MAPPING ESG

A LANDSCAPE REVIEW OF
CERTIFICATIONS, REPORTING
FRAMEWORKS AND PRACTICES
ABOUT ULI
The Urban Land Institute is a global, member-driven INREV has over 490 members which include 124 of the
organisation comprising more than 46,000 real estate and largest institutional investors as well as 40 of the 50 largest
urban development professionals dedicated to advancing real estate investment managers, plus banks and advisors
the Institute’s mission of shaping the future of the built across Europe and elsewhere.
environment for transformative impact in communities
worldwide. The non-profit association is focused on increasing the
transparency and accessibility of non-listed vehicles,
ULI’s interdisciplinary membership represents all aspects promoting professionalism and best practice, and sharing
of the industry, including developers, property owners, knowledge. It is based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
investors, architects, urban planners, public officials, real www.inrev.org
estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers,
and academics.

Established in 1936, the Institute has a presence in the ABOUT PRI

Americas, Europe, and Asia Pacific regions, with members
in 80 countries. ULI has been active in Europe since the The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) is the
early 1990s and today we have almost 5,000 members and world’s leading proponent of responsible investment. It
15 national councils. works:
• to understand the investment implications of
The extraordinary impact that ULI makes on land use environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors;
decision making is based on its members sharing expertise • to support its international network of investor
on a variety of factors affecting the built environment, signatories in incorporating these factors into
including urbanisation, demographic and population their investment and ownership decisions.
changes, new economic drivers, technology advancements,
and environmental concerns. Drawing on the work of The PRI acts in the long-term interests:
its members, the Institute recognises and shares best • of its signatories;
practices in urban design and development for the benefit • of the financial markets and economies in which they
of communities around the globe. operate;
• and ultimately of the environment and society as a
whole.

ABOUT INREV The PRI is truly independent. It encourages investors to

use responsible investment to enhance returns and better
INREV, the European Association for Investors in Non- manage risks, but does not operate for its own profit; it
Listed Real Estate Vehicles, was launched in May 2003 as engages with global policymakers but is not associated
a forum for institutional investors and other participants with any government; it is supported by, but not part of, the
in the growing non-listed real estate vehicles sector. The United Nations.
association represents and reflects an industry with a total
value of €2.8 trillion and INREV members deliver €385
billion of stimulus to the real economy of Europe.

© 2023 by the Urban Land Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval
system, without written permission of the publisher.
Recommended bibliographic listing: Urban Land Institute, INREV, PRI. Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and
Practices. London: Urban Land Institute, 2023.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation of this report was supported by the following
steering committee members, researchers, and ULI, INREV
and PRI staff.

ULI, INREV and PRI would like to thank the following

Steering Committee
companies for sponsoring this research.
Justin Travlos - AXA IM
Cristina Garcia-Peri - Azora
Nehla Krir - BNP Paribas
Mark Swarts - Bouwinvest
Nicolette Klein Bog - Bouwinvest
Tsilah Burman - CBRE IM
Pietro Belli - Generali
Fabio Crisanziani - Generali
Elodie Jeanne - Ivanhoé Cambridge
Stéphane Villemain - Ivanhoé Cambridge
Regan Smith - Manulife Investment Management
Maarten Jennen - PGGM
Blakely Jarrett - ULI
Sarah Adams - Vert Asset Management

Authors
Christiane Conrads, Global Real Estate ESG Leader - PwC
Thomas Veith, Global Real Estate Leader - PwC
Sandra Horst, Specialist - PwC
Anthony Comyn, Manager - PwC
Celine Jakob, Senior Associate - PwC
Luisa Hermann, Senior Associate - PwC

INREV Project Staff

Bahar Yay Celik, Professional Standards Manager
Lonneke Löwik, CEO

PRI Project Staff

Hani Legris, Specialist Real Estate
Simon Whistler, Head of Real Assets
Adams Koshy, Senior Specialist, Sustainability Reporting

ULI Project Staff

Lisette van Doorn, CEO Europe
Sophie Chick, Vice President, Research & Advisory Services,
Europe
Simon Chinn, Vice President, Research & Advisory Services,
Europe
Joey Udrea, Manager, Research & Advisory Services, Europe
Tevan Lee, Associate, Research and Advisory Services, Europe
Alex Eitler, Associate, Research and Advisory Services, Europe
James A. Mulligan, Senior Editor

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 3

CONTENTS

Table of figures 6
Foreword 7
Executive summary 8

1. Introduction 11
1.1 ESG and the transformation of the global real estate sector 11
1.2 Purpose of the report 13
1.3 Scope of the study 14
1.4 Limitations of the study 15

2. Reporting frameworks and standards 17

2.1 Status quo of the regulatory framework 17
2.2 The different types of standards covering ESG criteria 18
2.2.1 Core corporate ESG standards 19
2.2.2 Thematic reporting standards (focusing on climate) 20
2.2.3 Sustainability-related regulatory requirements 20
2.2.4 European real estate industry reporting standards
and benchmarking assessments 20
2.2.5 Principle-based commitments 22
2.3 Types of disclosures 22
2.3.1 Deeper look into management and measurement aspects 23
2.3.2 Different ways to manage and measure 24
Case Study AXA IM 26
Case Study Hines 29

3. Real Estate ESG regulatory and reporting

standard mapping 32
3.1 Methodology 32
3.2 Overview of mapping results 34
3.2.1 Environmental criteria 40
3.2.2 Social criteria 40
3.2.3 Governance criteria 42

Case Study Azora 43

Case Study CBRE IM 45

4. Building certifications 48
4.1 Status quo 48

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 4

 4.2 Certifications as an instrument for measuring a footprint 48
4.3 Certifications as third-party assessments 49
4.4 Certifications in the context of reporting 50

Case Study Manulife IM 51

5. Ratings and Scorings 55

6. Key findings 58
List of Mapping ESG Abbreviations 61

Appendix A: Thematic spread of certifications 63

Appendix B: Overview of building certifications 64
Appendix C: Individual analysis reporting standards 74
1. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 74
2. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) 77
3. European Association for Investors in Non-Listed
Real Estate Vehicles (INREV) 80
4. European Public Real Estate Association (EPRA) 83
5. Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) 86
6. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) 90
7. Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) 93
8. Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) 96
9. Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) 100
10. EU Taxonomy 103
11. IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards Exposure Draft (IFRS S1/S2) 107
12. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) 110
13. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) 114
14. Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) 119

Appendix D: Further information on double materiality 122

Endnotes 123
References 124

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 5

Table of figures

Figure 1: ESG in an international context 11

Figure 2: Overview frameworks, standards and certifications 13
Figure 3: ESG data collection and aggregation 17
Figure 4: Comparison of the scope of the different reporting requirements 18
Figure 5: Core corporate ESG standards 19
Figure 6: Thematic reporting standards (focusing on climate) 20
Figure 7: Sustainability regulations 21
Figure 8: Industry-driven reporting standards 21
Figure 9: Principle-based commitments 22
Figure 10: Materiality of the reporting standards and frameworks 23
Figure 11: Measuring and managing ESG risks 24
Figure 12: Types of management and measurement disclosure 25
Figure 13: Managing carbon risk 25
Figure 14: Derivation of the ESG categories 32
Figure 15: Mapping dimensions 33
Figure 16: Mapping overview 35
Figure 17: Scope of ESG standards by core corporate standards 37
Figure 18: Scope of ESG standards by portfolio/fundlevel standards 37
Figure 19: ESG composition by real estate corporate standards 38
Figure 20: ESG composition by standard/benchmark - portfolio/fund level standards 39
Figure 21: Environmental topic composition by real estate corporate standards 39
Figure 22: Environmental topic composition by standard/benchmark - portfolio/fund level standards 40
Figure 23: Social topics composition by corecorporate standards 41
Figure 24: Social topics composition by standard/benchmark - portfolio/fund level standards 41
Figure 25: Governance topic composition by core corporate standards 42
Figure 26: Governance topic composition by standard/benchmark - portfolio/fund level standards 42
Figure 27: Thematic spread of certifications 49
Figure 28: Self-assessment questions for real estate managers and other real estate organisations 60
Figure 29: Overview of draft ESRS, as at April 2022 112
Figure 30: ESG in an international context 122

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 6

FOREWORD

Environmental and social challenges present arguably As a result, it has become increasingly difficult to navigate
the greatest risks facing our societies globally. From the various mandatory regulations and voluntary standards,
climate change, biodiversity loss and water scarcity, especially when taking into consideration the bespoke
to social inequity in various forms, the scale of the requests from investors on top of the standards. For real
challenge is immense. The built environment has an estate capital markets to operate effectively and sustainably
important contribution to make in addressing these and enhance the speed at which progress is made to
social and environmental challenges, with buildings mitigate climate change and adjust to the challenges,
responsible for nearly 40% of global GHG emissions.1 greater clarity is needed to ensure information is ‘decision
In addition, half of energy and raw material consumption useful’ for investors.
and one-third of total water consumption can be
attributed to the construction and real estate industry.2,3 In response to these challenges, ULI, INREV and PRI in
close collaboration with the project steering committee,
Alongside the development of the industry over the and supported by PwC, embarked on a journey to map
past two decades, we have seen a growing importance and compare the most important global ESG related
of sustainability, initially focused on governance and regulations, standards and certifications and assess each of
environmental issues, and social impact gaining ground in them in relation to the E, S and G components.
recent years.
Through member and industry knowledge sharing and best
In the absence of regulation and uniform definitions, the practices, this report offers guidance on how to potentially
industry started to develop its own frameworks, standards navigate and use existing regulations, standards and
and certifications. Initially focused on building level with certifications in the field of ESG.
sustainability certifications assessing building construction
standards, this was soon followed by ESG benchmarks We hope this report will enhance the understanding
such as GRESB and industry standards such as EPRA and of the current landscape and future direction of ESG
INREV. related reporting standards and regulations and building
certifications, supporting individual managers and
In the meantime, following on from the global financial investors in setting an ESG strategy in close alignment with
crisis and increasing concerns related to climate change, their company’s business strategy.
regulations across different countries and regions have
stepped up and more are expected soon. INREV, ULI, PRI

