Scoring Basics

For some indicators, scoring is based solely on the cumulative sum of the scoring weights assigned to the indicator's elements. These weights, displayed in red on the left side of each indicator, represent the allocation of total available points per indicator according to the priorities established by the GRESB Foundation, aligning with market trends and sustainability best practices.

Oftentimes, not all elements within an indicator need to be selected to achieve full points. If the sum of weights exceeds the indicator's maximum score, the score will be capped at that maximum.

Example without sub-options:

• Indicator score =

  • [ (Sum of scoring weights) ] × (Maximum score for the indicator)

Indicator LE4 - Taskforce/Committee (1 point)

Each task force member type contributes a specific scoring weight; governing bodies and leadership roles hold a scoring weight of 3/8, and investment and professional roles hold a scoring weight of 2/8.

If an entity chooses two governing bodies and one professional, the calculation will read as follows:

Example with multiple sub-options:

When indicators have options and sub-options, the scoring weight for each sub-option is first summed, and the resulting value is multiplied by the main fraction assigned to the main option. The final score is the cumulative sum of these weighted sub-options across all main options within the indicator, multiplied by the indicator's maximum points.

• Indicator score =

  • [ (Sum of the sub-option scoring weights for each main option) × (Main option weight for each option) ] × Maximum score for the indicator

Indicator SE6 - Supply chain engagement program (1.5 points)

The indicator consists of three main options, each carrying an equal weight of 1/3. Within each main option, there are several sub-options, each with its own assigned weight.

If an entity chooses four elements within the supply chain engagement program, four topics, and two external parties to whom the requirements apply, the calculation would read as:

The score of some indicators is further adjusted by applying multipliers that either increase or decrease the indicator’s score. Multipliers are classified into different categories:

Validation Status

Evidence: If supporting evidence for indicators is fully accepted, it results in the application of the full multiplier (100%) to the indicator's score. If supporting evidence is partially accepted, it results in a reduced multiplier (50%). If the evidence is not accepted, the multiplier is set to 0, regardless of the original selection. Indicators and answers subject to manual validation are listed in Appendix 4 of the Reference Guide.

Building Certification Schemes: Each building certification is reviewed by GRESB and assigned a specific validation status: full points (100%), partial plus (60%) and partial minus (30%). Indicators subject to this multiplier are BC1.1, BC1.2, DBC1.1 and DBC1.2.

Coverage Percentages

The coverage percentage reported is used as a multiplier to determine the assigned score. This multiplier applies to the scoring of the following indicators:

• Percentage of employees: SE1, SE2.1, SE3.2 and SE4

• Percentage of tenants: TC2.1

• Percentage of portfolio coverage: RA1, RA2 (aggregated to portfolio level), TC1 and TC3

• Percentage of projects covered: DBC1.1, DEN2.1, DEN2.2 and DSE3.1

Single Multiplier Example

For indicators with a single multiplier, the final score is calculated using the following formula:

Indicator score = [ (Sum of scoring weights) × Multiplier ] × Maximum score for the indicator

Example: Indicator LE6 - Personnel ESG Performance Targets (2 points). Each selected personnel group contributes a specific scoring weight. It is mandatory to upload evidence that supports the entity’s selections. The evidence’s validation status (i.e., accepted, partially accepted or not accepted) is associated with a scoring weight that is used as a multiplier to determine the final score. Similarly to LE4, governing bodies and leadership roles hold a scoring weight of 3/8, and investment and ESG professional roles hold a scoring weight of 2/8.

If an entity chooses one governing body and two ESG professionals, but its evidence is given a partially accepted validation status (multiplier: 0.5), the calculation would be as follows:

Multiple multipliers example:

The score of other indicators may be adjusted by several multipliers. The scoring formula can include an additional percentage multiplier before applying the validation status.

