Executive Summary
Corporate reporting is at an inflection point shaped by eight converging forces. AI is transforming both how reports are produced and consumed, demanding machine-readable structures alongside clear human-oriented narratives. Static PDFs are giving way to interactive, multi-format reporting ecosystems. International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards are emerging as the global reporting baseline, with jurisdictions from Australia to California adopting compatible frameworks. ESRS will have a place as a regional standard that is fully compatible with ISSB. Double materiality is deepening beyond conventional assessments, planetary tipping points, and dynamic, scenario-based monitoring. Mandatory assurance is elevating sustainability data to Financial-Grade Rigor levels, with 2026 serving as a critical dress rehearsal. Integrated reporting has not died but been absorbed — its core insights now embedded in ESRS and ISSB architecture. Climate reporting acts as a gatecrasher: banks already price climate risk into loans regardless of regulatory scope, pulling all of ESG into the financial mainstream. The regulatory landscape is consolidating into a multi-layered global system. Companies that build flexible, multi-jurisdictional reporting infrastructures now will hold a decisive advantage in the future.
Thesis 1: AI Will Redefine Both the Production and Consumption of Corporate Reports
Artificial intelligence is set to transform corporate reporting from both sides — how reports are created and how they are read. On the production side, AI already assists with data ingestion, anomaly detection, narrative drafting, claims validation, and consistency checks across documents. Google’s 2025 reporting cycle demonstrated practical use cases such as custom Gemini “Gems” for validating green claims against internal guidelines, and NotebookLM for stress-testing report drafts through simulated stakeholder personas (e.g., skeptical journalists, ESG investors, NGO program managers). Google’s AI Playbook for Sustainability Reporting1 identifies a full landscape of AI applications across three domains: data analytics (data management, anomaly detection, gap analysis, peer benchmarking, supplier analysis), content generation (narrative drafting, content visualization, content standardization, document summarization, accessibility enhancement, mock scoring, reactive communications, inquiry response, consistency review, claims validation), and content interaction (interactive querying, content localization, multimedia generation, user customization).
On the consumption side, users increasingly rely on AI to summarize and query reports rather than reading them cover to cover. This fundamentally changes what makes a report effective. The overall reporting concept, story arc, and key messages must be articulated crystal clear and understandable at a glance. As human users no longer read reports in detail but let machines summarize their contents, it is important to bring the key facts across quickly, so that users of AI summaries see the key context right away and can refine prompts for their AIs to find what is most relevant for them.
Highly efficient orientation for human users needs to be paired with easy accessibility of the contents for AI machines. Therefore, while it is vital that the contents of reports are organized in a highly efficient manner for human users, with information clearly linked to elements within reporting standards, it is now equally important that the contents also be transparent and easily accessible by AI machines (e.g., table formatting not as images, structured tagging, etc.). But the overall best practice is to keep humans in the loop. AI is a collaborator, not a replacement — human teams must remain the “pilots” rather than the “passengers,” crafting strategy, designing prompts, and rigorously verifying output.
Thesis 2: Corporate Reports Will Evolve from Static PDFs into Dynamic, Interactive Experiences
The traditional annual report as a static document is giving way to multi-format, interactive reporting. Google demonstrated this in its 2025 Environmental Report by offering podcast-style audio overviews via NotebookLM, interactive querying through natural language interfaces, and visual exploration tools via the experimental Learn About model — all published alongside the standard report PDF as public-facing, interactive companions. NotebookLM generates cited, conversational answers that help users decode complex technical disclosures, while Learn About highlights content for interactive exploration. The AI Playbook identifies four key content interaction opportunities: interactive querying (stakeholders query report content using natural language), content localization (translation and contextualization for specific regions), multimedia generation (audio overviews and video summaries to enhance storytelling), and user customization (filtering information by topic or stakeholder interest).
This trend is reinforced by the shift toward shorter, more material-focused reporting. The EU’s ESRS simplification removed 61% of data points from qualitative disclosure requirements (though many quantitative requirements remain). The UK’s “Modernising Corporate Reporting” consultation aims to streamline requirements. Emperor’s 2026 trends report2 notes a move from the “shopping list approach” toward “shorter, more refined sustainability sections” focused on material topics — with automotive companies leading with EV transition risks and construction companies focusing on low-carbon materials rather than attempting exhaustive coverage of all ESG topics.
