datasets could be used. in germany, dois are assigned by the registration agency for social science and economic data ( da | ra ). see https : / / www. da - ra. de / geta - doi see european commission ( 2022 ). the workshop concluded to support follow - up work on developing an international microdata standard, to investigate what is feasible, including how undertakings by member countries could be established and enforced. page 11 of 18 deutsche bundesbank, directorate general communications wilhelm - epstein - strasse 14, 60431 frankfurt am main, germany, tel. : + 49 ( 0 ) 69 9566 33511, fax : + 49 ( 0 ) 69 709097 9000 presse @ bundesbank. de, www. bundesbank. de reproduction permitted only if source is stated. new dgi. 34 in 2022, these institutions were asked to fine - tune the workplan. 35 hence, all the necessary ingredients are in place to start work on a global microdata standard. 36 step 3 : how to close data gaps? even under the most optimistic scenario in terms of enhancing the usability of existing data, gaps will remain. international investors are increasingly calling for improved reporting by companies not only on climate, but also on social and governance ( esg ) issues. in 2021, the ifrs foundation trustees thus announced the creation of a new standard - setting board – the international sustainability standards board ( issb ) – to help meet this demand. 37 closing data gaps sufficiently fast requires costs and benefits to be well - balanced and practical approaches to be taken. new reporting requirements require strong justifications and well - justified data needs. the eu proposal for a corporate sustainability reporting directive ( csrd ) is a good example in this regard. 38 under the new eu taxonomy and through the efforts of the issb, firms will disclose new and relevant data. overall, it is important to improve the cost - benefit balance of this reporting. the g7 under this year ’ s german presidency thus called for international organisations to take concrete steps to improve accessibility of sustainability data. at the same time, esg criteria and taxonomies are not without criticism. a recent issue of the economist argues that esg standards are flawed for many reasons – for being too imprecise, for not having clear objectives, and for addressing too many different aspects of firms ’ behaviour. 39 many of these points are quite

significant steps forward : they will make supervision swifter, more responsive and more intrusive where needed. to go further, we can and should pursue our efforts towards a more qualitative and riskfocused supervision. the forthcoming new srep methodology is a real opportunity to prioritise our supervisory tasks according to our risk assessment and incentivise further ssm banks to achieve the necessary changes to improve their risk profiles. with regard to our internal functioning, there is still room to fine - tune the articulation between vertical and horizontal supervisory activities to enhance our effectiveness, optimise our resource allocation and thereby reduce the " supervisory burden " both for banks and supervisors. as bottom - line, we need to engage even further into a constructive supervisory dialogue ; and this requires commitment on both sides of the table, we as supervisors, and banks alike. i deeply believe that we can now leverage on ssm expertise and in - depth knowledge of the european banking sector to trust our supervisory judgement, and adopt a more strategic and holistic approach to risk assessment. while benchmarking is an important input into the process, notably to ensure a level playing field, it is clearly not the only one ; the individual assessment of each bank's risk profile, based on constrained expert judgement, should remain the core of our assessment. 2 / 4 bis - central bankers'speeches ii. banking union : why and how to move forward again let me now turn to a far - reaching issue that we still need to tackle, after several years of deadlock : a fully integrated banking market in europe. let us acknowledge it : we have been very successful in building a supervision union – which we celebrate today – less so in a complete banking union. this slowness has hampered the emergence of pan - european banks, and our banks are becoming smaller compared with their global rivals. in 2023, the domestic market share of the top five us banks stood at 42 %, compared with around 28 % for the top five in europe. iii meanwhile, the most active european bank on investment banking activities ranks only ninth worldwide, far behind the top five – which are all american. euro area banks accounted for only 29 % of investment banking fees generated by the top 10 players in europe in 2023, compared with 34 % a year earlier. iv for banks – and we see this in the united states – scale is objectively a major determinant of competitiveness, particularly as it enables banks to amortise