PensionsEurope

Sector

Financials

Headquarters

Brussels, Belgium

Official Website

pensionseurope.eu

Climate Finance Policy Engagement Analysis

Climate Lobbying Overview: PensionsEurope has communicated high-level support for many sustainable finance policies in Europe, but has cautioned against a prescriptive approach to regulatory intervention in this area, particularly regarding pension funds.

Top-line Messaging on Climate-Related Finance Policy: In a 2022 position paper, PensionsEurope supported the objectives of the new EU Sustainable Finance Strategy in advancing the EU Green Deal and Europe’s transition to becoming a carbon-neutral continent by 2050. However, in feedback to the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) in 2023, PensionsEurope argued that ""greenwashing"" regulation should focus on parties ""seeking unfair competitive advantage"" instead of expanding legislative and supervisory powers. In 2024, it supported reiterated this position in a consultation response to EIOPA in which it supported the narrowing of the definition of ‘sustainable investment’.

Position on Taxonomies: PensionsEurope stated opposition to an expansion of the EU Taxonomy to cover environmentally harmful activities in a 2020 response to the Commission, and in a 2021 press release on the EU’s Renewed Strategy on sustainable finance. In a 2022 Position Paper, PensionsEurope stated support for “broadening the scope of the taxonomy to include more sectors in the green taxonomy”, including sectors that play a role in the transition, those that do not have a significant impact on environmental sustainability, as well as those with significant harm. It also specifically opposed a binary “green” and “brown” taxonomy.

Position on Climate Standards and Labels, and ESG Ratings: In feedback to the Commission in 2020, PensionsEurope appeared to support a European level accreditation scheme for the EU Green Bond Standard but argued that the ""narrow nature"" of the taxonomy created a ""limitation"". In 2023 comments to the European Commission, it supported regulatory action on ESG ratings and advocated for regulation to be extended to ESG data.

Position on Regulated Corporate Climate Disclosure: In 2020, PensionsEurope advocated for an ambitious review of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) in feedback to the European Commission and in 2021 1443248feedback it welcomed the extension of scope in the newly relabelled Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and advocated for more ambitious disclosure requirements. In response to the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) in 2022, PensionsEurope broadly supported the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), suggesting that materiality assessments may not be omitted without an explicit explanation or statement. However, it suggested exempting pension funds, asset managers and other financial market participants from reporting under CSRD given that ""SFDR reporting requirements already provide stakeholders with sufficient information"". In feedback to the Commission’s proposal on the ESRS in 2023, PensionsEurope argued against the approach to materiality proposed due to concerns around subjectivity, which implies support for higher ambition. It did suggest that pension funds should not be required to disclose what investee companies have deemed to be non-material. PensionsEurope has further advocated for international ESG reporting, supporting the Climate Exposure Draft proposed by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) in 2022.

Position on Integrating Climate into Investor Duties: PensionsEurope appears to have been actively engaged on policy changes to incorporate ESG issues into fiduciary duty, with mostly negative positions. In comments to the ESAs on Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), PensionsEurope argued the proposed level of investor ESG disclosure was inappropriate for pension funds and would add a high burden of compliance. In comments to the review of the SFDR Delegated Regulation in 2023, it urged the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) to minimize changes until sufficient time to meet the existing standards has passed. However, in a position paper in June 2024, it supported the need for setor-specific Regulatory Techincal Standards (RTS) under SFDR. In feedback to the Commission on the Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy in 2020, PensionsEurope again appeared to oppose further action on fiduciary duty, including on engaging with pension fund members' ESG preferences. In a 2022 position paper, it further cautioned against a requirement to survey all members regarding sustainability preferences and asked for flexibility for pension fund boards to decide whether to incorporate ESG considerations. However, in 2023 input to the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), it broadly supported the integration of sustainability preferences, although it cautioned against guidance on the approach. It also opposed additions to reporting for institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs) in 2022 comments to EIOPA including ESG data, arguing that it would increase burden and costs.

Show More

InfluenceMap Score for Climate Finance Policy Engagement

D+

Performance Band

51%

Organization Score

17%

Engagement Intensity

Primary Evidence

All primary evidence used to inform the analysis of PensionsEurope can be found in the two tabs below below. In the first tab, hyperlinks in each cell of the matrix provide access to evidence collected on PensionsEurope's direct policy engagement activities. The second tab provides a record of any links between PensionsEurope and the Industry Associations stored in the LobbyMap database.

DATA SOURCES
QUERIES
Main Web Site

Main Web Site

Corporate Media

Corporate Media

CDP Responses

CDP Responses

Direct Consultation with Governments

Direct Consultation with Governments

Media Reports

Media Reports

CEO Messaging

CEO Messaging

Financial Disclosures

Financial Disclosures

Reforming the financial sector: Does the organization support the need for systemic reforms to deliver a sustainable financial system?

1NSNA1NSNSNS

Climate Science Stance: Does the organization support a science-based response to the climate crisis?

NS1NA0NS0NS

Need for climate policy: Does the organization support the need for climate-related finance regulation?

1-1NA-1NS-1NS

Disclosures: Does the organization support regulated corporate climate disclosure?

12NA1NS1NS

Taxonomies: Does the organization support a taxonomy?

10NA0NS0NS

Financial Products and Ratings: Does the organization support climate standards, labels and/or benchmarks for financial products and policy on ESG ratings?

NS0NA-1NSNSNS

Investor Duties: Does the organization support policy to incorporate climate factors into investor duties?

00NA0-1-1NS

Prudential Regulation: Does the organization support policy to incorporate climate factors into risk management/ prudential regulation?

NSNSNA-1NSNSNS

Real Economy Climate Regulations: the organization support real economy climate policy and regulation?

NSNSNANSNSNSNS

Energy, Industry and Land Transitions: Does the company support energy, industry and land transitions as required by the IPCC?

NSNSNANSNSNSNS

Disclosure on Lobbying: Is the organization being transparent about their positions on climate legislation and policy?

2NSNANSNSNSNS

Disclosure on Relationships: Are companies being transparent about their business associations which may impact climate debate and policy?

1NSNANSNSNSNS