The EU regulation of sustainable investment: The end of sustainability trade-offs?

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F04130081%3A_____%2F23%3AN0000002" target="_blank" >RIV/04130081:_____/23:N0000002 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/26482789:_____/23:10152541

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://eber.uek.krakow.pl/eber/article/view/2006/837" target="_blank" >https://eber.uek.krakow.pl/eber/article/view/2006/837</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110111" target="_blank" >10.15678/EBER.2023.110111</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

The EU regulation of sustainable investment: The end of sustainability trade-offs?

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Objective: The objective of the article is to explore and assess whether the SFDR legal framework creates a legitimate, effective, and efficient mechanism that supports a genuinely sustainable investment and eliminates greenwashing and other trade-offs. It targets the Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial service sector aka SFDR which sets a law duty on financial market participants and advisers concerning information about sustainability (Art. 1). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) parasitic practices, such as greenwashing, are to be eliminated in disclosures, communications, and internet pages (Art. 9 – Art.13) by appropriate information (Art. 1(17)) and the principle of doing no significant harm (Art. 2a). Research Design & Methods: A deep holistic five-step chronological contextual analysis of key legislative and semi-legislative instruments with LIWC assessment was performed. It was supported with a comparative and teleological interpretation and refreshed with Socratic questions. Findings: The research led to four rather unexpected propositions: (i) the endorsement of SFDR by EU institutions varies, (ii) key instruments are expressed neutrally and technically but their authenticity varies, (iii) morality appears to be avoided, and (iv) the interpretation litigates against an artificial disassociation of concepts linked to sustainability, CSR, and shared values. Implications & Recommendations: Since the performed analysis was instantaneous and textual and led to rather unexpected propositions, it should be juxtaposed and extended by adding the longitudinal dimension, the applied dimension, and the outside perspective along with empirical field observation. Contribution & Value Added: This is a pioneering study regarding the wording assessment of the EU law on sustainability. Considering the critical importance of a legitimate, effective, and efficient legal framework in this area and the pre-existing academic vacuum regarding such an exploration of SFDR and related instruments, this contribution is a valuable first step.

Název v anglickém jazyce

The EU regulation of sustainable investment: The end of sustainability trade-offs?

Popis výsledku anglicky

Objective: The objective of the article is to explore and assess whether the SFDR legal framework creates a legitimate, effective, and efficient mechanism that supports a genuinely sustainable investment and eliminates greenwashing and other trade-offs. It targets the Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial service sector aka SFDR which sets a law duty on financial market participants and advisers concerning information about sustainability (Art. 1). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) parasitic practices, such as greenwashing, are to be eliminated in disclosures, communications, and internet pages (Art. 9 – Art.13) by appropriate information (Art. 1(17)) and the principle of doing no significant harm (Art. 2a). Research Design & Methods: A deep holistic five-step chronological contextual analysis of key legislative and semi-legislative instruments with LIWC assessment was performed. It was supported with a comparative and teleological interpretation and refreshed with Socratic questions. Findings: The research led to four rather unexpected propositions: (i) the endorsement of SFDR by EU institutions varies, (ii) key instruments are expressed neutrally and technically but their authenticity varies, (iii) morality appears to be avoided, and (iv) the interpretation litigates against an artificial disassociation of concepts linked to sustainability, CSR, and shared values. Implications & Recommendations: Since the performed analysis was instantaneous and textual and led to rather unexpected propositions, it should be juxtaposed and extended by adding the longitudinal dimension, the applied dimension, and the outside perspective along with empirical field observation. Contribution & Value Added: This is a pioneering study regarding the wording assessment of the EU law on sustainability. Considering the critical importance of a legitimate, effective, and efficient legal framework in this area and the pre-existing academic vacuum regarding such an exploration of SFDR and related instruments, this contribution is a valuable first step.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50204 - Business and management

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

N - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z neverejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REVIEW

ISSN

2353-883X

e-ISSN

2353-8821

Svazek periodika

11

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

PL - Polská republika

Počet stran výsledku

14

Strana od-do

199-212

Kód UT WoS článku

000978697500011

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85159651593