Risk

Climate resilience in focus at London Climate Action Week

Lou Lee — Mon, 14 Apr 2025 10:15:24 +0000

Climate resilience in focus at London Climate Action Week

Lou Lee Mon, 14/04/2025 - 10:15

15 July 2026 News

Business School academic nominated for second term on UK's fiscal watchdog

14 July 2026 News

Celebrating the Dean’s Community Award winners

9 July 2026 News

91��ɫ Business School achieves 91% average positivity score in National Student Survey

29 June 2026

Delivered in collaboration with General Atlantic, the event reflected the Centre for Climate Finance and Investment's (CCFI) growing role as a convenor of interdisciplinary expertise on climate risk and finance. Discussions explored how climate-related risks such as extreme weather are increasingly affecting economic stability, infrastructure, and investment decisions, and how organisations are adapting their approach to managing these risks over the long term.

The event opened with a keynote from Abigail Ng, Chief Sustainability Officer at the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), who highlighted climate resilience as a key part of protecting economic security. This was followed by a panel discussion chaired by Rowan Douglas CBE, Honorary Practice Fellow at CCFI, and featuring Kemal Erçevik (Bank of England), Natasha Fowlie (General Atlantic), Paul Munday (S&P Global), Julian Wentzel (HSBC).

A central theme throughout the conversation was the need to integrate climate and nature risks into the core functioning of financial systems, rather than treating them separately. Speakers highlighted the importance of better data, shared standards, and clearer ways of measuring risk in order to improve decision-making across banking, insurance, regulation and investment.

“This is what CCFI is all about: a platform that brings together scholarly excellence and leading market participants to deliver effective solutions at scale.”

Dr Enrico Biffis

Academic Director of CCFI and Professor of Actuarial Finance

Rowan Douglas commented: “We now have our resilience priorities confirmed and an excellent community of financial-sector partners to mobilise with CCFI and 91��ɫ’s School of Convergence Science. Our mission is to help retrain the invisible hand to value resilience and better protect exposed assets and communities in the years and decades ahead.”

In closing remarks, Dr Enrico Biffis, Director of CCFI and Professor of Actuarial Finance and Academic, said: “This is what CCFI is all about: a platform that brings together scholarly excellence and leading market participants to deliver effective solutions at scale.”

The event underscored CCFI’s role within 91��ɫ Business School as a bridge between academic research and industry practice, and highlighted ongoing collaboration with MAS and other partners to strengthen resilience in the face of growing climate challenges.

Panel speakers (from left to right): Natasha Fowlie (General Atlantic), Kemal Ercevik (Bank of England), Julian Wentzel (HSBC), Paul Munday (S&P Global), and Rowan Douglas (91��ɫ Business School).

Subscribe for research and events from the Business School

Banking

Centre for Climate Finance and Investment

Finance and institutional resilience

Sustainability and climate change

91��ɫ Centre

Centre for Climate Finance & Investment

Academic area

Finance

Economics & Public Policy

Off

External

Off

The Centre for Climate Finance and Investment (CCFI) brought together leaders from finance, insurance, law, technology, policy and academia for an event on Climate Resilience & Economic Security during London Climate Action Week (20-28 June).

Abigail Ng and Rowan Douglas at London Climate Action Week

2 minute read

How resilient brands keep customers in volatile markets

Andreas Eisingerich — Wed, 15 Jan 2025 12:14:02 +0000

How resilient brands keep customers in volatile markets

Andreas Eisingerich Wed, 15/01/2025 - 12:14

More blogs

15 July 2026 Knowledge

How to survive as an entrepreneur: insights from Steve Blank

6 July 2026 Knowledge

What business leaders can learn from the erosion of democracy

23 June 2026 Knowledge

Are healthcare market reforms delivering better outcomes for patients?

26 May 2026

Article at a glance:

Customer sentiment can shift overnight after negative news, amplified by social media
Traditional metrics such as brand love do not reliably predict who will stand by you in a crisis
The Integrated Brand Immunity Process outlines how to build brand immunity in four steps

Brand managers across industries face growing volatility. Socio-political shocks and the speed at which negative information spreads online mean that small triggers can escalate into reputational crises almost overnight.

In this environment, competitive advantage depends not only on generating customer affection, but on building relationships resilient enough to withstand sudden negative information.

The shift: from loyalty to resilience

Traditional metrics such as brand love capture how customers feel about brands, but not how they will react when things go wrong. Conversely, customers with the strongest brand connection often exhibit the most negative reactions.

