Sustainability Atlas
Future of Finance & Investing·13 min read··...

Deep dive: Risk management & portfolio construction — the fastest-moving subsegments to watch

What's working, what isn't, and what's next — with the trade-offs made explicit. Focus on KPIs that matter, benchmark ranges, and what 'good' looks like in practice.

Climate-related financial risks tripled in 2024, with 27 billion-dollar disaster events recorded by the National Centers for Environmental Information—and the financial sector is scrambling to catch up. Research from the Potsdam Institute projects climate impacts could reduce global income by 19% over the next 25 years, translating to approximately $38 trillion in annual losses by 2050. Meanwhile, the climate risk analytics software market is projected to grow from $550 million in 2023 to $1.16 billion by 2029, reflecting a 13% compound annual growth rate as institutions race to quantify what was once considered unquantifiable. For sustainability leads and portfolio managers, understanding the fastest-moving subsegments in climate risk management is no longer optional—it's a fiduciary imperative.

Why It Matters

The integration of climate risk into portfolio construction represents one of the most significant transformations in modern finance. Traditional risk models, built on historical data and assumptions of stationarity, are fundamentally inadequate for capturing the non-linear, fat-tailed risks posed by climate change. Physical risks—floods, droughts, wildfires, and extreme heat—threaten asset values directly, while transition risks—regulatory shifts, technological disruption, and changing consumer preferences—can strand entire sectors overnight.

The stakes are substantial across global markets. The Asia-Pacific region faces particular vulnerability, with approximately 26% of GDP at risk from climate-related impacts according to recent economic modeling. Extreme weather events alone could cause 14.5 million deaths and $12.5 trillion in economic losses by 2050 under current trajectories. For institutional investors managing long-duration liabilities—pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds—these are not distant concerns but immediate portfolio risks.

Regulatory pressure is accelerating adoption. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), while officially disbanded in October 2023, has been succeeded by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards (IFRS S1 and S2), which became effective for annual reporting periods beginning January 1, 2024. In the United Kingdom, over 1,300 of the largest companies and financial institutions are now required to provide TCFD-aligned disclosures. The European Union's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) mandates ESRS reporting for covered entities. This regulatory convergence is creating unprecedented demand for robust climate risk analytics and portfolio construction methodologies.

Key Concepts

Climate Value-at-Risk (Climate VaR)

Climate VaR extends traditional Value-at-Risk methodology to estimate potential financial losses from climate-related events. Unlike conventional VaR, which relies on historical return distributions, Climate VaR must incorporate forward-looking scenario analysis across multiple time horizons. The methodology typically disaggregates into three components: policy risk (carbon taxes, regulatory costs), physical risk (asset damage, supply chain disruption), and technology opportunities (green revenue potential). Leading providers like MSCI have developed multi-pillar frameworks that calculate time-series forecasts of climate costs and profits under different warming scenarios.

Physical vs. Transition Risk Modeling

Physical risk modeling assesses direct damage to assets and operations from climate hazards. This requires high-resolution geospatial data, climate model projections, and vulnerability functions that translate hazard intensity to financial loss. Transition risk modeling evaluates exposure to decarbonization pathways—stranded asset risk for fossil fuel holdings, carbon price sensitivity, and green technology adoption curves. The most sophisticated approaches integrate both risk types dynamically, recognizing that aggressive transition action reduces long-term physical risk but creates near-term transition disruption.

Scenario Analysis Frameworks

The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) scenarios have emerged as the de facto standard for climate scenario analysis. These range from "Current Policies" (minimal additional action, high physical risk) to "Net Zero 2050" (aggressive transition, lower physical risk but higher near-term transition costs) to "Divergent Net Zero" (delayed action followed by rapid catch-up). The International Energy Agency (IEA) scenarios and IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) provide complementary perspectives for stress testing portfolios across warming outcomes from 1.5°C to 4°C+.

Climate Risk KPIs by Sector

SectorPrimary KPIBenchmark RangeData Source
UtilitiesCarbon Intensity (tCO2e/MWh)0.1 - 0.8CDP, Company Reports
Real EstatePhysical Risk Score (1-100)<30 = Low, >70 = HighMSCI, Moody's
BankingFinanced Emissions (MtCO2e)Varies by AUMPCAF Methodology
InsuranceClimate VaR (% of portfolio)2% - 15%NGFS Scenarios
ManufacturingSupply Chain Disruption Days5 - 45 daysEverstream, Climate X
AgricultureWater Stress Exposure (%)<20% = Low, >50% = HighWRI Aqueduct

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Integration of AI and Machine Learning. The latest generation of climate risk tools leverages artificial intelligence to process vast datasets—satellite imagery, sensor networks, corporate disclosures—and generate asset-level risk assessments at unprecedented scale. Intensel, a Hong Kong-based analytics firm, delivers 0.5-to-90-meter spatial resolution data covering ten-plus hazards across multiple IPCC scenarios. This granularity enables portfolio managers to identify concentrated exposures that aggregate sector or regional analyses would miss.