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In recent years, the global real estate sector has seen Following an extensive mapping exercise and numerous
a tidal wave of new developments in assessing ESG interviews with industry experts, the report provides a
criteria and using ESG factors to evaluate how far they snapshot of the ESG reporting standards most relevant to
have advanced with sustainability performance issues. the sector. This study examines the purpose of the different
While substantial progress has been made, the sector is ESG requirements and the different intended users of the
not resting on its laurels and is fully aware of how much information. It explores how the requirements overlap
further there is still to go. As we approach the end of the and where there may be an opportunity to condense the
first quarter of the 21st century, are we nearing the ‘end ESG reporting burden. The study also offers suggestions
of the beginning’ for ESG in real estate? for best practice in ESG reporting across the various case
studies included.
Over the last 10 years the avalanche of new ESG reporting
requirements applicable to real estate has presented While the detailed study is set out in the rest of the report,
a significant challenge. Keeping up has not been easy, 10 key findings are summarised below at a high level:
even for the most ambitious organisations with the
greatest resources to allocate to the area. In addition, 1. The evolving ESG regulatory and reporting
there are different views on what must be prioritised, landscape is complex and can be overwhelming.
disclosed, against which criteria, for what purpose and The sector must work together to successfully
whether commitments will stand up to scrutiny. However, navigate the road ahead. Collaboration and a
consensus is building. balance between ‘quality’ and ‘quantity’ should be
the focus.
Despite an increasingly challenging geopolitical context,
ESG considerations continue to remain a top priority as we 2. It is important to understand the purpose of the
look ahead. The 2023 ULI/PwC Emerging Trends in Real different ESG frameworks and standards and the
Estate report concluded: ‘Environment and sustainability intended user of the information: there is no one-
strategies are key priorities for most industry leaders for size-fits-all standard. Although different standards
2023 — as they have been for some time — and climate will continue to exist in the future due to their
risk is widely acknowledged as the biggest challenge facing different purpose and stakeholder needs, we
real estate over the next 20 years.’ anticipate that there will be further consolidation
and alignment of standards which have an
If the real estate sector of the future is to truly operate overlapping purpose.
within the confines of sustainable development and
deliver on the Paris Agreement-aligned net zero targets, 3. We have identified five main categories of ESG
it must ‘cut through the noise’. Collaboration across all frameworks and standards which are fundamental
stakeholders will continue to be critical in achieving this. to the integration of ESG across the sector:
This study, prepared jointly by the Urban Land Institute
(ULI), the European Association for Investors in Non- a. Core corporate standards
Listed Real Estate Vehicles (INREV), and Principles b. Thematic reporting standards
for Responsible Investment (PRI), and carried out by c. Sustainability regulation related requirements
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), with the support of a d. Real estate industry specific reporting
range of leading industry experts, aims to contribute to this standards and benchmarking
collaborative effort. e. Principle-based commitments

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 8

 4. The materiality approach defines the main Whilst a common definition of a green building is
characteristics of the ESG standards. While some still missing, regulation plays a key role in assessing
standards have a focus on ‘financial materiality’, alignment with climate targets.
others on ‘impact materiality’, there are also
standards having both a financial and impact 7. Certain social targets are more difficult to measure
materiality purpose, a so-called ‘double materiality’ as they are based on norms and values, but
approach. legislation and regulation is increasing worldwide to
harmonise social standards for organisations and
5. Credible data (especially environmental and scope their supply chains.
1–3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data) is
fundamental to ‘science-based metrics and targets’ 8. Good governance is fundamental to effective
across multiple disclosure requirements (‘you can’t implementation and a high level of global alignment
manage what you can’t measure’). In the absence is based on existing corporate governance
of primary ESG data, third-party ESG ratings can requirements.
be helpful, but it is important to understand the
limitations of third-party ESG ratings. 9. It is important to determine what is within an
organisation’s control. For areas outside an
6. Building certifications can also complement a organisation’s control, best practice for engagement
successful ESG strategy, however as the regulatory with the wider real estate ‘ecosystem’ should be
landscape evolves, building certifications are followed (e.g. collaboration between landlord and
feeling the pressure of staying ahead of regulation tenant where possible).
to retain their relevance. Following the Paris
Agreement targets set and subsequent introduction 10. For the sustainability strategy to be successful,
of regulation across different regions, countries the leadership must focus resources on the ESG
and cities, focus is shifting quickly to actual frameworks and standards most relevant to
sustainability performance of a building. Some stakeholders and engage the entire organisation to
building certifications focus on actual operational minimise risk and maximise impact.
performance, while others continue to focus on
theoretical or modeled performance, along with
other attributes of sustainable building construction,
health and wellness, and other sustainability goals.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 9

1. INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 ESG and the transformation of the To date the industry has used a number of approaches
global real estate sector to ESG and sustainability, with varying levels of ambition
and sophistication depending on the investor, the asset
As the real estate sector grew in the early 2000s, so did class, the tenant, and their respective geographic region.
the importance of the term ‘sustainability’ in the real To respond the need for sustainability reporting, standards
estate industry and in society. There was no uniform and benchmarks were developed ‘by the industry, for the
definition, nor were there any overarching standards or industry’, such as INREV, EPRA, GRESB.
mandatory regulations. The industry faced the challenge
of making sustainability measurable. In the absence of In parallel to the initiatives developed in the real estate
official regulations, it was up to investors to drive the sector, the regulatory landscape has also evolved globally,
issue forward and embed it in the industry through various as figure 1 shows.
initiatives. The initial focus was on the central object of the
real estate sector: the building. Green building certification Europe is currently considered a leader in creating
systems have emerged over the past decades to primarily governance structures especially in the field of sustainable
assess a building’s environmental factors and energy use finance, but other regions are quickly catching up.
in build or in use. Recently, certifications focusing on social Singapore’s Green Taxonomy is scheduled to be introduced
factors have been introduced to the market. in 2023 and Singapore’s Green Plan in 2030.

Figure 1: ESG in an international context

Europe Singapore
• Strong focus on governance (e.g. • Development of environmental taxonomy
EU-Taxonomy, CSRD, SFRD) with real estate defined as 1/3 sectors
• Adaption of Paris Agreement & with huge environmental impact
Agenda 2030 • ESG measures focus on biodiversity &
• DNSH & Minimum safeguards as vertical agriculture
fundamental principles
Australia
United Kingdom • Focus on decarbonisation of building
• UK ESG regulations similar to EU stock & expansion of renewable energy
requirements infrastructure
• Introduction of Greening Finance • Intense use of PV solar systems enables
Roadmap (e.g. green taxonomy, the Australian real estate market to
disclosure regulations) become one of the most carbon emission
• Focus on creating transparency & friendly markets globally
prevent greenwashing • Social aspects are seen as an investment
target (differing to EU approach with
United States minimum safeguards)
• Strong focus on climate change
mitigation & higher environmental Japan
standards (Biden administration) • Relatively few mandatory requirements
• Large scale renewable energies for compliance with ESG criteria
projects (solar & wind) • Focus consists largely of voluntary
• Development of ESG requirements guidelines and initiatives
& disclosure obligations (SEC • Zero net carbon emissions, & the
oversight) transition to a circular economy is one of
the main focus points
Asia Pacific (overall)
• Prioritisation of environmental & People’s Republic of China
net zero carbon aspects • CERDS Introduction of a voluntary
• Access to investment disclosure regulation regarding ESG
opportunities & capital requires criteria for companies
strong ESG record (due to • Focus on domestic market & strongly
Polycrisis) oriented towards chinese laws and goals
• Western capital flows increase (e.g. common prosperity)
ESG demands on Asian-Pacific • Issued guidelines on ESG reporting in
real estate market 2008 by the Shanghai Stock Exchange &
Shenzhen Stock Exchange

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 11

The European Green Deal announced in 2019 sets binding To align real estate related capital flows with the net
accounting standards and rules for sustainable finance in zero target of the Paris Agreement and manage climate-
the EU aiming to steer capital markets towards fulfilling the related risks, decision-useful, reliable, and comparable
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris data is required. This applies not only to climate-related
Agreement. A cornerstone of these new regulations is the risks (e.g., physical risks and transition risks such as
prevention of ‘greenwashing’. As demonstrated by the raid4 exposure to future carbon taxes/pricing), but to all
of an international bank and asset manager in 2022 over ESG – environmental, social and governance – risks. In
greenwashing allegations, scrutiny of this area continues addition, the availability of reliable data is necessary for
to rise. Australian ‘super funds’ have recently come under the development of effective sustainability strategies,
scrutiny by the Australian Securities and Investments the prevention of ‘greenwashing’ and the creation of
Commission5 for greenwashing, with the first fine imposed transparency regarding ESG risks.8
on a listed Australian energy company. 6
Overall, given the current market movement away from
In addition, the European Central Bank conducts annual ‘marketing ESG’ to ‘proving ESG performance’, companies
economy-wide climate stress tests, which lead to the must focus on the efficient collection, standardisation, and
conclusion that ‘climate change […] represents a major reporting of ESG data at the fund/portfolio level. Real estate
source of systemic risk’ for the financial sector. 7 organisations and funds face the challenge of finding a
solution that enables data preparation and presentation that
Historically, sustainability disclosures were made in meets the diverse information needs of their stakeholders.
accordance with voluntary corporate reporting standards or Furthermore clarification over reporting requirements,
‘must disclose’ commitments such as the UK Stewardship sector-specific metrics and technological innovations are
Codes or PRI, which are specific for investment managers increasingly important.
and asset owners. With the advent of extensive mandatory
disclosures, the market is pushing for global alignment The sector is currently in the midst of a storm of ‘old’
of data standards and definitions. This is to reduce the reporting standards and certifications, a rapidly evolving
operational reporting burden, but more importantly to landscape of ESG regulations and a flood of data requests
define the data that is relevant for driving change. from investors and disclosure requirements from the
regulators. This is a perfect time to take a closer look at
There continues to be much debate about how integrating what ESG standards, regulations, and requirements for
ESG in decision making processes can positively or ESG reporting currently exist, what is to come, and what
negatively affect financial returns. However, ESG will developments are likely in the real estate industry.
increasingly affect all stakeholders across the entire sector
in one way or another in the coming years.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 12

