The European Union’s Joint Bank Reporting Committee has unveiled an ambitious 2026 Work Programme designed to eliminate fragmentation in environmental, social, and governance disclosures across the continent’s banking sector. The initiative, accompanied by detailed recommendations on ESG semantic integration, represents a critical step toward creating a cohesive data infrastructure that can support supervisory oversight, statistical analysis, and resolution planning while reducing the operational burden currently imposed on financial institutions.
The publication of the programme by the Joint Bank Reporting Committee marks a significant acceleration in European authorities’ efforts to standardize sustainability reporting. As ESG considerations become increasingly embedded in prudential regulation, risk management, and monetary policy, the need for consistent definitions and comparable data has emerged as a governance priority that transcends individual regulatory domains.
Build the future you deserve. Get started with our top-tier Online courses: ACCA, HESI A2, ATI TEAS 7, HESI EXIT, NCLEX-RN, NCLEX-PN, and Financial Literacy. Let Serrari Ed guide your path to success. Enroll today.
The Semantic Integration Imperative
At the foundation of the Committee’s 2026 agenda lies semantic integration—a technical term that describes the process of aligning reporting frameworks by identifying and linking elements that represent identical concepts across different regulatory requirements. The Committee intends to build common definitions, consistent terminology, and aligned data structures across statistical, supervisory, and resolution reporting systems that have historically operated in parallel.
This focus on semantic consistency addresses a fundamental challenge facing European banks: the proliferation of overlapping and sometimes contradictory sustainability reporting obligations. ESG disclosures have expanded rapidly over recent years, driven by regulatory initiatives including the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, various banking supervision requirements, and statistical data collection frameworks. Banks have consequently found themselves navigating multiple reporting channels, each potentially employing different definitions for what ostensibly represents the same underlying information.
The absence of semantic integration creates inefficiencies at multiple levels. Banks must invest in complex data architectures capable of mapping internal information to diverse external reporting taxonomies. Supervisors and policymakers struggle to aggregate and compare data across institutions when definitional inconsistencies introduce noise into analytical frameworks. Market participants face challenges in extracting decision-useful information from disclosures that may use similar terminology to describe fundamentally different concepts or employ different terminology to describe fundamentally similar concepts.
Institutional Architecture and Governance
The Joint Bank Reporting Committee was established in March 2024 through a Memorandum of Understanding between the European Banking Authority and the European Central Bank. The Committee brings together high-level representatives from European and national authorities responsible for issuing supervisory, resolution, and statistical reporting requirements across the European Economic Area. The European Commission and the Single Resolution Board also participate as core members.
This collaborative structure reflects recognition that reporting harmonization cannot be achieved through unilateral action by individual authorities. Banks operating across the European Union interact with multiple regulatory bodies, each possessing distinct mandates and information requirements. The Joint Bank Reporting Committee provides institutional machinery for coordinating these various demands and ensuring that reporting frameworks evolve in mutually compatible directions rather than diverging further over time.
The Committee’s work is supported by the Reporting Contact Group, which facilitates engagement with the banking industry. This direct channel to reporting institutions serves multiple purposes: it provides authorities with practical insights into implementation challenges, allows banks to signal areas where definitional clarity is most urgently needed, and creates opportunities for testing whether proposed harmonization measures will achieve their intended effects without creating unintended operational complications.
ESG Recommendations and Technical Standards Development
Alongside the 2026 Work Programme, the Committee released a comprehensive set of ESG-focused recommendations structured to support greater semantic integration across supervisory, resolution, and statistical reporting frameworks. These recommendations target alignment in how European banks define, classify, and report sustainability-related information, addressing everything from carbon emissions accounting methodologies to social impact metrics and governance risk indicators.
The timing of these recommendations carries strategic significance. The European Banking Authority is currently finalizing Implementing Technical Standards on ESG disclosures under the revised Capital Requirements Regulation. These technical standards will establish mandatory disclosure requirements for banks regarding environmental, social, and governance risks, including detailed templates for reporting climate-related transition risks, physical risks, and institutions’ alignment with EU Taxonomy criteria.
