Abstract
Climate hazards disrupt global value chains and business operations, leading to €52 billion in losses for the European Union in 2022 alone. In response to this escalating crisis, there is a need for corporate climate adaptation and resilience strategies (henceforth: CCAR) to effectively integrate climate risk challenges into strategic planning. Despite this urgency, there is a shortfall of research synthesising the drivers, strategies, and outcomes of corporate adaptation and resilience. Our study addresses this gap by conducting a systematic literature review to elucidate the academic status quo. From an initial dataset of over 3000 publications, we narrowed the sample to 66 papers, which specifically focus on these topics in the private sector. Grounded in this comprehensive review and regulatory observations, we delineate a CCAR typology to define the key elements required for a corporate approach to physical climate risks. This typology is translated into an actionable business adaptation framework, offering a clear path to begin the adaptation journey. Our in-depth content analysis contributes to the existing literature by identifying two main themes and several gaps: Current research covers the drivers, detailing why companies embark on such initiatives. Another stream focuses on how companies adapt, examining strategies to overcome these climate risks. However, work on the effectiveness and outcomes thereof is scarce. Consequently, our study delineates six trajectories for future research, the outcomes of which can serve as catalysts for advancing future CCAR efforts.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The climate crisis and its physical risks have become a pressing issue for humanity—every tenth of a degree beyond the 1.5 °C target has the potential to dramatically alter the world as we know and understand it today through cascading physical climate risks1. Increasing in frequency and intensity1, these range from acute risks (e.g., floods, heat waves, wildfires) to chronic impacts (e.g., changing precipitation patterns, rising average temperatures)2. One of the very (financially) costly consequences is that human-made systems, such as global value chains, are substantially disrupted3. Beyond these physical impacts, the private sector faces liability4 and transition risks5,6, for instance being sued for lack of climate initiatives or misleading reporting thereupon4,7. Thus, climate risks become relevant not only to the natural environment but also to our human systems, i.e., our economies, that are dependent on it1.
In today’s business reality, there are numerous examples of physical consequences building up to a systemic risk that threatens financial stability6,8,9. For instance, in 2021, Hurricane Ida caused losses of $65 billion in North America10. Only one year later, US companies were exposed to extreme droughts that built up to supply chain costs of $20 billion11—simultaneously, floods caused economic losses and reconstruction costs of over $31 billion to Pakistan’s economy12. These disruptions demonstrate the challenges that the private sector faces globally. Various weather extremes can strike in a relatively short timeframe, causing infrastructural damages, supply chain disconnections, wreaked production sites3,13, or surges in global raw material prices14—to name but a few. Following these incidents, it is common for businesses to shut down operations, at least temporarily, to accommodate repairs and rebuilds, if financially viable15,16.
Decarbonisation aims to tackle the root cause of climate change, but insufficient progress17 leads to intensifying rather than declining feedback loops, requiring corporates to prepare for these challenges18. This is where corporate climate adaptation and resilience (henceforth: CCAR) comes in—it acknowledges the reality of a changing climate and focuses on adjusting to a world where some consequences are now inevitable and where requirements for corporate disclosure of physical risks are growing4. Despite this scientific clarity and emerging regulations, most corporates currently do not understand how to prepare for the acute extremes that we are already seeing today, nor how to adapt to the long-term chronic impacts19. This calls for a translation of scientific evidence and risk disclosure standards into the operationalisation of corporate adaptation20. To date, no such conversion has been conducted and there is limited research on the corporate level. This is noteworthy given the vital role businesses play in adaptive efforts21 to maintain societal functioning amid surging climate crises. Consequently, it is crucial to identify what motivates globally operating businesses to engage in adaptation, how they do it, and the results of these efforts.
Although corporate climate adaptation and resilience have recently been addressed by some prominent publications14,22,23,24,25 and regulations26,27, we still see three gaps. Firstly, even though existing research has broadly investigated overall climate risk impact, small businesses’ issues with infrastructure, agriculture, tourism, or the public sector’s role, a synthesis of CCAR knowledge that corporates can leverage has been largely overlooked. Secondly, the absence of a concise, universally applicable typology that defines the key elements of CCAR at the firm-level leaves too much room for interpretation or missteps and thus presents another gap. Lastly, from a practical lens, there is a lack of operationalisation of academic knowledge coupled with reporting insights into an actionable first-step adaptation guide. This could assist the private sector in informing its strategies, operations, and disclosure approaches. From a theoretical perspective, this would also serve as a basis for identifying areas requiring further research. In an effort to close these gaps and thereby answer manifold research calls14,25, we conduct a systematic literature review aiming to bring clarity to the following questions:
-
(i) What is and what is not known about CCAR from an academic perspective?
-
(ii) What defines CCAR for practice?
-
(iii) What adaptive steps can businesses take to enhance their climate resilience?
As our study’s foundation, the systematic literature review presents the latest adaptation and resilience insights, specifically focused on the private sector (i). Thoroughly evaluating existing academic knowledge at the firm-level, we contribute to the current literature by identifying what is known about corporate adaptation drivers, strategies, and outcomes. By incorporating observations on recent regulatory developments in climate risk disclosure, we enrich these academic findings and establish the foundation for our subsequent analyses to answer research questions (ii) and (iii). This synthesis enables us to delineate a CCAR typology at the firm-level, which defines the key elements required for a corporate approach to physical climate risk challenges. To the best of our knowledge, we are among the first to turn these theoretical contributions into practical firm-level guidance. More specifically, we translate the CCAR elements of the typology into an actionable business adaptation framework, thereby offering corporates a clear path to begin their adaptation journey. This is designed to bridge the gap between the current state of business and the identification, adaptation and eventual disclosure of climate risks. Lastly, we highlight central research blindspots. Going forward, topics like the measurement of CCAR outcomes or conducive regulatory incentives warrant further investigation (Box 1 elaborates on research pathways).
