Insurers, banks, and pension funds could all be hurt by climate change

Global nonprofits are urging investors, banks, and insurance companies to shift their practices in light of climate change.

Vivek Prakash/Reuters/File
A view of an oil refinery off the coast of Singapore, seen March 14, 2008. The Global Risk Institute is asking banks, insurers, and investors to shift their practices in light of climate change.

Is climate change bad for business?

According to the Global Risk Institute (GRI), a nonprofit based in Toronto, it may be. In a new report, GRI warned that global warming could present significant risks for financial institutions.

“Given the financial service industry's heavily integrated role in society, it is particularly susceptible to the risks associated with climate change,” GRI wrote in its report. “It must therefore ensure that proper climate change strategies and risk management procedures are in place in order to remain viable.”

The study, published Tuesday, targeted three at-risk groups: insurers, banks, and pension funds.

Insurance companies, for example, could suffer losses as a result of extreme weather, which could lower the value of physical property and increase risks of personal injury or death. Indirect results of climate change, which are more difficult to predict, could cause an even wider range of concerns for insurance providers.

GRI also urged banks to rebalance their loan portfolios, “scaling back exposure to high-carbon industries and other assets that could suffer in transition.” It warned that “diminished public perception” of fossil fuel companies could equate to long-term financial loses.

“As our economy reduces its dependence on fossil fuels,” the report reads, “new investment opportunities will arise in sectors that produce green products and services. Financing these investments represents a new source of growth for the banking industry.”

But it’s not just banks and insurance companies. Investors may soon be sweating over climate change, too.

In December, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), a nonprofit chaired by Michael Bloomberg, found that 93 percent of public companies in the US face some degree of climate risk. So-called "transition risks" – losses incurred when high-carbon companies are forced to transition away from high carbon emissions – represent a serious concern for investors.

The report also found that, for the most part, companies are not disclosing that risk.

SASB wrote that “because climate risk is systemic and embedded across a portfolio, investors can’t diversify away from it.” Instead, it urged investors to reward industry leaders while pressuring “laggards” to improve their policies. Also in December 2015, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures was established to inform market participants of climate-based risk.

Could these new reports represent a shift in thought? As some companies continue to ignore the implications of climate change, others have already changed their tune – and their practices.

Last year, a coalition of European oil companies including BP and Shell argued for a global price on carbon, stating that “climate change is a critical challenge for our world.” Chevron and Exxon Mobile, both American companies, did not join the initiative.

“For us to do more, we need governments across the world to provide us with clear, stable, long-term, ambitious policy frameworks,” the coalition wrote. “This would reduce uncertainty and help stimulate investments in the right low-carbon technologies and the right resources at the right pace.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.