{"id":20719,"date":"2026-05-20T14:03:26","date_gmt":"2026-05-20T10:33:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/?p=20719"},"modified":"2026-05-21T16:08:50","modified_gmt":"2026-05-21T12:38:50","slug":"climate-stress-test-agriculture-investment-portfolio-risk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/climate-stress-test-agriculture-investment-portfolio-risk\/","title":{"rendered":"Climate Stress Testing of Farm Portfolio Risk"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Climate Stress Testing for Agricultural Investment Portfolios<\/h1>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agricultural investment is no longer assessed only through the classic questions of production, market demand, and financial return. Drought, heat waves, disease, energy shocks, input disruptions, and regulatory changes can alter the relationship between assets, revenue, and debt within a single growing season or over several consecutive years. A portfolio that appears diversified on paper may still be vulnerable to a common shock if several of its assets depend on the same watershed, energy source, or imported input. Climate stress testing is designed for precisely this situation: to move risk from a general descriptive level into numbers, scenarios, and investment decisions.<\/p>\n

In agriculture and aquaculture, climate risk can quickly translate into cash-flow risk. Lower rainfall, reduced planned water availability, or pressure on groundwater can reduce crop yields, increase pumping costs, and raise working-capital needs. In aquaculture, higher temperatures, lower oxygen levels, disease, mortality, higher feed conversion ratios, and sales interruptions can push revenue away from the original business plan. When these shocks occur alongside volatility in energy or fertilizer prices, the issue is not only lower output. Debt-service capacity, asset value, and expansion decisions are also affected.<\/p>\n

The Basel Committee formally defines stress testing as the assessment of a financial institution\u2019s financial position under a severe but plausible scenario. This definition was developed directly for banks, but it can be analytically adapted for agricultural investment holdings. In this adaptation, the main question is not whether drought or an energy shock will occur. The more precise question is this: if it does occur, how will asset value, cash flow, cost of capital, liquidity, and exit or expansion decisions change? This perspective is directly aligned with Vestra\u2019s logic of technology-driven investment and value-chain management from farm to table.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Climate\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

How Does Climate Stress Testing Turn Agricultural Risk into a Financial Decision?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

In the financial supervision literature, climate risk is divided into two main categories. Physical risk includes drought, heat waves, floods, and climate-related diseases. Transition risk enters the business model through carbon policy, regulation, technology, energy, and changes in demand. IFRS S2 uses this same distinction as the basis for disclosing physical and transition risks and connects them to cash flows, access to finance, and the cost of capital. For an agricultural portfolio, this connection has practical importance, because the impact of climate should not be seen only in production indicators. It must extend to debt, liquidity, and valuation.<\/p>\n

Climate scenario analysis is different from definitive forecasting. The TCFD treats scenarios as tools for assessing the consequences of plausible future conditions under uncertainty, not as tools for declaring a fixed number for output or price. This methodological boundary is critical in agriculture, because a drought scenario is not meant to say exactly how much crop a specific farm will harvest. Its purpose is to build a decision framework that shows the pathways through which lower rainfall, higher temperatures, or energy disruption place pressure on profitability, debt, and working capital.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures:<\/cite> \u201cScenarios are hypothetical constructs and are not designed to deliver precise outcomes or forecasts.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n\n

The technical structure of climate stress testing in an agricultural portfolio must begin with operational data and end with the financial model. The first layer includes variables such as rainfall, temperature, groundwater, water consumption, pumping energy, feed, fertilizer, disease, mortality, and sales interruptions. In the second layer, these variables are translated into crop yield, biomass, quality, production cost, and revenue-collection timing. In the third layer, the final impact on cash flow, debt, cost of capital, liquidity, and investment decisions is calculated. Without this chain, climate risk remains a descriptive report and is not translated into the language of financial decision-making.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 Linking Drought to Productivity and Financial Default<\/h3>\n

