NGFS Advocates Environmental Risk Analysis for Financial Sector
NGFS published a paper on the overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions and an occasional paper on the case studies on environmental risk analysis methodologies. These papers provide important references to the tools and methodologies used by financial institutions for measuring exposure to environmental risks and for assessing the financial implications of these risks in a forward-looking manner, including via stress testing and scenario analysis. Both the publications conclude that, to effectively address climate-related and environmental risks, greater collective efforts are urgently needed from regulators, financial institutions, international organizations, third-party vendors, and academic institutions to promote wider adoption of environmental risks analysis in the financial industry.
The overview of environmental risk analysis by financial institutions provides wide-ranging examples of how environmental risks translate into financial risks, along with an in-depth review of the tools and methodologies for environmental risk analysis used by financial institutions, including banks, asset managers, and insurance companies. It also identifies the major barriers to wider adoption of environmental risk analysis by the financial services industry, including the lack of awareness of environmental risks, inadequate data, incomplete methodologies, and limited capacity. The overview outlines six opportunities for mainstreaming environmental risk analysis within the financial sector:
- Enhancing environmental risk analysis awareness—Central banks and financial supervisors should strive to enhance environmental risk analysis awareness among financial institutions by conducting environmental risk analysis and clarifying expectations or standards for financial institutions to implement environmental risk analysis.
- Capacity building—Industry associations, central banks and supervisors, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and academic institutions could organize seminars and training activities on environmental risk analysis methodologies, with some results delivered as public goods to the financial industry.
- Supporting demonstration projects—NGFS, international organizations, central banks, and supervisors should consider supporting environmental risk analysis projects in key sectors, such as banking, insurance and asset management, and in key regions exposed to substantial environmental and climate-related risks.
- Disclosing risk exposure and results of environmental risk analysis—A robust and internationally consistent climate and environmental disclosure framework is needed. For countries with more developed environmental risk analysis tools and capacity, central banks and supervisors could encourage financial institutions to disclose their exposures to environmental and climate risks as well as the results of their environmental risk analysis in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.
- Developing Key Risk Indicator and statistics—NGFS and relevant international organizations could conduct research while encouraging other market bodies and academic institutions to develop a Key Risk Indicator that facilitates the identification, measurement, and data comparability of environment and climate-related risks.
- Developing a taxonomy of economic activities—NGFS calls on policymakers to bring together the relevant stakeholders and experts to develop and adopt green and brown taxonomies that enhance the transparency around the environment, social, and governance characteristics of the economic activities.
The occasional paper contains a more detailed and in-depth discussion of the tools and methodologies for environmental risk analysis through case studies of more than 30 organizations. The occasional paper aims to inform the financial community of the environmental risk analysis methodologies and inspire interested institutions to further develop and enhance these methodologies. The paper presents a taxonomy of environmental risks, explains how these risks may translate into credit, market, underwriting, and operational risks for financial institutions. The paper also discusses the major gaps between research and application of the environmental risk analysis tools and presents a number of recommendations for stakeholders on ways to promote environmental risk analysis in the financial industry.
Related Links
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Securities, ESG, Climate Change Risk, Taxonomy, Stress Testing, Environmental Risk Analysis, Credit Risk, Basel, NGFS
Featured Experts
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.
Patrycja Oleksza
Applies proficiency and knowledge to regulatory capital and reporting analysis and coordinates business and product strategies in the banking technology area
Previous Article
MAS Issues Guidelines to Promote Senior Management AccountabilityRelated Articles
APRA Sets LAC for D-SIBs, Proposes to Enhance Crisis Preparedness
APRA issued a letter on the loss-absorbing capacity (LAC) requirements for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs) and published a discussion paper, along with the proposed the prudential standards on financial contingency planning (CPS 190) and resolution planning (CPS 900).
EC to Review Macro-Prudential Rules while ESRB Assesses Policy Stance
The European Commission (EC) launched a call for evidence, until March 18, 2022, as part of a comprehensive review of the macro-prudential rules for the banking sector under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and Directive (CRD IV).
FSB Sets Out Good Practices for Crisis Management Groups
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a report that sets out good practices for crisis management groups.
APRA Penalizes Heritage Bank for Incorrect Reporting of Capital
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) found that Heritage Bank Limited had incorrectly reported capital because of weaknesses in operational risk and compliance frameworks, although the bank did not breach minimum prudential capital ratios at any point and remains well-capitalized.
OSFI Releases Annual Report 2021-2022
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) released the annual report for 2020-2021.
OSFI Updates Timeline for Implementation of Certain Basel Rules
Through a letter addressed to the banking sector entities, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) announced deferral of the domestic implementation of the final Basel III reforms from the first to the second quarter of 2023.
EC Defers Adoption of Regulatory Standards for Disclosures Under SFDR
EIOPA recently published a letter in which EC is informing the European Parliament and Council that it could not adopt the set of draft regulatory technical standards for disclosures under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) within the stipulated three-month period, given their length and technical detail.
FCA Releases MIFIDPRU Application Forms and Third Set of Rules on IFPR
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the third in a series of policy statements that set out rules to introduce the UK Investment Firm Prudential Regime (IFPR), which will take effect on January 01, 2022.
APRA Finalizes Capital Adequacy Standards for Banks
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) published, along with a summary of its response to the consultation feedback, an information paper that summarizes the finalized capital framework that is in line with the internationally agreed Basel III requirements for banks.
CPMI-IOSCO Seek Comments on Access to Central Clearing and Portability
The Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI) and the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) issued a consultative report focusing on access to central counterparty (CCP) clearing and client-position portability.
