COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European single access point providing centralised access to publicly available information of relevance to financial services, capital markets and sustainability Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Regulations as regards the establishment and functioning of the European single access point Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain Directives as regards the establishment and functioning of the European single access point
Date: 2022-01-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission
Subjects: European Securities and Markets Authority, access to information, capital market, data collection, digital single market, disclosure of information, financial legislation, financial services, information system, open data

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.1.2022  SWD(2021) 344 final/2  CORRIGENDUM  This document corrects document SWD(2021) 344 final of 25.11.2021  Correction of two non-substantial errors on pages 122 and 124  The text shall read as follows: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European single access point providing centralised access to publicly available information of relevance to financial services, capital markets and sustainability Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council          amending certain Regulations as regards the establishment and functioning of the European single access point                       Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council          amending certain Directives as regards the establishment and functioning of the European single access point {COM(2021) 723 final} - {SEC(2021) 572 final} - {SWD(2021) 345 final} - {COM(2021) 724 final} - {COM(2021) 725 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 6 

1.1  Political context ................................................................................................. 6 
1.2  Market and legal context ................................................................................... 7 

2 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................. 11 

2.1  What is/are the problems? ............................................................................... 12 
2.2  What are the problem drivers? ........................................................................ 13 
2.3  What are the consequences? ............................................................................ 17 
2.4  How will the problem evolve? ........................................................................ 21 

3  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 23 

3.1  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 24 
3.2  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................... 24 
3.3  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .......................................................... 24 

4 

OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 25 

4.1  General objectives ........................................................................................... 25 
4.2  Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 26 

5  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .................................................................... 27 

5.1  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .................................. 27 
5.2  Description of the policy options .................................................................... 29 
5.3  Options discarded at an early stage ................................................................. 41 

6  WHAT  ARE  THE  IMPACTS  OF  THE  POLICY  OPTIONS  AND  HOW  DO  THEY 

COMPARE?........................................................................................................................................ 41 

6.1 
6.2 

6.3 

6.4 
6.5 

Impacts and of policy options on the scope of information ............................ 41 
Impact  and comparison of the policy options  regarding the format of 
the information accessible via ESAP .............................................................. 46 
Impact and comparison  of the policy options regarding the collection 
of the information accessible via ESAP and the interconnection of the 
existing collection points ................................................................................. 50 
Impact and comparison of the policy options regarding open data ................. 53 
Impact and comparison of the policy options regarding governance .............. 56 

7 

PREFERRED “AGGREGATED” OPTION ....................................................................................... 65 

7.1  Summary of preferred aggregated option ........................................................ 65 
7.2 
Impacts of preferred aggregated option ........................................................... 67 
Implementation of preferred aggregated option via phased approach ............ 74 
7.3 
7.4  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) ............................................ 74 

8 

HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 74 

8.1  Monitoring the extent with which the specific objectives are met .................. 74 
8.2  Other sources of monitoring ............................................................................ 77 

1 

 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 78 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT ................................................ 86 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 95 

ANNEX  4:  WORKSHOPS,  BILATERAL  MEETINGS  WITH  STAKEHOLDERS,  EXPERT 

GROUPS, AND COMMITTEES ..................................................................................................... 101 

ANNEX 5: BENCHMARKING – THE US EDGAR AND JAPANESE EDINET ................................... 120 

ANNEX 6: USERS ..................................................................................................................................... 126 

ANNEX 7: SMES ....................................................................................................................................... 129 

ANNEX 8: UNION STRATEGIES IN RELATION TO ESAP................................................................. 138 

ANNEX  9:  LIST  OF  RELEVANT  EU  LEGAL  ACTS  AND  CATEGORISATION  OF  THE 

INFORMATION - OPEN PUBLIC REPORTING OBLIGATIONS ............................................... 140 

ANNEX  10:  NATIONAL  COMPETENT  AUTHORITIES,  OAMS  AND  BUSINESS 

REGISTERS PER MEMBER STATE.............................................................................................. 144 

ANNEX 11: MAPPING OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE DATA IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ESAP 

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS – BR-AG .................................................................................... 148 

ANNEX 12: COHERENCE OF ESAP WITH RELEVANT EU POLICIES............................................. 158 

ANNEX  13:  HOW  ARE  THE  PREFERRED  OPTIONS  SUPPORTING  A  FUTURE  PROOF 

EVOLUTIONARY ESAP ................................................................................................................ 163 

ANNEX 14: ANCILLARY/TECHNICAL/NON-CORE ASPECTS OF THE ESAP ................................ 164 

ANNEX 15: POLICY OPTIONS DISCARDED AT AN EARLY STAGE .............................................. 178 

ANNEX  16:  PHASED  APPROACH  FOR 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  PREFERRED 

AGGREGATED OPTION ................................................................................................................ 181 

ANNEX 17: INFRASTRUCTURE AND COSTS ..................................................................................... 185 

ANNEX 18: LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIER ............................................................................................ 189 

ANNEX  19:  TERMS  OF  USE  –  AN  OVERVIEW  OF  FIVE  MAJOR  REPRESENTATIVE 

FINANCIAL CENTRES IN THE EU .............................................................................................. 192 

ANNEX  20:  PORTABLE  DATA  /  DATA  EXTRACTABLE  FORMATS  /  MACHINE 

READABILITY ................................................................................................................................ 193 

ANNEX 21: BR-AG SUMMARY REPORT ............................................................................................. 195 

ANNEX 22: PRIVATE INITIATIVES – AN OVERVIEW ...................................................................... 203 

2 

 
 
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Number of public reporting obligations per legislative framework ................................................. 7 
Figure 2: Number of reporting requirements affecting entities, by type of information ................................ 8 
Figure 3: Electronic format of entities’ public information encountered by users ........................................ 11 
Figure 4: Problem Tree .................................................................................................................................. 12 
Figure 5: Results of the IMF’s Capital Market Union Survey ......................................................................... 20 
Figure 6 : Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 25 
Figure 7: Cumulative number of public reporting obligations implemented per phase and per option 
examined ...................................................................................................................................................... 46 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Intervention logic ............................................................................................................................ 26 
Table 2: Overview of how the 5 key dimensions address the specific objectives .......................................... 31 
Table 3: Overview of the policy options for the 5 key dimensions ................................................................ 31 
Table 4: Funding sources per governance model .......................................................................................... 63 
Table 5 Overview of the impact of the policy options for the 5 key dimensions ........................................... 64 
Table 6: Monitoring whether specific objectives are met ............................................................................. 75 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
Term or 
acronym 
AI 
AIFM or AIFMs 
AIFMD 

APA 
API 
BRIS 
CCP 
CMU 
CSD 
CSDR 
CSV 

CTP 
EBA 
EDGAR 
EDINET 
EEAP 
EIOPA 
ESA 
ESAP 
ESEF 
ESG 
ESMA 
EuSEF 
EuVECA 
FISMA 

HLF 
HTML 
IASB 
IFRS 
IMF 
iXBRL 

KID 
MAR 
MiFID II 

MiFIR 

MTFs 
NCA or NCAs 
OAMs 

GLOSSARY 

Meaning or definition 

Artificial intelligence 
Alternative Investment Fund Manager 
Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 
June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers 
Approved Publication Arrangement 
Application Programming Interface 
Business Registers Interconnection System 
Central clearing counterparty 
Capital Markets Union 
Central Securities Depository 
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive 
Comma Separated Value(s) (database export/import format and file 
extension) 
Consolidated Tape Provider 
European Banking Authority 
Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval  
Electronic Disclosure for Investors' NETwork 
European Electronic Access Point 
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority 
European system of financial supervision 
European Single Access Point 
European Single Electronic Format  
Environment, Social and Governance (sustainability related topics) 
European Securities and Markets Authority 
European Social Entrepreneurship Fund 
European Venture Capital Fund 
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital 
Markets Union 
High-Level Forum on the Capital Markets Union 
HyperText Markup Language (and file extension) 
International Accounting Standards Board 
International Financial Reporting Standard(s), issued by the IASB 
International Monetary Fund 
Inline  eXtensible Business Reporting Language is an open standard that 
enables a single document to provide both human-readable and structured, 
machine-readable data 
Key Information Document 
Market Abuse Regulation 
Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 
May 2014 on markets in financial instruments (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 349, 
as amended) 
Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments (OJ L 173, 
12.6.2014, p. 84, as amended) 
Multilateral trading facility 
National Competent Authority(ies) 
Officially Appointed Mechanisms 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OTC 
PDF 
POC 
PEPP 
PRIIPs 
Retail investor 
SEC 
SFDR 
SME 
TESG 
TFEU 
UCITS 
URD 
XBRL 

xHTML 

XML 

Over-the-counter 
Portable Document Format (Adobe Acrobat) 
Proof of Concept 
pan-European Personal Pension Product 
Packaged Retail Investment and Insurance Products Regulation) 
An investor who is not a professional investor  
Securities & Exchange Commission (US government) 
Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation 
Small and Medium Enterprises 
Technical Expert Stakeholder Group on SMEs  
Functioning of the European Union  
Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities 
Universal Registration Documents  
eXtensible Business Reporting Language is an open international standard 
for digital business reporting, managed by a global not for profit consortium, 
XBRL International. 
Extensible HyperText Markup Language is a hybrid language between XML 
and HTML that allows humans and machines to read data 
Extensible Markup Language is a simple and extensible text-based format 
for representing structured information 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

1.1 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

Political context  

The  Capital  Markets  Union  (CMU)  Action  Plan  of  September  2020  aims  to  foster 
diversified sources of finance for companies and to tackle barriers to the flow of capital. 
In these respects, the High Level Forum on CMU1 found that access to data by investors 
is crucial to reach a fully-fledged Capital Markets Union. SMEs or start-ups - need access 
to  the  full  range  of  funding  sources,  including  private  and  public  equity,  to  finance 
innovation  and  growth  over  the  long-term.  The  International  Monetary  Fund  (IMF) 
underlines the lack of integration as regards information at the EU level and believes that 
one  of  the  obstacles  to  CMU  is  insufficient  transparency,  including  access  to  data  on 
listed and unlisted entities2. 

The  Commission  is  equally  committed  to  achieving  a  green  transition  of  the  EU 
economy, as set out in the European Green Deal communication of December 20193 and 
its  Strategy  for  Financing  the  Transition  to  a  Sustainable  Economy4.  In  the  European 
Green  Deal  Investment  Plan  of  January  2020,  the  Commission  reiterated  the  need  to 
place  sustainable  finance  at  the  heart  of  the  financial  system.  This  is  a  precondition  to 
create  an  enabling  framework  for  private  investments  in  sustainable  projects  and 
activities.  To  further  support  the  developments  in  this  area,  the  Commission  tabled  a 
revision  of  the  Corporate  Sustainable  Reporting  in  April  2021  which  will  improve  and 
expand  information  published  by  entities  as  regards  Environmental,  Social  and 
Governance (ESG) matters5.  

Overall, making  the EU fit for the digital age over this decade is  a key priority of 
the  Commission.  Europe  wants  to  strengthen  its  digital  sovereignty  and  set  its  own 
standards, with a focus on data, technology, and infrastructure6. Empowering businesses 
in a sustainable and more prosperous digital future will need the digitalisation of public 
services and the digital  transformation  of businesses.  Industrial and commercial data 
are key drivers of the digital economy. In its European Data Strategy7, the Commission 
declared  its  intention  to  make  more  data  available  for  use  in  the  economy  and  society. 
The strategy suggests the roll out of common data spaces in crucial sectors, including the 
financial sector. The Commission Digital Finance Strategy8 sets out general lines on how 
Europe  can  support  the  digital  transformation  of  finance  in  the  coming  years,  and  in 
particular to promote a data-driven finance. 

1 An expert group composed  of highly experienced industry executives and top international experts and 
scholars. 
2 A Capital Market Union for Europe, IMF staff discussion note, 10.09.2019. 
3 Communication: The European Green Deal, European Commission, 11.12.2019. 
4 Commission Strategy for financing the transition to a sustainable economy, 6 July 2021. 
5 In addition, the evaluation of the INSPIRE Directive by the Commission will also analyse the coherence 
between the INSPIRE Directive, the Public Access to Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/EC and 
Directive 2019/1024/EC on open data and the re-use of public sector information. 
6 Commission priorities for 2019-24 , A Europe fit for the digital age 
7 Communication: A European strategy for data, European Commission, 19.02.2020. 
8 Finance Package, Communication: Digital Finance Strategy, European Commission, 24.09.2020. 

6 

 
                                                 
1.2 

Market and legal context 

Most  legislation  in  the  financial  services  and  capital  markets  area9  require  the 
disclosure of information to the public, as shown in figure 1. There are around 20010 
public  reporting  obligations  in  total  impinging  on  private  entities,  i.e.  companies  that 
are  issuers  of  securities,  asset  managers,  funds,  banks,  insurance  entities,  credit  rating 
agencies,  auditors,  advisors,  market  intermediaries.  Further  details  are  provided  in 
Annex 9. Public reporting obligations also impinge on regulators or other public bodies 
(not included in the figure). 

Figure 1: Number of public reporting obligations per legislative framework 

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

3

D
A

30

19

11

12

12

1 1

1 1

2

1

2 2 1

3

1

3

14 14

6

9

5

2

1 1

R
A
R
C

D
R
C

R
R
C

R
D
S
C

F
I
T
L
E

I

R
M
E

F
E
S
u
E

D
O
C
I
F

A
C
E
V
u
E

D
F
I

R
F
I

R
A
M

I
I

P
R
O

I

I
I

D
I
F
I
M

R
I
F
I
M

F
M
M

P
P
E
P

R
P

s
P

I
I

R
P

T
I
M
E
R

D
M
F
I
A

R
u
A

R
M
B

D
R
R
B

e
v
i
t
c
e
r
i
d
s
d
n
o
b
d
e
r
e
v
o
C

12

11

1

R
S
S

5

I
I
y
c
n
e
v
l
o
S

1

R
T
F
S

s
t
h
g
i
r

l

s
r
e
d
o
h
e
r
a
h
S

3

l

n
o
i
t
a
u
g
e
R
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
t
i
r
u
c
e
S

y
t
i
l
i

i

b
a
n
a
t
s
u
S

5

S
T
I
C
U

3

i

d
b
r
e
v
o
-
e
k
a
T

8

e
v
i
t
c
e
r
i
D
y
c
n
e
r
a
p
s
n
a
r
T

Source - BR-AG 

Public  disclosure  requirements  were  introduced  –  inter  alia  –  to  ensure  a  high  level  of 
investor  protection,  to  facilitate  cross-border  investments,  to  reduce  asymmetry  of 
information  between  company  insiders,  external  investors,  market  participants,  and  for 
some reporting obligations (corporate sustainability reporting) also with a view to inform 
a broad range of stakeholders beyond financial services. 

In  order  to  make  sound  investment  decisions,  investors  in  capital  markets  must 
have access to information, including information published by entities, whether entity-
related  or  product-related.  Investor  confidence  and  willingness  to  invest  in  capital 
markets,  will  depend  on  the  easy  availability,  quality  and  comparability  of  this 
information. Likewise, the same is true for financial services in general. 

There  are  various  types  of  information  that  entities  must  publish  due  to  reporting 
obligations11. As shown in figure 2, most of these are entity-related with, for instance, the 

9 In relation to inter alia capital markets, credit rating, investment, lending, insurance, asset management, 
funds (including UCITs), sustainable finance – whole list in Annex 14. 
10 Source: BR-AG. 
11  A  reporting  requirement  corresponds  to  a  legal  provision  requiring  the  publication  of  information  that 
represent a coherent dataset. Such coherence usually stems from the fact that the reporting requirement is 
contained in a specific Article of the EU legislation. For example, considering the Transparency Directive, 
reporting  requirements  would  include  8  reporting  requirements  corresponding  to  Article  2  (disclosure  of 
home  Member  State),  4  Annual  Financial  report  together  with  Audit  report),  5  (Half  yearly  financial 
report),  6  (Country-by-country  report),  12  (publication  of  notifications  received,  14  (publication  of  the 

7 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
measurement  of  a  company’s  financial  performance,  the  description  of  its  governance 
and  its  environmental  or  social  policies.  Product-related  information  is  the  next  typical 
type  of  information  with,  for  instance  Key  Information  Documents  prepared  by  those 
who produce or sell investment products12. These may be intermingled in a certain type 
of  reporting  obligations  as  shown  in  the  figure.  A  few  additional  reporting  obligations 
relate to compliance with certain rules or relate to certain events relevant for the markets. 

Figure 2: Number of reporting requirements affecting entities, by type of information 

Compliance

Product / Service, Policy / Governance at entity level

Product / Service

Policy / Governance EU/national level, Product /…

Policy / Governance EU/national level

Policy / Governance at entity level, Product / Service

Policy / Governance at entity level

Financial, Product / Service

Financial / Sustainability at entity level

Event

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Source: BR-AG 

Certain types of information are particularly valued. For instance, in response to the 
move  towards  sustainable  finance,  there  is  an  increasing  market  push  to  get  access  to 
sustainability–related  information.  The  Commission  proposed  in  April  2021  the 
Corporate  Sustainability  Reporting  Directive  (CSRD  to  expand  and  improve  ESG 
disclosures by private entities. Many stakeholders flagged this as critical information  to 
support  the  identification  of  sustainability  risks  and  opportunities  and  prevent 
greenwashing and to comply with the EU obligations in the financial services. 

Acknowledging that access to information is an important aspect of capital markets, 
regulators of major third country market places have implemented a central access 
point to machine readable data13: 

 

In  the  U.S.,  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  implemented  the  Electronic 
Data  Gathering,  Analysis,  and  Retrieval  (EDGAR)  system  in  the  1990’s.  EDGAR 
performs  automated  collection,  validation,  indexing,  acceptance,  and  forwarding  of 
submissions  by regulated  entities  and others who are required by law to file forms. 
EDGAR  offers  a  Federal  access  point  to  users  to  information  that  can  be  often 
machine  readable14.  Information  is  freely  available  on  an  itemised  basis  via  the 
Internet. 

proportion of its own shares), 15 (disclosure of total number of voting rights and capital at the end of each 
calendar month) and 16 (disclosure of any change in the rights attaching to the various classes of shares). 
12  See  also  study  by  Deloitte,  Regulatory  framework  analysis  for  potential  integration  into  the  European 
Electronic Access Point (EEAP), June 2019. 
13 See benchmark in Annex 5. 
14 In terms of format, certain forms must be filed in XBRL format, others in XML format. The US GAAP 
taxonomy  underpinning  certain  XBRL  forms  is  developed  by  the  US  Financial  Accounting  Standards 

8 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
 

 

In  Japan,  the  Financial  Supervisory  Authority  launched  EDINET（Electronic 
Disclosure  for  Investors'  NETwork)  in  2008.  EDINET  is  an  electronic  corporate 
disclosure  system  under  the  Financial  Instruments  and  Exchange  Act.  All  listed  or 
major  fund-raising  entities  and  investment  funds  in  Japan  are  required  to  file  their 
disclosure  documents  using  the  system,  which  are  then  made  publicly  available  on 
the  Internet  through  EDINET.  All  filers  are,  in  principle,  mandated  to  submit  in 
XBRL  format  the  financial  statements  included  in  their  Annual  Securities  Reports, 
Semi-annual  Securities  Reports,  Quarterly  Securities  Reports  and  Securities 
Registration Statements for fiscal years starting in or after April 2008. 
In Canada, the System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR) is a 
filing  system  developed  for  the  Canadian  Securities  Administrators  to  facilitate  the 
electronic filing of information and allow for its public dissemination across Canada. 
The PDF format is the standard for SEDAR filings, but SEDAR filing application has 
been  changed  to  also  accept  XML  format  for  XBRL  filings  and  XLSX  format  for 
certain exempt market filings. 

In  the  EU,  capital  markets  are  regulated  on  a  decentralised  basis.  National  competent 
authorities  (NCA)  are  responsible  in  each  Member  State  for  supervising  securities  and 
capital  markets.  The  European  Securities  and  Markets  Authority  (ESMA)  was 
established  to  foster  supervisory  convergence  amongst  NCAs.  As  a  result,  the  EU  has 
shaped  the  collection,  dissemination,  storage  and  standardisation  of  information 
published by entities in relation to financial services and capital markets mostly on 
a  decentralised  basis,  and  with  various  channels.  In  the  capital  markets,  the 
Transparency Directive organises the collection and dissemination of issuers’ reports and 
insider  information  from  a  repository  perspective  at  the  Member  States  level,  by 
entrusting  national  Officially  Appointed  Mechanisms  (OAM)  to  perform  that  function. 
The OAMs are most often a public body (often the NCA) and less often a private body 
(such  as  a  market  operator).  The  European  Securities  and  Markets  Authority  (ESMA) 
offers in addition access to certain information, such as prospectuses or credit ratings. 

Overall, about 17% of the EU entities’ public reporting obligations with interest for 
financial  sector  (excluding  purely  transaction  related  reporting  obligations)  are 
funnelled  towards  a  national  (Business  Registers,  Officially  Appointed  Mechanisms, 
NCAs – see list in Annex 10) or an EU repository (such as the European Supervisory 
Authorities - ESA) to offer an access point for the public. 

For  the  rest,  i.e.  around  83%  of  the  reporting  obligations  in  the  area  of  financial 
services  and  capital  markets,  the  EU  law  specifies  each  company’s  web  site  as 
publication channel for about half of these, or provides no specific channel for the 
other half. 

Sometimes, the EU law prescribes that for repository purposes15, the information should 
be  available  in  various  places.  For  instance,  pursuant  to  the  Prospectus  Regulation, 

Board. Filings of financial information prepared in  compliance  with the IFRS are accepted, based on the 
taxonomy developed by the IASB. The SEC has decided to migrate on a phased in basis until September 
2021  to  inline  XBRL  to  replace  XBRL  Inline  XBRL  is  used  to  create  a  document  with  the  universal 
accessibility  of  an  HTML  document  while  also  including  the  tagging  functionality  of  XBRL.  Hence, 
contrary to an XBRL document, an inline XBRL is both machine and human readable. 
15 Certain EU legislation require in addition the dissemination of information via media, which is beyond 
the scope of this initiative. For instance, Article 21 of Transparency Directive 2004/109 requires the issuer 

9 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
 
prospectuses  and  Universal  Registration  Documents  must  be  filed  with  an  NCA  which 
shall  publish  them  on  its  website  when  approved.  The  NCA  must  then  provide  ESMA 
with  an  electronic  copy  together  with  metadata.  Finally,  ESMA  makes  them  accessible 
on  its  register.  As  a  result,  prospectuses  are  made  available  to  the  public  in  multiple 
locations at national and EU level. 

In  practice,  one  can  expect  to  find  in  the  EU  a  great  portion  of  the  information  on  the 
web.  Users16  need  to  look  for  this  information  across  multiple  web  sites  or  places 
(entities, registers, specialised bodies…). 

It is estimated that around 16% of the public reporting requirements has structured 
content17 based on layouts, templates or forms. This is due to the combined action of the 
EU law, national laws and ESAs, preparing the grounds for machine readability. Certain 
private  initiatives  seek  to  develop  templates  as  well18.  Structured  information  prepares 
the ground for machine readability, when a proper format is applied. 

A  specific  IT  format  is  mandated  for  only  a  few  of  these  reporting  obligations.  In 
practice, IT formats are rarely defined at EU level, hence the PDF format has become 
commonplace.  Some  machine  readable  formats  are  determined  at  the  EU,  national  or 
even  at  entity  level.  Formats  encountered  in  the  law  include  mainly  XML,  but  also 
XHTML/iXBRL  and  MS-Excel.  For  instance,  for  the  Annual  Financial  Reports  of 
issuers  of  securities,  the  EU  has  developed  the  European  Single  Electronic  Format 
(ESEF)19,  applicable  from  fiscal  year  2021.  The  Commission  has  proposed  with  the 
CSRD to extend the ESEF to companies’ sustainability reporting. Metadata can be also 
used  as  a  proxy  to  machine  readability.  This  is  the  case  for  instance  for  information 
stored  by  OAMs  and  for  prospectuses  and  Universal  Registration  Documents  (URD) 

to use such media as may reasonably be relied upon for the effective dissemination of information to the 
public throughout the Community. 
16 Annex 6 provides further analysis of would be users of the ESAP. 
17 Source BR-AG. For instance, layouts for the financial statements’ in the Transparency and Accounting 
Directives  as  well  as  IAS  Regulation,  standard  form  for  major  holdings  developed  by  ESMA,  format  of 
publication  by  investment  firms  of  information  on  the  identity  of  execution  venues,  data  standards  and 
formats for financial instrument reference data, metadata developed for the Prospectuses and URDs, as per 
Commission Delegated Regulations (EU) 2016/909, (EU) 2017/575, (EU) 2017/576, (EU) 2017/571, (EU) 
2019/979,  (EU)  2017/565,  (EU)  2017/567  and  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1005. 
There are also ongoing development as regards the PEPP-KID. 
18  FinDatex,  for  instance,  is  a  joint  structure  established  by  representatives  of  the  European  Financial 
services  sector  industry.  Its  mission  is  to  support  the  development  and  use  of  standardised  technical 
templates to facilitate the exchange of data between stakeholders in the application of European Financial 
market legislation, such as MiFID II, PRIIPs and Solvency 2. The “EPT” templates are already used by the 
industry. 
19 Both human and machine readable. The ESEF regulation (EU) 2019/815 introduces a single electronic 
reporting format for the annual financial reports of issuers with securities listed on EU regulated markets. It 
sets  out  general  rules  on  the  format  of  the  annual  financial  reports  as  defined  in  Article  4(2)  of  the 
Transparency  Directive,  and  more  specific  rules  on  the  marking-up  of  the  financial  statements  included 
therein. The regulation stipulates that all issuers must draw up and disclose their annual financial reports 
using  the  eXtensible  HyperText  Markup  Language  (XHTML)  format.  In  addition,  issuers  that  draw  up 
their  consolidated  financial  statements  in  accordance  with  International  Financial  Reporting  Standards 
(IFRS) have to mark up those consolidated financial statements using inline eXtensible Business Reporting 
Language (iXBRL) and block-tag the notes to the financial statements. 

10 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
which must be accompanied by structured metadata in XML format for the classification 
in ESMA’s register20.  

Users report (figure 3) that PDF, HTML and Excel remain the most common format 
and  that  two  of  the  most  commonly  encountered,  namely  PDF  and  HTML  formats  are 
rather  not  or  hardly  useable  by  electronic  means  (data  extraction).  Certain  formats 
commonly  encountered  can  be  nevertheless  considered  machine  readable  (CSV,  Excel, 
XBRL...).  Other  formats  include  for  instance  images  or  videos  or  proprietary  formats 
which are likewise hardly digitally usable. 

Figure 3: Electronic format of entities’ public information encountered by users 

109

59

60

79

79

71

20

30

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

CSV, TXT

Excel

Formats enabling
natural language
processing

HTML

Other

PDF

XBRL

XML

Source European Commission - stakeholder consultation, results of response to question 4 (several responses allowed) 

2 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The  Fitness  Check  on  financial  and  sustainability  public  reporting  by  companies 
conducted  by  the  Commission  until  2021  covers  a  portion  of  the  public  reporting 
obligations  that  are  relevant  for  financial  services  and  markets.  The  Fitness  Check 
assessed  primarily  whether  the  EU  framework  on  corporate  reporting  has  achieved  its 
objective  of  providing  stakeholders  with  financial  and  non-financial  information  that  is 
sufficient in quantity and quality to enable them to make informed decisions and protect 
their interests, make investment decisions, and hold companies publicly accountable. Its 
conclusion highlighted the positive impact of the adoption of IFRS in the EU for listed 
companies,  which  has  improved  transparency.  However,  both  for  financial  and  non-
financial  reporting,  the  Fitness  Check  noted  that  digital  policies  have  not  been 
developed  to  their  full  potential,  thus  reducing  considerably  the  efficiency  of  the  EU 
transparency measures.  In addition, the Fitness Check noted that even though preparers 
tend to see digitalisation as a source of additional burden21, users of information demand 
that data become further digitised in order to enable electronic use in modern ways. 
Key  features  are  whether  data  is  i)  digitally  readable  (enabling  easier  use);  ii)  properly 

20  As  regards  information  in  the  remit  of  the  Transparency  Directive,  Commission  Delegated  Regulation 
(EU) 2019/979 specifies metadata and search functions. As regards documents in the remit of prospectuses, 
Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 provides a set of metadata which will enable the indexing of prospectuses on 
ESMA’s website. 
21  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  -  Fitness  Check  on  the  EU  framework  for  public  reporting  by 
companies, SWD/2021/81 final.  

11 

 
 
                                                 
disseminated  (where  and  when  information  can  be  accessed);  and  iii)  trustworthy  (i.e. 
ensuring reliability, identification and integrity of information). The Fitness Check noted 
that the EU framework  provides large leeway to Member States in  developing national 
digital  approaches  and  solutions.  Some  Member  States  have  ambitious  digitisation 
programmes.  However  national  approaches  are  not  prone  to  being  interoperable  at  EU 
level. 

The  High  Level  Forum  on  CMU  noted  that  Market-based  financing  is  hindered  by 
inefficiencies  of  the  EU  ecosystem  including  the  lack  of  easily  accessible,  reliable, 
understandable and comparable information in the financial services and capital markets 
area.  This  is  also  one  of  the  reasons  why  companies,  in  particular  in  smaller  market 
places, struggle to attract investors22. 

The problem tree in Figure 4 summarises the drivers, problems and consequences of this 
situation. 

Figure 4: Problem Tree 

Source: European Commission 

2.1 

What is/are the problems? 

2.1.1 

Scattered access to information 

Stakeholders  report  that  nowadays,  the  most  popular  channel  to  get  information  is  the 
companies’ web sites (79% of respondents). Next in line data aggregators are often a key 
source of information (64%). Finally, public repositories are also mentioned as a source 
(59%). Other channels include direct access (e.g. a bank can request documents directly 

22 EIB, Breaking Down Investment Barriers at Ground Level, 2016. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
to  a  company),  media  and  social  networks,  annual  general  meetings  of  shareholders, 
business registers, gazettes, specific platforms on the internet and NGOs’ reports.  

Stakeholders consulted23 (preparer-users, users, regulators and other stakeholders) report 
that they experienced difficulties in accessing information of relevance for the financial 
services and capital markets, including information which market participants and other 
entities must publish pursuant to EU law.  

Barriers to access are multiple, starting with the multiplication of access points, as 
most  of  the  information  published  by  private  entities  is  accessible  solely  from  those 
entities’  individual  web  sites.  In  the  case  where  repositories  are  implemented  (OAMs, 
NCAs),  those  are  dispatched  by  Member  State.  And  within  each  Member  State,  there 
may  be  several  repositories  containing  part  of  the  information  divided  thematically,  or 
along  other  factors  (e.g.  several  repositories  with  the  same  mission).  Given  this 
multiplication  of  access  points,  and  a  lack  of  standardised  metadata  or  search  criteria 
users report, and despite web search engines, stakeholders report that they face important 
barriers to discovery, raising questions where to search information, whether complete 
information can be gathered, and whether certain information even simply exist.   

Additional  barriers  include  whenever  access  fees  (even  the  smallest)  is  claimed. 
Uneasy  retrieval,  unfriendly  user  interfaces,  inability  to  bulk  download  are  also 
problematic. 

In terms of access fees, it can be considered that when legislation requires a company to 
publish information on its web site, this makes it de facto available for free. The EU law 
may also require that entities provide direct access free of charge to certain information24. 
In addition, most of the OAMs, NCAs and ESAs provide access free of charge on their 
own registers, at least on an itemised basis. Hence, all in  all, it is estimated that access 
free  of  charge  to  raw  data  is  ensured  by  legislation  for  at  least  50%  of  the  reporting 
obligations. 

2.1.2 

Information not ready for digital use 

Once  a  user  has  managed  to  get  access  to  information,  stakeholders  consulted 
(67%) report that they encounter hurdles to use and compare this information. The 
most frequent reasons for this are the use of formats that do not allow easy extraction of 
data  (pdfs,  images...),  insufficient  data  structuring,  quality  issues,  linguistic  barriers,  as 
well as usage restrictions due to terms of use or copyrights.  

This makes the exercise of using and especially comparing data difficult and costly25.  

2.2 

What are the problem drivers? 

2.2.1 

Reporting  requirements  with  different  channels  as  regards  information  to  be 
published.  

Digital access and use of information in the area of capital markets and financial services 
are driven to a large extent by the EU law. The latter is organised by specific economic 
sectors  or  functions,  resulting  in  a  silo  prone  approach,  where  public  information  is 

23 See Annex 2 – synopsis of consultations activities and Annex 4 - minutes of a workshop with users. 
24 For example, among others, articles 9a and 9b of the SRD II on the directors’ remuneration policy and 
remuneration report. 
25 Synopsis of consultation on ESAP (Annex 2). Minutes of the e-workshops (Annex 4). 

13 

 
                                                 
ancillary  to  core  measures  attaching  to  each  sector  addressed,  with  its  own  technical 
specifications and publication channels. 

For instance, in the capital markets, the EU law drives the repository functions to 
be  organised  mainly  on  the  basis  of  national  repositories,  i.e.  OAMs,  and  NCAs, 
whilst  only  a  small  part  of  information  is  to  be  made  accessible  at  the  level  of 
ESMA. ESMA has a duty to build a number of registers26, covering in part information 
published by entities such as credit ratings, prospectuses or UCITS management entities. 
These  include  an  estimated  8%  of  the  public  reporting  obligations  of  entities.  As 
observed  in  the  mapping  of  current  legislation  (annex  21),  practices  are  diverse 
depending on each legislation as regards the channels to be used for the public reporting 
obligation, formats, etc.  

The EU law also drives to a large extent as a result the fact that a significant proportion 
of the information is published by companies on their own web site rather than through 
national  repositories  or  NCAs,  either  because  this  is  how  the  reporting  obligation  is 
framed by the EU law, or because the reporting obligation remains silent as to how that 
information should be published. 

2.2.2  Data repositories not interconnected 

Despite efforts at the EU level to start interconnecting the OAMs via a web portal to be 
built  by  ESMA,  the  “European  Electronic  Access  Point”,  this  portal  is  not  yet 
operational. The EEAP aimed to permit central access to the annual financial reports and 
other information published by issuers of securities in regulated markets27.  

A  number  of  private  attempts  to  develop  central  access  points  as  an  alternative  to  data 
aggregators  were  identified  but  these  do  not  match  all  the  desired  functionalities 
(including  access  for  free  to  timely  and  re-usable  information)  and  scope  (complete 
geographical and thematic information) (annex 22). 

2.2.3  Machine readable formats for a few datasets 

Market forces have driven entities to draw up information generally in PDF, which has 
become  the  most  commonly  found  format.  Depending  on  how  information  was 
embedded  (for  instance  scanned  PDFs),  documents  in  PDFs  may  not  always  allow  for 
simple data extraction. 

Users  report  that  in  many  instance,  information  published  by  entities  is  in  formats 
that simply do not allow to extract data (images, proprietary formats, scanned pdfs...). 
This is a problem because if information available online is mainly human readable but 
not readily usable electronically, processing costs to make data usable electronically can 
be  significant  as  they  generally  require  human  intervention:  scanning  and  recognition 
software, rekeying, etc.  

In terms of machine readability, the EU has undertaken to digitise an increasing part 
of the information to be published with various levels of ambition. Currently the EU 

26  ESMA’s  portal  provides  currently  information  for  registers  falling  under  Directives  2010/78/EU 
(OMNIBUS)  and  2011/61/EU  (AIFMD),  EU  Regulation  345/2013  (EuVECA),  EU  Regulation  346/2013 
(EuSEF),  EU  Regulation  236/2012  (Short  Selling),  the  MiFID  implementing  Regulation  1287/2006,  the 
Directive  2014/65/EU  (MiFID  II)  and  Regulation  (EU)  No  600/2014  (MiFIR),  and  the  Credit  Rating 
Agency Regulation 1060/2009.  
27 Article 21a of the Transparency Directive. 

14 

 
                                                 
law prescribes not more than 5% of the reporting obligations in the financial area to be 
effectively  machine  readable.  These  are  mainly  the  IFRS  consolidated  financial 
statements  of  issuers  of  securities  in  regulated  markets  (ESEF),  prospectuses  (XML 
metadata) and a few additional information.  

Whereas users report that machine readability is the primary issue is relation to formats, 
there  are  various  degrees  and  steps  in  reaching  full  machine  readability  (Annex  20). 
Intermediate  steps  having  to  do  with  machine  readability  include  for  instance  data 
portability or data extractability. Nowadays, full machine readability requires in addition 
data  structuring.  Stakeholders  may  have  had  different  views  on  the  level  and  extent  of 
issues  when  reporting  problems  in  connection  with  machine-readability  during 
consultation:  focus  could  be  with  varying  degrees  depending  on  the  respondent  on 
standardised formats, data extractability or underlying data structuring28. 

2.2.4 

Language and other barriers insufficiently addressed 

Six EU legislation (out of more than 30 in the area of financial services and capital 
markets),  covering  24%  of  the  entities’  public  reporting  obligations  address  the 
language in which information is drawn up and published29, in different ways: 

 

three legislations consider that the information should be drawn up at least in the 
official language of the Member State where the information is made publically 
accessible; 

  one  legislation  considers  language  from  the  prism  of  the  native  language  of 

 

consumers; 
five legislations permit information to be drawn up in a language accepted by the 
national authority other than the national language (in addition to, or alternatively 
to  the  national  language).  Out  of  these,  three  legislations  specify  that  this 
additional  language  should  be  one  that  is  “customary  in  the  sphere  of 
international  finance”  and  implement  a  right  for  emitters  of  information  to 
override any other language on that basis.  

In practice, whilst some efforts are made to make the information available in a language 
that is understandable by the intended users, the language will vary depending on the 
EU  provisions  applicable  by  type  of  information  (depending  on  the  applicable  EU 
law),  but  also  on  Member  State’s  laws30,  market  practices  and  private  entities’ 
decisions. 

Whereas consultation outlined the need for accurate and high quality data, this is largely 
driven in terms of content – and should remain the prerogative – of sectoral legislation. 
Nevertheless,  consultation  outlined  problems  encountered  by  stakeholders  such  as  data 
errors, inconsistent formatting, inefficient data tagging, lack of completeness/accuracy of 
data, especially in the area of ESG information. These problems drive the perception that 
there  are  barriers  to  use  as  reported  by  67%  of  respondents  to  the  consultation.  These 
problems  are  in  the  scope  of  this  initiative,  from  the  angle  of  compliance  with  IT 
specifications,  in  other  words,  outline  the  general  need  for  digital  validation  checks  on 
information. 

28 Consultation on the ESAP – Summary of responses – Q6, page 8. 
29 UCITS, TD, MIFID/R, PROSPECTUS, PRIIPS, PEPP. 
30 Summary report - targeted consultation on ESAP, as well as Annex 2 and 4. 

15 

 
                                                 
Other barriers, include varied or inadequate terms of use and re-use. These are generally 
not addressed by the EU sectoral or other legislation in the area of financial services and 
capital markets. Terms of use, if any, are therefore largely left to Member States, access 
points or private entities to define. As observed on the basis a limited survey, national or 
specific own terms of use are introduced as regards national repositories. At the EU level, 
ESMA  has  also  its  own  terms  of  use  for  information  accessed  from  its  website31. 
Companies  may  introduce  their  own  terms  of  use32.  The  terms  of  use  are  varied  and 
sometimes  rely  on  open  licenses  designed  at  national  level  or  building  on  Creative 
Commons  type33.  In  addition  they  sometimes  limit  the  reuse  of  information  by 
introducing  copyrights,  database  rights,  limits  to  commercial  reuse  or  specific 
obligations. 

The integrity and credibility of the sources were mentioned as important  characteristics 
by stakeholders consulted (respectively 63% and 83%) of information, and underlined as 
a  potential  source  of  problem  if  not  properly  addressed  by  85%  of  respondents. 
Nowadays, the EU legislation in the financial services and capital markets offer limited 
directions or provisions in this regard34.    

Finally,  79%  of  stakeholders  outlined  timeliness  as  a  key  characteristic  of  information. 
Timeliness  should  be  understood  from  the  perspective  of  information  being  made 
available  once  a  company  makes  it  public,  as  otherwise  the  frequency  and  delays  of 
reporting  obligations  depends  on  each  sectoral  legislation  and  is  not  covered  by  this 
initiative. 

In terms of machine readability, the EU has undertaken to digitise an increasing part 
of the information to be published with various levels of ambition. Currently the EU 
law prescribes not more than 5% of the reporting obligations in the financial area to be 
effectively  machine  readable35.  These  are  mainly  the  IFRS  consolidated  financial 
statements  of  issuers  of  securities  in  regulated  markets  (ESEF),  prospectuses  (XML 
metadata) and a few additional information.  

2.2.5  No prevailing market standards for disclosure formats and expensive channels 

(data aggregators) 

Given  the  leeway  offered  by  the  EU  law,  the  market  has  driven  formats  towards  open 
source  Portable  Document  Format  (PDF)  in  many  cases.  However  depending  on  how 
information  was  embedded  (e.g.  PDF  based  on  scanned  images),  this  format  may  not 
always  allow  for  simple  data  extraction  and  it  is  generally  not  suitable  as  a  machine 
readable format36. 

As  seen  in  consultation  activities,  stakeholders  report  as  a  common  practice  the  use  of 
paid services  from data aggregators to access information.  This  market  led solution 
enables to alleviate the problems identified however come with a price tag for the service 

31 Including for instance disclaimers to be reproduced – see ESMA Legal Notice. 
32 For instance: https://entreprise.maif.fr/mentions-legales. 
33 A desktop survey of five large financial centres in the EU (France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and 
the Netherlands) show that all OAMs, even if they provide access free of charge to information, usually put 
mild to strong terms of use and re-use on the information retrieved from their websites (Annex 19). 
34 Most noticeably, Article 21 of the Transparency Directive requires that OAMs provide « minimum [...] 
certainty as to the information source”. 
35 BR-AG – Annex 11. 
36 OpendataHandbook.org. 

16 

 
                                                 
and other drawbacks such as own (non-interoperable) formats and standards and digested 
information. 

2.2.6  Drivers out of scope 

Difficulties in comparing information due a lack of semantic interoperability observed 
among the various sectoral legislation is out of the scope of this initiative. Whereas there 
is  no  reason  to  downplay  the  importance  of  this  problem  in  enabling  the  digital  use  of 
information,  semantic  interoperability  has  to  do  with  the  inner  building  of  the 
information,  the  design  and  content  of  which  has  largely  to  do  with  the  objectives  and 
design  of  sectoral  legislation,  including  by  ways  of  own  definitions  and  concepts 
underlying the content.  

The Commission has undertaken to advance on this front in a separate initiative with the 
development of a common data dictionary under its supervisory data strategy, to ensure 
data  consistency  and  standardisation  across  financial  sectors.  This  dictionary  will 
describe the content and format of all data collected under various reporting frameworks 
in  a  structured,  comprehensive,  consistent  and  unambiguous  manner,  using  terms 
anchored  in  legislation  to  establish  a  clear  link  between  collected  data  items  and  the 
relevant legislative requirements. While this initiative will address primarily supervisory 
reporting,  it  will  also  aim  to  coordinate  the  data  specifications  with  public  disclosures. 
Therefore it is expected to have ramifications over public reporting.  

Nevertheless, the development of a common data dictionary will have little impact on the 
design  of  this  initiative,  in  particular  its  scope  and  costs.  This  is  because  the  data 
dictionary is a longer term initiative, and it aims to describe the reported (and disclosed) 
information,  whereas  this  initiative  focuses  on  making  the  disclosed  information  more 
accessible and more easily readable by machines. The two initiatives are complementary 
as, the development of a common dictionary has the potential to aid the interpretation and 
comparability of disclosed information and hence facilitate its use.  

2.3 

What are the consequences? 

2.3.1  Users are hit by a lack of integration 

Fragmentation  as  regards  the  information  flows  on  the  European  markets  and 
financial  services  drives  the  costs  up  for discovering,  accessing  and  processing  the 
information  users  need.  This  is  also  a  deterrent  to  research,  and  cross  border 
analysis37. 

About  half  of  stakeholders  consulted  find  that  costs  for  retrieving  and  processing 
information  are  generally  high.  Users,  preparer-users  and  other  stakeholders,  who 
reported  ‘high”  costs  generally  justified  their  opinion  by  the  fact  that  they  use  data 
aggregator  services  for  a  fee.  Retail  investors  and  civil  society  tend  to  find  this  source 
quite costly (or even unaffordable). 

The  problems  identified  drive  the  significant  search  and  processing  costs 
experienced  by  stakeholders  to  get  information  and  compare  it.  The  situation  is  also  a 
hindrance for users to compare38 information, either directly or indirectly. About half of 

37 CMU HLF. 
38 Due to the inability to access or digitally use information. Comparability issue may also be due in part to 
a  lack  of  semantic  interoperability  (for  instance  a  concept  such  as  “revenue”  has  several  definitions  or 
calculation methods depending on the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles applied).  

17 

 
                                                 
respondents to our consultation find that costs for retrieving and processing information 
are  high.  Costs  to  acquire  data  and  bring  it  in  a  stage  where  it  can  be  digitally  used 
generally require human intervention:  scanning and recognition  software, rekeying, etc. 
Such  costs  are  comprised  mainly  of  staff  costs,  licensing  or  access  fees,  software, 
translations.  As  a  result,  on  average  respondents  find  that  costs  for  retrieving  and 
processing information that is mandatorily published in the area of financial services and 
capital markets are high, either with licenses acquired from data vendors or without such 
licenses. This is particularly acute as regards sustainability-related data which is currently 
more  difficult  and  costly  to  obtain  than  standardised  financial  information  publicly 
disclosed by listed entities.   

For  basic  use,  one  respondent  estimated  that  the  annual  cost  of  a  licence  to  use  a 
commercial database platform for capital markets is between €7,500 and €17,500. A fund 
respondent estimated that a mid-sized fund manager can spend anywhere between EUR 
250-600k on ESG data while a larger fund manager can spend anywhere between EUR 
600k – EUR 1.5mn (fund managers will often use multiple data vendors to enhance the 
coverage  and  as  part  of  the  analysis  and  validation).  A  large  insurance  company 
estimated its own costs reached millions of euros.  

2.3.2 

The problems hinder access to ESG information 

Another consequence is that the increasing demand for ESG information by market 
participants  is  not  met.  A  vast  majority  of  respondents  to  the  ESAP  targeted 
consultation39 underlined their difficulties to easily access and digitally use ESG and 
other  types  of  information  published by  entities.  This  statement  has  been  echoed  by 
members of the Technical Expert Stakeholder Group on SMEs (TESG)40, as one of their 
recommendations  is  to  “facilitate  the  process  of  data  collection”.  The  European  Green 
Deal aims to place sustainable finance at the heart of the financial system. Introduction of 
new disclosure obligations, such as those related to EU Taxonomy, SFDR and recently 
proposed  CSRD,  will  on  one  hand  increase  transparency  on  sustainability  impacts  and 
risks, but also further increase demand for access to reliable sustainability, related data. 
Continued  uneasy  access  to  sustainability-related  data  and  barriers  to  their  digital  use 
hinder  the  ability  of  investors  to  reflect  sustainability-related  risks  and  impacts  in  their 
decisions  and  hence  to  effectively  contribute  to  the  Green  Deal  via  sustainable 
investments. This reduces as well the ability of investors, governments and civil society 
to  hold  companies  accountable  for  negative  environmental,  social  and  human  rights 
impacts,  resulting  in  lower  incentive  for  companies  to  become  more  sustainable  and 
resilient. 

2.3.3  Users are impacted in the same way, although on a different scale 

Different types of users report that they experience similar problems, however on a 
different scale. Users are varied (e.g. large professional investors, retail investors, funds, 
civil  society,  data  aggregators,  consumer  organisations)  with  different  size,  objectives 
and hence  their data  consumption  needs  are  also  varied. As a result, the impacts  of the 
problems  are  of  different  scale  and  nature  for  different  user  types.  One  aspect  that 
illustrates  this  is  the  different  scale  and  frequency  of  data  that  stakeholders  need  to 
access:  while  professional  investors  seek  frequent  access  to  large  volumes  of 
information, retail investors typically find smaller volumes of information and occasional 

39 Synopsis of ESAP consultation  (Annex 2) + minutes to the e-workshops (Annex 4). 
40 Technical Expert Stakeholder Group on SMEs (TESG), final report, 2021, p.47. 

18 

 
                                                 
access sufficient. National and EU public bodies have shared their interest in accessing 
information  notably  for  statistical,  supervisory  or  other  public-interest  purposes. 
Correspondingly, the magnitude of search costs or impairments to decision making due 
to missing or difficult to use data that different users bear also differs. Data aggregators 
interviewed  or  consulted,  despite  being  in  the  business  of  disseminating  information, 
report similarly that these issues  are an  annoyance for them in  harvesting raw data for 
their business, and a driver for loss of productivity. 

During  the  workshop  with  users  (Annex  4),  there  was  a  strong  message  that  access  to 
information  is  not  optimal.  Despite  their  different  backgrounds  and  different  degree  to 
which  they  are  impacted  by  the  observed  problems,  users  generally  indicated  that  their 
needs could be well addressed in a similar way, either directly or indirectly, by a system 
that provides easy access to publicly available financial and sustainability-related “raw” 
information (Annex 4).  

2.3.4 

Problems for entities in smaller capital markets and smaller entities / SMEs 

The prevailing fragmentation in access to data is one of the long-standing barriers 
to  the  integration  of  financial  markets  across  the  EU41.  By  making  it  difficult  and 
costly  for  investors  to  find,  analyse  and  ultimately  compare  relevant  information 
(including  for  retail  investors  and  financial  advisors  to  compare  financial  product 
information), this situation also presents a barrier to optimal allocation of capital. As 
such, this problem undermines the functioning of the internal market.  

On the funding side, the problem is acute for smaller companies and / or companies 
in smaller capital markets which have generally less visibility due to the situation. For 
instance, it has been noted that it makes SME research more difficult42. As a result, their 
attractiveness to investors is not optimal, especially from a cross border perspective43.  

Home  bias  is  in  the  EU  a  natural  barrier  to  integration  for  cultural,  historical  and 
linguistic reasons. This is observed on the demand side as regards funds flow44 but also 
on the demand side as more than 95% of EU companies going public do so on their local 
exchange45.  In  finance,  the  fragmented  European  market  affects  in  particular  SMEs, 
which can in turn hamper their ability to expand beyond their own borders46.  

Due to home bias, SMEs and non-listed entities often have to rely on national markets. 
This reduces their chances of finding capital/investment opportunities, as investors tend 
to  rely on more developed capital  markets  in  cross  border situations47. This  national  or 
home bias furthermore limits the Union’s economic resilience by hindering geographical 
and sectoral diversification of funding sources. A survey of the IMF (figure 5) shows the 

41 As stated inter alia by the CMU HLF, NewFinancial, the IMF, the EIB. 
42 https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/cmu-high-level-forum-final-report_en. 
43 In large financial centres foreign holdings make up between 35 and 65% of total equity investment. Over 
half  of  the  total  foreign  equity  holdings  in  the  EU-27  are  for  investments  in  firms  based  in  France, 
Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands as shown in a study on Primary and secondary equity 
markets in the EU, Oxera, 2020. 
44 See PWC - Capital Markets Union: Integration of Capital Markets in the European Union, 2015. 
45 ‘The problem with European stock markets’, by William Wright & Eivind Friis Hamre, March 2021. 
46 European Investment Bank, Breaking Down Investment Barriers at Ground Level, 2016. 
47 For instance, a study indicates that the trading platforms (including MTFs) that have successfully grown 
and  developed  to  operate  across  borders  typically  cover  securities  domiciled  in  large  financial  centres  in 
Western  Europe,  and  not  the  majority  of  securities  domiciled  in  smaller  financial  centres  in  Central  and 
Eastern Europe (study by Oxera, Primary and secondary equity markets in the EU, September 2020).  

19 

 
                                                 
large  discrepancies  between  Member  States’  attractiveness  for  capital,  where  access  to 
data on unlisted SMEs plays a role.  

It also shows that data on unlisted SMEs are of high concern in multiple Member States. 
The  International  Monetary  Fund  (IMF)  stated  that  “European  finance  is  still  sharply 
segmented along national lines, with savers and investors depending heavily on national 
banking systems. Although the landscape is dotted with many different types of investors 
and intermediaries, their focus is mostly domestic—“home bias” is pervasive. […] This 
is a problem because it results in an uneven playing field: the financing costs companies 
pay  depend  hugely  on  their  country  of  incorporation,  collateral-constrained  start-ups 
find  it  hard  to  get  any  funding  at  all,  and  consumption  is  not  shielded  from  local 
economic shocks48.” 

Figure 5: Results of the IMF’s Capital Market Union Survey 

Source: IMF 

As seen during the examination of barriers to the single market49, risk capital continues to 
be scarce for high-growth SMEs. As echoed by business organisations, the difficulty in 
accessing funding affects both domestic and non-domestic businesses alike. However, it 
would affect disproportionately those businesses that are trying to expand in the markets 
with  limited access  to  capital,  compared to  already  established businesses. Among root 
causes,  insufficient  level  of  available  credit  information,  insufficient  legal/financial 
information about potential business partners in other countries, and the fragmentation of 
EU capital markets along the national lines were mentioned.  

48 

https://blogs.imf.org/2019/09/10/a-capital-market-union-for-europe-why-its-needed-and-how-to-get-

there/ . 
49 Communication and accompanying staff  working document,  Identifying and addressing barriers to the 
Single Market, European Commission, March 2020, COM/2020/93 final, SWD(2020) 54 final. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
Indeed, as an illustration a Netherland Industry paper50 stated that the “lack of access to 
finance still constitutes a significant drag on doing business in the euro area, especially 
for  smaller  companies.  In  the  wake  of  the  covid  crisis,  the  prospects  for  SME  finance 
have become bleaker still. The Netherlands stands out negatively in the euro area, with 
SME finance having shrunk as a percentage of GDP since the 2008-09 financial crisis.  
[...]  A  key  reason  companies,  in  particular  small  and  innovative  ones,  have  difficulty 
obtaining funding, is a lack of readily-available corporate data.” 

2.3.5  Other consequences 

Fragmentation  of  capital  markets  is  detrimental  to  a  smooth  functioning  of  the  market 
and  drives  higher  cost  of  capital,  especially  for  listed  companies  which  in  turn  makes 
becoming or staying listed less attractive51. 

The situation is also  a  hindrance to developing new digital services, such  as services 
around the digital comparison of EU wide complete sets of data for a given sector, which 
is  key  for 
the  rating  business  (ESG  or 
creditworthiness) report that the lack of digitalisation and easy access are barriers to their 
ability to develop complete, reliable and forward looking service offers. 

investment  decisions.  Companies 

in 

Overall,  the  situation  undermines  the  achievement  of  the  CMU  objectives,  the 
European  Data  Strategy,  the  Digital  Finance  Strategy  and  the  European  Green 
Deal. 

2.4 

How will the problem evolve? 

During  consultation,  some  stakeholders  contended  that  the  emergence  of  new 
technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) combined for 
instance  with  Optical  Character  Recognition  (OCR)  could  in  the  future  improve  the 
digital  use  of  documents  that  contain  non-structured  data  in  any  IT  format,  with  the 
potential of solving, at least partly, the problem.  

It  is  difficult  to  predict  whether  such  emerging  technologies  would  enable  any  user  to 
obtain  reliable  results  at  a  reasonable  cost  in  the  foreseeable  future,  absent  any 
intervention52.  There  are  nevertheless  reasons  to  believe  that  this  hypothetical  scenario 
will not solve the problem. Building solutions based on artificial intelligence or machine 
learning  would  require  that  vast  amounts  of  available  data  are  readily  available, 
accessible  and  usable.  Without  an  intervention,  information  would  continue  to  be 
collected from thousand different sources including companies‘ websites, local databases 
or  storages  –  possibly  however  easier  to  search  with  search  engines  but  still  subject  to 
various  terms  of  use,  various  user  interface  etc.  preventing  easy  access  and  re-use.  For 
this purpose, the Commission aims precisely to build common data spaces, recognising 
that  easier  access  and  usability  are  a  premise  to  the  emergence  of  such  new 
technologies53.  In  addition,  the  problems  noted  on  harmonization  in  several  dimension 

50 Fixing SME Finance Position Paper to Establish a Task Force SME Finance. 
51 ‘The problem with European stock markets’, by William Wright & Eivind Friis Hamre, March 2021 
52 Final report of the Expert Group on Regulatory Obstacles to Financial Innovation: 30 recommendations 
on regulation, innovation and finance, 2019, p. 30-31. 
53  The  Digital  Europe  Programme  provides  funding  for  projects  in  five  crucial  areas,  including  artificial 
intelligence. Regulation (EU) 2021/694 establishing the Digital Europe Programme supports the creation of 
common  European  data  spaces  that  will  make  accessible  data  across  Europe,  including  information 
gathered from the re-use of public sector information, and become a data input source for AI solutions. 

21 

 
                                                 
like  document  metadata,  data  structuring  and  semantic  interoperability  would  impinge 
negatively  on  the  quality  of  the  output  information  that  would  be  based  on  a  fully 
automated interpretation  of data.  Addressing these inefficiencies  from the market  angle 
would require huge investments in not only technologies54 but also human resources and 
gathering of data. As a result the total cost of investment would be high55, raising doubts 
whether this would result economically more efficient in the medium term than services 
offered by data aggregators. 

Given  the  persistence  of  the  problem  and  absent  new  impetus,  it  is  unlikely  that  EU 
markets  and  financial  services  would  start  integrating  naturally,  in  a  coordinated 
move, overcoming, for instance, the home bias observed on information flows56.  

A number of ongoing initiatives at regulatory level may nevertheless modify slightly the 
landscape. There are medium to longer terms plans for the ESAs (ESMA, EIOPA, EBA) 
to  provide  a  better  and/or  centralised  access  and  more  usable  digital  formats  of  certain 
information  published  by  entities  in  their  remit,  such  as  PEPP-KIDs,  insurance 
companies’  solvency  and  financial  condition  report,  banks’  transparency  ‘pillar  3’ 
reports,  credit  ratings.  Whereas  these  initiatives  could  address  partly  the  problem,  this 
would  remain  confined  to  a  few  reporting  obligations,  based  on  each  ESA’s  agenda, 
specifications and access point. 

Company Law mandates that by August 2023, all documents and information submitted 
as  part  of  the  formation  of  a  company,  the  registration  of  a  branch,  or  a  filing  by  a 
company  or  a  branch,  is  stored  by  the  registers  in  a  machine-readable  and  searchable 
format or as structured data57. The impact of this initiative would remain limited for the 
objectives  of  ESAP,  given  the  very  limited  overlap  of  information  covered  between 
Company law and this initiative, whilst other problems noted are not addressed. 

The Open Data Directive (EU) 2019/1024 (ODD) – to be transposed by 17 July 2021 – is 
a prominent initiative. An implementing Regulation on High Value Datasets will ensure 
an  open  data  approach  at  national  level  as  regards  information  delivered  by  certain 
national bodies (where public) offering access to on companies and company ownership, 
that is an estimated three reporting obligations within the scope of this intervention. This 
policy builds on national systems, hence access would remain scattered on this basis. 

54  Hidden Technical Debt in Machine  Learning Systems, D. Sculley, Gary Holt, Daniel Golovin, Eugene 
Davydov, Todd Phillips – 2015. 
55 Two of the main cost factors for AI is the availability of large amounts of proper data for running the 
machine learning and the data preparation and labelling for enabling the machine learning. 
56 For instance as regards retail investment, “despite all efforts and documentation, gathering independent 
and comparable information on product features is still perceived as a challenge for most investors. From 
the entire universe of potential aids to investing, the one most efficient would be to focus on the ways to 
provide  a  practical  solution  to  increase  transparency  and  comparability  of  retail  financial  products,  that 
could be  accelerated with the creation of an investor products hub (i.e. a database), containing complete, 
correct  and  independent  information  about  all  managed  financial  products  available  across  EU  capital 
markets”.-  Study  on  options  for  development  of  online  tools  and  services  supporting  retail  investors  in 
investment  decisions,  European  Commission,  2020.  “retail  investors  have  access  to  a  wide  range  of 
products  through  various  distribution  channels  but  face  huge  challenges  in  collecting  information, 
comparing  data  or  getting  independent  advice  on  the  different  products  on  offer”  in  Study  on  the 
distribution systems of retail investment products, 2018. 
57  Directive  (EU)  2017/1132  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  June  2017 relating  to 
certain aspects of company law, Article 16(6). 

22 

 
                                                 
In  terms  of  format,  the  EU  adopted  in  2019  the  European  Single  Electronic  Format58 
which implements a machine readable format (XHTML combined with inline XBRL) of 
the consolidated Annual Financial Reports in  IFRS of issuers of securities on regulated 
markets,  that  is  an  estimated  3 500  companies.  Same  information  of  around  1 000 
additional issuers in the EU regulated markets would become data extractable (XHTML) 
by the same token. The ESEF is an important stepping stone – not yet fully implemented 
in the markets – that will deliver on the objective of increased digital use of information, 
however for a limited number of reporting obligations and market participants. 

As  regards  ESG  information,  the  European  Commission  adopted  on  21  April  2021  a 
legal proposal as regards corporate sustainable reporting59 which will cater for the need 
of structured and machine readable corporate sustainability reporting60, addressing one of 
the  key  concerns  on  ESG  information  raised  during  consultations.  This  Commission 
proposal for sustainability reporting concerns 37 500 listed (regardless of size) and large 
non-listed entities publishing corporate sustainability reports61. If adopted by the Union, 
this would represent undeniable progress but would not solve the problem globally.  

On the access side, the EU envisaged a European Electronic Access Point (EEAP)62 as a 
web portal  gathering in  a single  access  point information collected by the OAMs.  This 
portal has not been developed and the EEAP has now lost relevance considering the scale 
of the problem examined: it would have a rather limited coverage (6% of the reporting 
obligations)  and  access  through  web  portal  planned  for  the  EEAP  is  no  longer  future-
proof considering technological developments. Furthermore, the EEAP does not address 
problems  such as  terms  of use, quality, integrity  of information,  etc.  For  these reasons, 
the EEAP cannot solve the problem in an extensive way. 

WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3 
There  is  a  widespread  belief  that  capital  markets  remain  underdeveloped  in  Europe”63. 
The  European  Parliament  has  long  been  stressing  the  need  for  deepening  European 
capital markets in order to ensure access to financing from sources other than banks and 
to  address  barriers  to  cross  border  investments64.  Adding  to  this,  the  shift  towards 
sustainable  investment  and  digital  finance  drive  this  initiative  where  information  has  a 
key role to play in the wider dimension of financial services area.  

Data  should  be  more  easily  accessible  and  ready  for  digital  use  for  investors, 
including  on  a  cross  border  basis.  An  EU  intervention  to  reduce  fragmentation,  by 
ways  of  e.g.  a  single  access  point,  would  remove  one  of  the  main  obstacles  that 
discourage  investors  –  especially  from  other  Member  States  or  third  countries  –  from 
accessing smaller national capital markets or from providing funding to SMEs.  

58 Regulation (EU) 2019/815. 
59  Proposal  for  a  Corporate  Sustainability  Reporting  Directive  (CSRD)  of  21  April  2021,  as  part  of  the 
sustainable finance package . 
60  European  Commission’s  Taxonomy  package,  21  April  2021.  The  CSRD  is  aligned  with  other  EU 
initiatives on sustainable finance, in particular the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and 
the Taxonomy Regulation. 
61  Commission  proposal  of  21  April  2021  for  a  Directive  on  Corporate  Sustainability  Reporting  and 
accompanying impact assessment. 
62 Art. 21a, Transparency Directive. 
63 Bruegel - Europe should not neglect its capital markets union, June 2021. 
64 European Parliament – Report on  the attractiveness of investing in Europe, (2011/2288(INI)). 

23 

 
                                                 
3.1 

Legal basis 

The  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  confers  upon  the 
European  institutions  the  competence  to  lay  down  appropriate  provisions  that  have  as 
their  object  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the  internal  market  (Article  114 
TFEU).  The  aim  and  content  of  the  legal  acts  to  be  amended  as  a  result  of  this 
intervention  could  also  include  acts  based  on  Articles  50(g)  on  the  coordination  of 
Member  States  requirement  for  EU  companies  with  a  view  to  making  such  safeguards 
equivalent throughout the Union in relation to the right of establishment, and/or Article 
53(1)  TFEU  on  the  taking-up  and  pursuing  of  activities  by  self-employed  persons, 
which is used to regulate financial intermediaries, their investment services and activities. 

3.2 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The  objectives  of  this  initiative  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member  States 
individually. The Member States have currently certain leeway for the design of rules on 
mechanisms and formats of corporate reporting obligations set out by the EU legislation, 
with  heavy  reliance  on  national  systems.  The  resulting  geographical  and  thematic 
fragmentation  of  disclosure  mechanisms  and  formats  is  pervasive  in  the  Union  and 
increases costs for users of corporate information. Further individual actions by Member 
States  would  not  reduce  this  fragmentation  unless  they  move  in  the  same  direction  to 
build a single access point and address a number of barriers, which is unlikely without a 
coordinated approach.  

