The FCA recent proposal to remove mandatory product-level TCFD reporting marks one of the most significant shifts in UK sustainable finance regulation since the disclosure regime was introduced.
As the Corporate Sustainability Team predicted in our 2026 Sustainability Outlook earlier this year, this proposal represents a move towards consolidation and a broader regulatory acknowledgement that more disclosures do not mean better disclosures.
The FCA introduced its TCFD product rules to deliver three outcomes:
- More informed investment decision-making by retail and institutional investors.
- Deeper consideration of climate risks and opportunities by in-scope firms.
- Coordinated flow of climate information along the investment chain.
Five years on, the regulator's verdict is striking. The framework has generated substantial reporting activity, but there is limited evidence that investors are using the disclosures in the way policymakers intended.
The FCA's review found that retail investors rarely engage with lengthy climate reports, institutional investors typically source information directly from asset managers through bespoke channels, and firms face significant costs in producing disclosures that attract little demand. In short, the reporting machinery has become increasingly disconnected from its end users.
This consultation therefore raises a fundamental question: should sustainability regulation focus on producing more information, or more useful information?
The proposed replacement regime points firmly towards the latter.
Rather than requiring every product to publish extensive climate reports, firms would assess whether climate risks or opportunities are financially material and disclose them where they genuinely matter to investment outcomes. Climate information would move closer to core investment communications, rather than sitting in standalone reports that few investors read.
This is a notable shift which demonstrates the FCA is moving away from standardised disclosure for disclosure's sake and towards a more principles-based approach, centred on materiality and investor relevance.
For asset managers, the implications are significant - the proposal could substantially reduce the operational burden associated with product-level climate reporting, particularly around carbon metrics, scenario analysis and annual report production. It may also help address concerns that UK requirements have moved ahead of many international markets, creating complexity without a corresponding benefit for investors.
At the same time, the changes place greater responsibility on firms. Materiality assessments will become more important. Judgements about whether climate risks and opportunities are financially relevant will face greater scrutiny. The challenge will shift from producing reports to demonstrating robust decision-making.
The consultation also highlights an emerging reality across sustainable finance regulation - regulators are increasingly focused on outcomes rather than volume. Evidence of investor understanding, decision-usefulness and proportionality is becoming more important than the number of pages published.
While entity-level TCFD reporting remains untouched for now, the FCA indicated during industry discussions that it is actively considering the future of those requirements as well. If the regulator concludes that similar challenges exist at entity level, which has been reiterated by asset managers, this consultation may ultimately prove to be the first step in a broader recalibration of climate disclosure rules.
For firms, the immediate task is to engage with the consultation, closing in July and assess the practical implications. The longer-term question is more strategic: what does effective climate disclosure look like in a world where regulators are increasingly willing to challenge whether existing frameworks are delivering meaningful outcomes?
The FCA's proposal suggests the answer may be less about producing more reports and more about providing the right information, to the right audience.
If adopted, this could mark the beginning of a new phase in sustainability reporting: one defined less by compliance and more by relevance.
Jupiter has responded to Investment Association directly, broadly agreeing with the IA’s response to the consultation.
The value of active minds: independent thinking
A key feature of Jupiter’s investment approach is that we eschew the adoption of a house view, instead preferring to allow our specialist fund managers to formulate their own opinions on their asset class. As a result, it should be noted that any views expressed – including on matters relating to environmental, social and governance considerations – are those of the author(s), and may differ from views held by other Jupiter investment professionals.
Important information
This commentary is for informational purposes only and is not investment advice. Every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the information provided but no assurance or warranties are given.
Issued in the UK by Jupiter Asset Management Limited, registered address: The Zig Zag Building, 70 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6SQ is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Issued in the EU by Jupiter Asset Management International S.A. (JAMI), registered address: 5, Rue Heienhaff, Senningerberg L-1736, Luxembourg which is authorised and regulated by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier.
No part of this commentary may be reproduced in any manner without the prior permission of JAM or JAMI.