Description
Climate change is a business issue. Firms’ reputations, legal responsibilities, regulatory obligations, financial reporting, operations and supply chains can be affected.
Managing the business risks and
opportunities of a changing climate
A primer for executives on adaptation to climate change
Climate change is a business issue. Firms’ reputations, legal responsibilities, regulatory obligations, ?nancial reporting,
operations and supply chains can be affected. Global and local changes in temperature, the frequency and severity
of extreme weather conditions and the availability of water can have a direct bearing on ?rms’ risk pro?les and, in
some cases, strategic positioning. Recent experience with extreme weather highlights our economic exposure to these
changes: in 2010, 950 natural catastrophes caused global losses totaling US$130 billion U.S., of which US$37 billion
was insured.
1
As the effects of climate change play out globally, demand for products and services to manage climate
risks will also rise.
2
Despite these striking prospects and ?gures, the business case for proactive adaptation is complicated by uncertainty
about the magnitude of impacts and the time horizons involved. Further, changes are incremental and may be long-term
in nature. This makes it tempting to defer adaptation actions – but is this effective risk management? Just as ?rms readily
manage uncertainty from other sources (e.g. ?nancial markets, regulation), they must understand the opportunities and
risks presented by a changing climate and position themselves to
respond appropriately.
To explore drivers for corporate climate adaptation and learn from
the experiences of leading companies, the National Round Table
on the Environment and the Economy (NRT) and the Network for
Business Sustainability (NBS) convened approximately 40 business
leaders and experts in Toronto on October 27, 2011. The dialogue
provided a pragmatic lens on the issue, and the perspectives
highlighted will directly inform national policy through the NRT’s
Climate Prosperity report on business resilience in a changing
climate due for release in spring 2012.
1
Mitigation and Adaptation
Companies have a role in both climate change
mitigation and adaptation.
Mitigation focuses on limiting the speed and scale
of climate change. It has typically received the
most attention in policy circles, such as debates
over carbon pricing as a mechanism to reduce
GHG emissions across the economy.
Adaptation involves adjusting to actual or
expected climate change effects. This includes
managing risk and exploiting opportunities.
Climate change 101: What are we adapting to?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that the evidence for a changing climate is unequivocal.
3
Many businesses are already thinking about
mitigation — namely, slowing the impacts of a
changing climate through reduced greenhouse
gas emissions. But because some degree of
climate change is inevitable, businesses also
need to adapt to those irreversible effects.
A 2011 report by the NRT suggests climate
change could cost Canada roughly $5 billion
per year by 2020, rising to between $21 billion
and $43 billion per year by mid-century (Figure
1) — and adaptation is one key way to drive
down the costs.
4
Adaptation and mitigation are related issues,
and strategies for either may have co-bene?ts
(e.g. cleaner production investments in manufacturing can reduce energy or water use and reduce operational risk if water
shortages occur). But, in practice, ?rms allocate far less attention to adaptation than to mitigation.
What changes must we adapt to? Land and ocean temperatures are rising, extreme events are becoming more common and
the hydrological cycle, a determinant of water availability, is changing.
Projections suggest:
5
• Average global warming of 0.2°C is expected for each of the next two decades
• Longer-term warming is expected in the range of 2°C-4.5°C
• Sea level rise of between 18 and 59 cm is expected by the end of the 21st century – a conservative estimate according to
recent science
6
In North America in particular, warming in the western mountains will create more winter ?ooding and less water availability in the
summer, creating greater competition for already limited water resources. The number of heat waves in urban areas is expected
to rise, increasing health risks. Coastal communities are at greater risk of ?ooding due to the combined effect of sea level
rise and storms. Crop yields may rise for some grains, but will become more variable by region. Finally, degrading permafrost
presents risks to the stability of northern infrastructure.
7
Business is ultimately responding to a cascade of effects that move through the
natural environment to impact the business environment. Climate effects (e.g.
changes in the hydrological cycle) and physical effects (e.g. reduced water availability
in some regions) trigger business effects (e.g. crops have insuf?cient water to grow
in some regions). The bottom line: some industries will be impacted signi?cantly and
permanently – so companies need to carefully assess projections, determine the
potential implications for their business and plan accordingly.
2
Know Your Positioning
Fifty-six percent of Canadian companies
participating in the Carbon Disclosure
Project said they were exposed to risk
from the physical impacts of climate
change in 2010 (up from 17 percent in
2003). In 2010, 38 percent of frms also
identifed opportunities resulting from
climate impacts.
Source: Carbon Disclosure Project 2010
Figure 1. Average annual costs of climate change for Canada relative to GDP
Source: Paying the Price, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 2011
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080
C
o
s
t
s
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
G
D
P
High climate change -
Rapid growth
High climate change -
Slow growth
Low climate change -
Rapid growth
Low climate change -
Slow growth
What risks and opportunities does your organization face?
Businesses are already managing a range of business risks and opportunities — and climate
change adds a new dimension for executives to consider. Executives can build on existing
tools and frameworks to identify the material climate adaptation risks and opportunities for
their ?rms. Major challenges for ?rms include estimating the costs and bene?ts associated with
risks and opportunities and understanding which of these are priorities for action and which
can be re-evaluated over time.
Because the range of climate and physical effects (and in turn the range of possible business
impacts) is broad, organizations should ?rst aim to understand how a changing climate affects
them. Consider looking backward to identify the business impacts of past climate-related events — has your company taken
a hit due to a storm, drought, unusually hot or cold season or different precipitation levels? Keep in mind that this is a starting
point and is not predictive of future impacts. (For instance, by September of 2011, the U.S. had already tied its previous annual
record from 2008 for the number of billion dollar weather/climate disasters. Hurricane Irene alone resulted in US$7 billion in
damages.
8
In some parts of Canada, weather events that used to happen every 20 years are happening every six years, with
signi?cant implications for insurance.
9
) Gathering basic information on expected climate change impacts in the countries or
regions in which you do business is also a key step (see the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for global information
and Lemmen et al. 2008 for Canadian information).
Tools like Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provide a robust foundation for a systematic analysis of risks and opportunities.
ERM suggests companies can be exposed to material risks in several categories (Table 1). In addition to areas of risk, there are
also areas of opportunity.
2 3
Category of Risk/
Opportunity
Type Climate-Related Example
Hazard • Fire and property damage
• Storms/other natural perils
• Business interruption
• Disease and disability
• Liability claims
Poorer air quality leads to higher incidence of disease among
employees.
Financial • Credit (e.g. default, downgrade)
• Liquidity (e.g. cash ?ow, call risk, opportunity
cost)
• Hedging/basis risk
Creditworthiness is eroded and interest rates rise as lenders consider
escalating business risks.
A ?rm that relocated away from a ?ood zone is rewarded with lower
insurance premiums.*
Operational • Business operations (e.g. HR, product
development, capacity, ef?ciency, product/
service failure, supply chains)
• Information/business reporting (e.g. budgeting/
planning, accounting info)
Supply chain disruptions occur because of droughts or extreme weather
impacts in supplier regions.
Companies incorporate climate change into capital asset planning,
resulting in more ef?cient investments.*
Strategic • Reputational damage (e.g. brand erosion, bad
publicity)
• Competition
• Customer wants*
• Technological innovation*
• Capital availability
• Regulatory/political trends*
A company’s reputation takes a hit following negative publicity from a
climate-related accident.
Firms in different parts of the world can now compete for tourist dollars*
An agile ?rm responds more ef?ciently than competitors when policies
are adjusted or new ones created.*
Adapted from: Risk Management Committee. 2003. Overview of Enterprise Risk Management. Casualty Actuarial Society.
