The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) created the framework that now underpins climate disclosure requirements worldwide. Whether you’re preparing for mandatory reporting, responding to investor pressure, or building climate risk capabilities, understanding the TCFD framework is essential. The sections below explain the origin and purpose of TCFD, its four pillars, all 11 recommended disclosures, and how the framework evolved into today’s global standards.
One point on status before you start. The Task Force itself disbanded in October 2023, and the IFRS Foundation took over monitoring of company climate disclosures from 2024. The TCFD recommendations are still available to use, and IFRS S2 now carries them forward as a formal standard.
What Is the TCFD Framework?
The TCFD framework is a set of recommendations for how companies should disclose climate-related financial information to investors, lenders, and other stakeholders. Created by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, an industry-led group established by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) in 2015, the framework provides a structured approach to reporting climate risks and opportunities.
The framework emerged from a recognition that climate change poses systemic risks to the global financial system. Mark Carney, then Governor of the Bank of England, warned of a “tragedy of the horizon”: climate risks materializing beyond typical business planning cycles but with profound financial implications. The TCFD aimed to bring these long-term risks into current financial decision-making.
Released in 2017, the TCFD recommendations quickly became the global standard for climate-related financial disclosure. What began as voluntary guidance has since been embedded in mandatory requirements across major economies. Though the Task Force itself disbanded in October 2023, its framework lives on through the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and national regulations worldwide.
Sample Climate Risk Assessment
See a full climate risk assessment, end to end
We’ll email you a complete worked example for a manufacturing site: 12 hazards, multiple scenarios, and value-at-risk out to 2050. It shows what a full climate risk assessment output looks like.
The Four Pillars of TCFD
The TCFD framework organizes climate disclosure around four interconnected pillars that represent core elements of how organizations operate. Each pillar addresses a different aspect of how climate considerations should flow through an organization.
Governance
Governance disclosure reveals how the organization oversees climate-related risks and opportunities at the highest levels. Investors want to know that climate risk has board-level attention and that clear accountability exists for managing it. This pillar shows that climate oversight sits with corporate leadership as well as with sustainability teams.
Strategy
Strategy disclosure explains how climate change affects the business model: both the threats it poses and the opportunities it creates. This pillar requires organizations to think across time horizons and consider how different climate futures might unfold. It’s where scenario analysis enters the picture, demonstrating that leadership has stress-tested their strategy against plausible climate pathways.
Risk Management
Risk management disclosure describes the processes an organization uses to identify, assess, and manage climate-related risks. This pillar connects climate risk to enterprise risk management, showing that climate considerations are embedded in the same frameworks used for other material risks.
Metrics and Targets
Metrics and targets disclosure provides the quantitative backbone of climate reporting. This is where greenhouse gas emissions data appears, along with climate-related targets and progress against them. Metrics transform climate commitments from aspirational statements into measurable accountability.
The 11 TCFD Recommendations
Within the four pillars, TCFD specifies 11 recommended disclosures. These recommendations provide the detailed roadmap for what organizations should report. The Task Force asked for the Governance and Risk Management disclosures in annual financial filings in all cases, and for the Strategy and Metrics and Targets disclosures where the information is material.
Governance Recommendations
a) Board oversight: Describe the board’s oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities. This includes how the board is informed about climate issues, how frequently it considers them, and whether climate factors into major decisions like capital allocation, acquisitions, or strategy reviews.
b) Management’s role: Describe management’s role in assessing and managing climate-related risks and opportunities. Organizations should explain which executives or committees have climate responsibilities, how information flows to them, and how they monitor climate-related issues.
Strategy Recommendations
a) Risks and opportunities: Describe the climate-related risks and opportunities the organization has identified over the short, medium, and long term. This requires defining what those time horizons mean for your business and identifying specific climate issues relevant to your operations and value chain.
b) Impact on business: Describe the impact of climate-related risks and opportunities on the organization’s businesses, strategy, and financial planning. Where climate factors have influenced decisions (about products, supply chains, investments, or operations), those impacts should be disclosed.
c) Resilience of strategy: Describe the resilience of the organization’s strategy, taking into consideration different climate-related scenarios, including a 2°C or lower scenario. This recommendation introduced scenario analysis as a core disclosure expectation, requiring organizations to demonstrate how their strategy holds up under different climate futures.
