Reshma vallabhaneni - ISCouncil

ISC Member Update from the CEO – June 2025

Industry Insights and Reflections from Australia, New Zealand and Beyond 

Earlier this year, S&P Global published their report on how organisations can advance their sustainability strategies while navigating an increasingly fragmented world – highlighting the need to focus on measurable impact, cross sector collaboration and innovation solutions. The ten megatrends identified reflect very much our mid-year context: 

  1. A challenging new policy landscape and continued geopolitical uncertainty. 
  2. The clean energy transition struggling between policy and market forces. 
  3. Worsening climate hazards alongside more stringent disclosure standards shining a light on adaptation. 
  4. A recognised large climate finance gap – alongside practical solutions which may drive private mobilisation. 
  5. Global carbon markets gaining momentum. 
  6. Companies, policymakers and other stakeholders taking more concrete measures to tackle nature in tandem with climate. 
  7. An increased pressure on sustainable supply chain management practices. 
  8. Tension over what constitutes a just and equitable energy transition and who pays. 
  9. The need to balance AI’s energy use against its utility as a climate tool. 
  10. Push for consistent and comparable sustainability reporting alongside concerns about heavier reporting burdens for companies. 

Focus on Workforce 

Workforce is a core element of the Social Agenda in the infrastructure and sustainability sectors. One which the ISC has increased focus on in our rating tools, our capability building work and our external programs.  

The recent WEF Future of Jobs Report (2025) highlights how the above global megatrends – individually and in combination – are among the major drivers expected to shape and transform the labour market by 2030.  Report themes relevant to infrastructure sustainability include: 

  • Green infrastructure is a top priority, driven by climate change mitigation efforts and the push toward net-zero emissions. The report signals significant job growth in areas such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable construction practices. 
  • Smart and sustainable energy systems—including renewable energy, energy storage, and grid modernisation—are reshaping infrastructure development and job demand. 
  • Digital infrastructure expansion (e.g., broadband, data centres, smart cities) is essential for enabling sustainable practices and remote work, reducing urban congestion and emissions, whilst also presenting related sustainability challenges, e.g energy water use. 
  • Environmental stewardship and green skills are among the fastest-growing competencies, reflecting the integration of sustainability into infrastructure planning and operations. 
  • Public and private investment is increasingly directed toward sustainable infrastructure projects, such as green buildings, clean transport, and circular economy systems. Goals in infrastructure sustainability will likely require strategic collaboration and partnerships between governments, private sector stakeholders, and communities.  
  • Workforce reskilling is critical, as demand for roles like sustainability specialists, environmental engineers, and green construction experts outpaces supply. ‘Over 39% of workers’ core skills are expected to change’ – with analytical thinking, creativity, and technological literacy becoming critical. The need for leadership in managing interdisciplinary, cross-functional teams will grow as sustainability becomes integral to project delivery. 
  • AI and automation are being leveraged to optimise infrastructure efficiency, reduce waste, and support predictive maintenance in sustainable systems. Increased adoption of AI and ‘Big Data’ will influence how projects are planned, executed and operated. 
  • Social Equity & workforce inclusion – potential for workforce displacement with increasing adoption of automation & technological changes. Raising the question for sustainability leaders, what are the social impacts to an equitable transition. 

City Rail Link (CRL) Social Outcomes 

City Rail Link, a major Auckland IS rated metro project, has made positive social impacts through training, employment, social innovation and supporting the future workforce. As the project nears completion, CRL has released the City Rail Link Social Procurement Case Study which shares their approach to social procurement, and highlights positive impacts experienced by Māori and Pasifika businesses, the reality of the challenges, insights for future tenders and stories from six of the 83 Māori and Pasifika businesses contracted. 

Some of ISC’s workforce initiatives:  

Other recent insights – finance, nature, circularity and AI 

The Australian Sustainable Finance Action Plan 2025-2027 sets out 26 priority actions for the next three years to support reduced emissions, climate resilience, protecting and restoring nature, First Nations economic self-determination and financial inclusion and community resilience. Listen here to Kristy Graham on our Infrastructure Connections podcast to learn more. 

