It’s true, ESG is a ‘compliance minefield’

Sometimes, our friends in the press come up with a headline that simply cannot be topped. Yesterday, Ignites published an article called, “Going Green: Shops Work to Navigate ESG Compliance Minefield.” The article opens appropriately, noting that while ESG funds “may be all the rage with investors […] shops that fail to think carefully about their investment methodologies and related disclosures could end up in the SEC’s hot seat.” Indeed, though, the SEC is certainly not the only regulator to keep a close eye on ESG products and mandates. In the United States, the Department of Labor also has ESG on its radar. ESG is also a hot topic for numerous regulators and legislatures globally. What are some of they important compliance challenges?

Are fund descriptions, registration statements and disclosures accurate? If ESG factors are considered as part of the fund’s strategy, do such documents reflect that reality correctly?
If the firm has publicly committed to engage in certain conduct (e.g., shareholder engagement, etc.) by reason of membership in a particular group or alliance (e.g., UN PRI, Climate Action 100+, etc.), is the firm following through on its promises?
Are global legal developments considered, recognizing that Europe, North America and Asia are at different stages of ESG statutory and regulatory promulgation?
Have proxy voting policies been considered in light of SEC and DOL guidance?
Does the investment management agreement explicitly require (or prohibit) the investment manager to vote proxies or exercise other shareholder rights on behalf of an ERISA plan?
Are the investment manager and asset owner on the same page in terms of which ESG strategy will be pursued?
Does the investment policy statement or investment guidelines specify which E, S or G factor is part of the investment mandate?
Has the investment manager considered potential conflicts of interest of proxy adviser firms?
If the client is a governmental plan, has the investment manager diligenced the applicable state statutes and constitutional provisions to confirm that implementation of the mandate complies with applicable law?
Is disclosure in due diligence questionnaires accurate and factually supportable?

Blog Authors

Sara P. Crovitz

Sara Crovitz, most recently Deputy Chief Counsel and Associate Director of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Investment Management, provides counsel on all aspects of investment company and investment adviser regulation. She worked at the SEC for 21 years, including 17 years in the Division of Investment Management focusing on issues under the Investment Company and Investment Advisers Acts of 1940. While in the Division, Sara supervised the provision of significant legal guidance to the investment management industry through no-action and interpretive letters, exemptive applications, IM guidance updates and other written and oral means.

William T. Mandia

William Mandia represents financial institutions and insurers in complex commercial and class action litigation. He regularly defends and advises life insurers, intermediaries, banks, broker-dealers, investment advisers, and other financial services providers in connection with sales practices claims arising from a wide range of financial and life insurance products, including, but not limited to, claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and violations of state consumer protection laws.

Peter M. Hong

Peter Hong uses his many years of service at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to guide clients through the various regulatory requirements involved in the offer of financial services and products. His practice includes the registration and regulation of investment advisers, broker-dealers, commodity trading advisers, commodity pool operators, and introducing brokers under federal and state laws, as well as the formation and ongoing compliance obligations of registered and private investment companies.