Investing in the Age of AI
Regulatory ComplianceArticles

EU Sustainable Finance Regulation: What Are Product-Level Disclosures?

Published: June 16, 2022
Modified: June 16, 2022
Key Takeaways

Breaking down EU Taxonomy and SFDR regulations

The EU Taxonomy and the Sustainable Financial Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) are closely intertwined regulations. Together they affect various stakeholders in different ways. One of whom are Financial Market Participants, or FMPs (i.e. investment firms, asset managers, credit institutions, etc.), who need to disclose details about products sold in the EU as “sustainable” (labeled as article 8 or 9 in the SFDR, see definitions below), on top of their entity-level disclosure requirements. 

Navigating Complexity in EU Taxonomy Reporting

The regulatory technical standards (RTS) outlines how FMPs should report the required information using three different templates for product-level disclosures (pre-contractual, periodic and websites) for two separate products (articles 8 and 9). Clearly these standards can be complex. To help demystify these templates we have created a brief list of the main topics addressed: 

    1. Disclosing to what extent the sustainable (or environmental/social for article 8) objective is being met
    2. How Principal Adverse Impacts (PAIs) on sustainability factors are considered
    3. Identifying investments with the highest portfolio weight in the product (or investment strategy for article 8)
    4. Disclosing the proportion of sustainability-related investments, including the EU Taxonomy alignment (including and excluding sovereigns) and the percentage of transition and enabling activities (or asset allocation for article 8)
    5. Describing the actions taken to attain sustainable investment objectives during the reference period (or the sustainability performance compared to an index benchmark)
    6. How the article 9 product performed against the chosen benchmark (or the availability of product specific information online for article 8 products)

Additionally, it is important to note that double counting should be avoided when reporting the total alignment with the EU Taxonomy for article 8 and 9 products. For example, an activity in climate change mitigation can be under the transition activity type but in enabling under the climate change adaptation objective. This should only be counted once, in either of these two activity types when reporting. Clarity AI considers this automatically in their portfolio aggregation calculation.

In fact, our new template report download functionality reduces the time and stress spent on these regulation activities by allowing users to automatically generate the alignment charts and fill out the activity types with one single click, eliminating  the need to manually fill it out.  

Research and Insights

Latest news and articles

Climate

Data-Center Power Has Quadrupled. Big Tech’s Reported Scope 2 Has Done the Opposite

Data center power demand has quadrupled due to the artificial intelligence boom, but Big Tech’s reported carbon footprints are doing the opposite. Global carbon accounting rules are at the core of this inconsistency: under current greenhouse gas global (GHG) reporting standards, companies can report their electricity-related emissions (i.e., scope 2) using different accounting rules: Companies…

Geopolitical Risk and Portfolio Decisions: How Investors Are Adapting Policies, Exclusions, and Oversight

Geopolitical risk is currently reshaping how investors think about exclusions, investment policy, and portfolio oversight. At the same time, it is rewriting the macroeconomic playbook that long-term capital owners have relied on for decades. Trade fragmentation, shifting alliances, and a more interventionist policy environment are forcing investors to reconcile top-down macro views with bottom-up portfolio…

AI

AI Strategy for Financial Services: What’s Actually Working in 2026

AI is reshaping financial services faster than most firms can absorb it. What separates the winners from those still untangling decisions made two years ago?