Skip to content

Menu

Environment, Land & Resources

Insights and commentary on environmental issues and developments impacting business across the world

HomeAbout UsTopicsSubscribe
Latham & Watkins logo
HomeAbout UsTopics
Subscribe
Search
Close

Environment, Land & Resources

Insights and commentary on environmental issues and developments impacting business across the world

Home » Posts » Revising the Equator Principles: A New Chapter for Risk Management?

Revising the Equator Principles: A New Chapter for Risk Management?

Posted on November 21, 2017
Posted in Environmental, Social, and Governance, Green Finance, Project Siting and Approval

By James Barrett, Paul Davies and Michael Green

The Equator Principle Association has committed to revise the Equator Principles (EPs) for the first time since 2013.

The EPs provide a voluntary risk management framework for determining, assessing, and managing environmental and social risk for certain project finance transactions. More than 90 financial institutions in 37 countries have already adopted the EPs, which formally launched in 2004. These institutions — which are known as Equator Principle Financial Institutions (EPFIs) — have committed to withholding loans from projects if the borrower fails to comply with the EPFI’s social and environmental policies and procedures.

However, regulators, financial institutions, and other stakeholders have significantly changed how they engage with environmental and social concerns since the last 2013 iteration of the EPs. For example, companies increasingly face pressure to consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues proactively, rather than focusing resources on addressing immediate environmental compliance issues.

The Equator Principle Association recognized such developments at its annual 2017 meeting. More than 130 individuals representing 60 EPFIs attended the meeting — during which they discussed key issues related to sustainable finance. In particular, attendees reflected on the far-ranging implications of the Paris Agreement and the recently released Financial Stability Board’s (FSB’s) Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TFCD) recommendations. In adhering to the TFCD, for example, companies may be addressing concerns of investors by being more transparent in relation to their governance structures, climate change strategies, and risk management practices. However, Non-Governmental Organisations are increasingly adept at identifying any gaps between the obligations a company formally commits to and what they actually do in practice. This potential delta may result in an increased risk of litigation. New challenges associated with the management of environmental and social risk necessitate a review of the EPs.

Meeting participants decided to update the EPs with a focus on enhancing the framework’s primary function: to provide a structure for financial institutions to handle environmental and social risks that arise in transactions. The review process — which will include related external stakeholder consultations — is likely to take up to 18 months. Notably, NGO’s have called for the new EPs to be “sufficiently ambitious” in light of escalating risks posed by climate change. The amendments could potentially include a mechanism to resolve environmental and social issues resulting from a potential breach of the framework’s standards.

In order for the EPs to continue to prove useful to companies, a review is required in light of other major global environmental developments impacting companies’ consideration of environmental and social issues. The new EPs will likely provide more onerous requirements than previous iterations. Borrowers, as well as both current and prospective EPFIs, should pay close attention to any more taxing obligations, depending on the outcome of the review process.

This post was prepared with the assistance of Tegan Creedy in the London office of Latham & Watkins.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
What’s Next Following the Supreme Court’s Decision in Sackett v. EPA?
June 14, 2023
New Senate Bill Targets US Corporate Conduct in China
March 1, 2022
US Supreme Court: Some Discharges Through Groundwater Require Permit
April 30, 2020
Subscribe to the Environment, Land & Resources Blog
Subscribe
Latham & Watkins logo
Facebook Twitter RSS LinkedIn

Austin, Beijing, Boston, Brussels, Century City, Chicago, Dubai, Düsseldorf, Frankfort, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Houston, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, Milan, Munich, New York, Orange County, Paris, Riyadh, San Diego, San Francisco, Seoul, Silicon Valley, Singapore, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Washington, D.C.

Portions of this blog may constitute attorney advertising. Any testimonial or endorsement on this profile does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation.

Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in France, Hong Kong, Italy, Singapore, and the United Kingdom and as an affiliated partnership conducting the practice in Japan. Latham & Watkins operates in Israel through a limited liability company, in South Korea as a Foreign Legal Consultant Office, and in Saudi Arabia through a limited liability company.

Topics

Archives

© 2025, Latham & Watkins
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo