Technical Framework for Supervisory Convergence: The ESAs Joint Guidelines on ESG Stress Testing

The integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into the prudential supervision of the European financial sector represents one of the most significant shifts in regulatory methodology since the implementation of Basel III and Solvency II. On January 8, 2026, the European Supervisory Authorities—the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)—jointly issued the Final Report on Joint Guidelines on ESG Stress Testing. These guidelines establish a unified technical framework for national competent authorities (NCAs) to incorporate ESG-related risks into their supervisory stress testing activities, ensuring that the resilience of the Union’s financial institutions is evaluated against a backdrop of accelerating climate and nature-related disruptions.

The emergence of these guidelines is a response to the inherent cross-sectoral nature of ESG risks, whicah do not respect the traditional boundaries between banking, insurance, and capital markets. By providing a common standard for embedding ESG factors into stress testing methodologies, the ESAs aim to mitigate the historical fragmentation of risk modeling and move toward a consistent, long-term approach to financial stability. This transition is not merely a reporting requirement but a fundamental re-engineering of how systemic risk is quantified, necessitating a shift from backward-looking historical data to forward-looking, scenario-based analysis.

Legislative Foundations and Regulatory Mandates

The Joint Guidelines are anchored in a robust legislative mandate designed to harmonize supervisory practices across the European System of Financial Supervision. Specifically, the guidelines address the requirements set out in Article 100(4) of Directive 2013/36/EU (Capital Requirements Directive or CRD) and Article 304c(3) of Directive 2009/138/EC (Solvency II). These directives mandate that the ESAs, through their Joint Committee, develop standards that ensure consistency, long-term considerations, and common assessment methodologies for ESG risks.

A critical nuance of the guidelines is that they do not introduce a new legal obligation for NCAs to conduct ESG-focused supervisory stress tests. Instead, they function as a “how-to” manual that must be followed whenever an authority chooses to perform such tests, whether as part of an established regulatory framework or as a complementary assessment of ESG risk impacts. This approach respects the principle of subsidiarity while ensuring that when tests are conducted, they meet a high technical standard that allows for comparability across the Union.

The implementation of these guidelines follows the “comply or explain” procedure established by the ESAs’ founding regulations. Within two months of the publication of the official translations in the first quarter of 2026, NCAs must notify the respective ESA of their intention to comply. This timeline sets the stage for a formal application date of January, 2027, providing a clear roadmap for both supervisors and financial entities to build the necessary technical and organizational capacity.

Methodological Dimensions and Time Horizons

The technical architecture of the guidelines is built on the recognition that ESG risks manifest across vastly different timeframes compared to traditional financial risks. While a liquidity shock might play out over days or weeks, the physical impacts of climate change or the structural shifts of an economic transition are measured in years and decades. To address this “maturity mismatch,” the guidelines bifurcate stress testing into two distinct temporal and functional scopes: short-to-medium-term financial resilience and medium-to-long-term strategic resilience.

Short-to-Medium-Term Financial Resilience

The primary objective of the short-term horizon is to evaluate the immediate shock-absorption capacity of an entity’s capital and liquidity reserves. These tests generally employ a time horizon of three to five years, aligning with the standard cycles of supervisory stress testing. In this context, the focus is on “severe but plausible” shocks, such as a sudden spike in carbon prices or a cluster of extreme weather events that could impair the creditworthiness of borrowers or the value of collateralized assets.

Methodologically, these tests often utilize a “static balance sheet” assumption, which assumes the institution’s exposures remain constant over the period of the shock. This allows supervisors to isolate the direct impact of the ESG drivers on the current risk profile without the obfuscation of management interventions or strategic shifts.

Medium-to-Long-Term Strategic Resilience

The second pillar of the framework extends the time horizon to ten years or more, challenging the resilience of an institution’s strategy and business model against structural changes. This horizon is essential for capturing transition risks that may not materialize within the traditional three-year window but could render certain business lines unviable over a decade.

