Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Business risk and the emergence of climate analytics


Emerging awareness of climate-related financial risk has prompted efforts to integrate knowledge of climate change risks into financial decision-making and disclosures. Assessment of future climate risk requires knowledge of how the climate will change on time and spatial scales that vary between business entities. The rules by which climate science can be used appropriately to inform assessments of how climate change will impact financial risk have not yet been developed. In this Perspective, we summarize the demands by the business and finance community for reliable climate information, and the potential and limitations of such information in the context of what climate models can and cannot currently provide.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Current and proposed connections between climate research and business.


  1. 1.

    Addressing Climate Change Risk: CalPERS’ First Response to Senate Bill 964 (CalPERS, 2019).

  2. 2.

    Climate Change and Central Banks (Deutsche Bundesbank, 2019);

  3. 3.

    Fink, L. A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance. BlackRock (2020).

  4. 4.

    Climate Change & Sovereign Credit Risk (Moody’s, 2020);

  5. 5.

    Government Pension Fund Global – Account of Work on Climate Risk (Norges Bank Investment Management, 2019);

  6. 6.

    The Big Picture on Climate Risk (S&P Global, 2020);

  7. 7.

    BlackRock says investors need to assess climate change when investing. Reuters (6 September 2016).

  8. 8.

    Kerber, R. Vanguard seeks corporate disclosure on risks from climate change. Reuters (14 August 2017).

  9. 9.

    Anderson, N. IFRS® Standards and Climate-Related Disclosures (IFRS, 2019).

  10. 10.

    Climate-Related and Other Emerging Risks Disclosures: Assessing Financial Statement Materiality Using AASB Practice Statement 2 (AASB, AUASB, 2018).

  11. 11.

    IOSCO Statement on Disclosure Of ESG Matters by Issuers (International Organization of Securities Commissions, 2019).

  12. 12.

    Proposals to Enhance Climate-Related Disclosures by Listed Issuers and Clarification of Existing Disclosure Obligations (Financial Conduct Authority, 2020).

  13. 13.

    Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2017).

  14. 14.

    Climate-related Financial Disclosures: Understanding Your Business Risks and Opportunities Related to Climate Change (Ministry for the Environment & Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, 2019);

  15. 15.

    Chancellor sets out ambition for future of UK financial services. (9 November 2020).

  16. 16.

    The Macroeconomic and Financial Stability Impacts of Climate Change. Research Priorities (NGFS, 2020).

  17. 17.

    Macroeconomic and Financial Stability Implications of Climate Change (NGFS, 2019).

  18. 18.

    WS1 (Microprudential/Supervisory Workstream) Mandate and Workplan from 2018 to April 2020 (NGFS, 2018).

  19. 19.

    Statement by Governor Lael Brainard. The Federal Reserve (9 November 2020).

  20. 20.

    IPCC Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012). This paper provides an excellent assessment of the state of climate change science and climate impacts in the context of physical climate risk.

  21. 21.

    Flato, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 741–866 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  22. 22.

    Giorgi, F. & Gutowski, W. J. Regional dynamical downscaling and the CORDEX initiative. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40, 467–490 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorological Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (1937). A full description and explanation for the design of the CMIP6 experiments.

  25. 25.

    Bishop, C. H. & Abramowitz, G. Climate model dependence and the replicate Earth paradigm. Clim. Dyn. 41, 885–900 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Sanderson, B. M., Wehner, M. & Knutti, R. Skill and independence weighting for multi-model assessments. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 2379–2395 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Physical Risk Framework. Understanding the Impacts of Climate Change on Real Estate Lending and Investment Portfolios (CISL, 2019).

  28. 28.

    Navigating a New Climate. Part 2: Physical Risks and Opportunities (Acclimatise, UNEP FI, 2018).

  29. 29.

    Carney, M. Breaking the Tragedy of the Horizon - climate change and financial stability. Bank of England (2015).

  30. 30.

    Understanding Physical Climate Risks and Opportunities (The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, 2020).

  31. 31.

    Climate-Related Financial Disclosure 2019 (Aviva, 2020).

  32. 32.

    O’Neill, B. C. et al. The scenario model intercomparison project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Hawkins, E. & Sutton, R. The potential to narrow uncertainty in projections of regional precipitation change. Clim. Dyn. 37, 407–418 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Kirtman, B. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 953–1028 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  35. 35.

