Eurosif
Eurosif Report on
Climate-related Data
The Investors’
Perspective
May 2023
Eurosif is the leading pan-European association promoting Sustainable
Finance at the European level – encompassing the EU,
the wider European Economic Area (EEA), and the United Kingdom
(UK). Eurosif is a partnership comprised of Europe-based national
Sustainable Investment Fora (SIFs). Each of the SIFs has a broad
and diverse membership including asset managers, institutional
investors, index providers and ESG research & analytics providers.
Our activities involve contributing substantively to public policy
and conducting research that enables a better understanding of
sustainable investment and the obstacles encountered by sustainability-oriented
investors. Eurosif and its members are committed
to the growth and integrity of meaningful sustainable investment
flows and support the ambition of European policymakers in enabling
a fully transparent sustainable investment market through
appropriate and well-designed regulation and industry practice. 
Our mission is to promote sustainable development through financial
markets by supporting the financing through private and public
capital of investments that make a measurable contribution to the
sustainable development goals set by the United Nations, the European
Union and other European countries.
About Eurosif –
The European Sustainable Investment Forum
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
2
Table of Contents
4	 Executive Summary
5	 1. Introduction
6	 2. Methodology and Data
8	 3. Results
8	 3.1. Data availability, quality, sources, and utilisation
16	 3.2. Forward-looking indicators
19	 3.3. Analysis of corporate net-zero targets and target-setting at portfolio level
22	 3.4. Regulatory interventions to improve the effectiveness of climate-related
investment decisions
25	 4. Summary and policy recommendations
26	 4.1. Recommendations regarding company-reported climate-related information 	
and data
27	 4.2. Recommendations regarding climate-related information and data from
external providers
28	Acknowledgements
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
3
Eurosif supports and informs the ongoing
regulatory initiatives that aim to increase
the availability, quality, reliability and comparability
of climate-related information
for investors. To do so, Eurosif conducted
a quantitative survey and additional qualitative
interviews among asset managers
and owners operating in Europe. This study
focuses on their current use of, and requirements
regarding, climate-related information,
for the purposes of its integration and
consideration in their investment process-
es.
According to the responses received during
this study, the use of climate-related information
in investment processes is now a
matter of course. However, the breadth and
depth of its integration into investment
processes varies. Most asset managers and
owners look at climate-related information
from a risk and impact perspective. Next
to exclusion strategies, among the most
widely used approaches for integrating climate-related
information in investment
processes are screenings and assessments
based on GHG emissions and general information
about investees’ climate strategy.
Less prominent are forward-looking metrics
such as climate targets and transition
plans.
The main sources of information are corporate
reports and data from external service
providers. In both cases, asset managers
and owners consider the transparency and
understandability of underlying calculation
methods – plus research processes
and sources for data from external providers
– to be of the utmost importance.
Generally, survey participants expressed a
strong need for more widely available, particularly
forward-looking, climate-related
information. Next to the issue of insufficient
data coverage and the related costs,
asset managers and owners struggle to find
reliable forward-looking indicators – which
would be necessary to effectively identify
and manage climate-related risks and opportunities
in their portfolios. One of the
Executive Summary
4
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
most overarching requests is the establishment
of a standardised disclosure framework
for climate and sustainability-related
information to foster comparability and
quality of corporate disclosures. In addition
to that, the development of at least some
more standardised, forward-looking data
points is desired.
Based on the findings of this study, to better
support asset managers’ and owners’ requirements
regarding climate-related data
and information, EU policymakers should:
1.	 Continue to promote better availability,
quality and comparability of company-reported
climate-related information
via ongoing regulatory initiatives
such as the develop-ment of European
Sustainability Reporting Standards
(ESRS) and while doing so;
2.	 Strive for ambitious sustainability-related
corporate reporting standards
based on a double materiality approach,
covering corporate value chains and including
for-ward-looking information
such as climate targets and transition
pathways;
3.	 Introduce transparency requirements
for external data and ratings providers
regarding their methodologies, research
processes and data sources; and
4.	 Support collaboration with the scientific
community and the development of
accurate, science-based climate-related
indicators with a focus on forward-looking
metrics.
Although climate change is already likely
to be one of the most standardised ESG investment
topics, asset managers and owners
operating in Europe still face various
information related challenges. It is therefore
likely that many of this study’s results
– and by extension recommendations –
are trans-ferable to other ESG investment
topics.
Climate change poses one of the most
pressing global challenges. Its mitigation
requires a financial system that actively
supports the shift towards a sustainable
economy. Capital flows need to be redirected
towards greener economic activities
while incentivising the transformation of
high impact sectors. Asset managers and
owners are increasingly considering climate-related
factors when making invest-
mentdecisionstoreducefinancialrisks,improve
climate-related impacts and ensure
the long-term value of their portfolios. To
achieve these objectives, they need widely
available, high quality and decision-useful
climate-related information from investee
companies. Their corresponding data and
information needs have significantly increased
in recent years but cannot be fully
satisfied yet from a data supply point of
view.
To improve the situation and enable better
integration of climate-related considerations
into investment decisions, several
initiatives and policy efforts have been established
in recent years:
•	 At the international level: the International
Sustainability Reporting Board’s
(ISSB’s) sustainability and climate-related
disclosure standards; the recommendations
of the Task Force on Climate-Related
Financial Disclosures
(TCFD); or non-profit initiatives such
as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
standards or the Carbon Disclosure Project
(CDP).
•	 At the European level, the most prominent
regional initiative is the ongoing
development of the European Sustainability
Reporting Standards (ESRS).
All these initiatives aim to increase the
availability, quality, reliability and comparability
of climate-related information for
investors. The aim is to provide the basis for
investors to better evaluate the climate-related
performance of companies and to better
integrate these considerations into
their investment strategies.
To support this process, Eurosif conducted
a quantitative survey and additional
qualitative interviews among asset managers
and owners operating in Europe, to
better understand their current usage of,
and requirements regarding, climate-related
information. This work also aimed
to identify the decision-useful climate-related
information investors need and to
formulate concrete recommendations for
policymakers to enable better availability
of this information.
1. Introduction
5
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
This study’s first objective is to gain deeper
insights into asset managers’ and asset
owners’ current usage of climate-related
data and their related requirements in their
investment processes. The study adopts
both a risk and an impact perspective:
which climate-related information is considered
most relevant for decision-making?
What are asset managers’ and asset
owners’ main challenges, expectations and
perceived trends regarding climate-related
data and information?
This study’s second objective is to derive
from the findings concrete recommendations
for action for EU policymakers and
market practitioners.
To achieve these objectives, Eurosif conducted
a quantitative survey and additional
qualitative interviews with a wide range
of financial industry practitioners (asset
managers, pension funds, banks…) with
operations in EU member states and/or in
European countries applying relevant EU
regulations (see Fig. 1 below). The global
geographical coverage of respondents’ operations
can be found in Fig. 2 below. The
respondents’ size in terms of assets owned
or under management ranged from less
than €50 million to more than €500 billion
(see Fig. 3 below).
The quantitative, anonymous survey was
conducted between September and November
2022. The survey, annexed to this report,
consisted of 49 questions divided into four
thematic areas: (1) Data sources, use of data
and analysis of data; (2) forward-looking indicators;
(3) analysis of companies’ net-zero
targets and target-setting at portfolio level;
and (4) regulatory interventions.
In total, 37 responses to the survey were
received. Given the objectives and scope
of the study described above, 4 responses
were excluded, as only responses received
from financial market participants were
considered in the following analyses.
The following graphs illustrate the distribution
of size, type and geographical coverage
of the 33 respondents that were included
in the study:
2. Methodology and Data
6
Bank Insurance/reinsurance company Asset management company
Pension fund Foundation Private equity / venture capital firm
1
2
3
4 5 6
1: Bank — 15% (5)
2: Insurance/reinsurance company — 6% (2)
3: Asset management company — 70% (23)
4: Pension fund — 3% (1)
5: Foundation — 3% (1)
6: Private equity / venture capital firm — 3% (1)
Fig. 1: Distribution of the 33 respondents by type of
financial market actor.
EU Switzerland UK Asia
US Canada Norway Liechtenstein
Central & South America Iceland Africa Oceania
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
101112
Fig. 2: Global geographical coverage of
respondents’ operations.
