Managing Climate Risk in New Zealand in 2020 a Tool Kit for Directors Contents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Managing climate risk in New Zealand in 2020 A tool kit for directors Contents 4 Why should boards engage on climate risk in 2020? 6 Forecasting climate litigation risk 8 What do the lessons of COVID-19 mean for climate risk management? 10 Risk factors for directors managing climate risk 11 Should my company be doing TCFD? 12 What should directors be doing through 2020? 13 What should directors be doing from 2021 and onwards? 14 What is “reasonable care” for management of climate risk? A TOOL KIT FOR DIRECTORS • 3 Management of “Changes in climate policies, new technologies and climate risk is not growing physical risks will prompt reassessments of the values of virtually every about compliance: financial asset. Those that fail to adapt will cease understanding to exist. The longer that meaningful adjustment is climate risk is delayed, the greater the disruption will be.” key to mid-long Mark Carney term strategy and Former Governor, resilience. Bank of England “We are witnessing a step- change in climate-related business risk. Climate change is no longer a mere environmental concern: for many, it presents a material financial risk.” Daniel Kaldermis Partner Chapman Tripp Nicola Swan Senior Associate Chapman Tripp 4 • MANAGING CLIMATE RISK IN NEW ZEALAND IN 2020 Why should boards engage on climate risk in 2020? Environment-related risks dominate the Global Risks Report for the third year in a row, Legal opinions in the UK, Australia, Court rulings are delaying major accounting for three New Zealand and Canada all say infrastructure projects globally where of the top five risks by the same thing: directors’ duties of climate change considerations have due care and diligence require them been ignored. In the last two years, likelihood and four by to think through climate-related climate concerns have scuppered plans impact. “Of all risks, financial risk when making decisions. for a third runway at Heathrow Airport, In NZ, the Aotearoa Circle/Chapman a NSW open-cast coal mine, and a it is in relation to the Tripp October 2019 opinion (Daniel major Polish coal-fired power plant. environment that the Kalderimis and Nicola Swan) confirms that because climate change presents world is most clearly a foreseeable risk of financial harm to many businesses, directors need to sleepwalking into factor it into their risk management catastrophe”. and strategy. World Economic Forum At least 14 shareholder resolutions were filed in Australia in 2019 seeking climate change action from ASX 200 listed issuers, including against major banks, insurers and energy companies. We expect similar shareholder Major household names have been activism here. subject to litigation in New Zealand seeking court orders to reduce their GHG emissions or cease their operations. This follows similar litigation trends overseas where climate litigants have targeted major brands. New Zealand’s first provisional emissions budget for 2021 – 2025 has been released and budgets for subsequent periods will be proposed by July 2021. In the meantime, Emissions Trading Scheme reform is coming down the pipe at pace, with major changes COVID-19 presents an opportunity to the Emissions Trading Scheme to help transition the economy to a passed in June 2020. These reforms low-emissions economy. Governments are intended to increase the cost of will face increasing pressure to align emissions-intensive goods and services stimulus packages with climate to drive behavioural change towards a change response. lower emissions economy. A TOOL KIT FOR DIRECTORS • 5 Climate change impacts are already TCFD-style comply-or-explain The global Taskforce on Climate- locked in, with quickly increasing climate related financial risk related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) public awareness of likely future reporting will become mandatory recommended in 2017 that listed damage. The pace at which boards in New Zealand for NZX-listed issuers, banks, insurers, asset owners will need to confront this challenge equity and debt issuers; banks, fund and asset managers publicly disclose is ramping up. managers and insurers with greater than $1b assets under management their climate-related financial risks – (or insurers with annual premium both transitional and physical. income greater than $250m); and – TCFD disclosure is being widely large Crown financial institutions adopted globally by companies ACC and NZ Super Fund. and regulators. It encourages Announced in September 2020, organisations to disclose: legislation is expected in 2021 ready An organisation that takes “business for 2022 – 2023 (entities with March – their governance arrangements as usual” steps to govern, manage balance dates first reporting for the