Want investment? Be prepared to prove your energy performance

There was a time when sustainability reporting was largely about demonstrating good intentions.

That time is ending.

Today, some of Europe's largest investors, lenders, auditors, and regulators are asking tougher questions. They want evidence. They want consistency. Most importantly, they want to understand whether the numbers they are being shown can be trusted.

Sustainability is becoming a due diligence issue

The introduction of CSRD is accelerating a shift that was already underway.

Sustainability information is becoming more standardised, more transparent, and more closely examined. Companies are increasingly expected to produce information that can withstand external assurance, much like financial reporting.

This changes the conversation.

It is no longer enough to say energy consumption has improved. You need to show how you measured it, where the data came from, and whether someone else could verify the result.

Why energy data matters

For many organisations, energy sits at the centre of operational risk, carbon reduction plans, and future investment decisions. Investors understand this.

Energy performance influences operating costs. It affects exposure to future regulation. It impacts carbon reporting. It can even influence the credibility of wider sustainability commitments.

As a result, organisations are increasingly being asked to provide evidence rather than estimates. Not because investors suddenly care about meter readings. Because they care about risk.

Auditors are changing expectations

The major accounting firms are investing heavily in sustainability assurance services. At the same time, regulators are making it clear that sustainability information must become more reliable, consistent, and auditable.

Research from IMD examining some of the first CSRD reports found that organisations are being held to a more consistent standard, making sustainability disclosures easier to compare and scrutinise. As a result, sustainability reporting is moving out of the communications function and into the boardroom.

The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has explicitly stated that CSRD assurance exists to support reliable and consistent sustainability reporting so investors can make informed decisions.

Boards, audit committees, investors, and lenders are all asking variations of the same question. Can we trust the data?

From reporting to proof

This is why energy reporting is evolving into something much closer to energy accounting.

Not simply recording consumption, but creating a structured, traceable, and auditable record of performance. The organisations that will be best positioned for future investment will not necessarily be those making the biggest promises.

They will be the organisations that can prove what is actually happening. Because increasingly, investors are asking the same question as auditors.

"Can you show me the evidence?"

The most expensive energy project is the one you never needed

When people talk about expensive energy projects, they usually mean the ones that ran over budget, or the ones that didn’t deliver the savings promised on the slide deck.

There’s a bigger cost that almost never gets discussed: the infrastructure that should never have been built at all.

The mistake happens long before anyone signs a contract

Right across Europe, organisations are pouring millions into bigger electrical connections, oversized heat pumps, extra plant, and energy upgrades because they believe their buildings need it.

Often, they don’t.

It usually starts innocently enough. A historic design calculation here. A consultant’s estimate there. A generic demand profile borrowed from a similar building. A few gaps in the operational data, filled in with best guesses.

None of these decisions feel reckless in the moment. Each one looks reasonable on its own. Stack them together, though, and you get a business case that sails through the boardroom — built almost entirely on assumption.

By the time anyone finds out, the money is already spent

It’s usually much later that the real operational demand turns out to be a fraction of what was planned for. By then, the capital is already committed. There’s no getting it back.

This is exactly why better technology was never going to fix this. Better evidence is what fixes it.

Measure first. Invest second.

At Dublin Airport, actual operational measurements showed demand was significantly lower than the figures used during planning. That single piece of evidence changed the infrastructure specification before any money was committed, and avoided capital expenditure the organisation never needed to spend.

The cheapest project isn’t always the smartest investment.

Sometimes the smartest investment is the project you never have to build.

The uncomfortable truth about energy strategy in Europe

There is a gap in the energy conversation that not many want to admit, because while marketing statements continue to dominate, the system itself has already shifted toward accountability and proof.

Buildings account for around 40% of total energy consumption in the EU and 36% of emissions (EDA Europa), which makes them the single largest energy challenge across the region, yet most strategies still rely on targets, averages, and assumed performance rather than verified outcomes.

This is where the comparison with financial management becomes unavoidable, because no organisation would run its finances on assumptions, estimates, or outdated reports, and yet this is exactly how energy is still being managed.

Energy is still not managed like finances

Every organisation understands how to manage financial risk, because there are systems in place that provide continuous visibility, structured reporting, and clear accountability, which allows decisions to be made with confidence at board level.

Energy does not receive the same treatment.

Data is fragmented, delayed, and often unreliable, which means leaders are signing off on energy strategies without the equivalent of a balance sheet view, creating a situation where risk is not removed but hidden.

Energy spend may sit as a relatively small line on the P&L, but the risk associated with energy goes far beyond cost. An organisation’s sustainability position, its ability to access finance on favourable terms, and its attractiveness for investment or acquisition increasingly depend on having reliable, auditable energy data.

Without that foundation, decisions cannot be verified, performance cannot be trusted, and risk cannot be properly managed.

Around 75% of EU buildings are still classified as energy inefficient (European Commission), while renovation rates remain at roughly 1% per year, meaning the underlying problem is not being addressed at the pace required.

Efficiency gains without control

Efficiency improvements are being made, but overall demand is not falling in line with expectations, as increased usage and expanding operations continue to offset those gains.

This creates the illusion of progress without delivering real control. In financial terms, it is the equivalent of cutting costs in one area while allowing spending to rise elsewhere, resulting in no meaningful improvement.

European policy is clear in its direction, with the goal of a fully decarbonised building stock by 2050, and recent crisis-driven measures have shown that rapid reductions are possible, as seen in the 17% reduction in gas demand between 2022 and 2025 (IEEFA).

However, policy is no longer the limiting factor. Execution is.