The result is a reporting ecosystem where a concise, strategically focused core narrative is complemented by rich digital layers that stakeholders can explore on their own terms — whether through AI-powered chatbots, audio summaries, filterable data dashboards, or conversational interfaces. Especially for reports prepared and used with AI support, it is essential that the overall idea, the key messages intended to be conveyed, and the relationships between the detailed pieces of content are articulated in a crystal clear fashion and are understandable at a glance. The static PDF does not disappear — it becomes the anchor document within a broader, more interactive information architecture.
Thesis 3: ISSB Standards Will Become the Global Reporting Baseline
The ISSB’s IFRS S1 and S2 standards are rapidly emerging as the de facto global baselines for sustainability disclosure. Even where not legally mandated, ISSB-aligned reporting has become the common architecture for capital markets and multi-jurisdiction groups — e.g., in China (CSDS) or Japan (SSBJ). The standards incorporate the TCFD’s four-pillar structure — governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics & targets — and are designed to be interoperable with other frameworks.
In particular, the interoperability between ISSB and the EU’s European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) will be crucial – certainly for ESRS! While ISSB applies a single financial materiality lens (“outside-in”), ESRS requires a double materiality assessment that also captures a company’s outward impacts on environment and society (“inside-out”). This makes ESRS a standard that adds an impact dimension on top of the ISSB baseline. EFRAG and the ISSB have published joint interoperability guidance that explicitly maps ESRS disclosures to ISSB requirements, aiming to reduce complexity and duplication for companies utilizing both.
ESRS can play a decisive role in the global reporting landscape — but only if it actively seeks and deepens interoperability with ISSB. The EU’s Omnibus initiative, launched in February 2025, has already moved in this direction: EFRAG submitted revised ESRS technical advice to the European Commission in late 2025, cutting mandatory datapoints by roughly 61% and removing all voluntary datapoints. Double materiality remains mandatory, but the assessment shifts from volume to judgement — fewer datapoints, and clearer reasoning on what is truly material. The revised standards are expected to become law via a Delegated Act by mid-2026, with most large companies applying them for FY2026 reporting starting in 2027. At the same time, the scope has narrowed: only companies with over 1,000 employees and €50M turnover will be required to report under the CSRD, potentially excluding around 80% of previously in-scope firms.
This simplification is a necessary step, but the real test lies in whether ESRS can serve as a seamless extension of the ISSB baseline rather than becoming a competing architecture. If ESRS succeeds in aligning its core disclosure requirements with ISSB while layering on the double materiality dimension, it will become the natural “ISSB-plus” standard — giving European reporting global credibility and sparing multinationals from duplicative systems. If, however, ESRS drifts toward regulatory isolation, it risks becoming a regional burden that companies treat as a compliance exercise rather than a strategic reporting tool. The signals are encouraging: EFRAG’s interoperability mapping and the Omnibus-driven datapoint reduction both point toward convergence. But continued alignment efforts — particularly around metrics, definitions, and materiality thresholds — will determine whether ESRS earns its place as a global complement to ISSB or remains confined to European jurisdiction.
Our expectation that ISSB becomes a global baseline does not necessarily mean that more corporations will report against ISSB than, for example, ESRS. Rather, this means that the ISSB approach and its future extensions beyond climate topics can be expected to set the trajectory that other standards will follow over time. One piece of advice for corporates is to align their reporting strategy with ISSB standards — treating federal uncertainty in the US and evolving ESRS simplifications in Europe as justification for building flexible, comprehensive systems that work across jurisdictions and can easily adapt to evolving requirements. Reporting frameworks like GRI will remain relevant for now, but their future prominence, as ISSB and ESRS gain dominance, is uncertain.
Thesis 4: Double Materiality Will Deepen Toward Existential Thresholds and Planetary Tipping Points
For more than 10 years, double materiality — combining outward impacts on society (“inside-out”) with sustainability-related financial risks for the company (“outside-in”) — have been perceived as the structural default. The emerging ISSB standards, extending IFRS financial reporting toward non-financials, purely look at financial risks and opportunities for the company and its capital providers and business partners. The ESRS standards (like the Swiss legislation on non-financial reporting) consider both inside-out effects the company causes in the external environment as well as outside-in effects for the company’s financial risks and opportunities.
