Sustainability Atlas
Future of Finance & Investing·12 min read··...

Market map: Risk management & portfolio construction — the categories that will matter next

Signals to watch, value pools, and how the landscape may shift over the next 12–24 months. Focus on KPIs that matter, benchmark ranges, and what 'good' looks like in practice.

In 2024, 93% of institutional investors acknowledged that climate issues would materially affect investment performance over the next two to five years, yet only 4% believed climate risks were fully reflected in asset prices (EY Global Institutional Investor Survey 2024). This staggering gap between risk recognition and market pricing represents both a systemic vulnerability and an unprecedented opportunity for sophisticated portfolio managers. As physical climate hazards intensify and transition policies accelerate, the categories shaping risk management and portfolio construction are evolving rapidly—demanding new frameworks, data sources, and strategic approaches that will define competitive advantage over the next 12 to 24 months.

Why It Matters

Climate risk has transitioned from a peripheral ESG consideration to a central pillar of fiduciary responsibility. The 2024 EY survey of 350 institutional decision-makers revealed that 79% actively worry about climate risk exposure in their portfolios, while 88% have increased their use of ESG information year-over-year. These figures underscore a fundamental shift: climate-aware portfolio construction is no longer optional—it is a baseline expectation from regulators, beneficiaries, and counterparties alike.

The financial stakes are substantial. Asia alone requires approximately $1.1 trillion annually for climate mitigation and adaptation, yet actual investment falls short by roughly $800 billion (AIGCC State of Investor Climate Transition in Asia 2025). This capital gap creates both systemic risk and investment opportunity. Portfolios that fail to integrate physical and transition risks face potential stranded asset exposure, while those that position for the low-carbon transition can capture growth in sectors projected to expand at a 17% compound annual growth rate in private markets versus 11.9% in public markets (BlackRock 2024 Sustainability Disclosure).

Regulatory momentum further amplifies the urgency. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) climate disclosures (IFRS S1 and S2), the European Union's Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), and Canada's Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) climate scenario analysis requirements are converging to mandate standardized risk quantification. Institutions without robust climate risk frameworks face compliance penalties, reputational damage, and potential litigation exposure—49% of institutional investors now conduct structured reviews of climate-related litigation risk (Stanford-MSCI Sustainability Institute Survey 2024).

Key Concepts

Climate Value-at-Risk (Climate VaR)

Climate VaR represents the most widely adopted framework for quantifying portfolio-level climate exposure. Pioneered by MSCI and adopted across TCFD reporting, Climate VaR decomposes risk into three components: physical risks from acute events like floods and chronic stressors like drought; transition risks from policy, technology, and market shifts; and climate opportunities from low-carbon solutions. The methodology estimates scenario-dependent future costs relative to current asset valuations, operating on the assumption that climate risks remain substantially mispriced.

Physical Risk Assessment

Physical climate risk evaluates asset-level exposure to hazards including coastal inundation, extreme heat, extreme wind, flooding, wildfires, and freeze-thaw cycles. Leading analytics platforms now cover over 12 million physical assets across 135 sectors and 235 countries. The Annualized Damage Rate (ADR) metric expresses expected damage per $1,000 of asset value, enabling cross-portfolio comparison and stress testing.

Transition Risk Quantification

Transition risk captures the financial impact of decarbonization pathways, including carbon pricing, renewable energy adoption, and regulatory shifts. Carbon Earnings at Risk methodologies geolocate company emissions, match them to jurisdiction-specific pricing scenarios, and calculate risk per million dollars of revenue. S&P Global research demonstrates that 58% of S&P 500 companies exhibit relatively lower physical risk but highly variable carbon pricing exposure—underscoring the importance of scenario-based analysis.

Portfolio Decarbonization Pathways

Net-zero portfolio construction involves gradual emissions reduction along science-based trajectories while maintaining sector diversification and minimizing tracking error. Leading pension funds target 55% emissions reductions by 2025 relative to 2019 baselines, but achieving this requires careful index selection to avoid excessive concentration in low-carbon sectors.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Integrated Climate Analytics Platforms: BlackRock's Aladdin Climate and MSCI's climate solutions suite have demonstrated scalable integration of climate metrics into core investment workflows. MSCI's climate solutions are now used by 43 of the top 50 global asset managers, providing over 2,250 climate metrics across 20,000 issuers. This infrastructure enables systematic risk assessment rather than ad hoc analysis.