1: EU — 94% (31)
2: Switzerland — 42% (14)
3: UK — 30% (10)
4: Asia — 27% (9)
5: US — 21% (7)
6: Canada— 21% (7)
7: Norway— 18% (6)
8: Liechtenstein — 12% (4)
9: Central & South
America— 12% (4)
10: Iceland — 9% (3)
11: Africa — 9% (3)
12: Oceania — 9% (3)
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Below
€50
million
Between
€50 and
€100
million
Between
€100 and
€500
million
Between
€500
million
and €1
billion
Between
€1 and
€10
billion
Between
€10 and
€20
billion
Between
€20 and
€100
billion
Between
€100 and
€500
billion
Over €500
billion
7
In addition to the survey, 18 in-depth interviews
were conducted with financial
industry professionals, most of them working
for asset management firms in ESG
and sustainability-related roles. Some of
the experts interviewed also responded
to the quantitative survey. In these cases,
the qualitative interviews served to gather
more detailed background information and
understanding. The questions asked during
the qualitative interviews were adjusted
based on the type of financial market the
participant represented, the role and expertise
of the person interviewed and the
initial answers provided in the quantitative
survey.
The following chapter presents the main
results and findings. Finally, the last chapter
discusses concrete recommendations
for market practitioners and EU policymakers
derived from these findings.
Fig. 3: Distribution of respondents by size (assets owned or managed).
12%
(4)
12%
(4)
12%
(4)
3%
(1)
22%
(7)
3%
(1)
15%
(5)
21%
(7)
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
Based on the responses received via the
survey and the conducted interviews, this
first chapter aims to illustrate asset managers’
and asset owners’ current practices regarding
the consideration and integration
of climate-related aspects in investment
strategies and decisions.
It provides an overview of how investors
source climate-related data, how they perceive
data availability and quality, how they
analyse existing information and how they
integrate climate-related considerations
into their investment decisions.
Climate-related approaches in investment
decisions
Within the survey sample, the most used
approaches (based on the selection presented
in Fig. 4) of integrating climate-related
considerations into investment decisions
were, by order of frequency:
1.	 Exclusions of certain sectors or compa-
nies;
2.	 Analysis of companies’ overall business
models, environmental/climate policies,
targets and investment plans;
3. Results
8
3.1. Data availability, quality, sources, and utilisation
85% (28)
82% (27)
73% (24)
70% (23)
61% (20)
55% (18)
48% (16)
12% (4)
9% (3)
put in place exclusions for certain sectors or companies
ompany’s overall business model, environmental/climate
policy, targets and investment plans
h investee companies and measure their progress (e.g. by
g climate-specific targets and escalation steps)
screen companies based on their level of GHG emissions
creen companies based on their climate-related impacts
matic funds focused on climate solutions (e.g. renewable
energies)
mpanies based on their exposure to climate-related risks
e funds track benchmarks incorporating climate criteria
Others (please, specify)
Exclusions for certain companies
Analysis of the company’s overall business
model, environmental/climate policy, targets
and investment plans
Engaging with investee companies and
measuring their progress (e.g. by setting climate-specific
targets and escalation steps
Screening companies based on their level of
GHG emissions
We screen companies based on their
climate-related impacts
We have thematic funds focused on climate
solutions (e.g. renewable energies)
We screen companies based on their exposure
to climate-related risks
Our passive funds track benchmarks
incorporating climate criteria
Others (please, specify)
Fig. 4: Strategies for integrating climate-related considerations into investment decisions.
3.	Engaging with investee companies
and measuring their progress; and
4.	 Screening companies based on their
level of GHG emissions.
Exclusions, used by 85% of respondents,
are a rather traditional and comparatively
easy to implement approach to integrating
climate-related considerations into
investment decisions. Exclusions are perceived
as useful by some participants to
the study, amid regulatory uncertainty
and a lack of a common definition of sustainable
investment. They can also be applied
in passive investment strategies.
82% of respondents reported analysing
each investee’s overall business model,
environmental and climate policy, targets
and investment plans. This form of
detailed analysis is considered a necessary
step to understand whether a company
is on a pathway towards climate
neutrality and to understand and assess
its (resilience to) climate-related risks
and impacts. Feedback received via the
qualitative interviews indicates that an
increasing number of asset managers
consider climate change-related risks and
impacts in conjunction with other environmental
issues.
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
73% of the respondents cited engagement
with investee companies as a way to encourage
and monitor their progress towards
net-zero. Respondents consider engagement
to be a particularly promising
approach for companies from the utilities
and other high environmental-impact sectors.
According to them, the potential to realise
positive investor impact via a targeted
reduction of investee companies’ negative
impacts is particularly high. On this point,
larger asset managers note that it is not
feasible to engage with all investee companies
in their portfolio. Consequently, they
tend to focus their engagement efforts on
companies assessed as having a particularly
high transition potential.
The survey results further demonstrate
that the screening of companies based on
quantitative data regarding their greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions plays an important
role in climate-related investment
decisions. 70% of respondents use this approach
for assessing companies they consider
investing in.
Additionally, 20 out of 33 respondents (61%)
state that they screen companies based on
their climate-related impacts, indicating
that asset managers and owners operating
in Europe are not only interested in minimising
climate-related financial risks but
also the climate-related impacts of their
portfolios. These results underline the importance
of ensuring that all sustainability-related
finance and corporate reporting
initiatives and frameworks are based on a
double materiality approach.
Main sources of climate-related data
	
The present study also aimed to identify
the main sources of climate-related data
and information for asset managers and
owners operating in Europe, as these constitute
the basis for any analysis and investment
approach. The financial experts
interviewed primarily and equally rely on:
•	 data sourced from multiple external
providers;
•	 data that is publicly available (e.g., via
free databases); and
•	 data reported by investee companies
through sustainability reports.
9
Data reported by investee companies through
sustainability/financial/integrated reporting
Data and tools provided by multiple external
data, analysis & research providers
Data publicly available (e.g. free databases)
Data provided directly by investee companies
(e.g. via exchanges with the investor relations
and/or the sustainability departments)
Data and tools provided by one external data,
analysis & research provider
Other (please specify)
67% (22)
67% (22)
67% (22)
45% (15)
33% (11)
6% (2)
Fig. 5: Sources of climate-related data on investee companies.
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
Regarding external data providers, it is
noteworthy that 100% of the survey participants
receive climate-related data and information
from at least one such provider.
The vast majority (67%) receives relevant
data from multiple providers simultaneously.
These findings emphasise the prominent
role external data and research providers
play in the climate-related, and more
broadly, the sustainable investment, ecosystems.
Most interviewed experts even
stated that they do not believe that better
corporate reporting of climate-related data
in the future would significantly reduce financial
market participants’ reliance on
external data providers. The predominant
view was that these entities will continue
to play an important role by sourcing data
from companies’ reports and producing
‘off-the-shelf’ analytics and data sets for in-
vestors.
Nevertheless, interviewed experts considered
that data directly reported by companies
through sustainability or integrated
reporting, or so-called “raw data” is particularly
useful. The quantity and quality
of the information provided by companies
is expected to increase once the corresponding
standardised disclosure and reporting
frameworks are established. This
should, in turn, also improve the information
provided by external data providers.
Methodologies to process climate-related
data
Given the relevance of external data providers
as sources of climate-related information,
it is important to understand how
asset managers and owners process the
information obtained from these entities
in their investment processes.
On single topics/indicators, we compare
different providers’ analytical tools in order to
appreciate the variety of perspectives
We input data (e.g. on GHG emissions) and/
or analytical tools (e.g. ratings and scores) in
our own proprietary strategies to evaluate
companies’ climate performances
We analyse each provider’s methodology,
compare them and we choose the analytical
tool and/or data set that is most suitable to the
characteristics and objectives of each one of
our investment strategies
We interact with our external data providers
to better understand the methodological
choices underpinning individual data points
and assessments
We complement external data, analysis &
research with own desk analysis
The data, analysis & research support our dialogue
with companies (e.g. through fact check
dialogues, etc.)
Analysing and comparing methodologies and/
or single data points is a time and resource
intensive activity, therefore we tend to rely on
data sets and analytical tools as they are
25% (8)
56% (18)
53% (17)
34% (11)
41% (13)
34% (11)
19% (6)
25% (8)
28% (9)
19% (6)
44% (14)
19% (6)
37% (12)
22% (7)
34% (11)
10% (3)
16% (5)
13% (4)
28% (9)
13% (4)
25% (8)
16% (5)
6% (2)
12% (4)
9% (3)
12% (4)
16% (5)
34% (11)
Always Often Sometimes Never
Fig. 6: Strategies for processing climate-related information provided by external data providers.