3.3 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

Enabling  better  access  to  information  at  the  EU  level,  considering  the  scale  and  the 
effects of such a project, is an objective that can be better achieved at Union level. In 
addition,  the  design  of  suitable  formats,  terms  of  use,  language  specifications,  etc. 
necessitates  a  certain  degree  of  harmonisation  at  the  EU  level  so  as  to  enable 
interoperability  and  cross  border  access  and  use.  There  is  widespread  support  for  such 
initiative  from  governments,  regulators,  regional  or  national  market  participants,  users, 
civil  society,  etc.  Therefore,  the  Union  may  adopt  measures,  in  accordance  with  the 
principle  of  subsidiarity  as  set  out  in  Article  5  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union.  In 
accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  this  initiative  should  not  go  beyond 
what is necessary in order to develop and operate the ESAP. This intervention will not 
add  to,  or  modify  existing  reporting  obligations  in  terms  of  content,  as  this  is  the 
prerogative  of  sectoral  legislation.  In  order  to  minimise  the  burden  on  entities  and 
national authorities, it would be appropriate for the ESAP to build as much as possible 
on  the  existing  data  reporting  channels  and  infrastructure.  Nevertheless,  the  EU 
intervention  will  add  value  by  streamlining  in  an  efficient  way  the  delivery  of  usable 
information  to  users  on  a  cross  border  basis  which  would  not  be  possible  through 
different national access points. 

24 

 
4 

OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

Figure 6 : Objectives 

Source: European Commission 

4.1 

General objectives 

In  response  to  the  problems  identified,  the  overall  objective  of  the  European  Single 
Access  Point  is  to  contribute  to  integrating  the  European  capital  markets  and  the 
financial  services  (including  across  borders  within  the  Union)  and  to  foster  a  more 
efficient allocation of capital across the EU. This would strengthen the resilience of the 
EU’s  economy  through  broader  private  risk  sharing  and  would  thus  contribute  to  the 
objectives of the Capital Markets Union and the Digital Finance Strategy. In addition, the 
intervention  supports  better  access  to  sustainability-related  data.  Efficient  allocation  of 
capital  encompasses  the  re-orientation  of  investments  towards  more  sustainable 
activities, thus contributing to making Europe climate neutral by 2050 in the frame of the 
Commission’s Green Deal65. 

The intervention should  have  regard  primarily  to users’66  needs,  especially  investors, 
financial  analysts  and  market  intermediaries  such  as  asset  managers,  advisers  or  data 
aggregators.  Other  types  of  users  may  see  an  interest  in  obtaining  the  information,  for 
instance  civil  society,  public  authorities,  law-makers  or  economists  and  this  also 
contributes  to  an  efficient  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  As  mentioned  in  a  paper 
studying  EU  markets,  “consolidating  corporate  information  into  a  ‘EuroEdgar’  will 
help”  [integrating  the  markets].  “Particular  focus  could  be  placed  in  on  removing  the 
many  hidden  (and  not  so  hidden)  national  barriers  for  investors,  intermediaries  and 
exchanges”67.    Barriers  to  access  and  use  of  information  published  by  entities  in  the 
financial services and capital markets area will therefore have to be examined, as well as 
the  numerous  existing  channels  and  lack  of  interconnection  of  existing  national  or  EU 
repositories. 

65  Transition  to  a  carbon-neutral  and  sustainable  economy  requires  substantial  investments.  The  EU  will 
need  to  invest,  every  year,  €350  billion  more  over  the  period  2021-2030  than  it  did  in  the  period  2011-
2020.  This  is  essential  to  meet the  ambition  of  reducing greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  the  EU  by  
55%  in 2030  compared  to  1990  levels. Public funds will not be sufficient to meet these financing needs. 
Sustainability-related  information  is  key  to  redirect  investments  into  projects  that  will  support  the  green 
transition, as underlined by stakeholders in the consultation on the renewed sustainable finance strategy. 
66 Annex 6 seeks to analyse more deeply the types of users. 
67 The problem with European stock markets, New Financial, William Wright & Eivind Friis Hamre, March 
2021  (p15/21). 

25 

 
  
                                                 
The intervention would not create any new reporting obligation in terms of content, but 
build  on  existing  requirements.  It  would  address  information  that  is  relevant  in  the 
financial services, capital markets and sustainable finance areas, pursuant to the overall 
EU strategy for data in these areas. In addition, the intervention’s objective should not go 
beyond addressing “raw” information published by entities as requested by the EU law. 

4.2 

Specific objectives 

Two major specific objectives are identified in relation to public reporting obligations 
would contribute to the general objective set out above, as seen in Table 1.  

Table 1: Intervention logic 
Problem drivers 

Specific objectives linked to them 

Reporting requirements with different channels as 
regards information to be published.  

Data  repositories  (channelling  a  small  portion  of 
information) are not interconnected 

Expensive channels (data aggregators) 

Language  and  other  barriers 
addressed. 

insufficiently 

Machine readable formats specified for only for a 
few datasets. 

No prevailing market standard for disclosure 
format(s). 

the 

Increasing 
circulation)  of 
information  /  Seamless  and  integrated  access  to 
data published by companies 

flows 

(i.e. 

Increasing digital use (and re-use) of data 

Source: European Commission 

4.2.1 

Increasing the flows  (i.e. circulation) of information / Seamless and integrated 
access to data published by entities 

The  first  specific  objective  is  to  enable  a  seamless  and  integrated  access  to  data 
published by entities subject to disclosure obligations in the area of financial services and 
capital  markets,  including  sustainability  related  data,  whilst  avoiding  disproportionate 
administrative  costs  for  entities,  in  order  to  increase  the  circulation  of  information 
within the Union. 

Increasing the circulation of information published in relation to financial services 
is  necessary  both  within  Member  States  and  cross-border  to  support,  at  least  in 
part, the general objectives of integration. The intervention should remove barriers to 
access,  and  improve  discovery.  This  should  be  addressed  keeping  in  mind  the  need  to 
keep  costs  to  a  minimum68  and  alleviate  other  additional  constraints,  such  as  multiple 
filings69.  The  intervention  should  have  regard  to  ongoing  actions  facilitating  access  to 
data at national level70 and at EU level71. 

68 The CMU Action Plan suggest building as much as possible on existing infrastructure. 
69 As noted in the Fitness Check on corporate reporting, there is broad support, especially by preparers, for 
“file-only-once” principle, but wide variation in maturity in the Member States, let alone at EU level. See 
also  Commission  study:  “EU-wide  digital  once-only  principle  for  citizens  and  businesses”,  December 
2017. 
70 Directive (EU) 2019/1024 on open data and the re-use of public sector information of 16 July 2019. 
71 The European Single Access Point (ESAP) would contribute to the objective of building EU Common 
Shared Data Spaces foreseen by the Commission in its Communication “A Europe fit for the digital age” of 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
4.2.2 

Increasing digital use (and re-use) of data 

The  second  specific  objective  is  to  increase  the  digital  use  (and  re-use)  of  data, 
addressing barriers or hurdles currently in place.  

From  the  digital  use  angle,  the  ESAP  should  seek  to  standardise  the  way  in  which 
information  is  drawn  up  in  order  to  make  it  easier  digitally  use,  analyse  and 
possibly  compare,  thus  reducing  processing  costs  for  users.  The  intervention  should 
remove  barriers  such  as  unnecessary  restrictions  to  re-use,  linguistic  barriers,  etc.  This 
should be consistent with actions which will facilitate use of data at national level and at 
EU level72. 

A minimum viable product should be implemented by end 202473. The intervention 
should also ensure that these measures enable the EU framework to remain dynamic in 
order 
technological  progress  and  remain 
evolutionary74. 

to  accommodate  future 

to  be  able 

5 

5.1 

WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

Considering  how  the  problem  will  evolve,  the  main  characteristics  of  the  baseline 
scenario (i.e. no additional EU action) are that overall there will continue to be  limited 
pan EU access to information  in the financial services area and pervasive barriers 
to  digital  use  and  re-use  of  such  information.  At  the  same  time,  users’  needs  tend  to 
evolve. 

The existing pan EU access to information that is relevant for this initiative is currently 
and  essentially  ESMA’s  registers  (and  somehow  the  EBA).  These  cover  17  reporting 
obligations, that is 8% of the total considered for this initiative75. As part of the baseline, 
other  existing  pan  EU  interconnection  systems  or  databases  are  considered.  In  this 
regard, the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS) is identified as the pan EU 
system  that  presents,  at  first  sight,  relevance  for  the  baseline.  Other  European 
Supervisory  Authorities  (ESAs),  such  as  the  European  Banking  Authority  and  the 
European  Insurance  and  Occupational  Pensions  Authority  (EIOPA)  offer  generally 
limited access to their constituent’s information. 

Business  registers  under  EU  law76  are  in  charge  of  the  disclosure  of  limited  liability 
company  information  to  ensure  publicity  of  such  information  towards  third  parties.  To 
ensure disclosure and publicity at EU level, the Company Law Directive (EU) 2017/1132 

19 February 2020. In addition as stated in the CMU Action Plan, the ESAP should remain complementary 
to the Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS), but should not alter the latter’s functions. 
72  For  instance:  European    Single    Electronic    Format    (ESEF)  applying  to  issuers’  Annual  Financial 
Reports, XML format and metadata in force for prospectuses. 
73 As per the Digital Finance strategy: “By 2024, information to be publically released under EU financial 
services legislation should be disclosed in standardised and  machine-readable formats” – Communication  
from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  a  digital  finance  strategy  for  the  EU,  COM/2020/591 
final. 
74 See Annex 13. 
75 Out of these, 12 reporting obligations must also be filed with a national repository, which is 6% of the 
total reporting obligations. 
76 Company Law Directive (EU) 2017/1132. 

27 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
regulates the BRIS, which interconnects the EU business registers of the Member States, 
Norway and Liechtenstein). As regards information in the financial services area, OAMs 
and NCA collect only a small portion of the available information. Without a proper EU 
dissemination  system  for  information  stored  by  OAMs  and  NCA,  the  information  they 
collect remains not easily available to end users. This is also valid for companies willing 
to disclose voluntarily information relevant for financial services77. 

Considering whether  BRIS could  play  a  role in  the baseline scenario, it is  important  to 
recall  that  BRIS  performs  two  main  functionalities:  a)  it  allows  citizens,  entrepreneurs 
and  companies  to  obtain  data  on  more  than  20  million  EU  limited  companies  and 
branches  through  the  “Find  a  Company”  functionality  of  the  European  e-Justice  Portal 
and  b)  allows  business  registers  to  exchange  information  on  e.g.  foreign  branches  and 
cross-border mergers of companies. There are however a number of factors that prevent 
retaining  the  BRIS  in  the  baseline.  The  main  reasons  are  this  initiative  and  BRIS  have 
different intended users, consuming different information in a different way. In addition, 
there  are  different  collection  bodies  with  limited  overlap  on  the  data  collected.  In 
particular: 

  This  initiative  focuses  mainly  on  entity  and  product  related  information  that  is 
relevant  mainly  for  investors,  with  the  purpose  of  serving  market  needs.  By 
contrast,  BRIS  covers  the  company  information  to  be  disclosed  under  EU 
Company  Law  to  the  general  public  (such  as  citizens,  professionals  and 
companies) in order to provide legal certainty of such information. 

  Whereas  users  in  the  financial  markets  may  consider  business  registers  as  a 
source  of  information,  the  information  of  interest,  for  instance  the  annual 
financial  reports  of  listed  companies,  is  also  found  in  the  OAMs  for  market 
participants.  The  vast  majority  of  information  otherwise  offered  in  the  BRIS, 
based  on  the  Company  Law  Directive,  would  have  no  immediate  interest  to 
investors for the purpose of this initiative.  

  Time wise, the BRIS delivery of information about financial statements of listed 
companies differs from OAMs. While a maximum of 12 months is allowed by the 
EU  law  for  filing  financial  statements  with  a  business  register,  the  delay  is 
reduced to 4 month for an issuer (i.e. listed company) to file this information with 
an OAM. 

  The overlap on data collected by BRIS and ESAP would be limited and focused 
on  the  accounting  documents  required  from  companies  issuing  securities  on 
regulated  markets  by  the  Company  Law,  the  Accounting  Directive  and  the 
Transparency Directive, namely: financial statements, audit reports, management 
reports including corporate sustainable reporting, country-by-country reporting by 
extractive  industries,  i.e.  a  few  reporting  obligations.  This  overlap  concerns 
currently up to around 12 000 companies depending on the type of document, and 
in the future possibly up to 49 139 companies, should the Commission proposal 
of 21 April 2021 for a corporate sustainability reporting Directive be endorsed by 
the co-legislators.  

77  Currently  the  focus  of  most  OAMs  and  ESAs  is  on  the  collection  and  dissemination  of  information 
stemming from a reporting obligation on companies. A few OAMs offer additional information from the 
same companies, such as on company governance, announcements, etc. 

28 

 
                                                 
Therefore, considering the above, BRIS is not relevant in the baseline scenario. 

With regards to digital use, some progress is expected under the baseline scenario thanks 
to the entry into application of the European Single Electronic Format (ESEF), ensuring 
that a good portion of issuers’ annual financial reports (i.e. around 3,500 entities issuers 
of securities on the EU regulated markets that prepare consolidated financial statements 
in IFRS78) become readily machine-readable from fiscal year 2021. And this is only for 
one  reporting  obligation.  Therefore  despite  significant  progress  over  the  last  years,  the 
widespread digital use of information would remain hampered by the situation. 

As  a  result,  in  the  baseline  scenario,  discovery  and  processing  costs  would  remain 
significant for users. Reduced flow and digital use of information represent a barrier to 
integrated financial services and capital markets at the Union level, leading to losses of 
funding  or  investment  opportunities,  sub-optimal  allocation  and  higher  costs  of  capital, 
hampering the full potential of the internal market in the financial sector. 

In  parallel,  users’  needs  tend  to  evolve.  The  main  message  during  consultation  is  the 
emerging  need  for  access  to  ESG  information.  This  information  is  increasingly 
demanded, notably by investors, fund managers, intermediates, advisors, as well as civil 
society and public authorities due to recent regulatory evolutions in the Union79, but also 
by the public at large for various purposes out of the general fight against climate change. 
This  bottleneck  may  become  a  significant  barrier  to  achieving  the  sustainable  finance 
angle of the Green Deal. 

From the market  side, extant registers (other than data aggregators) are not  satisfactory 
solutions as none can fully solve all the problems identified (Annex 12). One can expect 
that  technologies  relevant  to  this  problem  will  continue  to  emerge  but  there  is  no  clear 
indication that they would resolve a substantial part of the problem in a timely manner.  

5.2 

Description of the policy options 

The policy options focus on how to establish a single access point in order to achieve the 
specific  policy  objectives  outlined  in  section  4,  rather  than  considering  a  single  access 
point as one possibility among others to tackle the problems. 

This is because a vast majority could support an EU single access point as a way of 
improving  access,  even  though  some  recognised  that  there  could  be  other  avenues  to 
improve access on the basis of numerous sources of information or other ways – however 
providing  no  clear  alternative  efficient  direction.  There  is  a  strong  support80  among  all 
stakeholders for a single access point at the EU level as the best solution to address the 
problems.  Asked  during  the  public  consultation  on  the  Renewed  sustainable  finance 
strategy (April-July 2020) if EU policy action is needed to help maximise the potential of 
digital  tools  for  integrating  sustainability  into  the  financial  sector,  most  respondents 
indicated  that  digital  tools  have  a  role  to  play  to  ensure  accessible,  reliable  data  (e.g. 
centralized  and  open-source  EU  wide  ESG  database,  free  of  charge).  Only  some 
suggested other ways such as promote innovation, create new instruments (e.g. through 
research  grants  and  award  programs).  There  was  a  strong  support  during  workshops 

78  Annual Report on enforcement and regulatory activities, Annex 3, p. 73, ESMA, 2020. 
79  Under  the  SFDR,  financial  market  participants  and  financial  advisers  are  required  to  disclose  product 
information related to sustainability for both environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-related products 
and non-ESG products. 
80  As indicated by the consultation activities, see Annex 2. 

29 

 
                                                 
(Annex  4)  for  a  single  access  point  (confirmed  by  survey  on  the  spot,  including  for 
users). A few users believed that having access to the information in a centralized manner 
was  not  key  –  however  not  providing  a  clear  description  what  other  solutions  might 
consist  of. A group of  Member State working  on the CMU (Next  CMU) reported their 
clear support for a central access point as a way to facilitate cross-border investments and 
access  to  the EU pool  of liquidity81.  Both  the Council82 and the European Parliament83 
supported  the  CMU  Action  plan  as  regards  the  “European  single  access  point”  The 
Parliament  calls  in  particular  with  a  view  to  potential  efficiency  gains,  to  consider 
gradually  granting  ESMA  direct  supervisory  powers  as  well  as  greater  product 
intervention powers in this respect. 

The  European  economy  has  historically  suffered  from  a  lack  of  diversified  sources  of 
funding  for  companies,  hence  the  need  to  tackle  the  barriers  to  the  flow  of  capital,  to 
remove  regulatory  and  non-regulatory  barriers  to  the  free  movement  of  capital  across 
borders.  The  final  report  of  the  High  Level  Forum  (HLF)  on  Capital  Markets  Union, 
published  in  June  2020,  has  highlighted  the  need  to  set-up  a  European  Single  Access 
Point  (ESAP),  which  will  aim  at  improving  access  to  entities’  financial  and 
sustainability-related  information.  Indeed,  the  purpose  of  the  members  of  the  HLF  on 
CMU was to reflect on a new vision for the Europe’s capital markets. Hence, members 
have  stressed  that  the  EU  suffered  from  a  market  competition  disadvantage  and 
insufficient EU market-based financing compared to e.g. the United-States notably due to 
the  lack  of  easy  access,  reliable,  understandable  and  comparable  public  information  in 
the  financial  services  and  capital  markets  area.  To  tackle  these  issues,  members  of  the 
HLF saw merit in mirroring in the EU solutions in place in comparable markets of third 
countries,  that  is  a  single  access  point  to  information  however  with  a  broader  scope  to 
also capture sustainability-related and other information. The final report of the HLF on 
CMU84  stated  that  the  ESAP  would  be  a  “game-changer  for  investors,  companies  and 
financial intermediaries85.” Hence, this initiative has been  flagged as  the  first  action of 
the Capital Markets Union (CMU) Action Plan, published in September 2020. 

A single access point is consistent with the European strategy for data and on digital 
finance  which  both  herald  common  data  spaces  in  the  financial  sector  for  enhanced 
access to data and data sharing. 

This section presents the different policy options for the following five main dimensions 
that  are  crucial  to  ensure  relevant  objectives  are  met:  (1)  scope  of  the  information 
accessible via ESAP; (2) format of the information accessible via ESAP; (3) collection of 
the information accessible via ESAP and interconnection of existing collection points; (4) 
open data, and (5)  governance.  These are  considered to  be the core aspects  in  terms  of 
addressing the identified problems and they are also the principal determinants of costs. 
An  overview  of  which  policy  options  can  serve  the  objectives  is  provided  in  Table 2. 
Table 3 provides a summary of the options presented in this section.  

81 Savings and Sustainable Investment Union, Report to Ministers, NextCMU, Oct. 2019. 
82 Council Conclusions on the Commission’s CMU Action Plan, ECOFIN, 2 December 2020. 
83 European Parliament resolution of 8 October 2020 on further development of the Capital Markets Union 
(CMU):  improving  access  to  capital  market  finance,  in  particular  by  SMEs,  and  further  enabling  retail 
investor participation (2020/2036(INI)). 
84 Final report of the High Level Forum on the Capital Markets Union - A new vision for Europe’s capital 
markets, HLF CMU, 10.06.2020. 
85 https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/cmu-high-level-forum-final-report_en. 

30 

 
                                                 
The  following  aspects  are  considered  to  be  more  technical  and  less  crucial  for  the 
achievement of the ESAP specific objectives: (i) ESAP functionalities; (ii) timeliness of 
information accessibility via the ESAP; (iii) ensuring data integrity and credibility of the 
source;  (iv)  ensuring  data  quality;  (v)  addressing  language  barriers;  (vi)  removal  of 
certain  barriers  to  access;  (vii)  file  only  once  principle;  (viii)  grand  fathering;  (ix) 
retention  period;  (x)  principles  about  “voluntary  information”  which  will  be  accessible 
via  the  ESAP;  These  aspects  are  important  but  do  not  represent  a  key  dimension  in 
addressing the identified problems and determining costs, and are therefore presented in 
Annex 14. 

Annex  15  specifies  policy  options  (both  for  the  main  dimensions  and  for  the 
technical/non-core  aspects)  that  were  considered  but  discarded  at  an  early  stage, 
explaining the reasons for such choice.  

Table 2: Overview of how the 5 key dimensions address the specific objectives 

Scope of the 
information  
accessible via 
ESAP 

Format of the  
information  
accessible via 
ESAP 

Key dimensions 

Collection of the 
information and 
interconnection 
of existing  
collection points 

Open data  

Governance 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

N/A 

Seamless 
and 
integrated  access  to 
data  published  by 
entities  /  increased 
circulation 
of 
information 

Increased  digital  use 
(and 
of 
information 

re-use) 

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
c
i
f
i
c
e
p
S

              Source: European Commission 

Table 3: Overview of the policy options for the 5 key dimensions 

Scope  
of the information  

Format 
of the information  

Option 1 
Core information: 
Only entity-related 
info mandatorily 
published by listed 
entities. No product-
related nor other 
mandatory info. No 
voluntary info 
accepted.     

Option 1 
Low intensity: 
All existing formats 
are accepted + 
common minimum 
metadata for all info 
disclosed + specific 
metadata for non-
machine readable 
formats. 

Collection  
of the information  
and interconnection 
of existing  
collection points 

Option 1 
Entities submit the 
information directly 
to the OAMs or to 
other collection 
points that send it to 
the OAMs. Only 
OAMs are 
interconnected with 
the ESAP. 

Option 2 
Fair coverage: 

Option 2 
Somehow 

Option 2 

   Entities submit the 

31 

Open data  

Governance 

Option 1 
A single open licence 

Option 2 
Various similar open 
licenses 

Option 3  
licensing system 
based on collection 
points 

Option 1 
Private entities 
supervised by ESMA 

Option 2 
A concession 
overseen by the 
Commission 

Option 3  
ESMA in charge 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
All entity-related info 
published by listed 
entities + certain 
entity-related info 
published by non-
listed entities + 
certain product-
related info 
published. No other 
mandatory info. 
Certain voluntary info 
accepted.  

Option 3 
Widest possible 
scope: 
All info published by 
entities in the scope 
of EU financial 
markets legislation to 
be included 
progressively. All 
relevant voluntary 
info accepted. 

prescriptive: 
Certain info to be in 
an open and widely 
used data extractable 
format (see annex 
20). For the remaining 
info, all existing 
formats accepted + 
specific metadata for 
non-machine 
readable formats. 
Common minimum 
metadata for all types 
of information / 
documents. 

Option 3 
Very prescriptive: 
Only open and widely 
used data extractable 
formats are accepted 
+ common minimum 
metadata for all info.  

information to a 
collection point that 
is interconnected 
with the ESAP at the 
same time as they 
make the information 
public. OAMs, ESAs 
(where needed), 
NCAs (where needed) 
and other collection 
points are 
interconnected with 
the ESAP 

Option 3 
Entities submit the 
information/documen
ts only to the OAMs, 
which send it to the 
national/EU 
supervisory 
authorities. Only the 
OAMs are 
interconnected with 
ESAP. 

5.2.1  Options for the scope of the information accessible via ESAP  

This section presents the policy options for the information that would be accessible via 
ESAP.  

The scope (and related options) is driven by the objectives. This confines the scope to be 
examined to information that is relevant for use in the financial services and capital 
markets  area,  as  well  as  in  relation  to  sustainability.  On  the  basis  of  a  wide 
encompassing mapping of EU law, the Commission services identified the Directives and 
Regulations potentially serving this purpose86. 

During  the  mapping  exercise  it  appeared  that  certain  market  participants  had  reporting 
obligations that confine to being a register, in relation to transaction based information, 
and  not  always  for  the  purpose  of  making  that  information  primarily  available  to  the 
public.  This  includes  the  central  securities  depositories  –  CSD,  the  Central  clearing 
counterparty – CCP, market operators, Data Reporting Services Providers, Consolidated 
Tape  Providers  –  CTP,  Approved  Publication  Arrangements  –  APA,  Systemic 
Internalisers.  By  nature,  this  information  does  not  respond  to  the  objectives  of  this 
initiative. For instance, some requirements may imply an obligation for timely disclosure 
(15  minutes  after  the  event),  others  require  specific  access  means  with  the  ability  to 
address massive amounts of data with high frequency. For that matter, these transaction-
related reporting obligations should remain out of the scope of the ESAP. Nevertheless, 
any  low  frequency  entity-related  or  product-related  reporting  obligations  impinging  on 
these  bodies,  such  as  governance  reports,  would  represent  relevant  information  for  the 
ESAP. 

86  Deloitte,  Regulatory  framework  analysis  for  potential  integration  into  the  European  Electronic  Access 
Point (EEAP), June 2019 / mapping  by BR-AG  (Annex 9, Annex 11) 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
For the purpose of this impact assessment, the information that EU/third country entities 
have to publish under EU financial markets law87 (i.e. the mandatory information) can be 
divided  into  the  following  subcategories:  a)  entity-related  information88;  b)  product-
related information89; c) other information90. Some reporting obligations may pertain to 
several categories. 

For the purpose of this impact assessment, “voluntary information”91 means information 
relevant  for  financial  markets  that  EU/third-country  entities  in  the  scope  of  the  EU 
financial  markets  law  publish  on  a  voluntary  basis  or  in  any  case  beyond  EU 
requirements92.  

Third countries entities whose securities are traded on an EU regulated market will have 
to mandatorily make available via the ESAP any information required by EU law.  

5.2.1.1  Option 1 – Only entity-related information published by listed entities under EU 

law. No voluntary information.  

In this option focusing on essential core information demanded by investors, the ESAP 
would  provide  access  only  on  entity-related  information  (financial  and  sustainability-
related)  that  has  to  be  published  under  EU  law  by  issuers  with  securities  admitted  to 
trading  on  the  EU  regulated  markets  (i.e.  all  the  information  to  be  disclosed  under  the 
Transparency  Directive93  representing  8  reporting  obligations).  This  option  includes 
listed  entities’  entity-related  sustainability-related  information94.  No  other  mandatory 
information, such as financial and sustainability information by large non-listed entities, 
would  be  accessible  via  the  ESAP.  No  information  published  by  EU/third-country 
entities  in  the  scope  of  EU  financial  markets  law  on  a  voluntary  basis  or  beyond  the 
specific EU requirements would be accessible via the ESAP.  

5.2.1.2  Option  2  –  All  entity-related  information  published  by  listed  entities  +  key 
entity-related information published by non-listed entities + key product-related 
information. Certain voluntary information.  

In addition to the information disclosed under Option 1, the ESAP would provide access 
to  key  entity-related  information95  required  under  the  EU  law  the  access  to  which  is 
overall  highly  supported  by  users  (i.e.  prospectuses/URD,  Corporate  sustainable 
reporting  by  non-listed  entities,  shareholders’  rights  reports,  takeover  bids,  audit  firms’ 
reports, market abuse - representing altogether around 53 reporting obligations), as well 

87 See Annex 14 for the list of all relevant EU legal acts. 
88 Entity-related information relates to an entity, its performance, its organisation, what it does, etc.  
89 Product-related information relates to products that are packaged, marketed and sold by entities. 
90 Information that is neither entity nor product related. 
91 See also Annex 14 for a detailed analysis of SMEs voluntary disclosures. 
92 E.g. publication of quarterly reporting  by EU/third country entities listed on the EU regulated markets;  
publication of ESG by non-listed SMEs.  
93 E.g. financial statements, management reports, issuer’s responsibility statements, reports on payments to 
governments, major changes in shareholdings’ voting rights. The ESAP would have the same scope as the 
European  Electronic  Access  Point  (EEAP),  which  was  established  by  ESMA  under  the  Transparency 
Directive but never became operational. 
94  Sustainability-related  information  –  which  is  currently  required  under  Directive  2014/95/EU  “Non-
Financial Reporting Directive” and which is expected to become more available and more standardised as a 
result of the CSRD proposal – is included in the management report. The Transparency Directive specifies 
– inter alia – the publication requirements of listed entities’ management reports. 
95 i.e. entity-related information identified as key based on the outcome of the consultation activities.  

33 

 
                                                 
as  key  product-related  information96  published  by  entities  (i.e.  essentially  in  laws 
pertaining  to  sustainable  finance  and  on  indices  used  as  benchmarks  to  measure  the 
performance of investment funds representing 5 reporting obligations). Adding 21 more 
information that is related to both entity and product the option would address altogether 
around 79 reporting obligations. The ESAP would enable EU/third-country entities in the 
scope of EU financial markets law to make similar information accessible on a voluntary 
basis via the ESAP. 

5.2.1.3  Option  3  –  All  information  published  by  entities  in  the  scope  of  EU  financial 

markets legislation. All relevant voluntary information 

The  ESAP  would  progressively97  provide  access  to  all  entity,  product  and  other 
information  that  has  to  be  published  by  any  entity  under  the  EU  financial  markets 
legislation  (see  the  list  of  relevant  EU  legal  acts  in  Annex  9),  representing  around  200 
reporting  obligations98.  The  ESAP  would  (accept  and)  provide  access  to  all  similar 
information published by EU/third-country entities in the scope of EU financial markets 
law on a voluntary basis or in any case beyond the EU specific requirements.  

5.2.2  Options for the format of the information mandatorily accessible via ESAP  

This section presents the policy options for the format of the information accessible via 
ESAP.  

The information that respondents to our targeted consultation most commonly preferred 
to be made machine-readable were financial statements (86%), half-year financial reports 
of  listed  entities  (78%),  sustainability-related  information  (73%),  management  reports 
(68%)  and  audit  reports  (58%),  representing  altogether  4  reporting  obligations.  In 
addition,  there  was  some  interest  (>40%)  in  ensuring  the  machine  readability  of  the 
information  on  the  number  of  voting  rights  in  entities,  reports  on  payments  to 
governments  (country-by-country  reporting),  remuneration  policies,  prospectuses, 
solvency and financial condition reports of insurance entities, notifications of acquisition 
or disposal of major holdings, and key information documents, that is another 6 reporting 
obligations.  

For the purposes of this impact assessment, “data extractable format” is defined (Annex 
20) as a portable data format that allows computers at least to identify and extract string 
of  characters  or  data  but  not  necessarily  to  recognise  its  nature  or  compute  it  straight 
away electronically. Formats such as PDF can be considered as data extractable if the file 
contains  the  characters,  i.e.  this  is  not  a  scanned  PDF.  A  subset  of  these,  “machine-
readable formats”, are meant to be a portable data extractible format that – in addition – 
allows computers to identify, extract  and compute straight away electronically the data. 
For instance, the ESEF format for annual financial reports of listed entities in XHTML in 
combination  with  the  XBRL  mark-up  language,  i.e.  a  specific  coding  technique  with 
“tags” to define elements within a document, allows the presentation of information in a 
way that both machines and humans can search, read and analyse more easily. 

96 i.e. product-related information identified as key based on the outcome of the consultation activities.  
97 See Annex 16 for an overview of the suggested phased approach.  
98  In  addition  to  the  information  provided  under  Option  1  and  2,  Option  3  would  include  for  instance 
information on investment funds, investment services, credit rating agencies, etc.  

34 

 
                                                 
Making  information  machine  readable  on  a  systematic  basis  may  be  envisaged  as  an 
option.  In  such  a  setting,  the  information  published  by  entities  would  have  to  be 
mandatorily  drawn-up  and  submitted  in  one  (or  a  few)  predetermined  specific  single 
machine-readable format(s) in order to be accepted by the ESAP. This option is however 
discarded at an early stage for the following reasons: 

i)  Machine  readability  depends  to  a  great  extent  on  the  preliminary  existence  of 
structured  data  on  the  basis  of,  for  instance,  layouts,  taxonomies,  templates,  forms 
associated with certain information, and a format. For instance, a template + CSV, or 
a  taxonomies  standard  +  XHTML/XBRL  allow  for  machine  readability  because  of 
the combination of a data structure and of a format. If the template or taxonomies are 
missing  the  information  will  not  be  truly  machine  readable  even  if  a  machine 
readable  format  is  adopted,  because  the  machine  will  not  recognise  the  nature  of 
information  it  is  dealing  with.  Data  structuring  is  therefore  a  prerogative  of  the 
sectoral  legislation,  having  to  do  with  its  inherent  objectives,  which  is  beyond  the 
objectives  of  the  ESAP  initiative  addressing  the  accessibility  and  digital  use  of 
information. 

ii)  The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  fitness  check  consultation  did  not  support 
extending  electronic  data  structuring  to  all  (including  non-listed)  entities’  financial 
statements in the EU, even less so to management reports and other reporting, as this 
would  be  a  non-proportionate  measure  leading  to  unnecessary  standardisation  and 
compliance costs; 

iii)  Based  on  our  consultation  activities,  most  stakeholders  (except  retail  investors  and 
data  aggregators)  could  cope  with  different  formats  for  different  types  of 
information99. They did not necessarily support a single format and could live with 
different formats. In fact, with tools such as viewers, readers, software etc., ensuring 
easy and actual machine readability, many users believed that this could be sufficient 
to ensure digital use including comparability and analysis of information; 

iv)  As  machine  readable  formats  come  with  their  own  characteristics,  constraints  and 
benefits,  a  tailor-made  approach  is  necessary  to  assess  which  format,  if  any,  is  the 
most  appropriate  for  a  given  information  depending  on  the  content,  perceived 
importance or needs of the users for each reported information, as well as costs and 
benefits.  Whereas  the  ESEF  was  widely  supported  by  many  types  of  users  during 
consultation,  there  are  other  valid  formats  to  ensure  machine  readability,  as  seen 
during  consultation  (CSV,  XML,  XBRL...).  Imposing  the  same  machine  readable 
format  for  all  information  would  also  prove  disproportionate  if  some  semantic 
interoperability  and  data  searchability  is  otherwise  ensured  and  commensurate  to 
users’ needs, such as e.g. in the prospectus domain. An analysis has to be conducted 
at  the  level  of  each  sectoral  legislation  (rather  than  on  a  central  basis)  to  ensure 
proportional approach. 

Against this backdrop, the option of a “one size fits all” single machine-readable format 
for  all  the  information  accessible  via  ESAP  would  be  disproportionately  burdensome 
and/or  inappropriate.  In  particular,  having  a  “one  size  fits  all”  approach  would  require 
substantial  changes  in  most  of  the  existing  EU  financial  markets  legislation  and  create 
additional administrative burden and unnecessary costs for entities and collection points.  

99 This is the view of a majority of users as well as authorities. There is no overall support from preparers, 
due  to  concerns  on  possible  compliance  costs  implied  by  multiple  formats,  but  still  some  support 
(flexibility). 

35 

 
                                                 
Nevertheless,  aiming  for  machine  readability  is  key  to  reach  the  objective  of  increased 
digital use and re-use of data (consultation). Hence as an overarching principle for all the 
options examined below, it is considered that the intervention will confer powers on the 
Commission to adopt machine readable formats by ways of level 2 measures (secondary 
law such as Commission Decision) in each relevant sectoral legislation concerned. This 
would allow to examine the case for machine readability on a wide scale, yet possibly on 
a case by case basis, not pre-empting any solution or having any impacts at this stage.  

The following options were identified as regards formats: 

5.2.2.1  Option 1 – All existing formats are accepted + common minimum metadata for 

all information disclosed + specific metadata for non-machine readable formats 

The  ESAP  would  accept  information/documents  prepared  in  all  the  existing  formats 
(regardless  of  whether  they  are  open  and  widely  used  data  extractable  formats).  This 
would effectively mean that most information available through ESAP would not be data 
extractable  or  machine  readable.  The  ESAP  would  specify  a  common  minimum  set  of 
metadata100 for all the information to be disclosed (including a legal entity identifier). In 
addition,  the  Commission  would  be  provided  with  delegated  powers  to  define  via 
delegated acts  specific metadata for each type of document where the existing required 
format is not machine-readable.  

5.2.2.2  Option 2 – Certain information/documents to be in an open and widely used data 
extractable  format.  For  the  remaining  information/documents,  all  existing 
formats  accepted  +  specific  metadata  for  non-machine  readable  formats. 
Common minimum metadata for all types of information/documents.  
The  ESAP  would  specify  a  list  of  key  information/documents101  that  would  have  to  be 
drawn-up  in  an  open  and  widely  used  data  extractable  format.  The  Commission  would 
have delegated powers to specify a machine readable format.  

For  the  information/documents  not  on  this  list,  the  ESAP  would  accept  all  the  existing 
formats (regardless of whether they are open and widely used data extractable formats), 
and would  provide  the  Commission  with  delegated powers to  define via delegated acts 
specific  metadata  for  each  type  of  document  where  the  existing  required  format  is  not 
machine-readable.  A  common  minimum  set  of  metadata  (including  a  lei)  would  be 
specified for all kinds of information/documents. 

5.2.2.3  Option 3 – Only open and widely used data extractable formats are accepted + 

common minimum metadata for all information/documents 

The  ESAP  would  accept  only  documents  prepared  in  an  open  and  widely  used  data 
extractable format102. The ESAP would specify a common minimum set of metadata for 
all the information to be disclosed (including a legal entity identifier).  

100  For  instance :  entity  name,  entity  identifier  (lei),  entity  home  Member  State,  ISIN  codes,  type  of 
information, language, reference year, publication date, source collecting point, link to source registry. 
101 Identified on the basis of our consultation activities.  
102 i.e. scanned PDFs are not accepted anymore.  

36 

 
                                                 
5.2.3  Options  for  the  collection  of  the  information  accessible  via  ESAP  and  the 

interconnection of the existing collection points 

This  section presents  the policy options  for the collection of the information  accessible 
via ESAP  and the interconnection of the existing  collection points (OAMs, NCAs,  and 
ESAs)103.  

5.2.3.1  Option  1  –  Entities  submit  the  information  directly  to  the  OAMs  or  to  other 
collection points that send it to the OAMs. Only OAMs are interconnected with 
the ESAP. 

Entities  would  keep  submitting  the  information  to  the  existing  national/EU  collection 
points  specified  under  EU  law104  and  would  keep  publishing  the  information  via  the 
existing publication channels105. The existing national/EU collection points other than the 
OAMs  would  subsequently  submit  the  information  to  the  OAMs.  In  the  absence  of  a 
collection  point  specified  under  EU  law,  the  entities  would  submit  the  information 
(including  voluntary  information106)  directly  to  the  OAMs.  Only  the  OAMs  are 
interconnected with the ESAP. 

5.2.3.2 

 Option  2  -  Entities  submit  the  information  to  a  collection  point  that  is 
interconnected  with  the  ESAP  at  the  same  time  as  they  make  the  information 
public.  OAMs,  ESAs  (where  needed),  NCAs  (where  needed)  and  other 
collection points are interconnected with the ESAP.  

Entities  would  keep  submitting  the  information  to  the  existing  national/EU  collection 
points  specified  under  EU  law107  and  would  keep  publishing  the  information  via  the 
existing publication channels108. OAMs, NCAs (where entities submit information to the 
NCA) and ESAs (where entities file information directly to the ESAs) are interconnected 
with the ESAP. In the absence of a collection point specified under EU law, the entities 
would submit the information (including voluntary information109) directly to a collection 
point  interconnected  with  the  ESAP  at  the  same  time  as  they  make  such  information 
public.  

5.2.3.3 

 Option 3 - Entities submit the information/documents only to the OAMs, which 
send  it  to  the  national/EU  supervisory  authorities.  Only  the  OAMs  are 
interconnected with ESAP. 

Entities submit the information (including voluntary information) only to the OAMs. The 
national/EU  supervisory  authorities110  do  not  collect  information  directly  anymore  but 
the information reaches them via the OAMs. Only the OAMs are interconnected with the 
ESAP. 

103 See complete list of the existing collection points in Annex 10.  
104 e.g. the National Competent Authorities, the Officially Appointed Mechanisms “OAMs”, the European 
Supervisory Authorities “ESAs”, etc.   
105 e.g. via media, entity websites, etc.  
106 Annex 14: Ancillary/Technical/non-core aspects of the ESAP. 
107 e.g. the Officially Appointed Mechanisms “OAMs”, the European Supervisory Authorities “ESAs”, etc.   
108 e.g. via media, entity websites, etc.  
109 Annex 14: Ancillary/Technical/non-core aspects of the ESAP. 
110 i.e. the National Competent Authorities “NCAs” and the ESAs. 

37 

 
                                                 
5.2.4  Options for open data  

The ESAP will contain information that is of high value for users in the financial services 
and capital markets area. Many end users will re-use information in a way or another, for 
personal consumption or commercial purposes.  

Determining rights on data use and re-use is necessary to ensure uniform application and 
user rights. This is key to enable legally sound use and re-use on a pan-Union basis. The 
ESAP should aim to ensure fair, proportionate and non-discriminatory conditions for the 
re-use  of  such  information.  The  terms  of  re-use  should  also  have  regards  to  the  public 
interest, hence allow for commercial re-use. Conditions for re-use laid down in the Open 
Data Directive could be used as a benchmark. In particular, there should be no obstacle to 
re-use for commercial purposes (including value added services, new products, or use to 
package products). 

In  line  with  the  Open  Data  Directive,  information  shall  be  available  free  of  charge  (in 
principle there should be no access fees), the re-use of such information shall be free of 
charge  and  not  limited  by  database  rights.  According  to  anecdotal  evidence,  providing 
data free of charge could increase the overall number of users accessing the ESAP by a 
factor  of  100111,  therefore  increasing  visibility  of  the  entities  whose  information  is 
accessible. 

The  Open  Data  Directive  develops  minimum  harmonisation  of  national  rules  and 
practices  on  the  re-use  of  public  sector  documents  and  data.  National  and  EU  public 
bodies, private registers (OAMs) often impose specific terms of use. These may include 
restrictions  stemming  from  copyright  on  the  content  or  database  (sui  generis)  rights. 
Certain  terms  of  use  require  a  specific  agreement  between  the  body  and  the  end  user 
(Annex 19). Certain information, such as Annual financial reports of issuers of securities, 
is  in  the  scope  of  the  implementing  act  about  High  Value  Datasets  of  the  Open  Data 
Directive. 

Against this backdrop, three options are envisaged as regards open data: 

5.2.4.1  Option 1 – A single open licence (i.e. no impediment to re-use data) 

All datasets retrieved from ESAP are subject to a single license adopted by the EU that 
allows users to re-use data without any impediments, for instance the Creative Commons 
license CC BY112. Collection points must apply the same single open licence on the data 
that they make available on the ESAP.  

5.2.4.2  Option 2 – Equivalent open licenses 

Each  collection  point  determines  the  license  applying  to  the  data  within  the  terms 
equivalent to those of a reference licence determined at EU level (e.g. a commonly used 
open  license  such  as  CC  BY  allowing  commercial  re-use,  creation  and  distribution  of 
derivative  works).  The  Commission  has  delegated  powers  to  determine  the  terms  and 
which  licenses  can  be  considered  equivalent.  Datasets  retrieved  from  the  ESAP  are 
subject to different (but equivalent) terms of use.   

111 Impact Assessment study on the list of High Value Datasets to be made available by the Member States 
under the Open Data Directive, Deloitte, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-25267-2. 
112 Creative Commons — Attribution 2.0 Generic — CC BY 2.0 or Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 
International — CC BY 4.0. 

38 

 
                                                 
5.2.4.3  Option 3 – Licenses chosen by each collection point  

Each  collection  point  determines  the  license  applying  to  each  piece  of  information, 
assuming  that  such  license  is  in  conformity  with  the  Open  Data  Directive.  Datasets 
retrieved from the ESAP are therefore subject to different terms of use.   

5.2.5  Options for the governance 

Governance  is  an  important  dimension  attracting  the  interest  of  stakeholders  and  with 
potentially significant budgetary implications. Nevertheless, the choice of the governance 
model would have no significantly  different  impacts  on the collection points, preparers 
and  users  and  no  noticeable  economic,  environmental,  social  and  fundamental  rights 
impacts.  

The  governing  body’s  tasks  would  include  developing  the  infrastructure  of  the  ESAP, 
managing  technical  solutions,  managing access  rights  within the legislative boundaries, 
ensuring high quality of service delivery, possibly managing fee based model (price list, 
retrocessions,  billing),  monitoring,  ensuring  adequate  consideration  of  user  or  other 
stakeholders’ feedback, ensuring budgetary compliance, etc.  

At this  stage, an integrated approach on the basis of the BRIS is  discarded upfront.  As 
mentioned earlier, this initiative focuses mainly on entity and product related information 
that  is  relevant  mainly  for  investors,  with  a  view  to  serving  the  financial  services’  and 
markets’ objectives. By contrast, BRIS covers the information that are mandatory to be 
disclosed by companies under EU Company Law, in order to provide the general public 
(such as citizens, professionals and companies) legal certainty of such information. BRIS 
also  provides  for  the  exchange  of  certain  data  between  business  registers  to  ensure  i.e. 
they have up-to-date files on limited liability companies with cross-border aspects. Hence 
BRIS  has  a  governance  and  scope  that  would  not  serve  the  purpose  of  this  initiative. 
Using BRIS to enable access to market information would entail tangible impact on the 
governance  and  infrastructure  of  BRIS  to  a  point  where  this  could  alter  the  original 
intended legal functions. In terms of infrastructure and costs, the different characteristics 
the  following 
along  with  some  key  functionalities  required  for  ESAP suggest 
development needs for the BRIS system in order for ESAP to be built on top of the same 
infrastructure:  modify  the BRIS database structure to  add a broad set  of  new metadata, 
developing  the  BRIS  user  interface  to  make  use  of  new  structural  data  or  AI  based 
solutions,  developing  support  for  new  global  identifiers  (e.g.  for  products),  enable  a 
whole new set of communication with new reporting entities (e.g. OAMs), making use of 
the  added  metadata  to  facilitate  search  for  entities  and  data,  developing  application 
programming  interfaces,  implement  new  translation  systems,  developing  functionalities 
like allowing subscription by users to a certain data set. Whereas the costs of developing 
such  features  on  BRIS  have  not  been  assessed,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  these 
would  be  significantly  lower  than  costs  estimated  for  an  alternative  infrastructure  built 
from  scratch,  as  the  BRIS  infrastructure  in  this  setting  would  need  to  be  thoroughly 
modified. Furthermore, collection points are clearly distinct at Member States level. All 
but one (Germany) have chosen to rely on specific national repositories for the markets 
(OAMs) distinct from the business registers113.  

Due to these distinct scope, objectives and orientations and intended characteristics of the 
two  systems,  and  as  mentioned  in  the  CMU  Action  Plan,  the  Commission  services 

113 Annex 10. 

39 

 
                                                 
consider therefore that the ESAP should be built separately from the BRIS. As said in the 
CMU  Action  Plan,  the  ESAP  should  be  complementary  to  BRIS,  without  altering  its 
function. 

When  asked  whether  specific  categories  of  stakeholders  should  be  involved  in  the 
governance of ESAP, 85% of the respondents to the consultation supported involvement 
of  EU  authorities,  including  the  ESAs,  the  Commission,  individually  or  in  a  form  of  a 
committee.  Around  half  of  the  respondents  supported  that  the  governance  should  in 
addition  involve  a  wider  range  of  stakeholders  such  as  issuers  (51%),  investors  (46%), 
and NCAs (46%).  

Against  this  backdrop,  three  options  with  high  potential  for  effectiveness  were 
identified114. 

5.2.5.1  Option 1 – Private entities supervised by ESMA 

In this option, private companies established in the EU would volunteer to be registered 
as  “an  ESAP”  with  ESMA,  and  would  be  supervised  by  ESMA.  Specifications  for  the 
registration would be developed, and provide at least for the obligation for each private 
ESAP  to  cover  the  full  intended  scope  of  information,  both  geographically  and 
thematically,  as well as  comply with full intended specifications (including free access, 
licensing  terms,  etc.).  ESMA  would  enforce  EU  rules  on  the  ESAP  (i.e.  scope, 
functionalities...) 

These private ESAPs would have the obligation to provide access for free to information 
but  would  have  a  right  to  charge  fees  on  users  in  need  of  premium  services,  such  as 
obtaining high volumes based on frequent queries. 

Collection points would have the obligation to provide free and unencumbered access to 
the information they collect, possibly via APIs, to each ESAP. 

5.2.5.2  Option 2 – A concession overseen by the Commission 

In this option, the ESAP is operated by a private body based on a contractual relationship 
(concession) for a delegation of service. The service is procured by the Commission.  

The contractor has the obligation to provide access for free to information but has a right 
to  charge  fees  on  users  in  need  of  premium  services,  such  as  obtaining  high  volumes 
based on frequent queries. 

The  Commission  and  the  contractor  are  advised  by  a  permanent  ad  hoc  expert  group 
comprised  of  ESAs,  OAMs,  NCAs  and  other  relevant  public  bodies,  private 
representative stakeholders including users, preparers, and other stakeholders. 

5.2.5.3  Option 3 – ESMA in charge 

In this option, ESMA has, by legislation or other means, the mandate to govern the ESAP 
(including to set up the access point up and operate it). 

114  The  Commission  services  were  assisted  by  BR-AG  in  the  pre-selection  of  a  few  viable  and  efficient 
governance models. 

40 

 
                                                 
ESMA  has  the  obligation  to  provide  access  for  free  to  information  but  has  a  right  to 
charge fees on users in need of premium services, such as obtaining high volumes based 
on frequent queries. 

ESMA  is  assisted  by  an  ad  hoc  advisory  mechanism  in  compliance  with  own  internal 
rules,  comprising  representatives  of  collection  points  (OAMs,  NCAs),  the  EBA  and 
EIOPA,  users,  preparers,  and  other  stakeholders  including  users,  preparers,  and  other 
stakeholders. 

5.3 

Options discarded at an early stage 

The following additional options have been considered but discarded at an early stage: (i) 
requiring entities to make accessible via ESAP the information published on a voluntary 
basis or based on national law beyond EU financial and capital markets legislation115; (ii)  
requiring an ESAP to accept information submitted voluntarily by third-country entities 
that  are  not  in  the  scope  of  the  EU  financial  markets  law;  (iii)  requiring  the  entities  to 
upload all the information directly on the ESAP (single EU point of collection for data); 
(iv)  having  the  ESAP  governed  by  the  Joint  Committee  of  the  ESAs  or  by  a  public-
private partnership. 

Annex 15 describes each of these options and the reasons for discarding them at an early 
stage.  

6 

WHAT  ARE  THE  IMPACTS  OF  THE  POLICY  OPTIONS  AND  HOW  DO  THEY 
COMPARE? 

For each one of the five key dimensions, the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence as 
well as impacts are assessed and compared to baseline for each policy option.  Options 
on key dimensions are then compared to select the preferred options. 

6.1 

Impacts and of policy options on the scope of information 

6.1.1  Option  1  -  Only  entity-related  information  mandatorily  published  by  listed 

entities. No voluntary information accepted. 

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

The ESAP would provide access only to entity-related information that has to be 
mandatorily  published  by  listed  entities116.  Based  on  our  targeted  consultation, 
84% of stakeholders believe this type of information should be accessible on the 
ESAP immediately. Other mandatory information and any voluntary information 
published  by  EU  would  not  be  accessible,  which  is  problematic  for  users, 
especially  retail  investors,  but  also  other  users  interested  in.  For  instance, 
information  disclosed  under  the  sustainability  reporting  by  non-listed  entities, 
information  on  sustainability  risks  and  impact  –  which  are  also  considered  a 
priority  by  the  respondents  to  our  consultation117  -  would  not  be  accessible  via 
ESAP.  The  amount  of  data  accessible  via  the  ESAP  (corresponding  to  only  8 
datasets, i.e. 4% of the dataset disclosed under EU financial markets law) would 

115 See the list of all relevant EU legal acts in Annex 14. 
116  i.e.  annual  financial  reports  (i.e.  management  report,  financial  statements  and  the  company’s 
responsibility statements), half-yearly financial reports, reports on payments to governments, acquisition or 
disposal of major holdings, etc. 
117 87.9%, 71% and 66% of respondents respectively.  

41 

 
                                                 
be very limited, although it would cover some of the basic needs of users. This 
option  would  therefore  only  in  part  achieve  the  specific  objective  of  increasing 
the circulation of information within the Union. 

Cost-analysis  

The  efficiency  of  this  option  is  negative  compared  to  baseline  due  to  low 
effectiveness whereas it implies some additional costs.  

  Cost  for  preparers:  They  would  keep  applying  the  existing  disclosure 
requirements under the Transparency Directive as regards the format (ESEF 
for  annual  financial  reports  only)  and  the  collection  system  (via  OAMs). 
There would be negligible costs for listed entities that already submit data to 
OAMs.  

  Costs for users: Regardless of the open data preferred option in Section 6.4, 
it is  expected that any  costs that users would face would be reasonable  and 
outweighed  by  expected  cost  savings  linked  to  finding  and  analysing  data. 
Some respondents to our targeted consultation provided an estimation of how 
large  share  of  their  yearly  cost  for  retrieving  and  using  entities’  public 
information  they  could  expect  to  save  through  the  use  of  ESAP,  with  a 
majority in the region of 30-40% savings.  

  Cost  for  the  EU:  the  EU  would  incur  costs  for  building  an  ESAP  platform 
that  provides  access  to  a  limited  amount  of  information  (Annex  17).  The 
ESAs,  and  ESMA  in  particular,  would  have  sufficient  resources  to  develop 
secondary legislation associated with this initiative. 

  Cost  for  the  national  collection  points:  Considering  that  listed  entities’ 
information  is  already  being  sent  to  the  Officially  Appointed  Mechanisms 
(OAMs), the OAMs would incur limited additional costs related to the receipt 
of  the  information  in  a  given  format  (see  Section  6.2)  and  to  the 
interconnection with the ESAP (see Section 6.3)118.   

Other economic, environmental, social and fundamental rights impacts 

The  inclusion  in  the  scope  of  sustainability-related  information  published  by 
listed  entities  would  indirectly  facilitate  the  access,  analysis  and  comparison  of 
the  entities’  impact  on  environment  and  social  rights,  thus  increasing  somehow 
the circulation of information within the Union. This could encourage investors to 
better  reflect  sustainability  risks  and  impacts  in  their  investment  decisions. 
However  impacts  would  be  somehow  limited  by  the  minimum  coverage  of  this 
option that does not allow to fully consider key information such as in relation to 
sustainable finance, hence leading to low/moderate integration.   

Coherence with other initiatives  

This  option  is  fully  coherent  with  existing  EU  legislation,  especially  the 
Transparency Directive.  

118 Considering the costs for implementing the API (around EUR 25 000) and the metadata (around EUR 
25 000), as well as maintaining a signature validation service (around EUR 800), the total individual cost 
for each OAM (one-off) would be around EUR 50 800. The collective costs of this Option for all OAMs 
would be around EUR 1.3 million, i.e. EUR 50 800 * number of existing OAMs (i.e. 26).  

42 

 
                                                 
6.1.2  Option 2 - All entity-related info published by listed entities + key entity-related 
info  published  by  non-listed  entities  +  key  product-related  info.  Certain 
voluntary info accepted.  

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

The ESAP would provide access to: (i) all entity-related information mandatorily 
published  by  listed  entities,  corresponding  to  8  datasets  (already  captured  under 
Option  1);  and  in  addition  (ii)  key  entity-related  information  mandatorily 
published by non-listed entities, corresponding to around 53 datasets; and (iii) key 
product-related information, corresponding to around 5 datasets119, plus 21 other 
datasets  related  to  both  entity  and  product  information.  Information  provided 
would  correspond  to  79  datasets,  corresponding  to  around  40%  of  the  dataset 
disclosed  under  EU  financial  markets  law),  but  it  would  still  exclude  lots  of 
information stemming from e.g. MiFIR, PRIIPs, AIFMD120.  

Voluntary information of similar nature would be accepted. Based on our targeted 
consultation,  there  is  overwhelming  support  (93%)  to  allow  SMEs  to  disclose 
voluntarily information in the ESAP, and many respondents (73%) believed that 
any type of company should be entitled to post information in the ESAP, or if not 
at  least  companies in  the SME Growth Markets or other non-regulated  markets. 
There was a preference for allowing only predefined sets of information (around 
80%) to be accessible via the ESAP, rather than any information (around 40%).  

Hence this option would moderately achieve the specific objectives of increasing 
the circulation of information, as it would fairly cover the information flagged by 
users as a priority, including professional investors and retail investors. It would 
still  leave  aside  a  wealth  of  information  that  some  users  may  find  important  – 
even  though  they  may  not  have  flagged  such  information  as  a  priority  during 
consultation,  hence  obliging  them  to  search  for  such  information  from  other 
sources as the case may be. Removing a barrier to integration is party achieved in 
this option. 

Cost-analysis  

The  efficiency  of  this  option  is  neutral  or  minus  compared  to  baseline  due  to 
moderate  effectiveness  but  somehow  non-negligible  additional  costs  especially 
for collection points.  

  Cost  for  preparers:  Despite  the  application  of  common  metadata  to  a 
greater number of dataset compared to option 1121 and the requirement to 
submit  the  information  to  a  designated  collection  point  (where  EU  law 
does in the absence of an existing collection point), preparers’ costs would 
be similar to Option 1. Costs related to the format (see Section 6.2) tend to 
be the same, regardless of the number of reporting obligations.  Costs for 
submission  to  a designated collection  point  in  the absence of  an existing 

119  i.e.  prospectuses/URD,  Corporate  sustainable  reporting  by  non-listed  entities,  shareholders’  rights 
reports, takeover bids, audit firms’ reports, market abuse, sustainable finance legislation and indices used 
as benchmarks to measure the performance of investment funds. 
120 Access to this information is considered important by around 32 % of the respondents to our targeted 
consultation.  
121 Option 2 compared to Option 1 includes around 70 additional datasets. 

43 

 
                                                 
one are  considered  in Section 6.3122.  Costs for entities willing to  publish 
voluntary information on the ESAP are not considered as such publication 
would be voluntary.  

  Costs  for  users:  as  for  option  1,  regardless  of  the  open  data  preferred 
option,  it  is  expected  that  any  costs  that  users  would  face  would  be 
reasonable and outweighed by expected cost savings linked to finding and 
analysing  data.  Option  2  is  likely  to  provide  more  benefits  to  users 
compared to option 1 as a greater volume of information would be quicker 
to find and easier to analyse, translate, and compare.   

  Cost for the EU: slightly higher than Option 1 as the ESAP would cover 
more  information  and  the  Commission  -  via  the  ESAs  -  would  be 
mandated to develop more specific metadata. 

  Cost for the national collection points: additional storage costs would be 
incurred due to a higher volume of information compared to Option 1 (See 
Section 6.3). Interconnection costs would be the same as for Option 1  at 
the  level  of  each  collection  point  as  these  costs  apply  regardless  of  the 
amount of datasets.  

Other economic, environmental, social and fundamental rights impacts 

In addition to the impacts highlighted in Option 1, there would be environmental 
and  social  benefits  of  accessing  additional  voluntary  ESG  data  on  the  ESAP 
thanks to greater transparency. Moreover, the vast majority of respondents to our 
public  consultation  indeed  believe  that  the  main  benefits  for  entities  with  no 
access to capital markets to disclose their information publicly in ESAP would be 
to  get  more  visibility  and  attract  a  broader  range  of  investors  (75%)  and  to 
increase transparency on sustainability  reports  and ESG data (easily  retrievable) 
(69%).  Some  respondents  also  argued  that  ESAP  could  lead  pricing  policies  of 
the current ESG data providers to lower levels,  especially if  the ESAP provided 
raw data for free. Data  providers consulted all welcomed the ESAP  as a way to 
get easier access to raw data for their own business. 

Coherence with other initiatives  

This  option  remains  fully  coherent  with  the  EU  law  as  it  builds  on  existing 
reporting obligations in the corresponding sectoral legislation.  

6.1.3  Option  3  -  All  information  published  by  entities  in  the  scope  of  EU  financial 

markets legislation. All voluntary info accepted.  

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

The  ESAP  would  provide  access  to  the  maximum  possible  information, 
corresponding to around 200 reporting obligations, covering 100% of the dataset 
disclosed  under  EU  financial  markets  law.  This  approach  would  ensure  the 
maximum  potential  for  achieving  the  objective  of  increasing  the  circulation  of 
information  within  the  Union.  By  covering  all  datasets  with  direct  relevance  to 
EU  financial  services  and  markets,  including  those  that  professional  investors, 
data service providers, retail  investors,  civil  society, supervisors  and  researchers 
may  need  and  enable  a  wider  range  of  use,  this  Option  would  in  addition 

122 Filing costs are estimated around EUR 200 per entity.  

44 

 
                                                 
contribute  on  a  much  wider  scale  to  achieving  the  integration  of  the  internal 
market in the financial area, and hence better contribute to integrating the single 
market. 

Cost-analysis  

The efficiency of this option is neutral or plus compared to baseline due to high 
effectiveness but non-negligible additional costs especially for collection points. 

  Cost  for  preparers:  negligibly  higher  compared  to  Option  2  due  to  the 
application  of  common  metadata  to  a  greater  number  of  dataset.  Costs 
related  to  the  format  (see  Section  6.2)  and  submission  to  a  designated 
collection point are also considered negligible (see Section 6.3).  

  Costs for users: Option 3 is likely to provide full benefits to users with a 

great volume of information easier to find and access. 

  Cost for the EU: slightly greater than Option 2 as the ESAP would cover 
more  information  and  the  ESAs  would  be  mandated  to  develop  specific 
metadata  and  machine-readable  formats  for  more  datasets.  Resources 
needed  to  develop  associated  level  2  measures  would  be  alleviated  by  a 
phasing approach.  

  Cost  for  the  national  collection  points:  Interconnection  costs  for  each 
collection  point  would  be  the  same  as  for  Option  1  and  2  (i.e. 
EUR 50 800)  as  these  costs  apply  regardless  of  the  amount  of  datasets. 
The  collective  costs  for  all  existing  collection  points  would  be  around 
EUR 3 098 800123. 

Other economic, environmental, social and fundamental rights impacts 

Same as Option 2 

Coherence with other initiatives 

Same as Option 2. 

123 EUR 50 800 * number of different collection points currently established (i.e. 61, counting 58 collection 
points across all Member States + 3 collection points for the ESAs).  

45 

 
                                                 
6.1.4 

Preferred policy option regarding the scope 

The  figure  below  summarises  the  number  of  reporting  obligations  per  phase  and  per 
policy option regarding the scope of information: 

Figure  7:  Cumulative  number  of  public  reporting  obligations  implemented  per  phase  and  per  option 
examined 

A comparison of the different policy options is summarised in Table 4.   

Respondents  to  consultation  overall  did  not  see  so  much  merits  in  having  the  widest 
scope  possible  for  the  ESAP  (38%  agreed  or  somewhat  agreed),  many  thinking  that  a 
focus on the most desirable data could suffice, and that too wide a scope may jeopardise 
the success of this initiative124. 

Nevertheless,  based  on  assessment  of  options  and  their  comparison,  option  3  covering 
the  widest  range  of  information  is  a  preferred  option  as  the  most  effective,  in 
combination with a phased in approach. It is the most efficient to achieve the specific 
ESAP objectives, whereas the costs implied are only marginally higher than option 2. A 
phased in approach would avoid the risks of overwhelming the project. 

6.2 

Impact  and  comparison  of  the  policy  options  regarding  the  format  of  the 
information accessible via ESAP 

6.2.1  Option 1 - All existing formats are accepted + common minimum metadata for 
all info disclosed + specific metadata for non-machine readable formats 

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

Accepting  all  the  existing  formats  (including  non-open  extractable  formats) 
would only in part facilitate the digital use (and re-use) of data as only a very few 
datasets would be in a data extractable format. Extractable data formats allow for 

124 Consultation on the ESAP – Summary of responses – Q1, page 4 

46 

 
 
                                                 
the machine to carry out basic search and analysis functions, especially  with the 
inclusion  of  a  set  of  basic  common  metadata  for  all  the  information  disclosed 
(such  as  a  legal  entity  identifier).  However,  only  machine-readable  formats  – 
which presuppose also the structuring of the data content in addition to the use of 
a taxonomy for the format – allow for full comparability. Hence, the objective of 
further  digital  use  would  hardly  be  met  for  any  main  type  of  user  identified  in 
Annex 6, which is neutral compared to baseline.  

Cost-analysis 

The  efficiency  of  this  option  is  somehow  negative  compared  to  baseline  due  to 
low  effectiveness  yet  somehow  non-negligible  additional  costs,  especially  for 
preparers and collection points. 

  Cost  for  preparers:  They  would  keep  applying  the  existing  disclosure 
requirements as regards  the format. The costs of having to  include additional 
common  metadata  are  considered  immaterial,  except  for  the  acquisition  and 
maintenance  of  a  legal  entity  identifier  (LEI  or  other),  of  a  digital  certificate 
and  of  a  signing  tool  that  are  estimated  around  EUR  600  per  year125.  There 
could  be  further  costs  to  include  specific  metadata  for  data  in  non-machine-
readable formats subject to the Commission’s exercise of its delegated powers 
(however  such  costs  would  be  subject  to  a  dedicated  cost-benefit  analysis 
ahead of the adoption of the relevant delegated acts). The costs for entities to 
publish  their  voluntary  information  on  the  ESAP  are  not  considered  in  this 
cost-analysis because such publication would be optional.    

  Costs for users: Regardless of the open data preferred option (see Section 6.4), 
it  is  expected  that  any  costs  that  users  would  face  would  be  reasonable  and 
outweighed  by  expected  cost  savings  as  a  reasonable  amount  of  information 
would be quicker to find and easier to analyse, translate, and compare. 

