Industry Trends & Analysis

Doing More with Less: How Infrastructure Investors Can Focus on the Climate Strategies that Really Work 

Reading time
:
5mn

Introduction: “Work with What Works”

The infrastructure sector sits at the heart of the global climate challenge. It is responsible for a substantial share of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – transport alone generates about 20% of the global total – and at the same time faces accelerating physical damage risks from the extreme weather events triggered by an evolving climate. Up to 54% of global infrastructure value may be at risk from climate-induced weather events if no adaptation is undertaken[1].

Yet despite this dual exposure, the industry’s response has been patchy at best. Fewer than a third of major infrastructure companies disclose credible emissions reduction strategies, and even fewer report meaningfully on climate resilience. Companies can all too often highlight strategies that are being deployed (such as improved waste management is or active mobility) but which have little meaningful impact on an asset’s carbon footprint.

The research undertaken by EDHEC Climate Institute’s ClimaTech 2050 Project – which evaluated more than 100 decarbonisation and resilience strategies across 101 infrastructure asset subclasses – highlights this challenge. Mapping strategies by both their decarbonisation effectiveness and their frequency of use reveals four distinct clusters, with very different implications for investors, asset managers, and policymakers (Figure 1). It is worth noting that in the ClimaTech project, we focussed only on the most impactful strategies; however, in this note we also give an overview of the lower impact strategies that are popular in business practice – and some explanation to their popularity. 

Figure 1: The best and the rest – deployment versus impact of “green” strategies

The best and the rest – deployment versus impact of “green” strategies - ClimaTech

 

Quadrant One: Widely Applicable Levers
Effective and Frequently Deployed

Where the industry gets it right, the data is clear. A cluster of high-effectiveness strategies is both broadly applicable across infrastructure classes and already widely in use. These are the workhorses of infrastructure decarbonisation and deserve continued – and indeed accelerated – deployment.

For example:

  • Electrification of Transport Infrastructure
    Replacing internal combustion engine vehicles and equipment with electric equivalents is the single most cross-cutting decarbonisation strategy, applicable to all eight TICCS infrastructure superclasses (see Box 1). Paired with low-carbon electricity procurement, it can eliminate the majority of Scope 1 and 2 emissions from maintenance fleets, site vehicles, and operational equipment. Even on today’s partially decarbonised grids, electric vehicles deliver substantially lower lifetime emissions than petrol or diesel equivalents[2] .
  • Renewable Energy – Off-Site Purchase Agreements (PPAs)
    PPAs enable infrastructure operators who lack space or resource for on-site generation to access renewable electricity contractually. Applicable to all eight superclasses, they have become a mainstream tool, though their integrity varies considerably – investors should scrutinise additionality and matching claims closely.

The strategies in this quadrant share critical characteristics: mature technology, proven economics, and broad applicability. Their prevalence in portfolios reflects rational decision-making and should continue to accelerate.

 

Box 1 TICCS®, the Infrastructure Company Classification Standard,

 

Quadrant Two: Niche but Powerful:
High Impact, Sector-Specific, Rarely Deployed

 

Some tools can have a genuinely transformative effect on an asset’s carbon credentials but are useful in only a narrow subset of assets. However, for those assets, they are transformational. Take-up can also be hampered by structural barriers such as poorly developed supply lines. 

For example:

  • Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) for Flue Gas
    For combustion-based power generation, CCS is among the highest-impact strategies available – capable of capturing 65-95%+ of combustion CO2 emissions. Commercial deployment remains limited, hampered by high capital costs, integration complexity, and insufficient supporting infrastructure despite it being seen as essential to net-zero pathways in hard-to-abate power sectors[4] . For nuclear power paired with direct air capture, it offers the prospect of net carbon removal. Investors holding non-renewable power assets facing stranded-asset risk should treat CCS readiness as a material valuation factor.
  • Smart Grid Technologies
    For electricity transmission and distribution networks, advanced grid management – including high-voltage direct current transmission, dynamic load balancing, and AI-driven grid optimisation – can substantially reduce transmission losses. Solely within networked utilities, these technologies represent high-impact, strategically critical interventions. National Grid’s work on sulphur hexafluoride (SF6; see Box 2) elimination and grid modernisation[5] illustrates the scale of the opportunity.
  • Reducing Fugitive Methane and SF6 Emissions
    For gas pipelines, LNG facilities, water networks, and electrical switchgear, fugitive emissions of methane and SF6 represent significant Scope 1 exposures. Leak detection and repair systems for pipelines are cost-effective and technologically mature[6] . SF6-free switchgear alternatives are now commercially available and falling in cost. For the right assets, these are high-return interventions.

 

Box 2 ClimaTech

 

Quadrant Three: Commonly Used, Moderate Effectiveness
A useful addition to the arsenal, but needs the big guns too

These are the strategies that have a modest but meaningful impact on reducing the carbon footprint of infrastructure and which have strong uptake. However, on their own they will not bring this asset class up to scratch when it comes to green credentials. 

For example:

  • Low-Carbon Construction Materials
    Specifying lower-carbon alternatives – a green steel, low-clinker cement, engineered timber – is now a well-established part of infrastructure procurement practice. Adoption has grown steadily[7] as cost premiums narrow and supply chains mature, though the full decarbonisation potential is still some way from being realised: switching materials reduces embodied carbon but does not eliminate it.
  • Sustainable Procurement
    Selecting suppliers and contractors with verified low-carbon credentials is a direct tool for addressing Scope 3 emissions, and is widely practised in corporate sustainability programmes broadly. Its moderate effectiveness reflects the breadth of its application rather than a lack of ambition; procurement decisions influence only one slice of an asset's total emissions profile, and the strategy works best in combination with others rather than as a standalone lever[8] .

 

Quadrant Four: Symbolic, Low Impact
Offers benefits, but not when it comes to carbon

The strategies in this quadrant are widely deployed, often deliver diverse values, and are entirely legitimate components of an Environmental, Social, and Governance programme (see Box 3). However, they have little to no impact on an asset’s carbon footprint and can crowd out the real decarbonisation work.

That’s why, when we put together the ClimaTech project, we decided not to focus on these strategies. Instead, we put our time and effort into those techniques and opportunities that give more bang for buck – and make a more impactful reduction to asset carbon footprints. Quadrant four is made up of measures that can give operational, social, or reputational benefits – but investors should be clear-eyed that meaningful carbon reduction is not among them.

For example:

  • Waste Management Practices
    Improved waste management is ubiquitous in sustainability reports. However, its contribution to overall asset emissions is marginal as operational waste typically constitutes a tiny fraction of Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions in infrastructure (see Table 1). Carbon reduction requires attention elsewhere.
  • Low-Carbon Transport Infrastructure – Active Mobility
    Cycling infrastructure and pedestrian improvements are popular in transport and social infrastructure sustainability strategies – and for good reason. The public health, congestion, and urban amenity benefits are well established. Alas, those emission savings largely accrue to users, not to the asset. This is a tactic that belongs in an ESG strategy[9] , and particularly in a Scope 3 reduction plan for transport asset owners, but investors should not expect it to substantially move the needle on an asset's overall carbon footprint[10] .

The common thread here is that these strategies are accessible, reportable, and often genuinely beneficial to stakeholders – which explains their prevalence. These are legitimate tools, not be abandoned; the risk lies in allowing them to dominate a climate strategy at the expense of higher-impact action. For investors conducting due diligence, a portfolio narrative built primarily on these measures warrants a closer look.

It is also important to distinguish them from greenwashing tactics. This is when businesses represent themselves as more sustainable than they truly are, giving climate-positive optics to aspects of their business either by providing misleading information regarding a product’s sustainability or labelling business practices or products as “green” when they offer no climate advantage over what is already typical. 