The real risk sits on the balance sheet

Most organisations still frame energy as a sustainability issue, but energy performance now carries financial, operational, and reputational consequences that show up in due diligence, reporting, and long-term cost structures.

The risk is not missing a target. The risk is making decisions without evidence.

What needs to change

The shift required is not about ambition, but about adopting a financial mindset toward energy, where visibility is continuous, data is structured, and performance can be interrogated at any moment.

Energy needs to be managed like money, with clear baselines, ongoing tracking, and the ability to explain every deviation, because without that level of control, strategy will continue to drift away from reality.

Back to

Knowledge Academy

sustainability

Energy price volatility is now a financial risk

Energy prices don’t just fluctuate anymore, they move in ways that are hard to predict and even harder to plan for. Energy price volatility is now a financial risk.

For a long time, energy was treated as a cost you could manage, negotiate a contract, improve efficiency, and move on. That only works when prices are relatively stable.

That stability is gone.

The market has changed

Across Europe, energy prices now shift quickly, driven by supply issues, geopolitical tension, and the growing reliance on renewables that depend on weather conditions.

There are still calmer periods, but they sit within a wider pattern of disruption. Prices can rise sharply, then drop again, often without much warning. Electricity prices in the EU increased more than fourfold in a short period and remain vulnerable to geopolitical shocks, even after stabilising.

This is not a temporary phase, it is how the market behaves now.

Why this hits financial performance

When prices move like this, energy stops being a predictable cost. It starts affecting forecasts, margins, and investment decisions. What looked manageable at the start of the year can shift quickly, making budgets unreliable and long-term planning harder.

Energy is no longer just something operations deal with, it directly affects financial outcomes. The focus is usually on market prices, but the bigger issue is often internal.

Many organisations don’t have a clear view of how energy is actually used. Demand patterns are unclear, inefficiencies are hidden, and cost drivers are not well understood.

That makes it difficult to respond when prices change, because there is no solid baseline to work from.

Why this is becoming a board-level issue

This is where the shift happens. Energy volatility now affects financial planning, risk management, and overall performance, which means it can’t sit in the background anymore.

It needs to be understood at leadership level, in the same way as any other financial risk. You can’t control the market. But you can control how exposed you are to it.

That starts with understanding how energy behaves inside your organisation, not just what you pay for it, but what is driving it. Without that, you are reacting. With it, you can plan.

Volatility is not going away. The real risk is not being able to deal with it.

Energy has moved from a commodity cost to a critical resource that needs to be managed, understood, and accounted for, just like any other financial driver.

Back to

Knowledge Academy

sustainability

Energy risk moves onto the balance sheet

At the 2026 Dublin Real Estate Outlook event, James Byrne and Catherine Duggan will address a shift that is becoming difficult to ignore. Energy risk is no longer operational. It is financial.

Poor visibility on energy performance is already affecting asset value, forecasting, and investment decisions. When energy is not properly accounted for, risk remains hidden. When plans are based on incomplete insight, exposure increases.

“Organisations would never make financial decisions without proper accounts. Yet that is still how many energy decisions are made.”

The implication is straightforward. Energy needs to be managed with the same discipline as finance. That requires structured insight, clear accountability, and a way to test decisions before capital is committed.

For more information, go to: https://www.bisnow.com/events/dublin/state-of-market/dublin-real-estate-outlook-2026-10445

Why energy data quality matters more than volume

The biggest problem with energy and carbon data isn’t that it’s missing. It’s what we think is reliable.

Most organisations genuinely believe they have their numbers under control. Spreadsheets, smart meters, and automated reports give the reassurance that everything adds up. But scratch beneath the surface, and you’ll often find gaps, inconsistencies, and figures that can’t be traced back to the source. The data looks solid, but can you rely on it and more importantly, will it pass an independent audit process? When it comes to energy data, quality will always trump quantity.

The illusion of reliability

We live in the era of data. Most of us are surrounded by more information than we can process, and we’ve come to assume that volume equals truth. But we rarely stop to ask where the data comes from, how it’s managed, or what quality checks exist behind it.

Many of the processes we still use to gather and manage data were designed long before digital systems — some even before the advent of the personal computer. Over time, we’ve layered technology on top, automated the routines, and made them faster. But we haven’t always made them better.

This is especially evident in how we handle energy and carbon information. The systems most organisations use are patchy at best, far below the standard we’d ever accept for financial data.

What finance gets right

Executives in well-run businesses expect accuracy, traceability, and confidence in their financial reporting. Every figure is tied to a source. Every record is auditable.

Imagine managing company finances using only monthly bank statements — with no insight into what those transactions comprised, no ledger, and no verification. Most of us would call that unthinkable and predict the business wouldn’t last long. Yet that’s precisely how many are still managing their energy and carbon performance.

Yet, in our experience, most organisations have plenty of data. The problem is that it’s often siloed, inconsistent, outdated or unverified. You’d never accept unverified figures when acquiring a new business. You’d check every assumption, every claim, every piece of supporting data before signing the deal. If anything didn’t add up, you’d walk away. The same scrutiny needs to be applied to our energy data.

Moving from assumption to assurance

The first step is straightforward enough: structure. Following an established framework such as ISO 50001 is a good start. It gives us a system for collecting, validating, and reporting energy and carbon data. But structure alone isn’t enough. Data quality has to be actively managed.

This means having the right systems that make the data visible, trustworthy, and insightful for planning, monitoring, and reporting purposes, as well as validating what’s already there.

Because in the end, sustainability decisions are only as good as the data behind them. Treating energy and carbon data with the same rigour as financial data isn’t bureaucracy — it’s credibility. Because the real risk isn’t having too little data, it’s trusting data that can’t be trusted.