Imagine a world where sudden floods or a rush to green energy could wipe out billions from bank balance sheets overnight – that's the stark reality climate risks pose to Europe's financial system, and it's why regulators are racing to test banks' defenses starting in 2025. Curious how this shakes out for everyday businesses and investors? Let's dive in.
Incorporating Climate Hazards into the 2025 Europe-Wide Banking Stress Test: How These Risks Hit Companies Hard
Written by Aurora Abbondanza, Marianna Caccavaio, Valentina Gattinoni, and Oana Maria Georgescu
This piece appears in Macroprudential Bulletin 32 (check it out at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/pubbydate/html/index.en.html?nameofpublication=Macroprudential%20Bulletin%7CMacroprudential%20Bulletin%20-%20Article%7CMacroprudential%20Bulletin%20-%20Focus), dated November 2025.
As regulators throughout the eurozone push to weave climate threats into their standard stress-testing routines, this discussion lays the groundwork for evaluating how banks hold up when these dangers strike quickly. Why does this matter so much? Well, sudden disasters like fierce storms or unexpected policy overhauls – think carbon taxes kicking in faster than expected – can pop up without warning, slamming the financial health of banks and beyond. Our examination builds on a tough economic picture that merges the European Banking Authority's (EBA) gloomy forecast with the climate pathways from the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), specifically their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) setups. We take the findings from the 2025 pan-European stress test and layer in both the shift toward a low-carbon world (transition risks) and immediate weather shocks (acute physical risks) using high-level, aggregated models to gauge credit dangers for non-financial businesses. For instance, the push for eco-friendly upgrades to cut pollution ramps up loan defaults and eats into banks' core capital – known as Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1), which is basically the top-quality funds banks use as a safety net – especially in industries guzzling lots of energy like manufacturing or mining. In the same vein, wild floods don't just wreck buildings; they spark local chaos and ripple through the economy, chipping away at CET1 levels too. Sure, the hits differ from bank to bank, but overall, these climate factors deliver a noticeable dent in capital strength. And here's a twist most folks overlook: the institutions hit hardest by these green shocks might not match the usual suspects flagged in the full stress test. This really drives home why weaving in both risk flavors is essential for keeping the financial world steady.
1 Getting Started: Why Climate Checks Are a Big Deal Now
Over the past few years, folding in both quick-hit and drawn-out climate dangers into stress tests has shot to the top of to-do lists for watchdogs around the globe. These forward-thinking tools are like crystal balls for measuring how global warming could rattle economies and the money systems that keep them running. [1] Sure, everyone's buzzing about the slow-burn stuff, like rising seas over decades, but don't sleep on the fast ones – think flash floods, surprise green laws, or markets flipping out over eco-news, all hitting hard and fast on bank books and the wider world.
In Europe, the financial overseers are gearing up to slot climate monitoring right into their yearly bank checkups. The trio of European Supervisory Authorities – that's the EBA for banks, EIOPA for insurance and pensions, and ESMA for markets, lumped together as the ESAs – just dropped a Joint Consultation Paper (peek here: https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-06/365ca249-d8ab-452a-be5b-9d3f798b8332/Consultation%20Paper%20-%20Joint%20ESAs%20Guidelines%20on%20integrating%20ESG%20risks%20in%20supervisory%20stress%20tests.pdf) outlining proposed rules for testing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) threats. They kicked off with the eco-side, zeroing in on climate woes plus nature hits like vanishing biodiversity or rampant deforestation. Banks and such grapple with forecasting eco-paths because tools are all over the place and experts can't agree on methods – these guidelines aim to sync things up across sectors, keeping it fair and streamlined to make tests sharper without overwhelming anyone. The feedback window closed September 19, 2025, so expect the polished version from the ESAs early 2026.
Focusing on banks, the EBA's plotting to blend climate perils into its big Europe-wide drills. Drawing from their 2024 Annual Report roadmap (https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-06/bee4e97f-91a9-43bd-abdb-bd774e0259bf/2024%20Annual%20Report.pdf) and legal duties,[2] this rollout will be step-by-step. Come 2027, they'll mix in bits of climate stuff – a hybrid method – and build from there in later rounds. They'll stress covering both physical dangers (the sudden kind included) and transition hurdles, backed by custom storylines.
The EBA's blueprint for these eco-tests will stick to fair scaling and keeping it simple, while tapping the solid setup of the current Europe-wide test. Proportionality? That means tweaking the intensity based on a bank's size, risks, and eco-exposure – no one-size-fits-all. Plus, the climate add-on will match the main test's data lingo, reporting flows, plots, and setups, cutting hassle for everyone involved. Leaning on the established system boosts reliability and speed, setting the stage for a full merge of climate angles down the line.
