On 30 January 2026, Orison Legal hosted a breakfast roundtable with management companies and financial services professionals to discuss a timely question for the Mauritian market: how can Mauritius differentiate itself as a trusted and responsible hub for impact and ESG-focused investment funds, with a robust anti-greenwashing framework at the core of its strategy?
The discussion was led by Tania Li, Partner at Orison Legal, and Pravesh Lallah of Trinity International LLP (London), whose practice focuses on energy, infrastructure and Africa-related projects. Participants included management companies and other service providers operating across the Mauritian funds ecosystem.
The conversation highlighted a clear message: greenwashing is no longer a theoretical or reputational issue. It is fast becoming a litigation, enforcement and director-liability risk. Jurisdictions that fail to take it seriously risk losing investor confidence.
From marketing buzzword to legal risk
Mauritius already has a baseline legal and regulatory framework, including civil and criminal liability for defective or misleading prospectuses under the Securities Act, together with Financial Services Commission and Bank of Mauritius guidelines on ESG and sustainable bond disclosures. These tools provide a deterrent against intentional greenwashing. However, the more pervasive risk is unintentional greenwashing, where claims are made in good faith but without sufficient verification, precision or operational backing.
In practice, misalignment often arises from over-enthusiastic marketing language, generic assumptions, poor internal understanding of ESG standards or a disconnect between what is promised to investors and what happens on the ground. The issue is therefore primarily one of governance rather than fraud.
The rise of ESG enforcement and litigation
Globally, enforcement is accelerating and increasingly driven not only by regulators but also by civil society. Regulators in jurisdictions such as Australia, the EU and the US are scrutinising prospectuses, websites and operational practices. Significant fines have followed where claims could not be substantiated.
At the same time, specialised NGOs are actively pursuing greenwashing litigation and courts are adopting an expansive view of liability. Judges have shown a willingness to impose substantial penalties and to hold companies accountable for inconsistencies between public commitments and real-world conduct, sometimes even across borders. For an international financial centre like Mauritius, this extraterritorial reach is particularly relevant.
Spillover risk across the value chain
Greenwashing risk rarely remains confined to a single fund or company. Enforcement action often affects the entire value chain, including administrators, auditors, lawyers, management companies and directors. Reputational harm can also extend to the jurisdiction itself, undermining investor confidence.
For a country positioning itself as a responsible gateway for African investment, credibility is therefore essential. Weak oversight in one area can affect perceptions of the entire ecosystem.
Practical risk mitigation
The panel emphasised that ESG compliance should be embedded into governance structures with the same seriousness as financial and regulatory compliance. Practical steps include training management and staff on ESG obligations, ensuring that disclosures are precise and evidence-based, aligning marketing materials with operational realities, and carefully selecting competent external advisers.
Proactive engagement with regulators and clear internal accountability frameworks are also important in reducing risk.
Beyond law: building jurisdictional credibility
If Mauritius intends to become a leading hub for sustainable and impact investment, legal provisions alone are insufficient. Visible enforcement, alignment with global financing standards and broader ecosystem awareness are equally important. Development finance institutions and international investors increasingly demand demonstrable compliance rather than aspirational statements.
The evolving role of management companies
Management companies are no longer purely administrative service providers. They act as gatekeepers and coordinators within the value chain, linking clients, regulators and advisers. As a result, expectations are rising. They are increasingly expected to identify risks, guide clients on best practice and ensure that Mauritian structures reflect genuine substance and oversight.
Director responsibility
Appointment of directors through management companies cannot be treated as formalities. Directors must understand the business, monitor compliance and address known risks. Failure to do so may expose them to personal liability, particularly where misleading claims are made.
Transparency over labels
Not every investment must be branded as sustainable. The issue is not the sector itself but the accuracy of representations. Funds investing in traditional or carbon-intensive sectors may operate without difficulty provided they do not misrepresent their activities. Problems arise only when marketing and reality diverge.
Conclusion
Greenwashing enforcement is moving from soft regulation to hard law. Regulators, NGOs and courts are increasingly willing to scrutinise sustainability claims and impose meaningful sanctions. For Mauritius, this presents both a risk and an opportunity. By strengthening governance, improving accountability and demonstrating credible enforcement, Mauritius can position itself as a trusted and responsible platform for impact and sustainable investment into Africa.
Partner