The May 21st deadline for compliance with ESMA’s fund naming guidelines has passed, but new research from Clarity AI reveals that as many as 56% of ESG funds may still be non-compliant. Many asset managers are unknowingly exposed to companies in breach of OECD and UNGC principles, despite apparent alignment on other exclusion criteria like weapons, tobacco, and fossil fuels.
For institutional investors and asset managers, this poses a serious regulatory and reputational risk. With national regulators interpreting the rules differently, funds could be flagged for greenwashing, even if they’ve followed standard market solutions. Understanding how to assess these breaches accurately is now critical to protecting your portfolios and your credibility.
This research brief offers a detailed look at why non-compliance persists and how investors can avoid being caught off guard.
Download to discover:
- Why 56% of ESG may be in breach of ESMA’s Names Rule.
- How a handful of large-cap companies are responsible for widespread exposure across ESG funds.
- What’s driving the gap between regulatory expectations and market assumptions, particularly around OECD and UNGC breaches.
- The policy clarifications still needed from ESMA and the European Commission, and how their absence creates a risk of fragmentation across the EU.