*Denotes possible areas of opportunity for business.
Table 1. ERM risk and opportunity management categories and examples
“You cannot manage
a risk if you deny it
exists, or don’t see it
coming.”
Jeffrey Williams,
Director, Climate Consulting,
Entergy Corporation
Example: A mining company identi?es risk around regulation (e.g. by
increasing the design standard for storm water management on retention
ponds), business operations, physical property damage and changing
markets. Similarly, they may discover opportunities to develop new
technologies that position their ?rm advantageously and/or generate new
revenues.
A ?rm’s vulnerability to these risks depends on the probability of an effect
occurring and the magnitude of the impact if it does happen. Vulnerability
can be reduced by managing risk, transferring risk, mitigating risk or avoiding
risk. The “right” strategy for an organization will depend on the magnitude of
the risk and a host of ?rm-speci?c factors (see callout).
To assess and prioritize actions to manage risks and opportunities, businesses need to understand the impact on the bottom
line. Numerous ?nancial models exist to help quantify risk (e.g. Extreme Value Theory, Stochastic Differential Equations, System
Dynamics Simulation, fuzzy logic) and put a value on averted losses for a range of adaptive actions. Often the most dif?cult
aspect is characterizing both ?nancial and non-?nancial outcomes in order to decide on the most appropriate course of action.
When ?nancial models fall short of capturing the range of outcomes, there are other ways to prioritize action. You might focus
?rst on strategies that are robust to a range of scenarios (e.g. that bene?t the company regardless of climate outcomes), risks/
opportunities that implicate your most important stakeholders, “low-hanging fruit” that’s low-cost or easy to address, or urgent
risks that could result in signi?cant losses in the short-term.
Why it’s important to act now
Corporate executives may ask why adaptation to a changing
climate should be on their radar. Four key reasons are:
1. Climate adaptation can have immediate benefts and help
with long-term positioning. Investments in managing current
business risks from weather, water, and environmental shifts
become even more justi?ed in a changing climate. Suncor
Energy’s continued efforts to reduce water withdrawals from
the Athabasca River for production not only reduce input costs
now, but prepare the company from reduced water availability
due to climate change in the future. Entergy’s business case
for adapting to storm scenarios to 2030 accounts for not
only the value of infrastructure investments, but also the need
to protect their customers, employees, and communities in
which they operate.
2. Stakeholders expect more. Lenders, investors, insurers,
and regulators are increasingly interested in climate change,
expecting more information and action from ?rms. A record
109 shareholder resolutions were ?led with 81 companies in the U.S. and Canada on climate change and other sustainability
issues during the 2011 proxy season.
10
Also, climate change risks are increasingly being considered material, implying that
corporations are required to disclose them in their MD&A and other types of ?nancial reports.
11
4
What determines your risk pro?le?
• Nature of product and service mix
• Business model and frm-specifc cost structures
• Industry competitive dynamics – ability/inability to pass
costs on to consumers
• Location of head offce, production and sales facilities,
company-owned properties and physical assets, and
related tax and regulatory regimes
• Location and vulnerability of key elements in supply chain,
tax and regulatory regimes goods must travel to reach the
frm’s production or sales locations
• Ability to identify and capture upside and revenue
opportunities, including resource effciencies, new product/
service opportunities
• Company-specifc risk management capability
Source: Adapted from Kiernan, M. “Climate Change Adaptation: Challenge and
Opportunity for Canadian Corporates”, and Koval, P. “Legal liability as a driver of and
barrier to climate change”, both presented at The bottom line on managing climate
risks and opportunities: A forum for ?nancial executives, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
“Companies facing similar climate
change risks may choose to
manage those risks differently
based on management’s risk
tolerances and strategies. This
is important information for
investors.”
Julie Desjardins,
CA and Advisor,
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
3. Soft costs do not equal small costs. It’s dif?cult to
manage what you can’t measure. But as BP and
others have shown, the value of business reputation is
huge. A tarnished reputation due to perceived lagging
or negligence on an issue can drive down share price
and raise the cost of debt. Companies demonstrating
leadership may bene?t from enhanced reputation. For
instance, Travelers, an insurance ?rm, prides itself
on providing industry leadership on climate issues to
educate customers, employees and society.
12
4. If you don’t act, others will. There are competitive
opportunities associated with a changing climate
— opportunities to access new markets, develop
new technologies and products, and stay ahead
of regulation. These can be a source of competitive
advantage – or disadvantage, if a competitor gets
there ?rst. For example, knowing water resources and
innovations in water management will be crucial in
the coming years, the UK’s Anglian Water has already
invested £95 million to protect its assets and improve
resilience.
13
What are current drivers of and barriers to action?
During the October 27 forum, participants heard about a range of external corporate adaptation drivers (Figure 2). These
pressures create risks for companies that fail to adapt, but pace-setting companies can turn these risks into opportunities as
they demonstrate leadership.
Insurance: For the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the
evidence is clear: climate change is happening and is
affecting their property and casualty insurance offerings.
The incidence of natural disasters is increasing, with
rising numbers of storms, ?oods, and other climate-
related events driving this trend. Combined with aging
infrastructure, climate trends have clear business
implications: global insured losses have increased
roughly ?ve-fold since 1980.
14
Canada has seen a
signi?cant rise in catastrophic insurance losses over the
past six years. To the extent that insurance companies
can design products to match evolving risk pro?les,
changes in coverage and pricing can act as incentives
for ?rms to manage climate risks. However, this is dif?cult
in practice. Commercial ?ood insurance is one example illustrating the effect of risk-based premiums: premium adjustments
have driven warehouse operators to relocate assets away from ?ood plains.
15
4 5
It Pays to be Informed
All companies with physical operations face some degree of risk
from a changing climate. Entergy, a Gulf coast energy provider,
paid US $1.5 billion to put its system back together after damage
inficted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Since that time, Entergy
has worked with Swiss Re to assess the corporation’s asset
exposure to wind-related damage, sea-level rise and increased
storminess by 2030 under three climate scenarios. They have
also assessed the cost-effectiveness of actions to protect the
corporation and the region from future climate damage. Entergy
is now equipped to allocate resources and implement priority
actions, such as improving standards for offshore platforms and
enhancing levees for refneries, on a sound fnancial basis.
In contrast, RBC expects the fnancial implications of climate
change impacts on its operations to be relatively small. The bank
has identifed business interruptions from storm damage in coastal
regions, changes in heating and cooling costs, higher insurance
costs for some properties, and supply chain disruptions as risks
to manage. As a next step, RBC plans to assess the vulnerability
of coastal operations to changing storm patterns.
Sources: Adapted from Williams, J. “The future of the Gulf Coast – Adapting to
environmental vulnerability”, and Odendahl, S. “Understanding the risks and opportunities
of a changing climate”, both presented at The bottom line on managing climate risks and
opportunities: A forum for ?nancial executives, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
Figure 2. External drivers for business to adapt to a changing climate
Internal
Opportunities and Risks
Legal
Insurance Disclosure
Access to
Capital
6
Legal:
16
The likely impacts of climate change and related
impacts on physical infrastructure are now “reasonably
foreseeable”; ?rms that own, develop, design, build or operate
infrastructure and fail to make investments to take these
impacts into account could face litigation risk. Legal liability
stems from three sources: statutes that encourage or mandate
climate change adaptation, common law (i.e. negligence and
nuisance), and ?duciary and other duties of directors and
of?cers. For example, if a dam is not designed for more intense
rainstorms in a changing climate and it over?ows and causes
injury to a third party, the ?rm responsible for the dam could
be charged with negligence and potentially nuisance charges.
