Addressing this challenge requires decarbonisation to be integrated into planning, feasibility, risk assessment and stakeholder engagement processes from the outset. Early consultation, coalition-building and identification of delivery barriers can help organisations align priorities, assess trade-offs, reduce implementation risk and avoid costly redesign or delays later in the project lifecycle. Governance: Decarbonisation must become a core business decision Infrastructure decarbonisation is moving beyond sustainability teams and becoming integrated into core organisational decision-making. Deloitte’s 2025 CxO Sustainability Report found that nearly 80 percent of executives say sustainability is either embedded across their organisation or driving broader business model transformation. In practice, this means decarbonisation is being considered alongside legal, financial, operational and risk management priorities, rather than as a standalone sustainability initiative. Despite this shift, many organisations still struggle to integrate decarbonisation into core governance and feasibility processes. Common gaps include unclear boundaries, delayed decision-making and weak integration with legal, financial and operational functions. These challenges can make it difficult to align accountability, assess trade-offs consistently or respond effectively as conditions change over time. As a result, decarbonisation decisions are often delayed, fragmented or disconnected from core investment and delivery processes.
Strong governance requires organisations to clearly define assumptions, boundaries and decision criteria from the outset, while acknowledging uncertainty explicitly rather than treating it as a temporary obstacle to overcome. It also requires clear accountability for decision-making, including who is responsible for providing inputs, assessing trade- offs and approving a course of action. Governance processes should allow decisions to be revisited as technologies, markets and policy conditions change, ensuring assumptions remain valid and responsibilities remain clear over time. As scrutiny around implementation continues to grow, transparency and accountability are becoming increasingly important to maintaining stakeholder confidence. Operationalising decarbonisation in practice In practice, these challenges often emerge during project delivery, where organisations are required to balance funding constraints, delivery risks and long- term decarbonisation objectives before conditions have fully stabilised.
Funding: Targets need a credible delivery path
Timelines: Early decisions shape long-term outcomes Building credible delivery pathways requires decarbonisation to be considered early in infrastructure planning and feasibility processes. Infrastructure assets are often designed to operate for decades⁶, with many remaining in service for more than 50 years. Decisions made during early planning and feasibility stages can shape emissions trajectories, operating costs, resilience and system flexibility over the life of the asset, while influencing how easily organisations can adapt to changing technologies, markets and policy conditions. However, many of the most consequential decarbonisation decisions are made well before procurement or construction begins, requiring organisations to move forward before technologies, standards and markets have fully stabilised. Poorly timed or narrowly scoped decisions can lock in carbon- intensive pathways⁷ or create stranded assets, while effective decarbonisation planning depends on making disciplined early decisions that preserve future adaptability.
For infrastructure organisations managing long-lived and capital-intensive assets, decarbonisation strategies must be supported by credible funding and implementation pathways. Investors are using climate transition plans to inform capital allocation, risk assessment and valuation⁵, while stakeholders are looking beyond targets to understand how projects will actually be delivered in practice. This includes understanding key trade-offs between cost and emissions reduction, resilience and decarbonisation and near-term delivery and future optimisation, alongside how projects will be funded and the assumptions underpinning delivery. At the same time, inaccurate, inadequate or unreliable transition plan disclosures can contribute to asset mispricing, capital misallocation and greenwashing risks, increasing the importance of credible and transparent planning. Organisations need decarbonisation plans that are decision-ready, with clear emissions baselines, comparable delivery options and credible implementation pathways supported by defined ownership of risks and dependencies. The decisions that lock in emissions are made first, not last
50+ years of operation
Planning
Feasibility
Procurement
Construction
Most consequential decarbonisation decisions made here
The highest leverage decarbonisation choices happen BEFORE procurement or construction,
yet assets run for decades.
24 | GHD | Nexus Magazine
Nexus Magazine | GHD | 25
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online