barrel for the first time in four years.

Additionally, European companies like Airbus, Total, Renault and Siemens could face fines if they continue doing business with Iran. Royal Dutch Shell, who is investing in the Iranian energy sector, is potentially one of the biggest companies to be affected by Trump’s withdrawal which could put billions of dollars’ worth of trade in jeopardy. As The Guardian points out: “In December 2016, Royal Dutch Shell signed a provisional agreement to develop the Iranian oil and gas fields in South Azadegan, Yadavaran and Kish. While drilling is still a long way off, sanctions are likely to put any preparations already being made on ice.”

French company Total, who’s involved in developing the South Pars field, the world’s largest gas field in Iran, is in a similar situation.

Airbus and Boeing, two of the key players in the international aviation industry, have signed contracts worth $39 billion to sell aircraft to Iran. As The Guardian reports, the most significant deal is an agreement by IranAir to buy 100 aircraft from Airbus.

A spokesman from Airbus said that jobs would not be affected. “Our [order] backlog stands at more than 7,100 aircraft, this translates into some nine years of production at current rates. We’re carefully analysing the announcement and will be evaluating next steps consistent with our internal policies and in full compliance with sanctions and export control regulations. This will take some time”. Rolls Royce is also expected to be indirectly affected if Airbus loses its IranAir order, as the company is the key engines provider to many of those aircraft models.

Another European company that will be hurt by the sanctions announcement is French Renault and PSA, who owns Peugeot, Citroën and Vauxhall. When sanctions were lifted back in 2016, Renault signed a joint venture agreement with the Industrial Development & Renovation Organization of Iran (IDRO) and local vehicle importer Parto Negin Naseh, worth $778 million, to make up to 150,000 cars in Iran every year. This is one of the largest non-oil deals in Iran since sanctions on the country were lifted. Last year, local firm Iran Khodro also signed a deal with the trucks division of Mercedes-Benz, with car production scheduled for this year.

Iranian firm HiWEB has been working alongside Vodafone to modernise the country’s internet infrastructure, but it looks like the partnership will have to be reconsidered.

The consequences

The White House and President Trump appear aware of the danger that a rise in oil prices on an international level pose to the economic growth of the Trump era, however, they also seem ready to embrace the economic and geopolitical challenges that are to follow. Although the consequences of US’ Iran Deal pullout are not perfectly clear in the short term, they will undoubtedly become more visible as sanctions take effect. The deal has its flaws, however, completely withdrawing from it and threatening the US’ closest allies can only compound those issues and create new ones. It is hard to predict what will unfold from here and where Trump’s strategy will take us. The one thing that is certain though is that the world doesn’t need more hostility.

Investors should expect an increase in market volatility and ensure that they are properly diversified, warns the senior analyst at deVere Group.

The warning from Tom Elliott, International Investment Strategist at deVere Group, comes as US President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that the United States will exit the Iran nuclear deal and impose “powerful” sanctions.

Mr Elliott comments: “Investors should expect an increase in market volatility following Trump’s announcement that he is quitting the Iran nuclear deal.

“There will be global stock market sell-offs as the world adjusts to the news.”

He continues: “Due to the severity of the US President’s approach, in the shorter term at least it is likely gold and the US dollar may rally on growing fears of further conflicts in the Middle East breaking out; and risk assets, namely stocks and credit markets, may weaken. Oil may rally strongly.

“We will need to wait for the full Iranian response. However, I expect that they will try to continue to appear the reasonable partner and work with Russia and the Europeans, playing them off against the US If they take a more aggressive stance, oil, gold and the dollar will go considerably higher.”

Mr Elliott concludes: “Geopolitical events such as these underscore how essential it is for investors to always ensure that they are properly diversified - this includes across asset classes, sectors and geographical regions – to mitigate potential risks to their investment returns.”

There has been a lot of recent news regarding trade tariffs, as America and China impose a number of greater tariffs on a wide range of each other’s goods. Is this all political showboating though, or do they actually have an impact?

