Well, if they don’t, my concern is that unless tangible progress is made on the corporate front, cynicism will set in there too.

CFO Magazine in the States reports that about one in three of the 2,200 global executives who responded to a recent McKinsey survey say they place more importance on climate change than on most other global trends, motivated most often by reputation/brand-management concerns.

But those are words, not action. And while some organisations, not least The Sunday Times, are looking to recognise those companies that are taking a lead, rooftop wormeries are not going to change the world. The change that is required is more fundamental. And more profound.

I’ve been involved in a number of discussions this year about whether there is enough independent verification of sustainable reporting claims made by companies.

My view is that there is not. And I’m certainly not alone in that.

So I was gratified and troubled in equal measure to read yesterday that very few large companies are seeking authoritative verification for their sustainability reports.

Communications agency Black Sun says the majority of assurances are conducted by specialist environmental consultancies with only 13% done by an accountancy firm.

Now this could sound like special pleading for accountants, and an argument that only they are equipped to carry out these assessments. That’s not my point, though I expect it to be made by others.

I do believe though that it highlights the lack authority, independence and transparency in a fandamental aspect of the sustainability debate - and at an absolutely crucial point in time.

Investors, customers and other stakeholders deserve a reliable measure. But where will it come from?

The Financial Services authority doesn't feel right. Neither does the Auditing Practices Board. But is there another existing agency equipped to do so? The EC, perhasps? Or does it require a new body - and another layer of bureaucracy?

I'm not sure I have the answer. But I hope someone does.

ACCA AND AAT BURY THE HATCHET

Last week's ACCA / AAT tie-up means employer organisations already recognised by the ACCA approved employer programme can become accredited by AAT under its equivalent scheme, without having to go through AAT’s full assessment process.

Which is quite dull.

Unless you travel back in time to 1997 when an almighty row broke out between the two over the ACCA's plans to launch a competing exam. Labour MP Austin Mitchell weighed in (of course) demanding the ACCA investigates any possible conflict of interest.

Back then AAT president and Smith & Williamson partner John Newman said he was 'saddened' adding: 'There's always been cooperation between the accounting bodies over AAT. We've avoided the petty squabbles and turf wars we've seen elsewhere. We can only interpret this as direct competition, not that we are afraid of that. We are in the dark over what it is trying to do, but we would welcome any discussion.'

ICAEW education and training director, Phil Armitage, followed that with: 'We were surprised, especially as ACCA is a sponsoring body. We hadn't realised it was planning this - it all seems a bit odd. But ACCA has always maintained it's in the business of providing access to accountancy qualifications.'

In truth the relationship has thawed in recent years but they were nice quotes that I couldn't resist revisiting.

ICAEW UPS COMMUNICATION SPEND

Full marks to the ICAEW for delivering what looks like a pretty transparent annual review last week. Yes, a loss was made as disciplinary costs climbed, but more interesting, perhaps, was the revelation that the costs of communication soared by over 70%.

That's because of the decision to send Accountancy magazine to all members and students. The communication path seldoms runs smooth, however. The magazine received a rap over the kuckles from the Audit Bureau of Circulation last month for mis-classifying its new, all-member audience. A disciplinary of its own, you might say.

WHO'S OUT AFTER CIPFA COUNCIL ELECTIONS?

Among those not making the cut after the votes were counted for the CIPFA council elections (the white smoke emerged today) were Mal Singh, the highly regarded head of finance professionalism at The Treasury. He'll now be able to fully concetrate on his day job - not least in ensuring Whitehall belatedly meets its target for appointing finance directors across government departments.

And here are a few tips for anyone looking to join the council: make sure you have a background in audit or health. Candidates in those categories were elected unopposed. Being a CIPFA member would be a distinct advantage too.

MUST DO BETTER....

And finally a moan. Having a Royal Charter means you don't have to file accounts with Companies House, I learnt this week while searching for institute annual reviews. Most put them on their own websites but which I thought they could be more easily found collectively.

How wrong I was.

But is it right that accountancy institutes don't do so in this age of supposed transparency?

It may the letter of the law but doesn't feel quite like the spirit.