The European Central Bank\u2019s experience shows that, in drought and heat-wave scenarios, financial vulnerability depends on geographic location and sectoral activity. In this scenario, the climate impact moves through lower productivity in sectors such as agriculture and eventually translates into higher credit losses. For an agricultural holding, this chain is very clear: lower water availability or extreme heat first weakens productivity, then reduces revenue and profit margins, then puts pressure on the debt-service coverage ratio, and finally changes the economic value of the asset or the decision to expand. Therefore, a drought scenario must be designed from the beginning together with the project\u2019s financial model.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

What Message Do Global Disaster Data Carry for Agricultural Portfolios?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The FAO report on the impact of disasters on agriculture and food security estimates that, over the past three decades, approximately $3.8 trillion in global crop and livestock production has been lost because of disasters. This equals an annual average of about $123 billion and shows that climate-related and natural losses are not a marginal issue for agriculture. In the same dataset, climate-related disasters are identified as responsible for 91 percent of direct economic losses, while agriculture absorbed 26 percent of disaster-related losses. For agricultural investors, these data carry a simple message: climate risk management is part of return management, not an optional appendix to corporate social responsibility.<\/p>\n

In aquaculture, the need for stress testing becomes even more evident from another angle. Global aquaculture production reached 130.9 million tons in 2022, with a value of $312.8 billion. This included 94.4 million tons of aquatic animals worth $295.7 billion and 36.5 million tons of algae worth $17 billion. This scale shows that aquaculture is not merely a secondary activity; it has become a capital-intensive part of the food-security value chain. However, the FAO and EU policy sources have warned that disaster-loss data in fisheries, aquaculture, and forestry are incomplete and inconsistent. This gap further increases the need for internal monitoring and dedicated scenario modeling.<\/p>\n

For an aquaculture portfolio, disease shocks should not be replaced with one broad global number. Their operational definition should include mortality rate, reduced growth, higher feed conversion ratio, treatment costs, quarantine duration, quality decline, sales interruption, and time required to return to normal capacity. If feed prices, aeration electricity costs, or cold-storage expenses rise at the same time, the impact of disease shifts from biological loss to broader financial pressure. This is exactly where stress testing demonstrates its value, because it can translate production losses into liquidity, debt, and working-capital scenarios.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Lessons from Central Banks for Designing Agricultural Portfolio Stress Tests<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Climate stress testing in the global financial system is still not a definitive tool for capital pricing. It is used more as a tool for learning, identifying vulnerabilities, and improving risk governance. In its 2022 climate stress test, the European Central Bank assessed 104 significant banks in the euro area and included 41 banks in the bottom-up module. The results showed that around 60 percent of banks did not have a climate stress-testing framework, and only 20 percent considered climate risk in lending. Credit and market losses under short-term disorderly transition and physical-risk scenarios were estimated at about \u20ac70 billion for the 41 banks, while the supervisor itself warned that this figure may understate the true level of risk.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 Andrea Enria, Chair of the Supervisory Board of the European Central Bank:<\/cite> \u201cEuro area banks must urgently strengthen their measurement and management of climate risk and close the data gap.\u201d<\/blockquote>\n\n

The lesson of this experience for an agricultural holding is not to imitate banks mechanically, but to adapt the logic of risk governance. The Basel Committee\u2019s principles for the management of climate-related financial risks emphasize governance, risk appetite, internal controls, capital and liquidity adequacy, scenario analysis, and data aggregation. For an agricultural holding, the operational equivalent of these principles could include a climate risk committee, warning thresholds for water and energy, a portfolio dashboard, a farm and pond database, and the connection of production and sales data to the financial model. Such a structure is not a banking requirement, but it has strategic value for disciplined investment in knowledge-based agriculture.<\/p>\n

The Bank of England\u2019s experience is also important in terms of time horizon. In the CBES exercise, major banks and insurers operating in the United Kingdom modeled three scenarios\u2014Early Action, Late Action, and No Additional Action\u2014over a 30-year horizon. This horizon is meaningful for assets such as orchards, industrial livestock operations, irrigation infrastructure, and marine aquaculture, because investments in these assets often have long economic lives. However, the Bank of England itself has stated that climate scenario analysis is still at an early stage and that significant data gaps remain. For an agricultural holding, this warning means that the model must be transparent, reviewable, and capable of improvement.<\/p>\n

