Organisatoriske og ledelsesmæssige ordninger

Når det er relevant, bør der også tilstræbes systemdækkende koordinering for at sikre, at ESG-stresstest tager højde for bredere risici for den finansielle stabilitet og potentielle eksterne effekter på tværs af sektorer.

Integration i tilsynsprocessen

Resultaterne af ESG-stresstest bør så vidt muligt integreres i den bredere tilsynsproces. I takt med at metodologier og datagrundlag udvikler sig, bør de kompetente myndigheder anvende resultaterne til at understøtte risikovurderinger, kapitalgrundlagsanalyser og/eller strategiske drøftelser med de finansielle enheder.

Resultaterne bør også danne grundlag for opfølgende tilsynsforanstaltninger og politikanbefalinger, hvor ESG-risici vurderes at udgøre en væsentlig trussel mod den finansielle stabilitet.

Offentliggørelse af oplysninger

Offentliggørelse af resultater bør ske i overensstemmelse med den relevante sektorspecifikke lovgivning og tilsynspraksis. Ved beslutning om offentliggørelse bør de kompetente myndigheder nøje afveje fordele og ulemper ved at offentliggøre individuelle eller samlede resultater. Offentliggørelsesniveauet bør afstemmes i forhold til metodologiens pålidelighed og datakvaliteten. De kompetente myndigheder bør være opmærksomme på, at gennemsigtighed fremmer markedsdisciplin, tillid og ansvarlighed, men bør også sikre, at oplysninger tolkes korrekt og ikke fører til utilsigtede markedsforvridninger. Offentliggørelsesniveauet kan øges, i takt med at resultaterne bliver mere robuste.

Regelmæssig gennemgang og videreudvikling af ESG-stresstest

I betragtning af ESG-risicienes og stresstestmetodologiernes dynamiske karakter bør de kompetente myndigheder regelmæssigt gennemgå og justere deres stresstestrammer. Erfaringer fra tidligere øvelser bør indarbejdes i fremtidige vurderinger, og ajourføringer bør afspejle ny bedste praksis, nye reguleringsmæssige krav og fremskridt inden for ESG-data og modelleringsteknikker.

Disse fælles retningslinjer gælder fra 1. januar 2027

A rigorous quality assurance process should be implemented to verify the accuracy, consistency, and reliability of stress test results. Competent authorities should establish review mechanisms (e.g. benchmarking or peer reviews) to assess data quality, methodology robustness, and, where appropriate, scenario adequacy. Where necessary, expert judgment should complement quantitative findings to mitigate model limitations.

Effective dialogue with financial entities

Competent authorities should maintain effective and structured dialogue with financial entities throughout the stress testing process. This includes providing clear guidance on expectations, facilitating engagement at key stages, and ensuring that financial entities have the opportunity to clarify methodological aspects. Regular interaction will enhance the credibility of the exercise and improve financial entities’ ability to incorporate ESG risk considerations into their own risk management frameworks.

Cross-border and system-wide coordination

Where relevant and possible, competent authorities should coordinate across jurisdictions to allow a harmonised approach to ESG stress testing for cross-border financial groups. This includes collaboration with other supervisory authorities to align methodologies, share best practices, and avoid regulatory fragmentation.

When relevant, system-wide coordination should also be pursued to ensure that ESG stress tests account for broader financial stability risks and potential spillover effects across sectors.

Integration into the supervisory process

ESG stress test results should be, to the extent possible, integrated into the broader supervisory process. As methodological aspect and availability of data develop over time, competent

14 authorities should use the findings to inform risk assessments, capital adequacy reviews, and/or strategic discussions with financial entities.

The results should also guide supervisory follow-up measures and policy recommendations where ESG risks are identified as likely to pose material threats to financial stability.

Public disclosure of information

Publication of results should be in line with relevant sectoral regulation and supervisory practice. When choosing to publish results, competent authorities should weigh up the comparative benefits of publishing individual or aggregate results. The level of disclosure should be calibrated based on the reliability of the methodology and the quality of the data. Competent authorities should consider that transparency enhances market discipline, stakeholder confidence, and accountability. They should also ensure that information is interpreted correctly and does not lead to unintended market distortions. Disclosure can increase as results become more robust.

Regular review and evolution of ESG stress testing

Given the evolving nature of ESG risks and stress testing methodologies, competent authorities should regularly review and refine their stress testing frameworks. Lessons learned from previous exercises should be incorporated into the following ones, and updates should reflect emerging best practices, new regulatory requirements, and advancements in ESG data and modelling techniques.