10
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
Overall, most survey participants tend to
input data obtained from external providers
into their own proprietary analytic models
to evaluate companies’ climate-related
performance. This approach is particularly
common in the assessment of companies’
net-zero targets and transition plans. The
application of proprietary analytic models
allows asset managers and owners to develop
their own views of the companies
in question. It is, however, also described
as a rather lengthy and costly process that
involves the aggregation and integration
of data from different providers. The challenges
regarding the creation of proprietary
models that efficiently integrate data based
on different methodologies by different external
providers was a recurring theme discussed
during the qualitative interviews.
Only a small proportion of respondents,
usually from smaller firms with fewer resources,
stated that they regularly rely
on external data sets and analytical tools
without any further internal processing.
At the other end of the spectrum, more sophisticated
investment strategies involve
the analysis and combination of different
external data sets and their integration
with further, internal research.
The results of this study further confirm
the widespread use of dialogues and engagements
with investee companies as
a means for asset managers and owners
operating in Europe to reinforce, complement
and fact-check existing information
regarding those companies. Interviewed
experts perceive company dialogues as
an important way to obtain more precise
information on climate-related topics
that are more relevant to their investment
strategies.
11
There is insufficient coverage on the data necessary to comply
with EU regulations (e.g. SFDR PAIIs, EU Taxonomy-alignment)
High costs
We struggle to find reliable forward-looking indicators
There is a mismatch between our needs and the types of
companies covered (e.g. insufficient data on Small and Medium
Enterprises)
We are conscious there might be a certain margin of error in
estimates, thus lowering our confidence of making a sound
investment decision
40% (13)
34% (11)
41% (13)
35% (11)
25% (8)
16% (5)
16% (5)
16% (5)
3% (1)
16% (5)
3% (1)
44% (14)
44% (14)
34% (11)
34% (11)
41% (13)
53% (17)
50% (16)
31% (10)
53% (17)
22% (7)
38% (12)
16% (5)
22% (7)
19% (6)
31% (10)
34% (11)
28% (9)
31% (10)
47% (15)
38% (12)
56% (18)
56% (18)
0% (0)
0% (0)
6% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
3% (1)
3% (1)
6% (2)
6% (2)
6% (2)
3% (1)
Always Often Sometimes Never
40% (13)
34% (11)
41% (13)
35% (11)
25% (8)
16% (5)
16% (5)
16% (5)
3% (1)
16% (5)
3% (1)
44% (14)
44% (14)
34% (11)
34% (11)
41% (13)
53% (17)
50% (16)
31% (10)
53% (17)
22% (7)
38% (12)
16% (5)
22% (7)
19% (6)
31% (10)
34% (11)
28% (9)
31% (10)
47% (15)
38% (12)
56% (18)
56% (18)
0% (0)
0% (0)
6% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
3% (1)
3% (1)
6% (2)
6% (2)
6% (2)
3% (1)
Always Often Sometimes Never
We are conscious there might be a certain margin of error in
estimates, hence we perceive the risk of incurring greenwashing
accusations (legal and/or reputational risks)
Companies obtain diverging performance measurements (e.g.
on GHG emissions) from different providers, and it is difficult to
understand the reasons for these differences
There is a mismatch between our needs and the topics covered
(e.g. data on impacts, data on biodiversity, etc.)
It is difficult to access relevant information on the methodologies
applied
We struggle to access adequate information about the sources
of data
It is difficult to understand the methodologies applied
Fig. 7: Challenges faced by asset managers and owners when using climate-related information from external providers.
3%
(1)
3%
(1)
3%
(1)
3%
(1)
3%
(1)
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
on results are often not clearly specified.
This can be problematic for investors, as
changes in companies’ climate-related
performance data could be the result of
actual changes in their performance, but
also simply of changes in the data provider’s
methodology.
The results also show that many surveyed
asset managers and owners are conscious
that certain margins of error in estimates
could lead to less sound investment decisions
and increase the risk of running
into greenwashing allegations and reputational
damage. When asked about the
most important aspects taken into consideration
when analysing external providers’
methodologies, the most common
answers were related to GHG estimations.
Investors have a strong interest in understanding
the proportion of estimates that
data providers use in their methodologies
and how these estimates are calculated.
During the qualitative interviews, some
experts stated that they believe that data
providers excessively rely on estimates.
At the same time, they acknowledged that
estimates serve as the best possible remedy
for the low availability of company-reported
data. Further concerns highlighted
by at least some survey participants were
uncertainties regarding the sources of
data and the consideration of sector-specific
considerations in methodologies.
The relationship between asset managers
and owners and their external data providers
also influences the integration of
climate-related information into investment
strategies. In fact, many asset managers
and owners interact with their providers
to obtain clarifications regarding
specific data points or sets, especially in
case they detect discrepancies from their
own analysis or from data disclosed by
the company itself.
Additional essential aspects to consider
are the availability (Fig. 8) and
reliability (Fig. 9) of climate-related
information, as these factors directly
affect asset managers’ and owners’
investment strategies and decisions.
The graphic above illustrates the most common
challenges mentioned by surveyed
asset managers and owners when using
climate-related information and data from
external providers. One of the most frequently
mentioned challenges is a lack of
data necessary to comply with EU regulations,
such as SFDR PAIIs (Principal Adverse
Impact indicators) or EU Taxonomy alignment.
Some respondents commented that
they currently use SFDR-related data merely
for compliance reasons and do not consider
it to be decision-useful information.
However, the responses gathered during
the qualitative interviews indicate that this
view could change as soon as the coverage
and reliability of this data increase.
Another challenge highlighted by many
surveyed asset managers and owners is the
difficulty in finding reliable forward-looking
information. Many still doubt the robustness
of forward-looking indicators as their
underlying methodologies are often complex
and the outcomes seem to vary starkly
across data providers. Some established
forward-looking metrics from external providers
are also perceived as oversimplified
and inaccurate. Considerations regarding
forward-looking indicators will be analysed
in more depth in the next section.
An additional concern amongst industry
practitioners is related to the diverging climate-related
assessments they obtain for
the same company from different data providers,
which goes hand in hand with the
observations stated above. Surveyed asset
managers and owners understand that each
data provider analyses and processes information
according to their own methodology.
It would be useful for them to have more
information on the underlying methodologies
to better understand the discrepancies
and process the climate-related data and indicators
provided by these entities. As such,
data providers are generally expected to be
more transparent regarding their methodologies
and research processes. This seems
to be particularly relevant for methodology
changes which are perceived as frequent.