Building an academic foundation for CCAR
Methods
To compile the dataset of relevant articles, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) procedure28 and began by (1) searching four central databases at the hand of 12 keywords (please refer to Fig. 1 or the Supplementary Methods 1 for further information on the selection of keywords.): EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct. Between 2010 and 2022, a total of 3030 papers were published. As a second step, we (2) filtered via exclusion criteria (English language, peer-reviewed, Scimago Top 2000 rank), which left us with 983 articles. Lower-ranked journals were included to account for the fact that CCAR is a new topic of academic interest. Subsequently, we (3) systematically analysed all 983 articles’ abstracts to distill those that do indeed address sustainability in the private sector. Due to a multitude of unsuitable works (e.g., unrelated, small business, public sector or CSR focused, sustainability only as a side topic), we eliminated 860 papers.
This narrowed the dataset down to 123 articles for a detailed review of corporate adaptation. Lastly (4), we dropped 83 further papers that did not focus on firm-level analyses. This distilled a sample of 40 papers, which are all corporate-focused and specifically encompass adaptation drivers, levers, and outcomes. In light of recent regulatory changes regarding climate risks, we conducted a further search for important accounting and regulatory research articles that were not identified in our initial search. Specifically, we focused on articles relevant to the period between 01/2023 and 01/2024 using forward snowballing and cross-referencing techniques to review the dataset. Once we added these articles, our final sample increased to 66 papers (please refer to Supplementary Table 1, which contains the full list). An in-depth analysis of all articles was performed by applying a review framework we developed to cover the breadth of potential CCAR topics (please refer to Supplementary Discussion 1 for limitations and Supplementary Methods 2 and 3 for details on the review framework). The review framework’s functionality was also tested with other business sustainability academics. Systematically extracting data from the final sample, we found manifold insights.
Research foci
For instance, the sample demonstrates geographical and topical patterns. As such, the CCAR literature originates from the Global North, offering a perspective mainly from the private sectors of highly developed nations. This trend is no surprise, considering that these regions wield sizeable global corporate influence and resources to devote to adaptation and resilience research29,30. This raises questions about the equitability of these efforts. It prompts consideration of the disparity between corporations with the financial means to pre-emptively adapt and well-functioning institutions surrounding them that provide regulatory support or guidance, versus those in developing countries that already face some of the most acute climate risks1. This also suggests that a key adaptation aspect of corporates’ global operations might be ignored, i.e., their suppliers and manufacturers at the start of the value chain.
Beyond geographical implications, our analysis displays a limited sectoral focus, as only half (45%) of the articles are industry-specific (percentages represent the relative emphasis of an adaptation aspect). Among these, over three quarters (36% overall) originate from two broader sectoral spectrums: (1) manufacturing and producing industries (18%), (2) management and finance (18%). All others contribute about two to three percent each. This is substantiated when examining business functions, as roughly a fourth of the papers display a concentration on organisations’ accounting & finance (27%). It is mirrored by production/operations (21%) and followed by other streams dedicated to management, administration, marketing and sales (15%) and sustainability (6%). Notably, about a third of the papers do not entail information regarding business functions (30%). Given these foci, we delineate a research tendency towards manufacturing, resource-intensive businesses and the management thereof, which points to the need for strategic planning in response to the high operational impact of these physical risks.
Review insights
Investigating adaptation to physical climate risks in the selected papers, two clear streams were detected: (1) Current CCAR literature provides considerable knowledge on antecedents, with the majority of the papers analysing the driving forces that lead corporates to engage in adaptation. (2) Another substantial body of work examines adaptation strategies, meaning what levers do corporates employ to overcome physical climate risks.
(1) A key conclusion from our analysis is that particularly a company’s value chain positioning, as well as its resulting climate risk exposure and managerial awareness thereof, are key predictors of its engagement in adaptation. Specifically, over two-thirds (71%) of the underlying literature elaborates on adaptation-inducing factors. As a corporate’s exposure to climate risks31,32 has a measurable negative impact on revenue potential or performance indicators like sales33,34,35 or stock market performance36,37,38, it plays a critical role in whether and how businesses adapt. The papers emphasise that action upon these risks can only be taken if there is managerial awareness thereof. Thus, internalities like key personnel’s (climate) risk perception22,39,40,41,42,43 and general integration of risk management into corporate processes24,31,44 are adaptation facilitators. Beyond these firm-internal factors, externalities are also acknowledged as crucial determinants, such as institutional pressures45,46,47 like specific climate regulation48,49, disclosure requirements50,51 or a company’s embeddedness and interdependencies within its business network52,53.
(2) In response to these drivers, corporates implement specific strategic or operational adaptation and resilience levers. Approximately half of the underlying papers (53%) showcase strategic initiatives like climate risk measurement and monitoring24,31,44,54,55,56 or building cross-company adaptation networks52,57,58. They also highlight strategic compensation for business interruption or cash flow shortfalls due to physical hazards. Examples thereof are financial mechanisms such as weather34,53,59,60 or climate change news61 hedging. Adjusted leverage structures62,63,64, cash holdings65 or loss provisions66 also aim to mitigate these physical impacts. From a decision-making perspective, statistical approaches to incorporate adaptation considerations into pricing67,68 and investment69 are on the rise. Further operational dimensions (35%) can be adjustments to supply chains or production processes57,70 in terms of, e.g., flexibilisation of inputs or logistics chains15,71,72, fortification of infrastructure14 or even relocation thereof59,73. All of the above changes for long-term adaptation should, in theory, be mirrored by resilience levers that corporates employ to address sudden climate events. However, our analysis reveals that only a minor proportion of the literature (11%) touches upon acute disaster recovery measures like emergency response and disaster relief plans16,24,48. This limited acute resilience focus raises concerns, particularly given the ongoing occurrence of extreme weather events1. Failing to develop effective countermeasures exposes corporates to multiple risks like disrupted input logistics, damaged production sites and consequently financial losses14,59,73. Ultimately leading to bigger systemic impacts, this threatens the financial stability across a variety of sectors and economies51.