A ?rm’s exposure to legal liability could also result in dif?culties
obtaining ?nancing and insurance, not to mention reputation
and competitiveness risks
Disclosure:
17
Capital providers, securities regulators and
NGOs are increasingly putting pressure on public companies
to disclose climate change risks in their ?nancial reporting. The Carbon Disclosure Project, representing hundreds of investor
institutions, has been a key driver of voluntary reporting for large ?rms in Europe and North America. 2010 was a notable year
for mandatory reporting, with both the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Canadian Securities Administrators
issuing guidance to improve the quality and completeness of climate change and environmental reporting of material risks (i.e.
those that the “reasonable investor” would consider in evaluating the company’s position). But immediate access to information
and the rise of social media are changing the pro?le of a “reasonable investor”. Firms are increasingly susceptible to stakeholder
perceptions, elevating the importance of both voluntary and mandatory disclosure. So, ?rms should have robust controls and
procedures in place to identify and manage material risks. Directors are responsible for risk oversight. Those seeking additional
guidance on material climate-change related disclosures can consult publications by the Canadian Institute of Chartered
Accountants.
18
Finally, requirements by security regulators concerning forward-looking information apply to both voluntary and
mandatory disclosure, so consistency is important.
Investors and lenders:
19
Some global institutional investors are
beginning to use climate change management and disclosure as a
proxy for good management. Investors tend to see a ?rm’s ability
to manage risk as the most important indicator of vulnerability to
climate change. Short time horizons for investor decisions have
limited investor pressures relating to climate change and put a
premium on adaptation measures with short payback periods.
Firms need to be able to demonstrate the outcomes of climate
adaptation strategies in metrics and indicators that are familiar
to ?nancial analysts. Lending institutions are also beginning to
consider the credit risk that climate change impacts could create
— for instance, RBC has begun identifying industry sectors
and regions likely to be most affected by climate change and
incorporating climate change-related risks into the bank’s lending
policies.
“Canadian and international companies
need to tell investors their “climate
story”. Increasingly, investors are using
companies’ climate risk management
capabilities as a proxy for their overall
management quality. But companies need
to frame those stories in ways which are
meaningful to investors: how do the steps
the company is taking contribute directly
to risk reduction, competitive advantage,
pro?tability, and reputational capital?”
Matthew Kiernan,
CEO,
In?ection Point Capital Management
questions when gauging legal liability:
1. Could the physical impacts of climate change affect the
infrastructure asset during its lifecycle?
2. If the asset could be affected, does the technology exist
to design the new asset or repair or otherwise improve the
asset to withstand the impacts of climate change?
Experts can help you answer these questions with confdence.
But a next step is deciding what to do about it. In such cases,
you should weigh the additional cost of building, refurbishing,
and maintaining infrastructure to withstand the impacts of
climate change against the potential future costs of repair,
refurbishment, rebuild, and potential legal liability arising from a
decision to not take climate change effects into account. Taking
proactive adaptation measures can help you avoid the latter
costs.
Source: Adapted from Koval, P. “Legal liability as a driver of and barrier to climate
change”, The bottom line on managing climate risks and opportunities: A forum for
?nancial executives, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
Infrastructure owners should ask themselves two
6
Discussions at the October 27 forum revealed several factors perceived as hindering corporate action (Figure 3). Firms can
overcome a number of barriers internally.
1. Language and terminology. Increase the salience
of climate adaptation by instead referring to speci?c
risks such as “preparing for severe weather risks” or
“water availability risks”.
2. Lack of understanding of the costs of inaction.
Assemble information on the costs of not adapting
to inevitable climate change impacts emphasizes the
risks of business-as-usual and bene?ts of adaptation.
3. Organizational culture. Leaders of corporations may
want to invest in moving the ?rm’s culture toward
one that embraces innovation, preparedness, and
?exibility in the face of uncertainty and change.
Other barriers require action by external parties.
1. Negative framing. Industry associations, government
agencies and NGOs will have more success in
promoting climate adaptation to business audiences
with a positive framing rather than a “doom and gloom”
framing. Highlighting cost reductions anticipated from
the adaptation initiative, or advantages gained relative to the competition, can both create a positive framing.
2. Unclear performance indicators. Firms unclear on best practices and how to measure, communicate, and benchmark
performance against peers may adopt a “wait-and-see” approach.
3. Signals from governments and stakeholders. Firms respond to the signals they get from governments and key capital
market players. If these stakeholders prioritize and buy into the importance of investing now to avoid potential losses later,
so will ?rms.
Uncertainty around timing and magnitude of impacts and seemingly more pressing short-term business concerns stand out
as two key stumbling blocks to corporate climate adaptation. However, deferring adaptation, waiting for more and better
information, and relying on just-in-time solutions isn’t feasible or ef?cient because:
• It’s often cheaper to upgrade infrastructure or incorporate climate change into capital investments upfront than to retro?t
later.
• Building internal capacity to deal with climate change takes time. Developing the human resources, governance and skills
to effectively manage new challenges cannot be done overnight.
• Reacting with one-off adaptation actions to weather or climate events leaves companies exposed to long-term shifts.
• Technology needs to be built over time; the “solutions” to all of our adaptation problems aren’t readily available on the
market.
7
- Language and
terminology
- Lack of
understanding of
costs of incation
- Short-termism by
governments
- Limited rewards
by investors for
doing the right
thing
-Organizational
culture (e.g. path
dependence, risk
aversion)
- Negative framing
by others
- Unclear
peformance
indicators for the
sector
Here and Now
Direct
Firm
Control
Limited
Firm
Control
Legacy Issues
Figure 3. Barriers inhibiting business adaptation to climate change
In practice: What Canadian companies are thinking and doing
Businesses in Canada and around the world are taking action on climate adaptation. The following examples illustrate ?rms’
strategies at different points of their responses to climate change.
20
• Get the language right. RBC asks borrowers about business continuity planning, management of weather risks, and water
availability rather than about “climate adaptation”. This helps focus attention on tangible and familiar risks.
• Spot opportunities. Bombardier is assessing their potential to meet increasing global demands for ?re-?ghting aircraft that
could be expected in a world with more frequent and severe wild?res. SNC-Lavalin foresees a rise in business for sea water
desalination, along with transportation of potable or irrigation water.
• Know your own risks. BMO notes that prolonged heat waves and airborne pollution like smog could pose health risks to
individuals, and potentially lead to greater workforce absenteeism.
• Work in partnership. Catalyst has worked with climate change experts and government of?cials at the Paci?c Institute of
Climate Solutions to help develop robust climate solutions that involve forests and forests products.
• Assign responsibility. Barrick Gold has employed in-house climatologists to advise their operations and inform strategic
planning priorities. PotashCorp assigns climate issues to its Safety, Health and Environment Committee, whose chair
interacts with senior management and the Board of Directors through a Climate Change Sub-Committee and Enterprise
Risk Management Committee.
• Plan for the long-term. TransAlta Corporation is focused on the long-term effects of climate change on water supply used
for process cooling. The CPP Investment Board adopted a Policy on Responsible Investing in 2005, in which environmental,
social, and governance factors are viewed in a positive light because of their link to long-term performance.
8
Key takeaways:
1. Firms face a range of cross-enterprise risks and opportunities. A changing climate exacerbates these risks and has the
potential to create new ones.