The experiences of Hong Kong and Australia offer two additional points. In its pilot exercise, the HKMA assessed 20 major retail banks and 7 branches of international banks, covering around 80 percent of total banking loans. Under the disorderly transition scenario, it reported an average 3-percentage-point decline in the capital adequacy ratio of domestic systemically important institutions over a five-year horizon. APRA\u2019s assessment of Australia\u2019s five largest banks showed that, for agricultural counterparties, the models mainly examined productivity losses caused by changes in average temperature, rainfall, and humidity. These two experiences show that a three- to five-year horizon for short-term shocks and a long-term horizon for capital-intensive assets must be considered at the same time.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Data Architecture for Measuring Drought, Disease, and Energy Shocks<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The starting point for data architecture is the definition of measurable indicators for each asset. In the case of drought, annual or seasonal rainfall, deviation from the long-term average, planned water availability, groundwater extraction, and the ratio of water consumption to production must be recorded at the project level. In Iran, official statistics for water year 1401\u20131402 reported watershed precipitation at 213 millimeters, renewable water at 103,100 million cubic meters, groundwater discharge and extraction at 50,800 million cubic meters, and the groundwater reservoir deficit at 146,000 million cubic meters. These data become useful for investment only when they are translated into the level of crop, region, irrigation technology, and project cash flow.<\/p>\n

The water-consumption indicator in Iranian agriculture is highly decisive for portfolio analysis. According to official statistics for water year 1401\u20131402, agricultural water consumption was 81,791 million cubic meters. When the consumption of the three sectors\u2014drinking water, industry, and agriculture\u2014is added together, agriculture\u2019s calculated share of these three sectors reaches 86.53 percent. This figure should not be used as a general judgment about all projects, because water efficiency differs across crops, regions, and irrigation technologies. Its analytical value in stress testing is that it shows every agricultural project must connect its water intensity to financial indicators such as revenue, operating profit, and debt.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 Operational Indicators for Disease and Aquaculture<\/h3>\n

For aquaculture, the data architecture must be designed as both biological and financial from the outset. Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, stocking density, feed, feed conversion ratio, growth rate, mortality, treatment cost, quarantine, sales interruptions, and cold-storage capacity must be recorded alongside revenue and expenses. If disease data remain fragmented, the financial model may appear stable, while in practice a biological shock can disrupt liquidity. For this reason, laboratory and veterinary data must sit alongside accounting data, so that a disease shock is seen not as a separate event but as a driver of cash-flow change.<\/p>\n\n

\u2013 Separating Energy, Fertilizer, and Transportation in the Financial Scenario<\/h3>\n

An energy shock must be broken down into separate components. Electricity, gas, diesel, water pumps, aeration, cold storage, feed production, transportation, and fertilizer and chemical inputs do not affect assets in the same way. The World Bank\u2019s Commodity Markets page reports energy, food, and fertilizer indices on a monthly basis, and this breakdown itself shows that the financial model should not compress all costs into a single general inflation rate. In a greenhouse, cold-storage facility, or aquaculture farm, an electricity or fertilizer shock may occur at the same time as a production decline and weaken the debt-service coverage ratio faster than a single-factor scenario would suggest.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

What Role Do IFRS S2 and TCFD Standards Play in Risk Governance?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

IFRS S2 connects climate-related risks to the resilience of the business model and strategy. The standard states that climate-related risks and opportunities can affect cash flows, access to finance, and the cost of capital over the short, medium, and long term. For an agricultural portfolio, this means the climate scenario is not only an environmental tool; it is part of the financial assessment of investment. If a project requires more working capital under a drought scenario or faces a higher cost of capital under an energy scenario, the investment decision must take that effect into account from the beginning.<\/p>\n

IFRS S2 also emphasizes that scenario inputs must be relevant to the entity\u2019s activities and geographic location. This principle is fundamental for agriculture, because two projects with the same crop in two different watersheds do not have the same cash-flow risk. Rainfall data, renewable water availability, access to energy, distance to market, dependence on feed or fertilizer, and biological sensitivity must be defined at the location and asset level. Otherwise, portfolio diversification may be only nominal, while concentrated risk around one region, one input, or one energy chain remains hidden.<\/p>\n

