Keeping up with the ‘Big Three’ Disclosure Proposals

Sherwin Longasa
Sherwin Longasa

Manager, Technical Accounting

Keeping up with the ‘Big Three’ Disclosure Proposals
In our recent blog, we briefly discussed the impact of Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) on accounting and reporting and introduced the three standard-setting bodies leading the charge in navigating the complexities of ESG — U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), and European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) through the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive — also known as the ‘big three’.

As the focus continues to shift toward the reporting aspect of ESG, all eyes are on the three standard-setting bodies to lay the foundation for transforming the ESG reporting landscape. With the ‘big three’ rushing to get ahead of  the booming call for uniform guidance on disclosing ESG matters, stakeholders must keep up with the rapid developments that can aid in preparing ESG disclosures and sustainability reports, as well as in making sound business decisions, managing expectations, and strategic planning.

SEC’s Final Rule on Climate Change Disclosure

in March 2022, the SEC proposed a new rule to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosure. The SEC aims to finalize this rule around the second quarter of 2023 according to the Reg Flex Agenda released on January 2023.

The SEC is under constant pressure to deliver a final rule acceptable to all stakeholders and organizations as it faces political and legal challenges. A review of the public comments on the rule by the Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative revealed that most investor coalitions, NGO/third sector organizations, asset managers, and service providers strongly supported the proposal in general. On the other hand, law firms, regulators, politicians, and trade associations were generally against the proposal. Republicans and certain corporate lobby groups were also expected to challenge the proposed rule in court once finalized. They claim that requiring companies to publish climate-related information infringes the right to free speech.

We can only speculate as to the magnitude of change the final rule will bring. For the time being, let’s recap the highlights of the proposed new rule issued last March 2022, which includes the required disclosure of:
  • Climate-related risks and their actual or likely material impacts on the registrant’s business, strategy, and outlook
  • Governance of climate-related risks, including risk management processes
  • Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions; Scope 3 GHG emissions if material or if the registrant set an emissions target or goal that includes Scope 3 emissions
  • Climate-related financial statement metrics and related disclosures in a note to its audited financial statement
  • Information on climate-related targets and goals and transition plan, if any

Below is the summary of the compliance date assuming the proposal will be adopted with an effective date in December 2022 and that the filer has a December 31st fiscal year-end:

Blog Graphics Keeping up with the ‘Big Three Disclosure Proposals 01 2048x1111

Meanwhile, a proposed rule for human capital management disclosures is also expected to be released during the same timeframe.

The European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS)

On November 22, 2022, the EFRAG submitted the first set of draft ESRS to the European Commission (EC). The first set of standards comprises two cross-cutting standards and ten topical standards.


Blog Graphics Keeping up with the ‘Big Three Disclosure Proposals 02 2048x882


It is now in EC’s hands to evaluate the draft standards and propose revisions by consulting the member states of the European Union and other experts before adopting the final standards as delegated acts in June 2023, followed by a scrutiny period by the European Parliament and Council.

Forty additional sector-focused standards will be released over the next few years.

First, companies will have to apply the standards in the financial year 2024 for reports published in 2025. Listed SMEs are obliged to report from 2026, with a further possibility of voluntary opt-out until 2028, and will be able to report according to separate, proportionate standards that EFRAG will develop next year.

Although ESRS is mostly applicable to EU companies, non-EU companies can still be scoped in due to, but not limited to, the following scenarios:
  • If it has a secondary listing in an EU-regulated market
  • If it has an annual net turnover in the EU exceeding €150 million for each of the last two consecutive financial years and has at least one large subsidiary, one subsidiary listed on an EU-regulated market, or one branch in the EU that generated over €40 million in annual net turnover the preceding financial year
 

Revisiting IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 Exposure Drafts

On February 16, 2023, ISSB reconvened and redeliberated the IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 exposure drafts after considering the results of public consultation.