A recent BCG report, Landing the Economic Case for Climate Action with Decision Makers, sets out the economic case for climate action—and how we can make it influence decisions today. 

The Growing Resilience report from WRI and the World Bank developed in collaboration with the African Development Bank, demonstrates how projects rooted in nature-based solutions are gaining momentum in sub-Saharan Africa. 

BSI has released a new standard for nature inclusive marine structures. PAS 1401:2025 covers how to plan, design, install, monitor and decommission marine structures to include nature-inclusive design, thus promoting biodiversity and resilient ecosystems. 

Resource use and waste generation in Aotearoa New Zealand: filling (some) gaps has been published by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, including challenges and opportunities for the infrastructure sector. It highlights that food, housing, infrastructure and mobility account for 72% of overall natural resource use. Around 60% of the resources consumed in New Zealand were extracted overseas and imported, and data suggests this trend has increased over recent decades. 

ABC News article (May 20), AI is driving data centre growth — and it’s bringing environmental challenges, highlights the projected growth of data centres driven by AI, and the associated challenges relates to energy and water use. More action needed here. 

Water Case Study Webinar

This information session explores how the IS Rating Scheme supports sustainable outcomes in water infrastructure projects. It features two leading case studies that highlight innovation, resilience, and community impact.

1. Malabar Biomethane Project
Presented by Jarad McInnes, this pioneering initiative by Zinfra and Sydney Water is Australia’s first project to inject biomethane into the gas network. By converting biogas from wastewater into a renewable energy source, it exemplifies circular economy principles and sustainability embedded from design through to operation.

2. Djarindjin-Lombadina Water Treatment Upgrade
Presented by Anita Kilibarda, this project modernizes critical water infrastructure for remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. It ensures long-term water security, improves service reliability, and demonstrates how culturally sensitive, sustainable infrastructure can support community wellbeing.

Case Study

The session also includes a brief insight into Nature Positive solutions, emphasizing the importance of enhancing biodiversity and natural ecosystems through water infrastructure planning.

Access the presentation slides here

Click the link below to watch the full recording:

https://youtu.be/K6JP7mLxXFc

IS for Future Executives

The sustainability challenges we face today demand leaders who can do more than advise — they must influence. Whether you’re aiming for the C-suite or already there, strategic leadership requires more than technical expertise. In this webinar, we explored three key mindset shifts needed to succeed in executive roles — watch the recording below to discover how to make sustainability central to business leadership.
Presentation here
Webinar recording – here

Supplier Webinar 7

Suppliers in the spotlight is a bi-monthly supplier showcase hosted by the IS Council, with each edition featuring unique suppliers. This series highlights businesses that provide innovative products and services to support sustainability goals across Australia and New Zealand. Andrea Makris, Head of Engagement at the Infrastructure Sustainability Council, opened the session, setting the stage for an exciting showcase of six businesses committed to driving sustainability in infrastructure.

What to Expect:

  • Introduction to six businesses offering sustainable solutions.
  • Insights into how their products and services can support your sustainability goals.
  • Opportunities to connect with industry leaders and explore innovations in infrastructure.

In this webinar, we heard from –

  • Bradley Camgoz Posselt of Porous Lane
  • Tim L Guinea of HYDI
  • William Fisher of APS Power
  • Brad Scott of Transmutation
  • Corin Mitchell of Recruitflex
  • Isan Jain of BlueScope

Presentation –  here 

Webinar recording – here

 

ISC Member Update from the CEO – March 2025

Industry Insights and Reflections from Australia, New Zealand and Beyond 

The recently published WEF Global Risk Report 2025 highlights similar risks – and potential opportunities – that werediscussed at ISC’s Connect Conference Big Ideas Panel sessions.  The report emphasises escalating geopolitical tensions, extreme weather events, and societal polarisation as top global risks. While state-based armed conflict, extreme misinformation and economic downturns are pressing concerns, over the long-term biodiversity loss and ecosystems collapse, natural resource shortages and critical change to earth systems rise in significance.  More than ever there is a need for urgent, coordinated global action and enhanced dialogue and collaboration. 

