The ESG reporting landscape

The ESG reporting landscape is undergoing an unprecedented transformation. What was once considered a simple voluntary approach has become a complex and multidimensional regulatory imperative. Financial institutions today find themselves confronted with a proliferation of regulatory frameworks, each with its own requirements, methodologies, and deadlines.

This growing complexity is not just a simple administrative constraint. It reflects the increasing importance of ESG criteria in investment decisions and the need for greater transparency to combat greenwashing. For those responsible for ESG reporting, this evolution represents both a major operational challenge and a strategic opportunity.

Let's examine the five main challenges facing financial institutions in producing their ESG regulatory reports.

Challenge 1: The complexity of overlapping regulatory Fframeworks

The first major challenge lies in navigating a dense and interconnected regulatory ecosystem. The SFDR, European Taxonomy, Article 29 of the Energy-Climate Law in France, and the CSRD form a complex web of obligations that are often difficult to disentangle.

Each of these frameworks imposes specific obligations, with distinct methodologies and indicators. The SFDR requires detailed information on the integration of sustainability risks, while the European Taxonomy demands a precise assessment of the alignment of activities with strict environmental criteria. Article 29 emphasizes climate risks and biodiversity.

This regulatory overlap is even more complex as it applies to two distinct levels: the product level (individual funds) and the entity level (management company). Maintaining perfect consistency between these different levels constitutes a real puzzle for reporting teams.

Moreover, these regulations are constantly evolving. The update of the SFDR with Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) illustrates this dynamic that forces companies to continuously adapt their processes, requiring constant regulatory monitoring and great operational agility.

Challenge 2: Managing dispersed and heterogeneous data

The second challenge concerns the management of ESG data, which is often dispersed and heterogeneous. Financial institutions must juggle several types of data:

• Traditional financial data that must be aligned with new ESG requirements
• External ESG data provided by specialized providers, with more than 160 suppliers in the market, each using their own methodologies
• Internal data often scattered across different departments (risk management, compliance, asset management)
• Data from portfolio companies that may be incomplete, particularly for SMEs

The lack of standardization of ESG data formats amplifies this difficulty. Unlike traditional financial data that benefits from established accounting standards, ESG data still lacks a unified framework. This heterogeneity makes the comparison and consolidation of information particularly complex.

For example, to calculate the carbon footprint of a portfolio, an asset manager may need to combine data from company reports, estimates from ESG data providers, and their own internal analyses. Each of these sources may use different methodologies, requiring considerable harmonization work.

Challenge 3: Balancing quantitative and qualitative data

The third challenge lies in the simultaneous management of quantitative and qualitative aspects of ESG reporting, each presenting its own complexities.

On the quantitative side, the required calculations are often complex and multidimensional. Calculating ESG indicators, carbon scores, or the environmental footprint of a portfolio involves manipulating large amounts of data with sophisticated formulas. These calculations, when performed manually, are not only time-consuming but also subject to significant errors.

On the qualitative side, managing narrative information, such as descriptions of ESG strategies and commitments, presents another type of challenge. This information must be consistent across all produced documents (annual reports, pre-contractual documents, periodic reports). Inconsistency in this qualitative information can expose the financial institution to accusations of greenwashing.

The difficulty is even greater as the quantitative and qualitative aspects must be perfectly aligned. For example, a qualitative statement about a fund's climate commitment must be supported by consistent quantitative indicators, such as the reduction of the carbon footprint or alignment with the Paris Agreement objectives.

This dual management requires an integrated and rigorous approach, capable of ensuring the accuracy of calculations while ensuring the consistency of narratives across all produced documents.

Challenge 4: Lack of resources against tight deadlines

The fourth challenge concerns the operational constraints faced by ESG reporting teams. The production of regulatory reports faces a lack of qualified human and technological resources, against increasingly tight deadlines.

Financial institutions struggle to mobilize the necessary personnel to effectively respond to new regulatory requirements in terms of sustainability. This shortage translates into a disproportionate allocation of time to data compilation and verification, at the expense of strategic analysis. Teams often spend more time collecting and formatting data than analyzing it to derive strategic insights.

Furthermore, the tools used are often unsuited to the complexity and volume of data to be processed. The persistent use of software like Excel and macros to manage complex reporting processes is a major source of errors and inefficiencies. This dependence on manual tools underscores the urgent need for more automated and robust solutions.

The pressure on deadlines adds an additional layer of complexity. Regulatory deadlines are often tight and inflexible. For example, the SFDR imposes strict deadlines for publishing periodic reports and updating pre-contractual documents. This time pressure increases the risk of errors and can compromise the quality of the reports produced.

Challenge 5: Risks of non-compliance and reputational damage

The fifth challenge, and not the least, concerns the risks associated with deficient ESG reporting. These risks are of two types: regulatory and reputational.

Controls by regulatory authorities have intensified considerably in recent years. Sanctions for non-compliance are real and potentially costly. The example of the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) of Luxembourg illustrates this reality: an administrative fine of 700,000 euros was imposed on a management company for failures to meet its sustainable finance obligations.

Beyond financial sanctions, reputational damage linked to errors in ESG reports can be considerable. In a market where credibility in sustainability has become a key differentiating factor, a reporting error can quickly transform into a crisis of confidence among investors.

A recent study reveals that when assessing financial materiality, management companies place predominant importance on two critical factors: regulatory risks (60%) and reputational risks (58%). These figures underscore the strategic importance of rigorous and reliable ESG reporting.

Managing non-compliance risks is all the more complex as it requires close collaboration between different teams within the organization: risk management, compliance, asset management, dedicated ESG teams. This collaboration is often hampered by organizational silos and non-integrated information systems.

Towards an integrated approach to ESG reporting

Faced with these major challenges, financial institutions must fundamentally rethink their approach to ESG reporting. It is no longer simply about meeting regulatory requirements, but about transforming these constraints into strategic opportunities.

Automation emerges as an essential solution to address these challenges. By centralizing ESG data, industrializing calculation processes, and facilitating collaboration between teams, it not only allows for meeting current requirements but also preparing for future developments.

An integrated approach to ESG reporting presents several strategic advantages:

• It frees teams from time-consuming data compilation and verification tasks, allowing them to focus on strategic analysis
• It strengthens the institution's credibility with investors and stakeholders
• It transforms ESG reporting from a potential vulnerability zone into a pillar of corporate governance

‍

Institutions that can meet these challenges and implement an integrated approach to ESG reporting will not just be meeting regulatory requirements. They will position themselves as leaders in the transition to more sustainable and responsible finance, capable of creating long-term value for all stakeholders.

In this context, solutions like the WeeFin platform offer financial institutions the necessary tools to transform their reporting processes, combining technological expertise and deep knowledge of ESG regulations. The future belongs to institutions that will know how to turn regulatory constraints into levers for innovation and differentiation.