Andrea BELTRAMELLO

What Andrea BELTRAMELLO has said (5)

• “Yes. Thank you very much. I'll try to give you some technical clarifications. Uh, on the issue of the oil sector and how to apply the materiality threshold, I think it is very important to mention that a company under the proposed amendments have to explain in the qualitative disclosures how they decided that some activities are not material for their business, and they also have to explain in which sectors those activities are pertaining in order for investors to understand the implications. So they don't access the taxonomy criteria, but they have to be transparent. And we have a recital for that. And based on the public consultations, we will see how to further streamline. And really on the one hand, balance the burden reduction with transparency and and consistency on the issue of opex and the fact that OpEx needs to be made more operational. I think that we take the point that in addition to the materiality threshold in the OpEx, we will have to reflect on how to better define the relevant expenditures and also how to make those expenditures relate to the accounting standards. And I think that this is something that the platform in its recent report advised us to do.”
  Green Taxonomy · Green claims · Sustainable corporate governance
• “And we will in the broader review as announced by the commissioner, we will look into that more carefully. There is also a question on partial alignment. I think that this is indeed a novelty, if we can say so, that we introduced in the amendments to the Csrd. And we will have then to further define this, uh, this, this concept. But the idea is that, as the commissioner said, it tries to capture the transition element of, of the taxonomy and indeed compliance with the Danish criteria or on substantial contribution is one of the elements to to further reflect. But as you could see, we have introduced an empowerment And to further define the concept. And in this longer term review, we'll come back with concrete amendments how to capture this, uh, partial alignment and this transition element of the taxonomy. And in due course, we will be here again to explain, to explain the concept for the time being is not for this immediate measures. It's a bit left for a longer term review of the of the disclosures based on the empowerment that is in the proposal.”
  Green Taxonomy · Green claims · Sustainable corporate governance
• “Yeah. Thank you very much. Nothing really too much to compliment the commissioner. Just maybe one clarification on the 10% materiality threshold. We really wanted to make it simple, and hence the choice of deciding which activities are material for the business is left for the company itself. So we didn't want to go into the details and be very prescriptive on that. As long as there is a quantitative limit of 10%, there is enough legal certainty and then the overall report is is accurate. Also, because the company has to explain how they did this materiality decision and also have to explain the sectors those activities are pertaining. And for this essentially the investors, they have the full picture. And the rules are kind of simple and and workable.”
  Green Taxonomy · Green claims · Sustainable corporate governance
• “Either an investment fulfils all the criteria, in which case it is recognised as a line, and and so so so forth. Or if it fails, just one of them, then there is no recognition whatsoever. While the investment could still be very impactful in terms of of the environment. If you take the example of of an investment that stops all significant harm on all six environmental objectives, even if it doesn't reach the substantial contribution on one environmental objective, is still could be considered as a valuable investment for us in terms of a good environmental impact, but that wouldn't be recognised under the existing reporting requirements. So the idea is to complement and not substitute the green and fully aligned Reporting, but just to complement it with additional information, with a very clear distinction that this partial alignment or transition element cannot be equated with full compliance with the taxonomy. So in this way, investors have full clarity, and there is no kind of cannibalization of the taxonomy, and there is no greenwashing. So but we'll come later, as we explained, because we proposed to have an empowerment and then to further engage with the stakeholders and also with this House on how to best define it.”
  Green Taxonomy · Green claims · EU approach to sustainability criteria in private investments
• “Thank you. Maybe just some explanations. Also around the 10% and the partial alignment on the materiality threshold. It's not really a carte blanche in a way, because as we explained, the company has to justify its choices. Voices. So there is a qualitative obligation to explain and also the sectors in which that are kind of not assessed. If a company considers that its gas and nuclear activities are less than 10% of its overall business, it has to say that these are the sectors that are not material. And of course, the investor will draw the conclusions from that. There is also a quantitative explanation, which is to explain how much of those non-material activities, how much they represent in the overall business of a company. So and we know that they cannot represent more than 10%. So it's two, three, four depending on the on the choice made by the company. So there is enough safeguards really to, to to to ensure that the overall report is, is accurate and there is no greenwashing on the concept of partial alignment. I think that this comes also from a very clear market demand, because what happens is that at least the argument is made that the taxonomy is binary.”
  Green Taxonomy · Green claims · Sustainable corporate governance