OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Fairshare Educational Foundation (ShareAction)

ShareAction is a non-profit working to build a global investment sector which is responsible for its impacts on people and planet.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

17 Nov 2025 · Sustainability omnibus - update for civil society

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

3 Nov 2025 · Sustainability omnibus - update for civil society

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and WWF European Policy Programme and

28 Oct 2025 · Sustainability omnibus and climate transition plans

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

17 Oct 2025 · Sustainability Omnibus

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

2 Oct 2025 · Sustainability omnibus - update for civil society

ShareAction urges tougher climate rules for the insurance sector

3 Sept 2025
Topic — The initiative creates an integrated framework for climate resilience and risk management in Europe.
Message — ShareAction calls for a coherent legislative approach forcing insurers to stop funding fossil fuels. They demand higher capital requirements for risky assets to ensure insurers support climate adaptation.123
Why — This would help the organisation achieve its core mission of reforming the investment sector.4
Impact — Taxpayers and policyholders suffer as insurers increase premiums while profiting from climate-damaging investments.56
Read full response

ShareAction demands sustainability conditions for insurance capital requirement cuts

2 Sept 2025
Topic — The Commission is reviewing technical rules for insurance and reinsurance capital requirements.
Message — ShareAction requests sustainability-linked conditionalities for investments and higher capital requirements for fossil fuels. They propose a robust monitoring system to ensure alignment with EU decarbonisation goals.123
Why — This would force the investment sector to be responsible for its environmental impacts.45
Impact — Insurance companies would lose the opportunity to boost returns through riskier investments.67
Read full response

Meeting with Radan Kanev (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Jun 2025 · Sustainable finance

Meeting with Manuela Ripa (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme

5 Jun 2025 · Sustainable Finance

ShareAction Urges Mandatory Engagement in EU Sustainable Finance Rules

28 May 2025
Topic — A review of EU rules to simplify sustainable finance disclosures and prevent greenwashing.
Message — ShareAction recommends strengthening rules for firms to show how they reduce investment harms. They call for mandatory engagement strategies and minimum disclosure rules for all financial products.123
Why — Increased transparency helps the organization monitor and benchmark asset managers' sustainability claims more effectively.45
Impact — Financial firms would face higher costs and scrutiny due to mandatory reporting requirements.67
Read full response

Meeting with Thomas Bajada (Member of the European Parliament)

21 May 2025 · Sustainable finance

Meeting with Christine Singer (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

24 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Finance

Meeting with Stefan Berger (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme

19 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Finance

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH

11 Mar 2025 · Sustainability Omnibus

Meeting with Aurore Lalucq (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and WWF European Policy Programme and Third Generation Environmentalism Ltd

