Gold was undoubtedly one of the standout commodity stories of 2025.

The yellow metal peaked to an all-time high of over $4,500 per troy ounce on 26th December, a height which has since been surpassed in January 2026. The demand for gold has seen investors seeking a safe haven during yet more global political risk, largely driven by the US intervention into Venezuela, the ongoing impact of the US tariffs and sabre rattling with Greenland, with heightened tensions in the Middle East with Iran and the ongoing challenge of the Gaza situation. Meanwhile the Russia/Ukrainian is war is on the brink of entering into its fifth year.

The combination of destabilising global events with the ongoing economic impact of inflation, deglobalisation and a weak US dollar policy has seen unprecedented investment flows from central banks – particularly China – seeking a hard asset hedge against these economic headwinds. And physical gold has been the main recipient of this interest.

Fast forward to 12 January 2026, spot gold is threatening the US$4,600 level, with many analysts forecasting the potential to reach US$5,000 per ounce by the end of 2026, levels only dreamed of by the industry only a year or so ago. The price of silver, a precious yet also industrial metal, is today trading at over $84 per ounce, almost doubling since November 2025.  

M&A surge follows price rally

This unprecedented surge in precious metals prices fuelled significant M&A activity throughout 2025, keeping the Burson Buchanan mining team exceptionally busy.

In October, our long-standing client ASX-listed Predictive Discovery (PDI) announced a merger with TSX-listed Robex Resources, creating a new West African gold mining champion producer with a combined valuation of c. US$2.8 billion. The merger allows PDI to de-risk development of its flagship Bankan Gold Project in Guinea, leveraging Robex’s revenue-generating Nampala Gold Mine in Mali and the soon-to-be-commissioned Kiniero Project in Guinea. The combined entity will have significant relevance to global investors as a pure gold mining company, with a dual listing on Australia’s ASX and Canada’s TSX-V stock exchanges. Following the approval by Robex’s shareholders on 30 December, the transaction is expected to complete in Q1 2026 following the approval by the newly democratically elected Guinean government.

Toronto-listed DPM Metals acquired our client, dual-listed (LSE/ASX) Adriatic Metals, for US$1.3 billion—a strategically timed transaction that closed in September, and saw Adriatic shareholders crystalise a four-times increase in its share price since Burson Buchanan began advising the company in late 2021. The acquisition gives DPM ownership of the high-grade Vareš Silver Operation in Bosnia & Herzegovina, a producing silver-lead-zinc-gold underground mine. With silver and gold prices surging since the deal was first announced in June, this proved highly successful for DPM, which now benefits from expanded operations in the Balkans and can leverage its balance sheet to develop Vareš into Europe’s newest sustainable mining operation.

Global M&A onward March
Gold dominated mining M&A globally in 2025, with notable transactions including:

Outlook for 2026

Market sentiment remains overwhelmingly bullish on gold prices for 2026 with hardly a bear in sight. Morgan Stanley has revised its forecast twice, now predicting gold will reach $4,800/oz by Q4 2026, playing catch up with Goldman Sachs’ target of $5,055/oz by year end.

Additionally, central banks show no signs of slowing their gold accumulation, physical gold-backed ETF inflows hitting a record $26 billion in Q3 2025 and cashed up gold miners are well-positioned for further consolidation.

With these tailwinds, coupled with the rapid shifting of geopolitical tectonic plates, 2026 is shaping up to be another dynamic year for precious metals and mining M&A activity. As one of the most active consultancies within the mining industry’s consolidation, Burson Buchanan looks forward to yet another year of significant activity.

Contact Burson Buchanan’s mining team to discuss further.

In 2015, I stepped away from Buchanan – one of London’s top financial PR firms – to focus on a broader client base, strategic issues and corporate communications. I wanted to dive deeper into the bigger picture: how trust, influence, and reputation were evolving in a world turned upside down by digital shifts, political uncertainty, and growing public scrutiny.

Now it’s 2025, and I’ve come full circle – back at what’s now Burson Buchanan, born from a merger that brings together sharp capital markets thinking with the scale and creativity of a global comms powerhouse.

So, what’s changed in the last decade? Honestly, everything. And with that, a whole world of opportunity – for companies navigating tricky terrain and for advisors who can connect financial fluency with strategic storytelling and stakeholder insight.