Diversity and Inclusion 

As highlighted with International Women’s Day on March 8, diversity, equity, and inclusion are crucial for fostering collaboration and innovation, improving decision-making, and creating equitable opportunities in workplaces and communities. They also ensure the needs and perspectives of all communities are presented in the development of sustainable and resilient infrastructure. Many ISC member organisations are leading in the diversity and inclusion space – at the project, programme and organisational levels. ISC supports these efforts through the workforce sustainable category in our tools, our mentoring, capability building and awards programs.  

A related The Conversation article reminds us, we must resist attempts to tear down the progress that has been made and remind ourselves of the many good reasons why we pursue diversity and inclusion in the workplace. In an increasingly complex industry, the ability to draw on and give voice to a wide range of perspectives is essential for success. 

ESG Reporting 

As the need for rigorous ESG performance and reporting grows – coordination and streamlining of requirements is also key, as we acknowledge at ISC with our verification and rating tool update work, our participation in Infrastructure Net Zero and our recent TNFD alignment note.  

To support effective and efficient ESG reporting, we note the European Commission has recently adopted a package of proposals to simplify EU rules, focusing on the fields of sustainable finance reporting, sustainability due diligence, EU Taxonomy, carbon border adjustment mechanism, and European investment programmes. The proposals aim to reduce complexity for businesses, focus the regulatory framework on the largest companies which are likely to have a bigger impact on the climate and the environment, while still enabling companies to access sustainable finance for their clean transition. 

Climate Adaptation and Resilience 

In response to extreme weather events and other climate change impacts, there is an increasing focus on Climate Change and Infrastructure Resilience. At an Infrastructure New Zealand’s event in February, Richard Threlfall, Global Head of Infrastructure, Government and Healthcare for KPMG, made a call for greater action, noting that of the overall global spend on climate change an estimated 1.2% is allocated to adaptation and of the global infrastructure needed to respond to climate change there is still 70% to build. New Zealand Infrastructure Commission’s “Invest or Insure” report (2025) is a good summary of the decisions and challenges for the infrastructure sector in responding to natural hazards. The report highlights the very real connection between infrastructure and community resilience: 

  • If infrastructure providers are unable to restore services in a timely manner post-event, there can be substantial consequences e.g. public health impacts, reduced economic activity.  
  • If we don’t plan our communities well and build to the appropriate standard, we will be exposed to unnecessary levels of risk.  
  • If the government and other infrastructure providers are unable to pay for the damages caused by events, we will be unable to recover. 

The Resilience and Climate Change Adaptation categories in the IS Rating Tools reward and support projects to undertake the work to plan for, design and deliver more resilient infrastructure assets and networks.  

Supporting Nature Positive and the Circular Economy 

Our focus on Nature Positive and nature-related reporting continues to expand. Building on our TNFD Alignment Note we are in conversation with members adopting the TNFD in their organisations and working with Jacobs on a Nature Positive thought leadership piece for the water sector.  

In early March, the Australian Clean Energy Regulator announced the availability of the first method under the Nature Repair Market scheme, focusing on replanting native forest and woodland ecosystems. The Nature Repair Market is a world-first, voluntary biodiversity market designed to drive investment in projects that restore and protect the natural environment.  

We also note at the end of 2024, the Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy and the Environment and Water published the first national Circular Economy Framework, which highlights the need to double the country’s circularity rate by 2035. According to the framework report, the built environment accounts for a third of resource consumption globally and is the primary destination for materials in Australia. The framework includes multiple case studies and identifies priorities and enablers for the built environment as well as cross-sector objectives related to innovation, market development and investment, advanced resource recovery and recycling, systems thinking and circular economy skills, collaboration and place-based approaches and behaviour change. 

