Urges Greater Attention to Adaptation and Resilience in Final Rule, Calls for Enhanced “Adaptation Literacy” among All Stakeholders
The comments submitted to the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) on June 17, 2022 are limited to the need for SEC to address adaptation, not just mitigation or GHG reduction. Adaptation Leader’s comments as submitted are available here.
Adaptation Leader stated its area of interest and expertise in the introduction to its comments: “We will focus on our core adaptation issues and leave the multitude of important comments on mitigation to the many other organizations and individuals who will weigh in before the deadline. As you may be aware, GHG issues are much more familiar to US audiences, but we hope that the SEC will consider the comments received on adaptation and resilience as seriously.”
Adaptation Leader believes that SEC emphasized mitigation (GHG reduction) in its proposal and therefore did not adequately consider disclosure for adaptation activities and strategies for publicly-held companies. At the same time, Adaptation Leader described as “excellent” the mitigation provisions proposed by SEC which track the TCFD framework. Unfortunately, claims Adaptation Leader, the TCFD guidance is heavily mitigation-centric (“adaptation was not in the remit of TCFD”), so SEC will need a separate basis or source for adaptation and resilience provisions.
As a separate point, Adaptation Leader noted its disappointment that SEC opted to limit this proposed disclosure rule to “climate disclosure” rather than a broader ESG scope or full spectrum sustainability. Climate change is an important consideration within ESG disclosure and sustainability reporting, and the topic may be viewed as a useful surrogate, but it does not present the full picture for disclosure purposes. Earlier petitions to the SEC had called for disclosure regulations that more fully aligned with ESG as it is understood in the financial sectors and investor community.
Adaptation Leader provided specific comments to point SEC staff to passages in the proposed rule that could serve as “hooks” for a more robust adaptation discussion. Similarly, the comments suggested the need for additional provisions on adaptation and resilience that are analogous to those included in the proposed rule for mitigation, such detailed guidance on metrics and a strong explanation of attestation.
While acknowledging that adaptation lags behind mitigation with respect to standards, practices and financing, Adaptation Leader asserted that “[t]he fact that the adaptation space is not as developed as the mitigation space does not justify SEC’s inattention to adaptation and resilience disclosures in the proposed rule. To the contrary, SEC should strongly acknowledge how important adaptation is in the climate risk equation and therefore urge greater corporate attention to developing and implementing adaptation strategies.” Adaptation Leader suggested that the SEC should encourage innovation and experimentation, including through pilots, and, as best practices emerge, SEC “can issue circulars providing more specificity on adaptation metrics and guidance on the materiality of adaptation and resilience related expenses.”
As next steps, Adaptation Leader recommended that the SEC convene a multi-stakeholder dialogue or, as preferred by Federal agencies, a series of “listening sessions,” to become better informed on adaptation and resilience. Adaptation Leader offered to assist SEC in any such outreach effort to build “adaptation literacy.”
Finally, Adaptation Leader placed this SEC rulemaking in the larger context of US government policy on climate change, noting that: “[i]n the Biden administration’s ‘whole of government’ approach to climate change, the SEC must play its part. The SEC proposed rule cannot be isolated or cordoned off in its own financial silo. SEC’s efforts must mesh with the climate initiatives launched by other Federal agencies.” The only coherent approach tor SEC to take, according to Adaptation Leader, is one that addresses both climate mitigation and climate adaptation.
Adaptation Leader has already received positive feedback that our comments provide not only solid recommendations for SEC, but also useful background information and cites for anyone trying to get up to speed on adaptation as a co-equal concern to mitigation when considering the totality of climate action. Indeed, the first half of its comments, Adaptation Leader intentionally provided a strong argument for market needs and potential relating to adaptation and resilience. As Adaptation Leader Founder & Managing Director Ira Feldman explained, “The intended audience for these comments was not limited to SEC staff — there are many others who need to build their adaptation literacy with some urgency.”
For further information, please contact: Ira Feldman <ira@adaptationleader.org>