Executive Review: Road to Performance—Public Consultation

Context and rationale 

Current approach
Performance has historically been assessed primarily through an improvement-based approach over time. This approach supports diverse portfolio strategies, including transition-focused investments, but may under-recognize assets that have already achieved high levels of absolute performance. 

Strengthening outcomes 
Absolute performance scoring was introduced for energy in 2025 using globally applicable benchmarks. Early evidence suggests that improvement-based and absolute-based scoring pathways better cater for different asset profiles and stages of maturity. 

Key considerations 

• Improvement-only scoring may under-recognize leading assets.  
• Absolute-only scoring may disadvantage less mature portfolios.  
• A dual approach preserves inclusivity while strengthening alignment with measurable real-world outcomes. 

Context and rationale 

Current weighting structure 
Direct performance indicators currently account for approximately 12% of the GRESB Score, with a further ~10% linked to proxy performance measures such as certifications. A substantial share of the score remains allocated to governance, strategy, disclosure, and data coverage.

Strategic ambition  
As market maturity increases, investors expect GRESB results to more clearly reflect measurable sustainability outcomes. For performance-based scoring to meaningfully influence behavior and capital allocation, its weighting must be substantial rather than incremental. 

Preserving balance  
While strengthening performance weighting is necessary, non-performance topics remain essential to effective sustainability management. Governance, strategy, risk assessment, stakeholder engagement, and data quality underpin sustained performance improvement and ensure that measured outcomes are credible, consistent, and durable over time. 

The Foundation recommends targeting 50–75% weighting toward performance as the ultimate ambition in the Real Estate Standard, while maintaining a significant minority allocation to non-performance topics. 

Context and rationale

Holistic foundation 
The Real Estate Standard covers environmental, social, and governance topics. While performance-based scoring has focused primarily on environmental themes, other sustainability areas remain material to investors. 

Strategic question 

The Foundation considered whether performance-based scoring should remain focused on environmental topics or extend more broadly across sustainability themes. While climate-related performance remains the most mature area, maintaining a holistic Standard is essential, and sequencing will continue to reflect topic maturity, data readiness, and decision-usefulness. 

Topics within future scope 
The following topics have been identified as within potential future scope for performance-based assessment: 

Inclusion within scope does not imply immediate weighting changes. Sequencing will reflect topic maturity and decision-usefulness.

Context and Rationale

Current model
The Real Estate Standard has historically evolved through incremental annual updates designed to preserve year-on-year comparability. As GRESB Scores have become more embedded in investment and financing decisions, even minor methodological changes can now have disproportionate impacts, shifting investor-manager engagement toward technical score movements rather than long-term performance outcomes. 

Emerging tension 
Incremental annual updates preserve some year-on-year comparability but constrain the ability to introduce more substantive methodological improvements. Conversely, larger structural changes enable meaningful evolution but can disrupt score comparability and create uncertainty for participants and investors. 

Alternative model  

In developing the Road to Performance, the Foundation assessed how the Standard could continue evolving in response to investor priorities and market maturity whilst maintaining stability and predictability for participants. A staged model of change emerged as the preferred approach, introducing fewer but more substantial updates separated by defined periods of stability. 

Cadence assessment 

The Foundation assessed the cadence length for updates, including three-, four-, and five-year cycles. A three-year staged cycle was assessed as the most proportionate balance between stability and meaningful evolution, providing predictability while enabling substantive progress. 

Context and rationale

Assessment cycle constraint 
The Real Estate Standard assesses the prior reporting year, creating a built-in lag between action and score impact. Implementing significant methodological changes requires sufficient notice for participants to adapt systems and strategies. 

Timeline options considered 
The Foundation considered implementation in 2027, 2028, and 2029. 

• 2027 was assessed as misaligned with change management principles. 
• 2028 balances preparation time with material climate priorities. 
• 2029 was assessed as misaligned with investor urgency around decarbonization. 

The Foundation also recognized that the real-world impact of methodological change is influenced not only by the formal year of implementation, but by when those changes are clearly communicated. Early transparency enables participants to anticipate new requirements, adjust strategies, and take action well before scoring is affected. 

Context and rationale

Comparability challenge 
Year-on-year comparability is central to the GRESB value proposition. Major methodological revisions expected under the staged model (e.g., 2028, 2031, 2034), can make direct comparison difficult.

Changes in GRESB results are influenced by three factors: 

• Changes within a portfolio (e.g., improved performance or practices) 
• Changes in the benchmark 
• Changes in the Standard’s methodology 

While GRESB cannot control portfolio or benchmark dynamics, it can support transparency around methodological updates. 

