The Securities and Exchange Commission has adopted a new rule that tightens the restrictions surrounding the naming of investment funds that prioritize environmental or social concerns.

The rule, first proposed last year, targets increasingly popular ESG funds. ESG investing, short for environmental, social, and governance, is an investment model that doesn’t solely look at maximizing profit but also other elements like an investment’s effect on the climate. The rule aims to prevent money managers from “greenwashing” by overstating funds' adherence to ESG principles.

Greenwashing is when firms obfuscate the truth about what is in their investment vehicles in order to reap the benefits of the ESG label without following through (ESG-focused funds tend to have much higher fees than traditional index funds).

AS GOP WRESTLES WITH SPENDING DEAL, WILL HOUSE DEMOCRATS COME TO THEIR AID?

The rule tightens regulations preventing money managers from giving their funds an ESG label if it is not merited. Specifically, the rule mandates that if a fund implies an ESG focus, or a focus on a class of companies with certain characteristics, that 80% of the value of their assets in those investments be in the class the name suggests.

The rule also targets funds using terms like “growth” and “value” — which the finance industry has pushed back on because different firms define those strategies differently.

The SEC proposal is an update to the 20-year-old “Names Rule,” which requires fund names to mesh with the included assets. SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, who has been at the forefront of a major ESG push from the Wall Street watchdog, said when the rule was first proposed that the update would help protect investors.

“As the fund industry has developed over the last two decades, gaps in the current Names Rule may undermine investor protection,” Gensler said. “Today’s final rules will help ensure that a fund’s portfolio aligns with a fund’s name. Such truth in advertising promotes fund integrity on behalf of fund investors.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But the rule has big opponents. The Investment Company Institute, an association of regulated funds, had pushed back on the move in a comment letter to the SEC, saying that the existing rules had worked as intended, and that investors understood the documentation provided by funds justifying their names.