6 Mar 2025 · Omnibus, Sustainable Finance, SIU

Response to Savings and Investments Union

5 Mar 2025

The Savings and Investment Union (SIU), in line with the Draghi and Letta reports, is presented as a win-win solution: mobilising capital to enhance EU competitiveness, enable the green and digital transition and benefit citizens. Yet the SIU as currently conceived will not be a panacea for Europe's challenges: it will rather fuel climate change, increase threats to financial stability, and exacerbate inequalities. According to the Commission, the SIU can help the EU reach a tipping point, which will set in motion a more accelerated process of market development. As it stands, the only tipping point the SIU would help reach is a climate one with disastrous consequences for the EU. Indeed, the lack of clear incentives towards sustainability & away from harmful activities is at odds with broader EU policy goals and will not guarantee the redirection of capital towards sustainable activities. This, together with weak shareholders rights and transparency requirements for companies, will only delay the green transition. This, in turn, threatens financial stability. The ESAs Fit-for-55 climate scenario analysis projects that delays in achieving the green transition, coupled with likely large losses from climate and macroeconomic factors, could cost the financial sector losses of up to 3866 bn. Given the concentration and interconnectedness of the EU financial sector, such losses could have far-reaching destabilizing effects, threatening citizens savings and public finances where bailouts are needed. To avoid this, the EU should focus on addressing both the climate crisis and financial risks. This means implementing measures that stir financial flows away from fossil fuels, eg via targeted capital requirements increases for banks & insurers (as recommended by EIOPA in 2024) and towards sustainable activities, themselves clearly identified via a robust taxonomy, adequate reporting legislation and anti-greenwashing measures. The proposed reviving of securitisation, on the other hand, is likely to worsen financial vulnerabilities while failing to deliver benefits. First, there are no guarantees that banks would use any 'freed up capacity' to support European households, the real economy and a sustainable transition. Indeed, banks investments and lending decisions will still be made on a profitability basis (risk/return analysis), meaning banks will not necessarily aim to improve households or SMEs access to finance nor invest in sustainable projects. Banks could instead further invest in fossil fuels, thus contributing to climate change and the build-up of transition-related risks. Second, as any securitisation deal is a complex contractual and financial operation, boosting securitisation means increasing the complexity, opacity and interconnectedness of our financial sector. As the onset of the 2008 financial crisis showed, any drop in investor confidence related to securitisation can lead to fire sales, devaluation, losses and ultimately a financial market freeze, not to mention bankruptcies necessitating state intervention. Third, securitisation can be distressing for consumers and mortgage holders, and lead to significant complications if loans need to be renegotiated, as banks customers face a change of creditor, who becomes one (or multiple) investor(s) who can be located outside their member state or even the EU. Finally, while the SIU is claimed to have at its centre the needs of EU citizens, who can be the among its greatest enablers and beneficiaries, this overlooks citizens wealth disparities across and within EU states, as well as the varying levels of financial literacy & access to finance. Deeper capital markets will mostly benefit wealthy Europeans with significant savings, liquid assets, who are financially literate & can afford risky investments. Without strong conditionalities and redistribution mechanisms, the SIU will only exacerbate existing inequalities rather than ensure economic fairness.
Read full response

Meeting with Fabio De Masi (Member of the European Parliament) and WWF European Policy Programme

3 Mar 2025 · Sustainable finance

Meeting with Teresa Ribera Rodríguez (Executive Vice-President) and

20 Feb 2025 · Exchange on the upcoming Omnibus

Meeting with Gabriela Tschirkova (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis), Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis) and

10 Feb 2025 · Simplification

Meeting with Elena Arveras (Cabinet of Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque)

4 Feb 2025 · Omnibus

Meeting with Arthur Corbin (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné) and WWF European Policy Programme and

12 Dec 2024 · Sustainable corporate reporting

Meeting with Antoine Bégasse (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and WWF European Policy Programme and Third Generation Environmentalism Ltd

12 Nov 2024 · Capital markets, economic transition, corporate and sustainability

Meeting with Nicolo Brignoli (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and WWF European Policy Programme and Third Generation Environmentalism Ltd

12 Nov 2024 · Sustainable finance

Meeting with Lynn Boylan (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Sept 2024 · Sustainable Finance priorities for new term

Meeting with Dirk Gotink (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Sept 2024 · Sustainable finance

Meeting with Matthias Ecke (Member of the European Parliament) and Deutsche Bank AG

17 Jul 2024 · Kennenlernen / Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik

Meeting with Kira Marie Peter-Hansen (Member of the European Parliament)

17 Jul 2024 · Sustainable finance

Meeting with Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Member of the European Parliament)

16 Jul 2024 · Sustainable finance

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)

29 Jan 2024 · EU-Lieferkettengesetz/ Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

Meeting with Florian Denis (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness)

21 Nov 2023 · CSDDD

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion) and Global Witness

20 Nov 2023 · EU-Lieferkettengesetz/ Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

Meeting with Katherine Power (Cabinet of Commissioner Mairead Mcguinness) and Third Generation Environmentalism Ltd and Finance Watch

17 Oct 2023 · Sustainable finance

Meeting with Eero Heinäluoma (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

13 Oct 2023 · Solvency II

Meeting with Valeria Miceli (Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen) and WWF European Policy Programme and

28 Sept 2023 · Concerns on corporate sustainability reporting in view of the upcoming package on 25% reduction of reporting burden. They conveyed the message that sustainable finance should continue ensuring transparency for the green transition.

