Benchmark Report
How to Read your 2025 Real Estate Benchmark Report
Introduction
GRESB Rating
The GRESB Rating is based on the GRESB Score and its quintile position relative to all participants in the GRESB Assessment, with annual calibration of the model. If the entity is placed in the top quintile, it will be a GRESB 5 Star-rated entity; if it ranks in the bottom quintile, it will be a GRESB 1 Star-rated entity.
Peer Comparison
GRESB assigns each participant to a pre-defined peer group to contextualize their assessment results. Participants who opt to customize their peer group will also see a Customized Peer Group badge and ranking.
Peer groups do not influence the GRESB Score, Star Rating, or points achieved, but help to put the GRESB Score into perspective relative to similar peers.
They are based on the entity’s legal status, investment style, property type, and geographical location.
To ensure participant anonymity, GRESB will only create a peer group once there are at least six participants with similar characteristics (the participant and five other peers). If there are insufficient entities to create a peer group at the most granular level, the system will execute a series of trials that decrease in specificity.
GRESB carries out each entity’s peer group assignment process individually, meaning each entity’s peer group is uniquely its own. For example, while Entity A might have Entity B in its peer group, the reverse is not always true; Entity B might not have Entity A in its peer group.
Note: Peer groups are distinct from benchmark groups. Whereas benchmark groups refer generally to collections of entities, which vary based on context, GRESB creates one predefined peer group per entity using a standardized methodology.
See here for more information about GRESB’s predefined peer group allocation process
Rankings
In addition to the peer comparison, GRESB provides a broad range of additional rankings by comparing participants’ scores against various benchmark groups based on:
How entities perform within a specific sector (e.g., office) and region (e.g., Europe).
How entities perform within a combination of sector and nature of ownership / (e.g., listed vs. non-listed & core).
How entities perform within a combination of region, nature of ownership, strategy, and whether the fund is open-ended or closed-ended.
This approach aligns with the comparative nature of the Benchmark Report and helps contextualize scores by comparing them against participants with similar geographic, sectoral, and ownership style criteria.
For listed entities, the second and third ranking using Management scores in the 2nd row will be the same.
In some cases, one or more of the ranking badges may be greyed out. This happens when there are not enough entities in that respective ranking category.
GRESB Model
The GRESB Model is an interactive chart that displays the GRESB Scores of all entities that submitted the Management and Performance Component and/or the Management and Development Component.
The scores of participants who only complete one component are shown along either side of the model's axes. The four diagonal lines represent the star rating cutoffs, indicating where each entity falls within the relative quintiles.
Hovering over the stars above the graph reveals the score ranges corresponding to each star rating. Entity names remain confidential, unless the participant opted to disclose their name and score to other participants. By opting to disclose its score, that entity gains access to the names and scores of other participants who also chose to share this information.
The sum of all indicator scores (on the right-hand side) totals 100 points. The Management Component accounts for 30 points, while the Performance and Development Components each contribute 70 points.
Entities that obtain at least half of the points in each relevant component will receive the Green Star designation.
GRESB Average, Benchmark Average, & Peer Average
The GRESB Average is the average score of all entities with a GRESB Score/GRESB Development Score in the GRESB Universe.
The Peer Average is the average score of all entities within one’s peer group, which are shown in the Entity and Peer Characteristics section.
The Benchmark Average is the average score of all entities sharing similar characteristics within a single component
Component Benchmark Averages:
For the Management Component, this refers to the average scores of entities within the same geography and nature of ownership.
For the Performance and Development Components, the benchmark average would include the average scores of all entities grouped according to a similar sector, geography, and nature of ownership.
Note that GRESB constructs multiple distinct benchmarks per entity; the term 'benchmark’ refers to different comparison groups, depending on the context. For example, the Standing Investments Benchmark consists of all entities that submitted a Management and Performance Component, whereas the Management Component Benchmark consists of all entities sharing similar characteristics within the Management Component. When applicable, the guidance throughout this report will highlight the context behind each benchmark.
Sustainability Breakdown
Each indicator is allocated to one of the three dimensions (E- Environmental; S- Social; G- Governance):
Environmental indicators are related to actions and efficiency measures undertaken in order to monitor and decrease the environmental footprint of the portfolio.
Social indicators are related to the entity’s relationship with and impact on its stakeholders and the direct social impact of its activities.
Governance indicators are related to the governance of environmental, financial, and operational sustainability policies, procedures, and approaches to sustainability at the entity level.
Trend
The trend graph shows the entity’s score progression across each year of participation. It also includes historical performance metrics such as the GRESB Range (i.e., lowest and highest scores achieved) and average scores for the GRESB Universe and peer group.
The graph will highlight the entity’s Grace Period year (if any) to indicate its participation status, but will not reveal the entity’s performance that year. If the entity opted into the Grace Period in the previous reporting year, this section does not include a score or rating change between the current and previous year.
Aspects, Strengths, & Opportunities
The Aspects, Strengths, & Opportunities rose graph is an interactive tool that shows how the entity’s performance in each aspect (e.g., Reporting, Risk Management) compares to that of its benchmark group for the current and previous reporting year.