Interviewed industry practitioners complained
that methodology changes are not
always clearly explained and their effects
12
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
75% (24)
53% (17)
19% (6)
28% (9)
22% (7)
7% (2)
17% (5)
14% (4)
16% (5)
19% (5)
14% (4)
10% (3)
7% (2)
11% (3)
11% (3)
7% (2)
7% (2)
7% (2)
4% (1)
25% (8)
38% (12)
53% (17)
35% (11)
44% (14)
68% (19)
35% (10)
41% (12)
27% (8)
31% (8)
24% (7)
35% (10)
36% (11)
36% (10)
31% (9)
23% (7)
17% (5)
13% (4)
21% (6)
0% (0)
9% (3)
25% (8)
34% (11)
31% (10)
18% (5)
38% (11)
35% (10)
50% (15)
31% (8)
55% (16)
45% (13)
50% (15)
39% (11)
48% (14)
63% (19)
66% (19)
67% (20)
54% (15)
0% (0)
0% (0)
3% (1)
3% (1)
3% (1)
7% (2)
10% (3)
10% (3)
7% (2)
19% (5)
7% (2)
10% (3)
7% (2)
14% (4)
10% (3)
7% (2)
10% (3)
13% (4)
21% (6)
High Medium Low No opinion
GHG emissions - Scope 1 and 2
GHG intensity
Adoption of decarbonisation targets
Adoption of net-zero targets
GHG emissions - Scope 3
Energy consumption (absolute and/
or intensity)
75% (24)
53% (17)
19% (6)
28% (9)
22% (7)
7% (2)
17% (5)
14% (4)
16% (5)
19% (5)
14% (4)
10% (3)
7% (2)
11% (3)
11% (3)
7% (2)
7% (2)
7% (2)
4% (1)
25% (8)
38% (12)
53% (17)
35% (11)
44% (14)
68% (19)
35% (10)
41% (12)
27% (8)
31% (8)
24% (7)
35% (10)
36% (11)
36% (10)
31% (9)
23% (7)
17% (5)
13% (4)
21% (6)
0% (0)
9% (3)
25% (8)
34% (11)
31% (10)
18% (5)
38% (11)
35% (10)
50% (15)
31% (8)
55% (16)
45% (13)
50% (15)
39% (11)
48% (14)
63% (19)
66% (19)
67% (20)
54% (15)
0% (0)
0% (0)
3% (1)
3% (1)
3% (1)
7% (2)
10% (3)
10% (3)
7% (2)
19% (5)
7% (2)
10% (3)
7% (2)
14% (4)
10% (3)
7% (2)
10% (3)
13% (4)
21% (6)
High Medium Low No opinion
75% (24)
53% (17)
19% (6)
28% (9)
22% (7)
7% (2)
17% (5)
14% (4)
16% (5)
19% (5)
14% (4)
10% (3)
7% (2)
11% (3)
11% (3)
7% (2)
7% (2)
7% (2)
4% (1)
25% (8)
38% (12)
53% (17)
35% (11)
44% (14)
68% (19)
35% (10)
41% (12)
27% (8)
31% (8)
24% (7)
35% (10)
36% (11)
36% (10)
31% (9)
23% (7)
17% (5)
13% (4)
21% (6)
0% (0)
9% (3)
25% (8)
34% (11)
31% (10)
18% (5)
38% (11)
35% (10)
50% (15)
31% (8)
55% (16)
45% (13)
50% (15)
39% (11)
48% (14)
63% (19)
66% (19)
67% (20)
54% (15)
0% (0)
0% (0)
3% (1)
3% (1)
3% (1)
7% (2)
10% (3)
10% (3)
7% (2)
19% (5)
7% (2)
10% (3)
7% (2)
14% (4)
10% (3)
7% (2)
10% (3)
13% (4)
21% (6)
High Medium Low No opinion
Climate-related targets/performance
indicators in the remuneration
schemes of key decision-makers
Oversight of governing bodies on the
climate-related policies and plans
Credibility and ambition of the transition
plans
Geographical location of the headquarters
and/or operations of the
company and explanation of the
regulations on climate to which the
company is subject
Exposure to climate-related physical
risks
Exposure to climate-related oppor-
tunities
Energy mix
Turnover and/or CapEx from activities
related to the fossil fuel sector
Exposure to climate-related transition
risks
Robustness of the decarbonisation/
net-zero targets, including progress
reporting
Activities contributing to the turnover
Plans to deploy CapEx / OpEx
Research & Development expenses
and climate-related innovations
75% (24)
53% (17)
19% (6)
28% (9)
22% (7)
7% (2)
17% (5)
14% (4)
16% (5)
19% (5)
14% (4)
10% (3)
7% (2)
11% (3)
11% (3)
7% (2)
7% (2)
7% (2)
4% (1)
25% (8)
38% (12)
53% (17)
35% (11)
44% (14)
68% (19)
35% (10)
41% (12)
27% (8)
31% (8)
24% (7)
35% (10)
36% (11)
36% (10)
31% (9)
23% (7)
17% (5)
13% (4)
21% (6)
0% (0)
9% (3)
25% (8)
34% (11)
31% (10)
18% (5)
38% (11)
35% (10)
50% (15)
31% (8)
55% (16)
45% (13)
50% (15)
39% (11)
48% (14)
63% (19)
66% (19)
67% (20)
54% (15)
0% (0)
0% (0)
3% (1)
3% (1)
3% (1)
7% (2)
10% (3)
10% (3)
7% (2)
19% (5)
7% (2)
10% (3)
7% (2)
14% (4)
10% (3)
7% (2)
10% (3)
13% (4)
21% (6)
High Medium Low No opinion
Fig. 8: Availability of climate-related information regarding companies analysed by asset managers and owners.
13
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
35% (11)
23% (7)
15% (4)
13% (4)
16% (5)
11% (3)
14% (4)
14% (4)
19% (5)
10% (3)
3% (1)
3% (1)
7% (2)
7% (2)
3% (1)
7% (2)
7% (2)
3% (1)
7% (2)
56% (18)
58% (18)
52% (14)
48% (15)
41% (13)
48% (14)
38% (11)
31% (9)
27% (7)
28% (8)
33% (10)
22% (7)
24% (7)
28% (8)
23% (7)
24% (7)
20% (6)
23% (7)
22% (6)
3% (1)
13% (4)
18% (5)
29% (9)
34% (11)
24% (7)
31% (9)
41% (12)
31% (8)
48% (14)
50% (15)
69% (22)
52% (15)
41% (12)
60% (18)
45% (13)
52% (15)
44% (13)
32% (9)
6% (2)
6% (2)
15% (4)
10% (3)
9% (3)
17% (5)
17% (5)
14% (4)
23% (6)
14% (4)
14% (4)
6% (2)
17% (5)
24% (7)
14% (4)
24% (7)
21% (6)
30% (9)
39% (11)
High Medium Low No opinion
GHG emissions - Scope 1 and 2
GHG intensity
Energy consumption
Adoption of decarbonisation targets
Adoption of net-zero targets
Turnover and/or CapEx from activities
related to the fossil fuel sector
Energy mix
Oversight of governing bodies on the
climate-related policies and plans
Geographical location of the headquarters
and/or operations of the company
and explanation of the regulations
on climate to which the company is
subject
Climate-related targets/performance
indicators in the remuneration
schemes of key decision-makers
Credibility and ambition of the transition
plans
GHG emissions - Scope 3
Exposure to climate-related physical
risks
Exposure to climate-related transition
risks
Robustness of the decarbonisation/
net-zero targets, including progress
reporting
Activities contributing to the turnover
Exposure to climate-related opportu-
nities
Plans to deploy CapEx / OpEx (e.g. towards
EU Taxonomy-aligned projects/
activities)
Research & Development expenses
and climate-related innovations
35% (11)
23% (7)
15% (4)
13% (4)
16% (5)
11% (3)
14% (4)
14% (4)
19% (5)
10% (3)
3% (1)
3% (1)
7% (2)
7% (2)
3% (1)
7% (2)
7% (2)
3% (1)
7% (2)
56% (18)
58% (18)
52% (14)
48% (15)
41% (13)
48% (14)
38% (11)
31% (9)
27% (7)
28% (8)
33% (10)
22% (7)
24% (7)
28% (8)
23% (7)
24% (7)
20% (6)
23% (7)
22% (6)
3% (1)
13% (4)
18% (5)
29% (9)
34% (11)
24% (7)
31% (9)
41% (12)
31% (8)
48% (14)
50% (15)
69% (22)
52% (15)
41% (12)
60% (18)
45% (13)
52% (15)
44% (13)
32% (9)
6% (2)
6% (2)
15% (4)
10% (3)
9% (3)
17% (5)
17% (5)
14% (4)
23% (6)
14% (4)
14% (4)
6% (2)
17% (5)
24% (7)
14% (4)
24% (7)
21% (6)
30% (9)
39% (11)
High Medium Low No opinion
Fig. 9: Quality of climate-related information regarding companies analysed by asset managers and owners.
14
3%
(1)
3%
(1)
3%
(1)
3%
(1)
3%
(1)
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
Screening companies based on their level
of GHG emissions is among the most
widely used climate-related investment
approaches by survey participants. In general,
they consider information and data
regarding scope 1 and 2 emissions as well
as GHG intensities to be largely available
and reliable. In contrast, data availability
and quality regarding scope 3 emissions
are perceived as rather low.1 While standardised
frameworks to measure GHG emissions
(including scope 3 emissions) exist2 ,
companies do not apply them consistently.
Data gaps regarding scope 3 emissions are
particularly pronounced and reported data
is often not assured. However, improvements
are expected as both the Draft European
Sustainability Reporting Standards3
and the International Sustainability Standards
Board (ISSB)4 include requirements regarding
the measurement and reporting of
scope 3 emissions.
The results also point to the scarcity of reliable
data on climate-related physical and
transition risks, which are very important
from a financial point of view. While investors
pay attention to the commitments
made by companies in this regard, the
availability and reliability of information
regarding corporate decarbonisation and
net-zero targets as well as transition plans
is considered to be rather low. Companies
do not tend to disclose further information
to support and certify their targets or
plans and on how to achieve them, which
increases scepticism amongst investors.