  Cost for the EU: The ESAs, and ESMA in particular, have sufficient resources 

to develop secondary legislation associated with this initiative. 

  Cost  for the national  collection points: The costs for  each  collection point to 
implement  the  metadata  is  estimated  to  be  around  EUR  25  000,  while 
maintaining a signature validation service is estimated around EUR 800.  

Other economic, environmental, social and fundamental rights impacts 

Ensuring  a  minimum  level  of  digital  usability  by  introducing  a  common  set  of 
metadata will also enhance use of ESG data, which is expected to help investors 
better  reflect  environmental  and  social  impacts  and  risks  related  to  their 
investments. However impacts are limited, especially expected economic benefits 
due to little changes brought by this option.  

Coherence with other initiatives  

This option - which would ensure comparability of entities’ information only to a 
minimum extent – would nevertheless contradict no extant EU law.  

125  Analysis  carried  out  by  the  external  contractor  BR-AG.  Cost  of  acquiring  and  maintaining  an  LEI 
(recurring cost) is estimated as around EUR 60 per each entity, while the cost for the signing tool would be 
around EUR 160 and the one for the digital certificate would be around EUR 380.  

47 

 
                                                 
6.2.2  Option  2  –  Certain  information  to  be  in  an  open  and  widely  used  data 
extractable  format  that  enables  machine-readability.  For  the  remaining 
information, all existing formats accepted + specific metadata for non-machine 
readable formats. Common minimum metadata for all types of information 

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

reports 

financial 

Requiring an open and widely used data extractable format that enables machine-
readability for a list of specific dataset - granting the Commission with delegated 
powers to specify the most appropriate format for each specific dataset -  would 
facilitate  digital  use  (and  re-use)  of  data  to  some  extent,  and  address  to  a  fair 
extent  barriers  or hurdles  currently in  place.  Based on  the responses received in 
our targeted consultation, the introduction of structured data formats allowing for 
machine-readability  would  be  useful  primarily  for  financial  statements  (86%), 
listed  entities’  half-yearly 
(78%),  sustainability-related 
information  (73%),  management  reports  (68%),  audit  reports  (58%),  changes  in 
voting  rights  (47%),  remuneration  policies  (45%)  and  prospectuses  (44%). 
Standardising  formats  of  information  disclosed  by  entities  improves  data 
findability,  interoperability  and  machine  readability,  and  lowers  linguistic 
barriers. This objective would be best achieved by introducing delegated powers 
to the Commission to specify (via the European Supervisory Authorities) the most 
appropriate  specific  extractable  format  to  be  used,  which  would  ensure  that  the 
EU  framework  accommodates  future  technological  progress.  This  option  would 
therefore  achieve  to  a  fair  extent  the  objectives  relating  to  digital  use  of 
information, equally for all types of users. However this objective would not be 
fully  achieved  due  to  limited  extent  of  data  extractable  formats  in  place, 
compared to a big volume of information expected as a result of the wide scope 
chosen  as  preferred  option.  By  limiting  the  extent  of  digitally  usable  data  – 
leading to much information being available but not digitally usable – this option 
would not enable to meet the overall objectives of further integration of internal 
markets and netter allocation of capital.  Hence the option is moderately positive 
against baseline as regards effectiveness. 

Cost-analysis  

The  efficiency  of  this  option  is  negative  compared  to  baseline  due  to  neutral 
effectiveness  yet  somehow  non-negligible  additional  costs,  especially  for 
collection points.  

  Cost  for  preparers:  the  costs  to  prepare  information  in  a  data  extractable 

format would remain quite low, even though not necessarily inexistent.  

  Costs  for  users:  Regardless  of  the  open  data  preferred  option,  it  is  expected 
that  any  costs  that  users  would  face  would  be  reasonable  and  outweighed  by 
expected  cost  savings  as  more  information  compared  to  Option  1  would  be 
quicker to find and easier to analyse, translate, and compare.  

  Cost  for  the  EU:  The  ESAs  would  need  to  put  more  resources  compared  to 
Option 1 as they would me mandated to develop regulatory technical standards 
for specifying the most appropriate extractable format in addition to standards 
for  the  specific  metadata  regarding  non-machine  readable  formats  –  however 
in manageable size under current setting. 

  Cost  for  the  national  collection  points:  the  same  as  Option  1  as  these  costs 

apply regardless of the amount of information received. 

48 

 
Other economic, environmental, social and fundamental rights impacts 

Same as Option 1 

Coherence with other initiatives  

Same as Option 1. 

6.2.3  Option  3  -  Only  open  and  widely  used  data  extractable  formats  that  enable 
machine-readability  are  accepted  +  common  minimum  metadata  for  all 
information/documents 

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

Accepting  only  open  and  widely  used  data  extractable  formats  that  enable 
machine-readability,  specifying  a  common  set  of  metadata  for  all  information 
accessible  via  the  ESAP,  and  granting  the  Commission  delegated  powers  to 
specify the most appropriate machine-readable format to be used for each specific 
dataset would achieve the specific objective of facilitating digital use (and re-use) 
of data to  a  greater  extent, eliminating the barriers currently in  place. Requiring 
open  and  widely  used  data  extractable  formats  for  all  entities’  financial  and 
sustainability-related 
improve  data  findability, 
interoperability and machine readability to the maximum extent. This approach is 
also aligned with the preference expressed by most users during our consultation 
activities126. This option would therefore achieve to a great extent the objectives 
of enabling digital use of information, in coherence with the wide preferred scope. 
The different types of users identified in Annex 6 would equally benefit from this 
approach.  By  enabling  full  extent  of  digitally  usable  data  –  leading  to  all 
information  available  being  digitally  usable  –  this  option  would  enable  to  meet 
the  overall  objectives  of  further  integration  of  internal  markets  and  netter 
allocation of capital. 

information  would 

indeed 

Cost-analysis  

The efficiency of this option is slightly negative compared to baseline due to high 
effectiveness,  yet  somehow  non-negligible  additional  costs,  especially  for 
preparers and collection points.  

  Cost  for  preparers:  In  addition  to  the  costs  presented  under  Option  2,  costs 
could  be  slightly  higher  as  all  the  information  would  have  to  be  in  a  data 
extractable format and there could be further costs to draw up the information 
in a non machine-readable format subject to the Commission’s exercise of its 
delegated  powers  to  develop  these  formats  (however  such  costs  would  be 
subject  to  a  dedicated  cost-benefit  analysis  ahead  of  the  adoption  of  the 
relevant delegated acts).  

  Costs  for  users:  Regardless  of  the  open  data  preferred  option,  it  is  expected 
that  any  costs  that  users  would  face  would  be  reasonable  and  outweighed  by 
expected cost savings as more information compared to Option 1 and 2 would 
be quicker to find and easier to analyse, translate, and compare.  

  Cost for the EU: Similar to option 2.   

126  68%  of  the  users  participating  to  our  workshop  believe  that  all  information  accessible  via  the  ESAP 
should be machine-readable.  

49 

 
                                                 
  Cost  for  the  national  collection  points:  the  same  as  Option  1  and  2  as  these 

costs apply regardless of the amount of information received.  

Other economic, environmental, social and fundamental rights impacts 

Same as Option 1 and 2 

Coherence with other initiatives  

Same as Option 1 and 2 

6.2.4 

Preferred policy option regarding the format 

A comparison of the different policy options is summarised in Table 4. Based on 
assessment  of  options  and  their  comparison,  option  3  is  the  preferred  option  as 
the  most  effective  and  efficient.  Although  requiring  common  metadata  for  all 
information  and  at  the  same  time  accepting  all  kinds  of  format  (Option  1)  or 
requiring only a predetermined set of information to be machine-readable (Option 
2)  provide  some  level  of  comparability  and  are  less  costly  for  stakeholders, 
Option 3 requiring open and widely used data extractable formats and metadata 
is the only one that would facilitate digital use and re-use by any type or user 
of  the  information  to  a  large  extent,  yet  imply  reasonable  additional  costs 
compared to baseline and in comparison to less ambitious options.. 

6.3 

Impact and comparison of the policy options regarding the collection of the 
information  accessible  via  ESAP  and  the  interconnection  of  the  existing 
collection points 

6.3.1  Option  1  –  Entities  submit  the  information  directly  to  the  OAMs  or  to  other 
collection points that send it to the OAMs. Only OAMs are interconnected with 
the ESAP. 

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

Interconnecting  only  the  OAMs  with  the  ESAP  achieves  the  objective  of  a 
seamless and integrated access to entities’ data only in part, as there would be an 
intermediate step between the collection points and the ESAP (i.e. the submission 
to the OAM by the other collection points). This could jeopardise the provision of 
timely  information  via  the  ESAP.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  absence  of  a 
collection point specified at EU level, requiring submission of all information to 
the OAMs facilitates access to information at EU level. Based on our consultation 
activities,  receiving  different  documents  in  different  formats  does  not  constitute 
an issue for most OAMs127. Hence this option is moderately effective compared 
to the objective of increased information  circulation, if information submitted is 
not timely to attract users. 

Cost-analysis  

The  efficiency  of  this  option  is  negative  compared  to  baseline  due  to  low 
effectiveness yet somehow non-negligible additional costs for collection points.  

127 This is the view of 61% of the OAMs participating to our workshops.  

50 

 
                                                 
  Cost for preparers: Preparers would not incur notable additional costs as they 
would  keep  submitting  the  information  to  the  existing  collection  points128. 
Sending information to a newly designated collection point (in the absence of 
an  existing  one)  would  entail  minor  additional  filing  costs,  estimated  around 
EUR  200  per  year  (recurring)  also  depending  on  the  amount  of  information 
that  has  to  be  filed.  Negligible  costs  are  also  associated  with  the  possible 
creation of an account with a collection point (where needed).  

  Cost  for  the  national  collection  points:  the  national  collection  points  that  are 
not  OAMs  would  have  to  submit  the  information  to  the  OAMs,  which  could 
imply additional costs. As already quantified under dimension 1, OAMs would 
incur  in  limited  additional  costs,  such  as  the  implementation  of  the  API 
(estimated  around  EUR  25  000  per  each  OAM,  one-off),  regardless  of  the 
amount of information received, for a total collective amount of EUR 650 000 
for all  existing OAMs129. Further costs would be  entailed as regards the data 
transmission  costs  to  the  ESAP130  and  in  relation  to  the  increased  amount  of 
stored data131.     

Coherence with other initiatives 

The  option  is  coherent  with  the  existing  EU  framework  of  national  collections 
points  and  reporting  obligations,  including  when  it  points  preparers  to  an  NCA 
for filing information. 

6.3.2  Option  2  -  Entities  submit  the  information  to  a  collection  point  that  is 
interconnected  with  the  ESAP  at  the  same  time  as  they  make  the  information 
public. OAMs, ESAs (where needed), NCAs (where needed) and other collection 
points are interconnected with the ESAP.  

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

Interconnecting  the  ESAP  with  the  OAMs,  NCAs’  (where  needed)  and  ESAs’ 
databases  (where  needed),  with  the  possibility  to  interconnect  also  other 
collection  points  achieves  the  objective  of  a  seamless  and  integrated  access  to 
entities’  data  to  a  greater  extent  compared  to  Option  1.  There  would  be  no 
intermediate  step  between  the  collection  points  and  the  ESAP,  which  would 
ensure  the  provision  of  timely  information  via  the  ESAP.  Moreover  it  would 
allow Member States to choose which collection points should be interconnected. 
Hence  this  option  is  effective  to  enable  achieving  the  objective  of  increased 
information circulation. 

Cost-analysis 

The efficiency of this option is slightly negative compared to baseline due to high 
effectiveness  yet  somehow  non-negligible  additional  costs,  especially  for 
collection points.  

  Cost for preparers: the same as Option 1. 

128 17% of the filings already have to be filed with a collection point under EU law.  
129 EUR 25 000 * number of existing OAMs (i.e. 26). 
130 These costs are considered negligible.  
131 This cost was not assessed.  

51 

 
 
                                                 
  Cost  for  the  EU/national  collection  points:  all  EU/national  collection  points 
interconnected with the ESAP would incur costs such as the implementation of 
the  API  (estimated  around  EUR  25  000  per  collection  point,  one-off), 
regardless of the amount of information received, for a total collective amount 
of around EUR 1.5 million132. These would be higher compared to option 1 as 
other national and EU collection points are now interconnected with the ESAP 
in  addition  to  OAMs.  Further  costs  would  be  entailed  as  regards  the  data 
transmission  costs  to  the  ESAP133  and  in  relation  to  the  increased  amount  of 
stored data134.     

Coherence with other initiatives 

The  option  is  coherent  with  the  existing  EU  framework  of  national  collections 
points  and  reporting  obligations,  including  when  it  points  preparers  to  an  NCA 
for filing information. 

6.3.3  Option 3 - Entities submit the information only to the OAMs, which send it to the 
national/EU  supervisory  authorities.  Only  the  OAMs  are  interconnected  with 
ESAP. 

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

By  multiplying  intermediate  points  in  the  chain  of  transmission  of  the 
information,  this  Option  would  achieve  only  in  part  the  specific  objectives  as  it 
would  require  substantial  changes  in  the  existing  practices  for  reporting,  put 
OAMs  in  charge  of  submitting  the  information  to  the  EU/national  supervisory 
authority,  and  require  OAMs  to  expand  their  scope  considerably  to  accept  all 
information in the scope of ESAP, as well as imply delays. 

With  high  risks  of  deterring  users  to  access  information  from  that  system,  it  is 
estimated that this option would hardly enable to meet the objective of increased 
information circulation.   

Cost-analysis  

The  efficiency  of  this  option  is  negative  compared  to  baseline  due  to  low 
effectiveness  yet  somehow  non-negligible  additional  costs,  especially  for 
collection points.  

  Cost for preparers: the same as Option 1 and 2. 
  Cost for the national collection points: In addition to the costs presented in 
Option 1, OAMs may also have to face additional costs for having to send 
the information to the national/EU supervisory authorities. 

Coherence with other initiatives 

Whereas the option would remain coherent with the national collections points as 
they  were  implemented  further  to  existing  EU  legislation,  it  would  be  quite 

132 EUR 25 000 * number of different collection points currently established (i.e. 61).  
133 These costs are considered negligible.  
134 This cost was not assessed.  

52 

 
  
 
                                                 
inconsistent with reporting obligations pointing preparers to file information with 
collection points other than an OAM, such as an NCA, as is the case for instance 
for prospectus. This could disrupt or at least alter the supervisory duties intended 
by the EU law. 

6.3.4 

Preferred  policy  option  regarding  the  collection  of  the  information  and  the 
interconnection of the collection points 

A comparison of the different policy options is summarised in Table 4. Based on 
assessment of options and their comparison, option 2 is a preferred option as it 
is the only one fully building on the existing collection requirements and practices 
and  allowing  Member  States  to  decide  which  collection  points  should  be 
interconnected  with  the  ESAP,  yet  ensure  sufficient  timely  delivery  of 
information by the ESAP. 

6.4 

Impact and comparison of the policy options regarding open data 

6.4.1  Option 1 – A single open licence 

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

Users  are  in  general  wary  of  usage  restrictions  of  all  sorts  imposed  by  legal  or 
other  constraints:  licences,  copyrights,  risks  of  infringing  business  secrecy.  This 
particularly  acute  for  service  providers,  but  poses  also  problems  to  other  types 
users in their processing of information. Adopting a single license at EU level and 
having the same licensing terms applying to data retrieved from collection points 
by  the  ESAP  would  facilitate  data  access  and  effectively  remove  barriers  to  the 
digital re-use of data, and could be highly effective in enabling digital re-use.  

Cost-analysis  

The efficiency of this option is slightly negative compared to baseline due to high 
effectiveness  yet  non-negligible  additional  losses  of  opportunities  and  costs  for 
collection points.  

  Cost for preparers: Preparers would not incur any additional costs.  

  Costs  for  users:  Many  users  will  be  able  to  re-use  the  information  more 
easily due to unified terms of use. In particular, data vendors reselling data, 
as  well  as  fund  managers  and  other  market  participants  manufacturing 
financial products or providing investment  advice or insurance advice  will 
benefit  from  a  single  open  licence  when  disclosing  their  approach  to  the 
integration  of  sustainability  risks  and  the  consideration  of  adverse 
sustainability  impacts.  This  option  will  hence  contribute  to  reduce 
processing costs.  

  Cost for the EU: no effects.  

  Cost for the national collection points: costs for the EU/national collection 
points will vary depending on the possible difference between the existing 
terms  of  use  applied  by  the  collection  points  (who  might  prohibit  the  free 
reuse of data in order to sell it) and the terms of the new single open licence 
(which  would  allow  re-use  for  free).  The  existing  terms  of  use  applied  by 
collection points can be very different from one collection point to the other 
(Annex10).  Collection  points  that  currently  do  not  apply  an  open  license 

53 

 
may  have  to  change  the  way  they  operate  their  data,  which  may  affect 
revenues  from  the  bulk  sale  of  data135,  if  any,  either  driving  revenues 
downwards  or  modifying  the  sales  mix.  Hence  negative  impacts  are  quite 
likely with this option.  

Coherence with other initiatives  

This  Option  could  be  coherent  with  the  objectives  of  the  Open  Data  Directive, 
and  especially  High  Value  Datasets  defined  therein,  however  heavy  EU 
intervention on national  licensing regimes would go beyond the requirements of 
this Directive and hence, ultimately reduce the coherence.  

6.4.2  Option 2 – Equivalent open licenses 

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

The  analysis  of  user’s  benefits  is  similar  to  Option  1.  Uniform  re-use  rights  are 
ensured  by  the  specification  at  EU  level  (via  delegated  acts)  of  the  “reference 
licence” and its equivalent terms with which the different licences applied by each 
collection point should comply. This Option would be effective in facilitating data 
access and removing barriers to the digital re-use of data.  

Cost-analysis  

The  efficiency  of  this  option  is  neutral  compared  to  baseline  due  to  high 
effectiveness  yet  somehow  non-negligible  additional  losses  of  opportunities  and 
costs for collection points. 

  Cost for preparers: Preparers would not incur any additional costs.  

  Costs  for  users:  Although  terms  of  use  are  not  exactly  the  same  across 
collection points, the use of common terms at EU level will enable users to 
re-use  the  information  more  easily,  and  contribute  to  reduce  processing 
costs. Benefits for users would be slightly lower compared to Option 1.  

  Cost for the EU: no effects. 

  Cost  for  the  national  collection  points:  Similar  to  Option  1,  costs  for  the 
EU/national collection points will vary depending on the possible difference 
between  the  existing  terms  of  use  applied  by  the  collection  points  and  the 
term  of  the  new  equivalent  open  licences.  However,  by  offering  more 
flexibility, this option would limit negative impacts for collection points to 
quite  a  great  extent,  enabling  them  for  instance  to  remain  consistent  with 
national practices. 

Coherence with other initiatives  

By  permitting  the  application  of  national  licensing  regimes  complying  with  the 
Open  Data  Directive,  including  as  regards  High  Value  Datasets  defined  therein, 
this  option  is  coherent  with  this  Directive.  However  the  EU  intervention  would 

135 An activity that is permitted by the free itemised access via the OAM’s web portal. 

54 

 
                                                 
reduce  leeway  for  the  Member  States  in  implementing  this  Directive,  thus 
somehow – but to a limited extent – result being detrimental to coherence.  

6.4.3  Option 3 – License chosen by each collection point  

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

The analysis of user’s benefits is similar to Option 1. This option is less effective 
in  meeting  the  objective  of  removing  barriers  to  re-use  as  each  collection  point 
determines the license applying to the data, although such license is in conformity 
with  the  Open  Data  Directive  and  implementing  acts.  Even  though  users  would 
benefit from overall open licenses when re-using the data, they would still have to 
deal with multiple licensing terms that would ultimately not allow them to easily 
re-use the information. Hence this option would be neutral compared to baseline 
and it would not enable to meet the objective intended for digital re-use by users. 

Cost-analysis  

The efficiency of this option is slightly negative compared to baseline due to low 
effectiveness  yet  negligible  additional  losses  of  opportunities  and  costs  for 
collection points. 

  Cost for preparers: Preparers would not incur any additional costs.  

  Costs  for  users:  As  terms  of  use  can  diverge  across  collection  points,  this 
option  will  facilitate  re-use  of  the  information  by  users  to  a  lower  extent 
compared to Options 1 and 2. Benefits for users would be lower compared 
to Options 1 and 2.  

  Cost for the national collection points: the costs of this Option are linked to 
the application of the Open Data Directive. Similar to Option 1 and 2, costs 
for  the  EU/national  collection  points  will  vary  depending  on  the  possible 
difference between the existing terms of use applied by the collection points 
and the term of the new equivalent open licences, however with less effects 
than option 1 and 2.  

Coherence with other initiatives  

This Option would be highly coherent with national licensing regime for the High 
Value  Datasets  foreseen  by  the  Open  Data  Directive  as  the  ESAP  would  not 
interfere with national licensing regimes. 

6.4.4 

Preferred policy option regarding open data 

Based on the responses received in our targeted consultation, 77% of respondents 
would favour an open data approach implying that no fees would be applied.  

Option 3 is discarded upfront as it would not allow a uniform user experience on 
data retrieved from  the  ESAP.  For instance, re-use of packaged types  of similar 
datasets  (e.g.  corporate  sustainability  reports  of  many  entities)  would  result  in 
thorny re-use rights because these datasets were pushed in the ESAP by distinct 
collection points with different licenses. Some consistency can be expected from 
the  Open  Data  Directive,  however  with  limited  effects  as  regards  private 
collection points.  

55 

 
Option 1 and 2 would achieve substantially similar and fair user experience on re-
use  due  to  the  application  of  a  single  or  equivalent  licenses.  On  the  collection 
points side, the application of a single mandatory open license may tally with the 
objective  of  ensuring  re-use,  but  the  lack  of  flexibility  could  entail  difficulties 
with regard to datasets initially made available upstream under a licence which is 
different from the reference licence. For instance, the EU approach may prevent 
the use of certain national open licenses hence introducing distortions at national 
level or at collection point level.  

Based on assessment of options and their comparison, option 2 is the preferred 
option. 

6.5 

Impact and comparison of the policy options regarding governance 

6.5.1  Option 1 – Private entities supervised by ESMA 

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

Private  ESAPs  would  offer  the  same  complete  set  of  information  to  users  with 
generally  access  for  free  to  information  in  basic  ways  (e.g.  web  portal).  It  is 
expected that the ESAPs would compete on additional services allowing them to 
charge  fees  for  premium  services,  including  possibly  via  APIs  with  a  (paying) 
key. 

By  being  placed  in  competition,  on  the  basis  of  highly  flexible  private  entities, 
and directly in relation with market players on user side, this option would be the 
most effective in responding to market needs, assuming proper safeguards are in 
place (these could be developed as part of the registration conditions) and proper 
supervision is ensured by ESMA.  

A major risk though, is that no private entity volunteers to be an ESAP  – which 
would  be  a  fully  ineffective  situation  as  the  objective  of  increased  information 
circulation would not be met. 

Another risk is that in this setting, there would be no control on the governance 
models of the private entities, hence inability to impose the participation of public 
bodies  (Commission,  NCAs...)  users,  preparers  etc.,  thus  leaving  strategic 
orientations  to  be  decided  by  the  private  bodies’  governance  system.  An  EU 
authority,  ESMA,  would  supervise  the  entities,  but  this  does  not  amount  to 
controlling the strategic dimension. 

On  another  note,  the  vast  majority  of  users  consulted  were  not  supportive  of  a 
private  consortium  in  the  fear  of  high  use  costs  over  data  that  is  considered  as 
public good. Most stakeholders would consider that this model does not comply 
with  the  overall  shared  opinion  that  the  ESAP  should  be  governed  by  an  EU 
body. 

Cost-analysis  

The efficiency of this option is slightly negative compared to baseline due to high 
effectiveness yet potentially higher costs on users.  

  Cost for preparers: Preparers would not incur any additional costs.  

  Costs for users: This option would entail costs for certain users.  

56 

 
 
Depending  on  their  own  model,  each  ESAP  would  recover  its  costs  by 
either  competing  on  additional  services  allowing  them  to  charge  fees  for 
premium services  (most likely), or on the basis of “philanthropic” funding 
(less likely) including intra-group support for other business purposes. 

Hence  “power  users”  would  most  likely  have  to  pay  for  the  services  they 
need. Many stakeholders believe that this is fair as they would also be the 
main beneficiaries of the ESAP. The amount of fees would most likely have 
to be such that revenues of an ESAP on that basis should cover all the costs, 
including those to  support free  access.  As a mitigating  factor, competition 
could  ensure  that  fees  are  kept  to  a  fair  amount.  Nevertheless,  the 
multiplication  of  ESAPs  could  drive  user  fees  up  to  recover  the 
corresponding multiplication of costs, hence higher fees. 

It is difficult to estimate precisely how many power users could exist. Based 
on  an  analysis  of  the  usage  of  EDGAR136,  it  appears  that  up  to  100  users 
download more than 2 Terabytes per year. Taking a conservative approach, 
it can be assumed that there could be 50 users that may have a similar usage 
of EU information. 

The market conditions would highly depend on the number of ESAPs, the 
way each ESAP builds its system, the way ESAPs integrate the data market 
and compete, the integration of the ESAP within their own business model, 
etc. Whereas it is not possible to predict how much a private ESAP would 
incur  as  costs  annually,  it  can  be  roughly  estimated  that  in  order  for  each 
ESAP to recover its operating costs, fees could be in average for the power 
users in the range of EUR 50 000 to EUR 250 000 per year per power user 
(assuming  1  to  5  private  ESAPs  and  annual  recurring  costs  of  EUR  2.5 
million  each).  Fees  could  vary  depending  on  each  power  user  and  service 
provider, including outside this range. Benefits for each power user would 
depend on each user. It is estimated that the reduction in search / processing 
costs could still reasonably exceed the additional fees for many power users 
(based on partial feedback received on current search and processing costs 
reported in consultation). 

  Cost  for  the  EU:  Additional  staff  needed  by  ESMA  to  fulfil  its  tasks 
(registering and overseeing the ESAPs) is estimated to 1.5 FTE. This would 
represent a total cost for ESMA of EUR 1.2 million over the period 2024-
27, i.e. EUR 0.3 million  per  year. These  costs would  be  fully  financed by 
fees charged by ESMA on the ESAP entities, according to a breakdown to 
be decided at level 2, hence have no impact on the EU or NCAs’ budget. 

  Cost  for  the  national  collection  points:  Collection  points  would  incur  no 
significant additional costs with this option, even though they may have to 
deal with several ESAPs (same API for all).  

Coherence with other initiatives  

Similar models exist already in the financial services, with for instance Securities 
Repositories: 

136 BR-AG 

57 

 
                                                 
  Private entities run each Trade repository (TRs). They undertake to centrally 
collect  and  maintain  the  records  of  derivatives  under  Regulation  EU  No 
648/2012 (EMIR). Under EMIR, ESMA has direct responsibilities regarding 
the registration, supervision and recognition of TRs. There are currently more 
than 10 registered SRs. It is considered in the law that SRs may have revenues 
generated from core functions and revenues from ancillary services137. 

  Private  entities  run  each  Securitisation  repositories  (SRs)  under  Regulation 
(EU)  2017/2402  (the  Securitisation  Regulation).  They  centrally  collect  and 
maintain the records of securitisation instruments and underlying assets. There 
are  currently  2  SRs  (including  for  instance  European  Data  Warehouse  – 
EDW). Under the Securitisation Regulation, ESMA has direct responsibilities 
regarding  the  registration  and  supervision  of  SRs.  One  SR  interviewed 
explained  that  revenues  are  necessary  to  recover  costs  and  that  revenues 
include fees charged to certain users (as designed by this SR). 

6.5.2  Option 2 – A concession overseen by the Commission 

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

A concession via procurement to a private entity would be quite effective way of 
having an access point that is a user-friendly and responds in a timely manner to 
market needs. It corresponds to the largely shared wish of stakeholders to see the 
ESAP governed by an EU body, as the Commission would remain in control. 

The  contractual  approach  would  be  framed  so  as  to  ensure  full  alignment  with 
public-interest.  Specific  risks  entailed  would  have  to  be  addressed  in  a  proper 
way,  including  risks  related  to  security,  conflicts  of  interest,  fraud  and  data 
protection. Also, additional risks could arise in relation to the regular renewal of a 
contract would need to be considered. These risks could be managed as follows: 

-  By indicating in the call for tender the prominence given to potential conflicts 

of interests in the choice of contractor; 

-  By carefully designing contractual obligations encompassing all the necessary 
features if an ESAP. In particular, contractual obligation to take account of the 
opinions of the advisory forum; 

-  By ensuring that the contractor will comply with relevant legal  requirements 
as developed in the ESAP legislation, and by implementing  a mechanism to 
ensure that legal requirements are complied with (e.g. alert system or other), 
including on data protection; 

-  Possibly:  by  requiring  an  independent  audit  to  check  whether  costs  are 
reasonable  and  incurred  in  the  interest  of  the  ESAP  and  whether  user  fees 
charged do not go beyond the recovery of costs incurred for the ESAP; 

-  By inserting a clause that Commission will be the owner of the infrastructure 
designed,  up  the  funding  provided,  in  case  of  on-renewal  of  the  contract  + 
contractual obligation to ensure a smooth takeover for the new contractor. 

137 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/360 of 13 December 2018 with regard to fees charged by 
the European Securities and Markets Authority to trade repositories 

58 

 
                                                 
This option therefore ensures a fair level of effectiveness, however still associated 
with  certain  risks  possibly  hampering  the  objective  of  increased  information 
circulation  where,  for  some  reason,  the  contractor  would  change  –  temporary 
disruptions  in  that  case  during  the  transitional  period  until  the  new  contractor 
fully meets specifications, which makes it neutral/positive compared to baseline.  

Cost-analysis  

The  efficiency  of  this  option  is  neutral/negative  compared  to  baseline  due  to 
neutral  effectiveness  and  moderate  additional  costs  on  users,  but  also  additional 
costs on public budgets – at least temporarily. 

  Cost for preparers: no additional costs.  

  Costs  for  users:  This  model  would  allow  for  user  fees  to  be  charged  on 
“power  users”.  A  prudent  estimation  is  that  there  could  be  50  of  these 
willing  to  pay  for  premium  services  from  the  ESAP.  Fees  charged  would 
highly depend on the mix of public funding versus fees (see below), and it 
is  estimated  that  in  average,  EUR  70 000  per  year  per  power  user  would 
enable the contractor to recover its costs. The amount would vary upwards 
or  downwards  depending  on  each  power  user.  The  amount  of  fees  would 
most likely have to be such that revenues of an ESAP on that basis should 
cover all or part of the costs needed to support free access. As a mitigating 
factor,  the  amount  of  fees  would  be  contractually  controlled  by  the 
Commission,  and  it  is  estimated  that  after  the  implementation  phase,  user 
fees  would  generally  not  exceed  the  reduction  in  search  and  processing 
costs incurred by users (depends also on the situation of each user). 

  Cost for the EU:  

o  Total cost (5 years total to maturity of the system): EUR 15.2 million138, 
including  development  costs  (one  off):  EUR  6.2  million,  recurring 
operating cost for the maintenance and operations: EUR 6.7 million, and 
governance  costs:  EUR  2.3  million  including  EUR  1.0  million  for 
contract and expert group management at Commission level (1 FTE) and 
EUR 1.3 million for the conduct by contractor(s) and assurance. 

o  Annual costs: 

  First 5 years: EUR 3.0 million per year (average) 
  After 5 years, EUR 2.4 million per year. 

Under this option the ESAP could be funded by a mix of EU public funds 
and  private  funding.  EU  funding  would  be  used  in  the  beginning  to  build 
the system, and be replaced progressively until 2027 by revenues raised by 

138 The costs of the development and maintenance of the IT system are a best estimate based on an analysis 
of  multiple  models  and  final  recommendations  by  BR-AG.  Details  of  the  preferred  architecture  design, 
costs  and  implementation  phases  in  Annex  17.  It  is  estimated  that  about  5  years  are  necessary  to  reach 
maturity  of  the  system,  e.g.  from  mid-2022  until  2027.  The  architecture  retained  is  consistent  with  the 
preferred  options.  It  nevertheless  will  be  up  to  the  governing  body  to  retain  the  final  design  of  the  IT 
architecture.  Hence  costs  retained  for  this  impact  assessment  may  vary  to  a  certain  extent  depending  on 
final  choices.  Based  on  a  rough  sensitivity  analysis,  it  is  estimated  that  variations  around  the  current 
estimate  would  not  be  too  significant,  and  in  any  case  would  not  influence  ultimately  the  analysis  about 
governance and funding in this section. 

59 

 
 
                                                 
the  contractor  (user  fees)  after  the  minimum  viable  products  is  reached  in 
2025.  From  2028,  the  contract  would  be  fully  self-funded  via  revenues 
raised  by  the  contactor.  The  EU  would  fund  the  Commission  staff  costs 
(EUR 0.2 million per year) on a continuing basis from 2022.  

A  rough  estimate  is  that  under  the  current  Multiannual  Financial 
Framework, EU funds would cover a maximum of EUR 11 million (2022-
2017).  The  Digital  Europe  Programme  could  be  mobilised  (confirmation 
pending) over 2022-2027.  

An  issue  inherent  with  this  approach  is  that  it  may  prove  difficult  to 
calibrate  the  contractor’s revenues to  match  exactly  the contract  expenses, 
as  the  number  of  power  users  and  the  extent  of  services  may  vary 
significantly over time. 

  Cost for the national collection points: no additional costs. 

Coherence with other initiatives  

Such an approach is coherent with other systems involving a register, such as for 
instance the Tobacco “track and trace”139 system. There are no identified specific 
contra-indications to implement a similar system for the ESAP. 

6.5.3  Option 3 – ESMA in charge 

Effectiveness in meeting the specific objectives  

ESMA is the reference EU authority on securities and EU markets, hence, given 
the scope of information intended, a very well placed authority to take the tasks 
on board. This would fully serve the largely shared wish of stakeholders to see the 
ESAP  governed  by  an  EU  body.  It  is  also  highly  effective  in  that  risks  of 
disruptions  are  nearly  inexistent,  thus  ensuring  circulation  of  information  on  a 
continuous basis. 

Cost-analysis  

The efficiency of this option is neutral/positive compared to baseline due to high 
effectiveness  and  full  benefits  for  user,  yet  bearing  some  inevitable  costs  for 
setting up the ESAP, to be funded entirely on public budgets. 

  Cost for preparers: Preparers would not incur any additional costs.  

  Costs for users: no costs for users (see below). 

  Cost for the EU:  

o  Total  cost  (5  years  total  to  maturity  of  the  system):  EUR 14.5  to 
16 million,  including  development  costs  (one  off):  EUR  6.2  million, 
recurring  operating  cost  for  the  maintenance  and  operations:  EUR 6.7 
million,  and  governance  costs:  EUR  between  EUR  1.6  million  (if 

139 Systems for tobacco traceability and security features | Public Health (europa.eu). 

60 

 
                                                 
contract  agents)  and  3.1  million  (if  temporary  agents)  corresponding  to 
additional 3 FTE, including 1 FTE for technical governance140. 

  Staff  to  govern  the  project  and  manage  IT  –  3  additional  FTE  in 

ESMA (alternatively EUR 3.0 million if); 

o  Annual costs: 

  First 5 years: EUR 3.2 million per year (average) 
  After 5 years, EUR 2.5 million per year. 

As  regards  funding,  the  legal  and  administrative  aspects  of  ESMA  fee 
income in relation to the ESAP cannot be safely estimated at this stage, as 
this will depend on investment, markets and legal grounds. Speaking of an 
EU body, the amounts of fees to be charged on users is highly dependent on 
the  willingness  and  ability  of  ESMA  to  build  a  specific  ‘premium’  offer.  
From  a  legal  standpoint,  the  revenues  from  “power  users”  in  this  setting 
may have to  be limited to the marginal  additional  costs necessary to  build 
such  services,  hence  be  quite  limited.  As  this  source  of  funding  is  highly 
uncertain  at  this  stage,  it  is  suggested  to  retain  a  prudent  approach  where 
costs  incurred  by  ESMA  to  build  and  operate  the  ESAP  would  be  funded 
100% on public funds for an indefinite period, with no reliance on user fees.  

The following approach is suggested: 

  Until  the  adoption  of  the  legislative  package,  the  Digital  Europe 
Programme141 could be mobilised (subject to agreement) to cover 100% 
of the costs, i.e. an estimated maximum of EUR 5.0 million over 2022 
and 2023; and 

  After the  adoption of the legislative package, 40% of the costs, on the 
basis of the current funding scheme of ESMA, would be provided on a 
structural  basis  on  the  EU  budget,  i.e.  an  estimated  total  EUR  4.3 
million  over  years  2024-2027,  and  EUR  1  million  per  year  from  2028 
onwards (EUR 2.5 million x 40%).  

  Overall  cost  for  the  EU  under  the  current  Multiannual  Financial 
Framework (2022-2027) would amount to max. EUR 9.3 million. 

  Cost for the national collection points: up to EUR 6.7 million, i.e. 60% on 
Member States’ National Competent Authorities (NCAs) budgets to reflect 
the current funding scheme of ESMA. NCAs will represent a large portion 
of  collection  bodies.  Private  collection  bodies  would  incur  no  additional 
costs. 

140  Both  at  constant  2021  prices  and  including,  building  and  standard  IT  costs  (‘habillage’)  and  an 
estimation for other administrative costs and assuming that the 2021 correction coefficient for Paris (120.5) 
applies throughout the period 2022-2027. 
141 The operational modalities (e.g. initial procurement procedure by the Commission with involvement of 
ESMA,  or  Contribution  Agreement  to  ESMA)  would  be  determined  taking  into  account  practical 
constraints and the need to advance preparation of the system. 

61 

 
 
                                                 
Coherence with other initiatives  

This  approach is  the most coherent  with  the  approach  chosen by  third countries 
for  a  similar  service.  A  limitation  by  design  is  however  that  ESMA’s  authority 
extends  to  capital  markets,  whereas  the  scope  of  the  ESAP  would  cover 
information  beyond  capital  markets  (product-related  information,  information 
from  SMEs/non-listed  companies,  banks  and  insurance  companies)142,  hence 
driving ESMA beyond its remit. This would be mitigated by the involvement of 
other  ESAs  through  the  joint  Committee  or  other  mechanism  and  a  properly 
designed consultative group. 

6.5.4 

Preferred policy option regarding governance 

A  concession  by  the  European  Commission  (option  2)  would  probably  be  the  least 
effective. Governance would rely on contractual relations between  the Commission and 
the contractor. There would high risks connected with this options, especially as regards 
continuity and conflicts of interest. Besides even though it is foreseen to be able to raise 
revenues  from  certain  users,  this  option  is  the  most  costly  for  the  EU  budget  over  this 
Multiannual Financial Framework – but the least demanding in terms of public funding 
afterwards  -  associated  with  high  risks  as  regards  the  ability  to  calibrate  revenues  to 
match the costs,. 

A private led governance of the ESAP (Option 1) would be very (and perhaps the most) 
effective in  responding to market  needs,  assuming proper safeguards are  in  place, even 
though  there  would  be  little  steer  by  public  bodies  on  their  strategies.  Risks  is  that  no 
private  player  takes  on  the  task,  which  would  lead  this  option  to  being  ultimately 
ineffective – Commission services estimate that this risk is remote though, given as the 
package is deemed attractive enough to interest existing players or new players, and fees 
might not be the only source of funding in cross subsidising businesses (e.g. data services 
providers)  or  sectors  (e.g.  fund  managers  willing  to  access  data).  It  could  reasonably 
efficient,  assuming  market  forces  find  a  balance  in  terms  of  competition  and  offer, 
leading  to  reasonable  fees  on  ‘power  users’  –  however  there  is  a  risk  that  multiplying 
access  points  might  overall  increase  the  fees  charged  on  users  as  in  this  option,  users 
would  support  100%  of  the  costs  hence  coming  with  slightly  reduced  efficiency 
compared  to  baseline  (assuming  those  fees  would  remain  in  most  cases  lower  than 
current search costs experienced by power users to get access to the same information). 

Governance by ESMA (Option 3) could find more support than the private option among 
important  stakeholders  groups  such  as  the  European  Parliament143  and  stakeholders  in 
general  (consultation).  This  option  is  expected  to  be  reasonably  effective  –  even  if 
possibly slightly less effective in terms of the ability to swiftly serve market needs than a 
private solution. On the plus side, appropriate consultation committees involving private 
parties  such  as  users  and  preparers  would  compensate  for  this.  In  this  option,  public 
funds (EU and Member States) would support 100% of the costs  – hence no additional 
costs for users. This responds to many stakeholders’ view that the information is a public 

142  ESMA  is  involved  in  about  50%  of  the  reporting  obligations  envisaged  for  the  scope  of  the  ESAP  – 
source BR-AG. The addition of voluntary information, including from SME/non-listed companies, would 
drive this percentage down. 
143 European Parliament, Resolution of 8 October 2020, Further development of the Capital Markets Union 
(CMU):  improving  access  to  capital  market  finance,  in  particular  by  SMEs,  and  further  enabling  retail 
investor participation, P9_TA(2020)0266. 

62 

 
                                                 
good.  A  proper  open  data  policy  would  avoid  building  a  public  monopoly  on  this 
information. 

As regards funding, the table below summarises the possible approaches for each option 
to support a discussion on fees, considering respectively public funds and fees as possible 
sources of funding: 

Table 4: Funding sources per governance model 

Private ESAP(s) 

  Public funds 
  User fees 

Commission 
concession  
Possible  
Possible 

ESMA 

Necessarily 
Unlikely  

- 
Necessarily 
Source: European Commission 

The policy option to make data accessible free of charge (open data) does not contradict 
the  ability  to  charge  user  fees  for  certain  services  –  in  this  regard,  it  is  coherent  with 
broader EU initiatives. The Open Data Directive specifies that whereas data shall be re-
usable for commercial or non-commercial purposes, the “conditions for re-use should be 
non-discriminatory for comparable categories of re-use. In that regard, the prohibition of 
discrimination  should  not,  for  example,  prevent  the  exchange  of  information  between 
public sector  bodies free of charge for the  exercise of public tasks, whilst  other parties 
are charged for re-use of the same documents. Neither should it prevent the adoption of a 
differentiated  charging  policy  for  commercial  and  non-commercial  re-use”144.  An 
important principle is to limit revenues to the recovery of marginal costs. Likewise, the 
INSPIRE145  Directive  sets  a  general  obligation  that  the  discovery  and  viewing  of  data 
shall be available to the public free of charge, but by way of derogation to this principle, 
allows  a  public  authority  supplying  such  services  to  apply  charges  where  such  charges 
secure the maintenance of data sets and corresponding data services, especially in cases 
involving very large volumes of frequently updated data. 

Ultimately,  ESMA  (Option  3)  represents  overall  the  best  model  to  serve  the 
governance  of  the  ESAP  considering  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence 
altogether. 

The comparison of the different policy options to baseline is summarised in Table 5. 

144 Open Data Directive (EU) 2019/1024, Recitals 16, 22, 46, Articles 3, 6, 11. 
145 Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information (INSPIRE), Article 14. 

63 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 5 Overview of the impact of the policy options for the 5 key dimensions 

Scope 
of the information 

Format of the information 

Collection of the information  
and interconnection of collection 
points 

Open data 

Governance 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Option 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

Effectiveness 
in  meeting 
the 
specific 
objectives 

Seamless 
and 
integrated 
access  to 
informati
on 
/ 
increased 
circulation 

Facilitate 
digital  use 
(and 
re-
use)  

+ 

+/++ 

++ 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0/+ 

+ 

- 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0 

+ 

++ 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

++ 

Efficiency  

Coherence  with  other  EU 
initiatives 

0/- 

0/- 

0/+ 

0/- 

0/- 

0/- 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

- 

+ 

0/- 

+ 

- 

-- 

0/- 

-- 

64 

+ 

0 

- 

0 

0/- 

0 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0/- 

0/- 

0/+ 

0 

0 

0/+ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 

7.1 

PREFERRED “AGGREGATED” OPTION 

Summary of preferred aggregated option 

The  preferred  “aggregated  option”  below  is  composed  of  the  preferred  option  per  each 
key dimension and per each other aspect examined separately in Annex 14. 

(i)  Scope of the information accessible via the ESAP 

The ESAP would provide access to all entity, product and other information that has 
to  be  published  by  entities  (EU  and  third  country)  under  the  scope  of  the  EU 
financial  markets  and  capital  markets  legislation146,  that  is  in  addition  relevant  for 
the ESAP147 and subject to a phased approach148.  

The  ESAP  would  also  (accept  and)  provide  access  to  information  that  any  entity 
wants  to  publish  in  the  ESAP  on  a  voluntary  basis,  insofar  that  information  is 
relevant for EU financial markets. 

(ii)  Format of the information accessible via the ESAP 

The  ESAP  would  mandate  information/documents  prepared  in  an  open  and  widely 
used  data  extractable  format149,  subject  to  a  phased  approach.  The  ESAP  would 
specify a common minimum set of metadata for all the information to be disclosed150.  

The Commission  would have delegated powers on all the reporting requirements  to 
adopt machine-readable formats where appropriate. 

(iii) Collection of the information and interconnection of the existing collection points 

Entities  with  reporting  obligations  keep  submitting  the  information  to  the  existing 
national/EU  collection  points  specified  under  EU  law151  and  keep  publishing  the 
information  via  the  existing  publication  channels152.  In  the  absence  of  a  collection 
point  specified  under  EU  law,  new  obligations  are  added  to  the  effect  that  entities 
submit the information (including their voluntary information, if they wish to have it 
accessible  on  the  ESAP)  directly  to  a  collection  point  designated  by  the  Member 
States that it is interconnected with the ESAP. 

OAMs,  NCAs  (where  entities  submit  information  to  the  NCAs)  and  ESAs  (where 
entities  file  information  directly  to  the  ESAs)  are  mandatorily  interconnected  with 
the ESAP. Member States can choose to interconnect other collection points with the 
ESAP.  

Information must be filed with the collection point by entities subject to a reporting 
obligation at the same time as it is made public by the entity. 

146 Full list in Annex 14.  
147  For  instance,  certain  information  such  as  high  frequency  trading  information  or  consolidate  tape  may 
not be considered as relevant for the ESAP to handle, consistently with corresponding sectoral legislation. 
148 Annex 16: Phased approach for implementation of preferred aggregated option. 
149 i.e. scanned PDFs are not accepted anymore.  
150 Including a legal entity identifier – see also Annex 18. 
151  e.g.  the  NCAs,  Officially  Appointed  Mechanisms  “OAMs”,  the  European  Supervisory  Authorities 
“ESAs”, etc.   
152 e.g. via media, entity websites, etc.  

65 

 
 
                                                 
(iv) Open data 

Access to information by users is free of charges.  

The information re-use is enabled by standard open licenses chosen by the collecting 
point  equivalent  to  generally  accepted  open  license  –  hence  multiple  licenses  are 
allowed subject to being equivalent. 

The  Commission  would  have  delegated  powers  to  determine  terms  and/or  their 
equivalence with the reference licence, such as e.g. CC BY. 

(v)  Timeliness of the information accessible via ESAP 

The  OAMs  and  the  other  collection  points  that  are  interconnected  with  the  ESAP 
would  make  the  information  available  on  the  ESAP  within  a  predetermined 
timeframe.  Hence  the  ESAP  would  have  a  repository  function,  and  make  the 
information available to the public in a timely manner. 

(vi) Ensuring data integrity and credibility of the source, validation checks 

Documents filed in  the  ESAP  pursuant  to  a legal  reporting obligation will have an 
electronic seal at the source (preparers’ responsibility), based on certificates obtained 
from  qualified  trust  service  providers  in  accordance  with  eIDAS.  The  legal  entity 
identifier is a mandatory attribute of the certificate. 

In addition, the intervention would require validation checks to be performed by the 
ESAP at entry point (i.e. at the moment when submitted by a collection point) that 
are  automated  to  the  highest  possible  extent.  Where  appropriate,  collection  points 
would have the duty to address any rejection with the filing entity (help desks). 

The Commission would have delegated powers to determine the nature and extent of 
those validation checks.  

(vii)  Removal of barriers to access with user friendly interface  

The  ESAP  would  rely  on  the  governance  system  to  address  any  unnecessary 
functional  barriers  (such  as  unfriendly  user  interface,  barriers  to  easy  retrieval  of 
information) based on stakeholders’ feedback.  

(viii) ESAP  functionalities  for  users  (reflecting  inter  alia  the  preferred  approach  as 

regards language barriers 

The  ESAP  would  provide  at  least  for  the  following  functionalities:  (i)  Web 
portal/Application  Programming  Interfaces  (APIs);  (ii)  search  function  to  retrieve 
information; (iii) indication of the source of the information; (iv) machine translation 
service for retrieved documents; (v) reader; (vi) individual and bulk download; (vii) 
notifications/RSS feed. 

The  ESAP  would  provide  functionalities  for  interfaces  enabling  at  least  search 
function in all EU official languages. E-translation services would apply at least to 
metadata. 

(ix) File only once principle; 

The intervention would introduce a principle allowing entities to file an information 
only  once  with  leeway  for  the  Member  States  on  how  to  implement  this.  The  ‘file 
only once’ principle would encompass all collection points for ESAP purposes. For 

66 

 
the  sake  of  consistency  and  with  regards  to  the  subsidiarity  principle,  the  file  only 
once principle would not address bodies that are not collection points, and hence not 
in the scope of this initiative (e.g. stock markets that are not OAMs, most business 
registers, tax or other authorities, etc.).  

(x)  Grand fathering:  

A prospective approach is preferred (no retroactive obligation for information to be 
in the ESAP). 

(xi)  Retention period;  

The intervention would provide that datasets should be available in the ESAP for at 
least 10 years. 

(xii)  Governing body 

The preferred option is the governance by ESMA 

From a legislative drafting perspective, subject  to  agreement  with  the legal  service, the 
ESAP legislative proposal would be composed of the following legal acts:  

i)  ESAP Regulation  

This act would specify: the general principles of the ESAP as regards the scope of 
the  information  accessible  via  the  ESAP  (mandatory  and  voluntary  filing);  the 
ESAP  structure  (including  list  of  minimum  functionalities  for  users);  the 
interconnection  principles  for  EU/national  collection  points;  the  governance 
setting; and the mapping of the phasing in (Annex 16).  

ii)  Omnibus Directive/Regulation 

This  act  would amend each relevant  sectorial  piece of legislation (see  Annex  9) 
by:  introducing  delegated  powers  to  the  Commission  to  specify  a  machine-
readable  format  where  appropriate;  specification  of  basic  common  metadata  for 
each type of information; the obligation for entities to submit the information to 
the  interconnected  collection  points  at  the  same  time  as  they  make  it  public; 
obligation for Member States to ensure that for each reporting obligation there is 
a designated collection point interconnected with the ESAP. 

The primary legislation would lay down the foundations for setting up an effective and 
efficient access point. It is anticipated that the Commission would specify at a later stage 
in so called “level 2 measures”, items such as common standards on automated validation 
by  the  collection  points,  common  standards  on  APIs,  certain  metadata  (including  the 
common  legal  entity  identifier  and  where  appropriate  corresponding  taxonomies),  the 
characteristics  of  the  qualified  electronic  seal,  the  timeframe  for  making  information 
available from filing, licensing terms, conditions applying to voluntary information, and 
machine  readable  formats.  This  would  be  done  in  a  staged  approach  (phasing  in).  A 
suggested timeframe for the phasing in on such measures is shown in Annex 16. 

Annex  13  contains  considerations  on  how  the  above  setting,  largely  framed  by  the 
preferred options, will be future proof and evolutionary. 

7.2 

 Impacts of preferred aggregated option 

7.2.1 

Economic impacts 

Overall, the ESAP will  contribute to further integrating the financial services and 
capital markets and hence contribute to a better allocation of capital. 

67 

 
The ESAP is expected to increase the circulation of information and the digital use of it, 
both  within  the  Member  States  and  across  borders.  It  is  estimated  that  searches  of  all 
types of information  free of charge from  the ESAP  could  reach 500 million  annually 5 
years  after  implementation153,  which  is  estimated  to  be  above  the  baseline154.  This will 
bring  higher,  equal  and  indiscriminate  visibility  of  any  market  participants  and 
voluntary  filer,  independently  from  their  own  size  or  the  size  of  their  market  to 
investors,  analysists,  intermediates,  researchers  or  funds.  This  should  in  turn  ensure  a 
better allocation of capital, including on a cross border basis. Research emphasises that 
enhancing 
information 
the  comparability  of  financial  and  sustainability-related 
contributes to comparing investment opportunities155, attracts financial analysts carrying 
out international comparisons156 and fosters more efficient capital allocation by helping 
better  investment  decisions  within  the  context  of  mergers  and  acquisitions157.  Some 
academics  also  highlight  that  financial  statement  comparability  lowers  the  cost  of 
processing  information158,  which  in  turn  may  translate  into  a  lower  cost  of  capital  for 
entities159. In addition, the intervention could indirectly result in strengthened economic 
resilience through diversification of investments and funding sources. 

The intervention may encourage investors – especially from other Member States or third 
countries – to access smaller national capital markets and provide funding to SMEs. This 
would reinforce the  attractiveness  of  EU financial  markets  vis-a-vis  third  countries and 
enable the EU to compete on equal footing to attract capital. 

The ESAP will in any event ensure that all the information available is at least in a data 
extractable  format.  A  prerequisite  for  comparability  is  the  standardisation  of  data,  in 
other  words  data  structuring.  The  EU  offers  some  standardisation  level  notably  for  the 
financial  reports,  and  recently  proposed  top  develop  higher  standardisation  for 
sustainability reporting160. With the potential to have further standardisation (i.e. machine 
readability) in the long run, the ESAP should contribute to expanding the digital use of 
information and thus to reducing analysis costs. Combined with increased circulation of 
information, this should even increase research and analytics  

7.2.1.1  Competitiveness 

The ESAP will also enable the offer of innovative services in the financial area based on 
analytics,  big  data  or  artificial  intelligence  /  machine  learning.  It  will  as  well  enable 
access  to  and  use  on  electronic  devices  (via  service  providers).  The  ESAP  could  also 
enable  further  services  for  retail  investors  by  fintech,  including  robo-advice.  By 
comparison,  the  US  SEC’s  EDGAR  allows  for  instance  innovative  service  providers, 
such as e.g. Calcbench (Annex 22) to emerge. As a common data space, the ESAP should 
also enable artificial intelligence and machine learning tools to come into play over this 
information as foreseen by the Commission European Data Strategy161.  

153 BR-AG. 
154 Based on anecdotal evidence from interviews with a number of OAMs. 
155 Barth (2013). 
156 Simon Archer, Pascale Delvaille & Stuart McLeay (2012). 
157 Ciao-Wei Chen, Daniel W. Collins, Todd D. Kravet, Richard Mergenthaler (2016). 
158  Seil  Kim,  Pepa  Kraft,  Stephen  Ryan  (2012),  Rani  Hoitash,  Udi  Hoitash  Ahmet  Kurt,  Rodrigo  Verdi 
(2018). 
159 Michael J Imhof, Scott E. Seavey and David B. Smith (2017). 
160 Commission proposal of 21 April 2021 for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Reporting. 
161 Communication: A European strategy for data, European Commission, 19.02.2020. 

68 

 
                                                 
For  investors,  digitisation  enables  efficiency  gains162  and  new  services163164  which  in 
turn  underpin  investment  activities.  More  investors  are  in  addition  attracted  to  capital 
markets165. 

7.2.1.2  Users  

The ESAP would benefit all kinds of users of information relevant for financial services 
and  markets,  including  sustainability  related  information,  however  not  necessarily  in 
the same way or with similar impacts. 

 The  ESAP  is  directed  primarily  to  users  such  as  investors,  financial  analysts  and 
market intermediaries (e.g. asset managers, advisers or data aggregators). Other types 
of users – such as civil society, public authorities, law-makers or economists - may also 
see an interest in accessing the information through the ESAP. 

From  an  investor  perspective,  and  in  accordance  with  the  objectives  of  the  Capital 
Markets Union, the ESAP will provide centralised access to information relevant for 
the  financial  services  and  capital  markets  in  a  timely  and  efficient  manner,  in  the 
first place via search tools based on integrated metadata. Easier access to information on 
a  larger  number  of  entities166  combined  with  metadata  and  other  means  to  discover 
information,  will  enable  investors  to  save  time  and  costs  for  searching  information. 
Thanks  to  improved  digital  framework,  they  will  also  be  able  to  conduct  more 
thorough  research,  better  compare  and  choose  investment  opportunities,  including 
on SMEs.  

Data aggregators and data services providers would benefit from data on EU companies 
available  in  a  single  access  point  both  directly  and  indirectly.  Data  aggregators 
themselves face large costs to retrieve “raw” information that is necessary for their added 
value services.  They have to  collect  this information  regularly from company websites, 
interact  with  companies,  search  national  registers,  etc.  A  single  access  point  would 
impact these stakeholders in the form of a reduction of search costs and costs to ascertain 
the  trustworthiness  of  data  similar  to  other  users,  albeit  on  a  large  scale,  and  would 
respond to the increasing need for sustainability-related information. The application of 
open and widely used data extractable formats and adoption of machine-readable formats 
where  appropriate  might  lead  in  addition  to  time  reductions  and  cost  efficiencies  in 
processing  data  and  improved  exploration  through  data.  Better  access  to  financial  and 
non-financial data by data aggregators through a single access point might allow them to 
indirectly impact the services of: (i) financial advisors, since having access to data of an 
entity  based  in  another  jurisdiction  allows  to  prepare  a  better  and  more  personalised 
offer; (ii) provision of credit to companies, including SMEs, since the lender would have 
access  to  a  potentially  broad  range  of  data  on  the  counterparty.  As  regards  indirect 
impacts,  access  to  data  from  the  EU  single  access  point,  could  potentially  lead  to 

162 Digitization has led to an increase in investments, Business Today, Rahul Jain, 29 May 2018. 
163  Understanding  the  Potential  Value  of  Digitization  for  Business  –  Quantitative  Research  Results  of 
European  Experts,  Reichstein,  Härting,  Neumaier,  In  book:  Agents  and  Multi-Agent  Systems: 
Technologies and Applications 2018 (pp.287-298), January 2019. 
164 The digitization mandate, KPMG, 2018. 
165 The digitisation of investing, Kim Fournais, FT Adviser, 6.11.2019. 
166  Compared  to  an  estimated  4 200  issuers  of  securities  on  regulated  markets  (source  ESMA  + 
Commission estimate) currently filing information with the OAMs, the ESAP could bring around 163 000 
additional entities to file information, depending on the scope of the ESAP such as funds and UCITs, audit 
firms, companies filing a corporate sustainability reporting after the adoption of the CSRD, etc.  

69 

 
                                                 
provision  of  new  and  innovative  services  by  data  aggregators  (e.g.,  data  analysis),  but 
also possibly by innovating companies (e.g., in fintech or as regards sustainability data) 
that could increase competition with data aggregators. This would be made possible by 
lower  barriers  to  access  data,  opening  up  the  case  for  further  disintermediation. 
Assuming the market can be considered competitive, this could result in less costly value 
added  services  for  end  users.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  unlikely  that  investors  or  other 
corporate data users would cancel their subscriptions with data aggregators as a result of 
setting-up ESAP, in a way in which ESAP would appear as a competitor. Users’ needs 
go  beyond  raw  data  offered  by  the  ESAP.  In  the  United-States  for  instance,  EDGAR 
provides  access  to  information  –  with  increasing  share  of  machine  readable  raw  data  – 
but this does not necessarily affect the business of data aggregators.  

For  many  stakeholders  packaging  financial  products,  easier  access  to  environmental, 
social and governance (ESG) information as users will represent a most welcome and 
long  awaited  progress.  This  should  be  even  one  of  the  main  drivers  to  the  ESAP 
uptake  if  the  ESAP  allows  access  to  reliable,  complete  and  comparable  raw  ESG 
information from EU companies. The EU is a front runner in this domain, and needs to 
lead  as  well,  on  the  access  to  this  information.  Market  participants  manufacturing 
financial products or providing investment advice or insurance advice will be able to 
obtain  more  easily  the  information  they  need  to  fulfil  their  obligations  in  respect  of 
integrating sustainability risks and the consideration of adverse sustainability impacts. In 
addition, civil society showed particular interest in this kind of information. 

Non-professional investors will be able to acquire and more easily compare information 
such  as  KIDs,  thus  contributing  to  more  efficient  investment  decisions.  End-investors 
will be able to take informed investment decisions due to lower search costs. In addition 
citizens,  as  retail  investors  or  consumers,  and  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 
(SMEs) are also  key  for the sustainability transition. Many sustainable projects  will  be 
small and developed at local level – yet essential to supporting the green recovery. The 
ESAP  will  contribute  to  this  achievement  by  harnessing  voluntary  disclosure  from 
SMEs, thus  offering easy  access  to  local  sources of information.   In addition,  financial 
advisors are the main point of contact for retail investors – and the ESAP will assist them 
in this endeavour.  

7.2.1.3  Preparers 

It  is  estimated  that  the  initiative  will  affect  around  167 000  preparers167,  mainly  as 
regards new obligations as regards digital preparation of information and for some, new 
filing obligations with a collection body. Among these, issuers of securities on regulated 
markets will be the least impacted by this initiative as they already report information to 
OAMs,  NCAs  and  the  stock  markets,  some  of  it  already  in  machine  readable  format 
(Annual  Financial  Reports)  or  with  metadata  (prospectuses),  plus  a  number  of  usual 
voluntary  information  (e.g.  quarterly  reporting...).  The  impacts  of  the  initiative  will  be 
overall  similar  for  all  other  sectors,  including  funds,  intermediaries,  auditors,  etc.  from 
the perspective of a new filing obligation for these stakeholders. 

167 Source: BR-AG. These include issuers of securities (including on SME Growth markets), large limited 
companies providing sustainability reporting (listed or not), SMEs (listed or not), insurance undertakings, 
credit institutions, funds and fund managers, investment firms, credit rating agencies, auditors, and market 
players such as central securities depositories (CSD), central clearing counterparties (CCP), and others. 

70 

 
                                                 
The  initiative  seeks  to  limit  negative  impacts  (essentially  compliance  costs)  by 
building  on  existing  national  infrastructure  and  implementing  a  file  only  once  policy. 
Nevertheless  some  additional  costs  are  foreseen  due  to  new  obligations  in  regard  to 
identification and ensuring the integrity of information and the credibility of the source. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  ESAP  is  expected  to  ensure  more  visibility  and  enable  more 
diversified sources of funding as well as a lower cost of capital for companies.  

7.2.1.4  SMEs 

The fragmented European markets affect particularly access to finance by SMEs, which 
can in turn hamper their ability to expand beyond their own borders168. Integration from 
the angle of information will remove one of the components of this fragmentation.  

The ESAP may impact European SMEs in direct and indirect ways, as data subjects 
(indirect  data  providers)  and  data  users.  Under  the  assumption  that  submitting  or 
opting  in  to  have  voluntarily  its  data  shared  via  ESAP  is  free  of  charge  (to  be  decided 
the  Commission), as  data  provider  SMEs  should  not  be  faced  with 
later  by 
considerable negative impacts in terms of privileged access (only those who pay benefit) 
or additional costs for those who decide to submit via ESAP. The impacts on SMEs and 
their operations may include:  

  need  to  provide  specific  datasets  in  a  specified  format  (as  may  be  required  for 
interoperability  and  data  sharing  according  to  technology  and  format options  for 
ESAP); 

  need to educate on ESAP and the potential that it creates to keep pace with others on 

the market (other SMEs or companies in general); 

  gain  better visibility  on the  target  markets  when  planning  to internationalise,  find 

 

 

investors or business partners; 
increase  credibility  among  potential  customers,  partners,  investors as  well  as  credit 
and funding institutions; 
likely to reduce the amount  of separate data  requests  from  authorities,  financing 
institutions,  credit institutions (reduced  reporting  burdens with  company data being 
available/shared via ESAP with such entities); 

  better capability and awareness of SMEs to seize the opportunities offered in relation 

to sustainable finance. 

According  to  the  European  Investment  Bank,  information  and  control  problems  are 
crucial  for  understanding  the  financing  of  firms.  In  comparison  to  large  enterprises, 
information about SMEs is often more opaque (except for bankers or a limited number of 
parties).  This  makes  the  financing  of  SMEs  especially  challenging,  since  asymmetric 
information  may  create  adverse  selection  and  moral  hazard  problems169.  Depending  on 
the take up by SMEs, the ESAP could facilitate the findability170 of relevant information 
including from SMEs, thus reduce information asymmetry in general, and thus tackle 
an important barrier to investment in this dimension. Finally, indirectly, the ESAP may 
promote  digitisation,  forward-looking  and  internationalisation-oriented approaches  to 
their business growth plans by SMEs. 

168 EIB, Breaking Down Investment Barriers at Ground Level, 2016. 
169 EIB, Breaking Down Investment Barriers at Ground Level, 2016. 
170 Summary report - targeted consultation on ESAP. In addition: minutes to the e-workshops (Annex 11). 

