Physical + transition risk scenario analysis with financial materiality quantification
Each element below has its own dedicated implementation page with focused methodology, flow chart, and individual significance for organisations. Click any element to explore.
Describe the climate-related risks and opportunities identified across short, medium, and long term
Describe the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on the organisation's businesses, strategy, and financial planning
Describe the resilience of the organisation's strategy under different climate scenarios, including 1.5°C or 2°C scenarios
Describe the organisation's processes for identifying and assessing climate-related risks
Describe the organisation's processes for managing climate-related risks
Describe how climate risk processes are integrated into the overall ERM
Disclose metrics used to assess climate-related risks and opportunities consistent with strategy and risk management
Disclose Scope 1, 2, and (if appropriate) Scope 3 GHG emissions and related risks
Describe targets used to manage climate-related risks and opportunities, and performance against them
Climate risk disclosure moved from voluntary TCFD (2017–2023) to mandatory ISSB IFRS S2 (effective Jan 2024) and EU ESRS E1 (effective FY 2024). The methodology architecture remains TCFD's four pillars (Governance / Strategy / Risk Management / Metrics & Targets), but ISSB and ESRS demand quantitative scenario analysis — typically a 1.5°C orderly transition scenario (NGFS Net Zero 2050) and a 4°C high-warming physical scenario (NGFS Current Policies or IEA STEPS). Physical risk assessment now requires asset-level geographic mapping against IPCC AR6 hazard projections — heat stress (CDD increase), water stress (WRI Aqueduct, ICE Climate, Munich Re NATCAT), sea-level rise (RCP 8.5 / SSP 5-8.5 projections), tropical cyclone intensity, and wildfire frequency. Transition risk quantification translates carbon-price trajectories (typically $50–$200/tCO₂ by 2030 in NGFS Net Zero), demand destruction in carbon-intensive sectors, technology displacement timelines (EV vs ICE, green H2 vs grey, electric arc vs blast furnace), and stranded-asset writedown logic into financial impact on EBITDA, asset values, and cost of capital. The hardest decisions are scenario boundary selection, time-horizon weighting (short / medium / long), and financial-impact materiality threshold setting.

A practical, phased delivery approach — from gap assessment through operational embedding — built around your regulatory context.
Document climate governance per TCFD Recommendations — board oversight (committee charter, frequency), management role (CRO / CSO / risk function), strategy integration (planning, capital, M&A); align with IFRS S2 / EU CSRD ESRS E1.
Conduct physical risk per IPCC AR6 scenarios — RCP 4.5 / 8.5 / SSP 2-4.5 / 5-8.5; assess acute (storm, flood, wildfire, heatwave) and chronic (sea-level rise, temperature, precipitation); align with NGFS scenarios and corporate asset footprint.
Conduct transition risk per IEA scenarios — Net Zero 2050 (NZE), Announced Pledges (APS), Stated Policies (STEPS); assess policy (carbon pricing, regulation), technology (substitution), market (demand shift), reputation (stakeholder pressure).
Quantify climate risk per metric — physical (asset-level damage, business interruption, supply-chain disruption), transition (carbon liability, stranded asset, revenue at risk); align with TCFD metrics and corporate financial reporting.
Identify climate opportunities — resource efficiency, low-carbon products / services, markets (renewables, EVs, green H₂), resilience (adaptation services); align with corporate growth strategy and capital allocation.
Author TCFD / IFRS S2 disclosure per four pillars — Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, Metrics & Targets; integrate with annual report / 10-K / CSRD; align with mandatory disclosure deadlines per jurisdiction.

Speak with our team to scope an engagement tailored to your facility, regulatory context, and lifecycle stage.