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. 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.
    3. Federica Ielasi & Paolo Ceccherini & Pietro Zito, 2020. "Integrating ESG Analysis into Smart Beta Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-22, November.
    4. 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. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    2. 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.
    3. Benito Umana Hermosilla & Juan Cabas Monje & Juan Rodríguez Navarrete & Miguel Villablanca Fuentes, 2015. "Variables explicativas del comportamiento del inversor de multifondos. Un análisis desde la perspectiva de los inversores en el sistema de pensiones chileno," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, April.
    4. Marcin Lewicki & Robert Romanowski, 2016. "Społeczne uwarunkowania stosowania metod neuromarketingowych w założeniach ekonomii behawioralnej," Collegium of Economic Analysis Annals, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis, issue 40, pages 257-272.
    5. Emmanuel PETIT, 2010. "The role of regret in the persistence of anomalies in financial markets (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2010-07, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    6. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2021. "Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1176-1248, September.
    7. Robert J. B. Goudie & Sach Mukherjee & Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & Andrew J. Oswald & Stephen Wu, 2011. "Happiness as a Driver of Risk-Avoiding Behavior," CESifo Working Paper Series 3451, CESifo.
    8. 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.
    9. R. Urbatsch, 2012. "The paradox of voting intelligently," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 511-524, March.
    10. Prashanth Ravula, 2023. "Impact of delivery performance on online review ratings: the role of temporal distance of ratings," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(2), pages 149-159, June.
    11. Mitchell, James & Weale, Martin R., 2007. "The rationality and reliability of expectations reported by British households: micro evidence from the British household panel survey," Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies 2007,19, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    12. 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.
    13. Eduardo Wiesner, 2008. "The Political Economy of Macroeconomic Policy Reform in Latin America," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 12913.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Willman, Alpo, 2007. "Sequential optimization, front-loaded information, and U.S. consumption," Working Paper Series 765, European Central Bank.
    17. Burnham, Terence C. & Cesarini, David & Wallace, Björn & Johannesson, Magnus & Lichtenstein, Paul, 2007. "Billiards and Brains: Cognitive Ability and Behavior in a p-Beauty Contest," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 684, Stockholm School of Economics.
    18. Laurie Bréban, 2019. "Bonheur et richesse : Adam Smith face à l’économie du bonheur," Post-Print hal-03385305, HAL.
    19. Stroh, Tim & Mention, Anne-Laure & Duff, Cameron, 2023. "The impact of evolved psychological mechanisms on innovation and adoption: A systematic literature review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    20. 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.

    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.