The International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has recently published the results of its initial consultation regarding the need, and the potential methods for regulating the ESG Ratings and Data Products providers that exist to meet the needs of the marketplace in its new endeavour to incorporate the concept of ESG into everything it does. The first stage of the consultation was mainly aimed at the profession, and then the direct users of the profession. Now, IOSCO is opening the consultative period to the wider public for comments on its ten recommendations . In this post, we shall examine those recommendations.   The report itself is, majoritively, an opening account of the new market. It is useful for the uninitiated. Whilst not necessarily diving into every complexity (which is perhaps not its aim), the report covers the different providers, the usage of the differing products, and also some of the major criticisms being aimed at the ESG rating industry, ran

We looked only earlier this month at criticism being levied against the Sustainable Rating Agencies, or ESG Rating Agencies as they are sometimes known and, as more details get revealed concerning the modern-slavery story engulfing the fast fashion retailer Boohoo, the agencies are continuing to come in for criticism. In this post, the focus will be on highlighting the issues that are being revealed, and questioning the supposed role of the agencies.   The Financial Times has been asking the question recently ‘ why did so many ESG funds back Boohoo? ’, which is not surprising given that it was the FT who conducted investigations into the appalling working conditions within Leicester in the UK. Those investigations, which were unfortunately not really acted upon until the recent spike in coronavirus within the city saw it locked down , have since led to financial repercussions for Boohoo, one of the biggest benefactors of the underground textiles industry within the region – the