| Key Takeaways |
| The NGFS published its first short-term climate scenarios in May 2025, introducing four near-term (3–5 year) pathways that model financial risk metrics like sector-specific probability of default and equity valuation adjustments, filling a critical gap for climate stress testing over business-planning horizons. |
| NGFS long-term scenarios (Phase V, November 2024) now estimate climate damages could reach 15% of global GDP by 2050 under 2°C of warming and 30% by 2100 under 3°C. These estimates are three times larger than earlier NGFS assessments, although the underlying physical risk methodology is under academic review. |
| The ECB’s 2025 EU-wide stress test integrated NGFS scenarios into its climate extensions, finding that transition risks added approximately 74 basis points of CET1 capital depletion, and acute physical risk (flood) added another 77 basis points beyond the standard adverse scenario. |
| Climate risk scenario analysis is not forecasting. Scenarios are plausible “what-if” pathways that help risk managers identify vulnerabilities, set risk appetite boundaries, and prepare contingency responses across a range of uncertain futures. |
| Effective integration requires connecting NGFS outputs to existing ERM processes: credit risk models (PD/LGD adjustments), market risk (portfolio repricing under carbon price paths), operational risk (data quality controls), and strategic risk (portfolio allocation and transition planning). |
| The NGFS updated its Guide to Climate Scenario Analysis in November 2025, emphasizing the growing importance of short-term scenarios and providing practical guidance for central banks, supervisors, and financial institutions on embedding scenario analysis into risk management and decision-making. |
Climate risk scenario analysis has moved from the margins of sustainability reporting to the center of financial risk management in under five years. The Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) published its first set of climate scenarios in 2020.
By 2025, those scenarios had been adopted as the reference framework for supervisory climate stress tests at the ECB, Bank of England, and dozens of other central banks.
The May 2025 release of NGFS short-term scenarios added a missing piece: near-term (3–5 year) pathways with granular financial risk metrics that can be plugged directly into stress testing and capital planning cycles.
Yet many risk managers still treat climate scenarios as a compliance exercise run by the sustainability team.
That is a strategic mistake. The ECB’s 2025 stress test extensions found that adding climate transition and physical risk shocks to the standard adverse scenario increased CET1 capital depletion by a combined 150+ basis points for the most exposed banks.
Carbon Tracker’s analysis of NGFS Phase V data estimates potential GDP losses of 15% by 2050 under 2°C warming. These are not abstract environmental projections.
They are inputs to credit models, portfolio valuations, and capital adequacy decisions.
This guide provides a deep dive into climate risk scenario analysis using NGFS scenarios. Each section is written for risk managers who need to translate scenario narratives into quantitative risk outputs.
The approach maps to ISO 31000 risk management principles, COSO ERM components, and TCFD/ISSB disclosure requirements. You will learn how each NGFS scenario works, which risk channels it activates, and how to operationalize the outputs within an enterprise risk management framework.
What Is Climate Risk Scenario Analysis?
Climate risk scenario analysis is a forward-looking methodology for exploring how different climate and policy futures could affect an organization’s financial performance, asset values, and strategic position.
The NGFS defines scenarios as plausible “what-if” pathways, not predictions. They are designed to help institutions identify vulnerabilities across a range of uncertain futures rather than to assign probabilities to specific outcomes.
The NGFS updated Guide to Climate Scenario Analysis, published in November 2025, identifies three primary use cases: system-wide financial stability assessments conducted by central banks, supervisory stress testing of individual institutions, and internal risk management of portfolios and balance sheets.
The guide emphasizes that clarity of purpose is critical: a targeted exercise focusing on a few sectors differs fundamentally from a system-wide risk assessment covering the entire financial system.
Two distinct risk channels run through every climate scenario. Transition risk captures the financial impact of policy changes, technology shifts, and market repricing as economies move toward lower emissions.
Physical risk captures the financial impact of acute events (floods, wildfires, storms) and chronic changes (rising temperatures, sea level rise, water stress).
The interaction between these channels matters: a delayed transition scenario combines high transition risk (abrupt policy correction) with moderate-to-high physical risk (damage accumulated during the delay period).
