logo
Sebi eases ESG rating rules. But experts warn of short-term risk

Sebi eases ESG rating rules. But experts warn of short-term risk

Mint03-05-2025

MUMBAI
:
The market regulator has eased norms for ESG rating providers (ERPs), aligning the framework with that for credit ratings.
The changes, effective immediately, aim to improve rating transparency, reduce conflicts of interest, and enhance market confidence, according to a circular issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on 29 April.
Now, ERPs operating under the subscriber-pays model can withdraw ratings if there are no active subscribers or if a company fails to file its Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) report, according to the circular. For issuer-pays models, ratings can be withdrawn only after a minimum period and with bondholder consent in the case of debt securities.
While subscribers like banks, insurance companies, or even the rated company itself pay to access the ratings under the subscriber-pay model, the company being rated pays under the issuer-pays model.
'Conditional withdrawal could create short-term volatility in ESG risk perception, especially when driven by administrative lapses such as missing BRSR filings," said Shailesh Tyagi, partner, sustainability and climate change, Deloitte India. However, he said, clear and transparent documentation of withdrawal rationale could help mitigate long-term reputational risk.
Moin Ladha, partner at Khaitan & Co., said ratings retracted or revised unexpectedly could lead to 'fluctuating investor confidence, particularly if the conditions for withdrawal are not clearly defined or consistently applied".
The Sebi circular also revamped disclosure rules for ERPs. Subscriber-pays ERPs are no longer required to publish detailed rating rationales publicly, easing their compliance burden. However, they must disclose assigned ESG ratings in a standardised, year-wise format, including details of the rated entity, sector, and the date of rating.
Additionally, stock exchanges must now host ESG ratings on dedicated sections of company and debt security pages to ensure better investor visibility.
Ladha said the increased compliance burden from simultaneous disclosures and reliance on public data may raise operational costs. 'ERPs may need to explore hybrid or issuer-pays models to maintain profitability and competitiveness. These changes aim at improving rating credibility, but they could challenge the subscriber-pays model's viability unless ERPs adapt effectively," he said.
However, according to Ketan Mukhija, senior partner at Burgeon Law, mandatory disclosures on stock exchanges could enhance market transparency and aid more efficient price discovery for ESG-linked instruments.
Experts also expect the circular to reshape ERP business models, pushing firms to reevaluate revenue strategies and compliance structures.
Ladha said stricter transparency and conflict-of-interest norms could undermine the viability of the subscriber-pays model unless ERPs adapt.
According to Tyagi, while these changes reduce public-facing obligations for subscriber-based ERPs, they may increase internal coordination and systemisation costs. Issuer-pays ERPs, meanwhile, must continue with full public disclosures and prepare for enhanced governance and audit requirements.
Sebi granted Category II ERPs—a classification typically covering newer or smaller firms—a two-year extension before compliance with mandatory internal audits and governance committee formations kicks in.
The relaxation of governance norms for Category-II ERPs 'may offer some relief, but smaller players may still struggle with capacity and compliance burdens", Mukhija said.
The regulator has also expanded the pool of eligible auditors to include cost accountants and professionals with information systems security credentials.
Despite initial challenges, experts are hopeful that the regulatory changes will enhance ESG rating credibility and support capital allocation into ESG-linked instruments.
'Improved visibility and transparency of ESG scores on stock exchanges will aid efficient price discovery and bolster investor confidence," said Jyoti Prakash Gadia, managing director at financial advisory firm Resurgent India. 'The changes are pragmatic, not disruptive, and will contribute to the long-term credibility of the ecosystem."
The long-term impact will likely foster broader market acceptance and increased use of ESG ratings in investment decisions, experts said.
Tyagi believes the reforms will bring India's ESG framework closer to global benchmarks, facilitating greater institutional interest. 'For corporates, the clarity in rating assignment, withdrawal, and disclosure norms means better planning and predictability in ESG engagement."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Consultative regulation-making that should go further
Consultative regulation-making that should go further