The ISSB proposed the following tentative changes:
  • To amend the requirement in draft S1 to permit, but not require, preparers to consider ‘the most recent pronouncements of other standard-setting bodies whose requirements are designed to meet the needs of users of general-purpose financial reporting’ in identifying sustainability-related risks and opportunities and in identifying disclosures about those risks and opportunities. The ISSB also tentatively permitted preparers to consider the Global Reporting Initiative Standards and the ESRS in identifying disclosures about sustainability-related risks and opportunities.
  • To require both IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 to be effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2024. Early application of IFRS S1 and S2 is permitted if an entity applies both standards at the same time. If the entity applies IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 early, it is required to disclose the fact.
  • To permit entities applying short-term transitional relief to report their sustainability-related financial disclosures at the same time as its next second quarter or half-year interim report or within nine months of the end of its annual reporting period, depending on whether an entity provides an interim report or not. They also tentatively decided to make available in the first annual reporting period in which an entity applies IFRS S1 and IFRS S2: (a) relief from the requirement to report sustainability-related financial disclosures at the same time as the related financial statements, (b) relief from the requirement to measure Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 GHG emissions in accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard if the entity uses a different measurement basis in the annual reporting period immediately preceding its initial application of IFRS S2, and (c) relief from the requirement to disclose Scope 3 GHG emissions.

The ISSB unanimously decided not to re-expose IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 to public consultation.
Further, on April 4, 2023, ISSB met again to discuss further the transition reliefs to be provided in IFRS S1. Reliefs agreed tentatively includes the following:
  • A transition relief in IFRS S1 that would allow an entity to report on only climate-related risks and opportunities (as set out in IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures) in the first year it applies IFRS S1 and IFRS S2. The entity would be required to provide information about its other sustainability-related risks and opportunities in the second year it applies the two Standards.
  • This one-year transition relief would not change the effective date of IFRS S1. The ISSB tentatively decided in February 2023 to require that IFRS S1 be effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2024. However, for an entity applying for this transition relief in the first year, it applies IFRS S1, the requirements in IFRS S1 would apply only insofar as they relate to the disclosure of climate-related financial information.
  • This transition relief would have no effect on the application of or requirements in IFRS S2.
  • If an entity uses this transition relief, it would be required to disclose that fact and could extend the previously agreed transition relief in IFRS S1 related to disclosing comparative information such that the entity would not be required to disclose comparative information related to its other sustainability-related financial information in the first year it discloses that information. For the avoidance of doubt, comparative information for climate-related financial information would be required in the second year.
 The ISSB expects to issue an IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standard around the end of Q2 2023.


Staying Ahead of the Requirements

As of this writing, while these standards are under finalization, it gives an opportunity for companies to be a step ahead and prepare for the expected influx of accounting and disclosure requirements related to ESG by considering the following:
  • Start data gathering
  • Assess the impact on ESG
  • Establish policies, procedures, and controls
  • Training your people
  • Prepare to report by referring to existing guidance like TCFD, SASB, and GRI – which will most likely be similar to the finalized rule as consultations were made from these organizations while the big three proposals were being drafted.

More ESG News
J.P. Morgan’s Carbon Offset Project

J.P. Morgan Asset Management is one step closer to its goal of becoming an active participant in carbon offset markets through its acquisition of commercial timberland spanning more than 250,000 acres in the Southeastern U.S. last February 2023. The land, valued at over $500 million, will be used for carbon offset and timber production to meet the growing demand for sustainable products.

According to Anton Pil, the Global Head of J.P. Morgan Global Alternatives, the alternative investment arm of J.P. Morgan Asset Management, this transaction is one of the largest of its type in the past decade and builds on efforts to expand their asset class offering across alternatives by offering investors access to a robust carbon sequestration and timber management platform.


Additional Disclosure Requirements for Federal Suppliers

The new proposed rule on GHG and climate reporting would affect contractors covering over 86% of annual federal spending. Major contractors, which are those receiving more than $50 million in federal contracts, are required to disclose the following:
  1. Scope 1, Scope 2, and relevant Scope 3 GHG emissions determined under the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.
  2. Annual climate disclosure aligned with the recommendations of the TCFD; and
  3. Science-based targets for reducing GHG emissions are validated by the Science-Based Targets Initiative every five years.

Meanwhile, significant contractors, those receiving from $7.5 million to $50 million in federal contracts, are only required to disclose Scopes 1 and 2 GHG emissions.


How Scrubbed Can Help

The Technical Accounting Group of Scrubbed understands that the fast-paced transformation of the ESG landscape can be overwhelming. We have dedicated experts keeping tabs on these various disclosure proposals primed, primed to guide you in your ESG reporting services and overall ESG reporting needs.

Contact our outsourced accounting team at Scrubbed to learn how we can help you brace for more stringent ESG accounting and disclosure requirements.

Watch out for future blogs on significant updates on these big three disclosure proposals and other ESG-related content.