Climate Scenario Analysis vs. Traditional Stress Testing
| Dimension | Traditional Stress Test | Climate Scenario Analysis |
| Time horizon | 1–3 years (business cycle) | 3–5 years (short-term NGFS) to 30–80 years (long-term NGFS) |
| Scenario design | Macroeconomic shocks (GDP decline, interest rate spikes, unemployment) | Climate policy shocks (carbon prices), technology disruption, and physical hazard events |
| Risk channels | Credit, market, operational, liquidity | Transition risk (policy, technology, market, reputation) + physical risk (acute, chronic) |
| Data inputs | Historical financial data, macro models | Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), climate science, emissions pathways, energy system models |
| Regulatory anchor | EBA/Fed/PRA stress test frameworks | NGFS scenarios, TCFD recommendations, ISSB IFRS S2 |
| Output format | CET1 depletion, loss estimates, capital adequacy | Same plus: sector heatmaps, implied temperature, carbon price sensitivity, stranded asset exposure |
The NGFS Scenario Framework: Long-Term and Short-Term
The NGFS organizes its scenarios into three families based on the global policy response to climate change. Orderly scenarios assume early, coordinated policy action that limits warming to below 2°C.
Disorderly scenarios assume delayed or fragmented action that still achieves temperature targets but at higher economic cost. Hot house world scenarios assume limited policy ambition, resulting in severe physical risk.
Phase V (November 2024) introduced seven long-term scenario pathways evaluated across three Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs): REMIND-MAgPIE, MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM, and GCAM.
The May 2025 release of short-term scenarios marked a step change in practical utility. Developed by a consortium led by Climate Finance Alpha (CLIMAFIN), E3-Modelling, and IIASA, the short-term scenarios cover a 3–5 year horizon and provide financial risk metrics at granular sectoral and country levels.
These include sector-specific probability of default, equity and bond valuation adjustments, and monetary policy dynamics. The NGFS explicitly designed these as inputs for climate stress testing, capital planning, and risk assessment over a business-planning timeframe.
NGFS Long-Term Scenarios (Phase V)
| Scenario | Family | Peak Warming | Transition Risk | Physical Risk |
| Net Zero 2050 | Orderly | ~1.5°C | Low–Moderate (early, gradual policy) | Low |
| Below 2°C | Orderly | ~1.7°C | Low–Moderate | Low–Moderate |
| Low Demand | Orderly | ~1.5°C | Low (behavioral change driven) | Low |
| Delayed Transition | Disorderly | ~1.8°C | High (abrupt policy after 2030) | Moderate |
| Fragmented World | Disorderly | ~2.3°C | High (divergent regional policies) | Moderate–High |
| NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) | Hot House World | ~2.5°C | Low | High |
| Current Policies | Hot House World | ~3°C+ | Very Low | Very High |
NGFS Short-Term Scenarios (May 2025)
| Scenario | Narrative | Key Financial Outputs |
| Highway to Paris | Early, orderly transition with ambitious, coordinated climate policy rollout achieving a net-zero pathway | Moderate carbon price increases; orderly sectoral repricing; manageable PD increases in high-emission sectors |
| Sudden Wake-Up Call | Delayed policy action followed by abrupt, aggressive correction; markets reprice rapidly | Sharp carbon price spike; elevated PDs in energy-intensive sectors; bond/equity valuation shock; financial stress amplification |
| Disasters and Policy Stagnation | Severe regional extreme weather events without new climate policy response | Physical damage to assets; insurance claims surge; infrastructure disruption; GDP drag from compound events |
| Green Bubble | Rapid green investment drives asset price inflation, followed by correction when transition costs materialize | Overvalued green assets repricing; financial contagion from green bubble burst; credit risk in transition-exposed sectors |
Risk Transmission Channels: From Scenario to Balance Sheet
Translating a climate scenario into balance sheet impact requires mapping the scenario’s macro-financial outputs to specific risk transmission channels.
The NGFS provides scenario-level data on carbon prices, energy mix, GDP growth, inflation, unemployment, sectoral output, and selected physical risk indicators.
The risk manager’s job is to connect these macro variables to counterparty-level credit quality, asset valuations, and operational exposures.
Transition Risk Transmission
Carbon pricing is the primary lever. A rising carbon price increases operating costs for emissions-intensive borrowers, compresses margins, and reduces debt-servicing capacity.
