The academic literature and policy discussions on the role that central banks and financial supervisors (CBFS) should play in the ecological transition, almost nonexistent five years ago, have since grown at an impressive pace. This has resulted in a wide range of proposals that often generate debates and even misunderstandings, for lack of a coherent analytical framework. Against this backdrop, this article provides a comprehensive overview of the different theoretical backgrounds and worldviews that inform existing proposals, and discusses the challenges and debates they generate when assessed from other perspectives. We identify three main approaches, or three “tales” of central banking and financial supervision in the face of ecological threats: (i) one that argues that CBFS should focus on assessing the (so-called “physical” and “transition”) risks that environmental issues pose to price and/or financial stability; (ii) one that places great emphasis on the ability of CBFS to help trigger systemic change, and thereby promotes proactive actions by CBFS to steer financial markets toward greening their activity beyond a risk-based approach; (iii) one that sees CBFS transformation as necessary but part of broader institutional change that they cannot deliver on their own, thereby requiring an evolutionary perspective. Through this comprehensive literature review, this article seeks to provide a coherent framework through which future academic contributions and policy proposals can be better understood and assessed.

中文翻译：

---

生态转型的中央银行和金融监管的三个故事

关于中央银行和金融监管机构（CBFS）在生态转型中应发挥的作用的学术文献和政策讨论在五年前几乎不存在，但此后以惊人的速度增长。这导致了各种各样的提议，由于缺乏连贯的分析框架，这些提议经常引起辩论甚至误解。在此背景下，本文全面概述了现有提案的不同理论背景和世界观，并讨论了从其他角度评估时产生的挑战和争论。我们确定了中央银行和金融监管面对生态威胁的三种主要方法，或者说三个“故事”：(i) 认为 CBFS 应重点评估（所谓的“物理”和“转型”）风险的方法环境问题对价格和/或金融稳定造成影响；(ii) 高度重视 CBFS 帮助引发系统性变革的能力，从而促进 CBFS 采取积极行动，引导金融市场超越基于风险的方法，实现其活动的绿色化；(iii) 认为 CBFS 转型是必要的，但属于更广泛的制度变革的一部分，而这些变革本身无法实现，因此需要一种进化的视角。通过这篇全面的文献综述，本文旨在提供一个连贯的框架，通过该框架可以更好地理解和评估未来的学术贡献和政策建议。