Search results

This paper aims to explore current trends in how companies disclose climate-related risks and opportunities in their financial statements. As part of the authors’ analysis, they examine: whether forward-looking assumptions and judgements are typically considered in reporting climate-related risks/opportunities; whether there are differences in the reporting practices of firms in carbon-intensive industries versus non-carbon-intensive industries; and whether negative media reports have an influence on the levels of disclosure a firm makes.

The authors chose content analysis as their methodology and examined the financial statements published by firms listed on the UK’s FTSE 100 between 2016 and 2020. This analysis is framed by Suchman’s three dimensions of legitimacy, being pragmatic, cognitive and moral.

Climate-related disclosures in the notes and financial accounts of these firms did increase over the period. Yet, overall, the level the disclosures was inadequate and the quality was inconsistent. From this, the authors conclude that pragmatic legitimacy is not a particularly strong driving factor in compelling organisations to disclose climate-related information. The firms in carbon-intensive industries do provide greater levels of disclosure, including both qualitative and quantitative (monetary) content, which is consistent with cognitive legitimacy. However, from a moral legitimacy perspective, this study finds that firms did not adapt responsively to negative media coverage as a way of reflecting their accountability to broader public norms and values. Overall, this analysis suggests that regulatory enforcement and a systematic reporting framework with adequate guidance is going to be critical to developing transparent climate-related reporting in future.

This paper contributes to existing studies on climate-related disclosures, which have mainly examined the ‘front-half’ of annual reports. Conversely, this study aims to shed light on these practices in the “back-half” of these reports, exploring the underlying reasons for reporting climate-related risks and opportunities in financial accounts. The authors’ insights into the current disclosure practices make a theoretical contribution to the literature. Practitioners can also draw on these insights to improve how they report on climate-related risks and opportunities in their financial statements.

Climate and environment-related financial risks could significantly and negatively impact the financial sector in future, particularly its financing to those sectors adversely impacted by the climate-related risks, low-carbon policies and the transition from traditional energy sources-based economy to a more sustainable system with alternative energy sources. The participatory countries of the Paris Agreement agreed to align finance flows with a low-emission, low-carbon and climate-resilient growth, in order to facilitate achieving the long-term climate goals. The financial sector, therefore, needs to play a proactive role in aligning financial flows. It is, therefore, of utmost importance to study low-carbon finance and climate-related financial risks. This chapter examine how climate change can affect the financial sector. It discusses the concept, nature, measurement of climate risks and climate-related financial risks and associated prospects and challenges in the assessment and the measurement of these risks. It also presents the green financing initiatives and role of central banks and supervisory authorities and their monetary and financial policies in enhancing green financing and redirecting finance to low-carbon activities. In the financial sector, the insurance industry is highly vulnerable to such risks. The banking sector is yet to witness the serious impact of these risks. With the slowing of global economic growth, appropriate policies are needed to encourage banks to provide increased green finance with an adequate profitability. Studies recommend that climate-related risk has a strong potential impact on banks’ loan default rate as well as on the financial stability, there is hence a need to incorporate climate-related criteria and the systemic risk arising out of climate change into banks’ decision-making process and risk modelling and management. There is a need for developing an appropriate methodology for assessing and reducing these risks. Moreover, observers also anticipate a need for cooperation between banking regulators and banks to develop and adopt best practices in the management of environmental risks. The environment-related risks will call forth a multi-country, or regional, research office to collect and compile the required data and undertake analysis to enhance the banking sectors’ understanding of, and capacity to address, potential systemic environmental risks. What is needed is to test the feasibility of incorporating forward-looking scenarios for assessing potential impacts of providing credit to environmentally unsustainable or sustainable activities on financial stability.

This paper aims to evaluate non-financial reporting (NFR) frameworks insofar as risk reporting is concerned. This is facilitated through analysis of the adequacy of climate- and pandemic-related risk reporting in three industries that are both significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and are at risk from climate change. The pervasiveness of pandemic and climate-change risks have been highlighted in 2020, the hottest year on record and the year the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Stakeholders might reasonably expect reporting on these risks to have prepared them for the consequences.

The current debate on the “complexity” of sustainability and NFR frameworks/standards is critically analysed in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and calls to “build back better”. Context is provided through analysis of risk reporting by the ten largest airlines and the five largest companies in each of the hotel and cruise industries.

Risk reporting on two significant issues, pandemics and climate change, is woefully inadequate. While very little consideration has been given to pandemic risks, disclosures on climate-related risks focus predominantly on “risks” of increased regulation rather than physical risks, indicating a short-term focus. The disclosures are dispersed across different corporate reporting media and fail to appreciate the long-term consequences or offer solutions. Mindful that a conceptual framework for NFR must address this, the authors propose a new definition of materiality and recommend that sustainable development risks and opportunities be placed at the core of a future framework for connected/integrated reporting.

