June 25, 2018 – 427 REPORT. Regulatory pressure and financial damage are necessitating an increase in physical climate risk disclosure in Australia. In exercising their own due diligence and assessing the exposure to physical climate risks in their portfolios, investors arm themselves with valuable information on corporate risk exposure which they can leverage to engage with companies around resilience. This report explores the connection between climate hazards and financial risks and shares examples of corporate adaptation and investor engagement to build resilience.
The global tide of interest in the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) has hit the shores of Australian financial markets, steered by regulators concerned about the systemic risk climate change poses to the economy. In 2017 Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s Geoff Summerhayes was the first Australian regulator to formally endorse the TCFD. “Some climate risks are distinctly ‘financial’ in nature. Many of these risks are foreseeable, material and actionable now,” he said. This sentiment was echoed by John Price of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in 2018 and reflects growing regulatory concern over climate risk disclosure internationally, as shown by Article 173 of France’s Law on Energy Transition and Green Growth and the 2018 European Commission Action Plan.
This Four Twenty Seven Report, Responding to Economic Climate Risk in Australia, explores the drivers of financial risk in Australia and discusses approaches to addressing this risk. The nation’s dominant industries are particularly threatened by the prevalent climate hazards. For investors, understanding a company’s risk to climate change is an essential first step to mitigating portfolio risk, but must be followed by corporate engagement to build resilience. Institutional investors are increasingly leveraging shareholder resolutions and direct engagement to prompt companies to disclose their climate risks and adapt.
This Four Twenty Seven webinar on emerging metrics and best practices for physical climate risks and opportunities disclosures covers recent developments in TCFD and Article 173 reporting, challenges to assessing climate risk exposure, strategies for investors to incorporate this information into decision-making and approaches to build corporate resilience.
June 5, 2018 – 427 REPORT. Shareholder engagement is a critical tool to build resilience in investment portfolios. Investors can help raise awareness of rising risks from climate change, and encourage companies to invest in responsible corporate adaptation measures. We identify top targets for shareholder engagement on physical climate risks and provide data-driven strategies for choosing companies and approaching engagement. Our report includes sample questions as an entry point for investors’ conversations about climate risk and resilience with corporations.
Shareholder engagement on climate change has grown tremendously in recent years. Over 270 investors, managing almost $30 trillion collectively, have committed to engage with the largest greenhouse gas emitters through the Climate Action 100+. In addition to their ongoing efforts to engage and encourage companies to reduce emissions, investors are becoming aware of the financial risks from extreme weather and climate change. Climate change increases downside risks: a negative repricing of assets is already being seen where climate impacts are most obvious, such as coastal areas of Miami. As climate change can negatively impact company valuations, investors must strive to bolster governance and adaptive capacity to help companies build resilience.
This Four Twenty Seven report, From Risk to Resilience – Engaging with Corporates to Build Adaptive Capacity, explains the value of engagement, for both corporations and investors and describes data and case studies to drive engagement strategies. While news coverage of extreme weather events can clue investors in to which corporations may be experiencing climate-driven financial damage, new data can empower investors to identify systemic climate risk factors and proactively engage companies likely to experience impacts in the future. Reactive engagement strategies based on news stories can also use data to more thoroughly explore corporations highlighted in the news, by examining other hazards that may pose harm to their operations.
The report also identifies the Top 10 companies with the highest exposure to physical climate risk in the Climate Action 100+ and calls for investors to leverage their engagement on emissions to also address urgent issues around climate impacts and building resilience.
Once they identify companies, shareholders can use a variety of questions to gain a deeper understanding of companies’ vulnerability to climate hazards and their governance and planning processes, or adaptive capacity, to build resilience to such impacts. The report provides sample questions for different components of climate risk, including Operations Risk, Market Risk and Supply Chain Risk, as well as Adaptive Capacity.
• The impacts of a changing climate pose significant downside risk for companies; a risk bound to increase as the climate continues to degrade.
• At present, investors are likely to become aware of exposure to financial damages from extreme weather events only after they have occurred. Disclosure is limited but gaining traction.
