Why this matters now

The 15-year-old Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark remains the most widely used investor-led standard for comparing sustainability performance across real asset portfolios. Proposed changes to the standard signal a pivot away from process and disclosure, and toward actual, measurable asset performance.  

Given the close links between GRESB scores and investment decisions, these changes could have wide-ranging impacts for investors. 

In practice, this means more weight on operational energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and less emphasis on theoretical policy frameworks that do not necessarily improve performance. These revisions should also lead to a more predictable cadence of change as the framework evolves.

Historically, some real estate funds or assets could score well by having good policies or governance in place, irrespective of real-world outcomes. Proposed changes shift incentives towards measurable impact. Energy optimisation, efficiency improvements and climate adaptation should become more attractive. If implemented effectively, comparability across assets should improve  and outputs should become more decision useful. However, execution risk remains.  Uneven data availability and varying maturity across regions could distort outcomes and disrupt year-on-year consistency. The continued relevance and applicability of GRESB across heterogenous real estate markets is of key concern for investors.

Our view

• A welcome reorientation. The proposed changes align with a broader market and regulatory push for measurable and comparable sustainability outcomes. Investors are increasingly seeking to understand how assets actually perform, not simply what policies exist. 
• Support, with conditions. We support the ambition set out in the Road to Performance, and our views are closely aligned with the public positions articulated by the Better Buildings Partnership (BBP). Delivery and education for investors will matter - the transition needs to be transparent, proportionate and practical.
• Reward leaders and improvers. We support a ‘dual performance’ scoring approach that recognises strong absolute performance while also rewarding credible improvement pathways over time, reflecting the diversity of real estate markets and different starting points. 

We suggest four key principles for the revised standard in this context: 

1. Anchor performance assessment in energy and GHG emissions

Operational energy and GHG emissions are among the most mature, decision-relevant indicators in real estate and are the right place to increase performance weightings first. 

At the same time, new and enhanced criteria for water, waste, embodied carbon, renewable energy, biodiversity and social indicators are planned, with a phased introduction process to allow wider sustainability data points to mature. 

Confidence in performance scoring will depend on transparent benchmarks, appropriate sensitivity to region and asset type, and careful management of unintended consequences. This is particularly relevant for industrial and residential assets, as well as Asia;  consideration should be given to including local benchmarks, alongside the global standard, to reflect differences in market conditions.

2. Make the transition predictable

A staged model with early visibility of upcoming changes is essential. Predictability supports planning for data systems and governance, improves the credibility of reported outcomes, and helps improve asset-level multi-year capital allocation. Investors are increasingly sequencing interventions, prioritising high-certainty returns on investment through measures such as smart metering, Internet of Things (IoT), and energy efficiency upgrades. The shift from an annual to a three-year update cycle should support this.

We caution against an accelerated move to predominantly performance-based scoring, given the time required for capital investments to materialise. A phased approach, increasing in ambition over time, would better reflect market realities and balance urgency with feasibility.

3. Keep the framework holistic

Operational energy and GHG emissions should take priority as the backbone of performance measurement, but GRESB should remain a holistic sustainability framework. We see the management of water consumption, waste diversion, physical climate risks and pollution as key priorities for performance-based scoring in the future. Social and governance factors also continue to shape asset value, risk management and stakeholder expectations - and should evolve in parallel as methodologies mature.

4. Simplify - where it strengthens signals

We support retiring high-burden, low-differentiation indicators and reassessing the role of building certifications which do not always show a clear link to improved operational outcomes. Simplification can reduce the reporting burden for preparers while improving the signal quality and comparability of the benchmark.

What this means in practice

For investors, the GRESB updates reinforce a broader shift towards measurable outcomes as the basis of credibility. Achieving this will require transparent, comparable benchmarks and transition pathways that recognise varying starting points across global real estate markets.

Continued collaboration between GRESB and industry initiatives such as the Better Buildings Partnership will be critical to maintaining a decision-useful framework - one that rewards both leadership and credible improvement without creating perverse incentives or undue operational burden. Clear guidance and investor education on score outputs and on what constitutes best practice under the revised standard will be key.