Related Content

Blogs

September 15 Estimated Tax Deadline: Strategies for Pass-Through Entities

September 15 Estimated Tax Deadline: Strategies for Pass-Through Entities

For growing pass-through entities, the September 15 tax deadline often creates a collision between cash flow and internal capacity. Guessing at estimated payments leaves companies vulnerable to IRS penalties or unnecessarily traps critical working capital meant for Q4 growth. By establishing a Safe Harbor floor and utilizing the Annualized Income Installment Method, companies can align tax outlays directly with actual revenue. When this execution is handled proactively, finance leaders stop playing defense against deadlines and reclaim their time for strategic planning. When a high-growth pass-through entity, such as an S-Corp or a Partnership, comes off an unexpectedly strong summer, revenue is up. This should be a moment for leadership to celebrate and plan their Q4 investments. Instead, the internal finance team often finds themselves staring down a cash crunch they didn't anticipate. The pressure point is September 15. For growing operations, this date is often a collision course. It is not only the deadline for Q3 estimated tax payments, but it is also the extended filing deadline for Forms 1065 and 1120-S . When you have an internal team trying to finalize the previous year's historical data while simultaneously projecting the current year's performance, the structure usually begins to strain. This isn't about a team dropping the ball. It's simply what happens when internal workflows haven't scaled up to match a company's growth. When two major deadlines collide, and the volume is too high, a stretched team has no choice but to improvise. The Cost of "Guesstimating" In a pass-through entity, the business itself generally does not pay federal income tax. Because income from partnerships and S corporations generally passes through to their owners, owners may need to make individual estimated tax payments based in part on their share of the entity’s taxable income When internal teams don't have a dedicated workflow for this, they often get bogged down trying to predict exact year-end profits during a busy quarter. Without a clear mechanism to manage this, I frequently see companies do one of two things: they either underpay and leave themselves vulnerable to IRS penalties, or they overpay to "be safe." Overpaying might feel like the responsible choice in the moment, but it unnecessarily ties up working capital. When these distributions are sized off gross revenue rather than a projection that accounts for deductions or state-level elections, the company pulls more cash out of the operating account than the owners actually owe. That excess traps liquidity that could have been used to fund critical Q4 growth initiatives—like a marketing push or inventory expansion—without seeking outside financing. Establishing an Estimated-Tax Safe Harbor  When our tax professionals step in to manage this process, the very first thing we do is establish a predictable foundation. We immediately build a "Tax Compliance Calendar" integrated with a "Safe Harbor Floor." A useful starting point is determining which estimated-tax safe harbor applies. For many taxpayers, one option is to base required annual payments on 100% of the prior year's tax, increasing to 110% for certain higher-income taxpayers. The current-year 90% test may also apply. Meeting the applicable requirements through timely payments can generally reduce exposure to estimated-tax underpayment penalties. Once that floor is established, we can adjust for the reality of the current year. Aligning Outlays with Actual Cash Flow If a company sees a massive spike in revenue during Q3, the standard installment method might demand a payment that creates a sudden cash flow imbalance. Good intentions won't balance the cash flow at this stage; you need a precise mathematical approach. To stabilize cash flow during a sudden revenue surge, one strategy to consider is the Annualized Income Installment Method . Instead of assuming income is earned evenly throughout the year, the Annualized Income Installment Method determines the owner's required installments based more closely on income earned during the applicable annualization periods State-level PTE tax elections may also provide federal tax benefits by allowing qualifying state income taxes to be paid and deducted at the entity level rather than being subject to the individual SALT deduction limitation. The result? Depending on the state's PTE tax regime, entity-level payments may reduce the state estimated-tax payments otherwise required from individual owners. A deductible PTE tax payment may also reduce the taxable income passed through to owners for federal purposes, which can affect their projected federal estimated-tax liability. Restoring Strategic Headspace When tax planning is handled consistently throughout the year, it changes how a leadership team operates. It can significantly reduce the risk of an "April Surprise." When Q3 estimates are calculated accurately and tied to a deliberate strategy, leadership knows exactly how much capital is truly theirs to spend. Tax shifts from a looming, unpredictable liability into a manageable line item. Just as importantly, the internal finance leader gets their time back. Instead of spending the first two weeks of September finalizing and issuing K-1s, calculating thresholds, and worrying about penalties, they can focus on high-level financial modeling and operational efficiency. A strong tax partner doesn't just run the numbers; they take the friction out of the process so your team can focus forward. When an experienced team handles the heavy lifting behind the scenes, you stop playing defense against IRS deadlines and start using tax strategy as a genuine tool to fund your growth. See how our tax professionals support growing operations and keep execution predictable. Let's talk through how we can support your finance function. Comparing Q3 Tax Strategies: Safe Harbor vs. Annualized Method vs. PTE Strategy Ideal for Primary Benefit Risk Level  100%/110% Safe Harbor  Rapidly growing companies  Provides protection from estimated-tax underpayment penalties when applicable safe-harbor requirements are satisfied  Low (May temporarily tie up cash if revenue drops)  Annualized Method  Seasonal or late-year spiking revenue Align tax outlays directly with timing of taxable income  Moderate (Requires meticulous record-keeping) PTE Tax Election Entities in high-tax states May provide an entity-level federal deduction for qualifying state income taxes while providing state tax benefits to eligible owners Low (Requires state-specific eligibility and election compliance) Key Takeaways: The Deadline Collision: The simultaneous timing of Q3 estimates and extended historical filings places severe strain on internal finance teams when workflows haven't scaled. The Cost of "Guesstimating": Overpaying estimated taxes based on gross revenue ties up liquidity that could otherwise fund critical Q4 growth initiatives without requiring outside financing. Building a Safe Harbor Floor: Establishing a baseline payment based on 100% or 110% of the prior year's tax liability can provide protection from estimated-tax underpayment penalties when the applicable safe-harbor requirements are satisfied. Aligning Cash Flow: The Annualized Income Installment Method stabilizes cash positions by calculating tax based on income earned during the applicable annualization periods rather than an arbitrary quarterly fraction. Restoring Strategic Headspace: When tax planning is handled reliably behind the scenes, internal finance leaders get their time back to focus on high-level financial modeling instead of chasing K-1s.