By providing semantic guidance ahead of the technical standards’ finalization, the Joint Bank Reporting Committee aims to ensure that definitional choices embedded in supervisory disclosure requirements remain compatible with statistical data collection frameworks and resolution planning templates. This proactive coordination should prevent a scenario where banks successfully comply with formal disclosure obligations but generate data that cannot be meaningfully aggregated for macroprudential analysis or compared across reporting periods due to semantic drift.
The recommendations also feed into the development of future ESG reporting requirements that extend beyond current mandates. As supervisory authorities continue expanding their coverage of nature-related risks, biodiversity dependencies, and social sustainability metrics, the presence of agreed semantic foundations should facilitate more coherent regulatory development and reduce the likelihood that new requirements introduce additional layers of definitional complexity.
Addressing Fragmentation in Current ESG Disclosure Landscape
The ESG reporting environment confronting European banks has become extraordinarily complex through the layering of multiple regulatory initiatives, each developed with distinct objectives and stakeholder audiences in mind. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which entered into force in January 2023, established comprehensive sustainability reporting requirements aligned with double materiality principles. Financial institutions subject to the directive must disclose both how sustainability matters affect their financial position and how their activities impact environmental and social systems.
Parallel to these corporate reporting obligations, banking-specific regulations have introduced their own ESG disclosure frameworks. The European Banking Authority published Guidelines on the management of ESG risks that took effect in January 2026, establishing minimum standards for how institutions should identify, measure, manage, and monitor climate, environmental, social, and governance risks. These guidelines include specific requirements for prudential transition plans that must demonstrate how banks will adapt their business models and risk management frameworks to the transition toward a climate-neutral economy.
Additionally, the European Supervisory Authorities published Joint Guidelines on ESG stress testing in 2025, creating harmonized expectations for how banks and insurance companies should integrate sustainability risks into supervisory stress testing exercises. The statistical frameworks operated by the European Central Bank collect granular data on banks’ green asset exposures, carbon footprints of loan portfolios, and sectoral concentrations in climate-vulnerable industries.
Each of these frameworks serves legitimate regulatory purposes, but their independent development has generated semantic inconsistencies that complicate implementation. A term like “transition risk” may carry subtly different meanings depending on whether it appears in a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive disclosure, a Pillar 3 ESG template, or a statistical data collection request. The Joint Bank Reporting Committee’s semantic integration work seeks to harmonize these definitions such that banks can maintain consistent internal data structures while satisfying multiple external reporting obligations.
Implementing Technical Standards and Pillar 3 Disclosure Evolution
The evolution of Pillar 3 disclosures under the Capital Requirements Regulation represents a particularly significant dimension of ESG reporting development. Pillar 3, which requires banks to publicly disclose information about their risks, capital, and risk management approaches, has been progressively expanded to incorporate sustainability considerations. The European Banking Authority’s draft Implementing Technical Standards propose enhanced and proportionate disclosure requirements related to ESG-related risks, building on initial Pillar 3 ESG templates that were introduced in recent years.
These technical standards will require large listed institutions to begin disclosing under amended ESG templates from December 2026 onward, with transitional provisions allowing for phased implementation of certain requirements. The templates include both qualitative information on how banks integrate ESG risks into their business strategy, governance, and risk management processes, and quantitative data on exposures to carbon-related assets, assets subject to climate change physical risks, and green asset ratios that identify the proportion of banks’ assets financing environmentally sustainable economic activities.
The Green Asset Ratio has emerged as a particularly important metric within the EU’s sustainable finance framework. It measures the proportion of a bank’s total assets that finance economic activities aligned with the EU Taxonomy Regulation—activities that make substantial contributions to environmental objectives such as climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, sustainable use of water resources, transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention and control, or protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.
However, calculating the Green Asset Ratio requires banks to gather detailed information about the economic activities financed through their lending and investment portfolios. This in turn depends on borrowers and investee companies disclosing their own Taxonomy-aligned activities, creating dependencies between bank reporting and corporate sustainability reporting under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Semantic alignment between banking disclosures and corporate sustainability reporting therefore directly affects the feasibility and reliability of key sustainability metrics.
Simplification Initiatives and Regulatory Burden Reduction
While the Joint Bank Reporting Committee’s work focuses on semantic integration, parallel initiatives are addressing concerns about the overall volume and complexity of ESG reporting requirements. The European Commission’s Omnibus I package, which received provisional agreement in December 2025, introduced substantial simplifications to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and other sustainable finance regulations.