71 

 
 
                                                 
7.2.1.5  Costs 

On the costs side (Annex 3), costs for the interconnection of the EU/national collection 
points  with  the  ESAP  are  estimated  to  be  around  EUR  50  800  at  individual  level 
corresponding to maximum (depending on the number of collection points, ultimately) of 
EUR  3.1  million  collectively  (one-off).  Annual  recurring  costs  for  collection  points 
would be around EUR 6 500 at individual level i.e. maximum (depending on the number 
of collection points, ultimately) of EUR 0.4 million collectively. For data preparers in the 
scope  of  the  ESAP,  the  annual  recurring  costs  for  filing,  acquiring  a  legal  entity 
identifier,  the  digital  certificate  and  the  signing  tool  are  estimated  up  to  EUR  800  at 
individual level and around EUR 121 million at EU collective level. This is higher bound 
as  it  includes  by  anticipation  the  acquisition  costs  for  a  legal  entity  identifier  of  the 
Global  Legal  Entity  Identifier  Foundation  which  would  be  decided  later  on  by  level  2 
measure,  and  it  considers  as  well  that  systematic  upload  fees  would  be  charged  by 
collection  bodies.  One-off  costs  for  preparers  (e.g.  registration  with  a  collection  body) 
should  be  negligible.  Entities  outside  the  ESAP  scope  who  wish  to  make  their  data 
available through ESAP on a voluntary basis would also incur costs but may benefit from 
reduced  requirements  enabling  lower  filing  costs  (to  be  decided  on  the  basis  of  level  2 
measures).  

This initiative would not prescribe the ways in which collection points would adjust their 
existing  funding  sources,  where  necessary,  due  to  ESAP.  There  are  for  instance  no 
impediments  for  them  to  maintain  or  adapt  existing  schemes,  such  as  public  funding, 
upload or annual subscription fees, the provision of services, or other sources of revenues 
depending  on  their  own  situation.  The  Commission  stands  ready  to  support  Member 
States in their efforts to provide capacity building and technical advice on how collection 
points  implement  their  new  obligations,  including  for  harnessing  voluntary  information 
from SMEs and non-market participants171. 

In  terms  of  infrastructure  and  governance  of  the  ESAP,  work  must  start  as  soon  as 
possible in order to ensure a minimum viable product by 2024. Total costs over the 5 ½ 
period starting mid 2022 until 2027 (until the end of the current MFF) are estimated in 
the region of EUR 14.5 to 16.0 million, of which: 

  Staff  to  govern  the  project  and  manage  IT  –  3  additional  FTE  in  ESMA 
(alternatively  EUR  3.0  million  if  Temporary  Agents  or  EUR  1.6  million  if 
Contract Agents172); 

 

Infrastructure  development,  maintenance,  cloud  and  IT  costs  –  procurement 
and investment by ESMA: EUR 12.9 million. 

From  2028  onwards,  recurring  operating  and  maintenance  costs  should  remain  in  the 
region  of  EUR  1.9  million  per  year  plus  EUR 0.6  million  for  the  governing  staff,  i.e. 
around EUR 2.5 million per year. 

171 The Commission will provide this support through its Technical Support Instrument under Regulation 
(EU)  2021/240  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  10  February  2021  establishing  a 
Technical Support Instrument, (OJ L 57, 18.2.2021). 
172  Both  at  constant  2021  prices  and  including,  building  and  standard  IT  costs  (‘habillage’)  and  an 
estimation for other administrative costs and assuming that the 2021 correction coefficient for Paris (120.5) 
applies throughout the period 2022-2027. 

72 

 
                                                 
As regards  funding  the Commission the EU would  support EUR 9.3 million  under the 
current  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (2002-2027).  Until  the  adoption  of  the 
legislative package, i.e. over 2022 and 2023, the Digital Europe Programme173 could be 
mobilised (subject to agreement) to cover 100% of the costs, i.e. an estimated EUR 5.0 
million.  Over  the  period  2024-2027,  ESMA  would  be  funded  via  the  EU  budget  up  to 
40% of the remaining costs, representing EUR 4.3 million and NCAs would be solicited 
to fund EUR 6.7 million via their contribution to ESMA.  

Many stakeholders in the targeted consultation174 mentioned that they could accept to pay 
a fee to get easier access to information. To the question “As a user, how large share of 
these costs do you expect  to  save through the use of  ESAP?” most stakeholders (out of 
those  who  responded  to  this  question)  replied  “more  than  50%”175,  consistent  with 
previous consultation indicating between 25% to 75% overall reduction in access cost to 
regulated  data  over  time,  especially  across  borders176.  Several  small/retail  investors 
expect  only  20%-30%  in  cost  reduction  as  they  often  (83%)  get  information  rather  on 
company  websites  (for  free)  than  from  data  service  providers  (58%).  The  ESAP  is 
expected in  particular to reduce  time (and therefore work force) allocated to  searching, 
retrieving, translating (when needed) and formatting the publicly disclosed information. 
For large market players incurring the highest costs, it is estimated that additional user 
fees  paid  for  specific  services  proposed  by  the  ESAP  (e.g.  based  on  frequency  or 
volume)  will  be  more  than  compensated  by  significantly  reduced  search  and 
processing  costs  for  most  users177.  When  consulted,  some  stakeholders  also  believed 
that digitalisation could benefit preparers in the long run, one pointing to a reduction of 
7%  to  15%  in  compliance  costs  due  to  streamlined  chain  of  information  production, 
assuming regulators avoid the multiplication of imposed machine readable formats. 

7.2.2 

Environmental impacts 

With  increased  access  to  ESG  information  from  companies  offered  for  free  (in 
combination with  the CSRD proposal), the ESAP will support  the Union’s objective to 
mainstream sustainability into risk management in accordance with the EU climate and 
environmental  objectives  and  the  sustainable  finance  agenda  and  potentially  channel 
more  investments  towards  sustainable  activities  and  projects,  thus  contributing  to  the 
sustainable finance strategy and the achievement of the Green Deal. 

7.2.3 

Social impacts 

With  easier  access  to  ESG  information,  the  ESAP  would  provide  easier  access  to 
information about social aspects of large and listed companies’ governance. This is likely 
to  have  a  positive  impact  on  employees’  rights  to  information  and  consultation  as 
provided  for  in  Directive  2002/14/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council2 
and, by increasing knowledge of undertakings’ activities, on the quality of the dialogue 
that takes place within undertakings. 

173 The operational modalities (e.g. initial procurement procedure by the Commission with involvement of 
ESMA,  or  Contribution  Agreement  to  ESMA)  would  be  determined  taking  into  account  practical 
constraints and the need to advance preparation of the system. 
174 Summary report - targeted consultation on ESAP. In addition: minutes to the e-workshops (Annex 4). 
175 Stakeholders answer to question 24 of the ESAP Targeted Consultation. 
176 Fitness check. 
177 Based on estimates provided by BR-AG. 

73 

 
                                                 
7.2.4 

Fundamental rights 

On  fundamental  rights,  including  personal  data  protection  and  privacy,  no  impacts  are 
identified  as  the  ESAP  will  address  information  that  must  already  be  disclosed  to  the 
public pursuant to EU law or that entities would disclose voluntarily. Any personal data 
processing  associated  with  the  implementation  of  the  ESAP  will  be  done  in  full 
compliance  with  the  Union  legislation  on  data  protection,  including  the  General  Data 
Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR). 

7.3 

Implementation of preferred aggregated option via phased approach 

In  order  to  implement  the  preferred  aggregated  option  a  phased  approach  would  be 
adopted. This would also be in line with the outcome of our consultation activities, where 
stakeholders showed a strong preference for a gradual implementation178.  

Possibilities for the phasing-in are examined in Annex 16.  

7.4 

REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 

This initiative introduces new rules for a European Single Access Point. By streamlining 
disclosure channels, the ESAP will bring simplification and improved efficiency mainly 
on the demand side (users), with reduced search and processing costs, and to some extent 
to preparers in terms of filing obligations (“file only once” principle). 

8 

HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The  Commission  will  ensure  that  the  actions  selected  in  this  IA  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of  the  policy  objectives  with  a  blend  of  specific  monitoring  elements 
designed  to  measure  efficiency  in  implementation  and  progress  towards  specific 
objectives, but also, other monitoring tools contributing to the overall objectives.  

Considering  that  the  ESAP  will  be  built  progressively  and  with  phasing  in  approach,  a 
comprehensive  evaluation  could  take  place  5  years  after  the  start  of  application  of  the 
rules, using monitoring tools developed in this section. 

8.1 

Monitoring the extent with which the specific objectives are met  

The Commission services will explore ways to monitor and evaluate the success of the 
ESAP  project  towards  specific  objectives  by  using  quantitative  and/or  qualitative  key 
performance  indicators  (KPIs).  It  is  noted  that  monitoring  activities  on  sectoral 
legislation  typically  focus  on  the  substance  of  respective  initiatives  rather  than  on  data 
flows.  Working  with  incomplete  indicators  from  various  pieces  of  legislation  would 
bring little value to ESAP and it would be too granular to capture the full picture. Hence 
these are not specific enough and ESAP oriented to obtain meaningful information. 

Meeting and measuring whether the specific objectives have been reached depends on a 
number of dimensions. 

The following table presents examples of activities and related indicators that the ESAP 
governance body could implement and/or the Commission could use in order to monitor 
and evaluate ESAP success towards meeting the specific objectives. These may have to 

178  The  Report  of  the  High  Level  Forum  on  the  Capital  Markets  Union  explicitly  recommends  a  phased 
approach in the establishment of the ESAP. Moreover, 92% of the users participating to our workshops are 
in favour of a phased approach, as well as more than 90% of the participating OAMs/authorities.  

74 

 
                                                 
be incrementally implemented, given the phasing in approach and time necessary to build 
a fully operational ESAP. 

Table 6: Monitoring whether specific objectives are met 

When will 
monitoring 
start  

By whom  
How 
Indicative target 

Specific 
objective to 
measure 

Enabling 
seamless 
and 
integrated 
access to 
data 
published 
by entities / 
increased 
circulation 
of 
information 

Examples 
of 
Monitorin
g  
indicators 
Number of 
visitors 
/searches 

Evolution 
of 
visitors/se
arches 

End-user 
satisfactio
n and 
benchmark
ing 

Yearly once 
the 
minimum 
viable 
product 
stage is 
reached 
(starting 
2024) 

Yearly once 
the 
minimum 
viable 
product 
stage is 
reached 
(starting 
2024) until 
project is 
mature (by 
2028) 
One off by 
the date of 
evaluation 
intended by 
the 
legislation, 
or possibly 
on a regular 
basis 

Source of 
information 

ESAP IT 
systems. 

ESAP IT 
systems. 

ESAP governing body 

Quantitative  
Indicators: number of searches, percentage of 
searches that trigger a view or a download, 
etc. 

Indicative targets at final stage: 
500 thousand unique IPs accessing the ESAP 
in a year 
500 million searches per year (including 
automated) 
% of view/search >50% 
% of download/search >5% 
ESAP governing body 

Quantitative 

Positive change in % of visitors and searches 
versus previous year 

Commission and/or ESAP governing body  

Survey of stakeholders involved in the ESAP, 
including users, preparers, etc. Benchmarking 
against main third country markets. 

Targeted 
(online) 
survey (or 
study) 

Report with qualitative and/or quantitative 
considerations, including possibly: 

Statistics of overall user satisfaction (target: 
>75%) 
Assessment of voluntary filing and use.. 
Assessment of the evolution of cross border 
flows of information (at least qualitatively 
from the user perspective). 

Data 
quality at 
entry point 

Yearly after 
2026 

ESAP governing body 

Quantitative, including: 

Proportion of rejections due to validation 

75 

ESAP 
collection 
points and 
ESAP 
(Helpdesk 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Facilitate 
digital use 
(and re-use) 
of data 

Percentag
e of 
machine 
readable 
informatio
n available 
from ESAP 

checks and system malfunctioning 

Indicative target: less than 5% at initial stage 
less than 1% at final stage 

Yearly or 
biannually 
after 2026 

ESAP governing body  

Quantitative, including: 

Statistics based on % of total scope, including: 
% and evolution of views or downloads of 
machine readable information, % of data 
extractable formats available 

Indicative targets: 
>50 % machine readable by 2030 + increasing 
views or use of such information 

100% of data extractable formats by 2028 

and IT 
systems) 

Internal 
survey on 
data 
formats 
available, 
inventory of 
legislation 

It  is  difficult  to  provide  quantitiative  or  qualitative  baseline  underpininng  the  above 
targets and evolution. due to the following: 

  The  ESAP,  as  a  European  access  point  will  come  on  top  of  national  or  EU 
existing  registers  which  will  continue  to  offer  access  to  regional  or  sectoral 
information.  Hence,  the  ESAP  will  capture  part  of  the  queries  currently  in  the 
baseline,  however  unlikely  all  of  them.  In  addition,  the  scope  of  the  ESAP  is 
broader than the current scope of information collected by repositories, with most 
access  statistics  for  this  additional  scope  being  held  (if  any)  by  each  individual 
company. 

  The  OAMs,  the  NCAs  and  ESAs  currently  don’t  have  detailed  statistics  on  the 
access  or  usage  of  information  in  the  way  intended  in  this  monitoring  section. 
During interviews, there were generally limited information provided on users, let 
alone their nationality and cross border flows of information. Based on interviews 
of  the  OAMs,  it  nevertheless  appears  that  the  visibility  and  usability  of 
information available from OAMs depends to some extent on the business model 
chosen in  each Member  State:  private  OAMs  (stock exchanges, private entities) 
but also certain OAMs operating in well developed markets attract more visitors 
than  other  OAMs.  This  is  in  several  cases  related  to  other  parallel  activities 
offered  within  the  OAMs  organizational  structure  (e.g.  business  registers)  or  a 
strategic  orientation  towards  data.  Hence  beyond  not  being  measured  precisely, 
the  circulation  of  data  may  also  vary  quite  significantly  depending  on 
circumstances.  

  Even though increasing cross border flows of data is part of the objectives, there 
is  no  other  measurement  than  the  limited  qualitative  or  anecdotal  information 
obtained  during  consultation.  Likewise,  this  criteria  is  not  retained  as  a 
quantitative basis of monitoring as flows to and from an EU central access point 
will  necessary  span  all  the  Member  States,  making  it  difficult  to  identify  cross 
border  use  from  a  single  access  point.  Hence  this  is  retained  as  part  of  a  more 
qualitative survey. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Some of the quantitative targeted measures have been determined on the basis of 
benchmarks,  for  instance  from  third  country  markets,  and  as  such  can  only  be 
indicative.  

In terms of benchmarking (access and usability), the approach that should be followed 
is to compare ESAP with similar international projects applied in well developed markets 
and  especially  with  the  US  EDGAR  and  the  Japanese  EDINET.  Smaller  markets  have 
also developed similar projects like the Canadian SEDAR. Numbers probably depend to 
a great extent on the Market size and attractiveness, but also on the international profile 
of  the  market  and  the  accessibilty  of  information  in  terms  of  language  (although 
EDINET’s    user  interface  is  very  friendly  and  provided  in  English  language  most  of 
documents  are  in  japanese  language  which  restricts  the  interested  audience  at  almost 
national level).  

8.2 

Other sources of monitoring 

Monitoring progress towards meeting the general objectives is by definition considerably 
more  complex,  since  it  is  methodologically  difficult  to  distinguish  the  impacts  of  the 
intervention from other possible causes.  The Commission publishes a list of indicators to 
monitor  progress  towards  the  CMU  objectives179,  the  ESAP  being  now  one  of  the 
contributing actions. 

In addition, as part of the third priority area of the Digital Finance Strategy180 to promote 
data-driven innovation in finance, the Commission has set up an expert group to provide 
advice on the technical aspects of establishing a common financial data space181. ESAP is 
expected  to  be  an  important  element  of  the  financial  data  space  and,  depending  on  the 
duration  of  the  group,  it  could  provide  valuable  feedback  on  the  project  and  alignment 
with  the  European  data  strategy  and  related  initiatives.In  addition,  as  part  of  the  third 
priority area of the Digital Finance Strategy to promote data-driven innovation in finance, 
the Commission has set up an expert group to provide advice on the technical aspects of 
establishing  a  common  financial  data  space.  ESAP  is  expected  to  be  an  important 
element of the financial data space and, depending on the duration of the group, it could 
provide valuable feedback on the project and alignment with the European data strategy 
and related initiatives. 

179 European Commission, June 2021 - The Commission publishes a list of indicators to monitor progress 
towards the CMU objectives | European Commission (europa.eu). 
180 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0591&from=EN  
181 Expert group on European financial data space (E03763). 

77 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

This Impact Assessment Report was prepared by Directorate C " Financial Markets " of 
the  Directorate  General  "Directorate-General  for  Financial  Stability,  Financial  Services 
and Capital Markets Union" (DG FISMA).  

The  DECIDE  Planning  reference  of  the  "EU  single  access  point  for  financial  and  non-
financial information publicly disclosed by companies" is PLAN/2020/9145.  

Organisation and timing 

Four  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  meetings,  consisting  of  representatives  from 
various Directorates-General of the Commission, were held in 2020 and 2021 during the 
preparattion stage of this impact assessment.  

The  first  meeting  took  place  on  26.11.2020,  attended  by  DG  FISMA,  BUDG,  ECFIN, 
ENV,  ESTAT,  GROW,  ,  JUST,  REFORM,  RTD,  JRC,  Commission  Legal  service  and 
the Secretariat General (SG).   

The second meeting was held on 4 May 2021, attended by DG FISMA, GROW, ECFIN, 
ENV, JUST, CLIMA, ESTAT, EISMEA, the JRC, and the Secretariat General (SG).  

The  third  meeting  was  held  on  28.5.2021.  Representatives  from  DG  CLIMA,  JRC, 
GROW, ECFIN, ENV, JUST, ESTAT, EISMEA, DIGITand the Secretariat General (SG) 
were present. 

The fourth meeting was held on 17.6.2021 and was attended by DG CLIMA, REFORM, 
BUDG,  JUST,  GROW,  CNECT,  ESTAT,  ENV  and  the  Secretariat  General  (SG).  This 
was the last meeting of the ISSG before the submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 
on 23 June 2021.  

All the meetings were chaired by the Secretariat General.  

DG  FISMA  has  considered  the  comments  made  by  DGs  in  the  intermediate  and  final 
version of the IA.  

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  this  proposal  was  examined  by  the  Regulatory 
Scrutiny  Board  on  22  July  2021.  The  Board  gave  a  positive  opinion  with  comments. 
These  are  addressed  as  follows  by  the  Commission  in  the  final  version  of  the  Impact 
Assessment: 

Issue identified by the Board 
(1) The report should further explain and justify 
the rationale for this initiative. It should 
demonstrate the problems more convincingly, 
basing them on the needs reported by the 
stakeholders and link them clearly to the 
solutions proposed by the ESAP. In doing so, the 
report should better distinguish the various types 
of stakeholders and their respective needs. It 
should be clear how the different stakeholders, 

Action taken 
In  order  to  address  the  issue  indentified  by  the 
Board, the document has been revised as follows: 

Section 2 – Problem definition has been revised so 
as  to  report  problems  by  types  of  users,  where 
relevant,  and  having  better  regard  to  needs 
reported by stakeholders.  

Section  5  on  available  policy  options  has  been 
revised  to  include  clearer  links  between  solutions 
proposed  and  problems  reported,  with  a  better 

78 

 
including data aggregators, could benefit from the 
ESAP, albeit in a different way. This analysis 
should include aspects pertaining to competition 
or complementarities between the services 
offered by data vendors and aggregators, and the 
ESAP. 

(2)  Interactions  with  the  existing  databases,  in 
particular the Business Registers  Interconnection 
System 
(BRIS),  should  be  better  explained, 
showing the complementarities and the overlaps. 
The report should also discuss in more depth why 
it  discards  solutions  based  on  an  integrated  or 
interlinked  approach  to  the  ESAP  and  BRIS  and 
why complying fully with the ‘once only' principle 
seems not possible. 

(3)  The  report  should  better  explain  why  it  does 
include  an  option  on  harmonising  data 
not 
formats  simultaneously  with  the  possible  future 
harmonisation  and  rationalisation  of  reporting 
requirements, which could help to limit the scope 
of the ESAP initiative and its costs. In this context, 
the staged approach of the ESAP could be better 
accentuated under the analysis of options. 

alignment  with  section  2  and  references  to 
consultation. 

integrates  further  analysis  of  the 
Section  7.2 
benefits  and 
impacts  of  the  ESAP  on  data 
aggregators,  and  makes  a  clearer  distinction  of 
impacts  by  type  of  user, 
including  from  the 
competition angle and complementarities between 
the  services  offered  by  data  aggregators  and  the 
ESAP. 

interaction  with 

the  Business  Registers  
The 
Interconnection  System  (BRIS)  has  been  clarified 
from  two  angles,  showing  complementaries  and 
overlaps but also risks and difficulties: 

(1)  In section 5.1 on the Baseline, a  dicussion 
on  the  BRIS’  role  and  contribution  in  the 
baseline scenario was introduced; 

(2)   In  section  5.2.5  on  options  for  the 
governance  of  the  ESAP,  the  prospects  of 
integrating  BRIS  and 
the  ESAP  are 
examined. 

As  regards  the  “file  only  once  principle”,  section  7 
of  Annex  14,  as  well  as  section  7.1  -  Preferred 
options,  have  been  revised  to  provide  further  and 
clearer explanations as regards the boundaries of a 
‘file  only  once’ 
in  terms  of  collection  points 
envisaged for the ESAP initiative – with a particular 
focus  and  explanations  provided  on  Business 
registers.  

In order to better address the key issue of semantic 
interoperability, and the limits of the ESAP initiative 
in  this  regard,  several  modification  were  made  in 
the impact assessment: 

(1)  Section  2.2.6  –  Drivers  out  of  scope,  now 
from  the  angle  of 
includes  material 
semantic interoperability to better explain 
why  the  initiative  does  not  include  an 
option  on  harmonising  data 
formats 
simulatneously  with  the  possible  future 
harmonisation  and 
rationalilisation  of 
reporting  requirements,  having  regard  in 
particular  to  ongoing  initiatives  on  the 
data 
a 
development 
dictionary; 

common 

of 

(2)  Section  5.2.2  Options  for  the  format,  was 
beefed  up  to  include  considerations  in 
relation  to  comparability,  data  structuring 
and  machine  readability,  that  have  to  do 
with  the  content  and  semantic  approach 
inherent to each sectoral legislation. These 
aspects  are  also  exmained  in  relation  to 
the objectives of this initiative. 

Further  material  was  added  to  better  explain  and 
support the staged approach on options, as follows: 

(1)  Additional  text  where  relevant  in  sections 

79 

 
5 and 6; 

(2)  A  graphic  vision  of  the  options  on  scope 
and phasing was added in section 6.1.4; 
(3)  A clearer and more complete vision of the 
from  relevant  dimensions 
phasing 
interconnections, 
(scope, 
in 
is  provided 
Commission  decisions) 
Annex 16, with a cross reference in section 
7.1. 

formats, 

in 

(4)  The  report  should  strengthen  and  complete 
the  analysis  of  impacts.  It  should  discuss  all 
relevant impacts, at least qualitatively, within the 
main  report,  including  impacts  on  SMEs  and 
indirect  impacts  on  the  single  market.  As  many 
aspects  of  the  initiative  are  likely  to  be  finalised 
via implementing legislation, the report should be 
clearer  about  these,  while  keeping  some  of  the 
possible costs indications (e.g. related to the legal 
entity identifier). 

The  analysis  of  impacts  has  been  stenghtened  as 
follows:  

Section 7.2 – impacts of the preferred options now 
contains  4  main  sections  to  analyse  the  impacts 
from  the  economic,  environmental,  social  and 
fundamental rights perspective.  

The  analysis  of  economic  impacts  in  section  7.2.1 
has  been  segmented  in  sub-sections  to  further 
consider  impacts  from  the  competitiveness,  users, 
preparers,  SMEs  and  costs  perspectives. 
In 
particular,  section  7.2.1.1.  has  been  revised  to 
include  qualitative  considerations  on  the  indirect 
impacts of the initiative on the single market. 

impacts 

in  relation  to 

Explanations  were  added  as  regards  the  approach 
and 
level  2  measures, 
  7.1 – Preferred  options, 
especially 
section  7.2 –  Impacts,  Annex 3 – Costs and Annex 
18 – Legal Entity Identifier. 

in  section 

(5)  The  comparison  of  options  should  better 
explain  to  what  extent  and  how  all  stakeholders 
will benefit from the same ESAP. The report could 
further  discuss  why  opting,  in  most  cases  for  the 
sub-options  with  the  full  coverage  is  indeed  the 
best  in  terms  of  meeting  stakeholders’  needs 
while incurring only marginally higher costs. 

The  typology  of  users  has  been  improved  and 
streamlined  (Annex  6  –  Users),  so  as  to  provide  a 
better  vision  on  different  types  of  users,  and  their 
respective needs. 

Building  on  this  typology,  the  main  body  of    the 
impact assessment  has been streamlined to  better 
consider  the  problems  (section  2),  better  consider 
the benefits of options for different  types of users 
(section  6)  and  to  better  present  the  impacts  per 
main types of users (section 7). 

In addition, section 6.1 has been revised to include 
considerations on why opting, in most cases for the 
sub-options  with  the  full  coverage  is  indeed  the 
best in terms of meeting stakeholders’ needs while 
incurring only marginally higher costs. 

Some  more  technical  comments  have  been  sent 
directly to the author DG 

The  additional  technical  comments  provided  have 
been addressed throughout the impact assessment.  

Evidence, sources and quality 

The impact assessment draws on an extensive amount of desk research, external studies, 
studies  carried  out  on  behalf  of  the  Commission,  interviews,  experts’  workshops, 
meetings  with  stakeholders,  targeted  public  consultations,  staff  working  documents, 

80 

 
 
opinions and advice by the supervising authorities, academic research papers and other. 
This material includes but is not limited to the following: 

  A  targeted  online  consulation  exposed  from  20  January  2021  until  12  March  2021, 
with  27  questions  addressing  generalities,  scope,  usability  and  accessibility, 
Infrastructure and data governance, SMEs and non-listed entities, costs and benefits. 
A total 154 organisations and individuals responded to the consultation. 

  7  workshops  held  in  Q1  2021  with  stakeholders  stratified  so  as  to  get  views  of 
homogeneous  populations  including:  regulators/authorities,  users,  preparers,  non-
listed  entities/SMEs  Official  Appointed  Mechanisms  (OAMs),  stakeholders  with 
vested interest. The final workshop was attended by a blend of these stakeholders. 
  Feedback received in January 2021 on the Inception Impact Assessment on ESAP. 
  Input from relevant Expert Groups set up by the Commission (2019-21). The reports 
of  the  following  groups  were  considered  as  is:  High  Level  Forum  on  the  CMU, 
Technical  expert stakeholder group on SMEs (TESG), Expert Group on Regulatory 
Obstacles to Financial Innovation (ROFIEG). The staff engaged in addition directly 
with  the  Expert  Group  of  the  European  Securities  Committee  (EGESC)  and  the 
Financial Services User Group (FSUG). 

  Bilateral  meetings  in  2020  and  2021  with  certain  private  entities,  data  vendors, 
industry associations, international and European NGOs or foundations, a number of 
Officially Appointed Mechanisms, EU authorities in the financial services and capital 
markets, US SEC, governments, etc. 

  Input and advice provided in Q2 2021 by an ad hoc external contractor, BR-AG who 
performed  desk  research,  targeted  e-surveys,  and  virtual  interviews  with  key 
stakeholders  to  assist  the  Commission  in  collecting  evidence,  obtain  analysis,  and 
cost estimates. 

  Commission studies, staff working documents or reports since 2010:  

o  Study on the “Regulatory framework analysis for potential integration into the 

European Electronic Access Point (EEAP)” 

o  Study on the “Governance for a DLT / Blockchain enabled European 

Electronic Access Point (EEAP)” 

o  Study on the Open Data Directive – to be published 

  Data available from desktop research (Find-eR, web, press...) 

 List of resources 

Resources 
Study on the impact of digitalisation on the EU single market 
for consumer financial services  

Study on options for development of online tools and 
services supporting retail investors in investment decisions  

Information/Summary 
This study on digitalisation of consumer 
financial services focuses on to what extent 
technology and innovation can contribute to 
the creation of a true single market for retail 
financial services and non-life insurance. 
Capital Market Union aimed at invigorating 
the participation of retail investors in the 
financing of the economy together with 
other policy objectives. However, EU citizens 
still face difficulties when planning to invest 
in financial products (e.g. investment fund, 
life insurance or private pension product), 

81 

 
that meet their life needs and expectations. 
Despite all efforts and 
documentation, gathering independent and 
comparable information on product features 
is still perceived as a challenge for most 
investors. From the entire universe of 
potential aids to investing, the one most 
efficient would be to focus on the ways to 
provide a practical solution to increase 
transparency and comparability of retail 
financial products, that could be accelerated 
with the creation of an investor products 
hub (i.e. a database), containing complete, 
correct and independent information about 
all managed financial products available 
across EU capital markets. To be most 
efficient, that investor product hub should 
rely on existing information and recycle it 
where and if possible. At a high-level, the 
database would be operated by a single 
public body and accessible for free by retail 
investors as well as financial professionals 
and academics, the latter for research 
purposes. This report proposes a description 
of existing product disclosure platforms, it 
further describes high level technical and 
functional requirements for the creation of 
the hub, including a high level 
implementation roadmap as well as 
regulatory amendments that should be 
envisaged to facilitate the development of 
the tool. If feasible, the scope and depth of 
coverage of this retail investor products hub 
represent challenges both in terms of 
creation and maintenance. Nevertheless, it 
has the potential to materially increase retail 
investors’ level of information on financial 
products available to them whilst limiting 
legal and regulatory hurdles 
This is the final report of the “Study on the 
Non-Financial Reporting Directive” for the 
Directorate-General for Financial Stability, 
Financial Services and Capital Markets Union 
(DG FISMA). This report provides data 
analysis as part of the ongoing monitoring of 
implementation of the Non-Financial 
Reporting Directive (NFRD). For this exercise, 
the study analysed data on more than 17 
million, gathered survey responses from 
more than 200 companies and conducted 
interviews with over 60 stakeholders. 
Among the main findings is that there are 
about 2 000 companies (excluding exempted 
subsidiaries) in the EU27 within the scope of 
the NFRD. In practice, there are 
approximately 10 000 additional companies 
(excluding exempted subsidiaries) that are 

82 

Study on the non-financial reporting directive  

 
obliged to prepare nonfinancial statements 
based on broader transposition of the 
Accounting Directive and NFRD into national 
legislation. There are a further estimated 9 
000 other public interest entities (PIEs) and 
large non-PIEs reporting without a legal 
requirement. The recurring administrative 
costs for providing non-financial statements 
under the NFRD are on average EUR 82 000 
per year, of which about 40% can be fully 
attributed to the legal requirements. These 
costs depend, among others, on company 
size and sector as well as assurance level, 
comprehensiveness and type of reporting. In 
addition, about two-thirds of the surveyed 
companies incur assurance costs, which 
amount to EUR 76 000 per year on average. 
The general objective of this project was to 
test the effectiveness of presented 
information to retail investors within the 
PRIIPs framework. An online consumer 
testing with over 7500 participants in 5 EU 
countries was conducted using: 
10 different versions for presenting 
performance scenarios and past 
performance information in the PRIIPs Key 
Information Document, and 
covering 11 different products 
The overall aim is that the information 
provided should be well understood by retail 
investors and allow them to compare and 
select among different investment products. 
This study on Supply Chain Finance (SCF) 
provides an in-depth analysis of the current 
state and recent developments in the area 
of supply chain finance at EU level and 
within the Member States. The specific 
objectives are to: 1.Provide an overview of 
the Supply Chain Finance market at EU level 
and in each Member State; 2.Understand 
the applicable regulatory environment 
impacting SCF activities; 3.Map existing 
barriers of regulatory and market nature 
that hinder growth and the cross-border 
expansion of SCF within the EU; and 
4.Compile public or private best practices 
capable of facilitating growth and the cross-
border expansion of SCF activities, in 
particular building on experiences in 
Member States where FinTech-enabled 
solutions are well-developed. 
Making markets work better for retail 
investors is one of the key objectives of the 
Capital markets union action plan. A study 
carried out by Deloitte Luxembourg for the 
European Commission shows the difficulties 
that consumers in the EU face when trying 

Consumer testing study - Key information document under 
the PRIIPs framework  

Study on supply chain finance  

Study on the distribution systems of retail investment 
products  

83 

 
to buy the most suitable investment fund, 
life insurance or private pension: 
> retail investors have access to a wide 
range of products through various 
distribution channels but face huge 
challenges in collecting information, 
comparing data or getting independent 
advice on the different products on offer 
> the costs for similar product categories 
vary strongly across EU countries 
> in most EU countries, investors seek advice 
mainly from non-independent advisors (i.e. 
banks and insurers) who tend to propose 
between two and three in-house products 
> the potential for new distribution models 
based on FinTech is promising but needs still 
to be monitored carefully. 
Recent EU legislation (in particular the MiFID 
II, PRIIPs and Insurance distribution 
directives) should improve the functioning of 
the markets for retail investors. 
The study shows that private placement of 
debt instruments with institutional investors 
could play a greater role in financing 
medium-sized companies in the future and 
highlights a considerable growth potential 
for private placements in the EU due to new 
domestic markets and increased cross-
border activities. 
On 13 December 2019 the Expert Group on 
Regulatory Obstacles to Financial Innovation 
(ROFIEG), set up by the European 
Commission in June 2018, published its 
recommendations on how to create an 
accommodative framework for technology-
enabled provision of financial services 
(‘FinTech’). 
The group's 30 recommendations are 
pertaining to the innovative use of 
technology in finance, maintaining a level 
playing field, access to data, and the 
financial inclusion and ethical use of data. 
These reports, which were prepared at the 
request of the Commission following an 
invitation from the Economic and Financial 
Affairs Council, are an important step in the 
development of corporate sustainability 
reporting across the EU. Both reports 
recognise the importance of coordinating 
the development of EU sustainability 
reporting standards with existing and 
emerging global initiatives. EU sustainability 
standards are necessary to meet the political 
ambition and urgent timetable of the 
European Green Deal. They are also 
necessary to ensure consistency of reporting 
rules at the heart of the EU’s sustainable 

Study on EU markets for private placements  

Final report of the Expert Group on Regulatory Obstacles to 
Financial Innovation: 30 recommendations on regulation, 
innovation and finance  

Reports on development of EU sustainability reporting 
standards 

84 

 
finance agenda , especially the existing 
Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, 
the Non-Financial Reporting Directive 
(NFRD), the Taxonomy Regulation, as well as 
with the requirements of forthcoming 
legislation on sustainable corporate 
governance and due diligence. 
The first report proposes a roadmap for the 
development of a comprehensive set of EU 
sustainability reporting standards. It was 
prepared by a multi-stakeholder task force 
established by the European Financial 
Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG). 
A second report proposes reforms to 
EFRAG’s governance structure to ensure that 
future EU sustainability reporting standards 
are developed using an inclusive and 
rigorous process. It sets out, for example, 
how national and European authorities will 
be involved, while ensuring that the process 
also draws upon the expertise of the private 
sector and civil society. 

  Recent Open Public Consultations of relevance for the ESAP: 

-  Open public consultation on the Fitness check on the EU framework for public 

reporting by companies (21 March 2018 - 31 July 2018); 

-  Open public consultation on the European Strategy for Data (20 February 2020 - 

3 June 2020); 

-  Open public consultation on Non-financial reporting by large companies (20 

February 2020 - 11 June 2020); 

-  Open public consultation on a new digital finance strategy for Europe / FinTech 

action plan (3 April 2020 - 26 June 2020); 

-  Stakeholder consultation on the Renewed sustainable finance strategy (8 April 

2020 - 15 July 2020); 

-  Open public consultation on the CMU High Level Forum final report (10 June 

2020 - 30 June 2020). 

The material  gathered and used to feed this impact assessment was generally factual or 
otherwise coming from reputable and well-recognised sources that act as benchmarks and 
reference  points  for  the  topic.  Input  received  from  stakeholders  during  the  consultation 
activities was generally treated as opinions, unless of factual nature. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT 

As highlighted in the Consultation strategy, the objective of the consultation activities is 
to  gather  data  evidence  and  stakeholder  views  for  the  development  of  the  European 
Single Access Point. 
Specifically, the targeted consultation aimed to: 
-  Get  the  views  of  stakeholders  on  the  legislative  scope  for  data,  governance,  data 
collection, ESAP functionalities, and legal framework; 
- Collect evidence and views to better assess the impacts, costs, and benefits of different 
policy options. 
-  Gather  additional  knowledge  on  certain  specific  topics,  such  as  technological 
developments  and  governance  models  that  may  be  advantageous  in  developing  such 
projects; the particular situation of SMEs; and the digitalisation of information. 

This annex is structured in 2 main chapters: 

“Chapter  I  –  Consultation  activities  and  sources  of  information”  presents  the 
methodologies  that  the  services  of  the  European  Commission  have  used  to  build  this 
consultation  strategy, including open public targeted consultation,  e-workshops,  on-line 
targeted surveys,  e-meetings, virtual interviews and previous open consultations. At the 
same time, identifies the main stakeholders’ groups that have been consulted during these 
activities. 

“Chapter  II  –  Output  of  the  consultation  activities”  analyses  the  results  of  the 
consultation  activities  by  the  five  main  dimensions  of  the  policy  options  as  they  are 
defined  in  the  impact  assessment:  scope,  standardisation,  information  collection 
infrastructure,  open  data  and  access  fees,  and  governance.  In  parallel,  if  the  views  of 
different  stakeholder  groups  on  the  same  topic  substantially  differentiate,  they  will  be 
analysed and presented. 

CHAPTER I - CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES AND SOURCES OF 
INFORMATION 

I. 

Stakeholder groups related with the consultation activities 
According with the ESAP consultation strategy, the related stakeholder groups are: 

  Preparers of information 

The  entities  that  already  publish  financial  or  non-financial  information  or  that 
may do so in the future. SMEs are also relevant stakeholders? 

  Users of information published by entities comprise two major groups:  

a.  Financial  sector 

institutions  and 

investors,  who 

require  such 

information to assess the related financial risks and opportunities 

b.  Civil society individuals, organisations, and trade unions who require 
such information to monitor the social and environmental performance of 
entities and hold them accountable for their impacts 
  Authorities at European or Member State level in two main groups: 

a.  Providers:  Authorities  that  will  be  part  of  the  reporting  network  that 
ESAP  would  establish  by  either  providing  information,  like  Official 
(OAMs),  National  Competent  Authorities 
Appointed  Mechanisms 

86 

 
 
 
 
(NCAs),  European  Supervisory  Authorities  (ESAs)  or  by  providing 
services in the deployment of the infrastructure (DIGIT, CNECT, etc.) 
b.  Regulators/Supervisors:  Those  authorities  that  would  provide  with  the 
appropriate  legislative  framework  for  ESAP  (FISMA,  ESMA,  etc.)  but 
also those ones that would potentially benefit from such infrastructure to 
better perform their duties  (supervisory monitoring and compliance, data 
statistics, etc.) 

  Stakeholders with vested interest: 

This group includes assurance providers, credit rating agencies, research and data 
providers, reporting frameworks and standard-setters, academics and researchers, 
and other policy makers. 

It is important to notice that, in many cases financial sector participants, especially banks 
and  insurance  entities,  have  activities  in  which  they  act  as  both  users  and  preparers  of 
financial and non-financial information. 
During the consultation period, we invited all of the above-mentioned stakeholder groups 
and in different activities to contribute and provide relevant input for the establishment of 
the ESAP. 

II. 

Consultation activities and other information sources  

The services of the European Commission have used a wide range of methodologies to 
build  this  consultation  strategy,  including  open  public  targeted  consultation,  e-
workshops, on-line targeted surveys, e-meetings, and virtual interviews. In particular, DG 
FISMA employed the following activities:  

  The Commission services published an Inception Impact Assessment on ESAP 
18  December  2020  with  a  deadline  for  feedback  from  stakeholders  by  15 
January  2021.  In  total,  28  stakeholders  have  provided  their  feedback.  The 
majority  of  respondents  were  entities  and  business  associations,  representing  68 
% (19) of the responses. Around 84 % (16) of these are from the financial sector 
(including  insurance)  and  16  %  (3)  from  the  non-financial  sector.  Other 
respondents  were  NGOs  14  %  (4),  environmental  organisations  4  %  (1),  public 
authorities 7 % (2), private entities 4 % (1) and EU citizens 4 %(1).  
(Summary available in section 3) 

  Open  online  public  targeted  consultation  (the  Summary  report  -  targeted 
consultation on ESAP is available online): The consultation was published on 20 
January  2021  and  responses  were  accepted  until  12  March  2021.  A  total  154 
organisations  and  individuals  responded  to  the  consultation,  mainly  originated 
from  EU  Members  States  (90%)  with  a  well-developed  Market  (Belgium  24%, 
Germany  18%,  France  12%,  the  Netherlands  9%  and  Italy  8%).  These  were 
mainly  businesses  or  their  representatives  (63%).  NGOs’  participation  was  also 
significant  (11%)  together  with  public  authorities  (7%).  The  typology  of 
respondents included: 

o  Pure preparers meaning entities, businesses, and their associations (7%) 
o  Pure  users  including  entities  and  business  associations  in  the  banking, 
financial  and  insurance  sectors,  issuers,  investment  firms,  market 
infrastructure and other sectors (28%),  

o  EU  and  national  registers  and  regulators  (5%),  and  other  stakeholders 
(23%)  including  accounting  business,  standard  setters,  non-European 
businesses, public sector, chambers of commerce.  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
o  There  were  also  respondents  that  were  preparers  and  users  at  the  same 

time (preparer-users) (36%).  

The consultation consisted of 27 questions divided into 6 main sections: 

o  General questions 
o  The scope of ESAP 
o  The usability and accessibility 
o  Infrastructure and data governance 
o  Targeted questions regarding entities with no access to capital markets 
o  Costs and benefits 

  The  Commission  contracted  an  external  consultant  (BR-AG)  to  carry  over 
specific  activities  including  desk  research,  targeted  e-surveys,  and  virtual 
interviews with key stakeholders aiming to assist the commission in collecting 
evidence,  providing  analysis,  and  cost  estimates.  The  evidence  collected  from 
these  activities  were  focused  on  the  current  reporting  practices  (with  a  special 
focus on SMEs), the scope of information and standardization, the infrastructure 
and  governance  models,  the  cost  and  benefits,  and  the  implementation  roadmap 
for the European Single Access Point. 

  The Commission’s services organised virtual workshops and meetings to gather 
views, knowledge and data on specific issues, and to gather the views of different 
stakeholder  groups  in  more  detail.  During  these  activities,  stakeholders  had  the 
chance to reply to short-targeted surveys. With their replies, Commission had an 
opportunity  to  go  into  greater  depth  on  particular  points  and  to  exchange  and 
compare viewpoints in a dynamic setting. 

o  A virtual workshop with stakeholders with vested interest was held on 2 
February  2021  with  the  participation  of  14  representatives  (standard 
setters, international organizations, academics, Auditors, investors) 

o  A  virtual  workshop  with  EU  and  national  regulators  and  authorities 
was  held  on  10  February  2021  with  more  than  50  representatives  from 
European Supervisory Authorities, Commission Services, and participants 
from the almost all of the National Competent Authorities.  

o  A  virtual  workshop  with  users  was  held  on  23  February  2021  with  the 
participation of more than 30 representatives (international organizations, 
investors, data services providers, fund operators, credit rating agencies) 
o  A virtual workshop with preparers was held on 2 March 2021. More than 
25  representatives  of  issuers  (bank  and  insurance  organizations,  market 
operators,  business  and  SMEs  associations,  fund  operators)  had  the 
opportunity to express their views. 

o  A  virtual  workshop  with  more  than  25  participants  representing  non-
listed  entities  including  SMEs  was  held  on  9  March  2021  mainly  to 
gather  views  and  concerns  coming  from  smaller  businesses  seeking  for 
funding. 

o  A  virtual  workshop  dedicated  in  gathering  views  from  the  Official 
Appointed Mechanisms (OAMs) was held on 11 March 2021. More than 
20  member  states  were  represented  in  order  to  express  their  opinions  on 
ESAP. 

o  A virtual wrap-up workshop was held on 27 April 2021 with more than 
50 participants representing all groups of stakeholders from the previous 
six workshops. This workshop aimed first, to discuss the outcomes of the 
targeted  consultation  with  the  stakeholder  groups  and  second,  present  to 

88 

 
them  and  have  their  views  on  a  proposal  prepared  by  an  external 
contractor (BR-AG) on the ESAP implementation options. 

o  Bilateral  virtual  meetings  were  organised  between  the  Commission 

services (in co-operation with an external contractor, BR-AG) and: 

  The OAMs of Denmark, Latvia, Germany, Ireland and Luxemburg 
to  gather  vies,  information  and  data  on  the  current  practices 
information 
the  ESAP 
is  gathered  and  published  and 
implementation options. 
from 

the  US  Securities  and  Exchange 
Commission  to  exchange  views  and  share  their  experiences 
gathered  from  the  implementation  of  the  EDGAR  reporting 
system. 

  Representatives 

o  A virtual meeting was held on 16 March 2021 with the Expert Group of 
the  European  Securities  Committee  (EGESC)  and  with  the  Financial 
Services User Group (FSUG) on 23 April 2021. 

The outcomes from the virtual workshops with stakeholders’ groups and the main 
points from bilateral discussions with individual stakeholders or organizations are 
available in Annex 4. 

  Previous consultations results with a relevance to ESAP: 

o  The  EU  framework  for  public  reporting  by  companies  (Fitness  check 

March-July 2018) 

o  The European Strategy for Data (February-June 2020) 
o  The Non-financial reporting by large companies (February-June 2020) 
o  The new digital finance strategy for Europe / FinTech action plan (April-

June 2020) 

o  The Renewed sustainable finance strategy (April-July 2020) 
o  The Capital Markets Union High Level Forum Final Report (June 2020) 

CHAPTER II – OUTPUT OF THE CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

The first section of this chapter analyses the results by the five main dimensions of the 
policy  options  as  they  are  defined  in  the  impact  assessment:  scope,  standardisation, 
information  collection  infrastructure,  open  data  and  access  fees,  and  governance.  In 
parallel,  if  the  views  of  different  stakeholder  groups  from  all  consultation  activities  on 
the same topic substantially differentiate, they will be analysed and presented. 
In the second section, focus will be given in other specific technical/non-core aspects of 
the policy options, including functionalities and voluntary disclosures and to key points, 
which emerged during all consultation activities. 
Finally, section three presents a summary of the feedback received by stakeholders on the 
inception impact assessment.  

Section 1: Analysis of results – The 5 main dimensions of the policy options 

A. Information (scope angle) 

In general, all consulted stakeholder groups welcomed the Commission’s initiative on 
the European Single Access Point and expressed their support on such intervention that 
would  be  based  on  a  phased-in  implementation  to  prioritize  and  make  available  the 
information  on ESAP  in different  stages (phases). At the same time, the  vast majority 
emphasized  on  the  need  that  the  file  once  principle  should  be  respected  and  several 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
preparers  and  SMEs  underlined  that  there  should  be  no  additional  burdens  and  new 
reporting obligations introduced for entities. 
The majority of the stakeholders support a broad scope of information to be included in 
ESAP covering both financial and non-financial information. Thirty-three (33) different 
legislative  domains  were  examined  in  the  targeted  consultation  in  relation  to  their 
importance for the stakeholders and the need of being in scope. There were ten (10) of 
these domains that gathered the support of the majority of the respondents (>50%), but 
only  four  (4)  of  them  that  had  the  same  broader  support  in  terms  of  prioritization. 
According to the respondents’ majority high priority should be given to key financial 
information under Transparency and Accounting directives and key sustainability-related 
information under NFRD/CSRD and Sustainability-related disclosures/EU Taxonomy. 
Stakeholders’ views by group do not diverge significantly on the scope of information 
but  users  and  stakeholders  with  vested  interest  support  stronger  the  inclusion  of  all 
types  of  information  than  preparers.  A  deeper  analysis  focused  on  users  replies,  shows 
that there is a stronger support for a broader scope of information from those representing 
civil society (NGOs, researchers, trade unions) and retail and small investors (consumer 
or  professional  associations  representing  retail  investors  and  individual  consumers), 
while  large  investors  (institutional  investors,  banks,  insurance  companies,  funds  and 
consumer or professional associations representing them) and data service providers are 
focusing more on the importance the information has to them than the broader scope. 
Some  of  the  preparers  expressed  the  opinion  that  ESAP  should  focus  only  in  key 
information  and  sustainability-related  information  and  information  that  is  not  of  high 
importance for the investors should be out of scope or have a lower priority. The OAMs 
did  not  expressed  any  objection  on  collecting  additional  information  but  some  of  them 
noticed that today they are not  legally authorised to  do so.  Authorities and preparers 
would  prefer  to  see  financial  information  in  the  first  phase  while  NGOs  and 
social/environmental organizations and initiatives raised the importance of having as 
soon as possible, free access to as much as possible ESG information in order to assess 
and  address  ESG-related  issues.  Users  expressed  the  need  to  have  access  to  both  key 
financial and key sustainability-related information at an early phase. 
Although  focus  should  be  given  to  entity-related  information,  several  stakeholders 
mainly  retail  investors  and  users  of  ESG-related  information  raised  the  need  for 
product-related information. 
On  the  same  topic,  stakeholders  participated  in  previous  consultations,  strongly 
support to create a single access point for both financial and non-financial reporting data 
with a focus on financial reporting data, ESG, NFRD, Taxonomy, Green Deal data, SME 
data, AML, tax, cyber incidents and company ownership.  
In addition, they believe that the main benefits from a single access point will be: a single 
market for data, support innovation and competition, improve the analysis, comparability 
and decision-making and to fundamentally change the way business is conducted. Many 
of them state that digitalisation enables users to  apply big data or artificial intelligence 
tools to address increasingly extensive and complex data and potentially would allow to 
avoid  overlapping  requests  by  users.  Still  there  are  risks  to  be  addressed  like: 
monopolies,  having  digitalisation  driving  the  standard  setting  may  entail  poorer  or 
misleading information, standards can stifle innovation, cybersecurity, Big Techs. 

B. Machine readability (scope angle) 

The vast majority of stakeholders believe that the standardization of information under 
a reporting framework with common  schemes and metadata would be useful to address 
the challenges regarding comparability, reliability,  and reusability of information. They 

90 

 
also  mentioned  that  the  absence  of  such  common  standards  is  one  of  the  main  barriers 
users and society face when they process financial and ESG-related information. 
It  was  also  a  common  belief  that  information  should  be  not  only  human  but  also 
machine-readable  and  ESAP  should  build  on  that  direction  with  a  careful  phased-in 
approach to ensure data quality and comparability. 
Preparers stressed that reporting under specific standards could potentially make more 
information publicly available and reusable and this could reduce the burden of replying 
to  several  requests  they  receive  for  information  (credit  rating  entities,  data  providers, 
investors). Together with  SMEs,  preparers focus on the costs that an extensive use of 
machine-readable  formats  could  add  a  problem  that  could  be  addressed  by  allowing 
different digital formats depending on the information content. 
While  for  preparers,  machine-readability  should  be  a  priority  for  key  financial 
information in the initial phase to address investors’ needs, for users and those entities 
that  are  preparers  and  users  at  the  same  time,  sustainability-related  information 
should also be prioritized and be machine-readable in an early phase. This would allow 
them to not only make a sustainable investment decision but also assist them in fulfilling 
their sustainability-related reporting obligations.  
Regulators  and  national  authorities  focus  more  on  applying  to  a  greater  extent 
machine-readability to financial information than to the sustainability-related. 
SMEs were very sceptical in the idea of reporting under extensive standards (similar to 
the  ones  that  are  used  for  larger  listed  entities)  and  they  propose  a  lighter  version  of 
reporting to reduce the costs of standardization for small-medium entities. 
Many  of  the  stakeholders  supported  that  the  European  Single  Electronic  Format 
(ESEF), based on xHTML and XBRL technologies, is suitable to some or a great extend 
for machine-readability given the fact that is already adopted and applicable from 2022 
for  the  annual  financial  statements.  There  were  though  some  of  the  preparers  and 
national  authorities  that  raised  questions  on  the  suitability  of  the  ESEF  format  when 
information is more narrative and less quantitative. Among other popular formats, we see 
XML  and  CSV.  Some  preparers  mentioned  that  PDFs  should  be  acceptable  by  ESAP, 
although they recognize that this format is not a suitable format for machine-readability. 
JSON  format  and  RDF  were  some  of  the  other  formats  recommended  by  a  few 
stakeholders (mainly users). 
The  majority  of  users  from  previous  consultations  think  that  regarding  reported  data 
under NFRD lacks comparability, reliability and relevance (since NFRD does not include 
standards for the information disclosed by companies) and the options for Member States 
in  certain  areas,  notably  for  the  Transparency  Directive,  hampers  the  quality  and 
comparability of information. It is also made clear that there is difficulty of enabling the 
machine  readability  of  information  when  it  is  of  qualitative  or  narrative  nature.  In  that 
sense many stakeholders support that the conditions to make data usable are: standard 
machine readability format (CSV, XML, JSON, XSLX, XBRL, iXBRL, ESEF), tagging 
on  the  base  of  reporting  standards,  sector-specific  KPIs,  use  of  APIs,  real-time  access, 
package  of  GRI  (Global  Reporting  Initiative)  taxonomy  and  iXBRL  tagging.  Although 
the importance of machine readability is mentioned in several past consultations,  many 
of the respondents believe that costs of introducing tagging of non-financial information 
would  be  proportionate  to  the  benefits,  but  a  number  of  respondents  from  business 
propose  less  tagging  requirements  for  SMEs  to  avoid  disproportionate  costs.  Some 
suggest to make machine readability voluntary for SMEs, to restrict machine readability 
to  only  a  ‘core’  subset  of  data  reported,  e.g.  key  information  or  metrics,  and  use  IT 
standards  other  than  ESEF.  The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  fitness  check 
consultation  did  not  support extending electronic data structuring to  all (including non-
listed) entities’ financial statements in  the EU, even less so to management reports and 

91 

 
other  reporting,  as  this  would  be  a  non-proportionate  measure  leading  to  unnecessary 
standardisation and compliance costs. 

C. Information collection infrastructure 

On the infrastructure dimension and in relation to the ways that ESAP should collect the 
information  all  stakeholders  have  in  general  same  views.  ESAP  should  build  on  the 
existing  national  or  European  reporting  channels  and  focus  in  respecting  the  file  once 
principle  and  on  not  creating  additional  burden  or  unnecessary  costs.  In  addition,  the 
importance of a European single access point would be greatly diminished if information 
is  not  available  through  ESAP  at  the  same  time  that  is  publish  in  any  other  mean  or 
channel.  Among  users,  the  majority  of  data  services  providers  fully  agree  with  the 
statement that timeliness is the most important element of the information. 
Today more than half of the information that EU legislation requires entities to publish is 
available  on  the  entities’  website  and  according  to  the  vast  majority  of  stakeholders, 
this is an important barrier to access and use that information. Although the majority of 
all  stakeholders  support  that  this  information  should  be  available  at  the  same  time 
through ESAP several national authorities are raising concerns if their role should be 
expanded  in  order  to  collect  them  through  an  official  and  interconnected  channel  with 
ESAP. The main objections are related to the fact that there is not a legal requirement to 
collect  that  information  and  to  potential  additional  operational  and  infrastructure  costs 
that this would mean for their organization. At the same time, there are other authorities 
that  they  see  an  opportunity  for  them  to  develop  new  services  and  expand  their 
operations by receiving more information. 

D. Open data and access fees 

All  stakeholder  groups  (including  those  that  participated  in  previous  consultations) 
support  that  ESAP  should  offer  free  access  to  information  and  information  should  be 
available without any payment  required. Although that the open data/free access model 
was  strongly  recommended  there  were  some  stakeholders  that  supported  the  idea  that 
issuers (when submitting the information) or in general those who will benefit the most 
from  ESAP  could  pay  some  fees  (e.g.  annual  subscription).  The  benefit  ESAP  would 
create  for  these  providers  or  users  could  then  justify  a  decision  to  apply  some  kind  of 
fees.  
Several stakeholders from different groups stressed the need to predict proportionate 
fees  based  upon  the  volume  of  download  especially  in  the  cases  of  entities  aiming  to 
profit  from  such  professional  use  of  data  (e.g.  data  service  providers).  This  could 
potentially become an additional funding channel for ESAP but also a way to ensure the 
smooth operation of the platform and avoid availability issues. 
In all cases, it was vastly supported that no fees should apply to end-users for searching 
and accessing (viewing or single downloading) the information. 

E. Governance 

The  governance  dimension  proved  the  most  challenging  as  stakeholders’  views  varied 
not only between groups of stakeholders with different interest but also within the same 
group of stakeholders. The stakeholders’ support focused mainly in a pure public and a 
public/private governance model. A few of stakeholders (mainly users and stakeholders 
with a vested interest) supported a private governance body leading the ESAP project. 
In general, the majority of stakeholders supported that the most appropriate governance 
model  should  be  based  on  public  authorities  including  the  ESAs  and  the  related 
Commission services. The majority of them, also foresee an important role for ESMA at 

92 

 
 
 
 
least in the initiation phase and believe that is also important that different stakeholders, 
including the private sector (reporting entities and investors) and the national authorities 
(NCAs and OAMs) should be involved in the governance of the project, not necessarily 
at the same phase. 
Two  of  the  groups  of  stakeholders  representing  regulators/authorities  and  the 
preparers strongly supported a supervisory public body in charge of ESAP, focusing on 
ESMA’s role to initiate and steer the project assisted by the other ESAs. The majority of 
these  groups  also  foresee  an  important  role  for  the  national  authorities  and  reporting 
entities in the governance model either in the board or as a consulting body. Some of the 
OAMs (mainly from private sector) and a part of the preparers were also in favour of a 
public/private  governance  model.  The  vast  majority  of  this  type  of  stakeholders 
rejected the model in which a private body would be in charge of ESAP.  
The views of the users group and the stakeholders with a vested interest on the ESAP 
governance were similar with the views of preparers and authorities with a significant 
difference:  although  in  majority  they  supported  the  supervisory  public  governance 
model run by the ESAs, some of them clearly opposed to that model. At the same time, 
many  of  them  expressed  a  strong  support  to  the  public/private  model.  They  often 
commented that the governance model should include all stakeholder types and be open 
and inclusive as soon as possible. In this perspective,  some users proposed to examine 
the  inclusion  of  EFRAG,  Eurostat,  and  IFRS  organization  in  the  governance  model. 
Private  consortiums  working  on  the  sustainability-related  information  expressed  very 
strong  interest  not  only  in  being  actively  involved  in  the  governance  of  ESAP  but  also 
co-funding the project. 

Section 2: Analysis of results – Other technical/non-core aspects of the policy 
options 

A. Voluntary disclosures 

During the consultation activities, many of the stakeholders (all groups) supported the 
inclusion of voluntary information from entities other than those with securities listed on 
EU regulated markets. That includes entities with securities on any non-regulated market 
or an SME Growth Market, pre-IPO entities and entities that would like to be funded by 
sustainable  finance  or  by  private  equity.  Among  the  users,  those  who  strongly  support 
voluntary disclosures to be available via ESAP are those representing civil society while 
data providers to some extent they remain neutral to that prospective. 
A  few  stakeholders  (mainly  users)  expressed  the  opinion  that  ESAP  could  also  be 
useful for public sector entities, non-European entities, entities which  receive EU funds 
or  grants,  state  guarantees.  Certain  users,  like  market  operators,  even  believed  that 
disclosure via the ESAP could  be mandatory, beyond market  participants, to  non-listed 
large entities, as this would prevent a new public-private information gap in the interest 
of the Capital Markets Union. 
There was an inclination to allow only predefined sets of key information to be posted in 
the ESAP, rather than any information. According to the majority of stakeholders, the 
main benefits for entities with no access to capital markets to disclose their information 
publicly in ESAP would be to get more visibility and attract a broader range of investors 
or business partners, and to increase transparency on sustainability reports and ESG data 
(easily  retrievable).  Most  of  stakeholders,  mainly  users,  would  rather  see  this 
information being available in a language that is customary in the sphere of international 
finance  even  though  preparers  could  rather  support  the  national  language.  In  parallel, 
they opined that rules applying to information posted voluntarily to the ESAP should be 
similar to rules applying to any other similar mandatory information on the ESAP. 

93 

 
 
 
B. ESAP main characteristics and functionalities 

Among various characteristics proposed for the ESAP, stakeholders supported primarily 
that the information should be of high quality and in that context, ESAP should focus in 
higher quality rather in the widest scope of information. 
A  majority  of  stakeholders  and  especially  users,  supported  that  information  in  the 
ESAP be subject to quality checks. As regards which checks to perform, stakeholders put 
on top  compliance  with a relevant  taxonomy and  IT format,  followed by  completeness 
and  availability  of  metadata.  Several  OAMs  highlighted  that  they  do  not  perform  any 
additional  quality  checks  besides  the  ones  required  (usually  automated)  to  ensure 
compliance  with  the  existing  regulated  document  taxonomy  (Transparency  Directive  - 
European Electronic Access Point). Quality checks on the content are rare too, only two 
cases  identified  of  extensive  checks  performed  by  OAMs  before  the  publication  of  the 
information. 
Many  of  the  stakeholders  would  expect  from  ESAP  not  only  to  provide  information 
from  reliable/trusted  sources  and  to  that  purpose,  they  proposed  the  use  of  technology 
(electronic signatures, seals or other electronic means) to ensure integrity of information 
and the credibility of the source. In the same context, the immutability of information is 
another expectation from ESAP for many of the stakeholders.  
The  majority  of  the  all  stakeholders  find  it  important  that  the  information  would  be 
provided  in  a  timely  manner.  The  availability  of  information  on  ESAP  as  soon  as  is 
published  is  crucial  for  users  and  other  stakeholders  with  vested  interest.  Among 
different  types  of  users,  data  providers  are  more  supportive  on  the  timeliness  on 
information  while  some  representatives  from  civil  society  and  large  investors  stay 
sometimes  neutral. For authorities/regulators and mainly  the OAMs it is  a point of 
resistance,  as  it  is  related  with  the  dissemination  of  information  which  is  a  source  of 
income for some (mainly private) of them.  
Many  stakeholders,  mainly  users,  also  stressed  the  importance  of  addressing  the 
language barrier at least for the user interface. Some of them highlighted that machine-
readability  is  the  solution  in  addressing  efficiently  the  language  barrier  (at  data  level). 
The civil society representatives strongly support that the user interfaces (Web portal and 
search engine) should be available in all EU languages while the large investors, the data 
providers and the small/retail investors equally support the use of a customary language 
in  the  sphere  of  international  finance.  Regulators  and  national  authorities  have  been 
more  precautious  on  the  language  dimension  as  national  law  usually  requires 
information to be in the local language. Regarding the content/data language views are 
similar among all groups of stakeholders and support equally a solution that will provide 
the  information  in  some  or  all  EU  languages  and  a  language  customary  in  the  field  of 
international  finance. Data providers though  also  support that content/data should be in 
the original language. 
Finally,  on  the  funding  of  ESAP  the  vast  majority  of  stakeholders  of  all  types 
supported that EU should fund the project but, there were a couple of private initiatives 
on sustainability-related information that would be willing to participate in the funding 
of the project. 
Previous  consultations  have  pointed  out  that  authentication  and  identification  should 
ensure  the  quality  and  security  of  data.  Electronic  signatures  or  seals  and  other  trust 
services suggested to ensure integrity of information and certainty of the source of the 
data used. 

94 

 
 
 
Section 3: Feed-back on the Inception Impact Assessment 

Stakeholders  from  all  different  groups  have  expressed  general  agreement  with  the 
problem definition in the Inception Impact Assessment. Both preparers, users and other 
entities  with  an  interest  in  the  public  financial  and  non-financial  information  in  scope 
find that the information is not easily accessible and comparable. Stakeholders share the 
view  that  the  information  is  especially  necessary  for  investors  in  order  to  make  sound 
investment decisions.  

All stakeholders have expressed strong support for the establishment of ESAP as it can 
significantly improve access to company data and improve incentives to good corporate 
behaviour  (ESG),  support  innovation,  funding,  etc.  throughout  Europe.  Stakeholders 
from  both  the  financial  and  non-financial  sector  have  emphasized  the  urgent  need  to 
make ESG data available. ESAP thus has the potential to bring about a missing piece of 
the CMU and contribute to  further integrating European  capital  markets,  as well as the 
Sustainable Finance Strategy by making sustainability information more easily accessible 
to interested stakeholders, including potential investors.  

The  main  concerns  mentioned  by  stakeholders  are  that  there  should  be  no  additional 
burdens introduced for entities, especially SMEs, there should be proportionality between 
requirements and the benefits of ESAP, and the interplay between ESAP and other policy 
projects from the Commission should be clear.  

Generally,  stakeholders’  views  do  not  diverge  significantly  between  the  different 
stakeholder groups. 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW?  

Practical implications of the initiative 

The  preferred  aggregated  option  for  the  ESAP  will  imply  the  following  obligations 
(subject to a phased approach182):  

Obligations for preparers: 

  EU/third  country  entities  subject  to  disclosure  requirements  under  the  EU 
financial  markets  legislation  specified  in  Annex  9  have  to:  (i)  draw-up  such 
information in open and widely used data extractable formats (machine-readable 
formats may become mandatory depending on the exercise by the Commission of 
its  delegated  powers);  (ii)  include  the  required  metadata  (e.g.  a  legal  identity 
identifier);  (iii)  provide  an  electronic  seal  in  each  document;  (iv)  submit  the 
information to the EU/national collection points interconnected with the ESAP at 
the same time as the information is made public (e.g. on the entity’s website).  

