Shoppers of investment advice , clients, advisers and regulators , are watching closely as ESMA urges a proportionate supervisory approach to firms implementing MiFID II sustainability rules, aiming to balance dialogue and guidance with enforcement while the wider sustainable finance framework evolves.
Essential Takeaways
- Progress noted: ESMA found firms have generally advanced in applying MiFID II sustainability requirements, but practices vary and gaps remain.
- Client experience matters: Questionnaires and interactive tools are common; many clients still find “sustainability preferences” hard to grasp.
- Proportionate product categorisation: Firms may use pragmatic categorisation where data are limited, provided methods are consistent and documented.
- Record-keeping weaknesses: Firms must improve documentation of preference collection, adaptations and the rationale behind suitability decisions.
- Regulatory patience: ESMA encourages dialogue and fixes during transition, reserving enforcement for clear breaches or mis‑selling.
Why ESMA is asking for proportionality , and what that feels like in practice
ESMA’s recent statement makes plain that supervisors should favour engagement over immediate penalties while firms adapt to MiFID II sustainability rules, and that tone is reassuringly pragmatic. The regulator’s Common Supervisory Action (CSA), covering 245 firms over 2024–25, found steady progress but patchy implementation across jurisdictions. That means some clients get a clear, friendly questionnaire; others face confusing jargon and incomplete records.
This softer supervisory stance recognises the practical friction firms face , limited data, evolving SFDR rules, and different business models. For firms, that translates into working conversations with competent authorities rather than a first instinct to expect fines, unless there’s obvious mis‑selling.
What firms are doing to capture sustainability preferences , and where they stumble
Most firms now use more detailed questionnaires and digital aids like clickable icons or pop-ups to explain sustainability terms, which helps make the process feel more human. Yet ESMA flagged recurring issues: questionnaires only touching on in‑house product categories, vague handling of Principal Adverse Impacts, and inconsistent policies for clients who don’t express preferences.
Practical tip: keep client questionnaires neutral, concise and proportionate , avoid overwhelming technical terms while documenting answers clearly. That strikes the balance ESMA wants between meaningful client choice and usability.
Product categorisation in a data‑scarce world , sensible shortcuts are allowed
Firms use a wide range of methods to label products with sustainability features, especially for instruments outside SFDR’s current scope. ESMA accepts proportional approaches where reliable data are lacking, provided categorisation frameworks are consistent, well documented and suitable for a MiFID-compliant suitability assessment.
So, don’t invent false granularity. If your data only supports broad environmental, social or governance buckets, use them consistently and explain the limits to clients. That transparency keeps advice honest and defensible.
Suitability, portfolio approaches and adapting preferences , practical hurdles
Integrating sustainability into suitability checks often relies on a “portfolio approach” and varies by business model. ESMA wants firms to articulate chosen methods clearly inside their procedures so advisers apply preferences consistently. Where a client’s stated preferences can’t be met due to product scarcity, advisers should show the closest alternatives and let clients adjust their preferences before any recommendation , that’s a MiFID must.
Practical tip: build standard scripts and written explanations for advisers to use when no perfect match exists, and log the client’s response and any adaptations.
Record keeping, target markets and the road ahead
Several firms don’t capture the full trail of preference changes or the reasoning behind product matches , an avoidable blind spot. ESMA also found many target market assessments lack the granularity needed to match products effectively to sustainability objectives, and few firms consider sustainability in negative target market assessments for non‑ESG products.
Good records matter: keep the initial questionnaire, any discussion notes, the rationale for adaptations and the final choice. That protects clients and firms if a suitability decision is later queried.
What this means next , waiting for SFDR clarity and incremental improvement
ESMA acknowledges the CSA happened amid major sustainable finance reform, and expects future SFDR and RIS updates to clarify disclosures and prompt firms to refine MiFID II processes further. Meanwhile, firms should use this transition window to tighten procedures, improve client explanations and remedy documentation gaps.
Regulators signalling proportionality gives firms breathing space , but it’s also a call to act rather than pause.
It’s a small administrative shift that can make sustainability advice clearer, fairer and easier to defend.
Source Reference Map
Story idea inspired by: [1]
Sources by paragraph:
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The article is based on a recent statement by ESMA dated 6 May 2026, indicating high freshness. No evidence of recycled or outdated content was found.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
The article does not contain direct quotes. All information is paraphrased from the original ESMA statement, which is publicly accessible.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The primary source is the official ESMA statement, a reputable and authoritative source. The secondary source is Linklaters, a well-established international law firm known for its expertise in financial regulation.
Plausibility check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims made in the article align with ESMA’s known regulatory approach and recent activities, including the Common Supervisory Action on MiFID II sustainability aspects. No inconsistencies or implausible statements were identified.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The article is based on a recent and original ESMA statement, accurately summarised by a reputable law firm. All claims are plausible and verifiable, with no indications of recycled content or conflicts of interest. The content is freely accessible and does not contain any opinion or commentary, ensuring high reliability and independence.
