Is climate change a financial risk that financial institutions need to worry about? Despite the rapid increase in climate financing and the rise of the dominant discourse on the importance of climate change and environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) criteria, financial markets do not seem to show much sensitivity to the increasing climate risks. The problem arguably lies in the fact that the markets seem to have difficulties estimating the specific costs of climate change, which, although potentially high, often remain long-term and uncertain. The benefits of adjusting to climate risks also seem harder to quantify for shorter-term investments.
Most international actors that provide development finance seem to have difficulty estimating the specific costs of climate change risks. Climate risks can be low or high, short-term or long-term, and more or less uncertain. Yet, understanding the particular nature of climate risks clearly could help in pricing climate-risk finance and the proper allocation of funding for climate action. In particular, investments in climate adaptation, which are perceived by many financial actors as a costly endeavour, could become financially more attractive if the corresponding reduction in climate risk exposure were not only qualitatively considered, by explicitly priced. This would have serious implications for development finance institutions and their incentive to invest in climate adaptation operations in developing countries most affected by climate change, with a high socio-development impact.
This paper considers why effective climate risk assessment should matter for financial institutions. We present different approaches to measuring climate risk used by some European financial institutions with a public mandate, including a multilateral development bank (MDB) - the European Investment Bank (EIB), development financial institutions (DFIs) - the British International Investment (BII) and the Dutch entrepreneur development bank (FMO), national promotional and development banks - the German Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) and Italian Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (CDP); and export credit agencies - the Atradius Dutch State Business (Atradius DSB), and French Bpifrance. These institutions have adopted climate, and often explicit ESG, approaches and climate risk assessments. Increasing efforts are also dedicated to further improving their approaches. Yet, they encounter several difficulties and limitations in their attempt to assess climate risks.
Limitations encountered in climate risk assessment that could lead to mispricing include:
1. Underestimation or overestimation of the climate risks
2. Lack of proper methodologies to measure climate risks
3. Assessments are generally done at the macro-level
4. Data on climate risk variables is usually missing
5. Lack of a central database providing data on all climate risk indicators
6. No harmonised industrial standards and a proper regulatory framework
It is essential to overcome the challenge of climate change mispricing (over- and under-estimation) of the risks to ensure that physical and transition risks are precisely predicted. This necessitates that financiers and investors, in general, alter their strategies, incentives and approaches, including by exploiting the opportunities provided by climate risk assessment models and strategies. Development financiers can play a pioneering role in that respect. MDBs like the EIB and DFIs like BII and FMO should not only continue their respective current endeavours to further enhance their overall climate/ESG, and climate-risk assessment approaches. They should also coordinate their efforts to lead the (European) development finance community in better addressing climate change, improve risk assessment approaches and try to explicit price climate risks. By doing so, they can also leverage private finance actors and have a catalytic demonstration effect on how to better climate risks.
While climate finance has significantly increased for mitigation, it is seriously lagging for adaptation. In particular, in Europe, financial institutions for development have generally failed to invest at scale in climate adaptation, often arguing that they are not enough bankable projects. Improving climate risk approaches, explicitly pricing climate risks, can play a significant role in boosting private and public finance to tackle climate change, including for adaptation.
In terms of physical climate risk, there is a need to adopt proper methodologies to assess the risk from chronic and acute shocks on a highly granular level and connect asset-level physical risks to firms’ and investors’ financial risks. Such enhanced approaches could usefully draw on Bressan et al. (2022). They developed the first comprehensive methodology that logically connects asset-level physical risks to financial risks for firms and financial actors and, more broadly, to systemic risk for the financial system. It does so by translating economic losses on physical assets and sectors from chronic and acute climate physical risks into financial losses and shocks on prices in the market. It allows for a dynamic, asset-level assessment of physical climate risk, considering the cascading losses through the ownership chains of firms and investors.
Key policy recommendations for financial institutions that could lead to better assessment and improved climate risk pricing include:
1. Develop a reliable database to provide information on climate-related risks
2. Improve the transparency of the risk assessment methodologies
3. Develop harmonised climate risk assessment methodologies
4. Support the establishment of project-level climate risk assessment
5. Exploit the potential of insurance companies
6. Address the information asymmetry and knowledge gaps
7. Enforce climate-related regulation at all levels
8. Embody climate risk assessment in overall sustainable investment strategy and use concessional financing to cover high climate risks
9. Explicitly price climate risks and net returns from climate adaptation.
This work was conducted in the European Commission H2020-funded CASCADES (CAScading Climate risks: towards ADaptive and resilient European Societies) project, Grant agreement number 821010.
https://www.cascades.eu/publication/climate-risk-mispricing-why-better-assessments-matter-in-financing-for-development/