Description

A focused course, tailored for you

Climate Risk Implementation for BFS Senior Managers

Build the internal climate risk framework, scenario models, and board-ready disclosures your institution needs to meet regulator expectations this cycle.

Your APRA CPG 229 submission needs a coherent scenario narrative, a quantified capital impact, and a board-ready disclosure package, and right now those three pieces are being built by different people with no shared structure. This course gives the senior manager who owns the framework a single build path that connects them.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

Climate risk implementation in banking financial services sits at an awkward intersection: it requires regulatory fluency (APRA CPG 229, TCFD, NGFS scenario families), quantitative modelling (transition risk, physical risk, stress test calibration), and board communication (audit committee format, capital adequacy narrative). Most institutions assign the work across risk, treasury, and sustainability teams. The senior manager in the middle ends up reconciling three different outputs into a submission package that was never designed as a whole. The result is a disclosure that satisfies the form of the requirement but not the substance, which is exactly what prudential reviewers flag.

What you walk away with

Map transition and physical risk exposure to your institution's actual loan book and asset mix.
Design and calibrate a scenario analysis that satisfies APRA CPG 229 and NGFS expectations.
Build the internal capital impact quantification your treasury team can defend.
Structure a board-ready climate risk disclosure that connects scenario outputs to capital adequacy narrative.
Manage the cross-functional submission process so risk, treasury, and sustainability deliver one coherent package.
Produce the documented framework that survives a prudential review, not just the first submission cycle.

The 12 modules

Module 1. Regulatory Landscape: APRA CPG 229, TCFD, and NGFS in Practice

Walk through the specific expectations in APRA CPG 229 versus what TCFD recommends versus how NGFS scenario families are structured. This module maps where they overlap, where they diverge, and what a BFS senior manager is actually required to deliver versus what is best-practice framing. Output: a one-page requirements matrix that anchors every subsequent module to a specific regulatory expectation.

Module 2. Exposure Mapping: Loan Book and Asset Mix to Climate Risk Pathways

Before you can model risk, you need to know which parts of your portfolio are exposed and to which pathway. This module covers how to segment a retail and commercial loan book by sector, geography, and counterparty type, then assign each segment to a transition risk pathway or physical risk hazard category. Output: a draft exposure map structured for use in the scenario design module that follows.

Module 3. Scenario Design: Selecting and Calibrating NGFS Families for Your Portfolio

NGFS publishes three scenario families: orderly, disorderly, and hot house world. This module covers how to select the right family for your submission, how to calibrate the macroeconomic and sector-specific variables to your actual portfolio mix, and how to document your calibration decisions in the format APRA reviewers expect. Output: a calibrated scenario design brief with documented assumptions.

Module 4. Transition Risk Quantification: Carbon Price Pass-Through and Sector Haircuts

Transition risk in a loan book shows up as credit risk if borrowers cannot absorb carbon price increases, regulatory compliance costs, or asset stranding. This module covers the quantification mechanics: how to apply sector haircuts to existing credit exposures, how to model carbon price pass-through for energy-intensive borrowers, and how to aggregate to a portfolio-level expected loss impact. Output: a transition risk quantification worksheet your treasury team can populate.

Module 5. Physical Risk Quantification: Hazard Probability and Property-Secured Exposure

Physical risk matters most in property-secured portfolios. This module covers how to source hazard probability data for Australian geographies (flood, wildfire, storm surge), how to apply collateral haircuts to LVR calculations under each scenario, and how to translate the result into a capital adequacy impact figure. Output: a physical risk impact model with inputs mapped to publicly available hazard datasets.

Module 6. Stress Test Calibration: Connecting Scenario Outputs to Capital Adequacy

The stress test is where scenario modelling becomes a capital conversation. This module covers how to convert your transition and physical risk quantifications into stressed capital ratios, how to document the methodology in a way that satisfies APRA's internal capital adequacy assessment process (ICAAP) requirements, and how to present the stressed ratios alongside the base case. Output: a stress test summary sheet formatted for the ICAAP addendum.

Module 7. TCFD Disclosure Structure: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, Metrics

TCFD organises disclosure across four pillars. This module covers what each pillar requires in a BFS context, which internal owners you need sign-off from (board, audit committee, CRO, CFO), and how to sequence the disclosure drafting so the governance and strategy sections are consistent with the risk management and metrics sections. Output: a TCFD disclosure draft template with section owners mapped to your org structure.

Module 8. Board Reporting Format: Audit Committee Pack and Capital Adequacy Narrative

Board members need to understand both the risk and the institution's management response. This module covers how to structure the audit committee climate risk paper: the one-page scenario summary, the capital impact table, the management actions section, and the forward risk appetite statement. Output: a board paper template that connects scenario outputs to governance decisions the audit committee can make.

Module 9. Cross-Functional Submission Process: Risk, Treasury, and Sustainability Alignment

The hardest part of climate risk implementation is not modelling. It is getting three teams with different owners, different tools, and different timelines to produce one consistent document. This module covers how to structure the working group, which artefacts each function owns, how to run a reconciliation review before submission, and where the most common inconsistencies appear between the quantitative outputs and the narrative sections. Output: a cross-functional workplan template and reconciliation checklist.