This is where brand immunity becomes critical, first introduced by research at 91��ɫ Business School in 2023.

Brand immunity refers to a customer’s resistance to changing their perception of a brand when confronted with negative information. Customers with high immunity process bad news more carefully, weighing it against prior experience. In doing so, brand immunity provides a more reliable indicator of how customers will behave under pressure.

Focusing on customers with high brand immunity in crises helps stabilise sentiment and limit the spread of negative narratives.

A four-step process to building brand immunity

The Integrated Brand Immunity Process translates this insight into action in four steps:

Step 1: Prioritising customers

Resources are finite, and brands cannot immunise every customer. The Customer Immunity Management Matrix helps managers prioritise by mapping customers across:

Value (the impact of losing them); and
Immunity (their resilience to negative information)

Immunity can be measured through simple survey questions. For example, by asking how customers would respond if they encountered negative information about the brand.

Customer value depends on industry context. It allows managers to focus on protecting revenue, as well as the underlying sources of competitive advantage:

Economic value (e.g. banking, telecommunications, reflecting stable revenue)
Psychological value (e.g. luxury, automotive, reflecting a strong brand attachment)
Social value (e.g. travel, entertainment, where customer advocacy drives growth)
Innovation value (e.g. technology, wellness, where customers co-create)

Step 2: Understanding the threat

While the Customer Immunity Management Matrix provides a structure for building resilience, its effectiveness depends on understanding the threat. Not all crises are equal. The matrix identifies who to prioritise, but the nature of the threat determines how to respond.

Managers must distinguish between:

Performance-based threats (e.g. price increases, service disruptions). These require transparency and explanation.
Value-based threats (e.g. ethical breaches, discrimination). These require accountability, corrective action, and cultural change.

Brand immunity helps buffer moderate negativity, but it cannot replace meaningful action in serious value-based crises.

Step 3: Act on four strategic priorities

Once customers are mapped and the threat is determined, four strategies emerge which should be applied through the filter of the threat.

Anchor: high value, high immunity customers
These are your most valuable and committed customers - high spenders and loyal advocates. They should be equipped to defend the brand. In performance-based crises, transparency and data are important. In value-based crises, brands should demonstrate shared values and accountability.
Fortify: high value, low immunity customers
This is the highest-risk group. These customers are strategically important but more vulnerable as they lack a strong brand-self connection. Brands should build emotional connection and communicate proactively. In performance-based situations, early warnings and clear explanations are key. In value-based crises, a sincere apology and visible corrective action are essential.
Leverage: low value, high immunity customers
These customers may not be high spenders, but they are supportive and stable, often active in reviews, communities, or social media. Brands should amplify their voices to stabilise sentiment and influence others. Their advocacy is particularly valuable when it reinforces credible information.
Minimise: low value, low immunity customers
These customers have limited strategic value and are more likely to react negatively or amplify criticism. The priority is to limit exposure and manage communication carefully to contain potential negative spillover.

Step 4: Continuously renew resilience

Customer relationships are dynamic, and immunity can fade over time. Regular reassessment is essential to ensure that the customers who matter most remain resilient.

Brands that succeed in volatile environments are not those that simply build loyalty, but those that prepare their customers before a crisis hits. By identifying and strengthening the customer relationships that matter most, brands can turn volatility into a source of resilience, and ultimately, competitive advantage.

Read insights from Dr Eisingerich's paper

Discover his latest findings

Knowledge Categories

Academic area

Analytics & Operations

A practical guide to building brand immunity across your customer base

Main image: Elena Zolotova / iStock via Getty Images

4 minute read

Off

Le Monde covers Professor Markus Perkmann's research on risks of multidisciplinarity

Evie Burrows-Taylor — Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:13:49 +0000

Le Monde covers Professor Markus Perkmann's research on risks of multidisciplinarity Evie Burrows-Taylor Tue, 27/09/2022 - 09:13

11 September 2022

Risk

What is climate risk?

Bob Buhr — Wed, 06 Apr 2022 09:06:07 +0000

What is climate risk?

Bob Buhr Wed, 06/04/2022 - 09:06

11 April 2022

A toolkit to help investors, lenders and regulators address the financial implications of climate change

Over the last several years, there has been increasing discussion of the financial implications of climate risk. Much of this work has focused on specific industries and financial sectors, and the impact of climate change on GDP. As we outline in our report What is Climate Risk? A Field Guide for Investors, Lenders, and Regulators, “this knowledge is not particularly helpful for lenders, investors, or regulators unless these risks can be further granulated in terms of their scope and, more importantly, their timing and likelihood.”

