The Climate Financial Risk Forum (CFRF) is a leading industry initiative jointly established by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA).
The CFRF has worked with Global Association of Risk Professionals (GARP) to publish ‘A Risk Professional’s Guide to Physical Risk Assessments: A Benchmarking Study of 13 Vendors’.
Context – What the FCA / GARP Study Reveals
The study provided the first comprehensive view of how climate‑risk data providers support physical‑risk analysis for financial firms.
Its findings were revealing:
- Large dispersion between vendor outputs for the same assets.
- Inconsistent geocoding accuracy, with some datasets misplacing assets by kilometres.
- Weak transparency on model assumptions and uncertainty.
- Limited linkage between physical hazards and financial loss metrics (ECL / ORSA / capital).
- Uneven data governance, often falling short of PRA expectations for data lineage, validation, and oversight.
For regulated firms, the message was clear – the market for physical‑risk data is still maturing and not yet aligned with supervisory expectations on climate‑related financial risks outlined in BoE CP10/25 and PRA SS3/19 draft enhancement.
Where Map Impact Fits – Built for Regulation, Not Retrofitted
Map Impact was founded to solve exactly these gaps and shortcomings. Our Climate-Credit Risk datasets – HeatView, DroughtView, WildfireView, and BiodiversityView – were designed from inception to satisfy the data governance, scenario analysis, and auditability standards expected of PRA‑regulated firms.
| Benchmark Gap (from FCA / GARP Study) | Map Impact Response |
|---|---|
| Geocoding dispersion and data quality concerns | Referenceable to Unique Property Reference Numbers (UPRNs), 50m resolution property data. |
| Narrow hazard coverage or outdated scenarios | UKCP18 and SSP based projections for heat, drought, and wildfire; scalable globally; NGFS‑aligned scenarios in progress. |
| Missing exposure or vulnerability context | BiodiversityView introduces land‑cover and habitat‑condition analytics – enabling true exposure assessment. |
| Lack of financial linkage | Risk indices calibrated to portfolio‑loss ratios and credit metrics (PD / LGD / ECL compatibility); supports capital allocation and optimisation. |
| Opaque methods and weak data governance | Transparent methodology, peer‑reviewed Earth Obesrvation inputs, ISO processes, and structured metadata aligned to CP10/25 Ch. 4. Conforms to ICMA code of conduct for ESG data providers. |
Proven in Practice — Validated by Regulated Firms
Map Impact’s datasets have already been tested in live regulatory contexts:
- A UK Insurer assessed 2.5 million property records for heat and wildfire exposure profiling, confirming geolocation precision and peril differentiation.
- A UK Lender analysed an extracted 20,000‑property mortgage portfolio, confirming suitability for ECL sensitivity to heat and wildfire risk.
Both pilots confirmed that Map Impact’s outputs integrate seamlessly with existing credit and capital models – turning hazard data into actionable financial insight.
Designed for CP10/25 and SS3/19
Map Impact’s data architecture and metadata governance directly reflect the requirements outlined in PRA CP10/25:
| CP10/25 Reference | Map Impact Alignment |
|---|---|
| Section 4.3 Scenario Analysis | Multi‑horizon hazard trajectories (2030 / 2050 / 2100) for forward‑looking portfolio stress testing. |
| Section 4.4 Data Governance | Documented lineage, validation logs, and periodic data‑gap assessments. |
| Section 4.2 Business Model & Risk Appetite | Portfolio‑level metrics translatable into ICAAP / ORSA frameworks. |
| Section 4.6 Disclosure & Auditability | Traceable datasets suitable for external assurance or supervisory review. |
Why This Matters
Financial regulators increasingly expect climate‑risk data to be as robust as credit or market data. Yet most vendors built their models for generic ESG or catastrophe‑risk use, not for supervisory integration. Map Impact bridges that gap; combining satellite‑derived physical risk analytics with the metadata rigour and audit trail regulators require.
For lenders and insurers, that means:
- Faster integration into risk and capital models;
- Clear defensibility in regulatory reviews;
- Confidence that scenario analysis aligns with supervisory methodology.
Next Steps
Map Impact invites regulated firms to:
- Request a Benchmark Response Brief – showing FCA/GARP study gaps vs Map Impact’s alignment.
- Explore proof‑of‑concept pilots using their own portfolios under CP10/25 scenarios.
- Collaborate on data validation and assurance standards for the next generation of PRA‑ready climate-credit risk datasets.
Get in touch to learn more about how Map Impact can support your firm’s regulatory, risk, and reporting needs, contact info@mapimpact.io