The Omnibus package narrowed the scope of mandatory sustainability reporting, focusing requirements on the largest companies with more than 1,000 employees while removing many smaller and medium-sized enterprises from compulsory coverage. It also simplified the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, reducing mandatory data points by approximately 60% under the revised standards. These changes reflected concerns that the initial implementation of comprehensive sustainability reporting had created excessive burdens relative to the decision-usefulness of disclosed information.
For the banking sector specifically, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group submitted draft simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards that aim to maintain transparency and accountability while reducing operational complexity. Banks reporting under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive for financial year 2025 will need to navigate a transitional environment where simplified standards are being finalized while existing requirements technically remain in force.
The Joint Bank Reporting Committee’s semantic integration efforts complement these simplification initiatives by addressing a distinct dimension of reporting burden. Simplification focuses on reducing the number of required data points and streamlining disclosure templates. Semantic integration, by contrast, accepts that multiple reporting frameworks will continue to exist but seeks to ensure they employ compatible definitions and can be satisfied through integrated data architectures rather than requiring banks to maintain parallel information systems.
One decision can change your entire career. Take that step with our Online courses in ACCA, HESI A2, ATI TEAS 7, HESI EXIT, NCLEX-RN, NCLEX-PN, and Financial Literacy. Join Serrari Ed and start building your brighter future today.
Implications for Bank Data Architecture and Governance
The semantic integration agenda has profound implications for how banks organize their data management infrastructure. Historically, many institutions developed distinct data collection and reporting processes for different regulatory requirements, often managed by separate teams within finance, risk management, sustainability, and compliance functions. This siloed approach generated duplication of effort, increased operational costs, and created risks of inconsistencies when similar information was reported through different channels.
Banks that have invested early in ESG data architecture and developed internal taxonomies capable of mapping to multiple external reporting frameworks are positioned to benefit from standardization efforts. These institutions can leverage common definitions to streamline data flows, reduce manual interventions required for regulatory reporting, and improve the reliability of information provided to management and supervisory authorities.
Conversely, banks with fragmented systems may face transitional challenges as harmonized definitions are implemented. Existing data collection processes built around specific regulatory templates may require redesign to accommodate semantic standards that differ from current practices. Legacy technology infrastructure may lack the flexibility needed to support dynamic mapping between internal data models and evolving external reporting taxonomies. Governance frameworks will need adjustment to ensure that responsibility for maintaining semantic alignment is clearly assigned and that changes to definitions in one reporting domain are appropriately propagated to others.
The European Banking Authority has been supporting banks’ development of ESG data capabilities through various initiatives. Following a 2022 thematic review of climate-related and environmental risks, supervisors identified data gaps, modeling limitations, and governance weaknesses that needed to be addressed. The authority has subsequently published good practices observed across institutions and provided guidance on methodologies for assessing exposure to physical and transition risks.
These supervisory efforts complement the Joint Bank Reporting Committee’s semantic integration work by ensuring that harmonized definitions can actually be operationalized within banks’ risk management frameworks. Well-designed semantic standards remain theoretical unless institutions possess the data collection capabilities, analytical tools, and governance structures needed to implement them effectively.
Supervisory Analysis and Macroprudential Policy
For supervisory authorities and central banks, improved reporting coherence strengthens the analytical foundation for prudential oversight, resolution planning, and macroprudential analysis. ESG factors are increasingly understood as transmission channels through which credit, market, operational, and liquidity risks can materialize. Climate change physical risks affect the value of collateral securing loans and the creditworthiness of borrowers exposed to extreme weather events. Transition risks emerge when policy changes, technological shifts, or changing consumer preferences reduce the profitability of carbon-intensive economic activities.
Comparable data across institutions enables supervisors to identify concentrations of exposure to particular ESG risk factors, assess whether the banking system as a whole is adequately capitalized against potential losses from sustainability-related shocks, and calibrate regulatory interventions appropriately. When banks report ESG information using inconsistent definitions, supervisory aggregation becomes problematic and cross-institutional comparisons may be misleading.