The NGFS Delayed Transition scenario, for example, frontloads a sharp carbon price increase to simulate the cost of late action. Risk managers translate this into credit risk by:
(1) identifying counterparties in high-emission sectors (energy, cement, steel, chemicals, transport, agriculture), (2) estimating the carbon cost pass-through as a percentage of operating costs, (3) adjusting projected cash flows, (4) recalculating probability of default (PD) and loss given default (LGD) under stressed conditions.
The ECB’s 2025 stress test extensions used this approach with NGFS NDC scenario data, finding a moderate CET1 impact of around 74 basis points concentrated in exposures to energy-intensive sectors.
Physical Risk Transmission
Physical risk operates through two sub-channels. Acute physical risk (flooding, wildfire, tropical cyclones, extreme heat) causes direct asset damage, business interruption, and insurance claims.
Chronic physical risk (rising mean temperatures, sea-level rise, changing precipitation patterns, water stress) erodes asset values and productivity over longer horizons.
The ECB’s 2025 analysis integrating flood risk from the NGFS NDC scenario into the EBA adverse scenario estimated an additional 77 basis points of CET1 depletion from physical risk alone. Geographic granularity is essential: physical risk is inherently location-specific.
The NGFS short-term scenarios model physical impacts at the asset-level using georeferenced data, capturing compound events (heatwave-drought-wildfire combinations) and their propagation through production and financial networks.
Connecting this to your risk assessment matrix requires mapping portfolio exposures by geographic coordinates.
Risk Transmission Summary
| Risk Channel | Scenario Driver | Financial Metric Affected | ERM Integration Point |
| Credit risk (transition) | Carbon price increase; regulatory compliance costs | PD increase for emissions-intensive borrowers; LGD rise from stranded assets | Adjust internal credit ratings; sector concentration limits |
| Credit risk (physical) | Flood, wildfire, extreme heat damage to collateral and borrower operations | PD increase from business interruption; collateral value decline | Geographic risk limits; collateral haircuts for exposed locations |
| Market risk | Repricing of carbon-intensive equities and bonds; green asset bubble | Portfolio valuation adjustment; VaR increase under climate stress | Climate-adjusted VaR; sector allocation limits |
| Operational risk | Physical damage to own facilities; regulatory change implementation | Business continuity disruption; compliance cost increase | BCP scenarios incorporating climate events; regulatory change management |
| Liquidity risk | Market-wide repricing event; fire sales of carbon-intensive assets | Liquidity coverage ratio pressure; funding cost increase | Liquidity stress test including climate-specific scenarios |
| Strategic risk | Misalignment between portfolio composition and transition pathway | Market share loss; stranded business lines | Transition plan development; portfolio alignment target setting |
Conducting Climate Risk Scenario Analysis: Step-by-Step
The NGFS updated Guide (November 2025) outlines a structured approach that aligns with how risk managers already think about risk assessment processes.
The following steps synthesize NGFS guidance with practical ERM implementation experience.
Step 1: Define Objectives and Scope
Determine whether the exercise serves regulatory compliance (supervisory stress test response), internal risk management (portfolio vulnerability analysis), strategic planning (transition pathway alignment), or disclosure (TCFD/ISSB reporting). Each purpose drives different scope decisions.
A regulatory exercise might require full portfolio coverage under prescribed scenarios. An internal risk exercise might focus on the three sectors with highest emissions concentration.
Set the time horizon: short-term scenarios (3–5 years) for capital planning and credit risk; long-term scenarios (to 2050 or 2100) for strategic and investment decisions.
Step 2: Select and Calibrate Scenarios
Choose a minimum of three NGFS scenarios spanning different risk profiles. Common selections include: Net Zero 2050 (orderly baseline), Delayed Transition (high transition risk), and Current Policies (high physical risk).
The NGFS short-term scenarios add near-term granularity: Highway to Paris (orderly), Sudden Wake-Up Call (disorderly), and Disasters and Policy Stagnation (physical stress). Calibrate scenario parameters to your institution’s geography and sector mix.
Use the NGFS Scenario Explorer portal to download country-level and sector-level data. Augment with internal scenario analysis where NGFS outputs need localization.
Step 3: Map Exposures to Climate Risk Drivers
Segment your portfolio by: sector (using NACE/SIC codes aligned with NGFS sector classifications), geography (country and sub-national where possible for physical risk), counterparty emissions intensity (using PCAF or CDP data), and maturity profile (longer-dated exposures have greater climate risk exposure).