Regulatory and reporting influences
In recognition of these emerging global risks, regulators and standard-setters are increasingly demanding transparency in how companies assess and respond to them74. A variety of reporting standards have now emerged to facilitate this: voluntary ones companies choose to implement such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP); nationally adapted ones as in the state of California75 based on, e.g., the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) or the Standards 1 and 2 of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)76; or legally mandated cross-country ones such as the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) 1 and 2. Amidst the need for comparability between various disclosures and expanding regulatory demands77, climate risk reporting standards are beginning to converge, as evidenced by the recent shift of TCFD monitoring responsibilities to the ISSB78. In this evolving regulatory landscape, disclosure is becoming increasingly pertinent to corporates. More specifically, various states have already initiated legislative processes (e.g., California75, EU27, New Zealand79, UK26), or have announced to do so recently (e.g., US SEC80,81). As these come into force, companies will be legally obliged to focus on the impact of physical risks on their financials or beyond, depending on, e.g., size or operational boundaries. In this respect, the EU’s ESRS, starting in 2024, stands out as one of the most advanced76 in terms of an internationally agreed, legally binding reporting standard that investigates not only financial but also the impact materiality of physical climate risks82.
Creating transparency on the concept of climate adaptation for private sector organisations
Blending the systematic literature review with the regulatory insights presented above, we understand that distinct factors drive corporate adaptation, and, in response, organisations employ specific measures. Despite rising academic attention to CCAR due to noticeable climate extremes and increased concern from countries and regulators, there remains confusion in the public discourse about the nature of adaptation and resilience for businesses. This is not surprising, as, to date, the reporting suggestions can be imprecise83 and there is no succinct definition of CCAR on the firm-level14, leaving considerable ambiguity. Consequently, we usually do not see corporates with a clearly defined action plan for both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) climate impacts yet84—generally speaking, there is limited clarity on where the private sector stands85. This uncertainty calls into question its comprehension of climate risk disclosure standards like TCFD or ESRS and the sincerity of its ambition and ability to tackle these impacts today and in the future50. Acknowledging the complexity of the adaptation action and regulation landscape underscores the need for a common CCAR understanding to accelerate its momentum.
To build this foundational understanding, it is essential to define a universally applicable typology as a frame of reference that outlines the fundamental elements of firms’ adaptation and resilience efforts. It is critical that these are clarified so that they are comprehensible to every firm before they begin to engage in or report on CCAR. Derived from our review and the key notions of climate risk regulation, we conceptualise a triad of overarching elements (Fig. 2). Convinced that these are integral to a comprehensive CCAR strategy, we propose the following: (1) Well-researched scientific knowledge and risk assessments present the basis of any climate-related strategy, i.e., ‘Climate proficiency’ is key. On this base, (2) acute, short-term climate impacts must be urgently confronted, i.e., ‘Resilience to acute risks’, while (3) chronic, long-term changes need to be prepared for, i.e., ‘Adaptation to chronic risks’. This triad stems from seeing a focus on time- and physical-risk-oriented movements in our systematic literature review—one toward short-term natural disasters and the other toward long-term adaptation planning.
Climate proficiency
‘Climate proficiency’ presents the initial element of this holistic CCAR typology. It is grounded in our learning that managerial perception of climate change and a company’s exposure to its risks are significant determinants of adaptation22,39,40,41,42,43. Given the clear importance of awareness as a base, companies need to enable and upskill their staff50. Thus, this first element encompasses integrating climate science as key knowledge for a firm to be able to conduct thorough climate risk assessments. As such, scientific (climate) literacy implies an up-to-date understanding of current climate and regulatory developments. Spreading these insights develops managerial awareness and perception of this cause’s urgency. Any company aiming for high literacy should thus regularly monitor the latest science50, e.g., provided by the IPCC, to update its risk exposures according to changes in predictions13,86,87. Ultimately, this supports the process of identifying and quantifying acute and chronic impacts on a company’s operations along its value chain3,31,56,88.
Resilience to acute risks
Engaging in fast risk management today is especially relevant for short-term, unpredictable events like sudden hurricanes or wildfires1,89. Consequently, the second element of the CCAR typology is ’ Resilience to acute risks’. It draws on the literature highlighting how climate risks affect business operations31,32,33,34,35, and how embeddedness in networks and value chains52,53 can assist in responding to these immediate shocks. As such, this second element encapsulates both the operational and value chain strength required to deal with sudden physical impacts. Operational resilience refers to the imperative to have a ready-to-implement plan to assure production continuity and maintain essential functions in the face of all types of extreme weather events15,24,90. As an enabler thereof, simultaneous value chain resilience is of the essence. This is equally critical, as reflected in the literature discussing modifications of the supply chain15,71,72. It suggests resilience measures such as supplier choice or transportation flexibility to withstand or recover from such short-term disruptions52.
Adaptation to chronic risks
Simultaneously, responses to chronic risks like rising temperatures or changes in precipitation need to be developed1. Thus, underpinned by the CCAR literature’s focus on long-term strategic59,73, financial34,53,59,60 or company-internal adjustments56,58,70,91,92,93,94, the last element of this holistic CCAR typology is ‘Adaptation to chronic risks’. Based on identified future vulnerabilities, strategically adaptive measures can be delineated and planned accordingly. In line with the foreseeability of such chronic impacts, this element also links to the anticipated regulatory landscape for climate risks95. Currently under development and already mandatory in some countries, companies will soon be required to acknowledge the potential (non-)financial impacts on their business and disclose their corresponding risk mitigation strategies74. They therefore need to adjust internal reporting mechanisms95 to take account of these new measurements55 and to disclose them externally47.