Transition-Focused Investment Strategies: The shift from ESG exclusion to transition investing is generating measurable impact. BlackRock's 500+ sustainable and transition strategies and 200+ sustainable index offerings demonstrate that investors can maintain diversification while reducing carbon intensity. The iShares Climate Conscious & Transition MSCI USA ETF (USCL) exemplifies this approach by tracking the top 50% of companies within sectors based on emissions intensity, reduction targets, green revenue, and climate risk management.

Active Engagement and Stewardship: CDP signatory status correlates with improved corporate disclosure and emissions reduction. Institutional investors collectively engage with and divest from top emitters, with 86% supporting ESG shareholder resolutions. This engagement model creates feedback loops that improve data quality and corporate accountability.

Regulatory Standardization: The convergence of TCFD, ISSB, and SFDR frameworks is reducing fragmentation in climate reporting. Portfolio managers can now apply consistent methodologies across jurisdictions, improving comparability and reducing compliance costs.

What Isn't Working

Data Gaps and Quality Issues: Only 7% of asset owners can accurately calculate portfolio carbon emissions (AIGCC 2025). Scope 3 emissions data remains particularly challenging, with only 17% of companies disclosing capital expenditure related to climate initiatives and a mere 4% disclosing operating expenditure. This data deficit undermines the precision of Climate VaR models and transition pathway assessments.

The Say-Do Gap: Despite 93% recognizing climate as material, 66% of institutional investors expect to decrease consideration of ESG factors in investment decision-making—a troubling divergence between stated priorities and actual behavior. Short-term performance pressure, with 92% believing near-term risk outweighs long-term ESG benefits, drives this disconnect.

Sector Concentration in Low-Carbon Indices: Early net-zero portfolio strategies using MSCI Climate Change benchmarks suffered excessive concentration in the information technology sector, creating high tracking error and portfolio imbalance. The Danish pension fund PenSam's experience illustrates this challenge—they switched to S&P Global Carbon Budget Climate indices in 2024 to restore sector balance.

Methodological Fragmentation: Climate VaR methodologies vary substantially across providers, making cross-platform comparisons difficult. The independence assumption between physical and transition risks may not hold empirically, and time horizon mismatches complicate integration with traditional risk frameworks.

Key Climate Risk and Portfolio Construction KPIs

KPIDefinitionBenchmark RangeData Source
Portfolio Carbon IntensitytCO₂e per $M revenue<100 (leaders) to >500 (laggards)PCAF, MSCI
Climate VaR (Physical)% portfolio value at risk from physical hazards2-15% depending on geographyMSCI, Sustainalytics
Climate VaR (Transition)% portfolio value at risk from policy/tech shifts5-30% depending on sector mixMSCI, S&P Trucost
Implied Temperature RiseProjected warming alignment in °C<2.0°C (Paris-aligned)MSCI, CDP
Scope 1+2 Coverage% of portfolio with verified emissions data>80% (best practice)CDP, Bloomberg
Net-Zero Target Alignment% of holdings with validated SBTi targets>50% (leading), <20% (lagging)SBTi, TPI
Annualized Damage RateExpected physical damage per $1,000 asset value$0.50-$5.00 regional variationMoody's, Sustainalytics

Key Players

Established Leaders

MSCI Inc.: The dominant provider of climate analytics, MSCI offers 2,250+ climate metrics covering physical risk, transition risk, and opportunity assessment across 20,000 issuers. Their Climate VaR methodology appears in the majority of TCFD reports globally.

BlackRock: Managing over $11 trillion in assets, BlackRock's Aladdin Climate platform integrates climate modeling into portfolio construction for institutional and retail clients. Their 2024 acquisition of Global Infrastructure Partners for $12.5 billion positions them as a leader in climate-related infrastructure investing.

S&P Global: Through S&P Trucost, the company provides Carbon Earnings at Risk analytics and physical risk scoring. Their Carbon Budget Climate indices address sector concentration issues in net-zero portfolios.

Sustainalytics (Morningstar): Offers Physical Climate Risk Metrics with direct inputs for VaR modeling, aligned with TCFD requirements. Coverage spans real estate, corporate, and sovereign assets.

Emerging Startups

Cervest: Provides AI-powered climate intelligence for asset-level physical risk assessment, enabling granular scenario analysis across real estate and infrastructure portfolios.

Persefoni: Offers carbon accounting and climate management software that simplifies portfolio-level emissions calculation, addressing the data gap that limits most asset owners.

Watershed: Provides enterprise carbon measurement and reduction platforms, enabling portfolio companies to generate the Scope 1, 2, and 3 data required for accurate Climate VaR calculation.

Clarity AI: Uses machine learning to fill ESG data gaps, providing climate risk estimates for companies lacking direct disclosure—critical for emerging market portfolios.

