@Aya Pariy, thank you for sharing. One of the best webinars I've watched about CS failure. Very well explained.
Perhaps, based on this video, it is possible to conclude that among E, S and G risks, CS suffers from G the most. As for now, unfortunately, the Basel Committee and EBA do not focus on G dimension (and even on S dimension) much when it comes to the disclosure of ESG risks. EBA obliges banks to perform quantitative assessment of physical and transition risks of their banking books as a part of pillar 3 disclosures. There are nearly 7 disclosure templates on climate risks that banks, governed by EBA, must submit. In turn, social and governance dimensions are addressed only qualitatively by EBA. The Basel Committee, in turn, requires banks to incorporate climate-related risks when computing RWAs for calculation of capital adequacy ratio. The question is whether "environmental" dimension should really be in the focus of regulators that much after the CS case. How useful are all those climate disclosures if banks failure start from the poor governance and inadequate capital allocation decisions. Perhaps, more attention to G will eliminate the need for comprehensive disclosures on E.
Additionally, Johann Scholtz, CFA mentioned that material ESG issues for banks are dominated by governance-related topics. This also rises a question if the focus of banks regulators should be shifted from E to G.
Inviting all the community members to share their thoughts on which of ESG dimensions is the most material for banks: E, S or G. What do you think?
------------------------------
Anastasia Kuznetsova
Associate Business Analyst
------------------------------