    Schneider, S. H. Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden assumptions? Environ. Model. Assess. 2, 229–249 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Weyant, J. Some contributions of integrated assessment models of global climate change. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11, 115–137 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Measuring the Real-World Costs of Climate Change. Climate Impact Lab (accessed 19 March 2020).

  38. 38.

    Corporate Risk Screening. Four Twenty Seven (accessed 19 March 2020).

  39. 39.

    Clear, Present and Underpriced: The Physical Risks of Climate Change (Rhodium Group, 2019).

  40. 40.

    Scientific Methods - Outline. XDI Cross Dependency Initiative (accessed 19 March 2020).

  41. 41.

    Our Methodology. The Climate Service (accessed 20 August 2020).

  42. 42.

    Jupiter Services. Jupiter (accessed 20 August 2020).

  43. 43.

    Keenan, J. M. A climate intelligence arms race in financial markets. Science 365, 1240–1243 (2019). A short article introducing the rapid advancement of proprietary climate service technologies, and the associated private and public policy implications.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Getting physical: assessing climate risks. BlackRock (4 April 2019).

  45. 45.

    Four Twenty Seven Receives Majority Investment from Moody’s Corporation. Four Twenty Seven (24 July 2019).

  46. 46.

    Cusick, D. Tech offers a virtual window into future climate change risk. Scientific American (23 April 2019).

  47. 47.

    Adams, P. et al. Call for an Ethical Framework for Climate Services (WMO, 2015).

  48. 48.

    Hall, J. Probabilistic climate scenarios may misrepresent uncertainty and lead to bad adaptation decisions. Hydrol. Process. 21, 1127–1129 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Hewitson, B. C., Daron, J., Crane, R. G., Zermoglio, M. F. & Jack, C. Interrogating empirical-statistical downscaling. Climatic Change 122, 539–554 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Hazeleger, W. et al. Tales of future weather. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 107–113 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Stern, N. The structure of economic modeling of the potential impacts of climate change: grafting gross underestimation of risk onto already narrow science models. J. Econ. Lit. 51, 838–859 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Nissan, H. et al. On the use and misuse of climate change projections in international development. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 10, e579 (2019). A recent paper outlining issues associated with the use of climate models in guiding near-term local adaptation.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Pindyck, R. S. The use and misuse of models for climate policy. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11, 100–114 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Chen, Y. S. & Chang, C. H. Greenwash and green trust: the mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. J. Bus. Ethics 114, 489–500 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Lyon, T. P. & Montgomery, A. W. The means and end of greenwash. Organ. Environ. 28, 223–249 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    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 

  57. 57.

    Hsiang, S. et al. Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science 356, 1362–1369 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Hsiang, S. M. Temperatures and cyclones strongly associated with economic production in the caribbean and central america. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 15367–15372 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15594–15598 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Martinich, J. & Crimmins, A. Climate damages and adaptation potential across diverse sectors of the United States. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 397–404 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Lemoine, D. & Kapnick, S. A top-down approach to projecting market impacts of climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 51–55 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Federal bonds. Deutsche Finanzagentur (accessed 17 August 2020).

  63. 63.

    Auction Calendar Ministry of Finance, Japan (accessed 17 August 2020).

  64. 64.

    Treasury Offering Announcement (Department of the Treasury, 5 August 2020);

  65. 65.

    Arrow, K. et al. Determining benefits and costs for future generations. Science 341, 349–350 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Cropper, M. L., Freeman, M. C., Groom, B. & Pizer, W. A. Declining discount rates. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 104, 538–543 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Weitzman, M. Fat-tailed uncertainty in the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 5, 275–292 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Campiglio, E. et al. Climate change challenges for central banks and financial regulators. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 462–468 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Lamperti, F., Bosetti, V., Roventini, A. & Tavoni, M. The public costs of climate-induced financial instability. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 829–833 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Bernstein, A. et al. Disaster on the horizon: the price effect of sea level rise. J. Financ. Econ. 134, 253–272 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Palmer, T. & Stevens, B. The scientific challenge of understanding and estimating climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 24390–24395 (2019). A recent assessment of the need for a far more ambitious approach to climate modelling.

  72. 72.