Operationalising a practical business adaptation and resilience framework
Following this definition of the CCAR typology, we now turn to the question: How does a company operationalise these elements to navigate toward a climate-adapted and -resilient way of doing business? Grounded in our analyses, we answer this question by delineating a practical business adaptation framework. As such, it aims to bridge the gap between the private sector’s current and aspirational, climate-adapted state, which should be disclosed to regulatory bodies (Fig. 3). It is a practical tool that firms can leverage to get an overview on which first steps to take toward a thorough CCAR strategy. As a step-by-step process, the business adaptation framework operates through a question series and starts by building a baseline to review the status quo. Key actions for adaptation and resilience are identified. Ultimately, these form part of a publicly disclosed CCAR strategy that is integrated into a firm’s business strategy.
Step 1: Setting a CCAR foundation by identifying climate risks and their impact
Initially, the business adaptation framework directly links to the CCAR typology’s first element—‘Climate proficiency’. Its subdimensions (scientific literacy and risk assessment) present the starting point for identifying and categorising climate risks. These can be either physical (acute and chronic) or liability and transition-related consequences of physical risks24,94. Depending on the jurisdiction in which a company operates, it could use the global TCFD guidelines as a working basis for this first step—many countries and regional governments also provide useful local climate risk assessments. Having assessed which climate risks the business is exposed to along the value chain from procurement to sales31,56,88, these should be further analysed to rank them according to their likelihood of occurrence under different global warming scenarios. For instance, the Network for Greening the Financial System’s ‘Scenarios Portal’ could be leveraged for a global overview96. This prioritisation exercise should be carried out for varying timeframes56—i.e., what are the key climate risks today, in 10, 15 and 20 years’ time? Communicating these evaluations internally enables corporates to build the foundational knowledge, i.e., the scientific literacy and risk assessment, necessary to fully operationalise element 1.
Step 2: Building acute climate resilience operationally and along the supply chain
Having identified the base (where, how, and when climate risks are likely to occur), the business adaptation framework’s next step draws the connection to the second element ‘Resilience to acute risks’. Corporates increasingly realise that not all climate risks can be foreseen and mitigated pre-emptively, as some impacts happen suddenly and without warning. Referring to both subdimensions of element 2, companies must develop short-term resilience levers to have the capability to react immediately upon acute physical impact15,97. These levers aim at both their own operations as well as aspects up and down their supply chain. For instance, rapid response mechanisms could include establishing a climate disaster task force, implementing emergency operations plans, or even storing slack inventory15,16,97. Beyond that, companies could also investigate parametric vs. indemnity arrangements with their insurers to cover potential losses due to acute impacts98.
Step 3: Developing strategic adaptation initiatives for chronic impacts
As climate science clearly shows that long-term chronic impacts are coming, there is immense value for companies to be proactive in addressing these. While element 2 is about creating reactive, short-term measures to face acute risks, element 3 dives into proactive, long-term levers to address chronic impacts. Thus, the business adaptation framework’s third step focuses on developing adaptation actions that enable businesses to mitigate these. Firms need to think strategically and initiate such adaptation14,40 early to implement countermeasures for foreseeable climate change impacts91. Operational tactics may include modified production processes, locations or fortification of infrastructure. From a more strategic perspective, corporates could explore new markets and products, or financially hedge chronic risks such as changed precipitation or temperature patterns with, e.g., weather derivatives34,53.
Step 4: Integrating CCAR with business strategy and disclosure requirements
The final step operationalises the last part of the CCAR typology’s third element by preparing the adaptation and resilience efforts for integration into the business strategy and disclosure to external stakeholders. In this step, corporates first translate the CCAR strategy into concrete initiatives and targets, covering both long-term adaptations and short-term reactivity. To implement these in the business strategy92,99,100, companies could set up cross-functional teams that hold responsibility for aligning stakeholders in the implementation of these levers and ensuring that they are considered in budgeting decisions. They also need to introduce climate risk assessments into routine business operations, aligning CCAR goals with business objectives. Ultimately, to evaluate the levers’ success, established evaluation processes should track both initiative progress and effectiveness using pre-defined key performance indicators. Leveraging the latter, companies can complement their existing disclosures by reporting on material climate risks and their plans to address them.
Discussion
While this paper develops a CCAR typology and an operationalisation thereof as a practical business adaptation framework, our work also uncovers a noticeable shortfall of research probing the outcomes and performance of these initiatives, i.e., measuring CCAR success in terms of financial, market or societal benefits. Just a tenth of the reviewed literature delves into financial outcomes of adaptive actions (11%)31,59,60,99—even fewer studies investigate consequences such as keeping up the status quo (6%)59,101, reputation or even innovation opportunities (5% each)88,102,103,104. This limited outcome-oriented exploration underlines the scarcity of attention paid to actual CCAR measurement. Without robust measurement of a lever’s success, its long-term viability and efficacy remain unproven. Hence, it is unclear whether the strategic or operational levers hold when faced with increasing climate risks. As the stakes of maladapting are high, these knowledge gaps constitute essential areas for future investigation.
