气候变化对企业有何风险？

    美国环境保护署(Environmental Protection Agency)拟定的减少碳排放提案正在引发一场关于气候变化的激烈辩论。但有一点是明确的：企业需要向投资者更加详尽地解释它们面临的气候变化相关风险，以及它们正在采取的管控措施。

    加州近期的大干旱和欧洲的洪水提醒我们，极端天气事件正变得越来越严重，越来越频繁。根据慕尼黑再保险公司(Munich Re)提供的数据，天气事件占2013年自然灾害损失的90%，共造成1,200多亿美元的损失。该公司估计，2012年，气候事件对美国和欧洲经济的总体影响均超过5万亿美元，占各自国内生产总值(GDP)的30%以上。

    除了监管机构以外，投资界也已经意识到了这种威胁。投资人正在要求公司披露更多关于气候事件风险的信息，以及碳排放的预期成本。

    身处多种行业的公司——不仅仅是保险公司和碳排放密集型企业——正在被要求披露它们管控这些长期问题的措施。这些企业未来的资金成本在某种程度上将取决于它们给出的答案。

    不幸的是，太多的企业仍然只为投资者及其他利益相关者提供各自面临风险的部分图景。在阐述它们如何减轻这些风险的时候，这些企业的解释是不完整的。

    公司部门正在非常敏捷地满足投资者对环境友好型资产不断增长的需求。私营公司发行的绿色债券（这类债券的所筹资金用来资助有利于环境的资本投资）急剧增长。据标准普尔公司(Standard & Poor’s)估计，这类债券的规模今年很可能翻一番，达到200亿美元左右。

    但事实证明，就向投资者提供更广泛的气候和碳排放相关风险的可靠信息而言，许多企业的动作要慢得多。

    气候风险，以及碳定价的影响，将导致公司面临直接和间接风险。从生产到流通和销售，这类风险可能会影响公司的整个价值链。洪水和暴风往往会打乱供应商的部署，使得制造流程陷入混乱，还可能抑制消费。

    从长远来看，极端天气会以意想不到的方式损害企业的盈利能力和资产估值。不重视这些风险的公司可能会承受巨大压力，并且很难灵活地管控它们面临的风险。

    公司通常很注重披露碳排放法规施加给它们的直接负债，特别是为获得排放交易计划要求持有的碳排放许可证而支付的净成本。这些成本的重要性无需赘言，尽管碳排放信用额的价格最近有所跌落，但随着时间的推移，这些成本很可能将继续增长。但很多公司忽视了一项正在沿着供应链传递，或者正在改变产品和服务终端需求的碳负债成本，而这项成本可能要大得多。

    The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed regulations to reduce carbon emissions are generating heated debate about climate change. But one thing is clear: companies need to do much more to explain to investors the climate-related risks they face and how they are managing them.

    Extreme weather events appear to be getting more severe and more frequent, as the recent drought in California and floods in Europe reminded us. Weather events accounted for 90% of natural catastrophe losses in 2013, causing over $120 billion of losses, according to reinsurance company Munich Re. In 2012, the overall effect of climate events on the US and European economies is estimated at more than $5 trillion for each region, or over 30% of their GDP.

    The investment community – along with regulators – has woken up to this threat. It is demanding more information from companies about their exposure to climate events, as well as the prospective cost of their carbon emissions.

    A wide range of businesses – not just insurers and carbon intensive corporations – are being pressed to demonstrate how they are managing these long-term issues. Their future cost of capital will in part hinge on the answers they give.

    Unfortunately, too many businesses still provide investors and other stakeholders only a partial picture of the risks they face. And they offer an incomplete explanation of how they are mitigating these exposures.

    The corporate sector is nimble at meeting growing investor demand for environmentally-friendly assets. Private sector companies’ issuance of green bonds, which fund environmentally beneficial capital investment, is growing rapidly. According to Standard & Poor’s, it is likely to double this year to around $20 billion.

    However, businesses are proving much slower in providing investors with robust information about their wider climate and carbon-related risks.

    Climate risk, along with the impact of carbon pricing, carries direct and indirect exposure for a company. It potentially affects its entire value chain, from production through to distribution and sales. Floods and blizzards disrupt suppliers and dislocate manufacturing, but they also can curb consumption.

    Over the long-term, extreme weather can damage both profitability and asset valuations in unexpected ways. Companies that fail to take account of these risks may suffer significant stress and have little flexibility to manage their exposure.

    Companies frequently focus on communicating their direct liability to carbon emissions regulation, notably the net cost of carbon permits they are required to hold under emissions trading schemes. These costs are important and, notwithstanding the recent decline in carbon credit prices, are likely to grow over time. But many companies ignore the – potentially much larger – costs of a carbon liability being passed down the supply chain or changing end demand for products and services.