Heat stress and water-related risks are the main concerns. They dominate other risks when considering commercial operations, although wind/storm risks are increasing too. The key issue is relativity - what risks justify action? For example, an estate flooding every five years may see little change, while one flooding for the first time in decades can be more problematic. In some locations, occasional minor flooding is considered more of an inconvenience than a risk as most existing buildings can handle it.

The real question is what truly triggers the need for adaptive measures. Our conversations focus on physical risks - flooding, storm damage, maintenance needs - and whether these affect occupiers now or later. At SEGRO we are piloting detailed assessments with engineers and external partners to better answer these “so what?” questions and ensure we invest in priority measures.

We’re starting with two sites where a range of climate hazards were modelled and where we want to take a wider view of future resilience. We will be learning from these initial assessments, and will then decide where to expand.

I’m keen to see climate risk assessment even more firmly embedded into the acquisition process. Given how easily accessible good quality climate data is now, screening potential purchases regularly against a wide range of modelled risks should be straightforward.

I expect more of this type of screening to be built into BAU processes. We also expect these assessments will help us identify specific adaptations we could be making to new developments or larger retrofits.

On some estates, we’ve installed early-warning flood sensors and deployable barriers. The sensors don’t automatically deploy barriers - we still need people to physically put them up. Regarding infrastructure risks, like flooding of nearby roads, we bring in infrastructure experts during assessments.

For instance, one of our estates near the North Circular Road is known to experience surface water flooding after heavy and prolonged rainfall, and we monitor any impact on our customers as it could especially impact logistics and last-mile operations. That means the area around us is important too. When we are aware of potential flooding risks, we take proactive steps to ensure drains are clear, which can help keep roads accessible.

Some regulations, such as the TCFD in the UK, provide that push for organisations to take a closer look at climate related risks, mainly physical. Although the regulation is external reporting focussed, the work we do to produce our report is extensive and is used to inform our business’ risk process.

In addition, local planning regulations across our markets are increasingly explicit with specific resilience and adaptive measures. We expect that to increase and tighten up relatively quickly. Both these aspects naturally lead to conversation around resilience.I would say the biggest challenge is the often still the uncertain timeframe and severity of climate related issues.

We need much more systems-thinking - looking not just at single assets but how they fit into wider infrastructure and financial systems. Linking potential losses to actual financial data will become more common, helping make scenarios more decision useful. Advanced modelling connected to insurance that then triggers climate resilience measures. And of course, we need to continue to do our utmost to play our part in reducing our own carbon emissions and supporting our customers with their challenges.

At a macro level, moving away from fossil fuels means we are closely following developments in EV and eHGV charging, battery technology and PV. A little bit more out there, but potentially interesting are developments to provide hyperlocal weather forecasting. The key is to make these insights truly actionable. It’s not enough to know an asset is at risk, we need to know what it means for our customers, our income, and our long-term strategy, and then have the tools and processes in place to act on it.

Increasing weather volatility is shortening planning horizons and pushing asset owners to embed climate resilience into asset design, siting, and maintenance planning. Capital expenditure decisions now routinely factor in resilience ROI — such as the payoff from flood-proofing or elevating critical infrastructure to minimize future operational losses.

Insurance strategies are also evolving. Many owners are moving toward blended approaches that mix traditional coverage with parametric triggers, higher deductibles, and selective self-insurance — a way to manage escalating premiums and tightening policy exclusions. The adaptation market has been particularly active, with asset managers and insurers leading the way and banks beginning to follow suit.

We’re also seeing the growing frequency and intensity of climate events reshape how organisations assess risk. The focus is shifting from distant 2050–2100 scenarios toward operational timeframes — planning for the next five years or even preparing for a “one-in-X-years” event that could strike tomorrow. Platforms that combine near-term event probabilities with long-term structural projections are enabling both crisis preparedness and strategic asset allocation.

Emerging demand is now centred on “dual-mode” systems that integrate seasonal and annual forecasts with multi-decadal climate scenarios, bridging short-term operations with long-term resilience strategy.

Generally, we see that data sources are fragmented and siloed, and formats are inconsistent. At the same time, many organisations lack the internal capability to interpret climate models. Underpinning this is a fundamental misalignment between asset life cycles, which are often 10–40 years, and typical corporate decision horizons of 3–5 years.

Smaller CRO pockets exist when looking only at risk, but financing the change is a greater opportunity as it comes with bigger budgets. In addition, regulatory uncertainty reduces confidence in long-term assumptions.

At Climate X, we don't bet on increasing ARR by improving accuracy by just a few percentage points, and we never have. Our models need to pass stringent MRM standards, and that level of rigor is sufficient for our customers. Their issues are less about marginal gains in accuracy and more about translating science into business decisions and embedding this data into their processes. That is what we are experts in.

To build trust, we need to see transparency on methodologies, uncertainty ranges, and data provenance. External validation via academic or industry partnerships is essential, as is a proven track record of model back-testing against historical events. Independent audits and ISO/TC 207-type certification would also help where possible.

AI models have speed, cost-efficiency, and the ability to ingest non-traditional datasets. However, they also have opaque “black box” processes, potential for bias, and limited robustness in unprecedented events.

Ultimately, we believe AI models are a win for Climate X as we’re moving up the value chain to focus on AI UX and customer workflows, cost and revenue impacts, with pure climate and hazards being just one of the inputs that will reduce in value overtime.

Looking at the bigger picture, solutions  are likely to become increasingly verticalised for high-exposure industries such as infrastructure, banking, and asset management. Seamless integration across time horizons and workflows reduces friction, accelerates adoption, and strengthens the value proposition.

A unified platform that spans short-term event monitoring, medium-term capital planning, and long-term risk assessment could significantly streamline procurement, enhance decision speed,and deepen client relationships. Comparatively, in lower-exposure sectors,modular and interoperable tools may remain preferable — allowing organizations to avoid over investing in capabilities they use only occasionally.

It's relevant to a degree (though we don’t do that) - especially for sectors with carbon-intensive assets or long investment cycles. Regulatory volatility (e.g., IRA changes) increases scenario uncertainty, but transition risk remains a material driver of asset value, cost of capital, and compliance obligations. Ignoring it risks stranded assets and mispriced investments.