GRESB 2026: The Strategic Choices That Will Decide Who Loses Points and Who Moves Ahead
Improving your GRESB score in 2026 depends on how effectively time, resources, and capital are allocated at the asset level.
Portfolios that continue to prioritize management practices over building performance, data coverage, and high-weight indicators are unlikely to see meaningful score improvement — and may lose ground as competition intensifies.
AUTHOR: NOAH GORDON
REVIEWERS: CARLI SCHOENLEBER, TAYLOR BULOW, PAULYNN CUE
APRIL 1, 2026Executive Summary: The Three Levers That Move GRESB Scores in 2026
For most portfolios, improving your GRESB score in 2026 requires reallocating effort toward three areas:
Lever 1: Building performance results and data coverage
Prioritize asset-level performance improvements and expand energy, emissions, water, and waste data coverage to ensure performance gains are measured and reflected in your score.
Lever 2: 2026 scoring changes and indicator weighting
Focus on higher-impact 2026 indicators (i.e., Net Zero Targets, Risk Management, Human Capital, Embodied Carbon), where weighting changes create the greatest opportunity to gain or lose points.
Lever 3: Data reporting requirements
Strengthen data reporting processes to align with updated estimation, aggregation, and emissions classification rules to avoid preventable point loss.
Effort invested outside of these areas is unlikely to materially improve your 2026 score.
Introduction: How Your GRESB Reporting Strategy Can Impact Business Results
As real estate companies prepare for the 2026 GRESB submission, they are doing so in a more resource-constrained environment. Sustainability teams are balancing growing reporting expectations with limited time, budget, and internal capacity.
A well-designed GRESB reporting strategy — one that prioritizes high-impact indicators and aligns effort with the levers that drive results — is increasingly important as competition intensifies and investor expectations evolve.
In our work supporting real estate portfolios through the full GRESB reporting cycle, we consistently see the same pattern: the portfolios that improve are the ones that prioritize the disclosures that carry the greatest scoring and strategic impact.
A prioritization strategy matters for three reasons:
1. It’s Getting Harder to Stand Out
GRESB participation has matured significantly in recent years, with many portfolios now implementing foundational management practices that support sustainability governance and transparency.
According to the 2025 GRESB Real Estate Assessment Results, Standing Investment portfolios (i.e., existing buildings in operation) earn an average of 92% of available points across Management categories such as Leadership, Policies, and Stakeholder Engagement. As a result, these elements are becoming baseline expectations for participation rather than differentiators.
Common management practices now widely in place include:
ESG committees or designated sustainability leadership
Formal sustainability policies
Defined governance and oversight structures
Regular sustainability reporting
Documented review of ESG performance and risk
In 2026, differentiation comes from implementation — specifically improving data coverage and demonstrating measurable building performance at the asset level.
2. Investors are Interpreting Scores More Rigorously
As investor expectations evolve, there is growing focus on translating sustainability commitments into measurable performance improvements and operational integration.
A 2025 FTSE Russell survey of 415 global asset owners found that improved risk-adjusted returns is the primary reason for integrating sustainability factors into investment strategies (identified by 56% of respondents, up from 47% in 2024), highlighting the growing link investors see between sustainability performance and financial outcomes.
GRESB results are increasingly viewed as indicators of:
Operational performance across assets
Exposure to financially material risks
Reliability of data used in investment decisions
Execution of business strategy
In this environment, a stagnant score may raise questions about whether sustainability initiatives are delivering improved financial impact across the portfolio.
3. It Can Be Hard To Act On GRESB Results
Understanding how to translate GRESB assessment results into score improvements for the next reporting cycle is not always straightforward.
While it may be clear which indicators lost points, a lower score may reflect different underlying issues, such as missing data, incomplete documentation, or limited asset-level implementation.
Teams often struggle to answer questions such as:
Which indicators will meaningfully influence score movement?
Which assets or teams are responsible for improvement?
Which changes can realistically be addressed before the next submission, and which require long-term planning?