1.2 Purpose of the report This report examines the status quo of these ESG reporting
standards within the context of global development;
The report helps readers gain an overview of the various however, it is important to note the speed with which the
ESG reporting standards at the corporate and fund/portfolio area is evolving and might be subject to changes.
levels, as well as building certifications applicable to real
estate. The study shines a light on the origin, purpose, and Building certifications are compared in terms of coverage
coverage of the ESG standards and certifications most used and ESG criteria. The certifications are analysed in
across the industry. relation to their use across ESG reporting standards and
regulations.
For each ESG framework or standard considered, the
overview and analysis sets out the structure and overall Ratings, scorings and benchmarking assessments (PRI,
content of the respective standard. This allows the reader GRESB, CDP) are used by a range of stakeholders for
to assess the standard’s usefulness for making relevant different purposes and their application to the real estate
disclosures towards chosen stakeholders in alignment with industry is considered at a high level in the study.
their organisation’s ESG strategy. ESG reporting standards
are applicable at the corporate, fund/portfolio, and asset The operational challenges of applying the various ESG
levels and address different ESG requirements. Whilst reporting standards and building certifications are explored
certain regulatory developments and accounting standards in five best practice case studies, two of which focus on
(sustainability-related financial reporting) are applicable to in-house solutions and three of which address overarching
specified regions, most standards have global application. challenges in the industry.

Figure 2: Overview frameworks, standards and certifications

Corporate Fund / Portfolio Asset

Frameworks and - EU Taxonomy - SFDR
‘Scoring’ - UK Stewardship Code* - PRI
- GRESB*
Reporting Standards - TCFD - INREV - CRREM (tool)
- GRI - NCREIF/
- SASB PREA*
- EPRA
- CDP
- CDSB
- Climate Bonds Initiative

Accounting Standards - IFRS/ISSB (prototype)

- CSRD (proposal)
Certifications - LEED - ILFI LBC*
- BREEAM - IREM*
- WELL - RESET*
- Fitwel - PHIUS*
- DGNB - Green Globes*
- HQE
- NABERS (UK + Australia)
- Green Star (Australia)
- Energy Star
- CASBEE
- BELS (Japan)
- ZEB
-

*Not covered in the detailed mapping exercise.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 13

The study fundamentally aims to address two key barriers
1.3 Scope of the study
to accelerating performance against ESG and sustainability
criteria across the global real estate sector: The scope for the study was determined by independent
sustainability experts of a globally leading audit and
1. The onerous, but necessary ESG regulatory and advisory firm (PwC), the sponsors (ULI, INREV, and
reporting requirements which do not always drive PRI), and the project steering committee composed of
performance against ESG and sustainability criteria representatives of leading companies from the real estate
in the way they were intended. investment and asset management sector.

a. By taking a closer look at the most widely The key global investment regions were determined to be
applicable ESG frameworks and standards the EU, UK, USA, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan,
for the industry, chapter 2 aims to provide and Australia.
an overview on the common approaches and
differences. The most used ESG-related reporting standards and
building certifications were identified for each of the
b. Chapter 4 considers the range of building regions in scope. Statistics on the use of a reporting
certificates and ESG data challenges which standard or building certification are included in
could feed into the wider ESG frameworks the individual profiles, as provided by the issuing
and standards. organisations. A condition for being included in the study
was sufficient public access to the information required
2. The need for comparability and standardisation for the purpose of the study and that comparability of the
across ESG requirements to allow investors to make information to other standards.
efficient real estate capital allocation decisions.
A further criterion for selecting the ESG reporting standards
a. Chapter 3 aims to compare where different was direct relevance or applicability for the real estate
ESG requirements (within the scope of the industry; for example, banking regulations on managing
detailed mapping exercise) cover similar ESG sustainability risks were not included as they only have an
criteria (and where they do not) to help the indirect effect on real estate enterprises.
sector jointly tackle this second barrier.
The detailed methodology for mapping the reporting
b. The wide range of ESG ratings and scorings standards and building certifications as well as the case
(and their limitations) are considered at a studies is included in the relevant sections of the study.
high level within the context of addressing
this second barrier in chapter 5. The ESG frameworks and standards as well as the
certifications and ratings considered within the scope of
To overcome these two barriers, real estate organisations the study are not an exhaustive list. While the study aims
need to have clear ESG strategies and establish the to provide a holistic view of the evolving ESG landscape
necessary governance structures to implement them and for real estate, ESG requirements and regions outside the
report on progress. This is explored further across the case requirements identified (as most commonly applicable
studies. across the industry) are outside the study’s scope.
Additional specialised studies may be required to consider
these out-of-scope ESG requirements and regions.

In addition, given the fast-moving nature of the different

ESG requirements, further work may be required to update
the analysis as the different ESG requirements develop over
time.

“ To overcome the main ESG barriers, real estate organisations need to have
clear ESG strategies and establish the necessary governance structures to
implement them and report on progress.
“
Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 14
1.4 Limitations of the study depends on the nature of the real estate organisation, its
stakeholders, and the specific purpose and application of
Readers need to understand the limitations and challenges the relevant standards.
regarding the scope and methodology of this study. Due
to the breadth of ESG reporting requirements included (as The categories identified for the mapping exercise were
applicable to real estate), many of the requirements and selected in order to compare the different standards to
standards are not directly comparable. As a result, this the extent possible. However, it should also be noted
leads to challenges in attempting to compare ‘apples and that the respective standards have different structures
pears’ as opposed to ‘apples and apples’. (e.g., different total number of requirements/questions,
or multiple requirements in one question). In addition,
The study is intended to provide a holistic overview requirements may cover multiple thematic categories.
of the purpose and thematic coverage of the different For the methodology adopted in the mapping exercise,
standards to help real estate organisations navigate the one requirement has been assigned to one category to
evolving landscape. However, while thematic overlap can then compare the proportional composition to the extent
be identified, the extent to which requirements overlap possible (e.g., the percentage of requirements across
precisely is limited due to the different purpose of the E, S, and G subcategories). It is important the reader
respective standards. It is important the study is therefore understands this methodology cannot be an ‘exact science’
read within this context. In addition, the extent to which and leaves room for interpretation.
general recommendations can be made is limited, as this

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 15

2. REPORTING FRAMEWORKS
AND STANDARDS
2. REPORTING FRAMEWORKS AND STANDARDS

2.1 Status quo of the regulatory With the advent of mandatory disclosures, a shift
framework has taken place from commitment to sustainability
to data management and measurement, highlighting
As outlined in the introduction, the development of transparency on the status of ESG strategies for real
voluntary ESG reporting standards is now being overtaken estate organisations. The complexity and scope of the new
by sustainability-related regulatory, financial reporting and disclosures under the EU Taxonomy and SFDR has involved
disclosure requirements. These developments in corporate all stakeholders – from facility and property managers
and investor reporting are taking place at regional level, to asset and fund managers to investors – scrambling to
e.g., EU regulations including the EU Taxonomy, SFDR and put data collection, data sharing and data consolidation
CSRD, as well as globally, e.g., the IFRS S1/S2 financial measures in place amidst significant legal uncertainty and
reporting standards. A clear distinction must be made unavailability of data. The new requirements also involve
between these developments, as they create different implementing governance and risk management processes
requirements for the various stakeholders. It is expected as the foundation of managing the internal and external
that with time, greater global alignment may arise between impact of sustainability risks. In one of its latest research
the EU initiatives and other regional regulations, such as papers, INREV explored the implications of SFDR for the
the SEC9 reporting. non-listed real estate investment industry as well as the
challenges of complying with SFDR and how it may distort
Previously, ambitious investor expectations required investment needed for real carbon reduction.10
a demonstration of commitment to sustainability by
becoming a signatory of voluntary standards, such as Figure 3 shows the journey of ESG data collection
the UN Global Compact, the PRI, or the UK Stewardship and aggregation at asset and fund/portfolio level, to
Code. Being a signatory of these principle-based standards the development of ESG strategy and governance that
was often treated as an exclusion criterion by investors. ultimately needs to be delivered in different forms to the
Thematic standards such as the CDP or Science-Based respective stakeholders to satisfy their information needs.
Targets initiative (SBTi) complemented the governance
aspects to align with climate-related strategies.

Figure 3: ESG data collection and aggregation

Capital providers, supervisory authorities, legislators and other stakeholders are creating
Stake- an unprecedented influx of individual data demands and disclosure requirements.
holders

Managers have to manage ESG risks and define their ESG strategy and governance
Manager
– as well as fulfil extensive and multiple reporting requirements.

Portfolio On portfolio level, managers have to aggregate asset data and implement
their ESG strategy, e.g., decarbonisation of investments.

