The 2026 GRESB results are out. Averages rose again, the scoring rules changed underneath them, and the leaders are pulling away. The headline score tells you little this year. The useful question is: what changed, why, and what does it say about the portfolio?
A quick primer
GRESB is the main sustainability benchmark for real estate funds and listed property companies. Managers submit portfolio data each year and are scored out of 100: 30 points for management (policies, governance, risk, stakeholder engagement) and 70 for performance (what buildings use and emit, how much of it is measured, and whether it’s improving). Development portfolios are scored separately.
Two things to remember. Star ratings are relative, so you can raise your score and still lose a star. And each submission covers the previous calendar year: your 2027 submission is about 2026.
The 2026 numbers
The operational average is now around 81, up about five points in two years. Until GRESB publishes its full results, participant disclosures are the best guide. Wihlborgs puts the 2026 operational average at 80.9 (Mercialys cites 80.5), up from 79 in 2025 (UBS Asset Management) and 75.84 in 2024 (ESG News). The development average is 86.2. Leaders sit in the low to mid 90s: Mercialys scored 93 and Eastnine 91.5.
The rise is real. GRESB modelled this year’s methodology changes at an average loss of about 0.6 points, and scores rose anyway. Development held at around 86 even though embodied carbon was scored for the first time, a change GRESB expected to cost 5.3 points.
Higher averages squeeze the top. Five stars go to the global top 20%, so a fund that gains two points can still drop a star. Standing still is now slipping. And the stakes are financial: CapitaLand Investment reports S$2.9 billion of sustainability-linked loans whose interest margins move with its GRESB score.
How to read your result: six drivers
A score can move for six different reasons, and only some of them say anything about your buildings. Separate them before drawing conclusions.
- Performance: has the underlying portfolio actually improved?
- Management: have governance, risk and ESG processes improved?
- Data: is portfolio reporting more complete, accurate and consistent?
- Evidence: are practices properly documented and validated?
- Methodology: has the assessment framework changed?
- Benchmark: has the peer group, or relative performance, changed?
Start with your peer group ranking, not the score. GRESB’s new customised peer groups let you compare against funds of similar location, sector and size.
Where the spread sits: building data
Most of the difference between funds is in performance. In 2025 the average management score was 28 out of 30, while performance averaged 51 out of 70 (UBS), leaving nearly 20 points of spread. That spread comes down, to building data: how much you measure, whether it’s improving, and whether it’s verified. If you can’t trace emissions back to individual assets or evidence your estimates, better reporting alone won’t close the gap.
What changed in 2026
GRESB’s 2026 Standard Updates shifted weight towards risk, people and tenants. Points for building audits and efficiency measures were halved from 6 to 3, climate risk indicators doubled, and workforce data rose from 0.5 to 1.5 points. Tenant engagement gained weight, including an extra point for green lease data-sharing clauses. The sustainability objectives and employee engagement indicators were retired. A few changes are easy to miss but matter:
- Net zero targets. One target per fund, with the buildings it covers flagged. GRESB plots it against actual performance, so investors can see if it leaves out your biggest emitters.
- Green leases. Tenant energy is most portfolios’ biggest blind spot. Data-sharing clauses at renewal improve both the score and the data.
- Climate risk. GRESB wants a consistent, documented process across the portfolio that feeds investment and capex decisions, not one-off reports.
- Scopes and estimates. Energy in landlord-controlled tenant spaces moved from Scope 3 into Scopes 1 and 2. Estimates must now be like-for-like: missing electricity is estimated from electricity data only.
- Renewables. Virtual PPAs and unbundled certificates can now be reported but aren’t scored yet. Savills notes growing scrutiny of certificate-backed claims.
2027 and 2028
2027 should be stable. GRESB expects no indicators to be removed or reweighted, with the November update to confirm. If your score moves next year, it will be down to what you did. Developers will also start reporting project-level construction carbon, unscored for now.
2028 is the big one. GRESB’s Road to Performance consultation shifts reward from policies and process to measured results in buildings, assessing 2027 data. One proposal Savills highlights raises energy and carbon’s share of the score from 21% to 25%. Funds with weak building data will feel it most.
What to do now
Your 2027 submission data is being created now, and 2026 is nearly over. Before setting next year’s target, use this year’s result to answer five questions:
- What changed? The components, indicators and assets driving the movement.
- Why? Portfolio performance versus methodology, benchmark and reporting effects.
- Where are the gaps? Missing evidence, poor data quality or genuine performance issues.
- What matters most? Improvements to real performance, not just points.
- Where else can the data work? Investor reporting, SFDR, EU Taxonomy and decarbonisation planning.
Then, before year-end:
- Chase missing tenant energy data and add data-sharing clauses to renewing leases
- Check estimates follow the like-for-like rule
- Set or refresh your net zero target so building coverage is deliberate
- Update climate risk assessments and link them to capex plans
- Start measuring construction carbon on live developments
- Check the evidence behind renewable energy claims
Investors should ask their managers four things this quarter: how the fund ranks against peers, which buildings the net zero target covers, how much data is measured versus estimated, and what the plan is for tenant data.
Turn your GRESB result into portfolio action
2027 is likely the last stable cycle before GRESB scores real-world performance directly. Use it to get your data right for 2028. As a GRESB Partner, Catalyst helps investors and asset managers read what sits behind their results and turn those findings into action across ESG strategy, data, risk and decarbonisation. Our platform, obi, keeps portfolio ESG data in one place all year, so you’re not rebuilding it for every assessment.
Prepare for your next GRESB assessment with confidence. Explore our GRESB Partner services.