SEC climate risk disclosure proposals
Background
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has increasingly focused on climate-related risks and their potential material impact on publicly traded companies.
The SEC’s aim is to improve transparency and consistency of information companies disclose about climate risks, which can affect investors’ decisions.
The SEC’s proposals require companies to disclose:
Governance around climate-related risks.
Climate-related risk impacts on business operations and financial statements.
Greenhouse gas emissions data (Scope 1, 2, and potentially Scope 3).
Climate-related targets and goals, including progress.
These proposals stem from the growing recognition that climate change poses financial risks (physical risks, transition risks, liability risks) that are material for investment decisions.
The proposals are part of a broader regulatory push for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosures.
Legal Issues and Challenges
Authority: Does the SEC have the statutory authority to require such detailed climate disclosures under the Securities Exchange Act and the Securities Act?
Materiality: Are the mandated disclosures material under securities laws?
Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Are the disclosure rules properly adopted following notice-and-comment rulemaking? Are the rules arbitrary or capricious?
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Whether the SEC adequately considered the costs vs. benefits of disclosure.
First Amendment: Challenges have also arisen claiming compelled speech violations.
Key Case Law Relevant to SEC Climate Risk Disclosure and Securities Regulation
1. Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988)
Facts:
Plaintiffs alleged that Basic, Inc. made misleading statements about merger negotiations, leading to securities fraud claims.
Issue:
What is the standard for materiality in securities fraud cases?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that information is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in making an investment decision.
Explanation:
This case sets the materiality standard, foundational for climate risk disclosures. If climate risks are material to investors, companies must disclose them under securities law.
2. SEC v. Chenery Corp. (1947)
Facts:
The SEC’s action was challenged for lack of statutory authority.
Issue:
Whether the SEC’s administrative action was within its authority and whether courts should defer to agency expertise.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held courts must uphold agency decisions if based on a reasonable construction of the statute.
Explanation:
This established the principle of judicial deference to agency interpretations (later refined in Chevron). Important for understanding SEC rulemaking authority over climate disclosures.
3. Business Roundtable v. SEC (2011)
Facts:
The SEC adopted rules requiring disclosure of the use of conflict minerals in supply chains.
Issue:
Whether the SEC’s rules violated the First Amendment by compelling speech.
Holding:
The D.C. Circuit vacated the SEC’s rule, holding the disclosure requirement violated the First Amendment’s compelled speech doctrine.
Explanation:
Relevant for climate disclosure rules as it highlights constitutional limits on compelled disclosures, especially when they are controversial or burdensome.
4. National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC (2023)
Facts:
Challenged the SEC’s climate disclosure proposal on statutory and procedural grounds, arguing lack of authority and insufficient cost-benefit analysis.
Issue:
Whether SEC exceeded its statutory authority and complied with the APA.
Holding:
The case is ongoing, but preliminary injunctions were sought citing risk of overreach.
Explanation:
Represents modern litigation challenging the SEC’s climate disclosure efforts, focusing on agency authority and APA procedural rigor.
5. Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1990)
Facts:
Agency rulemaking was challenged for failure to adequately consider cost-benefit analysis under the APA.
Issue:
Whether the agency’s failure to consider costs made the rule arbitrary and capricious.
Holding:
The court held agencies must consider relevant factors, including costs and benefits.
Explanation:
This standard applies to SEC climate disclosure rulemaking, requiring thorough economic analysis, which is a basis for legal challenges.
6. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit (2006)
Facts:
Addressed securities fraud class action and scope of liability.
Issue:
Clarified when securities fraud rules apply to different types of investors.
Holding:
The Supreme Court emphasized broad investor protections.
Explanation:
Supports the rationale for broad disclosure requirements, including climate risk, as part of investor protection.
Summary Table: Key Cases on SEC Climate Disclosure
| Case | Issue | Holding / Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988) | Materiality standard for disclosures | Info is material if reasonable investor considers it important |
| SEC v. Chenery Corp. (1947) | Agency statutory authority and deference | Courts defer to reasonable agency statutory interpretation |
| Business Roundtable v. SEC (2011) | Compelled speech and First Amendment | Certain compelled disclosures can violate First Amendment |
| National Assoc. of Manufacturers v. SEC (2023) | Statutory and procedural challenges to SEC climate rules | Ongoing challenge emphasizing limits on SEC authority and APA compliance |
| Allied-Signal, Inc. v. NRC (1990) | Cost-benefit analysis under APA | Agencies must consider costs and benefits, not arbitrary |
| Merrill Lynch v. Dabit (2006) | Securities fraud protections | Supports broad investor protections justifying disclosure |
Conclusion
The SEC’s climate risk disclosure proposals rely heavily on the materiality doctrine from securities law, requiring companies to disclose climate risks material to investors.
The SEC’s statutory authority to impose these requirements is grounded in its general mandate to protect investors and maintain fair markets, but it faces legal challenges on this front.
Litigation focuses on the adequacy of the SEC’s notice-and-comment procedures under the APA and its cost-benefit analysis.
Constitutional challenges on compelled speech grounds highlight potential limits.
Ongoing cases, like National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC, will shape how robustly the SEC can enforce climate risk disclosures.
RELATED Blog
0 comments