Speakers
Objectives
Since its entry into force in 2021, the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) has faced criticism for its lack of clarity, particularly regarding Articles 8 and 9, widely used by investors as de facto fund labels. This has led to market confusion and a decline in “Article 9” funds. The European Commission’s 2023 consultation confirmed broad support for SFDR’s objectives but highlighted weaknesses: unclear definitions, inconsistencies with other EU frameworks (CSRD, MiFID II, IDD), and calls for simplification. Stakeholders remain divided on whether to reform Articles 8 and 9 or transform them into formal categories, with strong support for introducing a new “transition” category. More recently, ESMA guidelines on fund names and proposals from the Platform on Sustainable Finance (suggesting four categories: Sustainable, Transition, ESG, Unclassified) have further shaped the debate. At the same time, the CSRD Omnibus reform—currently under negotiation—will significantly streamline corporate disclosures, raising questions about consistency and alignment with SFDR. This session will clarify the key issues at stake in the SFDR review, its interaction with the wider EU sustainability framework, and the Commission’s priorities moving forward.
Points of discussion
- How should sustainability, Articles 8 and 9, and possible new categories (e.g. transition) be clarified or restructured to improve credibility and comparability for investors?
- How can SFDR be better aligned with CSRD, MiFID II, and other EU rules, and what simplifications could enhance usability without undermining transparency and investor protection?
- What lessons from recent implementation (including ESMA’s fund name guidelines) should guide the Commission’s reform, and what key recommendations should be prioritised to restore trust and consistency in the sustainable finance framework?