How Corporations Operationalize Climate‐Related Risks and Opportunities
Evidence From Qualitative Expert Interviews
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22418136 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sebastian Rhein (0000-0001-6923-7215, Department of Economics Martin‐Luther‐Universität Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) Germany, corresponding author), Laura Engel (0000-0003-3265-3391, DFGE – Institute for Energy, Ecology and Economy GmbH Greifenberg Germany), Thomas Dreier (0000-0001-8313-4992, DFGE – Institute for Energy, Ecology and Economy GmbH Greifenberg Germany), Helene Ida Kleiber (0009-0007-3726-0681, Department of Economics Martin‐Luther‐Universität Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) Germany) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-24 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Business Strategy and the Environment (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0964-4733 • E-ISSN: 1099-0836 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/bse.70918 |
| OpenAlex | W7155551986 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 48 |
Climate‐related risks and opportunities have become a central concern for companies as climate change increasingly affects business models, value chains, and long‐term competitiveness. However, limited evidence exists about how corporations confront the attendant practical and strategic challenges of climate‐related risk and opportunity disclosure. Empirical evidence remains limited on how firms confront the practical and strategic challenges of responding to growing regulatory and stakeholder expectations embedded in climate‐related reporting frameworks, such as the TCFD. Addressing this gap, this study investigates how organizations interpret and operationalize these rising expectations in practice. We conducted eight semi‐structured interviews with sustainability professionals across industries and analyzed the data using the GABEK method in WinRelan to map expert perspectives and infer underlying meaning structures. Findings indicate that the TCFD has become the primary reference framework for risk‐ and opportunity‐related reporting, yet organizational approaches remain heterogeneous and largely nascent. Most companies emphasize risk avoidance and regulatory compliance over opportunity‐oriented innovation. The study highlights three interrelated domains that function as both enablers and barriers to effective climate‐related reporting and climate resilience, namely (1) stakeholder dynamics; (2) implementation maturity and institutionalization; (3) data availability, quality, and integration; and (4) organizational governance and structural embedding. The findings contribute to the literature by shedding light on the organizational conditions under which climate‐related reporting frameworks are translated into practice, highlighting persistent gaps between formal disclosure requirements and substantive implementation.
Corporate governance · Empirical evidence · Integrated reporting · Operationalization · Stakeholder · Stakeholder engagement · Sustainability · Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting · Environmental Sustainability in Business · Sustainable Finance and Green Bonds
| Highly cited | No |
|---|