Testing Industry Attitudes Toward a Common Reporting Approach for ESG Data Use in Infrastructure Investment

The report finds a strong industry desire for a standardized set of ESG metrics in infrastructure investment, as current frameworks are fragmented and inconsistent. While environmental factors are relatively well-covered, social and governance data remain challenging. The study concludes that government regulation and investor pressure are the most effective catalysts for achieving a common reporting standard.

• There is significant fragmentation in the current ESG landscape, with respondents utilizing nearly 40 different frameworks, including 18 proprietary ones.
• A vast majority of industry participants believe that adopting a standardized, baseline set of ESG metrics across all phases of an infrastructure asset's lifecycle would be beneficial.
• Existing ESG standards are perceived as more effective at capturing environmental impacts than social or governance data.
• There is a lack of industry consensus on the basic definition of ESG, with 67% of respondents stating that no such consensus exists.
• Current ESG tools are failing to adequately capture the financial impacts of infrastructure projects on local, regional, and national economies.
• Data users (investors and lenders) and data preparers (owners and developers) have different perspectives on ESG data effectiveness; data preparers generally report higher satisfaction with their ability to provide data than users report in their ability to integrate it.
• The most effective mechanisms for improving ESG integration in infrastructure are identified as mandatory government regulation and pressure from investors or lenders, while pressure from civil society is viewed as the least effective.
• Many organizations develop bespoke ESG tools to create a competitive advantage or to tailor metrics to specific portfolios, which further contributes to the lack of industry-wide standardization.
• Climate change and biodiversity are the highest priority environmental factors, while diversity, inclusion, and impacts on Indigenous peoples are key social priorities.
• The report highlights that the window for the industry to influence emerging mandatory ESG regulations, such as the EU Taxonomy and SEC climate-related disclosure rules, is closing.
• Data users frequently cite the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) as a positive regulatory development because it provides the level of detail required by investors.
• A significant barrier to ESG integration is the difference in scale at which stakeholders operate, specifically the tension between portfolio-level and single-asset reporting.
• Data preparers emphasize that government intervention is necessary not only to drive outcomes but to prevent the overstatement or misrepresentation of infrastructure investment impacts.
• The study notes that infrastructure ESG data is lagging behind other asset classes, specifically stating it is 5-10 years behind real estate.
• Data security and cybersecurity are identified as priority topics within the governance ('G') component of ESG for infrastructure projects.
• The report identifies a misalignment in perceived engagement levels, where data preparers report higher levels of engagement with data users than users report with preparers.
• The report suggests that the path to consistency requires common, industry-accepted definitions of 'E', 'S', and 'G' and a focus on impact-driven metrics rather than just frameworks.
• The study identifies that in regions where government regulation of ESG is weak, third-party frameworks and standards play a larger role in delivering reporting and outcomes.
• The report notes that the COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst, accelerating the push for accountability regarding ESG impacts in the finance sector.
• The report identifies a lack of vendors capable of certifying the 'green-ness' of assets as a specific challenge for some investors.
• The report identifies that carbon accounting methodologies are highly variable, making the reporting of technical climate metrics challenging.
• The report identifies that the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) Sustainable Infrastructure Framework is one of the frameworks used by industry participants.
• The report identifies that the G20 Quality Infrastructure Investment (QII) Principles are among the standards used by the surveyed group.
• The report identifies that the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) is a well-developed standard particularly for climate change.
• The report identifies that the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are often used for communication but are considered insufficient for reporting hard data.
• The report identifies that the EU Taxonomy Regulation has created a direct regulatory link between corporate reporting and ESG financial services regulation.
• The report identifies that the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) is used by some investors as a proxy for infrastructure data, despite being a real estate standard.
• The report identifies that the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) is one of the frameworks utilized by respondents.
• The report identifies that the Equator Principles (EPs) and IFC Performance Standards are frequently used as a combined standard in the industry.
• The report identifies that the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is viewed by some as a high-quality standard that can be adapted for infrastructure sectors.
• The report identifies that the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) is used by some investors to hone in on material aspects of infrastructure.
• The report identifies that the Standard for Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure (SuRE) is among the frameworks used by the surveyed group.
• The report identifies that the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) Sustainability Protocol is used by some data preparers.
• The report identifies that the World Economic Forum (WEF)/International Business Council (IBC) metrics are utilized by some industry participants.
• The report identifies that the Finance for the Sustainable Transition - Infrastructure (FAST-INFRA) Sustainable Asset Label is one of the labels used in the market.
• The report identifies that the Blue Dot Network Certification for Quality Infrastructure Investment is used by some respondents.
• The report identifies that the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) is among the frameworks used by the surveyed group.
• The report identifies that CEEQUAL is a sustainability assessment and rating scheme used for civil engineering and infrastructure projects.
• The report identifies that Envision is a rating system used to identify sustainable approaches during the planning, design, and construction of infrastructure projects.
• The report identifies that the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) is a leading global network used to structure sustainability information.
• The report identifies that the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol for Lifecycle Assessment is used by some respondents to measure environmental impacts.
• The report identifies that the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) is part of the evolving global context that necessitates sustainable infrastructure investment.
• The report identifies that the Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty that can serve as a ground for agreed ESG principles.
• The report identifies that Canada's Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) has introduced climate-related disclosure rules.
• The report identifies that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has introduced climate-related disclosure rules.
