normes de droit

MM. Daigre et Couret proposent un billet bien intéressant sur le sort du say on climate en droit français. : « Say on climate : un amendement pour rien, un retrait sans conséquence ? » (23 octobre 2023). Pour rappel, la question est belle et anime le milieu de la gouvernance depuis quelque temps. Vous pourrez lire mon billet de synthèse et d’ouverture au droit canadien « Incertitudes sur les résolutions climatiques des actionnaires » sur L’initiative canadienne de droit climatique.

Extrait :

Un amendement de plusieurs députés imposant aux sociétés cotées* un « say on climate » un peu à l’image du « say on pay » avait été voté dans le cadre du projet de loi « Industrie verte » (loi à paraitre) par l’Assemblée Nationale le 21 juillet 2023 contre l’avis du gouvernement. S’agissant d’une procédure accélérée, la commission mixte paritaire était très attendue, mais incertaine car le processus parlementaire ne comportait qu’une seule lecture dans les deux chambres et avait commencé par le Sénat, qui n’avait donc pas eu l’occasion de se prononcer. La proposition adoptée à l’Assemblée imposait aux entreprises cotées de faire statuer leur conseil d’administration (en oubliant l’existence des conseils de surveillance…) sur une stratégie climat et durabilité, de soumettre celle-ci tous les trois ans (et lors de chaque modification importante) aux actionnaires en assemblée générale, enfin de leur faire annuellement un rapport sur sa mise en œuvre. Point important : les divers votes en assemblée générale n’étaient que consultatifs, même s’il était indiqué que le conseil d’administration devrait « prendre en considération le résultat du vote ». Mais la commission mixte paritaire a supprimé cet amendement le 9 octobre 2023.

À la prochaine…

Énorme nouvelle qui touche les institutions financières !

Le Bureau du surintendant des institutions financières (BSIF) publie aujourd’hui une version à l’étude de la ligne directrice B-15, Gestion des risques climatiques. Celle-ci propose un cadre prudentiel plus sensible aux changements climatiques et reconnaît l’incidence de ces changements sur la gestion des risques. Elle énonce également les attentes du BSIF à l’égard des institutions financières fédérales.

La ligne directrice est consultable : ici.

Pour en savoir plus sur cette nouvelle, ainsi que sur les rapports sous-jacents à cette nouvelle : ici.

À la prochaine…

La Fondation IFRS a créé un nouveau conseil d’établissement de normes – l’International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) – qui va émettre des normes sur la communication de l’information ESG. Or, l’ISSB vient de publier deux nouvelles normes qu’elle soumet à consultation :
• IFRS S1 – General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information (the General Requirements Standard)
• IFRS S2 – Climate-related Disclosures (the Climate Standard)

Pour en savoir plus : cliquez ici

The International Sustainability Standards Board expects on 31 March 2022 to publish:

• Exposure Draft Proposed IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information; and
• Exposure Draft Proposed IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures.

The documents will be available to download from the Open for comment section and from their project pages, General Sustainability-related Disclosures and Climate-related Disclosures. To comment on the Exposure Drafts you will need to have an IFRS Foundation account, which can be created here.

À la prochaine…

La SEC a publié récemment une nouvelle sur son site indiquant qu’elle chercher l’avis du public sur sa réglementation dans le domaine du changement climatique : « Public Input Welcomed on Climate Change Disclosures » (15 mars 2021). C’est le moment de vous exprimer !

La SEC bouge en ce domaine comme cet extrait du message de la SEC le résume bien : Since 2010, investor demand for, and company disclosure of information about, climate change risks, impacts, and opportunities has grown dramatically. Consequently, questions arise about whether climate change disclosures adequately inform investors about known material risks, uncertainties, impacts, and opportunities, and whether greater consistency could be achieved. In May 2020, the SEC Investor Advisory Committee approved recommendations urging the Commission to begin an effort to update reporting requirements for issuers to include material, decision-useful environmental, social, and governance, or ESG factors. In December 2020, the ESG Subcommittee of the SEC Asset Management Advisory Committee issued a preliminary recommendation that the Commission require the adoption of standards by which corporate issuers disclose material ESG risks.

Extrait :

