Part of a new industry series Investing the Future™: Climate Risk Intelligence™ for Private Equity
Executive Summary
The public record shows that the 10 largest private-equity firms by five-year fundraising are beginning to address physical climate risk, resilience, and adaptation with varying levels of specificity and structure. Together, KKR, EQT, Blackstone, Thoma Bravo, TPG, CVC Capital Partners, Hg, Hellman & Friedman, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, and Insight Partners raised $780.7 billion, or 23.7 percent of the PEI 300 total of $3.29 trillion, based on Private Equity International’s 2025 firm-level figures (Private Equity International, 2025). Across the materials reviewed for this paper, some firms now publicly describe structured models, portfolio assessments, and integration into diligence, underwriting, insurance, financing, or reporting, while others disclose governance, benchmarking, training, or adaptation-related practices with less firm-wide quantitative detail. Taken together, the disclosures suggest that physical climate risk is moving closer to the core investment process, but that public disclosure maturity remains uneven across the industry’s top tier.
The Top 10 Control A Large Share Of Industry Capital
Private Equity International’s 2025 PEI 300 ranking identifies KKR, EQT, Blackstone, Thoma Bravo, TPG, CVC Capital Partners, Hg, Hellman & Friedman, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, and Insight Partners as the 10 largest firms by five-year fundraising. KKR led with $117.9 billion, followed by EQT with $113.3 billion, Blackstone with $95.7 billion, and Thoma Bravo with $88.2 billion. TPG raised $72.6 billion, while CVC Capital Partners and Hg each raised $72.5 billion. Hellman & Friedman followed with $50.2 billion, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice with $49.8 billion, and Insight Partners with $48.2 billion. This review is intentionally narrow and reports only what these firms publicly disclosed in official materials reviewed for this paper on physical risk, resilience, adaptation, diligence, monitoring, and governance; it should therefore be read as a map of the public record rather than a definitive comparison of internal capability (Private Equity International, 2025).
KKR, EQT, And Blackstone Provide The Clearest Evidence Of Structured Physical-Risk Integration
Among the top three firms, public disclosures are most explicit about the structured integration of physical risk into investment processes. KKR says it introduced a Credit Climate Risk Model in 2024, integrated it into its Responsible Investment Credit Scorecard, and uses it to identify the hazard posing the highest physical risk to a company while feeding physical-risk data and visualizations into credit valuation work (KKR, 2025). EQT says physical risks were evaluated for the majority of fund investments using third-party climate modeling over the decades from 2030 to 2100, and that physical climate risks for all real estate assets under management were evaluated and are being integrated into diligence and underwriting (EQT AB, 2025). Blackstone says its real-estate business screened the majority of global fund assets, evaluated eight physical climate perils, worked with property-insurance partners, launched tools to guide resilience measures, and incorporated physical climate considerations into insurance evaluations, as well as financing, leasing, and exit processes (Blackstone, 2025).
CVC, Hg, And Hellman & Friedman Show Growing Use Of Assessment, Monitoring, And Portfolio Support
A second group of firms provides public evidence of structured assessment and portfolio support, though with different emphases. CVC says physical climate risks can reduce revenues, increase operating costs, diminish investment value, and affect future fundraising or earnings fees; it also reports that a third-party-supported portfolio assessment found low overall climate-related risk, with only a small proportion of companies likely to face material exposure, and that it conducts climate diligence when screening indicates materiality (CVC, 2025). Hg says 40 portfolio companies had completed climate-risk assessments using its tool, which considers extreme-weather risk, business exposure, and company resilience, and that detailed climate-risk and resilience ratings are reported to clients in fund-level sustainability reporting (Hg, 2024). Hellman & Friedman says deal teams and third-party advisors assess potential physical climate risk during ESG diligence for new investments, and that it facilitated climate-risk workshops with six portfolio companies in 2023 and the first quarter of 2024, aggregating the resulting business and financial impact assessments (Hellman & Friedman, 2024).