Beyond Conventional Materiality: Tipping Points as the Next Frontier
But standard double materiality — which still grants companies a substantial degree of discretion in determining which matters to include — may not be sufficient if it is not based on in-depth analysis. A more radical and thorough level of materiality analysis is emerging, one anchored not in stakeholder surveys or peer benchmarking but in planetary boundaries and systemic tipping points. Seven of nine planetary boundaries have now been breached, and the science indicates we are operating in a high-risk zone where cascading effects between Earth systems become increasingly probable.
The Stockholm Resilience Centre argues that focusing narrowly on companies’ most financially material environmental impacts “impedes the assessment of cumulative environmental impacts” and “is likely to lead to unreliable assessments of climate and nature-related risks”. This points to a fundamental limitation in how materiality is currently practiced: conventional materiality assessments evaluate issues in isolation, whereas tipping-point science reveals that Earth systems interact in non-linear ways, where breaching one boundary accelerates the erosion of others.
This calls for a materiality concept that distinguishes between incremental risks (manageable, reversible, within normal business parameters) and existential thresholds (irreversible, non-linear, system-altering). Planetary boundaries research provides the scientific scaffolding: absolute metrics such as CO₂ budgets per product aligned with 1.5°C pathways, biodiversity intactness indices, and freshwater consumption against regional safe operating limits are beginning to replace relative intensity metrics as the more meaningful performance indicators. The ISSB’s January 2026 decision to proceed with standard-setting on nature-related risks signals that this deeper, science-based layer of materiality is moving from the academic fringe toward mainstream disclosure requirements.
Dynamic Materiality Accelerates the Shift
The concept of dynamic materiality further sharpens this lens. Rather than treating materiality as a static snapshot produced during periodic assessment cycles, dynamic materiality uses scenario analysis and real-time data to stress-test which issues are likely to cross the threshold from immaterial to existential under different futures. BSR’s scenario-driven approach, for example, tests materiality assessments against plausible future conditions to identify which currently peripheral ESG issues could become critical — precisely the kind of forward-looking analysis needed to anticipate tipping-point risks.3
For corporate reporting, this means materiality assessments must evolve from periodic stakeholder consultations into continuous, time-resolved and science-informed monitoring systems that can flag when a company’s exposure is approaching a non-linear danger zone — where the financial consequences are not proportional to the cause but are catastrophic and abrupt. The double materiality framework provides the right conceptual container for this evolution, but only if it is infused with the scientific rigor of planetary boundaries research and the forward-looking discipline of scenario-based stress testing.
Thesis 5: Mandatory Assurance Will Elevate Sustainability Data to Financial-Grade Rigor
Sustainability reporting is rapidly moving toward the same audit discipline as financial reporting. California’s SB 253 requires limited assurance for scopes 1 and 2 from initial reporting in 2026, with enforcement discretion for good-faith efforts. The EU’s CSRD mandates limited assurance on FY2027 data (reported in 2028) for in-scope companies, with the European Commission expects to adopt a limited assurance standard by October 2026 and a potential transition to reasonable assurance afterwards. The UK’s forthcoming framework will likely require assurance under the International Standard on Sustainability Assurance (ISSA) 5000. Australia’s Group 1 filers are using 2025-2026 to build assurance readiness for their mandatory climate disclosures. This shift demands financial-reporting-grade controls over sustainability data.
Practically, this means aligning sustainability data processes with finance-style documentation, audit trails, and internal controls — treating 2026 as a “dress rehearsal” for the full assurance regime to come. Watershed’s 2026 guide outlines four concrete steps: (1) conduct pilot assurance on scope 1 and 2 plus a material scope 3 category, (2) leverage internal audit teams to identify where they struggle to get comfortable and flag control gaps early, (3) mirror the rigor of financial reporting processes and documentation standards, and (4) create clear audit trails for data sources, calculations, assumptions, and approvals. Companies that prepare now will avoid costly remediation later when limited assurance becomes mandatory and reasonable assurance follows shortly after.
Thesis 6: Integrated Reporting Is Not Dead — It Has Been Absorbed
The question is not whether integrated reporting has failed, but whether it has succeeded so thoroughly that it no longer needs its own label. The IIRC’s core insight — that financial and non-financial information provide mutual plausibility and together tell a company’s value creation story — has been quietly embedded into the architecture of both ISSB and ESRS. The ISSB explicitly extends IFRS financial reporting toward non-financial (or “pre-financial”) disclosure, while ESRS mandates a clear chain from stakeholders → material impacts/risks/opportunities (IROs) → policies → actions → targets → outcomes, inherently linking sustainability performance to financial consequences. This is also what auditors currently emphasize as the hallmark of a good ESRS report: consistently connecting these elements for each material topic.