Property and facility managers have to collect whole-building data from

Asset landlord-controlled and tenant-controlled areas. Engaging with tenants
and regulatory restrictions (e.g., GDPR) are the biggest challenges.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 17

The quality of data is expected to improve over the 2.2 The different types of standards
upcoming years as better methods of estimation develop covering ESG criteria
and the proportion of measured data increases. However,
real estate managers are facing the challenges of meeting The range of standards covering ESG criteria is very broad
the new mandatory disclosure requirements in addition and constantly evolving. Based on the current regulatory
to any voluntary standards chosen by an individual requirements and legal framework, the real estate industry
organisation – as well as an influx of investor queries. The may fall within the scope of multiple standards.
significant implementation burden and lack of alignment
on the exact definition of metrics raises the question of From a broader perspective, standards can be categorised as
when the data will become sufficiently standardised and ‘mandatory’ and ‘voluntary’ standards. Mandatory standards
meaningful for decision-making purposes – and drive the are usually representing legal reporting requirements which
reallocation of capital to more sustainable investment. are not optional for the organisations under the scope of
the standard. On the other hand, there are many voluntary
Regulators and issuing bodies have responded to the standards that are used within the industry, including the
need for standardisation of data by consolidating some of industry-specific standards such as INREV and EPRA. Even
the voluntary reporting standards for financial reporting. if these standards are not legally binding for companies,
For example, the new International Financial Reporting they are recommended to be applied due to their broad use
Standards (IFRS) S1/S2 (exposure drafts) follow a similar within the industry. Through uniform use, transparency and
structure to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial comparability can be created within the industry.
Disclosures (TCFD) and incorporate elements of the
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) standards Figure 4 provides a comparison of the scope of
and reference other standards like the Climate Disclosure sustainability reporting for corporate reporting,
Standards Board (CDSB). This is expected to foster sustainability-related financial disclosures and traditional
acceptance of the market. Whilst opinions may currently be financial reporting.
divided on what the most meaningful metrics for measuring
impact are, the first common operational goal of market Another broader category is the distinction between
participants is to standardise data11 across all disclosures ‘corporate’ and ‘portfolio/fund focused’ standards.
and then further develop the metrics globally as an industry. Corporate reporting is by business entities. Under this

Figure 4: Comparison of the scope of the different reporting requirements

Sustainability Reporting on all sustainability matters that reflect significant positive Broader multi-
reporting or negative impacts on people, the environment and the economy stakeholder focus

Reporting on those sustainability-related

Sustainability-related matters that may reasonably create or erode
financial disclosures enterprise value over the short, medium and
long term
Investor focus
Reflected in monetary
Financial reporting amounts in the financial
statements

IASB (140+ countries),

other GAAP (e.g. FASB)

ISSB (TCFD+SASB)

GRI + jurisdictional
initiatives, e.g.
EU Taxonomy

SASB (2020): Statement of Intent to Work Together Towards Comprehensive Corporate Reporting; adapted to ISSB Building Blocks (2022)

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 18

type of reporting, investors may also be required to report a. Core corporate standards
on their entity (rather than any investments they hold) – b. Thematic reporting standards
for example if they are large, listed and/or operating in c. Sustainability regulation related requirements
a specific geography. High-quality corporate reporting d. Real estate industry specific reporting standards
is a pre-requisite for meaningful reporting to investors and benchmarking
in those corporates. This produces a data ‘chain’ from e. Principle-based commitments
corporate reporting to the second type of reporting:
investor reporting. Investor reporting requirements refer 2.2.1 Core corporate ESG standards
to reporting on their investment entity as a whole, for a
specific asset classes (e.g., real estate) or for a specific Non-financial information12 or sustainability(-related)
financial product/fund. While some standards are related reporting is complementary to corporate financial reporting
to corporate level reporting (e.g., SASB, EPRA (sBPR)), such as the IFRS or national generally accepted accounting
there are also investment focused standards (e.g., PRI, principles (GAAPs). Established voluntary standards such
INREV and SFDR) considering the organisation’s overall as SASB or GRI are being reflected in mandatory reporting
approach to responsible investment or the sustainability of standards (e.g., IFRS S1/S2 and CSRD).
investment portfolios.
The IFRS Foundation completed the consolidation of
Having these broader categories in mind, we have identified the Value Reporting Foundation (SASB standards) and
five main categories of ESG frameworks and standards the CDSB (Climate Disclosure Standards Board) in 2022
which are fundamental to the integration of ESG across the following its commitment at COP26 to develop the IFRS
sector: S1/S2. The GRI is providing technical support to EFRAG
(European Financial Reporting Advisory Group), which
is mandated with undertaking the preparation for the

Figure 5: Core corporate ESG standards

Corporate standard Short description Geographical application

SASB (Sustainability • discloses sustainability information that is financially Global
Accounting material and reasonably likely to affect a company's financial
Standards Board) performance
• consolidated and became a resource under the ISSB with
its industry-based requirements
ISSB (International • published exposure drafts of sustainability reporting standards Global
Sustainability IFRS S1 (General Requirements for Disclosure of
Standards Board) Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2
(Climate-related Disclosures), together with an appendix
on industry-based disclosure requirements
• final standards are expected by end of Q2 2023, as of date of
publication
CSRD (Corporate • replaces the NFRD (Non-Financial Reporting Directive) EU
Sustainability • the Directive has been fnalised in November 2022, but the
Reporting Directive) focus of this mapping is on the Draft for proposal CSRD
• the European Sustainable Reporting Standards (ESRS)
will further specify reporting requirements under the CSRD
GRI (Global • helps organisations report on their external impacts on the Global
Reporting Initiative) economy, environment and society, including human rights
impacts
• aims to increase accountability and transparency regarding the
company’s contribution to sustainable development

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 19

European sustainability reporting standards (ESRE), as well were developed in recent months that impact non-listed
as providing comments in the consultation for the IFRS S1/ real estate investing. The EU Taxonomy (corporate
S2 and collaborating with the ISSB on both of their future level) defines what constitutes activities contributing
standard setting developments. to environmental objectives and the SFDR (corporate
and portfolio level) is a uniform disclosure regime
2.2.2 Thematic reporting standards addressing transparency on a financial market participant’s
(focusing on climate) sustainability risks and principle adverse impacts of
the investments under management. The SFDR which
Thematic standards engage the commitment of was adopted as part of the EU’s 2018 Action Plan on
corporations to reduce their environmental and climate Sustainable Finance has a double-materiality approach, in
impact through publication and disclosure platforms. They providing transparency into sustainability-related risks and
can be sustainability reporting or sustainability-related opportunities as well as sustainability outcomes associated
financial reporting and are on corporate level. with the investments. The EU Action Plan is based on the
UN’s 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals as
In 2021, ULI published an overview of social value focused well as the Paris Agreement. Similar initiatives are being
certifications, frameworks and tools.13 introduced in the UK14 (with the proposed UK Sustainability
Disclosure Requirements and UK Green Taxonomy) and
2.2.3 Sustainability-related regulatory other countries.15
requirements
2.2.4 European real estate industry reporting
The EU is the global frontrunner in the establishment of standards and benchmarking assessments
sustainable finance regulations. As part of the European
Commission’s ambition to promote sustainable investment Industry-specific sustainability reporting standards have
across the EU, several regulatory and policy initiatives been developed by INREV (non-listed real estate fund

Figure 6: Thematic reporting standards (focusing on climate)

Thematic standard Short description Geographical application

TCFD (Task Force • founded by the Financial Stability Board Global
on Climate- • aims to strengthen the stability of the financial system by giving
Related Financial transparency to enterprises’ exposure to climate-related risks
Disclosures) and opportunities
• forms the baseline for many climate-related reporting standards
CDP (formerly • global disclosure platfom for managing environmental impacts Global
Carbon Disclosure with a focus on climate, water and forest
Project) • provides public scoring for all three topics
• functions as an incentive for environmental leadership
• maintains a comprehensive dataset for corporates, supply
chain and cities
• designed to address reputational concerns, enhance
competitive advantage, identify risks and opportunities and
track and benchmark improvement

CDSB (Climate • offers a framework for reporting environmental (climate change Global
Disclosure and natural capital-related) information in mainstream financial
Standards Board) reports
• consolidated and referenced within the ISSB
CBI (Climate Bonds • seeks to mobilise global capital for climate action by Global
Initiative) introducing a Certification Scheme as a labelling scheme for
bonds and loans
• assets and projects that meet the CBI standards are eligible for
certification

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 20

Figure 7: Sustainability regulations

Sustainability regulations Short description Geographical application

EU Taxonomy • a common classification of economic activities EU
substantially contributing to environmental objectives,
using science-based criteria
• purpose is to channel capital flows towards sustainable
investments by creating common definitions
(classification system), increasing transparency and
preventing greenwashing
SFDR (Sustainable Finance • sets out requirements on sustainability-related EU
Disclosure Regulation) disclosures in the financial services sector, both at
entity and product levels.
• the requirements distinguish between financial
products that have sustainable investment as their
objective, those that promote environmental and/or
social objectives and all other products

Figure 8: Industry-driven reporting standards

Industry-driven reporting Short description Geographical application

standard
INREV (European Association • provides a reporting framework that meets investors’ EU and Asia Pacific
for Investors in Non-Listed needs for comparability and transparency of
Real Estate Vehicles) information at vehicle and asset level
• provides a coherent framework for ESG reporting
in line with annual financial reporting and presents
a clear picture from the vehicle’s strategy through
a set of sustainability reporting disclosures
complemented by required and recommended ESG
KPIs
EPRA (European Public Real • aims to facilitate a greater understanding of the Europe
Estate Association) environmental, social and governance impacts
associated with a company’s activities, leading to
efficiency gains and, ultimately, lower operating
costs, social and governance benefits
GRESB (Formerly known • provides actionable and transparent environmental, Global
as Global Real Estate social and governance data to financial markets
Sustainability Benchmark) • collects, validates, scores, and benchmarks ESG
data to provide business intelligence, engagement
tools and solutions for the industry
NCREIF PREA Reporting • The NCREIF PREA Reporting Standards is an US
Standards industry initiative co-sponsored by the National
Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries
(NCREIF) and the Pension Real Estate Association
(PREA) with a mission to establish and implement
information standards for the real estate industry
which will facilitate transparency, consistency and
informed decision-making.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 21