around how they will manage and respond to climate risk is year ending 31.3.23). This reporting climate-related risks and almost guaranteed to be seen, will require covered organisations opportunities, and from the viewpoint of a court in to assess and report publicly their 2030, to have underestimated the major climate related risks and – the actual and potential impacts risks and what is required. This is opportunities, their governance of of climate-related risks and not a function of bad faith. Rather, those issues, and how climate risks opportunities on the organisation’s businesses have not had to respond and opportunities are incorporated business, strategy and financial to such a large scale, complex into business strategy, risk planning, and the metrics and change in the world before now. management, and metrics. targets used to assess and manage them. Action in response to climate risk is no Changes in social values are lead indicators for litigation risk. Social longer optional: and consumer expectations of business engagement with climate it is expected change are constantly evolving. Commitments to achieve emission reductions and/or offset emissions and use of new low emissions technologies provide hard examples of consumer expectations hitting the bottom line. 6 • MANAGING CLIMATE RISK IN NEW ZEALAND IN 2020 Forecasting climate litigation risk Complex litigation where lots of people - History is never truly objective but have suffered major harm can lead to is open to differing interpretations. unexpected results – especially where What matters is what seems “Companies that do not society wants someone ‘to blame’. important after the event – this (adequately) respond to In these types of cases, corporate means that details, nuances and defendants may well face liabilities they context that can seem important climate change face legal did not expect. at the time can be overshadowed risk, ranging from the by a subsequent narrative that New Zealand judges will face huge seems clear and obvious. possibility of being sued pressure in future to ‘do something’ for breaching human to address the increasing losses and - Future plaintiffs will point to injustices from harms caused by the existing reports warning of rights or, as climate change climate change. damage to come (e.g. the IPCC’s becomes a financial issue 2018 Special Report on Global Defendants will find it difficult to justify Warming of 1.5°), regardless of rather than an ethical one, not having done more to prevent the the actions taken by a defendant for breaching directors’ serious damage that will result from vis-à-vis its competitors. Decisions climate change. This reflects a number to continue down the same duties and corporate of factors: path without acknowledging or disclosure and financial risk managing material climate risk will - Corporate decisions are likely become easier to challenge. management laws.” to be assessed – even if not intentionally – with hindsight, in - Directors’ duties of reasonable care and diligence are open- the context of the pressures Chief Justice Winkelmann, textured and susceptible to from climate change on society Justice Glazebrook, Justice France interpretations that keep pace in the next 10-15 years from (2019) “Climate Change and the Law”, with social expectation. What climate change. As Justice Asia Pacific Judicial Colloquium, is reasonable is an inherently Mallon identified in Strathboss May 2019. social assessment. Kiwifruit Ltd v Attorney General [2018] NZHC 1559 at [347], “If a - Expectations of directors’ lack of care has caused harm, it knowledge of climate change is tempting to say the harm was science, likely local impacts and foreseeable and a duty of care possible damage will continue should be owed”. to rise. What is ‘reasonably foreseeable’ is different now - It will be difficult to resist (especially since the release of ‘backwards causality’, i.e. the IPCC’s Special Report) than it where the damage – and the was even 5 years ago. risk – has become ‘obvious’ in hindsight. As Justice Thomas has explained in the context of the GFC, “eliminating hindsight requires a degree of intellectual rigour which is probably seldom achieved”. A TOOL KIT FOR DIRECTORS • 7 Humankind is notoriously bad at Climate change predicting the future. risk is under- This has implications appreciated in for how well we assess part because risk, especially over the of inherent medium and long term, human biases in and the best ways to appreciating risk: competently do so. Confirmation bias: Optimism bias: “Corporations also face If we are motivated to believe We are unrealistically something, we may seek out significant challenges optimistic about our own evidence that supports that arising out of climate future prospects. view, and minimise data that change such as disrupted contradicts it.