What’s New in GARP SCR 2026? The Most Important Learning Objective Changes You Must Know
- Kateryna Myrko
- 4 hours ago
- 4 min read
GARP updates the SCR® curriculum and learning objectives annually, and the 2026 SCR Study Guide and Learning Objectives (last updated Dec. 1, 2025) makes several changes that matter directly for candidates because every exam question is aligned to a designated learning objective.
Before diving into what changed, keep the exam “constants” in view:
Exam structure: 80 equally weighted multiple-choice questions, with one multi-part case study, graded pass/fail.
Time: 4 hours.
2026 exam windows (official): Apr. 18–26, 2026 and Oct. 17–25, 2026 (with early/standard registration windows and pricing by candidate type).
With that baseline, the key 2026 learning objective shifts (vs. the 2025 learning objectives you shared) fall into three patterns: (1) targeted additions in sustainable finance and scenario analysis, (2) consolidation of overlapping objectives, and (3) simplification of some case-study-related chapters.
What’s New in GARP SCR 2026? (2025 → 2026)
Summary table of the most exam-relevant LO changes
(“Added” and “Removed/De-emphasized” reflect changes relative to your 2025 chapter learning objectives.) What’s New in GARP SCR 2026
Area | What’s new in 2026 | What’s removed / de-emphasized vs. 2025 | Why it matters for candidates |
Chapter 5 (Sustainable Finance) | Explicit LO on consumer-facing sustainable finance products; stronger focus on sustainable/green funds (strategies, objectives, role). | Less explicit detail on sustainability-linked “principles” as separate LOs (more consolidated). | Expect more questions connecting products to real-world application, not just definitions. |
Chapter 7 (Scenario Analysis) | New standalone LO: differentiate transition vs. physical risk scenario planning. | “Case studies” phrasing becomes less prominent as an LO (more “use cases” framing). | You should be able to explain how scenario planning differs by risk type, not just list scenarios. |
Chapter 6 (Risk Measurement & Mgmt.) | Consolidates company-level tools into one LO and portfolio-level measurement into one LO. | Separate LOs for company-level physical vs. transition tools; separate portfolio LOs. | Study more integratively (tool → metric → decision use), rather than as two separate silos. |
Chapter 3 (Climate Change Risk) | Reframes the “translate to financial risk” LO to explicitly include physical + transition in one line. | Standalone “differentiate physical vs. transition” LO (now implied elsewhere). | Differentiation is still testable—but embedded in application, not treated as a single bullet. |
Chapters 9–10 (Case-study related) | More streamlined LO sets; clearer process orientation (steps to assess, steps to plan/calculate). | Several highly granular bullets are condensed (e.g., fewer separate “compare/contrast” LOs). | A “workflow” mindset becomes more important: define → assess → quantify → report/plan. |
What changed in detail (and how to adjust your study plan)
1) Sustainable finance moves closer to products and portfolios (Chapter 5)
The clearest 2026 expansion is in Chapter 5, which now explicitly expects candidates to “identify and explain consumer-facing, sustainable finance products” and to understand sustainable/green funds in terms of investment strategies, environmental objectives, and roles in financial markets.
How to study it: don’t stop at product definitions (green bond vs. social bond vs. SLL/SLB). Add one layer: Who uses it, what problem it solves, what the key performance mechanism is (e.g., use-of-proceeds vs. KPI/SPT linkage), and what the investor/issuer incentive is.
2) Scenario analysis now tests “risk pathway thinking” (Chapter 7)
In 2026, the new explicit objective to differentiate transition and physical risk scenario planning is a signal that GARP wants more structured reasoning: transition scenarios often pivot on policy, technology, and markets; physical scenarios require hazard, vulnerability, exposure logic and time horizons.
How to study it: practice explaining the same organization under two lenses (transition vs. physical), and how scenarios change the inputs (assumptions) and outputs (risk metrics, strategic actions).
3) Measurement and management content is more integrated (Chapter 6)
Chapter 6 consolidates several learning objectives: instead of separate bullets for measuring company-level physical vs. transition risk, 2026 uses one combined objective; similarly, portfolio-level measurement is merged.
How to study it: build a single “tool-to-decision” map: data → model/tool → metric (e.g., Climate VaR) → risk type → business decision (ERM, underwriting, portfolio tilts, disclosure).
4) Case-study-related chapters become more “process” and less “catalog”
Chapters 9 and 10 remain case-study related, but the LO lists are more streamlined and operational:
Chapter 9 emphasizes the steps for climate risk assessment (physical and transition), nature risk basics (TNFD/LEAP), and water risk drivers/assessment steps.
Chapter 10 emphasizes transition plan structure, key principles (including a “strategic and rounded approach”), SBTi Net-Zero principles, and GHG + financed emissions calculations (including attribution factor), with an explicit new objective on drivers of transition plan adoption beyond disclosures.
How to study it: treat Chapters 9–10 as playbooks. You should be able to execute the sequence, not only define the terms.
One more 2026 signal candidates should not ignore: required online readings are testable
The 2026 guide is explicit that required online readings are testable and lists them under relevant chapters, with learning objectives for those readings. The required readings are also centralized on GARP’s SCR page. Practical implication: build your revision plan to include the required readings as first-class test content, not “optional context.”
If you studied the 2025 learning objectives, your knowledge still transfers strongly—but 2026 places sharper emphasis on (1) product and fund applications in sustainable finance, (2) clear separation of transition vs. physical scenario planning, and (3) integrated measurement workflows rather than siloed lists.
Unlock your potential with our comprehensive GARP SCR practice exams and study packages!