Intriguingly, the emphasis of CCAR research seems to be solely on nature-based risks, as a significant proportion of the papers analysed (79%) concentrate on physical impacts. In contrast, only a minority also dive into regulatory and liability (29%) or financial and transition risks (33%). Academics’ high focus on physical aspects is interesting considering that some businesses may perceive regulatory ones as the most critical92,100. It showcases a discrepancy between researchers and the private sector’s perception of the risks posed by the climate crisis. This misalignment could also be due to the so-called ‘tragedy of the horizon’, as companies and managers may have a shorter-term focus on what is most relevant5 than academics. In line with their focus on physical risks, a number of tools have been developed to assess companies’ exposure to physical impacts105. Given the wide variation in the results of the assessments105, it is crucial to point out that the transition towards adaptation and resilience is a continuously evolving process for both academics and practitioners14,106—it is by no means static or a one-time event. As a testament to the topic’s dynamic nature52,56, evolving CCAR research could balance its focus with the private sector’s practical concerns. For example, to better understand CCAR and its effectiveness, future work could develop standardised measures of industry risk exposure and examine the outcomes of efforts to adapt to these risks. The exploration of regulatory incentives as a complement to existing disclosure standards may also prove conducive to this transition. We elaborate on these pathways in Box 1 to encourage future scholarly inquiries.
Conclusion
Our review of the most prominent business adaptation papers enabled us to develop a thorough understanding of the existing body of knowledge on corporate climate adaptation and resilience. We complemented this synthesis of the academic status quo with valuable regulatory insights to propose CCAR tools for corporates. Specifically, we contribute a firm-level typology of private sector adaptation and resilience to the academic discourse. It defines the crucial elements necessary for a corporate approach to physical climate risks. Exemplifying the urgency of addressing acute threats, planning for long-term chronic impacts, and the need for disclosure and integration across the organisation, this is particularly relevant for businesses looking to begin their adaptation journey. For a practical perspective, we operationalised this typology into concrete steps by introducing the business adaptation framework. As a demonstration of the CCAR typology, it is designed as a globally applicable, step-by-step process to kickstart companies seeking to improve their climate resilience or that will soon be subject to disclosure requirements. Complementing regulatory standards, our framework helps businesses take the first steps to systematically assess risks and strategise countermeasures; thereby aiming to set a precedent for climate-adapted businesses.
Integrating theoretical knowledge and practical CCAR implications, we facilitate a nuanced understanding of what state of climate adaptation and resilience corporates should strive for. To develop this further, the systematic literature review allowed us to identify blindspots where future academic work is required. Highlighting these gaps, we aim to direct research towards areas that will best support private sector adaptation endeavours. As the climate crisis accelerates, the ability of corporates to adapt will be critical. This research should serve as a stepping stone, equipping businesses with a better understanding of how to navigate the complexities that lie ahead.
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
All articles included in this systematic literature review are available in the Supplementary Information. Further data that support the findings of this study will be made available upon reasonable request by the Corresponding Author.
References
IPCC. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. (eds. Lee, H. and Romero, J.), 35–115 (IPCC, 2023).
TCFD. Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/recommendations/ (TCFD, 2023).
Fiedler, T. et al. Business risk and the emergence of climate analytics. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 87–94 (2021).
Rajavuori, M., Savaresi, A. & van Asselt, H. Mandatory due diligence laws and climate change litigation: bridging the corporate climate accountability gap? Regul. Gov. 17, 944–953 (2023).
Carney, M. Breaking the Tragedy of the Horizon—Climate Change and Financial Stability (Speech given at Lloyd’s of London), Bank of England. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2015/breaking-the-tragedy-of-the-horizon-climate-change-and-financial-stability.pdf (2015).
NGFS. A Call for Action—climate Change as A Source of Financial Risk. https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/medias/documents/ngfs_first_comprehensive_report_-_17042019_0.pdf (NGFS, 2019).
Eskander, S., Fankhauser, S. & Setzer, J. Global lessons from climate change legislation and litigation. Environ. Energy Policy Econ. 2, 44–82 (2021).
Klusak, P., Agarwala, M., Burke, M., Kraemer, M. & Mohaddes, K. Rising temperatures, falling ratings: the effect of climate change on sovereign creditworthiness. Manag. Sci. 69, 7468–7491 (2023).
Monasterolo, I. Climate change and the financial system. Annu. Rev. Resourc. Econ. 12, 299–320 (2020).
Munich Re NatCatSERVICE. Natural Catastrophes in 2021. https://www.munichre.com/content/dam/munichre/mrwebsiteslaunches/natcat-2022/2021_Figures-of-the-year.pdf (Munich Re NatCatSERVICE, 2022).
World Economic Forum. Droughts are Creating New Supply Chain Problems. This Is What You Need to Know. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/drought-trade-rivers-supply-chain/ (World Economic Forum, 2022).
The World Bank. Pakistan: Flood Damages and Economic Losses Over USD 30 billion and Reconstruction Needs Over USD 16 billion—New Assessment. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/10/28/pakistan-flood-damages-and-economic-losses-over-usd-30-billion-and-reconstruction-needs-over-usd-16-billion-new-assessme (The World Bank, 2022).
Dietz, S., Bowen, A., Dixon, C. & Gradwell, P. ‘Climate value at risk’ of global financial assets. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 676–679 (2016).
Goldstein, A., Turner, W. R., Gladstone, J. & Hole, D. G. The private sector’s climate change risk and adaptation blind spots. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 18–25 (2019).
Linnenluecke, M. & Griffiths, A. Beyond adaptation: resilience for business in light of climate change and weather extremes. Bus. Soc. 49, 477–511 (2010).
McKnight, B. & Linnenluecke, M. K. Patterns of firm responses to different types of natural disasters. Bus. Soc. 58, 813–840 (2019).
Sanderson, K. Net-zero pledges are growing—how serious are they? Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01976-0 (2023).
Doh, J. P., Tashman, P. & Benischke, M. H. Adapting to grand environmental challenges through collective entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 33, 450–468 (2019).
S&P Global. Adaptation Planning Is the next Step for Companies to Prepare for Climate Risk. https://www.spglobal.com/esg/insights/adaptation-planning-is-the-next-step-for-companies-to-prepare-for-climate-risk (S&P Global, 2023).