Risk Management Recommendations
a) Risk identification processes: Describe the organization’s processes for identifying and assessing climate-related risks. This covers how climate risks are identified, what criteria determine materiality, and how the organization considers both physical and transition risks.
b) Risk management processes: Describe the organization’s processes for managing climate-related risks. Once identified, how are climate risks prioritized, mitigated, transferred, or accepted? What actions has the organization taken or planned?
c) Integration with overall risk management: Describe how processes for identifying, assessing, and managing climate-related risks are integrated into the organization’s overall risk management. Climate risk shouldn’t exist in a silo: this recommendation ensures it connects to enterprise risk management frameworks.
How to Implement TCFD Risk Management in Practice
The TCFD’s guidance for all sectors asks for more than a process description. Under recommendation (a), a company should explain how it judges the significance of climate risks relative to its other risks, and whether it considers existing and emerging climate regulation. It may also disclose how it sizes each risk and the risk terms it uses. Under recommendation (b), it should explain how it decides to mitigate, transfer, accept, or control each risk, and how it prioritizes climate risks.
The Task Force’s 2020 Guidance on Risk Management Integration and Disclosure sets out four initial steps for building climate risk into an existing enterprise risk process:
- Build a shared understanding of climate change and its potential impacts across the company.
- Identify which risk processes need to change and who owns them.
- Add climate risks to the existing risk taxonomy and risk inventory, mapped to current risk categories.
- Adapt those processes for the features of climate risk, such as long time horizons.
The same guidance names four principles: involve every relevant function, look beyond normal planning horizons, keep the effort proportionate to the exposure, and apply the method consistently from year to year. IFRS S2 Paragraph 25 turns this into required disclosure. It asks for the inputs and parameters used (including data sources and the scope of operations covered), whether scenario analysis informs risk identification, how the nature, likelihood, and magnitude of effects are assessed, how climate risks are prioritized against other risks, how they are monitored, and what changed from the prior period.
Metrics and Targets Recommendations
a) Climate-related metrics: Disclose the metrics used by the organization to assess climate-related risks and opportunities in line with its strategy and risk management process. Beyond emissions, this might include metrics like carbon pricing assumptions, water usage in water-stressed regions, or revenue from low-carbon products.
b) Greenhouse gas emissions: Disclose Scope 1, Scope 2, and if appropriate, Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions and the related risks. This is the quantitative anchor of TCFD reporting: actual emissions data calculated according to established protocols like the GHG Protocol.
c) Climate-related targets: Describe the targets used by the organization to manage climate-related risks and opportunities and performance against targets. If an organization has set emissions reduction targets, net-zero commitments, or other climate goals, this recommendation requires disclosure of those targets and progress.
Climate Risks Under TCFD
TCFD established a taxonomy for climate-related risks that has become standard across the industry. Understanding these categories is essential for both disclosure and risk management.
Physical Risks
Physical risks arise from the direct impacts of climate change. TCFD divides these into two categories:
Acute physical risks are event-driven: hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and extreme heat events. These cause immediate, often severe impacts: facility damage, supply chain disruption, and operational downtime.
Chronic physical risks develop gradually: rising sea levels, shifting precipitation patterns, and long-term temperature increases. These rarely trigger a single crisis. They erode asset values and operational viability over time. TCFD’s 2021 update added a cross-industry metric for this: the amount and extent of assets or business activities vulnerable to physical risks. IFRS S2 Paragraph 29(c) makes that metric a requirement, asking reporters to disclose “the amount and percentage of assets or business activities vulnerable to climate-related physical risks.” For the full walkthrough of the four questions hidden inside Paragraph 29(c) (what amount, percentage of what denominator, vulnerable under what scenario, and assets in what scope), see the dedicated piece.
How Physical Climate Risks Are Reported Under TCFD
Physical risk runs through all four TCFD pillars:
- Strategy (a): name the acute and chronic hazards that matter to your sites and supply chain, split by short, medium, and long term.
- Strategy (b): describe the financial effect, such as lost revenue from reduced production capacity, asset damage or impairment, higher operating costs, and capital spent on adaptation.
- Strategy (c): test the strategy under more than one scenario, including a 2°C or lower pathway. Physical risk shows most clearly in higher-warming scenarios.
- Risk Management (a) to (c): show how hazards are screened, scored, prioritized, and fed into enterprise risk management.
- Metrics and Targets (a): report the amount and extent of assets or business activities vulnerable to physical risks.
Each of these starts from where your assets are. Hazard data is only as useful as the site locations it is matched to.
Transition Risks
Transition risks emerge from the shift toward a lower-carbon economy. TCFD identifies four subcategories:
Policy and legal risks include carbon pricing, emissions regulations, and disclosure mandates. Companies face compliance costs, potential penalties, and strategic disruption as regulations tighten.
Technology risks arise as cleaner technologies disrupt incumbent products and processes. Organizations with assets tied to carbon-intensive technologies may face obsolescence.
Market risks reflect changing customer and investor preferences. Demand shifts away from high-carbon products while capital flows toward climate solutions.
Reputation risks emerge when stakeholders perceive an organization as contributing to climate change or failing to address it adequately.
Climate-Related Opportunities
TCFD recognized that climate change creates opportunities alongside risks. The framework identifies five categories of climate-related opportunities:
Resource efficiency: Reduced operating costs through more efficient buildings, transportation, and production processes.
Energy source: Cost savings and emission reductions from shifting to lower-emission energy sources, including renewables.
Products and services: Revenue opportunities from developing low-emission products, climate adaptation solutions, or services for the green transition.
Markets: Access to new markets created by climate change, including emerging economies with growing demand for clean technology.
Resilience: Competitive advantages from building adaptive capacity and supply chain resilience that competitors lack.
Scenario Analysis Under TCFD
Scenario analysis is central to TCFD’s strategy recommendations. The framework asks organizations to show how their strategy performs under different climate futures. The goal is to stress-test strategic resilience across a range of plausible outcomes.
TCFD recommends including a 2°C or lower scenario, which lays out an emissions pathway consistent with holding global warming to 2°C and is generally aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goals. Many organizations also analyze a “business as usual” or high-emissions scenario (often 3-4°C) to show the range of potential futures.
Effective scenario analysis considers both physical and transition risks across multiple time horizons. A 2°C world implies aggressive transition policies (carbon prices, technology mandates, phase-outs), creating transition risk. A higher-warming world implies less transition pressure but more severe physical impacts.
IFRS S2 Paragraph 22 carries TCFD’s scenario analysis recommendation forward as a mandatory disclosure with explicit input requirements (the scenarios, sources, time horizons, scope of operations, and key assumptions) and explicit output requirements (the entity’s resilience assessment, areas of uncertainty, and capacity to adjust strategy). For a walk through how the inputs disclosure differs from the outputs disclosure, see scenario analysis is two questions, not one. For physical risk scenario analysis, organizations need location-level data on how climate hazards evolve under different emissions pathways. This requires climate projections across relevant hazards (flooding, heat stress, water stress, wildfire) at the geographic scale of actual operations. Organizations evaluating platforms for scenario analysis should compare climate scenario analysis tools to understand available options, data sources, and scenario coverage.
Where TCFD Reporting Is Required
What began as voluntary recommendations has become mandatory across major economies:
United Kingdom: The UK was the first G20 country to mandate TCFD-aligned disclosure. FCA listing rules require listed companies to report against TCFD on a comply or explain basis, starting with premium-listed commercial companies for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 January 2021 and extended to standard-listed issuers from 1 January 2022. Large companies and LLPs have made mandatory climate disclosures under the Companies Act for financial years starting on or after 6 April 2022. The government published UK SRS S1 and S2, the UK versions of IFRS S1 and S2, on 25 February 2026 for voluntary use. The FCA’s final rules (Policy Statement PS26/19, 30 September 2026) move listed companies from TCFD to UK SRS, on a comply-or-explain basis, for accounting periods starting on or after 1 January 2027.
European Union: The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires sustainability reporting, including climate, under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Directive (EU) 2026/470, published on 26 February 2026, narrows the scope. From financial years starting on or after 1 January 2027, EU companies and groups report only if they have more than 1,000 employees and net turnover above EUR 450 million. Member States may also exempt first-wave reporters below those thresholds for financial years 2025 and 2026. Groups based outside the EU follow separate rules, based on their EU turnover, from 2028. The ESRS climate standard asks for the anticipated financial effects of material physical risks, including assets at risk. ESRS applies double materiality, which adds impacts on people and the environment to TCFD’s investor-focused view.
United States: California’s SB 261 applies to US companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue that do business in the state. It requires a climate-related financial risk report every two years, prepared in line with the TCFD recommendations, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards, or an equivalent government reporting requirement. Enforcement is paused. On 18 November 2025 the Ninth Circuit granted an injunction while the appeal is heard, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has said it will not enforce the 1 January 2026 deadline. CARB withdrew its first regulation under SB 261 and SB 253 from state review in June 2026, revised it, and resubmitted it on 21 September 2026.
At the federal level, the SEC’s 2024 climate disclosure rules never took effect: they were stayed in April 2024, and on 29 May 2026 the SEC proposed to rescind them. As of October 2026 the SEC has not voted on a final repeal.
New Zealand: Mandatory TCFD-aligned disclosure applies to large listed companies, banks, insurers, and asset managers since 2023.
Japan: Since the 2021 revision of Japan’s Corporate Governance Code, Prime Market companies are expected to disclose climate information based on the TCFD recommendations or an equivalent framework. The Financial Services Agency’s roadmap of January 2026, given legal force through amendments in February and July 2026, makes the SSBJ standards (Japan’s version of the ISSB standards) mandatory for Prime Market companies in stages. Companies with a market capitalization of ¥3 trillion or more report from the fiscal year ending March 2027, ¥1 trillion or more from March 2028, and ¥500 billion or more from March 2029.
Australia: AASB S2 (Australia’s adoption of IFRS S2) is being phased in across three groups. Group 1 has reported for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2025. It covers entities meeting two of three thresholds (revenue at or above AU$500 million, gross assets at or above AU$1 billion, 500 or more employees), plus NGER reporters whose group emits 50 ktCO2-e or more. Group 2 (two of: AU$200 million revenue, AU$500 million gross assets, 250 employees, plus all other NGER reporters and asset owners with AU$5 billion or more) started with financial years beginning on or after 1 July 2026. Group 3 (two of: AU$50 million revenue, AU$25 million gross assets, 100 employees) starts with financial years beginning on or after 1 July 2027.
Singapore: All SGX-listed companies report Scope 1 and 2 emissions from FY2025. Straits Times Index constituents report full ISSB-based climate disclosures from FY2025. Other listed companies follow from FY2028 if their market capitalization is S$1 billion or more, and from FY2030 if it is below that.
Hong Kong: HKEX listing rules effective 1 January 2025 require climate disclosures modeled on IFRS S2. Main Board issuers report on a comply or explain basis, and Hang Seng Composite LargeCap Index constituents must report in full for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2026. Switzerland and other jurisdictions have similarly embedded TCFD or IFRS S2 into regulation.
From TCFD to ISSB
The Financial Stability Board announced TCFD’s work completion in July 2023, the task force formally disbanded in October 2023, and the IFRS Foundation, home of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), assumed responsibility for monitoring corporate climate-related disclosures from 2024.
The ISSB’s IFRS S1 and S2 standards, issued in June 2023, incorporate and build on TCFD recommendations. The climate-focused S2 retains the four-pillar structure and expands on several areas:
Industry-based metrics: TCFD treated industry-specific disclosure as an encouraged supplement. IFRS S2 Paragraph 32 makes it a required action: entities must disclose industry-based metrics and refer to the Industry-based Guidance on Implementing IFRS S2 (IBG) when determining what to disclose. For eight industries with prescribed physical-risk metrics, the IBG includes a Climate Change Adaptation topic under code 450a: Real Estate (IF-RE-450a), Mortgage Finance (FN-MF-450a), Insurance (FN-IN-450a), Water Utilities & Services (IF-WU-450a), Hotels & Lodging (SV-HL-450a), Health Care Delivery (HC-DY-450a), Managed Care (HC-MC-450a), and Forestry Management (RR-FM-450a).
Scope 3 disclosure: TCFD recommended Scope 3 emissions disclosure where appropriate. IFRS S2 Paragraph 29(a)(i)(3) requires absolute gross Scope 3 disclosure, and Paragraph 29(a)(vi) requires the entity to state which GHG Protocol Scope 3 categories it includes (subject to first-year transition relief and a permitted limitation for financial institutions reporting Category 15 financed emissions).
