Disclosure Dividend 2026
Demonstrating the business value of environmental action
The second annual Disclosure Dividend report comes at a time of serious market volatility. Supply chain shocks and increased trade frictions are putting global businesses and countries under intense economic pressure.
The war in Iran, for example, has led to extreme fluctuations in commodity prices, from aluminum to fertilizer.
Meanwhile, environmental risks are an increasingly significant driver of economic disruption. Extreme weather events, resource constraints, and ecosystem instability are already making it harder, and in some cases unviable, for businesses to operate.
Recent CDP research has found that, in 2025, nearly 4,000 companies reported a total of US$3 billion in financial losses as a result of extreme weather. And in the long run, companies are expecting extreme weather to cause hundreds of billions in financial impacts. These concerns cannot be treated in isolation, but viewed as essential components to the financial health of all businesses and the global economy.
Business leaders are searching for a way to respond to these challenges. This year’s Disclosure Dividend highlights how companies from different sectors and corners of the global economy are deriving business value from taking environmental action.
This value can be found in the thousands of emissions reduction initiatives, from energy efficiency to waste reduction, which are offering tangible returns on investment, often within a few years.
Businesses are also seeing clear benefits in responding to environmental risks now – through a mixture of avoided losses, cost savings, or operational efficiencies, among others – measured by an average return of US$8 for every US$1 invested.
The process of discovery – both in terms of the risks and opportunities – is supporting leaders build resilience and competitive advantage in the current climate.
What is the ‘disclosure dividend’?
The ‘disclosure dividend’ is a term to describe the benefits that organizations receive from disclosing and acting on uncovered environmental data.
Investing in environmental disclosure enables companies to make better decisions about the world they operate in – from building protections against extreme weather to capitalizing on new opportunities in the transition to a zero-carbon economy.
The dividend companies receive from disclosure includes greater access to capital, stronger investor confidence, improved business resilience, and regulatory preparedness within an evolving set of environmental frameworks. The knowledge, insight, and standardized data help position organizations to grow in a turbulent business world.
Methodology
The insights in this report are based on data derived from a subset of over 11,260 large and mid-sized companies that disclosed information through CDP in 2025. These companies account for around two-thirds of global market capitalization.
Key findings
The main takeaways from this report are:
Every dollar spent on responding to environmental risk offers a return of up to US$8.
Every dollar invested in emissions reduction generates an average of US$2.4 in return, and in some cases up to US$7 over its lifetime.
Companies that disclose through CDP are less exposed to transition risk costs than peers that don’t disclose. By 2050, this equates to US$1 trillion in enterprise value.
Losses are already being priced in. Companies predict a high likelihood of US$1.24 trillion in cumulative losses from environmental risks by 2030.
Instant insight
Last year’s Disclosure Dividend found that companies saw a return of up to US$21 for every dollar they invested in physical climate risk.
The median across all sectors was US$8.
This year, the median is US$10 and the dollar return for companies in financial services is, on average, as high as US$64. This reflects the greater risks financial institutions face across their business activities. Unlike companies in the real economy that limit their risk assessment to their own operations and value chain, financial services are exposed across the full breadth of their lending and investment portfolios. In addition, the cost to mitigate these risks are relatively low and have a large impact.
Moving beyond physical risks, this year’s report has expanded that same metric to assess the impact of responding to both physical and transition risks across climate change, forests and water security.
This more comprehensive approach shows the benefits of investing in mitigation across all environmental risks that organizations are now facing.
Seeing the forest for the trees
Not all risks are created equal, and companies need to assess their own unique exposure to environmental threats. That work is already taking place. CDP analysis shows that the proportion of companies identifying substantive environmental risks[2] has increased from 46% in 2018 to 80% in 2025.
Companies reporting climate-related risks through CDP have also increased over the past seven years. In 2018 – the year after the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures released its recommendations on corporate reporting – 53% of companies reported climate-related risks through CDP. By comparison, that figure had risen to 79% in 2025.
Although climate transition risks still outnumber physical risks, companies are increasingly recognizing their vulnerability to physical risks. The overall ratio of transition to physical risks reported has reduced from almost 2 in 2018 to 1.7 in 2025.
Risks explained
The process that companies take to identify and assess environmental risks has matured over the past seven years.