Greenwashing erodes trust and can have significant repercussions. Importantly, it is not a static concept – it occurs on a spectrum, ranging from outright deceit to wishful thinking, and adds yet another layer of complexity to gauging the climate credentials of investments. The EDHEC Climate Institute’s ClimaTech 2050 Project clearly grades “green” practices by their effectiveness, and our research has focussed on the tools that actually work, not on the ones that look good in a marketing leaflet.

 

Quadrant Summary

Taken together, Quadrants One and Three show where infrastructure decarbonisation is genuinely working: mature, broadly applicable technologies are scaling, and procurement-led strategies are steadily improving the carbon profile of new build and refurbishment. 

The picture changes in Quadrant Two. Here sit some of the single most powerful levers available to the sector, but their impact can be easy to overlook in a portfolio-level narrative. For investors with exposure to non-renewable power, gas and water networks, or electricity transmission, these niche strategies are not optional extras; they are often the single biggest determinant of whether a specific asset can credibly reach net zero. 

Quadrant Four is the one to step away from when assessing real reduction in carbon footprints as they have little to no meaningful impact.

 

The Investment Imperative

The pattern that emerges from this analysis has direct implications for how investors and asset managers should approach climate strategy in infrastructure portfolios.

  • First, disclosure scrutiny must deepen. 
    The prevalence of low-impact strategies in sustainability reports is a material risk signal, not a reassurance. The EDHEC Climate Institute’s ClimaTech 2050 Project gives investors a way of gauging just how much a company’s activities are actually likely to cut its emissions. Once you know exactly which measures are of value in which segments, it becomes possible to distinguish the green from the greenwashing.
  • Second, the widely applicable levers deserve continued scaling. 
    The economics are proven, the technology is mature, and the deployment barriers are falling. Accelerating these is the lowest-hanging fruit in infrastructure decarbonisation.
  • Third, the highest-impact strategies deserve disproportionate effort. 
    Where a strategy can deliver transformational decarbonisation for a given asset type, investment should be directed to optimise and fully deploy it. These are not niche curiosities to be addressed once the easier wins are exhausted; they are value creation opportunities, and should be treated as a priority for science, capital allocation, and global infrastructure planning alike. Closing the gap between proven effectiveness and actual deployment presents one of this sector’s biggest opportunities as it chases a net-zero trajectory.

Stepping back, the overall picture for infrastructure decarbonisation is one of real but uneven progress. The broadly applicable levers – electrification, renewable procurement, and operational efficiency – are scaling well and represent the sector's clearest success story; the technology is proven and adoption is accelerating. Moderate-impact, well-deployed strategies such as low-carbon materials and sustainable procurement are also moving in the right direction, even if their reach is inherently partial. 

A cause for concern is the slow uptake of the highest-impact, asset-specific strategies such as carbon capture, smart grid technology, and fugitive emissions control. Here, the economics are sound but capital, infrastructure, and policy support have lagged the urgency of the opportunity. Climate-aligned infrastructure investment needs to help close this gap.

The EDHEC ClimaTech 2050 framework maps over 1,800 unique asset-strategy applications across 101 infrastructure subclasses. The intelligence exists to act precisely and effectively. Our intention is to provide investors with the strongest possible arsenal of tools for identifying which businesses are adopting strategies that actually reduce emissions – and those that are just going with what feels good or is easy to explain.

This article draws on findings from the EDHEC Climate Institute’s ClimaTech 2050 Project. Our overarching document “Reducing Infrastructure Climate Risk Through Technology Measures: An Overview” (Arnold, Hubert & Manocha, June 2025) summarises the findings of our research, while full methodology and sector deep dives are available at climateimpact.edhec.edu.

Footnotes

[1] https://edhec.infrastructure.institute/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/p1102…

[9] Environmental, Social, and Governance – often termed ESG – is a framework that measures a company's impact and integrity across three dimensions that together determine long-term resilience and value, well beyond what the income statement alone can reveal. Quadrant Four is exactly where ESG’s broader value becomes visible.