Add-on · Climate risk
The other direction: what the climate does to you
A footprint measures your effect on the climate. This measures the climate's effect on your supply, and puts a number on it. Which commodities come from origins that are getting harder to farm, how much that is likely to cost in a typical year, and how much worse a bad one gets.
Why it is a different question
Your footprint will not tell you this
Emissions accounting is backward-looking and it measures your impact on the world. It is the right tool for targets, for reporting and for reduction. It is the wrong tool for the question a board is starting to ask: how much of what we sell depends on places that will be harder to farm in fifteen years, and what happens to margin when they are.
That question has a different owner, a different time horizon and a different unit. It is answered in currency, not in kilograms.
What you get
Exposure, turned into a number you can plan around
Hazard exposure at every origin
Heat, drought, water stress, flood, frost and wildfire, scored where each commodity is actually grown rather than where your office is.
Expected annual loss, per commodity
Exposure converted into an expected annual loss for each commodity and origin, on a typical year and on a one-in-25-year view, so it lands in terms a finance director already uses.
A forward view, not last year
The same portfolio under a high-warming 2050 scenario, so you can see which origins stop being viable before you sign a long supply agreement.
Decomposed to supplier and origin
A portfolio number nobody can act on is worth little. Risk breaks down to the supplier, the origin and the commodity, which is where a sourcing decision actually gets made.
Ready for the disclosure you already owe
ESRS E1 asks for material physical risks and their financial effects, and TCFD-style reporting asks the same. The output is shaped for that, not for a poster.
No new data collection
It runs on the product tree you already maintain. Every ingredient, its commodity and its origin is already there, so the analysis is a switch rather than a project.
Where the numbers come from
Calibrated on European history, not borrowed from somewhere else
Hazard maps are easy and nearly worthless on their own. Anyone can shade a growing region red for drought. The work is in the step after: turning exposure into a loss figure that survives being asked where it came from.
We do that against European evidence. Sub-national crop yield history across EU regions, going back decades, gives the response; the hazard side comes from the European Union's own climate reanalysis and agro-climatic indicators, with global water-stress data on top. That combination is what lets a damage function be fitted per crop and per region rather than assumed.
- Yield history at regional level across the EU, harmonised across national statistics offices
- Hazard and agro-climatic indicators from the EU's own climate services
- Water stress and drought risk at river-basin level, worldwide
- Forward scenarios from the standard climate impact model ensemble, used for projection only, never to fit the history
What it is, and is not
The scope, stated plainly
This models the physical side: the yield shock a hazard is likely to cause, priced at the volumes you buy. It is an expected annual loss on supply, and it is the half that can be evidenced from public record.
It is not a full revenue-at-risk model out of the box, because that needs your prices and your contract structure, and because price often moves against yield and partly hedges you. Bring those and the same engine produces the revenue view. We would rather say that up front than hand you a number that quietly assumes it.
Want to see it on your portfolio?
If this is the question your board is asking, tell us. Climate risk is an add-on to the product tree you already have, and we show it on your own portfolio rather than an example.
Request a demo