Disclosure of tax information -from tax reporting system to the financial statements, Case: Fortum Oyj

The main target of the study was to examine how Fortum’s tax reporting system could be developed in a way that it collects required information which is also easily transferable to the financial statements. This included examining disclosure requirements for income taxes under IFRS and US GAAP. By benchmarking some Finnish, European and US companies the purpose was to get perspective in what extend they present their tax information in their financial statements. Also material weakness, its existence, was under examination. The research method was qualitative, descriptive and normative. The research material included articles and literature of the tax reporting and standards relating to it. The interviews made had a notable significance. The study pointed out that Fortum’s tax reporting is in good shape and it does not require big changes. The biggest renewal of the tax reporting system is that there is only one model for all Fortum’s companies. It is also more automated, quicker, and more efficient and it reminds more the notes in its shape. In addition it has more internal controls to improve quality and efficiency of the reporting process.

PROTECTING TRADE SECRETS IN LITIGATION - THE IMPACT OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE EU TRADE SECRET DIRECTIVE ESPECIALLY ON FINNISH LAW

In November 2013 the European Commission issued the “Proposal for a Directive on the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure” (referred to as “TSD”). The TSD offers minimum harmonisation and aims at promoting sharing of knowledge, and the exploitation of innovations on the Internal Market. The European Parliament adopted the TSD on April 14, 2016 and the EU Member States will have two years to implement it. The TSD includes a harmonised definition of a trade secret that builds on the definition provided in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, it also ensures the freedom of expression and information and the protection of whistle-blowers. Appropriate means of actions and remedies against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets are also included, such as provisional and pecuniary measures, injunctions and corrective measures or allocation of damages. This study examines the protection of trade secrets in the course of litigation regulated in Article 9 of the TSD. Currently, the protection of trade secrets within the EU is fragmented especially in this regard, which makes companies reluctant to resort to litigation when a trade secret has unlawfully been misappropriated or it is suspected that a trade secret is being misused. The regulations in Article 9 expand only to the hearing in court. Such protection is welcomed and a step in the right direction. However, in my study I have found that in order for the protection to be sufficient there is a need to further establish measures to protect trade secrets during the entire process, from the filing of the claim to the end when the judgement is given. Consequently, I also discuss different measures that could be used to strengthen the protection of trade secrets before the hearing in court, as evidence are gathered.

Protecting Trade Secrets In Litigation The Impact of Article 9 of The EU Trade Secret Directive Especially on Finnish Law

In November 2013 the European Commission issued the “Proposal for a Directive on the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure” (referred to as “TSD”). The TSD offers minimum harmonisation and aims at promoting sharing of knowledge, and the exploitation of innovations on the Internal Market. The European Parliament adopted the TSD on April 14, 2016 and the EU Member States will have two years to implement it. The TSD includes a harmonised definition of a trade secret that builds on the definition provided in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, it also ensures the freedom of expression and information and the protection of whistle-blowers. Appropriate means of actions and remedies against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets are also included, such as provisional and pecuniary measures, injunctions and corrective measures or allocation of damages. This study examines the protection of trade secrets in the course of litigation regulated in Article 9 of the TSD. Currently, the protection of trade secrets within the EU is fragmented especially in this regard, which makes companies reluctant to resort to litigation when a trade secret has unlawfully been misappropriated or it is suspected that a trade secret is being misused. The regulations in Article 9 expand only to the hearing in court. Such protection is welcomed and a step in the right direction. However, in my study I have found that in order for the protection to be sufficient there is a need to further establish measures to protect trade secrets during the entire process, from the filing of the claim to the end when the judgement is given. Consequently, I also discuss different measures that could be used to strengthen the protection of trade secrets before the hearing in court, as evidence are gathered.

Ympäristöraportointimallinkehittäminen vesihuoltolaitokselle

Diplomityössä tarkastellaan ympäristöraportointia yrityksen ympäristöviestinnässä.Työn kirjallisuusosuudessa syvennytään ympäristöraporttien toteutukseen, tavoitteisiin, mahdollisuuksiin sekä raportointiohjeisiin ja -periaatteisiin. Työn kirjallisuusosassa käsitellään myös ympäristöjohtamista ja yrityksen sidosryhmiä. Diplomityön kirjallisuusosan ja yrityksen ohjauksen perusteella Joensuun Vedelle on kehitetty ympäristöraportointimalli, jota käyttäen yritys voi tehdä vuosittaista ympäristöraportointiaan. Ympäristöraportointimallin laadinta perustui erilaisiin raportointimalleihin, raportointiperiaatteisiin ja raportointiohjeisiin, kuten muiden muassa Global Reporting Initiativen (GRI) vapaaehtoiseen yhteiskuntavastuun raportointiohjeistoon ja Kirjanpitolautakunnan (KILA) yleisohjeeseen ympäristöasioiden kirjaamisesta, laskennasta ja esittämisestä tilinpäätöksessä. Joensuun Vedelle laaditunympäristöraportointimallin tavoitteena oli luoda laitokselle ympäristöraportti,joka sisältää merkittävimmät ympäristönäkökohdat, taloudellista vastuuta käsittelevän ympäristötilinpäätöksen sekä tietoa tärkeistä sosiaalisen vastuun asioista. Ympäristöraportin sisältämän tiedon kokoamisella haluttiin myös saada kokonaisvaltaista näkemystä, vuoden 2005 Joensuun, Kiihtelysvaaran ja Tuupovaaran kuntaliitoksen takia laajentuneen, Joensuun Veden toiminnan ympäristövaikutuksista. Diplomityössä on esitetty Joensuun Veden vuoden 2005 ympäristöraportin kokoamisenvaiheet sekä tulokset. Ympäristöraportointimalli täytti sille asetetut tavoitteet. Ympäristöraportin sisältöä tulee kuitenkin jatkossa kehittää sekä raportoitavan aineiston alkuperäisen dokumentoinnin osalta että sidosryhmien mielipiteidenja vaatimusten mukaisesti.