Read More >
Blogs

How to Scale a Fractional CFO Practice: Infrastructure, AI, and Execution

How to Scale a Fractional CFO Practice: Infrastructure, AI, and Execution

Fractional CFOs scale by separating strategy from daily execution. At the CFO Leadership Conference in Boston, panelists outlined the model: a three-part team structure, AI tools for repetitive analysis, and strict scope boundaries. The common thread is that strategic capacity depends on reliable accounting operations underneath it. Fractional CFOs operate in a fundamentally different model, balancing multiple clients and shifting priorities without the benefit of deep organizational embedding. You are hired to provide altitude, clarity, and rapid impact. But when a client lacks a mature finance operation, that executive focus is quickly consumed by operational cleanup. This exact tension took center stage at the CFO Leadership Conference in Boston. During our morning panel discussion, The Multi-Business Executive: How Fractional CFOs Scale Leadership Across Clients , moderated by Scrubbed’s Accounting Director Arian David, Triangle Coffee founder and fractional CFO Ottavio Siani and Scrubbed’s CFO Aira Pineda detailed how fractional CFOs build capacity to avoid this operational trap. They mapped out the real-world infrastructure and AI practices required to support multiple fast-moving client environments. Here are the operational realities shared in the room. The Infrastructure Blueprint for Scaling a Fractional CFO Practice A primary challenge for scaling organizations is the gap between strategic desires and foundational accuracy. Volume increases faster than structure, and founders frequently bottleneck their own operations by micromanaging the finance function. As Aira shared with the room, stepping into a fractional role often means untangling founder-led accounting and directly telling the CEO, "you're not supposed to do this". Once leaders step back from the daily execution, "suddenly they have time" to actually focus on growing their business. Successful practitioners build a deliberate team architecture to handle the volume. To build a sustainable infrastructure, Ottavio explained that a fractional CFO setup requires three key elements: A fractional CFO to provide strategic direction. A trusted internal employee to manage sensitive operational context. An external accounting firm to run the daily numbers. This structure prevents the CFO from becoming the operational bottleneck. Read: Are Fractional CFOs the Future for Growing Companies? Navigating Risk in Founder-Led Environments The most pointed friction in a fractional role often comes from enforcing structure. During the session, an audience member challenged the panel on how to balance strict risk controls with the commercial reality of working for independent founders who operate as the "gods of their own businesses". Aira addressed this tension directly, clarifying that operational controls and commercial growth do not have to collide.  "I don't think it's contradictory, to be honest. I think it's complementary," she explained.   "I think you make better decisions as a CFO, having kind of just at the back of your mind that risk mindset." Taking calculated risks is necessary to create shareholder value. However, a fractional CFO can only support that aggressive growth when the foundational accounting operations are secure enough to absorb the complexity. Building Fractional CFO Capacity with AI Tools Technology accelerates this architecture when carefully managed. Ottavio shared how he uses Claude to generate monthly financial statement analyses based on tested templates, reducing a repetitive task to minutes. Arian detailed using Claude to abstract private equity contracts, while Aira highlighted using NotebookLM to summarize 50-page forensic documents. However, systems create results, but human professionals must validate them. Aira illustrated the danger of false confidence by testing a complex revenue recognition issue across Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT. Although all three models provided the exact same answer, they failed the final human review when  "A big CPA firm comes and says, no, that's not the accounting treatment." Designing Aligned Execution and Preventing Scope Creep Growth adds complexity. Strong execution ensures that complexity remains manageable. When fractional leaders possess a reliable accounting layer, closes become predictable and strategic conversations gain traction. Without this layer, scope creep inevitably takes over. "I think a challenge with being a fractional CFO is having to limit your scope, right?" Ottavio noted. "I typically dedicate like a day a week, and I need to keep myself from spending too much time outside of the original scope that we, we agreed upon, so that I can make sure that I'm kind of meeting all my clients". Key Takeaways: A sustainable fractional CFO practice separates strategy from execution: the CFO, a trusted internal employee, and an external accounting team each hold a distinct role. Founders bottleneck their own operations by staying in the daily accounting. Helping them step back frees time for growth. Risk mindset and commercial growth are complementary. Calculated risks require stable accounting operations underneath them. AI tools like Claude and NotebookLM compress repetitive analysis from weeks to minutes, but experienced professionals must verify every output against source documents. Scope discipline holds only when a reliable accounting layer runs the day-to-day work. About the Panelists Arian David | Accounting Director, Scrubbed  Arian serves as the Accounting Director for Retail and Distribution at Scrubbed. She brings over 12 years of specialized execution experience managing complex accounting operations across the distribution, e-commerce, and retail sectors.  Aira Pineda | CFO, Scrubbed  Aira directs financial strategy and operations as the Chief Financial Officer at Scrubbed. She brings over a decade of hands-on experience operating as a fractional CFO for small to medium-sized enterprises. Ottavio Siani | Fractional CFO & Founder, Triangle Coffee  Ottavio is the founder of Triangle Coffee, a multi-location café business operating in Boston and Washington, D.C. As an active fractional CFO, he advises a portfolio of clients, including Hon, CN Naturals, and Port of Mocha, on building and restructuring finance teams. 

