MiFID: why sustainability preferences matter

Consumers can be a powerful force for change on sustainability issues. They have demonstrated their willingness to boycott brands that have poor records on environmental or social impact, and to push for change in areas they consider important. European regulators are hoping the same principles apply to financial investments.

Since August 2022,  firms subject to MiFID for providing discretionary portfolio management services or investment advice are required by regulators to ask clients about their sustainability preferences under the European Union’s revised MiFID – Markets in Financial Instruments Directive – rules.

This does not simply consist in asking clients whether they are interested in financial products with sustainability features (looking for a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer) but a far more sophisticated list of questions. Do they want their investments to be ‘taxonomy-aligned’ – that is, compliant with the EU classification system for environmentally sustainable activities? Are they interested in sustainable investments as defined by the Sustainable Financial Disclosure Regulation (SFDR)? Or would they rather settle for investments that consider their negative impact on sustainable factors, either environmental (e.g. GHG emissions), social and/or governance related (e.g. the gender pay gap)?

Monica Carlessi, Senior compliance adviser at Banque Internationale à Luxembourg, says: “Credit institutions are also required to ask to what extent (minimum proportion) clients wish to invest in each category of investments with sustainability features and/or whether they would like to prioritise certain sustainability areas. They should also verify if their clients sustainability preferences are more oriented to environmental, social impact or governance factors. Finally, each client’s preferences must be gathered and integrated into the suitability assessment, ensuring they are duly considered when advising the client”. This granular information needs to be collected for all clients.

Credit institutions are required to ask clients to what extent (minimum proportion) they wish to invest in each category of products with sustainability features. Clients preferences need to be considered in their suitability assessment.

Stepping around the jargon

In practice, this is more easily said than done. While clients are often financially sophisticated, sustainability regulation is complex and littered with jargon, which means there can be a gap in understanding. BIL Senior product manager Yves Marquis says: “Most of the clients have an idea of the terms, but it can be very difficult to explain. We take a lot of time ensuring that clients understand it.”

There is also a lingering fear among investors as to whether they can generate a satisfactory financial return from a sustainable portfolio due to its exclusion of certain investments considered to be exposed and/or harmful to ESG factors. Yves Marquis says: “That’s often not clear, and something we have to explain to clients.” There will always be risk and return trade-offs with decisions made regarding sustainability.

The second problem is that at present, investment products that meet clients’ expressed preferences in exact detail do not exist that often. Says Mr Marquis: “As it stands, the regulators are asking banks to collect client sustainability preferences, but the investment industry is not always able to answer all clients’ needs. If the client wants a fully taxonomy-aligned solution, no provider is yet in a position to offer that. Nevertheless, some solutions do exist and more are being developed all the time.

The goal today is not to find all the solutions to all aspects of sustainability, but simply to record the preferences of clients. Afterwards, our aim will be to offer the right product, but that is another step.”

The industry is now tasked with developing the solutions sought by its clients, a process that is happening but will take time. For the time being, advisers have to find the most appropriate solution that exists today.

The ultimate aim of the legislation is to encourage investment in options with sustainability features, but clients are not obliged to request that their money should be managed in that way.

The investor profile does not suggest whether investors should follow one path or another on sustainable solutions. The ultimate aim of the legislation is to encourage investment in options with sustainability features, but clients are not obliged to request that their money should be managed in that way.

The SFDR and sustainable fund investment

Sustainable investment solutions are evolving under the influence of an evolving regulatory backdrop. Funds have more simplified classifications – they are now categorised either under article 6, article 8 or article 9 of the SFDR, depending on their sustainability approach.

Article 6 funds do not claim any sustainable characterisation, article 8 funds promote considering sustainability factors as part of their investment process, and article 9 funds have sustainability as an investment objective. While full granularity is not yet available, these classifications help advisers understand which products are most appropriate for each client.

The advent of new sustainability disclosure rules that will underpin the SFDR is also important. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) came into effect in January 2023, and aims to strengthen companies’ financial and ESG reporting obligations from 2024.

The European Commission says: “The new rules will ensure that investors and other stakeholders have access to the information they need to assess the impact of companies on people and the environment and for investors to assess financial risks and opportunities arising from climate change and other sustainability issues.” The first companies are obliged to start applying the new requirements for their 2024 financial year, reporting in 2025.

Gradual adoption

The disclosure regime is still in its infancy. To begin with, it only applies to the largest listed companies, and it will take the rest of the decade to cover smaller companies and non-European businesses with substantial activities in the EU, as well for the disclosure requirements to evolve.

Says Mr Marquis: “Companies have only just started to collect the figures and only need to disclose data from January 2025. It’s a huge job.” It also means that comparisons on data from one year to another do not yet exist, making it hard for investors to assess companies’ progress toward decarbonisation and other sustainability targets.

However, the CSRD represents a significant starting point. The aim is that the EU’s various regulatory initiatives should ultimately start to interact – companies disclosing relevant ESG data in a transparent and harmonised way, asset managers and other product providers using the information to guide the construction of their portfolios, and distributors assessing investor preferences in terms of investments with sustainability features.

Inevitably, sustainability preferences are nuanced, and one size does not fit all. However, for the time being some uniformity is an inevitable part of the the financial industry’s adjustment to the evolving rules. For investors who believe sustainability should be a consideration in determining their investments, something will be better than nothing. There is a long way to go, but the progress is becoming visible.

Sustainability regulation is complex and littered with jargon, which means there can be a gap in understanding.