Climate Risk Financial Models
Executive Summary
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Climate risk financial modelling quantifies physical and transition risk at entity or portfolio level using a defined scenario framework, distinct in scope from adjusting a single asset's DCF discount rate or cash flows, though the two use related underlying methodology.
- ✓ Exposure mapping, identifying which specific assets or positions in a portfolio are exposed to which physical or transition risk channel, is the necessary first step before any loss quantification can be performed credibly.
- ✓ Scenario-based loss estimation should run a portfolio through multiple internally consistent climate scenarios, rather than producing a single point-estimate loss figure that does not reflect genuine scenario uncertainty.
- ✓ Physical risk quantification should distinguish acute risk (event-driven disruption, such as a flood or storm) from chronic risk (gradual change, such as rising average temperature or sea level), since the two have different timing, probability, and mitigation characteristics.
- ✓ A portfolio-level climate risk model should be updated on a defined cycle as scenario frameworks and underlying climate science evolve, rather than treated as a one-time exercise whose output remains valid indefinitely.
Objective¶
This guide covers how to quantify physical and transition climate risk at entity or portfolio level within Climate Finance & Climate Financial Modelling, distinct in scope from single-valuation climate risk adjustment.
Distinct From Single-Valuation Climate Risk Adjustment¶
ESG and Climate Risk Adjustments in DCF Discount Rates addresses how a single valuation should reflect climate risk, through a discount rate premium or explicit cash flow scenario adjustment. Climate risk financial modelling, as covered here, addresses the broader task of quantifying physical and transition risk across an entity or portfolio, using related scenario-based methodology but applied at a different level, portfolio risk management rather than a single asset's valuation, and typically for a different purpose, risk reporting and capital allocation rather than a specific investment decision.
Exposure Mapping¶
Before any loss can be quantified credibly, exposure mapping identifies which specific assets or positions in a portfolio are exposed to which physical or transition risk channel, a coastal asset's exposure to sea level rise, an emissions-intensive holding's exposure to carbon pricing, a supply chain dependency's exposure to a specific climate hazard. This mapping is the necessary foundation the scenario-based loss estimation below depends on.
Scenario-Based Loss Estimation¶
A portfolio should be run through multiple internally consistent climate scenarios, in the same manner scenario-based climate stress-testing is applied at single-valuation level, rather than producing a single point-estimate loss figure. The resulting range of outcomes across scenarios, rather than one blended number, should be the primary output presented to risk committees and decision-makers.
Acute Versus Chronic Physical Risk¶
Physical risk should be split into acute risk, event-driven disruption such as a flood, storm, or wildfire, and chronic risk, gradual change such as rising average temperature, changing precipitation patterns, or sea level rise. The two have different timing, probability, and mitigation characteristics, and a model that does not distinguish them cannot meaningfully assess which mitigation measures, physical resilience investment for acute events versus long-term relocation or redesign for chronic change, are actually appropriate.
Periodic Reassessment¶
A portfolio-level climate risk model should be updated on a defined cycle rather than treated as a one-time exercise, since both the scenario frameworks and underlying climate science continue to evolve, and a portfolio's own composition and exposure change over time as assets are acquired or disposed of.
Common Construction Pitfalls¶
Exposure mapping skipped in favour of a generic industry-level risk assumption. Applying a blanket risk assumption without asset-specific exposure mapping produces a portfolio risk figure that cannot be traced to any specific holding.
Single point-estimate loss figure presented without scenario range. Understates the genuine uncertainty across plausible future climate and policy pathways.
Acute and chronic physical risk conflated. Blending event-driven and gradual risk into a single physical risk figure obscures which mitigation measures are actually appropriate.
Recommended Practices¶
- Perform asset-level exposure mapping before any portfolio loss quantification.
- Present scenario-based loss ranges rather than a single point-estimate figure.
- Distinguish acute and chronic physical risk explicitly, each with its own mitigation implications.