Investors seem to be more trustful of validated
net-zero targets, especially of those
backed by the Science-Based Targets initiative
(SBTi). Validated targets are accompanied
by complementary information such
1.	 These findings are mirrored in recent academic
research, see Busch et al (2022): Corporate carbon
performance data: Quo vadis?, https://on-
linelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jiec.13008
2.	 https://ghgprotocol.org/corporate-value-chain-
scope-3-standard
as interim targets and have been subject
to scientific review, which increases their
credibility. Some interviewees expressed
their preference to rely on such validated
targets as they are still in the process of
developing and finalising their own methodologies
to evaluate companies’ targets
and transition plans.
Data availability and reliability regarding
CapEx, OpEx, and investments in R&D are
still considered to be particularly low. This
information could be useful to assess to
what extent companies intend to stick to
the targets and transition plans they have
committed to.
3.	 https://www.efrag.org/lab6
4.	 https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/pro-
ject/climate-related-disclosures/issb-expo-
sure-draft-2022-2-climate-related-disclosures.
pdf
15
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
Forward-looking information plays a fundamental
role in current investment analysis
strategies. Climate-related assessments
of companies must consider forward-looking
data to forecast their exposure to future
trends, such as climate-related risks and
opportunities, and to evaluate the robustness
of their transition and decarbonisation
plans. Forward-looking information allows
asset managers and owners to assess
the climate-related potential of a company
and its adaptation efforts to mitigate physical
and transitional risks.
The most frequent objectives cited for using
forward-looking indicators are related
to scenario analysis, the monitoring of
physical and transitional risks, and the
mitigation of GHG emissions, including climate-related
targets and transition plans.
General challenges around sourcing reliable
and robust data were already mentioned
in the previous chapter. Specifically,
regarding forward-looking data, survey
participants’ main concerns focus on the
complexity of the underlying methodologies
and the existing divergences between
the results that different service providers
supply regarding the same company. This
chapter will further analyse how asset
managers and owners operating in Europe
use forward-looking information and indicators,
their perceived reliability and the
main challenges involved.
A vast majority of respondents (27 out of
33) already use some sort of forward-looking
indicators in their investment strategies.
However, only a small proportion of
them use their own proprietary models and
methodologies. These proprietary methodologies
obviously differ and depend on the
climate-related investment strategy. Some
participants opt for modelling information
provided by investee companies regarding
their reduction paths, while others conduct
scenario analyses on the physical
climate risks of investee companies. Other
respondents, instead of building their
own models, gather and analyse data from
external providers based on internally
defined criteria and requirements. The interviewed
experts generally acknowledge
challenges around creating single methodologies
that can be equally applied to
the diverse array of available asset class-
es.
Several interviewees voiced doubts regarding
the reliability of e.g., temperature
alignment indicators or net-zero targets,
as these are based on complex modelling
and long-term predictions. Some stated
that they were using such indicators for
external reporting purposes, rather than
actually informing investment decisions.
Both the use of proprietary forward-looking
indicators, as well as the use of metrics
coming from external providers, pose
different challenges, which are presented
in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11.
3.2. Forward-looking indicators
16
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
Insufficient availability of underlying data
Insufficient availability of reliable standardised
indicators that meet our needs
Assumptions and outcomes are not reliable and
their scientific soundness is disputable
Poor quality of underlying data
Complex calculations require highly specialised
skills and big allocation of time and resources,
which are at times not manageable
Other (please specify)
Assumptions and outcomes are not reliable and
their scientific soundness is disputable
Insufficient comparability between methodologies
adopted by different data providers
Methodologies are opaque / difficult to under-
stand
High costs
Other (please specify)
Fig. 10: Challenges cited when using proprietary forward-looking indicators..
Fig. 11: Challenges cited when using external providers’ forward-looking indicators.
17
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
93%
80%
73%
73%
67%
7%
86%
73%
68%
41%
18%
Regarding proprietary forward-looking indicators,
the main challenges mentioned
are related to the low availability and reliability
of the underlying data necessary to
calculate them. This situation is expected
to improve with the roll-out of the corporate
disclosure and reporting frameworks
currently under development at both the
European and international levels. As companies
will be required to disclose more
relevant and accurate climate-related information,
proprietary methodologies are
expected to be able to provide better and
more precise forward-looking indicators.
Interviewees agree that, in the meantime,
the best remedy to tackle uncertainty is
transparency.
The main concern for asset managers and
owners relying on forward-looking indicators
from external data providers (which
forms the majority of respondents), is the
perceived lack of scientific reliability of the
underlying assumptions and outcomes of
said indicators. Respondents are less concerned
about the use of estimates and approximations,
which is considered inherent
to forward-looking metrics. Surveyed
industry practitioners are more sceptical
about the reliability of the underlying assumptions,
which are perceived as unclear.
In this context, interviewed experts highlight
the role of the scientific community in
supporting the development of more trustworthy
and accurate forward-looking, climate-related
indicators.
The most used forward-looking climate-related
indicators among respondents are
Implied Temperature Rise (ITR) metrics
and Science Based Targets initiative targets
(SBTi). Respondents and interviewees
highlighted how ITR metrics are promising
but still in an initial stage and require
further improvements. For example, participants
felt that the complex underlying
methodologies, factors and interactions
of ITR metrics are condensed in an overly
simplistic outcome. According to the
respondents, ITR metrics also tend to differ
significantly from one data provider to
another and the differences are difficult to
understand based on available methodology
documentation. Surveyed practitioners
would welcome the convergence towards
a more widely accepted “standard” metric
as this would reduce the huge existing
differences between providers and portfolio
scores currently displayed. Overall,
respondents currently see ITR metrics as
complementary analytic tools rather than
as key elements of climate-related investment
decisions.
In general, respondents consider SBTi validated
targets a reliable metric on decarbonisation
and net-zero strategies – the
main reason for this being their scientific
basis. The setting of SBTi-validated targets
also facilitates comparisons between
companies, as they are standardised and
comply with minimum requirements ensuring
a sufficient level of credibility. SBTi-validated
targets are perceived to be
more common in larger companies with
more (financial and personnel) resources.
Their existence is considered less essential
for smaller companies, where the
climate-related investment strategy is
often based on direct dialogues to gather
information and assess how they plan on
improving their climate-related performance.
On the negative side, respondents
highlight that SBTi targets are not available
for all sectors and are based on modelling
and long-term predictions, which
always provide scope for improvement.
18
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
55% (18)
6% (2)
12% (4)
6% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
27% (9)
24% (8)
9% (3)
21% (7)
3% (1)
0% (0)
3% (1)
6% (2)
3% (1)
6% (2)
0% (0)
36% (12)
39% (13)
33% (11)
33% (11)
36% (12)
12% (4)
40% (13)
49% (16)
49% (16)
43% (14)
30% (10)
24% (8)
24% (8)
21% (7)
24% (8)
15% (5)
9% (3)
6% (2)
52% (17)
49% (16)
43% (14)
49% (16)
73% (24)
24% (8)
18% (6)
30% (10)
27% (9)
55% (18)
58% (19)
61% (20)
58% (19)
55% (18)
58% (19)
64% (21)
3% (1)
3% (1)
6% (2)
18% (6)
15% (5)
15% (5)
9% (3)
9% (3)
12% (4)
9% (3)
12% (4)
18% (6)
12% (4)
15% (5)
18% (6)
21% (7)
27% (9)
High Medium Low No opinion
Scope 1-2 GHG emissions covered by the
target
Scope 3 GHG emissions covered by the
target​​​​​​
Activities and/or business units covered by
the target
Organisational boundaries (i.e. whether the
target is set at a group/parent level, or at a
subsidiary level, etc.)
