SFDR Articles 6/8/9: what the classification does (and does not) say
In practice, SFDR classification is a disclosure framework. It helps standardise information, but it is not, by itself, a full judgement on “quality” or “impact”.
Premise
Professional stakeholders use SFDR as an entry point for comparison. The classification helps structure questions, but due diligence generally goes beyond the label to evaluate methodology, governance, and reporting consistency.
What it is
| A disclosure frame | A way to describe sustainability characteristics/objectives and how they are pursued and monitored. |
|---|---|
| A vocabulary constraint | Terms should be used consistently with the product documentation and the applicable reporting expectations. |
| A comparator | It enables first-pass comparison, not final judgement. |
What it is not
| Not a ranking | Article 9 is not automatically “better” than Article 8; it indicates a different disclosure framing and objective structure. |
|---|---|
| Not proof of outcomes | Classification does not, by itself, prove real-world impact outcomes; it sets expectations for how objectives are defined and reported. |
| Not a substitute for process | Methodology and governance still have to be evaluated: definitions, controls, escalation, and record keeping. |
Typical diligence questions (beyond the label)
Institutional review teams often focus on the following, regardless of classification:
Information that signals seriousness
The strongest signal is the ability to show work: policies, definitions, and a stable process that can be reviewed by a third party.
Practical rule: if a statement cannot be evidenced via documentation or reporting, it should not be presented as a fact.