• Corporate engagement is a tool to encourage companies to deploy capital and technical assistance to build resilience in their operations and supply chains.
• Investors can select target companies reactively based on prior incidents or pro-actively identify firms that would benefit from resilience plans.
• Investors should question companies on their exposure to physical climate risks via their operations, supply chain and market, as well as how they are building resilience to these risks through risk management and responsible corporate adaptation strategies.
This seminal report aims to inform and support early adoption efforts of climate risk reporting, based on findings from industry-led working groups from the financial sector and corporations. The report calls on companies to perform forward-looking risk assessments and disclose material exposure to climate hazards. It also invites firms to investigate benefits from investing in resilience and opportunities to provide new products and services in response to market shifts.
The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) seeks to “develop recommendations for voluntary climate-related financial disclosures that are consistent, comparable, reliable, clear, and efficient, and provide decision-useful information to lenders, insurers and investors.” It has crystallised a growing concern among investors and business leaders about the physical impacts that climate change could have on the economy and on financial markets.
The TCFD’s initial report noted a lack of understanding about the impact of climate change on corporate value chains and infrastructure, the channels through which these impacts are transmitted to financial markets, and a lack of transparency in reporting these risks. The final report recommended that financial disclosures should include metrics on the physical risks and opportunities of climate change but did not provide detailed guidance on appropriate metrics.
Without formal or regulatory guidance on metrics and indicators, firms are uncertain about what to include in their disclosures. Investors are therefore likely to receive a heterogeneous mix of financial reports including diverse indicators, metrics, assumptions and timeframes, which will fail to provide comparable data across a portfolio or provide the necessary transparency.
Recognising the challenges in the path towards standardising disclosure of physical risks and opportunities related to climate change, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Global Centre of Excellence on Climate Adaptation (GCECA) launched an initiative, “Advancing TCFD guidance on physical climate risk and opportunities.” The initiative aims to work with innovative thinkers in the financial and corporate sectors to identify the greatest needs for guidance, research and development. It also seeks to lay the foundations for a common conceptual framework and a standard set of metrics for reporting physical climate risks and opportunities.
The preliminary guidance in this report aims to build on the TCFD recommendations and provide common foundations for the disclosure of climate-related physical risks and opportunities. The report also identifies areas where further research or market action is needed so that detailed, consistent, industry-specific guidelines can be developed on the methodology for quantifying and reporting these risks and opportunities. The project focused on disclosure metrics that are specific to corporations. Improving the quality of firms’ climate disclosures is not just important for them, but also critical to managing climate risks and opportunities in financial markets.
This EBRD-GCECA initiative involved three industry working groups of a dozen participants, with a mix of financial institutions (asset owners, asset managers, banks, insurance), corporations, credit rating agencies, and a financial data provider. Each working group met several times over the first half of 2018 to discuss and consider research questions related to the topic on hand. The working groups debated how best to help the market make progress on disclosure.
The recommendations we developed aim to serve a dual purpose, seeking to improve corporations’ understanding of their own exposure and risk profile as well as opportunities arising from climate change, and provide clear signals for financial institutions to understand risks and opportunities implicit in individual holdings as well as portfolio-wide exposures.
The working groups built on the TCFD guidance, existing reporting frameworks, and an extensive review of literature to develop a set of recommendations on physical risks and opportunities. As a general rule, this report has prioritised recommendations that are consistent with current industry practices and that leverage metrics and frameworks already used for financial disclosures. It also includes a mix of recommendations that focus on providing better information, as well as recommendations that require more sophisticated analysis. In line with the TCFD recommendations, the recommendations of this EBRD-GCECA initiative are geared to facilitating comparability across companies within a sector, industry or portfolio, and to promoting disclosure of reliable and verifiable information.
A corporation’s vulnerability to climate impacts goes well beyond the physical exposure of its facilities. It includes supply chains, distribution networks, customers and markets. Furthermore, a company’s resilience to climate impacts depends on its risk management and business plans, as well as its governance.