Figure 9: Principle-based commitments

Principle-based commitments Short description Geographical application

PRI (Principles for Responsible • an investor initiative in partnership with UNEP Global
Investment) Finance Initiative and UN Global Compact
• the PRI signatories have to report annually on their
responsible investment activities to the PRI
• the reporting is linked to the 6 Principles and feeds
into the PRI Assessment
UK Stewardship Code • issued by the Financial Reporting Council and aligns UK
with the UK Corporate Governance Code
• includes reporting expectations
UN Global Compact • a longstanding commitment for private enterprises Global
to meet fundamental responsibilities in the areas
of human rights, labour, environment and anti-
corruption
• on asset management and investor level, being
a signatory to the UN Global Compact is often a
selection criteria for investments
• although there are no reporting requirements per
se, expectations to describe practical actions that a
company has taken/expects to take to implement
the UNGC and measurement of outcomes on the
targets/performance indicators

level), EPRA (listed real estate equity, corporate level), and 2.3 Types of disclosures
GRESB (listed and non-listed real estate and infrastructure
funds and assets), respectively. They offer a real estate To gain an overview of the purpose of standards, the
interpretation of recognised standards such as TCFD or GRI following four main types of disclosures were identified to
for the real estate industry. reflect the different kinds of informational value provided:

2.2.5 Principle-based commitments Define: a definition included in a standard introducing

either a benchmark or a definition of sustainability,
The principle-based commitments, such as PRI, the UK classification of sustainable economic activity, or a clear
Stewardship Code and UN Global Compact, are for asset requirement to provide transparency on the disclosing
owners and asset managers and are aimed at contributing entity’s definitions, calculations, and methodologies.
to a more sustainable global financial system. As
frontrunners for sustainable finance regulations, they foster Describe: background or neutral information on the
ESG integration into investment decisions and stewardship company and its operations to provide wider context (e.g.,
from their signatories. The principles are supported by products, structure, geographical footprint, etc), whether
disclosures. financial products promote environmental or social
characteristics or whether assurance has been provided
The PRI Assessment is based on the PRI reporting over information.
submitted by signatories. The purpose of the assessment
is to demonstrate how the signatory can improve its Manage: information on the governance elements (e.g.,
responsible investment practice and to facilitate learning strategy, governance, compliance and risk management) to
and development. An individual confidential report enable the stakeholder to assess the management response
provides benchmarking for different asset classes, peers, to climate and ESG-related impact, risks and opportunities.
and regions to the signatory. Whilst it is not designed
for comparison with peers, it is often used as such in Measure: quantitative data on metrics and targets, science-
practice. based impacts or implementation targets (e.g., GHG

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 22

 Double Materiality
Information is considered ‘material’ if it could ‘double’ materiality perspective. It should be noted
influence the decision-making of stakeholders. The however that the classification set out below can
term double materiality combines the two concepts be subjective and may therefore vary depending on
of financial materiality (information needed to the point of view. In particular, this framing is not
understand how sustainability and sustainability often used for investor focused frameworks, and
risks affect the company financially) and impact normally a reference point for corporate standards.
materiality (information needed to understand the
impact of the company itself on society and the Figure 10: Materiality of the reporting standards
environment) and reflects the understanding of and frameworks
how certain risks and opportunities can affect not
only the value of an enterprise, but also people, Financial Materiality Impact Materiality
the environment, and the economy. This means
that on the one hand, sustainability risks, such
EU Taxonomy
as climate change, can negatively affect business TCFD
CSRD + ESRS
models, operations, and financial results (or
present opportunities to reduce exposure, through SASB INREV GRI

GHG emission reduction, for example). On the SFDR

PRI
other hand, the business model and operations CDSB
can have a positive or negative impact on the IFRS* CDP CBI
environment and society, such as the climate GRESB
impact of GHG emissions or the societal impact of EPRA
EPRA
improving community infrastructure.

Figure 10 provides an initial overview of the

Double Materiality
purpose of each standard from a ‘single’
materiality perspective (financial or impact) or a *The final version is not published, as of the reporting date.

emissions in Scope 1/2/3 metric tons CO2e, total volume of understands and responds to sustainability risks and
water usage in megaliters etc) to enable the stakeholder to opportunities and how this will affect the business
assess the effectiveness of sustainability governance and model and future profitability. From a double materiality
the materiality of climate and ESG related impact, risks and perspective, it should also demonstrate how the enterprise
opportunities. manages its impact on people, the environment, and
the economy. Sufficient evidence is being collected by
2.3.1 Deeper look into management and supervisory authorities and central banks to provide
measurement aspects evidence on how, for example, climate risks contribute to
the instability of global financial systems. Thus, managing
As outlined in the introduction to this chapter, reporting an organisation’s carbon footprint addresses a systemic
standards are moving away from governance-focused issue through the feedback loop.
disclosures that allow an enterprise to be flexible in its
interpretation of a standard to measurable, standardised
and comparable data disclosures. Both disclosures are
equally valuable for understanding how sustainability risks
and opportunities affect an investment.

The qualitative information on the governance structure,

the ESG strategy, and risk and compliance management
systems in place provide insight into how well management

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 23

To assess the effectiveness of an organisation’s 2.3.2 Different ways to manage and
management of sustainability risks, quantitative data is measure
required to enable tracking and comparison with peers.
Different types of disclosures can be used to measure the Different types of disclosures are used to provide
carbon footprint or progress of an enterprise. information to the stakeholders from a certain ESG
perspective. Below are examples of the types of disclosures
In the study five different main categories of ESG that demonstrate how the ‘manage’ and ‘measure’ concepts
frameworks and standards (see section 2.2) were analysed are put into practice.
to compare their focus on either the way they ‘manage’
or ‘measure’ aspects for climate-related topics, that is, 1. Implementation targets: SASB uses a range of
standards which have a financial reporting purpose. The disclosures that provide transparency on the status of
results align with the purpose of the standard, for example, implementation of the SASB-defined operational targets for
the GRI and SASB standards have defined ESG KPIs aimed the real estate industry.
at measuring certain factors against actual quantitative
metrics, similar to the INREV Guidelines where qualitative 2. Financial metrics: The EU Taxonomy focuses on
guidelines are supported with quantitative disclosure KPIs, disclosing the income generated by EU Taxonomy-aligned
to the SFDR focusing mainly on how sustainability risks are activities and the investment made into such activities,
integrated into the investment process and on providing thus trying to promote capital flows into what is defined as
transparency on how ESG objectives are actually achieved. sustainable business activities.
The quality of data is expected to improve over the
upcoming years as the market moves away from estimates 3. Qualitative disclosure: The INREV Guidelines provide
to measured data, achieved by the product, as well as a generic framework for non-listed real estate investment
principle adverse impact of investments on sustainability vehicles to report on how ESG goals, alongside other
issues. business objectives, are part of their overall strategy. It
allows the investor to assess how the ESG strategy and
Figure 11 shows the different levels of a company at which objectives of the real estate vehicles are considered through
quantitative, qualitative, or general data and information vehicle strategy and implemented at asset plans. This
must be identified to develop a comprehensive ESG approach allows the investment manager to define its own
strategy, considering all risks and opportunities. ESG targets and disclose its performance using the list of
ESG KPIs.

4. Science-based ESG metrics: The GRI, as a sustainability

reporting standard, includes a range of quantitative
science-based metrics that enable the stakeholder to
assess and compare the impact of the reporting entity on
sustainability risks.

Figure 11: Measuring and managing ESG risks

INFORM Provide general information about the company and its

General information
operations, e.g. products, structure, geographical footprint, etc.

Governance
MANAGE Provide qualitative data to demonstrate the management response to
ESG impact, risks and opportunities.
Strategy
• Governance: e.g. board composition, renumeration, responsibilities, conduct
• Strategy: approach to material ESG factors as part of business strategy
Risk Mgt.
• Risk management: identification, assessment and management of ESG risks
• Compliance: ensuring adherence to internal and external requirements
Compliance

MEASURE Provide quantitative data on metrics and targets either defined by the
Metrics entity as part of the strategy and risk management, or by legislation (e.g. EU
& Targets taxonomy or SFDR). This enables the stakeholder to assess the effectiveness of ESG
management and the materiality of ESG impact, risks and opportunites.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 24

Figure 12 shows examples from each type of disclosure.

Figure 12: Types of management and measurement disclosure

SASB: EU Taxonomy: INREV: GRI:

Implentation targets Financial metrics ESG strategy and metrics ESG metrics

Percentage of new Per EUT-aligned activity The investment manager The reporting organisation
leases that contain a should describe in their shall report the following
cost-recovery clause for 1) Turnover • Abs./rel. reporting to investors the information: A, Gross,
resource efficiency-related 2) CapEx per overall ESG strategy and location-based energy
capital improvements by 3) OpEx objective objectives of the vehicle indirect (Scope 2) GHG
property subsector. • Rel. tot together with the associated emissions in metric tons of
total annual targets and how these goals CO2 equivalent. If available,
turnover, will be facilitated by the the gases included in the
CapEx or organisation and governance calculation; whether CO,
OpEx framework of the vehicle. CH, NO, HFCs, PFCs, SF,
NF, or all.
RG70
SASB IF-RE-410a.1. Commission Delegated GRI 305-2
Regulation (EU)
2021/2178, Annex II EPRA sBPR GHG-Indir-Abs

Using the CRREM risk assessment tool

The Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor (CRREM) risk regulation, and carbon pricing. It also enables
assessment tool has been developed for owners analysis of the impact of individual property refur-
and investors to understand the carbon risks bishment on a company’s overall carbon footprint,
associated with their real estate portfolio. CRREM including assessment of emissions associated with
has derived decarbonisation pathways by breaking the embodied carbon of the energy refurbishment
down the global anthropogenic GHG emissions itself. 16
budget, consistent with the Paris Agreement, to
individual countries, the commercial real estate Figure 13 illustrates two different corporate
sector, property types and individual assets. The strategies in relation to the timing of energy
tool provides the ability to assess the progress of retrofitting and decarbonisation. Heterogeneous
a portfolio’s carbon reduction performance against portfolios require different approaches depending
reduction targets (the developed ‘pathways’) in line on how exposed each property and use type is
with the Paris Agreement. The CRREM tool helps to carbon risk, depending on location and age,
users to identify properties at risk of displacement depending on the cost of retrofitting, etc. 17
due to anticipated tightening of building codes,