In the area of emissions and transition risk, IFRS S2 also refers to the use of the GHG Protocol and the reporting of emissions in CO2e, unless a competent authority requires another method. This requirement matters for greenhouses, livestock, cold storage, feed production, and aquaculture, because energy and the supply chain can affect the cost of capital and access to finance. The TCFD also proposed four pillars for climate disclosure: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. Combining these two frameworks helps an agricultural holding turn stress testing from an analytical exercise into a corporate-governance mechanism.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

A Path for Localizing Climate Stress Testing in Iranian Agricultural Investment<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Iran has an important starting point for climate stress testing of agricultural portfolios: official water data are published at the national level. Statistics on rainfall, renewable water, groundwater extraction, reservoir deficit, and sectoral consumption provide a basis for building drought and water-limitation scenarios. However, investment value is created only when these data are connected to internal data on production, sales, energy, insurance, disease, and debt. In practical terms, the holding must know, for each asset, how one unit of reduction in planned water availability or a specific increase in energy cost affects production, profit margin, working capital, and debt repayment.<\/p>\n

Localization should not begin with a complex and expensive model. The first version can be diagnostic and focus on assets with higher exposure to water or energy risk. For each project, one-year, three-year, and ten-year scenarios can be defined so that short-term input and energy shocks are separated from long-term water and productivity trends. Indicators such as cubic meters of water per ton of output, cubic meters of water per rial of revenue, energy\u2019s share of cost of goods sold, EBITDA sensitivity to yield decline, and changes in the debt-service coverage ratio under drought and disease scenarios should be included in the portfolio dashboard.<\/p>\n

At the financing level, stress testing can play a differentiating role. A project that rapidly loses its debt-service coverage ratio under a drought scenario should not be financed with the same fixed loan structure as a project with lower water consumption, a more stable sales contract, or more secure energy coverage. Credit guarantees can reduce the final loss for the bank or investor, but they do not remove the climate factor. Therefore, risk-mitigation instruments must be used alongside technical asset improvements, better data, insurance, energy contracts, liquidity reserves, and regional selection. This distinction prevents capital from being allocated to fragile assets.<\/p>\n

For a holding such as Vestra, phased implementation is more consistent with corporate-governance logic than immediate broad-scale implementation. The first stage is to classify assets based on water, energy, disease, and market risk. The second stage is to build a shared database across farms, ponds, energy, sales, finance, and insurance. The third stage is to connect scenarios to investment decisions such as expansion, suspension, redesign, exit, or debt restructuring. This path does not claim to predict the future with precision. Its purpose is to reduce financial surprise and improve decision quality under unstable climate and market conditions.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

A Practical Conclusion for Knowledge-Based Agricultural Portfolio Decisions<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Climate stress testing creates value for investors when it connects climate knowledge, operational data, and financial language. Drought must be translated into yield decline and working-capital needs. Disease must be connected to mortality, sales interruption, and treatment costs. Energy shocks must show their impact on pumping, aeration, cold storage, transportation, and fertilizer. In this structure, a portfolio is not merely a collection of projects. It is a network of dependencies that connects water, energy, biology, markets, and debt. Sound decisions in such a network cannot remain stable without scenarios, data, and risk governance.<\/p>\n

The practical path for Iran begins with accepting uncertainty, not trying to eliminate it. Global FAO data, central-bank experience, IFRS S2 and TCFD standards, and Iran\u2019s official water statistics all show that climate risk is both financial and operational. The right version for an agricultural holding should begin with higher-risk assets, use available data, reduce data gaps through internal monitoring, and connect scenarios to real investment decisions. The desired result is a portfolio that is not free from the need to adapt to shocks, but has the capacity to identify, respond, and redesign in time.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Climate\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Drought, disease, and energy shocks can reshape asset values, cash flow, and capital costs. Climate stress testing clarifies portfolio risk, financial resilience, and decisions to expand or exit under plausible scenarios before capital is committed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":20721,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[274,126],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-finance-scf-supplychain","category-vastra-article"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20719","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20719"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20719\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20917,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20719\/revisions\/20917"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/20721"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vastraholding.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}