Working notes on the project

What this platform is

This platform brings together over 70 climate and nature risk software vendors, categorized across a consistent set of criteria and made navigable through a structured filter system. Whether you're a bank stress-testing a loan book, an investor assessing financial impacts on assets, or a corporation analyzing site-level risks for CSRD disclosures, it's built to help you orient quickly in a vendor landscape that has grown and diversified faster than it has become transparent and manageable.

The scope focuses on integrated climate and nature risk analytics solutions with broad analytical coverage and global reach, which is what most financial institutions and larger corporations need.

Each vendor is categorized across the parameters that matter most for selection and due diligence:

  • Target user types: banks, insurers, investors, corporates, and the public sector
  • Risk coverage: physical, transition, and nature-related risk
  • Analytical scope: from hazard exposure through to financial-impact quantification
  • Implementation context: time horizons, scenario families, geographic scope
  • and much more…
Aerial view of ocean currents along a coastline

Why this matters

Climate and nature risk software has evolved from a niche into a core component of financial risk infrastructure, driven by regulatory mandates such as IFRS S2, CSRD, the EU Taxonomy, TCFD, and TNFD, by supervisory requirements from bodies like the ECB, the Bank of England, and the Fed, and by a genuine need to translate rising physical and transition risks into financial terms. As reliance on these tools grows, so does the expectation from auditors and supervisors alike that corporations and institutions understand the data and models behind them rather than treating them as a black box.

UNEP FI's 2024 Climate Risk Landscape Report identified three compounding problems in this market:

  • Benchmarking is difficult, because provider methodologies differ substantially
  • Access and cost remain barriers, especially for smaller institutions and those in emerging markets
  • Sector-specific analysis is underserved, particularly for unlisted assets, agriculture, real estate, and supply chains

Underlying all of this is a persistent information asymmetry between buyers and vendors – still one of the most consistently cited barriers to effective climate and nature risk management. Vendors vary considerably in methodology, in the risk categories they address, and in the user types and use cases they actually serve. An easy way to find and screen them has been largely absent.

This platform addresses this gap. It doesn't rank the vendors or pick one for you – the categorization work is done upfront, so you can quickly find the relevant tools and narrow an opaque vendor universe down to a meaningful shortlist before engaging vendors directly.

Aerial view of ice and turquoise water

What is not (yet) covered

This platform is explicitly a first step, and the current database isn't a complete map of the landscape. Largely not yet included are in particular:

  • Highly specialized vendors on specific hazards, sectors, or geographies – a long tail of tools for particular use cases: climate and environmental risk in agricultural value chains and agri-finance, water-stress or flood tools for individual river basins, specialized solutions for individual hazards like floods and wildfires, etc.
  • Climate and nature data and indicator providers – suppliers of raw or processed climate, hazard, and environmental data and indicators (land-cover and biodiversity data, hydrological and drought indicators, etc.), distinct from the integrated analytics engines featured here.
  • Advisory services and modelers – strategy consultancies, the advisory arms of climate risk data houses, and climate-economic modelers that deliver assessments through bespoke engagements and data solutions rather than self-service software.

If the project gains traction, these categories will be added progressively, and individual entries enriched with deeper methodological detail.

Sunlit aerial view across the ocean surface

Filter methodology

Vendors were researched and categorized with the support of Claude Cowork and validated manually against vendor websites and other public sources. UNEP FI's Sustainability Risk Tool Dashboard was a valuable reference throughout.

Filter values in the database follow a consistent logic:

  • 1 — applies
  • 0 — does not apply
  • ? — unclear or not assessable from public sources

Silence is read conservatively: absence of a claim is not treated as confirmation unless a tool's scope makes the absence evident. Such "?"-categorizations appear as "unclear" (yellow) in the vendor matching view.

All filters work as AND-operators. Selecting multiple criteria returns only vendors that meet all of them at once. This is ideal for building a precise shortlist for a specific use case. But stacking many filters at once can also produce a small or empty result set.

If that happens, relax one or a few criteria at a time and treat the broader results as a starting point for due diligence rather than a definitive match. If you're searching for multiple use cases or for different clients, ideally do multiple searches with different filter settings.

Every entry was researched and cross-checked with care, but this platform makes no claim to accuracy, currency, or completeness – vendor offerings change and errors are possible.

Aerial view of turquoise ocean currents near the shore

Transparency Score methodology

Alongside the filter categories, each vendor carries a Transparency Score from 0 to 3. It captures one practical question: how far can you reconstruct a tool's methodology from publicly available sources? This is a measure of openness, not of model quality — a tool can be excellent yet barely documented in public, or fully documented yet unremarkable.

Every public source is sorted into an evidence category, and the class is set by the strongest type found — not by how much material a vendor puts out:

  • 0 — Not publicly documented: no substantive public methodology; typically only the vendor's own site, without documentation of the approach.
  • 1 — Product-level: product and insight materials show scope and outputs, but not how results are produced (product pages, blog or news posts, marketing white papers).
  • 2 — Methodology-relevant: public methodology pages or papers explain data, scenarios and model logic, short of full audit documentation.
  • 3 — Transparency leader: openly documented, peer-reviewed or open-source methodology that an external reviewer could follow.

The score is assigned independently, from public sources only, and read conservatively: absence of public evidence is a finding about public documentation, not proof that no method exists. The evidence gathered for each vendor is not exhaustive — it captures the sources identified during review, and further public material may exist that would refine a classification. Like everything here, it is a starting point for due diligence, not a verdict.