The Securities and Markets Stakeholder Group (SMSG) of ESMA issued advice related to the ESA consultation on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure standards. The draft regulatory technical standards on content, methodology, and presentation of ESG disclosures were developed under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation or SFDR. SMSG believes that the synergy between different pieces of legislation can contribute significantly to enhancing sustainability in the economy. However, neither the timing nor the concepts of these different pieces of legislation are fully synchronized or aligned with one another.
To optimally exploit this synergy, enhance effectiveness of the different pieces of legislation, and maintain simplicity, SMSG believes in the usefulness of an iterative process among these different pieces of legislation, probably for at least two to three years. This could be organized to culminate with the scheduled review of the SFDR at the end of 2022. However, to allow sufficient degree of freedom for the iterative process, SMSG suggests a phased approach with regard to the draft technical standards. With respect to the use of descriptive indicators provided in the draft technical standards, SMSG contests the use of an extended set of indicators because there will be a problem of data availability for a substantial period to come. SMSG also notes that the proposed set requires fine-tuning, which could possibly come by as a result of the iterative process. However, there is a risk that introducing these indicators in a one-off "Big Bang" seals the possibility for later adjustments.
An alternative could, for example, be to start with a much smaller core set of reference indicators to be used whenever relevant, following a comply or explain mode, while maintaining the policy indicators. Over time, this set could possibly expand. SMSG values that ESAs try to insert indicators for governance into the draft technical standards; however, it regrets that Level 1 legislation has not given them an explicit mandate to develop governance indicators. SMSG also pointed out that the definitions of particular indicators provided in the draft technical standards may have precise names, but they need to be accompanied with detailed instructions about what data need to be used to calculate these indicators. Without these instructions companies may provide financial institutions with data as seems appropriate to the companies and that would result in incomparability of data from different member states. On a conceptual level, SMSG questions the usefulness of an extended set of descriptive indicators at entity level, as the most relevant level for the investor is the product level.
SMSG believes that the relevance of individual indicators may vary depending on the type of product. However, if one allows a degree of flexibility, one should also demand transparency and disclosure regarding this flexibility. For this reason, SMSG has suggested that the field “description of policies to identify and prioritize principal adverse sustainability impacts," should disclose which criteria are used to select and prioritize indicators for adverse impact at product level and the process (governance) through which this is done. SMSG has requested ESAs and EC to provide more clarity regarding Article 8 and Article 9 products. Also, SMSG suggests ESAs should reinforce link between the Taxonomy Regulation and the SFDR with regard to sustainable investment. With regard to the use of adverse impact indicators at product level, SMSG notes that many of the concerns at the entity level are also relevant at the product level. Considering these issues, SMSG calls on ESAs to consider alternative approaches, keeping the following considerations in mind:
- Timing problems with regard to the availability of data
- Problems of materiality (relevance of indicators differs across products) and proportionality
- The need to allow an iterative process rather than seal the indicators through a “Big Bang” at too early a stage
- The need to consider qualitative considerations in the assessment of adverse impact rather than merely quantitative ones
Related Link: SMSG Advice (PDF)
Keywords: Europe, EU, Banking, Insurance, Securities, Disclosures, ESG, Climate Change Risk, Regulatory Technical Standards, Sustainable Finance, SMSG, SFDR, ESMA, ESAs
ESAs published the final draft implementing technical standards on reporting of intra-group transactions and risk concentration of financial conglomerates subject to the supplementary supervision in EU.
EBA published the annual report on asset encumbrance of banks in EU.
FED updated the reporting form and instructions for the FR Y-9C report on consolidated financial statements for holding companies.
EBA issued a consultation paper on the guidelines on monitoring of the threshold and other procedural aspects of the establishment of intermediate EU parent undertakings, or IPUs, as laid down in the Capital Requirements Directive.
EC published Regulation 2021/25 that addresses amendments related to the financial reporting consequences of replacement of the existing interest rate benchmarks with alternative reference rates.
BIS published a bulletin, or a note, that examines the cyber threat landscape in the context of the pandemic and discusses policies to reduce risks to financial stability.
HM Treasury, also known as HMT, has updated the table containing the list of the equivalence decisions that came into effect in UK at the end of the transition period of its withdrawal from EU.
EBA published an erratum for technical package on phase 1 of the reporting framework 3.0.
APRA updated a frequently asked question (FAQ), for authorized deposit-taking institutions, on the measurement of credit risk weighted assets.
ECB published a letter from Andrea Enria, the Chair of the Supervisory Board of ECB, answering questions raised by the President of the Bundestag (the German federal parliament) on how ECB assesses the financial stability of the euro area in the context of the significant level of nonperforming loans.