...
...
Next Story

Case for system thinking in climate finance

This article is authored by Amit Gupta, director and Sulipta Das, lead, climate practice, Catalyst Management Services.

Updated on: Sep 28, 2026, 12:47:09 IST
Advertisement

In August 2026, severe floods triggered by intense monsoon rainfall in Nepal caused widespread devastation. Yet, it did not end there. Rivers flowing downstream into India raised flood concerns across parts of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, putting communities and livelihoods at risk. A climate disaster in one country quickly evolved into a cross-border economic, Social, and governance challenge. This illustrates a broader reality: climate impacts rarely remain confined to a single sector, geography, or community.

Climate finance (Representative)
Climate finance (Representative)

The climate crisis has gone beyond being just an environmental issue. Its effects are now increasingly being seen in peripheral areas like food security, sanitation, and livelihoods, among others. Parallelly, climate risks are also becoming more frequent and unpredictable. Yet, our financial systems continue to operate in silos, funding projects by sector, rather than addressing how these challenges interact. This disconnect is costing us dearly. The real question is no longer what individual climate projects to fund, but how to strengthen entire systems so that communities can better withstand and recover from climate shocks.

According to the United Nations’ Adaptation Gap Report 2025, climate finance has been largely focusing on mitigation and adaptation, with the latter facing a gap of 86% to 92%. Both remain essential, yet neither is sufficient. Communities don’t experience climate impacts through siloed infrastructure failures but through entire system failures across water, health, food, energy, livelihoods, markets, and governance.

Despite unprecedented growth in climate investments and sustainable finance, the sector remains quite fragmented. Grant cycles often favour small-scale, short-term outputs. Private investors focus on attributable financial returns, while government departments operate within political and sector-specific mandates. Existing monitoring and impact measurement frameworks continue to evaluate individual projects rather than system-wide outcomes.

As a result, finance often optimises for local solutions and isolated successes while overlooking broader systemic resilience. Ironically, the biggest risks investors face today, including physical climate risks, supply-chain disruptions, migration, resource scarcity, and productivity losses are themselves systemic in nature. These risks directly affect returns, liquidity, and long-term portfolio performance. Yet capital continues to address networked challenges through project-based funding and compliance-driven approaches.

Encouragingly, there are signs that the market is beginning to move in this direction. Following COP30 in Belém, investors and institutions have shown growing interest in approaches that bring climate mitigation, adaptation, and nature restoration together. Climate disclosure frameworks such as TCFD have further encouraged investors to look beyond short-term project outcomes and better understand system-wide risks and opportunities. Such approaches recognise that value is created not only through financial returns but also through stronger ecosystems, resilient communities, and reduced climate risks.

One way to capture this broader value is through Social Return on Investment (SROI), which measures outcomes such as avoided healthcare costs, higher agricultural incomes, reduced disaster losses, and improved community wellbeing. When combined with traditional financial and ESG metrics, these approaches can help investors make better long-term decisions by recognising both societal and financial returns.

A systems-orientated investment approach would be guided by five principles: financing landscapes rather than isolated projects; integrating mitigation, adaptation, and ecological restoration; investing in governance, institutions, and community capacity alongside infrastructure; measuring resilience across economic, ecological, and social outcomes; and using blended finance to align public, philanthropic, and private capital around shared resilience goals.

This shifts finance from funding activities to building adaptive capacity. It also redefines long-term value, moving beyond endless growth towards resilience, circularity, and well-being. In a world facing growing climate and ecological risks, responsible stewardship means working within planetary boundaries rather than beyond them.

Investors have a critical role in driving this shift from asset-level transactions to ecosystem-level thinking. But they cannot act alone. Governments must create enabling policy frameworks, businesses must embed sustainability into their core operations, and citizens must help drive the behavioural changes needed for lasting impact. Together, these efforts can support the technologies, institutions, and partnerships required to build resilient and scalable solutions.

Climate finance has reached an inflection point. The question now is whether capital is being deployed in ways that address risks across ecological, economic, and social systems. The investors who back resilient systems today will help shape the next generation of economic development. Because climate resilience is not built project by project but system by system.

(The views expressed are personal)

This article is authored by Amit Gupta, director and Sulipta Das, lead, climate practice, Catalyst Management Services.

 
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Notifications

Get breaking alerts directly from the newsroom

Notifications are on!You'll be notified when news breaks