Sign In

The climate crisis’ threat to banks

A recent Bank of Eng­land report showed finan­cial busi­ness­es need to work hard­er to man­age cli­mate risks, but does gov­ern­ment reg­u­la­tion have a role to play too?


Share on X
Share on LinkedIn
Share by email
Save in your account
Aeral view of London from the East

In May 2022, the Bank of Eng­land pub­lished the results of its first ever cli­mate stress test, which sought to explore the finan­cial risks posed by the cli­mate cri­sis and tran­si­tion to net zero for the largest UK banks and insur­ers and the broad­er finan­cial sys­tem.

The Cli­mate Bien­ni­al Explorato­ry Sce­nario (CBES) out­lined two types of risk asso­ci­at­ed with the cli­mate cri­sis: those which arise while tran­si­tion­ing from a car­bon-inten­sive to a net-zero econ­o­my, known as tran­si­tion risks, and those occur­ring from high­er glob­al tem­per­a­tures if insuf­fi­cient action is tak­en, known as phys­i­cal risks. The CBES then test­ed firms accord­ing to three poten­tial sce­nar­ios, one in which ear­ly action against the cli­mate cri­sis is tak­en, one where late action is tak­en and anoth­er where no action is tak­en at all.

The report found that while UK banks and insur­ers are mak­ing “good progress in some aspects of their cli­mate risk man­age­ment” they still need to do much more “to under­stand and man­age their expo­sure to cli­mate risks”. It not­ed that cli­mate risks “are like­ly to cre­ate a drag on the prof­itabil­i­ty of banks and insur­ers, par­tic­u­lar­ly if they are unable to man­age these risks effec­tive­ly” with loss­es of up to 10–15%, which could be passed onto cus­tomers. And that “the ear­ly action pol­i­cy path has the high­est prob­a­bil­i­ty of suc­cess in terms of lim­it­ing cli­mate change”, while act­ing late would “leave gov­ern­ments more exposed to the risk of pol­i­cy coor­di­na­tion fail­ure”.

Oscar War­wick Thomp­son, Head of Pol­i­cy and Com­mu­ni­ca­tions at the UK Sus­tain­able Invest­ment and Finance Asso­ci­a­tion (UKSIF) sup­ports the need for ear­ly action from banks and investors in the ener­gy tran­si­tion to min­imise cli­mate risk. “The Cli­mate Change Committee’s recent progress report said we’re off track in terms of deliv­er­ing net zero. Act­ing at pace, ambi­tion and scale is going to reduce the risk of strand­ed assets [from car­bon-inten­sive indus­tries] and future loss­es on company’s bal­ance sheets for investors and their clients’ port­fo­lios,” he says.

War­wick Thomp­son also warns of the tran­si­tion risks to finan­cial busi­ness­es from con­sumer expec­ta­tions when it comes to a firm’s path to net zero. “They are less like­ly to use a company’s prod­ucts and ser­vices if they’re not being seen to take action,” he says. While anoth­er key tran­si­tion risk is the shift­ing reg­u­la­to­ry and pol­i­cy envi­ron­ment. “As that becomes clear­er and more robust as we move towards net zero in 2050, those who haven’t ade­quate­ly respond­ed or tak­en into account the impacts of these reg­u­la­tions into their port­fo­lios run the risk of invest­ments becom­ing less valu­able over time,” he says.

“It’s always a ques­tion of being a first mover or a lag­gard,” says Dr Daniel Tis­ch­er, a Senior Lec­tur­er at Sheffield Uni­ver­si­ty Man­age­ment School and spe­cial­ist in green finance. “If you divest ear­ly on you should get out ok but if you leave it until the very end and you’re the last bank in town then what­ev­er you’re try­ing to sell is worth­less.”

Tis­ch­er says there is a lot of diver­si­ty and stag­gered posi­tions amongst fund man­agers in terms of how they approach divest­ing from car­bon-inten­sive indus­tries but warns there will always be those look­ing to prof­it from the chaos. “There are a lot of sen­si­ble peo­ple out there but there are also a lot of peo­ple who have oth­er motives,” he says. “Desta­bil­i­sa­tion cre­ates prof­its so in that sense you can see how peo­ple are play­ing with the nar­ra­tive for their own gain.”

Before Rus­sia invad­ed Ukraine, Tis­ch­er thinks a lot of banks and finan­cial actors were on the right track. “They were attempt­ing to do the right thing by invest­ing and sup­port­ing firms who were posi­tion­ing them­selves away from pol­lut­ing indus­try prac­tices,” he says, giv­ing the exam­ple of Allianz Insur­ance, who were quite vocal on those grounds. But he wor­ries the ener­gy secu­ri­ty cri­sis has set things back.

“Look­ing at the UK, we’re cur­rent­ly see­ing more invest­ment into tak­ing gas out of the North Sea to reduce the impact of the wind­fall tax. That is a very prob­lem­at­ic approach, and com­plete­ly the wrong incen­tive to give to cor­po­ra­tions. It gives the sig­nal that fos­sil fuels aren’t dead, and gives the mar­ket a new lease of life,” he says. “Why didn’t we encour­age [ener­gy firms] to get a tax reduc­tion for any ten bil­lion they put into renew­able ener­gy in the short term? The CEO of BP made it clear they are keen to invest in renew­able ener­gy.”

War­wick Thomp­son believes banks and investors can still play a cru­cial role in steer­ing oil and gas majors towards pos­i­tive cli­mate action in the future. “The prof­its enjoyed by some of these com­pa­nies have been quite con­sid­er­able in light of the ris­ing oil and gas prices,” he says. “So, [we would advo­cate] using these huge bal­ance sheets as an oppor­tu­ni­ty to tran­si­tion to a more sus­tain­able mod­el in the future. And when oil and gas majors are look­ing to raise finance in the bond mar­ket, investors can use their stew­ard­ship to pres­sure oil and gas com­pa­nies, in effect to do their own pub­lic pol­i­cy.”

The UK is ahead of the game in terms of green finance, so banks and finan­cial insti­tu­tions are well posi­tioned to take advan­tage of the ener­gy tran­si­tion. “We have been a world leader in sus­tain­able finance for a num­ber of years and a big part of that has come from pro­mot­ing an advanced world-lead­ing reg­u­la­to­ry frame­work,” says War­wick Thomp­son. “In 2019, we were one of the first to leg­is­late to reduce emis­sions to net zero by 2050 and the first of the G20 to bring in TCFD (task force on cli­mate-relat­ed finan­cial dis­clo­sures) for the largest com­pa­nies.” TCFD means busi­ness­es are required by law to include cli­mate risks in their annu­al report­ing.

But he warns, much of this progress is now at risk due to delays to key pieces of leg­is­la­tion on sus­tain­able finance, includ­ing around trans­paren­cy and SDR, the sus­tain­able dis­clo­sure require­ments for cor­po­rates and finan­cial insti­tu­tions.

“There is a sense the gov­ern­ment want­ed to min­imise the reg­u­la­to­ry bur­den on busi­ness,” he says, “but for investors more reg­u­la­tion gives you a bet­ter idea of what’s going on in busi­ness and bet­ter dis­clo­sure incen­tivis­es cap­i­tal to flow towards those com­pa­nies.”

Who­ev­er the next Prime Min­is­ter is, it’s hoped they’ll reaf­firm the UK’s role as sus­tain­able lead­ers on green finance and net zero. 

As Tis­ch­er says: “The nar­ra­tive should be much more forth­com­ing: ‘This is a threat but also a great oppor­tu­ni­ty for us.’”