Figure 13: Managing carbon risk

LATE ADOPTER EARLY ADOPTER

CARBON INTENSITY

CARBON INTENSITY
kgCO2e / m2

kgCO2e / m2

TARGET TARGET

TIME 2050 TIME 2050

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 25

 CASE STUDY AXA IM
Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor associated with poor energy efficiency at an early
stage.
(CRREM) Tool: AXA IM Case
Study CRREM has brought initial guidance on how to
measure and minimize stranding risk; and it is the
AXA Investment Managers (AXA IM) is a global first tool that gives comparability and granularity
investment management firm operating as the on carbon cost exposure that AXA IM could use
investment arm for AXA, a global insurance and to open discussions internally and externally. In
reinsurance company. addition, CRREM* provides target values to guide
For most of AXA IM’s assets under management, a sensible and effective strategy for reducing CO2
they incorporate ESG analysis and quantitative emissions.
ratings into the investment process and apply
Expanding on the existing challenges and
key exclusion criteria. AXA IM believes this also
alignment with frameworks
benefits their clients’ financial performance by
The following figure depicts a comparison of
identifying opportunities and risks created by
framework targets, including CRREM, Greenprint,
sustainability trends in the global economy.
UKGBC, ILFI, and REEB, between 2020 and
Using CRREM tool for carbon risk assessment 2030. It is noticeable that between these years,
High carbon intensity properties and portfolios all standards converge, but after they split with
create negative environmental impacts, but also CRREM being the most ambitious one with a
have associated financial risks, with potential question on achievability.
to jeopardise the business case of a real estate
For AXA IM, the high-level alignment with other
company if measures are not implemented to
frameworks and standards (eg, SBTi) is one of the
transform the managed real estate portfolio.
best parts of using the CRREM tool. Alignment
AXA IM finds the CRREM tool very useful for with other frameworks and standards brings
investors and property owners to identify potential several advantages, including but not limited to the
financial risks from climate change impacts ones listed below:
*It should be noted that the CRREM method is recently updated and the exact significance for practice still needs to be clarified.

CRREM pathways – Office

Sources: BBP, 2021, CRREM 2021, SBTI 2020, UKGBC 2020, ILFI 2018, Greenprint, 2022, AXA IM LET-I RE2020ST

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 26

 CASE STUDY AXA IM

• Standardisation of information exchange in Challenges of the tool

the market; Although AXA IM thinks that CRREM can
complement existing carbon reporting, they
• Increased credibility; identify some challenges which need to be
addressed for a better usage and certain areas for
• Comparability, making it easier for investors improvement. These include, among others:
to compare and track progress;
• From today ‘s perspective, the achievability
• Increased accountability, through an easier of the targets relating to three decades and
comparison it will become easier for beyond is unclear;
stakeholders to hold market participants
accountable on their public commitments; • Model is still being finetuned by an
increased standardisation in the industry
• Enables increasing engagement with other and augmented data quality have an impact
industry bodies, such as GRESB and MSCI. on stranding years;

Integrating CRREM in the data collection process • Currently, CRREM measures the ‘whole
In order to integrate CRREM properly in the data building’ operational risk of an asset. Where
collection process, various tools are needed to actual data is used, this blurs the impact of
improve a building’s carbon footprint. Therefore, tenant operations with building fabric and
additional data and further standardization is systems;
required. Hence, assumptions must be taken, and
new data points collected to utilise the tool. An • Additional assessment is needed to
absence of guidance on ‘minimum’ assumptions assess the ‘intrinsic’ building risk, where
can lead to a very different assessment on an owner can effect change and control
stranding risk, especially in the absence of real elements such as fabric and systems, only
data and lack of visibility on actual use. An considering ‘normalised’ performance;
‘office’ may be a tech student living campus, with
restaurants, pools etc. – and not at all comparable • Technical nuances to be clarified at tenant,
with standardised typologies. sector, and country level;

Integrating CRREM in the data collection process

Source: AXA IM

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 27

 CASE STUDY AXA IM

They believe that there is need for clarity on how

• Sector benchmarks and on the achievability
CRREM can be used in investment decisions
of the high ambition level of CRREM
moving forward and how to adequately bridge
targets; ie after 2030 CRREM provides
the knowledge gap (i.e. training the staff and
more ambitious targets than other
stakeholders). AXA IM tries to define it from a
standards
practical perspective; what exactly it means when
Although the tool is already widespread in the an asset is stranded according to CRREM, not
industry not all clients and service providers are necessarily losing its value and how they can
familiar yet leading to a knowledge gap which is position themselves.
yet to be bridged.
They use CRREM as it provides a consistent
AXA IM also raised the challenges around the data framework that’s embedded in other frameworks
collection. An asset’s stranding year is impacted and to which AXA IMs clients increasingly refer to
significantly by the quality and availability of in the market. Although they support the tool as
underlying data. It is expected that this will it has a potential to bring a common language, it
improve moving forward. is also important not to overlook the nuances on
stranding risks.
Lessons learned
CRREM has the potential to become an integral
part of AXA IM’s investment process, in
making more informed investment decisions
and managing assets better through some
improvements.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 28

 CASE STUDY HINES
Obtain data to measure and all decarbonization measures will be implemented
improve ESG performance step-by-step and the impact of these actions will
be measured over time.
Hines is a global real estate investment,
development, and property manager. ESG is firmly In terms of industry awareness, it has been seen
anchored in the company’s strategy. The firm’s that there is a lack of understanding on the large
goal of net zero operational carbon by 2040 is extent of scope 3 emissions. Therefore, dialogue
being driven by a broad action plan that among a in the industry is critical to build understanding
wide range of initiatives includes topics such as between stakeholders about investments required
the unlocking of win-win investments by using in data technology and willingness to share data.
green leases or starting smart building initiatives.
Implementing smart devices – Hines European
The key to achieving these goals is obtaining data Core Fund (HECF)
to measure and report ESG performance. One of To implement smart devices for one of the
the biggest challenges in aggregating ESG data is firm’s flagship funds, HECF, three different
obtaining whole-building data, i.e., the landlord- and elements contributed to more efficient collecting,
the tenant-controlled areas. Effective cooperation processing, and reporting of energy data.
between landlord and tenant is necessary to obtain
whole-building data, and Hines has identified best Local asset managers and property managers,
practices in engaging with occupiers across the supported by the Hines ESG team and an external
firm’s platform in 314 cities and 28 countries. sustainability consultant, led the data collection
and central data processing efforts for the fund.
Importance and measurement of tenant data
It is becoming increasingly important to work In 2020, ZiggyTec’s innovative smart metering,
programmatically with the occupier base as or IoT (Internet of Things) devices, were rolled
indirect carbon emissions resulting from tenants’ out to part of the portfolio’s assets to support
operational energy consumption (i.e., scope 3 the automation of utility data collection. Where
emissions) account for the lion’s share of most implemented, this significantly reduced the time to
portfolios’ total carbon emissions. In the case of request and process meter reading and invoices.
the Hines European Core Fund (HECF), this share
amounted to 81% in 2021. Finally, Evora Global’s ESG software platform
SIERA was used to gather and aggregate portfolio-
When leases get amended, are renewed or new level ESG data for ESG reporting purposes. The
ones are signed, it is critical that they include legal SIERA platform offers API data integration to the
clauses that allow for energy consumption data GRESB portal, thus helping to reduce reporting
(and other environmental data) to be captured efforts. Additionally, the aggregated portfolio data
automatically via meters or provided to the is extracted for Hines’ Global Data Hub and Hines
landlord by the tenant in a reliable fashion. This is currently building a link to financial performance
way, data collection is no longer dependent on metrics. Before reporting, all ESG data is
recurring operational tenant cooperation. While independently assured by a third party following
data collection efforts are evolving fast, Hines AccountAbility’s AA1000 Assurance Standard. And,
is not yet at 100% data capture across all 28 moving forward, HECF will upgrade to SIERA+
countries where it is doing business, so it is not ESG software platform to allow for more seamless
yet possible to measure the full impact on firm- collaboration between property, asset, and
wide strategy implementation. In the long term, investment teams.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 29

 CASE STUDY HINES

The implementation of these data collection smart meter data capture with newer-generation
automation measures and software technologies technology.
has helped HECF continue to achieve close to
100% energy data coverage over the past GRESB Data collection will remain one of the complex
reporting years in a much more streamlined and challenges in the industry, as there are different
less labour-intensive manner. systems in different countries, so allowing for
regional differences will always be necessary.
Lessons learned
In the case of HECF, the installation of this Long-term leases must be carefully thought
generation of smart devices was not possible for through, especially as larger tenants themselves
all buildings in countries across the world. Further, may have net zero targets or underlying
facilitating IoT implementation with the help of regulations. The more energy efficiency and
local experts and engineers was also not as easy energy usage measurement options can be
as expected. An equivalent, more global software offered to the tenant, the better the selling point
provider was not available at that stage. Currently for the landlord.
efforts are underway to establish an approach to