In 2025, 88% of companies reported having an environmental risk assessment process[3] in place, compared to 59% in 2018. Out of those with a process in 2025, 64% assessed both direct operations and value chain across all time horizons.
In line with 2018 data, a majority of the reported climate risks (73%) are in direct operations, 15% are in the supply chain, and 12% are in the downstream value chain. However, the recognition of value chain risks is widespread among companies: only 16% didn’t identify risks outside of the direct operations.
A clear majority of companies are not only identifying environmental risks, but explicitly linking them to their financial performance. 71% of large and mid-sized companies disclosed which financial metrics are exposed to the material impacts of these risks, demonstrating that the implications are not abstract, but already understood in financial terms.
Revenue emerges as the most exposed metric, cited by 47% of companies. This points to a direct and immediate pathway through which environmental risks can affect business performance – eroding income streams if left unaddressed.
The breakdown below highlights how these risks spanning physical and transition drivers are already embedded within companies’ financial outlooks, affecting not only future resilience but current value creation[4].
Tragedy of the horizon
Organizations disclosing via CDP are asked how they define short, medium, and long-term time horizons in the context of their environmental dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities. In doing so, companies are recommended to consider the useful life of their assets or infrastructure, the profile of the environmental risks they face, and the sectors and geographies in which they operate.
The analysis of reported time horizons indicates that companies are now looking further into the future when conducting risks assessments. Based on the upper bound of the long-term time horizon ranges, the median has increased from 15 years in 2018 to 25 years in 2025, suggesting businesses are looking to capture the full exposure of assets and in line with established 2050 net-zero scenarios.
In 2025, over half of companies exposed to risks provided an estimate of their potential financial effects for at least one future time horizon. Four times more companies reported short-term risk values compared to long-term. This means quantifying long-term risks is more challenging and the financial effects are likely to be largely underestimated.
The reported data suggests that inaction will result in a high likelihood of US$1.24 trillion in cumulative loss from environmental risks by 2030, increasing to US$1.77 by 2040. About one third of the losses out to 2030 are predicted to be physical risks, reflecting, in part, the increasing impact of extreme weather events. In the reporting year alone, companies reported US$30.6 billion in materialized risks.
Are companies that disclose to CDP also less exposed to climate risk? – An ICE Climate Research Note
Companies that disclose to CDP carry roughly a third less transition-related climate risk to their future value than otherwise-similar peers.
Climate disclosure has long been credited with a range of benefits, but most of the evidence has looked backwards – at past emissions, past targets, past behavior. Our question was forward-looking and more practical: do CDP Disclosers face less potential financial damage from the climate transition – due to projected carbon pricing, tightening regulations, and falling demand for high-emission products – than otherwise-similar peers?
To find out, we paired CDP's 2025 disclosure data with ICE's Climate Value-at-Risk (CVaR) model estimates which estimates how much of a company's future value is exposed to those same transition costs. The dataset covers 7,818 listed companies: 3,302 that disclosed to CDP, and 4,516 comparable companies that did not.
What we found
Even after we account for other factors that impact projected climate-related financial risks – including company size, industry, and region – CDP disclosers still come out ahead by a meaningful margin.[4] By 2050, under a global path to net-zero, their projected transition risk is about 35% lower than their peers – a reduction of roughly 2 percentage points of company value, set against a peer average of about 5.6%. That makes disclosure the largest single explanatory factor in our model, outweighing company size by roughly eight times. In absolute terms the advantage is also projected to widen over time: about 0.7 points by 2030, 1.7 by 2040, and 2.0 by 2050 – exactly the period when stronger climate policies may come into effect.
Two percentage points may sound modest, but in absolute dollar terms, the impact is significant. With US$85 trillion in total enterprise value across the 3,302 disclosing companies analyzed, a 2% gap means over US$1 trillion less value at risk across the disclosing cohort, compared to similar non-disclosing companies.
CDP Disclosers carry less transition risk at every horizon
Is it really about disclosure?
