The academic and policy debate regarding the role of central banks and financial regulators in addressing climate-related financial risks has rapidly expanded in recent years. This Perspective presents the key controversies and discusses potential research and policy avenues for the future. Developing a comprehensive analytical framework to assess the potential impact of climate change and the low-carbon transition on financial stability seems to be the first crucial challenge. These enhanced risk measures could then be incorporated in setting financial regulations and implementing the policies of central banks.

Policy makers are increasingly embracing the idea of using industrial and innovation policy to tackle the ‘grand challenges’ facing modern societies. This article argues that through well-defined goals, or more specifically ‘missions’, that are focused on solving important societal challenges, policymakers have the opportunity to determine thedirectionof growth by making strategic investments across many different sectors and nurturing new industrial landscapes, which the private sector can develop further, and as a result induce cross-sectoral learning and increase macroeconomic stability. This ‘mission-oriented’ approach to industrial policy is not about ‘top down’ planning by an overbearing state; it is about providing a direction for growth and increasing business expectations about future growth areas and catalysing activity that otherwise would not happen. It is not about de-risking and levelling the playing field, nor about supporting more competitive sectors over less since the market does not always ‘know best’ but tilting the playing field in the direction of the desired societal goals, such as the sustainable development goals. To achieve this requires a different policy framework, what we call the ‘ROAR’ framework, which involves strategic thinking about the desired direction of travel (Routes), the structure and capacity of public sectorOrganisations, the way in which policy isAssessedand the incentive structure for both private and public sectors (Risks and Rewards). The article argues that if we want to take grand challenges such as the SDGs seriously as policy goals, market shaping should become the over-arching approach followed in various policy fields.

Financial risks related to climate change and biodiversity loss are currently being addressed in a largely siloed manner. Neglecting their interconnections, however, may lead to ‘blind spots’ and misestimations of systemic financial risk, potentially undermining progress on both climate finance policy and emerging policy on biodiversity-related financial risks (BRFR). In particular, the ‘risk measurement–based’ approach dominating climate finance policy, which is now being taken up to address BRFR, is poorly equipped to address the radical uncertainty that characterises both types of risks. Furthermore, many BRFR may materalise over a more immediate horizon than climate risks. In this paper, we examine how central banks and financial supervisors are approaching the topic of BRFR in relation to climate-related financial risk. We argue that policymakers should focus upon the broader concept of systemic environmental-financial risks to account for the interactions and trade-offs between both domains of biodiversity and climate change. Instead of seeking evidence of financial materiality before acting, focusing on how the financial system is actively facilitating direct drivers of environmental damage offers a way for financial policymakers to assess potential sources of such risks on the basis of information available today. In turn, policy interventions should aim to reduce harmful flows of finance that may lead to the crossing of dangerous ecological tipping points. Key policy insights

In conventional economics, value creation occurs in the private sector with the state limited to correcting for “market failures”. Public management scholars have developed the term “public value” to describe how public sector managers can engage citizens in shaping effective policy. A more ambitious concept of public value rejects the “market failure” framework and puts public value at the centre of the economy. Public value is created by public sector actors creating and co-shaping markets in line with public purpose. This direction-setting role enables different sectors to collaborate to address major societal challenges, such as climate change and inequality.

This paper argues that the housing affordability and wealth inequality crises facing advanced economies are driven by the emergence of a feedback cycle between finance and landed property. The cycle has been created by the increasing policy preference for private home ownership coupled with the liberalization of bank credit and accompanying financial innovation. Under such conditions, landed property becomes both the most attractive form of collateral for the banking system and the most desirable form of financial asset for households and investors. The housing–finance cycle emerged in Anglo-Saxon economies in the 1980s but has since spread to most advanced economies. Demand-side reforms, more than the supply-side reforms that dominate policy discussion, are required to break this cycle. Two reforms are discussed: (a) structural and institutional reforms to banking systems, including central banks; and (b) land policy reforms targeted at reducing the potential for rent extraction and speculative profits from property ownership.