Lee, C.-C. et al. How does the research community contribute to corporate climate-related risk disclosures? The gap between ideals and reality. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 30, 927–940 (2023).
Stoll, P. P., Pauw, W. P., Tohme, F. & Grüning, C. Mobilizing private adaptation finance: lessons learned from the Green Climate Fund. Clim. Change 167, 1–19 (2021).
Krueger, P., Sautner, Z. & Starks, L. T. The importance of climate risks for institutional investors. Rev. Financ. Stud. 33, 1067–1111 (2020).
Tashman, P. & Rivera, J. Ecological uncertainty, adaptation, and mitigation in the U.S. ski resort industry: managing resource dependence and institutional pressures. Strateg. Manag. J. 37, 1507–1525 (2016).
Oetzel, J. & Oh, C. H. A storm is brewing: antecedents of disaster preparation in risk prone locations. Strateg. Manag. J. 42, 1545–1570 (2021).
Berrang-Ford, L. et al. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 989–1000 (2021).
UK Government. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD)-Aligned Disclosure Application Guidance—Phase 1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tcfd-aligned-disclosure-application-guidance/task-force-on-climate-related-financial-disclosure-tcfd-aligned-disclosure-application-guidance (UK Government, 2023).
European Commission. The Commission adopts the European Sustainability Reporting Standards. https://finance.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-adopts-european-sustainability-reporting-standards-2023-07-31_en (European Commission, 2023).
Haddaway, N. R. et al. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1582–1589 (2020).
European Commission. Economic Power Shifts. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/topic/expanding-influence-east-south/power-shifts_en (European Commission, 2020).
The Economist. Can the West Win over the Rest of the World? https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/05/16/can-the-west-win-over-the-rest-of-the-world (The Economist, 2023).
Huang, H. H., Kerstein, J., Wang, C. & Wu, F. Firm climate risk, risk management, and bank loan financing. Strateg. Manag. J. 43, 2849–2880 (2022).
Ben-Amar, W., Gomes, M., Khursheed, H. & Marsat, S. Climate change exposure and internal carbon pricing adoption. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 31, 2854–2870 (2022).
Pankratz, N., Bauer, R. & Derwall, J. Climate change, firm performance, and investor surprises. Manag. Sci. 69, 7352–7398 (2023).
Bertrand, J.-L., Brusset, X. & Fortin, M. Assessing and hedging the cost of unseasonal weather: case of the apparel sector. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 244, 261–276 (2015).
Tran, B. R. Sellin’ in the rain: weather, climate, and retail sales. Manag. Sci. 69, 7423–7447 (2023).
Sautner, Z., Van Lent, L., Vilkov, G. & Zhang, R. Pricing climate change exposure. Manag. Sci. 69, 7540–7561 (2023).
Ardia, D., Bluteau, K., Boudt, K. & Inghelbrecht, K. Climate change concerns and the performance of green vs. brown stocks. Manag. Sci. 69, 7607–7632 (2023).
Alok, S., Kumar, N. & Wermers, R. Do fund managers misestimate climatic disaster risk. Rev. Financ. Stud. 33, 1146–1183 (2020).
Todaro, N. M., Testa, F., Daddi, T. & Iraldo, F. The influence of managers’ awareness of climate change, perceived climate risk exposure and risk tolerance on the adoption of corporate responses to climate change. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 30, 1232–1248 (2021).
Griese, K.-M., Franz, M., Busch, J. N. & Isensee, C. Acceptance of climate adaptation measures for transport operations: conceptual and empirical overview. Transp. Res. D: Transp. Environ. 101, 103068 (2021).
Kump, B. When do threats mobilize managers for organizational change toward sustainability? An environmental belief model. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 30, 2713–2726 (2021).
Pinkse, J. & Gasbarro, F. Managing physical impacts of climate change: an attentional perspective on corporate adaptation. Bus. Soc. 58, 333–368 (2019).
Haigh, N. & Griffiths, A. Surprise as a catalyst for including climatic change in the strategic environment. Bus. Soc. 51, 89–120 (2012).
Ng, A. K. Y., Wang, T., Yang, Z., Li, K. X. & Jiang, C. How is business adapting to climate change impacts appropriately? Insight from the commercial port sector. J. Bus. Ethics 150, 1029–1047 (2018).
Kim, J.-B., Wang, C. & Wu, F. The real effects of risk disclosures: evidence from climate change reporting in 10-Ks. Rev. Account. Stud. 28, 2271–2318 (2023).
Daddi, T., Bleischwitz, R., Todaro, N. M., Gusmerotti, N. M. & De Giacomo, M. R. The influence of institutional pressures on climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 244, 118879 (2020).
Ilhan, E., Krueger, P., Sautner, Z. & Starks, L. T. Climate risk disclosure and institutional investors. Rev. Financ. Stud. 36, 2617–2650 (2023).
Nyberg, D. & Wright, C. Performative and political: corporate constructions of climate change risk. Organization 23, 617–638 (2016).
Dang, V. A., Gao, N. & Yu, T. Climate policy risk and corporate financial decisions: evidence from the NOx budget trading program. Manag. Sci. 69, 7517–7539 (2022).
Andersson, F. N. G. & Arvidsson, S. Understanding, mapping and reporting of climate-related risks among listed firms in Sweden. Clim. Policy 23, 945–958 (2023).
Chabot, M. & Bertrand, J.-L. Climate risks and financial stability: Evidence from the European financial system. J. Financ. Stab. 69, 101190 (2023).
Canevari‐Luzardo, L. M., Berkhout, F. & Pelling, M. A relational view of climate adaptation in the private sector: how do value chain interactions shape business perceptions of climate risk and adaptive behaviours? Bus. Strateg. Environ. 29, 432–444 (2020).
