The European Commission’s proposal to reform the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) marks a decisive moment in Europe’s sustainable finance journey. By proposing to replace the existing Article 8 and Article 9 designations with a new structure built around product categories, the Commission is seeking a shift toward clearer, more prescriptive classifications that would be – in theory – easier for end-investors to understand.

This shift has been years in the making. It follows widespread criticism of features of the original SFDR, continued concerns about greenwashing, and EU fund-naming rules that – according to Clarity AI research – led more than 25% of ESG funds to drop or change ESG terms in their names. Alongside developments such as the EU’s recent Omnibus I, the new proposal also reflects a broader wave of so-called simplification measures.

The policy objective, however, remains unclear. Alongside simplification and improving clarity for end-investors, the EU has signalled its intention to maintain and possibly grow the amount of AuM in sustainable funds. If, therefore, the expectation is that all A8 and A9 funds reclassify under the new categories, the market could end up with a similar situation as before with A8 – “or ESG Basics” – acting as a “catch-all” category representing a broad spectrum of sustainability approaches and hindering the transparency of sustainability objectives.

Strengths of the proposal and the challenges ahead

Against that backdrop, the good in today’s proposal is evident. Clear product categories should help investors distinguish between marketing language and genuine sustainability intent. By formally recognising transition strategies alongside more general sustainability objectives, the EU is acknowledging that decarbonisation is not only about funding what is already green, but also about backing the companies that must evolve. Impact is also explicitly recognised, and parts of the reporting framework – especially at entity level – are streamlined, a welcome correction to the complexity that built up around the existing SFDR.

But the proposal also brings real challenges. Many are drawing parallels to the UK’s SDR regulation. While these comparisons are limited in their accuracy, it is fair to say that the SDR to date has been a qualified success at best, with the lack of traction of its own transition category acting as a cautionary tale. The lack of UK “mixed fund” goals also points to a challenge for funds with multi-faceted objectives. 

Moving from the familiar Article 8 and 9 landscape into the new Article 7, 8 and 9 framework may not represent meaningful change in practice and will not be painless. Asset managers face non-negligible transition costs as they reclassify funds, analyse portfolios and adapt internal processes. And while the new categories set clearer expectations, there is still a large element of subjectivity and it remains to be seen how far they will go in protecting consumers and reducing greenwashing. The removal of Article 2(17) seems more respiration than inspiration with the sustainable investment definition being effectively replaced by something that is very similar.

RELATED ARTICLE: Clarity AI Launches Tool to Help Fund Managers Navigate Europe’s Sustainable Investment Rules

There are also legitimate concerns about an uneven playing field, with products outside the new classification subject to virtually no disclosure requirements. This could discourage funds from using the categories and will make it difficult for end-investors to compare categorised and non-categorised products. 

A central theme in the new proposal are the minimum standards that sit at the heart of the three fund categories. Categorised funds will need to demonstrate their approach to externalities – including adherence to specific exclusion criteria – and, beyond that, substantiate how they contribute to their chosen sustainability outcomes. There is flexibility to select the metrics that best reflect their objectives as long as they are justified, though the proposal does mention some potential indicators specifically, including the original principal adverse indicators, Taxonomy KPIs, credible transition plans, Paris-aligned or climate transition benchmarks, EU Green Bonds, exclusionary data and more. In this landscape, data and transparency therefore become even more critical, both to communicate transparently with end-investors and to avoid any perception of greenwashing.

What asset managers should do next

The immediate task for asset managers is to understand what these changes mean for their strategies and clients. Article 8 and 9 funds – and even many Article 6 – will need to be reviewed and mapped to the requirements under the new SFDR. Speed will also matter: transition to the new criteria versus today’s framework will be essential to minimise disruption and maintain client confidence. Although the legislative process will continue, the direction of travel is unmistakable. Europe is moving toward a more structured and outcome-oriented sustainable finance regime, one that rewards clarity, evidence and credibility. Financial institutions that begin preparing now will be best positioned to navigate the transition and continue serving clients with transparency and confidence. The success of the EU in continuing to attract capital towards sustainable investments will depend on the market transitioning smoothly to the new requirements.

Follow ESG News on LinkedIn