This write-up adds fresh angles to the Europe-wide test by slipping climate elements into banks' loan risk forecasts through a bird's-eye modeling tactic. We stretch the 2025 outcomes by folding transition and snap physical climate threats into the non-financial company credit eval using summary models. Why zero in on credit risk? It's a heavy hitter in these regulatory workouts, and the ways climate jolts flow to loan woes are clearer and better baked into bank models than, say, market swings or profit dips. Transition pressures from eco-upgrades boosting emission cuts hike default odds, worst in power-hungry fields. That spikes loan write-offs, trimming CET1 by a steady 74 basis points (think of basis points as tiny slices of a percentage – 100 equals 1%). Then, brutal floods pile on via on-site hits, neighborhood snags, and economy-wide drags, knocking another 77 basis points off CET1 (details in Box 1). But here's where it gets intriguing – and maybe controversial: this spotlights hidden vulnerabilities, since climate-losers might not overlap with the stress test's usual weak links (check Rodriguez d’Acri and Shaw, 2025: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/financial-stability-publications/macroprudential-bulletin/html/ecb.mpbu202511_01.en.html).
A smart, all-in climate test isn't just about ticking boxes – it can sharpen banks' edge in a changing world. Supervisors love these for gauging climate blows to banking, but eurozone lenders are increasingly using them for clear reporting and smart planning (see the ECB's guide on best practices: https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/ecb/pub/pdf/ssm.202212ECBreportongoodpracticesforCST~539227e0c1.en.pdf). With this field still evolving, banks need to keep tweaking their game.
2 Building on the 2025 Europe-Wide Stress Test: Layering in Climate Angles for Business Loans
How banks' industry loan risks to transition shifts turn into default spikes and write-offs. We pull from NGFS forecasts on fuel costs, pollution levels, energy use, and key economic trends in their NDCs plot. Slotting this into the EBA's 2025 rough patch reveals how green transitions supercharge the official test's warnings, underlining their role in stability checks. And remember, transition effects pair with physical ones (Box 1), since sluggish or patchy green policies crank up medium-term weather risks.
2.1 Plotting the Transition Risk Storyline
Using the NGFS NDCs as a base, we craft a near-term transition tale tied to promised emission goals but with policy foot-dragging. Climate plots usually span years, but transitions can bite quick too. Here, we eye 2025-27 via NGFS NDCs, baking in countries' March 2024 pledges, policy or not.[3] In the EU, it sketches a fuel switch: less gas, coal, oil; more sun, wind, and grids, fueled by company green spends. By 2027, fossils drop, renewables soar – a cleaner shift in action (Chart 1, panel a). For example, think steel mills swapping coal for electric arcs.
To see firm-level ripples, we scale the energy blend down using Eurostat sector data and each company's revenue slice. We figure the tech upgrades for this flip come from green outlays (Chart 1, panel b), sized by sector pollution heft. These spends tweak debt loads and earnings, nudging default chances.
Chart 1
The Fuel Blend and Green Spends from NGFS NDCs
a) Shift in EU Overall Energy Sources
b) Total Green Outlays: Company Averages
(percentages)
(EUR millions)
2.2 How We Forecast Defaults and Loan Hits Under Transition Pressures
For business default odds over the test span, we use a sector-fixed effects model tying flop rates to debt and earnings. Non-financial PDs draw from ECB's Fit-for-55 tweaks (Appendix I in ESAs and ECB, 2024). Yearly sector PDs link flop rates to projected earnings and debt, laced with NGFS climate jolts. Flop rate? Failed firms over total in sector. Failure flag from Gourinchas et al. (2024): 1 if interest tops cash and debt/assets >1 for two years straight, else 0. Debt: liabilities/assets; earnings: net revenue post-ops over assets – simple solvency gauges for beginners.
Earnings get hit by interest on green debt and 10-year amortization – like spreading solar panel costs. Plus, assets follow NGFS econ paths, so low-carbon shifts ding both debt sides, hurting stability.[4]
NGFS green pushes load balance sheets with more debt, slimmer profits. Spend needs tie to sector energy/pollution: high for mining, making, power, water; medium for construction, shipping, farming; low for retail, hotels, tech.
To tally transition's loan toll, we link sector PD shifts to bank exposures via AnaCredit. Map to firm PDs and banks, aggregate country-wide, apply to initial test PDs. Blend with EBA adverse losses to see transition amp-up.