Key Investors and Funders

Breakthrough Energy Ventures: Bill Gates-backed fund investing in climate technology companies across energy, agriculture, and materials sectors.

Generation Investment Management: Co-founded by Al Gore, focuses on long-term sustainable investing with integrated climate risk assessment across public and private markets.

Climate Investment Coalition (AIGCC, Ceres, IGCC, IIGCC, PRI): Collective initiatives mobilizing trillions in institutional capital toward climate-aligned investment.

Temasek: Singapore's sovereign wealth fund has committed to net-zero portfolio emissions by 2050, with a portfolio carbon intensity reduction target of 50% by 2030.

Examples

  1. PenSam (Denmark): This Danish pension fund targeted 55% emissions reduction by 2025 relative to 2019. After experiencing excessive IT sector concentration using MSCI ACWI Climate Change benchmarks, they switched to S&P Global Carbon Budget Climate indices in 2024. The result: maintained decarbonization trajectory with improved sector balance and lower tracking error, demonstrating that net-zero portfolios require ongoing methodology refinement.

  2. Norges Bank Investment Management (Norway): Managing the $1.7 trillion Government Pension Fund Global, NBIM integrates climate risk across all asset classes using proprietary scenario analysis. Their 2024 climate action plan includes engagement with 100 highest-emitting portfolio companies and portfolio-level stress testing under 1.5°C and 3°C warming scenarios, setting the standard for sovereign wealth fund climate integration.

  3. CalPERS (United States): The California Public Employees' Retirement System, managing over $500 billion, has implemented comprehensive climate risk assessment using multiple data providers. Their 2024 sustainable investment strategy includes physical risk mapping for real estate holdings and transition risk analysis for equity and fixed income, demonstrating public pension fund leadership in climate integration.

Action Checklist

  • Conduct baseline Climate VaR assessment covering both physical and transition risks using established providers (MSCI, S&P, Sustainalytics)
  • Map portfolio holdings to TCFD-aligned disclosure frameworks and identify Scope 3 emissions data gaps
  • Stress test portfolio under multiple NGFS scenarios (Net Zero 2050, Delayed Transition, Current Policies)
  • Evaluate index providers for net-zero strategies, comparing sector concentration and tracking error characteristics
  • Establish climate engagement priorities for highest-emitting holdings, leveraging CDP and Climate Action 100+ frameworks
  • Integrate climate metrics into investment committee reporting and performance attribution
  • Review climate litigation exposure for fossil fuel and high-carbon holdings

FAQ

Q: How do physical and transition risks interact in portfolio construction? A: Physical and transition risks are often inversely correlated in policy scenarios—aggressive decarbonization reduces long-term physical risk but accelerates transition costs. Research by Bolton and Kacperczyk (2023) found weak correlation between the two risk types, suggesting they can be modeled somewhat independently. However, sophisticated portfolio construction requires scenario analysis that captures both dimensions simultaneously, as a 3°C warming pathway implies lower transition costs but substantially higher physical damages.

Q: What percentage of climate risk is currently priced into asset valuations? A: According to the EY 2024 survey, only 4% of institutional investors believe climate risks are fully reflected in asset prices, while 72% consider them only somewhat priced. This mispricing creates both risk and opportunity—portfolios positioned for underpriced climate risks may generate alpha as markets gradually incorporate climate factors into valuations.

Q: How should asset managers balance decarbonization targets with diversification requirements? A: The PenSam case study illustrates the tension between aggressive decarbonization and sector diversification. Best practice involves using carbon budget indices that distribute decarbonization requirements across sectors rather than concentrating in inherently low-carbon industries. Tracking error budgets of 1-3% relative to market benchmarks are typical for climate-aware strategies seeking to maintain diversification.

Q: What regulatory developments will most impact climate risk integration over the next 24 months? A: ISSB climate standards (IFRS S1 and S2) taking effect across major jurisdictions will drive standardization. The EU CSRD requiring value chain emissions disclosure will improve Scope 3 data quality. In the US, SEC climate disclosure rules face legal challenges but will likely influence voluntary reporting. Canada's OSFI climate scenario analysis requirements, effective through 2026, establish templates for banking and insurance sector integration.

Q: How can emerging market portfolios address climate data gaps? A: Machine learning providers like Clarity AI can estimate emissions for non-disclosing companies using peer analysis and sector proxies. Physical risk assessment through satellite imagery and geospatial analytics enables asset-level risk scoring independent of corporate disclosure. Engagement with emerging market exchanges and regulators to improve disclosure standards represents a longer-term solution.

Sources

Topics

riskmanagementmacroenergy transitioncommoditiesbenchmark KPIscompliance

Related Articles