About a-team Marketing Services
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry
The knowledge platform for the financial technology industry

A-Team Insight Blogs

Your SFDR Framework Should Be Set, Even if Thresholds Aren’t

Subscribe to our newsletter

By Volker Lainer, VP of Product Management and Regulatory Affairs at GoldenSource.

The EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and its related Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS), which are intended to promote environmentally and socially conscious investment in companies, came into play on 10 March, 2021. And with the further postponing of SFDR Level 2, with RTS now coming into action from 1 July 2022, firms have been provided with some extra breathing room. This is not to say, however, that firms should slow down when it comes to setting up their SFDR framework. There is still plenty of work to be done.

SFDR Postponement

Back in October 2020, John Berrigan, deputy director general of the European Commission, acknowledged in an open letter to European Securities Authority officials, that market participants would need more time to implement the RTS (or Level 2) part of the SFDR regulation.

RTS includes a methodology for Principal Adverse Impact Statements, which are the means by which firms will disclose decisions relevant to meeting Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria in investments. There will be standard templates for disclosures that can be incorporated into a firm’s SFDR framework, but along with the required metrics and additional content for pre-contractual and periodic reporting, investment firms will need to make changes to their operations.

SFDR overall names 32 principal adverse impacts. Some firms, on their own, may be using Adverse Sustainability Impact Statements as plans for how to meet ESG criteria. Generally, firms will be expected to report on sustainability risks and factors that will be affected by their business decisions.

Where to start?

Collecting and analysing data, and creating relevant reports, is a significant undertaking and requires firms to develop an SFDR framework to operationalise the processes. Executives of ShareAction, a London-based non-governmental organisation, say there is a ‘straightforward answer’ for a lack of data on ESG impacts, and that is to start collecting and reporting such data as soon as possible. Aside from financially material information, this includes double materiality, which means responsibility for social and environmental factors, as well as adverse impacts of their own decisions on people, society and the environment.

This stance on the 32 named impacts, which include carbon use, deforestation, waste water and forced labour, runs counter to a position set out by the Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI), a United Nations supported group of investors with its own set of principles for ESG compliance. PRI points to an overall ambiguity in the criteria and takes the position that non-zero values in the 32 categories named in SFDR could still be acceptable, as long they are reasonably small numbers of instances or incidents.

Setting up your SFDR framework

Whatever the threshold for compliance with SFDR principles is, financial firms will have to apply an SFDR framework to sort through the fragmented strengths of different available ESG enterprise data feeds. A major bank that wishes to provide ESG scores and research might have to cobble together as many as 20 data providers to get a complete picture of ESG standards compliance in the market, because each provider may have certain strengths depending on the asset classes or regions they cover.

As with fund managers preparing for disclosure reporting, it may prove easier for such a firm to adopt the SFDR framework within a dedicated data management platform, potentially provided as service. This would standardise all that data from different sources, and all the necessary processes and controls, into a coherent and consistent whole.

The later phases of what the EU and European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) intend to implement from SFDR are still subject to change, but investment firms and banks should be prepared to collect, compare, evaluate and manage ESG data, regardless of what threshold the regulators set for compliance with ESG principles. The SFDR framework for Principal Adverse Impact Statements in the RTS part of SFDR will always be valid, even if specific thresholds or provisions end up being changed.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Related content

WEBINAR

Recorded Webinar: The roles of cloud and managed services in optimising enterprise data management

Cloud and managed services go hand-in-hand when it comes to modern enterprise data management (EDM), but how can the best solutions for the business be selected and implemented to ensure optimal data management based on accurate, consistent, and high-quality data, and delivering improved efficiency, better decisions and competitive advantage? This webinar will answer these questions,...

BLOG

BNP Paribas Becomes First EU G-SIB to Join GLEIF Validation Agent Programme

The Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) continues to build out the Global LEI System (GLEIS) with the addition of BNP Paribas as a Validation Agent. The addition of BNP Paribas marks the first global systemically important bank (G-SIB) headquartered in the EU to join the Validation Agent programme. Most recently, the GLEIF added Nord...

EVENT

ESG Data & Tech Summit London

The ESG Data & Tech Summit will explore challenges around assembling and evaluating ESG data for reporting and the impact of regulatory measures and industry collaboration on transparency and standardisation efforts. Expert speakers will address how the evolving market infrastructure is developing and the role of new technologies and alternative data in improving insight and filling data gaps.

GUIDE

Enterprise Data Management Europe 2010

he US may seem to be ahead of the rest of the world in terms of championing the data management cause with the inclusion of reference data focused items in the Dodd-Frank Act, but Europe is not too far behind. Senior European level officials such as European Central Bank (ECB) president Jean-Claude Trichet have taken...