Brusset, X. & Bertrand, J.-L. Hedging weather risk and coordinating supply chains. J. Oper. Manag. 64, 41–52 (2018).
Truong, C. & Trück, S. It’s not now or never: implications of investment timing and risk aversion on climate adaptation to extreme events. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 253, 856–868 (2016).
Linnenluecke, M. K., Birt, J. & Griffiths, A. The role of accounting in supporting adaptation to climate change. Account. Account. Financ. 55, 607–625 (2015).
Huiskamp, U., Brinke, B. & Kramer, G. J. The climate resilience cycle: Using scenario analysis to inform climate‐resilient business strategies. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 31, 1763–1775 (2022).
Wieland, A., Stevenson, M., Melnyk, S. A., Davoudi, S. & Schultz, L. Thinking differently about supply chain resilience: what we can learn from social-ecological systems thinking. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 43, 1–21 (2023).
Orsato, R. J., Ferraz de Campos, J. G. & Barakat, S. R. Social learning for anticipatory adaptation to climate change: evidence from a community of practice. Organ. Environ. 32, 416–440 (2019).
Tang, C.-H. & Jang, S. Weather risk management in ski resorts: Financial hedging and geographical diversification. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 30, 301–311 (2011).
Bertrand, J.-L., Brusset, X. & Chabot, M. Protecting franchise chains against weather risk: a design science approach. J. Bus. Res. 125, 187–200 (2021).
Engle, R. F., Giglio, S., Kelly, B., Lee, H. & Stroebel, J. Hedging climate change news. Rev. Financ. Stud. 33, 1184–1216 (2020).
Ginglinger, E. & Moreau, Q. Climate risk and capital structure. Manag. Sci. 69, 7492–7516 (2023).
Li, Y. & Zhang, Z. Corporate climate risk exposure and capital structure: evidence from Chinese listed companies. Finance Res. Lett. 51, 103488 (2023).
Zhou, Z. & Wu, K. Does climate risk exposure affect corporate leverage adjustment speed? International evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 389, 136036 (2023).
Javadi, S., Masum, A. A., Aram, M. & Rao, R. P. Climate change and corporate cash holdings: Global evidence. Financ. Manag. 52, 253–295 (2023).
Dal Maso, L., Kanagaretnam, K., Lobo, G. J. & Mazzi, F. Does disaster risk relate to banks' loan loss provisions? Eur. Account. Rev. 31, 1–30 (2022).
Wang, T., Liu, B., Zhang, J. & Li, G. A real options-based decision-making model for infrastructure investment to prevent rainstorm disasters. Prod. Oper. Manag. 28, 2699–2715 (2019).
Calabrese, R., Dombrowski, T., Mandel, A., Pace, R. K. & Zanin, L. Impacts of extreme weather events on mortgage risks and their evolution under climate change: a case study on Florida. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 314, 377–392 (2024).
Truong, C., Trück, S. & Mathew, S. Managing risks from climate impacted hazards—the value of investment flexibility under uncertainty. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 269, 132–145 (2018).
Day, E., Fankhauser, S., Kingsmill, N., Costa, H. & Mavrogianni, A. Upholding labour productivity under climate change: an assessment of adaptation options. Clim. Policy 19, 367–385 (2019).
Dahlmann, F. & Roehrich, J. K. Sustainable supply chain management and partner engagement to manage climate change information. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 28, 1632–1647 (2019).
Farahani, M. H., Dawande, M., Gurnani, H. & Janakiraman, G. Better to bend than to break: sharing supply risk using the supply-flexibility contract. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 23, 1257–1274 (2021).
Linnenluecke, M. K., Stathakis, A. & Griffiths, A. Firm relocation as adaptive response to climate change and weather extremes. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 123–133 (2011).
UNEP. The 2023 Climate Risk Landscape, United Nations. https://www.unepfi.org/themes/climate-change/2023-climate-risk-landscape/ (UNEP, 2023).
IAS Plus. California Adopts Legislation Requiring Climate Disclosures. https://www.iasplus.com/en/news/2023/10/california-climate-bills (IAS Plus, 2023).
Cooper, K. IFRS S1 & IFRS S2: a Global Baseline of Financial Sustainability Reporting? The Accountant Online. https://www.theaccountant-online.com/features/ifrs-s1-ifrs-s2-a-global-baseline-of-financial-sustainability-reporting/?cf-view (2023).
S&P Global. Key Sustainability Trends That Will Drive Decision-making in 2023. https://www.spglobal.com/esg/insights/featured/special-editorial/key-sustainability-trends-that-will-drive-decision-making-in-2023 (S&P Global, 2023).
IFRS. IFRS Foundation to Assume TCFD Monitoring Duties as ISSB Standards Pave the Way for Global Sustainability Reporting. https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2023/07/foundation-welcomes-tcfd-responsibilities-from-2024/ (IFRS, 2023).
New Zealand Government. Mandatory Climate-related Disclosures. https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/areas-of-work/climate-change/mandatory-climate-related-financial-disclosures/ (New Zealand Government, 2023).
McKinsey & Company. Understanding the SEC’s Proposed Climate Risk Disclosure Rule. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/understanding-the-secs-proposed-climate-risk-disclosure-rule (McKinsey & Company, 2022).
Greenstone, M., Leuz, C. & Breuer, P. Mandatory disclosure would reveal corporate carbon damages. Science 381, 837–840 (2023).
Deloitte. Double Materiality—5 Challenging Key Aspects to Consider. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/de/Documents/risk/Deloitte_Sustainability_Double_Materiality.pdf (Deloitte, 2023).
