2014年-世界发展银行全球_Moving_Forward_with_Environmental_and_Social_Risk_Mmanagement___Findings_from_IFC_Country_Baseline_Surveys_28页_6mb

Summary of "Moving Forward with Environmental and Social Risk Management" Report

Core Content

This report, conducted by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), presents findings from baseline surveys in nine emerging markets (Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam) to assess the current state of Environmental and Social Risk Management (ESRM) among financial institutions (FIs). The aim is to understand the barriers and drivers for ESRM adoption, the level of implementation of ESRM systems, and the expectations of FIs from regulators and supporting institutions.

Main Findings

1. Barriers and Drivers for ESRM Adoption

Barriers

• Lack of enforcement of E&S legislation: Identified as the top barrier in 8 out of 9 countries.
• Absence of sector-specific guidelines: Second most important barrier in 7 out of 9 countries.
• Need for senior management support: Consistently ranked in the top three barriers by 6 out of 9 countries.
• Perceived lack of business case: Recognized by 4 out of 9 countries.
• Limited FI capacity and qualified staff: Also recognized by 4 out of 9 countries.

Drivers

• Banking regulation on ESRM: A primary driver in 6 out of 9 countries.
• Improved credibility and reputation: Also a primary driver in 6 out of 9 countries.
• Improved credit risk: Recognized in 4 out of 9 countries.
• National legislation: Considered important in 3 out of 9 countries.
• Shareholder interest and pressure: A key driver in Colombia, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
• New business opportunities: Considered important in Brazil, Colombia, and Peru.

2. Implementation Levels of ESRM Systems (ESMS)

Key Elements of ESMS

• Procedures: 47% of FIs had implemented ESRM procedures.
• Policies: Only 33% of FIs had a formal ESRM policy in place.
• Resources: Only 28% allocated technical and financial resources for ESRM; 24% allocated IT resources.
• Staff resources: 41% assigned responsibility for ESRM to a senior staff member; 45% had implemented some form of training, though often limited to a small number of staff.

Use of ESRM Standards

• National legislation: 45% of FIs applied national legislative requirements.
• IFC Performance Standards: 33% of FIs applied these standards.
• Equator Principles: Widely applied, with similar usage to IFC Performance Standards.
• Self-developed exclusion lists: 18% of FIs developed and applied their own exclusion lists.

Credit Appraisal and Decision-Making

• Site visits: 57% of FIs used site visits to support ESRM.

• Third-party E&S risk assessments: Top tool used in credit appraisal.

• IFC project categorization: Second most commonly used tool.

• Use of E&S tools: Only 48% of FIs used E&S tools in credit appraisal, with Latin American FIs using them more frequently (75% in Peru) than those in Asia (25%).

• Monitoring E&S risks: 33% of FIs monitored E&S risks, with the majority in Latin America.

• Reporting on E&S issues: Only one FI reported on overdue loans due to E&S issues, indicating limited use of E&S risk reporting mechanisms.

3. Expectations from Regulators and Supporting Institutions

• Need for regulatory guidance: FIs identified the absence of regulatory guidance as a key barrier.
• Voluntary vs. mandatory guidance: Some FIs prefer voluntary guidance to avoid unreasonably high compliance standards.
• Training and awareness: FIs prefer short-term awareness-raising events over long-term training programs.
• Sector-specific guidelines: Particularly needed in Bangladesh, where ERM Guidelines were in place but not well understood.
• Collaboration with central banks and industry experts: FIs in Bangladesh and Vietnam emphasized the importance of DFI engagement with these entities to develop E&S guidance.

Key Information

• Survey Scope: Conducted in nine countries, with 123 FIs participating.
• Survey Methodology: Combined quantitative and qualitative methods, including standardized questionnaires and interviews.
• Regional Differences: Latin American FIs are more advanced in ESRM implementation and more likely to perceive a link between ESRM and financial performance.
• Regulatory Impact: Countries with ESRM banking regulation or national legislation (Bangladesh, Brazil, Indonesia) have higher adoption rates of ESRM.
• Training Preferences: Awareness-raising workshops and training events are the most requested forms of support.
• ESRM Standards: IFC Performance Standards and Equator Principles are the most commonly used ESRM tools.
• Challenges: Limited technical and financial resources, lack of senior management support, and unclear regulatory frameworks are major challenges in ESRM implementation.

Conclusion

• Regulatory guidance is a critical factor in ESRM adoption and implementation.
• Reputational benefits and improved loan portfolio quality are the main drivers for ESRM adoption.
• Implementation levels vary significantly across regions and institutions.
• Training and awareness are highly valued by FIs, with a preference for broad-based, short-term initiatives.
• Sector-specific guidelines and clear regulatory frameworks are essential for promoting widespread ESRM adoption in the financial sector.