High-performing portfolios distinguish themselves by translating assessment results into a focused improvement roadmap, concentrating on the indicators and actions most likely to improve scores and rankings.
For most portfolios, this means leveraging improvements in three areas:
Building performance results and data coverage
2026 scoring changes and indicator weighting
Data reporting requirements
Lever 1: The Building Performance Results and Data Coverage Gaps That Quietly Cost Portfolios GRESB Points
Improving your GRESB score in 2026 depends on focusing on the Performance Component, which drives 70% of total GRESB points.
This requires prioritizing asset-level performance, data coverage, and green building certifications.
1. Asset-level performance
Asset-level performance is the most important factor in GRESB scoring, reflecting whether sustainability strategies translate into measurable improvements at the building level — including energy efficiency, emissions reductions, water performance, and waste management.
To improve asset-level performance:
Establish consistent energy, emissions, water, and waste performance tracking across assets and reporting years
Conduct like-for-like (LFL) performance analysis
Demonstrate year-on-year performance improvements (absolute and intensity metrics), particularly for lower-performing buildings
Use GRESB analytics tools (e.g., Score Contribution Tool) to identify underperforming assets
2. Data coverage
Performance improvements only count if they are measured:
19.5 points are tied to energy, emissions, water, and waste data coverage.
If an asset lacks sufficient data coverage, operational performance improvements at that asset will not translate into an improved score.
This means you should prioritize performance improvements at assets with sufficient data coverage.
To improve data-coverage scores: Focus on assets with the highest gross asset value (GAV).
3. Certifications and energy ratings
These account for 10.5 points (10.5% of total GRESB score).
GRESB rewards recognized certifications (e.g., LEED, IREM) and verified energy ratings (e.g., ENERGY STAR).
To maximize certification impact: Target assets where design, renovation, or operational upgrades already align with certification criteria.
Where Portfolios Lose Performance Component Points
| Common Issue | How to Avoid It |
|---|---|
| Inconsistent application of data estimation rules | Match estimated data by performance aspect, area type, and utility type (see more information in “Data Reporting Updates” section below) |
| Unsupported data | Maintain clear documentation and internal data validation processes |
| Late data collection and validation | Begin early in the reporting cycle (around February) |
| Old or expired certifications | Monitor timelines and proactively recertify assets to avoid losing points on certifications four or more years old |
Lever 2: 2026 Scoring Changes: Where Points Can Be Won or Lost
The 2026 Assessment does not overhaul the scoring model, but it shifts indicator weighting in ways that materially affect prioritization decisions.
Net Zero Targets (T1.2)
Scoring change: Maximum score increased from 1 point to 2 points.
The 2026 update strengthens how net zero targets are defined and evaluated. Rather than simply declaring a long-term goal, participants can now identify which assets are included in the portfolio-level target and show how they intend to reach the target over time. Another change is that companies can no longer report multiple targets for a single entity.
These changes improve the credibility of reported targets and make it easier for investors to assess progress against portfolio performance.
Portfolios should clearly show:
Which assets are formally included in the target boundary
Defined short-, medium-, and long-term reduction milestones
Baseline year performance used to track progress toward the target
Climate Risk Management (RM6 Series)
Scoring change: Each of the four RM6 indicators increased from 0.5 points to 1 point (i.e., a maximum score increase from 2 to 4 points).
Climate risk management is no longer a marginal disclosure area, with GRESB increasing emphasis on the structured process portfolios use to assess physical and transition climate risks and their material impact on the business.
While overall Management scores are high across GRESB participants, Risk Management remains one of the areas with the greatest opportunity for differentiation, with the 2025 Assessment Results reporting that portfolios earn an average of approximately 81% of the available points in this category (compared to 89–97% in other categories).
Portfolios should clearly show:
How physical and transition risks are identified
How the material financial impacts of those risks are evaluated (e.g., increased capital costs, reduced revenue, early retirement of assets)
Human Capital (SE5)
Scoring change: Increased maximum score from 0.5 points to 1.5 points.