Example: Indicator and TC2.1 – Tenant satisfaction survey (1 point) is scored based on two main options: the type of survey, which contributes 2/3 of the total weight, and the metrics included in the survey, which contributes the remaining 1/3. Each of these main options contains several sub-options, such as the survey method and specific metrics, each with its own weight. The percentage of tenants covered in the survey type acts as a multiplier applied to the weight of the selected sub-option, while the weights of the sub-options within the metrics are cumulatively summed. The weighted contributions of both main options (survey type and metrics) are then added together, as explained above. The resulting score is then adjusted based on the validation status of the evidence. The final score is then multiplied by the maximum score for the indicator. In this case, the formula would read:

Indicator score: { [ ( % Multiplier * sub-option weight * Main option weight) + [ ( Sum of the sub-option scoring weights) × (Main option weight) ] * Validation status } * Maximum score for the indicator

Note that indicators with several multipliers may differ in structure, and therefore the same exact formula would not apply. For this specific case, if an entity chooses an independent third-party survey with 100% of tenants covered, which includes the Net Promoter Score metric, and whose evidence has been partially accepted (0.5), the calculation would be:

Some indicators are scored using static weights, meaning predefined values are used to assess a portfolio's performance.

In these cases, the points assigned to an indicator are fixed based on the number of selections chosen and the corresponding multipliers, where applicable.

The scoring outcome remains unaffected by the participant's relative performance compared to its benchmark group. Instead, these indicators are assessed based on whether the participant meets certain predefined criteria.

Static scoring applies to indicators that assess entity and/or group-level strategies and processes:

• Management Component: all indicators

• Performance Component: all indicators except EN1, GH1, WT1, WS1, BC1.1, BC1.2 and BC2, which may be scored using either a relative or linear approach, depending on the benchmark performance. For further details, refer to each individual indicator description.

• Development Component: all indicators except DBC1.2

These indicators can be answered with ‘Yes, ‘No’ and, in some cases, ‘Not applicable.’ From a scoring perspective, ‘Not applicable’ is treated the same way as ‘No’ and will yield 0 points.

The points per indicator subject to static scoring vary across the Real Estate Components:

• Management Component = 30 points

• Performance Component = 27.5 points (dependent upon materiality)

• Development Component = 61 points

Introduction

GRESB uses a relative scoring methodology to evaluate portfolios fairly and encourage continual improvement.

With this approach, scores are determined not just by the portfolio's standalone performance but by how it compares against benchmark groups of comparable properties.

Process

Benchmark groups are dynamic and change based on the portfolio's characteristics, such as property type and geographical location.

If a portfolio has two property sub-types, e.g., Office, Corporate: Low-Rise in Germany and Residential Multi-Family: Low-Rise Multi-Family in the Netherlands, each property type will be benchmarked and scored separately against other properties with the same sectoral and geographical characteristics.

Benchmark creation depends on availability; if there are not at least 20 assets from 5 distinct reporting entities, the Property Sub-Type classification and then the Country specificity will gradually decrease.

GRESB aggregates self-reported asset-level data to a single score for each property sub-type and country in the participant’s portfolio.

The final indicator score is calculated by weighing the property sub-type and country scores based on their % GAV within the portfolio.

This ensures that the contribution of each property sub-type and country to the final score is proportional to its significance in the portfolio.

• For example, if a portfolio has two property sub-types, e.g. Office, Corporate: Low-Rise in Germany (60%) and Residential Multi-Family: Low-Rise Multi-Family in the Netherlands (40%), the performance of properties in Germany will have a greater impact on the entity’s score compared to those in the Netherlands as Germany holds a higher % GAV in the overall portfolio.

Relative scoring applies to indicators reported at the asset-level through the Asset Portal:

• EN1 (Energy)

• GH1 (GHG Emissions)

• WT1 (Water), WS1 (Waste)

• BC1.1 (Building Certifications at the time of design/construction and for interior)

• BC1.2 (Operational Building Certifications)

• BC2 (Energy Ratings)

The points per indicator subject to relative scoring vary across the Real Estate Components:

• Management Component = 0 points

• Performance Component = 42.5 points

• Development Component = 9 points

For indicator-specific scoring guidance, please refer to each individual indicator description.

The 2026 GRESB Public Disclosure information includes 23 indicators, covering four Aspects. Each indicator is scored between zero and full points, depending on the availability of evidence and selected answer options. Combined, these indicators add up to a maximum of 70 points. Constituents receive a GRESB Public Disclosure Level, from A to E, based on the following scale:

Data provided, updated, or amended by GRESB Public Disclosure constituents will be validated.

GRESB puts an entity’s Public Disclosure Level into context by assigning it to a comparison group based on country/region, property sector, and market value. Note that an entity’s Public Disclosure comparison group differs from the GRESB Real Estate Assessment Peer Group.