Module 10. APRA CPG 229 Submission Narrative: What Prudential Reviewers Actually Look For

Prudential reviewers assess whether your submission demonstrates genuine understanding of your institution's climate risk profile, not just technical compliance with the guidance. This module covers the specific narrative elements APRA flags as insufficient in industry reviews: scenario coverage rationale, materiality assessment, and the link between risk identification and management response. Output: a narrative quality checklist applied to your draft submission sections.

Module 11. Framework Documentation: Making the Build Audit-Ready and Repeatable

A one-off submission is not a framework. This module covers how to document your methodology, data sources, calibration decisions, and governance approvals in a format that a successor manager or an external auditor can follow. Covers version control for assumptions, data lineage for external hazard inputs, and the annual refresh cycle that keeps the framework current as NGFS scenarios are updated. Output: a framework documentation template with the annual refresh process mapped.

Module 12. From Submission to Ongoing Risk Management: Embedding Climate Risk in the BAU Cycle

Most institutions treat the climate risk submission as an annual compliance event. This module covers how to move from event-driven compliance to an embedded risk management practice: how to link climate risk indicators to your existing risk appetite framework, how to integrate physical risk data into your credit origination process, and how to brief frontline relationship managers on what the framework means for their book. Output: an integration plan with priority actions for the next quarterly risk cycle.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

Modules 1-3 give you the regulatory grounding and scenario foundation before any quantitative work starts.

Modules 4-6 build the quantitative layer: transition risk, physical risk, and the capital adequacy stress test.

Modules 7-9 cover the disclosure and governance layer: TCFD structure, board reporting, and cross-functional alignment.

Modules 10-12 close the loop: submission narrative quality, framework documentation, and embedding the build into the ongoing risk management cycle.

What you get with this course

12 written modules covering the full climate risk implementation build from exposure mapping to ongoing BAU integration.
Downloadable templates for every module output: exposure map, scenario design brief, transition risk worksheet, physical risk model, stress test summary, TCFD disclosure draft, board paper, cross-functional workplan, submission narrative checklist, framework documentation, integration plan.
Hand-built implementation playbook tailored to your role, delivered alongside course access within 24 hours of purchase.
Access to the Art of Service learning environment.

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.

Before and after

Before

Three teams producing three separate outputs, a submission narrative that satisfies the form of CPG 229 but not the substance, and a prudential reviewer who flags the scenario coverage rationale as thin.

After

A single coherent submission package with documented scenario calibration, quantified capital impact, and a governance-ready disclosure narrative that survives a follow-up review.

What happens if you do not address this

APRA is moving from observation to active assessment of climate risk governance quality. Institutions whose CPG 229 submissions read as compliance exercises rather than genuine risk management frameworks are the first to receive a Section 45M direction or a PAIRS downgrade on operational risk management. The cost of remediation after a prudential flag is significantly higher than the cost of building the framework correctly the first time.

Who it is for

Senior Manager in Banking and Financial Services who owns or co-owns the climate risk framework build. Accountable for APRA CPG 229 compliance, TCFD alignment, and internal capital adequacy reporting. Working across risk, treasury, and sustainability functions. Not a quant, but responsible for ensuring the quantitative outputs translate into a regulator-ready submission.

Who this is NOT for. A Chief Risk Officer looking for strategic overview rather than implementation mechanics. A sustainability analyst without capital adequacy responsibility. A data scientist building the physical risk models but not accountable for the disclosure package.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. Approximately 6-8 hours across the 12 modules. Most senior managers complete 2-3 modules per week alongside active submission work, using the templates directly in the drafts they are already producing.

Why $199 is the right number

APRA guidance documents and NGFS technical papers cover the what but not the how. Consulting firms will build the framework for you at significant cost and leave an artefact that belongs to them, not your team. Internal training programmes in large institutions rarely reach the implementation mechanics at this level of specificity. This course covers the mechanics, provides the templates, and produces a framework your institution owns.

FAQ

Is this course relevant if we have already submitted our first CPG 229 response?

Yes. Most first submissions were built under time pressure with whatever was available. The modules on framework documentation, annual refresh process, and BAU integration are directly useful for moving from a one-off submission to a repeatable practice. The stress test calibration and cross-functional alignment modules are particularly useful for strengthening the next cycle.

Does this course require quantitative modelling skills?

No. The course is designed for the senior manager who owns the framework build and is accountable for the submission, not the quant who runs the models. The modules cover what you need to commission, review, and validate from your modelling team, and the templates give you the structures to work with. You do not need to build models yourself.

How current is the regulatory content?

The course is built around APRA CPG 229 as currently in effect, NGFS scenario families through the current published set, and TCFD final recommendations. The implementation playbook includes a section on monitoring for updates from APRA, ASIC, and NGFS so you know how to refresh the framework when guidance is updated.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.