Standardization of Disclosure Frameworks. The transition from TCFD to ISSB standards represents meaningful progress toward global consistency. Companies applying IFRS S1 and S2 automatically satisfy TCFD recommendations while meeting enhanced requirements for industry-based metrics, carbon credit usage transparency, and financed emissions disclosures. This standardization reduces the burden of multi-framework reporting and improves data comparability across portfolios.

Enterprise Platform Integration. BlackRock's Aladdin Climate platform now covers over 8,500 corporate issuers with access to 16,000+ ESG metrics. The platform integrates physical risk modeling (through partnership with Rhodium Group) and transition risk modeling (through Baringa Partners) into a unified investment decision framework. This enterprise-grade integration enables institutional investors to embed climate considerations throughout the investment process rather than treating them as bolt-on compliance exercises.

Paris-Aligned Benchmarks. Index providers have developed sophisticated Paris-aligned benchmarks that tilt portfolios toward lower-carbon companies while maintaining sector exposure and tracking error constraints. These benchmarks enable passive implementation of climate strategies, democratizing access beyond the largest active managers.

What Isn't Working

Scope 3 Emissions Data Quality. While Scope 1 and 2 emissions data has improved substantially, Scope 3 (value chain) emissions remain plagued by estimation uncertainty, inconsistent boundaries, and double-counting. For financial institutions, financed emissions—a subset of Scope 3—are critical for assessing portfolio climate risk, yet data gaps force reliance on modeled estimates that may vary by 50% or more across providers. Only 3% of the 3,000+ companies analyzed in recent studies have achieved full alignment with all eleven TCFD recommended disclosures.

Scenario Uncertainty and Model Divergence. Climate models produce wide ranges of outcomes, and translating physical projections to financial impacts requires additional assumptions about adaptation, insurance, and market responses. Different Climate VaR providers can generate materially different risk assessments for the same portfolio, undermining confidence in absolute numbers. Portfolio managers must interpret results as directional signals rather than precise predictions.

Short-Termism in Implementation. Despite long-horizon climate risks, quarterly performance pressure pushes many institutions toward incremental adjustments rather than fundamental portfolio repositioning. Divestment announcements garner headlines, but engagement and transition finance—the harder work of decarbonizing real-economy companies—receives less attention and resourcing.

Emerging Market Data Gaps. Climate risk analytics remain concentrated on developed market equities, with coverage of emerging markets, private credit, and infrastructure lagging significantly. Given that emerging economies face disproportionate physical climate risk, this data gap creates blind spots for globally diversified portfolios.

Key Players

Established Leaders

BlackRock operates the Aladdin Climate platform, integrating climate risk analytics into the world's largest asset management infrastructure. Through partnerships with Rhodium Group and Baringa Partners, the firm provides physical and transition risk modeling covering public and private assets. BlackRock manages over $10 trillion in assets and has made climate risk a stated investment priority.

MSCI serves as the primary climate data provider for much of the asset management industry, offering Climate VaR models, carbon intensity metrics, and net-zero alignment analytics. MSCI's methodology documentation and broad coverage make it a benchmark standard for institutional investors.

Sustainalytics (Morningstar) provides ESG risk ratings and carbon risk ratings used widely for screening and integration strategies. The firm's portfolio carbon analytics enable attribution of climate risk across holdings.

Wellington Management has developed proprietary climate-aware multi-asset portfolio frameworks that integrate physical and transition risk across asset classes while maintaining risk-return objectives.

Northern Trust published its Climate Resilient Portfolio (CRP) framework in 2024, offering institutional clients a structured approach to balancing risk avoidance with climate opportunity capture.

Emerging Startups

Intensel delivers AI-driven physical risk analytics with industry-leading spatial resolution, supporting over 200 damage-curve models across hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires.

Climate X offers Spectra (physical-to-financial loss conversion) and Adapt (adaptation capital expenditure and ROI calculation) platforms for enterprise clients in financial services and real estate.

Reask provides high-resolution catastrophe modeling for natural hazards, enabling insurers and asset managers to assess tail risk exposures with greater precision than traditional models.

Telescope raised $4 million in seed funding in early 2025 to scale its AI-powered real estate portfolio climate risk assessment platform.

Everstream Analytics won the 2024 Top Tech Startup Award for its Climate Risk Score innovation, which assesses supply chain vulnerability to climate disruption.

Key Investors & Funders

Breakthrough Energy Ventures (founded by Bill Gates) provides patient capital for climate technology companies, including those building risk analytics infrastructure.

Lowercarbon Capital invests in companies tackling climate change, with portfolio companies spanning carbon removal, electrification, and climate software.

BlackRock invested approximately $65 million in ICEYE's December 2024 Series E, signaling strategic interest in satellite-based climate monitoring for portfolio analytics.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has backed agricultural climate insurance innovators like Pula, which raised $20 million in Series B funding in April 2024.