However, the IIRC’s specific structural device — the Six Capitals Framework — fits awkwardly with both regimes. IIRC-style reporting operates like a balance sheet of capital stocks used and augmented, whereas ESRS and ISSB function more like a “profit-and-loss statement” focused on flows of impacts, risks, and opportunities. A report that tries to do both simultaneously that is structuring sections around capitals while also threading the IRO logic through each topic, risks becoming cluttered and unclear. This is why IIRC-style integrated reporting is declining in standalone application, even as its philosophical DNA i.e., the insistence that financial statements alone are insufficient, lives on in every major framework.
From Integration to Connectivity
The practical implication is that a new form of connectivity is emerging rather than integration between financial and non-financial information. Rather than merging financial and non-financial information into a single narrative organized by capitals, the emerging model links them through shared concepts — particularly the anticipated financial effects of sustainability matters. The ISSB published guidance in August 20254 on how companies should disclose the anticipated financial effects of sustainability-related risks and opportunities on their financial position, financial performance, and cash flows. This creates explicit bridges between sustainability disclosures and primary financial statements without requiring them to share the same report structure.
EFRAG’s interoperability guidance5 further reinforces this connectivity by explicitly mapping ESRS disclosures to ISSB requirements, so that a single reporting architecture can serve both frameworks. The ISSB’s January 2026 board meeting advanced standard setting on nature-related risks and opportunities, extending the bridge between sustainability factors and financial decision making beyond climate to biodiversity, water, and ecosystems. This expanding scope means that the mutual plausibility between financial and non-financial information, once the hallmark selling point of integrated reporting, is becoming a built-in feature of the standards themselves.
What Remains Valuable from the Integrated Reporting Tradition
This does not mean that everything from the IIRC tradition should be discarded. The emphasis on value creation narratives, strategic coherence, and concise storytelling remains deeply relevant — perhaps more so than ever as AI-driven consumption of reports puts a premium on clear story arcs and crystallized key messages. The challenge for forward-looking reporters is to fold these useful aspects of IIRC-style thinking into an ESRS/ISSB-aligned structure. This means using the IRO chain (stakeholders → impacts → risks/opportunities → policies → actions → targets → outcomes) as the backbone of each material topic, while weaving in the strategic narrative of how the company creates, preserves, and erodes value over time.
The trend in 2026 corporate reporting confirms this direction: reports are becoming shorter, more refined, and focused on material topics. Automotive companies lead with EV transition risks, construction companies with low-carbon materials — not because a capitals framework tells them to, but because the IRO logic naturally brings the most decision-relevant information to the surface. The integration concept has won the argument and entered the DNA of modern standards. It no longer needs to be branded as a separate movement.
Thesis 7: Climate Reporting Is the Gatecrasher That Pulls All of ESG Into the Mainstream
Banks and investors may not yet pay close attention to some of the more “exotic” ESG issues — biodiversity offsets, community impact metrics, or circular economy indicators. But climate has crossed the threshold from voluntary disclosure to hard-wired financial risk pricing. This makes climate reporting the gatecrasher: the single ESG dimension that forces even reluctant or descoped companies into substantive sustainability disclosure, and that will progressively pull other environmental and social factors behind it.
Markets Are Already Pricing Climate Risk
The evidence is unambiguous. The ECB’s euro area bank lending survey (July 2025) found that a net 35% of banks reported a tightening impact of climate risk on lending conditions for high-emitting firms, while a net 20% reported easing conditions for green firms. Banks are effectively operating a dual pricing regime: a “climate discount” for firms with strong environmental performance and a “climate risk premium” for laggards, regardless of whether those firms fall under any mandatory reporting framework. Both transition risk (exposure to carbon-neutral policy shifts) and physical risk (exposure to extreme weather and ecosystem decline) have had tightening impacts on lending conditions, and banks expect the physical risk effect to deepen further over the next 12 months.