Illustrative scores 

To support interpretability during major methodological updates, two complementary score views are proposed: 

• Forward-looking scores—to anticipate the impact of forthcoming methodological changes, based on already submitted data. 
• Backward-looking scores—to understand and explain the impact of implemented changes once they occur, by showing how results would have been calculated under the previous methodology. 

These score views would be illustrative only and would not replace the official score for the relevant reporting year. 

Context and rationale

Strategic prioritization 
Climate-related performance—particularly energy efficiency and operational GHG emissions—remains the most mature and material sustainability priority for real asset investors. Capital allocation, regulation, and disclosure expectations are increasingly tied to credible decarbonization progress. Strengthening the weighting of these topics therefore reflects clear market demand and the growing importance of measurable climate outcomes. 

Readiness assessment 
The Foundation assessed topic maturity across three dimensions: 

1. Industry Maturity—recognition of materiality and convergence of performance metrics 
2. Membership Readiness—availability and quality of asset-level data 
3. Methodological Robustness—clarity and global applicability of performance definitions 

Energy and operational GHG performance scored highest across these criteria relative to other sustainability topics. 

Scale of uplift 
Consistent with the long-term ambition to increase performance weighting (see 1.2), the Foundation assessed what would constitute a meaningful first step. A combined weighting of approximately 25% for energy and GHG in the first iteration was determined to represent a substantial but proportionate shift—sufficient to materially influence results while remaining staged and manageable. 

Context and rationale

Initial performance uplift 
As set out in Recommendation 2.4, energy and GHG performance have been prioritized for the first increase in performance weighting. Together, they currently account for approximately 6% of the total GRESB Score. Increasing their combined weighting to 25 points represents a significant structural shift and the first substantive step toward a more performance-focused Standard. 

Options assessed 
The Foundation assessed alternative allocation scenarios, including: 

• Equal weighting between energy and GHG 
• A heavier weighting toward GHG 
• A heavier weighting toward energy 

The assessment considered investor priorities, regulatory alignment, market maturity, methodological robustness, and relative real-world impact.  

Energy efficiency remains the most consistently applicable and measurable decarbonization lever across portfolios, while GHG performance captures additional, more context-dependent pathways.  

The Foundation recommends the following split in the first iteration of the Road to Performance:  

• 14 points – energy performance 
• 11 points – GHG performance 

Context and rationale

Role of data quality

High-quality, reliable data underpins the credibility of the GRESB Real Estate Standard. As the weighting allocated to measured performance increases—particularly for energy and GHG—confidence in the accuracy and integrity of reported data becomes more critical. 

Increased reliance on performance data 

Under the proposed 2028 update, energy and GHG performance weighting will increase from approximately 6.5% to 25% (see 3.1). Currently, third-party review for energy and GHG data account for approximately 3 points of the total score. As reliance on reported performance data grows, insufficiently reviewed data could have a greater influence on overall results. 

Options assessed 

The Foundation assessed whether to: 

• Maintain current data quality weighting 
• Increase weighting proportionately with performance weighting 
• Increase weighting more substantially to introduce stronger assurance requirements 

Maintaining current weighting was considered insufficient. A significantly larger increase was assessed as potentially disproportionate relative to associated review costs. 

The Foundation recommends: 

• Energy data review: 4.0 points (increase of 2.25 from 1.75)
• GHG data review: 3.25 points (increase of 2.0 from 1.25)

The combined 4.25 points increase represents a proportionate increase aligned with expanded performance weighting. 

In parallel, the Foundation set up a technical working group in 2026 dedicated to strengthening the relationship between data quality, completeness and performance measurement in the Standard. Results from this development will be communicated in Q4 2026. 

Context and rationale

Strategic objective 
The proposed 2028 update reallocates a greater share of the GRESB Real Estate Standard’s scoring weight toward measured sustainability performance. Delivering this transition requires identifying where scoring weight can be freed up without weakening the integrity or intent of the Standard. 

Identification of foundational indicators 
Over time, several indicators assessing foundational sustainability management practices have reached very high levels of adoption across the GRESB membership. While these practices remain essential, they no longer meaningfully differentiate results. Following a qualitative and quantitative review, the Foundation identified 17 indicators (representing approximately 18 points under the current framework) that reflect widely adopted baseline practices across six themes: 

• Commitments 
• Governance 
• Policies 
• Risk Assessments 
• Stakeholder Engagement 
• Stakeholder Monitoring 

Together, these themes represent core elements of sustainability management capability. 