  EU  entities  that  wish  to  have  their  financial  and/or  sustainability  related 
information  accessible  on  the  ESAP  may  do  so  provided  that  such  voluntary 
information: (i) is prepared in an open and widely used data extractable format; (ii 

182 See Annex 16 for an overview of the suggested phased approach.  

95 

 
 
 
                                                 
include the required metadata (e.g. a legal entity identifier); and (iii) is submitted 
to an EU/national collection point that is interconnected with the ESAP.  

Obligations for EU/national collection points:  

  They  will  receive  mandatory  and  voluntary  information  from  entities  and  be 
interconnected with the ESAP, which means: (i) develop an API; (ii) being able to 
receive  information  in  data  extractable  formats  (or  in  machine-readable  formats 
where  required  by  EU  law)  that  include  metadata;  (iii)  introduce  standard  open 
licenses equivalent to a generally accepted open license (terms and/or equivalence 
with  the  reference  licence  to  be  determined  by  the  Commission  via  delegated 
acts);  (iv)  creating  sufficient  storage  space;  (v)  provide  a  helpdesk-type  service 
for  preparers;  (vi)  making  the  information  available  on  the  ESAP  within  a 
predetermined  timeframe;  (vii)  provide  access  to  the  stored  information  for  at 
least 10 years.  

Obligations for Member States: 

 

(i) ensure that for both mandatory and voluntary information there is a designated 
collection point interconnected with the ESAP; (ii) implement the file only once 
principle as regards the designated collection points.   

Obligations for ESMA (re ESAP governance): 

  Set up an ESAP platform with the following basic characteristics: (i) user friendly 
Web portal/Application Programming Interfaces (APIs); (ii) automated validation 
checks  on  the  information  received  (nature  and  extent  to  be  determined  via 
Commission  delegated  acts);  (iii)  search  function  to  retrieve  information;  (iv) 
indication  of  the  source  of  the  information;  (v)  machine  translation  service  for 
retrieved  documents;  (vi)  reader;  (vii)  individual  and  bulk  download;  (viii) 
notifications/RSS feed; (ix) ensure that information remains accessible for at least 
10 years.  

  Ensure appropriate governance for the ESAP platform, which means: (i) deciding 
on the technical specification of the IT infrastructure for the ESAP; (ii) deciding 
on  the  application  of  possible  fees  for  specific  services;  (iii)  advising  on  the 
specific  machine-readable  format  for  each  type  of  information;  (iv)  deciding  on 
the interconnection requests from Member States/national collection points. 

  Develop  advice  to  the  Commission  on  certain  secondary  law  measures,  such  as 
the choice of a legal entity identifier, common standards on automated validation 
by  the  collection  points,  common  standards  on  APIs,  the  characteristics  of  the 
qualified  electronic  seal,  licensing  terms,  and  the  timeframe,  develop  the 
taxonomy of some metadata. This would be done generally on a one off basis and 
successively over a few years, allowing ESMA to integrate the workload as part 
of its usual regulatory activities. 

Summary of costs and benefits 

Based on the responses received in our targeted consultation, the majority of respondents, 
notably preparer-users, are overall convinced (67%) that the benefits of the ESAP would 
outweigh its costs.  

96 

 
The  tables  below  summarise  expected  benefits  and  costs  of  this  initiative  for  the  main 
stakeholder groups.  

I. Overview of Benefits for all provisions – Preferred Option  

Description 

EU/Member states 

Data users 

Data preparers 

Increased visibility  

 
  Attract potential 

investors 

  Less direct data 
inquiries from 
stakeholders 

  Ensure a more level 

playing field for SMEs 

  Simplified reporting 

process and reduced costs 
through harmonisation 

  Better insights on the 
industry performance 

  Added visibility through 

comparable data 

  Increased quality of data 
  Increased trust in 

preparers’ information 

  Have data available to a 
broader audience in a 
timely matter 

Direct benefits 

  Access to all data from a 

single source  
  Easier access to the 
specific information 
needed 

Indirect benefits 

 

Lower search costs, 
especially as regards 
cross border information 

  Better informed 

decisions (including as 
regards sustainability 
risks and impacts), 
which can lead to better 
allocation of capital 

 

Enabling the offer of 
new services 

Direct benefits 
  Automated search of 

information in a document 
is made possible, allowing 
for more efficient analysis   

Indirect benefits 
 Automated solutions to 

gather and process the data 

 Enabling new kinds of 
digital services and 
solutions based on a 
variety of data  
 Increase in the 

comparability of the 
reports content 

 Reduced decision-making 

time  

Direct benefits 

  Access to timely data 

Indirect benefits 

  Increased confidence in 

All information published 
by entities in the scope of 
EU financial markets 
legislation shall be 
accessible via ESAP. All 
voluntary information shall 
be accepted. 

- 

  Make EU capital 

markets more attractive 

  Better visibility to 

sustainability issues 

Only open and widely used 
data extractable formats that 
enable machine-readability 
are accepted + common 
minimum metadata for all 
information/documents.  

Entities submit the 
information to a collection 
point that is interconnected 
with the ESAP at the same 
time as they make the 
information public. OAMs, 
ESAs (where needed), 
NCAs (where needed) and 
other collection points are 
interconnected with the 
ESAP 

Open data and service fees: 

- 

- 

  Facilitation of supervisory 

data integrity 

- 

tasks 

  Data still accessible at 

national level 

Direct benefits 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Possible fees with the 
exception of individual or 
public interest use 

  - 

  Enabling access to 

effective data usage to 
new kind of data services, 
citizens, media, 
universities, etc. 

  Reduction of asymmetry 

of information  

  Increasing confidence 
between countries and 
markets 

ESAP functionalities: 
(i) user friendly Web 
portal/Application 
Programming Interfaces 
(APIs); (ii) automated 
validation checks on the 
information received; (iii) 
search function to retrieve 
information; (iv) indication 
of the source of the 
information; (v) machine 
translation service for 
retrieved documents; (vi) 
reader; (vii) individual and 
bulk download; (viii) 
notifications/RSS feed; (ix) 
information made accessible 
for at least 10 years. 

- 

- 

  Broad and easy access to 

relevant data across the EU 

  Reduced costs of data 

access/discovery 

  Ability to create more data-
driven models and digital 
solutions in a cost-efficient 
manner 

Indirect benefits 

  Added visibility and 

transparency 

  More resources and easier 
use of resources to develop 
analysis and algorithms 
lead to better service 
quality  

  Broader scope of system 

users increases the impact 
of the communication 
through public disclosures 

Direct benefits 

  User friendly interface 
  Better discovery of 

information 
  Ability to search 

comparable information 
in multiple languages 
  Easier retrieval of large 

amount of data 
  Comparability of 

information over years 
Indirect benefits 

  Quick automated 

validation 

  Increased visibility to 

users 

  Lower search costs 
  Better focus on points of 
interest (notifications) 

  Better insights on the 
industry performance 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
III. Overview of total costs (one-off and yearly) for the preferred option 

Existing EU/national collection points (e.g. OAMs, 
NCAs, ESAs) 
[based on intended  EU requirements,  
total number: 61] 

Data preparers 
[with mandatory reporting obligation only, 
total number: around 167 000] 

Commission/ESMA 

One-off 

Yearly 

One-off 

Yearly 

One-off 

Yearly 

 API 

implementation 
EUR 25 000 

 Metadata 

implementation 
EUR 25 000 

 Signature 
validation 
service 
(software)  EUR 
800 

Total  
EUR 50 800 

Total 
individual 
costs183 

 Maintaining the API EUR 6 250 
 Maintaining signature validation 

service EUR 200 

 Creating  an  account  with  a 
collection point where needed 
(negligible) 

 Data 

transmission 

costs 

 Identify metadata (negligible) 

(negligible) 

 Implementation  of  validation 
checks and help desk for filers – 
not  assessed  for  reasons  set  out 
in  Annex  14  section  4,  impact 
expected to be rather low  

 Increased amount of stored data 
and  electricity  consumption  – 
not quantified 

 Development 

 Operational governance cost 

EUR 6.2 million 

1.6 million – 2.5 million 

 Filing  costs  (also  depending  on  the 
collection  point  –  e.g.  upload  fees) 
EUR 200184  
 LEI EUR 60185 
 Signing tool EUR 160 
 Creating  and  maintaining  digital 

certificate EUR 380 

Total EUR 6 450 

Total costs negligible 

Total EUR 800 

Total  EUR  6.2 
million  

Total EUR 1.6 million – 2.5 
million 

183 Compared to baseline. 
184  Subject to the Commission exercising its delegated powers on the specification of a machine-readable format, there could be future costs for drawing up the information in such a 
format. These costs would be assessed in the dedicated cost-benefit analysis for the adoption of the relevant delegated acts. Certain OAMs, either private or public, depending on each 
Member State, charge annual or upload fees on issuers as a source of funding (cost recovery or for profit), representing generally not more than a few thousands euros. A comparison of 
the  scope  of  this  initiative  (167 000  filers)  to  the  number  of  issuers  (4 200),  shows  that  the  number  of  filers  could  be  multiplied  by  over  30.  This  enables  to  envisage  a  dramatic 
reduction in subscription/upload fees for filers possibly down to a few tens of euros per filer instead or currently a few thousands euros. This amount will be highly dependent on each 
collection point, its funding structure, filer situation, evolution of costs, etc. and thus be zero in certain member States and higher in others.  The uneven situation in the EU about such 
fees and uncertainties depending on many factors such as future choices to be made by member States do not allow to have more reliable estimates hence approximate estimate of EUR 
200 additional costs on average (higher bound) compared to baseline are retained. 
185 Reasonable estimate within the price ranges observed in the market for an LEI of the GLEIF. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Total 
collective 
costs  

 API 

 Maintaining  the  API  EUR  381 

implementation 
EUR 1 525 000 

250 
 Data 

transmission 

costs 

 Metadata 

implementation 
EUR 1 525 000 

 Signature 
validation 
service  EUR  48 
800 

(negligible) 

 Implementation  of  validation 
checks and help desk for filers – 
not  assessed  for  reasons  set  out 
in  Annex  14  section  4,  impact 
expected to be rather low  

 Increased amount of stored data 
and  electricity  consumption  – 
depends  on  each  situation,  not 
quantified 

 Maintaining signature validation 

service EUR 12 200 

 Creating  an  account  with  a 
collection point where needed 
(negligible) 

 Identify metadata (negligible) 

 Filing  costs  (also  depending  on  the 
collection  point  –  e.g.  upload  fees) 
EUR 27 388 000186 
 LEI EUR 3 807 600187 
 Signing tool EUR 26 720 000 
 Creating  and  maintaining  digital 

certificate EUR 63 460 000 

 Development 

 Operational governance cost 

EUR 6.2 million 

1.6 million – 2.5 million 

Total  
EUR 3.1 million  

Total EUR 0.4 million 

[Negligible] 

Total  
EUR 121.4 million  

Total  
EUR 6.2 million  

Total  
EUR 1.6 to 2.5 million 

186  17% of the reporting obligations are already being filed to an EU/national collection point so the cost calculation was made considering only the remaining 82% of the filing. 
187 These costs are subject to the Commission exercising its delegated powers on the specification and designating the LEI of the GLEIF for all filers of information – otherwise could 
remain negligible as it is considered that filing entities would have an identifier (EU ID, VAT number...). At least 62% of the total ESAP entities (167 000) already have an LEI so the 
cost calculation was made considering 38% of the ESAP entities (i.e. 63.460), and an estimated reasonable cost of EUR 60.   

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 4: WORKSHOPS, BILATERAL MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDERS, EXPERT 
GROUPS, AND COMMITTEES  

Virtual workshops with stakeholders 

Workshop 
Stakeholders with vested interest 

February 2nd 2021 

Agenda item: 

SCOPE – STRATEGY – VISION 

Presenter: 

Commission 

Discussion: 

Expectations for ESAP 
Scope of information 
Key elements of success 
Overcoming obstacles and risks 

Key points / Conclusions: 

  All participants fully support the EU initiative 
 
 

Scope the wider the best 
Phase in approach in favour (TD and ESEF in phase1, NFR also important for the majority but not priority 
one) 

  A clear mapping of reporting obligations will help to prioritize information in scope 
 
EDGAR is a good example but not the ideal model (cons: costs, technology, no-bulk pros: point of reference) 
 
ESAP should be a reference point if we want to “think big”. 
  Data availability and timeliness adds real value to the project 

Survey results: 12 responses 

Q: What information should be machine-readable? 
Financial data as much as possible and key non-financial information were strongly supported. 
Q: What are the key elements that could make the ESAP a reference point? 
Timeliness, reliability, traceability, quality, machine readability and comparability are were strongly supported 
Free access, retention period, bulk download, historical data, mitigation of language barriers and 
infrastructure/governance could also affect but not to the same level of importance 

Agenda item: 

IMPLEMENTATION - THE KEYS TO SUCCESS 

Presenter: 

Commission 

Discussion: 

Main functionalities and characteristics 
Data access and usability 
Technology as an enabler 
Governance model 
Key points / Conclusions: 

  Global identifiers (a legal entity identifier) are an enabler when it comes to accessibility and comparability. 
 

Timely data is in high demand. Simultaneity also important for market sensitive information 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Data ownership should be addressed to ensure an open data model. 
  Data quality is important and controls should be established (checks, audit, public feedback) 
  Commercial use and “power users” could be with a fee (related with the usage and also ensure system 

stability) 
Technology can solve problems and bridge national gaps and especially in language issues 

 
  XML is good enough as a technology 
 
 

Scope of information is the key for determining the appropriate governance model 
Public-Private governance model could be more efficient but ESMA has a leading role (phase1) 

Survey results: 12 responses: 

Q: When building the ESAP, should any barriers to access and use of the information be removed (such as the 
inability to do bulk downloading, access fees, different languages, scattered access)? 
The majority believes that such barriers should be addressed 
Q: As regards non-listed companies and SMEs, what is the type of information that could be disclosed on a 
voluntary basis in the ESAP? 
A set of predefined key financial and sustainable related information were the answers in favour 
Q: What would be your preferred governance model for ESAP? 
The views were split between Public and Public/Private models with ESMA having a role in both 
Q: Having in mind the cost that you incur today for accessing and using public information do you expect that 
ESAP would help you reduce it (and how much)? 
Half of participants would expect a reduction of these costs and half of them from 25% up to 50% 

102 

 
 
 
 
Workshop 
Authorities (ESAs, NCAs, EC, OAMs) 

February 10th 2021 

Agenda item: 

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 

Presenter: 

Commission 

Discussion: 

Expectations for ESAP 
Scope of information 
Overcoming obstacles and risks 

Key points / Conclusions: 

Overall, EU authorities support the ESAP initiative and believe that an EU intervention in needed.  

A vast majority stressed that ESAP should built on existing infrastructure and reporting channels and should follow a 
phasing approach starting from data that is most beneficial for investors. 

Both  financial  and  non-financial  information  should  be  available,  but  more  emphasis  was  given  to  financial 
information. ESAs pointed out the need for co-ordination in similar projects that they are already working on (Pillar III 
data hub by EBA) 

According to a vast majority of  participants, ESAP should address the need of user groups and the lack of common 
standards and definitions. 

Some of the participants raised concerns on the possibility ESAP having dissemination functionalities but technologies 
should be examined that could provide appropriate solutions. 

Finally, most participants supported a free access model (no fees) for end-users. 

Survey results: 35 responses 

Q: I participate as a: 
Most participants were representing National Competent Authorities. 
Q: Should the ESAP provide also access to voluntary disclosures by companies? 
Almost half of the respondents supported that voluntary disclosures should be accessed using ESAP. 
Q: Should the ESAP progressively increase the scope of the information made available (phasing-in)? 
Almost all respondents preferred a phased-in approach. 
Q: Should the ESAP be used only as a repository (storage function) or also as a channel for the timely 
publication of information? 
A slight majority believes that ESAP should be a repository of information but there was a significant support by 
several respondents on ESAP being a channel for the timely publication of information. 
Q: Which of the following existing barriers should be addressed by ESAP? 
The majority of respondents backed-up the opinion of addressing the language barriers and bulk downloading. 

Agenda item: 

FUNCTIONALITY AND MAIN CHARACTERISTICS  Presenter: 

Commission 

Discussion: 

Functionality and accessibility 
Machine readability and data quality 
Technology as an enabler 

Key points / Conclusions: 

Overall, all participants supported that information on ESAP should be machine-readable. However, they  emphasize 
that there is a demand but also a lack or limited availability of sustainability data and that is the main reason to believe 
that  ESG  information  should  be  on  ESAP  when  data  is  defined  and  structured.  There  were  also  concerns  if  all 
information should be in machine-readable formats as regards qualitative information. 

A vast majority of participants stressed the need to build the ESAP structure on the existing, however, encouraging the 
information to be in a machine-readable format. Some concerns there were raised about the efficiency of publication of 
information on entities’ website. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Several participants expressed the opinion that information quality should be ensured but without adding obligations to 
MS authorities or shifting responsibilities from the issuers to authorities or ESAP. 

Different formats could be allowed only if comparability is ensured, while structured data is the main way to address 
language barriers (common taxonomy) 

Survey results: 31 responses: 

Q: Do you see any obstacles to having different formats for different types of information? 
Majority of respondents do not see a problem in different formats but some pointed out the importance of ensuring 
comparability between them. 
Q: Are you using in your organization any the following emerging technologies? 
Around half of respondents use big data technology. Machine learning, language processing and artificial intelligence 
are also used in some authorities. 
Q: Considering information to be made public by companies (i.e. both financial and non-financial information), 
what should be made machine-readable? 
Most of respondents support machine readability for key financial and non-financial information. Opinions are divided 
on the possibility of having machine readability for all information in scope. 

Agenda item: 

GOVERNANCE, 
INFRASTRUCTURE 

DATA 

COLLECTION 

and 

Presenter: 

Commission 

Discussion: 

Governance and funding 
Data collection and infrastructure 

Key points / Conclusions: 

In general, participants view the governance in relation to the scope of information. Most participants have emphasized 
that ESAP could benefit from being governed by ESAs (i.e. ESMA hosting body) to benefit from the experiences they 
have in such areas. 

Some  were  supportive  of  a  public  private  partnership  that  would  focus  on  the  long-term  vision  and  not  in  the  first 
phases of the project. 

Vast  majority  of  participants  agreed  on  the  fact  that  ESAP  has  to  be  freely  accessible  but  some  at  the  same  time 
proposed that commercial use could be with payment from the user or the issuer side. 

Survey results: 23 responses: 

Q: If the ESAP includes a broad scope of information (NFI, voluntary disclosures), how would you rate the 
following governance models: Public body with all ESAs vs Public/Private consortium vs Private consortium  
All respondents without negative opinions supported the public body. On the other hand, private consortium was not 
supported from respondents. On the public/private consortium, opinions were evenly distributed. 
Q: Should the ESAP allow for direct upload of information (e.g. voluntary disclosures) by market participants? 
Almost half of the respondents supported direct uploads of voluntary disclosures but in parallel, there were some 
respondents opposing. 
Q: Would you be able to accept submissions in different formats? 
The majority of authorities that replied would be able to accept submissions in different formats without any or with 
minor developments needed. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Workshop 
Users 

23 February 2021 

Agenda item: 

GENERAL DISCUSSION 

Presenter: 

 Commission 

Discussion: 

Expectations for ESAP 
Key elements of success 
Overcoming obstacles and risks 

Key points / Conclusions: 

Overall, all participants support the ESAP initiative. A vast majority stressed that ESAP should be a primary source of 
information/data, meaning that the information should be rendered accessible in a timely manner. ESAP should include 
key information and avoid including any type of commercial document. ESAP should allow the re-usability of its data. 

According  to  a  vast  majority  of  participants,  ESAP  should  address  the  need  of  investors;  it  would  however  be  also 
useful to consider whether to address supervisory authority need.  

A  majority  of  participants has  emphasized  the  need  for ESAP to  be  implemented  in  a phased  approach  with  a  clear 
road map, hence, ensuring ESAP’s success by promoting data quality. 

Participants have indeed highlighted the need for ESAP to have high quality raw data. 

A  majority  of  participant  has  stressed  that  some  of  the  main  issues  as  regards  finding  and  retrieving  the 
information/data across the EU, is that the information is scattered across all MS and the lack of standardised metadata, 
which  renders  difficult  the  comparability.  Some  participants  have  also  mentioned  that  sometimes-accessing  public 
information was costly. 

Agenda item: 

SCOPE, ACCESS AND USABILITY 

Presenter: 

Commission 

Discussion: 

Scope of information 
Main functionalities and accessibility 
Technology as an enabler 

Key points and conclusions: 

Overall, all participants were aligned as regards key entity related information which would first need to be included in 
the ESAP’s scope: (1) all relevant non-financial information which are covered by NFRD, taxonomy and SFDR along 
with  (2)  already  existing  financial  information  disclose  requirements  (TD).  Indeed,  the  lack  of  data  or  limited 
availability of sustainability data was emphasized by most participants. 

However, some participants were supportive of including in a second phase voluntary information along with product 
related information notably PRIIPS and PEPP, while others seemed doubtful. 

A vast majority of participants stressed the need to build the ESAP structure on the existing, however, encouraging the 
information to be in a machine-readable format. A large number of participants have expressed the need for ESAP to 
allow a variety of machine-readable formats, while keeping in mind the file-only-once principle. 

Concerning  the  accessibility  of  the  information,  participants  have  no  strong  views,  some  even  stressed  that  having 
access to the information in a centralized manner was not key. However, all participants are strong supporters of being 
able to compare quality data in a timely manner on ESAP.  

For  most  participants,  ESAP  should  be  user-friendly  and  provide  the  clear  sourcing  of  the  information.  In  addition, 
there should be an easy download function (including bulk-downloads).  

Most  participants  were  stressing  the  need  to  have  quality  checks  at  issuer  level  before  submitting  information  on 
ESAP. 

Agenda item: 

GOVERNANCE AND FUNDING 

Presenter: 

Commission 

Discussion: 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Governance model 
Cost and funding 

Key points and conclusions: 

Overall, all participants have split views as regards the governance model of ESAP. Some participants have stressed 
that  ESMA  should be  in  charge  of  ESAP, hence  avoiding  any  type  of  conflict  of  interests,  ensuring  maintenance  of 
data quality, its neutrality and secure transparency. 

Some participants have emphasized that ESAP could benefit from being governed by ESMA (i.e. hosting body), with a 
governance  board  composed  of  stakeholders  representatives  which  could  voice  the  industry’s  need  by  providing 
technical expertise. 

Others, were supportive of a public private partnership, stressing that private stakeholders could ensure  ESAP would 
then de designed both for preparers and users. 

All  participants  agreed  on  the  fact  that  ESAP has  to  be  freely  accessible  for  all  users,  hence  preventing  any  type  of 
monopoly.  However,  some  participants  stressed  the  need  to  include  proportionate  fee  based  upon  the  volume  of 
downloads. 
Other Information 

Special notes: 

Overall, there is a strong appetite from all participants to have access to entity related sustainable related information as 
well as financial information right from the launching of the ESAP platform. 

Survey statistics 

E-workshop online survey session 1 (28 participants): 

A vast majority of respondents to the online survey was in favour of EU intervention to establish ESAP 

E-workshop online survey session 2 (25 participants): 

A vast majority of respondents to the online survey was in favour of establishing the ESAP in a phased manner and 
that ESAP should both the repository and disseminated the information in a timely manner. 

E-workshop online survey session 3 (18 participants):  

Mirroring the outcome of the e-workshop, respondents to the online survey have split views as regards the governance 
of ESAP (1) some favouring a public body in charge of ESAP and others (2) favouring a public-private partnership. 
Overall, a vast majority of respondents are not supportive of a private consortium. 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
Workshop 
Preparers 

March 2nd 2021 

Agenda item: 

GENERAL DISCUSSION 

Presenter: 

Commission 

Discussion: 

Expectations for ESAP 
Key elements of success 
Overcoming obstacles and risks 

Key points / Conclusions: 

Overall,  all  participants  support  the  ESAP  initiative  and  believe  that  an  EU  intervention  in  needed.  A  vast  majority 
stressed that ESAP should built on existing infrastructure and reporting channels and respect the file once principle. 

ESAP  should  follow  a  phasing  approach,  starting  with  the  information  that  is  available  and  comparable  (ESEF). 
Financial  and  non-financial  information  should  be  available.  ESG  information  should  be  first  well  standardized  and 
defined. 

According to a vast majority of  participants, ESAP should address the need of user groups and the lack of common 
standards and formats and at the same time ensure data quality. 

Voluntary disclosures for SMEs could be also in scope but concerns were expressed about the related costs. 

Some of the participants believe that ESAP would lower the costs for both preparers and users while others pointed out 
the risk of introducing additional requirements and costs for the preparers. 

Survey results: 16 responses 

Q: Do you think an EU intervention is necessary or could/would the market establish such an access point? 
Vast majority supports an EU intervention. 
Other questions on risks and benefits were qualitative and not quantitative and they are reflected in the key 
points/conclusions session. 

Agenda item: 

SCOPE, ACCESS AND USABILITY 

Presenter: 

Commission 

Discussion: 

Scope of information 
Functionalities, data accessibility and usability 
Technology as an enabler 

Key points / Conclusions: 

Overall, all participants were aligned as regards key entity related information which would first need to be included in 
the  ESAP’s  scope:  (1)  already  existing  financial  information  disclose  requirements  (TD-ESEF)  and  (2)  all  relevant 
non-financial information which are covered by NFRD, taxonomy and SFDR. However, they emphasize that there is 
lack or limited availability of sustainability data and that is the main reason to believe that key ESG information should 
follow the key financial information in the phase-in approach. 

A vast majority of participants stressed the need to build the ESAP structure on the existing, however, encouraging the 
information to be in a machine-readable format. A couple of participants have expressed the need for ESAP to allow a 
variety of machine-readable formats and respect the file-only-once principle. 

Some concerns there were raised about the efficient dissemination of information that is published on entities’ website. 

Many participants were supportive of including in a later phase product related and voluntary information but after a 
careful prioritization. 

Survey results: 15 responses: 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q: Should the ESAP provide also access to voluntary disclosures by companies? 
The majority is in favour of the availability of voluntary information through ESAP. 
Q: When submitting information to ESAP, which of the following ways is preferable? 
Keeping the current channels OAMs and NCAs is the preferred option. 
Q: Should the ESAP be used only as a repository (storage function) or also as a channel for the timely 
publication of information? 
Vast majority of participants support the idea of timely publication the information through ESAP. 
Q: Considering information to be made public by companies (i.e. both financial and non-financial information), 
what should be made machine-readable? 
Participants support in a more solid way that key financial and key non-financial information should be machine-
readable. Views are split about applying of machine-readability on all financial and non-financial information. 
Q: Should entities should continue publishing information on Websites only, ESAP only, both 
Majority of participants support the option to submit information also in ESAP when it is on the website. (both) 
Q: Do you see any obstacles in having different formats for different types of information? 
Views are split, no clear conclusion. 
Q: How would you estimate your capabilities to reporting in XML, ESEF/xHTML/XBRL, and any format? 
How do you perceive structural reporting (e.g. SCV, XML or XBRL) in terms of the reporting burden? 
Majority of participants feel comfortable to report in ESEF formats or XML. They also understand and accept the extra 
additional burden to some extent. 

Agenda item: 

GOVERNANCE AND FUNDING 

Presenter: 

Commission 

Discussion: 

Governance model 
Funding and costs 

Key points / Conclusions: 

The participants have split views as regards the governance model of ESAP.  

Some participants have emphasized that ESAP could benefit from being governed by ESMA (i.e. hosting body), with 
an advisory board or a supervisory committee composed of stakeholders representatives (private and public). 

Others were supportive of a public private partnership and there was a mention on joint undertakings (public-private-
academia sector in board seats), which attracted the attention of some participants. 

All  participants  agreed  on  the  fact  that  ESAP  has  to  be  freely  accessible  but  some  at  the  same  time  proposed  that 
commercial use could be with payment. 

Survey results: 13 responses: 

Q: If the ESAP includes a broad scope of information (NFI, voluntary disclosures), how would you rate the 
following governance models (public body, P-P consortium, private)? 
There was a strong positive position for public body with all ESAs, a positive for the public-private and a negative for 
an exclusively private governance. Some proposed Eurostat, EFRAG or similar authority. 
Q: Should the ESAP allow for direct upload of information (e.g. voluntary disclosures) by market participants? 
The majority was in favour of direct uploads on ESAP for specific information 
Q: What role would you assess your organization might have in the funding of ESAP? 
There was no willing to participate actively in ESAP’s funding but participants would be interested in other aspects of 
governance like standard setting or a consultation role. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Workshop 
Entities with no access to capital markets – including SMEs 
Agenda item: 

GENERAL DISCUSSION 

Presenter: 

9 March 2021 

Commission 

Discussion: 

Preparers’ perspective (SMEs and other issuers) and current data landscape  
Expectations from ESAP 
Key elements of success 
Overcoming obstacles and risks 

Key points / Conclusions: 

Overall,  all  participants  support  the  ESAP  initiative.  A  majority  stressed  that  ESAP  would  benefit  SMEs  and  small 
family business as a benchmarking tool and would be useful to check the credit worthiness/credibility of their business 
partners. 

Participants  have  split  views  as  regards  the  expectations  from  ESAP,  some  stressed  that  it  would benefit  small  non-
listed  entities  which  (1)  have  a  desire/appetite  to  grow,  (2)  have  an  interest  in  seeking  funding  from  the  financial 
market, (3) are looking for visibility and/or (4) seek for merges/business partners. There are many different scenarios 
where  the  SMEs  might  be  interested.  However,  others  emphasized  that  from  a  cultural  perspective  small  family 
business would be reluctant to render public on a voluntary basis their financial information.  

Some  participants  argued  that  from  an  investor’s  perspective,  the  key  benefit  of  ESAP  would  be  to  render  SMEs 
visible more than granting access to its public information. Hence, should an investor be interested in a specific SMEs, 
it could reach-out to this SMEs to then access all the relevant data he would need for its due diligence. 

The size of the company is not the only criteria to take into account, according to some participants there is a great 
variety  of  SMEs,  with  different  as  regards  ownerships  and  marketing  strategies.  Participants  stressed  that  SMEs 
already have many data to provide. 

From a technical perspective, some participants argued that setting-up ESAP could be a challenge as each country has 
its own access to business register. In addition, some have access to the information for free while other need to pay, 
hence the architecture would need to carefully balance out interests of all the parties involved. 

Some  participants  emphasized  the  need  to  accompany  SME  (e.g.  family  businesses)  to  better  understand  financial 
literacy. 

Agenda item: 

SCOPE, ACCESS AND USABILITY 

Presenter: 

Commission 

Discussion: 

Scope of information 
Main functionalities and accessibility 
Usability 

Key points and conclusions: 

Overall, all participants are in favour of disclosing on ESAP all public information which is required by law, as regards 
non-financial information it will depend on the outcome of the NFRD review. However, each SME should be able to 
render public any voluntary information they want  – nothing should be mandatory, as it will be too burdensome and 
costly for them. 

A  participant  stressed  that  in  its  view  SMEs  should  render  accessible  on  ESAP  on  a  voluntary  basis  financial 
information (e.g. annual report) and sustainable related information. According to this participant, SMEs should also 
have a standard for ESG reporting and it should be covered by the NFRD, notably as there is a huge demand for ESG 
data. 

It  was  stressed  that  SMEs  should  continue  to  rely  to  their  accounting providers,  hence,  ESAP  should provide  a  free 
questionnaire for the NRFD data for instance to be filled-in by accountants. 

Participants have split views as regards the format of the information, which will be accessible on ESAP, a participant 
has stressed that in its MS digital reporting was already required for all sized companies. The digitalization process was 
launched  in  a  phased  approach  starting  with  smallest  companies.  Other  participants  argued  that  depending  on  the 
format required for the information to be machine-readable it could be too costly for SMEs. 

A vast majority of participants argued that the architecture of ESAP was important, the portal needed to be attractive, 
hence user-friendly. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
Other Information 

Special notes: 

Overall,  there  is  a  strong  interest  in  ESAP.  Participants  are  willing  to  render  public  on  ESAP  all  legally  required 
information, however, each individual entity should be free to share any voluntary information. 

Survey statistics 

E-workshop online survey session 1 (9 participants): 

All respondents to the online survey think that based on the type of industry of the non-listed company, it will be more 
prone to seek market-based financing. A vast majority also think that another driver would be the company willingness 
to grow. 

According  to  respondents,  some  specific  companies  would  be  prone  to  sustainability-related  visibility  such  as  (1) 
companies in ESG supply chain, (2) energy related and environment focused companies and (3) innovative companies. 

E-workshop online survey session 2 (6 participants): 

A vast majority of respondents to the online survey think that SMEs would use ESAP to check competition, look for 
market opportunities, find financial information and KPIs and check the credit worthiness of a business partner. The 
main barriers accessing the information would be cost, language, fragmented offering across the EU and the lack of 
availability of the information in some MS. 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
Workshop 
Official Appointed Mechanisms (OAMs) 

March 11th 2021 

Agenda item:  OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND FUNCTIONALITY 

Presenter: 

Commission 

Key points / Conclusions: 

-  Most OAMs would see no problem in expanding the scope of data collected. 
-  OAMs also willing to feed in the ESAP with data collected. 
-  Voluntary info is critical: private OAMs used to collect voluntary info. Public OAMs (DE, FR) much more 

- 

- 

reluctant to accept voluntary info unless legal obligation exists. 
Scope would also determine some other features: validation checks, formats accepted, governance, collection 
scheme (some OAMs do the three functions at the same time: dissemination, filing with NCA, collection for 
OAM – some do only one or two),  
Free access: all OAMs offer free itemized access. Voluntary info not regulated more prone to commercial 
use.   
Phasing-in, strong support across the board. 

- 
-  OAMs do not support taking over the dissemination function, which is primarily the responsibility of issuers. 
They see the ESAP as a repository primarily, even if in terms of timing, availability on OAM is not long 
after (in DE “within reasonable time”). LU more willing to combine dissemination/storage if this does not 
disrupt their business model (main source of revenue in LU is dissemination).  However, IE thought that they 
could play it if done intelligently and they could continue selling additional services. 
In general, OAMs want the data to remain in their servers, under OAM control. 
The collection system may inform the scope: collection by public body means regulated information, 
normally. 

- 
- 

Survey results: 20 responses 

Q: I participate as a: 
Private OAMs and public OAMs represented equally (50-50) 
Q: Should the ESAP provide also access to voluntary disclosures by companies? 
Half of the respondents supported that voluntary disclosures should be accessed using ESAP. Only ¼ against. 
Q: Should the ESAP progressively increase the scope of the information made available (phasing-in)? 
Almost all respondents preferred a phased-in approach. 
Q: Should the ESAP be used only as a repository (storage function) or also as a channel for the 
timely publication of information? 
A slight majority believes that ESAP should be a repository of information but one in five respondents 
supported the idea of ESAP being also a channel for the timely publication of information. 
Q: Which of the following existing barriers should be addressed by ESAP? 
The majority of respondents backed-up the opinion of addressing the barriers of language and bulk 
downloading. 
Q: How easy do you think will be for your organization to feed in real time the ESAP with 
information/data you receive in the case of setting up an inter-operability layer? 
Opinions were divided between respondents. Several OAMs will probably face difficulties to adapt a slight 
majority would manage better the transition. 
Q: How easy do you believe it will be for your organization to? 
Easier adaptation should be expected for more metadata requirements and free access, while it will be more 
difficult for OAMs to adapt in a system where ESAP will publish first the information and perform more 
extensive validation checks. 

Agenda item:  MACHINE-READABILITY AND DATA QUALITY 

Presenter: 

Commission 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key points / Conclusions: 

Most of participants in favour of machine-readability. Some of them pointed out the importance of human readability 
also, which is provided by xhtml for example. 

Some mentioned that iXBRL might not be the best technology for all types of information. 

In general should be easier to have some different formats but not to many in order to control the systems and the costs. 
The main problems may be the comparability of data and the resources. 

Only some of the OAMs perform validation checks but most of them believe that data quality is important. There was a 
debate on the dissemination of information but it seems reasonable to seek a solution that will deliver the information 
timely. 

Survey results: 19 responses 

Q: Do you see any obstacles to having different formats for different types of information? 
Opinions were divided. Comparability and resources related issues were the main problems mentioned. 
Q: Are you using in your organization any the following emerging technologies? 
Around 1/2 of respondents used DLTs/Blockchain. Machine learning, language processing, big data and artificial 
intelligence are being used by some OAMs. 
Q: Do you currently perform IT validation checks on the information you receive? 
Half of respondents already perform validation checks mainly pre-submission checks the other half they don’t perform 
any. 

Agenda item: 

GOVERNANCE, FUNDING and INFRASTRUCTURE  Presenter: 

Commission 

Key points / Conclusions: 

In general, participants view the governance in relation to the scope of information but most of them they would like to 
participate at least in providing advice or in a committee.  

Most of the OAMs have a limited capacity in funding the ESAP project and EU funds should be used mainly. 

Vast majority of participants agreed on the fact that ESAP has to be freely accessible. 

Survey results: 18 responses 

Q: Should the OAMs play a role in the governance of ESAP?  

The  majority  of  OAMs  would  be  willing  to  participate  in  the  governance  model  mainly  in  a  steering  committee  or 
advisory group. Some supported that ESMA should have the lead but OAMs should be consulted before any decision 
made. 

.Q: Should the OAMs play a role in the funding of ESAP? 
Data sharing was the most preferred option supported by 1/3 of respondents. Some supported direct access and some 
the use of metadata and only links to the data. 
Q: Should the ESAP be built on the interconnection of the excising EU/national registers/repositories via: 
The majority of OAMs are accepting different types of files/formats or minor developments will be needed to do so. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wrap-up Workshop 

April 27th 2021 

Agenda item: 

Outcome of the ESAP targeted consultation 

Presenter: 

Commission 

In general, there is a strong support from the participants on ESAP and a phased-in approach. 
Some supported the opinion that ESAP should not wait for information to be standardized in order to be included since 
the availability of the some information even in human readable formats is important. Payments for extensive use or 
commercial  use  should  be  examined.  Timeliness  of  information  will  be  crucial  if  ESAP  aims  to  be  THE  source  of 
trusted  public  information.  In  regards  with  the  costs  of  standardization  and  the  voluntary  disclosures  by  SMEs,  it  is 
important  that  proportionality  be  applied.  Several  participants  underlined  that  EU  taxonomy  and  other  sustainability 
related or ESG information should be a priority and that ESAP’s timeline should align with other related legislative 
developments. 

Participants’ positions: 

Stock exchanges:  

  Web access should be free but API and bulk download should be charged. 
  All information should be structure and defined.  
 
 
  XBRL should be avoided due to complexity but it should be kept in some use cases (e.g. financial 

Some NCAs even give pdf forms to fill.  
Formats should be both human and machine-readable (human first).  

 

statements)  
For other reports: simple content, simple formats should be used. Avoid Excel, preference in xHTML. 
Inline XBRL only when it is relevant.  

  We have a service for publication of all kind of information so our scope is already broader than 

‘OAM’ scope; currently we are limited to issuers.  
  We support to start with TD and ESG information.  
  CSDR timelines should be aligned with ESAP. 
 
  Having one place to find information would be very valuable. 
 
  Certain  regulation  requires  the  data  to  be  filed  in  e.g.  stock  exchange.  All  these  can  be  data  providers  for 

The entities would not themselves directly file in ESAP but there are intermediaries. 

Standardized formats is also a huge cost there should be some proportionality.  

ESAP 

  No regulatory requirements needed towards SMEs. For instance, business registries could share their annual 

Financial Statements with ESAP in phase 2. 

SMEs:  

  As long as it is about channelling the existing information and sharing this data to a broader audience it 

is ok. Otherwise the reporting should be voluntary and for the contents of the reports, no new 
obligation.  
Standardisation: try to make a distinction between the big and small companies. 

 

IT organisation 

 

 

 

Proposals seem very sensible. About legislation, there is a huge amount of variety between local 
implementations. 
Technically more complicated if ESAP is only pointing to the original data source rather than containing 
a copy.  
This project is not going to be very cheap. Will ESAP be the primary source of data or an archive? We 
think it should be the primary location. However, this means the project needs to be properly funded. In 
case proper funding is not found, we suggest leaving it to the private sector. 

Accountants:  

  Accounting firms think it is necessary to harmonize the different directives and the sustainability 

 
 
 

directive as the scopes are overlapping. Otherwise, there will be added reporting burden.  
The ability of ESAP to include auditor’s report is very important aspect.  
Final comment: First, include any data and then standardize in phases. 
ESAP itself should not harmonize reporting requirements BUT harmonised reporting requirements should be 
an  important  and  separate  project,  which  in  the  longer  run  should  greatly  increase  the  effectiveness  and 
efficiency of ESAP 

NGO:  
 

In general strong support for the ESAP especially to include sustainability information.  

113 

 
  Governance: very supporting of public-private initiative as this enables the users and the industry’s 

feedback. Important to include also academics and civil servant association. Direct representation in the 
board might bring better outcome. 

  Good to have open access, interesting to differentiate the web access and API access or based on the 

amount of data used. Have you considered charging for institutions that benefit the most? Maybe an annual 
fee might work best. 

  We are supportive of the BR-AG's proposal what to include in the phase 1, but we would like to stress the 

 

importance to include EU taxonomy and SFDR-related disclosures in addition to NFRD 
Strongly support a phased in approach, financial and sustainability data highest priority. Product 
disclosures important in rather early stages. It would be very useful to include marked abuse information 
in phase1 sprint1. In the second sprint with sustainability information (CSRD), within the EU taxonomy you 
have both category entities in the scope. Do not to forget the product information. 

  Creating EU taxonomy is important. 

Strong support. Primary reason to ensure that we have the data available.  
Priority to CSRD data since there is the biggest gap today.  

Insurance: 
 
 
  Machine readability should not be the reason to delay anything.  
 
 

This is public good so data should be free. Users for commercial purposes could pay for the data. 
Phasing in (sprint approach is good). Ultimate goal should be a system where a company can take a list from 
its investments and extract all of their data. Some data may be in PDF for now or even in the future. Being 
able to access the data even in a semi-automated way is the most important.  

support ESAP project in the way foreseen 
Supporting of the phasing approach.  
Standardisation is advancing in sustainability reporting.  

Regulators:  
 
 
 
  ESAP legislation should not be the place where reporting is standardized.  
  We should not wait for the digitalization of all the information before ESAP starts.  
  Only machine readability can bring the resolution to language issue.  
  Attention on quality vs. voluntary filings 

Funds sector:  

  ESG data is priority to have available.  
  Voluntarily disclosures is a challenge.  
 
  Time is of the essence, we believe that phasing is the solution. Timing is crucial. 

Free of charge fine, but can support charges for commercial use.  

Banking sector:  

  We support the initiative, the phasing and the priority setting presented.  
  Need for standardization and that it should happen on a legislative level.  
  Market participants to report data keeping in mind the proportionality.  
  Timeliness of data is important.  
 

Financial information already reported in national registries like SME financial statements should be 
automatically transferred to ESAP.  

  ESAP timelines should align with legislative changes required to standards development. 
  When considering sustainability information, information on for example energy performance label of EU 
buildings is very important. This information is centralized by authorities at member state level and made 
publicly available by these authorities in some cases. This information is very important in the case for 
example of banks and it would be key to have it publicly available in a centralized way at EU level. Would it 
be possible to consider this information within the ESAP scope 

. 

Interviews with the OAMs (summary) 

Interviewed OAMs: Latvia, Luxemburg, Denmark, Ireland, Italy and Germany 

Data collection  

114 

 
 
 
The entities are directly supplying the data to the OAM or at times there is a proxy or a 
service provider. 

Typical solution a web portal where the data is uploaded by the filers. The OAM keeps 
and publishes the data but the internal use seems to be limited to carry out supervisory 
functions. 

Business models for the OAMs  

The funding models even with public organisation OAMs vary quite a lot, examples: 

- fully government funded 

- market participants (not issuers) funded 

- funded by issuers for data dissemination and storage 

Based  on  the  answers  received,  the  cost  of  annual  OAM  operation  was  ranging  from 
roughly 300e (not including labour) in small markets to 200 000e in developed markets. 
Mostly  likely  the  costs  are  affected  by  the  additional  relative  responsibilities  of  the 
respective OAM. 

Data users  

Many OAMs don't keep track on user statistics. Some observations from respondents: 

- we can assign almost all recorded activity (99.9 %) to activity by non-registered users. 
Furthermore,  a  rather  large  portion  of  registered  activity  is  linked  to  disproportionally 
few IP addresses. 

- Equity Issuer Annual Financial statements are most queried / searched  

-Annual upload quantity 15000 files per year 

"Common solutions:  

- for data providers: web portal with login and upload files functionality 

-for  data  users:  web  portal  with  search  engine  with  basic  metadata  search.  Some  offer 
also subscriptions to certain kind of searches. 

- most popular disclosures were mentioned Notifications of voting rights (Notification of 
Major  Holdings,  Notification  concerning  the  acquisition  of  own  shares,  Notification  of 
the total number of voting rights according to Sec. 41 WpHG)"  

For  the  amount  of  active  users  only  a  few  of  the  interviewed  OAMs  had  insights.  One 
mentioned 4400 with the estimation of 75% of these being associated with issuers, other 
companies  and  funds,  etc.  while  25%  of  them  would  be  personal  users’  accounts. 
Another OAM mentioned them having about 11100 active user accounts. 

About  the  stratification  of  users  (individuals,  institutional  investors,  retail  investors  / 
funds, analysts, commercial users) the OAMs interviewed had no insights. 

When asked how many issuers the OAMs estimate there would be from their country in 
ESAP, the answers were ranging from around 10-500. Was very hard to estimate as the 
scope of ESAP was not clear. 

115 

 
Timeliness / storage function / dissemination  

Typically  issuers  may  file  themselves  or  they  may  use  specialised  media/service 
providers to file on their behalf. 

In  most  cases  the  data  is  simultaneously  available  at  the  OAM  as  it  would  be  in  other 
places.  If there  was  delay  it was  estimated to  be maximum  some minutes difference in 
time. 

When asked if the OAMs saw possibilities to reduce the time between dissemination and 
availability  to  end  users  on  OAM,  solutions  like  only  using  API  transmission  and 
automatizing all processing on the OAM side were mentioned. 

The data dissemination is the main core function for some private OAMs and at times the 
most significant source of funding. Almost all of the interviewed OAMs were objecting 
ESAP to take on this role.  

Some  of  the  OAMs  were  very  open  minded  towards  collecting  more  data  from  the 
reporting entities (e.g. filings from SMEs) where as others expressed that they are only 
able to collect data that they are regulated to collect. 

Connecting to ESAP  

Many OAMs found it difficult to estimate the costs to connect to ESAP. A few of them 
were able to estimate that the implementation of the API to connect to ESAP would cost 
around  40-50  mandays.  One  OAM  was  pointing  out  that  similar  implementation  that 
building the BRIS connection would cost around 200 000 euros.  

Many OAMs had no clear opinion on the expansion of the data collected to e.g. data that 
is currently only in the entities website. A few pointed out that standardisation and data 
quality also for these reports should be taken into consideration. Some also pointed out 
that there needs to be regulation first.  

All the interviewed OAMs agreed with the approach of pushing data to ESAP and both a) 
ESAP keeping copies of data + metadata b) ESAP only keeping metadata were perceived 
positively but the former was more often endorsed as it reduces the system load on the 
OAM side.  

Data related functionalities  

Most of the OAMs indicated that they don’t do any transformations for the data for e.g., 
visualisation purposes  but  rather publishing it exactly  as it is  provided to  them. One of 
the  interviewed  OAMs  expressed  that  they  transformed  all  the  XML  data  they  receive 
into HTML and PDF for visualization purposes.  

All of the OAMs had some mechanisms to ensure data immutability. Most common way 
was  to  archive  the  document  in  a  non-editable  way.  Only  newer  versions  of  the  filing 
could be published but the original filings would still be discoverable. 

Three of the interviewed OAMs perform technical validations for the data. A few OAMs 
also provide some rules in the filing portal to provide the correct metadata. Many of the 
OAMs  do  not  have  the  right  to  reject  the  faulty  filing  and  thus  the  validations  are 
perceived redundant.  

116 

 
No OAM was able to assess the costs to implement validations as it so largely depends 
on the scope of the validation. 

Metadata  

Commonly occurring metadata fields were identified as:  

- entity name  

- entity identifier 

- registration / publication time 

- document type 

- fiscal year 

- language of files  

The  cost  to  add  more  metadata  was  difficult  to  estimate  for  the  OAMs  and  it  was 
perceived to be dependent on the complexity of the metadata and the extent. One OAM 
pointed  out  that  the  work  should  not  be  too  demanding  whereas  one  OAM  was 
estimating the cost to be between 20-50 mandays. 

Structural data  

Apart  from  future  ESEF  filings,  many  of  the  OAMs  interviewed  don't  seem  to  receive 
hardly  any  data  in  structural  format.  PDF  is  a  dominant  information  disclosure  format. 
One  of  the  interviewed  OAMs  said  that  all  the  data  they  publish  is  also  available  in 
structured format.  

Majority  of  the  interviewed  OAMs  were  very  supportive  towards  standardisation  and 
building  transparency  within  EU.  Similarly,  the  development  of  common  taxonomies 
was perceived positively but the cost / benefit ratio from the perspective of the preparers 
should be taken into account with new regulation. 

Other notes from interviewees 

  Principles: there is a lot of business models out there that might have a problem 
with the free data access. Dissemination: clear distinction between information 
being available free of charge and disseminating the information. We are 
comfortable with the data being available with free of charge. Dissemination is 
that you receive the data because you are a customer of the service  

  All international initiatives that aim at streamlining the structure of information 

across issuers/entities/country borders and making information machine readable 
will, in the long run, create huge benefits for investors, analysts and other 
interested parties if implemented well, since information across issuers/countries 
will be easier to compare and consume. 

  Feedback from users should go directly to the issuers (not going to the OAMs or 

NCAs in between).  

  OAMs would welcome the ability to charge fees on bulk download functionality. 

117 

 
 
 
Meeting with the Expert Group of the 
 European Securities Committee (EGESC) 

Commission  services  reminded  the  objectives  of  the  ESAP  which  is  part  of  the  CMU 
Action  Plan.  Member  States  were  invited  to  provide  views  on  direction  to  be  taken  as 
regards  the  scope  of  information,  dissemination,  language  and  governance.  Eleven 
experts  took  the  floor,  all  supporting  the  initiative  and  underlining  the  need  to  add  no 
burden on, and require no new information from entities. Experts recommended to build 
as  much  as  possible  on  existing  infrastructure.  As  regards  scope,  experts  supported  a 
phasing-in approach, with an overall view that ESG information and information in the 
scope  of  the  Transparency  Directive  could  be  prioritised.  Some  experts  believed  that 
product  related  information  could  be  included  in  the  ESAP  (with  lower  priority)  but 
others thought that it might not be necessary – or advisable – to include such information. 
There  were  also  mixed  views  as  regards  accepting  or  not  information  published  on  a 
voluntary  basis  by  entities  given  potential  comparability  or  machine  readability  issues. 
As  regards  language,  experts  reminded  that  in  most  Member  States,  information  in  a 
language  customary  in  the  business  sphere  is  acceptable,  but  that  it  is  for  entities  to 
decide whether to use such language or use the national language, and that this also has 
to do with company size. A number of experts outlined that the benefit of including non-
structured information within ESAP is questionable  – notably as regards comparability. 
Finally, a majority of experts thought that ESAP’s essential function should be preferably 
one  of  storage  of  data,  but  a  few  experts  could  support  the  ESAP  playing  the  role  of 
disseminating information to the markets. 

Meeting with the Financial Services User Group (FSUG) 

FSUG  members  voiced  that  they  have  a  strong  interest  in  ESAP  being  implemented. 
They  pointed  that  users  include  professional  investors,  but  also  retail  investors  which 
have  different  needs.  Benefits  could  outweigh  the  costs  for  issuers  and  institutional 
investors  but  be  costly  for  individual  investors.  It  is  also  important  to  be  cautious  in 
transferring  information  into  the  ESAP  project.  On  the  language  in  ESAP,  members 
indicated that it would be useful to  have the information  in  English and in the national 
language. FISMA colleagues remarked that the ESAP could help individual investors via 
time saving less fees for data access. They added that there will be probably be a phasing 
in for the scope, including for voluntary filing by SMEs 

Enquiring about the integrity of information supplied to ESAP, Members asked whether 
there  will  be  some  kind  of  indication  whether  the  information  has  been  independently 
verified by third parties including to avoid green washing. FISMA colleagues reminded 
that  for  this,  the  ESAP  will  mainly  rely  on  EU  legislation  and  that  in  any  case,  the 
primary  emitters  of  information  will  remain  responsible  for  its  content.  However  the 
ESAP  may  include  validation  tools.  Quality  and  traceability  should  be  of  the  main 
components  of  ESAP.  FSUG  members  added  that  the  big  weakness  will  be  the 
disclaimers.  They  expressed  their  hope  that  the  current  administrative  burden  will  be 
solved  by  ESAP.  Members  added  that  some  data  access  threshold  should  probably  be 
imposed (to prevent complete download of all information). One remarked that in many 
Member States, issuers of information have to pay to submit data and users have to pay 
to access the data and wondered whether this is this a lack of harmonisation at European 
level. 

118 

 
 
On governance and infrastructure,  FISMA colleagues stated that stakeholders  generally 
believed  that  one  or  several  relevant  European  authority  should  be  involved.  FSUG 
members emphasized that the governance issue is essential and must be run along public 
standards. 

Finally,  enquired  about  the  type  of  information  that  would  be  allowed  on  a  voluntary 
basis  in  the  ESAP,  FISMA  colleagues  replied  that  discussion  are  ongoing  and  that  the 
Commission  is  examining  whether  information  similar  to  mandatory  information  and 
possibly other information such  as in  relation  to supply  chain for instance,  could  make 
sense.  

High Level Forum on the CMU 

The HLF CMU expert group was built on an ad hoc basis to advise the Commission on 
how to further progress to the CMU. On 10 June 2020 the High-Level Forum published 
its  final  report.  It  sets  out  17 interconnected  recommendations.  In  particular  the  CMU 
HLF recommends building the ESAP as one way to remove barriers in the EU’s capital 
markets.  The  Commission  also  launched  a  call  for  feedback  from  stakeholders  on  the 
report that ended on 30 June. In this feedback, an overwhelming majority (all but two) of 
those who responded were in favour of the ESAP. Almost half of the respondents to the 
survey,  however,  provided  no  feedback  or  had  no  opinion.  Proponents  of  the 
recommendation highlighted that access to free, objective company data in an aggregated 
manner  was  a  serious  challenge  for  investors.  They  therefore  welcomed  the  idea  of  a 
European Single Access Point (ESAP) as a way to foster more investment opportunities. 
Many respondents referred specifically to the relevance of the ESAP for Environmental, 
Social  and  Governance  (ESG)  data.  A  large  proportion  of  respondents  mentioned  the 
need  for  proportionality  in  and  a  careful  cost-benefit  analysis  ahead  of  setting  up  the 
ESAP, in particular with respect to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as well 
as  the  relevance  of  a  machine-readable  format  for  all  reporting  requirements.  A 
significant  minority  singled  out  the  “file-only-once”  principle  and  the  single  reporting 
channel as key, notably for entities operating on a cross-border basis and having to report 
to  various  authorities.  The  two  respondents  who  disagreed  with  the  recommendation 
were a public authority and a national banking association. They expressed concerns that 
the costs of the initiative could outweigh the benefits, referring both to the costs needed 
to set up the access point itself, and to costs that issuers would need to bear in order to 
comply  with  the  platform’s  reporting  requirements  (e.g.  using  a  machine-readable 
reporting  format),  especially  for  smaller  entities.  While  one  respondent  criticised  the 
proposed  structure,  whereby  information  would  be  supervised  at  national  level  but 
aggregated by ESMA, others found this element to be key. 

119 

 
 
 
ANNEX 5: BENCHMARKING – THE US EDGAR AND JAPANESE EDINET 

U.S.A. 

EDGAR stands  for:    Electronic  Data  Gathering,  Analysis  and  Retrieval.  Operational  since: 
1996 

General information 

The Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system is administered by 
the U.S. SEC’s (Securities and Exchange Commission) EDGAR Business Office (EBO) and 
it  is  an  important  part  of  the  agency’s  mission  of  protecting  investors;  maintaining  fair, 
orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation. The availability of accurate, 
complete,  and  timely  information  from  EDGAR  is  essential  to  the  SEC’s  mission  and  the 
investing public.  

Data portal website: SEC.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html 

Data 

Documents  that  are  accessed  using  EDGAR  and  filed  with  the  SEC  include  quarterly  and 
annual  corporate  reports  and  financial  statements.  Annual  Reports  (Form  10-K)  include 
company history, audited financial statements, a description of products and services, and an 
annual  review  of  the  organization,  its  operations,  and  the  company’s  markets.  Quarterly 
Reports  (Form  10-Q)  include  unaudited  financial  statements  and  information  about  the 
company’s operations in the previous three months. 

Other  reports  that  are  often  searched  by  investors  are  Registration  Statements,  which  are 
required  before  stock  can  be  sold  to  the  public;  Form  8-K,  which  discloses  notable  events 
such as bankruptcy; Forms 3 and 4, which contain ownership information; and Form 5, which 
reports transactions not reported on Form 4.188 

Data  is  provided  in  various  formats.  The  filers  have  the  possibility  to  submit  (over  700 
supported types of disclosure documents). XBRL is the primary data source.189  

Data submission 

Private entities or companies with a standard business id (CIK) can apply for an account in 
EDGAR.    Data  dissemination  is  done  by  posting  to  sec.gov  or  via  public  dissemination 
service (PDS). EDGAR is a first source of information190. 

Access 

Free for all. Current max request rate: 10 requests/second.191 

Functionalities 

A  web  portal  for  the  filers  where  they  can  fill  in  forms.  EDGAR  also  performs  data 
validations. 

188 Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval (EDGAR) (investopedia.com). 
189 Interview with EDGAR. 
190 Interview with EDGAR. 
191 SEC.gov | Accessing EDGAR Data. 

120 

 
                                                 
Experiences and recommendations  

  Better understanding of data providers and users 
  Cloud based system 
  Development as micro services 
  Automated access process 
  Filer support away from telephone 
  Gather all your information and try to make it as simple as possible 
  Costs will be proportionate to the system design 
 

Implementation big bang vs. phased in: developing in steps have worked well for us. 
Pick one member state to develop and to do a pilot with them 

  A decentralised approach (national collection points) could imply further areas to 

address and complicate the system192 

Governance model and stakeholder engagement 

  The system is governed by SEC’s EDGAR Business Office (EBO). All costs have 

covered by public budget. 

  with new rule proposals there are public commenting periods 
  external testing environment in development 
  engaging some of the filers before introducing new features193 

Development and maintenance costs 

According to the interview with  EDGAR the  annual  budget  of about  12 million  dollars for 
technologic  development,  infrastructure  and  licensing.  EDGAR  has  a  lot  of  shared  costs 
among the agencies. Around 8 million dollars of the 12 million total is for development (this 
is the just for the normal development). 

Screen capture of data presenting budget for EDGAR published in the SEC 2021 Budget194: 

Identification of filers 

System account (id and password). 

192 Interview with EDGAR. 
193 Interview with EDGAR. 
194 Congressional Budget Justification Annual Performance Plan (sec.gov). 

121 

 
 
                                                 
Filer and user statistics 

Screen capture of the workload data from SEC 2021 Budget195: 

JAPAN 

EDINET stands for:  Electronic Disclosure for Investors' NETwork. Operational since: 2001 

General information 

Description  from  public  information  and  a  voluntary  interview:  “EDINET  is  an  electronic 
corporate disclosure system under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, and all listed 
or  major  fund-raising  companies  and  investment  funds  in  Japan  are  required  to  file  their 
disclosure  documents  using  the  system.  The  corporate  disclosure  documents  submitted  by 
these entities are publicly available on the Internet through EDINET. 

FSA continuously advances its efforts in relation to XBRL through various activities such as 
collaborative  work  aimed  at  achieving  multinational  interoperability  together  with  IASCF 
(International  Accounting  Standards  Committee  Foundation)  and  US  SEC  (United  States 
Securities and Exchange Commission).”196 More information on the EDINET website197. 

Data 

  Scope of data included198:  

o  Annual Securities Report 
o  Quarterly Securities Report 
o  Semi-annual Securities Report 
o  Extraordinary Report 

195 Congressional Budget Justification Annual Performance Plan (sec.gov). 
196 FSA launches new electronic corporate disclosure system (EDINET): FSA. 
197 EDINET (edinet-fsa.go.jp). 
198 EDINET (edinet-fsa.go.jp). 

122 

 
 
 
                                                 
o  Securities Registration Statement 
o  Shelf Registration Statement 
o  Shelf Registration Supplements 
o  Status Report of Parent Company, etc. 
o  Confirmation Letter 
o  Internal Control Report 
o  Report of Possession of Large Volume 
o  Share Buyback Report 
o  Tender Offer Notification 
o  Subject Company's Position Statement 
o  Tender Offeror's Answer 
o  Tender Offer Report 
o  Written Withdrawal of Tender Offer 

All  filers  are,  in  principle,  mandated  to  submit  in  XBRL  (eXtensible  Business  Reporting 
Language) format the financial statements included in their Annual Securities Reports, Semi-
annual  Securities  Reports,  Quarterly  Securities  Reports  and  Securities  Registration 
Statements for fiscal years starting in or after April 2008. Quarterly Securities Reports for the 
first fiscal quarter ending June 2008 will be the first filing in XBRL format.  

The  financial  statements  in  XBRL  format  are  to  be  prepared  using  “EDINET  Taxonomy” 
(Japanese GAAP taxonomy), the final version of which was published in February 8, 2008. 
Most documents such as Annual Securities Reports are provided in Inline XBRL format and 
PDF format, while some documents are provided only in PDF format. 

No voluntary filings, only regulated ones collected. 

Data submission 

In  principle,  reports  are  submitted  by  uploading  files  to  EDINET.  As  for  the  Report  of 
Possession  Large  Volume,  file  uploads  and  online  forms  are  provided  because  individual 
investors may submit the report. 

Access 

EDINET is available to everyone for free. The information published on EDINET is available 
for commercial use if it does not infringe the rights of third parties and the source is stated. 
Mass access may be restricted in order to prevent improper loading of the system. 

EDINET  provides  the  ability  to  view  and  download  the  submitted  disclosure  documents. 
Please 
https://disclosure.edinet-
the 
fsa.go.jp/EKW0EZ1001.html?lgKbn=1&dflg=0&iflg=0   

following 

visit 

site: 

In addition, from March 2019, we are providing a function to download the data of submitted 
disclosure documents via an open API. 

Functionalities 

A web portal for the filers where they can fill in forms. The submitted documents are stored 
in  Inline  XBRL  format,  and  viewers  can  confirm  the  contents  of  the  submitted  documents 
with  their  browsers.  The  submitted  documents  are  also  converted  into  PDF  format  and 
provided to viewers. 

123 

 
Security  measures  are  implemented  against  unauthorized  access  and  encryption  of 
communications with EDINET. 

EDINET  executes  a  validation  check  of  the  submitted  data  at  the  time  of  submission.  If  a 
validation error is found, the document cannot be submitted and the preparer needs to correct 
the error and re-upload the document. 

Batch download for reports provided. 

Experiences and recommendations  

Number of visits  to  the EDINET is  approximately  300 million per  year. We have achieved 
our target of at least 99.9% utilization rate (2020 fiscal years), making it an important market 
infrastructure. 

EDINET  began  operating  about  20  years  ago.  Compared  with  that  time,  information 
technology  has  advanced  remarkably  now.  EDINET  has  been  developed  (e.g.,  introduce 
XBRL, enhance security, implement Open API, etc.) step by step along with these advances. 
If  we  were  going  to  start  developing  EDINET  now,  we  would  use  cloud  services  to 
implement the functions. 

Governance model and stakeholder engagement 

The FSA manages and operates the  system and  entrusts operating support to  entities of the 
private sector. All costs have covered by the national budget. 

At  the  meetings  on  the  disclosure  system  hosted  by  the  FSA,  they  sometimes  discuss 
improving  the  convenience  of  EDINET.  For  example,  we  settled  stakeholder  dialogues 
among  stock  exchanges,  National  Tax  Agency,  FASF,  Bank  of  Japan,  Japan  Business 
Federation,  JICPA,  Japan  Securities  Analysts  Association,  and  Japan  Securities  Industry 
Association.  In  addition,  the  Technical  working  Groups  are  held  between  the  FSA  and 
persons  in  charge  of  practical  operations  at  the  submitting  company.  Beside  this,  the  FSA 
officers engaged in EDINET sometimes interview with users regarding usability. 

At  the  Financial  System  Council  held  from  November  1995  to  June  1996,  proposals  were 
made  on  the  digitalization  of  disclosure  and  developing  EDINET  by  the  government. 
Subsequently,  in  March  2000,  the  amendment  of  Financial  Instruments  and  Exchange  Act 
was  submitted,  providing  for  procedures  for  digitization  of  disclosure,  and  was  enacted  in 
May  of  the  same  year.  Thus,  it  took  five  years  to  implement  the  legal  framework  of  the 
governance model. 

Development and maintenance costs 

initial 

The 
approximately 22.6 million euros (3 billion yen). 

implementation  cost  (development  and  design  costs)  for  EDINET 

is 

The  operation  and  maintenance  costs  of  the  current  EDINET  (excluding  the  purchase  of 
equipment and software) are approximately 3 million euros (400 million yen) per year. 

Identification of filers 

System account (id and password). 