Financial PR is now about reputation, not just reporting

Back in 2015, financial comms was still mostly about earnings, IPOs and M&A deals. Today, it’s about building long-term value, staying aligned with the full spectrum of stakeholders, beyond shareholders and defending your licence to operate in an unpredictable world.

Our role now spans advising boards, talking to regulators, managing activist approaches, advising on ESG strategies and telling stories that cut through the increasingly busy funding landscape – whether it’s to media, investors, government, employees or the wider public.

The digital fast-forward

The media cycle is now constant, thanks to social platforms, algorithmic trading, and always-on newsrooms. What used to take days to unfold now happens in minutes. Expectations for speed, transparency and accountability are sky-high.

Today’s financial comms playbook includes real-time risk management, smart digital content, and data-led insight into how messages are received and reshaped.

That’s what Burson Buchanan is built to deliver – blending old-school financial PR with digital intelligence, AI tools, and a global reach.

Retail investors, activists and the new noise

Retail power has grown louder. Activists mobilise fast and public opinion can shift on a tweet. Whether it’s climate policy or tax practices, companies are under pressure from all sides – and not just from Institutions.

Communicating with communities, critics, customers and shareholders alike takes precision, credibility and calm under fire.

Helping boards manage through those moments – especially where the politics or public sentiment is tough – has been a key focus of mine these past ten years and is a skill that I’ll be bringing to the fore now I’m back at Burson Buchanan.

ESG isn’t a sideshow – but its role is evolving

A decade ago, ESG was an afterthought – a page or two in the annual report. In recent years, it moved to the forefront, especially in Europe and the UK, where purpose, sustainability and governance became deal-makers (or breakers), right alongside financial metrics.

Today, the conversation is more nuanced. ESG and sustainability may not be quite as front and centre as it once was – but that doesn’t mean it’s any less important. The scrutiny is sharper, and the bar is higher. My time outside the City helped me see how ESG can be harnessed not just as a box-ticking exercise or a risk mitigator, but as a genuine source of resilience, differentiation and long-term value.

This isn’t the same kind of agency

Rejoining Burson Buchanan isn’t just a return –  it’s a reinvention. This isn’t just financial PR plus. It’s a new kind of agency: one that blends strategic comms, capital markets insight, global perspective, and creative muscle. One that sees comms, brand, value and reputation as tightly interwoven.

For clients, whether listed companies, PE-backed firms, or those gearing up for capital events, this means real partnership, joined-up thinking, and advice that goes beyond press releases.

Bringing experience to a new era

The fundamentals of UK financial communications have been rewritten over the last decade. But what still matters – and always will – is clear thinking, honest counsel, and the ability to earn trust for when it matters most. As I return to this evolved consultancy, I see a chance to help shape the next chapter – not just helping companies communicate with markets, but lead them.

Burson Buchanan’s Matt Reid and David Reingold write that meme-stock mania is not just a market phenomenon but a comms challenge that demands strategic foresight.

The “meme stock” phenomenon is alive and well in summer 2025. A sequel to the COVID-era original, this version is again turning traditional investor relations and corporate communications efforts on their head. No longer a novelty of frenzied retail buying during the lock-down days of the pandemic, meme stocks have evolved into a real and somewhat predictable market force. Driven by social media and retail investors, the meme phenomenon can quickly inflate—and just as quickly deflate—a company’s share price and market cap. This “pump and dump” reality has left communications teams, investor relations departments and even CEOs perplexed, scrambling to react before and after the shares come back down to earth (or, in some cases, well below it).  

For those companies caught in the abrupt crosshairs of meme-stock attention, savvy communications are vital. Saying too little risks misinformation filling the void; saying too much or playing into hype can lead to reputational damage with long-term investors and customers – and possible interest from regulators – once the pendulum swings back. 

Let’s look at a (not so) hypothetical: A company generating narrow margins and modest returns has attracted an outsized interest in prominent online chats among retail traders, even though the company has made little to no recent news or business announcements. Almost immediately, the company’s shares jump up 15%. 

At that moment, all eyes are on the company. How and when to engage is not a binary “fight or fuel” decision. It is vital that the company evaluate the risks associated with dramatic fluctuations in its stock price and think strategically about how to address the newfound shareholder interest in upcoming financial communications (e.g., earnings, investor conferences). Let’s look at how this company (or any company) should prepare for potential meme stock interest, and how best to respond.

