NGFS Report Explores Quantification of Climate Risk Differentials
The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) published two reports to aid central banks and regulators in their oversight of the financial sector and in their central bank operations: one report examines the quantification of climate risk differentials in Pillars 1, 2, and 3; the other report presents key takeaways from a study on how, and to what extent, climate-related risks are incorporated into conventional credit ratings, also highlighting the expectations and needs of central banks as users of such ratings.
Report on climate risk differentials
The report provides an update on existing analyses and practices in relation to green/non-green classification frameworks and the methodologies used by financial institutions, credit rating agencies, and supervisors to assess and quantify financial risk differentials. The analyses finds that financial institutions are moving away from classification-based, backward-looking analysis of risk differentials to a more granular, forward-looking assessment of counterparties’ vulnerability to climate-related risks. The report also looks at the lessons learned from supervisory authorities and regulators’ perspectives on risk differentials and a possible way forward. The report notes that the supervisory community has been exploring ways to measure and mitigate the impact of these risks on financial stability and one of the avenues explored by supervisors is the adjustment of Pillar 1 capital requirements following a risk-based approach. However, given the current data and methodological limitations, introducing adjustment factors in the Pillar 1 capital framework using conventional risk differential analysis based on historical data remains a challenge.
However, in light of the discussed practices, the report highlights that there may be greater potential to consider Pillar 2 measures, when addressing material idiosyncratic climate-related and environmental risks faced by individual financial institutions—though this does not exclude potential use of Pillar 1 tools. Considering climate-related and environmental risks as part of Pillar 3 requirements could also be beneficial, given the general use of disclosures in facilitating measurement and monitoring of these risks. Additionally, NGFS has identified three key strands of work for the supervisory community that could improve the resilience of financial institutions to climate-related and environmental risks:
- Supervisors could seek to further their understanding of the range of potential risk differentials as manifested through scenario analysis and stress testing (including at the individual financial institution level).
- With a view to enhancing the management and monitoring of transition risk in a forward-looking manner, supervisors could examine the relevance and extent to which financial institutions should consider their counterparties´ transition plans.
- Supervisors could further advance their understanding of the impact of environmental and climate-related risks on credit ratings and internal credit risk modeling at financial institutions.
Report on credit ratings
The report examines how and to what extent credit rating agencies incorporate climate-related risk factors into their credit ratings. Monetary policy implementation at many central banks relies on credit ratings to assess the creditworthiness of issuers and other financial market entities. Therefore, the degree to which credit ratings reflect material risks, including climate-related risks, is of great interest to the central banking community. The report finds that despite credit rating agencies considering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and climate-related risk factors in their credit ratings, there is still a lack of transparency surrounding the methodologies used by the rating agencies to incorporate climate-risk factors and how these factors contribute to the final rating. Central banks as well as market participants are aware of the current limitations of credit rating agencies’ credit ratings in fully capturing climate-related risks. More work and knowledge-sharing within the central banking community will be needed to properly address climate-related risks. In the meantime, central banks may apply their own analysis to complement the information in traditional ratings of credit rating agencies.
Related Links
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, ESG, Climate Change Risk, Disclosures, Credit Risk, Scenario Analysis, Stress Testing, Credit Ratings, Basel, Pillar 1, Pillar 2, Pillar 3, Regulatory Capital, Credit Risk Modeling, NGFS, Headline
Featured Experts
James Partridge
Credit analytics expert helping clients understand, develop, and implement credit models for origination, monitoring, and regulatory reporting.
María Cañamero
Skilled market researcher; growth strategist; successful go-to-market campaign developer
Nicolas Degruson
Works with financial institutions, regulatory experts, business analysts, product managers, and software engineers to drive regulatory solutions across the globe.
Previous Article
FSC Taiwan Fines Cathay United Bank, Extends Payment DeferralsRelated Articles
BIS and Central Banks Experiment with GenAI to Assess Climate Risks
A recent report from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub details Project Gaia, a collaboration between the BIS Innovation Hub Eurosystem Center and certain central banks in Europe
Nearly 25% G-SIBs Commit to Adopting TNFD Nature-Related Disclosures
Nature-related risks are increasing in severity and frequency, affecting businesses, capital providers, financial systems, and economies.
Singapore to Mandate Climate Disclosures from FY2025
Singapore recently took a significant step toward turning climate ambition into action, with the introduction of mandatory climate-related disclosures for listed and large non-listed companies
SEC Finalizes Climate-Related Disclosures Rule
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has finalized the long-awaited rule that mandates climate-related disclosures for domestic and foreign publicly listed companies in the U.S.
EBA Proposes Standards Related to Standardized Credit Risk Approach
The European Banking Authority (EBA) has been taking significant steps toward implementing the Basel III framework and strengthening the regulatory framework for credit institutions in the EU
US Regulators Release Stress Test Scenarios for Banks
The U.S. regulators recently released baseline and severely adverse scenarios, along with other details, for stress testing the banks in 2024. The relevant U.S. banking regulators are the Federal Reserve Bank (FED), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
Asian Governments Aim for Interoperability in AI Governance Frameworks
The regulatory landscape for artificial intelligence (AI), including the generative kind, is evolving rapidly, with governments and regulators aiming to address the challenges and opportunities presented by this transformative technology.
EBA Proposes Operational Risk Standards Under Final Basel III Package
The European Union (EU) has been working on the final elements of Basel III standards, with endorsement of the Banking Package and the publication of the European Banking Authority (EBA) roadmap on Basel III implementation in December 2023.
EFRAG Proposes XBRL Taxonomy and Standard for Listed SMEs Under ESRS
The European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), which plays a crucial role in shaping corporate reporting standards in European Union (EU), is seeking comments, until May 21, 2024, on the Exposure Draft ESRS for listed SMEs.
ECB to Expand Climate Change Work in 2024-2025
Banking regulators worldwide are increasingly focusing on addressing, monitoring, and supervising the institutions' exposure to climate and environmental risks.