This pattern extends beyond Europe. A BIS study on syndicated loans6 found a significant “carbon premium” emerging since the Paris Agreement — firms with higher carbon intensity face higher loan pricing across industries, broader than just fossil fuels or carbon-intensive sectors. Research published in the Oxford Open Economics Journal7 documents that climate-vulnerable developing countries pay on average 1.174% more in sovereign borrowing costs, with the V20 group of climate-vulnerable nations paying an estimated US $62 billion in additional interest between 2007 and 2016 due to their climate exposure. At the firm level, a 2025 study in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management8 confirms that the physical climate risk exposure of borrowing firms directly affects the pricing of bank loans. And as recently as February 2026, Bloomberg reported9 that climate risk now threatens credit ratings for dozens of countries, with borrowing costs estimated to be at least 1 basis point higher in 28 countries and around 5 basis points higher in the most exposed nations.
Being Out of Scope of CSRD Does Not Mean Not Being Exposed to Risks
The CSRD Omnibus reforms reduced the number of in-scope companies from over 50,000 to approximately 6,000. But being out of scope of the CSRD does not mean being out of scope of climate-related financial risk. Banks and investors do not consult the EU’s scope thresholds before adjusting their risk models. The ECB expects banks to have fully integrated climate-related and environmental risks into their risk management frameworks, and KPMG has documented10 that the ECB requires banks’ loan pricing frameworks to reflect their credit risk appetite and business strategy for climate risks, with loan pricing components that are climate sensitive. This means that every company seeking bank financing, whether CSRD-reportable or not, faces questions about carbon exposure, transition planning, and physical risk resilience.
The ECB is going further still. In 2026, the ECB is introducing a climate factor into its collateral framework, adjusting the risk discount for refinancing in ways that directly affect banks’ balance sheets and, by extension, the terms they offer borrowers. A January 2026 ECB working paper examines the relevance of banks’ exposure to climate transition risk in the interbank lending market itself, suggesting that climate risk is becoming systemic within the financial plumbing, not just at the customer-facing level.11
Climate as the Gateway to Broader ESG
Climate is uniquely positioned as a gateway because it is quantifiable, financially material, and already embedded in regulatory and central bank supervisory expectations. Once companies build the data infrastructure, controls, and assurance processes for climate reporting (GHG inventories, scenario analysis, transition plans), the marginal cost of extending that infrastructure to adjacent sustainability topics (water, biodiversity, supply chain labor practices) drops dramatically. The ISSB’s January 2026 decision to advance standard setting on nature-related risks follows exactly this logic: climate was the proving ground, and the same architecture will now be expanded.
Markets are adjusting to climate realities regardless of whether regulation is “simplified” or whether commentators claim there is a “backlash.” For banks, it is a risk calculation. That’s all. And that risk calculation is the most powerful force pulling corporate reporting, and eventually broader ESG disclosure, into the financial mainstream.
Thesis 8: The Regulatory Landscape Will Consolidate Around a Multi-Layered Global Architecture
The period of regulatory fragmentation is giving way to a layered system in which a global baseline (ISSB) sits beneath jurisdiction-specific requirements (ESRS, California SB 253, Australia AASB S2, UAE Federal Decree 11). In 2026, mandatory sustainability reporting comes into sharp focus: California’s SB 253 marks the first mandatory sustainability disclosures in the US, with a first deadline of August 10, 2026, for companies over $1B revenue doing business in California, requiring scopes 1 and 2 aligned to GHG Protocol, with scope 3 following in 2027. The EU CSRD Wave 2 covers approximately 6,000 large companies that must begin preparation for 2028 reporting on FY2027 data using simplified ESRS. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism © 2026 Sustainserv GmbH/Inc 9
(CBAM) definitive regime started January 1, 2026, requiring importers to declare embedded emissions and surrender certificates for cement, iron and steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity, and hydrogen. The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) takes effect December 30, 2026, for large operators, requiring traceability to geographic coordinates and proof that commodities (cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soy, wood, and derived products) are deforestation free.
Rather than building for a single regime, companies should create disclosure infrastructure that simultaneously satisfies California, EU, and ISSB-style investor requirements. We recommend that companies should: (1) scope entities and test thresholds across all applicable jurisdictions, (2) apply a single GHG Protocol-aligned emissions inventory with controllable boundaries and documented scope 3 categories serving as a single source of truth, (3) prepare a TCFD/ISSB-structured climate risk disclosure that can be used in other regulatory formats such as SB 261, ESRS narrative requirements, for the requirement of lenders and customers without starting from scratch, (4) apply a rigor of controls similar to those in financial reporting for non-financial content, including the use of AI-enhanced Disclosure Management Systems where qualitative information and quantitative data can be managed, so that it can be used for disclosure under multiple standards, and (5) track supplier data for CBAM declarations and EUDR due diligence statements.
