C 152/98
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
6.4.2022
nuclear energy or natural gas.
Therefore, the EESC instead believes that these kinds of controversial economic activities, which still may play a useful role during the transition period, could possibly better be dealt with separately from the EU taxonomy itself.
Furthermore, the EESC should consider undertaking a separate initiative on this matter.
The EESC supports the incorporation of the remaining environmental objectives and the extension to economic activities with an intermediate level of environmental performance and to economic activities with no significant impact on environmental sustainability and those that significantly harm environmental sustainability.
Proposals on this should follow speedily.
The taxonomy and standards should serve as a basis in various areas to make them more effective.
However, it is important to avoid loopholes for greenwashing.
1.5.
The EESC welcomes the objective of making it easier for retail investors and SMEs to access sustainable finance and notes the importance of ensuring fair financing conditions here.
It also supports steps to expand sustainability reporting, since sustainable company policy is also in the interest of SME customers and civil society as a whole.
Reporting requirements should not entail excessive resources and costs, but be effective in contributing to transparency in order to improve market efficiency and thereby facilitate better access to finance.
As part of green budgeting, the EESC recommends linking this to a future golden rule for investment.
1.6.
The measures cited to support credible social investment fall far short of what is needed and should also be stepped up.
The focus on social sustainability needs to be tightened so that people and the world of work are at the centre.
Social partners and civil society should be fully involved in this process and the European Pillar of Social Rights and the UN Sustainable Development Goals should serve as a basis.
An integrated taxonomy embracing environmental and social goals in equal measure has the potential to become the valuable basis for an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable EU.
Where sustainability-related disclosures are concerned, labour and human rights indicators in particular must be carefully examined and improved.
1.7.
Sustainability factors need to be considered in financial sector risk management and capital provision, which must be addressed by regulation and, in the short term, also at the technical level.
The EESC advocates a sound and forward-looking capital policy and a strictly economic risk assessment, so that risk weighting is based on actual stability risks.
The effects of sustainability risks on banks and insurance and even on the stability of the financial sector as a whole need to be taken into account.
As part of the systematic mapping of ESG risks in credit ratings, the debate on the EU credit rating agency should be relaunched and hence the EU’s leading role in sustainability consolidated.
1.8.
The EESC welcomes the steps taken to strengthen the monitoring of systemic risks arising from the climate crisis and suggests that, as far as possible, all areas of the financial sector should be covered.
It is also time to finally pay heed to social sustainability risks, which are jeopardising social cohesion as a result of widening distribution gaps.
The EESC also supports increasing the compulsory nature of sustainability reporting by financial institutions.
With regard to fiduciary duties and stewardship rules, there should not be any disproportionate transfer of risks under the guise of green measures and the classification of unsustainable investments should be carefully adapted.
1.9.
Supervisors must quickly be given powers with which to address greenwashing.
A definition of this could make this easier.
It would also be useful to have a monitoring framework to measure the progress of the EU financial system.
The EESC requests that civil society be included in the assessment of financial markets’ alignment with sustainability goals.
Finally, improved cooperation between supervisors and the ECB should also be supported.
Civil society should be involved in research into sustainability in the finance sector, which must include social sustainability.
1.10.
The EESC welcomes the fact that the Commission will promote an ambitious consensus in international forums, because global markets need globally recognised framework conditions.
European companies should not be faced with so many different regulations that they experience severe competitive disadvantages.
This includes providing global access to data with which to assess the sustainability of investments and a proper regulation and supervision of ESG data providers.
The fact that international coordination is slow must not lead to the measures being delayed at EU level.
As part of the deepening of the work of the International Platform on Sustainable Finance, the EESC urges the Commission to work towards closer cooperation not only with the private sector, but also with civil society.
The EESC strongly calls for greater consideration to be given to social sustainability at international level too, including in line with the United Nations SDGs.