Apr. 26, 2022
26 April 2022 Dear SEC Public Comment Coordinator, I am writing in support of the disclosure of important climate-related information. As a student of corporate sustainability & social responsibility at the Leeds School of Business, I have spent my undergraduate career examining the potential opportunities, risks and strategies related to climate change and business, sustainable operations, ESG reporting, and ethical leadership. From my understanding, the proposed 2022 SEC climate disclosure guidelines will require all public companies which have filed a 10-k to report Scope 1 & 2 emissions, externally audited. Those companies will also be required to report Scope 3 emissions if they are financially material to investors or the company has a public carbon-neutrality pledge. In that the proposed SEC climate disclosure guidelines are aligned with the TCFD Framework, companies with existing TCFD-aligned ESG or integrated annual financial reports will have little modifications to impose before the first applicable reporting quarter. Those companies without existing reporting infrastructures that disclose carbon emissions will have time to develop metrics to track and report with the phase-in timetable based on the category and size of the company. Furthermore, the proposed rules would provide a safe harbor for liability from Scope 3 emissions disclosure. The SEC taking these steps is monumental – a moment in history that I will never forget. While a plethora of sustainability reporting frameworks have saturated the business landscape over the past decade, we have lacked and desperately needed a government agency to enforce environmental protections, particularly in businesses. The TCFD guidelines take an outside-in approach to assessing the financial materiality of sustainability and/or climate-related issues on the company – therefore most closely aligning with the Supreme Court’s ruling on materiality. According to how the Supreme Court views financial materiality, and under the assumption of science-based climate predictions, these disclosure rules will become increasingly legally imperative day by day. Based on the ruling in Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988), which was subsequently reaffirmed by the court in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et. Al. v. Siracusano (2011), a piece of data is material if there is “a substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix of the information made available.” All science indicates that the human-engineered climate crisis does have an impact on business as usual and will continue to have a greater and more detrimental impact, which is information that is critical for investors and unethical to withhold. Furthermore, under Chevron Deference, if the SEC can see these rules through the end of this public comment hearing period to official legislation, then try as they might, anti-environmental lobbyists will find it difficult to identify legal loopholes around emissions reporting. In other words, the SEC currently holds a unique hand in its ability to stand up to environmental bullies who have never met a formidable opponent prior. As a 22-year-old woman who wishes to have a family one day, thank you for your continued attempts to regulate business disclosures of climate impacts. This is a courageous, critical, and crucial step towards ensuring this planet remains habitable for future generations. I greatly appreciate your time in reading my perspective. Yours sincerely, Riley Cummins Corporate Sustainability & Social Responsibility Undergraduate Student at Leeds School of Business