SFDR Regulation: the AMF awaits clarifications

  • Publication publiée :3 June 2021
  • Post category:Regulation
You are currently viewing Règlement SFDR : l’AMF attend des clarifications
Philippe Sourlas is Deputy Secretary General of the AMF, in charge of the Asset Management Division

Philippe Sourlas, deputy secretary-general of the regulator, believes that the boundaries between the three categories of funds set out in the sustainable finance regulation are too blurred. He stresses the risks of "greenwashing" and abusive interpretations of the European text.

The European Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), which came into force nearly three months ago, is still raising questions, including within the AMF (Autorités des Marchés Financiers), which is awaiting clarification at the European level.

Philippe Sourlas, deputy secretary general of the regulatory authority, in charge of the asset management department, reiterated this on Wednesday evening, warning against abusive interpretations of the text. He was taking part in a videoconference at the Centre des Professions Financières in the company of Eric Pinon, chairman of the AFG (Association Française de la Gestion Financière).

Manage marketing and communication

Inspired by a French scheme introduced a year earlier, SFDR aims to improve transparency in terms of environmental and social responsibility. The aim is to provide a framework for marketing and communication on the sustainable dimension of financial instruments (investment funds, mandates, insurance products, etc.) in order to prevent the misuse of greenwashing. 

One of the direct obligations of the Regulation on instrument promoters is to classify instruments into three categories according to the degree to which they take into account environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria.

  • Article 6: the product does not have a sustainability objective
  • Article 8: the product promotes environmental and/or social characteristics 
  • Article 9: The product has a sustainable investment objective.

The transparency requirements vary depending on whether the instrument or fund falls into one of these three categories.

Many debates

But all is not yet clear, far from it.

"The text is still incomplete at the regulatory level, but above all there is still a lot of debate about the precise definitions that allow funds to be classified in each of these categories"said Philippe Sourlas.

"It must be recognised that there is still considerable scope for interpretation. We are mobilising to try to obtain a European definition so that each country does not adopt its own interpretation. It is also a question of avoiding greenwashing on the part of players who might be tempted to classify funds a little too quickly as articles 8 or 9". 

According to Philippe Sourlas, there is also the question of the articulation between SFDR and the doctrine as it was applied in France a year earlier. "Since the French approach also divides funds into three categories, we are often asked whether there is a perfect match between the two levels of classification. However, this point does not seem to us to be relevant for the time being because we are waiting for clarification of the scope of each of the three categories at the European level".

Share this article