Today’s post reacts to comments recently from Christine Lagarde, relating specifically to the role and neutrality of the European Central Bank and its position with regards to advancing European policies. We have discussed, on a number of occasions recently, the perilous position of the sustainable rating environment and, as I suggest, the potential importance of European sustainable-related developments to the health of that particular industry. In that regard, the recent comments on the role of the ECB in potentially enforcing the EU’s climate-related policies not only marks a controversial turn in sentiment, but potentially impacts the development of the sustainable rating marketplace.   Lagarde spoke recently and in emphasising her unhappiness with the development of sustainability in the marketplace, declared that ‘ climate risks are not adequately priced ’. The article in Bloomberg’s Quint offering suggests that she may lead the ECB in a new direction, with the decisions on

Here in Financial Regulation Matters , we are more than aware of the pressure that credit rating agencies have been piling on the African continent on account of the pandemic. We looked recently at the dynamic here , and have also reviewed the views of many current and former rating analysts – a representative example of the argument is here – that consists of the understanding that investors in African debt knew the risks, and should subsequently suffer the consequences. However, there is more to the story than that and, even more importantly, that view maintains the status quo and does not seek to advance the position of the countries in question. In that light, the question needs to be ‘what can be done?’, but also ‘should it be done?’   The African Union, via its African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), has developed a report entitled the ‘ African Sovereign Credit Rating Review ’, which was published recently and is available here . The report, which the APRM’s CEO is the first