The natural worry is that CDP Disclosers are simply different to begin with – less emissions-intensive and more climate-resilient – and we are picking up those differences rather than disclosure itself. We tested this in three different ways. First, we individually matched each CDP company to a non-CDP company the same size, industry, region, and emissions intensity; the gap shrank by less than one percent. We also trimmed the extreme outliers from the data; the gap was unchanged. Finally, we widened the universe to include companies whose emissions are estimated rather than disclosed; the gap softened only slightly, to about 1.8 percentage points.
Why it matters
Disclosure is often defended as good practice. This evidence suggests it may also track something material: companies that disclose carry demonstrably less transition risk.
One important caveat is that this is a correlation. The lower risk among Disclosers could reflect underlying qualities – better governance, stronger management, more credible climate ambition – that lead companies both to disclose and to reduce their exposure. However, the practical conclusion holds regardless: companies that report to CDP are better prepared for the climate transition.
For more information, please reach out to climaterisk@ice.com.
[5] Methodology note: We restrict the universe to companies with directly disclosed, reliable Scope 1+2 emissions (disclosure-quality categories 1-3), excluding ICE-estimated firms, yielding 7,818 companies: 3,302 CDP Disclosers and 4,516 comparable non-CDP Disclosers. The disclosure effect is estimated per scenario via covariate-controlled ordinary least squares (OLS) regression of CTVaR on a CDP indicator, log enterprise value, and sector and region fixed effects, isolating the CDP coefficient as the gap holding size, sector, and region constant.
To rule out selection bias, we confirm the result with propensity-score matching, which produces a closely comparable matched sample on which the disclosure effect persists. Because CDP Disclosers are systematically larger and concentrated in higher-pressure sectors, a regression-controlled gap could still reflect who discloses rather than disclosure itself. We model the propensity to disclose as logit P(CDP) ~ log(EV) + log(emissions intensity) + sector + region, then match 1-to-1 on the propensity score (nearest-neighbor, no replacement), pairing all 3,302 CDP firms to similar non-CDP firms (6,604 firms). Balance improves sharply: the composite standardized mean difference falls from 0.50 to 0.13, and the log -EV size imbalance from 0.18 to 0.08 – leaving the groups closely comparable on size, sector, region, and intensity.
The financial benefits of emissions reduction
More than 8,000 large and mid-sized companies reported active emissions reduction initiatives via CDP during the reporting year.
Across disclosures, low-carbon energy consumption, energy efficiency in buildings, and energy efficiency in production processes emerged as the three most frequently reported initiative categories.
The chart below presents median annual carbon savings across all emissions scopes. A single initiative on average saves 275 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.
Case study: Diageo sees value in supply chain efficiencies
International beverage company Diageo is a long-term Discloser through CDP and has established robust sustainability commitments.
The company has a target to reach net-zero emissions in its direct operations (Scope 1 and 2) by 2040, and a separate target to reduce its Scope 3 emissions by 26% by 2030.
A key focus for the company as it tackles its value chain emissions are raw materials, packaging and the energy purchased by its suppliers.
Diageo recently implemented, or began to implement, over 60 emissions reduction initiatives which will save an estimated 90,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.
These initiatives include:
Reducing the weight of glass within its primary scotch and beer bottle portfolio, saving approximately 3,400 tonnes of glass and reduced emissions;
Removing packaging from products including 9 million cartons, reducing packaging weight by 591 tonnes; and
Increasing investment in bioenergy plants and usage to reduce natural gas dependence.
Diageo has also set clear environmental conditions with its suppliers, requiring them to track and share emissions data, comply with its deforestation policy, and work towards 100% renewable electricity use. Suppliers’ progress is monitored via a quarterly scorecard.
Return on investment
Many emissions reduction initiatives generate substantial financial savings.
Aggregate monetary savings ranged from US$27.6 billion to US$40.7 billion.
An initial sample of 6,791 organizations provided information on annual emissions reductions linked to annual monetary savings. This group reported approximately US$40.7 billion in annual savings.
Using more precise and conservative data quality filters, the sample was further reduced to 6,569 organizations and 21,241 initiatives. This resulted in approximately US$27.6 billion in aggregate monetary savings.
Further assessment of a subset of 12,387 initiatives by over 4,400 companies[6] shows that the majority (69%) of emission savings initiatives are profitable (generating positive lifetime net savings), with 41% showing a payback period of under 3 years.
