Climate risk stress testing: A critical survey and classification

We conceptually investigate Climate Risk Stress Testing (CRST) exercises to assess the impact of climate-related shocks on financial system stability. We distinguish between climate, economic, and financial modeling steps, and classify CRST exercises into six types of climate shocks and four different approaches (macro-financial, micro-financial, non-structural, and disaster risk). We identify several key limitations in current CRST approaches: (i) neglect of certain climate shock types (Green Swan and Minsky-type events); (ii) overreliance on macro models (with low sectoral and spatial granularity); (iii) incomplete modeling (lack of feedback effects); and (iv) limited scope (subset of causal channels and asset classes). We argue that these limitations may lead to significant underestimation of potential system-wide financial losses and offer suggestions for improving CRST approaches. They have also led CRST exercises to diverge from the traditional stress testing objective of capital adequacy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Climate Finance
Published
2025-02-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclimf.2025.100061
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Climate Change and Sustainable Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.32
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Climate risk stress testing: A critical survey and classification

Mathijs A. van Dijk, Henk Jan Reinders, Dirk Schoenmaker
3 citations
Journal of Climate Finance
Climate Change and Sustainable Development
3.32
article

Climate risk stress testing: A critical survey and classification

Mathijs A. van Dijk, Henk Jan Reinders, Dirk Schoenmaker
article en
3 citations

Abstract

We conceptually investigate Climate Risk Stress Testing (CRST) exercises to assess the impact of climate-related shocks on financial system stability. We distinguish between climate, economic, and financial modeling steps, and classify CRST exercises into six types of climate shocks and four different approaches (macro-financial, micro-financial, non-structural, and disaster risk). We identify several key limitations in current CRST approaches: (i) neglect of certain climate shock types (Green Swan and Minsky-type events); (ii) overreliance on macro models (with low sectoral and spatial granularity); (iii) incomplete modeling (lack of feedback effects); and (iv) limited scope (subset of causal channels and asset classes). We argue that these limitations may lead to significant underestimation of potential system-wide financial losses and offer suggestions for improving CRST approaches. They have also led CRST exercises to diverge from the traditional stress testing objective of capital adequacy.

Journal of Climate FinanceVol. 10
International Monetary Fund (US), Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Climate Change and Sustainable Development
3.32
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.