Governance, Ethics & Risk
Board climate competence
The knowledge, skills and mindset a board collectively needs to oversee climate-related risks and opportunities — a recognised dimension of effective climate governance.
Expert review openNo editor-accepted expert review yetDefinition
The collective capacity of a board of directors to debate and decide on climate-related strategy with an informed understanding of the threats and opportunities involved. It is codified as Principle 2 — "command of the subject" — of the World Economic Forum's 2019 guiding principles for effective climate governance, which call for board composition sufficiently diverse in knowledge, skills, experience and background for climate-informed decisions.
References
Principle 1 (accountability for long-term climate resilience) and Principle 2 (command of the subject; composition diversity of knowledge and skills).
Competency framework (knowledge, skills, leadership & mindset); Directors' Climate Journey; NED practice.
Overview
What it means
Climate competence is a collective, not individual, property: boards build it through recruitment (directors with relevant expertise), structured education (such as Chapter Zero's Directors' Climate Journey), access to advice, and deliberation practices that interrogate transition assumptions.
Frameworks distinguish knowledge (climate science, policy, market shifts), skills (strategy, risk integration, disclosure oversight) and leadership mindset. It connects to duties: failure to steward long-term climate resilience may engage directors' accountability for the company's long-term prospects (WEF Principle 1).
How it is used
Investors and regulators increasingly assess board climate competence within transition-plan scrutiny and disclosure regimes; nomination committees map climate skills in board matrices; initiatives such as the Climate Governance Initiative's national Chapters (including Chapter Zero) provide training and peer networks for non-executive directors.
Why it matters
Every climate commitment a company makes is ultimately overseen — or not — by its board; competence at that level is the hinge between disclosure on paper and strategy in practice.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and verification.
Submitted reviews stay private until accepted.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.