The European Central Bank has been progressively integrating climate and nature-related risks into its banking supervision activities. In November 2025, the ECB published its supervisory priorities for 2026-2028, which included continued focus on ensuring banks’ prudent management of climate and nature-related risks. These priorities encompassed targeted follow-up on remaining shortcomings from earlier thematic reviews, assessment of banks’ transition planning in line with new Capital Requirements Directive requirements, and deeper analysis of physical risk management capabilities.
Effective execution of these supervisory priorities depends substantially on the availability of reliable, comparable ESG data. Supervisors need to understand not only what individual banks are reporting but also how those reports relate to one another and to broader economic and environmental trends. Semantic integration facilitates this analytical work by ensuring that supervisory data collections capture consistent information that can be meaningfully aggregated and analyzed.
Market Discipline and Investor Information Needs
Beyond supervisory applications, harmonized ESG reporting serves market discipline functions by improving the information available to investors, creditors, and other market participants. The Capital Requirements Framework relies partly on market discipline as a complement to regulatory capital requirements and supervisory oversight. When stakeholders can accurately assess banks’ risk profiles and compare institutions on a consistent basis, market forces should reinforce prudential regulation by rewarding well-managed banks with lower funding costs and punishing poorly managed banks with higher costs of capital.
ESG information has become central to many investors’ decision-making processes. Asset managers increasingly incorporate sustainability considerations into portfolio construction, both in response to client preferences for socially responsible investments and because of growing recognition that ESG factors affect financial returns. Credit rating agencies have developed ESG rating methodologies to assess how environmental, social, and governance issues influence creditworthiness. Proxy advisors provide ESG-focused recommendations to shareholders voting on corporate governance matters.
However, the utility of ESG information for market participants depends critically on its comparability and reliability. When banks disclose sustainability data using idiosyncratic definitions, investors struggle to distinguish genuine differences in risk profiles from mere differences in reporting methodologies. Fragmented disclosures raise both valuation risks—investors may misprice securities due to incomplete or inconsistent information—and compliance risks as financial institutions themselves face regulatory requirements to consider ESG factors in their investment and lending decisions.
The Joint Bank Reporting Committee’s semantic integration work addresses these market needs by promoting consistent definitions that enable meaningful comparison across institutions. This supports the development of ESG rating methodologies that can reliably assess banks’ sustainability performance, facilitates the pricing of sustainability-related financial risks in capital markets, and strengthens accountability mechanisms that link corporate behavior to stakeholder consequences.
International Dimensions and Global Coordination
Although the Joint Bank Reporting Committee’s mandate is European, its work on ESG standardization occurs within a broader context of global regulatory coordination on sustainability reporting. Banks operating across multiple jurisdictions face the challenge of satisfying diverse national and regional reporting requirements that may employ different conceptual frameworks and definitional approaches.
Several initiatives are attempting to promote international alignment in sustainability disclosure. The International Sustainability Standards Board, established by the IFRS Foundation in 2021, has developed global baseline sustainability disclosure standards that are being adopted or adapted by numerous jurisdictions. More than 30 countries are deploying or planning to implement ISSB-based standards, though often with local modifications that reflect specific national priorities or regulatory structures.
China introduced the Corporate Sustainable Disclosure Standard No. 1 – Climate in 2025, drawing on the IFRS S2 standard while embedding a double materiality perspective that requires companies to disclose both climate risks to financial performance and the effects of company activities on the climate. This signals growing convergence around climate disclosure expectations internationally, though significant differences remain across jurisdictions.
The European Union has prioritized interoperability between its sustainability reporting framework and global standards, while maintaining distinctive features such as double materiality and comprehensive coverage of social and governance topics alongside environmental matters. Efforts to converge definitions at the European level may influence how international standard setters and overseas regulators approach semantic integration in their own regimes.
For banks with significant international operations, divergences between European and non-European reporting frameworks create complexity. An institution operating in both the European Union and Asia may need to maintain data systems capable of satisfying both the European Sustainability Reporting Standards and ISSB-based requirements implemented in Hong Kong or Singapore, even as it complies with distinct regulatory frameworks in North America. Semantic alignment within Europe at least reduces one dimension of this complexity, though global harmonization remains an aspirational goal rather than current reality.