Figure ES-1. How climate change affects corporate value chains
The impacts of climate change on corporate value chains depend on where the company operates and what impacts may affect relevant locations, but they also depend on the company’s activities. Corporations whose production processes consume high volumes of water, for example, may be particularly sensitive to changes in drought and the availability of water. Similarly, corporations with high energy consumption or significant use of outdoor labour will experience greater challenges as average temperatures rise, affecting both energy costs and labour productivity.
Recommendation 1: Assess exposure to all first-order climate impacts
Corporations should consider all first-order impacts when undertaking a climate risk assessment – heat stress, extreme rainfall, drought, cyclones, sea-level rise and wildfires – and additional climate hazards relevant to their industries, such as ocean acidification for fisheries. Exposure to climate hazards should be assessed at the local scale, using the most recent climate data and literature.
Recommendation 2: Assess climate risks over the duration of an asset’s lifetime or over the lifetime of a financial instrument
This report recommends that corporations provide more detailed information on the location of their critical operations, suppliers and market, at least at the country-level, as part of segment reporting to enable investors and creditors to conduct analysis on exposure to risk in their portfolio.
Firms should consider climate impacts over the following timeframes,
Recommendation 5: Disclose the impacts of weather variability on value chains
Corporations with moderate or high sensitivity to variability in temperature and precipitation should identify and disclose whether and how changes in temperature and precipitation have materially affected their performance.
Recommendation 6: Perform forward-looking assessment climate-related risks
Corporations should disclose 1) their assessment of the types of climate-related risks to which they may be exposed in the future due to the geographic exposure of their facilities and 2) the estimated financial impacts from the risks they have identified as being material.
Recommendation 7: Describe risk management processes for the physical impacts of climate change
Corporations should describe their processes for identifying, assessing and managing the physical risks of climate change, as noted by the TCFD. For these physical impacts, aspects of particular interest to financial institutions and banks include risk management processes, insurance coverage, planned facility moves or retrofits, corporate adaptation strategy, and engagement with local authorities to build climate resilience locally.
The TCFD also encourages corporations to disclose opportunities related to the impacts of a changing climate. This recommendation is critical to ensuring that businesses and financial institutions continue to thrive in a changing environment. It is also vital for promoting the healthy development of resilience products and services that cater to new market needs for resilience.
The TCFD defines “climate-related opportunity” as “the potential positive impacts related to climate change on an organisation,” and notes that opportunities “will vary depending on the region, market and industry in which an organisation operates.” This report identifies three broad types of opportunities related to physical climate change impacts:
Recommendation 8: Identify opportunities based on managing risks and market shifts
Corporations and financial institutions should strive to identify opportunities in managing existing climate-related risks and responding to emerging risks. Corporations should also assess the potential changes in their value chains, explore potential market shifts as customer needs change and target their products and services to cater to growing demand for adaptation solutions.
Recommendation 9: Assess climate opportunities over timeframes relevant to business planning
Corporations should define the appropriate timescales in which to report opportunities in consultation with their investors. Opportunities in response to managing existing risks that affect recent and current accounts and the next year’s accounts should be reported as part of core financials. Opportunities arising from market shifts are unlikely to be reported quantitatively and are more appropriate for disclosure in general reporting on future business expectations.
Recommendation 10: Disclose business opportunities at the segment level; for critical facilities, disclose resilience benefits at the facility level
Opportunities may be disclosed at different levels to best serve firms and investors. Opportunities due to shifting market demand or new products should be reported at the segment level, in line with risk disclosures. Benefits from managing existing or emerging risks may be disclosed at the segment level (for process or supply-chain improvements, for example). For critical facilities, it may be advantageous for firms to disclose significant resilience upgrades or strategic improvements at the facility level, to showcase good stewardship and provide confidence that critical facilities are protected.
Recommendation 11: Disclose benefits from resilience investments using the same metrics as for risk disclosure
Corporations should acknowledge the importance of accurately accounting for the opportunity effects on their core financials arising from actions to manage current risks and respond to emerging risks. These metrics may include avoided negative impacts on revenues, operating expenses, capital expenses, supply chain costs, value-at-risk, or projected annual average losses.