Examples

1. CDPQ's Climate Transition Strategy

Canada's Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), managing over CAD 400 billion, has implemented one of the most comprehensive climate risk integration frameworks among global pension funds. The organization measures portfolio carbon intensity, applies internal carbon pricing to investment decisions, and targets a 60% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030. CDPQ's approach demonstrates that large institutional investors can operationalize climate risk at scale while maintaining fiduciary returns.

2. J.P. Morgan Asset Management's TCFD Reporting

J.P. Morgan Asset Management publishes annual climate reports aligned with TCFD and ISSB guidance. The firm's Global Risk Committee maintains oversight of climate risk management, with ESG integration embedded across actively managed strategies. Their 2024 disclosure covering the January-December reporting period illustrates how major asset managers translate regulatory requirements into operational practice.

3. CBRE Investment Management's Physical Risk Program

CBRE Investment Management, a major real estate investor, deploys Moody's Climate on Demand platform to assess portfolio exposure to physical climate hazards. The firm categorizes assets by risk level and engages property managers on high-risk holdings to implement adaptation measures. This approach shows how climate risk analytics translate into tangible asset management decisions beyond reporting compliance.

Action Checklist

  • Conduct a portfolio-level climate risk assessment using standardized scenarios (NGFS Net Zero 2050, Current Policies, Divergent Net Zero) within the next quarter
  • Evaluate climate data providers (MSCI, Sustainalytics, specialty startups) for coverage gaps in your specific asset allocation
  • Establish board-level climate risk oversight and integrate climate considerations into investment committee mandates
  • Develop internal carbon pricing or climate-adjusted hurdle rates for new investment decisions
  • Set measurable portfolio decarbonization targets with interim milestones (2030, 2040) aligned with Paris Agreement pathways
  • Map Scope 3 and financed emissions exposure, prioritizing high-impact sectors (utilities, materials, energy, transportation)
  • Engage portfolio companies on transition planning rather than defaulting to divestment for high-emitting holdings
  • Build capacity for climate scenario stress testing in risk management teams through training or external partnerships

FAQ

Q: How reliable are Climate VaR estimates, and should they drive investment decisions? A: Climate VaR estimates carry substantial uncertainty due to scenario assumptions, model limitations, and data gaps. They should be interpreted as directional indicators of relative risk rather than precise loss predictions. Best practice involves running multiple scenarios, comparing results across providers, and integrating Climate VaR with qualitative judgment rather than treating it as a standalone decision rule. The value lies in identifying concentrated exposures and stress-testing portfolio resilience, not in predicting exact outcomes.

Q: What is the difference between Paris-aligned benchmarks and net-zero commitments? A: Paris-aligned benchmarks are index methodologies that tilt portfolios toward lower-carbon companies consistent with limiting warming to well-below 2°C. They provide passive implementation of climate strategies with explicit tracking error and sector constraints. Net-zero commitments are organizational pledges to achieve zero net greenhouse gas emissions, typically by 2050, requiring active engagement, transition finance, and often carbon removal. Benchmarks are tools; commitments are organizational strategies that may use benchmarks as one implementation mechanism.

Q: How should portfolio managers address the tension between short-term performance and long-horizon climate risks? A: This tension is real but often overstated. Empirical evidence suggests that climate-aware portfolios have not systematically underperformed over medium time horizons. Portfolio managers can address the tension by framing climate integration as risk management (reducing tail risk) rather than purely values-based exclusion, demonstrating to stakeholders that climate risks are already manifesting in company fundamentals, and building governance structures that explicitly authorize longer-horizon risk considerations. Communicating the fiduciary rationale for climate integration helps align stakeholder expectations.

Q: Are emerging market portfolios adequately covered by climate risk analytics? A: No. Current climate risk tools concentrate coverage on developed market equities and investment-grade fixed income. Emerging markets, private credit, and infrastructure face significant data gaps despite often having higher physical climate exposure. Portfolio managers with emerging market allocations should supplement provider data with in-house analysis, engage local partners for on-the-ground intelligence, and apply conservative assumptions where data is sparse. Advocating for improved disclosure standards in emerging markets is a collective action priority.

Q: What regulatory disclosures will be required for climate risk in the next two years? A: Requirements vary by jurisdiction but are converging. In the UK and EU, mandatory TCFD/ISSB-aligned disclosures are already in effect for large financial institutions. The European CSRD requires extensive sustainability reporting for covered entities. The US SEC finalized climate disclosure rules in March 2024 requiring material climate risk and emissions reporting. Globally, IFRS S1 and S2 provide a baseline that jurisdictions are adopting at varying speeds. Institutions should prepare for expanded Scope 3 disclosure requirements, enhanced scenario analysis documentation, and potential external assurance mandates by 2027.

Sources

Topics

riskmanagementpublic marketsvaluationprivate creditunit economicsportfolio risk

Related Articles