Meeting with Chris Macmanus (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

21 Sept 2023 · Solvency II (meeting taken by staff)

ShareAction urges Commission to restore mandatory sustainability reporting metrics

7 Jul 2023
Topic — This consultation specifies the sustainability standards companies must use for future reporting.
Message — ShareAction demands the Commission preserve mandatory metrics for greenhouse gas emissions and key workforce data. They urge removing voluntary reporting options for biodiversity to prevent greenwashing and regulatory loopholes. The group also calls for reintroducing requirements that help financial firms meet their own disclosure obligations.123
Why — Reliable data enables their investor network to better identify and manage environmental risks.45
Impact — Financial firms face increased difficulty meeting existing mandatory disclosure requirements due to data gaps.67
Read full response

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion) and Global Witness

7 Jul 2023 · EU-Lieferkettengesetz/ Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive - Staff Level

Meeting with Beatrice Covassi (Member of the European Parliament) and Accountancy Europe and Stichting World Benchmarking Alliance Foundation

5 Jul 2023 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Meeting with René Repasi (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur for opinion)

10 May 2023 · EU-Lieferkettengesetz/ Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive - Staff Level

Meeting with Chris Macmanus (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

5 May 2023 · Solvency II (meeting taken by staff)

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

8 Mar 2023 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Meeting with Chris Macmanus (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

2 Mar 2023 · Solvency II (staff level meeting)

Meeting with Lucrezia Busa (Cabinet of Commissioner Didier Reynders) and Finance Watch and

17 Jan 2023 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Meeting with Claude Gruffat (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

22 Sept 2022 · CSDDD

Meeting with Henrike Hahn (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

5 Jul 2022 · Solvency 2

Meeting with Heidi Hautala (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and EUROPEAN TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION and

5 Jul 2022 · Stakeholder meeting on corporate sustainability due diligence (staff level)

ShareAction demands EU strengthen corporate sustainability due diligence rules

23 May 2022
Topic — New EU rules to encourage companies to focus on long-term sustainability.
Message — ShareAction wants the rules to cover all companies and remove exemptions for the financial industry. They propose mandatory climate targets and stronger duties for directors to oversee sustainability risks.123
Why — This would force financial institutions to use their influence to improve global value chains.4
Impact — Small businesses and financial firms would face significantly higher costs and legal requirements.56
Read full response

Response to Review of measures on taking up and pursuit of the insurance and reinsurance business (Solvency II)

12 Jan 2022

ShareAction welcomes the Commission’s efforts to integrate sustainability considerations in the review of the legislative framework for European (re)insurers, Solvency II. However, more ambitious regulatory changes are needed to allow the European insurance sector to face mounting sustainability risks and play a positive role in the transition to a greener economy, in view of achieving the EU’s sustainability ambitions. Risk management The Commission’s proposed requirement for insurers to conduct climate change scenario analysis is a step in the right direction, although it has shortcomings: • There should be a provision for extreme warming and disorderly transition scenario, as recommended by the Network for Greening the Financial System. • The scenario analysis should be disclosed to allow external stakeholders to assess insurers’ positions and progress. (See the TCFD’s intention to improve public data on climate-related risks and opportunities, TCFD Annex p.31: https://assets.bbhub.io/company/sites/60/2021/07/2021-TCFD-Implementing_Guidance.pdf) • The scenario analysis should not be limited to climate change risks, but should encompass wider environmental risks. Double materiality The proposal only considers how climate change risks affect insurers but overlooks the impact that insurers’ activities have on planet and societies (‘double materiality’). Although such impact will be disclosed by most insurers under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, the former contains loopholes (Member States can exempt smaller insurers) and the latter is still under discussion, so there is no guarantee as to what insurers it will ultimately cover. Thus, Solvency II should include the obligation for all insurers to assess and regularly report on the sustainability impact of their investing and underwriting activities, as well as the obligation to implement strategies aimed at reducing negative impacts. Solvency II should also detail the supervisory process and powers, especially for cases when undertakings fail to comply with the regulation. Prudent Person Principle Although the April 2021 Delegated Act (applicable from August 2022) provides that, in relation to the Prudent Person Principle, insurers shall “take into account the potential long-term impact of their investment strategy and decisions on sustainability factors” and that “where relevant, that strategy and those decisions … shall reflect the sustainability preferences of its customers”, this remains too general. EIOPA or the Commission should provide guidance on how this should be done, and insurers should also be required to take steps to mitigate their negative impact. Sustainable practices Given that shareholder engagement is key to investor impact, Solvency II should require insurers to implement responsible stewardship practices, i.e. to influence the strategy of the firms in which they invest to steer them towards more sustainable practices. In addition, insurers should be required to consider sustainability risks and impacts in their underwriting policies, practices (including in the development and pricing of insurance products) and reporting. Capital requirements Insurers’ capital requirements do not reflect climate change risks; they provide problematic incentives to invest in and insure climate change inducing activities. This goes against the risk-based nature of Solvency II and the EU’s objectives to direct more capital towards sustainable activities and, crucially, away from harmful activities. The Commission missed an opportunity to show leadership by updating pillar 1 rules in line with climate change risks. We encourage EIOPA to adopt a precautionary approach when exploring a dedicated prudential treatment of exposures related to environmentally and/or socially harmful activities, and to treat fossil fuel related assets as the riskiest type of assets.
Read full response