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 30

3. REAL ESTATE ESG REGULATORY
AND REPORTING STANDARD MAPPING

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 31

3. REAL ESTATE ESG REGULATORY AND REPORTING
STANDARD MAPPING

3.1 Methodology The mapping does not extend to guidelines on reporting

principles (e.g., consistency, accuracy, comparability
The ESG regulations and standards within the scope of the of information). Where sector-specific standards were
study were mapped according to the methodology set out available, real estate, construction and in part investment/
in this chapter. The standards were mapped to understand asset management were included. Some general
their coverage of ESG criteria and their application and disclosures about the organisation to inform the context
relevance to the real estate sector. of the sustainability disclosures were not included, as they
were not considered sufficiently relevant to the mapping
The results of the study identify the thematic coverage exercise (e.g., general disclosures relating to details
(environmental – social – governance) of the different about an organisation’s structure and reporting practices,
standards, their purpose and relevance for various activities and workers, governance, strategy, policies,
stakeholders and the status quo for the real estate sector. practices and stakeholder engagement).
The results are intended to help organisations navigate
the evolving landscape and identify the most relevant Figure 14 provides an overview of the ESG criteria used to
and important standards within the context of their ESG determine the categories for the mapping exercise.
strategy and stakeholder audience. The study highlights
areas of thematic overlap and where it may be possible to Defining the ESG criteria for the mapping exercise
condense the reporting burden. However, it is important Due to the comprehensive nature of the EU Taxonomy
to note the limitations regarding the extent to which the classification system (which the European Commission
standards overlap, given the different respective purpose of considers a global leader for setting sustainable finance
each standard. standards18), the categories defined in the EU Taxonomy

Figure 14: Derivation of the ESG categories

ESG categories used in the

Category Commonly defined criteria
mapping exercise

• climate mitigation • E - climate mitigation

• climate adaptation • E - climate adaptation
• pollution prevention • E - pollution prevention
Environmental • biodiversity • E - biodiversity
• water • E - water
• circular economy • E - circular economy

• decent work • S - health and safety

• adequate living standards • S - employees
Social • wellbeing for end-use • S - community impact
• inclusive and sustainable
communities and societies

• strategy • G - strategy
• governance • G - governance
• compliance • G - compliance
• risk management system • G - risk management
Governance • G - economic information
• G - sustainability
• G - environmental
• G - social

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 32

were used as the starting point against which the However, TCFD requires the organisation to disclose
requirements of the other standards were mapped. similar information, but the TCFD recommendations are
broadly categorised as governance related as it focuses
The EU Taxonomy provides a helpful thematic framework on managing climate-related risks and opportunities (i.e.,
linked to the Paris Agreement and the UN SDGs. This the impact of the climate on the organisation). Therefore,
thematic framework was then adjusted to ensure a full the requirements around metrics and targets within TCFD
reflection of the requirements of the different standards have been categorised under governance as ‘G - risk
and their application to real estate organisations across the management’ and ‘measure’.
investment life cycle.
It is important to keep in mind the interconnected nature of
However, it is again important to note the challenges and the different requirements (e.g., governance and climate)
limitations of mapping the requirements to this thematic when interpreting the results of the study.
framework given the different respective purpose of
each standard. To illustrate this, the purpose of each Figure 15 shows which dimensions are considered when
requirement was also mapped (e.g., describe, define, mapping the different standards.
manage and measure).
Figure 15: Mapping dimensions
For the environmental and social categories in the table, the
EU Taxonomy is used as a legal framework which provides Define - Describe - Manage - Measure
six core environmental objectives, while the social criteria
are still being defined. In this study a general reference is
provided to the EU Taxonomy definitions and criteria to
categorise environment-related disclosure requirements.
Environmental - climate / energy
The proposed social requirements of the EU Taxonomy

Voluntary
were generalised and simplified to reflect the most
Environmental -
common themes in the standards in scope. pollution / waste / circular economy

Mandatory
ESG factors

The governance topics are based on recognised elements Environmental - biodiversity / water
of strategy, governance, compliance, and risk management
systems. The commonly used elements are combined with
Social / Minimum Safeguards
thematic focus areas.

Interconnectedness of categories Governance

Certain requirements fall into multiple categories set
out above. The assessment of climate risks could
be categorised as an environmental KPI ‘E – climate
mitigation’ or may be interpreted as a general governance
question relating to environmental considerations. Where
this is the case, the purpose and context of the relevant
standard has been considered to determine the category
the requirement should be mapped to. It is important to
note the categorisation cannot be overly scientific, and the
mapping of the metrics should be read in this context.

For example, where CDP asks real estate organisations

to disclose quantitative Scope 1/2/3 GHG emissions
data in metric tons CO2e, this has been categorised as
‘E - climate mitigation’ and ‘measure’ as the purpose
of the requirement is to improve global GHG emissions
disclosure and, by doing so, provide better information on
organisations’ climate impact.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 33

3.2 Overview of mapping results The evaluation has shown that EU regulation can be
seen as the global frontrunner for sustainable finance
The results of the mapping exercise, which includes the regulations. The following EU regulations are considered
frameworks and standards shown in figure 2 and described in the study: the EU Taxonomy, SFDR, and CSRD. All other
in chapter 2.2 (undertaken in accordance with the standards considered are international standards.
methodology previously described), are summarised in the
dashboard of figure 16. The double materiality perspective
For an introduction on the topic of materiality, see chapter 2.
For an introduction on the types of standards, see chapter
2.2. Only GRI and CBI have been identified as sustainability
standards with an impact materiality perspective. All
Largely this study differentiates between reporting on other frameworks and standards have been identified as
corporate and on portfolio/fund level. Most reporting having either a double materiality perspective or a financial
standards address the corporate reporting level. materiality investor perspective (even if the standards
recognise outside impacts). For the latter, the investors’
On portfolio / fund level, we included three reporting focus is on the impact of sustainability risks on the value
standards – PRI (a commitment), INREV (the industry of the company. Measuring the effects on people, the
standard for European non-listed real estate vehicles) environment or the economy is not the core purpose.
and SFDR (the EU sustainable finance regulation – it also
includes requirements at organisational level). Major In terms of thematic focus, the underlying materiality
sustainability accounting requirements for funds have not assessments of the standards tend to prioritise climate
yet been introduced. change. GRI, for example, has the most comprehensive
coverage of E, S and G topics, but also requires a
In comparison, corporate-level reporting splits into materiality assessment for application – not all goals can
various frameworks and standards. The difference be achieved at once, but require a long-term strategy.
between frameworks (such as TCFD and CDSB) or
industry guidelines (such as EPRA) and standards is that The INREV sustainability reporting guidelines combine the
frameworks have high-level governance requirements inside impacts on portfolio/asset value with the outside
(mapped) with detailed guidance (not included in the impacts on environment/people by understanding how
mapping). The different levels of the standards considered sustainability risks are considered in investment and risk
in the study can be seen in figure 2. management processes.

Standards replace frameworks by putting the guidance Metrics for the real estate industry
into practice, further detailing disclosure requirements, Of the 14 guidelines and standards considered in this study,
and consequently include a much higher number of nine have real estate specific metrics. Those standards that
metrics. Frameworks and governance metrics require contain real estate-specific metrics provide tailored metrics
interpretation and may have qualitative and quantitative that are easier to understand in an industry context. Often
elements to be described extensively, whereas science- the materiality of topics was determined beforehand,
based, implementation or financial metrics are concrete. and the assessment thereof should remain relevant and
Therefore, the number of metrics does not necessarily applicable, but the understanding of ESG and best practice
reflect the complexity or effort required to comply. is moving forward rapidly, so a supplementary materiality
analysis of all ESG themes is recommended, through GRI
Extensive questionnaires such as PRI or CDP obviously or sustainable finance regulations as a baseline. The EU
require effort, but reporting processes can be streamlined Taxonomy technical screening criteria provide the most
over time. ambitious benchmark, whereas the SASB (foundation for
IFRS S2) should be treated as a minimum standard whilst
Mandatory standards will generally be subject to third-party ambitions increase to meet the UN SDGs and the Paris
assurance and include complex requirements with legal Agreement. The impact of the EU Taxonomy remains to be
implications. Voluntary standards encourage third-party seen, but it is expected to challenge current best practice.
assurance or some level of independent review to ensure Under the SFDR principal adverse impact statement there
compliance with reporting principles and accuracy of the are mandatory and additional disclosure indicators for
data disclosed. real estate.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 34

Figure 16: Mapping overview

Key data GRI CDP TCFD CDSB SASB IFRS S1/S2 CSRD
Global Reporting Climate Task Force on Climate- Climate Sustainability International Corporate
Initiative Disclosures Related Financial Disclosure Accounting Standards Financial Reporting Sustainability
Project Disclosures Standards Board Board Standards Reporting Directive

Sustainability- Sustainability- Sustainability-

Sustainability Sustainability-related Sustainability-related
Category of standard Scoring related financial related financial related financial
reporting financial reporting financial reporting
reporting reporting reporting

Level of standard Standard Scoring Framework Framework Standard Standard Standard

Type of standard Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate Corporate

Application Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Mandatory Mandatory

Real estate specific Planned Yes No No Yes Yes No

Life cycle specific No Yes No No Yes Yes No

Scope of standard

Governance indicators Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Science-based metrics Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Implementation targets Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Financial metrics Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Total number of metrics 398 702 11 12 51 253 40

