Risk Mitigation for Environmental Challenges

Potential synergies and trade-offs between climate action and the SDGs 🌎 Climate change mitigation measures can have varied impacts on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as illustrated by the matrix of blue and red bars. Blue bars represent potential synergies where efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously contribute to SDG targets. Red bars highlight trade-offs that arise when mitigation strategies undermine certain development objectives. The length of each bar indicates the relative strength of the relationship, while the color shade reflects the level of confidence in that assessment. In the energy supply sector, the shift toward low-carbon technologies tends to yield positive outcomes such as improved air quality, economic diversification, and enhanced energy access. However, trade-offs may occur when large-scale infrastructure projects affect local communities, disrupt ecosystems, or require additional land and water resources. Similar complexities appear in energy demand interventions, where efficiency gains and electrification policies can support decent work opportunities but may demand significant up-front investment and workforce reskilling. Land-based mitigation options often provide notable climate and ecosystem benefits, but they also intersect with agriculture, land rights, and biodiversity protection. Excessive reliance on bioenergy crops, for instance, can challenge food security and local livelihoods if planted at scale without proper safeguards. Balanced policymaking is essential to ensure climate efforts do not negatively affect fundamental social and environmental priorities outlined in the SDGs. These considerations are particularly relevant for businesses, as the private sector increasingly aligns growth strategies with sustainability objectives. Assessing and addressing both synergies and trade-offs can inform risk management, long-term planning, and stakeholder engagement. Sound understanding of potential conflicts between climate goals and other development targets supports responsible investment decisions and can strengthen corporate reputation, reduce legal risks, and foster resilience in global value chains. Strategic approaches that integrate multidimensional impact assessments, stakeholder consultations, and cross-sector collaborations can enhance the positive interactions between climate mitigation and SDG outcomes. Such approaches also minimize unintended consequences that could arise from well-intentioned but narrowly focused interventions. By comprehensively evaluating the interconnections among climate measures and the SDGs, decision makers can guide future actions toward balanced, resilient, and inclusive pathways for sustainable development. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #SDGs

In our recently released Nature for Insurance and Insurance for Nature report (https://lnkd.in/evSdNK6s), we discuss the need for insurance industry models to better reflect – in a timely way – investments in risk reduction. This is also true for efforts like home hardening and other structural protection measures. California had already taken steps in that direction when, in 2024, the California Department of Insurance required industry catastrophe models to account for mitigation measures, including nature-based risk reduction (thank you Ricardo Lara and Michael Peterson). Now, after a six month process, DOI has completed review of three catastrophe models (Verisk, Karen Clark and Company, and Moody’s) for use in rate filings that write more wildfire-prone properties in the state (https://lnkd.in/ezRArqp7) – and that process had to include a review that the models can reflect risk reduction investments. But capable models need to be coupled with improvements in the data available for these models – such as the work of the WUI Data Commons led by Nancy Watkins (https://lnkd.in/eBT4SRha) with support and participation by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety - IBHS, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and California Fire Chiefs Association. Add to that insurer leadership in supporting risk reduction efforts (such as Mercury Insurance: https://lnkd.in/eFtKhiXk), clear standards and guidelines (IBHS), and improved funding and financing models (such as being explored by Insurance for Good and California Forward) and we can create a positive feedback loop between risk reduction and insurance market outcomes. We can’t just do one of these: lowering our climate risk takes an integrated suite of approaches and many partners working together!

Ready for news? Over the past few weeks the team of GWF AG and I have been working on something pretty cool and we presented our first findings of our pilot at the Swiss Water and Climate Forum - SWCF GWF specialises on metering #water and #wastewater WITHIN a company's fence to identify water risks at the micro level My company - Water Security Collective - specialises on on assessing water risks OUTSIDE of a company's fence - i.e. the river basin, city etc. - so on the macro level We both felt our offers were incomplete without the other to truly offer a comprehensive and actionable water risk assessment to companies So we joined forces! Jointly we can do the following (+more): ✅ Assess all inflows and outflows at a companies premises REAL TIME to identify leaks, and water optimisation potential ✅ Assess physical water risks within the basin/ city the company is located in (water stress, water pollution, disasters ...) to know what risks your companies might be facing today/ in future ✅ Assess water infrastructure risks within the basin/ city (everything from abstraction to discharge) to know how infrastructure development needs may impact your future water access/ quality of intake water ✅ Assess water governance challenges of the basin/ region/ country to foresee possible regulatory risks and future water security Once companies have these insights they can: 💧 Optimise water management on site to reduce water usage and pollution 💧 Mitigate future water risks by optimising your strategic and investment decisions 💧 Submit all required information to be compliant with the latest EU Regulation - the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CRSD + ESRS) 💧 Get certified with the Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS) - and other accreditations - to show your stakeholders that you are taking action Our solution provides a "one-stop-shop" for all that is required to understand a company's water risk and move towards taking actionable solutions that benefit all - the company, the environment and the society We are in the midst of our first pilot and excited to share more once completed and then roll it out wider If you are interested to learn more, please feel free to message me. Very grateful to be working on this cutting edge topic with Florian Strasser, Stefan Christen (my co-presenter on the photo), Mark Shepherd and Brynn Williams Funny side note: That was my first presentation in German in at least 10 years 😅 #watermanagement #waterpollution #Watersolutions #bestpractice #sustainabledevelopment #sustainablefinance #geopolitics #waterpollutionawareness #impactinvestment #sustainability #watercrisis #waterrisk 