Recommendation 12: Include business opportunities in qualitative disclosures
The disclosure of opportunities involving market shifts and new products and services can be achieved by qualitative disclosures of the lifecycle of new commercial opportunities. The disclosures may include information on the development stage of endeavours, sector, the size of potential markets, and the length of time until commercial viability.
With regard to climate intelligence for business strategy and financial planning, the TCFD recommendations strongly advocate the development and use of scenarios when analysing climate risks and opportunities. In this context, scenario analysis is intended as a tool to address challenges and acquire key information. Scenarios provide a narrative, either qualitative or quantitative, which “describes a path of development leading to a particular outcome.”
Recommendation 13: Consider current and desired GHG concentration pathways and related warming projections as a basis for scenario analysis of physical climate risks and opportunities
Corporations should not be concerned with developing new climate scenarios themselves. Instead, as a basis for their scenario analysis of physical risk, they should consider at least two main types of existing climate scenarios, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
Recommendation 14: Integrate scenario analysis of physical climate risks and opportunities into existing planning processes to ensure strategic, flexible and resilient businesses and investments
The main reason to undertake scenario analysis is to obtain a comprehensive assessment from firms of their risks and opportunities. Firms should achieve this by exploring different possibilities of what might happen in the future, despite uncertainty and by integrating climate change considerations into their existing business strategies and financial planning.
Recommendation 15: Avoid standardised scenario analysis in order to have a more comprehensive range of outcomes
Firms should look at more than one scenario and multiple climate models in order to have a more comprehensive range of potential outcomes. Although a degree of comparability is desirable, it is also recommended that corporations develop their own scenarios, which should be highly contextual, and based on the views and values of individual corporations.
Recommendation 16: Consider data from a wide variety of sources and scales when developing scenario analysis of physical climate risks
In order to construct plausible physical climate risk and opportunity scenarios, firms should consider inputs from a wide variety of sources and levels of detail. These include scientific data (not only on climate change), macroeconomic data, socio-economic data, data on political economics and policy, corporate data, ‘vision’ and market analysis data, ‘big data’, and so on.
Recommendation 17: Take account of scientific uncertainty inherent in climate data and in scenario analysis of physical risks and opportunities
Corporations and financial institutions are very well accustomed to making decisions within a large spectrum of uncertainty. In the same way, they should consider and manage the uncertainty that surrounds climate data and climate science for scenario analysis. Scientific uncertainty should be taken into account and made explicit when assessing climate-related financial risks and opportunities.
Recommendation 18: Disclose qualitative information that is relevant to the company and its investors
The ultimate objective in disclosing the use of scenarios is to build investor confidence that a company is meaningfully engaged on the topic of climate change, that it is looking at a broad range of outcomes and is responsive and proactive, rather than defensive and reactive. In this context, firms should disclose information on their climate risks and opportunities in the way that is most appropriate to them, as well as to their investors, and to the type of information disclosed or its format (quantitative or qualitative).
Efforts to formalise and standardise the assessment and disclosure of climate-related risks and opportunities are still in their infancy. As science and business continue to progress in their understanding of climate impacts, the recommendations made in this report will evolve over time, informed by emerging practices and the continuous efforts of corporations, financial institutions, credit rating agencies, industry groups, think-tanks, regulators and governments.
Climate disclosures will remain a topic of active research and discussion, and this report aims to support the emergence of market practices that bring transparency to markets and help build resilience in firms and financial institutions.
The EBRD hosted the initiative and funded its technical secretariat. The GCECA provided a secondment to the technical secretariat. The technical secretariat was provided by Four Twenty Seven, the leading provider of intelligence on climate risk to financial markets, and by Acclimatise, an advisory company specialised in adaptation to climate change.
