GRESB provides valuable comparability, but treating it as an annual exam obscures purpose. Three observations on acting for strategic reasons first, why equal points differ in substance, and how strong governance makes the score an output.
This week’s reflection comes from something I’ve worked on for a decade in real estate ESG: is GRESB an exam?
Every year around this time, preparation begins. Policies are refreshed. Technical assessments are completed. New strategies appear. And it starts to feel like exam season.
“How do we maximise points?”
“Where are we losing marks?”
“What do we need before the deadline?”
GRESB is explicitly designed to differentiate, and that’s important. Investors need comparability. The scoring framework provides structure, discipline and transparency across the market.
Used properly, it’s a very powerful tool.
But when it’s approached primarily as a once-a-year scoring exercise, ambiguity creeps in around what the organisation is actually trying to achieve.
Over time, three observations have stood out to me.
1. Only do something if you know why you’re doing it
Drafting a net zero strategy or commissioning a climate risk assessment can take days. But if the only driver is “we need this for GRESB”, it’s worth pausing. Without ownership, governance backing and intent to use it, those outputs become documentation rather than direction.
The organisations that benefit most act for strategic reasons first. GRESB simply captures that maturity.
2. Not all points carry the same weight in reality
GRESB simplifies sustainability into a score and a star rating. But the actions behind those points are not equal. One point for improved data coverage and one point for a supplier engagement look identical on paper. In practice, their significance depends entirely on context, risk profile and business priorities. Two participants may both score 70, yet the substance behind that 70 can be very different.
That’s the difference between using GRESB as a management tool, and treating it like an exam.
3. GRESB is a side product, not the end goal
The strongest performers I’ve worked with don’t “prepare for GRESB” in isolation. They manage ESG systematically throughout the year. Governance is clear. Data ownership is defined. Priorities align with business risk.
When that foundation exists, GRESB becomes an output rather than a scramble. The score reflects integration more than effort.
As this year’s cycle begins, I’m curious: are we preparing for an exam or strengthening a system? I’m always open to exchanging views with teams thinking about how to approach GRESB as a tool.