Kaplan, R. & Ramanna, K. Accounting for Climate Change. Harv. Bus. Rev. https://hbr.org/2021/11/accounting-for-climate-change (2021).
O’Sullivan, M., Law, O. & Price, R. The Green Shoots of TCFD Reporting, PWC. https://www.pwc.com/jg/en/services/assets/pdf/green-shoots-of-tcfd-reporting.pdf (2022).
Lord, G. Weathering the Storm of Reporting: Factoring Climate Change Into Audited Financial Statements, PWC. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/audit-assurance/corporate-reporting/climate-risks-audit.html (2023).
Gambhir, A. et al. Near-term transition and longer-term physical climate risks of greenhouse gas emissions pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 88–96 (2022).
Ilhan, E., Sautner, Z. & Vilkov, G. Carbon tail risk. Rev. Financ. Stud. 34, 1540–1571 (2020).
Reddy, S. M. W. et al. Finding solutions to water scarcity: Incorporating ecosystem service values into business planning at The Dow Chemical Company’s Freeport, TX facility. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 94–107 (2015).
Nyberg, D. & Wright, C. Climate-proofing management research. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 36, 713–728 (2022).
Oh, C. H. & Oetzel, J. Multinational enterprises and natural disasters: Challenges and opportunities for IB research. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 53, 231–254 (2022).
Herrmann, J. & Guenther, E. Exploring a scale of organizational barriers for enterprises’ climate change adaptation strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 160, 38–49 (2017).
Sakhel, A. Corporate climate risk management: are European companies prepared? J. Clean. Prod. 165, 103–118 (2017).
Nicolletti, M., Lutti, N., Souza, R. & Pagotto, L. Social and organizational learning in the adaptation to the process of climate change: the case of a Brazilian thermoplastic resins and petrochemical company. J. Clean. Prod. 226, 748–758 (2019).
Beermann, M. Linking corporate climate adaptation strategies with resilience thinking. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 836–842 (2011).
Christensen, H. B., Hail, L. & Leuz, C. Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review. Rev. Account. Stud 26, 1176–1248 (2021).
NGFS. Scenarios Portal. https://www.ngfs.net/ngfs-scenarios-portal/ (NGFS, 2023).
Linnenluecke, M. K., Griffiths, A. & Winn, M. Extreme weather events and the critical importance of anticipatory adaptation and organizational resilience in responding to impacts. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 21, 17–32 (2012).
SwissRe. Comprehensive Guide to Parametric Insurance. https://corporatesolutions.swissre.com/dam/jcr:0cd24f12-ebfb-425a-ab42-0187c241bf4a/2023-01-corso-guide-of-parametric-insurance.pdf (SwissRe, 2023).
Ali, K., Nadeem, M., Pandey, R. & Bhabra, G. S. Do capital markets reward corporate climate change actions? Evidence from the cost of debt. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 32, 3417–3431 (2023).
Kouloukoui, D., de Marinho, M. M. O., da Silva Gomes, S. M., Kiperstok, A. & Ednildo Andrade, A. Corporate climate risk management and the implementation of climate projects by the world’s largest emitters. J. Clean. Prod. 238, 117935 (2019).
Rivera, J. & Clement, V. Business adaptation to climate change: American ski resorts and warmer temperatures. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 28, 1285–1301 (2019).
Gasbarro, F., Rizzi, F. & Frey, M. Adaptation measures of energy and utility companies to cope with water scarcity induced by climate change. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 25, 54–72 (2016).
Ozkan, A., Temiz, H. & Yildiz, Y. Climate risk, corporate social responsibility, and firm performance. Br. J. Manag. 34, 1791–1810 (2023).
Hossain, A. T. & Masum, A.-A. Does corporate social responsibility help mitigate firm-level climate change risk? Finance Res. Lett. 47, 102791 (2022).
Hain, L. I., Kölbel, J. F. & Leippold, M. Let’s get physical: comparing metrics of physical climate risk. Finance Res. Lett. 46, 102406 (2022).
Tsalis, T. A. & Nikolaou, I. E. Assessing the effects of climate change regulations on the business community: a system dynamic approach. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 26, 826–843 (2017).
Nagar, V. & Schoenfeld, J. Measuring weather exposure with annual reports. Rev. Account. Stud. 29, 1–32 (2022).
Huynh, T. D. & Xia, Y. Climate change news risk and corporate bond. Returns. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 56, 1985–2009 (2021).
Robin, S. & Schubert, T. Cooperation with public research institutions and success in innovation: evidence from France and Germany. Res. Policy 42, 149–166 (2013).
Laplane, A. & Mazzucato, M. Socializing the risks and rewards of public investments: economic, policy, and legal issues. Res. Policy 49, 100008 (2020).
Kalinowski, T. The green climate fund and private sector climate finance in the global south. Clim. Policy 24, 1–16 (2023).
Kivimaa, P. & Rogge, K. S. Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: the case of mobility as a service in Finland. Res. Policy 51, 104412 (2022).
Lindberg, M. B., Markard, J. & Andersen, A. D. Policies, actors and sustainability transition pathways: a study of the EU’s energy policy mix. Res. Policy 48, 103668 (2019).
European Environment Agency. Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Climate Change Adaptation. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/assesing-the-costs-and-benefits-of (European Environment Agency, 2023).
European Environment Agency. Economic Losses from Climate-related Extremes in Europe. https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/economic-losses-from-climate-related (European Environment Agency, 2023).
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
K.H. conducted the analyses, developed the concepts and wrote the manuscript. D.B. and A.L. contributed with project administration, supervision and conceptual support. All authors approved the final version and assumed responsibility for the paper.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hennes, K., Bendig, D. & Löschel, A. Facing the storm: Developing corporate adaptation and resilience action plans amid climate uncertainty. npj Clim. Action 3, 37 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00116-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-024-00116-2