【Green Finance Blog 2024 New Year Special】Biggest ESG Trends to Watch in 2025? EU to Streamline ESG: Consolidating Sustainability Reporting Frameworks

Martin Choi, CESGA

The European Union could move a step closer towards consolidating its trio of environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting frameworks next year, amid growing pressure to reduce the reporting burdens of businesses and increase the competitiveness of the world’s largest trading bloc.

According to a meeting agenda released earlier this month by the EU’s executive arm, the European Commission’s so-called ‘Omnibus Simplification Package’ – a widely touted piece of legislation to streamline existing ESG reporting obligations – could be published as early as February 2025.

At a press conference following an informal meeting of the European Council leadership last month, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, outlined plans to address the overlapping reporting requirements across what she called the “triangle” of the EU Taxonomy, CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) and CSDDD (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive). She emphasised the need for a comprehensive approach to reduce bureaucratic burden across all fields.

“The content of the laws is good. We want to maintain it and we will maintain it. But the way we get there, the questions we are asking, the data points we are collecting, thousands of them, is too much — often redundant, often overlapping,” von der Leyen said.

“So it’s our task to reduce this bureaucratic burden without changing the correct content of the law that we all want.”

Understanding the EU’s Sustainability Framework Trio

While the three existing frameworks each serve crucial purposes, the proposed consolidation reflects growing recognition that their overlapping requirements create significant challenges in terms of compliance. Companies currently face multiple reporting obligations, often requiring similar information to be presented in varying formats and within different contexts.

The proposed consolidation aims to harmonise these three frameworks which each serve different yet interconnected purposes:

EU Taxonomy
The EU Taxonomy Regulation, which entered into force in July 2020, is a classification system that defines whether economic activities can be considered as “environmentally sustainable”. It provides companies, investors, and policymakers with standardised definitions to prevent greenwashing, and also helps direct investments toward sustainable projects. The framework focuses on six environmental objectives: climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention and control, and the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems. Reporting along the climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives has been mandatory since January 2022.

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)
The CSRD came into effect on January 5, 2023. The directive expands sustainability reporting requirements for companies operating in the EU, requiring them to report on their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) impacts, risks, and opportunities. Companies subject to the CSRD must follow the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), developed by EU standard-setter EFRAG and adopted by the European Commission in July 2023. Implementation is already underway for the first group of large public-interest entities that will need to submit their reports in 2025.

Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD)
The CSDDD proposal requires companies to identify and address the adverse impacts of their activities on human rights and the environment along their global value chains. This includes obligations to implement due diligence processes, engage with stakeholders, and provide remediation when negative impacts occur. This directive was adopted by EU member states in May 2024, with implementation set to commence in 2027.

Global Implications

The EU’s move to streamline its sustainability reporting requirements comes at a time of broader harmonisation internationally, as regulators and standard-setters worldwide seek to create more consistent and comparable ESG disclosures.

EFRAG – which developed the European sustainability reporting standards for the European Commission – and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) – the global standard-setter established by the IFRS Foundation – have announced significant alignment between their respective standards.

According to the European Commission’s official adoption of the ESRS, the sustainability reporting standards were developed in consultation with ISSB and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to ensure interoperability between EU and global standards to prevent unnecessary double reporting. This approach aims to support the global convergence of ESG reporting standards while maintaining the specific requirements of the EU.

As the EU makes strides towards streamlining sustainability reporting, the outcome of this consolidation could serve as a blueprint for other jurisdictions facing similar challenges. Companies operating both within and outside the EU will need to stay informed about the development of the Omnibus Simplification Package in order to prepare for a more efficient and globally harmonised ESG reporting landscape in 2025 and beyond.

This article is written by a holder of the EFFAS Certified Environmental, Social, and Governance Analyst (CESGA). CESGA is a globally recognised qualification whose prominence continues to grow worldwide. CESGA has recently achieved a significant milestone as the first programme accredited by European standard setter EFRAG for compliance with the ESRS sustainability disclosure requirements in the EU (mandatory from 2025). For enrolment details, please visit https://bit.ly/40chuOR .