2. Pressures to disclose and manage risks in a changing climate are increasing as defnitions of the “reasonable investor” and
“reasonably foreseeable” impacts change. Expectations of frms evolve as climate information and advice becomes more
accessible.
3. Many barriers inhibit corporate action, including language, framing, poor understanding of the costs of inaction, and short
termism by government and investors. Firms can avoid getting mired in a “climate” conversation by building climate adaptation
into existing risk management processes and making it a business conversation.
4. Firms in Canada and around the world are starting to act. Understanding risk exposure, taking a long-term view of issues (20
year plus), and scanning for opportunities are all important strategies.
8
References
Canadian Securities Administrators. 2010. CSA Staff Notice 51-333: Environmental Repoting Guidance. Available fromhttp://www.osc.gov.
on.ca/documents/en/Securities-Category5/csa_20101027_51-333_environmental-reporting.pdf.
Ceres. 2010. Climate and Energy Resolutions. Available fromhttp://www.ceres.org/incr/engagement/corporate-dialogues/shareholder-
resolutions/resolutions-2011.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. 2008. Building a Better MD&A: Climate Change Disclosures. Available fromhttp://www.cica.ca/
research-and-guidance/mda-and-business-reporting/mda-publications/item12846.pdf.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. 2009. Climate Change Brie?ng: Questions for Directors to Ask. Available fromhttp://www.rogb.ca/
director-series/director-brie?ngs/item28951.pdf.
Desjardins, Julie. Climate Change Adaptation: Reporting to Capital Markets. Presented at “The Bottom line on managing climate change risks and
opportunities: A form for ?nancial executives”, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
GHK Consulting. April 2010. Opportunities for UK Business from Climate Change Adaptation. London, England: Prepared for UK
Government’s Adapting to Climate Change Programme.
Kiernan, M. Climate Change Adaptation: Challenge AND Opportunity for Canadian Corporate. Presented at “The Bottom line on managing climate
change risks and opportunities: A form for ?nancial executives”, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
Lemmen, D., F. Warren E. Bush, & J. Lacroix. 2008. From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. Ottawa: Natural
Resources Canada.
National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millenia.
National Climatic Data Center. 2011. Billion Dollar U.S. Weather/Climate Disasters. Available fromhttp://ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/
billionz.html.
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 2011. Paying the Price: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada.
Available fromhttp://nrtee-trnee.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/paying-the-price.pdf.
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 2010. Degrees of Change: Climate Warming and the Stakes for Canada. Available from
http://nrtee-trnee.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/degrees-of-change-report-eng.pdf.
Odendahl, S. Understanding the risks and opportunities of a changing climate. Presented at “The Bottom line on managing climate change risks
and opportunities: A form for ?nancial executives”, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2011. Carbon Disclosure Project 2011. Available fromhttp://www.pwc.com/cdp2011.
Risk Management Committee. 2003. Overview of Enterprise Risk Management. Casualty Actuarial Society.
Robinson, Gregor. NRTEE-NBS Climate Change Adaptation Forum. Presented at “The Bottom line on managing climate change risks and
opportunities: A form for ?nancial executives”, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.l. Miller (eds). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sussman, Frances G., and J. Randall Freed. 2008. Adapting to Climate Change: A Business Approach. Available fromhttp://www.pewclimate.
org/docUploads/Business-Adaptation.pdf.
UK Trade & Investment. 2011. Adapting to an Uncertain Climate: A World of Commercial Opportunities.
Wellstead, J. 2011. Making Adaptation Our Business: Perceptions of Canadian Firms on Climate Risks and Opportunities. Background research for
NRTEE’s Climate Prosperity Project. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
9
Endnotes
1 Munich RE. Press Release: “Overall picture of natural catastrophes in 2010 - Very severe earthquakes and many severe weather events.” Jan 3,
2010. Available fromhttp://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2011/2011_01_03_press_release.aspx.
2 UK Trade & Investment 2011
3 Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds). 2007
4 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 2011
5 Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller 2007
6 National Academies of Sciences 2010
7 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 2010; Lemmen, D., F. Warren E. Bush, & J. Lacroix. 2008
8 National Climatic Data Center. 2011
9 Gregor Robinson, personal communication
10 Ceres 2010
11 Canadian Securities Administrators 2010
12 Sussman, Frances G. and J. Randall Freed 2008
13 GHK Consulting 2010
14 Gregor Robinson presentation, October 27, 2011
15 Gregor Robinson, personal communication
16 Pat Koval presentation, October 27, 2011 and personal communication
17 Julie Desjardins presentation, October 27, 2011 and personal communication
18 Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
19 Matthew Kiernan and Sandra Odendahl presentations, October 27, 2011
20 Wellstead 2011
Forum speakers and participants
Capital markets panel:
Gregor Robinson, Senior Vice-President, Policy and Chief Economist, Insurance Bureau of Canada
Patricia Koval, Partner, Torys LLP
Julie Desjardins, Advisor, Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
Matthew Kiernan, CEO, In?ection Point Capital Management
Corporate leaders panel:
Gordon Lambert, Vice-President Sustainable Development, Suncor Energy Inc.
Sandra Odendahl, Director, Corporate Environmental Affairs, Royal Bank of Canada
Jeffrey Williams, Director of Climate Consulting, Entergy Corporation
Participants:
Elizabeth Atkinson, Manager-Policy, Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation, Natural Resources Canada
Andrea Baldwin, Associate Principal, SECOR
Tima Bansal, Executive Director, Network for Business Sustainability
Ian Bragg, Associate Director, Research, Policy & Institutional Services, Social Investment Organization
Sherri Brillon, Vice President & Chief Financial Of?cer, EnCana Corporation
Nicholas Cheung, National Practice Area Leader – Sustainability, The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
Michael Conway, Chief Executive & National President (Toronto Chapter), Financial Executives International Canada
John Coyne, Vice President & General Counsel, Unilever Canada Inc.
Jimena Eyzaguirre, Senior Policy Advisor, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Rachel Faulkner, Administration & Logistics, National Round Table on the Environment and Economy
Blair Feltmate, Associate Professor and Director, Sustainability Practice, University of Waterloo
Eleanor Fritz, Director, Compliance & Disclosure, Toronto Stock Exchange
Brian Kelly, Interim Advisor, Climate Change Of?ce of the CAO, Region of Durham
Pam Laughland, Knowledge Director, Network for Business Sustainability
Suzanne Loney, Policy Advisor, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Leslie Markow, Chief Financial Of?cer, Solutions4CO2 Inc.
Jo-Anne Matear, Assistant Manager, Corporate Finance, Ontario Securities Commission
David McLaughlin, President & Chief Executive Of?cer, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Doug Morrow, Senior Associate, ICF Marbek
Kathleen O’Neill, Manager, Strategic Policy, Ontario Ministry of Environment
Robert Slater, NRT Vice-Chair, Adjunct Professor, Environmental Policy, Carleton University
Barb Steele, Director, Strategic Partnerships, Network for Business Sustainability
Jason Thistlethwaite, Project Manager, The Climate Change Adaptation Project
Barbara Turley-McIntyre, Director, Sustainability and Corporate Citizenship, The Co-operators Group Ltd
Bob Willard, Author & Speaker, The Sustainability Advantage
Laura Zizzo, Partner, Zizzo Allan Climate Law LLP
10
NRT Disclaimer: The opinions, comments and analysis expressed in this document do not necessarily represent those of the Members of the NRT. This document is for discussion
purposes only and cannot be taken as expressions of NRT policy or as indicating a commitment to undertake or implement a particular course of action.
doc_958414408.pdf
Climate change is a business issue. Firms’ reputations, legal responsibilities, regulatory obligations, financial reporting, operations and supply chains can be affected.
