Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE)
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (805)
- Part of Periodical (500)
- Report (62)
- Article (32)
- Contribution to a Periodical (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Review (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (1403) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (1403) (remove)
Keywords
- Financial Institutions (90)
- Capital Markets Union (67)
- ECB (62)
- Financial Markets (58)
- Banking Regulation (51)
- Banking Union (50)
- Household Finance (41)
- Banking Supervision (40)
- Macro Finance (40)
- Monetary Policy (35)
Institute
- Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE) (1403)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (1351)
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (779)
- House of Finance (HoF) (686)
- Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability (IMFS) (123)
- Rechtswissenschaft (62)
- Foundation of Law and Finance (47)
- Institute for Law and Finance (ILF) (7)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (6)
- Frankfurt MathFinance Institute (FMFI) (3)
This paper analyzes the current implementation status of sustainability and taxonomy-aligned disclosure under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) as well as the development of the SFDR categorization of funds offered via banks in Germany. Examining data provided by WM Group, which consists of more than 10,000 investment funds and 2,000 index funds between September 2022 and March 2023, we have observed a significant proportion of Article 9 (dark green) funds transitioning to Article 8 (light green) funds, particularly among index funds. As a consequence of this process, the profile of the SFDR classes has sharpened, which reflects an increased share of sustainable investments in the group of Article 9 funds. When differentiating between environmental and social investments, the share of environmental investments increased, but the share of social investments decreased in the group of Article 9 funds at the beginning of 2023. The share of taxonomy-aligned investments is very low, but slightly increasing for Article 9 funds. However, by March 2023 only around 1,000 funds have reported their sustainability proportions and this picture might change due to legal changes which require all funds in the scope of the SFDR to report these proportions in their annual reports being published after 1 January 2023.
Die Erklärung von Intelligenz fasziniert Menschen seit Jahrtausenden, scheint sich doch mit ihr die menschliche Singularität gegenüber Natur und Tier zu manifestieren. Zugleich betonen nicht nur philosophische Strömungen, sondern auch die Mathematik, die Neuro- und die Computerwissenschaften die Abhängigkeit menschlicher Intelligenz von mechanistischen Prozessen. Ob damit eine Verwandtschaft beider Formen der Informationsverarbeitung verbunden ist oder genau umgekehrt fundamentale Unterschiede bestehen, ist seit knapp hundert Jahren Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Kontroversen. Fest steht allerdings, dass Maschinen jedenfalls in manchen Bereichen die menschliche Leistungsfähigkeit in Schnelligkeit und Präzision übertreffen können. Nähert man sich dieser Vorstellung, drängt sich die Frage auf, ob es sich empfiehlt, bestimmte Entscheidungen besser von Maschinen treffen, jedenfalls aber unterstützen zu lassen. Neben Ärzten, Rechtsanwälten und Börsenhändlern betrifft das auch Leitungsentscheidungen von Unternehmensführern.
Vor diesem Hintergrund wird im Folgenden ein Überblick über Formen künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) gegeben. Im Anschluss fokussiert der Beitrag auf die Rolle von KI im Kontext von Vorstandsentscheidungen. Dazu zählen allgemeine Sorgfaltspflichten, wenn über den Einsatz von KI im Unternehmen zu entscheiden ist. Geht es um die Unterstützung gerade von Vorstandsentscheidungen stellen sich zusätzlich Fragen der Kooperation von Mensch und Maschine, der Delegation des Kernbestands von Leitungsentscheidungen und der Einstandspflicht für KI.
Biodiversity loss poses a significant threat to the global economy and affects ecosystem services on which most large companies rely heavily. The severe financial implications of such a reduced species diversity have attracted the attention of companies and stakeholders, with numerous calls to increase corporate transparency. Using textual analysis, this study thus investigates the current state of voluntary biodiversity reporting of 359 European blue-chip companies and assesses the extent to which it aligns with the upcoming disclosure framework of the Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). The descriptive results suggest a substantial gap between current reporting practices and the proposed TNFD framework, with disclosures largely lacking quantification, details and clear targets. In addition, the disclosures appear to be relatively unstandardized. Companies in sectors or regions exposed to higher nature-related risks as well as larger companies are more likely to report on aspects of biodiversity. This study contributes to the emerging literature on nature-related risks and provides detailed insights on the extent of the reporting gap in light of the upcoming standards.