Long-term testing often necessitates a “dynamic balance sheet” approach, where institutions are permitted to model management actions and strategic re-allocations in response to the evolving scenario. However, the guidelines warn that such projections can become increasingly speculative over long horizons, leading to a reliance on narrative-driven assessments and expert judgment rather than purely mechanical quantitative outputs.

Design Approaches: Roles of Supervisors and Financial Entities

The guidelines provide NCAs with the flexibility to choose between different methodological designs—top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid—based on the maturity of data and the specific supervisory objectives. Each approach defines a specific set of roles for the actors involved:

• National Competent Authorities (NCAs): As the primary addressees, NCAs are responsible for integrating ESG risks into their national supervisory frameworks . They define the objectives, scope (portfolios, sectors, geographies), and the choice of scenarios .
• Financial Entities: Banks and insurers subject to CRD and Solvency II are required to make every effort to comply with the guidelines. In any exercise, they must be given sufficient preparation time to compile relevant information and conduct internal assessments.
• The Top-Down Paradigm: In this model, the NCA or the ESAs centrally calculate the impact of an ESG scenario using their internal models and standardized data . This ensures high comparability and reduces the operational burden on smaller institutions that may lack complex modeling capabilities .
• The Bottom-Up Paradigm: This requires each financial entity to conduct the assessment using its own internal models and data . It captures idiosyncratic portfolio nuances and serves as an internal capacity-building tool, though it requires NCAs to perform a comprehensive review to ensure accurate reporting .
• The Hybrid Model: This “middle ground” involves supervisors providing the overarching scenarios while institutions apply them to their specific exposures, often using standardized templates . This is critical for sectors like insurance where underwriting risks require entity-specific granularity .

Technical Deep Dive: ESG Risk Drivers and Transmission Channels

The core technical challenge of the guidelines is the mapping of “non-financial” ESG drivers to “traditional” financial risk categories. The ESAs emphasize that ESG risks are not a standalone category of risk but are drivers of existing risks such as credit, market, operational, and insurance risks.

Environmental Risk Drivers

Environmental risk, particularly climate change, is the most mature component of the framework. It is divided into physical risks and transition risks.

Physical Risk Transmission

Physical risks result from the direct impact of climate change and environmental degradation. These are categorized as acute (e.g., storms, floods) or chronic (e.g., rising temperatures, loss of biodiversity). The guidelines emphasize the need for high geographical granularity (NUTS level 3) in physical risk assessment to assess regional exposures.

Transition Risk Transmission

Transition risks arise from policy shifts, technological breakthroughs, and market sentiment changes. Transmission channels include:

• Credit Risk: “Stranded assets” in fossil-fuel-intensive sectors where collateral value drops significantly.
• Market Risk: Volatility in asset pricing as investors divest from “brown” assets.
• Concentration Risk: Excessive exposure to carbon-sensitive sectors like heavy industry or aviation.

Interoperability with DNSH and Transition Risk Assessments

The guidelines identify technical dependencies between stress testing methodologies and the “Do No Significant Harm” (DNSH) principle established under the EU Taxonomy and SFDR .

• DNSH as a Transition Risk Proxy: Compliance with DNSH criteria is recognized as a way for financial institutions to identify their exposure to transition risks. Specifically, activities that do not comply with DNSH are considered “most likely” to be exposed to transition risks.
• Risk Mitigation of Non-Aligned Portfolios: For a company that is only partially taxonomy-aligned (e.g., 70%), the remaining 30% could be environmentally harmful if it fails the DNSH test, potentially creating hidden transition risks . Analysts believe compliance with DNSH for non-aligned activities creates a more robust proxy for non-materiality in risk assessments .
• Simplification Impacts: The “Omnibus” simplification package (adopted July 2025) introduced materiality thresholds, allowing companies to exclude activities representing less than 10% of turnover from Taxonomy and DNSH assessment. This streamlines the data collection necessary for NCAs and institutions when feeding real-economy data into stress test models.

Scenario Selection and Modeling Prerequisites

A stress test is only as credible as the scenarios it employs. The guidelines require NCAs to use scenarios that are scientifically robust and based on work from “widely recognized organizations”.