It provides a high-level overview of which areas the entity performs well in and which it could improve upon. This can help readers of the Benchmark Report direct their attention before delving further into the entity’s underlying results.
Score Summary
The Score Summary section details the number of points the entity earned per Aspect (e.g., Leadership) and per indicator. The maximum points and their weight within the Management Component are listed alongside each Aspect title.
This section also reveals the entity’s score relative to the Management Component benchmark on an indicator-by-indicator basis. This can help with identifying more precise improvement opportunities.
Note that every component (i.e., Management, Performance, and Development) has a distinct benchmark composition:
Management Component: entities with the same legal status and geography
Performance Component: entities with the same legal status, property type, and geography
Note that the Performance Component benchmark differs from the ones used to dynamically score asset-level performance indicators (e.g., EN1, GH1, etc.). The Performance Component benchmark consists of a broader category of entities with similar characteristics, while the benchmarks used for scoring consist of individual assets that meet the scoring and benchmarking criteria.
For example, while the Performance Component benchmark shown in the report might be based on the broader category of entities in Industrial | Europe | Non-listed, the benchmark used for scoring EN1 Like-for-Like could be all assets with a negative Landlord-controlled Like-for-Like change in Industrial: Manufacturing| Germany.
Development Component: entities with the same legal status, property type, and geography.
The benchmark characteristics are displayed above the table. For confidentiality reasons, GRESB cannot disclose the benchmark constituents’ names.
GRESB cannot disclose the benchmark constituents’ entity names for confidentiality reasons.
Benchmark groups like this one contextualize the performance of entity-level indicators through the Benchmark Report and do not impact the scoring output. The interactive Benchmark Distribution graph on the right side of the table reveals the entity’s score per Aspect compared to the GRESB Universe and Peer Group Average. The grey bars represent the distribution of entities within the corresponding benchmark group.
Entity & Peer Group Characteristics
This section provides an overview of the entity, pre-defined peer group, and customized peer group characteristics and constituents, if applicable. Publicly listed peers are identified by entity name in this section, while private (non-listed) peers are shown only under the fund manager's name for privacy purposes. Parentheses next to the fund manager's name indicate the number of non-listed peer constituents held by that fund.
Key aspects to note:
Publicly listed peers are identified by entity name in this section, while private (non-listed) peers are shown using only the fund manager's name for privacy purposes.
For non-listed peer groups, parentheses next to the fund manager's name indicate the number of non-listed peer group constituents held by that fund manager.
Portfolio Impact
This section offers an overview of the portfolio’s Energy, GHG, Water, and Waste performance during the reporting year.
GRESB calculates the values in this section by aggregating the entity’s asset-level data, using floor area and ownership % as weighting factors.
For example, if a portfolio has two assets:
Asset 1:
100,000 m2
100% ownership
Data Coverage: 100%
Asset 2:
100,000 m2
50% ownership
Data Coverage: 0%
Portfolio-level Data Coverage = 66.7%
Performance Insights (Energy, GHG, Water, Waste, Building Certifications)
Focus on Performance
The Performance Insights sections reveal the entity’s sustainability performance at the Sector | Country level, aggregated by GRESB from asset-level data. Users may quickly navigate to each Sector | Country within the portfolio using the filter bar at the top of the page.
GRESB scores the indicators included in this section at the asset level. More detailed portfolio breakdowns and individual asset scores are available to participants in the Score Contribution Tool.
This section is not meant to be used to break down the GRESB score but rather to facilitate a deeper understanding of the entity’s overall sustainability performance.
Intensity Section
GRESB simplified intensity insights visuals. Click on the dropdown within each section to learn more about GRESB’s intensity calculation methodology. For portfolio-wide intensity metrics, refer to the Standing Investment scorecard.
Data Coverage (Area/Time)
Landlord Controlled
Tenant Controlled
Energy, GHG, and Water: GRESB calculates data coverage percentages based on both the area and the time for which data is available.
Area-Time aggregated coverage can be smaller than the separate Area and Time coverages due to the weighting impact once combined.
Waste: GRESB calculates data coverage percentages based on the area for which data is reported at the asset level.
Calculations are done at the asset level separately for landlord- and tenant-controlled spaces (aside from GHG data coverage, which is calculated separately for Scope I & II and Scope III) to facilitate more targeted comparison.
Asset level data coverages are then aggregated to the Sector | Country level using floor area and ownership as weighting factors.
If an entity lacks either control type/scope, the graphs will be greyed out and classified as Not Applicable.
Energy Efficiency
GRESB assesses an entity's energy performance first by determining the portion of highly energy-efficient assets within its portfolio.
In addition to meeting the four criteria outlined in the Energy Intensity section above, to qualify as highly energy efficient, assets must also have an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) value that is lower than the corresponding threshold established by the ASHRAE Standard 100:2024.
Participants may export the ASHRAE thresholds that correspond with each of their assets within the GRESB Asset Portal and review their assets' performance against them in the Score Contribution Tool.
