From intent to impact: GRESB’s move toward asset-level outcomes

GRESB (Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark) is a globally recognised Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) benchmarking and reporting framework for real estate and infrastructure portfolios.  

Historically, GRESB played a critical role in establishing the foundations of ESG integration. However, as overall sustainability performance across the industry has improved, GRESB scores have begun to cluster at the top end, where meaningful differentiation between leaders has eroded.  

GRESB’s shift to performance-based scoring

GRESB’s shift to performance-based scoring, intends to give investors a reliable way to identify organisations that deliver tangible ESG outcomes - helping them to manage risk, allocate capital effectively, and reward strategies that translate into measurable impact. To remain decision-useful and credible, GRESB must increasingly reflect asset-level performance differences, not just differences in reporting quality.   

A structural shift: 3 x more performance weighting

GRESB has signalled a gradual move from roughly 12% performance weighting today, to circa 50% across material topics in real estate. This is a fundamental rebalancing of the framework.  

Key implications of the shift in performance weighting include:

• Greater focus on a smaller set of decision-critical KPIs
• Sector-specific weighting, acknowledging that material performance differs across asset classes
• A clearer separation between foundational capability and performance outcomes 

Weighting increase consequences: Materiality becomes critical

The significance of performance-based scoring lies not only in what is measured, but in how much it matters. Performance indicators must reflect the ESG risks and value drivers that matter for a specific portfolio, sector, and region. Indicators that fail to reflect real exposure or impact may be weighted less favourably, limiting both score progression and competitive differentiation.  

Under this evolving framework, prioritising metrics that are convenient rather than consequential is no longer a minor tactical misstep; it becomes a structural disadvantage. By embedding a clear, well-defined materiality assessment, businesses can prioritise what truly matters, align their ESG strategy with real-world impact, and enhance both implementation and reporting. In a performance-driven framework, materiality is not just a compliance requirement, it is a key strategic differentiator.

The rise of prerequisites: A new threshold for participation  

One of the most significant shifts is the proposed introduction of fundamental practices as prerequisites. Whilst these have not yet been defined, GRESB has indicated that capabilities previously rewarded with a higher score, particularly under the management section, will become the minimum standard required for participation in the benchmark. Scoring differentiation will come from execution of quality and results, not from the presence of plans alone.

GRESB’s proposal to require submission of the management section once every three years, signals a move toward demonstrating sustained operational performance. If implemented effectively, this change should help rebalance effort toward measurable outcomes at asset level, where value is genuinely created.  

What does this mean for participants?  

Success under performance-based scoring will rely on forward-looking operational decisions and organisations will need to demonstrate:

• Robust data collection, continuous monitoring, and clear definitions of ‘what good looks like’
• Credible net zero pathways linked directly to asset-level action
• Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) planning for retrofits and refurbishments embedded in investment models.

Waiting for GRESB to define ‘good’ performance before acting will be insufficient. Outcomes are driven by long-term design, operational, and capital decisions, meaning the ability to influence results narrows before metrics are finalised. Leading organisations will anticipate where expectations are heading and act early, rather than react once benchmarks are set. 

As the market transitions toward performance-based scoring, several practical realities are becoming clear:

• So-called ‘easy wins’ may improve headline KPI performance in the short term, but they rarely drive best-practice outcomes. While they can look positive within existing reporting structures, they do little to elevate project scope or operational standards. As performance expectations mature, these incremental measures risk leaving portfolios exposed and rapidly outpaced by industry benchmarks.
• Materiality requires sharper interpretation. Real estate assets operate within complex environments where numerous ESG issues may be present. However, the sheer number of issues does not equate to meaningful impact. The critical distinction lies between significant issues and significant impact. Focusing on magnitude alone can dilute effort; prioritising areas where real, measurable performance improvements can be achieved is what ultimately differentiates leaders.
• Governance remains foundational, but only when it works in practice. Without clear ownership, defined responsibilities, realistic objectives, and a structured path to implementation, policies become little more than empty documentation. Sustainability frameworks cannot operate as tick-box exercises; it is execution discipline that transforms intention into outcome.
• The tenant relationship is an unresolved structural fault line in performance-based scoring. For a substantial proportion of commercial real estate held under Full Repairing and Insuring (FRI) or triple-net lease structures, landlords have neither metered access to consumption data nor contractual leverage to drive efficiency improvements, meaning funds with fragmented tenant structures will be systematically disadvantaged, not because they are poorly managed, but because their leases don't permit the data access that scoring now demands.  
• Green lease adoption is no longer an aspiration; it is a scoring prerequisite. Most funds have a green lease policy, far fewer have leases that function in practice with active tenant cooperation and reliable data flow, and that gap is where GRESB scores will be won and lost. 

Ultimately, performance-based scoring represents a positive evolution, moving the industry towards holistic, forward-looking sustainability.  At Cundall, we have been observing and shaping this transition, advising on materiality, and helping organisations align ESG priorities with both operational and investment decisions.  

If you would like to gain a deeper understanding of the changes to GRESB, and how to effectively prepare your portfolio and strategy for the future of the framework, please contact:

Blanca Russell – GRESB Accredited Professional  

Robert Modler – Strategy and Governance lead  

Simon Wyatt – Partner, and Global Head of Sustainability