Conservation finance embraces a series of innovative financing mechanisms aimed at raising and managing capital to be used for the conservation of biodiversity. The climate emergency and the pursuit of sustainable development underline the criticality of financial support for achieving this goal. Funding for the protection of biodiversity, in fact, has long been disbursed by governments in a residual form, only after they have dealt with social needs and political challenges. To date, the main challenge of conservation finance is to identify solutions that not only generate new revenue for biodiversity, but also effectively manage and allocate existing funding to provide a mix of social and community benefits as well. The paper, therefore, aims to act as a wake-up call, urging academics working in economics and finance to turn their attention to resolving the financial problems faced by conservation. Through a comparative bibliometric analysis, the study aims to outline the structure of scientific research on the topic of conservation finance, to understand the state of the art, and to identify open questions and new research trends. The results of the study show that the topic of conservation finance is currently a prerogative of scholars and journals of ecology, biology and environmental sciences. Finance scholars pay very little attention to the topic and yet there are many opportunities/needs for future research. The results are of interest to researchers in banking and finance, policy-makers and managers.

Climate change is reshaping financial stability, making climate risk a critical component of banks' risk management. However, the absence of standardized frameworks validated by central authorities hinders banks' ability to integrate climate risk into existing credit risk models. This study employs a bibliometric and systematic literature review approach to examine the existing white and grey literature regarding the impact of climate change on credit risk components, like probability of default (PD), loss given default (LGD), exposure at default (EAD), and unexpected loss (UL). We highlight that innovations in climate‐adjusted credit risk estimation primarily stem from grey literature but lack empirical validation in academic research. This study encourages academics to refine climate‐adjusted risk metrics, financial institutions to evaluate their applicability, and policymakers to establish a more coherent regulatory approach. It also offers clarification to bank managers and practitioners on which methodologies are most applicable. Our study explains theoretically how climate risks affect creditworthiness and contributes to the development of standardized methodologies for their consistent integration into risk assessments.