The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) was established in 2015 by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), an international body coordinating financial regulators. The Task Force's initial mandate was to develop consistent and comparable climate reporting recommendations, internationally, to facilitate the integration of climate risks into capital allocation decisions.

The final recommendations were published in June 2017, after extensive international consultation. They are structured around eleven recommendations grouped into four pillars, with additional guidelines for seven particularly exposed sectors (including infrastructure in the broad sense).

Since their publication, these recommendations have seen considerable adoption. More than 4,000 organisations worldwide have signed their commitment to apply them. National regulators (United Kingdom, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland) have made them legal obligations for certain categories of companies. Equator Principles signatory banks have required them for category A projects since EP4 (2020).

In 2023, the FSB announced the dissolution of the Task Force itself, having entrusted the continuation of the work to the ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board) of the IFRS Foundation. The first ISSB standards published (IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, June 2023) integrate and substantially extend the TCFD recommendations.

This article presents the architecture of the TCFD framework, the eleven recommendations in detail, the specificities applicable to infrastructure sectors, integration into emerging regulatory frameworks, and practical points of vigilance for operators engaging with this approach.

The four-pillar architecture

The TCFD recommendations are organised into four pillars that build upon the fundamentals of corporate governance adapted to climate.

Governance. Two recommendations cover the board of directors' oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities, and management's role in assessing and managing these risks.

Strategy. Three recommendations cover the climate-related risks and opportunities identified in the short, medium and long term, their impact on the organisation's strategy and financial planning, and the resilience of the strategy to different climate scenarios.

Risk management. Three recommendations cover the processes for identifying, assessing and managing climate risks, and their integration into the organisation's overall risk management.

Metrics and targets. Three recommendations cover the metrics used to assess climate-related risks and opportunities, the organisation's greenhouse gas emissions (scope 1, 2, and if appropriate scope 3), and the targets the organisation has set and its performance against these targets.

This architecture, designed to integrate naturally into annual reports and financial information, has facilitated its adoption. It does not require producing a separate document but enriching existing publications with structured climate information.

The typology of climate risks

The TCFD distinguishes two broad categories of climate risks.

Physical risks arise from the direct effects of climate change. They are subdivided into acute risks (discrete extreme weather events: storms, floods, heat waves, fires) and chronic risks (long-term effects: sea level rise, changes in precipitation patterns, average warming, ocean acidification).

Transition risks arise from the process of adapting the economy to a low-carbon trajectory. They are subdivided into four families: policy and legal risks (new regulations, carbon taxes, pricing mechanisms), technology risks (emergence of substitute technologies, obsolescence of existing assets), market risks (evolution of consumer and investor preferences, production costs), reputational risks (public perception, stakeholder pressure).

Symmetrically, the TCFD identifies climate opportunities in the same categories: resource efficiency, alternative energy sources, low-carbon products and services, new markets, operational resilience.

For an organisation producing serious TCFD reporting, this typology is not a theoretical exercise. It structures the analysis of material risks and guides the identification of action levers.

The climate scenario requirement

Among the TCFD recommendations, the climate scenario analysis requirement (Strategy recommendation c) is the most distinctive and often the most demanding.

The organisation must demonstrate the resilience of its strategy to different climate scenarios, including at minimum a warming scenario limited to 2°C or less. In practice, serious companies analyse several contrasting scenarios.

Commonly used scenarios include: a scenario compatible with global carbon neutrality by 2050 (aligned with warming limited to 1.5°C), a Delayed Transition scenario (late but ambitious transition), a Current Policies scenario (continuation of current policies, higher warming).

Data sources for these scenarios are mainly public: International Energy Agency (NZE, APS, STEPS scenarios), NGFS network (Network for Greening the Financial System) for climate scenarios adapted to financial institutions, IPCC for physical projections.

The exercise consists of testing the organisation's strategy and asset portfolio against these scenarios: how do revenues, costs, asset values and physical risks evolve in each trajectory? The results reveal vulnerabilities and opportunities, and guide strategic adjustments.

For an infrastructure operator, the exercise is particularly important. Assets have long lifespans that make them sensitive to both physical risks (infrastructure exposed to climate hazards) and transition risks (obsolescence of thermal equipment, changing transport demands).

Sector-specific guidance for infrastructure

The TCFD has published additional guidelines for four particularly exposed non-financial sectors: energy, transport, materials and buildings, agriculture and food industries. Infrastructure operators frequently fall within the first three sectors.

For energy, the guidelines emphasise analysis of potential stranded assets, breakdown of emissions by technology, and consideration of demand evolution according to scenarios.

For transport, the guidelines address emissions from the transport value chain, technological developments (electrification, hydrogen), and long-term changes in mobility patterns.

For materials and buildings, the guidelines cover the carbon footprint of materials (particularly cement and steel), energy efficiency of constructed buildings, and emerging low-carbon technologies.

