To start with, here are three examples from the past few weeks:
- As part of the work of the ESMA Sustainability Standing Committee Consultative Working Group, we provided input on how supporting activities should be defined within the system of transition funds. Why ask this question at all? After all, there is already a definition of enabling activities set forth in the EU Taxonomy, along with a list of such activities and detailed criteria that must be met. Creating a separate definition, exceptions, or additions can only lead to complications in the sustainable finance system. If the list in the Taxonomy does not meet expectations, it needs to be improved, not replaced with a separate registry.
- As part of the same consultative group, the EU capital markets regulator asked us whether it should develop guidelines to clarify the rules for calculating Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions for funds. Of course, Scope 3 is extremely unpredictable, difficult to estimate, and therefore not comparable across financial institutions. But shouldn’t uniform rules be established by the WRI and WBCSD in the GHG Protocol? If an EU institution issues its own special guidelines today, what will become of them once the rules are harmonized at the global level?
- In early August, I pointed out that Errors in the Polish translation of the ESRS standards. Many of them concerned references from the ESRSto other EU regulations, in which—instead of directly referencing an existing and binding legal act that is, after all, published in the Official Journal of the EU in Polish—a new translation from English was provided. As a result, we end up with provisions that are „sort of consistent,” but not entirely so. This is very reminiscent of an AI-generated mess—and not by accident, since the translation of the standards was machine-generated and apparently not verified by anyone at the Commission.
These are just the last few weeks, but over the course of a year, I could give dozens of similar examples.
I have identified and pointed out all of these instances. Many others were pointed out by members of the EFRAG SR TEG, ESMA SMSG, and ESMA SSC CWG, and I know that the same is true in numerous other working or consultative groups operating within the Commission, agencies, and institutions of the Union. Thanks to this work, we are able to limit, to some extent, inconsistencies and the gradual divergence of requirements across various areas of EU legislation.
But shouldn’t ensuring regulatory consistency be the Commission’s responsibility? The time and expertise of external experts should be used for something else. The Commission, EFRAG, and ESMA selected us primarily to maintain constant and direct contact with the market, with companies, with financial institutions, and with organizations representing employees and consumers. Our task should be to point out to officials what the problems are, how they can be solved, what companies need to thrive, and what the public’s expectations are.
However, it’s difficult to propose an innovative solution aimed at improving competitiveness, fostering a sustainable transition, or building resilience if the most pressing task is to point out obvious mistakes and, on top of that, waste energy trying to convince others that it’s worth correcting those mistakes. Fortunately, amid all this cleanup work, there’s sometimes a little time to present ideas that could have truly groundbreaking results 😊
P.S. A week ago, we published MATERIALITY Sustainability Report for 2025. And on Wednesday, September 23, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., we’re hosting a webinar where we’ll explain how we put it together. Note: We’ll get right to the point: how we managed to fit the report into 40 pages, how we took advantage of the flexibility in the report’s structure allowed by the simplified ESRSs, and how we tackled the main challenges. You can sign up today at this address.
Polish 
English