Most CEOs of global companies already believe the sustainability case is stronger now than five years ago. The regulatory architecture is consolidating, and companies that build flexible, multi-jurisdictional reporting systems now will hold a decisive advantage over those that wait for some “perfect clarity” that will never arrive.
Wrap-Up: The Future of Corporate Reporting
Corporate reporting stands at a pivotal inflection point, driven by eight converging forces that will fundamentally reshape how companies disclose, and how stakeholders consume, corporate information. It will be valuable for corporations to remain aware and keep their finger on the pulse of these developments, so they can perceive shifts that will impact their regulatory and market requirements in the future and be prepared to respond in a flexible and resilient manner to such changes early on.
The Eight Forces at a Glance
1. AI as a dual disruptor — AI is transforming both the production side (data ingestion, narrative drafting, claims validation, consistency checks) and the consumption side, where users increasingly query reports via AI rather than reading them cover to cover. This demands reports that are simultaneously machine-readable and clear to humans.
2. From static PDFs to interactive ecosystems — The traditional PDF-based annual report is giving way to multi-format, interactive reporting platforms.
3. ISSB as the global baseline — IFRS S1/S2 standards are being adopted or mirrored by jurisdictions from Australia to California, creating a common disclosure architecture for capital markets worldwide. ESRS will be used as a European framework, fully compatible with ISSB.
4. Double materiality deepening — Materiality assessments are moving beyond conventional approaches to incorporate planetary tipping points and dynamic, scenario-based monitoring.
5. Mandatory assurance — Sustainability data is being elevated to financial-grade rigor, with 2026 serving as a critical dress rehearsal for companies preparing their first assured reports.
6. Integrated reporting absorbed, not dead — The core insight of integrated reporting — connecting financial and non-financial value creation — now lives inside the ESRS and ISSB architecture rather than as a standalone framework.
7. Climate as the gatecrasher — Banks already price climate risk into lending decisions regardless of regulatory scope, pulling all of ESG into the financial mainstream and making climate reporting a non-negotiable entry point.
8. Regulatory consolidation — The global landscape is settling into a multi-layered system where international baselines (ISSB) coexist with regional standards (ESRS), requiring companies to navigate overlapping but increasingly interoperable requirements.
The Strategic Imperative
The overarching message is clear: companies that invest now in flexible, multi-jurisdictional reporting infrastructures — built on ISSB-aligned foundations, capable of accommodating ESRS’s double materiality layer, and designed for both human and AI consumption — will hold a decisive competitive advantage. Waiting for regulatory certainty is no longer a viable strategy; the convergence of standards, technology, and market expectations is already underway.
1 https://sustainability.google/reports/ai-playbook-for-sustainability-reporting/
2 Cut the Fluff, Keep the Spark: Key Reporting Trends for 2026 https://emperor.works/insights/cut-the-fluff-keep-the-spark-key-reporting-trends-for-2026/
3 https://www.bsr.org/en/blog/dynamic-materiality-how-companies-can-future-proof-materiality-assessments
4 https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2025/08/disclosing-information-anticipated-financial-effects/
5 https://www.efrag.org/en/sustainability-reporting/esrs-workstreams/interoperability
6 The pricing of carbon risk in syndicated loans https://www.bis.org/publ/work946.htm
7 Climate vulnerability and the cost of debt – Oxford Academic https://academic.oup.com/ooec/article/doi/10.1093/ooec/odaf003/8236479
8 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069625001640
9 Climate Risk Threatens Credit Ratings for Dozens of Countries https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-09/climate-risk-threatens-credit-ratings-for-dozens-of-countries
10 Climate-related and environmental risks in loan pricing https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/ecb-office/climate-related-and-environmental-risks-in-loan-pricing.html
11 ECB climate factor 2026 https://banking.vision/en/climate-factor-ecb-2026/; Climate change, bank liquidity and systemic risk https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp3168~96a956a7fe.en.pdf
Get in touch. We are happy to tell you more about it.