Transition plans: ISSB strengthens expectations around disclosing climate transition plans and their credibility.
For organizations already aligned with TCFD, the transition to ISSB builds on existing foundations. The core structure remains; the requirements deepen. Cohort reviews of first-wave IFRS S2 reporters show that the deepening matters in practice: Paragraph 22 sub-element disclosure (climate-related scenario selection, time horizons, scope of operations, key assumptions) and the Paragraph 29(c) amount disclosure are areas where TCFD-aligned reporters have visible gaps under the new standard. For a detailed breakdown of what the standard adds beyond TCFD, see our complete IFRS S2 guide and our TCFD vs ISSB comparison.
TCFD’s four-pillar structure also underpins related frameworks. CDP built the TCFD recommendations into its climate questionnaire and has mapped the questionnaire to IFRS S2 since 2024, and the TNFD framework extends the same four-pillar structure from climate to broader nature-related risks including biodiversity, water, and land use.
Implementing TCFD Recommendations
Organizations approaching TCFD implementation for the first time should follow a structured process:
1. Conduct a gap assessment. Map current climate-related disclosures against TCFD’s 11 recommended disclosures. Identify where you already have relevant information and where gaps exist.
2. Establish governance structures. Ensure board-level oversight of climate risk exists with clear accountability. Define management roles and reporting lines for climate-related issues.
3. Identify risks and opportunities. Assess which physical and transition risks are relevant to your operations, value chain, and markets. Consider different time horizons and geographic exposures.
4. Build scenario analysis capability. Develop or acquire the ability to analyze your strategy under different climate pathways. This typically requires physical risk data for asset locations and transition risk assumptions for your sector.
5. Establish metrics and targets. Calculate and verify greenhouse gas emissions. If you’ve set climate targets, document baselines, methodologies, and progress.
6. Integrate with risk management. Connect climate risk assessment to enterprise risk management frameworks. Climate shouldn’t be a standalone exercise.
7. Begin disclosure. Start with what you have, acknowledge limitations, and commit to improvement over time. TCFD explicitly recognizes that disclosure quality improves through iteration.
For physical risk assessment supporting TCFD disclosure, automated platforms now provide location-level scenario analysis across multiple hazards and time horizons, delivering the data TCFD requires without lengthy consulting engagements.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does TCFD stand for?
TCFD stands for Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. It was an industry-led task force established by the Financial Stability Board in 2015 to develop recommendations for climate-related financial disclosure.
Is TCFD reporting mandatory?
It depends on where you report. In the UK, listed companies report against TCFD on a comply or explain basis until their periods starting on or after 1 January 2027, when UK SRS replaces it, and large companies and LLPs make mandatory climate disclosures under the Companies Act. Japan’s Corporate Governance Code expects Prime Market companies to disclose on a TCFD or equivalent basis. A growing number of jurisdictions now require IFRS S2 or a local version of it, including Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore, with Japan’s largest listed companies following from 2027.
The EU does not require TCFD by name. Large companies in scope of the CSRD report under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), which were drafted to take account of TCFD and cover the same four areas: governance, strategy, the management of risks and impacts, and metrics and targets. California’s SB 261 accepts TCFD-based reports, but a court injunction has paused enforcement.
What are the four pillars of TCFD?
The four TCFD pillars are Governance (board and management oversight), Strategy (climate impacts on business model), Risk Management (processes to identify and manage climate risks), and Metrics and Targets (GHG emissions and climate-related performance indicators).
How many TCFD recommendations are there?
The TCFD made four recommendations, one per pillar, supported by 11 recommended disclosures, often called the 11 TCFD recommendations: 2 under Governance, 3 under Strategy, 3 under Risk Management, and 3 under Metrics and Targets.
What is the difference between TCFD and ISSB?
TCFD created the original voluntary framework for climate disclosure. The ISSB issued IFRS S1 and S2 in June 2023, the TCFD task force formally disbanded in October 2023, and the IFRS Foundation assumed monitoring of corporate climate disclosures from 2024. IFRS S2 builds on TCFD with mandatory industry-based metrics under Paragraph 32, required Scope 3 disclosure, including which GHG Protocol categories are covered, and additional requirements covering planned use of carbon credits in net emissions targets, financed emissions detail, and target performance.