Resolution Planning and Financial Stability
The Joint Bank Reporting Committee’s coverage of resolution reporting alongside supervisory and statistical frameworks reflects the role of ESG considerations in resolution planning. When banks encounter financial distress, resolution authorities must rapidly assess the institution’s condition, evaluate available resolution tools, and execute strategies to maintain critical economic functions while minimizing taxpayer exposure and systemic disruption.
Climate and environmental risks can affect resolution planning in multiple ways. Physical climate risks may simultaneously impact numerous institutions if extreme weather events damage collateral across geographic regions or disrupt economic activities in ways that trigger widespread defaults. Transition risks could generate correlated losses across institutions with similar exposures to carbon-intensive sectors, particularly if policy changes or technological disruptions occur more rapidly than anticipated.
Resolution authorities require comparable information about banks’ ESG risk exposures to assess these potential scenarios and design resolution strategies accordingly. If banks report climate risk information using inconsistent methodologies, resolution authorities may struggle to evaluate systemic vulnerabilities or coordinate actions across multiple jurisdictions. Semantic integration supports more effective resolution planning by ensuring that the information collected during normal times can be reliably used during crisis periods when rapid decision-making is essential.
Implementation Roadmap and Stakeholder Expectations
The European Banking Authority and European Central Bank have committed to following up on the implementation of the Joint Bank Reporting Committee’s ESG recommendations. This follow-up will likely occur through multiple channels, including incorporation of semantic standards into regulatory technical standards, integration into supervisory guidance and examination procedures, and dialogue with individual institutions about their data management practices.
Banks should anticipate that harmonized ESG definitions will become embedded in reporting templates over coming years. Early adopters who proactively align their internal data architectures with emerging semantic standards may find regulatory compliance less burdensome than institutions that wait for requirements to be finalized before beginning adaptation. The transitional period also offers opportunities for industry engagement with authorities to flag practical implementation challenges or unintended consequences of proposed definitional choices before they become fixed in regulation.
The trajectory toward more standardized, comparable, and decision-useful ESG data is unlikely to be entirely smooth. Defining sustainability concepts involves both technical complexity and normative judgment about what constitutes environmental harm, social value, or responsible governance. Different stakeholders bring distinct perspectives to these questions, shaped by varying priorities, risk tolerances, and views about the appropriate role of the financial sector in addressing societal challenges.
Nonetheless, the broad consensus across European regulatory authorities, major financial institutions, investors, and civil society organizations supports the view that fragmented ESG reporting serves no constituency well. Semantic integration represents a pragmatic response to this recognition—accepting that perfect harmonization may be unattainable while pursuing achievable improvements in consistency, comparability, and analytical utility.
Looking Forward: 2026 as Implementation Year
The year 2026 emerges from current regulatory developments as a critical juncture for European ESG reporting. Multiple streams of regulatory activity are converging: Implementing Technical Standards on ESG disclosures are moving toward finalization, simplified European Sustainability Reporting Standards are expected to be adopted, transition planning requirements under the revised Capital Requirements Directive are taking effect, and the Joint Bank Reporting Committee’s semantic integration work is advancing.
This convergence creates both challenges and opportunities for European banks. The challenges include managing multiple parallel transitions in reporting frameworks, investing in data infrastructure and analytical capabilities to support more sophisticated ESG risk management, and developing governance structures that can effectively oversee increasingly complex sustainability-related activities. The opportunities include leveraging harmonization to reduce duplicative reporting burdens, using enhanced ESG data to improve strategic decision-making and risk management, and positioning institutions competitively as sustainable finance markets continue expanding.
For supervisory authorities, 2026 represents a shift from framework development toward operational implementation and enforcement. Expectations around ESG data quality, disclosure completeness, and risk management sophistication are rising. Institutions that have treated sustainability reporting primarily as a compliance exercise may face more intensive supervisory scrutiny than those that have integrated ESG considerations into core business strategy and risk management.
For market participants and policymakers, the progression toward more standardized ESG reporting should yield tangible benefits through improved transparency, better comparability, and more reliable information for investment decisions and policy design. Whether these potential benefits are fully realized will depend substantially on the quality of implementation—both by reporting institutions working to operationalize semantic standards and by authorities ensuring that standardization efforts genuinely improve data utility rather than simply rearranging reporting obligations.