    Cai, Y., Lenton, T. M. & Lontzek, T. S. Risk of multiple interacting tipping points should encourage rapid CO2 emission reduction. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 520–525 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Lenton, T. M. et al. Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against. Nature 575, 592–595 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Georgieva, A. & Sloggett, J. A Practical Guide to ESG Integration in Sovereign Debt (PRI, 2019).

  75. 75.

    Zhang, L., Xu, Y., Meng, C., Li, X. & Liu, H. Comparison of statistical and dynamic downscaling techniques in generating high-resolution temperatures in China from CMIP5 GCMs. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 59, 207–235 (2020).

  76. 76.

    Maraun, D. Bias correcting climate change simulations - a critical review. Curr. Clim. Chang. Rep. 2, 211–220 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Smith, D. M. et al. North Atlantic climate far more predictable than models imply. Nature 583, 796–800 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Váňa, F. et al. Single precision in weather forecasting models: an evaluation with the IFS. Mon. Weather Rev. 145, 495–502 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Shepherd, T. G. Storyline approach to the construction of regional climate change information. Proc. R. Soc. A 475, 20190013 (2019).

  80. 80.

    The 2021 Biennial Exploratory Scenario on the Financial Risks from Climate Change (Bank of England, 2019).

  81. 81.

    Bador, M. et al. Impact of higher spatial atmospheric resolution on precipitation extremes over land in global climate models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 125, e2019JD032184 (2020).

  82. 82.

    Bruyère, C. et al. Severe Weather in a Changing Climate (IAG, NCAR, 2019).

  83. 83.

    Lenders’ Guide for Considering Climate Risk in Infrastructure (Acclimatise, Four Twenty Seven, Climate Finance Advisors, 2018).

  84. 84.

    Eceiza, J., Harreis, H., Härtl, D. & Viscardi, S. Banking imperatives for managing climate risk. McKinsey Insights (1 June 2020).

  85. 85.

    Schär, C. et al. Kilometer-scale climate models. Prospects and challenges article. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 101, 67–87 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    O’Gorman, P. A. Precipitation extremes under climate change. Curr. Clim. Chang. Rep. 1, 49–59 (2015).

  87. 87.

    Porter, T. M. Trust in Numbers. The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton Univ. Press, 1996).

  88. 88.

    Thomas, K. A. & Warner, B. P. Weaponizing vulnerability to climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 57, 101928 (2019).

  89. 89.

    Mathiesen, K. Rating climate risks to credit worthiness. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 454–456 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Bauer, P., Thorpe, A. & Brunet, G. The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction. Nature 525, 47–55 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Jung, T. et al. High-resolution global climate simulations with the ECMWF model in Project Athena: experimental design, model climate, and seasonal forecast skill. J. Climate 25, 3155–3172 (2012).

  92. 92.

    Haarsma, R. J. et al. High resolution model intercomparison project (HighResMIP v1.0) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 4185–4208 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Palmer, T. Build high-resolution global climate models. Nature 515, 338–339 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Shukla, J. et al. Toward a new generation of world climate research and computing Facilities. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 91, 1407–1412 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Global Framework for CLIMATE Services (WMO, accessed 7 July 2020);

  96. 96.

    The Use of Scenario Analysis in Disclosure of Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities (TCFD, 2017).

  97. 97.

    Summary of the Contributions to the HLEG on Sustainable Finance Consultation Document (High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, 2018).

  98. 98.

    Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System (Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee, 2020).

  99. 99.

    Sutton, R. T. Climate science needs to take risk assessment much more seriously. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 100, 1637–1642 (2019). A detailed explanation for the need to move beyond physical climate risk when assessing climate change.

Download references


A.J.P. and C.J. acknowledge support by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (CE170100023). S.E.P.-K. is supported by Australian Research Council grant number FT170100106.

Author information




T.F. and A.J.P. led the writing of this paper, with contributions from all authors in the inception of the study, refinement of the approach and in writing the drafts. The figure was conceptualized by C.J., with contributions from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andy J. Pitman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Sarah Kapnick, Tim Palmer, Christopher Schwalm and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fiedler, T., Pitman, A.J., Mackenzie, K. et al. Business risk and the emergence of climate analytics. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 87–94 (2021).

Download citation

Further reading


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