Publications

While several North American banks exit the voluntary NZBA (Net Zero Banking Alliance), European banks must bolster their climate risk frameworks. The European Banking Authority’s (EBA) recently published guidelines on ESG risk management offer a beacon of hope amidst the turmoil that currently surrounds the EU’s sustainable finance regulations. These guidelines are encouraging in both substance and form, reflecting prudential supervisors’ commitment to aligning the banking sector with the bloc’s climate and sustainability goals.

The implementation of the new banking package (or Capital Requirements Directive package) that adopts the final parts of the international Basel 3 financial regulation is underway in the European Union. The European Banking Authority (EBA) along with the other European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) is mandated to develop technical standards that provide the framework to help financial institutions comply with the new regulatory rules. Key among these standards is the novel guidance on ESG risks which is expected to be finalised by the EBA in the coming months. This is an opportune moment to address weaknesses in banks’ risk management practices, particularly regarding the underestimation of stranded asset risks, a missing angle in current policy debates.  

Negotiations are under way on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, commonly known as the "CSDDD". Regarding climate, an obligation of climate transition plan for companies is discussed. But let’s keep careful on this point. Europe is in the process of developing climate transition plan requirements in two other directives on corporate sustainability reporting (CSRD) and on prudential requirements for banks (CRD). We must therefore ensure that the discussions result in a final version of the CSDDD that is consistent with these other texts and at the same time complementary.

The legislators in Europe are discussing the introduction of mandatory climate transition plans for banks. After the European Commission and the Council, the European parliament has adopted its position. Now trilogue negotiations between the three will begin. While all three seem to agree on the idea itself, differences remain in how these plans are defined. Anuschka Hilke, Director of the Finance program from the Institute for Climate Economics (I4CE), explains in this blog which parameters will be decisive for framing the ambition of this legislative proposal.

One year ago the creation of the Glasgow Finance Alliance for Net Zero - GFANZ – was announced. The expectations were as big as the numbers: a coalition gathering 500 financial actors representing 130 trillion dollars. Private financial actors were finally stepping in and mobilizing. But one year later, the coalition raises many doubts. On one side it faces criticism from NGOs, and on the other some US actors are considering leaving the coalition under the pressure of members of Republicans Party.  

The end of the year is always a busy period for the climate finance world, with international events multiplying to take stock of the latest achievements in the implementation of the Paris agreement and to identify the next – more ambitious – steps to be taken by the international community. Though the climax of these events is undoubtedly the COP (starting in two weeks in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt), with the New York Climate Week, and the World Bank and IMF’s international meetings behind us, and the Finance in Common summit coming to an end, we start sensing that some topics are already drawing a lot of attention.