Climate Benchmarks Regulation.
Climate Benchmarks Regulation
The Climate Benchmarks Regulation refers to the European Union’s legal framework that sets common standards and rules for climate‑related financial benchmarks used in financial instruments, investment funds, and disclosures. It is part of the EU’s broader sustainable finance agenda aimed at guiding capital flows toward environmentally sustainable activities and avoiding “greenwashing” (misleading sustainability claims). The regime was introduced through Regulation (EU) 2019/2089, which amended the original Benchmarks Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/1011) to create EU Climate Transition Benchmarks and EU Paris‑aligned Benchmarks alongside enhanced sustainability‑related disclosure requirements.
In essence, the regulation:
Establishes minimum standards for how climate benchmarks are calculated and presented.
Requires benchmark administrators to demonstrate how climate factors are integrated into the benchmark.
Sets requirements for transparency and methodology so that investors can compare climate credentials across benchmarks.
This regulatory innovation is significant because such benchmarks influence investment decisions and are a tool for monitoring how portfolios align with climate goals like the Paris Agreement.
Core Legal Features
1. Types of Climate Benchmarks
EU Climate Transition Benchmarks (CTBs): Benchmarks designed to track underlying assets that are on a decarbonisation trajectory.
EU Paris‑Aligned Benchmarks (PABs): Benchmarks aligned with the long‑term climate objectives of the Paris Agreement.
2. Disclosure and Methodology Requirements
Benchmark administrators must:
Explain how environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, especially greenhouse gas emissions, are reflected in the benchmark methodology.
Provide investors with clear and verified information on how the benchmark contributes to climate goals.
3. Regulatory Oversight
EU supervisory authorities (such as the European Securities and Markets Authority) monitor compliance and may impose sanctions for misleading climate labels. Recent reforms further enhance regulatory supervision and limit the scope to significant benchmarks while maintaining climate‑related ones within the regime.
Why Case Law Matters
Since the Climate Benchmarks Regulation is relatively new, direct litigation specifically challenging its provisions is still emerging. However, climate litigation and judicial review of environmental and regulatory actions in the EU and beyond provide relevant precedents — especially where courts have interpreted climate obligations, regulatory standards, and the responsibilities of governments and private actors. The following cases, although not all challenges to the benchmarks regime itself, illustrate legal principles underpinning climate‑related regulation and obligations:
1. EU ETS Benchmarks Case – Court of Justice (Case C‑80/16 and related)
Court: Court of Justice of the European Union
Principle:
The CJEU upheld the methodology used by the European Commission in establishing benchmarks for free allocation of EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) allowances, confirming that the regulatory criteria were lawful and valid. This judgment reinforced the principle that benchmarks used in climate‑related regulation must have a legally sound methodology and not distort market operations.
2. Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands
Court: Supreme Court of the Netherlands
Principle:
Dutch courts held that the government must take adequate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with human rights and climate science. Though this case was about state emissions policy, it established that judicial enforcement of climate regulatory objectives is permissible where regulators or governments fail to meet them — a principle relevant to interpreting climate benchmarks and disclosure requirements in financial regulation.
3. Neubauer v Germany
Court: German Constitutional Court
Principle:
This landmark decision ruled that national climate policy was insufficient to protect fundamental rights of future generations. It highlighted the role of courts in enforcing stringent climate action, which indirectly supports robust regulatory frameworks — including financial benchmarks tied to climate goals.
4. Grande‑Synthe Climate Case
Court: Conseil d’État (France’s highest administrative court)
Principle:
The court held that the French government must take necessary measures to meet domestic and international greenhouse gas reduction commitments. The decision affirms that courts can mandate compliance with climate targets, which reinforces the legitimacy of regulatory tools such as climate benchmarks that aim to steer financial markets toward emission reduction.
5. European Court of Human Rights — KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland
Court: European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber)
Principle:
The ECHR ruled that failure to take adequate climate action violated human rights (including the right to life and private and family life). While not a case about benchmarks per se, it establishes that environmental and climate regulatory frameworks must be robust and protective — a principle that resonates with the rationale behind climate benchmark regulation.
6. European General Court – People’s Climate Case (Procedural Ruling)
Court: General Court of the European Union
Principle:
In an earlier climate action case, the General Court dismissed the claim on standing grounds, finding that plaintiffs were not sufficiently directly affected by EU climate targets. This procedural ruling illustrates legal hurdles for challenging climate regulation, including aspects of disclosure or regulatory regime, and highlights how climate litigation interacts with EU law’s standing requirements.
Key Legal Takeaways
Benchmarks Must Be Lawful and Transparent: The EU ETS benchmarks case confirms that methodologies underpinning climate‑related benchmarks are subject to judicial review.
Climate Obligations Can Be Enforced by Courts: Urgenda, Neubauer, Grande‑Synthe, and KlimaSeniorinnen show that courts can compel public authorities to meet climate objectives, supporting regulatory regimes like the climate benchmarks regulation in effect.
Litigation Can Shape Sustainable Finance Law: Procedural rulings like the People’s Climate Case highlight how litigation influences the evolution of climate regulation, including financial and disclosure regimes.
Conclusion
The Climate Benchmarks Regulation is a key part of the EU’s policy architecture to channel investment toward low‑carbon and sustainable activities. Although direct judicial challenges to the benchmarks regime are still nascent, climate litigation across European courts reflects growing judicial engagement with climate governance, regulatory obligations, and the enforceability of climate‑related legal standards. The cases above show how courts interpret and shape climate law, which in turn influences how benchmarks and disclosures are implemented and enforced.
RELATED Blog
comments