Real estate has always understood rigour when money is on the line. Financial due diligence is detailed, specialist-led, and properly resourced, because everyone knows the cost of getting it wrong. What’s changing in 2026 is that the sustainability conversation in real estate is getting more practical, and less forgiving.
The question is no longer “Do you have a strategy?” It’s: what have you delivered, what are you doing next, and can you prove it?
The signals coming through in the late-2025 Property Week and Investment Week roundtable articles were consistent with what we’re hearing across the market: delivery matters more than intent, data needs to drive decisions, and credibility comes from evidence people can use.
The credibility gap is closing: show the work, not the claims
Targets and policies are easy to write. Delivery is harder. In 2026, credibility comes down to what you can show in practice: in-use performance, transition capex (capital expenditure) that’s been delivered, and a clear pathway for what improves next. This is also where sustainability starts to connect to value discussions, even if valuation practices haven’t caught up consistently.
That point came through strongly in the Property Week roundtable article. As Caroline Hill, Global Head of Real Estate Sustainability at BlackRock, said: “..as sustainability professionals, we have to be better at explaining why we do what we do and putting everything in the language of value.”
What “good” looks like in practice
A simple, repeatable “proof pack” for priority assets (performance now, interventions planned, interventions delivered, evidence trail). A performance pathway that’s easy to underwrite (what improves, by when, and why it reduces risk).
Sense check: are you treating environmental diligence like a core part of the transaction?
Here’s a useful test we’ve been using: compare how you treat financial due diligence versus environmental due diligence. In most transactions, financial due diligence is non-negotiable. It’s specialist, thorough, and properly resourced because the commercial consequences are obvious.
Environmental due diligence is often treated very differently. It can be under-scoped and handled as an add-on, even though it’s more scientific in nature and increasingly tied to transition capex, minimum standards, compliance pathways, and physical risk.
The result is predictable. Gaps show up late, decisions slow down, and buyer confidence drops. Not because sustainability “doesn’t matter”, but because the evidence base isn’t strong enough when it needs to be.
Practical takeaway: treat environmental due diligence like a core part of the transaction. Scope it properly, resource it properly, and use it to build a clear performance pathway, not a compliance summary.
Data is everywhere. Decision-ready data is rare.
Most organisations don’t have a data gap. They have a decision gap. This links back to the question we opened with. It’s no longer “Do you have a strategy?” It’s “Can you prove it?” And proof only helps if the evidence is usable.
Most funds and portfolios already have plenty of sustainability data. The issue is what comes next. It can feel like your car’s GPS showing you every road but not telling you which turn to take. What does the data actually mean? What decision does it change? Can an investor, lender, or buyer look at it and quickly understand what’s improved, what the remaining risks are, and what happens next?
That’s why the frustration coming through the market is less about collection and more about relevance, quality, and comparability. Over-quantification and inconsistent metrics don’t improve decisions. They slow delivery, especially when teams can’t translate outputs into clear priorities.
As Adrian Benedict, Head of Real Estate Solutions at Fidelity International, said: “In this environment of sustainable investing, we have plenty of data, so how are we going to place a value on it?”
And as Guy Glover, Fund Manager at Columbia Threadneedle Investments, said: “The more powerful stories are those that deliver real impact on the ground, because that resonates with investors, whereas data points often do not.”
— Investment Week roundtable article
What to do this year:
- Start with the decisions (capex prioritisation, transition planning, diligence readiness), then choose the smallest metric set that supports them.
- Keep moving while measurement improves. Don’t let “perfect data” become the reason delivery stalls.
Sustainability hasn’t lost its importance. It’s lost its “why” (and we need to bring that back)
Sustainability still matters. Somewhere along the way, the message got lost.
Greenwashing has made everyone cautious, and understandably so. But it’s worth being clear: it’s not always about bad intent. A lot of the time it’s simply saying more than you can prove or not having the evidence in a way that stands up to scrutiny. When that gap shows up, trust drops quickly.
So, organisations default to the safest language they can find: frameworks, reporting outputs, technical terms, compliance wording. It protects you from over-claiming, but it also strips the life out of the work. Sustainability starts to sound like admin. Like a box to tick. And in that process, we’ve lost the “why”.
The “why” is much simpler than the language we often use:
- spotting risk earlier
- preventing avoidable harm
- improving safety and resilience
- strengthening long-term performance in-use
- making accountability clearer across owners, operators and supply chains
Value protection and uplift often follow, but value can’t be the only story. If sustainability is explained only through metrics and financial outcomes, it loses its meaning again.
This is where storytelling matters, not as marketing, but as plain communication. People aren’t built to remember spreadsheets. We remember what changed, why it mattered, and who is better off because of it. Evidence makes those stories credible. Storytelling makes them stick.
Where value shows up first: liquidity
One of the clearest ways sustainability is starting to show up commercially is through liquidity.
Valuations still don’t reflect sustainability progress in a clean, consistent way. But transactions often do. Buyers move faster when they feel confident. They slow down when they don’t.
That’s why liquidity is emerging as a practical test of sustainability maturity. If you can clearly show performance, explain the transition pathway, and evidence what’s been delivered, you reduce friction in due diligence and widen the buyer pool. If you can’t, uncertainty creeps in and deals get harder.
As minimum standards tighten, buyers are also more sensitive to downside risk when the performance pathway isn’t clear. Preparedness becomes a commercial factor, not just a reporting one.
As Sandra Fives, Chief Strategy Officer at Catalyst Group, noted in the Investment Week roundtable article: “Making sure you understand the minimum requirements for the target group you are looking at can allow you to have better liquidity for your asset,”
A practical question for 2026:
If you had to transact this asset in the next 12–18 months, would your sustainability story make it easier for a buyer to get comfortable, or harder?
What to do next
If you’re reading this thinking “this is a lot”, you’re not wrong. Most fund and asset teams are trying to juggle performance, capex planning, reporting expectations, tenant pressure, and transaction timelines all at once. The goal for 2026 isn’t to do everything. It’s to get the basics right on the assets that matter most, then build from there. A practical way to start:
- Pick your priority assets : Choose five assets where risk is highest, capex decisions are coming up, or a transaction is likely in the next 12–24 months.
- Build a short proof pack for each one: Not a long report. Just the essentials: current in-use performance, what’s been delivered, what’s planned next and why, and the evidence trail behind it.
- Agree the minimum decision-useful metrics: This is not about collecting everything. It’s about the smallest consistent set that helps you prioritise capex, plan the transition pathway, and reduce diligence friction.
- Write it in plain English: One page per asset: what changed, why it matters, what’s next, and what proof exists. If a buyer, lender, or investment committee can’t follow it quickly, it won’t help when you need it most.
To do that, you need three things: the expertise on the science behind sustainability, a thorough understanding of how buildings work, a capacity to speak the language of your future investors and simplify your messaging This is exactly where we see Catalyst having a role to play. Helping teams cut through the noise, focus on what actually moves outcomes, and build an evidence base that supports decisions and stands up in due diligence.
Ultimately, we want the conversation to change. To bring back the “why”, and to back it up with proof that people can trust. Because that’s why we do what we do. If this resonates and you want a sounding board on your portfolio or upcoming projects, we’re always open to a conversation.