2.3 What Transition Risks Reveal
High-energy firms' debt and earnings flip most under scenario shocks. Cumulative debt hike from 2024: 4.33 points for high, 0.74 for medium, -0.30 for low (Chart 2, a). Earnings drop sharpest in carbon-heavy: -8.41 points high, -1.96 others (Chart 2, b). Why? Tough assumptions, plus green interest/amortization burdens. But hey, it cuts fossil fuel bills long-run – a silver lining?
Chart 2
Debt and Earnings Shifts by Energy Use
a) Debt Levels
b) Earnings
(percentage point shifts)
(percentage point shifts)
PD jumps hit high-energy hardest: average 50% rise, front-loaded year one (Chart 3, a). Median: 91% high, 28% medium (Chart 3, b). Low ones? Less drama.
Chart 3
Business Default Odds
a) PD Shift by Year
b) PD Shift Spread
(percentage shifts)
(percentage shifts)
Loan losses dent CET1 mildly overall, but energy-tied banks hurt more. Vs. 2025 test, extra NFC hits: 74 bps system-wide (Chart 4, a). Worst for high-exposure banks, then medium/low (Chart 4, b).
Chart 4
NFC Loan Losses Spread and CET1 Hits
a) NFC Losses in Test Plus Transition
b) CET1 from Extra Losses by Exposure
(basis points)
(x-axis: basis points, y-axis: density)
Box 1
EU Floods and Their Toll on Business Loans
By Aurora Abbondanza, Ugo Albertazzi, Davor Djekic, and Aurea Ponte Marques
This sidebar tweaks the 2025 test for sudden physical risks' loan effects. EBA's adverse catches cycles but skips climate, which could spark big systemic pain.[5] We probe bank toughness vs. EBA shocks plus acute climate hits, focusing credit – key path to bank health – on business loans (data ease, unlike mortgages often collateralized). We stick to floods for solid direct impact data, but adding fires or dry spells would spotlight country/sector variances, as risks differ wildly.
Scenario: EBA adverse + NGFS NDCs, with GDP down ~6.9 points cumulative (see Section 2). Floods ding credit via three paths: direct firm hits (damage, halts); local drags (transport woes for all nearby); macro slumps. So, tests need firm/local models and pinpoint scenarios naming hit zones/firms.
Granular is key for local risks. River flood exposure (2021-50, RCP 4.5): score 0-5. Most firms low (0), but 22,000+ at max 5 (Chart A, a).
Macro channels spread pain: EBA+NGFS boosts defaults, peaking 2026, +2 points cumulative (Chart A, b).
Chart A
PD Under EBA Adverse/NGFS NDCs and Firm Risk Spread
a) Firms by Risk Score
b) PD in Scenarios
(x-axis: risk score; y-axis: firm count)
(percentage, y-axis: PD)
For granular: Assume floods hit high-score areas/firms (Chart A, a).[6] Hits 2,786 municipalities (36% loans), top 6.4% firms per (historical match, Table A, b).
Table A
Flood Area Effects (DiD) and Direct Hit (RDD) on Loans
a) DiD Outcomes
(coefficients, std errors in parens)
(1) (2) (3)
Flooded -0.002 (0.018) 0.002 (0.023) 0.022 (0.018)
Post -0.023 (0.023) -0.011 (0.048) -0.012 (0.020)
Flooded x Post 0.099** (0.042) 0.181** (0.074) 0.107** (0.053)
Quarters [-2,2] [-2,2] [-8,2]
Obs 38,522 33,482 72,900
Events 55 25 25
b) RDD Outcomes
(1) (2) (3)
Flooded 0.720** (0.362) 1.967** (0.919) 1.885*** (0.652)
Distance 0.002*** (0.001) 0.005*** (0.002) 0.004*** (0.001)
Flooded x Distance -0.000 (0.002) -0.002 (0.004) -0.003 (0.003)
Quarters (0,1] (0,1] (0,2]
Obs 9,705 2,257 4,506
Events 6 1 (Valencia) 1 (Valencia)
Even non-hit firms in flood zones suffer: DiD on 55 events shows +0.1-0.2 pp PD post-event (Table A, a), econ-adjusted – local economy blues.
