In a recent statement from the acting SEC chair, public input is being requested on climate change disclosures, with the aim to inform the policy in this area. SEC is requesting inputs on the existing rules and guidance as they apply to climate change disclosures and on whether and how these rules should be modified. Public input can include comments on the existing disclosure requirements in Regulation S-K and Regulation S-X (or, for foreign private issuers, Form 20-F), potential new SEC disclosure requirements, and potential new disclosure frameworks that SEC might adopt or incorporate in its disclosure rules. The aim is to facilitate the disclosure of consistent, comparable, and reliable information on climate change. The request for comments presents several questions for consideration by commenters, with the comment period being open for 90 days from the date of this statement.
Additionally, while speaking at an event, the SEC Acting Chair Allison Herren Lee discussed the rationale for increased focus on climate risk and ESG factors and outlined the initiatives in the works at SEC. Ms. Lee said that SEC has begun to take critical steps toward a comprehensive ESG disclosure framework aimed at producing the consistent, comparable, and reliable data that investors need. The key issues to be explored via the recent request for input involve identifying the data and metrics that are most useful and cut across industries, the extent of the industry-specific approach, the lessons to be learned from existing voluntary frameworks, and how to devise a climate disclosure regime that is sufficiently flexible to keep up with the latest market and scientific developments. Another key issue to be addressed is how to address the significant gap with respect to disclosures presented by the increasingly consequential private markets.
The SEC Acting Chair said that, beyond climate, a broader array of ESG disclosure issues should be also considered. Progress must be made on standardized ESG disclosure too, which means working toward a comprehensive ESG disclosure framework. In the near term, the work should also include considering where SEC can advance initiatives on a standalone basis now, such as offering guidance on human capital disclosure to encourage the reporting of specific metrics like workforce diversity and considering more specific guidance or rulemaking on board diversity. Ms. Lee also notes that, two weeks ago, SEC announced the formation of the first-ever Climate and ESG Task Force within the Division of Enforcement. The Task Force will work to proactively detect climate and ESG-related misconduct, including identifying any material gaps or misstatements in issuers’ disclosure of climate risks under the existing rules and analyzing disclosure and compliance issues relating to investment advisers’ and funds’ ESG strategies.
Finally, she emphasized and discussed the importance of international collaboration and expressed support IOSCO’s recent statement regarding the creation of a Sustainability Standards Board. She noted that the establishment of a Sustainability Standard Board represents a promising approach toward the development of an international baseline for sustainability reporting, on which individual jurisdictions could build consistent with their own unique consideration. According to her, this also raises the question of a similar standard-setter domestically. One of the most challenging questions for SEC is how to devise a climate and ESG disclosure framework that is flexible and can efficiently evolve as needed. One potential path that should be considered is the development of a dedicated standard-setter for ESG (similar to FASB) under SEC oversight to devise an ESG reporting framework that would complement our financial reporting framework.
Comment Due Date: June 13, 2021
Keywords: Americas, US, Securities, Climate Change Risk, Disclosures, ESG, Reporting, Sustainability Standards Board, SEC
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.