Three days. That is how long one of our plants stopped producing steel after the water level at a source 50 kilometres away fell too far to sustain the intake. The following year, the same plant lost production again — this time because the pumping station flooded.
Neither was a mechanical failure or a labour dispute. Both were physical risks that finance teams have spent the past five years modelling as future problems. They are now operating problems, and I hear the same story from finance colleagues across the country.
At a recent roundtable convened by CII and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), C-suite executives from across Indian industry described a strikingly consistent picture: heat stress, flooding and water stress are already hitting worker safety, productivity and output. And everyone hit the same wall funding a response.
The obstacle is simple: it is hard to allocate capital against a return you cannot see.
Adaptation spending fails the conventional capital allocation test because its payoff is an avoided loss. When the investment works, nothing happens — the facility just keeps running. There is no line item for the disaster that did not occur.
But this is a measurement problem, not an economic one. Value the loss, and the investment case follows. That single reframe moves adaptation out of the sustainability report and into the capital plan.
Three findings, taken together, are hard to ignore.
The losses are already large. CII estimates India loses 34 million workdays a year to heat stress; 2024 alone saw more than 40,000 reported heat stroke cases. In exposed sectors — agriculture, construction and manufacturing, some 380 million workers — extreme heat can cut productivity by up to 40%.
The losses land where we do not look. MSCI's study of more than 11,000 companies and 500,000 physical assets found that revenue loss from business interruption typically exceeds asset damage, with extreme heat the single largest driver. Our risk registers track damage to things; the money is increasingly lost to disruption of operations.
And capital markets are already pricing it. Bloomberg research finds that every 10 percentage point rise in a company's potential climate asset damage adds roughly 22 basis points to its cost of capital — whether or not the company itself is doing the math.
Set against this, the return case is strong: roundtable estimates put the payback on adaptation spending at $2 to $10 for every dollar invested, through reduced disruption, higher productivity and stronger continuity. For an economy growing as fast as India's, resilience is no longer adjacent to competitiveness — it is a precondition for it.
Start with a cost curve. Model two paths — invest in resilience, or do not — and the gap between them is the opportunity cost of inaction. Insurance premiums are a workable proxy; the resulting number is finance-grade enough for a board or a lender to examine.
Then widen the lens. One roundtable participant put it as concentric circles: for our own assets, we have data, agency and a measurable cost of inaction. Move outward — to the land around the plant, to suppliers, to shared infrastructure and watersheds — and we lose all three, even though that is where much of our exposure sits. For many agribusinesses, the greatest risk is not inside the factory gate. It is with the farmer.
That is the harder truth: adaptation finance is not reaching farmers, SMEs and smaller suppliers, who need patient capital before disruption hits, not relief after. Across South and Southeast Asia, only around 4% of flood losses and 12% of cyclone losses have been insured since 2000. That gap does not stay with the supplier — it shows up on corporate balance sheets as a supply failure.
A just transition has to fund workforce preparedness, water resilience, infrastructure, community adaptation and supply chain readiness — not as philanthropy, but as protection for the systems our businesses actually run on.
The instinct that we should not invest without a visible return is the right one. The task now is not to abandon that discipline but to extend it: finance leaders need the tools to price physical risk with the same rigour we apply to any other capital decision — before disruption becomes loss.
Stories
Social Media
© 2026 JSW Steel. All rights reserved
Privacy Policy