Read More >
Blogs

Scaling Your Finance Function: When to Hire a Fractional Finance Team

Scaling Your Finance Function: When to Hire a Fractional Finance Team

As noted at the CFO Leadership Conference, volume often outpaces structure, quietly straining finance execution. To scale capacity, growing companies can integrate partner-led finance teams anchored by an internal liaison. By taking responsibility for this daily execution, these professionals restore predictable reporting and give leaders their focus back. For many middle-market companies, there is a distinct moment when the finance function shifts from supporting the business to struggling to keep up. Transaction volume increases. Deadlines tighten. The close starts taking longer, and reviews feel rushed. Internal teams spend more time fixing issues than moving forward. During our afternoon panel at the CFO Leadership Conference in Boston, How CFOs Use Fractional Talent to Scale the Finance Function, Triangle Coffee founder and Fractional CFO Ottavio Siani, Scrubbed’s CFO Aira Pineda, and Accounting Director Arian David unpacked a critical reality for growing organizations. Building a finance organization that can flex with the business requires deliberate structural choices. Here is a closer look at how to architect that structure by integrating partner-led finance teams. When to Hire: The 160-Hour Threshold Prompted by Arian to define the trigger point for bringing on fractional help, Scrubbed CFO Aira Pineda highlighted a practical threshold: evaluating whether a role truly demands a full-time, 160-hour-per-month commitment.  This evaluation is a cornerstone strategy for companies navigating new growth stages. Fast-moving projects often require immediate, specialized execution.  " Sometimes I need a project very quickly done, and I need someone experienced already ," Aira explained. " I don't want to go through the headache [of hiring full-time]. A fractional team just makes it faster for me. " Partner-led finance teams offer a cost-effective alternative to full-time hiring, providing the exact capacity needed without the overhead of onboarding. They take responsibility for the work behind your numbers, allowing the internal team to focus on strategic growth. Full-Time vs. Fractional Finance Team Comparison Feature Full-Time Finance Hire Fractional Finance Team Capacity Commitment Onboarding & Ramp Time Billing Model Specialization 160+ hours/month (Fixed) 60–90 days Annual Salary + Benefits + Equity Generalist execution Flexible / Scalable capacity Immediate deployment Flat Monthly Retainer Multi-disciplinary experts  Best Used For  Continuous daily operations  Fast growth, specialized projects, scaling The Architecture of Integration: The "Bridge" Person A fractional finance team cannot work effectively in isolation. Fractional CFO Ottavio Siani, who systematically leverages these exact structures across multiple ventures to scale his own executive leadership,  identified a critical requirement for successful integration: designating an internal "bridge" person. This full-time employee acts as the primary point of contact between the company and the fractional team. They do not need deep accounting expertise. Their value lies in providing internal context and answering day-to-day questions while the company operates.  When communication paths and responsibilities are clearly defined, fractional professionals can operate as an extension of the internal finance function rather than as a disconnected outside vendor. Best Practices for Integrating a Fractional Finance Team A fractional finance function only succeeds when it is treated as an integrated part of the business. The Standard of Accuracy : Accuracy is a non-negotiable requirement. As Aira noted during the panel discussion, "We work with numbers, and accuracy matters. If we end up, as a CFO, presenting a wrong number to our board... that is grounds for termination." Match the Billing Model to the Engagement : While hourly billing is common for initial