Trade tariffs were introduced to increase the ease and competition, while decreasing the costs of shipping goods abroad. This has been a great source of growth for international business and globalisation, yet there are concerns that it isn’t always beneficial to everyone involved.

The Role of Trade Tariffs

According to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), trade tariffs are customs duties or taxes on merchandise imports. This provides an advantage to locally produced goods over those which are imported therefore, while those sourced from abroad help raise greater revenues for governments. Countries can set their own trade tariffs and change these when desired, though this can result in tense political situations when tariffs are called into question.

Trade tariffs are used to protect developing economies and their growing industries, while they can be used by advance nations too. These are a few common roles for trade tariffs:

• Protect jobs: Imported goods can threaten domestic jobs and industries, especially if they’re produced cheaply abroad. Domestic firms may then cut jobs to save on costs, with higher unemployment leading to political unrest. Trade tariffs can be used to create a more level playing field.
• Consumer concern: Especially when importing foodstuffs, if one country is worried certain products may be contaminated they can levy a tariff to reduce the risk.
• Political retaliation: When countries believe trading partners haven’t been fair, played by the rules or there are other political differences, they can increase tariffs. This could mean the other nation then retaliates by levying tariffs too. If tensions ease off, then it’s likely any increases will be reverted.

There are many examples throughout history where trade tariffs have been used in many such ways, and they’re still being implemented as political weapons today. That alone suggests that they do work.

Price Impact

In the simplest terms, trade tariffs increase the price of imported goods. It means that domestic companies don’t need to increase their prices to compete, though this does allow some businesses that wouldn’t exist in a more competitive market to continue running. Without trade tariffs it would be something of a free border for goods, that could see high levels of unemployment in some countries with low production levels.

Trade tariffs can also be used to help limit volume too, by raising them to tempt consumers to stick with domestic goods and slow down the amount being exported if businesses are priced out. The higher the tariffs the less likely businesses in overseas countries are likely to export.

Benefits of tariffs can help governments raise revenues, especially in times of need, while for domestic companies they benefit from less competition. When tariffs are levied many domestic businesses can really benefit in these times. However, for consumers and businesses that rely on importing certain materials or goods, such as steel for production, the price can become inflated due to tariffs. There are constant shifts in benefits, with consumer consumption often lowered with higher tariffs for the short term, for example.

America’s Trade War

The changing global economy means that businesses need to implement key strategies to deal with such shifts, as explained by RSM. A great example of how the global economy is changing is with a step towards deglobalisation, best demonstrated by President Trump’s ideas of protecting and improving US manufacturing by adapting tariffs and effectively starting a trade war with China.

This started in early March 2018 when the USA imposed a 25 per cent tariff on the imports of steel entering the country. Such a move was designed to protect the US steel industry but has impacted upon the stock market and China, along with over 1,000 more tariffs, which is the USA’s biggest trade partner.

However, history has shown that trade wars for the USA aren’t always successful, with one in the 1930s excelling the Great Depression to increase unemployment levels to 25 per cent of the country. Whether this latest attempt works or not remains to be seen. Either way, businesses need to employ flexible strategies to prepare for many of the globalisation issues which could affect or destabilise the world’s economy in the future.

The European economy has entered its fifth year of recovery, which is now reaching all EU Member States. This is expected to continue at a largely steady pace this year and next.

In its Spring Forecast released today, the European Commission expects euro area GDP growth of 1.7% in 2017 and 1.8% in 2018 (1.6% and 1.8% in the Winter Forecast). GDP growth in the EU as a whole is expected to remain constant at 1.9% in both years (1.8% in both years in the Winter Forecast).

Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President for the Euro and Social Dialogue, also in charge of Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, said: "Today's economic forecast shows that growth in the EU is gaining strength and unemployment is continuing to decline. Yet the picture is very different from Member State to Member State, with better performance recorded in the economies that have implemented more ambitious structural reforms. To redress the balance, we need decisive reforms across Europe from opening up our products and services markets to modernising labour market and welfare systems. In an era of demographic and technological change, our economies have to evolve too, offering more opportunities and a better standard of living for our population."