Direct hits worse: RDD on 6 events since 2018, geodata compares hit/unhit neighbors. PD up 0.7 pp next quarter; Valencia 2024: up to 2.0 pp (Table A, b). Causal link clear.[9]
Chart B
Affected Firm Shares by Town and Risk Types
a) Town Map, Colored by Hit Firm Share in Scenario
b) Firm Shares by Risk Type in Scenario
(percentage, hit share)
(percentages)
Capital drain: Mix macro + estimates for unaffected in hit areas, direct hits, others, via AnaCredit portfolios. 34% unaffected in hits, 2% direct, rest domestic. Yields bank losses.[10]
Chart C
Bank Loss Spread Under EBA Adverse + Physical (NGFS NDCs + Granular)
(x-axis: bps, y-axis: density)
Aggregate extra losses mild, but bank variance big. Combined: 487 bps depletion, +77 vs. EBA alone (Chart D, a) – local driven. Median bank: 496 vs. 419 bps. 7% over 200 bps. Losses from all channels (Chart D, b).
Chart D
System Loss Breakdown and Bank Climate Losses by Risk Type
a) System Losses by Exposure Type
b) Climate Loss Spread by Type
(bps)
(bps)
But here's the controversial bit: Is this extra 77 bps a wake-up call, or overblown since banks have buffers? Some say physical risks are overhyped vs. transitions – what do you think?
3 Wrapping Up
Probing transition and physical climate threats shows a solid but telling strain on bank strength, pushing for full-spectrum risk scans. As eurozone bosses integrate climate into routine tests, this sensitivity peek – under EBA's rough econ (EBA, 2024) – starts the convo on resilience to green shifts and weather whacks. Transition adds 74 bps CET1 hit aggregate, mostly high-energy ties. Physical (Box 1) adds 77 bps, tied to policy lags upping medium risks. Total moderate but meaningful on capital. Plus, climate-vulnerable banks may surprise vs. standard test flags (Rodriguez d’Acri and Shaw, 2025: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/financial-stability-publications/macroprudential-bulletin/html/ecb.mpbu202511_01.en.html). This screams for routine climate in stability work.
What if banks ignore these 'moderate' hits and focus elsewhere – could that spark a crisis? Or are regulators pushing too hard, stifling growth? Share your take in the comments: Do you agree climate tests are essential, or just greenwashing? Let's discuss!
References
Alogoskoufis, A., Dunz, N., Emambakhsh, T., Hennig, T., Kaijser, M., Kouratzoglou, C., Muñoz, M., Parisi, L. and Salleo, C. (2021), “ECB economy-wide climate stress test: Methodology and results”, Occasional Paper Series, No 281, ECB.
Budnik et al. (2024), “Advancements in stress-testing methodologies for financial stability applications”, Occasional Paper Series, No 348, ECB.
EBA (2024), “Board of Supervisors: Minutes of the conference call on 10 December 2024”.
EBA (2025), “Annual Report – Year 2024”.
EBA (2025a), “Macro-financial scenario for the 2025 EU-wide banking sector stress test”.
ECB (2022), “ECB report on good practices for climate stress testing”, December.
ECB (2025), “2025 stress test of euro area banks: Final results”, August.
ESAs and ECB (2024), “Fit-for-55 climate scenario analysis (https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecb.reportfit-for-55stresstestexercise~7fec18f3a8.en.pdf) ”, November.
Emambakhsh, T., Fuchs, M., Kördel, S., Kouratzoglou, C., Lelli, C., Pizzeghello, R., Salleo, C. and Spaggiari, M. (2022), “The Road to Paris: stress testing the transition towards a net-zero economy (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4564374) ”, Occasional Paper Series, No 328, ECB.
ESAs (2025), “Joint Consultation Paper on draft joint guidelines to ensure that consistency, long-term considerations and common standards for assessment methodologies are integrated into the stress testing of environmental, social and governance risks pursuant to Article 100(4) of Directive 2013/36/EU and Article 304c(3) of Directive 2009/138/EC”, June.
ESRB (2025), “Annual Report 2024”, July.
Gourinchas, P., Kalemli-Özcan, S., Penciakova, V., Sander, N. (2024), SME Failures Under Large Liquidity Shocks: an Application to the Covid-19 Crisis, Journal of the European Economic Association, 23(2), 431–480.
NGFS (2024), “Climate Scenarios, Phase V”, November.
NGFS (2025), “Short-term Climate Scenarios”, May.
Oom, D. et al. (2022), Pan-European wildfire risk assessment, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Statistics Committee Expert Group on Climate Change and Statistics and Working Group on Securities Statistics (2024), “Climate change-related statistical indicators”, Statistics Paper Series, No 48, ECB.
UNEP (2024),” A Comprehensive Review of Global Supervisory Climate Stress Tests”, July.