The Bank of England’s approach maps corporate exposures to NGFS sector-level output trajectories, then estimates changes in enterprise value and PD.
The ECB uses AnaCredit-level data to map individual loan exposures to geographic and sectoral risk factors. Build your exposure mapping in a format consistent with your existing risk register to ensure integration with broader ERM reporting.
Step 4: Model Financial Impacts
Apply the scenario’s macro-financial variables to your exposure map. Credit risk: use carbon price paths to estimate counterparty-level cost increases, then feed through cash flow models to stressed PDs and LGDs.
Market risk: reprice portfolio positions under scenario-specific discount rates, sectoral output changes, and energy price paths. Use Monte Carlo simulation to capture uncertainty ranges around deterministic scenario outputs. Physical risk: overlay geographic hazard projections (flood maps, wildfire probability, heat stress indices) on asset-level exposure data.
Build tornado charts to identify which scenarios and risk drivers contribute most to total portfolio impact.
Step 5: Aggregate, Validate, and Report
Aggregate counterparty-level results to portfolio, sector, and entity levels. Validate outputs against internal expert judgment and peer comparisons where available. Present results using metrics decision-makers already understand: CET1 depletion, expected credit losses (ECL), portfolio value-at-risk under climate stress, and emissions-intensity concentration ratios.
Link findings to risk appetite thresholds and trigger escalation where breaches occur. Structure the final report to satisfy both internal governance (board risk committee) and external disclosure requirements (TCFD Strategy and Risk Management pillars, ISSB IFRS S2 paragraphs on scenario analysis, ESRS E1 transition plan disclosures).
Integrating Climate Scenario Analysis into Enterprise Risk Management
Climate risk scenario analysis delivers maximum value when its outputs feed existing ERM processes rather than sitting in a standalone report.
The Three Lines Model provides the governance structure: first-line business units own exposure data and implement scenario-driven limits, second-line risk functions maintain the methodology and aggregate results, and third-line internal audit validates the integrity of inputs, models, and disclosures.
| ERM Component | Climate Scenario Analysis Integration | Practical Action |
| Risk identification | NGFS scenarios reveal climate-related risks not captured by historical data | Add climate risk categories (transition, physical) to the enterprise risk taxonomy |
| Risk assessment | Scenario-driven PD/LGD adjustments; portfolio repricing under climate stress | Run annual scenario analysis alongside standard stress tests; present climate-adjusted risk metrics to board |
| Risk appetite and tolerance | Scenario outputs test whether portfolio composition aligns with stated climate risk appetite | Set sector concentration limits for high-emission sectors; define implied temperature alignment targets |
| Risk monitoring and KRIs | Scenario analysis surfaces leading indicators for climate risk materialization | Track KRIs: emissions intensity per $M lent, carbon price sensitivity, physical risk hotspot concentration |
| Risk treatment and response | Scenario findings identify portfolios requiring rebalancing, engagement, or divestment | Develop counterparty engagement strategies for high-emission borrowers; adjust sector allocation |
| Risk reporting and disclosure | Scenario outputs directly populate TCFD/ISSB/ESRS disclosures | Align internal reporting templates with TCFD Strategy pillar and ISSB IFRS S2 scenario analysis requirements |
Connecting climate scenario analysis to key risk indicators creates a continuous monitoring loop.
Rather than running climate scenarios once per year for regulatory purposes, embed scenario-derived thresholds into the KRI dashboard.
When real-world developments (carbon price announcements, extreme weather events, regulatory shifts) move toward a specific scenario pathway, early-warning indicators trigger escalation and response.
Limitations, Challenges, and How to Address Them
The NGFS is transparent about the limitations of its scenarios. They are not forecasts. They do not assign probabilities.
They cannot capture every tail risk, tipping point, or compound interaction. The Phase V physical risk methodology based on the Kotz et al. (2024) damage function has faced academic critique, and the underlying paper was retracted from Nature for methodological review.
The NGFS has acknowledged this and committed to an updated methodology for the next long-term scenario release (end of 2026). Other NGFS outputs, including transition risk pathways and the short-term scenarios, remain unaffected.
Carbon Tracker has argued that even the revised NGFS damage estimates may understate true physical risk, noting that the scenarios assume continued strong economic growth despite high warming levels.