The first and most important step any company should take is monitoring far in advance of achieving meme stock fame. And that means listening and actively monitoring where the conversations are happening. The real-time dialogue that moves markets now starts on platforms like Reddit’s r/WallStreetBets, X (formerly Twitter), Discord channels, YouTube livestreams, and even TikTok. These communities spark retail interest, often traffic in misinformation, and drive the hype that drives stock prices. Identifying these conversations early can help companies prepare – and potentially tamp down – meme stock interest.

If and when a company does achieve “meme status” it is important to acknowledge the situation without amplifying it. Neither silence nor leaning into hysteria is a good option. The best antidote to volatility is clarity. Straightforward, fact-based acknowledgment of active trading activity, paired with a reminder of long-term strategic priorities, can go a long way. Thoughtful, fact-based messaging in CEO letters, Q&A updates on IR sites, and investor presentations can reinforce business fundamentals without stoking frenzy. It’s not just about protecting the stock price; it’s about protecting the brand and those closest to it. Transparent and grounded communications can serve as an anchor amid the chaos. 

There may be an urge to ‘join the party’ or play into the meme speak as companies determine how to address sudden stock rises.  A few companies have tried and succeeded – but more have failed. It is vital that companies tread carefully in addressing retail enthusiasm. Internet irony has a short shelf life and what might seem clever on X today can become tomorrow’s cautionary tale. That doesn’t necessarily mean silence. Look to clarify facts, reinforce your long-term business strategy and stabilize the narrative. If you do engage, have a team of experienced advisors ready at the helm, and do so deliberately and with discipline rather than improvisation.

Finally, regardless of how a company chooses to respond, it is vital to engage all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Meme status reverberates across the enterprise. Employees, customers, lenders, partners and suppliers all take note. Mitigate speculation and rumors by equipping internal and client-facing teams with the proper context, Qs&As and talking points. Reinforce your value proposition and let your partners know you’re still the same business they signed up for, even if a hashtag is now accompanying your stock ticker on social channels.

Bottom line: meme-stock mania is not just a market phenomenon. It is a communications challenge that demands strategic foresight and a grounded, clear voice. In such highly fraught, highly viral moments, companies can control how they are perceived by controlling how they respond. 

The best approach? Be transparent. Be responsible. And above all, be focused on strategy, building long-term value for all stakeholders.

Memes fade. Fundamentals don’t.
 

Matt Reid is the US CEO and David Reingold (pictured) is a senior VP at Burson Buchanan, a boutique communications firm advising boards and management teams on stakeholder engagement, investor relations and reputation management.

Published: PRovoke Media – August 14th 2025

What’s the big deal?

Once they have cut through the near impenetrable prolix, seasoned sustainability reporters may be thinking ‘What’s the big deal ? This is a consolidation of the best and most complex sustainability requirements from existing frameworks and standards’; following their review of the long-awaited drafts for both EFRAG’s European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and IFRS’s International Sustainability Standard Board’s S1 and S2 papers. For those unfamiliar, the ESRS disclosures will be required for larger and listed EU companies (as well as those with significant operations within the EU) from January 2024. Meanwhile, the ISSB standards seems likely to be the government and stock exchange adopted ESG disclosure for the UK and other non-EU countries such as Norway in the next couple of years (if not a UK Taxonomy to match the EUs).

Much of the guidance deliberately builds on existing standards and frameworks from SASB and TCFD, but adds a unifying badge to this regulatory consolidation of general sustainability and climate risk disclosures. Buchanan’s review stumbled across a few inconsistencies and contradictions in the drafts, but it is ‘draft’ and there will be some leeway for reporters in their first few years of publications, as well as some settling down of the requirements. What’s clear is that the scope and granularity is going to be a challenge for those at the start of, or early on in their sustainability journey. But we hope that the ‘double materiality’ assessment enables companies to prioritise their disclosures and avoid many that just aren’t relevant or material.

So what is the big deal (apart from the fact your inbox is going to be inundated with invites to forums and roundtables to discuss these requirements from ‘professional’ service companies hoping to panic you into a £2,000 seminar event.)? The big deal is that the ‘financial materiality’ of your ESG risk and opportunity profile is the game-changing stipulation and drags sustainability disclosure out from the purview of your comms/IR/marketing departments and slams it down on the CFO’s desk. Hard. We’re witnessing the shift from sustainability being an exercise in supplementary corporate communications to one embedded within strategy, risk and financing management processes.

