Artikel

Regulatory Milestone Against Greenwashing: ESMA Adopts Core Impact Investing Concepts Grounded in Academic Literature

19. October 2026

PRESS RELEASE

Regulatory Milestone Against Greenwashing: ESMA Adopts Core Impact Investing Concepts Grounded in Academic Literature

  • The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) calls for a strict separation between company impact and investor impact in its new supervisory note on sustainability claims. This distinction is a core insight of the foundational research by Kölbel, Heeb, Paetzold & Busch (2020).[1]
  • ESMA warns against portraying the mere holding of listed securities as generating impact. Instead, investor impact requires tangible levers, such as targeted, impact-oriented engagement, providing new capital to underserved markets, flexible financing terms, non-financial support, and signalling.
  • Pragmatic approach: Acknowledging that demonstrating additionality often encounters methodological limits, ESMA emphasizes a plausible Theory of Change and transparency regarding measurement boundaries – rather than demanding impossible proof of causality. This aligns with a core recommendation from a DVFA working paper (2023). [2]

Hamburg / Heidelberg, October 19, 2026 – An important signal for greater transparency and credibility in the sustainable finance market: On October 12, 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published further thematic guidance.[3] In it, the regulator establishes clear guardrails against misleading impact claims and adopts key scientific and methodological principles.

ESMA notes that market practices for impact products diverge significantly and that providers often fail to adequately explain their approach. One identified driver is the existence of impact frameworks with varying degrees of ambition. As evidence, the supervisory authority cites the position paper “Impact Investing in Alternative Investments – Why private market investments are particularly suited for impact-generating investments,” [4] published in November 2024 by the German Alternative Investments Association (Bundesverband Alternative Investments e.V. – BAI) and the German Impact Investing Initiative (Bundesinitiative Impact Investing e.V. – BIII), co-authored by Advanced Impact Research (AIR). The paper shows that only three out of seven reviewed frameworks require investor additionality for alternative private market funds.

At the core of ESMA’s publication lies the unambiguous differentiation between two levels that have frequently been conflated in the marketing of sustainable financial products: the impact of the financed asset or enterprise (Company Impact / Investee Impact) and the actual contribution of the capital provider (Investor Impact or Investor Contribution). This constitutes a central finding of the seminal 2020 paper by impact researchers Kölbel, Heeb, Paetzold & Busch.

The EU supervisory authority states this in no uncertain terms:

“Market participants should clearly explain which type(s) of impact they seek to achieve. Failure to distinguish clearly between investee impact and investor impact may result in misleading claims.” (ESMA Thematic Note on Impact Claims, S. 4, Abs. 13)

Merely acquiring shares in an already sustainable company on the public market does not entitle an investor to claim the environmental or social benefits of that business model as their own investment impact. Instead, the regulator requires fund managers to substantiate how and through which specific levers – such as the targeted provision of risk capital to underserved market segments or active, impact-oriented engagement – a tangible effect is delivered.

Tailwind for Private Markets and Pragmatic Additionality

For investors in private markets (Private Equity, Infrastructure, Private Debt, etc.), the paper provides welcome validation: alternative asset classes in particular offer the structural prerequisites needed to exert real investor impact, thanks to direct ownership structures, operational involvement, and flexible financing instruments.

At the same time, ESMA recognizes that proving additionality in practice is inherently challenging. Consequently, it does not demand definitive proof of causality, but rather a plausible rationale outlining how the investment strategy is expected to contribute to the intended impact. In its best-practice examples, ESMA highlights an infrastructure fund that transparently acknowledges its inability to precisely quantify additional impact yet convincingly demonstrates its operational leverage through a sound Theory of Change and concrete milestones. This overarching logic also aligns with the conclusions of a 2023 working paper published by the Impact Working Group of the Society of Investment Professionals in Germany (DVFA).

Voices on the Publication:

Eric Prüßner, Managing Director at Advanced Impact Research (AIR):

“It is vital that ESMA has issued these clarifications. The clear distinction between the impact of financed companies and the investor’s own contribution reduces the risk of impact-washing and provides essential guidance for product providers as well as investors. We are delighted to see ESMA building directly on insights from academic research and market practice.”

Prof. Dr. Timo Busch, Sustainable Finance Research Group (SFRG) an der Universität Hamburg:

“With this clarification, ESMA puts an end to a years-long grey area that has caused extensive debate in practice. From a scientific perspective, we have long emphasized that a portfolio of ‘green’ stocks does not in itself generate impact. Seeing this consensus directly integrated into European regulatory practice not only protects investors from misleading claims but ultimately directs capital to where it drives real-world change and transformation.”

Notes to Editors:

Contacts:

Advanced Impact Research (AIR)

Eric Prüßner

eric.pruessner@air4p.org

https://air4p.de/en

 

 Sustainable Finance Research Group, University of Hamburg

Prof. Dr. Timo Busch

timo.busch@uni-hamburg.de

www.sfrg.org

 

[1] Kölbel, J.F., Heeb, F., Paetzold, F., Busch, T. (2020): Can Sustainable Investing Save the World? Reviewing the mechanisms of investment impact. Organization & Environment 33(4), 554-574.

[2] https://dvfa.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/DVFA-Leifaden_Impact_2023-10.pdf

[3] ESMA (2026): Thematic notes on clear, fair & not misleading sustainability-related claims Addressing greenwashing risks in support of sustainable investments Third Note: impact claims. https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2026-10/ESMA36-429234738-3593_Thematic_note_on_impact.pdf

[4] BAI, BVII (2024): Impact Investing in Alternative Investments. Why private market investments are particularly suited for impact-generating investments. https://www.pe-magazin.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Impact-Investing-in-Alternative-Investments-%E2%80%93-Why-private-market-investments-are-particularly-suited-for-impact-generating-investments.pdf

back