Managing the business risks and
opportunities of a changing climate
A primer for executives on adaptation to climate change
Climate change is a business issue. Firms’ reputations, legal responsibilities, regulatory obligations, ?nancial reporting,
operations and supply chains can be affected. Global and local changes in temperature, the frequency and severity
of extreme weather conditions and the availability of water can have a direct bearing on ?rms’ risk pro?les and, in
some cases, strategic positioning. Recent experience with extreme weather highlights our economic exposure to these
changes: in 2010, 950 natural catastrophes caused global losses totaling US$130 billion U.S., of which US$37 billion
was insured.
1
As the effects of climate change play out globally, demand for products and services to manage climate
risks will also rise.
2
Despite these striking prospects and ?gures, the business case for proactive adaptation is complicated by uncertainty
about the magnitude of impacts and the time horizons involved. Further, changes are incremental and may be long-term
in nature. This makes it tempting to defer adaptation actions – but is this effective risk management? Just as ?rms readily
manage uncertainty from other sources (e.g. ?nancial markets, regulation), they must understand the opportunities and
risks presented by a changing climate and position themselves to
respond appropriately.
To explore drivers for corporate climate adaptation and learn from
the experiences of leading companies, the National Round Table
on the Environment and the Economy (NRT) and the Network for
Business Sustainability (NBS) convened approximately 40 business
leaders and experts in Toronto on October 27, 2011. The dialogue
provided a pragmatic lens on the issue, and the perspectives
highlighted will directly inform national policy through the NRT’s
Climate Prosperity report on business resilience in a changing
climate due for release in spring 2012.
1
Mitigation and Adaptation
Companies have a role in both climate change
mitigation and adaptation.
Mitigation focuses on limiting the speed and scale
of climate change. It has typically received the
most attention in policy circles, such as debates
over carbon pricing as a mechanism to reduce
GHG emissions across the economy.
Adaptation involves adjusting to actual or
expected climate change effects. This includes
managing risk and exploiting opportunities.
Climate change 101: What are we adapting to?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that the evidence for a changing climate is unequivocal.
3
Many businesses are already thinking about
mitigation — namely, slowing the impacts of a
changing climate through reduced greenhouse
gas emissions. But because some degree of
climate change is inevitable, businesses also
need to adapt to those irreversible effects.
A 2011 report by the NRT suggests climate
change could cost Canada roughly $5 billion
per year by 2020, rising to between $21 billion
and $43 billion per year by mid-century (Figure
1) — and adaptation is one key way to drive
down the costs.
4
Adaptation and mitigation are related issues,
and strategies for either may have co-bene?ts
(e.g. cleaner production investments in manufacturing can reduce energy or water use and reduce operational risk if water
shortages occur). But, in practice, ?rms allocate far less attention to adaptation than to mitigation.
What changes must we adapt to? Land and ocean temperatures are rising, extreme events are becoming more common and
the hydrological cycle, a determinant of water availability, is changing.
Projections suggest:
5
• Average global warming of 0.2°C is expected for each of the next two decades
• Longer-term warming is expected in the range of 2°C-4.5°C
• Sea level rise of between 18 and 59 cm is expected by the end of the 21st century – a conservative estimate according to
recent science
6
In North America in particular, warming in the western mountains will create more winter ?ooding and less water availability in the
summer, creating greater competition for already limited water resources. The number of heat waves in urban areas is expected
to rise, increasing health risks. Coastal communities are at greater risk of ?ooding due to the combined effect of sea level
rise and storms. Crop yields may rise for some grains, but will become more variable by region. Finally, degrading permafrost
presents risks to the stability of northern infrastructure.
7
Business is ultimately responding to a cascade of effects that move through the
natural environment to impact the business environment. Climate effects (e.g.
changes in the hydrological cycle) and physical effects (e.g. reduced water availability
in some regions) trigger business effects (e.g. crops have insuf?cient water to grow
in some regions). The bottom line: some industries will be impacted signi?cantly and
permanently – so companies need to carefully assess projections, determine the
potential implications for their business and plan accordingly.
2
Know Your Positioning
Fifty-six percent of Canadian companies
participating in the Carbon Disclosure
Project said they were exposed to risk
from the physical impacts of climate
change in 2010 (up from 17 percent in
2003). In 2010, 38 percent of frms also
identifed opportunities resulting from
climate impacts.
Source: Carbon Disclosure Project 2010
Figure 1. Average annual costs of climate change for Canada relative to GDP
Source: Paying the Price, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 2011
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080
C
o
s
t
s
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
G
D
P
High climate change -
Rapid growth
High climate change -
Slow growth
Low climate change -
Rapid growth
Low climate change -
Slow growth
What risks and opportunities does your organization face?
Businesses are already managing a range of business risks and opportunities — and climate
change adds a new dimension for executives to consider. Executives can build on existing
tools and frameworks to identify the material climate adaptation risks and opportunities for
their ?rms. Major challenges for ?rms include estimating the costs and bene?ts associated with
risks and opportunities and understanding which of these are priorities for action and which
can be re-evaluated over time.
Because the range of climate and physical effects (and in turn the range of possible business
impacts) is broad, organizations should ?rst aim to understand how a changing climate affects
them. Consider looking backward to identify the business impacts of past climate-related events — has your company taken
a hit due to a storm, drought, unusually hot or cold season or different precipitation levels? Keep in mind that this is a starting
point and is not predictive of future impacts. (For instance, by September of 2011, the U.S. had already tied its previous annual
record from 2008 for the number of billion dollar weather/climate disasters. Hurricane Irene alone resulted in US$7 billion in
damages.
8
In some parts of Canada, weather events that used to happen every 20 years are happening every six years, with
signi?cant implications for insurance.
9
) Gathering basic information on expected climate change impacts in the countries or
regions in which you do business is also a key step (see the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for global information
and Lemmen et al. 2008 for Canadian information).
Tools like Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provide a robust foundation for a systematic analysis of risks and opportunities.
ERM suggests companies can be exposed to material risks in several categories (Table 1). In addition to areas of risk, there are
also areas of opportunity.
2 3
Category of Risk/
Opportunity
Type Climate-Related Example
Hazard • Fire and property damage
• Storms/other natural perils
• Business interruption
• Disease and disability
• Liability claims
Poorer air quality leads to higher incidence of disease among
employees.
Financial • Credit (e.g. default, downgrade)
• Liquidity (e.g. cash ?ow, call risk, opportunity
cost)
• Hedging/basis risk
Creditworthiness is eroded and interest rates rise as lenders consider
escalating business risks.
A ?rm that relocated away from a ?ood zone is rewarded with lower
insurance premiums.*
Operational • Business operations (e.g. HR, product
development, capacity, ef?ciency, product/
service failure, supply chains)
• Information/business reporting (e.g. budgeting/
planning, accounting info)
Supply chain disruptions occur because of droughts or extreme weather
impacts in supplier regions.
Companies incorporate climate change into capital asset planning,
resulting in more ef?cient investments.*
Strategic • Reputational damage (e.g. brand erosion, bad
publicity)
• Competition
• Customer wants*
• Technological innovation*
• Capital availability
• Regulatory/political trends*
A company’s reputation takes a hit following negative publicity from a
climate-related accident.
Firms in different parts of the world can now compete for tourist dollars*
An agile ?rm responds more ef?ciently than competitors when policies
are adjusted or new ones created.*
Adapted from: Risk Management Committee. 2003. Overview of Enterprise Risk Management. Casualty Actuarial Society.
*Denotes possible areas of opportunity for business.
Table 1. ERM risk and opportunity management categories and examples
“You cannot manage
a risk if you deny it
exists, or don’t see it
coming.”
Jeffrey Williams,
Director, Climate Consulting,
Entergy Corporation
Example: A mining company identi?es risk around regulation (e.g. by
increasing the design standard for storm water management on retention
ponds), business operations, physical property damage and changing
markets. Similarly, they may discover opportunities to develop new
technologies that position their ?rm advantageously and/or generate new
revenues.
A ?rm’s vulnerability to these risks depends on the probability of an effect
occurring and the magnitude of the impact if it does happen. Vulnerability
can be reduced by managing risk, transferring risk, mitigating risk or avoiding
risk. The “right” strategy for an organization will depend on the magnitude of
the risk and a host of ?rm-speci?c factors (see callout).
To assess and prioritize actions to manage risks and opportunities, businesses need to understand the impact on the bottom
line. Numerous ?nancial models exist to help quantify risk (e.g. Extreme Value Theory, Stochastic Differential Equations, System
Dynamics Simulation, fuzzy logic) and put a value on averted losses for a range of adaptive actions. Often the most dif?cult
aspect is characterizing both ?nancial and non-?nancial outcomes in order to decide on the most appropriate course of action.
When ?nancial models fall short of capturing the range of outcomes, there are other ways to prioritize action. You might focus
?rst on strategies that are robust to a range of scenarios (e.g. that bene?t the company regardless of climate outcomes), risks/
opportunities that implicate your most important stakeholders, “low-hanging fruit” that’s low-cost or easy to address, or urgent
risks that could result in signi?cant losses in the short-term.
Why it’s important to act now
Corporate executives may ask why adaptation to a changing
climate should be on their radar. Four key reasons are:
1. Climate adaptation can have immediate benefts and help
with long-term positioning. Investments in managing current
business risks from weather, water, and environmental shifts
become even more justi?ed in a changing climate. Suncor
Energy’s continued efforts to reduce water withdrawals from
the Athabasca River for production not only reduce input costs
now, but prepare the company from reduced water availability
due to climate change in the future. Entergy’s business case
for adapting to storm scenarios to 2030 accounts for not
only the value of infrastructure investments, but also the need
to protect their customers, employees, and communities in
which they operate.
2. Stakeholders expect more. Lenders, investors, insurers,
and regulators are increasingly interested in climate change,
expecting more information and action from ?rms. A record
109 shareholder resolutions were ?led with 81 companies in the U.S. and Canada on climate change and other sustainability
issues during the 2011 proxy season.
10
Also, climate change risks are increasingly being considered material, implying that
corporations are required to disclose them in their MD&A and other types of ?nancial reports.
11
4
What determines your risk pro?le?
• Nature of product and service mix
• Business model and frm-specifc cost structures
• Industry competitive dynamics – ability/inability to pass
costs on to consumers
• Location of head offce, production and sales facilities,
company-owned properties and physical assets, and
related tax and regulatory regimes
• Location and vulnerability of key elements in supply chain,
tax and regulatory regimes goods must travel to reach the
frm’s production or sales locations
• Ability to identify and capture upside and revenue
opportunities, including resource effciencies, new product/
service opportunities
• Company-specifc risk management capability
Source: Adapted from Kiernan, M. “Climate Change Adaptation: Challenge and
Opportunity for Canadian Corporates”, and Koval, P. “Legal liability as a driver of and
barrier to climate change”, both presented at The bottom line on managing climate
risks and opportunities: A forum for ?nancial executives, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
“Companies facing similar climate
change risks may choose to
manage those risks differently
based on management’s risk
tolerances and strategies. This
is important information for
investors.”
Julie Desjardins,
CA and Advisor,
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
3. Soft costs do not equal small costs. It’s dif?cult to
manage what you can’t measure. But as BP and
others have shown, the value of business reputation is
huge. A tarnished reputation due to perceived lagging
or negligence on an issue can drive down share price
and raise the cost of debt. Companies demonstrating
leadership may bene?t from enhanced reputation. For
instance, Travelers, an insurance ?rm, prides itself
on providing industry leadership on climate issues to
educate customers, employees and society.
12
4. If you don’t act, others will. There are competitive
opportunities associated with a changing climate
— opportunities to access new markets, develop
new technologies and products, and stay ahead
of regulation. These can be a source of competitive
advantage – or disadvantage, if a competitor gets
there ?rst. For example, knowing water resources and
innovations in water management will be crucial in
the coming years, the UK’s Anglian Water has already
invested £95 million to protect its assets and improve
resilience.
13
What are current drivers of and barriers to action?
During the October 27 forum, participants heard about a range of external corporate adaptation drivers (Figure 2). These
pressures create risks for companies that fail to adapt, but pace-setting companies can turn these risks into opportunities as
they demonstrate leadership.
Insurance: For the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the
evidence is clear: climate change is happening and is
affecting their property and casualty insurance offerings.
The incidence of natural disasters is increasing, with
rising numbers of storms, ?oods, and other climate-
related events driving this trend. Combined with aging
infrastructure, climate trends have clear business
implications: global insured losses have increased
roughly ?ve-fold since 1980.
14
Canada has seen a
signi?cant rise in catastrophic insurance losses over the
past six years. To the extent that insurance companies
can design products to match evolving risk pro?les,
changes in coverage and pricing can act as incentives
for ?rms to manage climate risks. However, this is dif?cult
in practice. Commercial ?ood insurance is one example illustrating the effect of risk-based premiums: premium adjustments
have driven warehouse operators to relocate assets away from ?ood plains.
15
4 5
It Pays to be Informed
All companies with physical operations face some degree of risk
from a changing climate. Entergy, a Gulf coast energy provider,
paid US $1.5 billion to put its system back together after damage
inficted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Since that time, Entergy
has worked with Swiss Re to assess the corporation’s asset
exposure to wind-related damage, sea-level rise and increased
storminess by 2030 under three climate scenarios. They have
also assessed the cost-effectiveness of actions to protect the
corporation and the region from future climate damage. Entergy
is now equipped to allocate resources and implement priority
actions, such as improving standards for offshore platforms and
enhancing levees for refneries, on a sound fnancial basis.
In contrast, RBC expects the fnancial implications of climate
change impacts on its operations to be relatively small. The bank
has identifed business interruptions from storm damage in coastal
regions, changes in heating and cooling costs, higher insurance
costs for some properties, and supply chain disruptions as risks
to manage. As a next step, RBC plans to assess the vulnerability
of coastal operations to changing storm patterns.
Sources: Adapted from Williams, J. “The future of the Gulf Coast – Adapting to
environmental vulnerability”, and Odendahl, S. “Understanding the risks and opportunities
of a changing climate”, both presented at The bottom line on managing climate risks and
opportunities: A forum for ?nancial executives, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
Figure 2. External drivers for business to adapt to a changing climate
Internal
Opportunities and Risks
Legal
Insurance Disclosure
Access to
Capital
6
Legal:
16
The likely impacts of climate change and related
impacts on physical infrastructure are now “reasonably
foreseeable”; ?rms that own, develop, design, build or operate
infrastructure and fail to make investments to take these
impacts into account could face litigation risk. Legal liability
stems from three sources: statutes that encourage or mandate
climate change adaptation, common law (i.e. negligence and
nuisance), and ?duciary and other duties of directors and
of?cers. For example, if a dam is not designed for more intense
rainstorms in a changing climate and it over?ows and causes
injury to a third party, the ?rm responsible for the dam could
be charged with negligence and potentially nuisance charges.
