Since its launch in 2021, the Climate and Environment Charter for Humanitarian Organizations (the Charter) has been signed by hundreds of humanitarian actors across the world, including local and national organizations, United Nations agencies, National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and large international NGOs. The Charter's development grew out of a sector-wide recognition that humanitarians have a role to play in addressing the crises of climate change and environmental degradation, and that fulfilling this role would entail changing how they work. Two years into its existence, the Charter has helped build momentum towards this change and has provided a useful measurement tool for how much remains to be done.

This paper traces the origins, inspiration and process of the Charter from the perspective of the present authors, who co-led the Charter's development. The article highlights some of the challenges that we faced and how these were addressed. In taking stock of progress towards the Charter's goals, the article flags areas where further effort is needed to adequately strengthen the humanitarian response to the climate and environmental crises.

Climate risks are systemic risks and may be clustered according to so-called volatilities, uncertainties, complexities, and ambiguities (VUCA) criteria. We analyze climate risk in the VUCA concept and provide a framework that allows to interpret systemic risks as model risk. As climate risks are characterized by deep uncertainties (unknown unknowns), we argue that precautionary and resilient principles should be applied instead of capital-based risk measures (reasonable for known unknows). A prominent example of the proposed principles is the precommitment approach (PCA). Within the PCA, subjective probabilities allow to discriminate between tolerable risks and acceptable ones. The amount of determined solvency capital for acceptable risks and estimations of model risk may be aggregated by means of a multiplier approach. This framework is in line with the three-pillar approach of Solvency II, especially with the recovery and resolution plan. Furthermore, it fits smoothly to a hybrid approach of micro- and macroprudential supervision.

Climate change emergency requires rapide and determined action. The procrastination of the French state is not without consequences. One of them is that the High Administrative Court (Conseil d'Etat) found that climate risk is not taken seriously enough and is insufficiently addressed. In two decisions ruled in 2020 and 2021, the Conseil d'Etat in France had the opportunity to express itself on these issues. This is the case known as “Grande Synthe”, referring to the city that filed the petition before the High Court, in an appeal for “exces de pouvoir” –exces of power -, asking the administration to take further action in the fight against climate change. Civil society in France is indeed becoming impatient and taking legal action challenging the lack of ambition of the State in climate matters. The decision commented here will no doubt serve as a model for other similar decisions and for other European countries. It will lead to an increase of climate litigation in France and abroad.

The year 2020 proved to be a clarion call for global society. There is no longer doubt that increasingly we are experiencing unpredictable events, known as ‘black swans’, ranging from pandemics to financial meltdowns. One of the ’climate black swans’ against which experts have cautioned is the financial crisis caused by climate change. In this context, the Australian case of McVeigh v. Retail Employees Superannuation Trust for the first time tested climate risk and the fiduciary duties of retail pension funds. Settled in November 2020, the case has already raised the bar for climate risk practice in pension funds. In particular, McVeigh suggests that courts, as well as out-of-court settlements, may articulate a duty, rather than grant permission, for pension funds to consider climate-related financial risk in their investment decisions.

The article builds on McVeigh to ask two questions. Firstly, what is the role of climate change litigation in promoting climate regulation by pension funds? Secondly, what is the relative importance of pension funds for the risk management of climate-related financial risk via due diligence compared with risk assessment via disclosure? Fundamentally, the article explains climate-related financial risk as a cultural phenomenon and argues that a discussion on pension fund fiduciary duties must consider disclosure in addition to due diligence. It argues that McVeigh articulated the need for a normative approach to pension fund disclosure duties and an extension of the field of climate-related risk disclosure to embrace climate-related risk due diligence.