What financial analysts and investors need is a toolkit of common metrics that will enable them to assess the risks to a particular firm; whether that’s quantifiable current risks, or more intangible risks that are likely to materialise further down the road.

We have therefore identified four risk categories, some with a reasonable track record for demonstrating the level of risk and financial implications, others with almost none. All are intended to be layered onto traditional risk analyses, as shown below.

1. Physical risk

As is customary, we have divided physical risk into acute and chronic risk. These risks are already well documented, partly because they are more obvious, straightforward to assess, expensive, and in many cases already occurring.

Acute risks refer to events or specific episodes that have the potential to inflict significant physical damage: wildfires, river and ocean flooding, tropical storms and the like. Such events are occurring with greater frequency both regionally and globally; they are also becoming less idiosyncratic and more systematic, with the level of risk rising accordingly.

Chronic risks are those that carry a range of physical impacts of considerably longer duration than those posed by acute risks. They are best understood as processes, not events. For example, several countries in the Middle East and Central America frequently experience many of the impacts of drought, which tend to prompt significant outmigration. Sea level rise is perhaps the most familiar, and most studied, chronic risk.

2. Transitional adaptation

When it comes to adaptation to climate change, we really have no consistent track record to assess risk. This is partly because the horizon timeline of most financial systems is considerably shorter than the expected materialisation of climate risks. The problem with such transition climate risks is that they mostly lie outside traditional risk assessment horizons, and adaptation to physical impacts is a process – sometimes a very long one. Moreover, adaptation measures generally cost money, and these amounts remain largely uncertain.

3. Transitional mitigation

Mitigating against the physical effects of climate change will inevitably involve a range of potential transitional risks and associated costs, with the extent of these costs largely contingent on public policy decisions. A number of industries face regulatory compliance costs that may increase in the future as a result of mitigation efforts. For example, the EU has revised its carbon-pricing mechanism in recent years, laying out an ambitious programme to achieve a zero-carbon economy, with significant costs attached. This represents the kind of political and policy decision that is likely to become a more significant factor in industry and company costs going forward, especially in resource-dependent industries.

4. Natural capital risks

There may be significant natural capital risks deriving from climate impacts, but there has been little focus on these. Many natural resources are being rapidly depleted, or will cost considerably more in future to recover, and this will impact any number of businesses. For example, the minerals used in mobile phone manufacturing and electric car batteries are not in limitless supply. Potash is a key ingredient in agricultural fertiliser and is also likely to be in short supply in several decades. Perhaps most importantly, water resources are being depleted rapidly in many parts of the world, with broad societal and financial implications. Many of these potential depletion concerns are being exacerbated by global heating. These are all critical risk factors for a financial analyst or investor.

Additional considerations

In fact, water is a risk factor that falls under several categories. There is a fixed amount of water, and we are seeing a depletion of liquid water and ice, and an increase in water vapour, as a result of global warming. This amplifies levels of risk for any number of industries, posing a particularly significant risk to sectors such as agriculture, mining and utilities.

Aside from the more direct financial implications for industry operations, climate risk also has the potential to lead to other types of financial risk. For example, litigation risk, against both governments and firms, could escalate with potential financial implications for, and significant damage to, a range of business. Changes in consumer behaviour are also having an impact, as shown by how quickly consumer demand for electric cars and meat-free burgers led to significant changes in their respective industries.

Our taxonomy may well be modified and refined by others in the future. Regardless, we hope this taxonomy provides investors, lenders and regulators with a useful toolkit for addressing the financial implications of climate risk.

This article draws on findings from "What is Climate Risk? A Field Guide for Investors, Lenders, and Regulators" by Bob Buhr (91��ɫ London).

Centre for Climate Finance and Investment

91��ɫ Centre

Centre for Climate Finance & Investment

Academic area

Finance

Knowledge Categories

Finance

Off

Delivering brand resilience in the digital era

Omar Merlo — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 14:41:08 +0000

Delivering brand resilience in the digital era

Omar Merlo Thu, 29/04/2021 - 14:41

17 May 2021

Brand resilience is a term used to describe how strong brands can withstand external pressures through difficult times. If properly cultivated, brand resilience will ensure your brand stands the test of time – time and time again

In the digital era, brands are subjected to increased scrutiny. Online reviews, social media and intensified competition mean things can go wrong quickly, with any issues amplified.