Dr. Kerry Griffiths -IS Technical Director, Infrastructure Sustainability Council

IS v2.1 Design & As-Built Rating Tool & Verification Workplan Update – Webinar Recording & Feedback Links

A big thank you to all that were able to join the ISC Verification & IS v2.1 Workplan Update Webinar today. It was a good opportunity to share our progress on the continuous improvement work that we have been doing with the industry.
The webinar is available in full via the link below.

 

Question & Answer’s:

Q. Agree with the comment about weeding out greenwashing, however, the prescriptive nature of the tool in its current form with dozens of ‘must’ statements has (in the past) not recognised good outcomes on projects. For example, an academic ‘perfect world’ scenario of stakeholder engagement does not fit all projects, particular mega-scale (>$1B). Will there be a better focus on flexibility and intent so that real outcomes are recognised versus “ticking a box” for the sake of ISC that adds no value to projects?

A. ISC will seek a balance prescriptiveness, flexibility and scalability through the collection of measures being proposed for verification and v2.1. It is also important to recognise however, that simultaneously ISC are not seeking to reward projects for standard compliance and are still looking to encourage projects to perform better than BAU.

Q. Will the ISC also consider a standard set of BAU Assumptions to inform the Base Case Proposals. A lot of time is spent establishing project BAUs and a starting point or minimum set could help reduce time and cost of using the tools.

A. ISC are proposing several measures that will reduce the work effort by project teams in the Base Case Proposal process. These include:
– Reducing the scope of the Base Case Proposal form,
– Reducing the scope of BAU’s required/presented by projects,
– Improving the review and approval process such that comments are fewer and turnaround times are faster,
– Investigating material available to the ISC that can support with the setting and approval of BAU’s.

Note that the final measure does not necessarily mean that ISC will set BAUs at this stage. ISC’s previous work in this space has identified several fundamental issues with doing this broadly and so our approach must be well considered.

Q. How many ISC Quality Controller positions are going to be established?

A. It is anticipated the 2 full time quality controller positions will be required. These two resources will be supported by a managing team member as well.

Q. Is the quality controller going to have the same training as the verifier? As well, is there going to be a working group between verifiers and quality controls to align on their final verification on different projects?

A. The expected experience and qualifications of the Verifier and the Quality Controller will differ slightly. These will be made publicly available in the Verification Procedure.
With regard to onboarding and training, the Quality Controller resources will need to be familiar with the Verification process as well. Should they not already possess this familiarity, a similar shadow training phase will be required, as it is for the Verifiers.

Q. What are the exact roles/responsibilities of the Quality Controller vs Verifier? Who does what? Would it be right to say the QC has simply replaced one of the verifiers?

A. The Quality Controller role has a different focus and function to the 2nd Verifier.
The quality controller will review the submission as a whole, however, their focus will be on how well the Verifier’s proposed comments align with the verifier principles and technical manual/guidance. Should they identify concerns around alignment, they will flag these and propose an alternative response for the Verifier to consider.

Q. IS ISC considering additional training courses for assessors and verifiers to improve understanding of IS v2.1 credit requirements and processes?

A. ISC are revising training materials to reflect all changes being made to the tools and processes. These reviews will be done with the support of our Technical Working Groups.
Additionally, ISC will be making available resources and worked examples to better demonstrate the rating process, such as complete Credit Summary Forms.
Lastly, ISC will continue to developed free webinars in collaboration with projects on credit areas and topics to further help projects deep dive and understand various components of the tool.
If there are any particular areas of interest, please feel free to let us know!

Q. The interconnectedness of credit requirements in v2.1 (such as considering energy efficiency options in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Ecn-1 process) adds significant complexity. Is anything being done to address this complexity?

A. Interconnectivity will likely be impacted by several measures.
We anticipate that there will be substantial reviews undertaken for some key credits like Lea-2 and Ecn-1, which are regularly referenced through the Technical Manual. Additionally, these same connections between credits will likely become more flexible in many instances through some of the changes being delivered by the Macro review hierarchy measure.