These sector guidelines are valuable: they indicate precisely what an informed reader expects to find in the reporting of an operator in that sector. Reporting without considering these specificities produces a generic document of little use to the financial analysts who will read it.

Integration into regulatory frameworks

The TCFD recommendations have been progressively integrated into increasingly binding regulatory frameworks.

In the United Kingdom, large listed companies have been subject since 2022 to climate reporting obligations aligned with TCFD. These obligations are progressively extending to other categories of companies.

In the European Union, the CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) and the resulting ESRS fully integrate the TCFD logic. ESRS E1 (climate change) adopts and enriches the TCFD recommendations.

The ISSB standards published in June 2023 (IFRS S1 and S2) are designed to articulate with local requirements and propose a common international basis. IFRS S2 in particular is directly derived from TCFD, with some technical developments.

Equator Principles signatory banks have required TCFD reporting for category A projects and certain category B projects since version 4 in 2020.

Several DFIs (IFC, AfDB, AFD, BII, KfW) are progressively integrating TCFD requirements into their appraisal and monitoring processes for significant projects.

For an organisation operating internationally, this convergence reduces multi-jurisdictional reporting costs. Well-constructed TCFD reporting often serves as a basis for several regulatory and contractual obligations.

Articulation with TNFD

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), created in 2021, is the nature-focused counterpart of TCFD. Its final framework, published in September 2023, broadly adopts the TCFD architecture (four pillars) and extends it to nature-related risks and opportunities: biodiversity, water, soils, ecosystems.

The articulation between TCFD and TNFD is essential for several reasons.

The topics overlap. Ecosystems contribute to climate regulation, climate change affects ecosystems. Treating the two dimensions separately leads to missing the interactions.

The methodological tools are similar. The logic of scenario analysis, risk typology and quantified metrics is the same. The skills developed for TCFD are largely transferable to TNFD.

Stakeholders progressively request both. Institutional investors, lenders, regulators are broadening their reporting expectations beyond climate alone.

For an infrastructure operator, joint adoption of TCFD plus TNFD is emerging as the logical trajectory for the coming years. It requires methodological anticipation and dedicated resources, but it positions the organisation favourably in a tightening regulatory environment.

Frequent errors in early TCFD reports

Five errors recur in early TCFD reporting.

Superficiality on scenarios. Scenario analysis is sometimes reduced to a general mention without quantification. Yet it is precisely this quantitative exercise that provides the added value of TCFD reporting.

Asymmetric treatment of risks and opportunities. Some reports detail risks without equivalent exploration of opportunities. The TCFD framework requires symmetrical treatment of both.

Absence of figures. The Metrics and Targets pillar is sometimes covered by qualitative statements without figures. At minimum, scope 1 and 2 emissions must be published with documented methodology.

Disconnection from strategy. When TCFD reporting does not dialogue with the organisation's actual strategy, it produces a parallel document of little credibility. The Strategy pillar requires showing how climate is effectively integrated into strategic decisions.

Neglecting governance. The Governance pillar is sometimes reduced to a sentence asserting board involvement. Serious reporting details effective oversight (frequency of discussions, topics addressed, decisions taken).

Future developments

Following the dissolution of the Task Force itself in 2023, the work is being continued by the ISSB. The IFRS S1 (general sustainability reporting requirements) and IFRS S2 (climate) standards adopt and extend the TCFD recommendations with greater technical precision and strengthened articulation with conventional financial reporting.

The United States, through the SEC, published climate reporting rules for listed companies in 2024, broadly aligned with TCFD logic despite local specificities. Their application faces legal uncertainties but the general direction is set.

At international level, adoption of ISSB standards by national regulators is gradually developing. International harmonisation of sustainability reporting, long difficult, is finally materialising.

What users of a TCFD report seek.

  • Climate governance at the highest level, documented with precision.
  • An explicit climate strategy, articulated with the overall strategy.
  • Analysis of contrasting scenarios, quantified, demonstrating resilience.
  • Risk management integrated into the organisation's overall processes.
  • Quantified metrics on emissions and on performance against targets.
  • Temporal consistency over multiple successive reporting periods.

The TCFD recommendations, although the Task Force itself was dissolved in 2023, have permanently transformed the climate reporting landscape. Their success stems from a rare combination: a rigorous methodological framework, credible international governance, and progressive adoption by regulators and economic actors.

For an infrastructure operator, engaging with TCFD reporting is no longer a strategic choice in 2026. It is an imperative unfolding progressively, through regulatory obligations for listed companies, through contractual requirements from lenders for project finance, through expectations from institutional investors.

The right strategy is to invest seriously in the first year of reporting, to build a solid methodological foundation, then maintain discipline year after year. Mature TCFD reporting, produced over several years, becomes an asset that facilitates access to finance and strengthens the organisation's credibility in its dialogue with all its stakeholders.

tcfdreporting-climatiquefsbscenariosissbtnfd