- Reassess the climate risk model on a defined cycle as scenario frameworks and portfolio composition evolve.
Continue Reading¶
Related Pillars¶
Related Technical Guides¶
Related Glossary¶
How OXXON tests thisRun a free structural check with FMAE
Frequently Asked Questions
How does climate risk financial modelling differ from the DCF discount rate adjustment already covered in this Knowledge Centre?
The DCF discount rate and cash flow adjustment methodology addresses how a single valuation should reflect climate risk. Climate risk financial modelling, as covered here, addresses quantifying physical and transition risk across an entity or portfolio, a broader scope using related scenario-based methodology but applied at a different level and for a different purpose, portfolio risk management rather than a single asset's valuation.
What is exposure mapping?
The necessary first step in climate risk quantification, identifying which specific assets or positions in a portfolio are exposed to which physical or transition risk channel, before any loss quantification can be performed credibly against that exposure.
What is scenario-based loss estimation?
Running a portfolio through multiple internally consistent climate scenarios and estimating the resulting loss under each, rather than producing a single point-estimate loss figure that does not reflect the genuine uncertainty across plausible future climate and policy pathways.
What is the difference between acute and chronic physical risk?
Acute physical risk is event-driven disruption, such as a flood, storm, or wildfire, while chronic physical risk is gradual change, such as rising average temperature, changing precipitation patterns, or sea level rise, and the two carry different timing, probability, and mitigation characteristics that should be modelled distinctly.
Why should a climate risk model be updated on a defined cycle rather than treated as a one-time exercise?
Because scenario frameworks and the underlying climate science they draw on continue to evolve, and a portfolio's own exposure changes over time as assets are acquired, disposed of, or as physical and transition conditions themselves change, meaning a climate risk model's output does not remain valid indefinitely without periodic reassessment.
References
Related Articles
Climate Finance & Climate Financial Modelling
Climate finance is the mobilisation and allocation of capital toward mitigation, adaptation, and transition activity, and climate financial modelling is the discipline of representing that activity's cash flows, risk, and concessionality in a financial model. This page is the hub for the Knowledge Centre's climate finance content: how sustainable, green, and transition finance are distinct but related capital allocation frames, how a climate investment model differs from a standard project or corporate model in its treatment of concessional capital and additionality, how physical and transition climate risk are quantified at portfolio and entity level, and how carbon markets, climate-sector investment, and institutional governance practice build on these foundations as this domain expands.
Physical Climate Risk
Physical climate risk is the direct financial risk that climate hazards, whether sudden events or gradual change, pose to physical assets, operations, or supply chains. It is conventionally split into acute physical risk, event-driven disruption such as a flood or storm, and chronic physical risk, gradual change such as rising average temperature or sea level, since the two carry different timing, probability, and mitigation characteristics.
Transition Risk
Transition risk is the financial risk an entity or asset carries from adapting to policy, regulatory, and market shifts as an economy moves toward a lower-carbon state, carbon pricing, changing demand for carbon-intensive products, and stranded asset risk among its principal channels. It is distinct from physical climate risk, which arises from direct exposure to climate hazards rather than from the economic transition itself.
ESG and Climate Risk Adjustments in DCF Discount Rates
Two competing approaches exist for reflecting ESG and climate risk in a DCF valuation: adding a climate or ESG risk premium to the discount rate, or adjusting the forecast cash flows directly under explicit transition-cost and physical-risk scenarios. This guide sets out both approaches, why a single discount rate premium conflates distinct risk types (physical, transition, regulatory) and compounds awkwardly over a multi-decade forecast and terminal value, why institutional practice increasingly favors adjusting cash flows under explicit scenarios as an extension of standard scenario analysis, and why no single standardized methodology yet exists industry-wide for this specific problem.
TCFD
TCFD, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, is a widely adopted framework structuring how an entity discloses climate-related risk across four pillars, governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. It underpins much of current climate risk disclosure practice, including the scenario-based approach applied in portfolio-level climate risk financial modelling.