Questions for Consideration

1. How can the Commission best regulate, monitor, review, and guide climate change disclosures in order to provide more consistent, comparable, and reliable information for investors while also providing greater clarity to registrants as to what is expected of them? Where and how should such disclosures be provided? Should any such disclosures be included in annual reports, other periodic filings, or otherwise be furnished?
2. What information related to climate risks can be quantified and measured?  How are markets currently using quantified information? Are there specific metrics on which all registrants should report (such as, for example, scopes 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions, and greenhouse gas reduction goals)? What quantified and measured information or metrics should be disclosed because it may be material to an investment or voting decision?  Should disclosures be tiered or scaled based on the size and/or type of registrant)? If so, how? Should disclosures be phased in over time? If so, how? How are markets evaluating and pricing externalities of contributions to climate change? Do climate change related impacts affect the cost of capital, and if so, how and in what ways? How have registrants or investors analyzed risks and costs associated with climate change? What are registrants doing internally to evaluate or project climate scenarios, and what information from or about such internal evaluations should be disclosed to investors to inform investment and voting decisions? How does the absence or presence of robust carbon markets impact firms’ analysis of the risks and costs associated with climate change?
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of permitting investors, registrants, and other industry participants to develop disclosure standards mutually agreed by them? Should those standards satisfy minimum disclosure requirements established by the Commission? How should such a system work? What minimum disclosure requirements should the Commission establish if it were to allow industry-led disclosure standards? What level of granularity should be used to define industries (e.g., two-digit SIC, four-digit SIC, etc.)?
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of establishing different climate change reporting standards for different industries, such as the financial sector, oil and gas, transportation, etc.? How should any such industry-focused standards be developed and implemented?
5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of rules that incorporate or draw on existing frameworks, such as, for example, those developed by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB)?[7] Are there any specific frameworks that the Commission should consider? If so, which frameworks and why?
6. How should any disclosure requirements be updated, improved, augmented, or otherwise changed over time? Should the Commission itself carry out these tasks, or should it adopt or identify criteria for identifying other organization(s) to do so? If the latter, what organization(s) should be responsible for doing so, and what role should the Commission play in governance or funding? Should the Commission designate a climate or ESG disclosure standard setter? If so, what should the characteristics of such a standard setter be? Is there an existing climate disclosure standard setter that the Commission should consider?
7. What is the best approach for requiring climate-related disclosures? For example, should any such disclosures be incorporated into existing rules such as Regulation S-K or Regulation S-X, or should a new regulation devoted entirely to climate risks, opportunities, and impacts be promulgated? Should any such disclosures be filed with or furnished to the Commission?   
8. How, if at all, should registrants disclose their internal governance and oversight of climate-related issues? For example, what are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring disclosure concerning the connection between executive or employee compensation and climate change risks and impacts?
9. What are the advantages and disadvantages of developing a single set of global standards applicable to companies around the world, including registrants under the Commission’s rules, versus multiple standard setters and standards? If there were to be a single standard setter and set of standards, which one should it be? What are the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a minimum global set of standards as a baseline that individual jurisdictions could build on versus a comprehensive set of standards? If there are multiple standard setters, how can standards be aligned to enhance comparability and reliability? What should be the interaction between any global standard and Commission requirements? If the Commission were to endorse or incorporate a global standard, what are the advantages and disadvantages of having mandatory compliance?
10. How should disclosures under any such standards be enforced or assessed?  For example, what are the advantages and disadvantages of making disclosures subject to audit or another form of assurance? If there is an audit or assurance process or requirement, what organization(s) should perform such tasks? What relationship should the Commission or other existing bodies have to such tasks? What assurance framework should the Commission consider requiring or permitting?
11. Should the Commission consider other measures to ensure the reliability of climate-related disclosures? Should the Commission, for example, consider whether management’s annual report on internal control over financial reporting and related requirements should be updated to ensure sufficient analysis of controls around climate reporting? Should the Commission consider requiring a certification by the CEO, CFO, or other corporate officer relating to climate disclosures?
12. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a “comply or explain” framework for climate change that would permit registrants to either comply with, or if they do not comply, explain why they have not complied with the disclosure rules? How should this work? Should “comply or explain” apply to all climate change disclosures or just select ones, and why?
13. How should the Commission craft rules that elicit meaningful discussion of the registrant’s views on its climate-related risks and opportunities? What are the advantages and disadvantages of requiring disclosed metrics to be accompanied with a sustainability disclosure and analysis section similar to the current Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations?
14. What climate-related information is available with respect to private companies, and how should the Commission’s rules address private companies’ climate disclosures, such as through exempt offerings, or its oversight of certain investment advisers and funds?
15. In addition to climate-related disclosure, the staff is evaluating a range of disclosure issues under the heading of environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, matters. Should climate-related requirements be one component of a broader ESG disclosure framework? How should the Commission craft climate-related disclosure requirements that would complement a broader ESG disclosure standard? How do climate-related disclosure issues relate to the broader spectrum of ESG disclosure issues?

À la prochaine…

JDSupra offre une belle photographie des litiges judiciaires canadiens occasionnés par le changement climatique : « Climate Change litigation in Canada: Recent developments » (15 novembre 2019). Je vous place ci-dessous les litiges concernant les entreprises, notamment celles du secteur énergétique.

Extrait :

Litigation against energy companies

The British Columbia cities of Vancouver, Victoria, Richmond and Port Moody are all considering filing claims against large conventional energy companies, potentially as a class action. The City of Victoria had previously advanced a motion at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities calling for its members to explore a class action lawsuit “to recover costs arising from climate change from major fossil fuel companies.”

While the City of Victoria later withdrew its motion and a similar motion by the City of Port Moody was defeated, municipalities in British Columbia appear to be continuing to consider litigation. Victoria has obtained an internal legal opinion, and a British Columbia law firm intends to share a legal opinion on the viability of a claim against conventional energy companies with Victoria and Vancouver later this fall.

Several municipalities have also requested British Columbia enact legislation that would support a claim against conventional energy companies, as the provinces did for their claims against tobacco companies. Greenpeace Canada and West Coast Environmental Law Association previously assisted with drafting such a bill that was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, but was not enacted.

À la prochaine…

Mme Cuff critique sévèrement la position de l’organisation internationale des commissions en valeurs mobilières pour leur inaction en matière de divulgation sur les données portant sur le changement climatique : « IOSCO under fire for failure to set direction for climate risk disclosure » (BusinessGreen, 23 août 2018).

The organisation responsible for guiding securities regulators around the world has been accused of failing to set a clear benchmark for climate risk disclosure practices, with pressure mounting on the body to formally endorse the guidelines set out by the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFDs).

(…) But IOSCO, the international body which brings together securities regulators, has failed to formally endorse the TCFD recommendations, despite it being the best-placed body to harmonise climate risk reporting, the report argues.

À la prochaine…