Response to EU single access point for financial and non-financial information publicly disclosed by companies

15 Jan 2021

ShareAction strongly supports the European Commission’s intention to present a legislative proposal to build a European single access point for corporate data. We see four key priorities for the single access points which will be essential for its success: 1) The single access point’s database must include small companies, non-listed companies, and the data provided must include sustainability data; 2) The public access point should put sustainability data on an equal footing with financial data and give non-financial information the same visibility; 3) The access point must be publicly accessible and free of charge for all citizens; 4) The platform should allow for sector-specific information. Our full feedback can be found in the attachment.
Read full response

Response to Climate change mitigation and adaptation taxonomy

18 Dec 2020

ShareAction, the responsible investment advocacy group, welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the draft Delegated Acts on the Technical Screening Criteria for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Please find our full response in the document attached. The EU Taxonomy has been hailed globally as a milestone in creating the much-needed tools for financing the transition to a low-carbon economy. For this tool to effectively facilitate reaching the EU emission reduction targets and commitments under the European Climate Law to meet climate-neutrality by 2050, it needs to fully endorse the ambition of the Technical Expert Group’s (TEG) recommendations, if not going even further. Our key recommendations concern the following areas: - Maintain the proposed climate change mitigation criteria for electricity generation of 100g CO2/kWh to effectively exclude natural gas without abatement (CCSU) - Exclude the burning of all forest biomass for energy as well as reverse the inclusion of all bioenergy feedstocks with higher lifecycle emissions compared to fossil-fuels - Explicitly exclude hydrogen produced with non-renewable power - Reconsider the inclusion of activities such as short-term forestry rotation, livestock and small hydropower - The inclusion of sea and coastal water transport should be conditional on the examination by the Platform on Sustainable Finance - Exclude the burning of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) in cement plants, as recommended by the TEG
Read full response

Response to Sustainable corporate governance

8 Oct 2020

Please find the response of ShareAction to the roadmap of the sustainable corporate governance initiative attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Andrea Beltramello (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Valdis Dombrovskis) and Transport and Environment (European Federation for Transport and Environment) and

15 Sept 2020 · Sustainable finance

Response to Integration of sustainability risks and factors in relation to insurance undertakings and insurance distributors