---
Scenarios and transition pathways adopted,
including the underlying assumptions
Coherence of the net-zero target & implementation
strategy with sectoral pathways
55% (18)
6% (2)
12% (4)
6% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
27% (9)
24% (8)
9% (3)
21% (7)
3% (1)
0% (0)
3% (1)
6% (2)
3% (1)
6% (2)
0% (0)
36% (12)
39% (13)
33% (11)
33% (11)
36% (12)
12% (4)
40% (13)
49% (16)
49% (16)
43% (14)
30% (10)
24% (8)
24% (8)
21% (7)
24% (8)
15% (5)
9% (3)
6% (2)
52% (17)
49% (16)
43% (14)
49% (16)
73% (24)
24% (8)
18% (6)
30% (10)
27% (9)
55% (18)
58% (19)
61% (20)
58% (19)
55% (18)
58% (19)
64% (21)
3% (1)
3% (1)
6% (2)
18% (6)
15% (5)
15% (5)
9% (3)
9% (3)
12% (4)
9% (3)
12% (4)
18% (6)
12% (4)
15% (5)
18% (6)
21% (7)
27% (9)
High Medium Low No opinion
Whether the target is absolute or relative
Baseline year emissions
Baseline value emissions
Timeframe to achieve the target
Interim targets and milestones
Approach used to set the target (e.g. Sectoral
Decarbonisation Approach - SDA)
Progress towards achieving the target
Actions planned vs. undertaken to achieve
the target
Decarbonisation levers (e.g. energy efficiency
measures, electrification and fuel
switching, etc.)
Reliance on carbon offsets, carbon removals
and avoidance, natural and artificial
sinks, capture & storage (CCS), capture &
usage (CCU) technologies
Changes in targets, methodologies and
underlying assumptions
55% (18)
6% (2)
12% (4)
6% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
27% (9)
24% (8)
9% (3)
21% (7)
3% (1)
0% (0)
3% (1)
6% (2)
3% (1)
6% (2)
0% (0)
36% (12)
39% (13)
33% (11)
33% (11)
36% (12)
12% (4)
40% (13)
49% (16)
49% (16)
43% (14)
30% (10)
24% (8)
24% (8)
21% (7)
24% (8)
15% (5)
9% (3)
6% (2)
52% (17)
49% (16)
43% (14)
49% (16)
73% (24)
24% (8)
18% (6)
30% (10)
27% (9)
55% (18)
58% (19)
61% (20)
58% (19)
55% (18)
58% (19)
64% (21)
3% (1)
3% (1)
6% (2)
18% (6)
15% (5)
15% (5)
9% (3)
9% (3)
12% (4)
9% (3)
12% (4)
18% (6)
12% (4)
15% (5)
18% (6)
21% (7)
27% (9)
High Medium Low No opinion
Fig. 12: Perceived availability of data regarding corporate net-zero targets.
19
3.3. Analysis of corporate net-zero targets
and target-setting at portfolio level
Net-zero carbon emission targets play a
fundamental part in the ongoing green
transition of the economy. Companies
setting net-zero targets show their commitment
to environmental responsibility.
At the same time, setting net-zero targets
may increase the competitiveness of companies
and their capacities to attract green
investments. Asset managers are also encouraged
to set net-zero targets at portfolio
and entity level to contribute to the green
transition.
Asset managers and owners consider specific
data points when analysing net-zero
targets set by investee companies. Fig. 12
and Fig. 13. provide an overview of the perceived
availability and quality of different
data points on net-zero targets.
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
30% (10)
0% (0)
9% (3)
3% (1)
3% (1)
0% (0)
18% (6)
9% (3)
3% (1)
15% (5)
3% (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
3% (1)
0% (0)
3% (1)
3% (1)
40% (13)
18% (6)
40% (13)
37% (12)
15% (5)
15% (5)
34% (11)
49% (16)
43% (14)
33% (11)
24% (8)
24% (8)
24% (8)
12% (4)
27% (9)
12% (4)
9% (3)
24% (8)
76% (25)
39% (13)
33% (11)
58% (19)
64% (21)
30% (10)
24% (8)
36% (12)
37% (12)
52% (17)
46% (15)
61% (20)
64% (21)
49% (16)
61% (20)
61% (20)
6% (2)
6% (2)
12% (4)
27% (9)
24% (8)
21% (7)
18% (6)
18% (6)
18% (6)
15% (5)
21% (7)
30% (10)
15% (5)
21% (7)
24% (8)
24% (8)
27% (9)
High Medium Low No opinion
Scope 1-2 GHG emissions covered by the
target
Scope 3 GHG emissions covered by the
target​​​​​​
Activities and/or business units covered
by the target
Organisational boundaries (i.e. whether
the target is set at a group/parent level, or
at a subsidiary level, etc.)
Scenarios and transition pathways adopted,
including the underlying assumptions
Coherence of the net-zero target &
implementation strategy with sectoral
pathways
Whether the target is absolute or relative
Baseline year emissions
Baseline value emissions
Timeframe to achieve the target
Interim targets and milestones
Approach used to set the target (e.g. Sectoral
Decarbonisation Approach - SDA)
Progress towards achieving the target
Actions planned vs. undertaken to
achieve the target
Decarbonisation levers (e.g. energy efficiency
measures, electrification and fuel
switching, etc.)
Reliance on carbon offsets, carbon removals
and avoidance, natural and artificial
sinks, capture & storage (CCS), capture &
usage (CCU) technologies
Changes in targets, methodologies and
underlying assumptions
Fig. 13: Perceived quality of data regarding corporate net-zero targets.
20
While GHG emissions-related data is obviously
relevant when analysing net-zero
targets and transition plans, industry
experts pointed out during the interviews
that sometimes they still struggle to identify
the information that is most important
for them to understand investee’s climate
targets and transition plans. In this context,
the availability and reliability of information
regarding scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions
covered by the targets is generally
perceived as good. Similar to the
findings regarding general data availability
and reliability described above, they
are perceived more negatively for scope 3
emissions covered by corporate net-zero
targets. Most asset managers and owners
interviewed therefore advocated for more
standardised frameworks to measure and
report on these emissions.
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
The results summarised in the charts show
that while some relevant data points are
generally available, their perceived reliability
is sometimes rather low. Some good
examples of this are:
•	 activities and business units covered by
the target;
•	 scenarios and transition pathways (including
the underlying assumptions);
•	 coherence of the net-zero targets and
implementation strategy with sectoral
pathways;
•	 interim targets and milestones; progress
made towards achieving the tar-
get;
•	 actions planned vs. undertaken;
•	 decarbonisation levers;
•	 reliance on carbon offsets;
•	 changes to the targets.
The results show that corporate reporting
of net-zero target-related information must
still significantly increase to better meet
investors’ corresponding data needs. Regulators
and standard setters should further
promote the standardisation of methodologies
for measuring and reporting net-zero
targets-related information as this would
foster comparability and help create a more
level-playing field.
Regarding changes in corporate net-zero
targets, many of the interviewed experts
expressed the opinion that companies
should not hesitate to modify targets that
are assessed as not achievable. Surveyed
asset managers and owners are aware that
there are continuous changes in scientific
knowledge, technological innovations and
the general economic background. Therefore,
according to surveyed participants,
the targets and transition plans of companies
can and should also be altered. What is
considered most important is companies’
transparent communication and explanation
of changes to investors and other relevant
stakeholders. This seems particularly
important for companies operating in sectors
with significant R&D financing needs
and rather long innovation investment cycles
(e.g. the chemical industry).
52% of respondents stated that their own
organisations have already set net-zero
targets at the entity level or were planning
to set them in the near future. The
remaining 48% stated that their organisations
were either still considering setting
such targets, planning to decarbonise
their portfolio by other means, or still unsure.
Only 46% of respondents confirmed
that their organisations have already set
net-zero targets at the portfolio level or
were planning to set one in the short/mid-
term.
21
Chart Title
Yes
Not yet, but the decision is under consideration
Not yet, but we already decided to set a target in 1-5 years
No, we have plans to decarbonise our portfolios by using other means
We do not know / we are not convinced yet
1
2
3
4
5
1: Yes — 34% (11)
2: Not yet, but the decision is under
consideration — 30% (10)
3: Not yet, but we already decided to
set a target in 1-5 years — 18% (6)
4: No, we have plans to decarbonise
our portfolios by using other
means — 15% (5)
5: We do not know / we are not
convinced yet — 3% (1)
37%
24%
18%
12%
9%
Yes
Not yet, but the decision is under consideration
No, we have plans to decarbonise the portfolio by using other means
We do not know / we are not convinced yet
Not yet, but we already decided to set a target in 1-5 years
1
2
3
4
5
1: Yes — 37% (12)
2: Not yet, but the decision is under
consideration — 24% (8)
3: No, we have plans to decarbonise
the portfolio by using other
means — 18% (6)
4: We do not know / we are not
convinced yet — 12% (4)
5: Not yet, but we already decided to
set a target in 1-5 years — 9% (3)
Fig. 15: Respondents’ net-zero targets at the portfolio level.
