Climate data side-lined in UK business decisions
Climate information still plays no part in most major business decisions made across the UK, despite growing evidence that physical risks are already affecting operations, infrastructure and long-term investment planning. Research commissioned by Ordnance Survey found that only 33% of surveyed organisations use climate or environmental data when making strategic and investment decisions. The remaining two-thirds proceed without it.
The findings reveal a troubling gap. Businesses increasingly recognise that climate change threatens future performance, yet most still treat climate intelligence as an optional input rather than a standard component of capital allocation. For organisations managing critical infrastructure, property portfolios or multi-year projects, that gap can translate directly into avoidable costs, delayed schemes and poorly judged resilience spending.
The research matters because it measures what companies actually do, not what they say they intend to do. It also highlights a broader issue: businesses may lack confidence in the quality, relevance and usability of the climate data available to them, even when they understand the need for it.
Survey reveals low adoption of climate data across key sectors
Ordnance Survey surveyed 251 senior decision-makers across utilities, telecommunications and financial services between 20 and 27 March 2026. All respondents managed projects valued at £100,000 or more. The research formed part of OS's Building Decision Confidence in 2026 report, which examines how organisations assess data quality in high-value decisions.
Results showed that climate and environmental data ranked sixth among nine data sources used in major decisions. Consequently, it fell behind financial-market data, internal operational data, partner data, AI-generated insights and scenario modelling. Only 30% of respondents reported using location or geospatial data in major strategic decisions, despite the fact that climate impacts vary sharply between sites.
Furthermore, 19% of business leaders said uncertainty about future climate risks had contributed to project delays or higher costs. Meanwhile, 17% lacked confidence that they had the right information to support climate-risk decisions. The research suggests that the issue is not simply a lack of data. Instead, it reflects uncertainty over whether available information is sufficiently accurate, relevant and actionable.
Notably, 31% of respondents said data-quality concerns were undermining confidence in major decisions. In addition, 22% had revisited a significant strategic decision because the underlying information was incomplete or inaccurate. These figures point to a systemic problem: businesses may have access to climate projections but still struggle to connect them to specific assets, locations or investment options.
Infrastructure sectors report weakest confidence in climate information
Climate-risk planning recorded the lowest data confidence of all the decision areas examined in the OS research. Overall, 17% of respondents were not confident in the data available for environmental or climate-risk planning. However, the concern was particularly pronounced in sectors responsible for critical infrastructure.
Among utility-sector respondents, 20% lacked confidence in their climate-risk data. Similarly, 19% of telecommunications respondents reported the same concern. Financial-services respondents showed slightly higher confidence, with 12% lacking confidence in the information available for climate-risk planning.
The research also identified a gap between senior executives and those responsible for implementing decisions. While 88% of C-suite leaders expressed confidence in the data supporting climate-risk planning, that figure fell to 76% among senior managers. This suggests that concerns may become more visible closer to project delivery, where abstract projections must be converted into engineering specifications, site selections or procurement criteria.
For utilities and telecommunications companies, poor climate-risk intelligence can affect the resilience of networks and essential services. These sectors manage assets with lifespans measured in decades. A poorly sited substation, data centre or transmission network can remain vulnerable long after climate conditions have changed. For financial institutions, inadequate data can weaken assessments of borrowers, investments, property portfolios and physical assets exposed to extreme weather.
Climate concern rises but investment lags behind
Other UK data indicates that climate change is becoming a more prominent business concern, even if that concern has not yet translated into systematic use of climate evidence. The Office for National Statistics reported that 41% of businesses surveyed between 21 September and 4 October 2026 were very or somewhat concerned about the impact of climate change on their operations. This was the highest recorded proportion since February 2023.
Nevertheless, that increase in concern has not translated consistently into investment. Barclays research, based on a survey of 700 UK business leaders and farmers conducted in July and August 2026, found that 85% viewed investment in protection against extreme weather as critical to growth. Yet fewer than one in ten considered their business fully resilient and well adapted to climate change.
Barclays also found that only 30% of businesses primarily used data, modelling and scenario analysis to assess physical climate risk. More than half relied mainly on high-level assessments with limited data. Meanwhile, 19% relied on qualitative judgement or assumptions. Only one-quarter of surveyed businesses were currently investing to protect themselves from climate change, with competing priorities, uncertain returns and data gaps acting as major barriers.
The discrepancy is significant. Businesses may acknowledge that climate change threatens future performance while still treating climate information as an additional input rather than a standard component of strategic planning. This creates a situation where organisations express concern but continue to make long-term decisions without incorporating the data needed to evaluate adaptation options rigorously.
Location data remains underused despite its strategic value
Climate impacts are inherently location-dependent. Flood exposure, heat risk, wildfire vulnerability, water stress and supply-chain disruption can vary sharply between sites only a short distance apart. Therefore, connecting climate projections to specific assets, facilities and networks is essential for making abstract risks operationally useful.
The OS research places particular emphasis on geospatial information, which connects environmental risks to specific places. However, only 30% of surveyed organisations said they use location or geospatial data in major strategic decisions. This suggests that many businesses may be using national or regional climate projections without translating them into site-specific risk assessments.