For sustainable development risks to be perceived as “real” by managers, further research is needed to determine the nature and extent of key sustainable development risks and the most effective mitigation strategies.

This paper highlights the importance of recognising the complexity of the issues facing organisations, society and the planet and addressing them by encouraging robust consideration of the interdependencies in evolving approaches to corporate reporting.

This study contributes to the current debate on the future of corporate reporting in light of two significant interconnected crises that threaten business and society – the pandemic and climate change. It provides evidence to support a long-term oriented and holistic approach to risk management and reporting.

This paper investigates the quality and quantity of climate-related information disclosed by public interest entities (PIEs) in the non-financial disclosure scenario. Thus, this paper aims at drafting the state of the art on what is climate-related information disclosed by PIEs in the changing EU non-financial regulation assuming the Italian scenario and the industrial industry as significant in achieving the research aims.

The authors used the content analysis composing the sample of 34 large listed companies (i.e. PIEs) belonging to the industrial sector in Italy. The authors choose the Italian PIEs’ sustainability reports published in 2019 after the adoption of the EU directive and its guidelines. The authors adopted a coding and classification system, investigating the climate-related information through a systematic, objective and reliable method. The authors defined 99 indicators along the structure of the European Commission's guidelines and the indicator of disclosure, climate-related information indicator (CII). The framework mainly derives from the corporate disclosure theory and legitimacy and stakeholders' theories.

The results show the lack of several required climate-related information or a not in-depth presentation of information. Thus, findings are interesting in emphasizing that the current climate-related disclosure is at an early stage in complying with the European Commission's guidelines. Additionally, the findings enlarge previous theories on corporate disclosure, proposing new insights in the light of the recent interest in climate-related information.

Evidence contributes to extending the existing literature, drafting the state of the art of what is the quality and the quantity of the climate-related information in the corporate disclosure in the European scenario.

This paper is directed to propose the state of the climate-related disclosure following the EU directive guidelines, proposing some evidence to support the path toward the integrations of information by several parts (e.g. companies, regulators and so on).

The paper is a useful baseline for academics, practitioners, policy-makers and regulators in understanding actions to adopt in the climate-related disclosure and what could be the impact of forthcoming regulations in the field, also having some metrics (e.g. score value of disclosure, the indicator of climate-related information disclosure – CII).

This study aims to evaluate the adequacy of climate risk disclosure by providing empirical evidence on whether corporate disclosure meets rising stakeholders’ demand for risk disclosure concerning climate change.

Drawing on a triangulated approach for collecting data from multiple sources in a longitudinal study, we perform a panel regression analysis on a sample of multinational firms between 2007 and 2021. Inspired by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) principles, our innovative and inclusive model of measuring firm-level climate risks underscores the urgent need to redefine materiality from a broader value creation (rather than only financial) perspective, including the impact on sustainable development.

The findings of this study provide evidence of limited corporate climate risk disclosure, indicating that organisations have yet to accept the reality of climate-related risks. An additional finding supports the existence of a nexus between higher corporate environmental disclosure and higher corporate resilience to material financial and environmental risks, rather than pervasive sustainability risk disclosure.

We argue that a mechanical process for climate-related risk disclosure can limit related disclosure variability, risk reporting priority selection, thereby broadening the short-term perspective on financial materiality assessment for disclosure.

This study extends recent literature on the adequacy of corporate risk disclosure, highlighting the importance of disclosing material sustainability risks from the perspectives of different stakeholder groups for long-term success. Corporate management should place climate-related risks at the centre of their disclosure strategies. We argue that reducing the systematic underestimation of climate-related risks and variations in their disclosure practices may require regulations that enhance corporate perceptions and responses to these risks.

This study emphasises the importance of reconceptualising materiality from a multidimensional value creation standpoint, encapsulating financial and sustainable development considerations. This novel model of assessing firm-level climate risk, based on the GRI principles, underscores the necessity of developing a more comprehensive approach to evaluating materiality.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how fish farmers manage climate-related risks and explore possible ways to strengthen risk management under current and future climate.

In total, 662 fish farmers in sites across Northern Thailand were interviewed about risks to the profitability of their fish farms and ways such risks were managed. Nonlinear canonical correlation analysis was used to relate risk factors to management practices at farm and river levels. In total, 68 in-depth interviews with farmers and other stakeholders provided additional information on climate risk management practices.

