从气候科学到企业战略

From Climate Science toCorporate Strategy A credible and practical approachto quantifyingclimate risk and its impact on business performance Ameer Azim-Director Climate and NatureSaad Khan-Associate Financial Services and Climate Executive Summary This paper introduces a climate scenario-adjustedvaluation model that quantifies climate risks in financialterms by integrating climate science-based scenarioanalysis with established corporate valuation principles.We designed the approach to be transparent andauditable, fully aligning withemerging disclosurestandards (such as IFRS S2 and the EU’s ESRS E1 onclimate).1 2This ensures the framework can support bothinternal strategic planning and external reportingrequirements, directly connecting climate risk factors tocompany financial performance. At its core, the framework linkstransition risks(e.g. policy changes, technological shifts,market dynamics, reputationalimpacts) andphysical risks(e.g. acute hazards likefloods or cyclones, chronic stresses like heat or drought) directly to company financialstatements through definedtransmission channels. The analysis draws on a broadspectrum of data from climate science and economics.We use Network for Greeningthe Financial System3(NGFS) scenarios (derived from integrated assessment models),macroeconomic pathways from NiGEM,4and granular hazard datasets (augmented byETH Zurich’s CLIMADA5software) to capture potential impacts. These riskdrivers arequantified as changes to revenues, operating costs, capital expenditures (CapEx) andasset impairments, or financing costs. We then integrate these impacts into a standarddiscounted cash flow(DCF) valuation model with strict rules to avoid any doublecounting between the cash flow projections and the discount rate adjustments. In this way, the model provides a comprehensive bridge between climate scenario outcomesand tangible financial performance metrics. For transition risk costs, the methodology maps emissions profiles, carbon pricing andcompliance costs, technology adoption curves, shifting market demand, and evengovernance credibility into adjustments of future cash flows. For physical risk costs, itemploys geospatial asset mapping, asset-specific vulnerability matrices, andprobabilistic damage modeling to computeexpected annual losses(EAL) from climatehazards.6This approach can be further extended with tail-risk calculations to accountfor infrequent but severe events, ensuring both frequent chronic impacts and rare acutedisasters are captured in the risk assessment. A case study is included to illustrate howthese quantified risk impacts translate into line-by-line financial statement adjustments,informing decisions on resilience investments and strategic pivots for the company’sbusiness model. The paper also addresses severalkey implementation challenges. These includeensuring scenario consistency across all inputs, managing thelong-timehorizons anddeep uncertainties inherent in climate projections, maintaining data quality, andaccounting for firms’ adaptive capacity over time. We emphasize that methodologicalrigor and transparency are crucial to avoid pitfalls like double counting ofrisks, falseprecision in estimates, or inconsistent system boundaries. By aligning our modelingoutputs with the latest disclosure standards, the framework allows scenario analysisresults to be communicated credibly to regulators, investors, and internal stakeholders.In effect, it closes the gap between climate science, corporate strategy, and financialreporting7by making the financial implications of climate scenarios clear and auditable. Ultimately, this climate scenario–adjusted valuation equips firms to answer a centralquestion: How resilient is our business model and strategy under plausible futureclimate scenarios? Embedding climate risk into financial analysis and valuation helpscompanies not only meet regulatory disclosure requirements, but also strengtheninvestor confidence and guide capital allocation toward long-term resilience. Table of Contents 1.Introduction…………………………………………..32.Data Foundations……………………………………43.Climate Risk: Physical and Transmission Risk..54.Transmission Channels…………………………….75.Valuation Methodology……………………………..86.Quantification Approach–Transition Costs….117.Quantification Approach–Physical Costs……128.Case Study…………………………………………...159.Challenges and Considerations…………………. 2510.Alignment with Evolving DisclosureStandards (IFRS S2 and ESRS E1-9)…………… 2811.Conclusion……………………………………… 3012.Glossary…………………………………………. 3313.Sources………………………………………….. 35 Introduction Over the past decade, the practice of finance and the science of climate haveconverged to a point where the materiality of climate risk can be quantified withincreasing precision. Long‑standing financial disciplines:capital budgeting, cost ofcapital estimation, and performance measurement,now intersect with advances inclimate science, scenario design, and impact modeling. This convergence enablesdecisio