Integration of NGFS Scenarios

The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) scenarios—Orderly, Disorderly, and Hot House World—provide the macroeconomic and climate-specific variables necessary for complex simulations. However, the guidelines highlight that global NGFS scenarios often need to be “regionalized” to be meaningful for local NCAs.

Stress Test Laboratory

Simulate capital depletion based on sectoral exposure and climate scenarios.

Select Sector

⚡ Energy 🏢 Real Estate 🏭 Industry 💻 Tech

Select Scenario Orderly Transition Disorderly Transition Hot House World

RUN SIMULATION

Capital Impact Estimate

Projected Capital Depletion (bps)

0 bps

Select inputs to calculate.

Use of Narrative Scenarios

Recognizing that many ESG risks lack historical data, the guidelines permit “narrative-driven scenarios”. These describe plausible future states—such as a sudden failure in global biodiversity—without requiring immediate quantitative precision, which is particularly useful for testing the “thinking capacity” of an institution’s board.

Organizational and Governance Arrangements

The ESAs emphasize that ESG stress testing is a core governance function, outlining necessary arrangements for both supervisors and financial entities.

The Role of the Management Body

For financial institutions, the management body is ultimately responsible for resilience to ESG risks. This involves ensures findings inform the institution’s long-term business strategy, transition planning, and Risk Appetite Framework (RAF). Boards must ensure that risk and compliance functions have sufficient expertise and material resources to conduct meaningful testing .

Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP)

For supervisors, stress test results are a critical input into the annual SREP . NCAs use findings to challenge institutions on risk management practices and capital adequacy. While there is no direct link to Pillar 2 capital requirements (P2R) mandated yet, results provide the basis for supervisors to impose qualitative requirements or additional capital buffers if resilience is found deficient .

Industry Friction and Implementation Challenges

Public consultation revealed significant technical concerns from industry stakeholders:

• Proportionality for SNCIs: The World Savings and Retail Banking Institute (WSBI-ESBG) and other groups argue that requirements remain too burdensome for small and non-complex institutions (SNCIs) . The guidelines allow for simplified qualitative assessments, like heatmaps, for these entities.
• Accuracy vs. Credibility: Insurance Europe has questioned the feasibility of “accurate” results in ESG stress testing given the infancy of climate models. They argue focus should be on “credibility” and “decision-usefulness” supported by expert judgment.
• Double Counting: The Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME) is concerned that standalone ESG stress tests might overlap with climate risks already embedded in standard macro-scenarios, leading to an overestimation of risk and unjustified capital hits .

Technical Comparison: 2024 Fit-for-55 vs. 2026 Joint Guidelines

The 2026 Joint Guidelines represent an evolution of the ad-hoc exercises conducted in previous years, most notably the EBA’s 2024 “Fit-for-55” climate stress test.

Future Outlook: Toward 2027 and Beyond

The incorporation of climate risks into the EU-wide stress-testing framework will be gradual, with a “combined approach” starting in 2027.

The Evolution of Data and Modeling

Success depends heavily on the maturation of the data ecosystem. The roll-out of the CSRD and the European Single Access Point (ESAP) will improve standardized ESG data from the real economy, allowing institutions to move away from proxies toward entity-specific modeling.

Strategic Implications for Institutions

The requirement to test business model resilience over a 10-year horizon will likely reveal that some current strategies are incompatible with a climate-neutral economy . This foresight is expected to accelerate capital re-allocation, as the sector incentivizes real-world transition to avoid future stress-test-driven capital implications.

Conclusion: A Paradigm Shift in Supervision

The ESAs Joint Guidelines on ESG Stress Testing represent a decisive step in the maturation of the EU’s sustainable finance framework. By standardizing the methodologies for assessing ESG-related financial risks, the ESAs have provided competent authorities and financial institutions with the tools needed to navigate an era of unprecedented environmental and social change. While challenges remain regarding data granularity and modeling uncertainty, the shift toward forward-looking, scenario-based analysis ensures that the Union’s financial stability is a testament to its future resilience.