ISO-ESG實施原則:開創永續發展新篇章

Joe Lam, CESGA, 香港地球之友綠色金融顧問

在全球企業界日益關注永續發展的今天,ESG的不一致性與挑戰成為一個迫切需要解決的問題。當前,ESG面臨的首要挑戰之一是各司法管轄區、行業和企業規模之間缺乏統一的報告標準。ISO ESG實施原則正是為了解決這種分散化問題,通過提供與現有框架相協調的標準化結構,為企業指明方向。與此同時,ESG相關法規的日益複雜化,如歐盟的企業永續報告指令(CSRD)、以及ISSB的IFRS S1和S2等,都在不斷推動組織改善合規性並有效整合這些要求。ISO原則的推出,恰好為組織提供了應對這些挑戰的重要指導工具。

在全球永續發展浪潮中,ISO最新推出的ESG實施原則,無疑是為企業永續發展帶來了重要的里程碑。這套原則不僅為企業提供了清晰的ESG實施指南,更為全球ESG實踐標準化鋪平了道路。讓我們深入探討這項重大發展對企業界帶來的深遠影響。

在當今商業環境中,企業面臨著前所未有的ESG報告和實踐挑戰。不同地區、不同行業之間的報告標準不一,讓許多企業感到困惑。此外,各種新興法規都在不斷加大企業的合規壓力。ISO的這套新原則正是應運而生,旨在為企業提供一個統一的參考框架。這不僅是一套準則,更是要在企業中培養持久的ESG文化。

這套原則的獨特之處在於其全面性和適應性。透過整合來自全球1,900多位行業專家的見解,它成功地在各種現有框架之間搭起了橋樑。對企業而言,這意味著無論規模大小,都能找到適合自己的實施路徑。它提供了靈活的框架,讓企業能根據自身情況逐步提升ESG表現。更重要的是,通過與GRI、SASB等主流標準的協調,企業可以更容易地製作出符合國際標準的ESG報告,極大地提升了報告的可比性和可靠性。此外,這套原則為企業提供了清晰的成熟度評估工具,幫助企業準確定位自己的永續發展階段,並找出改進方向。

這套原則的影響力遠超企業本身。對投資者而言,統一的報告標準意味著更容易做出準確的投資決策,也更容易識別可能的漂綠行為。對政府和監管機構來說,這為建立健全的監管框架提供了重要參考。而對非政府組織和學術界而言,這些原則則提供了寶貴的研究和評估基準。

在落實ISO ESG原則時,企業需要採取系統化的方法。首先要進行全面的差距分析,明確瞭解當前ESG實踐與標準之間的差距。接著,制定系統的培訓計劃,確保組織上下都能理解和執行這些原則。同時,積極與各利害關係人展開對話,確保ESG策略能夠滿足各方期望。最後,善用科技工具,建立高效的ESG數據管理系統。

然而,在推行過程中,企業可能面臨諸多挑戰。特別是對資源有限的中小企業而言,實施全面的ESG方案可能面臨壓力。此外,需要妥善處理與現有ESG框架的銜接問題,並確保組織具備必要的專業知識和技能。這套原則的真正價值在於其可衡量的成果,無論是在減少碳排放、保護生物多樣性,還是促進社會包容性方面。這些都將推動企業朝向真正的永續轉型邁進。

ISO ESG實施原則的推出,標誌著全球永續發展進入了新階段。它不僅是一套合規工具,更是企業把握永續轉型機遇的重要指南。面對日益嚴峻的環境挑戰和社會期待,企業主動擁抱這套原則,將為自身贏得更廣闊的發展空間。在永續發展日益成為企業核心競爭力的今天,這套原則的出現無疑將加速全球企業向更可持續的未來邁進。對於有遠見的企業領袖來說,現在正是深入瞭解和實施這些原則的最佳時機。讓我們攜手同行,共創永續未來!

