The problem The solution Why Andefena Clients About Engage
← Home

The problem

The industry assesses locations.
Capital flows to buildings, companies, and funds.

The climate risk industry spent a decade building sophisticated analytical capability pointed at the wrong thing. They assess locations. Capital flows to assets.

Climate projections assess coordinates. Carbon accounting rates legal entities. Nature assessments rate ecosystems. No methodology connects the three at the level where capital is actually deployed: the building, the portfolio, the fund.

The result is systematic mispricing. Four buyers commission four vendors to assess the same building. The outputs conflict. The PDF gets filed. The investment committee proceeds without it.

Wrong by up to 82%.
Assessing locations instead of assets underestimates investor losses by up to 70%. Exclude tail risks as well, and the underestimation reaches 82%. Not imprecise. Systematically wrong.
Bressan et al., Nature Communications, 2024
0.2 to 0.9 correlation.
Same building, same characteristics, same location. 13 climate risk vendors assessed it. Correlation between them ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. They barely agreed on which properties were high risk.
GARP / CFRF Benchmarking Study, 2024
The market already knows.
Insured catastrophe losses above $100 billion for six consecutive years. Swiss Re named the loss drivers: ageing roofs and construction costs. Asset characteristics, not location characteristics.
Swiss Re Institute, 2025

Why it matters

Same location. Completely different risk.

Every climate risk provider will give two buildings on the same street the same score. Same coordinates. Same projections. Same output. But the buildings are not the same.

Climate

Same street. Different buildings.

One was built in the 1990s with thermal mass, external shading, and a cooling system with headroom to spare. The other is a 1970s glass tower with no shading and a chiller that already struggles on hot days. One has 15 years of runway. The other has 3. Current methodology cannot tell them apart.

Carbon

Same entity. Different assets.

Two industrial facilities, same owner, same entity-level carbon intensity score. One is all-electric with rooftop solar and grid capacity to spare. The other is gas-fired with no solar potential and a maxed grid connection. One has a clear path to net zero. The other faces stranding. Entity-level accounting hides both the risk and the opportunity.

Nature

Same catchment. Different dependencies.

Two facilities in the same water-stressed catchment. Same biodiversity score. One is a data centre that solves its cooling problem with air. The other is a food processor with supply chains dependent on upstream irrigation. Same score. Completely different exposure, and completely different optionality.

See how we solve it →

Climate, carbon, and nature
in every financial decision

The problem is clear. The methodology to address it is what was missing.

Request an engagement