This elevates Human Capital within Management Component scoring, rewarding portfolios that clearly document diversity and equity metrics across leadership and employees.
Portfolios should clearly show:
Metrics on governance bodies: Age group distribution, board tenure, gender pay gap, gender ratio, international background, racial diversity, and socioeconomic background.
Metrics on employees: Age group distribution, gender pay gap, gender ratio, international background, racial diversity, and socioeconomic background.
Embodied Carbon (DMA2)
Scoring change: Introduced at 5 points in 2026 (previously unscored).
This elevates embodied carbon within the Development Component and introduces direct scoring consequences for embodied carbon measurement and disclosure. Embodied carbon represents the GHG emissions associated with building materials, construction, and maintenance throughout the building’s lifecycle.
Portfolios should clearly show:
Measurement of embodied carbon across development projects
The percentage of projects with quantified embodied carbon emissions
The life cycle stages and building layers (e.g., envelope) included in the measurement scope
Disclosure of embodied carbon emissions with supporting evidence
The calculation method used to assess embodied carbon emissions
Indicators That Lost Weight or Were Retired
Not all 2026 changes increase scoring pressure. Several indicators were reduced in weight or removed entirely, reinforcing the importance of reallocating effort strategically.
LE3 and SE2.2 were retired, modestly reducing reporting burden.
RA2–RA5 (Risk Assessment) received weight decreases within the Performance Component.
Select Development Component indicators (including DRE2, DRE3, DSE2.1, and DSE3.1) also saw reduced weight.
Lever 3: Data Reporting Updates That Can Impact Your Score
Starting in 2026, GRESB is introducing changes to how portfolio data must be reported. These updates focus on improving consistency, accuracy, and alignment with other industry frameworks.
Key updates include:
Clarified rules for data estimation
Refinements to data aggregation
Updated emissions classification for landlord-controlled tenant spaces
While these changes do not introduce new indicators with dedicated points, they affect how data is interpreted within the scoring model, making them important to follow to maximize your score. For most portfolios, this is about quality control. Reviewing and reconciling data early in the process is far more efficient than correcting inconsistencies late in the reporting cycle.
Data Estimation
Estimation guidance has been clarified to ensure estimated values are applied consistently across utility types.
Key update: In the past, estimated data needed to match the same performance aspect (Energy, GHG, Water, Waste) and area type (Base Building, Tenant Spaces, Whole Building). Now, estimated data must also match utility type. For example, electricity data cannot be used to estimate gas or district energy consumption.
Data Aggregation
Updates to the aggregation model improve how asset-level performance data rolls up into portfolio-level results, ensuring aggregation calculations correctly weight assets owned for partial reporting years.
Key update: The revised model incorporates asset-specific ownership periods in the calculation of portfolio performance, helping ensure results more accurately reflect acquisitions and dispositions.
GHG Emissions Scope Classification
GHG emissions from landlord-controlled tenant spaces have been reclassified to better align with the GHG Protocol’s operational control approach, which classifies emissions based on who has the authority to implement operational changes.
Key update: Emissions associated with landlord-controlled tenant spaces are now reported under scopes 1 and 2, rather than scope 3.
The Practical Reality for 2026
As the GRESB landscape becomes more competitive, it is increasingly important to be deliberate about where you focus time, attention, and budget.
In practical terms, owners should focus on three strategies:
Allocate resources to improving asset-level performance; increasing data coverage across energy, GHG emissions, water, and waste; and attaining green building certifications and ratings
Prioritize higher-weight 2026 indicators like Net Zero Targets and Embodied Carbon
Maintain consistent data reporting, accounting for updated estimation rules, accurate ownership periods, and emissions scope categories
Questions to Consider
Are you prioritizing the assets and indicators that will most directly influence your GRESB score?
What strategies do you have in place to improve data coverage and translate performance improvement into measurable success?
Are your net zero targets, risk processes, and embodied carbon strategies aligned with 2026 scoring expectations?
Where are you most exposed to losing points due to incorrect application of estimation rules or misalignment in how portfolio data is reported?