Q. 1)When might some of these changes be implemented? 2) When some of these changes are implemented, will they apply on future registrations or will the new manual apply retrospectively?

ISC are targeting August to role out all changes collectively. IS v2.1 changes will apply to all future registrations, they may also be adopted voluntarily by projects already registered.
For Verification process changes, ISC will be looking to transition as many projects as possible without causing disruption. It is anticipated that ISC will be requesting that any project that is Pre Round 1 (Design or As Built) move onto the new verification process.

Q. Can this Measure 2 consider reintroducing the should statements? Alternate ways of meeting the intent of the credit may be used. Compliance codes for across industries consistently use should statements for a reason. These non-compulsory requirements are essentially should statements.

The reintroduction of Should statements is effectively the same as the proposed introduction of optional statements. ISC have opted to change the approach to ‘optional with a penalty if not targeted’ to avoid reintroducing some of the major concerns that were flagged with IS v1.2.

Q. What are the requirements / qualifications going to be requested of the proposed QC? Do they have a rubric for QC checks to ensure there is consistency between QCs too?

The qualifications for the Quality Controller will be made publicly available in the Verification Procedure.
Internalising the quality control process will enable ISC to better establish standard verification language as well as track particular decision types to ensure consistent approaches to verification are adopted.
Consideration for the appropriate applications of the Verifier principles will form the fundamental basis of the quality controllers role and remit.

Q. 2.1 Measure 4 – while this maybe targeted at new entrants, I see it as the opportunity for proponents to drop a full rating, and go for badges, reflective of the project’s materiality, or the company/govt department’s objectives.

A. This may be the case, making available a more affordable, reduced effort pathway for projects that are less complex, fast racked or niche.

Q. What does it mean there’s a reduction in variables involved in the verification process? (re general feedback on verification measures 1 and 2)

A. The current process utilises two verifiers that change on every project. The number of possible combinations of verifiers is substantial.
By introducing the quality controller in place of the second verifier, this will ensure that there is a consistent voice and messaging on every single verification.

Q. Do these changes impact the ISC fee structure?

A. We do not anticipate that the direct substitution of a second verifier for a quality controller will result in cost savings. This measure is primarily quality and efficiency focussed.

Q. How does this impact current projects? Is it optional to adopt at August 2025 or mandatory?

A. ISC are targeting August to role out all changes collectively. IS v2.1 changes will apply to all future registrations, they may also be adopted voluntarily by projects already registered.
For Verification process changes, ISC will be looking to transition as many projects as possible without causing disruption. It is anticipated that ISC will be requesting that any project that is Pre Round 1 (Design or As Built) move onto the new verification process.

Q. Are we doing anything to address the amount of jargon in the IS Technical Manual? At the moment, it’s very difficult to hand over reqs to the relevant disciplines because they don’t understand them

A. Yes, we are creating a succinct manual version to assist with clearly setting out the required ‘must’ statements in a format that can more easily be used with team members outside of the sustainability team.

Q. A lot of the measures proposed seem to be adding process on top of process, it scares me, this will just add confusion, complexity. God help me trying to explain the nuances of the tool to Exec’s (who pay for ratings), Senior Managers etc. The goal should be about less process. What worked well (enough) with V1.2? Food for thought for you.

A. We’re hopeful that once in place, many of these changes won’t introduce any further complexity to external tool users, and if anything, they will strip out a significant portion of process related steps and criteria.
For any measures that are considered an addition, we are doing so in a way that is very cognisant of the scale and complexity already present in the tools.

For example, the screening process for ISv2.1 projects under $500m is automated in the backend of the materiality assessment. The output of the materiality assessment would simply include the screen in it.
Optional criteria are only being used where we cannot delete criteria in the first place, and their inclusion is being tested with TWGs to ensure their it is logical and understandable.

