Règlement sur la publication d’informations en matière de durabilité dans les services financiers : l’AMF publie une étude sur les classifications et l’exposition aux énergies fossiles sur le marché français

The AMF published an overview of SFDR classifications in the French funds‘ universe and portfolios‘ exposure to fossil energies at the end of 2021.
As a reminder, the SFDR was implemented in March 2021 to promote sustainable investments by enforcing environmental and social transparency requirements in the financial services industry, including asset management. SFDR introduces three categories of financial products: Article 9, which have a sustainable investment objective, Article 8, which promote sustainable characteristics within the framework of investment but without pursuing a sustainable investment objective, and Article 6, which do not fall under either category.
This study has two objectives: to allocate French collective investment undertakings to categories introduced by SFDR and compare fund portfolios‘ exposure to fossil-fuel industries across these categories.
At the end of 2021, one-fifth of French funds representing half of the assets under management promote environmental or social characteristics or claim a sustainable investment objective. Article 8 funds alone account for more than 47% of AUM, while Article 9 funds represent 3% of the NAV and are more common among equity funds. However, for a significant part of the population, no information relating to the SFDR classification is available, including real estate and private equity funds. It comes as no surprise that Article 8 and 9 equity funds have lower exposure to fossil fuel industries than their Article 6 equivalents.
The results are less clear for other fund types, and the differences in exposure to fossil fuel sectors are seldom significant between Article 8 and Article 6 funds. This suggests that the definition of Article 8 funds under SFDR is probably not very discriminating. The application of SFDR before the entry into force of the regulatory technical standards could have resulted in a divergence between investor expectations and actual practices**.