#本文章由 EFFAS 環境、社會及管治分析師 (CESGA) 所撰寫。CESGA在歐洲以及全球都具有高度認受性,全球報名人數持續上升。有志報讀的人士,請參閱:https://bit.ly/3tFUQ1M

How to Build a Better ESG Fund Classification System: Key Insights from Latest Market Research

Green Finance Advisor of Friends of the Earth (HK)

The term “ESG” representing environmental, social, and governance criteria, has gained traction in investment circles since its introduction in the early 2000s. Despite the proliferation of “ESG funds” since 2010, defining what constitutes an ESG fund remains a challenge. This paper, authored by Chris Fidler and Nicole Gehrig, seeks to clarify the classification of ESG funds by proposing a structured framework that categorizes these funds based on observable characteristics rather than ambiguous terminology.

The Problem with ESG Funds

The ambiguity surrounding ESG funds stems from three primary interpretations:

  1. Investment Composition: Some view ESG funds as those predominantly investing in assets with favorable ESG characteristics. However, this definition is problematic, as it implies a clear categorization that does not exist in practice. The lack of consensus on what qualifies as an “ESG investment” complicates this interpretation.
  2. Moral Goodness: Others perceive ESG funds as those that inherently contribute positively to environmental and societal well-being. This perspective is fraught with subjectivity, as opinions on what is deemed “good” vary widely and can lead to political divisiveness.
  3. Functionality: A more pragmatic view sees ESG funds as those that incorporate ESG information and issues into their investment processes without making normative judgments. This definition allows for a broader classification but still struggles with the variability within the category.

To address these issues, the authors propose focusing on the functional aspects of ESG funds, establishing a classification universe that includes all funds that consider ESG factors to varying degrees.

Classification Framework

The paper outlines a classification system based on three observable features:

  1. Feature 1: A process that uses ESG information to enhance risk-adjusted returns. This feature emphasizes the integration of ESG data into investment decision-making.
  2. Feature 2: Policies that manage investors’ exposure to systemic ESG issues. This aspect highlights the importance of governance and accountability in fund management.
  3. Feature 3: Explicit intentions and action plans aimed at achieving specific environmental or social outcomes. This feature signifies a commitment to measurable progress in ESG objectives.

By defining these features, the authors argue that a more robust classification system can be developed, allowing for distinct groups of ESG funds. For instance, funds that only employ Feature 1 may focus solely on financial returns, while those exhibiting Feature 3 are actively working towards specific ESG goals.

Challenges in Classification

The paper emphasizes that fund classification is inherently complex. Existing frameworks, often created by asset managers or regulators, tend to lack rigor, leading to confusion and inefficiency in the marketplace. The authors identify several key challenges:

  • Vagueness in Definitions: Current classifications often rely on terms that lack clear definitions, resulting in varied interpretations among stakeholders.
  • Diverse Fund Characteristics: The significant heterogeneity among funds complicates efforts to categorize them meaningfully.
  • Regulatory Issues: As regulators seek to establish guidelines for ESG funds, the lack of a standardized classification system poses challenges for compliance and enforcement.

Design Objectives

To create an effective ESG fund classification system, the authors propose several design objectives:

  • Utility for Diverse Stakeholders: The classification system should serve the needs of investors, regulators, and researchers by providing clear distinctions among funds based on their ESG characteristics.
  • Facilitate Informed Decision-Making: Investors should be able to select funds that align with their risk-return preferences and moral values.
  • Promote Transparency: A well-defined classification framework can enhance transparency in the fund selection process, helping to reduce misinformation in the marketplace.

