A water risk index for portfolio exposure to climatic extremes: conceptualization and an application to the mining industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Corporations, industries and non-governmental organizations have become increasingly concerned with growing water risks in many parts of the world. Most of the focus has been on water scarcity and competition for the resource between agriculture, urban users, ecology and industry. However, water risks are multidimensional. Water related hazards include flooding due to extreme rainfall, persistent drought, and pollution, either due to industrial operations themselves, or to the failure of infrastructure. Most companies have risk management plans at each operational location to address these risks to a certain design level. The residual risk may or may not be managed, and is typically not quantified at a portfolio scale, i.e., across many sites. Given that climate is the driver of many of these extreme events, and there is evidence of quasi-periodic climate regimes at inter-annual and decadal time scales, it is possible that a portfolio is subject to persistent, multi-year exceedances of the design level. In other words, for a multi-national corporation, it is possible that there is correlation in the climate induced portfolio water risk across its operational sites as multiple sites may experience a hazard beyond the design level in a given year. Therefore, from an investor's perspective, a need exists for a water risk index that allows an exploration of the possible space and/or time clustering in exposure across many sites contained in a portfolio. This paper represents a first attempt to develop an index for financial exposure of a geographically diversified, global portfolio to the time-varying risk of climatic extremes using long daily global rainfall data sets derived from climate re-analysis models. Focusing on extreme daily rainfall amounts and using examples from major mining companies, we illustrate how the index can be developed. We discuss how companies can use it to explore their corporate exposure, and what they may need to disclose to investors and regulators to promote transparency as to risk exposure and mitigation efforts. For the examples of mining companies provided, we note that the actual exposure is substantially higher than would be expected in the absence of space and time correlation of risk as is tacitly assumed usually. We also find evidence for the increasing exposure to climate induced risk, and for decadal variability in exposure. The relative vulnerability of different portfolios to multiple extreme events in a given year is also demonstrated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".