• The report identifies that the EU has written the definition of 'E' (environmental) into law.
• The report identifies that the European Commission has provided guidelines on non-financial climate-related disclosures.
• The report identifies that the Stanford Global Projects Center (SGPC) conducted a 2018 study that reviewed 12 sustainability and resilience tools for infrastructure investors.
• The report identifies that a 2020 study by KPMG, Mott MacDonald, Guggenheim Partners, and WWF analyzed four specific frameworks: the IFC Performance Standards/Equator Principles, Envision, the SDGs, and Impact Measurement and Valuation.
• The report identifies that the 2020 study concluded that the infrastructure and investment community would benefit from a common reporting approach for sustainability assessment.
• The report identifies that the 2018 Stanford study assessed standards based on five dimensions: comprehensiveness, objectivity, clarity, transaction costs, and traction.
• The report identifies that the 2020 study found that existing standards and tools were not fully meeting the needs of investors.
• The report identifies that the current study's survey included 50 respondents, consisting of 31 data users and 19 data preparers.
• The report identifies that 61% of data users were equity investors/owners, while 42% of data preparers were government/public sector infrastructure asset owners or operators.
• The report identifies that the survey participants were geographically distributed across North America, South/Latin America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Global scopes.
• The report identifies that the study was commissioned by Guggenheim Investments and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to support the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
• The report identifies that the study's methodology involved three major steps: a desktop review, an industry survey, and industry interviews.
• The report identifies that data users are defined as lenders and investors, while data preparers are defined as asset designers, owners, developers, and operators in the public and private sectors.
• The report identifies that the survey was conducted between January and March 2022.
• The report identifies that the study's results are not representative of the global infrastructure community due to a small sample size and inherent selection bias.
• The report identifies that the study's findings are consistent with previous research, including the Stanford Study, the 2020 Study, and the Desktop Review.
• The report identifies that the study's conclusions are summarized into three key points: current frameworks do not meet investor needs, stakeholders want a standard set of metrics, and investor pressure and mandatory disclosure are the primary drivers for improvement.
• The report identifies that the study's next steps involve cross-industry collaboration between practitioners and governments to work toward a standard set of ESG metrics.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the infrastructure industry should apply pressure to ensure the regulatory environment is specific enough to be effective.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the speed of emerging regulations means the industry must act now to influence them.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the lack of coordination in current ESG efforts means that intended societal benefits are unlikely to be achieved without a change in approach.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that a collaborative action by government and industry could drive more sustainable and resilient infrastructure.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the role of third-party ESG frameworks is larger in countries where government regulation is weak.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the role of third-party ESG frameworks is smaller in countries where regulation is more mature.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the key to enabling reliable market data is the creation of standardized definitions for E, S, and G.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the EU Taxonomy Regulation has created a direct regulatory link between corporate reporting and wider ESG financial services regulation.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the push for accountability around ESG impacts.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that investor demand has pressured both corporations and regulators to set the baseline and rules for reporting and sustainable investing.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the focus should now be on ensuring that emerging regulations are well-informed and capture stakeholder perspectives.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the urgency to address emerging and evolving ESG risks, combined with the speed of new mandatory requirements, indicates a rapid evolutionary pace for ESG in the investor community.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the infrastructure industry is currently 5-10 years behind the real estate industry in terms of ESG data.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that there is a need for consensus on what will facilitate a just energy transition to a net zero economy.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that the biggest barrier to achieving ESG outcomes is the availability of data, due to limitations in accessing proprietary information and challenges in processing the data.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that a single, uniform standard for ESG may not be feasible across all stakeholders and industries, and that it is more important for investors and companies to agree on a set of metrics and priorities.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that clear metrics are essential for decision-making, as they must be understandable, verifiable, objective, consistent, and trackable over time.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that there is significant discussion around science-based targets and the challenge of turning scientific data into useful information for the investment and asset management industry.
• The report identifies that the study's findings suggest that ESG in infrastructure investment is a permanent fixture, requiring ongoing work by data users and preparers to align with societal expectations and facilitate sustainable development.

APA

Minerd, S., & Roberts, C. (2022). Testing Industry Attitudes Toward a Common Reporting Approach for ESG Data Use in Infrastructure Investment. WWF International. https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/4o27ejujgv_2022_KPMG_ESG_Data_Report.pdf

Chicago

Minerd, Scott, and Carter Roberts. Testing Industry Attitudes Toward a Common Reporting Approach for ESG Data Use in Infrastructure Investment. WWF International, 2022. https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/4o27ejujgv_2022_KPMG_ESG_Data_Report.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Minerd |first1=Scott |last2=Roberts |first2=Carter |title=Testing Industry Attitudes Toward a Common Reporting Approach for ESG Data Use in Infrastructure Investment |publisher=WWF International |date=August 2022 |url=https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/4o27ejujgv_2022_KPMG_ESG_Data_Report.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{minerd2022testing, author = {Minerd, Scott and Roberts, Carter}, title = {{Testing Industry Attitudes Toward a Common Reporting Approach for ESG Data Use in Infrastructure Investment}}, institution = {WWF International}, year = {2022}, month = aug, url = {https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/4o27ejujgv_2022_KPMG_ESG_Data_Report.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }