Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The private sector’s climate change risk and adaptation blind spots

Abstract

The private sector is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, from increased operational costs to disrupted production. Investors are increasingly asking companies to disclose these risks as the physical consequences of climate change become financially material. In reviewing more than 1,600 corporate adaptation strategies, we find significant blind spots in companies’ assessments of climate change impacts and in their development of strategies for managing them. Adaptation approaches that consider broader climate change risks to supply chains, customers and employees, and that integrate ecosystem-based strategies, could limit the ‘tragedy of the horizon’ characterized by inadequate and too-late action.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Relative use of soft, hard and EbA approaches among companies.
Fig. 2: Typology of soft, hard and EbA private-sector themes.

Data availability

The individual company disclosures to investors that support the findings of this study are available publicly at https://www.cdp.net/en/responses/. The same disclosures are available in Excel format from CDP but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of CDP.

References

  1. 1.

    Major Public Companies Describe Climate-Related Risks and Costs: A Review of Findings from CDP 2011–2013 Disclosures (CDP, 2014).

  2. 2.

    Making the Energy Sector More Resilient to Climate Change (IEA, 2015).

  3. 3.

    Gasbarro, F., Iraldo, F. & Daddi, T. The drivers of multinational enterprises' climate change strategies: a quantitative study on climate-related risks and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 160, 8–26 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Adapting to a Changing Climate: Implications for the Mining and Metals Industry (International Council on Mining and Metals, 2013).

  5. 5.

    Addressing Adaptation in the Oil and Gas Industry (IPIECA, 2013).

  6. 6.

    The Global Risks Report 2018 (World Economic Forum, 2018).

  7. 7.

    The Cost of Inaction: Recognising the Value at Risk from Climate Change (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2015). This study finds that up to 30% of the world’s total stock of manageable assets may be at risk due to climate change impacts, highlighting the potential costs of climate change as a major blind spot for companies and their investors.

  8. 8.

    Dietz, S., Bowen, A., Dixon, C. & Gradwell, P. 'Climate value at risk' of global financial assets. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 676–679 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Climate Change Disclosure in G20 Countries: Stocktaking of Corporate Reporting Schemes (OECD, 2015).

  10. 10.

    Guthrie, L. & Blower, L. Corporate Climate Disclosure Schemes in G20 Countries after COP21 (Climate Disclosure Standards Board, 2016).

  11. 11.

    Doran, K., Quinn, E. & Roberts, M. Reclaiming Transparency in a Changing Climate: Trends in Climate Risk Disclosure by the S&P 500 from 1995 to Present (Center for Energy and Environmental Security, 2009).

  12. 12.

    Young, B., Suarez, C. & Gladman, K. Climate Risk Disclosure in SEC Filings: An Analysis of 10-K Reporting by Oil and Gas, Insurance, Coal, Transportation and Electric Power Companies (CERES and Environmental Defense Fund, 2009).

  13. 13.

    Sharfman, M. P. & Fernando, C. S. Environmental risk management and the cost of capital. Strateg. Manage. J. 29, 569–592 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Graham, A. & Maher, J. J. Environmental liabilities, bond ratings, and bond yields. Environ. Account. 3, 111–142 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Carney, M. Breaking the Tragedy of the Commons—Climate Change and Financial Stability (Bank of England, London, 2015); https://go.nature.com/2zrSZR8

  16. 16.

    Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TFCFD, 2017). These recommendations by a task force created by the FSB, established by the world’s 20 largest economies to make recommendations about the global financial system, is expected to usher in a new era of corporate reporting on climate change risk and risk management strategies.

  17. 17.

    Climate Change Reporting Guidance (CDP, 2016).

  18. 18.

    Ozkan, S., Farquharson, R. J., Hill, J. & Malcolm, B. A stochastic analysis of the impact of input parameters on profit of Australian pasture-based dairy farms under variable carbon price scenarios. Environ. Sci. Policy 48, 163–171 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Chevallier, J. A model of carbon price interactions with macroeconomic and energy dynamics. Energy Econ. 33, 1295–1312 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Smale, R., Hartley, M., Hepburn, C., Ward, J. & Grubb, M. The impact of CO2 emissions trading on firm profits and market prices. Clim. Policy 6, 31–48 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Lucas, A. Stranded assets, externalities and carbon risk in the Australian coal industry: the case for contraction in a carbon-constrained world. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 53–66 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bonnafous, L., Lall, U. & Siegel, J. An index for drought induced financial risk in the mining industry. Water Resour. Res. 53, 1509–1524 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Crawford, M. & Seidel, S. Weathering the Storm: Building Business Resilience to Climate Change (C2ES, 2013).This study analyses the adaptation strategies of 100 large companies and finds that they rely heavily on traditional risk management approaches that probably underestimate future climate risk; it also outlines the business case for proactive private-sector adaptation.

  24. 24.

    Gasbarro, F. & Pinkse, J. Corporate adaptation behaviour to deal with climate change: the influence of firm-specific interpretations of physical climate impacts. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 23, 179–192 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    CDP Disclosure Statbook 2016 (CDP, 2016).

  26. 26.

    Biagini, B., Bierbaum, R., Stults, M., Dobardzic, S. & McNeeley, S. M. A typology of adaptation actions: a global look at climate adaptation actions financed through the Global Environment Facility. Glob. Environ. Change 25, 97–108 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Felgenhauer, T. & Webster, M. Multiple adaptation types with mitigation: a framework for policy analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1556–1565 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Smith, B., Burton, I., Klein, R. J. T. & Wandel, J. An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Climatic Change 45, 223–251 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Surminski, S. Private-sector adaptation to climate risk. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 943–945 (2013). This Comment notes that there is very limited evidence of private-sector adaptation beyond select case studies and that key barriers include the fact that climate risk can span customers, suppliers and employees, requiring a more integrated approach to adaptation that few companies have attempted.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Agrawala, S. et al. Private Sector Engagement in Adaptation to Climate Change (OECD, 2011).

  31. 31.

    Finley, T. & Schuchard, R. Adapting to Climate Change: A Guide for the Energy and Utility Industry (BSR, 2009).

  32. 32.

    Keskitalo, E. C. H., Vulturius, G. & Scholten, P. Adaptation to climate change in the insurance sector: examples from the UK, Germany and the Netherlands. Nat. Hazards 71, 315–334 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Finley, T. & Schuchard, R. Adapting to Climate Change: A Guide for the Transportation Industry (BSR, 2009).

  34. 34.

    Jones, H. P., Hole, D. G. & Zavaleta, E. S. Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 504–509 (2012). This study introduces the categories of soft, hard and EbA approaches and highlights EbA as an underutilized but flexible, cost-effective and broadly applicable approach.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C. & Maginnis, S. Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges (IUCN, 2016); https://go.nature.com/2TPwHRN

  36. 36.

    Stern, N. The economics of climate change. Am. Econ. Rev. 98, 1–37 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Diaz, D. B. Estimating global damages from sea level rise with the Coastal Impact and Adaptation Model (CIAM). Climatic Change 137, 143–156 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M. & Miguel, E. Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature 527, 235–239 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Averchenkova, A., Crick, F., Kocornik-Mina, A., Leck, H. & Surminski, S. Multinational and large national corporations and climate adaptation: are we asking the right questions? A review of current knowledge and a new research perspective. WIREs Clim. Change 7, 517–536 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Vogl, A. L. et al. Mainstreaming investments in watershed services to enhance water security: barriers and opportunities. Environ. Sci. Policy 75, 19–27 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Cranston, G.R., Green, J.M.H. & Tranter, H.R. Doing Business with Nature: Opportunities from Natural Capital (CISL, 2015); https://go.nature.com/2PTWCtn

  42. 42.

    Spalding, M. D. et al. The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean Coast. Manage. 90, 50–57 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).

  44. 44.