Finance teams will now need to provide clear quantifiable £££$$$EUR assessments of the impacts of primary ESG risks and opportunities, over short-, medium- and long-term time horizons, and be audited. The EU’s taxonomy regulation will also assess your overall eligibility for their ‘sustainability’ classifications which may or may not support your attractiveness to responsible investors.

Sobering, I know.

A number of thoughts may be flooding through your mind, not least ‘this is going to make the already demanding reporting obligations, even more onerous’. It’s clear that ESG risk assessment now needs to be part of your Audit and Risk oversight, if not already. Your sustainability strategy needs to fully align with your growth strategy and your non-financial performance measures require the same exacting internal reporting governance and mechanisms as financial metrics. Only then will they withstand the scrutiny that will come from the audit partner who’ll be running their rule over your previously unassured data.

Add to this the fact that your reporting boundary will also be expanded to cover material impacts related to the upstream and downstream value chain; and these assessments are no longer limited to matters within the company’s control. What might alert some is that these factors and their financial impacts will likely be included in future analyst coverage and sentiment, which had previously been limited to a secondary reputational consideration rather than influencing their core recommendations. So, whether this is a big deal or not will depend on your ESG disclosure progress to date and your company’s
mindset towards sustainability integration. What’s for certain, non-financial performance is now…er…financial.

The on-again, off-again, ever-shifting White House tariff plan continues to roil the global trade and business landscape.

Market volatility, and unpredictability, persists for companies and organizations trying to stay one step ahead. The 90-day freeze on the most onerous tariffs, for all but China, does little to clarify the long-term implications for the supply chain, outlook for the U.S. economy and business planning that still must account for countless unknowns.

Amid this uncertainty, how can leadership teams credibly engage with investors, employees and customers? Much like the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when regulations across countries and regions shifted daily, agility remains the core tenet to successful communications in this “wait and see” period. Striking the right balance in acknowledging the reality, without over-communicating long-term potential impact, will ensure flexibility as the operating environment settles.

What follows are recommendations to guide business leaders on how to communicate about global tariffs, particularly through the next 90 days.

Strategies to engage while maintaining credibility

Get to your stakeholders first — and directly. Tell a cohesive story, leaning into your normal channels, but be aware of specific messaging for each audience. The news media are eager for the corporate and industry perspective but prioritize direct stakeholder engagement in the near-term. For customers, product availability, value and price are top-of-mind. Employees need assurance on security, wages and job risk. Investors have bottom-line concerns: Cost exposure and business risk, management of that risk and long-term business outlook.

Refrain from making public comments on issues that could quickly change in the coming weeks. The surest way to lose the confidence of key audiences is having to correct the record on prior company statements. The situation remains very fluid and so should your messaging. Stay high-level and stick to the facts.

Highlight solutions, underscoring your efforts to mitigate tariff impacts or further supply chain disruptions, such as a long track record of resilience, adapting to evolving conditions and working to diversify sourcing, etc.

Think strategically about frequency, tone and medium. How you engage with stakeholders can matter as much as what you say. If current and anticipated impact is limited, don’t raise the issue frequently or hold a town hall to discuss. Conversely, if the consequences are expected to be significant, relying on reactive talking points or an industry trade association is likely not enough.

If your supply chain is heavily dependent on Chinese production, expect questions about China. The China carve-out for the freeze on tariffs shifts the conflict to a primarily one-on-one battle between two economic superpowers. Be ready to address the implications while avoiding any long-term commitments or plans, as even this battle could turn into a quick skirmish with a negotiated outcome.

Ensure there’s a feedback loop, such as Slack channels, customer feedback from the sales team or the investor relations team relaying questions from investors. Keep track of what other players in your industry are saying about the tariffs and stakeholder reception to their statements.

Stick to talking about your business. Avoid getting sucked into a political debate.

Threading the needle on messaging despite so many unknowns

Though each company’s approach must align with its specific circumstances, below we’ve offered key considerations and essential building blocks to craft clear, consistent messaging.

Assure stakeholders that you are carefully monitoring developments and assessing potential impacts on the business and key stakeholders. While not entirely satisfying, a “watch, listen, and assess” message is vital to conveying the organization is ready to adapt to fast-moving developments.

Speak to what is known and verified in terms of near-term impact on customers, business operations and shareholders, and acknowledge the possibility for rapid change. As needed, emphasize supply chain continuity, availability of product and ability to adapt to changes in global trade.

Give stakeholders a glimpse into the ongoing work behind the scenes. If there’s a cross-functional team planning for contingencies or analyzing supply chain or business flexibility, help stakeholders understand these efforts at a high level.

The underlying message for customers, investors, partners and employees: the company has its business health and customers top of mind, is closely tracking the impacts of the U.S. policy on tariffs and is agile and well-positioned to address a quickly shifting global trade landscape.

Published: PR Week – April 17th 2025

Sovereign Metals came to Buchanan in late 2023 with a problem – the company was valued at less than £150m, was illiquid and had a low profile, despite the fact that Rio Tinto had acquired a 15% stake, backing it to develop the Kasiya Project – the largest and purest titanium deposit, and the second largest graphite deposit on the planet.

From 1 January 2024 Burson Buchanan reset the whole way that Sovereign was presented externally and set about the task of making the stock as investable as possible by delivering a highly pro-active campaign through tactical capital market communications. Since then, the stock has doubled in price, Rio Tinto has increased its holding to 19.9%, and trading volumes have doubled since the average in 2023.

Titanium and graphite both feature on the critical minerals lists of US, EU – such is their importance in lithium-ion batteries, defence and aerospace industries.

Titanium is one the strongest yet lightest metal in the periodic table – its applications vary from paint pigments through to advanced medical applications through to aerospace and defence, with its principal product being titanium sponge, the intermediate form of titanium before it is applied to its various end products.

Graphite makes up 50% of Lithium-ion batteries and is critical to the energy transition.

70% of the world’s source of titanium sponge currently comes from Russia and China, whilst over 80% of raw graphite is sourced from China alone.

Sovereign Metals is now positioned as the game changer in both these markets through the development of Kasiya, its rutile/graphite mine in Malawi, East Africa. Its clear strategy is to address the imbalance of sourcing these critical minerals, which are vital to securing its energy and resources security in a fast-changing world.

Kasiya’s vital statistics are staggering; a Net Present Value (NPV) of $2.3bn, forecast EBITDA of over $400m every year for the next 25 years, and the lowest cost rutile and graphite producer on the planet.

This video generated during this year’s Mining Indaba in Cape Town, summarises Sovereign succinctly and why Interactive Investor named it as 5 Mining Stocks to Watch in 2025.

Five mining stocks to watch in 2025

Examining Norway and the UK – who both saw developments in their energy transition journeys through January 2025 – provides valuable insights into the complexities of balancing green ambitions, economic realities, and the ongoing role of oil and gas.

Norway

Norway presents a paradox: a leader in green initiatives like the adoption of electric vehicles and renewables, yet also a major oil and gas producer. The recent award of 53 new oil and gas production licenses (APA 2024) offshore indicated a recognition that oil and gas will remain crucial for both energy security and revenue generation, and to power its green agenda. Norway is taking a long-term view, leveraging its hydrocarbon resources to strengthen its economy while simultaneously driving innovation in renewables and clean energy systems. Recognising that the energy transition is a multi-decade endeavour, where the energy mix will trend away from hydrocarbons, but only as new energy technologies and systems take their place to meet demand.

The Norwegian government’s recent hostility to exporting electricity to the EU via undersea interconnectors underscores the complex challenges of the energy transition. As the EU strives for an integrated energy market, in particular Germany’s growing reliance on renewables creates price spikes in both Germany and Norway when wind power generation is low, and Germany needs to import electricity. This situation exposes the tension between national energy security and affordability and broader European decarbonisation objectives.

The UK

The UK’s pursuit of decarbonisation and economic growth is hampered by conflicting political priorities and a lack of a cohesive energy policy. While the UK, like Norway, have emerged as leaders in renewables (offshore wind in the case of the UK, hydropower in Norway), their approaches to managing their oil and gas resources differ significantly.