Thoma Bravo, TPG, CD&R, And Insight Emphasize Governance, Adaptation, Policy, And Training
The remaining firms reviewed here show meaningful public attention to climate governance and resilience, but with less firm-wide quantitative detail on physical-risk screening in the cited materials. Thoma Bravo says its Responsible Growth and Governance report emphasizes rigorous diligence, annual benchmarking of majority-owned portfolio companies, and support tools and vendors for portfolio management, though the reviewed materials describe governance and benchmarking more clearly than a firm-wide quantitative physical-risk screening methodology (Thoma Bravo, n.d.). TPG says that within its Impact Platform, the climate and conservation objective includes increasing resilience to the effects of climate change through adaptation, and it describes a systematic process to identify and manage ESG and impact risk through quarterly KPI reviews and management engagement during the hold period (TPG, 2025). Clayton, Dubilier & Rice says it has a Sustainability Council with expertise spanning environmental stewardship, regulation, external affairs, and supply-chain optimization, and it describes a 2025 Climate Leadership Program with Columbia Climate School focused on resilience, risk management, and value-creation strategies for portfolio executives (Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, n.d.; Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, 2025). Insight Partners states in its December 2024 ESG policy that software companies may face physical risks from extreme weather and sea-level rise affecting offices, data centers, and value chains, and recommends scenario identification, along with robust business continuity protocols, to promote resilience and minimize downtime (Insight Partners, 2024).
Disclosure Maturity Remains Uneven Across The Public Record
Across the materials reviewed, disclosure maturity is clearly uneven rather than uniform. KKR, EQT, Blackstone, Hg, Hellman & Friedman, and CVC provide the clearest public descriptions of structured climate-risk assessment, monitoring, or portfolio support tied to financial, diligence, underwriting, or reporting processes. Thoma Bravo, TPG, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, and Insight provide evidence of governance, policy, training, benchmarking, or adaptation-related approaches, but the cited materials offer less firm-wide quantitative detail on physical-risk screening. That distinction should be interpreted narrowly: it reflects only the public materials reviewed for this paper and not a judgment on the firms’ internal capabilities. Even so, the public record indicates that physical climate risk, resilience, and adaptation are becoming more visible in private-equity disclosures and are increasingly integrated into core investment and portfolio-management processes.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What does this review of the top 10 private-equity firms actually cover? It covers only what the 10 largest firms by PEI 300 five-year fundraising publicly disclosed in the official materials reviewed for the paper. The focus is narrow: physical risk, resilience, adaptation, diligence, monitoring, and governance.
2. Does this review measure the firms’ actual internal climate-risk capability? No. The analysis is explicitly limited to the public record and should be read as a map of public disclosure, not as a definitive comparison of internal capability.
3. Which firms provide the clearest public evidence of structured physical-risk assessment? Based on the materials reviewed, KKR, EQT, Blackstone, Hg, Hellman & Friedman, and CVC provide the clearest descriptions of structured climate-risk assessment, monitoring, or portfolio support.
4. What kinds of climate-related practices are these firms publicly disclosing? The disclosures include credit climate-risk models, third-party climate modeling, physical-risk screening, resilience tools, climate-risk workshops, portfolio assessments, governance structures, benchmarking, training, and business continuity recommendations.
5. What is the main takeaway from the public record across the top 10 firms? The main takeaway is that disclosure maturity is uneven, but physical climate risk, resilience, and adaptation are becoming more visible in private-equity reporting and increasingly linked to diligence, underwriting, insurance, financing, portfolio support, and exit processes.
More in the next post on Investing the Future™: Climate Risk Intelligence™ for Private Equity…
Ready to get started? To learn how ClimaTwin can help you assess the physical and financial impacts of future weather and climate extremes on your infrastructure assets, capital programs, and investment portfolios, please visit www.climatwin.com today.
© 2026 ClimaTwin Corp. All rights reserved worldwide.
ClimaTwin® is a registered trademark of ClimaTwin Corp. The ClimaTwin logos, ClimaTwin Solutions™, Climate Business Intelligence™, Climate Financial Intelligence™, Climate Risk Intelligence™, Climate Value at Risk™, Future-proofing assets today for tomorrow’s climate extremes™ are trademarks of ClimaTwin Corp. All trademarks, service marks, and logos are protected by applicable laws and international treaties, and may not be used without prior written permission of ClimaTwin Corp.