What is scenario analysis under TCFD?
Scenario analysis under TCFD examines how an organization’s strategy performs under different climate futures. Organizations should include a 2°C or lower scenario, generally aligned with the Paris Agreement, alongside two or three other scenarios relevant to their circumstances. This involves assessing both physical risks and transition risks across multiple time horizons.
How is TCFD scenario analysis different from what IFRS S2 requires under Paragraph 22?
TCFD recommended scenario analysis under Strategy recommended disclosure (c), including a 2°C or lower scenario, to demonstrate strategic resilience. IFRS S2 Paragraph 22 carries this forward and adds explicit sub-element disclosure. Companies disclose the climate-related scenarios used and their sources, whether the analysis included a diverse range of scenarios, whether the scenarios cover physical or transition risks (or both), and whether one scenario aligns with the latest international agreement on climate change. They also disclose why the chosen scenarios are relevant, the time horizons used, the scope of operations covered, and key assumptions across climate policy, macroeconomics, regional variables, energy mix, and technology. Paragraph 22 also requires disclosure of the analysis output: the entity’s assessment of climate resilience, areas of uncertainty considered, and capacity to adjust strategy. For the full walkthrough including how the input requirements split from the output requirements, see scenario analysis is two questions, not one.
Did first-wave IFRS S2 reporters fully implement TCFD-equivalent scenario analysis?
Cohort reviews of early IFRS S2 and AASB S2 reporters, and of New Zealand climate reporters under a closely related standard, show meaningful gaps against the standard’s plain text. Common patterns include scenario typology disclosure that names a pathway without disclosing the time horizons, scope of operations, or key assumptions required under Paragraph 22(b); reliance on proportionality language to defer the Paragraph 29(c) physical-risk amount disclosure; and resilience assessments that describe processes without the outputs Paragraph 22(a) calls for. For the cohort findings in detail, see what first-wave IFRS S2 reporters skipped.
Does my industry have specific TCFD or IFRS S2 physical-risk requirements?
Under TCFD, industry-specific guidance was supplemental: organizations were encouraged to apply SASB sector standards alongside the four pillars but were not required to. Under IFRS S2, Paragraph 32 makes industry-based metric disclosure a required action. Entities must refer to and consider the applicability of metrics in the Industry-based Guidance on Implementing IFRS S2 (IBG). For eight industries, the IBG includes prescribed physical-risk metrics under topic code 450a: Real Estate, Mortgage Finance, Insurance, Water Utilities & Services, Hotels & Lodging, Health Care Delivery, Managed Care, and Forestry Management. Reporters in these eight industries face a sector-specific Paragraph 29(c) disclosure shape, an IBG-defined exposure metric paired with the Paragraph 29(c) amount and percentage. For the breakdown, see eight industries with prescribed physical-risk metrics.
Is TCFD still used in 2026?
Yes. The Task Force disbanded in October 2023, but its recommendations remain available, and some rules still reference them, including the UK listing rules (until they move to UK SRS for periods from 2027) and California’s SB 261. The IFRS Foundation states that companies applying IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 will meet the TCFD recommendations, so a company moving to IFRS S2 does not need a separate TCFD report.
How should physical climate risks be reported under TCFD?
Physical risks appear in all four pillars. Under Strategy, name the acute and chronic hazards by time horizon, describe their financial effect, and test resilience under more than one climate scenario. Under Risk Management, explain how those hazards are identified, assessed, and managed. Under Metrics and Targets, the TCFD’s 2021 guidance adds a cross-industry metric: the amount and extent of assets or business activities vulnerable to physical risks. IFRS S2 Paragraph 29(c) now requires the same figure.
Free Climate Risk Report
Run a free climate risk assessment report
12 hazards across multiple scenarios and four time horizons, with loss figures for any location. Start free, no call required.
Key Takeaways
The TCFD framework established the global standard for climate-related financial disclosure. Its four recommendations (Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets) and 11 recommended disclosures guide organizations in communicating climate risks to investors. Though the Task Force disbanded in 2023, its framework lives on through IFRS S2 and national rules in the UK, Australia, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and beyond. For organizations preparing for disclosure, TCFD provides both the structure and the roadmap. Implementation starts with governance, builds through risk assessment and scenario analysis, and culminates in metrics that transform climate commitments into measurable accountability.
