Climate Related Financial Disclosures – The Way Forward?

Read­ing time: 4 mins

Mem­ber of the Cli­mate Change Work­ing Group, Wayne Kenafacke dis­cuss­es the recent rec­om­men­da­tions report from the G20’s Finan­cial Sta­bil­i­ty Board’s Task Force on Cli­mate-relat­ed Finan­cial Dis­clo­sures.

Cli­mate change can no longer be thought of as a “future issue” by Aus­tralian Finan­cial Insti­tu­tions. Not after APRA Exec­u­tive Board Mem­ber Geoff Sum­mer­hayes’ speech to the Insur­ance Coun­cil of Australia’s Annu­al Forum on 17 Feb­ru­ary.  Mr Sum­mer­hayes used this speech to make clear that APRA views cli­mate change as a cur­rent issue, because the tran­si­tion risks aris­ing from pol­i­cy, legal and busi­ness changes nec­es­sary in order to meet com­mit­ments under the Paris Cli­mate Agree­ment are already being expe­ri­enced. 

Tran­si­tion risks are par­tic­u­lar­ly rel­e­vant. First­ly, in order to mit­i­gate future phys­i­cal and direct risks of cli­mate change (e.g. ris­ing sea lev­els), gov­ern­ments are com­mit­ting to tak­ing action and fac­ing the con­se­quent tran­si­tion risks now and in the short-term. Sec­ond­ly, you don’t even need to trust the cli­mate sci­ence to acknowl­edge cli­mate change tran­si­tion risks, as these tran­si­tion risks arise from society’s response to cli­mate change, so even cli­mate change skep­tics fear their impact. Any effort to meet the com­mit­ments under the Paris Cli­mate Agree­ment or sim­i­lar car­bon reduc­tion tar­gets, cre­ates tran­si­tion risks asso­ci­at­ed with those actions.

What Should Organisations Do?

We’ve all heard the phrase “What gets mea­sured gets man­aged” and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, mea­sure­ment and mon­i­tor­ing of risks are key parts of any risk man­age­ment frame­work.  So how should an organ­i­sa­tion mea­sure and man­age its expo­sure to cli­mate change risks?  A key and recent devel­op­ment is the release by the G20’s Finan­cial Sta­bil­i­ty Board of the Rec­om­men­da­tions of the Task Force on Cli­mate-relat­ed Finan­cial Dis­clo­sures (FSB TCFD).

The aim of the report is to pro­vide a “clear, effi­cient, and vol­un­tary dis­clo­sure frame­work that improves both the ease of pro­duc­ing and using cli­mate-relat­ed finan­cial dis­clo­sures.”[1]  Devel­op­ing a frame­work for exter­nal dis­clo­sure reflects the impor­tance of man­ag­ing the busi­ness impli­ca­tions of cli­mate change to exter­nal par­ties such as investors, cred­i­tors and reg­u­la­tors.  The frame­work is intend­ed to apply to any organ­i­sa­tion in any coun­try and any indus­try, vol­un­tar­i­ly as part of finan­cial fil­ings and dis­clo­sures.  It con­sists of both gener­ic guid­ance and detailed guid­ance for organ­i­sa­tions in spe­cif­ic indus­tries like­ly to be most impact­ed by cli­mate change, includ­ing insur­ers, banks and asset man­agers.  While ini­tial­ly the dis­clo­sures are like­ly to be most­ly qual­i­ta­tive in nature, the FSB TCFD intends to include more quan­ti­ta­tive mea­sures over time. 

Ini­tial­ly the report out­lines a frame­work for iden­ti­fy­ing cli­mate relat­ed risks and oppor­tu­ni­ties, as illus­trat­ed in fig­ures one and two.

Fig­ure one – Cat­e­gories of Cli­mate Oppor­tu­ni­ty and Cli­mate Risk

Cred­it: FSB TCFD

Fig­ure two – Exam­ples of Cli­mate Oppor­tu­ni­ty and Cli­mate Risk

Cred­it: FSB TCFD


After using this frame­work to iden­ti­fy the cli­mate relat­ed risks and oppor­tu­ni­ties spe­cif­ic to an organ­i­sa­tion, the report rec­om­mends spe­cif­ic dis­clo­sures grouped into cat­e­gories relat­ing to gov­er­nance, strat­e­gy, risk man­age­ment and met­rics and tar­gets, as illus­trat­ed in Fig­ure three.

