Addressing the Flaws of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation: Moving from Disclosures to Labelling and Sustainability Due Diligence

IF 2.1 4区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS European Business Organization Law Review Pub Date : 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1007/s40804-024-00317-6
Enrico Partiti
{"title":"Addressing the Flaws of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation: Moving from Disclosures to Labelling and Sustainability Due Diligence","authors":"Enrico Partiti","doi":"10.1007/s40804-024-00317-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) establishes disclosure requirements to tackle greenwashing and ensure transparency for financial products. Contextualising the assessment based on literature on disclosures and indicators in the field of sustainability, as well as sustainability due diligence, this article analyses the SFDR disclosure requirements and its key definitions. It shows that the SFDR does not require that financial market participants (FMPs) cease or remedy the principal adverse impacts connected to their investments. The definitions of ‘promoting environmental and social characteristics’, ‘sustainable investment’ and its requirement of ‘do no significant harm’ are extremely open-ended and have not prevented FMPs from including investments harmful to sustainability, such as in oil and coal. The disclosure of complex ‘proxies’ for sustainable performance, such as investment policies and strategies, as well as a limited use of benchmarked information about positive and adverse sustainability impact cast doubt on the extent to which disclosed information can be understood and effectively drive investors towards sustainable investment products. Enabled by these shortcomings, FMPs have started using the SFDR as a label to claim that their products are ‘sustainable’. This article illustrates how the SFDR could be amended to introduce elements that would better align it with the practice of sustainability due diligence under the future Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and bring it closer to a labelling regime signalling products with higher sustainability credentials ˗ while still offering investors necessary sustainability-related information about products and entities.</p>","PeriodicalId":45278,"journal":{"name":"European Business Organization Law Review","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Business Organization Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40804-024-00317-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) establishes disclosure requirements to tackle greenwashing and ensure transparency for financial products. Contextualising the assessment based on literature on disclosures and indicators in the field of sustainability, as well as sustainability due diligence, this article analyses the SFDR disclosure requirements and its key definitions. It shows that the SFDR does not require that financial market participants (FMPs) cease or remedy the principal adverse impacts connected to their investments. The definitions of ‘promoting environmental and social characteristics’, ‘sustainable investment’ and its requirement of ‘do no significant harm’ are extremely open-ended and have not prevented FMPs from including investments harmful to sustainability, such as in oil and coal. The disclosure of complex ‘proxies’ for sustainable performance, such as investment policies and strategies, as well as a limited use of benchmarked information about positive and adverse sustainability impact cast doubt on the extent to which disclosed information can be understood and effectively drive investors towards sustainable investment products. Enabled by these shortcomings, FMPs have started using the SFDR as a label to claim that their products are ‘sustainable’. This article illustrates how the SFDR could be amended to introduce elements that would better align it with the practice of sustainability due diligence under the future Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and bring it closer to a labelling regime signalling products with higher sustainability credentials ˗ while still offering investors necessary sustainability-related information about products and entities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解决可持续金融信息披露法规的缺陷:从披露转向标签和可持续发展尽职调查
欧盟《可持续金融信息披露条例》(SFDR)规定了信息披露要求,以解决 "洗绿 "问题并确保金融产品的透明度。本文以可持续发展领域的信息披露和指标以及可持续发展尽职调查的文献为基础,分析了 SFDR 的信息披露要求及其关键定义。文章指出,《可持续发展报告》并未要求金融市场参与者(FMPs)停止或纠正与其投资相关的主要不利影响。促进环境和社会特性"、"可持续投资 "的定义及其 "不造成重大损害 "的要求极具开放性,并没有阻止金融市场参与者进行有害于可持续发展的投资,如石油和煤炭投资。披露复杂的可持续绩效 "代用指标",如投资政策和战略,以及有限地使用有关对可持续发展的积极和消极影响的基准信息,使人怀疑所披露的信息在多大程度上可以被理解,并有效地推动投资者选择可持续投资产品。在这些缺陷的推动下,金融市场参与者开始使用《可持续发展报告》作为标签,宣称其产品是 "可持续的"。本文阐述了如何对《可持续发展报告》进行修订,以引入一些元素,使其更好地与未来《企业可持续发展尽职调查指令》下的可持续发展尽职调查做法保持一致,并使其更接近于一种标签制度,即在向投资者提供有关产品和实体的必要可持续发展相关信息的同时,标示出具有更高可持续发展资质的产品˗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The European Business Organization Law Review (EBOR) aims to promote a scholarly debate which critically analyses the whole range of organizations chosen by companies, groups of companies, and state-owned enterprises to pursue their business activities and offer goods and services all over the European Union. At issue are the enactment of corporate laws, the theory of firm, the theory of capital markets and related legal topics.
期刊最新文献
Enterprise Foundations and Faithful Agency as Drivers of Sustainable Long-Termism in Philanthropy Solving Investors’ Problems with Access to Evidence in Damages Litigation: Suggestions for a Future Issuer Liability Regime ESG & Executive Remuneration in Europe Interpretation of the Scope of International Commercial Arbitration Agreements: A Comparison of Swiss and Turkish Case Law Addressing the Flaws of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation: Moving from Disclosures to Labelling and Sustainability Due Diligence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1