124 

 
Filer and user statistics 

Filers: Listed companies, unlisted companies (companies expecting IPO, OTC stock, entities 
issuing stock certificates with  1000 or more owners, bonds solicited more than 100 million 
Yen or 50 people), funds, institutional  investors and individual investors are able to  submit 
reports on EDINET. 

Approximately 5 000 companies and 3 000 investment funds is to be filed and available for 
public in XBRL format through EDINET.199 

The number of accesses to the browsing site is approximately 300 million (2020 fiscal year). 

199 FSA launches new electronic corporate disclosure system (EDINET) : FSA. 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 6: Users  

This  annex  contains  a  discussion  about  users  of  information  in  the  ESAP  in  the  sense  of 
potential users of ESAP. It does not seek to pre-empt all would be users or types of use, nor 
to provide an exhaustive overview of those, but aims to examine some key intended types of 
users based on consultation. 

In the context of the CMU Action Plan, Sustainable Finance Renewed Strategy and Digital 
Finance  Strategy,  the  ESAP  would  aim  to  satisfy  primarily  the  needs  of  investors  and  to 
foster more innovative products for consumers and businesses. However other types of users 
may see interest in a better access to digital information.  

Large / professional investors  

Investors  may  be  of  various  sizes,  types,  and  with  varied  interest  in  information.  Large 
professional  investors  (institutional  investors,  large  funds  of  all  types,  banks,  insurance 
entities,  financial  institutions,  entities,  advisors  and  analysts)  have  generally  indicated  at 
consultation  stage  utmost  interest  in  ESG/sustainability  reporting,  annual/semi-annual 
financial  statements,  acquisitions  or  disposal  of  major  holdings  of  equities,  management 
reports, audit reports as well as SME data. 

A  prominent  class  of  stakeholders  are  the  ‘financial  market  participants’  and  ‘financial 
advisers’  impacted  by  the  sustainable  finance  agenda.  According  to  the  SFDR200,  financial 
market  participants  are  entities  offering  financial  products  where  they  manage  clients’ 
money, for instance where they manufacture financial products, i.e. an insurance undertaking 
which  makes  available  an  insurance‐based  investment  product,  an  investment  firm  which 
provides portfolio management, an institution for occupational retirement provision (IORP), a 
manufacturer of a pension product,  an alternative investment fund manager (AIFM), a pan‐
European  personal  pension  product  (PEPP)  provider,  a  manager  of  a  qualifying  venture 
capital  fund  [...],  a  manager  of  a  qualifying  social  entrepreneurship  fund,  a  management 
company  of  an  undertaking  for  collective  investment  in  transferable  securities  (UCITS 
management  company)  or  a  credit  institution  which  provides  portfolio  management. 
Financial  advisers  are  also  impacted  where  they  provide  investment  advice  or  insurance 
advice, and include an insurance intermediary which provides insurance advice with regard to 
insurance‐based  investment  products,  an  insurance  undertaking  which  provides  insurance 
advice  with  regard  to  insurance‐based  investment  products,  a  credit  institution  which 
provides investment advice, an investment firm which provides investment advice, an AIFM 
which  provides  investment  advice  or  a  UCITS  management  company  which  provides 
investment advice. 

Financial  market  participants  and  financial  advisers  must  disclose  specific  information 
regarding their approaches to  the integration of sustainability  risks and the consideration of 
adverse  sustainability  impacts  when  they  market  products  labelled  as  sustainable.  For  that 
matter,  in  order  to  get  easier  access  to  ESG  information,  information  is  required  from 
companies  by  Article  8  of  the  Taxonomy  Regulation201  to  assist  market  participants  and 
advisers in fulfilling these new regulatory obligations. 

200 In particular Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 on sustainability‐related disclosures in the financial services sector, 
known as the “Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR)”. 
201  Regulation  (EU)  2020/852.  Article  8  of  the  Taxonomy  Regulation  requires  financial  and  non-financial 
organisations covered by the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) to report on how, and to what extent, 

126 

 
                                                 
 
Certain  large  investors  and  market  participants,  such  as  analysts,  can  be  only  users  of 
information. Others can be also preparers of information. These are generally entities in the 
banking, financial and insurance sectors, investment firms, market infrastructure entities. 

Professional investors report overall material search and processing costs. This is due to the 
fact that information is currently stored in multiple formats in different places, which makes 
access costly and cumbersome, a situation exacerbated for ESG data. Professional investors 
supported massively APIs as a way to get information, and could afford to deal with different 
formats,  including  machine  readable  formats  that  are  less  machine  readable  (CSV,  XML). 
Nearly all use the services of data aggregators. 

Data Service providers 

Data service providers are in the business of collecting and disseminating data packaged with 
certain services to their customers and can be seen as a particular type of professional users of 
data,  and  noticeably  data  aggregators.  Services  can  be  very  varied  in  relation  to  financial 
markets, including analytics and intelligence, credit rating / referencing, delivering news and 
market information, etc. Sourcing information is a key and resource intensive component of 
their  activities,  hence  their  interest  in  getting  easier  access  by  e.g.  a  single  access  point  to 
information related financial services and markets.    

All data service providers report material (high) access and processing costs due to missing 
machine-readable  information  and  the  multiple  access  points  (e.g.  registers  or  companies’ 
websites) but  very few provided concrete amounts or concrete expectations of the potential 
for ESAP to reduce these costs. Nearly all report barriers in accessing information where one 
of the main difficulties is the lack of standardised access, a lack of a single access point and a 
lack of machine readable formats and standardised taxonomies, as well as usage restricted by 
legal constraint. Here again, access to ESG information is key. Most support access via APIs, 
and the ESEF format (positions more contrasted as regards other formats). 

Retail investors 

As  non-professional  investors,  retail  investors  do  not  always  have  capacity  in  addressing 
large amounts or sophisticated raw information. During consultation, the sentiment was that 
access  and  processing  costs  were  overall  less  material  than  for  professional  investors  but 
some nevertheless regretted to have to pay a fee to access information – about half reported 
using  the  services  of  data  aggregators.  Other  barriers  (lack  of  clarity  /  reliability  of 
information,  lack  of  digital  usability  of  content)  were  generally  reported,  largely  similar  to 
those reported by professional investors. Retail investors showed interest during consultation 
in  gaining  easier  access  to  information.  For  instance  more  than  50%  found  it  highly 
interesting  to  access  product-related  information  such  as  Key  Information  Documents 
(compared to 20% for professional investors) and to ESG information (compared to 75% for 
professional  investors).  Most  supported  action  on  formats  (e.g.  ESEF  which  is  both  human 
and  machine  readable)  and/or  metadata  to  enable  a  better  comparison  of  information,  but 
there was far less support for APIs than professional investors. 

their activities are “associated with” environmentally sustainable economic activities, through key performance 
indicators (KPIs) related to turnover, capital expenditure (CapEx) and operational expenditure (OpEx). The EU 
Taxonomy  Article  8  disclosures  delegated  act  specifies  the  content,  methodology,  and  presentation  of 
information to be disclosed by both non-financial and financial undertakings. 

127 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Other users 

There  is  a  wide  array  of  organisations  with  interest  in  information  relating  to  financial 
services  and  markets.  Respondents  to  Commission  consultation  included  inter  alia  NGOs 
(corporate  research,  sustainability),  consumer  organisations,  unions,  academics,  software 
vendors.  

In  addition,  national  and  EU  public  bodies  also  appeared  as  a  particular  class  of  users  of 
information.  As  such,  when  being  in  the  position  of  users,  they  expressed  interested  in 
accessing  information  in  the  ESAP  for  e.g.  statistical,  supervisory  or  other  public-interest 
purposes. 

128 

 
I.  Different Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) definitions coexists: 

ANNEX 7: SMES 

 (i) in the EU recommendation 2003/361 

Company 
category 
Medium-sized 
Small 
Micro 

Staff 
headcount 
< 250 
< 50 
< 10 

Turnover 

or 

≤ € 50 m 
≤ € 10 m 
≤ € 2 m 

Balance  
sheet total 
≤ € 43 m 
≤ € 10 m 
≤ € 2 m 

(ii) in the Accounting Directive (DIRECTIVE 2013/34/EU) 

Small undertakings shall be undertakings which on their balance sheet dates do not exceed 
the limits of at least two of the three following criteria: 

(a) balance sheet total: EUR 4 000 000; 

(b) net turnover: EUR 8 000 000; 

(c) average number of employees during the financial year: 50. 

Member States may define thresholds exceeding the thresholds in points (a) and (b) of the 
first  subparagraph.  However,  the  thresholds  shall  not  exceed  EUR  6 000 000  for  the 
balance sheet total and EUR 12 000 000 for the net turnover. 

iii) in the MIFID (DIRECTIVE 2014/65/EU) 

‘small and medium-sized enterprises’ for the purposes of this Directive, means companies 
that had an average market  capitalisation of less than EUR 200 000 000 on the basis of 
end-year quotes for the previous three calendar years; 

II.  Context 

EU  Member  States  and  EU-level  agencies  have  launched  several  initiatives,  aiming  at 
facilitating  SMEs  growth  and  access  to  financing,  including  access  to  market-based 
financing.  These  include  initiatives  such  as  growth/junior  stock  markets,  crowdfunding 
platforms and financing programs conducted at the EU level such as COSME Equity Facility 
for Growth. These initiatives (national and cross-border) are aiming at collecting information 
on and from SMEs who seek market-based financing or capital-raising options.  

In addition, some sets of data are collected from entities at national level (i.e. public business 
registries),  hence,  the  landscape  of  Small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  and  non-
listed entities data is varied, however scattered across Member States.  

Potential  investors  searching  for  investment  opportunities  (i.e.  due  to  a  lack  of  SME 
research202)  in  SMEs  struggle  to  easily  access  this great  variety  of  data  (as  some  are  either 

202 https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/cmu-high-level-forum-final-report_en. 

129 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
publicly  available  or  with  restricted  access  options,  free  of  charge  or  not).  The  latter  is 
detrimental especially to growth of cross-border investment and inclusion of less developed 
local markets to create a level playing field in line with the Capital Markets Union objectives 
set for Europe. Particularly as there may be considerable differences in the level of maturity 
of  local  markets  in  Member  States  both  in  terms  of  existing  initiatives  as  well  as  data 
standardisation and digitisation of disclosures collected from SMEs. As indicated in research 
studies203,  such  as  SME  access  to  market-based  finance  across  Eurozone  countries  (2019) 
developing  the  index  of  market  suitability  (percentage  of  firms  potentially  fit  for  market-
based finance), the potential of SMEs to benefit from capital market financing is realised in 
some Eurozone countries, whereas for a considerable portion of firms that are assessed as fit 
for market-based finance this potential remains unexploited.  

The voluntary inclusion of SMEs’ and non-listed entities’ data in the European Single Access 
Point  (ESAP)  is  being  assessed  to  further  promote  and  advance  wide  participation  in  the 
common EU market. 

III.  How can the ESAP be of assistance to SMEs  

Several  scenarios  could  be  envisaged  to  leverage  and  re-use  existing  data  disclosures  and 
maximise interest of SMEs to opt in the ESAP.  

Selected use cases and scenarios: 

  Micro  company  /  start-up  –  not-listed  on  any  unregulated  market,  located  in  less 

advanced local market, seeking capital for growth 

  Larger company (still SME), listed on selected local stock market registered as SME 
GM  or  on  Euronext  Access)  seeking  international  business  partners  and  to  further 
internationalise. 

The SMEs may be driven by the following motivations: 

Grow business

Lower costs

Access finance

Lower burdens

•
•

• Demonstrate that SME is an established and reliable partner
• Increase corporate reputation, visibility or coverage
• Meet procurement eligibility requirements

• Provide information for credit scoring
• Lower costs of compliance outside of corporate domicile
• Comply with regulatory needs at lowest costs

• Attract investors, spur analysts’ coverage especially green or sustainable 

funds

• Access trade financing schemes
• Access grants, subsidies
• Provide information for credit scoring (loans, credit cards) 
•

Lower operational costs by promoting collect once use many times 
principle
Lobby for lowered disclosure requirements
International trade rules levelled

The interest of SMEs in different financing options may be driven by at least a combination 
of the size of the entity and the volume of financing sought. Therefore, we propose to focus 
on use cases in areas of higher likelihood of attraction as illustrated on the matrix. 

203  00SME  access  to  market-based  finance  across  Eurozone  countries,  Small  Business  Economics  (2019) 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-019-00285-z. 

130 

 
 
                                                 
 
SME  data  landscape:  Company  data  landscape  is  already  rich  for  SMEs  and  non-listed 
entities  with  publicly  available  data  or  sitting  in  existing  registries  that  could  share  / 
submitted to ESAP (re-use). It is difficult to access and compare public disclosures made in 
different Member States as there is no cross-border service to facilitate that, either collecting 
or linking to data. Therefore, accessing the SME data for the purpose of investment decision-
making is still limited. The following datasets to be considered for SMEs: 

-  Data  collected  by  SME  Growth  Markets,  free  markets  (Euronext  Access,  Access+) 
and  crowdfunding  or  investor  platforms  as  examples  of  market-based  financing 
platforms and ones that are either specifically addressed to SMEs or entities not listed 
on  main  regulated  market  and  start-ups  that  are  a  subset  of  small  entities  and  ones 
seen as most likely to vigorously seek capital raising opportunities;  

-  Data collected by  EU agencies leading EU public procurement,  funding  or visibility 

events, in particular those specifically addressed to SMEs; 

-  Data  collected  in  selected Member  States  and  held  in  national  company  registers, 
made  available  as  open  data  or  otherwise  (best  practices  drawn  upon  examples  in 
Member  States  where  structured,  machine-readable,  standard  business  reporting  has 
been adopted by SMEs/non-listed entities); 

-  Sustainability-related  data:  existing  schemes  promoting  sustainability  disclosures 
regardless of company size and possibly data disclosures in supply chain (according 
to  industry,  product/service  requirements)  and  other  (verified  the  coverage  of  SMEs 
and  non-listed  entities  by  existing  or  currently  reviewed  frameworks  –  NFRD, 
sustainability  related  regulations  from  Subtask  1:  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2088, 
Regulation (EU) 2020/852. 

131 

 
 
 
IV. 

Principles about “voluntary information” which will be disclosed on ESAP 

For  the  purpose  of  this  impact  assessment,  “voluntary  information”  means  information 
relevant for financial markets that EU/third-country entities in the scope of the EU financial 
markets law publish on a voluntary basis or in any case beyond EU requirements204.  

The scope of voluntary information which will be part of the ESAP along with their possible 
identified  areas  for  standardisation  will  be  either  addressed  at  level  2  or  by  the  ESAP 
governing  body.  However,  an  assessment  has  been  conducted  hereunder  on  the  possible 
scope and its standardisation. 

1.1. Scope  of  possible  “voluntary  information”  relevant  for  financial  markets  that  EU 
entities,  notably  SMEs,  publish  on  a  voluntary  basis  or  in  any  case  beyond  the 
specific EU requirements 

On  different  maturity  levels  entities,  including  SMEs,  are  subject  to  various  disclosure 
requirements  or  choose  to  grow  in  a  manner  that  triggers  information  and  reporting 
obligations. 

Small  entities  in  Europe  fall  under  different  disclosure  regimes  according  to  its  location 
(Member  State  jurisdiction,  national  laws),  legal  personality  and  type  of  service  or  product 
provided and other criteria. 

Scanning  the  landscape  of  data  disclosures  by  entities,  including  SMEs  and  non-listed 
entities, 12 national registries collecting and storing company data have been examined. 
Similarly, 13 investment platforms have been looked at. Additionally, 6 sample applications 
filled in by entities taking part in public procurement European procedures and grant or other 
financing schemes have been analysed. 

The following information has been researched: 

204  E.g.  publication  of  quarterly  reporting  by  EU/third  country  entities  listed  on  the  EU  regulated  markets;  
publication of ESG by non-listed SMEs.  

132 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Owner of the database 
  Place of disclosure (website, searchable platform) 
  Format of disclosure  
  Type and scope of financial and non-financial information 
  Accessibility (public or restricted access to information, paid or free) 
  Language of disclosure 

The  summary  below  shows  data  formats  as  well  as  similarities  in  data  disclosures  in  the 
researched sources. 

Data formats similarities and differences in data disclosures in the researched sources  

Format  of  data 
disclosed 

in 
Similarities 
disclosures 
– 
most frequently 
found 
commonalities 
in 
disclosures 

data 

Other 
fields 
differences 
disclosures 

data 
- 
in 

Investment platforms 

•  online form to fill 
• 

application via e-mail 

•  Address 
•  Business register 
•  Company 

identifiers 

(LEI 
and  other  official  company 
numbers) 
•  Contact details 
•  Country 
•  Date  of  commencement  of 

business 

•  Date 

of 

company 

National registries 
•  HTML 
• 
svg 
•  pdf 
•  XBRL 
• 
• 
•  png 
• 
•  Municipality 
•  Name 
•  Owners 

xml 
iXBRL 

inline 

directors 

and 

Managers 
•  Ownership 
•  Area of operation 
• 
Form of ownership 
• 
Industry 
• 
Industry codes 
•  Annual reports                         

foundation 
Legal form 

• 
•  Amount raised for funding 
•  Agency ratings 
•  Amount of capital sought 
•  Business model 
•  Company description 
•  Company's investment deck 
•  Corporate actions 
•  Corporate structures 
•  Costs assets 
• 
• 

E-mail address 
Female 
senior 
on 
management team (yes/no) 
Financial risks 
Funding  type  according  to 
the  area 
the 
company intends to develop  
• 
Fundraising stage 
•  Growth prospects 

in  which 

• 
• 

133 

•  Articles of association         
•  Associations 
•  Certificate of registration  
•  Certificates 
insurances 

of 

pension 

•  Churches government offices 
•  Commercial register 
•  Cooperative registers 
•  Date  of  registration 

in  the 

• 

• 

• 
• 

the  Court  and 

Register of Entrepreneurs 
Entries 
in 
Economic Monitor 
Expanded 
information 
Financial statements 
statements 
Financial 
according to the Finnish GAAP 
or IFRS 

business 

 
 
 
• 
Interest rate 
• 
Investment range 
• 
Investor role 
• 
Level of advancement 
• 
Linkedin 
•  M&A deals 
•  Market analysis 
•  Market  position  of 

company 

•  Members council 
•  Patents and IPR 
•  Pitch 
•  Pitch deck 
•  Projected financials 
•  Reimbursement frequency 
•  Reimbursement type 
•  Revenue for last 12 months 
•  Rising in total 
•  Royalty agreements  
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•  Website 

Stage 
Standardised financials  
Stock data 
Team overview 
This year revenue 
Trade descriptions 

•  Historical basic data 
•  History 

of 

beneficial 

owners         
Indication of activities (NACE) 
Insolvency notices 

• 
• 
•  Key individuals and auditor 
•  Name  of  the  representative 

the 

body 

•  Number of employees 
•  Other trading names 
•  Owners' associations 
•  Partnership register 
•  Polish 

Classification 

of 

Activities 
•  Power to bind 
•  Production units 
•  Register of associations 
•  Registered office 
•  Registration authority 
•  Registration history 
•  Report on  the  organization  of 
occupational health care 
•  Report on  the  organization  of 
statutory  accident  insurance 
in the construction sector 
Sole traders 
Tax Debt Information         
The  printout  of  the  history  of 
registry  card  information  in 
Estonian / English 
The  printout  of  valid  registry 
card information in Estonian / 
English (free)         
Trade register extract 

• 
• 
• 

• 

• 

Source BR-AG  

1.2. Stakeholder  feedback  from  the  ESAP  targeted  consultation  stressed  that  SME  data 

should be included in ESAP.  

Question 18: What type of information should be disclosed on a voluntary basis? 

134 

 
1.3. Possible identified areas for standardisation  

In the course of research and consultation the following SME-relevant information has been 
identified to be rendered comparable on a cross-border basis: 

  Financial information 
  Sustainability-related data disclosures 
  Entity identification 
  Data format 
  Metadata 

  Financial information:  

Accounting  laws  and  principles  applied  across  the  EU  Member  States  vary,  even  though 
some  countries  rely  on  similar  rules  (e.g.,  Standard  Business  Reporting,  local  GAAPs 
convergence  with  IFRS).  This  means  that  the  data  reported  e.g.,  in  annual  financial 
statements being drafted according to national rules may never be fully comparable as long as 
the overarching regulation is not harmonized.  

  Sustainability-related data disclosures: 

To provide an overview of the existing sustainability-related data disclosure requirements or 
schemes  as  may  apply  to  SMEs  and  non-listed  entities  in  the  EU,  relevant  regulatory 
frameworks or legislative proposals have been analysed. Additionally, examples  of national 
or industry-driven initiatives are presented. 

Considering the EU legislation, the following regulations and directives have been researched 
and marked in terms of applicability to SMEs: 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 Regulations and directives applicable to SMEs  

EU legislation 

Detailed reference 

EU Taxonomy regulation 

(EU) 2020/852 

Finance 

Disclosure 

Sustainable 
Regulation (SFDR) 
Corporate  Sustainability  Reporting 
Directive  (CSRD)  proposal  to  extend 
reporting  requirements  to 
include 
listed  SMEs,  with  the  exception  of 
listed micro-enterprises 

Non-Financial  Reporting  Directive 
(NFRD) 

(EU) 2019/2088 

Proposal for a 
directive of the European Parliament 
and of the Council 
amending Directive 2013/34/EU, 
Directive 2004/109/EC 
Directive 2006/43/EC and Regulation 
(EU) No 537/2014, as regards 
corporate sustainability reporting 
2014/95/EU 

Source BR-AG 

SME 
excluded 
No 

No 

No 

Yes 

So far SMEs and non-listed entities have not been in focus in the existing legislation. In the 
EU Taxonomy Regulation and CSRD it is stated that SMEs205 may report on voluntary basis. 
Where there is no direct exclusion of SMEs from obligations listed in legislation (e.g. SFDR), 
specific clauses point for example that SMEs listed on regulated market shall report similarly 
to large entities. 

  Entity identification: 

Entity identification data in the researched schemes has been examined, including the search 
for common identifiers and potential for standardisation looking at: (a) national identifiers – 
company identifiers as used in individual member states (varying considerably); (b) European 
identifiers; (c) international legal entity identifier. 

  Data formats: 

The format in which data is reported and/or published directly affects not only the usability of 
the data by humans but  also its potential for machine-readability and thus better integration 
with  search  and  analytics  tools.  The  data  formats  range  from  scanned  paper  documents  to 
highly structuralized data. Even for the most structural data there are many challenges to use 
or to understand the data as there are typically customized reporting taxonomies used in each 
country that reflect their national GAAPs.  

One  of  the  machine-readable  standards  that  is  already  used  in  some  of  the  researched 
schemes  is  XBRL  (eXtensible  Business  reporting  Language).  It  provides  a  mechanism  to 
define human readable labels in any number of languages for a given taxonomy. This enables 
to view the reported data in any of the supported languages in a click of a button. However, it 
is seldom that all languages (e.g., all languages of the EU Member States) would be included 
in  a  single  taxonomy.  Typically,  a  taxonomy  defined  to  reflect  national  reporting 
requirements  would  contain  labels  in  the  local  language  and  a  one  or  two  most  relevant 

205  CSRD:  reporting  on  voluntary  basis  includes  non-listed  SMEs  (while  SMEs  listed  on  regulated  markets  would  be  required  to  use  these  proportionate 
standards). 

136 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
languages  from  the  perspective  of  a  given  country.  An  illustrative  example  would  be  the 
Danish GAAP taxonomy which contains labels in Danish and in English206. 

It can be assumed that data extractable formats will be required to ensure comparability of the 
information along with an effective search function. 

  Metadata: 

One  of  the  main  challenges  for  the  users  of  the  SME  data  was  to  find  the  data  searched. 
Metadata of the SME reports might be harder to obtain than in the case of listed entities for 
instance as the consumption of the data is not as mature and the source data repositories are 
very dispersed and not regulated on any EU level. 
Identifying a set of standardised predefined KPIs as metadata would be one of the options for 
phased  standardisation.  It  should  be  noted  though  that  this  would  require  either  the  data 
preparers  to  manually  insert  this  data  with  some  user  interface  and  thus  could  add  to  their 
reporting  burden.  This  would  also  pose  a  risk  for  errors  in  the  inserted  data  and  its 
interpretation on the SME side. Another option is an automated way of extraction of the data 
done  by  a  local  data  repository  or  by  ESAP.  Both  of  which  would  require  some  effort  and 
include risks of creating false data that might lead to liability issues. Automated extraction of 
this data is also not easily achievable for many local data registries as they might only have 
the data in non-searchable format like scanned PDFs. 

It can be assumed that on a minimal level metadata will be required such as the local entity 
identifier, reporting period and report type to ensure comparability of the information along 
with an effective search function. 

206 Public Hearing - Balance (beretningsform), resultatopgørelse (artsopdelt) (EogS - klasse B, C og koncern (08-11-2010)) (corefiling.com). 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Initiative  

Owner  

Brief description 

Relation with ESAP 

ANNEX 8: UNION STRATEGIES IN RELATION TO ESAP 

The Tallinn 
Declaration  

Council of the 
European Union 

Under the auspices of the Estonian presidency of the Council of the 
European Union, the Ministers of the 28 EU countries signed and released 
on 6 October 2017 the Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment. It aims for high 
quality, user-centric digital public services for citizens and seamless cross-
border public services for businesses along six lines for policy action: 1/ 
digital-by-default, inclusiveness and accessibility; 2/ file only once 3/ 
trustworthiness and security 4/ openness and transparency 5/ 
interoperability by default and 6/ horizontal enabling policy steps. 

The ESAP will contribute to the eGovernment 
strategy by delivering a new user centric high quality 
and cross border service to citizens by enabling 
central access to data currently stored by certain 
national public registers and beyond, and by 
facilitating data use and re-use. 

A European strategy 
for data  

Commission 
(CNECT) 

In its Communication of February 2020, the Commission outlines its strategy 
to make the EU a leader in a data-driven society. Creating a single market 
for data will allow it to flow freely within the EU and across sectors for the 
benefit of businesses, researchers and public administrations. 

ESAP will be a pillar of the Financial Common Shared 
Data Spaces. As such, it will contribute to 
implementing the strategy.  

CMU Action Plan 

Commission 
(FISMA) 

Digital Finance 
Strategy 

Commission 
(FISMA) 

The CMU is the EU’s plan to create a truly single market for capital across 
the EU. It aims to get investment and savings flowing across all Member 
States, benefiting citizens, investors and entities, regardless of where they 
are located. A fully functioning and integrated market for capital will allow 
the EU’s economy to grow in a sustainable way and be more competitive.  
The digital finance strategy sets out general lines on how Europe can 
support the digital transformation of finance in the coming years, while 
regulating its risks. The strategy sets out four main priorities: removing 
fragmentation in the Digital Single Market, adapting the EU regulatory 
framework to facilitate digital innovation, promoting a data-driven finance 
and addressing the challenges and risks with digital transformation, 
including enhancing the digital operational resilience of the financial system. 

Likewise, the ESAP may benefit from funding 
opportunities offered by the strategy. 

The ESAP is Action #1 of the CMU Action Plan. 

The ESAP will contribute to ensuring that publicly 
disclosed information is available in standardised 
and machine-readable formats / to set up an EU-
funded infrastructure for public disclosure.  

In this way, the ESAP will contribute to the strategy’s 
objective of facilitating real-time digital access to all 
regulated financial information. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supervisory Data 
Strategy  

Commission 
(FISMA) 

Strategy for Financing 
the Transition to a 
Sustainable Economy 

Commission 
(FISMA) 

Supervision of the EU financial system relies on data that is timely, relevant 
and of high quality.  The volume and complexity of the data required to 
oversee the financial system have grown substantially over the last decade. 
In parallel, there has been a rapid evolution of digital technologies to collect 
and analyse such data. The supervisory reporting framework and the way 
authorities collect and use data needs to keep pace with these 
developments. 
The strategy is a  comprehensive package of measures to help improve the 
flow  of  money  towards  financing  the  transition  to  a  sustainable  economy. 
By  enabling  investors  to  re-orient  investments  towards  more  sustainable 
technologies  and  businesses,  these  measures  will  be  instrumental  in 
reaching  our  climate  and  environmental  targets.  They  will  make  the EU  a 
global  leader  in  setting  standards  for  sustainable  finance.  In  particular  it 
addresses four number of areas: transition finance, inclusiveness, resilience 
and contribution of the financial system and global ambition.  

Depending on the scope and ambition of the ESAP, 
the Strategy may have spill over effects as regards 
mainly the development of taxonomies/data 
dictionaries and reporting templates in the area of 
supervisory reporting. 

By including sustainability-related information in the 
European Single Access Point (ESAP) and the Open 
Finance Framework, this will help to unleash the 
potential that Digital technologies can provide in 
essential solutions for citizens, investors and SMEs to 
carry out their transition to sustainability. 
The ESAP will contribute to enabling innovative 
solutions to help SMEs use digital sustainable finance 
tools and to support retail investors’ understanding 
of the sustainability impact of financial products. 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 9: LIST OF RELEVANT EU LEGAL ACTS AND CATEGORISATION OF THE INFORMATION - OPEN PUBLIC REPORTING OBLIGATIONS 

INFORMATION TYPE 

ENTITIES IN THE ESAP 

ISSUER 

Entity  Product  Other 

Total 

Entity 
and 
Product 

LEGISLATION 

Accounting Directive (including 
Corporate Sustainability Reporting 
(CSR), audit report, Country-by-
country reports) 
Audit Regulation (e.g. auditor 
transparency reports) 

BenchMarks Regulation 
(sustainability benchmarking 
information) 
BRRD (e.g. information on the group 
financial support agreement) 

Covered bonds Directive (e.g. 
information on the cover pool) 

CRAR (e.g. transparency report) 

Limited liability entities 
preparing CSR: 49 132 / 
preparing CBCR: 600 

EU registered statutory 
auditors (unknown) and 
audit firms 1070 
Benchmark 
administrators - 80 

Certain Credit Institution 
(CRR) and Investment 
Firm (MIFID/MIFIR) - 
22460  
Credit institutions in EU 
with branches – 5100 

Credit Rating Agencies 
(CRAs) -42 

Baseline 
Coverage 

Medium 

Low 

Limited liability entities 
that prepare a CSR 
and/or a country-by-
country report 
Audit firms auditing a 
public-Interest Entity 

3 

1 

3 

1 

Administrator (entity) 

2 

16 

1 

19 

Low 

Group entity 

Credit institution 

1 

Credit Rating Agencies 

1 

11 

30 

10 

1 

1 

11 

30 

12 

2 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

CRR (e.g. prudential information, 
stress test results) 

Credit institutions in EU – 
4776 

Investment firm, Credit 
institution (all size) 

CSDR (e.g. governance 
arrangements) 

Central Securities 
Depositories (CSDs) – 26 

Central Securities 
Depositories 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ELTIF (e.g. fund-related information)  Authorised European 
long- term investment 
funds (ELTIFs) – 33 
CCPs in EU - 13 Trade 
Repository - 10 

EMIR (e.g. prices and fees of services 
provided, risk management model) 

Long Term Investment 
Funds 

CCP 
Trade Repositories 

EuSEF (e.g. fund-related information)  Managers of Social 

EuSEF 

EuVECA (e.g. fund-related 
information) 

Entrepreneurship Funds 
– 10 
European Venture 
Capital Funds - 170 

EuVECA 

FICOD (e.g. corporate structure of 
the conglomerate) 

Financial Conglomerates 
- 66 

Financial Conglomerate 

IFD (e.g. aggregated information on 
high-earners, remuneration 
arrangements) 
IFR (e.g. aggregated information on 
high-earners, remuneration 
arrangements) 
IORP II (e.g. remuneration policy) 

Market Abuse Regulation (e.g. inside 
information) 

MIFID II (e.g. volume and price of 
certain transactions) 

MIFIR (e.g. volume and price of 
certain transactions) 

MiFID Investment firms 
6.500 actives 

Investment firms 

MiFID Investment firms 
6.500 actives 

Investment firms 

Register of Institutions 
for Occupational 
Retirement Provision – 
3800 
MiFID Investment 
firms  + issuers - 22460  

MiFID Investment firms – 
6500 + 1500 SMEs listed 
on the SME Growth 
Market 
MiFID Investment firms – 
6500 

 Institutions for 
Occupational 
Retirement 

Investment firms 
Issuers 

Investment firms 

Investment firms 
( 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

12 

8 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

3 

5 

9 

2 

1 

1 

Low 

4 

12 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

4 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

6 

14 

Medium 

Low 

2 

14 

Low 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Money Market Funds 

5 

PEPP provider 

Issuers 

5 

PRIIP manufacturer 

2 

1 

MMF (e.g. prospectus) 

PEPP (e.g. key information 
document) 

Prospectus Regulation (e.g. 
Prospectus, Universal Registration 
Document, SME Growth Markets-
information) 
PRIIPs (e.g. key information 
document) 

REMIT (e.g. inside information) 

SFTR (e.g. aggregate positions) 

Register of authorised 
Money Market Funds - 
493 
PEPP provider – 65 

Entities filing a 
prospectus (point of 
reference: 2019): 2 744 

Fund managers (UCITS + 
retail AIFs ) =  about 1500  
Insurance distributors = 
about 7000 
Banks = about 6000,  
Issuers of bonds = 
roughly the number of 
companies covered by 
NFRD = about 11700 
Total about 25000 
Registered market 
participant > 15 000 

SFTR trade repositories - 
4 

Market participant 

Trade Repositories 

Shareholders rights (e.g. 
Remuneration Report) 

4200 

Issuer 

Solvency II (e.g. solvency and 
financial condition report) 

Insurance undertakings - 
3172 

Insurance undertaking 
(all sizes) 

Short Selling Regulation (e.g. net 
short position) 
Taxonomy Regulation (e.g. 
measurable carbon emission 

Case by case 

legal/natural person 

49000 under CSRD 

Market participants: 
fund managers, 

7 

1 

1 

11 

5 

1 

4 

5 

2 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

12 

5 

1 

Low 

Low 

High 

Low 

Low 

High 

Low 

Low 

Medium 

11 

Low 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
reduction, sustainability risks 
integration policies) 

financial advisors, 
entities 

Included in the 
management reports 

Take-over bid (e.g. entities’ capital 
and shareholders, voting rights, 
governance...) 
Transparency Directive (e.g. 
annual/half yearly financial reports, 
acquisition or disposal of major 
holdings) 
UCITS (e.g. key investor information)  UCITS funds in the EU - 

4200 

29000 

Total 

Offeror 

Issuers 

UCITS 

3 

8 

2 

147 
35 
182 

2 

6 
35 
41 

1 

35 

3 

8 

5 

High 

High 

Low 

10 
0 
10 

198 

233 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
ANNEX 10: NATIONAL COMPETENT AUTHORITIES, OAMS AND BUSINESS REGISTERS PER MEMBER STATE 

Competent 
Authorities 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

EIOPA 

EBA 

ESMA 

Financial Market Authority 
(FMA) 

Financial Market Authority 
(FMA) 

Financial Market 
Authority (FMA) 

OAMs 

OeKB 

Financial Services and 
Markets Authority (FSMA) 

National Bank of Belgium 

Financial Supervision 
Commission 

Bulgarian National Bank 

Croatian National Bank for 
credit 
institutions and Croatian 
Financial Services 
Supervisory Agency for 
investment firms 
Central Bank of Cyprus 

Croatian Financial Services 
Supervisory Agency (HANFA) 

Registrar of Occupational 
Retirement Benefit Funds – 
Ministry of labour, welfare 
and social insurance 
Czech National Bank 

Financial Services and 
Markets 
Authority (FSMA) 

Financial Services and 
Markets 
Authority (FSMA) 

Financial Supervision 
Commission 

Financial Supervision 
Commission 

Croatian Financial 
Services Supervisory 
Agency (HANFA) 

Croatian Financial 
Services Supervisory 
Agency (HANFA) 

Cyprus Securities and 
Exchange 
Commossion(CySEC) 

Stock Exchange 

Czech National Bank 

Czech National Bank 

Czech National Bank 

Business Register 

Commercial register (Firmenbuch) + 
document archive (Urkundensammlung)  kept 
by the Ministry of Justice 

Business Hub Database (CBE/KBO) managed 
by an office in the Federal Department of the 
Economy 

Bulgarian Registry Agency administered by 
the Registry Agency attached to the Ministry 
of Justice. 

 Court register (Sudski registar) managed by 
the commercial courts (trgovački sudovi) 

Department of the Registrar of Entities and 
Official Receiver (DRCOR) of the Ministry of 
Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism 

Czech public register kept by the registration 
court and  administered by the Ministry of 
Justice 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Danish Financial Supervisory 
Authority 

Danish Financial 
Supervisory Authority 

Danish Financial 
Supervisory Authority 

Danish Financial 
Supervisory Authority 

Estonian Financial 
Supervision Authority 

Estonian Financial 
Supervision Authority 

Estonian Financial 
Supervision Authority 

Estonian Financial 
Supervision Authority 

Danish Business Authority 

Estonian commercial register 

144 

 
 
Finland 

France 

The Finnish Financial 
Supervisory Authority (FIN-
FSA) 
Autorité de Contrôle 
Prudentiel et de Résolution 
(ACPR) 

The Finnish Financial 
Supervisory Authority 
(FIN-FSA) 
Autorité de Contrôle 
Prudentiel et de 
Résolution (ACPR) 

The Finnish Financial 
Supervisory Authority 
(FIN-FSA) 
Autorité des Marchés 
Financiers (AMF) 

Stock Exchange 

Official Journal 

Germany 

Bundesanstalt fur 
Finanzdienstleistungsaufsich
t (BaFin) 

Bundesanstalt fur 
Finanzdienstleistungsaufsi
cht (BaFin) 

Bundesanstalt für 
Finanzdienstleistungsauf
sicht (BaFin) 

Company Register 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ministry of Labour, Social 
Security and Social 
Solidarity, General 
Secretariat for Social 
Security 
Central Bank of Hungary; 
Magyar Nemzeti Bank 

Bank of Greece 

Hellenic Capital Market 
Commission (HCMC) 

Stock Exchange 

Central Bank of Hungary; 
Magyar Nemzeti Bank 

Central Bank of Hungary; 
Magyar Nemzeti Bank 

Central Bank of 
Hungary; Magyar 
Nemzeti Bank 

Ireland 

The Pensions Authority 

Central Bank of Ireland 

Central Bank of Ireland 

Stock Exchange 

Italy 

Latvia 

Commissione di Vigilanza sui 
Fondi Pensione (COVIP) 

Banca d'Italia 

Commissione Nazionale 
per le Società e la 
Borsa (CONSOB) 

1Info and eMarket 
Storage (private 
entities) 

Financial and Capital Market 
Commission 

Financial and Capital 
Market Commission 

Financial and Capital 
Market Commission 

Financial and Capital 
Market Commission 

145 

National Board of Patents and Registration 
(NBPR) 

National business and entities register 
(registre national du commerce et des 
sociétés - RNCS) kept by the National Institute 
for Industrial Property (Institut National de la 
Propriété Industrielle - INPI) 

German Commercial Register 
(Handelsregister) portal is run by the Ministry 
of Justice of the federal state of North Rhine-
Westphalia on behalf of the other German 
federal states (Länder).  
Additional information at the Company 
Register (Unternehmensregister) + Gazette 
(Bundesanzeiger) 

General Commercial Registry (G.E.MI.) 

Courts of registration + website of the Service 
of Company Information and Electronic 
Company Registration of the Ministry of 
Justice 

Register of Entities + Entities Registration 
Office 

Registro delle Imprese is run by the Chambers 
of Commerce, with support from 
Unioncamere 

Register of Enterprises of the Republic of 
Latvia (Latvijas Republikas Uzņēmumu 
reģistrs) (public body ) 

 
Lithuania 

Bank of Lithuania 

Bank of Lithuania 

Bank of Lithuania 

Stock Exchange 

Luxembourg 

Commission de Surveillance 
du Secteur Financier (CSSF) 

Commission de 
Surveillance du Secteur 
Financier (CSSF) 

Commission de 
Surveillance du Secteur 
Financier (CSSF) 

Stock Exchange 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Malta Financial Services 
Authority (MFSA) 

Malta Financial Services 
Authority (MFSA) 

Malta Financial Services 
Authority (MFSA) 

Stock Exchange 

De Nederlandsche Bank 
(Prudential supervision) - 
The Dutch Authority for the 
Financial Markets 
Polish Financial Supervision 
Authority 

Portuguese Insurance and 
Pension Funds Supervisory 
Authority (ASF) 

De Nederlandsche Bank 

The Dutch Authority for 
the Financial 
Markets (AFM) 

The Dutch Authority 
for the Financial 
Markets (AFM) 

Polish Financial 
Supervision Authority 

Polish Financial 
Supervision Authority 

Polish Financial 
Supervision Authority 

Banco de Portugal 

Portuguese Securities 
Market 
Commission (CMVM) 

Portuguese Securities 
Market 
Commission (CMVM) 

Romania 

Financial Supervisory 
Authority (ASF) 

National Bank of Romania 

Financial Supervisory 
Authority (ASF) 

Financial Supervisory 
Authority (ASF) 

Slovakia 

National Bank of Slovakia 

National Bank of Slovakia 

National Bank of 
Slovakia 

National Bank of 
Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Insurance Supervision 
Agency 

Bank of Slovenia 

Securities Market 
Agency (ATVP) 

Stock Exchange 

Lithuanian register of legal persons (Lietuvos 
juridinių asmenų registras)  managed and 
maintained by the State enterprise Registrų 
centras (Register Centre) 

business register (Registre de Commerce et 
des Sociétés (RCS) under the authority of the 
Minister for Justice 

 Maltese business register, part of the Malta 
Financial Services Authority (MFSA) 

Dutch Business Register is owned and 
maintained by the Dutch Chamber of 
Commerce (Kamer van Koophandel) 

Polish Business Register (the National Court 
Register) operated and managed by the 
Polish Ministry of Justice  

 business registry offices, which are external 
services of the Institute of Registrars and 
Notaries (IRN), itself under the aegis of the 
Ministry of Justice 

National Trade Register Office, a public body 
with legal personality, under the authority of 
the Ministry of Justice 

Obchodný register [commercial register] is a 
public list administered by the Ministry of 
Justice  

Slovenian Business Register (PRS) is managed 
by the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for 
Public Legal Records and Related Services 
(Agencija Republike Slovenije za javnopravne 
evidence in storitve – AJPES) 

Spain 

Direccion General de 
Seguros y Fondos de 

Banco de España 

Comisión Nacional del 
Mercado de 

Comisión Nacional del 
Mercado de 

Registradores' (Registrars) 

146 

 
Pensiones 

Valores (CNMV) 

Valores (CNMV) 

Sweden 

Finansinspektionen Financial 
Supervisory Authority 

Finansinspektionen 
Financial Supervisory 
Authority 

Finansinspektionen 
Financial Supervisory 
Authority 

Finansinspektionen 
Financial Supervisory 
Authority 

 Swedish Entities Registration Office  

The table above indicates strong overlap between NCAs, OAMs and Business Registers in many Member States:  
  A single NCA supervises both capital markets, banks and insurance companies in 14 Member States: AT, CZ, DK, EE, FI, DE, HU, LV, LT, LU, 

 
 
 

MT, PL, SK, SE 
In 15 Member States, the Capital Market NCA also ensures the functions of the OAM. 
In 8 Member State, a single NCA supervises capital markets, banking and insurance sectors, and is also the OAM: CZ, DK, EE, HU, LV, PL, SK, SE.  
In 11 Member States, NCAs and/or OAM boil down to 2 bodies: AT, BE, BU, DE, HR, FI, LT, LU, MT, NL, RO. In 4 of these Member States, the 
OAM is a private body (FI, LT, LU, and MT). 

However in 8 Member States, NCAs and OAM involve 3 or more bodies (CY, FR, EL, IE, IT, PT, SI, ES), with the OAM being a private body in CY, 
EL, IE, IT and SI. 

In 2 Member States the OAM is a public body (e.g. central bank) other than the NCA. In 10 Member States, the OAM is a private company, often a 
national or regional stock exchange.  

The total number of existing OAMs is 26 (one OAM provides services to 2 Member States).  

Business Registers are most often public organisations. Except for 2 Member States, Business Registers are generally independent, i.e. neither an NCA 
nor an OAM. 

The  number  of  the  existing  intended  collection  points  established  in  the  entirety  of  Member  States  (NCA  and/or  OAMs)  is  58  +  the  3  EU  collection 
points (ESMA, EIOPA, and EBA), for a total of 61. Out of these, 10 are private bodies (OAMs) 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 11: MAPPING OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE DATA IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ESAP 
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS – BR-AG 

Next steps 

This  report  presents  results  of  sub-task  1.1,  mapping  public  disclosure  data  as  the  input  for 
further  analysis  in  ESAP’s  impact  assessment  and  policy  package  proposal.  The  key 
milestones207 of the ESAP project that is currently under evaluation are summarised below: 

Figure 2 Key milestones of the ESAP project 

Assumptions 

Since  the  legislation  is  complex  and  there  is  no  common  practice  in  defining  requirements  for 
public information, a list of assumptions was applied  during research and consultation. The  key 
assumptions that guided the data mapping task are described further below. 

Identification of reporting frameworks  

The aim of the mapping task is to seek beyond public  disclosures required in the Transparency 
Directive208 and to identify similar public reporting obligations set by Level 1 Measures (L1M209) in 
DG  FISMA  policies210.  Thirty-six  reporting  frameworks  were  analysed  to  seek  reporting 
obligations.  The  study  also  considers  additional  data,  as  specified  in  the  mapping  structure 
presented in the next chapter. 

Type of information covered 

The  mapping  covers  regulated  public  information,  disclosed  by  entities,  including  information 
provided by the EC, national  authorities, supervisory functions, and capital markets. It does not 
cover supervisory financial requirements211. 

207 Source: Final Report of the High-Level Forum on the Capital Markets Union, p. 36,. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/growth_and_investment/documents/200610-cmu-high-level-forum-final-
report_en.pdf. 
208 DG FISMA decided to continue the promising results of the EFTG pilot project by analysing a broader scope of data (available through ESAP). 
209 See: Annex II – EU legislation. 
210 The set of reporting frameworks in the project scope was defined as follows: AD, AIFMD, AuD, AuR, BMR, BRRD, Covered bonds directive, CRAR, 
CRD,  CRR,  CSDR,  ELTIF,  EMIR,  EuSEF,  EuVECA,  FICOD,  IFD,  IFR,  IORP  II,  MAR,  MIFID  II,  MIFIR,  MMF,  PEPP,  PR,  PRIIPs,  REMIT, 
Securitisation Regulation, SFTR, Shareholders rights, Solvency II, SSR, SUSTAINABILITY, Take-over bid, TD, UCITS.  
One legislative act falling outside of the remit of DG FISMA (REMIT and the financial transaction reporting requirements it contains) was added to 
the scope. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/191107-fitness-check-
supervisory-reporting-staff-working-paper_en.pdf, p.14. 
211 Commission Staff Working Document Fitness Check of EU Supervisory Reporting Requirements, 1. Introduction, p. 10. 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Identification of reporting obligations 

Reporting  obligations  were  identified  from  the  analysis  of  L1Ms  included  in  the  scope  of  the 
mapping.  Reporting  obligations  defined  in  L2Ms  and  L3Ms  were  excluded  from  the  analysis. 
These  documents  were  used  as  a  source  of  additional  information  required  to  complete  the 
mapping exercise. 

Cut-off date for legislation 

An up-to-date mapping, presented in this report, is based on the original mapping file developed 
as part of the  EFTG project phase, covering  L1M and L2M  dated late 2019. An  updated  EFTG 
mapping  file  has  been  prepared  at  the  end  of  2020.  Acts  published  in  the  Official  Journal  after 
31.12.2020 were not included in the analysis. 

Data collection methods 

Four different data collection methods were used to obtain the mapping results. In the first phase, 
EU  legislation  was  analysed,  as  well  as  official  documents  published  by  EU  Competent 
Authorities.  Online  research  and  direct  meetings  were  carried  out  simultaneously,  as  well  as 
indirect interactions such as surveys, which complemented the data collected in the surveys with 
information and views provided by identified stakeholders. 

Mapping structure 

The  mapping  exercise  began  with  the  development  of  a  repository  structure  to  make  the 
evidence  easier  to  navigate  and  to  ensure  that  the  findings  remained  transparent.  The  final 
mapping structure was developed as a result of: 

Analysis  of  the  original  mapping  document  and  adapting  it  to  the  requirements  of  the 
current stage of the project, 

Integration of additional information as requested by DG FISMA. 

Drafting  the  list  of  essential  information  under  data  mapping  was  based  on  the  expertise  of 
financial  reporting  experts.  Understanding  the  ESMA  reporting  frameworks  and  relevant  data 
information, such as data format, required by national and European competent authorities, was 
essential  to  fully  comprehend  the  data  mapping  assumptions.  A  key  assumption  was  that  the 
data  mapping  should  include  complete  and  accurate  data  to  be  used  in  the  analyses  and 
recommendations  developed 
(ESAP  Governance  and  Strategy 
assessment)212.  

further  subtasks 

in 

Rows 

In  total,  383  public  disclosures  were  identified  and  presented  as  single  rows  in  the  mapping 
process.  Each  row  represents  a  homogeneous  disclosure  (in  terms  of  all  contextual  data213), 
although  there  are  cases  where  one  group  of  reporting  obligations  represents  more  than  one 
reporting  requirement.  Detailed  analysis  presented 
to  reporting 
requirements disclosed only by a specific group of entities214 (202 information disclosures). 

the  section  relates 

in 

212 Sub-task 01.2: Assessment and proposals on ESAP governance and strategy. 
213 Information about reporting obligation other than particular content, that should be reported (e.g., frequency, data issuer and recipient). 
214 Supervisory disclosures were excluded from the analysis. 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Entities215  subject  to  reporting  requirements  presented,  publish  management  reports216  of  a 
various content, while contextual data remain the same. Therefore, in the mapping exercise this 
information is presented as single reporting obligation. 

Table  1,  Two  reporting  requirements  presented  as  single  public  disclosure  –  AD,  Directive 
2013/34/EU (consolidated on 11/12/2014) [Non-financial part] 

Legal act 
reference 

Article 30 
(1) 

Article 19a 
(1) 

Article 29a 
(1) 

Description 

Member  States shall  ensure  that  undertakings  publish  within  a  reasonable  period  of time,  which shall 
not  exceed  12 months  after the  balance sheet  date, the  duly  approved  annual  financial statements  and 
the  management  report,  together  with  the  opinion  submitted  by  the  statutory  auditor  or  audit  firm 
referred to in Article 34 of this Directive, as laid down by the laws of each Member State in accordance 
with Chapter 2 of Directive 2009/101/EC 

Large  undertakings  which  are  public-interest  entities  exceeding  on  their  balance  sheet  dates  the 
criterion  of  the  average  number  of  500  employees  during  the  financial  year  shall  include  in  the 
management  report  a  non-financial  statement  containing  information  to  the  extent  necessary  for  an 
understanding of the undertaking's development, performance, position and impact of its activity, relating 
to, as a minimum, environmental, social and employee matters, respect for human rights, anti-corruption 
and bribery matters […]. 

Public-interest entities which are parent undertakings of a large group exceeding on its balance sheet 
dates,  on  a  consolidated  basis,  the  criterion  of  the  average  number  of  500  employees  during  the 
financial  year  shall  include  in  the  consolidated  management  report  a  consolidated  non-financial 
statement  containing  information  to  the  extent  necessary  for  an  understanding  of  the  group's 
development,  performance,  position  and  impact  of its  activity,  relating  to,  as  a minimum,  environmental, 
social and employee matters, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery matters […]. 

It should also be noted that certain cells within a row were not filled in. Some information could 
not  be  obtained,  either  through  the  analysis  of  legislation  or  through  other  data  collection 
channels,  such  as  online  research  or  stakeholder  surveys.  Regarding  the  completeness  of  the 
findings, data fields marked in as No data are presented through statistics and graphs. 

Columns 

Mapping  exercise  illustrates  wide  range  of  information  which  is  captured  in  columns.  Further 
technical details of columns are  summarised in  Annex I, Error! Reference source not found.. 
This  includes  information  specific  to  L1M  legislation  (e.g.,  reference  to  the  legislation,  reporting 
requirement,  frequency,  and  data  issuer),  as  well  as  technical  information  such  as  data  format, 
validation  mechanism,  usually  outlined  in  L2M  and  L3M  documents  or  technical  documents 
published by European competent authorities.  

The structure of columns was the starting point for developing data input for further analysis217. 
The team assigned to carry out respective tasks in the project includes experts with experience in 
analysing  reporting  frameworks,  as  well  as  channels,  standards,  technical  formats,  and 
technologies that facilitate data accessibility, shareability and usability. 

Basic statistics and findings overview 

Baseline statistics represent the status of project materials upon detailed analysis of thirty-six218 
DG  FISMA  frameworks.  The  Level  1  Measures  (L1M)  were  considered  a  primary  source  of 

215 Detailed categories: Public-interest entity and Large undertaking. 
216 Individual or consolidated. 
217 See: Basic statistics and findings overview. 
218 Statistics presented below concern thirty-five frameworks. AuD does not contain reporting obligations from entity perspective. 

150 

 
                                                 
information  for  developing  the  list  of  reporting  obligations.  The  study  of  legal  acts  was 
fundamental  to  this  process,  yet  other  analyses219  were  also  vital  when  developing  the  final 
mapping.  In total,  383220 information disclosures  were  identified  in the mapping  of the reporting 
obligation  data.  The  statistics  presented  further  relate  to  reporting  requirements  disclosed  by 
entities221 (207 information disclosures). 

Statistics based on the analysis of legislation 

A  substantial  part  of  the  list  (37%)  covers  reporting  obligations  related  to  CRR,  BMR,  MIFID  II 
and MIFIR frameworks. This may be related to the fact that these reporting frameworks cover a 
large  number  of  articles  under  L1M  legislation.  Reporting  frameworks  such  as  AIFMD,  AuR, 
BRRD,  CBD222,  ELTIF,  FICOD,  IFR,  PRIIPs,  REMIT,  SFTR  and  SSR  cover  only  one  public 
disclosure  each.  The  average  number  per  reporting  framework  is  approximately  6  reporting 
obligations.  

Figure 3 Reporting obligations per framework 

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

30

19

11

12

12

3

1 1

1 1

2

1

2 2 1

3

1

3

14 14

6

9

5

2

12

11

1 1

3

1

5

1

8

5

3

Some reporting obligations were grouped together, although they refer to different articles in the 
L1M (see Error! Reference source not found.). All identified reporting obligations were further 
analysed  in  order  to  attribute  as  many  characteristics  as  possible  to  them  (see Annex  I,  Error! 
Reference source not found.). 

The chart in Figure 4 illustrates the authorities involved in regulated public disclosure (note that a 
logarithmic  scale  was  applied  to  better  visualise  the  results).  More  than  one  authority  may  be 
identified for each reporting obligation. 

219 See: Introduction, Research and data collection. 
220 ESAP - Data Mapping contains reporting requirements both from Supervisory and Entity perspective. 
221 Data issuer (general): Auditor, Entity, Natural or legal person. 
222 Covered bonds directive. 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 4 Authorities involved in regulated public disclosures [logarithmic scale] 

44

6

2

2

12

3

109

74

39

13

4

128

64

32

16

8

4

2

1

ESMA is the supervisory authority that is involved in the largest number of reporting  obligations, 
as by far majority of the analysed frameworks fall under its remit. The figures further reveal that 
the  second  most  involved  group  of  authorities  are  the  National  Competent  Authorities  (NCAs). 
This  is  indicated  by  the  provisions  in  the  legal  acts  regarding  the  delegation  of  supervisory 
competences to the national level. The category ‘other authorities involved’223 include those with 
one reporting obligation (in total less than 2% of all reporting obligations). 

Figure 5, Data issuer (general) 

1

41

174

Auditor

Entity

Natural or legal person

The data issuer category with the highest number of reporting obligations is the ‘Entity’ with 174 
disclosures  (81%  of  all  occurrences).  More  than  one  data  issuer  may  be  identified  for  each 
reporting  obligation.  Only  generic  categories  of  issuers  are  illustrated  for  clarity  of  the  findings. 
The  in-depth  analysis  of  ‘Entity’  category  identified  44224  unique  data  issuers.  Additionally, 
‘Natural or legal person’ category includes eight225 unique detailed data issuers.  

223 ESRB, European Investment Bank, SRB, Supervisory authority.  
224 AIFM, APA, Asset manager, Auction monitor, Auction platform, Auctioneer, CCP, Clearing member, Counterparty, CRA, Credit institution, CSD, CTP, ELTIF, Execution venue, Financial adviser, Financial 
conglomerate, Group entity, Holding company, Institutional investor, Insurance undertaking, Intermediary, Investment firm, IORP, Issuer, Large undertaking, Manager, Market operator, Market participant, MMF, 
Offeree company, Originator, Parent undertaking, PEPP provider, PRIIP manufacturer, Proxy advisor, Public-interest entity, Securitisation repository, Sponsor, Systematic internaliser, Trade repository, Trading 
venue, UCITS, Undertaking 
225 Administrator, Issuer, Liquidator, Market participant, Natural or legal person, Offeror, Person asking for admission to trading on a regulated market, Tied agent 

152 

 
 
 
                                                 
Since data mapping analysis focused on public disclosures, the findings on data recipients were 
foreseeable.  The  total  number  of  public  disclosures  amounts  to  203  (98%).  Noteworthy  is  that 
results cover more complex data disclosure process. The example below demonstrates the flow 
of disclosure, as prepared by an entity and submitted to a competent authority. The notification is 
forwarded  to  ESMA  for  publication  on  its  website.  From  the  disclosure  analysis  point  of  view, 
ESMA is the recipient of such a disclosure. 

Table 2 Specific data disclosure flow process, MAR - Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 

Article 

Description 

1.Market  operators  of  regulated  markets  and  investment  firms  and  market  operators  operating  an  MTF  or  an  OTF  shall,  without  delay, 
notify the competent authority of the trading venue of any financial instrument for which a request for admission to trading on their trading venue is 
made, which is admitted to trading, or which is traded for the first time. 

They shall also notify the competent authority of the trading venue when a financial instrument ceases to be traded or to be admitted to trading, 
unless the date on which the financial instrument ceases to be traded or to be admitted to trading is known and was referred  to in the notification 
made in accordance with the first subparagraph. 

4 

Notifications referred to in this paragraph shall include, as appropriate, the names and identifiers of the financial instruments concerned, and the date 
and time of the request for admission to trading, admission to trading, and the date and time of the first trade. 

Market operators and investment firms shall also transmit to the competent authority of the trading venue the information set out in the third 
subparagraph with regard to financial instruments that were the subject of a request for admission to trading or that were admitted to trading before 2 
July 2014, and that are still admitted to trading or traded on that date. 

2. Competent authorities of the trading venue shall transmit notifications that they receive pursuant to paragraph 1 to ESMA without delay. 
ESMA shall publish those notifications on in its website in the form of a list immediately on receipt. ESMA shall update that list immediately on 
receipt of a notification by a competent authority of the trading venue. The list shall not limit the scope of this Regulation. 

The generic type of information that covers the largest number of public disclosures is entity-level 
policy or governance with a total of 92 reporting obligations, where more than one category could 
be  identified  for  each  reporting  obligation.  The  43%  of  public  disclosures  relate  to  policy  or 
governance at EU or national-level and policy or governance at entity-level. 

Figure 6 General type of information [logarithmic scale] 

92

59

57

6

4

6

128

64

32

16

8

4

2

1

Event

Financial

Policy /
Governance at
entity level

Policy /
Governance
EU/national level

Product / Service

Sanctions /
Compliance

Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the approach adopted to formulate the policy at 
entity,  national  or  EU  level.  Article  29(2)  refers  directly  to  requirement  for  tied  agent  (natural  or 
legal person) to publish information about capacity in which it operates and the investment firm it 
represents.  Article  46(2)  refers  to  the  obligation  of  the  market  operator  (entity)  to  publish 
information about ownership. 

153 

 
 
 
 
Table 3 Example: policy at entity, national and EU level, MIFID II - Directive 2014/65/EU 

Article 

29(2) 

Description 

Member States shall require that where an investment firm decides to appoint a tied agent it remains fully and 
unconditionally responsible for any action or omission on the part of the tied agent when acting on behalf of the 
investment  firm.  Member  States  shall  require  the  investment  firm  to  ensure  that  a  tied  agent  discloses  the 
capacity  in  which  he  is  acting  and  the  investment  firm  which  he  is  representing  when  contacting  or  before 
dealing with any client or potential client. 

Member States shall require the market operator of the regulated market: 

46(2) 

(a)  to  provide  the  competent  authority  with,  and  to  make  public,  information  regarding  the  ownership  of  the 
regulated market and/or the market operator, and in particular, the identity and scale of interests of any parties 
in a position to exercise significant influence over the management; 

(b)  to  inform  the  competent  authority  of  and  to  make  public  any  transfer  of  ownership  which  gives  rise  to  a 
change in the identity of the persons exercising significant influence over the operation of the regulated market. 

Access  to  company-specific  information  may  be  difficult,  given  that  it  is  often  fee-based,  as 
stakeholders226  suggested.  Following  a  detailed  analysis,  twenty-eight  public  disclosures  at 
national level that were fee-based were identified. As presented below, only one disclosure was 
found  to  be  fee-based.  Seventeen  fee-based  (free)  disclosures  were  identified  at  the  European 
level.  The  legislative  proposals  for  ESAP  assume  that  the  platform  should  be  freely  accessible 
without charge or licence use. This approach may require changes in business practices that use 
public disclosures. 

Figure 7 Fees at national level 

10

1

17

179

No data

Free Mixed

Paid

226 See: Targeted Consultation Document, Establishment of a European single access point (ESAP) for financial and non-financial information publicly 
disclosed by companies. 

154 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
One of the points considered by DG FISMA in the ESAP assessment is that the platform should 
respect the commitment set out in the Digital Finance Strategy227 to define the type of information 
that should be machine-readable.  

Figure 8 Machine readability 

36

1

170

No data Mixed

Yes

After  a  detailed  analysis,  thirty-seven  public  disclosures  were  identified  as  machine-readable. 
This  demonstrates  the  potential  for  standardisation  of  information  regulated  under  the  ESAP 
project, where all data should be machine-readable.  

Findings 

Only  selected  data  were  reported,  those  deemed  to  be  the  most  representative  and 
informative, given the assumptions and key objective of the exercise. The complete data 
set is available in the ESAP-Data mapping excel file attached to this report.  

Underlying documents do not specify all the requirements 

The  context  of  reporting  requirements  is  frequently  insufficiently  and  only  partially 
specified (e.g., data format or data quality assurance mechanism). In this respect, NCAs 
or  ESAs  may  define  their  own  reporting  requirements  deemed  most  adequate  for  the 
national or the EU-level of supervision. 

Potential for standardisation and good reporting practices 

The  definitions  of  reporting  requirements  fail  to  provide  contextual  and  more 
detailed information, on, inter alia, the format of disclosures, resulting in a lack of 
standardisation at EU and national level. In this respect, ESAP could contribute 
to  reducing  the  burden  of  insufficiently  standardised  reporting  by  introducing 
common good reporting practices. 

Potential for standardisation of sustainability disclosures 

227  The  digital  finance  strategy  sets  out  general  lines  on  how  Europe  can  support  the  digital  transformation  of  finance  in  the  coming  years,  while 
regulating its risks. See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/200924-digital-finance-proposals_en. 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The examination of Sustainability Framework covered by respective legislation228 
include  Environmental  Social  and  Corporate 
confirms 
Governance (ESG) information as part of public data mapping.  

the  necessity 

to 

-  The  ESAP  platform,  as  a  repository  for  all  timely  sustainability-related 
public information provided by listed companies, shall greatly standardise 
both the content and format of this information. 

-  The  common  platform  and  harmonised  reporting  should  also  impact  and 
encourage  non-listed  companies  to  disclose  such  information  through  the  well-
organised and easily accessible platform. 

High number of public disclosures to competent authorities 

Over 46%229 of all data issuers were recognised as CAs. Consequently, submitting data 
to ESAP may require a significant reporting effort from them. It is therefore essential that 
further assessments and considerations on governance and strategy include the sharing of 
responsibilities between all stakeholders. 

Annex I- Mapping structure overview 

Table 4 Mapping structure - columns 

Column 

Category of 
information 

Description 

Framework abbreviation 

Drop down list 

All reporting obligations are assigned to one of thirty-six analysed frameworks  

L1M legal act 

Article 

Information to be disclosed 
according to a legal act 

General 
information 

type 

of 

Text 

Text 

Text 

Source of reporting obligations (document type and Official Number of the L1M) 

Direct reference to reporting obligation 

Document content  

Drop down list 

Classification of public disclosure 

Category of information 

Drop down list 

Detailed classification of public disclosure 

Category  of 
(EC consultation) 

information 

Drop down list 

Classification of public disclosure according to EC consultation document 

Frequency 

Drop down list 

Information  is published on an ad hoc basis or at intervals. Discrepancies  found  in the  legal acts that 
standardised  
as 
relate 
(e.g., semi-annually and half-yearly are harmonised as semi-annually). 

frequency 

attribute 

shall 

such 

be 

an 

to 

Data  issuer  (general  and 
detailed) 

Drop down list 

Entity  required  to  publish  regulated  information.  Detailed  data  issuers  are  grouped  into  more  generic 
categories. 

Data recipient (general and 
detailed) 

Drop down list 

Regulated information is disclosed directly or  through another entity (e.g., OAM). Detailed recipients 
are grouped into more generic categories. 

