ESG4GLAM · Competency Needs Analysis Report

Survey · Focus Groups · Expert Interviews

ESG Skills &
Readiness in
the GLAM Sector

A cross-national needs assessment exploring ESG competencies, engagement levels and institutional readiness among Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums professionals — combining an online survey, six focus groups and 34 expert interviews.

154
Survey responses + expert interviews
16
Countries reached
65%
No / unclear formal ESG roles
1.68
Largest domain gap (cross-cutting)
01

Survey respondents

120
Valid responses
Out of 142 submissions collected, from 16 countries
72.5%
Female respondents
19.2% male, 5.0% preferred not to say
55.8%
Aged 45 or above
Predominantly experienced workforce
70.8%
Specialist, Manager or Director
Senior-leaning seniority profile
Organisation type
GLAM category of respondent’s institution
Library 34.2% Museum 20.8% Archive 11.7% Gallery 5.8% Other 26.7%
Country distribution
Location of respondent’s organisation, n=120
Age groups
Distribution across age bands
Seniority level
Professional position within organisation
Organisation size
Number of employees
02

ESG engagement & governance

Formal ESG responsibilities
65% of organisations have none, or are unsure whether they exist
Approach to ESG engagement
How organisations currently engage with ESG (n=120)
Primary funding model
How organisations are primarily funded
External ESG influence
Extent to which external requirements drive ESG engagement
Duration of ESG engagement
54.2% have engaged with ESG-related practice for more than 3 years — yet only 13.3% report an explicit ESG strategy (see chart above). Practice tends to run ahead of formal structure.
More than 3 years
54.2%
Not yet engaged
15.8%
1–3 years
15.0%
Less than 1 year
11.7%
03

ESG competency gap

Importance vs. current level — average score out of 5
Across all four ESG domains, current organisational capacity trails perceived importance. No domain scores below a “moderate” gap.
Importance Current level
Cross-cutting — integrated ESG literacy, data, change management gap: 1.68 — largest
Importance: 4.23 / 5Current: 2.55 / 5
Environmental (E) — energy, climate risk, circular practices gap: 1.51
Importance: 4.28 / 5Current: 2.77 / 5
Social (S) — inclusion, participation, public value gap: 1.26
Importance: 4.47 / 5Current: 3.21 / 5
Governance (G) — transparency, ethics, accountability gap: 1.25
Importance: 4.30 / 5Current: 3.05 / 5
Competency radar — importance vs. current level by ESG domain
Visual comparison across all four domains
04

Top priority competencies

Highest-gap competencies across all 29 items surveyed
Environmental emergency preparedness records the single largest gap in the entire survey (Δ 1.88); the five cross-cutting items cluster just behind it.
Environmental emergency preparedness combines a high importance score (4.36/5) with one of the lowest current-level scores (2.48/5) — the widest single gap of all 29 competencies assessed.
05

Barriers & preferred learning formats

The survey does not include quantified data on preferred training formats. These findings are drawn from the qualitative synthesis of the six focus groups and 34 expert interviews, which converged consistently across countries and institution types.

Top barrier

Financial constraints

The most universally cited barrier across all sessions and interviews. Public budgets prioritise core functions, leaving little dedicated capacity for ESG-related development — a constraint felt hardest by the smallest institutions.

Structural

Time & workload pressure

Even where ESG is supported in principle, limited staff time means it competes directly with core responsibilities. Frameworks that add reporting burden without addressing resourcing risk becoming counter-productive.

Cultural

ESG framed as compliance

When ESG enters institutions mainly through external reporting requirements, it is experienced as an administrative burden rather than a development opportunity — limiting genuine engagement.

Organisational

Coordination in complex institutions

Large, multi-site institutions found it particularly difficult to build a coherent, sector-wide ESG competency strategy across departments and locations.

What practitioners want from training
Consistent principles across all six focus groups and 34 interviews
  • Practical, hands-on formats connected to real institutional tasks — the most widely supported format overall, well ahead of theoretical instruction.
  • Peer learning & mentoring between institutions, including structured exchanges and embedded specialist support.
  • Modular, flexible formats that fit around existing professional commitments, reflecting universal time constraints.
  • Micro-credentials & certificates, valued only when issued or endorsed by a credible, recognised body — institutions are wary of reputational or “greenwashing” risk otherwise.
External reference (not ESG4GLAM survey data): a 2024 sector-wide competency survey of the Finnish museum & heritage workforce, cited in the report as supporting evidence, found strongest interest in shared sector events (83%), short online courses (80%), short blended formats (73%) and modular online programmes (70%), with much lower interest in extended in-person programmes (27%).
06

Key outcomes & findings

Readiness

High awareness, limited structure

65% of organisations have no formal ESG responsibilities, or are unsure whether any exist — yet all four ESG domains score above 4.2/5 on importance. Awareness is not the missing piece; institutional structure is.

65% no / unclear ESG roles
Skills gap

Cross-cutting competencies: the systemic gap

Integrated ESG literacy scores 4.23 in importance but only 2.55 in current capacity (Δ 1.68) — the largest of all four domains, and near-uniform across its five items, pointing to a broad, not isolated, deficit.

1.68 point domain gap
Single biggest item

Environmental emergency preparedness

The largest gap of all 29 competencies surveyed (Δ 1.88) — directly relevant to the safeguarding of collections, buildings and staff in the face of climate-related risk.

1.88 point item gap
Paradox

Practice runs ahead of strategy

54.2% of organisations report ESG-related engagement of more than three years, yet only 13.3% report an explicit ESG strategy. Substantive practice exists but remains institutionally under-codified.

54% engaged 3+ years
Strength

Social domain: closest to being solved

The social domain records both the highest importance (4.47) and the highest current level (3.21) of all four domains — reflecting GLAM institutions’ long-standing public mission — though a 1.26 gap remains.

3.21 current level / 5
Triangulation

Three methods, one consistent picture

The survey (120 responses), 6 focus groups (43 participants, 4 countries) and 34 expert interviews (5 countries) converge on the same priority competencies and structural barriers — financial constraints and time chief among them.

3 converging methods
07

Methodology

This report combines three complementary methods within the ESG4GLAM project (Erasmus+ KA220-VET). An online survey, implemented via Forminator, rated 29 ESG competencies across four domains — cross-cutting, environmental, social and governance — on a 1–5 scale for both importance and current level; 142 submissions were collected between January and May 2026, of which 120 were retained as valid. Six focus groups (43 participants) were held across Italy, Latvia, Serbia and Finland between March and May 2026. Thirty-four expert interviews were conducted across Finland, Latvia, Serbia, Austria and Italy, combining written questionnaires and video interviews.

120
Valid survey responses (of 142 submitted)
29
ESG competencies rated across 4 domains
43
Focus group participants across 6 sessions
34
Expert interviews across 5 countries
16
Countries represented in the survey sample
4
Core partner countries: Latvia, Italy, Serbia, Finland

ESG Competency Needs Analysis Report
Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums — Cross-national needs assessment