NON-FINANCIAL REPORT
49 | ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
sensitive to (e.g., sea level rise, soil & coastal erosion, wildfires, storms and floods as identified in the existing Bank’s
ESG materiality assessment) and provide NUTS3-level outcomes in terms of High / Medium / Low exposure levels,
leveraging relevant hazard maps for Greece. In line with transition risk, the Bank is working on updating the physical
risk materiality assessment (in both analyses presented above) by the end of the first quarter of 2024, incorporating
different time horizons in alignment with European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).
•
Regarding Operational Risk, although historical data do not reflect material losses from ESG-related events, the Bank
introduced several enhancements to better manage, monitor and mitigate ESG-related risks, effectively acknowledging
that there are potentially material ESG factors that could drive operational risk in the future. This is mostly based on a
conservative forward-looking view (i.e. future ESG-related losses may be greater compared to historical ones) as well as
on the fact that such events may have material reputational impact in the future, due to the shifting expectations of the
Customers and the society as a whole regarding ESG issues. Especially regarding legal risk, the Bank has introduced
enhancements to better identify, manage, mitigate and monitor legal risk driven by ESG-related factors. Emphasis is
placed on ESG-related legal risk due to customer and third-party controversial activities (through enhancements on the
obligor assessment process) as well as due to internal processes that are being established to prevent greenwashing
going forward (through the introduction of internal controls regarding the identification and the tagging of sustainable
finance exposures). More specifically, the Operational Risk Platform (Archer) has been enhanced incorporating a flag for
the classification of ESG Risk lawsuits and all labor lawsuits that have already been classified as “Social Risk related”. As
far as the commercial lawsuits are concerned, a mechanism will be initiated from 1/1/2024 in cooperation with the Civil,
Administrative, Criminal Law Disputes and NPEs’ Legal Support”/, identify, flag and report accordingly, relevant cases.
•
With respect to market risk, based on the materiality assessment of the Bank’s bond portfolio following the Climate Policy
Relevant Sectors (CPRS) methodology, taking also into consideration the average residual maturity of the ESG-sensitive
perimeter in order to identify the portfolio’s sensitivity to environmental risks that are expected to materialize in long-term
horizons, there is limited potential effect from climate-related and other ESG factors. The Bank has also proceeded to a
materiality assessment of Physical Risk for the Corporate Portfolio. The Bank’s exposure to physical risk can be
considered minimal or immaterial due to its minor size. The Bank is working to update the materiality assessment.
•
In terms of liquidity risk materiality, there seems to be no material effect from climate-related and other ESG factors. On
the asset liquidity side, this is driven by the composition of the buffer, mainly consisting of sovereign rather than corporate
bonds, which are considered to be immaterially impacted by ESG factors, as described in the market risk above. On the
funding side, deposits constitute the main funding source, mostly consisting of retail Customers, thus corporate Customers
constitute a relatively smaller part of the Bank’s funding position, limiting the exposure to ESG risks. The Bank aims to
incorporate a physical risk assessment in its liquidity risk materiality assessment by the end of the first quarter of 2024.
This entails evaluating the vulnerability of deposits (stemming from NFC and Individual portfolios) to acute climate risk
events based on NACE Sectors and the locations of the Obligors locations, respectively.
•
Reputational risk is generally considered to arise as a result of the manifestation of other risk types (i.e. a second-order
impact), while it could also give rise to other risk types subsequently (e.g. liquidity outflows, following a reputational
impact). In that sense, a separate evaluation of the materiality of ESG-related drivers is not required. To mitigate
reputational risk, the Bank has designed a robust process that involves identifying and assessing the potential participation
of its Obligors in controversial activities. The materiality assessment for other risk types suffices to cover potential one-off
(acute) events with reputational repercussions (e.g. within operational risk) as well as longer-term brand value impacts that
could arise in the context of Strategic Risk.
•
Business and Strategic Risk includes the risk of potential (internal or external) adverse events that negatively affect an
institution’s ability to achieve its objectives and, consequently, it has a negative effect on earnings (profit and loss account)
and, through the latter, on solvency. Strategic risk can be defined as the impact on capital, arising from adverse business
decisions, improper implementation of those decisions or lack of responsiveness to political, fiscal, regulatory, economic,
cultural, market or industry changes. The relevance of ESG factors in Business and Strategic Risk is reflected through the
failure to account for rising ESG factors, considering both idiosyncratic (strategic) and systemic (business) components .In
this context, the Bank acknowledges that ESG factors could have a significant impact from a Business and Strategic Risk
perspective, recognizing as key drivers the potential shift in consumer preferences, behavioral/demand patterns, the
market sentiment and the potential change in the competitive landscape, which could result to loss of the Bank’s market
share and affect its revenue and profitability, due to ESG considerations. The impact that ESG factors can have on
Business and Strategic Risk is also highlighted by the fact that they can lead to significant reputational risk, as a second-
order effect, in terms of a long-term impact on the Bank’s brand and reputation (e.g. the Bank gradually lagging in terms of
strategy and brand in ESG-related issues, compared to its peers). The impact of the Bank’s financing activity and overall
strategic direction on the environment is often subject to public scrutiny and, hence, associated with reputational
considerations. With respect to other environmental factors, from an inherent risk perspective, the Bank considers these
to be material, due to the size and sectoral allocation of its Non-Financial Corporate Loan portfolio. The Bank has
established the following dedicated processes to identify and mitigate risks associated with other environmental factors
during credit origination: a) Exclusion List, b) ESG Obligor Assessment Questionnaires and c) Transaction Assessment
and Due Diligence process. The aforementioned processes have been developed in alignment with international
standards and enable the Bank to mitigate ex ante environmental and/or social risks within its portfolio. Considering the