In this context, building brand resilience is essential – even more so after the events of the last year.

Credit built up in good times can help brands endure the bad, from PR gaffes to global pandemics.

Customer participation is key to brand resilience

Brand resilience may be built through strong customer relationships. These can be cultivated over time through strong customer-brand connections and distinctive brand value propositions.

Brands can also strengthen customer relationships and build up resilience through customer participation and brand transparency, strategies which my 91��ɫ colleague Andreas Eisingerich and I (alongside others) have researched.

Increased scrutiny may make some unwilling to invite customer opinions. Brands should resist this temptation and do exactly the opposite.

We have found that brands which invite feedback, reviews, suggestions, and even complaints, develop strong customer relationships. This has tangible results, including brand loyalty and improved sales.

Brands that go further, openly sharing positive and negative customer comments and feedback, gain even more. Transparency, we found, can increase purchase intention and willingness to pay.

Continued below video

We’ve even come across reports of developers building minor bugs into software, which they then fix publicly as customers report them, showing engagement, responsiveness and transparency. This approach is a little extreme, and not something we would encourage, but reflects organisations’ increasing awareness of the benefits of customer participation and transparency.

Conversely, organisations that merely pay lip service to customer engagement, treating it as an unwelcome chore, will not enjoy the benefits.

We have found customer participation drives a greater sales uplift than the much-coveted word of mouth, which arguably prioritises new over loyal customers. Ultimately, the latter is perhaps best left to grow organically. Customer participation can be a more active process.

Honesty can be the best policy

Credit can be built up during good times, but brands can also show off what they’re made of during difficult ones. The current pandemic has merely amplified ever-present realities related to brand transparency.

Brands that have responded well during the pandemic, with transparency and integrity, will have built up good will among customers. Others, seen to have been evasive and greedy (certain budget airlines may fit the bill), will see their resilience tested.

While brands may be unwilling to show weakness, admitting the last year has been difficult may resonate with customers, who have also had difficult years. Many praised the way (the now late) Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson handled his honest but contrite admission that he would have to lay off staff.

Trying to sweep issues under the carpet will weaken customer relations, eroding trust.

As a cautionary note, we must add that customer participation must not be allowed to negatively impact employee relations. Employees’ well-being, participation, and protection from customer negativity all contribute to brand performance. A balance should be sought between internal and external participation.

How to build brand immunity

Building strong customer relationships can help confer brand immunity, protecting brands from negative information that might otherwise be fatal. Remember Volkswagen’s emission scandal in 2015? Somewhat surprisingly, the company bounced back in 2016 to become the world’s top-selling car manufacturer, only being overtaken in 2020 by Toyota (which itself recalled eight million defective vehicles in 2008).

I am part of an 91��ɫ London research team exploring ways in which brands can actively prime immunity to negative information. We have found that brands can do this by stimulating specific psychological processes among customers.

For example, merely asking customers how they would feel about a brand if it were hit by hypothetical negative information can boost future brand immunity. This suggests that, besides building strong relationships over time, there may be more immediate ways to build brand defence mechanisms, at a time when these are most needed. This is a very promising and timely research area.

Developing marketing talent to navigate difficult times

The MSc Strategic Marketing programme at 91��ɫ Business School covers customer engagement, brand strategies, and building brand resilience across multiple modules and perspectives.

As well as academic researchers, provision comes from those with frontline experience. The crisis management module in our online programme, for example, is taught by a colleague who led American Airlines’ brand recovery strategy after the 9/11 attacks and other brand crises.

To anyone wondering whether this is a good time to enrol in an MSc in marketing, the answer is unequivocally yes. The skills to generate and analyse market intelligence and develop customer-centric strategies will be essential to brands’ survival.

Customer-centricity will be more pivotal than ever in the post-pandemic world. Brands must strive to hold a distinctive and relevant place in consumers’ minds (no, not all publicity is good publicity). This must be married to a narrative: a positive story that connects prospective consumers with the brand.

I’ve previously written (with Professor Eisingerich) that brands should not sacrifice marketing budgets post-pandemic, and that they need to find ways to adapt. Those who prosper will be those who manage to invest strategically. And highly skilled marketing talent may be the best investment of them all.

Brand

Consumers

COVID-19

Digital Transformation