Based on the same subset, a typical emissions reduction initiative generates approximately a 142% lifetime undiscounted return on investment (ROI), with the median payback of three years. Put differently, every dollar invested in an emission reduction initiative generates on average US$2.4 in return, and in some cases up to US$7 dollars over its lifetime.
Although not as widespread among Disclosers, waste reduction and material circularity is one of the most financially attractive initiatives, generating US$3.9 dollars on every dollar invested, with the median payback of only 1.3 years. Among the most reported types of projects are waste reduction, recycling, or reuse[7].
Energy efficiency in production processes is second, generating US$3.6 on every dollar invested, with a median payback of 2.1 years. This finding is consistent with IEA research that found energy efficiency offers multibillion-dollar cost savings with an average payback of under 2 years. The most reported types of projects are machine (or equipment) replacement, process optimization, compressed air and waste heat recovery.
Company examples*
How to reduce steel waste
Acerinox, Spain
One of the primary sources of Acerinox’s emissions is the use of raw materials and ferroalloys in the steel-making process.
Its factories have implemented various initiatives to increase the percentage of scrap used in the production process, particularly in the melt shop and hot-rolled process.
There are ongoing projects focused on improving scrap segregation, reducing costs, and exploring new scrap formats and backhoe loaders. In addition, efforts are being made to adapt or acquire machines to enhance metal recovery capacity.
Improving energy efficiency and low-carbon energy generation
Baosteel, China
A total of 39 energy-saving projects were implemented at the company’s Bashon site, primarily focused on waste heat recovery. A new large flue waste heat boiler and auxiliary facilities were installed in the sintering plant to recover and utilize the medium temperature waste heat resources. This resulted in energy savings equivalent to 49,100 tons of coal per year.
ReNew Energy Global, India
Diesel generators at project sites were replaced with solar-based systems to reduce fuel use and emissions, as well as creating cost savings. An estimated 1,548 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent was avoided, and 532 kiloliters of diesel.
*Note, company examples are taken directly from 2025 CDP public disclosures with minor editing for clarity.
Case study: Telefónica turns to renewable power to reduce energy costs
Telefónica is an international telecommunications company that has disclosed through CDP since 2003.
During its disclosure journey, Telefónica identified energy as both a risk and opportunity to its business. The risk: an increase in operating costs due to rising electricity and carbon prices. The opportunity: reduced grid energy costs and enhanced competitiveness through a focus on renewable electricity.
Telefónica’s Renewable Energy Plan forms part of its broader Climate Action Plan and decarbonization roadmap, supporting both climate mitigation and adaptation objectives across its operations.
The company developed a Renewable Energy Plan that applies across its own operations and focuses on:
Self-generation. Investment in solar, wind and bioethanol systems to reduce its dependence on the electricity distribution network.
Purchasing renewable electricity certificates with a guarantee of origin.
These certificates guarantee the traceability of renewable electricity from the point of generation to the point of consumption and currently support 100% renewable electricity coverage in countries such as Spain, Germany and Brazil.
Long-term Power Purchase Agreements. A fixed or predictable price for renewable electricity to reduce exposure to market volatility.
The plan has already led to considerable cost savings and a drop in emissions. In 2025, Scope 2 emissions were 98% lower than the base year (2015). Renewable electricity consumption reached 93% of total electricity consumption in Telefónica’s own facilities in 2025. The company aims to reach 100% renewable electricity consumption by 2030 in its main operations.
The focus on renewable energy forms part of the company’s adaptation model, designed to increase its business resilience and lessen the economic effects of extreme weather events.
By increasing self-generation of photovoltaic renewable energy, Telefónica is also reducing dependence on electricity sources more exposed to physical climate risks such as prolonged droughts affecting hydroelectric generation.
The integration of renewable electricity procurement, self-generation and resilience planning strengthens Telefónica’s operational continuity while supporting long-term competitiveness in a low-carbon economy.
Market focus
Case study: ANTA Sports is building investor confidence through supply chain transparency
Leading Chinese sportswear company ANTA Sports is driving emissions reduction and strengthening long-term business resilience.
The company has a robust and verifiable environmental data system and it is translating disclosure into measurable outcomes. In 2024, the company cut its Scope 1 emissions by 11.1% and emissions intensity fell by 21.7%.