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
Fig. 14: Respondents’ net-zero targets at the entity level.
91% of respondents agreed that some sort of
regulatory intervention would be required
or at least helpful to address some of the
main challenges identified throughout this
report. The distribution of responses displayed
in Fig. 16 highlights the widespread
view that any necessary regulation must
be accompanied by adequate efforts to improve
the market practices of multiple ac-
tors.
22
Respondents consider setting net-zero targets
at the entity level to be comparatively
easy, as corresponding standards and
methodologies exist. The most considerable
obstacle to setting net-zero targets at
the portfolio level appears to be a heavy
reliance on investee companies. According
to the experts interviewed, the most
important and necessary first step for implementing
net-zero targets at the portfolio
level is the setting of such targets by investee
companies themselves. Surveyed asset
managers and owners reported to rather
focus their corresponding engagement efforts
on companies in which they are most
heavily invested and/or which are assessed
as having a particularly high transition po-
tential.
Another aspect mentioned was that net-zero
methodologies do not yet exist for all asset
classes. Setting net-zero targets at the
portfolio-level is generally considered to be
more complex, as each investment product
has its own characteristics and these can
also change over time. Further challenges
mentioned were again data availability and
comparability across e.g., different asset
classes, regions, types of companies, sectors
(EU vs. US; equity and derivatives, etc.).
3.4. Regulatory interventions to improve
the effectiveness of climate-related investment
decisions
This last chapter illustrates the asset managers’
and owners’ perceptions and expectations
of the current regulatory developments.
Their practical perspectives and
inputs are essential to analyse the suitability
and potential for improvement of current
regulatory initiatives. In the European
Union, sustainable finance regulation has
significantly reshaped the financial and
investment landscape. The financial industry’s
expertise, concerns and (data) needs
are relevant and should advise policymakers
in the next regulatory steps forward
to give sustainable finance and the green
transition a more efficient and coherent
framework.
Chart Title
regulation could contribute to solve some problems, but it
mpanied by adequate efforts to improve market practices
panies reporting on performances, data providers improvin
mate too
ulation would be more helpful in other areas rather than in
ngthen the reporting requirements for companies, or clarif
lations, such as the calculation rules of the SFDR-PAIIs and
ment)
1
2
3
4 5
1: Yes, regulation could contribute to solve some
problems, but it needs to be accompanied by
adequate efforts to improve market practices of
multiple actors (e.g. companies reporting on
peformances, data providers improving the
sophistication of climate tools, etc.) — 52% (17)
2: Regulation would be more helpful in other areas
rather than in the data market (e.g. strengthen
the reporting requirements for companies, or
clarify some existing EU regulations, such as the
calculation rules of the SFDR-PAIIs and the
Taxonomy alignment)— 21% (7)
3: Yes, regulation would be helpful— 18% (6)
4: Don’t know/No opinion — 6% (2)
5: We do not see the necessity at this stage of reg
ulatory interventions, as we think the market will
naturally evolve and improve with time— 3% (1)
Fig. 16: “Regulatory interventions would help address
the challenges regarding external providers’ data,
analysis & research on climate” – distribution of
responses.
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
77% (23)
60% (18)
66% (20)
43% (13)
40% (12)
43% (13)
33% (10)
13% (4)
20% (6)
17% (5)
27% (8)
27% (8)
23% (7)
30% (9)
7% (2)
10% (3)
0% (0)
10% (3)
10% (3)
10% (3)
20% (6)
3% (1)
10% (3)
10% (3)
13% (4)
20% (6)
17% (5)
14% (4)
0% (0)
0% (0)
7% (2)
7% (2)
3% (1)
7% (2)
3% (1)
Very useful Somewhat useful Not very useful Not at all useful Don't know / no opinion
Data sets required to comply with EU
regulation (e.g. environmental
SFDR-PAIIs, Taxonomy-alignment)
Climate-related screenings (e.g. to
assess companies involvement in the
extraction of fossil fuels)
All climate-related data products measuring
companies’ performances (e.g.
GHG emissions, carbon intensity, etc.)
Forward-looking analytical tools (e.g.
Implied Temperature Rise metrics)
Ratings*
Assessments of physical and
transition risks
Scores (evaluation of a company’ performance
against a specific set of criteria
obtained using pre-establihed statistical/
quantitative models.)
*Ratings: evaluation of a company’s performance against a specific set of criteria composed of quantitative models and qualitative analysis; ratings may
incorporate analytical judgement or opinions and are usually accompanied by analyst reports explaining the outcome of their evaluation)
Fig. 17: Perceived usefulness of regulating different types of climate-related data, analytical tools & research products
of external providers.
Survey respondents highlighted they
would find it helpful if data sets required
to comply with EU regulation were regulated;
this pertains to data regarding environmental
SFDR-PAIIs or EU-Taxonomy
alignment. During the qualitative interviews,
many experts indicated that they
are currently interested in such external
data sets primarily for compliance reasons.
Once reported by companies, this
information is expected to be more relevant
and useful for their actual investment
strategies and decisions. The differing
implementation timelines of the
different pieces of the current EU sustainable
finance regulatory framework and related
obligations to companies and financial
market participants have led to some
regulatory misalignments and mismatches.
Practitioners hope that these discrepancies
will be progressively fixed and the
necessary adjustments put in place.
More broadly, surveyed asset managers
andownerswouldalsoappreciatearegulation
of data providers offering climate-related
screenings and performance measurement
products. Their main concerns
centre around the lack of transparency on
the methodologies of these products. Survey
participants do appreciate the variety
of perspectives offered by different data
providers, but deeper insights into the underlying
methodologies would help them
to more efficiently identify those data sets
that best meet their needs. In relation to
this, one interviewee suggested introducing
transparency obligations for research
providers towards evaluated companies,
enabling companies to access their own
scorings and results for different indicators.
According to this expert, this would
contribute to having more targeted conversations
between companies and investors,
but also allow companies to suggest
improvements to providers’ data or even
methods and to better understand how research
providers assess their climate-related
risks and impacts.
At the same time, interviewed experts
also acknowledge that the added value
of using information from several external
data providers builds upon the variety
and diversity of their modelling. In this
context, one-size-fits-all regulatory approaches
would likely be counterproductive
to maintaining this level of diversity
as well as the level of detail and specificity
that currently characterises many data
products. Respondents further agree that
fixed common rules on methodologies
would likely hinder innovation and that
very stringent requirements could drive
up costs and thereby make sustainable
investment approaches less competitive. 23
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
3% (1)
10% (3)
Introduce transparency requirements on the
methodologies
Harmonise the definitions used in the market
Introduce transparency requirements on the relative
proportion of estimates and publicly available data
Introduce transparency requirements on the sources
of data
Introduce transparency requirements on how data are
collected
Introduce a minimum level of standardisation in the
calculation of estimates
Introduce transparency requirements on the KPIs and
methodologies used by external providers to elaborate
forward-looking indicators
Speed-up the process for implementing initiatives aimed
at creating publicly available databases (e.g. the European
Single Access Data Point - ESAP)
Introduce transparency requirements on the potential
conflicts of interests between rating providers and
clients / rated firms
Regulate the modalities for conducting the methodological
updates, and render the overall process more
transparent towards the market and the users
Introduce transparency requirements on the weights
associated to different indicators
Get external providers to explain the objectives of their
analysis (e.g. is the rating intended to evaluate the exposure
of the company to climate-related risks, or rather to
judge the impact of the company on climate issues?)
Other (please specify)
83% (25)
77% (23)
73% (22)
73% (22)
70% (21)
67% (20)
67% (20)
57% (17)
53% (16)
50% (15)
47% (14)
47% (14)
10% (3)
Therefore, the most cited preferred regulatory
measures to improve the reliability and
quality of external providers’ climate-related
data, analytical tools and research
products, revolve around introducing
transparency requirements regarding
methodologies,researchanddatacollection
processes,aswellasdatasources(cf.Fig.18).
All interviewees were very welcoming of
the Directives on Corporate Sustainability
Reporting (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainable
Due Diligence (CSDDD). Once
both regulations are fully implemented,
the availability and reliability of data are
expected to progressively improve. As
corporate reporting requirements will be
put in place, these will also accelerate
convergence towards common practices.
Survey participants believe that this
will also enable external data providers to
design better methodologies and provide
better ratings and data sets to investors. At
the same time, asset managers and owners
will themselves be able to carry out more
accurate analyses of investee companies.
