Climate change and climate-sensitive disasters caused by hydrological, meteorological, and climatic hazards have a significant and increasing direct and indirect impact on human health, leading to an increased risk of death, disease, and injury. Due to its vast area, complex geographical and ecological environment, and various climatic conditions, Russia is one of the countries that suffer a lot from frequent climate and weather hazards. The review provides information about weather extremes in Russia in 2010—2020 — floods, typhoons, freezing rain, droughts, and their impact on the health and livelihoods of the population. It is concluded that while most of the dangerous hydrometeorological events cannot be completely avoided, many health impacts can potentially be prevented through early warning systems and public health preparedness and response measures, through the establishment of climate-resilient health systems and other management structures.

The article assesses the risks of one of the dominant problems of the XXI century — global climate change, as well as issues of protection (adaptation) of the population, territory and economy of Russia to these changes.

An assessment of the risk of environmental management for the countries of the European Union was carried out on the basis of two main criteria — natural hazard and protection from natural disasters. Natural hazard consists of natural processes of various origins — lithospheric, hydrospheric, atmospheric and biospheric, which are considered dangerous within the entire state according to official data, as well as protection from natural disasters and disasters at the state level. The last criterion is calculated on the basis of a number of socio-economic and environmental indicators for the EU countries: gross domestic product, the share of the working-age population and the population living below the poverty line, telecommunications and transport coefficients, life expectancy and literacy of the population, child mortality, and the intensity of environmental problems. The relationship between the level of economic development and the level of risk of environmental management in individual EU countries has not been established. So, highly developed countries fall into all risk categories: Italy. Austria and Germany — high risk, France, Netherlands and Belgium — medium risk, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark — low risk. Conversely, underdeveloped countries are also present in all categories: Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania — high risk, Latvia. Lithuania — medium risk, Estonia — low risk. Therefore, when assessing the risk of environmental management, its subsequent analysis and management of natural and natural-man-made emergencies, one should not rely only on indicators of the level of economic development in countries, for example, GDP, as well as on environmental standards established, albeit at the international level, such as MPC, MPI of harmful substances in soils, plants, water bodies, atmospheric air, etc. Taking into account direct indicators and damage from past events in assessing the risk of natural resource use also suffers from a number of drawbacks. A differentiated approach is required.

The sustainability of risk management process discussed in this article is a business process that supports the company’s sustainability goals and aims to align sustainability with risk management based on corporate risk management principles. The associated risks are determined by the ESG practice of the company’s business, its strategy and the sector of the economy in which it operates. The Committee on Sustainable Development of FERMA in ESG considers environmental risks (climate, resources, pollution), social risks (people and communications, products and services, external and internal shareholders) and management risks (corporate governance, business ethics and behavior). Companies in the “sustainable development” phase take a corporate approach to ESG risks and link them to common strategic objectives. In the process of identifying ESG risks, it is possible to follow different approaches, in particular, maintaining a risk register, including ESG risks, or discussing the company’s various sustainability prospects with top management and shareholders and, associated risks, or sorting risks related to strategic, operational and external, taking into account the impact on the state of sustainability of the company and, finally, in-depth analysis of all sustainability risks can be performed, and identified risks can be tracked in a common registry along with other business risks. The risk assessment phase aims at potential risk by quantifying its probability of occurrence and impact. At the same time, the assessment of sustainability should be broader and multidimensional, the potential consequences for the company, its reputation and durability should be taken into account.