A ?rm’s exposure to legal liability could also result in dif?culties
obtaining ?nancing and insurance, not to mention reputation
and competitiveness risks
Disclosure:
17
Capital providers, securities regulators and
NGOs are increasingly putting pressure on public companies
to disclose climate change risks in their ?nancial reporting. The Carbon Disclosure Project, representing hundreds of investor
institutions, has been a key driver of voluntary reporting for large ?rms in Europe and North America. 2010 was a notable year
for mandatory reporting, with both the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Canadian Securities Administrators
issuing guidance to improve the quality and completeness of climate change and environmental reporting of material risks (i.e.
those that the “reasonable investor” would consider in evaluating the company’s position). But immediate access to information
and the rise of social media are changing the pro?le of a “reasonable investor”. Firms are increasingly susceptible to stakeholder
perceptions, elevating the importance of both voluntary and mandatory disclosure. So, ?rms should have robust controls and
procedures in place to identify and manage material risks. Directors are responsible for risk oversight. Those seeking additional
guidance on material climate-change related disclosures can consult publications by the Canadian Institute of Chartered
Accountants.
18
Finally, requirements by security regulators concerning forward-looking information apply to both voluntary and
mandatory disclosure, so consistency is important.
Investors and lenders:
19
Some global institutional investors are
beginning to use climate change management and disclosure as a
proxy for good management. Investors tend to see a ?rm’s ability
to manage risk as the most important indicator of vulnerability to
climate change. Short time horizons for investor decisions have
limited investor pressures relating to climate change and put a
premium on adaptation measures with short payback periods.
Firms need to be able to demonstrate the outcomes of climate
adaptation strategies in metrics and indicators that are familiar
to ?nancial analysts. Lending institutions are also beginning to
consider the credit risk that climate change impacts could create
— for instance, RBC has begun identifying industry sectors
and regions likely to be most affected by climate change and
incorporating climate change-related risks into the bank’s lending
policies.
“Canadian and international companies
need to tell investors their “climate
story”. Increasingly, investors are using
companies’ climate risk management
capabilities as a proxy for their overall
management quality. But companies need
to frame those stories in ways which are
meaningful to investors: how do the steps
the company is taking contribute directly
to risk reduction, competitive advantage,
pro?tability, and reputational capital?”
Matthew Kiernan,
CEO,
In?ection Point Capital Management
questions when gauging legal liability:
1. Could the physical impacts of climate change affect the
infrastructure asset during its lifecycle?
2. If the asset could be affected, does the technology exist
to design the new asset or repair or otherwise improve the
asset to withstand the impacts of climate change?
Experts can help you answer these questions with confdence.
But a next step is deciding what to do about it. In such cases,
you should weigh the additional cost of building, refurbishing,
and maintaining infrastructure to withstand the impacts of
climate change against the potential future costs of repair,
refurbishment, rebuild, and potential legal liability arising from a
decision to not take climate change effects into account. Taking
proactive adaptation measures can help you avoid the latter
costs.
Source: Adapted from Koval, P. “Legal liability as a driver of and barrier to climate
change”, The bottom line on managing climate risks and opportunities: A forum for
?nancial executives, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
Infrastructure owners should ask themselves two
6
Discussions at the October 27 forum revealed several factors perceived as hindering corporate action (Figure 3). Firms can
overcome a number of barriers internally.
1. Language and terminology. Increase the salience
of climate adaptation by instead referring to speci?c
risks such as “preparing for severe weather risks” or
“water availability risks”.
2. Lack of understanding of the costs of inaction.
Assemble information on the costs of not adapting
to inevitable climate change impacts emphasizes the
risks of business-as-usual and bene?ts of adaptation.
3. Organizational culture. Leaders of corporations may
want to invest in moving the ?rm’s culture toward
one that embraces innovation, preparedness, and
?exibility in the face of uncertainty and change.
Other barriers require action by external parties.
1. Negative framing. Industry associations, government
agencies and NGOs will have more success in
promoting climate adaptation to business audiences
with a positive framing rather than a “doom and gloom”
framing. Highlighting cost reductions anticipated from
the adaptation initiative, or advantages gained relative to the competition, can both create a positive framing.
2. Unclear performance indicators. Firms unclear on best practices and how to measure, communicate, and benchmark
performance against peers may adopt a “wait-and-see” approach.
3. Signals from governments and stakeholders. Firms respond to the signals they get from governments and key capital
market players. If these stakeholders prioritize and buy into the importance of investing now to avoid potential losses later,
so will ?rms.
Uncertainty around timing and magnitude of impacts and seemingly more pressing short-term business concerns stand out
as two key stumbling blocks to corporate climate adaptation. However, deferring adaptation, waiting for more and better
information, and relying on just-in-time solutions isn’t feasible or ef?cient because:
• It’s often cheaper to upgrade infrastructure or incorporate climate change into capital investments upfront than to retro?t
later.
• Building internal capacity to deal with climate change takes time. Developing the human resources, governance and skills
to effectively manage new challenges cannot be done overnight.
• Reacting with one-off adaptation actions to weather or climate events leaves companies exposed to long-term shifts.
• Technology needs to be built over time; the “solutions” to all of our adaptation problems aren’t readily available on the
market.
7
- Language and
terminology
- Lack of
understanding of
costs of incation
- Short-termism by
governments
- Limited rewards
by investors for
doing the right
thing
-Organizational
culture (e.g. path
dependence, risk
aversion)
- Negative framing
by others
- Unclear
peformance
indicators for the
sector
Here and Now
Direct
Firm
Control
Limited
Firm
Control
Legacy Issues
Figure 3. Barriers inhibiting business adaptation to climate change
In practice: What Canadian companies are thinking and doing
Businesses in Canada and around the world are taking action on climate adaptation. The following examples illustrate ?rms’
strategies at different points of their responses to climate change.
20
• Get the language right. RBC asks borrowers about business continuity planning, management of weather risks, and water
availability rather than about “climate adaptation”. This helps focus attention on tangible and familiar risks.
• Spot opportunities. Bombardier is assessing their potential to meet increasing global demands for ?re-?ghting aircraft that
could be expected in a world with more frequent and severe wild?res. SNC-Lavalin foresees a rise in business for sea water
desalination, along with transportation of potable or irrigation water.
• Know your own risks. BMO notes that prolonged heat waves and airborne pollution like smog could pose health risks to
individuals, and potentially lead to greater workforce absenteeism.
• Work in partnership. Catalyst has worked with climate change experts and government of?cials at the Paci?c Institute of
Climate Solutions to help develop robust climate solutions that involve forests and forests products.
• Assign responsibility. Barrick Gold has employed in-house climatologists to advise their operations and inform strategic
planning priorities. PotashCorp assigns climate issues to its Safety, Health and Environment Committee, whose chair
interacts with senior management and the Board of Directors through a Climate Change Sub-Committee and Enterprise
Risk Management Committee.
• Plan for the long-term. TransAlta Corporation is focused on the long-term effects of climate change on water supply used
for process cooling. The CPP Investment Board adopted a Policy on Responsible Investing in 2005, in which environmental,
social, and governance factors are viewed in a positive light because of their link to long-term performance.
8
Key takeaways:
1. Firms face a range of cross-enterprise risks and opportunities. A changing climate exacerbates these risks and has the
potential to create new ones.
2. Pressures to disclose and manage risks in a changing climate are increasing as defnitions of the “reasonable investor” and
“reasonably foreseeable” impacts change. Expectations of frms evolve as climate information and advice becomes more
accessible.
