Abstract:Building a common EU framework for sustainable finance undoubtedly implies the integration of sound and sustainable processes and skills across the whole structure and governance of financial institutions. Consequently, a new financial paradigm is going to be needed, which will require the strengthening of investor care and protection, so contributing to the restoration of trust in the financial sector. In particular, on 18 December 2018, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) launched two public consultations on draft technical advice for the integration of sustainability risks and factors into the Directive on Markets in Financial Instruments (MiFID), the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), and the Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities Directive (UCITS) regimes, with the aim to clarify the so-called fiduciary duties and to increase transparency in the financial services industry. However, the success of the EU initiatives on investor protection regulation may be seriously endangered by the existence of many challenges, weaknesses, and contradictions raised by economists and stakeholders in relation to the definition of sustainability, ESG data availability and reliability, the development of an EU taxonomy, conflicts of interest, product governance, and suitability assessment. This paper starts by briefly analyzing the recent developments of the regulation of sustainable finance at the global level, then offers a more detailed view on the establishment of a common regime on sustainable finance in the EU, with particular reference to the action plan ‘Financing Sustainable Growth’. Then, it examines the recent proposals for regulation on sustainable finance, specifically considering the barriers to the integration of sustainability risks and factors in the EU investor protection regulation—with particular reference to investment services—with respect to its four main dimensions: (1) disclosure of product information, (2) conduct of business (COB) rules, (3) product governance and intervention, and (4) financial education. The paper concludes that the EU reforming proposals, though admirable, risk oversimplifying a complex issue that cannot be easily solved without considering its practical implications on each category of financial operators in the performance of different financial services.

The drivers behind the reporting obligations of EMIR, MiFIR and SFTR

On the Legislative Ongoing of the Transparency of OTC Derivatives in Europe and the United States and the Implications for China

The MiFIR Trading Obligation: Impact on Trading Volume and Liquidity

SFTR technical standards: Turning data into intelligence

Does the Directive of the European Union on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information improve reporting?

The demand for central clearing: To clear or not to clear, that is the question!

Disclosure and Enforcement under the EU Listing Act

Central clearing counterparties’ recovery and resolution: Where do we stand in the European Union?

Unintended Consequences of the Global Derivatives Market Reform

Will the EU Commission Successfully Integrate Sustainability Risks and Factors in the Investor Protection Regime? A Research Agenda

Transnationalism and Financial Regulation Change: A Case of Derivative Markets

Compressing Over-the-Counter Markets

The Regulation of Corporate Governance in European Financial Market Infrastructures: A Critique

Accounting for the Level of Success of Firms in Achieving Their Objectives for Using Derivatives

Neuordnung der Finanzmärkte in Europa durch MiFID II/MiFIR

The political economy of the G20 agenda on financial regulation

The Limits of Interest: Moral economy and public engagement in the regulation of derivatives in the United States

Green Quadriga? - EU - Taxonomy, TCFD, Non-Financial-Reporting Directive and EBA ESG Pillar III/ IFRS Foundation

Innovation and deadlock in global financial governance: transatlantic coordination failure in OTC derivatives regulation

Central Counterparties are Too Big for the European Securities and Markets Authority (Alone): Constructive Critique of the 2019 CCP Supervision Regulation

FRM Financial Risk Meter for Emerging Markets