Digital Content

- Unlimited access to peer-contribution articles and insights
- Global research and market intelligence reports
- Discover Connect Magazine, a monthly publication
- Panel discussion and presentation recordings
• PRA replaces 2019
climate guidance with more detailed expectations for UK banks and insurers
• New rules focus on governance, risk registers, scenario analysis, data and
capital planning
• Proportionality central, with requirements scaled to each firm’s material
climate risk exposure
• Firms given six months to review gaps and plan remediation after 3 December
2025 start date
• Litigation risk, data uncertainty and operational resilience explicitly
addressed in the final policy
The Prudential Regulation Authority has issued
sweeping new expectations on how UK banks and insurers must manage
climate-related financial risks, in a move designed to harden the sector’s
resilience as extreme weather and transition pressures intensify.
Published as Policy Statement 5/25, the rules
replace the PRA’s original 2019 guidance and set out updated supervisory
expectations in a new statement on climate risk.
The regulator said the package is intended to
move firms beyond early-stage efforts and embed climate considerations into
core risk management, capital planning and strategic decisions.
The policy applies to all PRA-supervised banks,
building societies, designated investment firms and insurers in the Solvency II
and non-Solvency II regimes, but excludes branches of overseas entities.
The PRA stressed that proportionality is
central, with expectations scaled to the materiality of each firm’s climate
exposure rather than its size alone.
The new statement clarifies how climate risk
should be governed at board and senior management level.
Firms are expected to integrate responsibilities
into existing structures rather than create new layers, but must ensure that
decision makers understand climate risks and that material exposures are
reflected in risk appetite frameworks.
The PRA confirmed there is no requirement for a
dedicated senior management function for climate.
On risk management, the PRA insists that all
material climate risks appear in firms’ risk registers, though it accepts they
can sit within existing registers or sub-registers.
Firms are expected to identify how climate acts
as a driver of credit, market, operational and insurance risks, and to apply
judgement on the granularity of risk appetite and limits.
Climate scenario analysis remains a cornerstone
of the framework, but the PRA has softened aspects of its original proposals.
Firms can use narrative as well as
mathematically sophisticated scenarios, tailor the number and type of exercises
to their risk profile, and choose between reverse stress testing and
scenario-based sensitivity analysis where appropriate.
Longer-term horizons may rely more on story-led
analysis than precise quantification.
Recognising widespread data gaps, the PRA has
lowered the bar from quantifying uncertainty to understanding it, and no longer
expects firms always to use conservative proxies.
Instead, they should select appropriate proxies,
understand their limitations and interpret outputs prudently. Firms may use
both internal and third-party data but remain responsible for assessing quality
and governance.
The policy also acknowledges the growing
importance of climate litigation. Rather than prescribe a single model, the PRA
allows firms to treat litigation risk either as part of physical and transition
risk channels or as a distinct transmission channel, provided this reflects
their business profile and is applied consistently.
For banks, the PRA confirms that climate risks
must be considered within Internal Capital and Internal Liquidity Adequacy
Assessment Processes, aligned to existing time horizons but with scope for
longer-term scenarios in strategic planning.
For insurers, expectations cover the Own Risk
and Solvency Assessment, the Solvency Capital Requirement and the regulatory
balance sheet, with guidance on when internal models, capital add-ons or
adjustments to ratings and spreads may be appropriate.
Industry responses to the consultation were
broadly supportive, though firms sought clearer distinctions between binding
expectations and illustrative guidance, and raised concerns over costs and
implementation timelines.
The PRA has retained a six-month review period
after the 3 December 2025 start date, during which firms must assess their
compliance and develop plans, but are not required to close all gaps.
The regulator argues that by sharpening
expectations while emphasising proportionality, the new framework will improve
risk management without imposing unnecessary burdens and will help safeguard
financial stability as climate risks evolve.