Conclusion: Building Foundations for Sustainable Finance Architecture
The Joint Bank Reporting Committee’s 2026 Work Programme and ESG recommendations represent foundational work for a more coherent sustainable finance architecture in Europe. By prioritizing semantic integration and definitional consistency, European authorities are addressing a fundamental prerequisite for effective regulation, supervision, and market functioning in an economy increasingly shaped by environmental and social sustainability imperatives.
Success in this endeavor requires sustained commitment across multiple dimensions. Regulatory authorities must maintain coordination as individual frameworks continue evolving, resisting pressures that would cause definitional drift over time. Financial institutions must invest in data management capabilities and governance structures that can operationalize harmonized standards while maintaining flexibility to adapt as sustainability science and regulatory expectations advance. Technology providers must develop tools that support semantic integration while addressing the practical challenges of extracting, transforming, and validating sustainability data from diverse sources.
If implemented effectively, semantic integration should reduce reporting burdens for financial institutions, strengthen analytical capabilities for supervisors and policymakers, and improve information available to investors and other stakeholders. These outcomes would support the broader objectives of the European Union’s sustainable finance agenda: mobilizing capital toward environmentally and socially sustainable economic activities, ensuring the financial system’s resilience to sustainability-related risks, and fostering transparency and accountability regarding the sustainability impacts of economic actors.
The path forward will require navigating technical complexity, balancing competing stakeholder interests, and maintaining momentum through implementation challenges. However, the alternative—continued fragmentation of ESG reporting with attendant inefficiencies, inconsistencies, and limitations on data utility—serves no constructive purpose. The Joint Bank Reporting Committee’s work provides machinery for coordinated progress toward a more rational, effective, and sustainable reporting architecture for European banking.
Ready to take your career to the next level? Join our Online courses: ACCA, HESI A2, ATI TEAS 7 , HESI EXIT , NCLEX – RN and NCLEX – PN, Financial Literacy!🌟 Dive into a world of opportunities and empower yourself for success. Explore more at Serrari Ed and start your exciting journey today! ✨
Track GDP, Inflation and Central Bank rates for top African markets with Serrari’s comparator tool.
See today’s Treasury bonds and Money market funds movement across financial service providers in Kenya, using Serrari’s comparator tools.
photo source: Google
By: Montel Kamau
Serrari Financial Analyst
27th January, 2026
Article, Financial and News Disclaimer
The Value of a Financial Advisor
While this article offers valuable insights, it is essential to recognize that personal finance can be highly complex and unique to each individual. A financial advisor provides professional expertise and personalized guidance to help you make well-informed decisions tailored to your specific circumstances and goals.
Beyond offering knowledge, a financial advisor serves as a trusted partner to help you stay disciplined, avoid common pitfalls, and remain focused on your long-term objectives. Their perspective and experience can complement your own efforts, enhancing your financial well-being and ensuring a more confident approach to managing your finances.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a licensed financial advisor to obtain guidance specific to their financial situation.
Article and News Disclaimer
The information provided on www.serrarigroup.com is for general informational purposes only. While we strive to keep the information up to date and accurate, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
www.serrarigroup.com is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. All information on the website is provided on an as-is basis, with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness, or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose.
In no event will www.serrarigroup.com be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the information provided on the website or for any consequential, special, or similar damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
The articles, news, and information presented on www.serrarigroup.com reflect the opinions of the respective authors and contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the website or its management. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the individual authors and do not represent the website's views or opinions as a whole.
The content on www.serrarigroup.com may include links to external websites, which are provided for convenience and informational purposes only. We have no control over the nature, content, and availability of those sites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorsement of the views expressed within them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, www.serrarigroup.com takes no responsibility for, and will not be liable for, the website being temporarily unavailable due to technical issues beyond our control.
Please note that laws, regulations, and information can change rapidly, and we advise you to conduct further research and seek professional advice when necessary.
By using www.serrarigroup.com, you agree to this disclaimer and its terms. If you do not agree with this disclaimer, please do not use the website.
www.serrarigroup.com, reserves the right to update, modify, or remove any part of this disclaimer without prior notice. It is your responsibility to review this disclaimer periodically for changes.
Serrari Group 2025
