Organizacijski mehanizmi i mehanizmi upravljanja

Prema potrebi treba provoditi i koordinaciju na razini sustava kako bi se osiguralo da se u testiranju otpornosti na stres u odnosu na ESG rizike uzimaju u obzir širi rizici za financijsku stabilnost i mogući učinci prelijevanja među sektorima.

Uključivanje u nadzorni postupak

Rezultati testiranja otpornosti na stres u odnosu na ESG rizike trebaju se, u mjeri u kojoj je to moguće, uključiti u širi nadzorni postupak. Budući da se metodološki aspekt i dostupnost podataka s vremenom razvijaju, nadležna tijela trebaju upotrijebiti n alaze za potrebe procjena rizika, preispitivanja adekvatnosti kapitala i/ili strateških rasprava s financijskim subjektima.

Rezultati bi trebali poslužiti i za usmjeravanje daljnjih nadzornih mjera i preporuka politika ako se utvrdi da će ESG rizici vjerojatno predstavljati značajnu prijetnju financijskoj stabilnosti.

Objavljivanje informacija

Objava rezultata trebala bi biti u skladu s relevantnim sektorskim propisima i nadzornom praksom. Kada odluče objaviti rezultate, nadležna tijela trebaju ocijeniti komparativne koristi objavljivanja pojedinačnih ili agregiranih rezultata. Razinu objavljiva nja treba kalibrirati na temelju pouzdanosti metodologije i kvalitete podataka. Nadležna tijela trebaju uzeti u obzir činjenicu da transparentnost poboljšava tržišnu disciplinu, povjerenje dionika i odgovornost. Trebaju omogućiti i pravilno tumačenje informacija kao i da zbog toga ne dođe do nenamjernih poremećaja na tržištu. Objavljivanje se može povećavati kako rezultati postaju pouzdaniji.

Redovito preispitivanje i razvoj testiranja otpornosti na stres u odnosu na ESG rizike

S obzirom na dinamičnu prirodu ESG rizika i metodologija testiranja otpornosti na stres, nadležna tijela trebaju redovito preispitivati i poboljšavati svoje okvire testiranja otpornosti na stres. Iskustva stečena u prethodnim testiranjima trebalo bi uključiti u sljedeća, a ažuriranja bi trebala odražavati nove najbolje prakse, nove regulatorne zahtjeve i napredak u području ESG podataka i tehnika modeliranja.

Ove zajedničke smjernice primjenjuju se od 1. siječnja 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.