Other much-awaited developments are the
increasing availability of data on Taxonomy
alignment and SFDR PAIIs. Generally, industry
practitioners advocate for more regulatory
harmonisation globally, as most of their
firms operate in more than one jurisdiction.
Asset managers and owners also acknowledge
the existence of areas or topics for
which their expertise and practices are still
immature (e.g. biodiversity). In such cases,
many believe that it would be better for the
markettofirsttestandprovidesolutionsthat
couldthenbebuiltuponbyregulation.Atthe
same time, the financial industry seems to
be aware of the need to build internal skills
and capabilities to understand and interpret
corresponding information and data.
Fig. 18: Preferred regulatory measures to improve the reliability and quality of external providers’ data, analytical
tools & research products focusing on climate.
24
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
•	 Dialogues and engagements with investees
serve as important additional
channels to source climate-related
information from companies but also
to pursue climate-related investment
objectives.
Requirements regarding climate-related
information in investment processes:
•	 Study participants expressed a strong
need for decision-useful climate-related
information and data that serves
to inform actual investment decisions.
•	 Company-reported “raw data” (e.g. on
GHG emissions) is considered to be
particularly valuable but processed
data from external providers (e.g., climate-related
ratings or scores) is also
appreciated.
•	 In both cases, study participants consider
the transparency and understandability
of underlying calculation
methods (plus research processes and
sources for data from external providers)
to be of the utmost importance.
•	 Study participants are particularly interested
in forward-looking information
and metrics to be able to identify
and manage climate-related risks and
opportunities in their portfolios. However,
they currently struggle to find reliable
forward-looking indicators.
•	 A fundamental baseline requirement
for decision-useful climate-related
data points is that they are widely
available (e.g. high coverage also for
small- and mid-caps, across regions
and asset classes).
•	 Asset managers and owners participating
in the study expressed a general
desire for at least some more standardised
and comparable data points,
particularly forward-looking ones.
4. Summary and policy recommendations
The present study examined asset managers’
and asset owners’ operating in Europe’s
current use of and requirements regarding
climate-related information for the purpose
of its integration and consideration in their
investment processes.
Based on a quantitative survey conducted
among asset managers and owners and
additional qualitative interviews with financial
industry professionals, most of
them working for asset management firms
in ESG- and sustainability-related roles, the
main findings can be summarised as fol-
lows:
Usage of climate-related information in investment
processes:
•	 While the use of climate-related information
in investment processes is
now a matter of course, the breadth and
depth of its integration into investment
decisions and processes varies.
•	 Most study participants look at climate-related
information from a risk
and impact perspective.
•	 Next to exclusion strategies, among the
most used approaches for integrating
climate-related information in investment
processes are screenings – for
example, based on sector or business
involvements, levels of GHG emissions,
or climate-related risks or impacts.
•	 Less prominent are forward-looking
metrics such as climate targets and
transition plans.
•	 The main climate-related information
sources used by asset managers and
owners are corporate reporting and
data sourced from external service pro-
viders.
•	 Study participants either integrate this
information into proprietary models or
use standard models provided by external
agencies.
25
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
These findings provide the basis for the
following concrete, high-level recommendations.
These recommendations are primarily
targeted at EU policymakers and
standard setters and address the question
of how asset managers’ and owners’ requirements
regarding climate-related data
and information can be better served, focusing
on the two main sources of information
mentioned in this survey: company-reported
information and data provided
by external agencies.
Although climate change is likely one of
the most standardised ESG investment
topics, with some established metrics and
reporting standards already in place, investors
still face various related information
challenges. It is therefore likely that many
of this study’s results – and by extension
recommendations – are transferable to
other ESG investment topics.
4.1. Recommendations regarding company-reported
climate-related information
and data
Continue to promote better availability,
quality, and comparability of climate-related
corporate information and data.
Climate-related information disclosed by
companies is considered to be particularly
useful to enable informed investment decisions
by investors. Improved climate-related
corporate reporting would in turn also
enhance the quality of external providers’
products using this data. Related ongoing
regulatory initiatives such as the development
of climate-related European Sustainability
Reporting Standards (ESRS) in
the context of the Corporate Sustainability
Reporting Directive (CSRD) should be pursued
with full force. Harmonised reporting
standards – including standardised
provisions for the calculation methods of
key data points (such as GHG emissions
according to the GHG Protocol) would significantly
improve the comparability of
climate-related information across companies
and industries. In this context, policymakers
should strive for the greatest possible
interoperability between the ESRS and
the Climate-related Disclosures standards
developed by the International Sustainability
Standards Board (ISSB). 26
Aiming for ambitious disclosure standards
based on a double materiality approach
that covers climate targets and transition
plans as well as the corporate value.
Study participants have clearly expressed
the need for a wide range of decision-useful
data points to inform their investment
decisions both from a climate-related risk
and impact perspective. They are supportive
of the double materiality approach proposed
in the ESRS, which includes both
ESG factors that could have a material impact
on companies’ financial performance
and their material impacts on sustainability
factors (people and/or the environment).
This perspective is considered important to
enable a holistic understanding of companies’
climate-related performance.
Study participants are looking for comprehensive
climate-related information that
particularly also covers companies’ value
chains and future climate-related projections.
Policymakers should therefore maintain
the current level of ambition for the
ESRS. Corporate climate-related disclosure
obligations must cover the value chain –
including standardised reporting on scope
3 emissions. Furthermore, the disclosure of
forward-looking information, such as climate-related
targets, risks, opportunities
and transition plans should be strengthened.
This would allow investors to better
assess companies’ alignment with global
climate goals, their preparedness for the
transition to a low-carbon economy as well
as the potential impact of different climate
scenarios on their financial performance.
Reporting requirements regarding corporate
climate targets and transition plans
could also incentivise companies to improve
their actual performance in these regards
and to, for example, set science-based
emission reduction targets aligned with the
Paris Agreement.
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
4.2. Recommendations regarding climate-related
information and data from
external providers
Improve external providers’ transparency
regarding methodologies, research processes,
and data sources.
Asset managers and asset owners who participated
in the study had a clear preference
regarding regulatory measures to improve
the reliability and quality of external data
providers’ climate-related information: the
introduction of transparency requirements
regarding their methodologies, research
processes and data sources. The forthcoming
legislative proposal on ESG rating
providers, expected to be presented by the
European Commission by end June 2023,
constitutes a great opportunity to address
this.
Support the development of accurate, science-based
climate-related indicators with
a focus on forward-looking metrics.
Study participants voiced strong concerns,
particularly regarding the scientific soundness
and reliability of some forward-looking
climate-related metrics currently available
from external data providers. In this
context, interviewed experts highlighted
the role of the scientific community in supporting
the development of more trustworthy
and accurate forward-looking metrics.
EU policymakers should proactively support
the involvement of the scientific community
and the development of accurate,
science-based climate-related indicators
with a focus on forward-looking metrics.
27
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
We would like to thank the members of the Eurosif Climate Reporting
and Indicators Advisory Group (CRI AG), as well as other practitioners
from the financial industry who kindly participated in
the study, for the time and energy they dedicated to this project.
Each of the AG members and other experts participated in the AG
in an individual capacity and demonstrated a strong personal interest
in improving the EU’s climate information landscape. Their
experience, expertise and insights were invaluable in enabling the
development of the above policy recommendations. We would like
to acknowledge and thank experts from the following companies /
organisations:
Allianz Global Investors
Avanzi Etica SICAF EuVECA S.p.A.
Cicero Fonder
East Capital Group
Edmond de Rothschild
Ersel Spa
Erste Asset Management GmbH
ESG Portfolio Management
Fidelity International
First Sentier Investors
Groupama Asset Management
Harmonie Mutuelle
KBI Global Investors
La Banque Postale Asset Management and Tocqueville Finance
Nordea Asset Management
Ostrum Asset Management
SEB Investment Management
Serafin Asset Management
Skandia
Smartreactor
Swiss Finance & Property Group
Sycomore Asset Management
We would also like to thank Prof. Timo Bush from the University
of Hamburg and his team for their support in finalising the report.
Graphic design
Anne Risse
Disclaimer
The contents of this report do not necessarily represent, partially or
fully, the personal views of individual AG members nor the views of
the organisations where they are employed.
Acknowledgements
28
Eurosif Report on Climate-related Data
For further information please visit:
www.eurosif.org