testing, Ottavio strongly advocated for flat-fee models to maintain strategic alignment. "The problem with hourly billing is the company ends up being pretty precious with your time, and you'll often be held out of important meetings," Ottavio noted. "Retainer-based [billing] leads to a much healthier relationship." Demand Verified Data Controls (SOC 2) : Handing over financial workflows requires absolute trust. Middle market businesses must partner with CPA firms that maintain rigorous, verified controls, such as a SOC 2 audit, to guarantee data security. Scaling with Technology and Distributed Talent A fractional model also allows companies to broaden the talent pool available to the finance function. Distributed teams can provide access to specialized skills, additional coverage, and capacity that adjusts as the business changes. However, location alone does not determine whether the model will work. Quality depends on how the team is managed, how communication is structured, how the work is reviewed, and whether the provider understands the company’s accounting requirements and operating environment. Technology can further expand the team’s capacity. During the panel, Aira described analytics teams using AI-assisted tools to write Python code and process data more efficiently than manual Excel workflows would allow.  The value is not simply that the technology moves faster. It reduces repetitive work, so finance professionals can spend more time reviewing outputs, investigating exceptions, and applying judgment. Technology can accelerate the work. Accountability remains human. Building the Right Finance Structure Fractional support works best when it solves a defined structural need.  The company must still establish internal ownership. Responsibilities must be clear. Workflows must be documented. Review standards must be understood by both teams.  When those elements are in place, a fractional finance team can help the business: Add capacity without immediately adding permanent headcount. Access specialized expertise. Support periods of rapid growth or transition. Make the close and reporting process more predictable. Reduce pressure on internal finance leaders. Create a stronger foundation for future hiring. The objective is not to outsource responsibility. It is to build a finance function with the right capacity, expertise, and structure for the company’s current stage of growth. About the Panelists Arian David | Accounting Director, Scrubbed  Arian serves as the Accounting Director for Retail and Distribution at Scrubbed. She brings over 12 years of specialized execution experience managing complex accounting operations across the distribution, e-commerce, and retail sectors.  Aira Pineda | CFO, Scrubbed  Aira directs financial strategy and operations as the Chief Financial Officer at Scrubbed. She brings over a decade of hands-on experience operating as a fractional CFO for small to medium-sized enterprises. Ottavio Siani | Fractional CFO & Founder, Triangle Coffee  Ottavio is the founder of Triangle Coffee, a multi-location café business operating in Boston and Washington, D.C. As an active fractional CFO, he advises a portfolio of clients, including Hon, CN Naturals, and Port of Mocha, on building and restructuring finance teams. 

Read More >

Links

Contact Information

SF Bay Area Headquarters
111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 320, Burlingame, CA 94010, United States

Phone: (800)837-5160
Email: [email protected]

"Scrubbed" is the brand name under which Scrubbed Advisory, LLC and Scrubbed Assurance, LLP provide professional services. Scrubbed Advisory, LLC and Scrubbed Assurance, LLP practice in an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations, and professional standards. Scrubbed Assurance, LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients, and Scrubbed Advisory, LLC provides tax, finance, and support services to its clients. Scrubbed Advisory, LLC is not a licensed CPA firm.

Copyright © Scrubbed. All rights reserved.