Norway continues to invest in its domestic oil and gas sector for the long-term, while the UK has pursued policies that discourage such investment (principally the windfall Energy Profits Levy that has continued long after prices spiked in 2022). The result is the near to irreversible dismantling of the oil and gas industry and loss of a worldclass supply chain crucial for a successful energy transition. This short-sighted approach increases reliance on costlier, higher emission imported gas (via pipeline including from Norway, and LNG from Qatar and others), effectively locking in the offshoring of emissions while hindering domestic economic growth through increased energy costs.

The recent court ruling against the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields on the UKCS exemplifies the challenges facing the UK. While the ruling mandates a reassessment of the projects’ downstream emissions, the political pressure to prioritise energy security and economic growth remains intense. The UK’s ambitious net-zero targets are increasingly at odds with the realities of energy affordability and security, and the need for economic growth to achieve a successful energy transition. A coherent and consistent energy policy requires a pragmatic approach: utilising oil and gas in the near-to-medium term while investing in the energy systems of the future.

Renewable roll out benefits from O&G industry support

In both Norway and the UK, the oil and gas supply chain has played a key role in the growth of renewables. The offshore wind sector in particular has benefited enormously from the North Sea oil and gas industry with its wealth of experience and capability to deliver large complex offshore energy projects. The construction of massive offshore wind turbines relies on technologies developed for oil and gas, and companies within this supply chain are also pioneering advancements in carbon capture, storage, and geothermal energy.

The Path Forward

As 2025 unfolds, energy transition demands pragmatism. Norway’s balanced long-term investment in both fossil fuels and green technologies contrasts with the UK’s struggle to reconcile climate ambitions with economic and energy security realities. Successfully navigating this complex landscape requires a nuanced approach that balances national interests with international collaboration, addressing both immediate energy needs and long-term sustainability. Pragmatism and long-term thinking, not a dogmatic net-zero pursuit, is key to an effective and equitable transition. Ignoring economic realities risks eroding public support and hindering the very industries crucial for transitioning to a decarbonised energy future.

Building on the momentum of 2024, the regulatory landscape in 2025 continues to advance a global shift toward greater transparency and accountability in sustainability performance. Despite persistent economic and political headwinds, a range of new obligations – or opportunities, depending on your sentiment – are heading towards corporates, across many jurisdictions.

Both the UK and the EU are introducing a host of regulatory updates and directives that require a redefinition of corporate approaches to sustainability governance, and disclosure. These frameworks will demand much more from businesses, promising enhanced long-term resilience in return.

‘Companies will either view these shifts as the burden of additional compliance or the opportunity for transformation.‘

Regulatory disclosure for UK listed companies

The UK’s Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS) will enter consultations in the first quarter. Following global IFRS guidelines, these standards aim to unify sustainability reporting for UK listed businesses, offering investors a reliable benchmark. The standards will be formed of the two IFRS standards (IFRS S1 and IFRS S2) issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) in June 2023, which incorporate and build from the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. The UK Sustainability Reporting Standards are currently available for voluntary use by UK companies and the next step will be to incorporate them within UK legislation.

‘Those that have already adopted TCFD and voluntary standards like SASB will be well placed for these new regulatory requirements. Those that have not will be on a steep learning curve.’

Mandatory sustainability disclosure for private and public European businesses

Meanwhile, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) represents a global first in mandatory sustainability reporting obligations, applying to a wider range of companies (listed and private), including non-EU firms with over €150 million in EU revenue. The first reports, covering the financial year 2024, will be due in 2025.

‘With many EU Member States lagging in the directive’s transposition, a number of businesses may get caught out, fuelling calls from some quarters for a delay in adoption.‘

The EU Taxonomy continues to provide a standardised framework for defining sustainable economic activities, with its intent to guide investments towards net-zero goals. The UK is following suit with its own Green Taxonomy, with consultations ongoing until February 2025. Businesses participating in shaping this framework should help to enhance sustainable finance goals and mitigate current levels of greenwashing.

The EU’s CSDDD (or CS3D), effective since July 2024, requires large companies to identify and mitigate human rights and environmental risks across global value chains. While the directive’s obligations won’t apply until 2027, it will likely merge with other sustainability regulations (CSRD).

ESG ratings agency regulation

Efforts to regulate ESG ratings are gaining traction. The EU adopted an approach in late 2024 aimed at improving transparency and consistency, while the UK is finalising its own framework, expected to be implemented in 2025.