The Sandy Trust quote from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries captures the concern: the approach may exclude the possibility of the most severe systemic outcomes.
Risk managers should use NGFS scenarios as a starting point, not a ceiling, and consider supplementary severe scenarios that explore fat-tail physical risk and non-linear operational resilience failures.
| Challenge | Root Cause | Practical Mitigation |
| Long time horizons exceed planning cycles | NGFS long-term scenarios run to 2100; most institutions plan 3–5 years | Use short-term scenarios for near-term risk; use long-term scenarios for strategic planning and disclosure |
| Physical risk data gaps | Asset-level geolocation data incomplete; hazard models carry uncertainty | Start with portfolio hotspot analysis using available geospatial data; improve over time |
| Model uncertainty across IAMs | Three IAMs produce different outputs for the same scenario narrative | Run analysis across multiple IAMs or use NGFS composite ranges; disclose model sensitivity |
| Static balance sheet assumption | Standard approach assumes no management action over scenario horizon | Supplement with dynamic balance sheet analysis where feasible; document assumption explicitly |
| Scenario-specific damage function debate | Kotz et al. (2024) methodology retracted; Phase V physical loss variables affected | Use Phase V transition outputs (unaffected); supplement physical risk with alternative sources and prior NGFS phases |
| Lack of internal expertise | Climate scenario analysis requires skills spanning climate science, economics, and financial risk modeling | Invest in cross-functional training; leverage NGFS published guides; engage specialist advisors for initial implementation |
Implementation Roadmap
| Phase | Actions | Deliverables | Success Metrics |
| Days 1–30: Design | Define exercise objectives (regulatory, internal risk, disclosure). Select NGFS scenarios (minimum 3). Assemble cross-functional team (risk, finance, sustainability, IT). Map portfolio to NGFS sector and country classifications. Identify data gaps. | Exercise design document with scope, scenarios, and governance. Portfolio segmentation by sector and geography. Data gap assessment with remediation plan. | Objectives approved by CRO. Scenario selection documented. Portfolio mapped to >80% of exposure by outstanding balance. |
| Days 31–60: Model | Download NGFS scenario data from Explorer portal. Model credit risk: carbon cost pass-through to PD/LGD by sector. Model market risk: reprice portfolio under carbon price paths. Overlay physical risk using available hazard data. Run sensitivity analysis. | Credit risk impact estimates by sector and scenario. Market risk portfolio repricing output. Physical risk hotspot analysis. Sensitivity report (tornado charts). | Credit risk modeled for top 10 emission-intensive sectors. Minimum 3 carbon price scenarios tested. Physical risk mapped for top geographic concentrations. |
| Days 61–90: Integrate and Report | Aggregate results to portfolio and entity level. Validate against expert judgment and peer benchmarks. Design climate KRIs with RAG thresholds. Draft board-level climate risk report. Prepare TCFD/ISSB-aligned disclosure content. | Integrated climate risk report with scenario comparison. Climate KRI framework with thresholds. Board presentation pack. Draft disclosure aligned with TCFD/ISSB. | Board report reviewed and accepted. KRIs approved and embedded in risk dashboard. Disclosure content covers Strategy and Risk Management pillars. |
Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
| Pitfall | Root Cause | Remedy |
| Running scenarios in a sustainability silo | Organizational structure separates sustainability from risk management | Embed climate scenario analysis within the CRO’s domain. Assign second-line ownership to the risk function, not the sustainability team alone. |
| Treating NGFS outputs as predictions | Misunderstanding the purpose of scenario analysis | Train stakeholders that scenarios explore plausible futures, not forecast outcomes. Present results as ranges, not point estimates. |
| Using a single scenario | Regulatory minimum compliance mindset | NGFS recommends minimum three scenarios spanning different risk profiles. Add a fourth severe physical risk scenario to explore tail risk. |
| Ignoring the interaction between transition and physical risk | Simplified modeling that treats the two risk channels independently | Use NGFS scenarios that combine both risks (e.g., Delayed Transition includes accumulated physical damage during the delay period). Model interactions explicitly. |
| Producing a report that sits on a shelf | No connection to decision-making or risk appetite | Link every scenario output to a specific ERM action: sector limit adjustment, counterparty engagement, capital buffer review, or strategic portfolio shift. |
| Neglecting data quality and documentation | Pressure to produce results quickly | Document all data sources, assumptions, model choices, and expert judgments. Assurance providers and regulators will scrutinize methodology, not just results. |
Looking Ahead: Trends for 2026–2028
The NGFS short-term scenarios are a first vintage. Expect regular updates that refine the financial metrics, add new scenario narratives (polycrisis interactions, nature-related risks), and expand geographic and sectoral coverage.