Q. Has ISC considered how all this new process on top of process will work in the ‘Project’ procurement world? i.e. How does a Contractor provide sustainability offers in a tender, and have it compared with another tenderer accurately, when there are now SO many ways to cut this ISC cake. Please think about this.

A. What is being tendered for shouldn’t differ drastically.
There will only be a few different approaches to utilising the rating tool added at most (2 – 3 badges), and typically what is expected of a contractor in tender is stipulated by the delivery authority anyway. Ie. a Bronze, Silver or Badge. We are only looking to provide a few additional pathways through the tool, to enable cost effective use of the tool for any given project scenario, without causing confusion and diluting the rewards available.

Q. How will ISC be transparent with considering improvement opportunities provided by the market?

A. ISC have proposed each of the measures based entirely on feedback from market.
Today’s presentation by the ISC was intended to highlight, and be transparent about, the feedback received, process conducted and projected changes to the tool thanks to market’s input.

Additionally, the ISC have opened further feedback portals for market to provide their perspective on each of the measures presented. Regular reminders and prompts are being provided to market to ensure we receive as many responses as possible. All feedback will all be considered by ISC prior to progressing any of the measures. The ISC intend to conduct ‘close out’ and ‘circle back’ presentations towards the end of this process to show what we heard and how we responded, similar to how we presented and discussed feedback around the proposed verification process changes today.

Lastly, market is also being engaged directly in the development of the proposed measures through the Technical Working Groups and ISC reaching out to experienced tool users directly.

Q. The outcomes of any changes of any kind, must be to halve the current cost (to the proponent) of delivering a v2.1 rating tool. This should ISC’s number 1 goal. Not the cost of verification. Not the cost of ISC fees. The cost of delivering the assessment, evidence, CSF and resourcing to support all of this. Does ISC have accurate detail on this?

A.Many of the measures are intended to reduce the scale and complexity of the rating tool. We expect these will go a very long way to reducing costs incurred by project teams and subsequently proponents.

It is important to recognise that the cost incurred by a project is directly proportionate to the delta between an organisation’s current sustainability practice and their target sustainability performance level. ISC will be looking to provide alternative rating pathways and flexibility in the tool to better assist and support proponents in setting appropriate targets, proportionate to their budget’s and existing level of performance.

Q. The ISV2.1 and verification process will not be able to stop dishonest individuals. Do you have plans for inspiring industry to self regulate as well?

A. There will be some minor changes in the submission process, requiring the assessor to provide in writing a confirmation that the evidence and assessment provided is true and accurate to the best of their knowledge. Beyond this however, it is not ISC’s role to police what is the truth. We have to operate our rating system on the assumption that what is being provided to us is a true and accurate reflection of the project.

Q. If less is put into base case, for reduction claims, would this be validated (e.g. increasing SCM% in concrete etc.) in verification of the credits? (just might make our CSFs long is all)

A. It is anticipated that only BAUs related to reduction claims need to be included in the BCP. Determining the appropriateness of modelling assumptions and alike that are unrelated to reduction claims, or specific requirements of the Technical Manual (i.e. Grid decarb), would simply be defer to the suitably qualified professional (as per the verifier principles). Hopefully this will reduce the overall size of both the BCP and credit summary form.

Q. Will clients and contractors take on the cost of the additional resources (QA control) for verification? 

A. We do not anticipate that there will be a change in costs to the project as this is effectively a direct substitution of resources

 

Supplier Webinar 6

Welcome to the first edition of the Suppliers in the Spotlight Webinar Series for 2025, presented by the Infrastructure Sustainability Council! This series highlights businesses that provide innovative products and services to support sustainability goals across Australia and New Zealand. Andrea Makris, Head of Engagement at the Infrastructure Sustainability Council, opened the session, setting the stage for an exciting showcase of six businesses committed to driving sustainability in infrastructure.

What to Expect:

  • Introduction to six businesses offering sustainable solutions.
  • Insights into how their products and services can support your sustainability goals.
  • Opportunities to connect with industry leaders and explore innovations in infrastructure.

