SFDR 2.0: Why simpler language might result in harder choices for fund managers
A refined sustainability disclosure will be welcomed by investors, however for fund managers it means providing more evidence of how they’ve arrived at their sustainability narrative. Tomas Tobolka breaks down what private markets fund managers need to consider to meet the challenges of the new directive in 2027 and beyond.
The European Commission’s overhaul of sustainability disclosure is often described as simplification. A closer reading suggests something more demanding: a regime that narrows what qualifies as “sustainable” and drives asset managers into sharper product and governance decisions.
Market participants broadly welcome the attempt to bring order to a regime that became unwieldy under its own ambition. However, those who fall into scope realise that what appears to be simplification in the long-term will require a significant recalibration to meet the framework’s redefined requirements in the shorter-term. To meet these incoming changes private markets fund managers and their third-party providers are already mapping the work required to reposition fund ranges, reassess methodologies and re-engage investors.
Trilogue discussions between the European Commission which proposes the legislation and acts as mediator, the European Parliament which represents EU citizens, and the Council of the European Union, which represents the Member States are ongoing. This follows the Council’s adoption of its negotiating position in June 2026 and pending the European Parliament’s mandate. While timing remains uncertain, implementation isn’t expected before 2029. Also, transitional provisions may allow certain closed-ended funds established and distributed prior to the application date to benefit from exemptions.
INFO BOX: The 5 takeaways for fund managers
- Existing Article 8 and Article 9 classifications are expected to be replaced by a new categorisation framework comprising Article 7 (Transition), Article 8 (ESG Basics) and Article 9 (Sustainable) products, although the final structure remains subject to trilogue negotiations.
- Product design becomes more important than disclosure drafting. Managers will need to demonstrate how portfolios meet defined sustainability criteria, thresholds and exclusions rather than relying primarily on ESG narratives.
- Private markets receive greater recognition. The Council has proposed explicit provisions recognising private assets, real assets and originated loans within the categorisation framework, although important uncertainties remain around evidencing sustainability outcomes.
- Some closed-ended funds may benefit from grandfathering. Current proposals would exempt fully raised closed-ended funds that are no longer offered to investors before SFDR 2.0 takes effect.
- Greenwashing controls are expected to tighten significantly. Sustainability claims will be linked to clearer product categories, eligibility requirements, investment thresholds and restrictions on marketing terminology.
Tightening definitions, narrowing middle ground
It would be tempting to interpret shorter disclosures and clearer labels as evidence that the framework will be easier to navigate. On paper, that might appear to be the case with pre-contractual and annual disclosures expected to be limited in length, product categories are to be reduced, and several of the more complex concepts underpinning SFDR 1.0 fall away.
However, simplified presentation is most likely to result in sharpened judgement as the most consequential shift lies in how tightly the framework is defined. Under the current proposals, SFDR 2.0 establishes clearer product categories for sustainability-related funds, supported by explicit thresholds, exclusions and eligible investment criteria. If adopted in its current form, it steps away from elements that proved difficult under SFDR 1.0. Entity-level Principal Adverse Impacts (PAI) reporting is proposed to be removed, however product-level PAI reporting remains under the Council’s approach for certain Article 7 (Transition) and Article 9 (Sustainable) products, including minimum mandatory indicator requirements.
Much of the SFDR 1.0 market relied on elasticity with Article 8 accommodating a wide spectrum of approaches, from substantive ESG integration to more indicative positioning. The emerging framework suggests that under SFDR 2.0, that middle ground narrows. Early commentary already points to a framework in which sustainability claims must be supported by defined metrics, thresholds and investment composition, rather than narrative positioning alone.
The objective is simplification, yet the operational effect may be greater selectivity in what can credibly be presented as sustainable. The introduction of Article 6a makes this explicit. Under the current proposals, Article 6a would create a framework for products that do not qualify for a sustainability category, although aspects of the regime remain subject to legislative negotiations. In this case, products that do not meet the thresholds for categorisation may still reference sustainability factors, but only within carefully prescribed limits: such references must remain secondary, cannot shape the product’s identity, and cannot be used in naming or marketing.