Better integration of geospatial information could help organisations connect climate projections with asset registers, property portfolios, infrastructure networks and supply chains. This would allow decision-makers to compare risks between locations and identify where adaptation spending is most likely to reduce future losses. It could also support more targeted capital allocation, helping businesses prioritise resilience investments based on actual exposure rather than broad assumptions.
The report argues that location data should be treated as a strategic resource rather than solely as a technical or mapping function. For businesses selecting new sites, designing long-lived assets or evaluating supply-chain partners, geospatial intelligence can provide a level of precision that generic climate scenarios cannot.
What this means for compliance, tenders and supply chains
The findings have direct implications for businesses operating in sectors where climate disclosure, resilience standards and procurement criteria are tightening. Public sector suppliers, in particular, face increasing expectations around carbon reporting and climate adaptation under frameworks such as PPN 06/21. Businesses that lack robust climate-risk data may struggle to meet tender requirements or demonstrate compliance with emerging disclosure rules.
Supply chains are another area where poor climate intelligence creates risk. A supplier whose operations are vulnerable to flooding, heat stress or water shortages can disrupt delivery schedules, increase costs or force last-minute sourcing changes. Businesses that do not assess climate exposure across their supplier base may find themselves managing avoidable disruptions.
Insurance conditions are also shifting in response to physical climate risks. Insurers are increasingly using detailed location data to price policies and set coverage terms. Businesses that cannot demonstrate adequate risk management may face higher premiums, reduced coverage or exclusions for climate-related losses. In some cases, they may struggle to obtain insurance at all.
For organisations managing multi-year projects, poor climate-risk planning can lead to cost overruns, design changes or operational restrictions that were not factored into initial business cases. A project that proceeds without incorporating climate data may still be forced to address those risks later, often at higher cost and with fewer options.
Key findings from the Ordnance Survey research
- Only 33% of surveyed organisations use environmental or climate data in major strategic or investment decisions.
- Climate and environmental data ranked sixth among nine data sources used in major decisions, behind financial-market data and AI-generated insights.
- Seventeen percent of respondents lacked confidence in the information available for climate-risk planning, the lowest confidence score of all decision areas examined.
- Utility and telecommunications sectors reported the weakest confidence, with 20% and 19% respectively lacking confidence in their climate-risk data.
- Nineteen percent of business leaders said uncertainty about future climate risks had contributed to project delays or higher costs.
- Only 30% of respondents reported using location or geospatial data in major strategic decisions, despite the location-specific nature of climate impacts.
- A gap exists between executive confidence and senior-management confidence, suggesting that climate information may not be reaching those responsible for implementation in a usable form.
Moving climate data from reporting to decision-making
The OS findings point to several practical steps businesses should consider. First, climate risk needs to enter decisions earlier in the planning process. Using climate data only during compliance reviews or after a site or investment has been selected can limit the available options and increase adaptation costs. Building climate considerations into initial option appraisals and site-selection criteria can help businesses avoid locking in exposure for decades.
Second, data quality matters as much as data availability. Organisations need information that is current, sufficiently localised, comparable and capable of supporting specific investment decisions. Generic climate scenarios may be useful for raising awareness, but they often lack the granularity needed to compare sites, assess infrastructure vulnerability or evaluate adaptation measures.
Third, geospatial intelligence can strengthen risk assessment. Connecting climate hazards to individual assets, facilities and networks makes abstract risks more operationally useful. Businesses that integrate location data with climate projections can identify exposure at the asset level, prioritise resilience spending more effectively and support better-informed capital allocation.
Fourth, boards and delivery teams need a shared evidence base. The gap between executive confidence and senior-management confidence indicates that information may not be reaching those responsible for implementation in a usable form. Businesses should ensure that climate data flows to the people making procurement decisions, designing assets and managing projects, not just to those preparing reports.
Finally, adaptation investment requires clearer returns. If climate resilience competes with short-term priorities, businesses may need stronger methods for quantifying avoided losses, continuity benefits and long-term asset value. This is particularly important for infrastructure sectors, where decisions often lock in exposure for decades and where the costs of retrofitting or relocating assets can be substantial.
We support businesses with carbon reporting and ESG compliance, helping them build the data foundations needed for informed climate-risk planning. Our net-zero program includes practical support for organisations working to meet public sector procurement requirements and improve resilience across their operations.
Where to find further information
The full Ordnance Survey Building Decision Confidence in 2026 report provides detailed analysis of how organisations assess data quality in high-value decisions. The Office for National Statistics publishes regular Business Insights and Conditions Survey data on climate concerns and business priorities. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero provides guidance on climate adaptation and resilience planning for businesses.
Barclays research on climate resilience and business investment can be found through its corporate publications. For organisations seeking practical guidance on integrating climate risk into infrastructure planning, the Environment Agency offers resources on flood risk assessment and water management. Businesses looking to improve their use of geospatial data in strategic planning should consult sector-specific guidance from relevant regulators and industry bodies.