SFDR 2.0 is heading into trilogue, with the Council and Parliament's negotiating positions now confirmed. The Council agreed its mandate on 24 June 2026 and Parliament's ECON committee voted its position on 10 September. Both texts keep a three-category structure, but they answer several of the questions that decide day to day reporting work differently.
This is a live panel rather than a scripted walkthrough. Agata Bremer of Permian and Philip Karlberg of Sensor Fonder react to the proposals as they stand and debate what they actually mean for fund classification and reporting, contrasting a private markets view with a listed markets one, and what to prepare for regardless of how the final wording lands.
What we'll cover
- Diverge: fossil fuel exclusions and Taxonomy thresholds are among the proposals least likely to survive trilogue in their current form. We'll go through where the Council and Parliament are furthest apart, and which parts of the structure are safe enough to plan against.
- Compare: principal adverse impact indicators and data availability look completely different for private equity than for listed portfolios. How much has to be requested from portfolio companies rather than sourced externally, and whether SFDR 2.0 acknowledges that gap or applies one standard regardless of asset class.
- Prepare: managers can make several re-categorisation calls now, without over-preparing for text that might not survive. We'll cover what holds its value whichever way the drafting settles, and where teams are spending effort on data points the final rules probably won't require.
What the panel will get into
Agata and Philip come at SFDR 2.0 from opposite sides of the same problem, so the questions are deliberately contrasting:
- Is the practical bottleneck data availability, process, or the regulatory text itself, and is that the same friction in listed markets as it is in private equity?
- Is re-categorisation mostly relabelling an existing Article 8 or 9 position, or does it force managers to change what they can credibly claim?
- Is mandatory PAI reporting across every category a realistic ask of portfolio companies that often have no ESG reporting function at all?
- Is there a real business case for doing this well rather than minimally, and does it show up in performance, fund flows or cheaper financing?
- Is the compliance burden proportionate for smaller, active managers, or does it land disproportionately hard?
- What are allocators asking for now: are LPs in private equity funds raising different questions than end investors in a retail-distributed equity fund?
Your questions
The last part of the session is open to the audience. Recurring questions we expect to take include what happens to funds currently marketed as Article 8 or 9 during the transition period, whether EU Taxonomy alignment reporting moves on a separate track, how national regulators are likely to read the ambiguity before Level 2 measures land, and whether gold-plating persists for firms distributing across multiple EU markets.
Who it's for
Heads of Sustainability, ESG analysts and product teams at asset managers, management companies and fund administrators distributing funds into the EU, across both private markets and listed strategies.
Webinar: SFDR 2.0 goes to trilogue: the open questions and how to prepare
Duration: 60 minutes: a short update on where the text stands, a live panel, and audience Q&A
How to join: register using the form on this page and we'll send you the joining link. We send the recording to everyone who registers, so sign up even if the time doesn't work for you.