In this webinar, we heard from –

  • Nishant Gujarati of Global Sustainable Solutions
  • Rob James of Xypex Australia
  • Hari Nair of Zuno Carbon, Matt Hunter/ Manfred Fussi of Aggreko
  • Craig Wright of Bar Chip
  • Dan Rowley of CE Construction Solutions.

Presentation –  here 

Webinar recording – here

 

 

Navigating Nature-Based Disclosures in the Infrastructure Sector

As ESG reporting requirements evolve, the focus is shifting from climate focus to broader, more complex disclosures. Although still voluntary, the TNFD (Taskforce for Nature-based Financial Disclosures) framework is set to follow the path of the now well-established TCFD (Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures). In this webinar, we will examine the TNFD framework and its significance for the infrastructure sector. Additionally, we highlighted how IS Ratings can help facilitate TNFD reporting, helping organisations align sustainability goals and regulatory requirements.

Presentation Slides here 

Ratings Case Study Webinar 4

In this webinar recording you will hear from project teams across Australia as they share case studies and key learnings when undergoing an infrastructure sustainability rating.

This session features –

Multi-award winning Preston Level Crossing Removal Project (LXRP) was completed in 2022 by North Western Program Alliance (NWPA). Preston LXRP exemplifies outstanding excellence in sustainable infrastructure. This complex rail project removed four level crossings, constructed two kilometres of elevated rail viaduct, two new stations and precincts, and extensive open spaces, converting a brownfield rail line into a green corridor for the community. Focused on community engagement, innovative design and environmental stewardship, Preston set a benchmark for sustainable rail infrastructure. 

and

Presentation highlighting the Unanderra and Towradgi Station Upgrade Projects in NSW, showcasing their significant achievements in environmental and social impact. With Australian-first innovations in renewable energy and low-carbon materials, these projects set high benchmarks for sustainable infrastructure; both achieving ISC v1.2 Leading ratings. The train stations were transformed into culturally meaningful spaces, resonating with local communities through the integration of Aboriginal cultural narratives and support for essential community initiatives. Degnan and Transport for NSW have delivered infrastructure that not only addresses practical accessibility needs but also enhances heritage preservation and cultural integration.

Presentation slides here

ISC Member Update from the CEO – December 2024

As we approach the end of 2024, I would like to thank all of the Infrastructure Sustainability Council’s members for the ongoing support that you give to the ISC. While we as the ISC team welcome and are individually and collectively buoyed by that support, we are even more grateful for the positive impacts that you enable us to make in the market. 

Regulations are tightening, expectations of sustainability performance are simultaneously increasing while also being challenged. It is a rather confused time. The lingering effects of inflation, cost of living and broader geo-politics are also squeezing budgets for infrastructure and construction. At the ISC, we will continue to focus on enhancing sustainability performance and encouraging ‘better business as usual’. The impacts of infrastructure – good and bad – exist well beyond the stretch of any single economic cycle.  

At the same time, we have to be market sensitive and fit for purpose. As we come back in 2025, we will be enhancing our efforts to make our tools easier to use without losing their rigour. We will be releasing our new membership model, which will be at once simpler and have greater benefits for members. We are also energised by the pending launch of ISC’s Sustainability Academy, extending our well regarded training capabilities. We have also concluded strong work around our Theory of Change and that will flow into the ISC’s next five year plan, which we will be bringing to you for final input before its release, ready to run from 2025 – 2030. 

On a personal note, thank you to everyone who has welcomed me so warmly into the role as ISC’s CEO. It is a tremendous privilege to lead this organisation and I look forward to repaying your enthusiasm with even better collective outcomes in the year – and years – ahead! 

In the meantime, safe and happy holidays to all, 

Toby 

Industry Insights and Reflections from Australia, New Zealand and beyond 

As 2025 approaches, there are 60 months to deliver substantial reductions in emissions to be on track for net zero and to deliver on global and national commitments to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. We are proud of the impact our members and partners have made in the last 12 months, and are equally aware of the need for urgent action and further step change in sustainable infrastructure policies and practices.  

