Climate-related litigation is increasingly being used as a tool to hold companies and governments to account over their contributions to climate change. According to the Grantham Institute’s 2021 Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation Policy Report (the “Report”), the number of climate-related cases has more than doubled since 2015: between 1986 and 2014, approximately
On May 19, 2022, the Brazilian Federal Government published Decree No. 11,075/2022 (“Decree”), which establishes the National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction System and the related procedures for the implementation of the Sectoral Plans for Climate Change Mitigation. The Brazilian National Policy on Climate Change (Federal Law No. 12,187/2009) mentions the implementation of such
The sustainable investing market has witnessed remarkable growth. At the same time, the field has been challenged by a lack of consistency in identifying what, exactly, makes an investment “sustainable”. Sustainability taxonomies (or classification systems) have been developed by governments, international bodies and non-governmental organizations to help identify specific assets, activities or projects that meet defined thresholds and metrics that quantify sustainability. Many of these taxonomies refer to or emulate the EU Taxonomy, widely regarded as the most developed system for sustainable finance investment classification and measurement.
Continue Reading ICMA Identifies Usability Challenges – and Recommends Action – for Implementing the EU Taxonomy
On February 9, 2022, the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) released its Draft FHFA Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2022-2026 (the “2022 Strategic Plan”) for public input.
This year, FHFA added a novel objective to this plan – to identify options for incorporating climate change into FHFA’s governance of the entities it regulates.
According to FHFA Acting Director Sandra L. Thompson, the 2022 Strategic Plan provides a roadmap for FHFA to promote sustainable and equitable access to mortgage credit and protect the safety and soundness of the U.S. housing system. While not a statutory requirement, the FHFA uses its strategic planning process to set priorities based on important stakeholder input. Typically, FHFA releases a strategic plan every few years, outlining the agency’s priorities for the supervision and regulation of the Federal Home Loan Banks, and of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “Enterprises”). The agency sets forth those priorities through strategic goals and objectives to achieve those goals.
Continue Reading FHFA’s Strategic Plan Adds Focus on Climate Change
The recent publication, on 27 February 2022, of the second instalment to the Sixth Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC“) did not receive the same degree of attention as the first instalment in August 2021. The findings, and message, of the second instalment, are no less severe, or potentially consequential, however, delivering as it does, the “bleakest warning yet” of the impacts of climate change.
The first instalment, developed by the IPCC’s Working Group I, focused on the physical science basis of climate change. The second instalment, developed by the IPCC’s Working Group II, assesses the impacts of climate change, looking at ecosystems, biodiversity and human communities at global and regional levels.
The findings of the IPCC are, of course, deeply troubling in many respects, and the implications of those findings are likely to be extensive. One area in which those implications are likely to be felt is that of climate litigation. As explored in our previous article, the science based findings of the IPCC have played a role in affirming international legal standards on climate change and establishing the link between emissions and climate change, thereby – in some respects – strengthening the cases of climate litigants who may previously have encountered difficulties in establishing causation. The ever-increasing urgency of the climate crisis, and the willingness – and ability – of stakeholders to use litigation to compel action to address that crisis, will continue to be features of the landscape as attention focuses on the IPCC’s findings.
In December 2021, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) issued the results of its pilot climate risk stress test (CRST). The CRST assesses the potential impact of climate change on the Hong Kong banking sector. It marks the latest such publication by a regulator on the topic, with French regulator, Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR), having published the results of its climate risk stress test in Q2 2021 and a number of other countries’ regulators undertaking similar analyses during 2022.
The CRST indicates that the Hong Kong banking sector should remain resilient to climate-related shocks given the Banks’ strong capital buffers. However, it was noted that simplified assumptions and use of historical data in modelling could mean the potential impact could be more serious than predicted.
The exercise identified various climate-related vulnerabilities for Banks to seek to address and highlighted gaps in terms of insufficient granular, reliable data, as well as a lack of widely-accepted standards for classifying and identifying climate risk exposures. HKMA notes that addressing these issues will require concerted efforts of the industry.