Implementation Guidelines

The authors provide guidelines for implementing the proposed classification system, emphasizing the need for clear criteria and thresholds for assigning funds to specific groups. They recommend a systematic approach that includes:

  • Defining Boundaries: Establishing precise criteria that delineate different categories of ESG funds based on the defined features.
  • Testing and Adjusting: Continuously evaluating the effectiveness of the classification system and making necessary adjustments based on market feedback.
  • Naming Groups: Careful consideration of group names to avoid misinterpretation and ensure clarity in communication.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The paper concludes by positioning this work as a starting point for improving ESG fund classification. The authors express hope that their framework will inspire further research and collaboration among stakeholders interested in advancing the understanding and practice of ESG investing.

In summary, the complexity of ESG fund classification calls for a structured approach that prioritizes observable features over vague terminology. By establishing clear boundaries and guidelines, the proposed framework aims to enhance the transparency and efficacy of ESG investing, ultimately benefiting investors and society as a whole.

Reference

How to Build a Better ESG Fund Classification System

https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/en/research/reports/2024/how-to-build-a-better-esg-fund-classification-system

From Baku to Hong Kong: Reflections on COP29 and the Future of Climate Finance

Ms Serena Mak CESGA and Mr Anthony Cheung CESGA, Board Governors of Friends of the Earth (HK)

As we stepped off the plane from Baku, Azerbaijan after attending COP29, we couldn’t help but reflect on the changing climate finance landscape. The bustling halls of Baku Stadium served as a microcosm of the global push toward sustainable finance, with a special focus this year on climate finance. These reflections formed the basis of our recent Asia-Pacific COP29 Roundtable discussion in Hong Kong, where we gathered with fellow delegates and stakeholders to explore how we can translate global climate dialogues into regional action.

Anthony: Among my few hats, I serve as a supervisory board member of the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA), and one of my key takeaways was the strong need for standardisations and benchmarking of sustainable development goals (SDGs). Investors and financiers are seeking clear, standardised metrics to assess corporate performance in advancing sustainable development. This was evident across multiple pavilions – from Brazil to the Just Transition spaces.

Serena: What struck me was the evolution of climate finance discussions from last year’s COP in Dubai. This year, there was a much stronger focus on the nuts and bolts of energy transition – not just the high-level goals, but the practical infrastructure needed: grids, transmission, storage solutions for renewable energy. Walking through the renewable energy hub really drove home how this isn’t just about new technology – it’s about deploying and scaling existing solutions.

Anthony: Absolutely. And this is where Hong Kong’s role becomes crucial. As the only major international financial centre situated in the Global South (emerging markets and developing economies), we have a unique responsibility and opportunity. The market is calling for clear frameworks around transition finance, especially for high-emitting sectors where technology isn’t fully commercialised yet.

Serena: That reminds me of a powerful moment at one of the panels – an Indonesian representative explained how 80% of the province’s population earn their money from anything related to the coal value chain. We need to think about where the money goes and where the gap is, and how the private sector can move the needle.

Looking ahead to COP30 in Belém, Brazil, we see several priorities for Hong Kong:

  • Leveraging our position as a bridge between China and international markets, particularly in establishing taxonomy equivalence between different jurisdictions
  • Developing practical frameworks for transition finance
  • Building capacity across sectors – from banking to education
  • Showcasing concrete case studies of successful climate finance initiatives

Anthony: Another thing that we learned at COP29 is that three key existing technologies – solar, wind, and energy storage – are already in place to bring us toward net zero. With China leading in all three areas, Hong Kong is perfectly positioned to help channel global capital toward these genuine climate solutions.

Serena: True, and while the various financial targets discussed at COP29 – from $100 billion to $300 billion to $1.1 trillion – fell short of what’s needed, what really matters is how much capital actually flows into climate projects. That’s where Hong Kong’s financial expertise becomes crucial.

As we look towards COP30, we are both optimistic about Hong Kong’s role in scaling up climate finance across Asia. The path ahead isn’t simple, but with robust frameworks, strategic collaboration, and a focus on practical solutions, we can help bridge the gap between climate ambition and action.

The views expressed in this blog post are personal reflections of the authors based on their experiences at COP29.