Obtain the data you need to make the most informed decisions by accessing our extensive portfolio of information, analytics, and expertise. Sign in to the product or service center of your choice.
The chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
said the agency will consider a "mandatory climate disclosure rule"
by the year's end to respond to investors who have been clamoring
for clarity on this topic for months.
"Companies and investors alike would benefit from clear rules of
the road. I believe the SEC should step in when there's this level
of demand for information relevant to investors' decisions," said
Gary Gensler, who made the announcement about the
rulemaking at a "Climate and Global Financial Markets" webinar
hosted on 27 July by Principles of Responsible Investment, a United
Nations-affiliated group of investors that certifies companies with
environment, social and governance (ESG) portfolios.
Saying he had directed SEC staff to develop the rule requiring
mandatory disclosure, Gensler noted the rule will help investors
representing tens of trillions of dollars (and in increasing
numbers) understand the climate risk of the companies whose
financial products or debt or even stock they own or might want to
buy.
This information also will help them determine whether to
invest, sell, or make a voting decision one way or another.
Clearest Insight
The SEC asked for public comment in
late March on how it can improve the current process of reporting
climate risks by public holding companies.
The agency a decade ago deemed climate impacts caused by
torrential rains, flooding, and wildfires to be a material risk,
but only recently began to scrutinize the reports, given the
complaints it has received over inconsistent disclosure.
Gensler's remarks clarify when the SEC will move forward with
the regulation and provide the clearest insight into what it could
require of companies.
Agreeing with 500 unique comments that the SEC has received in
favor of mandatory disclosure, Gensler said, "When disclosures
remain voluntary, it can lead to a wide range of inconsistent
disclosures."
In proposing the draft, Gensler said he told the SEC staff to
"consider whether these disclosures should be filed in the Form
10-K, living alongside other information that investors use to make
their investment decisions."
Investors like fans need metrics
Drawing an analogy with the fans watching the athletes compete
in the Olympics in Tokyo, Gensler said investors are like fans who
need metrics to compare companies with one another. "Fans can
compare athletes across heats, countries, and generations. It's not
like some sprinters run a 100-meter dash and others run 90 meters.
Investors today are asking for that ability to compare companies
with each other," he said.
To that end, Gensler said he has asked the staff to consider the
types of qualitative and quantitative information that would help
investors make decisions going forward.
As examples of qualitative disclosures, he pointed to how a
company's leadership manages climate-related risks and
opportunities, and how these factors feed into its company's
strategy.
For quantitative disclosures, he said companies could include
information about the financial impacts of climate change, progress
towards climate-related goals, and most importantly, GHG metrics
such as reporting the emissions they release when they are
manufacturing the product and the releases from the use of those
end products.
"Many investors," he said, "are looking for information beyond
Scope 1 and Scope 2, to Scope 3, which measures the greenhouse gas
emissions of other companies in an issuer's value chain. Thus, I've
asked staff to make recommendations about how companies might
disclose their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, along with whether to
disclose Scope 3 emissions — and if so, how and under what
circumstances."
In addition to disclosing climate risks, Gensler said he also
has asked staff to consider the impact of transitioning to a
low-carbon economy on companies, and also whether certain metrics
for specific industries, such as banking, insurance or
transportation, should be considered.
Biggest development
IHS Markit Climate & Cleantech Executive Director Peter
Gardett called the SEC's impending action "the biggest development
in financial oversight" since at least the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that was enacted in the
wake of the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008, and, probably, since
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that was designed to protect
consumers. He expects the months leading up to the rulemaking to be
marked by intense lobbying.
About where the proposal is headed, Gardett said, "the SEC has
chosen the most aggressive path available to them by pursuing
mandatory climate risk disclosure as part of the 10-K filing
process."
While the final language is still to be determined and almost
certainly subject to legal challenges, Gardett said, "This proposed
timeline means firms could be looking at a federally mandated
climate risk reporting regime in place a year from today."
Cautionary note
Sarah Fortt, a corporate governance attorney and ESG
professional with the Vinson & Elkins law firm, was not
surprised to hear Gensler say the SEC may include climate
disclosures as a requirement for 10-Ks, which are annual reports
all publicly held companies are required to file with the SEC.
However, Fortt cautioned the SEC to "be thoughtful" about the
number of assumptions and estimates that go into a company's
climate change strategies, including steps like measuring
emissions, establishing paths towards net zero and completing
climate change scenario and risk analyses.
"If the Commission creates rules that do not take into account
these assumptions and estimates or provide a mechanism for
companies to perfect their approaches over time without fear of
incurring liability for good faith efforts, they could leave
companies with a Hobson's choice: liability now or liability
later," she said.
Investors, however, welcomed the SEC's move.
Ted Holmes, founder of UK-based Blue Ocean Investment Partners
that launched in December 2017, told Net-Zero Business Daily 28
July that Gensler's comments were balanced because they recognize
that net-zero claims made by companies need to be accompanied by
internal plans and objectives.
"If not these claims are nothing more than statements of intent,
at best, or simply comfort statements without substance," Holmes
said. "For investors, and especially those of us who have signed up
to the PRI, it is important to have comparable and consistent data
that is both forward-looking and a review of current status.
Otherwise, investing with compliance to the PRI objective is
difficult to impossible."
Companies that get ahead of risks posed by climate impacts, and
set models for their peers, will be the "most sustainable" in the
long-term, noted the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility
(ICCR), which represents at least 300 members organizations among
faith communities, socially responsible asset managers, unions,
pensions, nongovernmental organizations and other socially
responsible investors,
Investors also are increasingly concerned with the systems-wide
risks of certain corporate practices and the impact of those risks
can have on portfolios, ICCR CEO Josh Zinner told Net-Zero Business
Daily 28 July.
"We are thus heartened that the SEC is strongly considering
mandatory disclosure on climate risks, to help ensure that both
that investors have the information that they need to make sound
long-term investment decisions, and that companies are operating in
a business environment where there is a more level playing field
for those that are leader," Zinner said.
Silent on safe harbor
Gensler didn't touch on the liability concerns that large banks
have raised in comments to date with the SEC. He also didn't
discuss the question of auditing, either.
In their comments to the SEC, large
banks notably Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, and HSBC
urged the commission to consider creating a safe harbor to protect
them against the liability of disclosing climate risk.
The banks are members of a nonpartisan policy
and advocacy group, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), which spoke
out against the idea of having its members investigated by
government agencies or having audits of climate disclosures because
they are based on a "nascent stage of verification and data
inconsistencies."
But not all banks agree with BPI. For instance, the Amalgamated
Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Financial Corp. that
has roughly $6 billion in assets, told the SEC it supports
"audited, tabular disclosures" of a company's estimated GHG
releases that include both direct and indirect emissions, in line
with the standardized approach developed by the Partnership for
Carbon Accounting Financials, a collaboration of 118 financial
institutions with assets exceeding $38 trillion.
Backing Amalgamated Bank's position was Norges Bank Investment
Management, the investment management arm of the Norwegian central
bank that has $399.5 billion invested in listed equities and $139.9
billion in fixed income in the US.
Posted 28 July 2021 by Amena Saiyid, Senior Climate and Energy Research Analyst