Translating results into action: maximising value from GRESB participation

The release of the 2026 preliminary Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) results on 1 September, providing participating real estate organisations with an initial assessment of the sustainability performance of their portfolios, marked the end of a brief summer break in the annual sustainability reporting cycle for many real estate professionals.

As attention now inevitably turns to preparing for the 2027 GRESB submission, there’s an opportunity to assess where the wider real estate sector is headed and whether sustainability strategies align.

What’s on the horizon

In July, GRESB published the findings of a public consultation held earlier this year called, Road to Performance. Initial results mark a clear shift in industry focus from static, historic data measurement to demonstration of real-world improvements in both sustainability-related and financial performance. The ultimate aim of the consultation was to ensure that the GRESB reporting processes accommodate changing industry expectations on sustainability performance by enabling participants to report data underpinning the most relevant asset and portfolio-level metrics with minimal reporting burden. This review process, which started in 2025, is expected to close later this year with an announcement from GRESB in Q4 2026 on the final changes anticipated for release in the 2028 questionnaire.

More than ever, analysing this year’s GRESB results provides an ideal opportunity to review an organisation’s own sustainability performance and strategic direction against current and emerging industry expectations and help shape a more impactive, near-term action plan. The coming months will not only be critical for addressing opportunities to improve performance in the GRESB disclosure cycles, but also for strengthening and guiding existing business plans in the near- to mid-term.

How to prepare

Although the suggested updates to the GRESB questionnaire from the consultation process are currently provisional, one of the most significant focus areas will likely be on asset performance data. One of the changes proposes increasing the overall score weighting of the energy and GHG emissions indicators from 21% to 25%. GHG emissions performance from the consumption of fuels and purchased energy will likely play a significantly greater role in overall performance evaluation. This is unsurprising, given a heightened scrutiny over reported GHG emission reductions based on purchased offsets, such as bundled Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin (REGO) certificates.

Ahead of these changes, participants should at least maintain, if not increase, efforts to improve data quality and coverage, particularly, for tenant-controlled assets where obtaining accurate data remains a challenge. Better quality energy-related data also supports enhanced performance in other areas:

Net zero carbon targets: Where net-zero targets aren’t yet in place, or were created using older, less reliable datasets, define, approve and set them ahead of the next reporting cycle. The recent trend of increased weight applied to these in GRESB questionnaires is only likely to continue.
Risk assessments: Ensure environmental asset assessments are current, comprehensive and supported by evidence and data that will remain valid and representative throughout the next reporting cycle and beyond.
Think strategically: Consider which areas of your sustainability strategy will yield the best return on financial and resource investment, not only in terms of strengthening GRESB performance, but also organisational and financial resilience against future market changes.

Whether the priority is establishing a robust and future-ready sustainability data management system, defining or refining an existing sustainability strategy, or improving sustainability performance monitoring, disclosure and evaluation processes, practical industry experience and knowledge are essential.