Authorities involved 

Drop down list 

The authority directly involved in the reporting requirement (as a direct recipient or supervisor) or as a 
general framework owner. 

Machine readability 

Drop down list 

Feasibility of machine-readability (Yes/No/Mixed) 

Specification 
format (EU level) 

of 

data 

Drop down list 

Reason for disseminating (Mandatory/ Recommended/ Voluntary) 

Technical 
format 
(entity, national, EU level) 

data 

Drop down list 

Specification of data format. Directly connected with Machine Readability column (if filled by “yes’’ 
or “mixed”). Format may vary on the level of disclosing (entity, national or EU) 

Entity identifier 

Drop down list 

Contextual information to identify data issuer (e.g., LEI code) 

Data  assurance  and  Data 
assurance mechanism 

Boolean 
Drop down list 

Identification of data assurance (Yes/No) and potential specification of that mechanism. 

228 Directive 2014/95/EU (as a part of AD framework), Regulation (EU) 2019/2088, Regulation (EU) 2020/852. 
229 Detailed analysis of all 383 identified reporting obligations in ESAP - Data Mapping.xlsx (Supervisory and Entity reporting requirements). 

156 

 
 
                                                 
Data  validation  and  Data 
validation details 

Boolean 
Drop down list 

Identification of data validation (Yes/No) and potential specification of that mechanism. 

Language used for data 

Drop down list 

Information about language used to publish regulated data. 

Data availability period 

Drop down list 

Legal act may require availability of regulated data for a specific period (e.g. on website). 

Exclusions’ 
and Nature of exclusions 

applicability 

Drop down list 

Legal  act  may  exclude  some  scenario  from  requirement  of  disclosing  information  (e.g.  entity 
exclusion) 

Data access (Entity level) 

Drop down list 

Access to public information can be provided on entity level (e.g. via website) 

Repository,  Access  and 
Fees  (National,  European 
level) 

Drop down list 

Access  to  public  information  could  be  provided  on  EU  or  national  level  as  a  dedicated  repository  or 
website. Access may be free, fully paid or mixed for all relevant stakeholders. 

Annex II – EU legislation 

Figure 10 EU legislation 

Table 5 EU legislation description230  

Level 

L1M 

L2M 

Description 

Basic  laws  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  based  on  a  proposal  made  by  the  Commission,  in  the  traditional  co-
decision procedure. This legislation (Directive or Regulation) specifies in individual articles whether legislative power is delegated to the 
Commission to adopt Level 2 measures. 

Multiple Level 1 Regulations and Directives in the area of financial services contain empowerments for Level 2 measures to be adopted by 
the  Commission  by  means  of  Delegated  acts,  Implementing  acts,  or  measures  under  the  former  comitology  ‘regulatory  procedure  with 
scrutiny’.  These  measures  are  endorsed  in  accordance  with  different  procedures  set  out  in  the  relevant  basic  act  and  may  be  s ubject  to 
formal committee decisions or provide for certain scrutiny rights of the European Parliament and the Council. Where the Level 2 measures 
require  the  expertise  of  supervisory  experts,  it  can  be  determined  in  the  basic  act  that  these  measures  are  technical  standards  based  on 
drafts developed by the European supervisory authorities. There are two types of standards: (i) the Regulatory technical standards (RTS), 
which are adopted by the Commission by means of a Delegated act and (ii) the Implementing technical standards (ITS), which are adopted 
by means of an Implementing act 

L3M 

Other documents related to a framework, which are not L1M or L2M (e.g. guidance and recommendation). 

230 Glossary, D11. DRAFT Methodology for the analysis of Reporting Frameworks with unstructured data 
under Service Contract FISMA/2017/063/B2/SE/OP. 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Initiative  

Owner  

Brief description 

Relation with ESAP 

ANNEX 12: COHERENCE OF ESAP WITH RELEVANT EU POLICIES 

Regulation on Free 
flow of non-personal 
data 

EU 

Electronic 
Identification 
Authentication and 
Trust Services 
Regulation (e-IDAS) 

EU 

(CNECT) 

Company Law 

EU 

(JUST) 

With respect to non-personal data, EU Regulation (EU) 2018/1807 establishes the free 
movement  of  such  data  in  the  EU,  thus  enabling  alternative  location  of  data  for 
storage or processing than national location, including as regards bookkeeping. 
The  Directive  enables  to  store  data  anywhere  in  the  Union,  disregarding  e.g.  initial 
location  or  collection  point.  The  Directive  also  enables  to  port  data  between  cloud 
service providers and systems. 
eIDAS  is  a  framework  for  secure  electronic  verification  and  identification  across 
Europe,  making  one  common  standard.  Electronic  identification  (eID)  and  electronic 
Trust  Services  (eTS)  are  key  enablers  for  secure  cross-border  electronic  transactions 
and central building blocks of the Digital Single Market. Regulation (EU) N°910/2014 
on  electronic  identification  and  trust  services  for  electronic  transactions  in  the 
internal  market  (eIDAS  Regulation)  adopted  by  the  co-legislators  on  23  July  2014 
ensures  that  people  and  businesses  can  use  their  own  national  electronic 
identification  schemes  (eIDs)  to  access  public  services  in  other  EU  Member  States 
where  eID  are  available,  and  creates  a  European  internal  market  for  eTS  -  namely 
electronic  signatures,  electronic  seals,  time  stamp,  electronic  delivery  service  and 
website authentication - by ensuring that they will work across borders and have the 
same legal status as traditional paper-based processes. 

The  Company  Law  Directive  requires  the  disclosure  of  company  information  in  the 
national  business  registers  and  establishes  the  interconnection  of  business  registers 
(BRIS)  Business  registers  in  the  EU  offer  online  access  to  documents.  The  recently 
adopted Directive (EU) 2019/1151 amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 as regards the 
use  of  digital  tools  and  processes  in  company  law  contains  additional  disclosure 
requirements  and  related  measures.  In  particular,  the  following  provisions  are 
interesting for financial and non-financial information: 
•  all  information  and  documents  stored  by  a  business  register  as  part  of  the 

158 

This  regulation  is  an  enabler  for  the  ESAP.  By 
ensuring  the  free  movement  of  non-personal 
communication 
data 
electronic 
and  of 
in  the  Union  this 
equipment  and  services 
initiatives 
the 
implementation of the ESAP.  
The  e-IDAS  Regulation  offers  a  framework 
about  e-identity  and  trust  services  which  the 
ESAP  may  use  to  the  extent  appropriate  to 
reaching its objectives. 

lifts  potential  barriers 

to 

and 

ESAP 

the  business 

registers 
The 
interconnection  system  (BRIS)  address  data 
that  is  generally  of  different  nature  resulting 
from  filing  obligations  by  entities.  There  is 
limited  overlap  given  that  the  accounting 
documents  (management  reports,  corporate 
sustainability 
financial 
statements,  audit  reports,  and  Country-by-

reporting, 

annual 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
registration or filing of a company or a branch will have by 1 August 2023 to be stored 
by  business  registers  in  a  machine-readable  and  searchable  format  or  as  structured 
data. 
•  electronic  extracts  of  the  documents  and  information  provided  by  the  register  to 
stakeholders will be authenticated by means of trust services referred to in the eIDAS 
Regulation  ,  in  order  to  guarantee  that  the  electronic  extracts  is  a  true  copy  of  the 
document held by the register or that it is consistent with the information contained 
therein. 

The Business Registers Interconnection System (BRIS) is a mandatory interconnection 
of the EU business registers, operational since 8 June 2017. BRIS allows EU business 
registers  to  exchange  information  on  cross-border  company  events,  such  as  foreign 
branches and cross-border mergers of entities.  
BRIS  allows  in  addition  citizens,  entrepreneurs  and  entities  to  obtain  company 
information  on  more  than  20  million  limited  liability  entities,  including  a  set  of 
information free of charge, in all EU languages through the "Find a Company” page of 
the e-Justice Portal. Directive (EU) 2019/1151 further extends the set of data available 
free of charge on the European e-Justice Portal and the set of information exchanged 
by  business  registers  on  cross-border  operations,  such  as  conversions,  mergers  and 
divisions. 

The INSPIRE Directive  

EU 

(ENV) 

Inspire  shall  build  upon 

infrastructures  for  spatial 

Provides  for  a  federated  data-sharing  framework  for  spatial  data  related  to  the 
environment. 
information 
established and operated by the Member States. 
Whereas  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  the  Directive  on  access  to  environmental 
information set expectations concerning the discoverability and public accessibility of 
data,  the  High  Value  Data  list  for  Article  14  of  the  PSI  Directive  will  add  the 
requirements for open data (reusable, open license, free of charge, machine readable, 
and available through an API and/or bulk download). The INSPIRE Geoportal provides 
a  general  overview  of  which  Member  States  are  providing  metadata,  viewers  or 

159 

and 

the  Accounting 
directives, 

Country  reporting  of  listed  entities  must  be 
filed with both a Business Register and an OAM 
the 
pursuant 
to 
Transparency 
In 
addition,  the  ESAP  and  BRIS  pursue  objectives 
that are different: CMU and market service on 
the one hand, legal company law objectives on 
the  other.  As  announced  in  the  CMU  Action 
Plan, the ESAP will not alter the BRIS functions 
but will complement it. 

respectively. 

In  terms  of  format,  the  ESAP  intervention  is 
coherent  with  the  obligation  to  ensure  that 
information  and  documents  stored  in  Business 
Registers  are 
in  a  machine-readable  and 
searchable  format  or  as  structured  data  by 
August  2023.  There  is no legal  impediment  for 
business  registers  to  accept  any 
formats 
developed under the ESAP initiative. Under EU 
law,  formats  accepted  by  a  national  business 
remain  however  a  national 
register  will 
prerogative 
on 
including, 
accounting documents. 

instance 

for 

The  CMU  Action  Plan  calls  for  a  separate 
approach between the ESAP and the BRIS. 
The  ESAP  and  INSPIRE  cover  distinct  sets  of 
information  in  distinct  environments  and  data 
settings. Hence the need for  coherence is  very 
limited.  Nevertheless,  certain  objectives  of  the 
ESAP being similar, an overview of INSPIRE was 
performed 
metadata, 
interoperability,  network  services  and  data 
sharing  and  show  great  coherence  of  the 
approach between the two. 

regards 

as 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
downloads for which datasets, although the actual details are regularly incomplete or 
outdated. 

The  interoperability  and,  where  practicable, 
harmonisation of spatial data sets and services 
is  subject  to  subsequent  Commission  decision. 
The ESAP proposes a similar direction of travel, 
but  could nevertheless  set  minimum principles 
for  formats,  such  as  data  extractability.  There 
may  be  a  more  prominent  need 
for 
interoperability  of  formats  in  the  spatial  area 
than  in  the  financial  area.  As  regards  network 
services, the ESAP would, as in INSPIRE, ensure 
discovery,  view  and  download  services. 
In 
terms  of  access  fees,  the  ESAP,  as  in  INSPIRE, 
will  set  access  free  of  charge  as  a  general 
principle and allow charges for certain services 
(cases or services to be specified for the ESAP, 
already  specified  in  INSPIRE  such  as  to  secure 
the  maintenance  of  spatial  data  sets  and 
corresponding  data  services  in  cases  involving 
very large volumes of frequently updated data).   

access  would 

Contrary to INSPIRE, the ESAP may not contain 
provisions  allowing  Member  States  to  limit 
public  access  to  data  sets  and  services  where 
affect 
such 
international 
relations,  public  security  or 
national  defence,  as  this  does  not  seem 
relevant  in  the  financial  area  –  and  provisions 
being  largely  driven  by  the  EU  law,  the  latter 
already 
limitation  to 
disclosure. 

includes  appropriate 

adversely 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
European Data Portal 

Commission 

The European data portal (https://data.europa.eu/) harvests metadata from publicly 
available  datasets  held  by  national  and  some  European  public  sector  bodies,  and 
makes them findable through a single EU-level portal. 

When  in  place,  the  ESAP  could  liaise  with  the 
portal  with  a  view  to  improve  visibility  and 
discovery of data in the financial area. 

European 
Interoperability 
Framework 

The European Cloud 
Initiative 

Commission 

(DIGIT) 

Commission 

(CNECT) 

Interoperability  is  a  key  factor  in  making  a  digital  transformation  possible.  It  allows 
administrative entities to electronically exchange meaningful information in ways that 
are understood by all parties. It addresses all layers that impact the delivery of digital 
public  services  in  the  EU,  including:  legal,  organisational,  semantic  and  technical 
aspects. 
The Cloud Initiative will make it easier for researchers, businesses and public services 
to fully exploit the benefits of Big Data by making it possible to move, share and re-
use  data  seamlessly  across  global  markets  and  borders,  and  among  institutions  and 
research disciplines. 

Corporate Sustainable 
Reporting Directive 

EU co-
legislators 

The Commission adopted a proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive 
(CSRD), which would amend the existing reporting requirements of the NFRD. The 
proposal 
 

extends the scope to all large entities and all entities listed on regulated 
markets (except listed micro-enterprises) 
requires the audit (assurance) of reported information 
introduces more detailed reporting requirements, and a requirement to 
report according to mandatory EU sustainability reporting standards 
requires entities to digitally ‘tag’ the reported information, so it is machine 
readable and feeds into the European single access point envisaged in the 
capital markets union action plan 

 
 

 

the  EU 
The  ESAP  would  contribute 
interoperability agenda by streamlining further 
national 
data 
management, where relevant. 

operational  models 

and 

to 

The ESAP infrastructure may benefit in the long 
infrastructure  and  ecosystem 
run  of  new 
resulting  from  the 
initiative.  However  this 
would  depend  on  technical  choices  for  the 
infrastructure  which  are  not  for  the  legislation 
to make. 
The CSRD seeks to address the digital use of the 
CSR  by  proposing  the  development  of  ad  hoc 
standards that will enable data structuring and 
better 
the 
development of a digital taxonomy. In addition, 
the  CSRD  proposes  that  CSR  be  drawn  up  in  a 
machine readable format, the ESEF. In terms of 
accessibility, the CSRD suggest filing of the CSRs 
with both the national Business Register and an 
OAM.  This  prepares  the  grounds  for  a  smooth 
integration in the ESAP. 

comparability 

as  well 

as 

Database rights 
(Directive) 

EU co-
legislators 

The Directive seeks to provide legal protection for databases* which has two aspects: 

 

copyright protection for the intellectual creation involved in the selection 
and arrangement of materials; the creator of a database enjoys a group of 

161 

The Commission will monitor the developments 
this 
inter-institutional  discussions  on 
of 
proposal  when  preparing  the  ESAP  legislative 
proposal. 
Rights  created  by  this  Directive  have  been 
light  of  ESAP’s  features, 
examined 
content, and objectives. 

in  the 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Open Data and data 
related policies 

EU co-legislator 

 

exclusive rights (restricted acts), e.g. reproduction, alteration, distribution, 
etc. 
sui generis* protection for a substantial investment (financial and in terms of 
human resources, effort and energy) in obtaining, verifying or presenting the 
contents of a database; the creator of a database can prohibit the 
unauthorised extraction and/or re-use of its contents. 

The Directive on open data and the re-use of public sector information (EU) 
2019/1024, to be transposed by Member States by 16 July 2021, encourages the 
Member States to make as much information available for re-use as possible. It 
addresses material held by public sector bodies in the Member States, at national, 
regional and local levels, such as ministries, state agencies and municipalities, as well 
as organisations funded mostly by or under the control of public authorities. It aims to 
stimulate the publishing of dynamic data and the uptake of Application Programme 
Interfaces (APIs), to address costs of dissemination. Implementing act on high-value 
data sets under the Open Data Directive, will make selected data sets in relation to 
company and company ownership available across the EU for free, in machine-
readable format and through standardised Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). 
Several acts, mainly in the context of the 2020 European strategy, include the Data 
Governance Act, which aims to establish a governance framework for sharing 
industrial data. The Data Act being prepared by the Commission is about ensuring 
fairness in the allocation of data value among actors of the data economy, including in 
business to business and business to government situations. The Digital Services and 
Digital markets Acts (DSA and DMA) proposed by the Commission in December 2020 
aim to create a safer digital space for users of digital services and establish a level 
playing field to foster innovation, growth, competitiveness at the EU and global levels. 
The 

162 

In  an  approach  similar  to  the  Open  Data 
Directive,  the  ESAP  would  set  a  provision 
whereby the rights for the maker of a database 
provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC 
shall not be exercised by public sector bodies in 
order to prevent the re-use of documents or to 
restrict  re-use  beyond  the  limits  set  by  this 
Directive.  This  would  apply  to  rights  held  by 
collection  points  vis-a-vis  the  ESAP,  potentially 
including  in  the  case  of  private  sector  bodies 
(OAMs) acting as collection points for the ESAP, 
given their public-interest function. 

The  Open  Data  Directive  presents  a  high 
potential of interaction with the ESAP initiative, 
especially  as  regards  open  data  elements. 
These are examined throughout the document, 
especially in section 6.  

to 

Business 

Other Acts mentioned in the opposite box have 
in  the  context  of  this 
remote  relevance 
initiative.  Their  scope  of  application  relates  to 
the  organisation  of  services  and  /or  markets 
(Business 
to 
Business, 
Government),  with  objectives  that  are  specific 
to  these  initiatives  (market  governance,  safer 
digital  space,  level  playing  field)  which  do  not 
overlap  with  the  objectives  of  this  initiative 
focusing on the integration of the single market 
information  relating  to 
as  regards  public 
financial 
the 
addresses 
services 
repository/regulatory functions (government to 
public, business to public). 

and 

 
 
 
ANNEX 13: HOW ARE THE PREFERRED OPTIONS SUPPORTING A FUTURE PROOF 
EVOLUTIONARY ESAP  

A  number  of  elements  and  key  characteristics  have  been  identified  to  support  the 
evolutionary dimension of the ESAP:  

Scope:  
 

Information voluntarily filed by entities would be allowed – with ability to adapt 
quickly in legislation the types of information accepted 

  Additional  sources  of  information  /  collection  points:  no  obstacles  to  enable 
database owners (e.g. national registers) to voluntary join the ESAP – under the 
control  of the governing body and subject  to  any legal  or contractual  applicable 
requirements. 

Technical dimension:  

  Flexible by design 

o  Technical  design  of  infrastructure  and  access  modes  (including  new 

modes) are in the remit of the governing body 
o  Extensible Metadata model (level 2 measures) 
o  Adaptable  approach  via  level  2  measures  on  machine  readable  formats 

(e.g. ESEF, XML, CSV or other). 

o  Ability  to  adapt  terms  of  use  to  reflect  evolutions  in  licensing  landscape 

(level 2 measures) 

 

Innovation enabler – no obstacles to enabling: 

o  Artificial Intelligence 
o  Machine learning 
o  Natural Language Processing 

  Facilitate new technologies and services – no obstacles to enabling: 

o  Modern access modes are included (web portal, bulk download, APIs)  
o  Big data / automated services 

Governing and funding dimension:  

  Governance model associates users, preparers, regulators, and other stakeholders 
  Latitude for the governing body on the design of the ESAP (User Interface, etc.) 
  Evolutionary funding sources including ability to charge and modulate user fees 

(within predetermined limits) to offer additional services. 

Legislative dimension:  

  No obstacle to enabling the Open Data Directive (including implementing acts on 

High Value Datasets) at national level 

  Continuous  monitoring  measures  implemented,  under  the  surveillance  of  a 

dedicated committee involving various stakeholders 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 14: ANCILLARY/TECHNICAL/NON-CORE ASPECTS OF THE ESAP  

This Annex presents and compares the policy options for other important aspects which 
do not represent a key dimension of the ESAP. It also includes a brief assessment of their 
impact.  

1.  ESAP functionalities  

Technical  choices  on  infrastructure  should  be  left  to  the  governance  of  the  ESAP,  in 
order  to  allow  for  the  best  model  and  enable  evolutions  along  with  technical  progress. 
Nevertheless,  the  legislation  could  define  a  number  of  user  oriented  functionalities 
expected from the ESAP which would have to be catered in any case. Various options are 
envisaged below with increasing intensity of specifications.  

1.1. Option 1 – ESAP provides for infrastructure oriented basic specifications  

The  ESAP  provides  only  for  basic  specifications  infrastructure-oriented  (e.g. 
obligation for the collection points to share info, ensure security and high service 
rate).  

1.2. Option  2  –  ESAP  provides  for  infrastructure  and  basic  user  oriented 

specifications/features  

The ESAP provides only for basic specifications infrastructure and user-oriented 
features (e.g. obligation for the collection points to share info, ensure security and 
high service rate + language, notifications) 

1.3. Option  3  –  ESAP  provides  for  an  extensive  set  of  infrastructure  and  user 

oriented specifications  

The ESAP provides for an extensive set of specifications infrastructure and user-
oriented.  Based  on  our  consultation  activities  and  research,  the  following 
specifications were identified:  

i)  Web portal/Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) 

Based on our targeted consultation, a web portal was the most supported 
means of access (81% of preferences), but there was also wide support for 
using Application Programming Interfaces (API) (79% of preferences).  

ii)  Search function to retrieve information 

It  should  be  user  friendly  and  -  based  on  the  selected  option  addressing 
language  barriers  -  provide  for  an  interface  that  allows  the  search  in  a 
customary  language  in  the  sphere  of  international  finance  or  in  all  EU 
official languages. 

iii) Indication of the source of the information 

The information source would be indicated per each document accessible 
via the ESAP.  

iv)  Machine translation service for retrieved documents 

Based  on  the  selected  option  addressing  language  barriers  (section  5  of 
this  Annex),  ESAP  could  provide  for  an  e-translation  service  to  enable 
translation of the information retrieved in all EU languages.  

164 

 
 
 
 
v)  Reader 

A reader would enable users to access the information without necessarily 
downloading it.  

vi)  Individual and bulk download  

In  addition  to  the  download  of  individual  documents,  bulk  download 
would also be allowed to reflect the preference of 70% of respondents to 
our targeted consultation.   

vii) Notifications/RSS feed 

A  notification/RSS  feed  service  could  be  provided  upon  users’  request. 
This  service  could  be  subject  to  fees,  depending  on  the  selected  option 
regarding open data and access fees (see Section 6.4 and Annex 14).  

1.4. Impact  and  comparison  of  the  policy  options  regarding  the  ESAP 

functionalities 

Considering  consultation  and  research,  the  ESAP  specific  objectives  would  be 
best  achieved  by  providing  ESAP  with  the  most  extensive  set  of  specifications 
that  are  user  oriented.  This  would  allow  to  also  address  language  barriers  and 
ensure  quality  of  information.  Option  3  seems  therefore  to  be  the  preferable 
option.  

2.  Timeliness of information accessibility via the ESAP  

2.1. Option 1 - The information is made available by the national/EU collection 
point/s to the ESAP within a fixed deadline (i.e. ESAP has a repository only 
function) 

The national/EU collection point/s make the information received by the entities 
available  to  the  ESAP  within  a  fixed  deadline.  ESAP  has  a  repository  only 
function. ESAP will not provide users with timely information.  

2.2. Option  2  -  The  information  is  made  available  by  a  national/EU  collection 
point  to  the  ESAP  within  a  predetermined  timeframe  (i.e.  ESAP  has  a 
repository function and makes the information available to the public in a timely 
manner) 

The national/EU collection point/s make the information received by the entities 
available to the ESAP within a predetermined timeframe. ESAP has a repository 
function  and  makes  the  information  available  to  the  public  in  a  timely  manner 
(i.e.  information  appears  on  ESAP  quickly  but  not  before  it  appears  on  other 
media)  

2.3. Option 3 - The information is made available by the national/EU collection 
points  to  the  ESAP  immediately  (i.e.  ESAP  has  a  repository  and  a 
dissemination function) 

165 

 
 
 
The national/EU collection point/s make the information received by the entities 
available  to  the  ESAP  immediately.  Notwithstanding  other  legal  obligations, 
entities  are  prohibited  from  publishing  information  (on  website,  media,  etc.) 
before  it  is  made  available  on  the  ESAP.  ESAP  has  a  repository  and  a 
dissemination  function  (i.e.  information  appears  first  on  ESAP  and  later 
everywhere else. ESAP will be the primary point of reference for the publication 
of the information). 

2.4. Impact  and  comparison  of  the  policy  options  regarding  the  timeliness  of 

information accessibility via ESAP 

Based  on  the  outcome  of  the  consultation  activities,  the  large  majority  of  users 
believe that the ESAP should not only have only a repository function for the entities’ 
information,  but  also  provide  users  with  timely  access  to  such  information231. 
Timeliness is considered important to enable good analyses and fulfil regulatory and 
prudential obligations. The slight majority of national authorities and OAMs seem to 
prefer  a  repository  only  function232.  While  imposing  a  fixed  timeline  (Option  1) 
would make ESAP only a repository, providing real time access to the information on 
the  ESAP  (Option  3)  would  be  ideal  although  at  this  stage  it  seems  not  feasible  to 
have  the  information  appear  first  on  ESAP  considering  the  need  to  have  an 
intermediate passage between entities and ESAP (i.e. the collection points). Option 2 
seems therefore to be the preferable option.  

3.  Ensuring data integrity and credibility of the source 

Ensuring  data  integrity  and  credibility  of  the  source  is  a  clear  expectation  arising  from 
consultation,  even  though  there  were  some  caveats  expressed  due  to  possible  costs  for 
filers.  

There  were  split  views  as  to  the  best  system  to  ensure  integrity  of  information  and 
credibility  of  the  source.  About  28%  of  respondents  to  the  targeted  consultation 
suggested relying on electronic signature or seals at the source. A certification provided 
by the sole ESAP platform was an attractive way for 33% of respondents whereas 24% 
would suggest using other means / trust services. We examine these three options below.  

Standard setters  and other stakeholders  supported  in  addition  the use of  a single  global 
unique identifier. 

3.1. Option 1 – EiD at collection point  

The identity (eID) of preparers filing information to be ultimately on ESAP relies on 
electronic identities of entities (possibly verified by ways of electronic attestation of 
certain attributes, such as a LEI)233 in order to verify the authentication of the issuer 
of  the  document  at  the  level  of  the  body  collecting  information  from  preparers. 
Trusted  verification  of  a  client's  identity  is  common  in  the  financial  services  where 
remote and trusted identification is needed. eID and trust services could for instance 

231 This is the view of 92% of the users participating to our workshop.  
232 This is the view of around 50% of the national authorities and OAMs participating to our workshop 
233 Commission proposal for a Regulation on as regards establishing a framework for a  
European Digital Identity. COM(2021) 281 final. 

166 

 
                                                 
be used to prove the identity of the preparer when filing information with a collection 
point  and ensure secure log-in to the service.  

Administrative costs would be mainly borne by the collection point (national or ESA) 
for the necessary verifications, possibly involving interaction with the preparers. 

3.2. Option 2 – Certification by the ESAP 

The  ESAP  would  certify  the  authenticity  of  electronic  copies  and  extracts  of 
documents  and  information  retrieved  from  the  ESAP,  as  an  additional  service 
provided. Such certification could be done electronically. 

This  would  allow  to  guarantee  any  user  that  the  electronic  copies  or  extracts  have 
been provided by the ESAP and that their content is a true copy of the document held 
by the ESAP or that it is consistent with the information contained therein. 

Administrative costs would be mainly borne by the governing body of the ESAP. 

3.3. Option 3 – Electronic certificate at the source 

An electronic seal on each document would be mandated at the source, i.e. obtained 
by preparers, and provided together with the document to the collection point at the 
time of filing. 

The legislation would require, on the basis of eIDAS Regulation234, that an electronic 
seal  (eSeal)  based  on  certificates  obtained  from  qualified  trust  service  providers235, 
and qualified electronic  seal  creation devices, accompanies the information filed by 
preparers with  the collection points when that information  must go to  the ESAP. A 
legal entity identifier would be a mandatory attribute of the Certificate. 

Costs would be borne at the source, by preparers of information. 

3.4. Impact  and  comparison  of  the  policy  options  regarding  data  integrity  and 

credibility of the source 

Option  1  may  enable  identification  of  the  source  to  a  certain  extent,  but  cannot 
guarantee the integrity of information along the transmission chain from the preparer 
to  the  user.  The  system  may  in  addition  shift  part  of  the  responsibility  over  a 
document  on  the  collection  point  as  regards  its  integrity  and  identification  of  the 
source, which is not desirable as this would be a responsibility imposed on collection 
points on which they may not have control unless resource intensive processes are put 
in place. 

Option  2  puts  the  onus  on  the  ESAP  to  ensure  authentication  of  information.  This 
does not equate to ensuring the integrity of information as the authentication would 
occur at the time of delivery. Hence the level of certainty of this approach would rely 
on  the  extent  of  control  of  the  ESAP  on  information,  which  is  partial.  In  terms  of 
responsibility over information,  this  could  be seen as  going beyond  a responsibility 

234 The eIDAS Regulation is Regulation (EU) 910/2014 on electronic  identification and trust services for 
electronic transactions in the internal market. 
235 List available on the Commission website: EU Trust Services Dashboard (europa.eu). 

167 

 
                                                 
the  ESAP  can  shoulder  in  normal  circumstances.  Besides,  this  service  would  not 
necessarily provide credibility of the source.  

Option  3  is  by  contrast  offering  both  credibility  of  the  source  and  integrity  of  the 
information for users, regardless of the way the system is built or secured, along the 
chain  from  preparer to  users (and  re-use) whilst  assuring preparers that information 
provided by the ESAP is undoubtedly the information they filed. This approach alters 
in  no  way  the  responsibility  of  preparers  over  information  in  the  ESAP.  Hence  it 
offers  the  most  effective  solution.  This  option  is  also  the  most  coherent  with  the 
eIDAS Regulation in terms of trusted services and direction of travel. 

Option 3 is the preferred option. In terms of costs, option 3 would imply an annual 
charge in the range of EUR 600 per year per preparer filing information on the ESAP 
as a result of a legal reporting obligation, as follows: 

  Cost  of  maintaining  the  entity  identifier  (e.g.  the  LEI  of  the  GLEIF):  around 

EUR 60 

  Costs of maintaining the digital certificate (annual): around EUR 380 
  Cost  of  maintaining  a  digital  signing  tool  (or  obtaining  qualified  trust  services) 

(annual): around EUR 160 

4.  Ensuring data quality 

A  majority  of  respondents  (69%),  especially  users,  supported  that  information  in  the 
ESAP be subject to quality checks. There were divergent views among preparers, some 
of  whom  did  not  support  any  quality  checks  unless  there  is  a  proportional  approach. 
Respondents  to  our  targeted  consultation  overall  believed  that  the  source  provider 
should keep responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the data it publishes but observed 
that  where  and  how  quality  checks  are  done,  it  would  also  depend  on  the  manner  of 
sourcing information and transmission chain.  

A number of users and preparers alike underlined that the ESAP should offer the ability 
to  correct  data  over  time.  However,  a  few  preparer  respondents  observed  that  entities 
should not  be held  liable for any problem  in  the transmission chain  of information  of 
the  ESAP  and  that  the  establishment  of  the  ESAP  should  not  generate  additional 
liability for entities.  

Among  users,  many  insisted  that  the  quality  of  the  data  within  the  ESAP  would 
determine the added value and usability of the ESAP for end investors to a large extent. 
To this purpose, there could be an indicator for each data entry whether the information 
has been reviewed by a national supervisor and/or whether it has been audited by a third 
party.  

As  regards  which  checks  to  be  performed,  respondents  mentioned  compliance  with  a 
relevant  taxonomy  and  IT  format  (if  any)  (72%);  completeness  and  availability  of 
metadata  (70%);  timeliness  of  submission;  plausibility  of  certain  data  (e.g.  in 
comparison to previous reporting periods);  ex post (manual) checks (e.g.  with a focus 
on  price  sensitive  data);  and  the  absence  of  embedded  viruses  or  malicious  content. 
Automated validation tools are often cited as the most efficient way to go. A regulator 
noted nevertheless that automated validation would not eliminate the need for circuits 
for  some  manual  validation,  which  means  staff  costs.  A  few  respondents  insisted  that 
validation checks should be (maximum) harmonised.  

168 

 
 
Ensuring  the  quality  of  the  content  –  for  instance  by  ways  of  independent  assurance 
services  –  should  remain  a  prerogative  of  the  EU  sectoral  legislation,  as  it  would 
depend  on  the  sensitivity  of  the  information,  the  intended  use,  etc.  Hence  the  ESAP 
quality  checks  should  be  on  the  form  and  rather  limited  on  content.  Besides,  these 
checks  could  be  automated  as  much  as  possible,  as  suggested  by  registers  during 
workshops based on their experience, in order to reduce the need for human resources 
at collection point and for ensuring a swift service. Finally, a harmonised approach at 
the EU level seems necessary to ensure a level playing field as well as similar levels of 
trust in each dataset made available on the ESAP, as supported during consultation. 

Two avenues are considered for the point at which validation checks could be done:  

1.  either  at  the  collection  point  (validation  checks  performed  by  the  collection 

point on data submitted by a filing company); or  

2.  centrally  at  the  ESAP  (validation  checks  performed  by  the  ESAP  on  data 

submitted by the collection point).  

Automated validation solely at the level of ESAP is not effective as  a rejection by the 
ESAP  would  come  late  in  the  transmission  chain,  and  in  any  event  after  the  point  in 
time  in  which  the  preparer’s  submission  to  the  collection  point  would  have  been 
seemingly accepted. Besides, it would be more difficult for the governing body of the 
ESAP to offer assistance (help desk) with the preparer than the collection entry point. 
Automated  validation  by  the  collection  point  seems  necessary  to  reject  invalid 
information  at  a  sufficient  early  stage  to  avoid  the  circulation  of  invalid  information 
further down the chain. In any event, implementing automated validation would require 
that  each  collection  point  sets  up  local  help  desk  in  order  to  offer  a  communication 
channel to filers and be able to enter into a relation with the filing company if needed. 
A  help  desk  would  be  most  welcome  especially  for  SMEs  filing  voluntarily 
information.  

A  mix  of  both  avenues  can  also  be  envisaged.  It  would  consist  in  standardised 
automated  checks  at  the  entry  point,  i.e.  by  the  collection  point,  and  additional 
validation checks by the governing body of the ESAP. Validation checks by the latter 
seem necessary to control that the collection points have done a good work and also to 
allow it to keep control over the information in the ESAP. Hence the governing body of 
the  ESAP  should  be  in  a  position  to  design  common  standards  on  these  validation 
checks  in  order  to  keep  control  over  the  ultimate  accuracy  of  information  and  ensure 
that  harmonised  approach  is  implemented  throughout  the  EU,  or  alternatively  to 
reproduce the same validation checks as implemented by the collection points.   

The scale and costs of implementing validation checks and help desks by the collection 
points will depend on the extent of those checks (most likely to be determined by level 
2 measures), the rejection rates (depending on the validation checks at ESAP level) as 
well  as  on  the  take  up  by  SMEs  voluntary  filing  and  the  existence  nowadays  of  such 
help  desks  in  each  collection  point.  These  variables  make  it  difficult  to  assess  the 
impacts of such measure. However additional costs for the collection points should be 
moderate for the following reasons: 

  National  and  EU  collection  points  already  engage  with  filing  entities  due  to 

current reporting obligations, hence already have contact points in place; 

169 

 
  Documents which are the most complex to check are those in the ESEF format. 

These are already subject to validation checks236; 

  Automated  validations  would  be  designed  at  the  EU  level  in  a  harmonised 
manner  (allowing  for  economies  of  scale  in  terms  of  development)  and  would 
be  limited  to  mainly  IT  issues,  enabling  filers  to  try  and  solve  issues  on  their 
own before entering into contact with the collection point. 

Central  checks  at  ESAP  level  as  envisaged  would  come  at  marginal  additional  costs 
(either EU specific or doubling existing checks). 

On this basis, the preferred approach is to implement harmonised automated validation 
to  be  performed  both  at  the  collection  point  entry  point  and  at  the  ESAP  entry  point, 
complementary  and  automated to  the highest  possible extent. The Commission  would 
retain powers to determine the nature and extent of those validation checks. Local help 
desks would be implemented by collection points. 

5.  Addressing language barriers 

During consultation activities, most stakeholders underlined the need to address as much 
as  possible  language  barriers  to  facilitate  access  to  the  information  disclosed  by 
entities237. Based on the consultation activities the following is the preferred approach to 
address language barriers: 

i) 

the ESAP functionalities for users could provide for an interface enabling a 
search function in all EU official languages or in a customary languages in 
the sphere of international finance; 
Respondents  to  the  targeted consultation  were divided whether to  allow the 
search in a customary language in the sphere of international finance (around 
50%) or in a multilingual approach (around 43%). This would enable users to 
search for corporate information in a language they are familiar with.  

It is suggested to go for a multiple language approach for the search functions 
offered e.g. on a web portal. This is because the ESAP should be accessible 
not only to large investors but also to retail investors which may be interested 
in searching product-related information.  

ii) 

the ESAP functionalities for users could provide in addition for e-translation 
services 
This  would  enable  users  to  obtain  a  quick  machine  translation  of  the 
information they want to read.  

Such functionality could apply at least to metadata. In addition, building on 
the  intention  to  promote  further  machine-readability  of  the  information 
accessible  via  ESAP,  could  be  introduced,  a  functionality  providing 
automated translation of information would largely assist in overcoming the 

236 ESMA ESEF validation rules : ESEF Validation rules (europa.eu). 
237 In particular, more than 65% of the national authorities/OAMs participating to our workshop believe the 
ESAP should address language barriers.  

170 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
language barrier – at least from a discovery perspective. Responsibility terms 
could be introduced to ensure that this service is provided only for discovery 
purposes,  but  cannot  be  relied  on  for  other  purposes  as  only  the  original 
version is legally binding.  

This  approach  is  the  preferred  one  as  it  would  enable  the  most  effective 
approach  in  increasing  the  flow  of  information  across  borders,  and 
facilitating  the  (digital)  use.  Costs  for  the  ESAP  would  be  integrated  in  the 
costs to develop the infrastructure / maintenance costs. 

6.  Removing certain barriers to access 

During consultation activities, stakeholders reported that even seemingly small barriers to 
access, such as unfriendly User Interface, having to register or having to pay the smallest 
fee,  pass  Captcha  tests,  etc.  create  barriers  to  access  which  ultimately  discourage  data 
discovery. 

Two options can be envisaged to address these barriers: 

6.1. Option 1 – the governing body has mandate, but flexibility to address ‘soft’ 

barriers  

In this option, the legislation would entrust the governing body with the task to see to it 
that barriers to access are reduced as much as possible for EU citizens, however would 
not enumerate barriers. 

6.2. Option 2 – introduce legislative measures 

With this option, the legislation would expressly enumerate and address the way barriers 
should be removed.   

6.3. Impact and comparison of the policy options  

Some  of  the  barriers  mentioned  cannot  be  addressed  via  legislation.  For  instance, 
prescribing the design of a software User Interface in the law might result unnecessarily 
rigid  and  prone  to  inefficiencies.    Besides,  rules  based  legislation  could  appear  as  not 
proportionate and unnecessary un-flexible, should the need to evolve appear over time.  

It is estimated that a governance system ensuring proper feedback of representative array 
of stakeholders would most likely be more efficient to address any such “soft” barriers, in 
a  principles  based  light  touch  approach.  This  could  be  measured  as  part  of  e.g.  user 
satisfaction surveys.  

Access fees are a particular type of barrier that is otherwise addressed in the body of this 
impact assessment. 

Option 1 is the preferred option. 

7.  File only once 

The CMU Action plan states that the ESAP will, to the greatest extent possible, build on 
existing EU and national IT infrastructure (databases, registers) in order to avoid adding 
to  entities'  reporting  burden.  In  addition,  the  ESAP  should  seek  to  limit  administrative 
burdens  for  entities  by  avoiding  multiple  reporting  channels  and  by  promoting  a  file-

171 

 
 
 
only-once  principle 
mechanisms. 

in  a  format  accepted  by  all  EU  authorities/bodies/storage 

The  following  figure  illustrates  the  information  flow  for  issuers  of  securities  in  Nordic 
countries.  It  shows  that  in  order  to  handle  the  multiple  reporting  obligations,  issuers 
usually  uses  a  specialised  service  provider  that  takes  care  of  the  dissemination  of 
information to the media, but also of filing information with the OAM, stock market, an 
issuer’s website, etc. Filing information with NCAs or Business registers may not be part 
of these services, the price of which is estimated in the range of EUR 10/15k annually.  

Information flow in the Nordic countries 

Source: NASDAQ 

In this way, the market caters for the file only once principle, at a certain cost. However, 
during consultation a couple of stakeholders remarked that the main driver of these costs 
is the dissemination of information through media over the EU, which is comparatively 
more costly than other filing obligations, company web site maintenance excluded.  

A  brief  overview  of  other  markets238  (Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Poland) 
indicate  that  generally  issuers  must  file  information  with  the  OAM,  the  NCA  and  as 
appropriate  with  the market  operator separately.  The dissemination by media mandated 
by  the  TD  applies  as  well.  In  Austria,  the  OAM  (OeKB)  offers  free  forwarding  of 
regulated  information  simultaneously  to  the  Financial  Market  Authority  (FMA)  and 
Wiener Börse AG (WBAG), enabling filing in a single step239. Nevertheless, the OeKB 
indicates  that  the  information  can  also  be  sent  by  the  issuers’  (dissemination)  service 
provider (including Bloomberg, Reuters, APA, Österreichische Wertpapierdaten Service 
GmbH, pressetext, DGAP, euro adhoc or Wiener Zeitung) at the choice and expense of 
the issuer. In  addition  to  the  standard  web  portal,  over  half  of  the  OAMs  surveyed 
in 2011  had  implemented some  form  of  system-to-system  connectivity  with  other  
filing  or  news/data  dissemination systems. These remove the requirement for issuers to 

238 Source: FESE. 
239 OeKB. 

172 

 
 
                                                 
make  multiple  filings  to  different  systems  within    the    Member    State,    and    can  
streamline  the  filing  process  by  allowing  bulk  filing  from intermediaries’ systems 
rather than online web forms for manual upload of documents240. 

Several options as regards the organisation of collection points are examined in Section 
5.2.3.  and  the  preferred  option  for  the  collection  points  in  section  6.3.4  is  to  allow  the 
Member  States  to  decide  which  collection  points  should  be  interconnected  with  the 
ESAP.  The  prospects  of  simplifying  the  filing  requirements  for  preparers  is  examined 
below. 

The multiplication of filing points at national level is undeniably a burden, translating in 
costs  to  acquire  specialised  services  depending  on  Member  States  and  markets.  The 
opportunity  to  avoid  businesses  to  resubmit  information/data  is  considered  at  least 
important  by 92% of the respondents  to  a public consultation  conducted in  2014241 (no 
distinction is made between the national and the cross border context). However during 
consultation, certain preparers’ representative supported the status quo as regards existing 
filing  requirements,  or  at  least  if  rules  are  changed,  to  ensure  that  no  new  burden  or 
complication  arises  for  preparers.  One  respondent  dealing  with  SMEs  thought  that 
“entities already disclose a lot of information to their national authorities. As a first step, 
the ESAP could rely on automatic exchanges of information among national authorities”.  

Estonia,  Netherlands  and  Belgium  have  already  implemented  laws  that  enforces  the 
implementation  of the file only once principle;  in  Estonia the approach selected was to 
explicitly  force  public  administrations  to  re-use  data  already  available  in  other  public 
administration registries (art.43 of the Public Information Act); in Belgium, by means of 
Loi 5 Mai 2014 all federal administrations have been required to implement the OOP and 
use  eID  numbers  to  retrieve  data  form  official  registers;  finally,  in  The  Netherlands, 
legislation related to base registers oblige public services to make use of data contained 
therein242. Estonia has developed a solution for the exchange of data among registers of 
public administrations.  

The preferred option is  to  retain several  collection points at  national  level,  including at 
least  NCAs  and  OAMs.  The  ESAP  could  pursue  in  this  setting  a  “file  only  once” 
approach  at  the  national  level  that  would  leave  flexibility  to  the  Member  States  to 
implement it.  

The  ‘file  only  once’  principle  would  encompass  all  the  national  collection  points 
involved  in  the  ESAP,  i.e.:  NCAs  (capital  markets,  banks,  insurance)  and  OAMs  (and 
possibly  additional  bodies  collecting  information  for  the  ESAP  as  decided  at  Member 
State  level),  but  also  European  collection  points  (ESAs).  Hence  a  company  would  file 
any information that ultimately is made available in the ESAP only once, i.e. with either 
one  of  the  national  bodies  involved  as  collecting  points243.  It  would  not  be  possible  to 
impose,  in  light  of  proportionality  and  subsidiarity  principles,  and  considering  other 
usual legal obligations on entities (company law, tax) to mandate that the “file only once” 

240 Feasibility    Study    for    a    pan-European storage  system  for  information  disclosed by issuers of 
securities - Final Report, p.18, Actica, October 2011 (PB318D004 1.3). 
241  Study:  EU-wide  digital  Once-Only  Principle  for  citizens  and  businesses  -  Policy  options  and  their 
impacts (SMART 2015/0062), European Commission, 2014, page 177. 
242 Same study, page 180. 
243  Even  though  deemed  to  be  very  rare,  double  filings  between  national  and  EU  bodies  would  not  be 
addressed. 

173 

 
                                                 
principle  covers  other  bodies  than  the  collection  points,  even  in  cases  of  overlap  with 
information  collected  for  the  ESAP.  A  main  reason  is  that  any  alteration  of  filing 
obligation beyond the inner array of ESAP’s collection points may have unintended legal 
and other consequences, such as an alteration of the underlying legal obligations on the 
filing. For instance, the obligation for a company  to file  accounting documents (Article 
14(f)  of  Company  Law  Directive  2017/1132,  Article  30  of  Accounting  Directive 
2013/34/EU)  imply  a  clear  obligation  impinging  directly  on  companies  towards  the 
national  business  register,  together  with  certain  delays.  This  individual  actionable  legal 
obligation  allows  for  instance  Member  States  to  implement  administrative  sanctions  in 
case  of  non  compliance.  Likewise,  filing  information  with  a  tax  authority,  a  market 
operator,  etc.  have  characteristics  that  are  inherent  to  the  objectives  of  each 
corresponding policy. It is therefore not appropriate to extend the file only once principle 
to cover these bodies, beyond the inner array of collection points intended for the ESAP. 

In terms of impacts, a file only once approach would avoid that preparers file the same 
information multiple times at the national or EU level, but it would not limit the number 
of  national  collection  points.  Hence  it  would  not  disrupt  the  national  landscape.  In 
addition, flexibility should be left to the Member States as regards implementation, thus 
enabling a non-disruptive approach especially for those Member States that already have 
adopted  this  principle.  A  question  is  whether  it  could  be  considered  that  the  use  of  a 
service provider is a relevant proxy for a file only once principle for issuers of securities. 
Indeed,  issuers  may  use  service  providers  to  meet  the  obligation  imposed  by  the 
Transparency  Directive  to  disseminate  information  via  media.  Based  on  interviews  of 
stock markets operators and OAMs, these providers usually include in the service offered 
the  function  of  filing  information  with  multiple  bodies,  including  the  national  OAM. 
They report in addition that the dissemination function is by far the most costly  part of 
the service offered by service providers, whereas other filing services such as filing with 
an OAM is generally ancillary and represent a small portion of the price of the service. 
Besides, as seen with the Austrian OAM (OeKB), certain collection points may offer the 
service of forwarding the information for a reasonable price (or for free) to other bodies. 
Hence  it  could  be  reasonable  to  consider  that  such  services  could  represent,  as  long  as 
they are ancillary or represent a small portion of the price of the filing costs, a reasonable 
way  to  implement  a  file  only  once  approach.  Nevertheless,  this  should  not  prevent  the 
need  for  Member  States  to  streamline  the  file  only  once  by  regulation,  as  issuers 
represent only a fraction of entities in the scope of the ESAP. This may imply costs for 
national  collection  points  (e.g.  to  develop  mutual  alert  systems  to  inform  that  some 
relevant  information  has  been  filed  and  is  available  in  the  ESAP)  compared  to  the 
baseline. These costs would vary greatly depending on the Member State and the way in 
which  the  principle  is  implemented  by  each  Member  State  and  hence  cannot  be 
reasonably  estimated.  However,  these  costs  would  be  minimal  for  2/3  of  the  Member 
States, as de facto, NCAs (in the capital markets, banking and insurance sectors) and the 
OAM are a unique body in 8 Member States (CZ, DK, EE, HU, LV, PL, SK, SE), and as 
in 11 Member States, the NCAs and/or OAM boil down to 2 bodies (AT, BE, BU, DE, 
HR,  FI,  LT,  LU,  MT,  NL,  RO),  even  though  perhaps  somehow  more  difficult  in  4 
Member  States  where  the  OAM  is  a  private  body  (FI,  LT,  LU,  and  MT).    It  would 
probably be more difficult to achieve a file only once principle in 8 Member States (i.e. a 
bit less than 1/3 of the Member States) where NCAs and OAM involve 3 or more bodies 
(CY,  FR,  EL,  IE,  IT,  PT,  SI,  ES),  and  especially  in  CY,  EL,  IE,  IT  and  SI  where  the 
OAM is a private body. 

174 

 
In  the  file  only  once  approach  proposed,  preparers  would  continue  to  interact  with  the 
same collection points as today. Preparers (or their service provider as the case may be) 
would experience fewer filings leading to a slight decrease in compliance costs / burden 
especially  in  the  8  Member  States  where  there  are  more  than  2  collection  points.  The 
approach would avoid multiple filings as regards an estimated 10 reporting obligations in 
connection  with  the  Transparency  directive,  Prospectus  Regulation  and  Market  Abuse 
Regulation. 

A  file  only  once  approach  is  coherent  with  the  objectives  otherwise  pursued  by  the 
Commission and the Union (Tallin declaration for instance244). 

Implementing a file only once principle is therefore the preferred approach. 

Considering cumulative impacts, a file only once would allow reduced compliance costs 
on  a  small  scale  mainly  for  issuers,  on  a  few  information,  with  potentially  a  small 
reduction  in  the  price  of  service  providers  and  it  will  bear  effects  mainly  in  about  8 
Member States where there is more than one or two collection points (CY, FR, EL, IE, 
IT, PT, SI, ES).  Additional costs could be incurred by collection points in these Member 
States to implement the file only once such as for providing the information collected to 
other  collection  points,  however  limited  by  the  specific  overlap  of  existing  filing 
obligations, by the fact that the information filed only once will be made available to all 
in  a  timely  manner  to  all  via  the  ESAP,  alleviating  the  need  to  implement  specific 
transmission  channels.  It  should  however  be  recognised  that  the  right  to  file  only  once 
might  be  waived  where  the  submission  to  multiple  regulators  is  necessary  to  perform 
regulatory tasks prescribed by the law. 

8.  Grand fathering  

The ESAP will federate databases that are already in place, and contain data collected in 
the  past.  A  question  is,  therefore,  whether  the  ESAP  should  integrate  this  data  in  a 
retroactive  process,  thus  giving  access  right  from  the  start  to  a  significant  volume  of 
documents. Two options are identified: 

8.1. Option 1 – retrospective approach 

In this option, past documents are made available in the ESAP. In respect of how far past 
in  time,  the  period  should  not  exceed  the  retention  period  decided  by  the  Union  (this 
impact assessment suggests 10 years).  

8.2. Option 2 – prospective approach – with an obligation for OAMs to maintain 

access to documents in repository over the next 10 years 

With  this  options,  no  past  document  is  made  available  in  the  ESAP.  Only  newly  filed 
documents from the date of implementation of the ESAP are available 

8.3. Impact and comparison of the policy options 

A retrospective approach would be the most effective in ensuring access to a vast array of 
documents to users, right from the start of the ESAP. However it could offer the expected 
ESAP functionalities only if such documents undergo certain operations such as adding 

244  Ministerial  Declaration  on  eGovernment  -  the  Tallinn  Declaration  –  where  all  the  European  Union 
Member States and EFTA countries signed the 'eGovernement Declaration' on 6 October 2017.  

175 

 
                                                 
metadata,  introducing  e-stamps,  possibly  changing  the  format  of  documents,  etc.  This 
approach  would  entail  significant  administrative  compliance  costs  for  entities  and 
registers  in  re-processing  past  data.  Benefits  would  be  undeniable  (for  instance  to 
conduct  comparative  analysis)  but  not  necessarily  commensurate  to  those  benefits  as 
information  loses  relevance  over  time.  Besides,  there  are  also  good  chances  that  those 
who needed the information already have it and need not access again to it via the ESAP.  

By contrast, option 2 would offer much fewer information from the start of ESAP, until 
normal is reached, and it would take 10 years to replenish the repository archives in the 
ESAP. This option would however avoid the burden of retrospective filing of all sorts of 
documents, especially  by  entities. But  in  compensation, there  could  be a mechanism to 
ensure that documents filed in national OAMs continue to be available as mandated by 
the EU law. Entities do not have such obligation in general as regards their website, and 
such obligation cannot be imposed on them via the ESAP. 

A prospective implementation of the ESAP (Option 2) is the preferred option. 

9.  Retention period 

The approach retained in the Transparency Directive (Art. 4) is a retention period of 10 
years. It does not seem possible to retain a shorter period for the ESAP, yet there were no 
arguments  during  consultation  from  users  to  support  a  longer  period.  The  ESAP  could 
therefore similarly ensure that information remains publicly available for at least 10 years 
from  the  date  upon  which  it  was  made  available  to  the  public.  The  ESAP  would 
nevertheless  comply  with  legal  obligations  where  a  legal  act  would  provide  for  a  short 
period, or foresee the withdrawal of certain information after a given period of time. 

176 

 
 
 
Table 8 - Overview of the policy options/preferred approach for the ancillary/technical/non-core aspects  

Integrity of 
information 
and 
credibility 
of the 
source 

Option 1 
eID at 
collection 
point 

Option 2 
Certification 
by the ESAP 

Option 3 
Electronic 
seal at the 
source 

ESAP 
functionalities 

Timeliness of 
accessibility of 
information via 
ESAP  

Option 1 
Basic 
specifications 
infrastructure 
oriented 

Option 2 
Basic 
specifications 
infrastructure 
and user 
oriented  

Option 3 
Extensive set 
of 
specifications 
infrastructure 
and user 
oriented  

Option 1 
Info is made 
available by the 
national/EU 
collection points 
to the ESAP within 
a fixed deadline  

Option 2 
Info is made 
available by the 
national/EU 
collection point to 
the ESAP within a 
predetermined 
timeframe  

Option 3 
Info is made 
available by the 
national/EU 
collection point to 
the ESAP 
immediately  

Data 
quality 

Addressing 
language 
barriers 

Removal of 
barriers to 
access 

File only 
once  

Grand 
fathering  

Retention 
period 

Option 1 
The governing 
body addresses 
barriers 
(principles 
based 
approach) 

Option 2 
Legislative 
measures 
(rules based 
approach) 

Avenue 1 
Harmonised 
validation 
checks at 
entry point 
(collection 
point) 

Avenue 2 
Validation 
checks at 
the ESAP 
entry point  

Option 1 
Interface 
enabling a 
search 
function in 
all EU 
official 
languages 

Option 2 
Option 1 + 
Provide for 
e-
translation 
services (at 
least for 
metadata) 

Entities have 
right to file 
an 
information 
only once. 
Applies to all 
(and solely) 
the national 
collection 
points 
involved in 
the ESAP, 
i.e.: NCAs 
(capital 
markets, 
banks, 
insurance) 
and OAMs. 

Option 1 
Retrospective 
approach – 
past 
documents 
must be 
refilled in the 
ESAP 

Info will 
remain 
available 10 
years from 
the date 
upon which 
it was made 
available to 
the public 

Option 2 
Prospective 
approach 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
ANNEX 15: POLICY OPTIONS DISCARDED AT AN EARLY STAGE 

1.  Requiring entities to make accessible on the ESAP the information/documents 
published  on  a  voluntary  basis  or  based  on  national  financial  markets  law 
beyond EU rules 

The information published by EU entities on a voluntary basis or in any case beyond EU 
rules would have to be mandatorily accessible via ESAP.  

This option was discarded at an early stage for the following reasons: 

i)  The  ESAP  is  an  EU  initiative  that  aims  to  provide  seamless  access  to 
financial and non-financial information published by entities according to 
EU financial markets legislation. Requiring the accessibility via the ESAP 
of the information disclosed on a voluntary basis or based on national law 
beyond EU rules would be disproportionate and fall outside the scope of 
this initiative; 

ii)  Requiring  entities  to  make  available  via  ESAP  the  information  they 
disclose  on  a  voluntary  basis  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  - 
under  EU  law  -  such  information  does  not  have  to  be  mandatorily 
published in the first place; 

iii) The  majority  of  stakeholders  are  in  favour  of  allowing  (and  not 
necessarily  requiring)  entities  to  choose  whether  to  have  accessible  via 
ESAP their voluntary information disclosed on a voluntary basis or based 
on the relevant national law245. 

2.  Accepting on the ESAP the voluntary information of third-country entities that 

are not in the scope of the EU financial markets law  

Some stakeholders took the view that the ESAP should enable any third country private 
entity wishing to do so to make information, such as ESG information, available on the 
ESAP – for purposes of investing abroad in these entities or using their services. 

In  this  regard,  an  option  would  be  that  third  country  entities  that  are  not  required  to 
disclose their financial/sustainability-related information under EU law would be allowed 
to make such information accessible via the ESAP.  

This option was discarded at an early stage for the following reason: one of the aims of 
the ESAP is to provide seamless access to financial and sustainability-related information 
that  is  of  relevance  for  the  EU  financial  markets  (in  accordance  with  EU  strategies). 
Allowing third country entities that are not listed on the EU regulated markets to publish 
their information on the ESAP would bring in the scope information that is not relevant, 
possibly  abiding  to  different  standards,  necessitate  increased  vigilance  and  controls, 
hence  would  generate  unjustified  costs  for  the  designated  collection  points  for  no 
tangible result in the frame of the strategies pursued by the EU.  

245  Around  49%  of  the  national/EU  authorities  participating  to  our  workshops  are  in  favour  of  allowing 
voluntary disclosure on the ESAP, as well as around 87% of the participating preparers, and around 96% of 
the participating users.   

178 

 
 
  
                                                 
This could be examined once a viable single access point is built, for instance at the time 
of the evaluation of the ESAP legislation.  

3.  Requiring  the  entities  to  upload  all  the  information  directly  on  the  ESAP 

(single EU point of collection for data) 

Entities  would  have  to  upload  all  the  information  directly  through  the  ESAP  implying 
that national collection points would no longer be needed. 

This option was discarded at an early stage for the following reasons: 

i)  Establishing  a  direct  channel  for  upload  would  see  the  activity  of  the 
existing  collection  points  extensively  impacted  and  their  business 
considerably  reduced.  Moreover,  this  option  was  supported  only  by  a 
minority of stakeholders246; 

ii)  Establishing  an  EU  single  collection  point  would  not  necessarily  replace 
the national collection points (such as OAMs and NCAs) due to regulatory 
and  other  considerations,  but  it  could  de  facto  at  least  partly  duplicate 
these; 

iii) Where  existing  national  collection  points  would  not  be  replaced  but 
supplemented by an EU collection point, then filing compliance costs for 
entities  (which  are  estimated  in  any  case  to  be  modest)  would  not  be 
reduced.  A  European  collection  point  would  represent  just  another  filing 
point  for  entities.  Administrative  compliance  costs  would  therefore 
increase (modestly) due to additional activities required such as login and 
password management, duplication of payment means, etc. 

iv)  Filing  activities  may  imply  the  need  to  speak  or  read  in  a  language  in 
which  persons  are  proficient.  Natural  persons  in  a  given  Member  State 
may  encounter  problems  necessitating  to  have  live  personal  assistance 
(help desk), or be able to change data to correct errors, etc. A remote EU 
system would most likely not be as efficient as a national service for that 
matter  and  at  least  present  challenges  about  the  ability  to  provide  such 
services  in  any  given  official  language  at  Union  level  for  a  reasonable 
cost; 

v)  The  closure  or  reduction  of  national  collection  points  may  thus  not 
compensate  for  additional  costs  implied  by  a  new  EU  infrastructure. 
Hence,  unless  such  infrastructure  is  financed  by  EU  funds,  company 
contribution (such as upload fees) may increase; 

vi)  The  CMU  Action  Plan  invites  to  build to  the  greatest  extent  possible  on 
existing EU and national IT infrastructure (databases, registers) in order to 
avoid adding to entities' reporting burden. 

4.  ESAP to be governed by the Joint Committee of the ESAs or a public-private 

partnership 

Governance by the Joint Committee of the ESAs is  discarded for  a number of reasons. 
The Joint Committee is a forum with the objective of strengthening cooperation between 
the  European  Banking  Authority  (EBA),  the  European  Insurance  and  Occupational 

246 Only 28.6% of the preparers participating to our workshop was in favour of submitting information to 
ESAP via one single EU entry point.  

179 

 
 
                                                 
Pensions  Authority  (EIOPA)  and  the  European  Securities  and  Markets  Authority 
(ESMA).  Through  the  Joint  Committee,  the  three  ESAs  coordinate  their  supervisory 
activities in the scope of their respective responsibilities regularly and closely and ensure 
consistency in their practices. The main reason for discarding the Joint Committee as a 
governance body is that it has no legal personality and therefore cannot levy funds or fees 
and cannot own the project. 

There was significant support during consultation for public-private partnership (PPP) to 
govern  the  ESAP.  This  option  has  however  been  discarded  on  legal  grounds.  PPPs  are 
governed by Article 187 TFEU, typically involving the EU, industrial association(s) and 
other  partners  to  draw  up  joint  research  programmes  which  the  EU  may  participate  in. 
These  partnerships  are  managed  by  legal  entities  called  joint  undertakings  which  are 
responsible  for  implementing  the  research  agenda  in  the  area  they  cover.  They  support 
co-operative research across Europe in  fields of  key  importance for industrial research, 
where  there  are  clearly  identified  common  technological  and  economic  objectives.  The 
EU  law  on  ESAP  would  remain  neutral  on  technological  choices  to  be  made  by  the 
governing body and thus not warranty that the ESAP would quality for Union research, 
technological development and demonstration programmes. 

180 

 
 
ANNEX 16: PHASED APPROACH FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF PREFERRED 
AGGREGATED OPTION  

The implementation of the ESAP would run via the following phases, which reflect the 
differences between policy options for each key and non-key dimension (Each phase of 
the implementation listed below may involve different implementing stages/sub-phases).  

PHASING IN FOR EU REQUIREMENTS (tentative) 

Initiation date 

Description (tentative) 

Phase 1  Date  of  entry  into 
application of ESAP: 
Year X  

end  of 

Indicative 
phase:  
Year X+2 

Phase 2  Start: Year X+2  

Indicative 
phase Year X+3 

end  of 

  Scope: High priority on existing information claimed by 
users:  prospectus 
(prospectus  Regulation),  annual 
financial  reports  of  issuers  including  management 
reports  and  sustainability  related  information  (TD), 
sustainable  finance  related  information  (SFDR).  No 
voluntary information accepted (see Option 1 of Scope); 
  Format: All  formats  are accepted + common minimum 
set of metadata for all information in the scope; Existing 
machine  readable  information  (ESEF,  XML)  available 
on ESAP. 

  Interconnections:  the  OAMs  already  deal  with  this 
information and are interconnected at this early stage of 
the project. 

  Commission  decisions  (level  2  measures):  certain 
metadata  (common  legal  entity  identifier  and  where 
appropriate corresponding taxonomies), licensing terms, 
common standards on APIs. 

(users’  priority 

  Scope:  In  a  gradual  approach  –  based  on  the  targeted 
consultation 
results)  –  existing 
information  from  issuers  of  securities  not  covered  in 
phase  1:  inside  information  (market  abuse),  annual 
remuneration 
information 
(shareholders’ rights / takeover bids). 

reports 

other 

and 

  Format: Commission empowerment starts to be used to 
implement,  on  a  case  by  case  basis,  machine  readable 
formats  on  certain  information  (including  tentatively: 
and  based  on  users’  priorities:  half  yearly  annual 
financial reports, audit reports, full management report, 
individual financial statements of issuers, notification of 
shareholders’ 
first 
rights 
paragraph of  Option 2 of Format) 

(as  described 

the 

in 

  Interconnections:  All  OAMs,  ESMA’s  databases  and 

NCAs are interconnected. 

  Commission  decisions  (level  2  measures):  certain 
additional metadata (in relation to phasing in on scope), 
characteristics  of  the  qualified  electronic  seal,  certain 
machine readable formats. 

Phase 3  Start: Year X+4 

Indicative 

end  of 

  Scope:  ESAP  provides  access  to  all  entity,  product  or 
other information that has to be published by any entity 
under the EU financial markets legislation (see annex 9) 
and  similar  information  published  by  EU/third  country 

 
 
 
 
 
 
phase Year X+7 

entities in the scope of the EU financial markets law on 
a voluntary basis or in any case beyond the specific EU 
requirements.  Other  voluntary  information  (SMEs) 
taken on board. 

  Format: The scope  of information  in  machine readable 
formats  continues  to  expand  based  on  successive  and 
targeted  Commission  decisions.  Formats  that  are  “non 
data  extractable”  are  no  longer  accepted  (based  on 
automated validation checks at the collection points).  
  Interconnections:  All  OAMs,  ESAs  and  NCA's  are 
interconnected.  Other  sources  of  information  possibly 
interconnected (on a voluntary basis). 