The expert working groups in the initiative included participants from Agence Française de Développement, Allianz, APG Asset Management, AON, the Bank of England, Barclays, Blackrock, Bloomberg, BNP Paribas, Citi, Danone, the Dutch National Bank, DWS Deutsche AM, European Investment Bank, Lightsmith Group, Lloyds, Maersk, Meridiam Infrastructure, Moody’s, S&P Global Ratings, Shell, Siemens, Standard Chartered, USS and Zurich Alternative Asset Management.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Global Centre of Excellence on Climate Adaptation (GCECA) have announced details of their conference, “Advancing TCFD guidance on physical climate risk & opportunities.” A culmination of their initiative focused on building climate resilience in the financial sector, the conference will share findings on physical risk and resilience metrics from three expert working groups. Read the press release below, originally published on EBRD’s website:
Findings of industry working groups will be published ahead of the event “Advancing TCFD guidance on physical climate risk and opportunities”
The EBRD and GCECA are hosting an event “Advancing TCFD guidance on physical climate risk and opportunities”, which will be held on 31 May 2018 at the EBRD’s headquarters in London.
Findings about physical climate risk and opportunity disclosure by industry-led working groups, which have been meeting at the EBRD’s headquarters since 2017, will be released at the conference.
This event will build on the recommendations of the TCFD, headed by Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg. These recommendations highlight a growing concern over the effects of climate change on the economy and financial markets, and the need for investors to be able to assess climate-related risks.
At the conference, senior representatives from the financial, business and regulatory communities will discuss the development of metrics for disclosing physical climate risk and opportunities, and the integration of these disclosures into decision-making.
The confirmed high-level speakers at the conference will include:
The panelists will represent a rich variety of market leaders such as Aon, Citi, Maersk, Moody’s and Standard Chartered, as well as the Bank of England, the French Treasury and the European Commission.
Findings from the expert working groups will also be published. The working groups include representatives from Allianz, APG, Aon, Bank of England, Barclays, BlackRock, Bloomberg, BNP Paribas, Citi, DNB, DWS, Lightsmith Group, Lloyds, Meridiam Infrastructure, Moody’s, OECD, S&P Global, Shell, Siemens, Standard Chartered, USS and Zurich Asset Management. An expert team led by Acclimatise and Four Twenty Seven is providing the Secretariat function to the working groups.
TCFD recommendations, released for the G20 summit in June 2017, call for the inclusion of metrics on physical climate risk and opportunities into financial disclosures by corporations and financial institutions. This is echoed in the recommendations of the European Union’s High Level Expert Group on sustainable finance, released in January 2018, and the Action Plan from the European Commission released in March 2018.
Last month the EBRD become a TCFD supporter, the first multilateral development bank to do so. The EBRD’s 2017 Sustainability Report, to be released later this month, will provide an initial outline of how TCFD recommendations relate to the Bank’s operations. The conference on 31 May will be an important milestone in the Bank’s support for the TCFD process.
Since 2006 the EBRD has invested over €22 billion in projects under its Green Economy Transition approach. Energy efficiency and environmental sustainability have been a priority for the Bank since its creation in 1991.
March 21, 2018 – 427 ANALYSIS. The first year of reporting under Art. 173 in France saw limited uptake of disclosures of physical risk and opportunities. Our review of disclosures from 50 asset owners in France shows only a quarter of respondents included substantial analysis and metrics on their exposure to physical impacts of climate change. We find insurance companies AXA and Generali provided the most detailed analysis for property portfolio, while FRR and ERAFP were the only pension funds to provide an initial assessment of physical risk exposure in their equity and fixed income portfolios.
Art. 173: the world’s first legal requirement to disclose climate risk
Article 173 of the French Law on Energy Transition and Green Growth passed August 2015 requires major institutional investors and asset management companies to explain how they take Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria into account in their risk management and investment policies. These institutions are also asked to report on the impacts of both physical risks and ‘transition’ risks caused by climate change on their activities and assets.
The law applies to French companies, meaning that French subsidiaries of large financial groups are potentially subject to requirements that do not apply to their parent companies. Its implementing decree invites these organizations to establish scenarios and models to take into account climate risks impacts on the value of their portfolios.