If these questions are difficult to answer with confidence, it may indicate gaps in your current GRESB reporting strategy. As competition increases, identifying where points are being lost — and where improvements will have the greatest impact — is critical to improving 2026 results.
Start by assessing common gaps that may be impacting your score:
How Verdani Improves GRESB Outcomes
Our team brings deep expertise in designing ESG programs aligned with GRESB requirements and developing evidence that supports performance evaluation, prioritizing the highest-impact opportunities to strengthen scores and meet investor expectations.
Working across the full GRESB Real Estate Assessment lifecycle, we support portfolios from strategy development through data preparation, results analysis, and stakeholder communication.
Using our GRESB Project Management Tool and StarPort™ data platform, we streamline data tracking, performance analysis, and reporting — delivering more accurate, efficient, and high-quality submissions
To learn more, see our recent webinar discussing GRESB scoring for 2026.
Authors and Reviewers
Noah Gordon
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF SUSTAINABILITYNoah is an Associate Director of Sustainability specializing in reporting, residential and industrial real estate, and stakeholder engagement. He has 15 years of experience with the built environment, working in residential property management, urban planning, and sustainability consulting. At Verdani, Noah helps to advance regulatory services and is the GRESB subject matter expert as well as serving as Co-Chair for Verdani’s Regulatory Committee. He holds a B.A. in Political Science from The Ohio State University with master’s course work in Urban Planning and Public Policy from the University of Illinois Chicago.
Taylor Bulow
DIRECTOR OF SUSTAINABILITYTaylor is a Director of Sustainability specializing in ESG reporting, regulatory compliance, and real estate advisory. She has over seven years of experience in sustainability, working across frameworks like GRESB, PRI, and TCFD/IFRS. At Verdani Partners, she has led major ESG reporting efforts and managed client teams to deliver strong performance results, including driving strategy on climate risk and adaptation. She also serves as Co-Chair for Verdani’s Resilience Committee. Taylor has a B.S. in Environmental Science from the University of South Carolina.
Carli Schoenleber
SENIOR COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER (CONTENT AND ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST)Carli is a Senior Communications Manager at Verdani Partners, where she leads thought leadership, chairs the Engagement Committee, and serves as primary author for Verdani's nonprofit, the Verdani Institute for the Built Environment. With over a decade of experience in the sustainability field, she bridges research and communications to translate complex issues into persuasive messaging and actionable strategies that drive business value and positive impact. Carli holds a B.S. in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management from the University of Minnesota and an M.S. in Forest Ecosystems and Society from Oregon State University.
PAULYNN CUE
CHIEF COMMUNICATIONS & BUSINESS OFFICERPaulynn is the Chief Communications Officer for Verdani Partners, bringing over 20 years of experience in sustainability and ESG, business development, communications, design, and regenerative development. She has been instrumental in shaping Verdani’s programs since 2014. Paulynn studied architecture at Carnegie Mellon University, advertising at New York University, and environmental design at Parson’s School of Design, and has worked with leading organizations such as Gensler, World Building Institute, and the Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Organization Sustainable Development Commission.
Copyright © 2026 Verdani LLC. All rights reserved. The information contained within this publication was developed using Verdani’s general professional judgment. This publication was prepared without reference to any specific property or scenario and is not intended to substitute for the professional advice of an attorney, engineer, or other climate change professional. Content and data subject to change. Similar outcomes are not guaranteed based on prior results. Neither Verdani LLC nor its employees or agents can be held responsible for the use or misuse of the information contained herein, and Verdani LLC hereby disclaims any liability for damages arising from the use of this information, including without limitation, direct, indirect, or consequential damages including personal injury, property loss, loss of revenue, loss of opportunity, or other loss.
Verdani Partners has over 25 years of expertise and manages nearly two billion square feet of real estate, delivering proven strategies that help firms lead in sustainability and outperform benchmarks. We help our clients turn sustainability commitments into action through sustainability planning, energy management, decarbonization, compliance, and strategic communications. Partner with us to drive real impact and lasting value.