lev-os Managing Climate Risk
Structures climate risk assessment combining physical risk, transition risk, and scenario modeling into an actionable management report for enterprise risk and investment decision-making.
When To Use
- Assessing portfolio or enterprise exposure to climate-related physical and transition risks
- Preparing TCFD-aligned climate risk disclosures or internal board reports
- Modeling financial impact of climate scenarios (e.g., IEA Net Zero 2050, NGFS orderly/disorderly/hot house)
- Evaluating counterparty, sector, or geographic concentration risk from environmental factors
- Informing capital allocation, insurance strategy, or stress testing with climate overlays
Inputs To Gather
- Asset/portfolio data: Holdings, geographic footprint, sector exposure, revenue breakdown by business line
- Physical risk indicators: Facility locations, supply chain nodes, historical loss data from weather events, flood/wildfire/hurricane zone maps
- Transition risk indicators: Carbon intensity metrics (Scope 1/2/3 where available), regulatory timeline for carbon pricing or emissions caps [VERIFY jurisdiction-specific phase-in dates], energy mix dependencies
- Scenario parameters: Time horizons (2030, 2040, 2050), warming pathways (1.5C, 2C, 3C+), policy assumption sets (e.g., NGFS scenarios)
- Baseline financials: Revenue, EBITDA, asset valuations, insurance premiums, capex plans
- Regulatory context: Applicable disclosure frameworks (TCFD, ISSB S2, EU CSRD, SEC climate rule [VERIFY current status and compliance dates])
Workflow
Scope definition — Confirm the entity perimeter (single fund, enterprise-wide, specific portfolio sleeve), time horizons, and intended audience (board, regulators, investors). Determine which scenarios to model.
Physical risk assessment
- Map assets and operations to geographic hazard zones (flood, wildfire, drought, sea-level rise, extreme heat)
- Quantify historical loss frequency and severity from climate-related events
- Project forward-looking exposure under selected warming scenarios using available hazard models
- Assign risk ratings (high/medium/low) by location, asset class, or business unit
Transition risk assessment
- Calculate carbon intensity across Scope 1 and 2; incorporate Scope 3 where data quality permits [VERIFY data source and methodology]
- Identify regulatory triggers: carbon pricing mechanisms, emissions trading schemes, phase-out mandates for high-carbon assets
- Assess stranded asset risk for fossil fuel holdings, carbon-intensive real estate, or heavy-industry exposures
- Evaluate technology disruption risk (e.g., EV adoption curves impacting auto sector, renewable cost declines)
Scenario modeling
- Run at least two contrasting scenarios (e.g., orderly transition vs. hot house world)
- Estimate financial impact on revenues, asset valuations, and cost structures under each scenario
- Stress test portfolio returns, credit quality, or insurance liabilities against scenario parameters
- Identify non-linear tipping points or threshold effects (e.g., carbon price above which specific assets become uneconomic)
Mitigation and adaptation mapping
- For material risks identified, outline available mitigation levers: hedging, divestment, insurance, operational changes, engagement with portfolio companies
- Prioritize actions by cost-effectiveness and implementation timeline
- Flag adaptation measures for physical risk (e.g., facility hardening, supply chain diversification)
Report assembly
- Summarize findings in a management report structured by risk category
- Present scenario outcomes with clear assumptions and sensitivity ranges
- Include heat maps or concentration tables for geographic and sectoral exposure
- Provide actionable recommendations ranked by urgency and materiality
Output
The deliverable is a Climate Risk Management Report containing:
- Executive summary: Top 3-5 material climate risks, headline scenario impacts, and priority actions
- Physical risk profile: Geographic heat map, asset-level exposure ratings, projected loss estimates
- Transition risk profile: Carbon intensity benchmarks, regulatory timeline, stranded asset exposure
- Scenario analysis results: Side-by-side financial impact under each modeled pathway with key assumptions stated
- Mitigation roadmap: Prioritized actions with owners, timelines, and estimated cost/benefit
- Data gaps and limitations: Explicit list of missing inputs, proxy assumptions used, and areas requiring further analysis
Quality Checks
- Verify that all scenario assumptions are explicitly stated — no embedded assumptions without disclosure
- Confirm geographic hazard data sources are current (within 2 years) and from recognized providers (e.g., Munich Re, Swiss Re, NOAA, IPCC)
- Ensure carbon intensity calculations use consistent boundary definitions across all entities
- Cross-check that regulatory timelines reflect enacted law, not proposed rules — mark proposed items with [VERIFY]
- Validate that financial impact estimates include sensitivity ranges, not single-point projections
- Confirm the report addresses both short-term (1-5 year) and long-term (10-30 year) horizons
- Flag any sector or geography where data coverage falls below 70% of exposure