Reporting should be seen as a financial discipline, not an obligation
The discourse around climate-related disclosures often centers on the complexity and cost of reporting. However, CFOs should view these frameworks as tools to support financial resilience. The original Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework, for example, was designed not as an administrative checklist, but to assess financial risks related to climate change and the transition to more sustainable models. As well as risk identification, this discipline also creates opportunities.
For example, companies will need to assess changes in supply and demand due to policies, technology, and market dynamics related to climate change, including assessing the impact on assets, liabilities, and resources and making decisions on new investments, restructuring, write-downs, or impairments.
Companies that fail to integrate risks into their financial models are vulnerable to being blindsided by regulatory shifts, supply chain disruptions, and stranded assets. For example, when wildfires devastated Southern California in January 2025, The Financial Times reported that “shares of the three largest publicly traded utility companies in California – Edison International, Sempra and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) – sold off as investors reacted to the potential liability utility companies face in the aftermath of a wildfire.” CFOs who treat climate-related reporting as a forward-looking financial discipline, rather than a purely regulatory obligation, will be better equipped to protect their companies from such shocks.Â