Fig­ure three – Exam­ples of Cli­mate Oppor­tu­ni­ty and Cli­mate Risk

Cred­it: FSB TCFD

The seg­ment­ing of dis­clo­sures across these cat­e­gories should pro­vide users with insight into how an organ­i­sa­tion is con­sid­er­ing and approach­ing cli­mate relat­ed issues, in addi­tion to pro­vid­ing an esti­mate of the organisation’s actu­al expo­sure.  Fig­ure four pro­vides an exam­ple of the detail sup­port­ing a rec­om­mend­ed strat­e­gy dis­clo­sure, includ­ing both the gener­ic guid­ance and sup­ple­men­tal guid­ance for insur­ance com­pa­nies.

Fig­ure four – Exam­ples of Rec­om­mend­ed Dis­clo­sure for the impact on the Organisations’s busi­ness­es, strat­e­gy and finan­cial plan­ning, includ­ing Sup­ple­men­tal Guid­ance for Insur­ers

Cred­it: FSB TCFD

Giv­en the vast­ly uncer­tain range of poten­tial out­comes, the report empha­sis­es the impor­tance of sce­nario analy­sis as a tool to assist organ­i­sa­tions to con­sid­er cli­mate risks and oppor­tu­ni­ties (see Fig­ure five). 

Fig­ure five – FSB TCFD’s illus­tra­tion on the impor­tance of sce­nario analy­sis

Cred­it: FSB TCFD

IAA Submission in Response

The Inter­na­tion­al Actu­ar­i­al Asso­ci­a­tion (IAA)’s sub­mis­sion to the FSB TFCD was sup­port­ive of the pro­pos­als, recog­nis­ing “that for­ward look­ing infor­ma­tion giv­en in the con­text of finan­cial report­ing require­ments will great­ly facil­i­tate informed invest­ment / cap­i­tal allo­ca­tion / under­writ­ing deci­sion mak­ing. The process of pro­duc­ing that infor­ma­tion should itself be of sig­nif­i­cant ben­e­fit to an enti­ty in address­ing cli­mate and envi­ron­men­tal risks.” 

The IAA sup­port­ed the inten­tion to include more quan­ti­ta­tive mea­sures over time and pro­posed a detailed review of the stan­dards every three years, with a focus on the bal­ance of quan­ti­ta­tive vs qual­i­ta­tive dis­clo­sures.  The IAA also sug­gest­ed that the use of mul­ti­ple stan­dard­ised sce­nar­ios in dis­clo­sures may be more infor­ma­tive than the use of a sin­gle sce­nario and also not­ed the poten­tial for impacts to be asym­met­ric (e.g. around tip­ping points like whether or not per­mafrosts thaw) and sug­gest­ed the use of sce­nar­ios that are both more opti­mistic and more pes­simistic than a two degree C sce­nario. A final stan­dard is sched­uled to be released in June this year.


The use of cli­mate relat­ed finan­cial dis­clo­sures could be a key ele­ment in help­ing organ­i­sa­tions to under­stand, pri­ori­tise and mon­i­tor their response to both the phys­i­cal and tran­si­tion risks aris­ing from cli­mate change.  Accord­ing­ly, the devel­op­ment of a stan­dard­ised frame­work and guid­ance for such dis­clo­sures, is to be applaud­ed.  Intend­ed to allow broad adop­tion and also to allow the dis­clo­sures to evolve over time, the guid­ance may lack the lev­el of detail that is nec­es­sary to ensure com­pa­ra­bil­i­ty and con­sis­tent appli­ca­tion.  Giv­en this need to pro­vide suf­fi­cient guid­ance while also allow­ing the dis­clo­sures to evolve, the IAA pro­pos­al for a detailed review of the stan­dards every three years is par­tic­u­lar­ly help­ful. 

Prob­a­bly the great­est ben­e­fit to many organ­i­sa­tions from adopt­ing the dis­clo­sures would be the val­ue of the insights gained by apply­ing the frame­work illus­trat­ed in fig­ures one and two.  In doing so, organ­i­sa­tions can read­i­ly gain an under­stand­ing of the unique risks and oppor­tu­ni­ties fac­ing that organ­i­sa­tion aris­ing from cli­mate change.

The Institute’s Cli­mate Change Work­ing Group will con­tin­ue to mon­i­tor the devel­op­ment of the FSB TCFD stan­dards. 




CPD Actuaries Institute Members can claim two CPD points for every hour of reading articles on Actuaries Digital.

About the author

Wayne Kenafacke

Wayne is an experienced and commercially focused financial services executive and in recent years has held executive roles as a CFO, GM Products and Chief Actuary. His experience spans many segments including life insurance, superannuation, financial advice, general insurance and retail banking. He is a member of the Institute’s Climate Change Working Group.

No Comments

Comments are closed.

Also this month