‘Ratings providers will likely begin to align their methodologies with the new regulatory requirements to build much-needed corporate (if not investor) confidence.’

Carbon border taxes

The EU’s CBAM, operational since October 2023, phases in obligations for importers of carbon-intensive goods like cement and steel. By January 2026, importers must register as CBAM declarants to continue operations. Meanwhile, the UK’s CBAM is set to launch in 2027. Businesses should assess their supply chains and emissions to prepare for these cross-border carbon pricing mechanisms, which aim to prevent carbon leakage and level the playing field in trade competitiveness.

‘If implemented correctly, CBAM could be a game changer for international trade. But many think this carbon mechanism will be as leaky as a sieve.’

Biodiversity disclosure

Hot on the heels of the better known TCFD, the TNFD’s disclosure recommendations focus on helping businesses manage their nature-related dependencies. A consultation on these recommendations, open until early 2025, offers a chance for companies to shape the framework while incorporating biodiversity considerations into their ESG strategies.

‘Many believe that there are far more tangible benefits to biodiversity restoration in supply chains, than climate change measures as they are local rather than global.’

In related areas, European markets are preparing for the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). Initially, slated for late 2024, has been delayed to December 2025 for large companies and June 2026 for SMEs. This regulation mandates businesses to ensure products like cattle, coffee, and wood sold in the EU are deforestation-free.

UK Corporate governance changes

Changes to the UK Corporate Governance Code take effect in January 2025, introducing annual reporting on risk management and internal controls. Additionally, the Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill, expected by late 2025, aims to enhance accountability with the long-awaited establishment of the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA) – to replace the Financial Reporting Council (FRC).

International sustainability disclosure standards

Whilst adoption timelines vary, over 30 jurisdictions have either adopted or are – like the UK – in the process of adopting the ISSB standards for sustainability reporting, including Japan, Singapore, Australia, Canada, Brazil and Hong Kong.

‘Collectively, these jurisdictions represent approximately 57% of global GDP, over 40% of global market capitalisation, and more than half of global greenhouse gas emissions.’

In this transformative year of political and economic upheaval, whether corporates can thrive or merely survive in this evolving ESG ecosystem will be interesting.

Sustainable finance grows up

The UK’s move to regulate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) rating agencies, as recently announced by new UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves, could mark a significant moment in the pursuit of a more transparent, reliable, and effective sustainable finance sector.

Ratings agency assessment of the sustainability performance of companies has been much maligned in recent years, especially by those requiring enhanced clarity and accountability to a powerful but largely unregulated industry. This is in response to the profound impact that these agencies may have on directing investment, based on their individual assessments. Their judgements lack any oversight and little recourse for redress should their appraisals be inaccurate or formed upon outdated information of their choosing.

The current landscape

Today, ESG rating agencies operate with unregulated influence, with the potential to guide or restrict the flow of trillions of pounds into investments that they deem sustainable or not.

Despite efforts in certain quarters to enhance the transparency of their methodologies in recent years, many still consider the process opaque and one way (unless you’re willing to pay to engage) and have frequently led to inconsistencies and potentially misleading assessments.

The proposed UK legislation would seek to fortify the credibility of the ESG ratings market by setting stringent standards for transparency and reliability, much like the regulatory frameworks that have been taking shape through the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the International Sustainability Standards Board.

The proposed regulation

Challenges and Considerations

While the prospect of regulation may be welcomed for the potential to enhance market stability and investment quality, concerns linger regarding the breadth and depth of such regulations and not least the timing of assessments, when companies are adapting their initiatives – such as Net Zero roadmaps – in real time.

Corporates may demand the need to distinguish between regulating subjective rating opinions and the objective ESG data upon which these ratings are based. Excessive regulation could stifle the diversity of opinions and restrict the availability of ESG data, which is critical for informed decision-making in rapidly evolving sectors.

Conclusion

The integration of clear, fair, and enforceable regulations in the ESG rating sector could represent a strategic enhancement to the architecture of global finance. By ensuring that ESG ratings are both meaningful and reliable, the UK takes a decisive step towards maturing the perception of ethical investment practices.

If you are considering ESG ratings as part of your investor relations strategy, speak to our Sustainability team: [email protected]