Turbulence in ESG – When climate shakes the skies and exposes the fragility of businessesDuring a recent corporate technical mission, I asked a major passenger air transport company whether they were

During a recent corporate technical mission, I asked a major passenger air transport company whether they were already assessing systemic risks and the potential financial impacts brought by climate change, beyond simply inventorying emissions or creating offset projects.

My intention was to understand to what extent the company had already incorporated ESG into its core business, considering the assessment of transition risks toward a low-carbon economy, such as operational safety (technological risk), flight costs (market risk), insurance (political and legal risk), reputation (reputational risk), in addition to the evident physical risks associated with atmospheric instability.

The reaction was procedural, as if the question were “too alarmist,” and I admit that this feeling does not surprise me, after all, scientists who anticipate scenarios often sound “catastrophic” to those who insist on looking only at the present, but the truth is that facts always arrive.

Months later, Galileu magazine featured the headline: “Climate change increases turbulence in flights,” echoing research from the University of Reading (United Kingdom), published in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences in 2025, showing that by 2100 jet streams may increase between 16% and 27% compared to 2015, making the atmosphere 10% to 20% less stable, in other words, increasing the occurrence of clear-air turbulence (CAT) — the kind that is invisible, unpredictable, and undetectable by radar.

Another study from the same university found that the risks are already present, since between 1979 and 2020 severe turbulence over the North Atlantic increased by 55%; therefore, it is correct to state that aviation companies need to incorporate not only physical climate risks (directly linked to atmospheric stability), but also all other transition risks toward a low-carbon economy, as I pointed out at the beginning of this text.

ESG was created for this

What is striking is that ESG is still reduced to marketing reports or occasional socio-environmental responsibility projects, when in fact the acronym was created and popularized within the financial market precisely to translate climate, social, and governance risks into concrete financial impacts, that is, ESG is прежде всего about business sustainability.

Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, was direct in 2020 when he stated that sustainability would be the “new standard for investing,” arguing that climate risks must be incorporated into any portfolio decision; however, in 2022 BlackRock itself declared in its Investment Stewardship report that it would support fewer climate proposals in shareholder meetings, justifying that many had become “overly activist” and lacked direct connection with long-term value creation.

The paradox is evident: climate change is recognized as a risk to business, but there is hesitation or uncertainty about how to act when this requires deep transformations and strategic actions.

Climate risk is financial risk

In the case of aviation, we are talking about rising operational costs (more fuel, maintenance, alternative routes), stricter regulatory requirements (aircraft certification for more intense turbulence), increased insurance costs and legal liabilities in cases of accidents or forecasting failures, and reputation at stake when passengers and investors realize that the company ignored risks already identified by science.

And if this applies to aviation, it also applies to energy, food, infrastructure, technology, or any sector that depends on a stable climate, resilient ecosystems, and healthy societies.

Time to reposition ESG

It is urgent to bring sustainability to the core of management, integrating finance, environment, strategy, people, and operations under the direct leadership of top management, because only after this does it make sense to translate actions into marketing communication, since ESG is much more related to ethics than to aesthetics (with due poetic license, as I know marketing goes far beyond aesthetics, but it cannot do everything alone) and must be understood as business sustainability, capable of generating security and credibility with society.

After all, climate change, biodiversity loss, and social exclusion are real market risks, with the potential to shake balance sheets, destroy value, and accelerate crises; therefore, the question is not whether this will be costly, but how much you are willing to lose by not anticipating the obvious.

And I assure you, who have made it this far, that appropriate methods and metrics already exist, just as it is also possible to innovate and create truly sustainable solutions (for society and for business) by drawing inspiration from nature’s own technology, but this will be the subject of a future article

Dr. Magda Maya | Geoscientist | PhD in Development and Environment | Theorist of Sustainability 4.0 | Founder of BEEOSFERA – Sustainability 4.0