Learning Objectives
- Apply c-ECO framework to a real or realistic ESG engagement
- Translate corporate sustainability data into TFP variables and scores
- Design pre-threshold governance mechanisms for client implementation
- Present complex systemic analysis to non-technical stakeholders
- Produce professional-grade deliverable suitable for portfolio
Field Project: The c-ECO ESG Assessment
Your Role: c-ECO Fellow assigned to conduct a Systemic Stability Assessment for a corporate client. You may select either:
- Option A: Real client (with appropriate confidentiality protections)
- Option B: Realistic composite case based on public disclosures
- Option C: Assigned case study (provided by instructor)
Project Scope: Conduct comprehensive c-ECO analysis including:
- Safe Operating Space boundary identification for client's core activities
- Current Position (P) assessment with uncertainty quantification
- Trajectory analysis (ΔV) over minimum 5-year historical period
- Reversibility Liquidity (Lr) evaluation of client's resilience capacity
- Composite score calculation and prudential band classification
- Pre-threshold intervention recommendations
- Implementation roadmap for c-ECO integration
Select Your Sector
Banking, insurance, asset management, climate risk stress testing
Renewables, grid infrastructure, transition pathways, stranded assets
Supply chains, land use, water stress, regenerative transition
Steel, cement, chemicals, process emissions, technology lock-in
Data centers, semiconductor manufacturing, e-waste, energy intensity
Physical climate risk, embodied carbon, urban heat islands
Required Deliverables
Format: 15-20 page professional report
Contents:
- Executive Summary (1 page): Key findings and recommendations for Board
- Sectoral Context: Relevant Safe Operating Space boundaries and their scientific basis
- Data Audit: Sources, quality assessment, uncertainty quantification
- TFP Variable Calculations: P, ΔV, σ, Lr with full methodological transparency
- Score Construction: SPS, TRS, RLS with sensitivity analysis
- Prudential Classification: Current state and trajectory projection
- Intervention Recommendations: Specific, actionable, prioritized
- Implementation Roadmap: 12-month, 24-month, 36-month milestones
Format: 20-minute presentation + 10-minute Q&A
Audience: Simulated client Board Sustainability Committee
Requirements:
- Translate technical analysis into business implications
- Address "What's in it for us?" from risk, opportunity, and regulatory perspectives
- Anticipate and respond to skeptical questions
- Visual clarity: maximum 12 slides, minimal jargon
Format: Operational documents for client use
Contents:
- Data Collection Protocol: Specific metrics, sources, frequency
- Threshold Monitoring Dashboard: Visual indicators, alert triggers
- Escalation Procedures: Who does what when triggers activate
- Template SOW language for c-ECO incorporation into contracts
Format: 3-page personal reflection
Topics: What surprised you? What was hardest? How has this changed your professional approach? What would you do differently?
Assessment Rubric
| Criterion | Excellent (90-100) | Good (80-89) | Satisfactory (70-79) | Needs Work (<70) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Accuracy | Flawless calculations, appropriate uncertainty treatment, sensitivity analysis included | Minor errors, good methodology, some sensitivity analysis | Calculations mostly correct, limited sensitivity analysis | Significant errors, inappropriate methods |
| ESG Integration | Seamless translation between c-ECO and ESG frameworks, client-specific insights | Good integration, some generic elements | Basic integration, largely generic | Poor fit with ESG context, forced application |
| Actionability | Specific, prioritized, resourced recommendations with clear ownership | Mostly specific, some prioritization | Generic recommendations, limited prioritization | Vague, unactionable, or unrealistic |
| Communication | Crystal clear to technical and non-technical audiences, compelling narrative | Clear, minor jargon issues | Understandable with effort, some jargon | Unclear, excessive jargon, poor structure |
| Professionalism | Publication-ready, suitable for client delivery, portfolio-quality | Minor polish needed, generally professional | Adequate but unpolished | Unprofessional presentation, errors |
🏭 Structural Review — Module 5
Submit complete decision-pressure analysis. Expected: Stage 5 — Consequence + Reversibility + Contradiction tests all applied.
Submit Full Analysis →Same case. Maximum pressure. If you pass, you're ready for banca.
Project Timeline
Week 1:
- Days 1–2: Client/sector selection, initial data gathering, SOS boundary research
- Days 3–4: TFP variable calculation, score construction, preliminary classification
- Days 5–7: Draft Technical Assessment Report, identify gaps requiring additional data
Week 2:
- Days 8–10: Complete analysis, finalize recommendations, draft presentation
- Days 11–12: Prepare Implementation Toolkit, rehearse presentation
- Day 13: Submit all deliverables
- Day 14: Live presentation to instructor and peers
Resources and Support
Technical Resources
- c-ECO TFP Manual — complete reference for all calculations
- Excel/R Templates — provided for score calculation (optional use)
- Office Hours: Schedule 30-minute consultation with instructor during Week 1
Data Sources
- Client sustainability reports, CDP disclosures, TCFD filings
- Science-based targets (SBTi) progress reports
- Satellite data (Global Forest Watch, Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas)
- Climate scenario databases (NGFS, IPCC AR6)
- Financial data (transition risk exposure, carbon pricing)