Climate is not a moral question but an economic fact
A position paper by Isabelle Kocher de Leyritz, Chairman & Co-Founder of Blunomy.
Beyond the political backlash and the fading regulatory pressure we are witnessing worldwide, climate change continues to reshape supply chains, the cost of capital, operational resilience, and asset values.
The challenge for leaders now is to redesign climate tools that enable them to steer the transition with clarity and confidence.
We must shift from symbolic commitments to actionable economic strategy — from carbon-only indicators to systemic risk diagnostics grounded in operational reality and directly tied to financial performance, so that companies can better capture the true transformation dynamics of their business and markets.
What does it take to realign business decisions with the materiality of climate risk? And how can organizations turn this diagnosis into a powerful performance lever?
The Belém COP, which just wrapped up a few weeks ago, was much more than a summit — it was a strategic wake-up call. Held in the heart of the Amazon, it unfolded where the climate crisis is not a scenario or a data point but a daily physical reality: historic droughts of the Rio Negro, recurring fires, collapsing ecosystems. The absence of the United States created a vacuum that shifted the center of gravity of climate action.
When a giant steps off the stage, leadership moves elsewhere — toward other powers, toward regional coalitions capable of acting, and toward businesses. In Belém, one truth stood out clearly: climate is no longer a moral debate. It is a material constraint reshaping supply chains, cost structures, competitiveness, and ultimately corporate valuations. Engaging in the transition is therefore not only a matter of morality, but also of risk management and strategic survival. For companies, for those who finance them, and for all who depend on them all along the value chain, the purpose is not only protection but also innovation and preparing for a future that will look different from today.
In other words, becoming future-proof.
Economic actors are already seeing the impact firsthand: water stress, energy volatility, critical dependencies, geographically induced operational risks, rising insurance premiums, and more frequent business interruptions. Climate — as a manifestation of broader planetary boundaries — is permeating margins, balance sheets, and business models. Geopolitics adds another layer: U.S. tariff barriers and China’s deliberate strategies to dominate key supply chains signal the beginning of a regionalized economy, drawing a truly new landscape for companies.
Yet the tools businesses use to navigate uncertainty were designed for a more linear world — one that no longer exists. More and more companies are revisiting how they assess risks and opportunities, prioritize investments, and allocate resources considering this new reality. It is about protection, yes, but also about readiness to capture opportunities: the transition requires massive investment and innovation across all essential sectors.
The transition thus ceases to be a burden; it becomes a lever for competitive positioning for those who approach it as strategy rather than compliance. On the risk side, this demands an approach that is both more granular and more holistic: investing in decarbonizing a facility located in a region exposed to water stress or potential restrictions is, of course, questionable. The strategic resilience of activities becomes the priority — the green light for committing the necessary resources to protect them. On the opportunities side, the field is wide, rooted in anticipating the future needs of customers and territories. Far from the traditional ESG exercise — which assumed the company’s activities as given and focused mainly on the “how” — the transition becomes a strategic exercise centred on the “what.” And that is good news.
This context of planetary boundaries is no longer a peripheral chapter for companies: it determines industrial robustness, financial stability, asset attractiveness, and a firm’s ability to maintain its standing in a world undergoing profound change. For executives and boards alike, this context is essential to preparing capital-allocation strategies and, more broadly, resource strategies. It is also a challenging test of leadership and responsibility.
We should not despair of international summits: they create necessary checkpoints, reminding us of the imperative to prepare for a different world — one that is less carbon-intensive, more circular, and, if we choose to make it so, more inclusive and simply better. It is up to companies to take on this challenge with clarity and courage, as an opportunity made all the more accessible when anticipated. And it is up to the European Union — which deserves recognition for its long-standing and consistent pro-climate stance — to move away from the administrative ESG frameworks it has become entangled in and work alongside businesses in a strategic, pragmatic, and effective way.
In the meantime, let’s move forward.