Author
Abstract
The climate transition is increasingly acknowledged as a major risk driver for companies, financial institutions, and investors. At the same time, there is widespread confusion about how to best measure climate transition risk, since different measurements lead to significantly different risk profiles. I show empirically that, to date, the two most common proxies for climate transition risk are CO2 and E(SG) score data. I further contribute to the transition risk literature by proposing a comprehensive 10‐category framework, specifically tailored toward assessing climate transition risk proxies. I apply the framework by executing the first category‐led literature review on the quality of both CO2 data and E‐scores as proxies for climate transition risk. I find that both data types are dynamic and strong in terms of granularity as well as usability; but have shortcomings across a multitude of categories: bias, availability, comparability, the backward‐looking nature of the metrics, and transition risk specificity being the most severe issues. I urge scholars to reflect on these shortcomings as they could significantly distort results. As a minimum, scholars should test for the robustness of their results when relying solely on ESG or CO2 data to classify transition risk. Therefore, I propose both within and between transition risk metric robustness tests, which are not yet commonly used in the literature. I close by introducing and discussing alternative proxies for climate transition risk, such as EU taxonomy alignment, sector/technology classifications, or innovative combinations of risk metrics. I argue that scholars should consider these alternatives since they are potentially less biased, more specific to transition risk, comparable, and available. I thereby contribute to a better measurement of companies' transition risk, which is a key prerequisite for accurately managing and correctly pricing climate transition risk.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:corsem:v:32:y:2025:i:3:p:3049-3077. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1535-3966 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.