For investment managers, the consequences are less about disclosure formatting and more about product design. The materials make clear that the transition will require a detailed assessment at fund level: whether existing portfolios meet the new eligibility criteria, how methodologies must adapt, and which products can be upgraded, retained, reclassified or withdrawn. This is not an incremental exercise. It goes to the composition of portfolios, the calibration of exclusions, the articulation of objectives and the consistency of internal ESG frameworks across fund ranges.
One notable development for private markets is the Council’s proposal to expressly recognise private assets, real assets and originated loans within the SFDR 2.0 framework. This is particularly relevant for private equity, real estate, infrastructure and private credit strategies, as it provides greater clarity on how these investments may qualify within the new sustainability product categories. However, managers will still need to demonstrate, through documented methodologies and appropriate evidence, how such investments contribute to the relevant sustainability objectives and classification criteria.
“The objective is simplification, yet the operational effect may be greater selectivity in what can credibly be presented as sustainable.”
Jurisdiction matters, investor location less so
As SFDR and the proposed reforms are an EU regime, whether funds fall into scope will depend on whether the manager is accessing the EU market. For example, if an AIFM manages or markets Luxembourg AIFs EU investors, UK investors, Cayman investors and U.S. investors would generally receive the same SFDR disclosures for the fund. However, a more relevant distinction is whether the fund is marketed in the EU and whether the AIFM is in scope of SFDR.
One area where differences are emerging is that the UK is developing its own SDR (Sustainability Disclosure Requirements) and investment labels regime, which is separate from SFDR. Therefore, a manager raising capital in both the EU and UK may ultimately need to comply with SFDR/SFDR 2.0 for EU distribution and SDR for UK distribution.
What is already emerging in client discussions is that SFDR 2.0 is shaping decisions well before formal application. The focus is shifting beyond classification to whether strategies can support their claims and sustain them over time. For funds already in scope, the work is ongoing: reassessing product fit, refining methodologies and aligning governance, data and investor communication. For new mandates, SFDR 2.0 is influencing product design from the outset, including how objectives, indicators and disclosures are defined.
Data becomes the point at which ambition is tested. SFDR 2.0 establishes clearer expectations around the use of sustainability data, estimates and methodologies, alongside requirements to formalise those approaches through governance and contractual arrangements. This aligns with broader developments such as Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which are expected to improve the availability and comparability of underlying data inputs.
From disclosure to evidence
Improved data governance will also make fund managers’ judgement more visible to regulators. Managers must define what constitutes a credible sustainability objective, how indicators are selected and measured, and how consistency is maintained across different strategies and fund vintages.
This is not prescribed by the regulation itself, rather it reflects its intention. As classifications tighten and expectations become more defined, coherence across the structure becomes as important as the classification itself. For investors, the implication is not simply shorter disclosures or clearer labels. It is a shift towards a more disciplined market. Products that can genuinely support sustainability objectives may benefit from greater credibility. Those that cannot may need to reposition more conservatively.
One of the most significant developments for private markets managers is the Council’s proposal to permit certain AIFs marketed exclusively to professional investors to opt out of core elements of the SFDR 2.0 categorisation framework. While not a complete exemption, the proposal reflects growing recognition that institutional investors may require a different sustainability disclosure framework from retail investors.
For private markets managers, the most significant practical question may not be whether a fund qualifies for Article 7, 8 or 9, but whether the cost and operational burden of achieving and evidencing that classification remains proportionate. The Council’s proposed professional-investor opt-out suggests policymakers increasingly recognise that institutional investors may require greater flexibility than a one-size-fits-all categorisation framework.
Clarity, in this context, is not about having fewer pages to read, rather it is about having fewer ambiguities to interpret. If SFDR 2.0 achieves that, even imperfectly, it will have changed the market in a way that matters. If you’d like to discuss any aspect of the incoming changes or find out how best to prepare for them, please contact us directly.
Authors
