Claims assessment · Entity/finance claim

1.5°C-aligned” / “Paris-aligned

Typical treatment across five regimes. Every verdict below is tied to a stated legal hook.

Market comparison

How this claim is typically treated

Five major markets · one reviewed comparison

MarketTypical treatmentLegal basisWhat is required
European UnionEURestricted
View legal reasoning

SFDR/Taxonomy for funds; CSRD E1-1; UCPD future claims

Validated pathway; disclose metric scope (portfolio vs operations)

United KingdomUKRestricted
View legal reasoning

CMA Code; FCA naming rules for funds

Credible transition plan; no implied official certification

United StatesUSConditional
View legal reasoning

FTC s.5; SEC Names Rule for funds

Reasonable basis; 80% policy if ESG in name

CanadaCARestricted
View legal reasoning

s.74.01(1)(b.2)

Recognised methodology; scenario basis stated

AustraliaAURestricted

The cited source is recorded in the assessment.

View legal reasoning

ACL; ASIC guidance for funds

Reasonable grounds; pathway assumptions

Last reviewed 22 Aug 2026This is an informational comparison, not legal advice.
Important limit

This is an informational reference, not legal advice. Verdicts reflect the typical use of this claim; exact wording, product, market and date can change the assessment.

Last verified 2026-08-22.