The energy intensity calculation considers renewable energy but excludes outdoor/exterior area and non-operational energy (from EV charging stations).
GRESB excludes outdoor/exterior areas because they often have relatively low consumption across a larger area and can distort intensity insights.
GRESB excludes non-operational energy because it is not considered part of the building's energy consumption.
Like-for-Like Availability & Performance
Energy: The metrics in this section only reflect data that 1) did not meet GRESB’s Energy Efficiency criteria but 2) did meet GRESB’s like-for-like criteria (see below).
GHG, Water, and Waste: The metrics in this section only reflect data that met GRESB’s like-for-like eligibility criteria.
GRESB assesses LFL eligibility per control and utility type (e.g., landlord-controlled fuel) and aggregates it using the floor area covered by each data point as a weighting factor.
An asset may therefore be partially LFL-eligible. For this reason, the total floor area of LFL-eligible space may not equal the total floor area of assets that are included in LFL calculations.
Only spaces that meet all of the following criteria, for both current and previous reporting years, are eligible for inclusion in the LFL calculations:
Data Availability covers the full year (> 355 days)
Data Coverage is positive
Data Coverage is the same (within 1% error threshold)
The asset is classified as a Standing Investment.
The red upward arrows indicate an increase in consumption compared to the previous year, and therefore a negative performance, while green downward arrows indicate a decrease in consumption, and therefore a positive performance.
Renewable Energy and Water Reuse & Recycling
Renewable Energy Generated and Procured
This section reveals the proportion of operational energy consumption that was renewably generated and procured. It includes the following renewable energy datapoints reported at the asset level:
Generated and consumed on-site by landlord and/or tenant
Generated on-site and exported by the tenant
Generated off-site and procured by landlord and/or tenant
The chart on the left compares the current and previous year percentages against a relative benchmark group based on assets of the same sector and country. Although it includes renewable energy that the entity exported, note that GRESB caps this at 100% of the entity’s operational energy consumption.
The chart on the right helps readers to understand how the entity’s renewable energy composition compares to that of assets within the same sector and country benchmark
This section does not reflect any of the entity’s reported GHG offsets.
Water Reuse & Recycling
This section highlights the proportion of on-site water reuse/recycling relative to total water consumption for the current and previous years.
The chart on the left compares the percentage of total water reuse reported by the entity in the current year against the previous year and compares these values against a relative benchmark group based on sector and country.
The chart on the right helps readers to understand how the entity’s water recycling practices compare to those of assets within the same sector and country benchmark.
Waste Management
This section reveals the proportion of total waste diverted from landfill (i.e., recycled, reused, or converted to energy).
Note that landfill, incineration, and other methods are not factored into the waste diversion calculation. The chart on the right helps readers to understand how the entity’s waste disposal practices compare to those of assets within the same sector and country benchmark.
Validation
GRESB validation verifies the existence, completeness, accuracy, and logic of data submitted to the GRESB Assessments. GRESB conducts both automatic and manual validation.
The Evidence: Manual Validation table summarizes the validation decisions of all manually validated indicators.
For manually validated indicators that require multiple validation decisions depending on the entity’s selections (e.g., PO1, RP1), the table reveals the outcome of each possible selection.
Lastly, the table provides a brief explanation for any indicators that received less than a fully accepted decision (for evidence and ‘Other’ answers).
Indicator Breakdown
Every indicator can be answered with ‘Yes, ‘No,’ and ‘Not applicable’ in some cases. From a scoring perspective, ‘Not applicable’ is considered the same way as ‘No,’ and will yield 0 points. The header displays the points achieved per indicator.
The Management Component measures strategy and leadership management, policies and processes, risk management, and stakeholder engagement approaches at the organizational level.
The Performance Component measures a real estate entity's risk management, tenant engagement, target setting, and asset performance across energy, GHG, water, waste, and building certifications, using both entity and asset-level data.
The Development Component measures the entity’s efforts to address sustainability-related issues during the design, construction, and renovation of buildings.
The percentage bars located next to the indicator’s answers reflect the Component benchmark’s selections. This comparison is used to contextualize the entity’s results and does not affect scoring.
Rather, it can help the entity compare its responses to entities with similar characteristics; if the majority of an entity’s benchmark selected something that it did not, this can reveal a specific and achievable opportunity to align with leaders that with the entity’s characteristics.
Sector Insight: Residential
The Sector Insight: Residential Report is a standalone output for participants whose portfolios are composed of 75% or more residential assets by Gross Asset Value (GAV) and who complete the residential component of the assessment. It retains the familiar layout and user experience of the standard GRESB Benchmark Report, ensuring consistency in navigation and interpretation for participants.
The report is structured around the two main components of the Real Estate Assessment— Management and Performance—and includes core benchmarking features such as the GRESB Score and position within the GRESB Residential Universe.
Key distinctions include:
The integration of residential-specific indicators (RES1–RES6), which address sector-relevant topics such as fair housing, infrastructure quality, and affordability.
Recalibrated scoring weights for selected existing indicators, reflecting performance drivers that are more relevant to the residential context.
Last updated
Was this helpful?