Farmers use a combination of adjustments to rearing practices, cropping calendars and financial and social measures to manage those risks, which they perceive as being manageable. Many risks are season, river and place specific; implying that the risk profiles of individual farms can vary substantially. Individual risks are often addressed through multiple practices and strategies; conversely, a particular management practice can have a bearing on several different risks. Farmers recognize that risks must be managed at farm and higher spatial and administrative scales. Social relations and information play critical roles in managing these complex combinations of risks.

This is one of the first papers to report in detail on how inland fish farmers manage climate-related risks. It underlines the need to consider multiple spatial and temporal scales and that farmers do not manage individual climate-related risks in isolation from other risks.

This research investigated Australian property valuers' identification and consideration of physical climate change risks in valuation practice.

Thirty Australian valuer members of the Australian Property Institute from a variety of specialisations were interviewed. The semi-structured interviews explored climate change risks and the extent of risk investigation and consideration in valuation practice. The analysis utilised the Moser and Luers (2008) climate risk preparedness framework as a lens to evaluate current valuation practice in Australia.

The analysis reflects that while physical risks are easily identified and engaged with by valuers, correspondingly, there is a lack of understanding of and engagement with, climate change risks. This supports the need for better information sources and guidance to inform valuers of climate change risks and the development of specific mechanisms for the consideration of such risks to be included in valuation processes, practices and reports.

The research was limited by its sample size and qualitative approach. Therefore, the research is not a representative opinion of the Australian profession; however, the analysis provides the perspective of a range of valuers from across Australia with different valuation specialisations.

This research has established that valuers have the potential to be prepared to address climate change in their professional capacity, as described by Moser and Luers (2008). However, they are constrained by information communication, access and detail and subsequent market awareness of information on climate change risk exposure on properties. There is a need for further support, guidance, information and tools, as well as awareness-raising, to enable valuers to accurately identify and reflect all risks affecting a property in the process of valuation.

This research provides the first investigation into the consideration of climate change in valuation practice. Property stakeholders—owners, investors, financiers and occupiers—are escalating their climate change risk analysis and reporting for property portfolios and organisations. This research suggests that valuers also need to be aware of the changing dynamics of market reporting and decision-making related to climate change risks to ensure appropriate reflection in valuation practice.

Framed within global policy debates over the need for private financial flows to align with the capital requirements of the Paris Agreement, this paper examines UK asset managers in their approaches to disclosing and managing climate risk. This paper identifies and evaluates climate risk management practices among this under-researched investor group in their capacity to address fundamental behavioural obstacles to low-carbon investment.

This paper takes an inductive approach to document analysis, applying content and thematic analysis to the annual disclosures of the 28 largest UK asset managers (by assets under management), including the investment management arms of insurance and pension companies.

The main takeaway from this research is that today’s climate risk management strategies hold potential to effectively address traditionally climate risk-averse investor behaviour and investment processes in the UK asset management context. However, this research finds that the use of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment strategies to mitigate climate risks is a “grey area” in which climate risk management practices are undefined within broad sustainability and responsible investment agendas. In doing so, this paper invites further research into the extent to which climate risks are considered in ESG investment.

This paper contributes to research in sustainable finance and behavioural finance, by identifying the latest climate risk management techniques used among UK-headquartered asset managers and uniquely evaluating these in their capacity to address barriers to low-carbon investment arising from organisational behaviours and processes.

Businesses are increasingly vulnerable and exposed to physical climate change risks, which can cascade through local, national and international supply chains. Currently, few methodologies can capture how physical risks impact businesses via the supply chains, yet outside the business literature, methodologies such as sustainability assessments can assess cascading impacts.

Adopting a scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), this paper reviews 27 articles that assess climate risk in supply chains.

The literature on supply chain risks of climate change using quantitative techniques is limited. Our review confirms that no research adopts sustainability assessment methods to assess climate risk at a business-level.

Alongside the need to quantify physical risks to businesses is the growing awareness that climate change impacts traverse global supply chains. We review the state of the literature on methodological approaches and identify the opportunities for researchers to use sustainability assessment methods to assess climate risk in the supply chains of an individual business.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on how climate change risk reporting might evolve in various world regions in the post COVID-19 pandemic era.

Using a multiple-case study approach and adopting an institutional theory lens, we assess whether the pandemic is likely to strengthen or weaken institutional pressures for climate change risk disclosures and predict how climate-related risk reporting will evolve post-pandemic.

The authors find that climate change risk reporting is likely to evolve differently according to geographical location. The authors predict that disclosure levels will increase in regions with ambitious climate policy and where economic stimulus packages support sustainable economic recovery. Where there has been a weakening of environmental commitments and economic stimulus packages support resource intensive business, climate change risk reporting will stagnate or even decline. The authors discuss the scenarios for climate change risk reporting expected to play out in different parts of the world.

The authors contribute to the nascent literature on climate change risk disclosure and identify future directions in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.