In this Blog Post, we set out a high level summary of the CRST in terms of the scope of the CRST, pertinent findings and actions required to enhance climate risk management going forward.
The sustainable investing market is witnessing remarkable growth: since 2018, annual cash flows into sustainable funds have increased tenfold. Now, more than ever, investors and asset managers alike seek sustainable products and strategies offering robust financial returns. The field, however, has been haunted by greenwashing claims and a lack of consistency in identifying what, exactly, makes an investment “sustainable”.
Sustainability or “green” taxonomies developed by governments, international bodies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can help resolve these challenges and inconsistencies by identifying specific assets, activities or projects that meet defined thresholds and metrics that quantify sustainability. These systems can cover the full spectrum of sustainability topics, from achieving acceptable levels of greenhouse gas emissions to compliance with certain human rights standards. Among other benefits, sustainability taxonomies can:
In this series of Blog Posts, we first provide a brief overview of some of the key existing and developing taxonomies around the world. We then set out our analysis of the ways asset managers are already leveraging taxonomies in their businesses based on a review of publicly available responsible investment reports. Finally, we highlight certain challenges that asset managers may encounter as these systems develop and interest in sustainable investing continues to grow.
Continue reading this Part III to understand some of the taxonomy-related challenges that asset managers may encounter. You can find Parts I and II here and here.
The sustainable investing market is witnessing remarkable growth: since 2018, annual cash flows into sustainable funds have increased tenfold. Now, more than ever, investors and asset managers alike seek sustainable products and strategies offering robust financial returns. The field, however, has been haunted by greenwashing claims and a lack of consistency in identifying what, exactly, makes an investment “sustainable”.
Sustainability or “green” taxonomies developed by governments, international bodies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can help resolve these challenges and inconsistencies by identifying specific assets, activities or projects that meet defined thresholds and metrics that quantify sustainability. These systems can cover the full spectrum of sustainability topics, from achieving acceptable levels of greenhouse gas emissions to compliance with certain human rights standards. Among other benefits, sustainability taxonomies can:
In this series of Blog Posts, we first provide a brief overview of some of the key existing and developing taxonomies around the world. We then set out our analysis of the ways asset managers are already leveraging taxonomies in their businesses based on a review of publicly available responsible investment reports. Finally, we highlight certain challenges that asset managers may encounter as these systems develop and interest in sustainable investing continues to grow.
Continue reading this Part II for our analysis of how asset managers are already leveraging taxonomies. You can find Parts I and III here and here.
The sustainable investing market is witnessing remarkable growth: since 2018, annual cash flows into sustainable funds have increased tenfold. Now, more than ever, investors and asset managers alike seek sustainable products and strategies offering robust financial returns. The field, however, has been haunted by greenwashing claims and a lack of consistency in identifying what, exactly, makes an investment “sustainable”.
Sustainability or “green” taxonomies developed by governments, international bodies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can help resolve these challenges and inconsistencies by identifying specific assets, activities or projects that meet defined thresholds and metrics that quantify sustainability. These systems can cover the full spectrum of sustainability topics, from achieving acceptable levels of greenhouse gas emissions to compliance with certain human rights standards. Among other benefits, sustainability taxonomies can:
In this series of Blog Posts, we first provide a brief overview of some of the key existing and developing taxonomies around the world. We then set out our analysis of the ways asset managers are already leveraging taxonomies in their businesses based on a review of publicly available responsible investment reports. Finally, we highlight certain challenges that asset managers may encounter as these systems develop and interest in sustainable investing continues to grow.
Continue reading this Part I for a better understanding of existing and developing taxonomies around the world. You can find Parts II and III here and here.
On November 23, 2021, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued its “Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Ratings and Data Providers” final report in which IOSCO makes 10 recommendations related to the use of ESG ratings and data products in financial markets. In a new Legal Update, we discuss the report and