Under the “Consultation Paper on the Management and Disclosure of Climate-related Risks by Fund Managers” issued at the end of October 2020, Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has proposed to introduce specific regulatory requirements on Hong Kong licensed fund managers to take into account climate-related risks in investment and risk management processes, make appropriate disclosures to investors on climate-related risks, and combat greenwashing.
The SFC Fund Manager Code of Conduct is proposed to be amended and a circular to be issued, to introduce baseline requirements that shall apply to managers of collective investment schemes, with enhanced standards expected of large fund managers of assets under management (AUM) of HK$4 billion or above, for fund-level disclosure on weighted average carbon intensity (WACI) of Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions associated with the funds’ underlying investments, on top of entity-level disclosures expected of all fund managers. Proposed requirements involve four key elements, covering (a) governance, (b) investment management, (c) risk management and (d) disclosure. For each key element, the Consultation Paper provides examples on how these key elements may be applied in practice.
Market participants and interested parties were invited to submit comments to the SFC by 15 January 2021. Our firm has submitted a response to the SFC consultation, which we hope contributes to the industry and the development of sustainable finance in Hong Kong, as the SFC considers its regulatory approach and necessary steps.
In our response, we provided the following key suggestions and feedback:
– While we agree with the SFC’s primary focus on climate-related risks, we suggest that the SFC makes it clear the distinct policy objectives and expectations for managers to take into account climate-related risks in investment decisions (as risk management), on the one hand, and on the other hand, to direct capital to investing in climate-related opportunities and climate transition, especially in view of Mainland China and Hong Kong’s respective net-zero pledges.
– We urge the SFC to also consider encouraging managers to manage and disclose its investment and risk management policy around social or governance factors, although not mandatory, given it is increasingly expected globally for investment managers to take into account ESG issues in investment decisions, not just climate risks.
– We suggest that the SFC makes it expressed and clear that the enhanced requirements are aimed at requiring fund managers to intentionally adopt a framework or policy on how climate-related risks (or S or G factors) are taken into account in investment decisions and risk management, but that the SFC is not prescriptive, since the management of E, S or G factors are subject to the investment strategies, specific portfolio and/or investment management discretion.
– In applying TCFD recommendations, we suggest that the SFC clarifies that the proposed requirements are TCFD-based, rather than TCFD-aligned, so that it is clear the requirements form SFC’s expectation for fund managers to adopt a framework for governance and approach for assessing, managing, disclosing and measuring climate-related risks, but give room for the practicalities of fund management companies in the business of managing investment funds of varying investment strategies or portfolio composition, or funds with specific structure or governance, and the exercise of investment management process and discretion under different management or operational process that caters to specific strategies.
– We suggest the SFC gives fund managers flexibility to adopt or apply different policies, practices, standards or frameworks that may be appropriate for the different investment funds or different investment strategies under management. We consider that in mandating a specific framework or a single policy or approach for managing or disclosing climate-related risks for fund management organisations across the board and across strategies, there may be potential unintended consequences of managers adopting broad-brush general policy or disclosures which may carry increased risk of green-washing.
– The investment objective, preference or needs of investors should also be taken into account. Here, while the SFC Consultation proposes to apply the enhanced requirements to fund managers, we suggest that the SFC also considers encouraging managers of discretionary managed accounts to proactively clarify the clients’ expectation on managing E, S or G issues.
– We suggest that the SFC provides more specific clarifications and guidance on what and where disclosures should be made at the fund level in fund documents to investors, and what and where fund manager’s entity-level disclosures should be made. However, we consider that more emphasis should be on disclosures to be made at the fund level, for transparency to investors and also the relevance of climate-related risks really varies depending on the specific investment strategies or make-up of the investment portfolio.
While there is urgency to act, in terms of the timeline for the proposed requirements to apply, given corporate climate or ESG reporting is being enhanced (updated ESG reporting requirements of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange apply to reporting of periods from July 2020), and also alignment and harmonisation of global reporting framework, standards, tools and metrics are just underway, we suggest the transition period for fund managers to comply with specific data or reporting requirements give time for those developments to settle.
As this is the first time that the SFC will introduce specific requirements for Hong Kong licensed managers to take action on managing and disclosing climate-related risks, we also suggest that the SFC adopt requirements that clearly set out the policy and principles of the SFC’s regulatory expectations, while providing different compliance timelines to cater to different stages of enhanced standards for developing Hong Kong managers in climate-related investments and risk management, sustainable finance and ESG.
Our submission response to the SFC may be published by the SFC along with other market and industry response to the Consultation in due course (typically when SFC publishes the consultation conclusions).
The enhanced requirements of the SFC will be an important and meaningful step to set the Hong Kong funds industry’s standard and providing guidance on best practices for Hong Kong licensed fund managers for sustainable finance, while we appreciate the issues and tasks involved are highly challenging and complex.
Further background and details of the SFC proposals are outlined in our previous legal update: SFC-Consultation-Paper-on-Climate-related-Risks Download
The full Consultation Paper is available on the website of the SFC:
Consultation Paper on the Management and Disclosure of Climate-related Risks by Fund Managers