On the global stage, COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, portrayed a mixed bag with some progress on Climate Finance and Carbon Markets, a strong call for more ambitious national emission reduction targets, little progress on adaptation and loss and damage, and no consensus on phasing out fossil fuels. Overall, COP29 absolutely reinforced the very urgent need for increased climate action and finance. 

In Australia we have seen positive developments at a federal and state level on decarbonisation of infrastructure including the release of The Department of Climate Change, Energy, The Environment and Water’s Environmentally Sustainable Procurement (ESP) Policy and Reporting Framework, the Climate Change Authority’s Sector Pathway Review and (mainly cross-sectoral) recommendations, Infrastructure NSW’s Decarbonising Infrastructure Delivery Policy and accompanying Technical Guidance on Embodied Carbon Measurement for Infrastructure (now adopted nationally) and Infrastructure Victoria’s advice to the Victorian government on opportunities to reduce infrastructure-related greenhouse gas emissions. Infrastructure Australia also published guidance on valuing emissions for economic analysis, a critical aspect of infrastructure planning.  

Infrastructure planning systems and processes is a key focus in Aotearoa New Zealand currently, with work underway on a 30-year National Infrastructure Plan to outline the country’s future infrastructure needs and planned investment, and a new national infrastructure authority, National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Limited (NIFFCo), established. Initial thinking underpinning the National Infrastructure Plan identifies pipeline certainty, decarbonisation, resilience and capability building amongst key challenges to be addressed. The ISC was excited to participate in stakeholder engagement sessions and prepare a submission for the plan development.   

Global biodiversity loss has come under the spotlight in 2024 with a lot of activity in the Nature Positive and Natural Capital space. Early in the year, the United Kingdom in a global first, introduced mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG) as a planning requirement. This pioneering framework aims to integrate biodiversity considerations into the planning process, setting a precedent for other countries to follow. In October, the first Global Nature Positive Summit Australia was hosted in Sydney, attended by over 1000 global leaders from around 50 countries, including environment and climate ministers, corporate leaders, and representatives from environmental groups and Indigenous communities. The summit underscored the importance of aligning nature-positive and net-zero objectives. We have also seen 24 Australian, and 1 New Zealand organisation adopt the Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework. The ISC continues to work with our members and stakeholders on highlighted natural capital assessment and reporting, nature-based solutions, and regenerative practices.  

IS Ratings Alignment Note

The IS Ratings Alignment Note on TNFD Disclosures and Metrics is here to guide organisations in leveraging IS Ratings for TNFD (Taskforce for Nature-based Financial Disclosures) recommendations. 

In recent years, financial reporting requirements have increasingly incorporated climate and nature-based disclosures, reflecting the heightened awareness of environmental risks in the global economy. This development is driven by the recognition that the escalating impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss, and the depletion of natural resources pose substantial risks to businesses and economies. Regulators, investors, and stakeholders are demanding greater transparency on how companies assess, manage and respond to these risks. International frameworks, such as the Taskforce on Climaterelated Financial Disclosures (TCFD), along with newer guidelines like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), are instrumental in integrating environmental factors into financial reporting. These disclosures aim to enhance accountability, mitigate risks, and align financial practices and flows with global sustainability objectives, including the Paris Agreement and the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

Explore the Alignment Note

 

Supplier in the Spotlight Webinar 5

Here at the IS Council, we are dedicated to spotlighting the heroes along the infrastructure supply chain who contribute to sustainability outcomes for people, planet, and the economy with their innovative products and impactful services. 

In this webinar we heard from –

Cherie Lee from MatX, Melissa Herman from Capral Ltd, Chris Parratt from AMPD ENERGY, Morne Breytenbach from HUESKER Australia Pty Ltd-Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and Dave Simmons from HIWAY

Presentation –  here 

Webinar recording – here