GRESB’s preliminary Real Estate Assessment results will be released next week on September 1, 2026. For many teams, this moment feels like a report card or a box to check for investors. But across the portfolios we work with, the teams that extract the most value from GRESB treat this moment differently.
They don’t start with “How did our score compare to last year?”
They start with “What is this telling us about how our portfolio is actually performing and where capital should go next?”
GRESB’s preliminary results are more than a score. They are a structured view of portfolio performance that can be used to identify gaps, inform decisions, and guide next steps. When leveraged as a tool for continuous improvement, GRESB becomes a practical framework to improve performance, identify risk, strengthen investor confidence, and stay aligned with evolving market expectations.
Your results provide key information on where you can make improvements for both short term and long term results. They highlight where improvements are needed, where performance is already strong, and where opportunities exist to better position the portfolio over time.
Following the release, there is a four-month window to review results and take action to impact 2026 performance for your 2027 scores. While this is not typically enough time for major capital projects, it is sufficient to close data gaps, refine strategy, and prioritize initiatives that will influence next year’s outcome.
- Identify low-cost actions that can be implemented quickly to improve coverage and scoring
- Prioritize higher-impact initiatives that address key areas of underperformance
- Connect near-term actions to broader asset and capital planning to support sustained performance improvements
Start With the GRESB Portal
The first move is procedural. Log into the GRESB Portal and review the preliminary assessment line by line. If something looks off, GRESB allows correction requests, and GRESB staff are prepared to help reopen the assessment where needed. Some corrections carry a fee, so it is worth confirming what actually changed before assuming an error. In most cases there should be no surprises: the responses reflect what was submitted, so a preliminary score should track closely with what the team expected at submission.
Full results with 2025 data and the public benchmark launch October 1, with results consultations available through January. Once the portal review is done, the real work starts.
Three Areas Concentrate Most of the GRESB Performance Points
Three parts of the assessment carry the most weight and the clearest room to improve: data coverage, performance improvement, and target setting. Under the 2026 GRESB Real Estate Standard, all three sit inside a defined point structure, and knowing exactly where those points live is the fastest way to prioritize initiatives during your improvement window.
1. Data Coverage (the Largest Share of a 32-Point Pool)
Energy, GHG, water, and waste performance indicators carry 32 points combined in the 2026 Performance Component:
- Energy (EN1): 14 points
- GHG (GH1): 7 points
- Water (WT1): 7 points
- Waste (WS1): 4 points
Data coverage is the largest single piece of that pool. Within the Energy indicator alone, GRESB allocates 8.5 of the 14 points to data coverage, more than performance and renewable energy combined. No portfolio has both maximum coverage and maximum performance today, and for most participants, coverage is where the most points are left unclaimed. That matters beyond the scorecard: a portfolio cannot manage what it cannot measure, and coverage is the prerequisite for every efficiency and target-setting decision that follows.
The most common gap is tenant-controlled space, where owners do not have direct access to consumption data. Green lease clauses, shadow metering, and utility-aggregated data feeds are the standard fixes. GRESB’s 2026 update raises the stakes on getting this right: under indicator GH1, emissions from landlord-controlled tenant spaces are being reclassified from Scope 3 to Scopes 1 and 2, which puts more weight on having that data collected and verified.
2. Performance Improvement (Like-for-Like Gains and Renewable Energy)
The rest of the Energy indicator splits into:
- Performance gains: 2.5 points
- Renewable energy: 3 points
This same pattern carries through GHG, water, and waste in the 32-point pool. The clearest path to those points is using the coverage data already being collected to target the assets and systems where performance is lagging. The measures showing up most often across client portfolios tend to be:
- LED lighting and controls
- Heat pump domestic water heaters
- Retro- or digital commissioning
- Smart HVAC controls
- Low-flow water fixtures
- Onsite power generation
- High-efficiency HVAC replacements timed to end of useful life
Meaningful score movement on a one-year cycle is unrealistic for most of these measures. Performance improvement plays out more realistically on a two-year cycle, and operational or capital decisions made purely to chase points rarely hold up as sound long-term choices. Building certifications are the exception: a methodology change still in effect for this cycle gives participants a longer window to earn credit for certifications that demonstrate performance in the evaluation year, which makes certifications one of the faster levers available right now. More on that below.
3. Target Setting (3 Points Across Two Indicators)
Targets carry 3 points total in 2026:
- T1.1: 1 point
- T1.2: 2 points, up from 1 point previously, reflecting an updated indicator design for net zero targets
That increase alone doubles the value of getting net zero target-setting right. These points reward the discipline of having targets in place, not the ambition of the targets themselves. Categories participants are commonly asked to set targets against include:
- Energy consumption
- Renewable energy use
- GHG emissions
- Water consumption
- Waste diverted
- Building certifications
- Data coverage
- Net zero targets
Many participants hesitate to set targets at all, which leaves points unclaimed.
Targets work best when they are tied to a realistic strategy, whether that is a CRREM decarbonization pathway or fund- and sector-level electrification priorities, rather than a sweeping portfolio-wide commitment set without a plan behind it. Because factors like grid greening and tenant usage sit outside an owner’s direct control, targets should be revisited on a regular cycle. The exercise of setting or resetting them is valuable on its own, independent of the score it earns.
Two Core Tools for Closing the GRESB Performance Gap
Energy audits and building certifications sit underneath all three of the areas above, and both belong in a four-month improvement plan.
Energy Audits: Find Where the Points and the Dollars Overlap
An energy audit does two jobs at once. It surfaces the metering and sub-metering gaps that are usually the real cause of a low data coverage score, and it identifies which of the efficiency measures above will deliver the best return at a specific asset. That prioritization is what keeps a capital plan disciplined. Instead of spreading limited efficiency dollars evenly across a portfolio, an audit points spending at the assets and systems where it will do the most for both operating cost and the like-for-like performance points described above. Scoping an audit now, while preliminary feedback is fresh, is what turns a four-month review window into a real capital plan for next cycle.
Building Certifications: The Faster Lever
Certifications account for 10.5 points in the Performance Component:
- BC1.2: 8.5 points
- BC2: 2 points
GRESB revised its 2026 criteria for these certification indicators to differentiate certifications by scope and quality, with the next major overhaul not scheduled until 2028. That gives participants a stable window to close certification gaps without chasing a moving target. Start with a full inventory:
- Every certification held, by asset (LEED, BREEAM, ENERGY STAR, NABERS, Green Star, WELL, Fitwel, or similar)
- Certification level or rating achieved for each
- Certification scope confirmed, whole building versus partial
- Expiry and renewal dates
- Certified floor area as a percentage of total portfolio square footage
That last figure feeds directly into the score, and it is often the fastest place to find points a portfolio has already earned but has not fully captured.
For GreenGen’s recommended certifications based on asset type and hold strategy, download the certification playbook below:
GreenGen’s Certification Playbook
The Next Four Months
Across portfolios, the pattern is consistent. The teams that wait for the next submission cycle tend to keep a flat score. The teams that treat this four-month window as a planning cycle change it.
None of this requires waiting for next year’s submission window to open. Data coverage gaps can be closed now. An energy audit scoped this quarter can shape next year’s capital plan. A certification inventory can surface where points are available now. A target-setting exercise, even a modest one, closes out the highest-leverage area of the assessment for the lowest effort.
A better score is what happens when a portfolio understands its own performance and acts on it. That is the same work that protects asset value, supports leasing and operating decisions, and strengthens fund performance regardless of how GRESB weights it in any given year.
The preliminary score is not the outcome. It is the signal. Are you using GRESB as a reporting exercise, or a roadmap?