Article 173 covers publicly traded companies, banks and credit providers, asset managers and institutional investors (insurers, pension or mutual funds and sovereign wealth funds). In addition, asset managers managing funds above 500 M€ and institutional investors with balance sheets above 500 M€ are subject to extended climate change-related reporting obligations, including both physical impacts of climate change and transition risks (impact of the transition to a low-carbon economy).
The inclusion of physical impacts of climate change in financial risk analysis is in line with the industry-led Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations report, released in July 2017.
What did financial institutions report?
We conducted a desktop analysis of the 2017 reports (applying to 2016 portfolios) to understand how financial institutions responded to the requirements laid out by Art. 173 in the first compliance year. We reviewed 50 asset owners in France, including public pension funds, sovereign wealth fund and insurance companies, with an aggregate €5.5 trillion euro ($6.8tn) under management. Our analysis included all the public entities covered by the Article 173, as well as private insurers with asset under management above €2bn. Insurance companies play a particularly important role as asset owners in France, where individual savings are massively invested in life insurance savings products. French pension funds, on the other hand, are relatively small due to France’s pay-as-you-go retirement system.
We were able to find Art. 173 reports for 36 out of 50 organizations. It is possible that, in spite of our best efforts, we failed to locate reports. However, Art. 173 has a ‘comply or explain’ provision which also makes it acceptable not to publish a report if one can justify climate change is not a material risk.
Among the Art. 173 reports, we found 29 from insurance companies and seven from public entities. Among them, 20 organizations (40%) discussed only their carbon footprint and/or their exposure to energy transition risk, without including physical risk disclosures.
A small group of organizations (8%) mentioned physical risk as a topic they were exploring but not yet able to report on. Most of them emphasized the lack of tools and models as a major impediment to reporting physical risk.
All in all, we found 12 financial institutions (24%) of the institutions under review made an explicit attempt to disclose their exposure to physical climate risk.
We broke down this latter group in three categories. Eight companies (16%) provided an analysis of the physical risks threatening either their operations or property portfolios (for insurance), ranging in scope from a few buildings to €15bn worth of assets in the case of AXA. Most of the reports contain limited details on methodology and findings.
Two companies (4%) performed what we call a “top-down” analysis, working with investment advisor Mercer to perform a multi-asset class, sector-level analysis of climate risk using Mercer’s proprietary climate risk model, which blends transition and physical risk. Finally, two high profile investors, pension fund ERAFP and sovereign wealth fund FRR, included an initial assessment of climate risk in their equity and fixed income portfolios, at the asset level.
Table 1 presents a detailed breakdown of how those organizations take physical climate risks into account:
Case Studies: How do Investors Report on Physical Risk?
The best student in this 2016 reporting vintage is AXA France. AXA received the “International Award on Investor Climate-Related Disclosures” from the French Ministry for the Environment, for analyzing 15 billion euro of assets (real estate and infrastructures). The analysis takes into account most frequent European natural disasters and the geographical location of each individual asset as well as the destruction rate of their building materials. They found out that, over 30 years, the accumulated loss would aggregate to 24 million euro. The insurance company also reported that if a centennial storm was to occur, the portfolio would be impacted by a 15.2 million euro loss. While AXA provides some of the most detailed analysis, it also noted that “this new kind of analysis needs to be improved in order to take into account more natural disasters and other portfolios”.
The following graphs demonstrate the physical risk exposure to windstorms for the analyzed infrastructures. On the left, the graph displays the annual average destruction rate, which is linked to the average loss generated by windstorms every year (0.8M€ on average). The map on the right shows the destruction rates due to a 100-year event, with an estimated loss of 15.2M€.
