Publications

How should financial actors deal with climate-related issues in their portfolios today?

4 May 2017 - Climate Brief - By : Morgane NICOL / Ian COCHRAN, Phd

Financial institutions face climate-related issues

Certain constraints, differentiated according to business lines, currently limit the ability of financial institutions to carry out on their portfolios a quantified forward-looking analysis based on scenarios. Nonetheless, these institutions as of today should – and can – begin to put in place the basis for management and reporting strategies to support alignment with a 2°C pathway. Various organisations – such as NGOs, extra-financial rating agencies, consulting firms and specialised service providers – are developing ‘Climate’ indicators, intended to enable financial actors to assess and address climate-related transition issues. Using one type or combination of such indicators is an initial step that will facilitate the integration into their processes of quantitative indicators of impact of the low-carbon transition on financial performance.

“Climate” indicators can be grouped into five main categories: carbon footprint indicators; “ESG” type qualitative indicators; “green share / brown share” indicators; “physical” carbon footprint indicators; and indicators of alignment with a low-carbon or 2°C pathway. Each type of indicator presents advantages and drawbacks and their relevance depends on the business lines and on the specific objectives of the financial institution.

Climate Brief 46 presents the most promising avenues of analysis for different financial business lines depending on their specificities. Broadly speaking, financial players should begin as of now to analyse their climate-related issues in a forward-looking manner based on semi-quantitative indicators.

Two types of currently available indicators seem particularly relevant

  • indicators of alignment with a 2°C pathway: these macro-indicators aggregate both quantitative indicators based on historical data when available, and qualitative forward-looking indicators. On one hand, they can measure, for example the current exposure to the introduction of a carbon price. On the other hand, they can give a forward-looking analysis of a company’s ‘resilience’ in a low-carbon economy given its ability to adapt itself to a regulatory and market environment in transition;
  • indicators of “green shares” and “brown shares”: these indicators inform financial actors of a company’s current distribution of revenues between “green” activities that will be favoured and “brown” activities that will be penalised by the low-carbon transition. These indicators, once aggregated in terms of outstanding amounts, enable a financial institution to measure its exposure to companies that are heavily exposed to transition risks – as well as those that stand to benefit from the transition. These indicators, however do not alone make it possible to measure the extent of the potential losses or gains, but may be progressively refined into shades of “green” and “brown”.
How should financial actors deal with climate-related issues in their portfolios today? Download
To learn more
  • 11/21/2025
    How to strengthen climate risk management and supervision to protect financial stability

    Climate change does not conform to business, political or supervisory regime cycles– its adverse long-term impacts lie beyond such horizons. Ten years ago, when Mark Carney highlighted this paradox in his landmark Tragedy of the Horizons speech, climate change was not considered a financial stability risk. Today, European supervisory stress tests estimate up to €638 billion in banking losses over 8 years, while the European Central Bank (ECB) reveals that over 90% of eurozone banks face climate and environmental risks. A key question arises: Is the supervisors’ primary focus on greening the financial system sufficient in the face of rising risks, especially stranded assets? 

  • 11/13/2025
    How solidarity levies can help bridge the climate and development finance gap

    The climate and development finance gap is large and widening, as Official Development Assistance (ODA) declines and needs multiply. With shrinking fiscal space in vulnerable countries, solidarity levies are gaining attention as a predictable source of international finance. Launched at COP28 by Barbados, France, and Kenya, the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force (GSLTF) is the main initiative in this space.

  • 11/07/2025 Foreword of the week
    COP30: On Financing, the Time for Negotiation Is Over

    “What agreement will the negotiators reach?” is the question that is usually on climate practitioners’ minds at this time of the year. However, this time, it is a new impetus that is needed, not another agreement. 10 years after the Paris Agreement, the Brazilian COP30 presidency has rightly shifted the focus to execution, making this edition “the implementation COP.” On financing, the objectives set at COP29 are clear: developing countries should receive $300 billion per year by 2035 from developed countries (NCQG), and mobilise $1.3 trillion per year from all actors. The newly published “Baku to Belém” roadmap proposes solutions to meet the targets. We now have objectives and a list of (theoretical) means to achieve them. How do we move to implementation? 

See all publications
Press contact Amélie FRITZ Head of Communication and press relations Email
Subscribe to our mailing list :
I register !
Subscribe to our newsletter
Once a week, receive all the information on climate economics
I register !
Fermer