3. Many barriers inhibit corporate action, including language, framing, poor understanding of the costs of inaction, and short
termism by government and investors. Firms can avoid getting mired in a “climate” conversation by building climate adaptation
into existing risk management processes and making it a business conversation.
4. Firms in Canada and around the world are starting to act. Understanding risk exposure, taking a long-term view of issues (20
year plus), and scanning for opportunities are all important strategies.
8
References
Canadian Securities Administrators. 2010. CSA Staff Notice 51-333: Environmental Repoting Guidance. Available fromhttp://www.osc.gov.
on.ca/documents/en/Securities-Category5/csa_20101027_51-333_environmental-reporting.pdf.
Ceres. 2010. Climate and Energy Resolutions. Available fromhttp://www.ceres.org/incr/engagement/corporate-dialogues/shareholder-
resolutions/resolutions-2011.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. 2008. Building a Better MD&A: Climate Change Disclosures. Available fromhttp://www.cica.ca/
research-and-guidance/mda-and-business-reporting/mda-publications/item12846.pdf.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. 2009. Climate Change Brie?ng: Questions for Directors to Ask. Available fromhttp://www.rogb.ca/
director-series/director-brie?ngs/item28951.pdf.
Desjardins, Julie. Climate Change Adaptation: Reporting to Capital Markets. Presented at “The Bottom line on managing climate change risks and
opportunities: A form for ?nancial executives”, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
GHK Consulting. April 2010. Opportunities for UK Business from Climate Change Adaptation. London, England: Prepared for UK
Government’s Adapting to Climate Change Programme.
Kiernan, M. Climate Change Adaptation: Challenge AND Opportunity for Canadian Corporate. Presented at “The Bottom line on managing climate
change risks and opportunities: A form for ?nancial executives”, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
Lemmen, D., F. Warren E. Bush, & J. Lacroix. 2008. From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. Ottawa: Natural
Resources Canada.
National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millenia.
National Climatic Data Center. 2011. Billion Dollar U.S. Weather/Climate Disasters. Available fromhttp://ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/
billionz.html.
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 2011. Paying the Price: The Economic Impacts of Climate Change for Canada.
Available fromhttp://nrtee-trnee.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/paying-the-price.pdf.
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 2010. Degrees of Change: Climate Warming and the Stakes for Canada. Available from
http://nrtee-trnee.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/degrees-of-change-report-eng.pdf.
Odendahl, S. Understanding the risks and opportunities of a changing climate. Presented at “The Bottom line on managing climate change risks
and opportunities: A form for ?nancial executives”, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2011. Carbon Disclosure Project 2011. Available fromhttp://www.pwc.com/cdp2011.
Risk Management Committee. 2003. Overview of Enterprise Risk Management. Casualty Actuarial Society.
Robinson, Gregor. NRTEE-NBS Climate Change Adaptation Forum. Presented at “The Bottom line on managing climate change risks and
opportunities: A form for ?nancial executives”, Toronto, October 27, 2011.
Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.l. Miller (eds). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sussman, Frances G., and J. Randall Freed. 2008. Adapting to Climate Change: A Business Approach. Available fromhttp://www.pewclimate.
org/docUploads/Business-Adaptation.pdf.
UK Trade & Investment. 2011. Adapting to an Uncertain Climate: A World of Commercial Opportunities.
Wellstead, J. 2011. Making Adaptation Our Business: Perceptions of Canadian Firms on Climate Risks and Opportunities. Background research for
NRTEE’s Climate Prosperity Project. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
9
Endnotes
1 Munich RE. Press Release: “Overall picture of natural catastrophes in 2010 - Very severe earthquakes and many severe weather events.” Jan 3,
2010. Available fromhttp://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2011/2011_01_03_press_release.aspx.
2 UK Trade & Investment 2011
3 Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds). 2007
4 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 2011
5 Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller 2007
6 National Academies of Sciences 2010
7 National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 2010; Lemmen, D., F. Warren E. Bush, & J. Lacroix. 2008
8 National Climatic Data Center. 2011
9 Gregor Robinson, personal communication
10 Ceres 2010
11 Canadian Securities Administrators 2010
12 Sussman, Frances G. and J. Randall Freed 2008
13 GHK Consulting 2010
14 Gregor Robinson presentation, October 27, 2011
15 Gregor Robinson, personal communication
16 Pat Koval presentation, October 27, 2011 and personal communication
17 Julie Desjardins presentation, October 27, 2011 and personal communication
18 Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
19 Matthew Kiernan and Sandra Odendahl presentations, October 27, 2011
20 Wellstead 2011
Forum speakers and participants
Capital markets panel:
Gregor Robinson, Senior Vice-President, Policy and Chief Economist, Insurance Bureau of Canada
Patricia Koval, Partner, Torys LLP
Julie Desjardins, Advisor, Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
Matthew Kiernan, CEO, In?ection Point Capital Management
Corporate leaders panel:
Gordon Lambert, Vice-President Sustainable Development, Suncor Energy Inc.
Sandra Odendahl, Director, Corporate Environmental Affairs, Royal Bank of Canada
Jeffrey Williams, Director of Climate Consulting, Entergy Corporation
Participants:
Elizabeth Atkinson, Manager-Policy, Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation, Natural Resources Canada
Andrea Baldwin, Associate Principal, SECOR
Tima Bansal, Executive Director, Network for Business Sustainability
Ian Bragg, Associate Director, Research, Policy & Institutional Services, Social Investment Organization
Sherri Brillon, Vice President & Chief Financial Of?cer, EnCana Corporation
Nicholas Cheung, National Practice Area Leader – Sustainability, The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants
Michael Conway, Chief Executive & National President (Toronto Chapter), Financial Executives International Canada
John Coyne, Vice President & General Counsel, Unilever Canada Inc.
Jimena Eyzaguirre, Senior Policy Advisor, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Rachel Faulkner, Administration & Logistics, National Round Table on the Environment and Economy
Blair Feltmate, Associate Professor and Director, Sustainability Practice, University of Waterloo
Eleanor Fritz, Director, Compliance & Disclosure, Toronto Stock Exchange
Brian Kelly, Interim Advisor, Climate Change Of?ce of the CAO, Region of Durham
Pam Laughland, Knowledge Director, Network for Business Sustainability
Suzanne Loney, Policy Advisor, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Leslie Markow, Chief Financial Of?cer, Solutions4CO2 Inc.
Jo-Anne Matear, Assistant Manager, Corporate Finance, Ontario Securities Commission
David McLaughlin, President & Chief Executive Of?cer, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Doug Morrow, Senior Associate, ICF Marbek
Kathleen O’Neill, Manager, Strategic Policy, Ontario Ministry of Environment
Robert Slater, NRT Vice-Chair, Adjunct Professor, Environmental Policy, Carleton University
Barb Steele, Director, Strategic Partnerships, Network for Business Sustainability
Jason Thistlethwaite, Project Manager, The Climate Change Adaptation Project
Barbara Turley-McIntyre, Director, Sustainability and Corporate Citizenship, The Co-operators Group Ltd
Bob Willard, Author & Speaker, The Sustainability Advantage
Laura Zizzo, Partner, Zizzo Allan Climate Law LLP
10
NRT Disclaimer: The opinions, comments and analysis expressed in this document do not necessarily represent those of the Members of the NRT. This document is for discussion
purposes only and cannot be taken as expressions of NRT policy or as indicating a commitment to undertake or implement a particular course of action.
doc_958414408.pdf