Accounting and reporting

Consultation response - Research exercise on charities SORP (FRS 102)

CFG has submitted its proposed revisions and recommendations on charities SORP. Our response draws on the evidence gathered through our consultation process with our members and the wider sector.

Our recommendations are summarised below, or you can view the full consultation response.

  • We believe that the SORP is too long and that steps which is hampering the ability of readers to understand the report and accounts and is also increasing the burden on already stretched charitable resources.
  • We believe that retention of a SORP is necessary and benefits both the public and the charity sector.
  • We recommend that governance costs should not be shown as a separate component of support costs within the notes because it does not adequately reflect governance within charities and adds unnecessary complications.
  • We would also support significant simplification of reporting on financial instruments and hedge accounting as these make the accounts too complex for the general public to read.
  • We would recommend the reversal of investment gains and losses as sitting “above the line” on the SoFA and should revert to sitting “below the line”.
  • We do not support the recommendation of a Key Facts Summary and our consultation activities returned very little support for its introduction.
  • We advise against further definition and guidance on reserves in the SORP.
  • We recommend that the separate reporting of support costs should be abolished.
  • We agree that the SORP would benefit from clarification of the approach that charities can report on how they have achieved public benefit.
  • We do not support the view that charities could be made to explain how their beneficiaries are involved in service design.
  • We do not support the proposals under the theme of enhanced analysis of expenditure. We are concerned that these proposals are not being made with charities and the public interest in mind, but due to recent intense media interest in the charity sector.
  • We do not believe that administration or fundraising costs should be more detailed, and administration costs (similar to support costs) should be abolished. Charities should be encouraged to provide explanation for their approach and performance in their narrative report, rather than through financial disclosures.
  • We recommend that any disclosing of jurisdiction of charity funds should remain voluntary and not mandated in the SORP.
  • We found little support for the NCVO proposals that larger charities should disclose the post and pay of senior employees beyond what the SORP already requires.
  • We do not support the mandatory disclosing of who funds charities.

For more information on this response please contact

« Back to all news