6 Jul 2020

ShareAction welcomes the proposals to amend delegated regulations under IDD and MiFID II to ensure a better integration of sustainability preferences and risk into organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms. However, we believe more granular requirements are needed on the suitability assessment and with regards to the integration across the investment chain. We support the integration of sustainability preferences as part of the suitability assessment, having first assessed the investor’s investment objectives, time horizon, and individual circumstances as set out in recital (5) of the amendments to the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017. However, in this regard we suggest adding a reference to “potential impacts”, as outlined in the High-Level Expert Group’s final report, that recommends assessing “retail investors’ preferences about the sustainable impact of their investments, as a routine component of financial advice” We also support amendments with the same goal that apply to insurance-based investment products under IDD. If advisers are to assess the sustainability preferences of retail investors, they should possess the knowledge and resources to do so. As such we believe a provision on the lines to that proposed in the amendments to the UCITS Directive, about the “necessary resources and expertise for the effective integration of sustainability risks” should also be included in this draft Delegated Directive with regards to advisory and portfolio management services. We believe that under the proposed provisions the information made available to retail investors could still be presented in a way that is not “simple and understandable”, as recommended by the HLEG. This especially applies when it comes to the impact of their investments, as there is no common set of sustainability impact metrics and proxies (p.28-29 of the final report). In order to fully reach the aim of this Delegated Directive a comprehensive review of level 1 legislation would be required. Such review should address advisers’ remuneration (inducements) and the fact that in our view, retail investors should always be presented with ESG/SRI funds as a default option given they reflect the investor’s investment objectives, including risk tolerance. Also with regards to the suitability assessment, the proposed measures would only really be effective by reviewing level 1 legislation, in particular by mandating the European Supervisory Authorities to develop a template questionnaire for introducing a consistent framework for the assessment by advisers. We fear that the provisions as they are (without the introduction of a more detailed framework of how to assess sustainability preferences) could lead to the promotion of exclusionary products only (based on negative screening) and neglect the positive impact component of sustainable investing. As 43% of respondents of a study by 2DII on German and French retail investors that were interested in sustainable investing had making an environmental impact in the real economy as their main goal, the assessment of preferences should take due consideration of their positive preferences and non-financial objectives (aligned with the ‘sustainability factors’). In this sense, we do not think the definition set out in Article 1(1) is too narrow, as it refers to SFDR art.8 products, which comprise a very wide array of sustainability objectives and can be tailored to the retail investor’s preferences. Thus, the issue is not with the definition of the potential offering but rather with the way the suitability assessment is conducted to reflect that, without such a framework. When assessing the preference in terms of ‘sustainability factors’, the principle of Do No Significant Harm should also be considered, as to ensure the overall sustainability preference is reflected in their product offerings.
Read full response

Response to Strengthening the consideration of sustainability risks and factors for financial products (Directive (EU) 2017/593)

6 Jul 2020

ShareAction welcomes the proposals to amend delegated regulations under MiFID II to ensure a better integration of sustainability preferences and risk into organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms. However, we believe more granular requirements are needed on the suitability assessment and with regards to the integration across the investment chain. We support the integration of sustainability preferences as part of the suitability assessment, having first assessed the investor’s investment objectives, time horizon, and individual circumstances as set out in recital (5) of the amendments to the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017. However, in this regard we suggest adding a reference to “potential impacts”, as outlined in the High-Level Expert Group’s final report, that recommends assessing “retail investors’ preferences about the sustainable impact of their investments, as a routine component of financial advice” If advisers are to assess the sustainability preferences of retail investors, they should possess the knowledge and resources to do so. As such we believe a provision on the lines to that proposed in the amendments to the UCITS Directive, about the “necessary resources and expertise for the effective integration of sustainability risks” should also be included in this draft Delegated Directive with regards to advisory and portfolio management services. We believe that under the proposed provisions the information made available to retail investors could still be presented in a way that is not “simple and understandable”, as recommended by the HLEG. This especially applies when it comes to the impact of their investments, as there is no common set of sustainability impact metrics and proxies (p.28-29 of the final report). It is essential that retail investors receive clear and understandable information as foreseen by MiFID II, also to prevent greenwashing as defined in the taxonomy regulation (focus on marketing as green). In order to fully reach the aim of this Delegated Directive a comprehensive review of level 1 legislation would be required. Such review should address advisers’ remuneration (inducements) and the fact that in our view, retail investors should always be presented with ESG/SRI funds as a default option given they reflect the investor’s investment objectives, including risk tolerance. Also with regards to the suitability assessment, the proposed measures would only really be effective by reviewing level 1 legislation, in particular by mandating the European Supervisory Authorities to develop a template questionnaire for introducing a consistent framework for the assessment by advisers. We fear that the provisions as they are (without the introduction of a more detailed framework of how to assess sustainability preferences) could lead to the promotion of exclusionary products only (based on negative screening) and neglect the positive impact component of sustainable investing. As 43% of respondents of a study by 2DII on German and French retail investors that were interested in sustainable investing had making an environmental impact in the real economy as their main goal, the assessment of preferences should take due consideration of their positive preferences and non-financial objectives (aligned with the ‘sustainability factors’). In this sense, we do not think the definition set out in Article 1(1) is too narrow, as it refers to SFDR art.8 products, which comprise a very wide array of sustainability objectives and can be tailored to the retail investor’s preferences. Thus, the issue is not with the definition of the potential offering but rather with the way the suitability assessment is conducted to reflect that, without such a framework. When assessing the preference in terms of ‘sustainability factors’, the principle of Do No Significant Harm should also be considered, as to ensure the overall sustainability preference is reflected in their product offerings.
Read full response