Pierre Moscovici, Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs, said: "Europe is entering its fifth consecutive year of growth, supported by accommodative monetary policies, robust business and consumer confidence and improving world trade. It is good news too that the high uncertainty that has characterised the past twelve months may be starting to ease. But the euro area recovery in jobs and investment remains uneven. Tackling the causes of this divergence is the key challenge we must address in the months and years to come.”

Global growth to increase

The global economy gathered momentum late last year and early this year as growth in many advanced and emerging economies picked up simultaneously. Global growth (excluding the EU) is expected to strengthen to 3.7% this year and 3.9% in 2018 from 3.2% in 2016 (unchanged from the Winter Forecast) as the Chinese economy remains resilient in the near term and as recovering commodity prices help other emerging economies. The outlook for the US economy is largely unchanged compared to the winter. Overall, net exports are expected to be neutral for the euro area's GDP growth in 2017 and 2018.

A temporary rise in headline inflation

Inflation has risen significantly in recent months, mainly due to oil price increases. However, core inflation, which excludes volatile energy and unprocessed food prices, has remained relatively stable and substantially below its long-term average. Inflation in the euro area is forecast to rise from 0.2% in 2016 to 1.6% in 2017 before returning to 1.3% in 2018 as the effect of rising oil prices fades away.

Private consumption to slow with inflation, investment remaining steady

Private consumption, the main growth driver in recent years, expanded at its fastest pace in 10 years in 2016 but is set to moderate this year as inflation partly erodes gains in the purchasing power of households. As inflation is expected to ease next year, private consumption should pick up again slightly. Investment is expected to expand fairly steadily but remains hampered by the modest growth outlook and the need to continue deleveraging in some sectors. A number of factors support a gradual pick-up, such as rising capacity utilisation rates, corporate profitability and attractive financing conditions, also through the Investment Plan for Europe.

Unemployment continues to fall

Unemployment continues its downward trend, but it remains high in many countries. In the euro area, it is expected to fall to 9.4% in 2017 and 8.9% in 2018, its lowest level since the start of 2009. This is thanks to rising domestic demand, structural reforms and other government policies in certain countries which encourage robust job creation. The trend in the EU as a whole is expected to be similar, with unemployment forecast to fall to 8.0% in 2017 and 7.7% in 2018, the lowest since late 2008.

The state of public finances is improving

Both the general government deficit-to-GDP ratio and the gross debt-to-GDP ratio are expected to fall in 2017 and 2018, in both the euro area and the EU. Lower interest payments and public sector wage moderation should ensure that deficits continue to decline, albeit at a slower pace than in recent years. In the euro area, the government deficit to-GDP ratio is forecast to decline from 1.5% of GDP in 2016 to 1.4% in 2017 and 1.3% in 2018, while in the EU the ratio is expected to fall from 1.7% in 2016 to 1.6% in 2017 and 1.5% in 2018. The debt-to-GDP ratio of the euro area is forecast to fall from 91.3% in 2016 to 90.3% in 2017 and 89.0% in 2018, while the ratio in the EU as a whole is forecast to fall from 85.1% in 2016 to 84.8% in 2017 and 83.6% in 2018.

Risks to the forecast are more balanced but still to the downside

The uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook remains elevated. Overall, risks have become more balanced than in the winter but they remain tilted to the downside. External risks are linked, for instance, to future US economic and trade policy and broader geopolitical tensions. China's economic adjustment, the health of the banking sector in Europe and the upcoming negotiations with the UK on the country's exit from the EU are also considered as possible downside risks in the forecast.

Background

This forecast is based on a set of technical assumptions concerning exchange rates, interest rates and commodity prices with a cut-off date of 25^th April 2017. Interest rate and commodity price assumptions reflect market expectations derived from derivatives markets at the time of the forecast. For all other incoming data, including assumptions about government policies, this forecast takes into consideration information up until and including 25^th April 2017. Unless policies are credibly announced and specified in adequate detail, the projections assume no policy changes.

(Source: EU Commission)