Role going forward 
The Foundation considered retiring these indicators entirely but concluded that doing so would signal that such practices are no longer important. Introducing them as prerequisites to achieve a GRESB Rating instead preserves them as minimum expectations while freeing up scoring weight to support stronger performance differentiation. 

Structural design 
The proposed approach includes: 

• Scope: 17 indicators form the prerequisite package for 2028. 
• Achievement threshold: An 80% minimum threshold required to pass (with 86% of entities already meeting this level based on 2024 results). 
• Reporting frequency: Once every three years, supported by annual attestation. 

These elements are intended to support performance-based scoring while maintaining feasibility and broad participation. 

Context and rationale

Role of data coverage 

Energy and GHG data coverage currently account for 8.5 points and 5.0 points respectively within the GRESB Score. These incentives have supported data collection systems and contributed to global coverage levels exceeding 75%. 

Increase weighting on performance outcomes 

Under the proposed 2028 update, energy and GHG performance weighting increases materially (see 3.1). As measured outcomes become a more significant driver of scoring, the role of data coverage shifts from being a primary scoring component to serving as a condition enabling performance assessment. Maintaining historically high coverage weighting alongside increased performance weighting would risk overemphasizing the same underlying effort. 

Options assessed 

The Foundation assessed whether to: 

• Maintain current data coverage weighting 
• Reduce weighting while retaining incentives 
• Eliminate coverage weighting entirely 

Maintaining current weighting was considered inconsistent with the shift toward outcome-based scoring. Eliminating coverage weighting was assessed as inappropriate, as sufficient data availability remains necessary for meaningful performance measurement. A calibrated reduction was determined to represent the most balanced approach that preserves incentives while reallocating weight toward measured performance. 

The Foundation recommends: 

• Energy data coverage: 6.5 points (reduction of 2.0 from 8.5) 
• GHG data coverage: 3.5 points (reduction of 1.5 from 5.0) 

Context and rationale 

Holistic review and streamlining objective 
As part of the proposed 2028 update, the Foundation undertook a holistic review of all indicators within the Real Estate Standard, with a focus on streamlining and materiality. The updated Standard is intended to concentrate reporting effort on a smaller set of highly material indicators, particularly those that enable the measurement and reward of real-world performance outcomes. 

Identification of indicators 
Three asset-level risk assessment indicators were identified as candidates for retirement: 

• RA3 – Energy Efficiency Measures (0.5 points) 
• RA4 – Water Efficiency Measures (0.25 points) 
• RA5 – Waste Management Measures (0.25 points) 

These indicators require reporting of efficiency measures implemented over a rolling three-year period. In practice, this structure does not always align with the timing or lifecycle of implementation, making responses difficult to maintain accurately and potentially less reflective of current material actions. 

As an illustration, these indicators collectively require reporting across 24 asset-level data points. For a portfolio of 50 assets, this equates to approximately 1,200 data points per reporting cycle. 

Options assessed 
The Foundation assessed whether to maintain, refine, or retire these indicators. Maintaining them was considered inconsistent with stronger outcome-based differentiation. Refinement was assessed but unlikely to resolve the structural misalignment. Retirement was determined to be the most proportionate approach. 

Context and rationale

Evolving role of certifications 
Building certifications currently represent approximately 8.5% of the total GRESB Score. As the Standard increases its emphasis on measured performance outcomes, the relative role and weighting of certifications requires reassessment. While certifications provide third-party validation and can signal sustainability quality, their weighting must remain proportionate within a framework that increasingly prioritizes direct measurement of performance. 

Strategic trade-offs considered 
In determining the appropriate review of building certifications, the Foundation considered: 

• The evolving shift toward direct measurement of performance outcomes 
• The potential role of certifications in covering sustainability themes not directly captured through performance metrics (e.g., health and wellbeing, biodiversity, certain social dimensions) 
• The multi-year investment horizon associated with certification strategies 
• The need for predictability under the staged update model 

As performance-based scoring expands—beginning with energy and GHG weighting increasing to approximately 25%—the relative influence of certifications will organically decline. Any adjustment to their weighting must therefore balance stronger outcome-based emphasis with investment certainty and continuity for participants. 

The Foundation recognizes that the role and weighting of building certifications may warrant reassessment in future iterations of the Standard. Stakeholder input on how certifications should complement—rather than duplicate—direct performance assessment is therefore welcomed as part of this consultation.