Response to Strengthening the consideration of sustainability risks and factors for financial products (Regulation (EU) 2017/565)

6 Jul 2020

ShareAction welcomes the proposals to amend delegated regulations under MiFID II to ensure a better integration of sustainability preferences and risk into organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms. However, we believe more granular requirements are needed on the suitability assessment and with regards to the integration across the investment chain. We support the integration of sustainability preferences as part of the suitability assessment, having first assessed the investor’s investment objectives, time horizon, and individual circumstances as set out in recital (5) of the amendments to the Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017. However, in this regard we suggest adding a reference to “potential impacts”, as outlined in the High-Level Expert Group’s final report, that recommends assessing “retail investors’ preferences about the sustainable impact of their investments, as a routine component of financial advice” If advisers are to assess the sustainability preferences of retail investors, they should possess the knowledge and resources to do so. As such we believe a provision on the lines to that proposed in the amendments to the UCITS Directive, about the “necessary resources and expertise for the effective integration of sustainability risks” should also be included in this draft Delegated Directive with regards to advisory and portfolio management services. We believe that under the proposed provisions the information made available to retail investors could still be presented in a way that is not “simple and understandable”, as recommended by the HLEG. This especially applies when it comes to the impact of their investments, as there is no common set of sustainability impact metrics and proxies (p.28-29 of the final report). It is essential that retail investors receive clear and understandable information as foreseen by MiFID II, also to prevent greenwashing as defined in the taxonomy regulation (focus on marketing as green). In order to fully reach the aim of this Delegated Directive a comprehensive review of level 1 legislation would be required. Such review should address advisers’ remuneration (inducements) and the fact that in our view, retail investors should always be presented with ESG/SRI funds as a default option given they reflect the investor’s investment objectives, including risk tolerance. Also with regards to the suitability assessment, the proposed measures would only really be effective by reviewing level 1 legislation, in particular by mandating the European Supervisory Authorities to develop a template questionnaire for introducing a consistent framework for the assessment by advisers. We fear that the provisions as they are (without the introduction of a more detailed framework of how to assess sustainability preferences) could lead to the promotion of exclusionary products only (based on negative screening) and neglect the positive impact component of sustainable investing. As 43% of respondents of a study by 2DII on German and French retail investors that were interested in sustainable investing had making an environmental impact in the real economy as their main goal, the assessment of preferences should take due consideration of their positive preferences and non-financial objectives (aligned with the ‘sustainability factors’). In this sense, we do not think the definition set out in Article 1(1) is too narrow, as it refers to SFDR art.8 products, which comprise a very wide array of sustainability objectives and can be tailored to the retail investor’s preferences. Thus, the issue is not with the definition of the potential offering but rather with the way the suitability assessment is conducted to reflect that, without such a framework. When assessing the preference in terms of ‘sustainability factors’, the principle of Do No Significant Harm should also be considered, as to ensure the overall sustainability preference is reflected in their product offerings.
Read full response

Response to Integration of sustainability risks and factors for undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities

6 Jul 2020

ShareAction welcomes the provisions introduced by this Delegated Directive to clarify requirements for management companies to better integrate sustainability risks and factors, by amending Directive 2010/43/EU that implements the UCITS Directive. The integrations set out in art. 1(4) and 1(5) to explicitly integrate sustainability risks, as well as conflicts of interests deriving from them in 1(6) are a useful step forward. However, we believe that only by expressly defining the relationship between sustainability factors and fiduciary duties will investors effectively integrate these into their mandates. In fact, investors need a clear framework to take investment decisions also where a conflict between short-term financial returns and stewardship or other strategies to bring about a positive impact – and ultimately financial returns in the long-term – may arise (consistent with the investment timeframe of the client). Thus, amendments to the UCITS directive are essential to make sure financial market participants do not limit themselves to assessing their clients’ sustainability preferences, but that the full integration of sustainability practices into their investment decisions is compliant with the “best interest of the unit-holders” as defined in art. 22 of the Directive and that costs arising from the implementation of those strategies are not considered undue costs under the same article. This is a necessary step in aligning this, and other, legislation to the growing tendency to actively consider impact (rather than mere risk) by investors and with encouragement by legislators. The Disclosure Regulation requires investors to disclose Principal Adverse Impacts, but actions to prevent and mitigate those should be considered as in the best interest of unit-holders for various reasons. This does not only apply to PAIs, but to investors seeking to maximise positive impact as well, which are essential in bringing about tangible real economy changes. Additionally, it is not sufficient to require investors to disclose their due diligence policies (also under SFDR), but institutional investors should be required to carry out due diligence in the first place.
Read full response

Meeting with Olivier Guersent (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

9 Oct 2018 · sustainable finance, taxonomy

Response to Institutional investors' and asset managers' duties regarding sustainability

21 Jun 2018

"ESG preferences” should be amended clarify both the financial and non-financial nature of ESG preferences. Confusion around this terminology abounds, and we recommend a recognition that ESG preferences may be financially material, or may have no/negative financial impact on the risk profile of an instrument. Following this clarification, risk perception assessments must allow for explicit determination as to whether clients are willing to bear financial loss in the pursuit of a sustainable product. This clarification should be reflected the the ESMA suitability guidelines. "Good governance investment" seems to designate governance as a sub-type of ESG investing, while, in fact, good governance is a key feature of the proper discharging of environmental and social investments. A clearer reference ought to be made between the disclosure requirements proposed by COM(2018) 354 and the advisory/product suitability process. A clear link ought to be made between the proposed Regulation for a taxonomy and the social/good governance investments. The determination of ESG preferences and the offering of suitable products should not detract from a requirement for the entirety of the portfolio to be assessed against a client’s ESG preferences. This provision should apply for product-level disclosure for the entire range of financial instruments offered, and could also occur at portfolio level. Clearer provisions ought to be in place to ensure that the offering of a sustainable product, even in accordance to a client’s ESG preferences, should not allow for compliance with the Regulation when the rest of the financial instruments in the portfolio are not examined against these preferences. ESG preferences should be reflected in the assessment of the rest of the portfolio and the sustainability impact of the rest of the products offered should be disclosed to the client, whether those products are explicitly “sustainable” or not. We recommend this point be clarified in Article 52, paragraph 3, through the following amendment to point (d): ...complexity of the financial instruments, including ESG considerations for the full range of financial instruments in the portfolio and how those relate to client ESG preferences. In order to reduce the chances for an inconsistent approach to taking client ESG preferences into account, we recommend that language be harmonized to ensure clear consultation of these preferences through the removal of conditional phrases, i.e. “where relevant” in Article 52(d). While more suited for changes to the ESMA suitability guidelines, it should be noted that there is no clear framework to facilitate the articulation of ESG preferences, placing an inordinate burden on end-investors to ensure all preferences are properly explained. Expressing any investment preference is complex, in particular for retail investors. While the taxonomy may serve as a useful "common language", it may result too complex for the "preference expression phase" by retail investors and rather be more suited for the "product assessment" phase, by the provider. Financial education, including on sustainable finance, should be a crucial element of this process, and we encourage the ESAs to further clarify their approach to this core element of their mandate, including in the context of sustainable finance. Stewardship is a powerful tool through which client ESG preferences may be taken into account and is an area end-investors should be given the opportunity to express clear preferences on. For this to take place, information on voting, the use of proxy advisors, engagement in sponsoring and co-sponsoring shareholder resolutions should be available to end investors as part of the verification process for product suitability.
Read full response

Meeting with Olivier Guersent (Director-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union)

25 Sept 2017 · sustainable finance

Meeting with Jyrki Katainen (Vice-President) and WWF European Policy Programme and

3 Apr 2017 · Sustainability finance in the mid-term review of the Capital Markets Union

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

17 Nov 2016 · sustainable/green finance

Meeting with Valdis Dombrovskis (Vice-President) and

27 Oct 2016 · Sustainable Finance; CMU