Building ESG: Understanding Physical Risk: A Guide for Businesses _______________________________________ What is Physical Risk? Physical risk refers to the potential damage or loss to physical assets due to climate change. It can arise from both acute and chronic events. * Acute Risks: Sudden and severe weather events such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. * Chronic Risks: Long-term changes in climate patterns, including rising sea levels, increased temperatures, and altered precipitation patterns. Key Physical Risk Hazards and Indicators To effectively assess and manage physical risk, businesses need to consider the following hazards and their associated indicators: * Hurricanes and Typhoons: Cumulative wind speed and surf height. * Floods: Flood frequency, flood severity, rainfall intensity, very wet days, and wet days. * Wildfires: Change in days with high wildfire potential and change in maximum wildfire potential. * Sea Level Rise: Absolute coastal flood frequency, relative coastal flood exposure, and change in energy demand. * Heat Stress: Extreme heat days and maximum temperature. * Droughts: Meteorological drought (days per annum with precipitation below 1mm). * Precipitation Changes: Current baseline water stress, current interannual variability, water demand change, and water supply change. Industry-Specific Impacts: Sectors like agriculture, tourism, and infrastructure are particularly vulnerable to physical risks. For instance, rising sea levels threaten coastal cities and infrastructure, while extreme heat can disrupt manufacturing and agriculture. Mitigating Physical Risk: A Proactive Approach Businesses can take several steps to mitigate physical risk: 1. Risk Assessment: Conduct a thorough assessment to identify potential vulnerabilities and prioritize mitigation strategies. 2. Climate Modeling: Utilize climate models to forecast future climate scenarios and assess potential impacts. 3. Investment in Resilience: Invest in infrastructure and operations that are resilient to climate-related hazards. 4. Supply Chain Resilience: Ensure that supply chains are resilient to disruptions caused by physical risks. 5. Insurance and Risk Transfer: Consider insurance and other risk transfer mechanisms to manage financial losses. * What are the most significant climate-related threats to your operations? (Disclaimer: Views are personal, should not be related to organisations view) Please feel free to add your views, in case you want to share this article please feel free to share #buildingEsg #circulareconomy #greenbonds #climatechange #climateaction #enviornment #sustainability #esgrisk #climaterisk #ecofriendly #climaterisks #india #emissions #esgratings #esg #cop29 #greenertogether

Best Practices in Mine Closure and Reclamation Mine closure represents the final stage of the mining lifecycle, occurring when a mineral resource is exhausted or when operations are no longer profitable. Mining activities, being temporary in nature, require effective planning for closure and reclamation to mitigate environmental impacts and ensure sustainable post-mining land use. Regulatory Requirements & MCP In most jurisdictions, companies are required to submit a Mine Closure Plan (MCP) before receiving a mining permit. This plan details the procedures for site decommissioning, waste management, and land restoration. It is also essential to include financial assurance to guarantee the availability of funds for closure, ensuring that reclamation is completed even if financial challenges arise. Reclamation: Reclamation is an ongoing process starting from the exploration stage and continuing through post-closure. It involves activities like earthworks, soil stabilization, and revegetation to restore disturbed land to a safe, stable, and ecologically viable condition. In some cases, former mining sites can be repurposed as recreational areas, parks, or even agricultural land, benefiting local communities and ecosystems. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) An EIA is vital in evaluating the potential environmental risks of mining projects. The EIA identifies impacts on air quality, water resources, biodiversity, and land use, helping to develop mitigation strategies. This process is essential for ensuring that mining operations comply with environmental regulations and minimize adverse impacts on ecosystems Key Environmental Risks and Mitigation Mining operations, if not properly managed, can pose significant environmental risks, such as Underground Mining: While underground operations are less disruptive to surface environments, proper sealing of shafts and groundwater management is essential to prevent long-term environmental impacts Tailings Management: Tailings dams are critical for storing waste materials. If poorly managed, these can lead to environmental disasters, as seen in the 1998 Los Frailes Mine disaster in Spain, where a tailings dam failure contaminated surrounding water sources and ecosystems Best Practices for Responsible Mine Closure To ensure effective mine closure and reclamation, mining companies should follow best practices Conducting comprehensive EIAs at each stage of mining to identify environmental risks Securing financial assurance for the full closure and reclamation process Implementing stringent tailings management to minimize risks associated with waste disposal Establishing long-term monitoring programs to ensure that reclamation efforts meet ecological standards By following these practices, mining companies can minimize their environmental footprint, support sustainable land use, and create positive outcomes for local communities and ecosystems #MineClosure#Reclamation#SustainableMining #geology

