英文【BSR】从气候科学到企业战略

White Paper Executive Summary This paper introduces a climate scenario-adjusted valuation model that quantifies climate risks in financial terms by integrating climate science-based scenario analysis with established corporate valuation principles. We designed the approach to be transparent and auditable, fully aligning with emerging disclosure standards (such as IFRS S2 and the EU’s ESRS E1 on climate).1 2 This ensures the framework can support both internal strategic planning and external reporting requirements, directly connecting climate risk factors to company financial performance. At its core, the framework links transition risks (e.g. policy changes, technological shifts, market dynamics, reputational impacts) and physical risks (e.g. acute hazards like floods or cyclones, chronic stresses like heat or drought) directly to company financial statements through defined transmission channels. The analysis draws on a broad spectrum of data from climate science and economics. We use Network for Greening the Financial System3 (NGFS) scenarios (derived from integrated assessment models), macroeconomic pathways from NiGEM,4 and granular hazard datasets (augmented by ETH Zurich’s CLIMADA5 software) to capture potential impacts. These risk drivers are quantified as changes to revenues, operating costs, capital expenditures (CapEx) and asset impairments, or financing costs. We then integrate these impacts into a standard discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation model with strict rules to avoid any double counting between the cash flow projections and the discount rate adjustments. In this White Paper From Climate Science to Corporate Strategy A credible and practical approach to quantifying climate risk and its impact on business performance Ameer Azim - Director Climate and Nature Saad Khan - Associate Financial Services and Climate BSR | From Climate Science to Corporate Strategy 1 way, the model provides a comprehensive bridge between climate scenario outcomes and tangible financial performance metrics. For transition risk costs, the methodology maps emissions profiles, carbon pricing and compliance costs, technology adoption curves, shifting market demand, and even governance credibility into adjustments of future cash flows. For physical risk costs, it employs geospatial asset mapping, asset-specific vulnerability matrices, and probabilistic damage modeling to compute expected annual losses (EAL) from climate hazards.6 This approach can be further extended with tail-risk calculations to account for infrequent but severe events, ensuring both frequent chronic impacts and rare acute disasters are captured in the risk assessment. A case study is included to illustrate how these quantified risk impacts translate into line-by-line financial statement adjustments, informing decisions on resilience investments and strategic pivots for the company’s business model. The paper also addresses several key implementation challenges. These include ens