ANTA Sports engages its extensive network on climate issues by requiring suppliers to disclose emissions data via CDP, promoting low-carbon practices and linking sustainability performance to management processes.
As of May 2026, this value has yielded the following results:
Over 1,000 suppliers have participated in decarbonization initiatives.
130 suppliers have installed renewable energy systems such as solar photovoltaics.
270 suppliers have adopted renewable electricity or procured related green certification.
In addition, the company has introduced independent third-party assurance, becoming the first company in China’s sportswear sector to achieve verification across Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.
The business benefits of its approach have been:
Strengthened investor confidence through transparent and high-quality disclosure.
Improved risk management through identification of physical and transition risks.
Accelerated value-chain decarbonization through supplier engagement.
Enhanced market recognition, including inclusion in major ESG indices, such as the Hang Seng ESG50 Index and Dow Jones Best-in-Class Emerging Markets Index.
ANTA Sports’ experience provides a replicable pathway for companies seeking to unlock value through environmental disclosure.
Rising to the challenge
This report provides insight into how businesses are taking seriously the risks and opportunities presented by current environmental conditions.
The business value from environmental disclosure and action is naturally varied. Some companies exposed to water scarcity might use the information to create an internal water price; others with high energy costs may decide to invest in new efficiency initiatives.
But across the board, we see that firms have developed a more sophisticated understanding of their environmental dependencies, risks, impacts and opportunities – this is borne out of experience. The introduction of new environmental disclosure frameworks, such as the TCFD recommendations in 2017, has led to greater adoption and understanding of these risks.
Disclosure plays a strong supporting role in this journey. Related research from ICE supports this thesis – environmental Disclosers were found to be in a significantly better position to withstand climate transition risks both now and out to 2050.
Leading companies are discovering that planetary health and economic decision making go hand-in-hand, and that environmental data is a key commodity in enabling these decisions. The businesses profiled in this report recognize that environmental leadership is as much an economic strategy as an environmental one, and the companies that invest in an Earth-positive economy are better positioned to grow, compete and thrive.
Footnotes
1. This benefits-to-cost ratio is based on companies’ self-reported estimates of the potential financial impact of environmental risks (physical and transition risks). Figures vary widely across companies within the same industry. The benefits include a range of costs saved, avoided losses, increased operational efficiencies, among others.
Risk mitigation benefit-to-cost ratio is calculated by dividing the total potential financial impact across all time horizons by the costs to respond to risks. The ratio indicates the estimated potential benefit associated with implementing a risk response relative to its cost. Benefits may include avoided losses, cost savings, operational efficiencies or other quantifiable impacts where identified. The calculation assumes the proposed mitigation is fully effective, does not account for residual risk or uncertainty in impact estimates, and may not reflect the likelihood or timing of risk occurrence.
2. A risk related to at least one environmental issue.
3. A risk assessment process that covers at least one environmental issue.
4. Based on disclosures meeting the data quality filters.
5. This material contains information that is property of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and/or its affiliates (“ICE Group”), and is not to be published, reproduced, copied, modified, disclosed or used without the express written consent of ICE Group.
This material is provided for informational purposes only. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. Nothing herein should in any way be deemed to alter the legal rights and obligations contained in agreements between ICE Group and their respective clients relating to any of the products or services described herein. Some of the information described herein is still in development and as such, pursuant to ICE Group’s sole discretion, the services and/or methodologies that may ultimately be developed may deviate from the description included herein or may not be developed at all. Nothing herein is intended to constitute legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice.
ICE Group makes no warranties whatsoever, either express or implied, as to merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or any other matter. Without limiting the foregoing, ICE Group makes no representation or warranty that any data or information supplied to or by it are complete or free from errors, omissions, or defects and nothing contained herein should constitute any form of warranty, representation, or undertaking.
6. Created based on companies that provided the necessary financial data to assess profitability.
7. Examples of waste reduction include increasing the proportion of recyclable packaging and implementing systematic waste reduction strategies across operations.
Examples of recycling include turning operational waste from farming into fertilizer, enhancement of scrap utilization in steelmaking.
Examples of reuse include switching from single-use boxes to reusable shipping boxes and using construction waste for backfilling.