Companies Say Impact Data Helps — But They Want Investors to Do More to Make It Work

Why the ICM Institute’s new study matters right now

The ICM Institute released fresh research this week showing that nearly 100 portfolio companies value impact data and use it to run their businesses. That sounds like progress. The real news is how those companies describe the road ahead: they want investors to work with them, not just ask for more spreadsheets and checklists.

Put simply, companies see impact data as a tool that can cut costs, sharpen product directions and help win customers. But many say the way investors ask for that information today makes it harder, not easier, to capture those benefits. For investors who care about long-term value and downside protection, this gap matters because it shapes where capital flows and which companies will be easiest to compare and value in the years to come.

What nearly 100 portfolio companies told the researchers

The report is built on responses from roughly one hundred companies in a mix of sectors. Across the group, firms said they already pull together impact data for internal decision-making and for reporting to customers, regulators or buyers. They mentioned several concrete gains: clearer product roadmaps, fewer costly compliance surprises, and better negotiation power with suppliers when they can show outcomes instead of promises.

Companies also said impact data helps them win business. Buyers and large customers are increasingly asking for proof of environmental and social outcomes. When companies can show standardized, trusted data, they are more likely to keep or win contracts. Smaller teams reported that good data helps them prioritize investments — choosing the projects that will move the needle rather than chase vanity metrics.

But the same companies painted a mixed picture of investor engagement. Many said investor requests are often too broad, too frequent, or badly timed relative to the company’s reporting cycle. Rather than helping to build useful systems, some investor demands add administrative burden and distract teams from running the business. The clearest message: companies want investors to be clearer about what matters, to commit for the long haul, and to support building shared tools rather than asking each company to reinvent data collection alone.

Where the friction really sits: data, standards and systems

Several recurring barriers emerged. First, data gaps. Many companies simply lack the systems to collect reliable impact metrics without significant extra work. Second, standards. There is no single playbook for what to measure or how to report it, so each investor often asks for slightly different things. Third, cost and time. Setting up new reporting systems diverts staff and cash from core activities, and small- and mid-sized firms feel this squeeze most acutely.

These hurdles are made worse by a fourth problem: the fear of being accused of greenwashing. Companies that do try to report openly worry that imperfect data will be used against them by critics or competitors. The result is a cautious cycle — firms underreport or over-scrutinize data, slowing the very transparency investors say they want.

How investors can turn a frustrating gap into a competitive edge

For investors, the study points to practical ways to improve outcomes and, in turn, protect or enhance portfolio value. The single most effective move is coordination: when investors agree on what matters and pool resources to build shared tools, the burden on each company falls and the quality of data rises. That makes it easier to compare firms and identify winners.

Second, investors should prioritize. Ask for a small set of core metrics tied to business outcomes rather than a long laundry list. That reduces cost and increases the chance the data will be used operationally. Third, consider upfront funding for data systems or technical assistance. Companies in the study were clear that early financial or technical help removes a major barrier and speeds measurement adoption.

From a market point of view, this is a long game with a clear tilt: companies that produce credible, consistent impact data are likely to trade at a premium over time because their risks are easier to assess and their claims are verifiable. But there is friction up front — reporting costs, the need for coordination, and the risk that standards shift. For investors who are patient and active, helping to build the reporting ecosystem looks like a sensible way to create clearer value rather than just demanding proof on pain of divestment.

How the research was done, and why the voices quoted matter

The ICM Institute based its findings on a survey and follow-up interviews with nearly 100 portfolio companies across several industries. The work focused on practical questions: what data companies collect today, how they use it, what they find valuable, and what would make their lives easier. That mix of quantitative answers and candid interviews is why the report reads less like a compliance manual and more like a user guide.

The report sums it up bluntly: “Companies value impact data but want more investor collaboration to unlock its full potential.” That line captures the mood — firms are ready to build, but they need investors to stop treating data as a one-way demand and start treating it as shared infrastructure.

For investors, the practical takeaway is straightforward: this is an area where patient, coordinated action is likely to pay off. The companies surveyed are signaling that help, not pressure, will unlock the benefits both sides say they want.