Phenomenological Insights into Strategic Leadership and Climate Risk Governance in Kenya’s Banking Sector: Qualitative Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63988/JJZY1773Abstract
Climate change poses systemic risks to financial institutions. It is therefore necessary for it to become part of corporate governance processes that consider and incorporate climate concerns into enterprise risk management. Yet amid growing global concern over climate‐risk governance, there is no substantial body of empirical phenomenological research on how corporate boards in developing economies perceive, make sense of, interpret, manage, and operationalise these risks within their overall institutional risk frameworks. This study, which focused on phenomenological insights into strategic leadership and climate risk governance in Kenya’s banking sector, attempted to address this gap. The study used a qualitative interpretive approach. The results were derived from a thorough interpretive phenomenological analysis, which was narrowed to focus on identified themes pertaining to board perceptions on climate risk, governance frameworks, and strategic leadership practices. The results suggest that climate risk governance is progressively being integrated into banking institutions’ enterprise risk management frameworks, board oversight structures, risk assessment models, and disclosure processes. Additionally, the Central Bank of Kenya's regulatory guidance on climate change governance by corporate boards has attracted significant attention. However, there are still barriers to effective climate change management within banking institutions, including insufficient availability of climate data, limited technical capabilities, and frequent regulatory changes. The findings underscore the importance of perceived strategic leadership of corporate boards on climate change risk management in accelerating climate risk governance in Kenya’s banking institutions. Easier access to data, human capacity strengthening and stronger enforcement are recommended.
References
Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87–103.
Bolton, P., Després, M., Pereira da Silva, L., Samama, F., & Svartzman, R. (2020). The green swan: Central banking and financial stability in the age of climate change. Bank for International Settlements.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brunetti et al., 2021, C., Dennis, B., Gates, D., Hancock, D., Ignell, D., Kiser, E. K., ... &
Tabor, N. K. (2021). Climate change and financial stability.
Campiglio, E., Monnin, P., & von Jagow, A. (2018). Climate risks in the financial sector: A review of the literature. Ecological Economics, 153, 230–242.
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
Climate Governance Initiative (2025). The role of board directors in transition finance and climate governance. Climate Governance Initiative.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). *Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches* (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707180258
Eccles, R. G., & Klimenko, S. (2019). The investor revolution. Harvard Business Review, 97(3), 106–116.
Financial Stability Board (2017). Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Financial Stability Board.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24345254
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organisation as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628
Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance (2022). Guidance for engaging on climate risk governance and voting on directors. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu
Hennink M, Kaiser BN. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med. 2022 Jan;292:114523. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523. Epub 2021 Nov 2. PMID: 34785096.
KPMG (2021). Climate change: A journey for boards. KPMG International.
Krueger, P., Sautner, Z., & Starks, L. (2020). The importance of climate risks for institutional investors. Review of Financial Studies, 33(3), 1067–1111.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Patton, M.Q. (2025). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. SAGE Publications Ltd.
https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/qualitative-research-evaluation-methods/book232962
Republic of Kenya. (2019). Data Protection Act, No. 24 of 2019. Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 168 (Acts No. 24). Government Printer.
Townsend, M. C., & Morgan, K. I. (2020). Essentials of psychiatric mental health nursing: Concepts of care in evidence-based practice (8th ed.). F.A. Davis Company.
Volz, U., Beirne, J., Ambrosio Preudhomme, N., Fenton, A., & Mazzacurati, E. (2021). Climate change and sovereign risk. Asian Development Bank Institute.
World Economic Forum (2019). How to set up effective climate governance on corporate boards: Guiding principles and questions. World Economic Forum.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mwakazi Gershon M.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.