Notations ESG : Position commune des gestionnaires d’actifs et des assureurs français et allemands

The AFG and the German BVI have endorsed the position of the the German GVD and France Assureurs in response to the European Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the transparency and sustainability of the ESG rating market (2023/0177(COD)).
The associations welcome the proposed regulation on ESG rating agencies, which aims to improve the quality of information on ESG issues and address shortcomings in the ESG rating market. They support the proposal to improve transparency of ESG ratings, methodologies, and data sources, as well as the proposal to require ESG rating providers to disclose any limitations or use of estimates.
However, they believe that the scope of the regulation should be broadened to include ESG raw data and other ESG data products. They argue that reliable and comparable ESG data is essential for the proper functioning of the European sustainable finance market. They also believe that there is a high demand for ESG data, particularly due to regulatory reporting requirements under the SFDR and EU-Taxonomy.
The associations also believe that the exemptions for ESG notations and ESG ratings produced by regulated financial undertakings should be clarified. They argue that these notations and ratings should be excluded from the scope of the regulation, as financial undertakings are already subject to robust requirements under the sustainable finance framework.
Furthermore, they believe that the regulation should include provisions for cost-based fees and licensing transparency requirements. They argue that users of ESG ratings struggle with the licensing terms imposed by ESG rating providers, which limit the use of ESG ratings and ratings data.
The associations believe that the rules for third-country ESG rating providers should be feasible, and that the endorsement procedure should be reconsidered to ensure feasibility and avoid level playing field issues. They also argue that the group-wide application should not apply to the separation of activities under Article 15, and that the disclosure requirements should apply to users of ratings, not just subscribers.
The associations raise concerns regarding the independence of ESG rating providers, disclosure requirements, and information requests in the context of the EC proposal. The authors criticizes the proposal to separate ESG rating services and benchmark services, arguing that it could lead to increased pricing for users and require providers to adapt their corporate structures.
They also welcome proposals to increase transparency in rating methodologies and data sources, which would enhance comparability and competition in the market. However, they propose clarifying the wording of Article 22(1) to include users in disclosure requirements.
Finally, they express concerns about ESMA’s authority to obtain information from ESG rating providers and third parties, suggesting that the ESG rating agency should remain responsible for the requested information and conclude by suggesting that the CRA Regulation should also be reviewed to correct any mistakes.