Achieving net-zero as soon as possible is critical for safeguarding our economy and society. Yet doing so by 2050 through a finance-led transition now seems out of reach. As a result, investment institutions, banks and insurers are getting pragmatic: preparing for the worst, while still aiming for the best, under the circumstances.
The circumstances are that our world is increasingly fragmented. Physical impacts differ drastically by location, climate policies differ substantially by markets, as do energy mix and clean-tech adoption.
Pinpointing exposures
Glimmers of what ‘the worst’ might look like are coming into view. The cost of hurricanes, severe thunderstorms and floods amplified by a warming climate has topped $100bn for five years running. Modelling by MSCI finds that within the $9tn US market for mortgage-backed securities, properties exposed to high hazard-loss ratios are lagging in home price appreciation and losing insurance policy renewals at twice the rate as those in lower-risk areas.
Investors, lenders, insurers and companies alike now seek to integrate risk analytics that capture location data in geospatial detail. Knowing which facilities face which hazards across potentially millions of assets in a portfolio is essential for modelling financial impacts under multiple climate scenarios.
Investors have traditionally viewed their geographic exposures based on companies’ headquarters or major revenue segments, which cluster in economic hubs. Yet as the map below shows, physical risk can lie elsewhere – along supply routes or at sites of production, storage and logistics.
Figure 1. Mapping climate risk exposures
Areas of physical climate risk to facilities of listed companies
Source: MSCI ESG Research, data as of 31 March 2025, based on MSCI Geospatial Asset Intelligence
Note: For each of the 14 physical hazards covered by MSCI Climate Risk Center’s Physical Risk model, we assess the hazard exposure of over 2m corporate asset locations. The map highlights cities that exhibit exposure to physical hazards in the top quartile compared to the reference dataset (>= 75) for pluvial flooding, fluvial flooding, coastal flooding, tropical cyclones, extreme heat and wildfire.
Furthermore, physical hazards, nature dependencies or changes in ecosystems increasingly overlap, impacting business decisions on where to build plants and how to reconfigure supply chains, while challenging assumptions about asset resilience and productivity. More than one-third of corporate facilities in the US are located in areas that have very high exposure to water scarcity, for example, and 41% of the world’s listed companies face at least one high nature-related risk, such as air or soil condition.
Transition-focused
Preparing for the worst does not mean giving up on accelerating decarbonisation. Assets in transition funds, including strategies that invest in emissions-intensive sectors, rose 20% last year and now account for nearly 40% of publicly listed climate funds.
The shift to financing the harder-to-decarbonise parts of the economy is a sign that investors have become more targeted with maximising the impact of their climate capital, both in reducing emissions levels and in pursuing transition-focused opportunities.
The world’s listed companies are on track to overshoot their collective carbon budget for staying under the Paris agreement goal within the next two years, aligning with a warming trajectory of about 2.7 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels based on their targets and emissions trajectories.
The aggregate temperature masks divergence. Even before the flare-up of trade tensions, differences in national climate policies drove investors to differentiate the pace and scope of energy transition investment opportunities among countries and sectors.
As geopolitical shifts further fragment different markets’ transition trajectories, investors are seeking indicators that help them navigate differences in risks and opportunities while financing decarbonisation in the economy’s critical sectors. Those include a mosaic of market factors such as policy incentives and the availability of commercially feasible technologies for different sectors, as well as company-specific factors to gauge companies’ readiness for the transition.
Figure 2. A warming world
Projected temperature alignment of listed companies by country
Source: MSCI ESG Research, data as of 31 March 2025
Note: Russia and Iran not shown because the securities of companies listed there are not included in the MSCI ACWI Investable Market Index.
Climate-proofing
Somewhere between aiming for the best and preparing for the worst is an emerging pragmatism about a growing investment opportunity in serving the inevitable need for households, businesses and communities to prepare for, adapt to and recover from rising physical impacts. Some areas in Asia, for example, are warming at triple the global average, endangering the health of vast urban populations.
Investors are beginning to explore ways to gain exposure to adaptation and resilience product solutions – a category that encompasses everything from hybrid seeds and heat-resistant clothing to water management and sustainable real estate.
A series of industry frameworks have emerged to help guide investors looking to identify the relevant businesses, including the Climate Resilience Investments in Solutions Principles framework developed by the investor-led Global Adaptation and Resilience Investment working group. Our Institute is using artificial intelligence large language models to identify companies within the global investment universe with exposure to resilience solutions that potentially fall within the CRISP framework.
A warming world and the unevenness of the energy transition pose both material risk and profound opportunity. For investors, it’s a moment to embrace the complexity and contradictions, while positioning for what’s next. In other words, to adapt.
Linda-Eling Lee is Founding Director of the MSCI Sustainability Institute.
Interested in this topic? Subscribe to OMFIF’s newsletter for more.