As climate data becomes more prominent and sustainability expectations continue to rise, advisers need to focus less on chasing perfect metrics and more on applying informed judgement that reflects what clients actually want to achieve, says Elly Dowding and Lee Coates OBE, directors at In Accord and the Accord Initiative.
As we start another year in financial services, there’s a familiar sense that the volume of information available to advisers is only going in one direction. More data. More metrics. More disclosure. On paper, this should make advice easier. In reality, it often does the opposite.
Recent discussions across the advice profession have highlighted two issues that might appear separate – climate-related product reporting and lifelong learning – but which are tightly connected by one central theme: good outcomes depend on judgement, not just information.
Climate data is necessary – but never sufficient
Climate-related product reporting has matured quickly. Fund-level disclosures, carbon metrics and structured reports are now embedded into the regulatory landscape and increasingly familiar to advisers. That transparency matters.
What matters just as much is how the data is used.
Carbon footprint metrics are useful tools. They allow comparisons and can support conversations about alignment, exposure and preferences. What they cannot do – on their own – is explain whether a strategy is credible, whether governance and stewardship are effective, or whether capital is being directed towards genuine transition.
A low number is not automatically good. A high number is not automatically bad. Some of the most important transition opportunities sit with companies that are high emitters today but have credible, science-aligned plans to change. Excluding them outright can produce portfolios that look clean on paper while doing very little to influence outcomes in the real economy.
This is where advice earns its value. Data should inform decisions, not replace them. Without context, climate data risks becoming another blunt screening tool rather than a way of supporting client-led objectives.
Preferences first, portfolios second
What climate data is used for should always come back to the client. Some clients want strict values alignment. Others care more about transition and improvement. Many sit somewhere in between.
Problems arise when advisers start with the data and work backwards, rather than starting with the client and using the data appropriately. A portfolio constructed purely to minimise carbon exposure may suit one client perfectly and be entirely wrong for another.
Good advice requires clarity on what the client is trying to achieve, followed by informed judgement about which tools, metrics and strategies genuinely support that objective. Numbers are part of the picture – they are not the picture itself.
Learning isn’t optional anymore
The same applies to professional development. Regulation, markets, sustainability frameworks and client expectations are evolving at pace. Standing still isn’t neutral – unfortunately, it is a gradual drift out of relevance.
Lifelong learning is not just about formal qualifications. Structured CPD matters, but so does reading widely, engaging with evidence, understanding where data is robust and where it is weak, and being willing to challenge assumptions.
From a client perspective, this matters more than ever. Advisers need to understand the difference, for example, between screening-led and transition-led sustainability outcomes, regulatory labels and climate trade-offs.. And then be able to explain them clearly. That confidence doesn’t come from shortcuts. It comes from doing the work and having firm wide compliance in place to support the advice process.
From compliance to competence
There is a risk that sustainability data and disclosure are treated as another compliance exercise – something to evidence rather than something to understand. That would be a missed opportunity.
Used well, climate reporting can support better conversations, more tailored advice and stronger trust. Used poorly, it creates noise or a false sense of certainty.
The difference lies in adviser capability: not just technical knowledge, but judgement, curiosity and the confidence to explain what a metric does and does not tell you.
As sustainability becomes mainstream, climate data becomes unavoidable and expectations rise, learning and judgement are now core components of professional advice. The firms that recognise and act will be best placed to deliver good client outcomes in the years ahead.
This article draws on themes explored in a recent Accord Talks podcast episode. We invite you to listen to Accord Talks, where we share real conversations on sustainability, compliance, and the future of advice. Available on Spotify, Apple, Amazon and Pocket Casts.
Elly Dowding and Lee Coates OBE are the directors at In Accord and the Accord Initiative, which provides free-to-access education, resources, and compliance support to the financial advice sector.
Main image: ryunosuke-kikuno-mSsHqUGXChs-unsplash
