Climate change has stopped being a reputational matter and entered companies' financial cycle. According to PwC's 29th Global CEO Survey (with fieldwork between September and November 2025 covering more than 4,400 executives), 42% of CEOs say their company is at least moderately exposed to the risk of a significant financial loss from climate change over the next 12 months.
For years, sustainability occupied an ambiguous place: it was important, but relegated to reports, far from business decisions. That scenario has changed, and fast. We are no longer talking about 2030 scenarios or distant commitments, but about a direct impact on margins, investment and operational viability within a one-year horizon.
From reputational sustainability to real financial risk
The shift in approach is not explained only by greater environmental awareness, but by a regulatory and financial environment that has become more stringent in Europe. Sustainability is now reported under a demanding framework, with rules such as the CSRD, the ESRS standards and the EU Taxonomy. The Omnibus package, adopted in early 2026, has simplified the scope and postponed deadlines, but it has not changed the underlying logic: climate risk is treated as financial information. You can see the detail in our analysis of the Omnibus package.
Disclosure frameworks have also matured. The recommendations of the TCFD, which for years were the reference for reporting climate risks, have been incorporated into the ISSB's IFRS S2 standards, and their monitoring passed to the IFRS Foundation in 2024. And the principle of double materiality requires looking not only at how the company affects the climate, but at how the climate affects the company.
This framework combines with growing pressure from investors, financial institutions and supervisors, which treat climate risk with the same logic as any other financial risk. The impact is already feeding through to the income statement:
- Operating costs: rising prices for energy or certain raw materials.
- Supply chain disruptions: increasingly frequent and hard to anticipate.
- Access to finance: conditioned by environmental performance and climate finance.
- Asset valuation: especially in carbon-intensive sectors.
It is no coincidence that declared exposure is higher in heavily exposed sectors: according to the same PwC survey, it reaches 67% in power and utilities and 51% in insurance.
A 12-month horizon that changes the way decisions are made
The figure matters for its scale, but above all for the timeframe. Placing climate risk within a 12-month horizon means its effects already shape present-day decisions. This is not about anticipating a future scenario, but about managing an impact that is already underway.
This is reflected in how organisations decide. Sustainability is gaining weight in management committees, where it intersects with investment, expansion and risk management. Projects, suppliers and geographies are starting to be assessed not only for their profitability, but also for their climate exposure. It is worth remembering, however, that PwC itself flags a gap: only around a quarter of CEOs say they have defined processes for incorporating climate into supply-chain or product-design decisions.
The challenge is not measuring, it is deciding with the data
As sustainability enters the financial domain, many companies face an unexpected difficulty: they have more environmental data than ever, but that does not always translate into a greater capacity to decide. The complexity of that data makes it hard to use when time and clarity are critical. The difficulties tend to repeat themselves:
- Information fragmented across departments.
- Complex methodologies that hinder interpretation.
- Limited traceability.
- A weak connection between environmental indicators and financial metrics.
When environmental data enters strategy
For sustainability to stop being a technical exercise and become a real part of decision-making, data must be reliable (to support meaningful decisions), traceable (to understand its origin and be able to audit it) and useful (connected to key business variables). When this happens, environmental data stops being a reporting requirement and starts working as a strategic tool.
From complexity to decision: the role of technology
Regulatory, financial and operational pressure pushes companies towards the same need: systems that allow environmental information to be managed in a structured, useful way. AI-based solutions, such as Manglai, are gaining relevance because they integrate data, automate calculations and ensure methodological consistency, while translating environmental metrics into information that the business can understand.
The message from CEOs points in a clear direction: climate already conditions companies' financial health, with implications for how they operate, invest and compete. Organisations that integrate sustainability into their decision-making processes will be better prepared; those that limit themselves to compliance will take on growing risk. A good starting point is to structure the calculation with a carbon footprint software that connects environmental data with the business decision.
