Organizacijske ureditve in ureditve upravljanja

Po potrebi bi si morali prizadevati tudi za usklajevanje na ravni celotnega sistema, da se v stresnih testih ESG tveganj upoštevajo širša tveganja za finančno stabilnost in morebitni učinki prelivanja med sektorji.

Vključitev v nadzorniške postopke

Rezultati stresnih testov ESG tveganj bi morali biti, kolikor je to mogoče, vključeni v širše nadzorniške postopke. Ker se metodološki vidik in razpoložljivost podatkov sčasoma spreminjata, bi morali pristojni organi ugotovitve uporabiti kot podlago za ocene tveganja, preglede kapitalske ustreznosti in/ali strateške razprave s finančnimi subjekti.

Rezultati bi morali biti tudi vodilo za nadzorne ukrepe in priporočila glede politik, kadar se ugotovi, da ESG tveganja lahko bistveno ogrožajo finančno stabilnost.

Javno razkritje informacij

Objava rezultatov bi morala biti v skladu z ustreznimi sektorskimi predpisi in nadzorno prakso. Pri odločitvi o objavi rezultatov bi morali pristojni organi razmisliti o primerjalnih koristih objave posameznih ali skupnih rezultatov. Raven razkritja je treba prilagoditi glede na zanesljivost metodologije in kakovost podatkov. Pristojni organi bi morali upoštevati, da se s preglednostjo okrepijo tržna disciplina, zaupanje deležnikov in odgovornost. Zagotoviti bi morali tudi, da se informacije pravilno razlag ajo in ne povzročajo nenamernega izkrivljanja trga. Več informacij se lahko razkrije, ko rezultati postanejo zanesljivejši.

Redno pregledovanje in razvoj stresnih testov ESG tveganj

Pristojni organi bi morali glede na spreminjajočo se naravo ESG tveganj ter metodologij za stresno testiranje redno pregledovati in izpopolnjevati svoje okvire za stresno testiranje. Izkušnje iz prejšnjih stresnih testov bi bilo treba vključiti v naslednje teste, pri posodobitvah pa bi morali upoštevati nastajajoče dobre prakse, nove regulativne zahteve ter napredek na področju ESG podatkov ter tehnik modeliranja.

Te skupne smernice se uporabljajo od 1. januarja 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.