The Hindu

time2 hours ago

  • The Hindu

Consultative regulation-making that should go further

In May this year, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a policy framework for how it will publish regulations, directions, guidelines and notifications. This follows a similar move by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), in February, which published regulations setting out the procedure it would follow to issue regulations. Regulators such as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and SEBI, have been created by Acts of Parliament and have quasi-legislative powers. Within this context, strong procedural safeguards and robust checks and balances are essential to uphold the rule of law. The recent frameworks, which outline the procedures that the RBI and SEBI must follow when making law, are a welcome start. When proposing any new regulations or amendment to existing regulations, the RBI will now conduct 'impact analyses' and SEBI will state the 'regulatory intent and objectives'. Both regulators will also invite public comments for 21 days. Moreover, they will now periodically review their own regulations. These reforms signal a welcome shift toward more transparent and consultative regulation-making. Yet, they can, and should go further. Two additions will make these processes more robust, and ensure greater transparency and accountability. First, regulators should clearly identify the economic rationale for their interventions, and second, they should institute mechanisms to ensure accountability for periodic reviews and responses to public comments. The issue of market failure The RBI's impact analyses and SEBI's statements of objectives must be grounded in economic rationale that identifies the problem that their proposed regulation will address. In 2013, the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC) emphasised that 'laws must be defined in terms of their economic purpose'. Regulatory practices in other jurisdictions also support the FSLRC's suggestion. For example, executive memoranda in the United States mandate that regulators undertake a cost-benefit analysis before proposing or adopting a regulation. Regulators there must also ensure the 'least burden on society', adopt an approach that maximises benefits, and assess the feasibility of alternatives to direct regulation. As another example, under the European Union's Better Regulation Framework, impact assessments involve identifying the problem, potential solutions and their impact, and mechanism for monitoring and evaluating the results. Currently, RBI's framework calls for 'impact analysis' considering 'economic environments'. SEBI must explain its objectives. However, neither are explicitly required to provide the economic rationale of any proposed regulation or identify the underlying market failure. This can be contrasted with the framework implemented by the International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA), which must state the issue that its proposed regulation seeks to address. Financial sector regulators such as the RBI and SEBI should: identify the market failure that necessitates regulatory intervention; demonstrate how the proposed regulation will address such failure; conduct a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate the expected impact of the proposed regulation, and formulate a monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the impact of the regulation. Strengthening accountability The track records of the regulators in consultative regulation-making are not encouraging. It was found by two researchers that between June 2014 and July 2015, the RBI had sought public comments on 2.4% of its circulars while SEBI had done the same on less than half of its regulations. Even though this suggests that there are limited opportunities for stakeholders to submit their views on proposed regulation, one is optimistic that this will now change. However, the regulators must be transparent in their approaches toward consultative regulation-making. The reporting of the following information on an annual basis will strengthen accountability: the number of public consultations vis-à-vis the number of proposed regulations or amendments; responses received; suggestions that have been accepted and rejected; rationale for acceptance and rejection; the impact of public feedback on the proposed regulation or amendment, and, finally, all associated timelines. This is by no means an exhaustive list. Some of this information can be found in the agendas for SEBI's board meetings. But typically, as in SEBI's latest board meeting, the summary of public comments is 'excised for reasons of confidentiality'. In addition, the RBI and SEBI must define the intervals at which they will review their regulations. This is relevant in the context of promises toward deregulation. Once again, this is may be contrasted with the IFSCA's framework, which mandates a review every three years. Regulators should, at pre-defined and reasonably frequent intervals, assess whether current regulations are achieving their intended objectives and addressing the problems they were designed to solve. A hurdle Good regulatory practice warrants meaningful justification for regulatory intervention, and the RBI and SEBI have taken the initial steps in that direction. Notably, limited state capacity is a significant hurdle to implementing regulatory impact assessments and consultative practices. Moreover, piecemeal reforms by individual regulators may not be sufficient to ensure consistent adherence to good regulatory practice. Parliament could contemplate enactment of a law, similar to the Administrative Procedure Act in the United States, with standardised procedures for regulation-making, which includes impact analysis, public consultation and periodic review. The United Kingdom and Canada have issued guidelines for regulation-making by agencies. Such an approach would institutionalise transparency and accountability for all regulators in India. Natasha Aggarwal is a Senior Research Fellow at TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation. The views expressed are personal

Sebi issues correction in IndusInd Bank insider trading case
Sebi issues correction in IndusInd Bank insider trading case

Economic Times

time11 hours ago

  • Economic Times

Sebi issues correction in IndusInd Bank insider trading case

Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel Capital markets regulator Sebi has issued a corrigendum to its recent interim order in the IndusInd Bank insider trading case. The market regulator clarified that a key document in its investigation was incorrectly referred to as a 'board note' in the original order but should have been described as an 'engagement note.'In its June 6, 2025, corrigendum, Sebi explained that the term 'board note' will now be read as 'engagement note (signed by the CFO and two senior executives)' in the interim order issued in late regulator had initially stated that KPMG's appointment to review the derivative issues was based on a board note. The corrigendum clarifies that it was actually based on an engagement note — a document typically signed by top company officials but not necessarily a formal board-level insider trading case revolves around allegations that these executives sold shares of IndusInd Bank while in possession of unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) regarding significant derivative losses at the to Sebi's order, IndusInd Bank's internal review had identified a negative financial impact of Rs 1,572 crore — approximately 2.35% of its net worth. However, this information was not disclosed to the public until March 10, investigation revealed that Kathpalia and Khurana sold shares — 1.25 lakh and 3.48 lakh, respectively — before the public announcement. By doing so, they avoided losses estimated at nearly Rs 20 has frozen their bank and demat accounts to the extent of the gains and barred them from trading in securities until further notice.

Sebi issues correction in IndusInd Bank insider trading case
Sebi issues correction in IndusInd Bank insider trading case

Time of India

time11 hours ago

  • Time of India

Sebi issues correction in IndusInd Bank insider trading case

Sebi has issued a corrigendum in the IndusInd Bank insider trading case, clarifying that a key document referred to as a 'board note' in its interim order should have been called an 'engagement note.' The case involves allegations of UPSI-based share sales by top executives before disclosing Rs 1,572 crore in derivative losses, helping them avoid nearly Rs 20 crore in losses. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Capital markets regulator Sebi has issued a corrigendum to its recent interim order in the IndusInd Bank insider trading case. The market regulator clarified that a key document in its investigation was incorrectly referred to as a 'board note' in the original order but should have been described as an 'engagement note.'In its June 6, 2025, corrigendum, Sebi explained that the term 'board note' will now be read as 'engagement note (signed by the CFO and two senior executives)' in the interim order issued in late regulator had initially stated that KPMG's appointment to review the derivative issues was based on a board note. The corrigendum clarifies that it was actually based on an engagement note — a document typically signed by top company officials but not necessarily a formal board-level insider trading case revolves around allegations that these executives sold shares of IndusInd Bank while in possession of unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) regarding significant derivative losses at the to Sebi's order, IndusInd Bank's internal review had identified a negative financial impact of Rs 1,572 crore — approximately 2.35% of its net worth. However, this information was not disclosed to the public until March 10, investigation revealed that Kathpalia and Khurana sold shares — 1.25 lakh and 3.48 lakh, respectively — before the public announcement. By doing so, they avoided losses estimated at nearly Rs 20 has frozen their bank and demat accounts to the extent of the gains and barred them from trading in securities until further notice.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store