Most companies still treat climate, biodiversity, and resource pressures as separate issues. That is the common pitfall. Partnering with Taylor Stanley and Shenali Madhanaroopan and Riverside Natural Foods Ltd. (Home of MadeGood), my team of CU Boulder Masters of the Environment (MENV) Graduate Program at University of Colorado students built a Strategic Environmental Risk and Resilience Framework that shows how to connect these risks and make them strategic. The lesson: fragmented risk management leads to fragmented strategy. Companies that align environmental pressures with core business decisions on investment, operations, and markets will be positioned to create durable value, not just short-term fixes. And with the right moves, that can lead to brand differentiation. Megan Chan, Leah Glidden, Jonny M. #responsiblebusiness #strategy #BusinessStrategy #Leadership #RiskManagement #CorporateStrategy #Resilience #OperationalRisk #ClimateRisk #ESG #SustainableBusiness #Biodiversity

𝗔 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗦&𝗣 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗱𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘂𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝟯𝟯% 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗗𝗣 𝗯𝘆 𝟮𝟬𝟰𝟬. The S&P Global Report "Sustainability Insights: Why Planning For A 2.3°C Warmer World Is Critical This Decade And Next," paints a sharp quantitative picture. Their model predicts that by 2040, it’s very unlikely (2.5% probability) that the global average temperature rise will stay below 1.5ºC compared to the preindustrial average. It finds a 50% chance that cumulative economic costs from warming could reach between 9% and 33% of global GDP by 2040 in an unprepared 2.3°C scenario. Yet, even these multi-trillion-dollar figures could represent a lower bound if tipping points are reached. The frequency and severity of climate hazards will not increase linearly with temperature, and current models struggle to price in future extreme weather events or the crossing of climate tipping points.  The analysis suggests we are not just miscalculating risk, we are fundamentally misunderstanding its nature. Proactive investment in both mitigation and adaptation offers a clear path forward, giving a "triple dividend,". The benefits are threefold: 🔸 𝗔𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 directly reduce damage from physical climate hazards. 🔸 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 generate positive returns through outcomes like lower insurance costs and increased agricultural output, compared to the high-warming scenario. 🔸  𝗦𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗼-𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 would deliver wider community advantages, such as reduced mortality rates and improved flood defences from natural solutions like mangroves. This highlights the critical need for increased investment in climate mitigation and adaptation, a need that is particularly acute in developing nations. 𝗠𝘆 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲 The data shows that investing in resilience is not a sunk cost but a high-return strategy that mitigates avoidable losses, creates economic value, and builds a more stable society. It's time to reevaluate our risk frameworks and redirect capital toward resolving one of the most acute environmental, social, and economic problems of our time. #ClimateRisk #SustainableFinance #ClimateAdaptation #Economics #RiskManagement #ESG #ClimateChange #Resilience Source: https://lnkd.in/eayC25-Z ___________ 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘸𝘯. 𝘍𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘥𝘐𝘯: Scott Kelly

Climate change isn't just an environmental issue. It's a critical business requirement. According to new research, businesses face significant risks from inaction, potentially losing 5-25% of their 2050 EBITDA. But here's the game changer: strategic climate adaptation could generate returns of $2 to $19 for every dollar invested. Key Takeaways: 🔹 Physical climate risks affect supply chains and operations. 🔹 Transitioning to a low-carbon economy provides opportunities. 🔹 Unprepared companies risk significantly higher cost pressure from carbon pricing or regulations. 🔹 Mitigation and adaptation strategies offer critical pathways to business resilience. 🔹 Companies must integrate climate strategy into their core business plans. Companies that actively manage climate risks will not only survive but thrive in a rapidly changing world. Are you prepared? World Economic Forum Boston Consulting Group (BCG) #sustainability #esg #climatechange #climateaction

To effectively reduce disaster risks, we must adopt integrated approaches that account for natural and human-driven interconnected hazards. A proposed redefinition frames hazards as processes influenced by environmental and anthropogenic factors, allowing better cross-sectoral communication and policy development. Frameworks like the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction emphasize multihazard strategies, including risk assessments, early warning systems, and collaborative governance. Sustained efforts in public education, governance reforms, and advanced tools for forecasting cascading hazards are critical. A multihazard perspective does not simplify our work—it recognizes our complexity and empowers us to address risks comprehensively, saving lives and mitigating economic and environmental damage. Full paper here- https://lnkd.in/gXcRTARF