IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i22p6292-d285106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Michele Siri

    (Jean Monnet Professor on Financial and Insurance Markets Regulation, University of Genoa, Via Balbi 22, 16126 Genoa, Italy)

  • Shanshan Zhu

    (Post-Doctoral Researcher in Corporate Law, University of Genoa, Via Balbi 22, 16126 Genoa, Italy)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Michele Siri & Shanshan Zhu, 2019. "Will the EU Commission Successfully Integrate Sustainability Risks and Factors in the Investor Protection Regime? A Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6292-:d:285106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6292/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6292/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dirk Schoenmaker & Willem Schramade, 2019. "Investing for long-term value creation," Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 356-377, October.
    2. Hervé Stolowy & Luc Paugam, 2018. "The expansion of non-financial reporting: an exploratory study," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(5), pages 525-548, July.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Raymond J. Jones & Timothy M. Reilly & Marcus Z. Cox & Brooklyn M. Cole, 2017. "Gender Makes a Difference: Investigating Consumer Purchasing Behavior and Attitudes Toward Corporate Social Responsibility Policies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 133-144, March.
    5. Sendhil Mullainathan & Marianne Bertrand, 2001. "Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 67-72, May.
    6. Dyck, Alexander & Lins, Karl V. & Roth, Lukas & Wagner, Hannes F., 2019. "Do institutional investors drive corporate social responsibility? International evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(3), pages 693-714.
    7. Richard H. Thaler, 2000. "From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 133-141, Winter.
    8. Michael Luchs & Todd Mooradian, 2012. "Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 127-144, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marie Scholer & Lazaro Cuesta Barbera, 2020. "The EU sustainable finance taxonomy from the perspective of the insurance and reinsurance sector," EIOPA Financial Stability Report - Thematic Articles 17, EIOPA, Risks and Financial Stability Department.
    2. Patrizia Tettamanzi & Riccardo Gotti Tedeschi & Michael Murgolo, 2024. "The European Union (EU) green taxonomy: codifying sustainability to provide certainty to the markets," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 27111-27136, November.
    3. Marius Cristian Miloș & Laura Raisa Miloș & Flavia Barna & Claudiu Boțoc, 2021. "Impact of MiFID II on Romanian Stock Market Liquidity—Comparative Analysis with a Developed Stock Market," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Artur Yu. Abuzov & Omer Allagabo Omer Mustafa, 2022. "Institutional Approach to Financial Market Regulation: Problems and Perspectives," Economic Consultant, Scientific and Educational Initiative LLC, vol. 3(2), pages 43-51.
    5. Federica Ielasi & Paolo Ceccherini & Pietro Zito, 2020. "Integrating ESG Analysis into Smart Beta Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-22, November.
    6. Alessio M. Pacces, 2021. "Will the EU Taxonomy Regulation Foster Sustainable Corporate Governance?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giuseppe Pernagallo & Benedetto Torrisi, 2020. "A theory of information overload applied to perfectly efficient financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 223-236, October.
    2. Bruno S. Frey & David A. Savage & Benno Torgler, 2011. "Behavior under Extreme Conditions: The Titanic Disaster," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(1), pages 209-222, Winter.
    3. Muñoz-Muñoz, E. & Crespo-Cebada, E. & Mirón-Sanguino, A.S. & Díaz-Caro, C., 2025. "Investors personality correlates with sustainability preferences in investment – A choice experiment with Spanish investors," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Daniel C. Kenny & Juan Castilla-Rho, 2022. "No Stakeholder Is an Island: Human Barriers and Enablers in Participatory Environmental Modelling," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, February.
    6. Sunwoo T. Lee & Kyoung Tae Kim, 2022. "A Decomposition Analysis of Racial/Ethnic Differences in Financial Knowledge and Overconfidence," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 815-831, December.
    7. Willman, Alpo, 2007. "Sequential optimization, front-loaded information, and U.S. consumption," Working Paper Series 765, European Central Bank.
    8. Jakub Steiner & Colin Stewart, 2016. "Perceiving Prospects Properly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(7), pages 1601-1631, July.
    9. Alois Stutzer & Bruno S. Frey, 2008. "Stress that Doesn't Pay: The Commuting Paradox," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 110(2), pages 339-366, June.
    10. David Johnstone, 2002. "Behavioral and Prescriptive Explanations of a Reverse Sunk Cost Effect," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 209-242, November.
    11. Andrew E. Clark & Paul Frijters & Michael A. Shields, 2006. "Income and happiness: Evidence, explanations and economic implications," PSE Working Papers halshs-00590436, HAL.
    12. Victor I. Espinosa & William Hongsong Wang & Jesús Huerta de Soto, 2022. "Principles of Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Decision-Making for Behavioral Development Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Pennings, Joost M.E. & Garcia, Philip, 2004. "Strategic Risk Management Behavior: What Can Utility Functions Tell Us?," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20388, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Chowdhury, Md Iftekhar Hasan & Hasan, Mudassar & Bouri, Elie & Tang, Yayan, 2024. "Emotional spillovers in the cryptocurrency market," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    15. Dubravka Vlašić & Katarina Poldrugovac, 2022. "Non-Financial Information in Hotel Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-13, August.
    16. Joanna Dzionek-Kozlowska, 2014. "Economics in Times of Crisis. In Search of a New Paradigm," Lodz Economics Working Papers 5/2014, University of Lodz, Faculty of Economics and Sociology.
    17. Ouazad, Amine & Page, Lionel, 2013. "Students' perceptions of teacher biases: Experimental economics in schools," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 116-130.
    18. Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois, 2014. "A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 232-250, September.
    19. Zhang, Zhuang & Chizema, Amon & Kuo, Jing-Ming & Zhang, Qingjing, 2022. "Managerial risk-reducing incentives and social and exchange capital," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(6).
    20. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-572 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Christian T. Elbaek & Ifeatu Uzodinma & Zilia Ismagilova & Panagiotis Mitkidis, 2022. "Suppetia ex machina: How can AI technologies aid financial decision-making of people with low socioeconomic status?," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 6(S1), pages 49-57, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6292-:d:285106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.