The NGFS has committed to publishing an updated physical risk methodology for the next long-term scenario release at the end of 2026, addressing the methodological debate around the Kotz et al. (2024) damage function.
Regulatory expectations are converging around mandatory scenario analysis. The European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) published draft joint guidelines in June 2025 for integrating ESG risk into stress testing under the CRD and Solvency II directives.
The Bank of England continues to embed climate scenarios into its supervisory framework. Even in the U.S., where federal regulators have stepped back from climate-specific exercises, California’s SB 261 requires TCFD-aligned climate risk disclosures that effectively mandate scenario analysis. Market-driven expectations from investors and rating agencies add further pressure.
The frontier is moving toward integrated physical-transition scenarios with nature-related risk overlays.
The NGFS is exploring how biodiversity loss, water stress, and ecosystem degradation interact with climate risks to create compound financial exposures. Risk managers who build flexible, modular scenario analysis platforms now will be able to absorb these extensions without rebuilding from scratch.
Connecting scenario analysis to risk quantification for board reporting ensures that climate insights drive strategic decisions rather than gathering dust in compliance filings.
The bottom line: climate risk scenario analysis using NGFS scenarios is the most effective tool available for understanding how the transition to a low-carbon economy and the physical consequences of warming could reshape financial portfolios.
Risk managers who master this tool, and integrate its outputs into enterprise risk management frameworks, will lead their institutions through one of the most significant structural shifts in modern financial history.
Ready to integrate NGFS scenarios into your risk management framework? Visit riskpublishing.com/services for scenario analysis templates, stress testing frameworks, and expert consulting support. Have questions about climate risk implementation? Contact our team to discuss your approach.
References
1. NGFS Scenarios Portal — Central access point for all NGFS long-term and short-term scenario data and tools
2. NGFS: First Vintage of Short-Term Climate Scenarios (May 2025) — Press release and documentation for the four short-term scenarios
3. NGFS: Updated Guide to Climate Scenario Analysis (November 2025) — Practical reference guide for authorities and financial institutions
4. NGFS Phase V Long-Term Scenarios (November 2024) — Seven long-term pathways with updated physical and transition risk estimates
5. NGFS Short-Term Scenarios Technical Documentation V1.0 — Full technical methodology behind the short-term scenario modeling framework
6. ECB: Integrating Climate Risk into the 2025 EU-Wide Stress Test — ECB analysis of transition and physical risk CET1 impact
7. ECB: 2025 Macroprudential Stress Test Extensions — System-wide climate risk extension results
8. Bank of England: Climate Scenario Analysis and Stress Testing — BoE’s CBES methodology and climate risk stress testing approach
9. Bank of England: Climate-Related Financial Disclosure 2025 — BoE’s own climate disclosure using NGFS Phase V scenarios
10. Carbon Tracker: NGFS Scenarios and the Damage Done (March 2025) — Critical analysis of NGFS Phase V physical risk estimates and GDP growth assumptions
11. KPMG: NGFS Primer on Climate Scenarios — Accessible overview of NGFS scenario structure and IAM methodology
12. Moody’s: NGFS Short-Term Scenarios Impact on Financial Stability — Banking sector implications and implementation guidance
13. SS&C Algorithmics: How NGFS Short-Term Scenarios Impact Financial Stability — Operationalization of short-term scenarios for bank stress testing
14. Munich Re / Risk Management Partners: IPCC vs NGFS Scenarios for Risk Managers — Practical comparison of IPCC and NGFS frameworks for financial institutions 15. CLIMAFIN: NGFS Short-Term Climate Scenarios Released — Announcement from the lead modeling consortium behind s
Chris Ekai is a Risk Management expert with over 10 years of experience in the field. He has a Master’s(MSc) degree in Risk Management from University of Portsmouth and is a CPA and Finance professional. He currently works as a Content Manager at Risk Publishing, writing about Enterprise Risk Management, Business Continuity Management and Project Management.