Source (Award on Investor Climate-related Disclosures, AXA Group, October 2016: https://cdn.axa.com/www-axa-com%2Fcb46e9f7-8b1d-4418-a8a7-a68fba088db8_axa_investor_climate_report.pdf)
Generali France also provided a complete and detailed evaluation of the potential impact of physical risks on their property assets. They analyzed 112 assets, mainly in the Paris Area, accounting for 60% of their owned assets. Generali took into account two kinds of physical risks, flood and drought, to rate their assets from “high” to “very low” risk. Regarding drought, 3 assets enter the medium-risk category. As only 12 assets have been analyzed (Paris and the overseas departments being excluded), this risk is important as it accounts for 25% of their analysis. On the other hand, 10 out of 112 buildings owned by Generali France are exposed to a high risk of flood. They are mainly located in the Paris Area and would be heavily affected by a Seine flood.
To sum up, both AXA and Generali reports are valuable examples of emerging best practices as they show the willingness of those organizations to take physical risks into account in their reporting practice. However, their analyses would benefit from being extended to a broader portfolio and to other natural events.
In November 2017 the French pension fund, “Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites” (FRR), released a report addressing Article 173 requirements. Four Twenty Seven performed the analysis, and applied its proprietary methodology to measure the types and levels of climate risk embedded in FRR holdings. Portfolio exposure was evaluated according to their respective industry and sector. The analysis produced a sector risk score based on three indicators:
This hotspot analysis gave FRR tools to get an initial understanding of its portfolios’ exposure. It highlighted strongly exposed sectors such as Materials and Consumer Staples, due to their dependency on natural resources, and Pharmaceuticals and Electronics hardware, due to their complex and global supply chains. Conversely, the results brought out the low exposure of service-based industries such as Media and Telecommunication.
Reporting on physical climate risk is a challenging task for financial institutions – many organizations lack the tools, models and data to perform a comprehensive assessment of their portfolios, whether they’re composed of real assets or equities. As TCFD reporting becomes standard for financial institutions and corporations, pressure will increase to report on physical risk. We expect fast changes in disclosures in this regard, starting as early as the 2018 reporting season.
This analysis was written with support from Thomas Poloniato.
Four Twenty Seven’s ever-growing database now includes close to one million corporate sites and covers over 1800 publicly-traded companies. We offer equity risk scoring and real asset screening services to help investors and corporations leverage this data.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Global Centre of Excellence on Climate Adaptation (GCECA) have announced an initiative focused on building climate resilience in the financial sector. Throughout the project Four Twenty Seven and our partners, Acclimatise, are supporting the knowledge development on physical climate risk and resilience metrics for the financial sector. The project will culminate in an event in May in London: “Advancing TCFD guidance on physical climate risk & opportunities.”
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Global Centre of Excellence on Climate Adaptation (GCECA) are hosting an event: “Advancing TCFD guidance on physical climate risk and opportunities”, which will be held on 31 May at the EBRD’s headquarters in London. This event will build on the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), which crystallised a growing concern of investors and business leaders over the physical impacts of climate change on the economy and financial markets.
The TCFD’s final recommendations, released for the G20 summit in June 2017, recommended the inclusion of metrics on physical climate risk and opportunities into financial disclosures and called for further research and concrete guidance over what the appropriate metrics should be. Corporations and financial institutions need to agree on common metrics to ensure transparency and data comparability. Since then, the recommendations of the European Union’s High Level Expert Group on sustainable finance, released in January 2018, have also highlighted the need for a common taxonomy on climate change adaptation and metrics for physical climate risk and opportunity disclosures.
This event will be a forum for senior representatives from the financial and business community to discuss and identify the way forward for the development of metrics for disclosing physical climate risk and opportunities, as well as pointers for integrating physical climate risk considerations in scenario-based decision making by businesses and financial institutions.
The conference is sponsored by the EBRD and GCECA, and will feature the findings from expert working groups that include representatives from Allianz, APG, AON, Bank of England, Barclays, BlackRock, Bloomberg, BNP Paribas, Citi, DNB, Deutsche Asset Management, Lightsmith Group, Lloyds, Meridiam Infrastructure, Moody’s, OECD, S&P Global, Shell, Siemens, Standard Chartered, USS and Zurich AM, Acclimatise and 427 are providing the Secretariat function.
A detailed agenda will be circulated in due course. Please note that this is an invitation only event. Additional details are available on EBRD’s event page.