  Commission  decisions  (level  2  measures):  common 
standards  on  automated  validation  by  the  collection 
points,  certain  additional  metadata  (in  relation  to 
phasing 
scope,  and  where  appropriate 
corresponding  taxonomies),  the  timeframe  for  making 
information  available  from  filing,  conditions  applying 
to voluntary information, and machine readable formats 
for certain information. 

in  on 

An indicative implementation roadmap proposal  

PHASE 1 

1. 

 Internal POC  

The internal POC (Proof of Concept) is a test for the design of the system. The main purpose of 
developing a POC is to demonstrate the functionality and to verify a certain concept or theory that 
can be achieved in development. The POC can be carried out in less than six months.  
Data  
The data to be included in the POC phase should be chosen as something that is easy to implement 
and dependent on the data providers selected to be part of the POC. It would also be practical to 
choose the data scope for the POC from the scope of the first actual implementation phase. Good 
candidates for data to be used in the POC are data reported under:  
• 
The Transparency Directive 
• 
The Accounting Directive 
Technical functionalities and capabilities  
Only the most fundamental features of the system should be developed for the purpose of the 
POC. These are recognized as (Component: Feature):  
• 
• 
• 
for report types etc.) and  
• 

API: Definition, implementation,  
Data storage: Data archiving,  
Metadata: Essentials (entity details, report type, submission details, standard classification 

Web UI for data users: Download report  

2. 

 Minimum viable product  

The Minimum viable product (MVP) is the first production version of ESAP and it is aimed to be the 
simplest possible implementation of the system, while fulfilling the requirements that are 
considered to be the most important for the system to function.  
Data  
The data to be included in ESAP in the first production phase should follow the indication of the 
users’ needs with consideration as to what is feasible in terms of the data providers, especially the 

 
 
 
 
data currently already available at the OAMs or ESMAs data repositories reported under the 
Transparency Directive and the Accounting Directive (Corporate sustainability reports) should be 
prioritized.  
Technical functionalities and capabilities  
The MVP is to be considered the simplest version of the system fulfilling its main functional needs. 
These are recognized to be (additionally to those developed already in the earlier phase):  
• 

API:  

• 

• 
• 

  Data submission process  
  Data access  

Data storage:  

  Support for various data formats  
  Cloud implementation  

Data validation implementation  
Metadata:  
  Audit applied  
  Taxonomy / scheme used  
 
  Check sum  
  Choose/define framework  

Identifiers for data preparer and source registry  

• 

Core features of the web user interface for data users:  

  Search functionality 
  Report displaying functionality 
  Search results filtering 
  Language switch, metadata definitions 

The ESAP Infrastructure related deployment building of data pipelines and developing security 
measures are considered to be an on-going activity.   

PHASES 2 AND 3 

3.  Phasing  

After the first production version the system shall be developed in sprints. In this implementation 
plan a span of four following years of development are covered to line up the realization of the 
entire data scope and recognized functionalities for ESAP. The phases are rolling in one-year plans 
forward starting from year T (the year that MPV is released) e.g., T+1 means by the end of 2025 
(estimation). For technical functionalities, the initially recognised ones are scheduled to be 
developed by the end of phase T+4 but most likely there is some level of new feature related 
development every year.  
Data  
Further prioritization is suggested for the following years to include data in ESAP (T marks the point 
of MVP release and the “+” marking following years from that point onwards). In terms of machine 
readability, the prioritisation should be similar but not to the same extend, as it may be types of 
information that can be provided in data extractable formats and thus there is no need for further 
structuring (for example textual only information) 

Information on sustainability risks and impacts disclosed pursuant to the Regulation (EU) 

T+1, disclosures under regulation:  
• 
2019/2088 on sustainability-related disclosures  
• 
sustainability-related disclosures for benchmarks (EU 2019/2089)  

The Regulation on EU Climate Transition Benchmarks, EU Paris-aligned Benchmarks and 

T+2, disclosures under regulation:  
• 
• 

The Prospectus Regulation (2017/1129/EU)  
The Shareholders Rights Directive (2007/36/EC) and (2017/828/EU)  

T+3, disclosures under regulation:  

 
 
 
 
 
The Take-Over Bid Directive (2004/25/EC)  
The Market Abuse Regulation (596/2014/EU)  
The Audit Directive (2014/56/EU)  
The Audit Regulation (537/2014/EU)  

• 
• 
• 
• 
The rest of the L1 reporting obligations would be included in the phase T+4. It should be noted that 
many of the above-mentioned reporting obligations also contain data that is currently only 
published at the entity website and thus the collection should be first regulated.  
Technical functionalities and capabilities  
The following components and features are recommended to be included in the further phases of 
ESAP implementation:  
T+1  
• 
• 

Feedback functionality  
Taxonomy viewer / AI translator  

Notification system: Send notifications of new filings to data users (follow-up email list)  
Web UI for data users 
 
 
Metadata:  
 
 
 
Data storage:  
 
 
API: Data access further development  

Definitions publicly available  
Metadata extensions for instruments  
Creation, updated fields; versioning support for disclosures  

Versioning  
Files validation, storage and reception  

Submit data to ESAP  

Connectivity to other databases: Fetch data from other sources  
Web UI for data users  
 
Bulk download  
Web UI for data preparers  
 
Metadata  
 
 
 
Notification system, Metadata  
 
details to be included in metadata)  
Connectivity to ownership databases: Fetch & display details of ownership and beneficiary 

Various identifiers  
Voluntary filing  
Include details on data quality or assurance mechanism applied  

Send feedback messages provided by ESAP to data preparers (entity contact 

• 

• 

• 

T+2  
• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
structure  

T+3:  
• 
• 

Data validation: Implement additional non-technical data validation  
Metadata  
 
 
 
 
 
 

Errors  
Validation mechanisms applied  
Web UI for data users  
Bulk download based on multi criteria search result  
Display new metadata to be included (validation mechanisms applied, errors) 
Data comparison 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 17: INFRASTRUCTURE AND COSTS 

The  infrastructure  should  enable  the  functionalities  and  specifications  laid  down  by 
legislation  for  the  ESAP,  and  ensure  the  technical  interoperability247  of  the  system.  It 
should  ensure  smooth  and  high  quality  of  service,  security  of  storage  and 
communication, reliable access, etc. The technical design of the infrastructure will be a 
prerogative  of  the  governing  body  of  the  ESAP,  and  therefore  this  Annex  provides  a 
couple  of  suggested  realistic  avenues,  which  are  retained  as  a  basis  for  the  costs 
assumptions. 

A – Infrastructure recommended by BR-AG 

In  the  process  of  developing  the  ESAP,  a  number  of  infrastructure  designs  where 
examined. An indicative model (potential design) was identified as the one offering the 
best potential having regards to the main elements of the infrastructure: 

1. Data distribution model, 

2. Synchronization protocol, 

3. User interfaces, 

4. Source code sharing, 

5. Use of existing solutions, 

6. Authorization of entities reporting directly to ESAP, 

7. Deployment of the system. 

Visual presentation 

An indicative infrastructure model is as follows: 

247  Technical  interoperability”  covers  the  applications  and  infrastructures  linking  systems  and  services, 
including aspects such as interface specifications, interconnection services, data presentation and exchange, 
and secure communication protocols. 

185 

 
 
 
                                                 
Data distribution 

Regarding data distribution, ‘Duplicated’ model was recognized to be the most suitable 
where the data is kept in the original data repository (e.g., an OAM) and a copy of it is 
shared to ESAP. Although recognized as quite beneficial, the ‘Centralized’ model where 
ESAP would replace all the exiting data collecting mechanisms, is thus not recommended 
at this stage as it would require vast changes on the regulative side. To cater future use 
cases  for  ESAP,  it  would  be  beneficial  to  implement  the  system  as  at  least  enabling  a 
hybrid solution the ‘Duplicated’ and the ‘Metadata repository’ models where there could 
be data included also as a set of metadata and the actual reports to be discoverable only 
via a link to the original repository. 

In  the  duplicated  model  ESAP  shall  contain  metadata  and  a  copy  of  the  reported  data 
existing in the repositories that are in its scope, resulting in broad availability of data. In 
this approach it is not necessary to introduce any changes to the existing data collection 
processes on any level. However, changes in the publication process might be required to 
ensure  that  data  is  discoverable  at  the  same  point  in  time  in  ESAP  as  in  the  original 
repositories.  To  prevent  data  asymmetry,  regulation  should  foresee  that  ESAP  always 
contains the latest information available in the original repository. 

A hybrid of the ‘Duplicated’ and the ‘Metadata repository’ models could be envisaged, 
where  the  data  repository  for  actual  reports  would  be  implemented  as  an  optional  one, 
while  also  enabling  for  some  of  the  data  to  include  the  metadata  and  the  reports  to  be 
discoverable only via the link to the original repository. 

In  the  metadata  repository  model  ESAP  shall  contain  only  a  set  of  metadata  about  the 
reporting  entity  and  the  report  itself.  The  reported  data  remains  only  in  the  existing 
repositories, while ESAP contains a direct link to the document. In this approach it is not 
necessary  to  introduce  any  changes  to  the  existing  data  collection  processes.  Putting  in 
place a hybrid model would give an option to data repositories what would be their mode 
of data distribution with ESAP. 

Data synchronization 

Based on the assessment, high-level APIs seem to be a more flexible solution, with data 
push  model  chosen  as  the  recommended  option.  In  ‘data  push’,  the  components 
participating in synchronization are limited to ESAP exposing API for data push requests 
and to  source systems  pushing the collected data into ESAP.  The sequence of action is 
that first data registries receive data and then push it to ESAP. 

The  strength  of  this  solution  is  that  ESAP  is  not  dependent  on  changes  made  in  data 
source systems. This model implies more work for data sources, but in return it provides 
for a low coupling of ESAP with source systems. Data push, as a high-level API, is more 
in  line  with  the  current  data  submission/dissemination  mechanisms  that  require  less 
specific  technology  skills.  Since  the  speed  of  data  synchronization  is  instrumental,  the 
push mechanism provides a relatively quick solution. 

The data push model has a high level of availability of interfaces allowing to upload. For 
flexibility and independence of the solutions data push is a better option, because it hides 
technological  complexity  and  architecture,  so  that  when  amount  or  complexity  of  data 
require  changes  on  the  physical  level  of  data  storage,  only  ESAP  will  be  able  to  make 
them  (without  major  impact  on  the  APIs  that  are  used  for  integration).  The  data  push 
model  implies  that  data  sources  only  push  data  through  ESAP  API.  The  data  sources 

186 

 
store  data  locally  in  parallel  to  ESAP,  enabling  checks  for  immutability  for  instance. 
Hence, the data push model is in line with the file only once principle. As to the security 
of  data  exchange,  data  push  can  be  implemented  assuring  secure  data  exchange  with 
encryption  of  data  being  transmitted.  When  it  comes  to  preservation  of  information, 
stability for data push will need to be managed on the level of the system design. 

Open -source development and building on existing  

Next,  in  terms  of  the  sharing  of  code  the  biggest  value  would  be  to  build  and  share 
libraries that can be used for consumption of the data published by ESAP. Open-source 
components imply open specifications/standards and wide availability of interfaces. They 
provide high usability of data and solutions, broad accessibility for all stakeholders and 
citizens, and better interconnectedness than closed source. The costs of development and 
maintenance  (infrastructure,  licenses,  human  resources)  of  open-source  solutions  are 
lower than for closed-sources. 

Use case: CKAN 

Regarding  the  use  of  existing  open-source  solutions,  CKAN  (the  Comprehensive 
Knowledge Archive Network) which is an open-source DMS (data management system) 
for  powering  data  hubs  and  data  portals  widely  used  in  e.g.,  open  data  government 
portals throughout the World. Building the solution on top of CKAN is the recommended 
option  because  it  brings  openness,  transparency,  and  reusability.  CKAN  comes  with 
existing structure and architecture for data storage and publication with exposed API and 
a user interface that can be customized. Many open data platforms were developed with 
CKAN, including the European Open Data Portal. 

ESAP implementation should start with a PoC, proving that CKAN can be used with as 
many  data  sets  as  planned  in  the  ESAP  scope.  The  technology  stack  of  CKAN  is 
scalable, but what could potentially have influence on ESAP is when CKAN poses any 
limitations resulting from design and implementation. CKAN fits well with the existing 
data  dissemination  mechanisms  because  its  interface  is  already  well-known,  many 
European open data portals are built around it. Also, for data submission CKAN aligns 
with the proposed data push option. In terms of openness, CKAN supports multiple open 
data  formats,  like  csv,  xls,  rdf  and  others,  but  it  lacks  support  for  XBRL,  which  is 
important in ESAP. Hence, it will require implementation of support for XBRL. As it is 
an open source, ESAP would benefit from experience of many implementations of open 
data  portals.  Existing  interfaces  of  CKAN  are  proven  to  make  data  available  and 
understandable. In cases where CKAN is not fit for purpose, the changes needed will be 
on the level of the front end.  

Deployment 

Cloud deployment of the ESAP system is recognized as the recommended option. Use of 
cloud  technologies  has  become  an  industry  standard,  as  it  gives  scalability,  minimizes 
maintenance  work,  meets  even  strict  security  requirements,  and  enhances  data 
accessibility.  One  recommendation  in  this  respect  is  to  avoid  being  locked  to  a  given 
cloud provider. Certain platform-as-a-service products are specific only to providers and 
migration to other vendors may become restricted, e.g., by a choice of a specific database 
technology.  On  the  other  hand,  longer  term  use  of  a  particular  cloud  provider  can 
significantly reduce costs of infrastructure and platform products, and if sufficient design 
strategy is implemented, development with specific cloud products could be significantly 
quicker. The impact of migration can be minimized with proper separation of services in 

187 

 
ESAP,  at  least  medium-term  planning  of  development  and  deployment  decisions  and 
with service development not dependent on database technology. 

A  phasing-based  implementation  plan  is  recommended,  where  the  phasing  would  be 
applied to technical development, the data to be included in the system together with its 
transition to machine readable data. 

The  implementation  plan  is  divided  into  three  main  stages:  Internal  POC  (phase  ‘T’), 
Minimum  viable  product  (MVP)  (end  of  phase  ‘T+1’  and  further  phasing.  The  POC  is 
suggested to be completed by the end of 2022, whereas the first production version, the 
MVP, a year after that by end of 2023. Given the uncertainty as to when the POC could 
start  (depending  on  legislative  process  and  availability  of  funds),  periods  T  and  T1  are 
bundled  and  considered  to  be  achieved  in  one  year.  Further  phasing  for  the  rest  of  the 
technical  features  and full data scope to  be included was laid out  until  the end of 2027 
corresponding overall to a 5 years period in the best case scenario, which is retained for 
this impact assessment. 

Indicative costs 

The  indicative  costs  associated  with  the  above  described  model  of  infrastructure  that 
could be seen as an implementing roadmap for the preferred options are presented in the 
following table. The 5 phases of this model are indicative and aim to present a project to 
be implemented in 4 to 5 years after the Proof of Concept (maximum 1 year per phase): 

ESAP infrastructure expenditure plan (numbers in EUR)  
Proof of Concept + 5 implementing phases 
Phase 1 

Phase 2 

Phase 3 

Phase 4 

PoC 

Phase 5 

TOTAL 

Work on functionalities 
and capabilities 
development 
Licence fees 

System maintenance 
Cloud compute 
infrastructure 
Cloud storage costs 
Cloud network + 
operations 
Total per Phase 

275  000 

2 987 500 

1 125 000 

662 500 

1 125 000 

- 

6 175 000 

30 000 

750 000  

 150 000  

150 000  

150 000  

150 000  

1 380 000  

   -  

68 750  

815 625  

1 096 875  

1 262 500  

 1 543 750  

4 787 500  

10 000 

35 000 

50 000 

80 000 

125 000 

175 000 

475 000  

- 

- 

173 

520 

1 917 

5 230 

4 270 

7 061 

6 936 

7 997 

12 497 

16 680 

25 973  

37 488 

315 000 

3 841 943 

2 147 771 

2 000 707 

2 677 432 

1 897 926 

12 880 781 

Cost for data providers (OAMs, ESAs, other connecting data 
repositories) 

API implementation 

Metadata implementation 

Total 

25 000 

25 000 

50 000 

These costs are to implement the basic APIs and 
metadata that could be ideally common (re-usable) 
for all points of interconnection (OAMs-NCAs). 
Minor modification could be needed at the 
collection points 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 18: LEGAL ENTITY IDENTIFIER 

The  ESAP  would  require  a  common  legal  entity  identifier  (lei)  as  one  of  the  key 
metadata  inherent  to  documents  filed  in  the  ESAP.  The  intervention’s  approach  is  to 
grant powers to the Commission to decide which “lei” should be relied upon. 

Various standards and solutions exist for an lei, such as the eALEI248, the EUID249, VAT 
number250, the LEI of the Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF). 

In this initiative, it is proposed to retain an lei as a mandatory metadata for all filers of 
information, recognising that the same type of lei is necessary metadata to enable a truly 
comparable  and  searchable  functions.  However,  no  decision  on  which  lei  would  be 
chosen  at  this  stage  needs  to  be  made  at  this  stage,  all  the  more  that  the  ESAP  should 
permit an evolutionary position in this matter depending on how standardisation evolves 
in that domain. It is therefore envisaged to empower the Commission to decide at a later 
stage whether a single lei is required for the ESAP, and if so which one.  Among these, 
the  LEI  of  the  GLEIF  appears  as  a  promising  approach  (see  analysis  below).  For  this 
reason, and in order to offer a realistic vision of the costs of this initiative, the LEI of the 
GLEIF  is  retained  tentatively  and  anticipatively  in  the  cost  calculations  (Annex  3, 
impacts). This should in no way pre-empt future Commission decisions in this domain. 

Analysis of the LEI of the GLEIF 

The  GLEIF  enables  a  global  adoption  of  this  LEI,  an  objective  underpinned  by  the 
Financial Stability Board together with the finance ministers and central bank governors 
represented  in  the  G20.  The  GLEIF  was  founded  in  2014  under  the  aegis  of  the 
Regulatory  Oversight  Committee  (ROC),  a  group  of  more  than  65  financial  markets 
regulators  and  other  public  authorities  and  19  observers  from  more  than  50  countries. 
The  European  Commission,  the  ESAs,  the  ECB  as  well  as  a  number  of  European 
authorities  are  members  of  the  ROC.  In  its  role  as  overseer  of  the  Global  Legal  Entity 
Identifier  Foundation  (GLEIF),  the  ROC  ensures  that  GLEIF  upholds  the  principles  of 
the  Global  LEI  System.  The  European  Systemic  Risk  Board’s  (ESRB)251  recommends 
using the LEI for all legal entities in the EU.  

The  Legal  Entity  Identifier  (LEI)  of  the  GLEIF  is  a  20-character,  alpha-numeric,  ISO 
compliant code252. Besides, LEIs are linked to the International Securities Identification 
Numbers (ISINs) on a daily basis253. 

The LEI of the GLEIF is already referenced in the following EU Regulations and/or their 
regulatory technical standards for ensuring unique identification of issuers, counterparties 
or relevant entities: 

248 ealei.org. 
249 Member States shall ensure that companies have a European unique identifier (‘EUID’) as per Company 
Law Directive (EU) 2017/1132, generally issued by business registers. 
250  VAT  identification  number  is  the  unique  number  that  identifies  a  taxable  person  (business)  or  non-
taxable  legal  entity  that  is  registered  for  VAT.  Only  tax  administrations  have  the  right  to  issue  a  VAT 
number. Most businesses (and other persons carrying out an economic activity) need a VAT number as per 
Article 214 VAT Directive 2006/112/EC. 
251 Recommendation of 24 September 2020 on identifying legal entities (ESRB/2020/12). 
252 International Organization for Standardization. 
253 ISIN-to-LEI relationship files, which are publicly available on the GLEIF website. 

189 

 
                                                 
  European  Markets  Infrastructure  Regulation  (EMIR)  –  counterparties  to  derivatives 

contracts as well as beneficiaries, brokers, CCPs and clearing members; 

  Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) – issuers of financial instruments; entities involved 

or reporting in suspicious transactions;  

  Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) – credit and financial institutions; 
  Alternative Investment Funds Directive (AIFMD) – funds and fund managers; 
  Credit  Rating  Agencies  Regulation  (CRAR)  –  credit  rating  agencies  and  rated 

entities; 

  Solvency II – pension funds and insurance companies; 
  Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR) – CSDs, CSDs’ participants; 
  Transparency  Directive  (TD)  /  Prospectus  Regulation  (PR)  –  issuers  of  securities 

listed on Regulated Markets; 

  Securities Financing Transactions Regulation (SFTR) – parties involved in securities 
financing transactions and the beneficiaries of the rights and obligations arising from 
these 

  Markets  in  Financial  Instruments  Directive  II  (MiFID  II)/Markets  in  Financial 
Instruments  Regulation  (MiFIR)  –  for  investment  firms  that  execute  transactions  in 
financial instruments, the clients (buyer, seller) on whose behalf the investment firm 
executes  transactions,  the  entity  submitting  a  transaction  report  (i.e.  trading  venue, 
ARM, investment firm) and the issuer of any financial instrument listed and/or traded 
on a trading venue. New EU rules (MiFID II/MIFIR) took effect on 3 January 2018. 
According to  MiFIR, investment  firms  should obtain  LEIs  from  their clients  before 
providing  services  which  would  trigger  related  reporting  obligations.  To  further 
streamline  the  issuance  of  LEIs,  GLEIF  has  introduced  the  concept  of  the 
‘Registration Agent’. A Registration Agent helps legal entities to access the network 
of  LEI  issuing  organizations  responsible  for  performing  LEI  issuance  and  related 
services. The Registration Agent may choose to partner with one or more LEI issuing 
organizations to ensure its clients’ needs for LEI services are met. 

  Regulation on Money Market Funds (MMF) – fund 
  Regulation  on  Wholesale  Energy  Market  Integrity  and  Transparency  (REMIT)  – 

market participant or counterparty 

Being an international service, the LEI of the GLEIF enables third country companies in 
the scope of the EU Regulations, if any, to acquire and provide the same identifier as the 
EU companies, and thus be on par. 

The reporting obligations requiring an LEI of the GLEIF represent 78% of the reporting 
obligations  for  which  at  least  62%  of  an  estimated  167 000  entities  in  the  scope  of  the 
ESAP  (considering  preferred  option)  already  have  an  LEI.  A  portion  of  market 
participants (that would mainly post product-related information in the ESAP) as well as 
SMEs/non-listed  entities  may  not  yet  have  an  LEI  of  the  GLEIF,  because  they  are  not 
required  to.  Nevertheless,  in  the  EU,  1 027 200 entities  had  an  LEI254  as  of  May  2021, 
hence  minimising  the  chances  that  markets  participants  may  not  have  an  LEI.  In  any 
event,  requiring  an  LEI  for  any  filer  of  document  would  add  a  requirement  on  certain 

254 LEI Statistics - Global LEI Index - LEI Data – GLEIF. 

190 

 
                                                 
existing EU policies not requiring such LEI, hence driving a maximum of 76 800 entities 
(higher bound) to get an LEI. 

Acquiring an LEI is done as follows: 

  A  company  can  get  an  LEI  from  a  certified  GLEIF  LEI  issuing  organization 
registration Agent. LEI issuers – also referred to as Local Operating Units (there are 
around 10 LOUs in the EU at this stage). 

  The LOU must verify the reference data with the local Registration Authority255 – a 
national  Business  Register, for example  – and issue an  LEI  compliant with  the LEI 
standard. 

Source: GLEIF 

  Fees charged for the issuance and maintenance of an LEI are entirely a matter for the 
LEI  issuing  organizations  and  must  be  cost-based.  A  desktop  survey  in  May  2021 
indicates  prices  in  the  range  of  EUR  45  to  EUR  70  per  year.  This  LEI  would 
represent  total  additional  annual  costs  in  the  range  of  EUR  3.1  to  4.8  million256  at 
Union  level  (higher  bound)  compared  to  baseline.  Prices  are  expected  to  decrease 
over time. 

  Entities  that  have  or  acquire  an  LEI  would  report  their  ‘ultimate  accounting 
consolidating parent’ (based on accounting definition). Information on parents is part, 
where available, of the information provided.  

255 List available on the GLEIF web site. 
256 167 000 entities x (1-0.62) x EUR 50 to 75. 

191 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 19: TERMS OF USE – AN OVERVIEW OF FIVE MAJOR REPRESENTATIVE FINANCIAL CENTRES IN THE EU 

192 

 
 
 
ANNEX 20: PORTABLE DATA / DATA EXTRACTABLE FORMATS / MACHINE 
READABILITY 

Portable Data 

Data  portability  refers  to  the  ability  to  move,  copy  or  transfer  data  easily  from  one 
database, storage or IT environment to another. Portability describes the extent to which 
the data can easily be ported between different computers and operational environments. 

Data portability primarily enables individual end users or enterprises to seamlessly move, 
integrate and interlink data sets within disparate systems. Typically for data portability to 
work, the data must be in a format that is interoperable between several platforms. Open 
and widely used formats would enable data portability by default. 

Data portability concerns are especially common in cloud computing solutions when data 
needs  to  be  transferred  from  an  in-house  facility  to  the  cloud,  from  the  cloud  to  an  in-
house  facility  or  from  the  cloud  to  another  location  in  the  cloud.  If  data  portability  is 
addressed  prior  to  creating  a  cloud  setup  or  any  IT  solution,  data  can  easily  be  ported 
between separate environments and platforms. 

Data Extractable Format 

File  formats  that  allow  data  extraction.  Some  examples  of  formats  that  allow  data 
extraction are PDFs, Texts, Word or Excel documents, webpages-HTML. 

Data  extraction  is  the  process  of  collecting  or  retrieving  disparate  types  of  data  from  a 
variety of sources. These sources can be not only in a structured form but in many cases 
poorly  organized  or  completely  unstructured  and  from  different  formats. Data 
extraction makes  it  possible  to  consolidate, process,  and  refine  data  so  that  it  can  be 
stored in  a centralized location in  order to  be transformed.  These locations may  be on-
site, cloud-based, or a hybrid of the two. 

transform) processes.  ETL/ELT  are 

Data extraction is the first step in both ETL (extract, transform, load) and ELT (extract, 
load, 
themselves  part  of  a  complete data 
integration strategy that is used by  entities and organizations in virtually every industry 
for many purposes. The use of ETL tools automates and simplifies the extraction process. 
Key  technologies  that  are  used  to  enable  data  extraction  from  unstructured  sources  are 
Natural Language Processing, Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence. 

Machine-readable formats 

The  Directive  on  open  data  and  the  re-use  of  public  sector  information257  defines 
machine-readable format as:  

“A file format structured so that software applications can easily identify, recognise and 
extract  specific  data,  including  individual  statements  of  fact,  and  their  internal 
structure.” 

The term ‘machine-readable’, when used with respect to data, means data in a format that 
can  be  easily  processed  by  a  computer  without  human  intervention  while  ensuring  no 
semantic meaning is lost. 

257 Article 2, definition (13) L_2019172EN.01005601.xml (europa.eu). 

 
 
                                                 
Traditional  word  processing  documents,  hypertext  mark-up  language  (HTML)  and 
portable  document  format  (PDF)  files  are  easily  read  by  humans  but  typically  are 
difficult  for  machines  to  interpret.  Other  formats  such  as  extensible  mark-up  language 
(XML), (xHTML), (JSON), or spreadsheets with header columns that can be exported as 
comma separated values (CSV) are machine readable formats. 

Machine  readability  can  have  different  benefits  and  requires  different  effort  from  the 
stakeholders involved depending on the level of standardization that is decided/required.  

The  highest  level  of  machine  readability  requires  higher  effort  to  be  made  by  the 
legislator and the preparers to meet the requirements. On the other side the highest level 
of machine readability brings the maximum benefits for all stakeholders and enables full 
comparability and the lowest cost for data re-use. The lower levels of machine readability 
requires  less  effort  from  preparers  and  legislators  but  the  benefits  for  the  users  are  not 
really significant as information would be in simple formats that may allow a user to read 
only the information. The effort for users to re-use the information or compare it would 
be  very  high,  if  not  impossible.  Only  the  use  of  high-cost  solutions  (software  or 
platforms) could provide with comparability and re-usability in this case. 

The following table presents the relation between the levels of machine readability to be 
achieved and the standardization requirements and how these options affect the benefits 
for stakeholders and the effort that is required from them: 

REQUIREMENTS IN: 

EFFORT FOR: 

BENEFITS 

METADATA 

DATA 
STRUCTURING 

FORMATS 

LEGISLATOR 

PREPARER 

USERS 
(compare) 

CUMULATIVE 

MACHINE 
READABILITY 

High level 

Medium level 

Low level 

Basic 

None 

Only 
Machine 
readable 
Machine 
readable or  
data 
extractable 

Machine 
readable or  
data 
extractable 

Minimum 

None 

Maximum 

Low 

Increasing  from the lower level 

                                                                              Decreasing from the lower level  

194 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 21: BR-AG SUMMARY REPORT 

195 

 
 
1.  THE AIM OF THE REPORT 

The main objective for the EU Single Access Point (ESAP) is to become a worldwide digital access platform 
to  companies’  public  financial  and  non-financial  information,  as  well  as  other  financial  product  or  activity-
relevant public information, which is freely accessible to the public and free of fees or license use258.  

ESAP  addresses  two  key  objectives  of  the  Capital  Markets  Union  Action  Plan  (CMU  Action  Plan):  (i) 
supporting a green, digital, inclusive, and resilient economic recovery by making financing more accessible 
to  European  companies  and  (ii)  integrating  national  capital  markets  into  a  genuine  single  market259.  Its 
establishment  is  mandated  in  Action  1  of  the  CMU  Action  Plan,  which  states  that  the  Commission  will 
propose  to  set  up  an  EU-wide  platform  (European  single  access  point)  that  provides  investors  with 
seamless access to financial and sustainability-related company information. 

This  summary  of  research carried out  by  the  Business  Reporting  –  Advisory  Group  (BR-AG)  to  assist  the 
European Commission on impact assessment of ESAP aims to present recommendations and solutions on 
ESAP that concern:  

 
 
 
 
 
 

data scope and characteristics,  
technical infrastructure,  
usability,  
governance model,  
implementation strategy with implementation roadmap, and  
cost-benefit analysis.  

The  findings  presented  in  this  document  are  based  on  a  collection  of  reports  submitted  by  BR-AG  to  DG 
FISMA  under  the  assignment  “Assistance  to  the  European  Commission  on  impact  assessment  –  The 
European Single Access Point (ESAP) – A way to incentivise availability, standardisation and comparability 
of financial and non-financial information published by companies, including on SMEs”. 

2.  ESAP DATA SCOPE AND DATA CHARACTERISTICS 

2.1.  DATA SCOPE 

A  review  of  EU  financial  and  non-financial  legislation  was  carried  out  and  public  consultations  were 
undertaken to gather evidence on the scope of data to be included in ESAP. It aimed to provide insights on 
all Level 1 reporting obligations for public disclosures by entities in the EU and to develop a complete and 
up-to-date260  information  repository.  This  data  provided  the  basis  for  an  in-depth  analysis  on  the 
development of ESAP. It also served to assess how data gathering should be implemented and what impact 
it has on the preparers and other stakeholders. Therefore, this task went beyond public disclosures required 
in the Transparency Directive and identified public reporting obligations set by Level 1 Measures (L1M) 261 
governing various policies under the supervision of ESAs262. Thirty-six reporting frameworks were analysed, 
with 383 public disclosures identified, of which 207 information disclosures by entities. The review covered 
regulated  public  information  disclosed  by  entities,  including  information  provided  by  the  EC,  national 
authorities,  supervisory  functions,  and  capital  markets,  while  it  did  not  cover  supervisory  financial 
requirements263.  

The  findings  of  the  research  are  that  the  context  of  reporting  requirements  is  frequently  insufficiently  and 
only partially specified (e.g., data format or data quality assurance mechanism). Hence, NCAs or ESAs may 
define  their  own  reporting  requirements  deemed  most  adequate  for  the  national  or  the  EU  level  of 
supervision. Since some legal provisions fail to provide more detailed information on, inter alia, the format of 
disclosures,  this  results  in  a  lack  of  standardisation  at  the  EU  and  national  levels.  In  this  respect,  ESAP 
could contribute to reducing the burden of insufficiently standardised reporting by introducing and promoting 
common reporting practices.  

Therefore, ESAP would have a broad set of data scope, with the only limitation being that the data must be 
public, entity related and freely accessible. Its data scope is also not limited by any aspect, like entity size, 
sector,  legal  form  or  home  country.  The  results  of  public  consultation  show  that  the  top  five  frameworks, 

258 A new Vision for Europe’s capital markets. Final Report of the High Level Forum on the Capital Markets Union, p. 30. 
259 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions, A Capital Markets Union for people and businesses-new action plan, COM/2020/590 final. 
260 With a cut-off date on 31/12/2020. 
261  Reporting  obligations  defined  in  L2Ms  and  L3Ms  were  excluded  from  the  analysis.  These  documents  were  used  as  a  source  of 
additional information required to complete the research. 
262 The set of reporting frameworks in the project’s scope included: AD, AIFMD, AuD, AuR, BMR, BRRD, Covered bonds directive, CRAR, 
CRR,  CSDR,  ELTIF,  EMIR,  EuSEF,  EuVECA,  FICOD,  IFD,  IFR,  IORP  II,  MAR,  MIFID  II,  MIFIR,  MMF,  PEPP,  PR,  PRIIPs,  REMIT, 
Securitisation Regulation, SFTR, Shareholders rights, Solvency II, SSR, SUSTAINABILITY, Take-over bid, TD, UCITS.  
263 Commission Staff Working Document Fitness Check of EU Supervisory Reporting Requirements, 1. Introduction, p. 10. 

196 

 
 
                                                 
receiving the highest score and reflecting users’ preference on ESAP scope, were Non-Financial Reporting 
Directive,  Transparency  Directive,  Accounting  Directive,  Sustainability  disclosures  and  Prospectus 
Regulation.  The  examination  of  relevant  sustainability  related  legislation  confirms  the  necessity  to  include 
Environmental Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) information as part of public data repository. In this 
regard, ESAP shall help standardise the content and format of this information and might encourage non-
listed companies to also disclose such information. 

It  is  recommended  that  the  ESAP  governing  bodies  should  have  control  over  data  that  is  included  in  the 
system  and  of  its  timing,  since  it  could  be  done  in  complete  sets  of  data  per  reporting  framework  or  be 
phased by a given country.  

2.2.  DATA PROVIDERS 

The ESAs possess vast data repositories that should supply ESAP with public disclosures data. For these 
repositories, assessment of the timeliness of the data will be determining if the data is collected on the ESAs 
level  (preferred  option)  or  on  the  national  level  (second  option).  Moreover,  the  existing  data  collection 
mechanisms of regulated information should also supply ESAP with data. In this respect, it is recommended 
to  make  use  of  the  Officially  Appointed  Mechanisms  (OAMs),  introduced  pursuant  to  the  Transparency 
Directive (TD), which already operate in all member states. OAMs could be further regulated to implement 
data transmission to ESAP. The same mechanism might be extended to all the other data collection in the 
scope of ESAP.  

In case of voluntary filings, such as public disclosures not mandated to be filed to any OAM, or SMEs and 
non-listed  entities’  data,  the  ESAP  portal  should  allow  entities  to  directly  submit  data.  Similarly,  on  a 
voluntary  basis  any  other  official  national  data  register,  like  business  register,  might  want  to  connect  to 
ESAP and send data. 

2.3.  SMES AND NON-LISTED ENTITIES DATA  

Facilitating access to SMEs and non-listed entities data should effectively reduce barriers to investment and 
broaden the base of potential investors, in particular for SMEs with limited or no access to capital markets 
and operating in less developed local markets.  

The  research  identifies  areas  for  potential  standardisation  to  reduce  the  risk  of  imposing  disproportionate 
burden  on  small  businesses.  It  is  recommended  that  the  following  SME-relevant  information  must  be 
rendered comparable on a cross-border basis: (i) financial information, (ii) sustainability-related disclosures, 
and (iii) entity identification.  

Stakeholders’ feedback collected in public consultations points to a shared view that SMEs data should be 
included in ESAP. Results of the public consultation indicate a clear preference towards a set of comparable 
key financial and sustainability-related information. The research provides overview of relevant regulations 
and best practices, in selected Member States, regarding areas that are recommended for standardization. 

The options for providing SMEs data to ESAP that have been examined include: 

  Phased-in approach, with pilot groups of users/data preparers and data scope; 
  Minimum  level  of  standardised  data  scope  for  SMEs  to  be  defined  based  on  most  shared  data 
fields  in  researched  data  disclosures  in  Europe  (basic  information  levels  for  financial  and  non-
financial  data,  considering  simplification  and  proportionality  as  well  as  current  scopes  of  data 
disclosures by SMEs in selected existing schemes and commonalities between them); 
Technical options to provide SMEs data into ESAP that are aligned with the mechanism envisaged 
for  other  data  included  in  ESAP.  Possible  interconnection  channels  may  include  an  intermediary 
e.g., OAMs; 

 

  Gradual  alignment  with  ESAP  rules  applicable  to  larger  and  listed  companies,  since  public 
consultations  indicate  that  filings  done  on  a  voluntary  basis  by  SMEs  or  non-listed  companies 
should follow all the rules of ESAP.  

2.4.  DATA CHARACTERISTICS 

It  is  recommended  that  ESAP  shall  promote the  use of  machine-readable data,  but  machine-readability  is 
not in itself a requirement for the data to be included in ESAP. It should be realised through harmonisation 
of the data contents and development of a common taxonomies or schemes. The governing bodies or the 
Commission  shall  recognize  the  appropriate  organisation  or  mechanism  to  carry  out  the  tasks  of 
harmonisation and developing standard structures to facilitate the reporting for machine-readable data. The 
governing bodies shall also recognize and advance the necessary legal amendments to implement reporting 

197 

 
 
 
 
in the standardised format across Member States when applicable. Based on responses provided in public 
consultations the top five areas for machine-readability include: financial statements, listed companies’ half 
yearly financial reports, sustainability related information, management report and audit report. 

For  all  structured  data,  the  schema/taxonomy  should  be  developed  and  fully  harmonised  at  the  EU  level, 
wherever applicable, to maximise stakeholders’ benefits. Common standards and reporting formats should 
be  used,  which  in  turn  translates  into  better  and  more  affordable  reporting  tools.  The  assessment  of  the 
performance  of  different  data  formats  suggests  that  wherever  both  human  and  machine  readability  are 
important for the reported data, Inline XBRL performs the best among structured data formats, followed by 
XBRL-XML,  XHTML  and  JSON.  If  only  machine-readability  is  important, data  formats like  JSON  or  XBRL 
Open Information Model (CSV/JSON) provide better performance. Regarding the usability of the data, it is 
recommended to avoid images and scanned PDF documents.  

ESAP shall also include a standard set of metadata that can be extended in a predefined, centralized and 
harmonized  manner  per  report  type  (e.g.,  identifiers,  industry,  assurance  and/or  validation  mechanisms 
applied, auditing applied, taxonomy/scheme, source registry or other). 

3.  TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 

The  recommendations  on  ESAP  technical  infrastructure  relate  to  its  data  distribution  and  data 
synchronization models, open-source development, and deployment of the system.  

Based on the assessment and ranking of four data distribution models, it is recommended to build ESAP on 
the  ‘Duplicated’  model  or  as  a  hybrid  of  the  ‘Duplicated’  and  the  ‘Metadata  repository’  model.  In  the 
duplicated model, ESAP contains metadata and a copy of the reported data existing in original repositories 
that  are  in  its  scope.  This  model  does  not  require  changes  in  the  existing  data  collection  processes  but 
necessitates  modifications  in  the  publication  of  data  to  ensure  that  it  is  discoverable  at  the  same  point  in 
time in ESAP and in original repositories. To prevent data asymmetry, ESAP should always have the latest 
information that is available in original repositories. In the metadata repository model, ESAP contains only a 
set  of  metadata  about  the  reporting  entity  and  the  report  itself.  The  reported  data  remains  in  original 
repositories, with ESAP having a direct link to the document. This model also does not require changes in 
the existing data collection processes and, likewise, necessitates modifications in the publication of data to 
ensure  that  ESAP  has  the  metadata  and  the  link  to  the  document  once  it  is  published  in  the  actual  data 
repository.  To  diminish  risks  to  data  immutability  and  links’  integrity,  high-level  APIs  supplement  well  this 
approach to data distribution. Changes brought by those two models towards stakeholders are considered 
moderate.   

The assessment and ranking of data synchronization models allowed to choose the data push model (high-
level  API)  as  the  recommended  option.  In  data  push,  ESAP  exposes  API  for  data  requests  and  source 
systems  push  the  collected  data  into  ESAP.  The  data  sources  store  data  locally  in  parallel  to  ESAP, 
therefore the model is in line with the file only once principle. The strength of the model is that it provides for 
a  low  coupling  of  ESAP  with  source  systems.  Hence,  ESAP  is  not  dependent  on  changes  made  in  data 
source systems, but the model also hides technological complexity and architecture, so that when amount 
or complexity of data require changes on the physical level of data storage, only ESAP is able to make them 
without  major  impact  on  the  APIs  that  are  used  for  integration.  Data  push  can  be  implemented  assuring 
secure data exchange with encryption of data that is transmitted. Since the speed of data synchronization is 
instrumental,  the  push  mechanism  provides  a  relatively  quick  solution.  When  it  comes  to  preservation  of 
information, stability for data push must be managed on the level of the system design.  

It is also recommended to develop ESAP on open-source solutions. Open-source components imply open 
specifications/standards  and  wide  availability  of  interfaces.  They  provide  high  usability  of  data,  broad 
accessibility for all stakeholders and citizens, and better interconnectedness than closed sources. Building 
the solution on top of CKAN (the Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network) is the recommended option 
because  it  brings  openness,  transparency,  and  reusability.  CKAN  is  an  open-source  DMS  (data 
management  system)  for  powering  open  data  hubs  and  data  portals  that  is  widely  used  e.g.,  in  the 
European  Open  Data  Portal.  The  technology  stack  of  CKAN  is  scalable,  it  fits  well  with  the  existing  data 
dissemination  mechanisms  because  its  interface  has  proven  to  make  data  available  and  understandable. 
CKAN supports multiple open data formats, like csv, xls, rdf and others, but lacks support for XBRL, hence, 
it  will  require  implementation  of  XBRL  support.  Also,  for  data  submission  CKAN  aligns  with  the  proposed 
data push option. It is put forward that ESAP implementation should start with a Proof of Concept, to ensure 
that CKAN can be used with multiple data sets envisaged for the scope of ESAP.  

Cloud deployment of the ESAP system is the recommended option. Use of cloud technologies has become 
an  industry  standard,  as  it  gives  scalability,  minimizes  maintenance  work,  meets  even  strict  security 
requirements,  and  enhances  data  accessibility.  In  this  respect  it  is  suggested  to  avoid  being  locked  to  a 
particular  cloud  provider  with  migration  to  other  vendors  restricted  e.g.,  by  a  choice  of  specific  database 
technology.  Hence,  medium-term  planning  of  development  and  deployment  decisions  and  service 
development  not  dependent  on  database  technology  are  key  to  mitigate  the  negative  impact  of  any 

198 

 
 
 
 
migration. On the other hand, longer term use of a particular cloud provider can significantly reduce costs of 
infrastructure  and  platform  products,  and  if  sufficient  design  strategy  is  implemented,  development  with 
specific cloud products could be significantly quicker.  

4.  SOLUTIONS TO IMPROVE USABILITY 

The  report  provides  recommendations on  functionalities  and  technical capabilities  that  aim  to  improve  the 
usability of ESAP. 

Users of ESAP were classified based on the nature and role of their interaction with the system. As such, 
the group consists of users interacting with ESAP directly and engaged with the system indirectly. Users are 
further  classified  as:  authorities;  data  preparers,  comprising 
reporting  companies; 
intermediaries,  such  as  data/service  providers;  investors/market  users;  registers;  and  others  (NGOs, 
consumers, academia, statistics agencies, or regulators). 

issuers  and 

The recommendations on ESAP functionalities have priorities assigned, depending on their importance for 
the system implementation. With the first priority proposals being key for the system to work and to fulfil its 
purpose,  most  of  them  aim  to  facilitate  users’  experience.  The  initial  focus  should  be  to  enable  simple 
search  functions,  with  the  analytical  part to  be  considered in  the later stages.  Great  deal  of  consideration 
should also be put into the definition of metadata schemes to improve the understandability and to enable 
efficient search and multi-language support for the system. It is recommended that ESAP shall be easy to 
access, also to individuals and non-professional investors, with information provided in a legible manner that 
allows to conveniently read and analyse the report. ESAP website/portal shall be user-friendly, having clean 
and intuitive navigation, with data search results presented clearly (e.g., sorting by criteria). Users must be 
able  to  understand  data  content  and  its  context  from  the  search  results  alone.  For  this  reason,  it  shall 
provide  information  identifying  reports  found  and  their  type.  It  shall  be  possible  to  search  through  and 
download original reports.  

The second priority proposals on functionalities are considered beneficial but are not critical for the system 
to  fulfil  its  purpose.  Many  among  them  indicate  that  it  shall  be  possible  to  search  data  based  on  various 
metadata attached to the reports, e.g.: an LEI, an indicator of audited values, level of machine readability, 
found  errors,  language  and  data  being  filed  voluntarily  or  not.  Another  set  of  functional  requirements  are 
related to data access and availability - it needs to be available in ESAP as soon as it is available anywhere 
else. There is also users’ value in automatable ways of the search and download of data, which could be 
enabled by system notifications and bulk-download via API. It shall be possible to download selected data in 
standardised format. Also, providing a feedback loop and connecting ESAP to systems that give ownership 
and investment structure information were identified to be beneficial.  

The  recommendations  on  ESAP  technical  capabilities  also  have  priorities  assigned.  The  first  priority 
proposals  are  vital  for  the  system  to  work  and  in  this  respect  ESAP  will  be  part  of  critical  infrastructure, 
being  the  main  access  point  for  public  disclosures  in  the  EU.  This  is  reflected  in  several  security  related 
technical  requirements:  implementing  data  storage  in  geographically  diversified  manner,  providing  a 
mechanism  to  ensure  data  immutability  and  being  able  to  determine  the  original  source  of  a given  report. 
The  first  level  technical  requirement  for  ESAP  is  also  to  be  able  to  keep  the  reported  data  and  metadata 
attached to it. The data shall be up-to-date and in machine readable format when possible and justifiable. 
ESAP shall also incorporate and be based around a standardised metadata model.  

The second priority proposals on technical capabilities are beneficial for the system to implement but are not 
perceived  as  critical.  Hence,  it  is  recommended  that  ESAP  should  have  a  functioning  API  for  both  data 
users and providers. ESAP should be able to collect data from various source repositories and to combine 
them into a searchable and accessible set, regardless of its format. If possible, ESAP shall reuse existing 
infrastructure  for  collecting  and  distributing  data.  Entities  shall  also  be  able  to  directly  share  data  through 
ESAP.  Regardless  of  the  source, it  shall  be  possible  to fetch  data automatically.  ESAP should  be  able to 
function as a central point for users, regarding the data covered. At the same time, it shall promote a set of 
standardised metadata that enables searching and some level of comparability through added KPIs. Data in 
ESAP  shall  be  provided  in  a  format  allowing  for  comparison  with  public  registers,  but  ESAP  shall  not  be 
limited  by  any  data  formats  applied  to  the  reported  data.  Data  shall  be  presented  and  available  in  a 
consistent format and using well-defined reporting standards and it shall contain information on all the report 
amendments (a log of changes). Reported data should have a notion about validation mechanisms applied 
and about data quality or assurance mechanisms applied. 

5.  PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO ESAP 

The  assessment  of  options  for  ESAP  development  allowed  to  formulate  proposals  for  ten  common 
principles that are instrumental in achieving its objectives: 

199 

 
 
 
 
1)  Data access shall be, in general, free for all users. 
2)  There  shall  be  no  added  costs  or  only  limited  added  costs  for  preparers  and  file  only  once  principle 

should be applied. 

3)  Data shall be accessible in ESAP at the same time as it is accessible anywhere else. 
4)  ESAP shall not be limited by any data formats used on the reported data. 
5)  ESAP shall not impose any new reporting requirements on the disclosure level264. 
6)  ESAP, as a system, shall be extensible by design. 
7)  ESAP shall contain “raw data”. 
8)  Entities of all types shall be able to directly share data through ESAP. 
9)  ESAP shall enable storage of the reported data in ESAP repository. 
10)  ESAP shall promote but not require: 

a)  use of structured data, 
b)  data quality improving mechanisms (validations, assurance, auditing), 
c)  harmonisation of reporting data contents. 

6.  GOVERNANCE OF ESAP 

The research identified and evaluated seven governance approaches, and it was recommended to govern 
ESAP based on a hybrid of a strong regulatory leadership and a joint undertaking model. However, in the 
light  of  the cost-benefit  analysis,  where  almost one  million Euro  of  additional budget  would  be  required  to 
finance  the  joint  undertaking  model,  it  is  recommended  to  implement  a  strong  regulatory  leadership 
governance model that enables stakeholder engagement. 

In the strong regulatory leadership model, a single entity/agency is equipped with legal and financial powers, 
as well as resources to coordinate and lead efforts related to establishment and operation of ESAP. Joint 
undertaking  is  a  public-private  partnership  where  relevant  representatives  of  the  EU  bodies,  national 
regulators  and  industry  representatives  form  a  board  responsible  for  the  governing  processes  required  in 
the system development and maintenance.  

It is recommended to implement a governance model that evolves in time and that is strictly related to the 
scope of ESAP. It is proposed to establish a model that is based on the principles of the strong regulatory 
leadership.  ESMA,  indicated  as  the  leader,  shall  be  provided  with  the  oversight  of  the  technical 
implementation of the ESAP system and ensure its delivery within the agreed timelines. ESMA should follow 
its  internal  processes  for  the  contracting  of  external  resources  (procurement),  requirements’  analysis 
(business requirements and functional specifications), development, quality assurance and testing activities 
as well as the formal approval through the IT Management and Governance Technical Committee (ITMG) 
and different standing committees (e.g., Corporate Reporting Standing Committee [CRSC]). Involvement of 
the standing committees would ensure coverage of relevant requirements from different stakeholder groups, 
including private entities and professional bodies. This approach allows for a transparent governance of the 
system and ensures relevant feedback from affected stakeholders. 

7. 

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND COST ASSESSMENT 
7.1.  IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY AND ROADMAP 

7.1.1. 

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 

The  recommendation  of  the  High  Level  Forum  (HLF)  on  the  Capital  Markets  Union  is  to  adopt  a  staged 
approach  to  ESAP  implementation265.  The  research  and  analysis  undertaken  by  BR-AG  supports  this 
strategy and provides recommendations for the phasing of ESAP. 

The phasing of ESAP implementation by data scope proposed by the HLF is divided into three stages: (i) all 
public information,  including non-financial  statements, of companies  with  securities  listed on  EU  regulated 
markets;  (ii)  public  information  disclosed  by  companies  on  SME  Growth  Markets,  documents  prepared 
under  the  UCITS  and  AIFM  Directives,  sustainability-related  companies’  public  information  disclosed 
pursuant  to  sustainable  finance  legislation;  and  (iii)  market-relevant  information  made  public  pursuant  to 
prudential  or  other  legislation.  The  findings  of  public  consultations,  along  with  other  stakeholder 
engagements,  support  this  approach.  Since  the  assumption  is  made  that  the  data  in  the  public  EU  and 
national  level  registries  is  up-to  date,  the  recommendation  is  to  ensure  timeliness  of  chosen  information 
scope  in  the  ESAP  repository.  With  regard  to  voluntary  disclosure  of  public  information  by  non-listed 
companies,  including non-listed  SMEs,  it is  not  perceived to  be  feasible  to  enforce  all  reporting  entities  to 

264 The implementation of the system should not create new reporting requirements beyond those required by specific legislation. Potential 
new burdens on reporting entities may arise, for example, from adapting the formats and tagging of reports. 
265 A new Vision for Europe’s capital markets. Final Report of the High Level Forum on the Capital Markets Union, p. 30. 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
submit data directly to ESAP, at least in the near future, as there is a lot of legal and technical challenges, 
such  as  reliable  authentication  of  the  entities.  Therefore,  it  is  recommended  to  first  amend  the  relevant 
legislation for these filings to enforce national authorities to collect data and share it with ESAP. The report 
identifies immediate needs for amendments regarding data dissemination and provides a list of the relevant 
legislation. 

Phasing by machine readability is recommended and the report suggests the order in which it is preferable 
to  develop  the  standardised schemes for  the  reporting  frameworks.  Public consultations  revealed  that  the 
most  sought-after  data  to  be  available  in  machine-readable  format  were  in  the  categories  of  financial 
statements,  listed  companies’  half  yearly  financial  reports  and  sustainability-related  information.  The 
standardisation  should  preferably  be  in  relation  to  all  frameworks  where  the  information  from  the  given 
category  is included,  to avoid  overlapping definitions,  and  the  report  provides  a list  of  relevant  legislation. 
Furthermore, based on the needs of data users indicated in the public consultation, the recommendation is 
to  standardise  and  structuralize  the  reported  data  for  additional  eighteen  types  of  public  disclosures  that 
include, inter alia, management report, audit report, total number of voting rights and capital, payments to 
governments or remuneration policies. 

It is also put forward to phase the implementation by the amount of metadata included in the ESAP filings. In 
the first stage, the mandatory set of metadata should be what is currently available to the data providers, but 
the  metadata  scheme  could  already  contain  some  optional  information.  In  the  coming  stages  of  the 
implementation, 
information. 
Simultaneously,  the  standardised  extension  mechanism  for  the  metadata  scheme  should  be  provided  to 
enable the use of additional metadata for different report types. 

the  set  of  metadata  should  be  expanded 

to  cover  supplementary 

Phasing  by  data  preparers,  as  also  suggested  by  the  HLF,  is  a  corollary  of  the  stages  applied  in  the 
implementation  of  data  scope.  Implementation  of  ESAP  in  phases  regarding  data  providers  is  also 
recommended,  first  starting  with  ESAs  public  repositories  and,  second,  complemented  with  OAMs 
repositories. The possibility for reporting entities to directly submit data to ESAP or other public national data 
repositories (not identified as OAMs) should be included only in later development stages. 

It is recommended to build system functionalities and technical capabilities gradually, while learning from the 
users’ feedback. Such approach aims to implement in the first place the features that are recognised as the 
most  important  for  the  system  users,  whilst  trying  to  stabilize  the  implementation  costs  per  phase.  The 
report  assigns  priorities  to  various  functional  and  technical  capabilities,  which  should  guide  the 
implementation.  

7.1.2. 

IMPLEMENTATION ROADMAP 

The implementation plan is divided into three main stages of development: 

Internal Proof of Concept, scheduled to be completed by the end of 2022,  

 
  Minimum Viable Product, scheduled to be completed by the end of 2023, 
  Phasing and continuous development from 2023 onwards, with rolling out in one-year plans. 

For each of these stages a high-level plan is presented that recommends the implementation strategy, along 
the  lines  present  above,  for:  (i)  data  scope  (ii)  data  providers,  (iii)  system  functionalities  and  technical 
capabilities, (iv) governance model and funding. 

7.2.  RESULTS OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 

The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is based on the results of research and recommendations in the areas of 
data  scope  and  characteristics,  technical  infrastructure,  system  usability  and  governance  that  are 
summarised beforehand.  

The  CBA  aims  to  present  an  estimation  of  accumulated  costs  and  perceived  benefits  for  ESAP  per  its 
respective  development  phases.  The  costs  are  divided  between  consecutive  years  of  development 
throughout which all the aspects of ESAP should be realised.  

The total development and maintenance costs of ESAP are estimated to be around 16 million Euro during 
five years, with the bulk of the costs related to: (i) work on functionalities and capabilities development; (ii) 
system maintenance; (iii) licence fees;  and (iv) governance model administrative costs. The research also 
provides  estimation  of  the  additional  costs  incurred  by  data  providers  (one-off  implementation  costs  and 
ongoing  validation  or  assurance  mechanisms’  costs)  and  data  preparers  (ongoing  filing  costs,  costs  of 
structuralising data and of maintaining reporting tools), which are not included in the CBA.  

201 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The estimated benefits are difficult to monetize, hence a score is provided to offer some insights on how the 
benefits will accumulate in reference to the implementation costs. The research identifies three scores that 
are scaled to give each of them the same value of insight: (i) System feature benefit score: derived from the 
benefit scores of each implemented feature as they fulfil the requirements defined in the usability report; (ii) 
Data search and access benefit score: derived from scores for current data searching and accessing effort 
multiplied by the score for users’ desire to have the data and the amount of data preparers for each public 
disclosure data being available in each phase of ESAP implementation; and (iii) Data usage benefit score: 
derived  from  scores  from  current  effort  to  use  the  data  multiplied  by  the  score  for  the  users’  desire  for 
machine  readability  and  by  the  amount  of  data  preparers  for  each  public  disclosure  make  available  in 
machine readable format in each phase of ESAP implementation.  

Two scores were also defined to reflect the benefits for data preparers: (i) System feature benefit score for 
data preparers: derived from the benefit scores of each implemented feature as they fulfil the requirements 
defined in the usability report; and (ii) Added visibility benefit for preparers: based on the estimated number 
of  downloads  multiplied  by  the  amount  of  data  users  and  divided  by  the  amount  of  reporting  entities  to 
reflect  the  added  visibility  for  one  data  preparer.  Figure  10  below  present  an  overview  of  the  total 
development and maintenance costs and the expected benefits for stakeholders. 

Figure  7:  Total  accumulated development,  maintenance  and  governance  costs  and  perceived  benefits  for 
ESAP 

Both data preparers and users benefit from the system since its launch and the benefits seem to grow in a 
higher pace than the total costs, which is a good indicator of the systems’ usefulness. The benefits for the 
data users on the data search, data access and usage side, however, seem to grow a bit slower as the bulk 
of  the  data  contents  is  to  be  included  in  the  scope  of  ESAP  at  the  phase  T+4.  Similarly,  for  the  data 
preparers the  benefit  of  added  visibility  rises  slightly slower  in relation  to  the  total  costs, as less data  and 
relatively narrow data scope might attract less data users to the system in its first phases.   

202 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 22: PRIVATE INITIATIVES – AN OVERVIEW 

A  number  of  access  points  identified  on  the  basis  of  a  desktop  survey  were  identified. 
The analysis below seeks to assess to what extent the access points identified could solve 
the problems identified. This overview does not represent the data market in its entirety, 
but  seeks  to  provide  illustrative  examples  of  alternatives  to  paid  services  from  data 
aggregators.  

IssuersHub 

IssuersHub  is  a  Mobile  Application  launched  by  EuropeanIssuers,  concentrated  on  real 
time dissemination of information published by listed companies on EU capital markets. 
This app meets regulatory disclosure requirements assigned to MAD/MAR framework. 

EuropeanIssuers  is  the  pan-European  organisation  representing  the  interests  of  publicly 
quoted  companies  across  Europe  to  the  EU  Institutions.  Governed  by  non-profit 
association      is  not  based  on  EU  law,  hence  dissemination  of  information  is  voluntary, 
and database is not complete. Access to data is free of charge. 

Public  information  disclosures  in  this  system  focus  on  listed  companies,  which  is 
narrower than the intended coverage of this initiative covering 33 reporting frameworks. 
This app does not aim to allow as well SMEs to publish information, an important feature 
of  this  initiative.  Filing  by  companies  is  voluntary  hence  there  is  no  guarantee  on  the 
completeness of data coverage.  

The European Committee of Central Balance-Sheet Data Offices (ECCBSO) 
– BACH and ERICA 

Bach and Erica are website portals launched by ECCBSO, concentrated on dissemination 
of annual accounts statistics published by non-financial corporations. 

ECCBSO comprised of a group of European National Central Banks, provides statistics 
(including  in  bulk  downloads)  on  company  data  via  databases  BACH  (Bank  for  the 
Accounts  of  Companies  Harmonized)  and  ERICA  (European  Records  of  IFRS 
Consolidated Accounts). Databases are not updated in real time (latest data in BACH are 
mostly from 2019, in ERICA from 2018) and scope of data from country perspective is 
limited. Dataset (with free access) are exported to csv (statistics not per given company, 
but by selected country(ies). 

Public  information  disclosures  in  ESAP  scope  are  much  wider  than  annual  accounts 
statistics.  Moreover,  limited  scope  of  analysed  countries  undermines  the  potential  for 
European integration of regulated information under ESAP project. 

XBRL International repository 

This  repository  is  website  portal  launched  by  XBRL  International,  concentrated  on 
dissemination  of  annual  financial  reports  published  by  issuers  (European  public 
companies and PIEs) in the ESEF format.  

This portal meets regulatory disclosure requirements assigned to Transparency Directive 
framework.  Dataset  are  updated  periodically  (real  time  updating  not  required)  in 
standardised manner (via JSON and/or XBRL) for limited number of countries (currently 
free access database contains companies from 18 countries). 

203 

 
Public  information  disclosures  in  ESAP  scope  are  much  wider  than  annual  financial 
reports in ESEF format (in ESAP, ESEF reporting requirement is only a single reporting 
obligation)  and  should  cover  both  listed  and  non-listed  companies.  Moreover,  limited 
scope of analysed countries does not prove that there is potential for European integration 
of regulated information under ESAP project. 

eFIRDS 

eFIRDS is website portals launched by Nordic Trustee, concentrated on dissemination of 
financial instruments information published by companies in European capital market. 

Private  European  Data  System  provides  access  to  data,  which  is  sourced  directly  from 
ESMA FIRDS, FCA FIRDS (UK), GLEIF and other relevant databases. Access to data 
is, either via a web portal or via automated API and feed delivery, either for free (limited) 
or via subscribed services. Access to data in web portal is provided via search of issuer 
(by LEI code or name) or instrument (ISIN) listed on any recognized trading venue in the 
EU and UK. Results present information about products and issuers. 

Public  information  disclosures  in  the  scope  of  this  initiative  are  much  wider  than 
information  about  financial  instruments.  Moreover,  information  is  presented  in  non-
standardised  manner  (as  a  dashboard)  which  may  not  facilitate  implementation  of  big 
data and AI based services to improve the quality and accuracy of reports. 

World REG Info 

Worldreginfo is website portal launched by private company Labrador,  concentrated on 
dissemination of regulated information published by listed companies. 

Labrador  provides  free  of  charge  access  to  financial  data  of  companies  from  Africa, 
America, Asia, Europe and Oceania. It is not directly indicated, if scope of information is 
published under financial services laws (EU legal acts). Published dataset is not updated 
in  a  real  time  and  as  presented  in  a  website  header,  from  30  June  2020  service  has  a 
technical  break.  Access  to  data  in  web  portal  is  provided  via  search  of  issuer,  type  of 
information  and  industry.  Results  present  list  of  selected  information,  mostly  in  pdf 
format. 

Initiative, as presented on website for more than year has a technical break. From ESAP 
perspective,  repository  should  be  strongly  technically  supported  to  minimize  the  time 
when the portal is inactive. 

North Data 

North  Data  is  a  private  website  portal  supported  by  external  investor  groups, 
concentrated  on  dissemination  of  information  such  as:  trade  registers,  annual  reports, 
funding registers, trademark records, patent registries and others published by companies 
in European capital market. 

Immense  amount  of  data  is  distilled  and  compiled  using  Big  Data  and  Artificial 
Intelligence  methods.  Access  to  data  is  updated  in  real  time  (daily)  and  provided  via 
search of issuer, but mostly available only via subscribed services. 

It is not directly indicated, if scope of information is published under financial services 
laws (EU legal acts). Moreover, limited scope of analysed countries (Austria, Germany, 
Luxembourg,  Poland,  Switzerland,  UK)  does  not  prove  that  there  is  potential  for 
European integration of regulated information under ESAP project. 

204 

 
OpenCorporates 

OpenCorporates, a UK based company, aims to make high-quality, official company data 
openly  available  to  the  public.  Data  that  can  be  trusted,  accessed,  analysed  and 
interrogated either via a web portal or APIs offering results in predetermined formats. It 
claims data of 160+ m companies in the database, with over 500 clients and millions of 
monthly users. 

Generally,  OpenCorporates  sells  bulk  data  by  global  region  e.g.  North  America  or 
Europe with two different license types depending on how the data is  going to be used 
(internal or external distribution). Bulk data is delivered on a monthly or quarterly basis. 

Despite being incorporated as a company, OpenCorporates has a public benefit business 
model underpinned by its independence. It makes all its data freely available on the web 
(and as structured data to NGOs and journalists). 

Nevertheless,  OpenCorporates’  collection  of  information  depends  on  the  availability  of 
raw information from registers, etc. The company reports difficulties in the collection of 
data, hence is calling itself for a better access to raw data at the Union level supported by 
this initiative, and invites the EU to address: 

● the governance models for data collection and dissemination 

● the scope of the information 

● the specifications to be met to make information machine readable 

● ways to remove barriers and improve access, use and reuse of the information 

Calcbench 

Based in  New York and Cambridge, MA,  USA,  Calcbench is  a  financial  data platform 
designed  for  detailed  fundamental  research.  Calcbench  allows  analysts  to  access  data 
(numbers and text) in financial statements. 

Calcbench is powered by XBRL. Within minutes of filing, Calcbench pulls data from the 
SEC's  corporate  financial  repository  to  provide  analysts  with  as-filed  data,  in  line-item 
detail  over  12  000  listed  public  companies,  tracing  back  every  value  to  the  source 
document. 

Calcbench offers paid subscription to access their services. It focuses on companies listed 
in the US, hence cannot represent an alternative solution to access pan EU information. 

205