    Hallegatte, S. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 240–247 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Berry, A., Fahey, S. & Meyers, N. Changing of the guard: adaptation options that maintain ecologically resilient sandy beach ecosystems. J. Coast. Res. 29, 899–908 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Donato, D. C. et al. Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat. Geosci. 4, 293–297 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Duarte, C. M., Losada, I. J., Hendriks, I. E., Mazarrasa, I. & Marba, N. The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 961–968 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    MacKinnon, K., Hickey, V. & Shrestha, J. Convenient Solutions to an Inconvenient Truth: Ecosystem-based Approaches to Climate Change (World Bank, 2009).

  49. 49.

    Stadelmann, M., Michaelowa, A. & Roberts, J. T. Difficulties in accounting for private finance in international climate policy. Clim. Policy 13, 718–737 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Brown, J. et al. Estimating Mobilized Private Finance for Adaptation: Exploring Data and Methods (Climate Policy Initiative and OECD, 2015).

  51. 51.

    Temmerman, S. et al. Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature 504, 79–83 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Foster, J. B., Clark, B. & York, R. The Midas Effect: a critique of climate change economics. Dev. Change 40, 1085–1097 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Peters, A. This Coral Reef Will Have Its Own Innovative Insurance Policy (Fast Company, 2017).

  54. 54.

    Effectively Addressing Climate Risk through Adaptation for the Energy Gulf Coast (Entergy, 2010).

  55. 55.

    Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth system in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8252–8259 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Oppenheimer, M. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) 1039–1099 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  57. 57.

    Hinkel, J. et al. Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st century sea-level rise. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3292–3297 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 26, 152–158 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., O'Reilly, J. & Oppenheimer, M. Climate change prediction: erring on the side of least drama? Glob. Environ. Change 23, 327–337 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Spratt, D. & Dunlop, I. What Lies Beneath: The Scientific Understatement of Climate Risks (Breakthrough—National Centre for Climate Restoration, 2017); https://go.nature.com/2Q1dn69

  61. 61.

    Kates, R. W., Travis, W. R. & Wilbanks, T. J. Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7156–7161 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Solomon, J. F., Solomon, A., Norton, S. D. & Joseph, N. L. Private climate change reporting: an emerging discourse of risk and opportunity? Account. Audit. Accountab. J. 24, 1119–1148 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Wright, C. & Nyberg, D. An inconvenient truth: how organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Acad. Manage. J. 60, 1633–1661 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Winn, M. I., Kirchgeorg, M., Griffiths, A., Linnenluecke, M. K. & Gunther, E. Impacts from climate change on organizations: a conceptual foundation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 20, 157–173 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Berkhout, F. Adaptation to climate change by organizations. WIREs Clim. Change 3, 91–106 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Slawinski, N., Pinkse, J., Busch, T. & Banerjee, S. B. The role of short-termism and uncertainty avoidance in organizational inaction on climate change: a multi-level framework. Bus. Soc. 56, 253–282 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Gifford, R. The dragons of inaction psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am. Psychol. 66, 290–302 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Peters, G. F. & Romi, A. M. Does the voluntary adoption of corporate governance mechanisms improve environmental risk disclosures? Evidence from greenhouse gas emission accounting. J. Bus. Ethics 125, 637–666 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Hess, D. The three pillars of corporate social reporting as new governance regulation: disclosure, dialogue, and development. Bus. Ethics Q. 18, 447–482 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Engagement Tracker (CERES, 2018); https://engagements.ceres.org

  71. 71.

    Stein, M. L. More shareholder proposals spotlight climate change. The Wall Street Journal (8 February 2018).

  72. 72.

    Tompkins, E. L. & Eakin, H. Managing private and public adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 3–11 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science at Conservation International and BHP’s Alliance with Conservation International for supporting portions of the research.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

D.G.H. and A.G. conceived the study. A.G. wrote the manuscript. D.G.H., W.R.T. and J.D. contributed to and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allie Goldstein.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

BHP provided a portion of A.G.’s funding during this research. BHP is one of 1,630 companies that disclosed data on climate change risk and adaptation on which our assessment is based.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods, Supplementary tables 1-3, Supplementary notes, Supplementary references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goldstein, A., Turner, W.R., Gladstone, J. et al. The private sector’s climate change risk and adaptation blind spots. Nature Clim Change 9, 18–25 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0340-5

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing