Net-zero naming, PAI gaps and mixed ESRS/ISSB reporting
Tomás is sustainability reporting lead at an EU asset manager running a €6bn Article 8 fund marketed as transition-aligned. Of its 180 holdings, 60 are EU large caps reporting under ESRS for FY2025, 90 are non-EU companies reporting only under ISSB S1 and S2, and 30 are SMEs with no sustainability statement. The data provider reports principal adverse indicator coverage of 62%; taxonomy alignment is 4.1% on reported data but 11% when the provider fills gaps with sector averages. The prospectus says the fund promotes environmental characteristics and invests in companies with credible transition plans. A distributor asks whether the fund can use net zero aligned in its name and whether estimated data are acceptable for PAI reporting. Internal audit asks how limited assurance over investee sustainability statements should affect the reliability of the fund's own disclosures.
1. Can the fund use net zero aligned in its name? What would it need to demonstrate and disclose?
Read the worked answer
- Likely not as currently evidenced. ESMA's guidelines on ESG and sustainability terms in fund names require a term such as net zero aligned to be supported by measurable, binding criteria in the investment policy, not just a marketing narrative. The fund would need a fund-level net-zero commitment, a credible decarbonisation pathway with interim targets, screening or exclusions consistent with that pathway, and evidence that portfolio companies' transition plans are assessed and monitored.
- Check the 80% rule. For funds using ESG or sustainability terms, at least 80% of investments should be used to meet the promoted characteristics. The 30 SMEs with no sustainability statement and the 90 ISSB-only reporters need a documented assessment method, otherwise the 80% test is hard to evidence.
- Article 8 versus Article 9. Transition-aligned is normally an Article 8 environmental promotion. Net zero aligned may imply a sustainable investment objective and push the fund towards Article 9, which carries a higher evidential bar and different disclosures.
- Practical options. Remove the term, or amend the prospectus and pre-contractual disclosures with binding criteria, a transition-plan assessment framework, interim targets and exclusions, with sign-off from compliance and the board. A distributor's question is a greenwashing warning sign, not merely a labelling preference, and the answer should be documented.
2. How should Tomás treat reported, estimated and missing PAI data, and what does that mean for comparability?
Read the worked answer
- Use a data hierarchy. Reported and assured data first, then reported unassured, then provider estimates with a documented method, then sector proxies. Label every aggregate by source and proportion. A single 62% coverage figure hides which indicators are covered and whether the missing 38% is random or skewed towards high-emitting companies.
- Estimation is permitted but must be disclosed. PAI reporting requires best efforts, and the RTS expects a description of data sources, methodology and limitations. Sector averages are acceptable for gap-filling only if they are not presented as company data and if the method is consistent over time.
- Watch aggregation bias. Replacing missing values with sector averages tends to flatter portfolios that hold non-reporting, high-emitting companies. Show PAI results with and without estimates, and report coverage by indicator.
- Taxonomy alignment. 4.1% reported versus 11% estimated is a material difference. Do not blend them: report the reported figure as the primary metric, with estimates clearly labelled as supplementary, and explain why the gap exists (for example, non-EU issuers not required to report).
- Action. Set a coverage improvement plan, engage the largest non-reporters, and use the data gap itself as an engagement objective with measurable milestones.
3. How do ESRS and ISSB differences affect the fund's aggregation, and how should limited assurance change the reliability assessment?
Read the worked answer
- Different materiality lenses. ESRS requires double materiality (financial and impact), while ISSB S1 and S2 focus on enterprise value. Climate datapoints overlap, but ESRS is more prescriptive and includes impact-driven disclosures that ISSB does not require. Aggregating both into one fund metric needs a mapping from each datapoint to a common definition.
- Boundary and metric mismatches. GHG accounting may differ (operational control versus equity share), Scope 3 categories may be incomplete, and ISSB's one-year Scope 3 relief means some non-EU holdings report only Scope 1 and 2 in the first year. ESRS phase-in for smaller companies has a similar effect, so the funded-emissions number will mix boundaries unless disclosed.
- Assurance. Limited assurance is a negative-assurance conclusion under ISAE 3000 or 3410, often covering selected datapoints within a defined boundary. It raises reliability but is not an audit opinion and does not guarantee comparability. Record the provider, standard, scope and any qualifications.
- Controls. Document source, date, boundary and assurance status for each datapoint; reconcile provider data to company reports; flag restatements. Internal audit should treat the sustainability data chain like financial data, with controls over completeness and accuracy, and the fund's own reporting should disclose its use of estimates rather than implying a precision the underlying data does not support.