Why Companies Should Care

The European Central Bank has released its updated compendium of good practices on climate and nature‑related risk management – and the message is blunt: progress is real, but major blind spots remain.

Banks now have the basic frameworks in place, yet implementation is uneven. Many still fail to cover all material risk drivers, portfolios, and transmission channels.

🔎 Two areas stand out:

• Physical climate risks – methodologies are still immature, and the non‑linear, forward‑looking nature of these risks means they are likely underestimated.
• Nature‑related risks – most banks have run materiality assessments, but two‑thirds haven’t turned them into concrete actions. KRIs exist, but often without thresholds that trigger decisions. KRI = Key Risk Indicator measuring risk exposure.

Notably, one‑third of all new good practices focus on nature‑related risks – a clear signal of supervisory priorities.

⚠️ A risk landscape defined by uncertainty

The ECB warns that Europe is moving toward a disorderly transition, with faster‑moving physical and transition risks. Banks must prepare for a wider range of plausible futures, supported by more granular scenario analysis and stress testing.

🛡️ The insurance protection gap is widening

With insurance coverage shrinking and public finances strained, more climate‑ and nature‑related losses will fall directly on banks’ balance sheets – increasing scrutiny on exposed sectors and borrowers.

🌿 What this means for companies

This is not just a banking issue. It directly affects corporates seeking financing or refinancing.

1. Expect more granular asset‑level data requests on Physical risk exposure, Transition plans, Nature‑related dependencies and impacts and Adaptation measures
2. Weak disclosures = higher financing costs. If banks cannot quantify your risks, they will price in uncertainty.
3. Nature‑related risks enter mainstream credit analysis. Expect more questions on biodiversity, land use, water dependency, and supply‑chain exposure.
4. Transition plans must be credible and operational. Banks are moving from “statements” to evidence of execution. Companies without costed, time‑bound plans will face tighter covenants and reduced credit appetite.
5. Scenario analysis becomes a shared language. Companies able to articulate resilience under disorderly transition scenarios will stand out.

The ECB’s message is clear: Climate and nature‑related risks are rising, complex, and still underestimated. Banks must accelerate – and so must companies.

Those who provide granular data, credible transition plans, and transparent nature‑related disclosures will secure better financing conditions and stronger long‑term resilience.

📘 The best way to prepare? Adopt ESRS.

The ECB’s expectations align closely with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). For companies, learning and adopting ESRS is the fastest, most reliable way to meet banks’ rising data needs.

👉 Contact us if you want to use our guided digital ESRS end-to-end templates to get a head start.

 

---

Source: https://www.bankingsupervision.europa.eu/ecb/pub/pdf/ssm.thematicreviewcercompendiumgoodpractices052026.en.pdf

 

 

Across the Atlantic, the ESG narrative is splitting in two – as highlighted in the Harvard Law School Forum article “ESG Shifting Tides” – and it is reshaping the landscape in which companies operate.

In the U.S., ESG as a label is shrinking. Mentions in S&P 500 and Fortune 1000 proxies peaked in 2024, fell in 2025, and early 2026 filings have dropped below 2022 levels.

Companies are “greenhushing,” stripping out sustainability language to avoid political, regulatory, and litigation risk.

At the judicial level, new 2025-2026 cases challenge ESG mandates under the doctrine of “unconstitutional vagueness,” arguing that ESG criteria lack objective definition and cannot guide fiduciary duty.

Yet sustainability references in 10‑K risk factors continue to rise – because removing them could expose companies to liability if investors face losses.

Target’s 2021-2025 proxy evolution captures the shift:

▪️ 2021 – sustainability as risk oversight
▪️ 2022-2023 – ESG as a strategic brand asset
▪️ 2024-2025 – ESG nearly disappears, replaced by “resilience” and “long‑term value creation”

ESG isn’t dead, but it’s being rebranded to avoid risk.

Europe, however, is taking a longer‑term view, grounded in the understanding that a company’s negative impacts and dependencies are not abstract ESG issues but concrete financial risks.

The revised ESRS and SFDR 2.0 are not a retreat but a consolidation. While the U.S. backs away from ESG terminology, the EU is doubling down on clarity, comparability, and enforceability.

The ESRS revision simplifies reporting while preserving core objectives. It strengthens definitions, aligns with the Accounting Directive, and reinforces double materiality, preventing companies from reducing sustainability to a pure risk narrative.

SFDR 2.0 complements this by providing a clear financial product framework – clear categories, naming rules, exclusions, thresholds, PAIs – built on CSRD/ESRS data.

This is the opposite of “unconstitutional vagueness.” It is regulatory architecture designed to reduce ambiguity, prevent greenwashing, and support long‑term capital allocation.

ESG as branding is fading. ESG as evidence is rising ‼️ Regulators and investors expect structured, defensible data – not slogans.

Risk‑only framing won’t work in the EU. Double materiality requires addressing both impacts and financial risks.

Simplification is not dilution. ESRS and SFDR 2.0 streamline reporting but raise expectations on quality and comparability.

Capital follows clarity. While U.S. ESG funds face outflows, the EU is building conditions for stable, long‑term sustainable finance.

The EU is not following the U.S. retreat. It is professionalizing sustainability reporting.

Companies that prepare now – with robust data, clear governance, and integrated reporting processes – will be best positioned to benefit from regulatory stability and investor confidence.

—

The Harvard Law School Forum article “ESG Shifting Tides” is available here: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/05/07/esg-shifting-tides-an-analysis-of-the-changing-narrative-around-sustainability-and-esg-investment-contraction/

#CSRD, #ESRS, #SFDR