Thematic breakdown

E - climate mitigation 77 19% 201 29% 17 33% 54 21%

E - climate adaption 5 1% 4 8% 11 4%

E - pollution prevention 28 7%

E - circular economy 5 1%

E - water 35 9% 151 22% 10 20% 44 17%

E - biodiversity 26 7% 178 25%

S - health and safety 73 18% 4 8%

S - community impact 18 5% 5 10%

S - employees 43 11%

G - governance 1 0% 46 7% 2 18% 1 8% 20 8% 13 33%

G - compliance 52 13% 33 5% 6 50% 10 25%

G - strategy - 10 1% 3 27% 2 17% 26 10% 8 20%

G - risk management 9 2% 28 4% 6 55% 3 25% 49 19% 2 5%

G - economic information 23 6% 18 3% 5 10% 19 8%

G - sustainability - 2 4% 3 1% 2 5%

G - environmental 3 1% 37 5% 4 8% 27 11% 4 10%

G - social - 1 3%

Total E 176 44% 530 75% - 0% - 0% 31 61% 109 43% - 0%

Total S 134 34% - 0% - 0% - 0% 9 18% - 0% - 0%

Total G 88 22% 172 25% 11 100% 12 100% 11 22% 144 57% 40 100%

Purpose breakdown in %

Define 75 19% 9 1% 65 26% 1 3%

Describe 28 7% 105 15% 4 33%

Manage 90 23% 412 59% 8 73% 7 58% 8 16% 68 27% 37 93%

Measure 205 52% 176 25% 3 27% 1 8% 43 84% 120 47% 2 5%

Notes Reporting is for " Not including ISSB embedded Exposure Draft European
scoring purposes. guidance. ""Measure"" SASB’s industry-based Sustainable
as a governance approach to standards Reporting
question, not actual development Standards (Draft)
data output. are not reflected
in the mapping
Real estate specific but cover all ESG
guidance. " categories.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 35

 Key data EPRA EU Taxonomy CBI PRI INREV SFDR GRESB*
European Public Climate Bonds Principles for European Association Sustainable Global Real Estate
Real Estate Initiative Responsible Investment for Investors in Finance Disclosure Sustainability
Association Non-Listed Real Estate Regulation Benchmark
Vehicles

Sustainable Sustainable
Sustainability-related Sustainable finance
Category of standard ESG reporting finance finance Scoring Scoring
financial reporting standard
standard standard

Level of standard Guidelines Standard Label Commitment Guidelines Standard Benchmark

Type of standard Corporate Corporate Corporate Investment Investment Investment Investment

Application Voluntary Mandatory Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary Mandatory Voluntary

Real estate specific Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Life cycle specific No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Scope of standard

Governance indicators Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Science-based metrics Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Implementation targets No No No No Yes No No

Financial metrics No Yes Yes No No No No

Total number of metrics 56 29 13 1103 132 40 100

Thematic breakdown

E - climate mitigation 16 29% 13 100% 39 30% 8 20% 30 30%

E - climate adaption 9 7%

E - pollution prevention 5 9% 10 8%

E - circular economy 2 5% 5 5%

E - water 3 5% 7 5% 6 6%

E - biodiversity 1 1% 1 3%

S - health and safety 4 7% 9 7% 8 8%

S - community impact 3 5% 10 8% 8 8%

S - employees 11 20% 14 1% 8 8%

G - governance 9 16% 599 54% 2 2% 5 13%

G - compliance 3 5% 317 29% 1 1% 12 30%

G - strategy 39 4% 10 8% 1 3% 7 7%

G - risk management 75 7% 1 1% 11 28% 10 10%

G - economic information 29 100% 1

G - sustainability 1 0% 8 6% 20 20%

G - environmental 2 4% 57 5% 8 6%

G - social 17 13%

Total E 24 43% - 0% 13 100% - 0% 66 50% 11 28% 41 41%

Total S 18 32% - 0% - 0% 14 1% 19 14% - 0% 24 24%

Total G 14 25% 29 100% - 0% 1,089 99% 47 36% 29 73% 37 37%

Purpose breakdown in %

Define

Describe 1 2% 5 38% 239 22% 12 30% 20 20%

Manage 5 9% 3 23% 672 61% 23 17% 10 25% 60 60%

Measure 50 89% 29 100% 5 38% 192 17% 109 83% 18 45% 20 20%

Notes Incl. both Eligbility Reporting is for scoring Real estate relevant *GRESB not
non-financial criteria are purpose. Includes principal adverse included within the
undertakings real estate all asset classes. indicators (PAI); not detailed mapping
and asset specific, "Describe" contains 383 incl. minimum social exercise. GRESB
managers. not the statistical disclosures. safeguards requirements have
Technical disclosures. "Measure" as a been categorised
screening governance question, above based on the
criteria are real not actual data output. summary information
estate specific, set out in the GRESB
not the 2022 Real Estate
disclosures. Assessment

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 36

Figure 17: Scope of ESG standards by core corporate standards
Measure (e.g. quantitative information such as Scope 1/2/3 metric tons CO2e)
Manage (e.g. disclosure of governance around climate related risks)
Describe (e.g. background information, whether assurance provided over reported environmental and social information)
Define (e.g. regarding methodologies used, classification of sustainable activities)

100%
8% 5%

25% 27%
80% 38%
47%
52%

58%
60%
84%
89%
93% 100% 23%
59%
40% 27%
23% 73%

20% 7%
38%
33%
26%
19% 15% 16% 9%
0% 1% 3% 2%
GRI CDP TCFD CDSB SASB IFRS S1/S2 CSRD EPRA EU Taxonomy CBI

The EPRA Standards and INREV Guidelines, on corporate We can see from figures 17 and 19 where the focus of a
and portfolio/fund level respectively, interpret general standard lies:
ESG considerations and best practice in the context of the
real estate industry and present useful frameworks. They • Is it to define what constitutes sustainability (either
align with other standards, but do not aim to represent full by the standard or the user)?
compliance with other standards and regulations.
• Is it to provide descriptions of company operations
For an introduction on types of metrics, see chapter 2. to set the context for ESG risks by business activity
and location?

Figure 18: Scope of ESG standards by portfolio/fund • Does the standard require you to demonstrate how
level standards you manage ESG risks (‘show’) or disclose actual
Measure (e.g. quantitative information such as Scope 1/2/3 metric tons CO2e) measured ESG data (‘tell’)?
Manage (e.g. disclosure of governance around climate related risks)
Describe (e.g. background information, whether assurance provided over
reported environmental and social information) As discussed in the introduction, the historic development
Define (e.g. regarding methodologies used, classification of sustainable of early voluntary ESG initiatives and commitments was
activities)
driven by transparency on governance and strategy
100% (‘manage’) to give the reader a better understanding of
17% 20%
a company’s approach and understanding of ESG risks.
The new era of data-driven disclosures aims to provide
80%
45% evidence of the effectiveness of such approaches and
measure inside and outside effects. Both sides of the
60% 83% coin provide valuable insight for the reader and should be
61% provided in an aligned disclosure.
60%
25%
40%
In the case of frameworks or guidelines, ‘measure’ was
used to indicate where requirements are in place to define
20%
30%
metrics and targets to measure ESG risks and performance
22%
17% 20% (without prescribing them). In general, ‘measure’ was
0% used for standards which prescribe the exact metrics and
PRI INREV SFDR GRESB*
data to be disclosed. Frameworks or guidelines will thus
*2022 GRESB Real Estate Assessment considered at high level (not within scope of detailed concentrate on ‘manage’ (e.g., governance metrics), whilst
mapping exercise)
*GRESB is also added as an industry assessment benchmark. 2022 GRESB
Real Estate Assessment considered at a high level (not within scope of 37
detailed mapping exercise)
more industry-specific or thematic standards will require What metrics to choose
more data-driven disclosures. For an introduction to the purpose of different metrics, see
chapter 2.
The GRI has a strong weighting for ‘define’ as it requires
comprehensive disclosures on how the user interprets Governance metrics are the starting point for
definitions, applies methodologies, and makes calculations. implementing ESG within the organisation from top to
While not providing definitions itself, the GRI ensures bottom. Governance must always be tailored to the size and
that there is sufficient transparency to enable like-for-like complexity of the organisation and business operations.
comparisons between different users. (See case study on CBRE IM). For corporate reporting, this
study classifies TCFD, CDSB, CSRD and EU taxonomy as
The only standards containing an actual direct definition governance related. Similarly, the PRI assessment is very
of sustainability are the EU Taxonomy (via the technical useful for checking all stages of integrating sustainability
screening criteria), the SFDR (with legal uncertainty and into the organisation from an asset owner or asset/fund
a reference to the EU Taxonomy) and the CBI (via the manager perspective and is classified as governance
eligibility requirements). Scoring assessments such as related.
PRI, CDP and GRESB benchmark within the industry, but
not against a defined standard. The industry thus creates Science-based metrics are arguably the most challenging
a benchmark that has to be recalibrated as standards to collect data for given data quality and coverage issues,
develop. Indirectly, many standards will set a benchmark but are most important for regulators, investors and other
of sustainability for example by measuring the operational stakeholders as they represent the data basis for working
implementation of certain measures which are considered towards net zero and combating climate change as well
best practice. as achieving the UN SDGs. Using science-based metrics,
for example in combination with a public commitment
Thus, in the context of preventing greenwashing and through the Science-Based Targets Initiative, Net Zero
enhanced transparency, frameworks and guidelines present Asset Managers initiative, or CRREM specifically for
an excellent basis describing the sustainability governance the real estate industry demonstrates the credibility of
structure but choosing the most relevant and applicable a company’s ESG strategy. Most standards will contain
science-based, implementation and financial metrics is key basic KPIs for scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions as well
for sustainability credibility. as energy consumption, so alignment of definitions is

Figure 19: ESG composition by real estate corporate standards

E
S
G

100%

80% 43% 43%

44%
61%
75%
60%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

40% 32%
34%
18%
57%

20%

22% 25% 22% 25%

0%
GRI CDP TCFD CDSB SASB IFRS S1/S2 CSRD EPRA EU Taxonomy CBI

* Climate and environmental criteria is also included within ‘G’ due to the nature of the requirements (as well as some social criteria also) - please see
Governance topic composition per standard.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 38

Figure 20: ESG composition by standard/benchmark - required especially in this area. Overlaps on most important
portfolio/fund level standards environmental topics – driven by the long-standing
E TCFD framework – are notable across all standards, but
S convergence is required as to the exact measurement and
G
definition (especially scope 3 requires clarity). In terms of
100%
sustainability materiality, science-based metrics are the
1%
only instrument for measuring outside impacts.
28%
80% 41%
50% Implementation metrics like SASB and GRESB are very
good for defining real estate specific action points for
60% implementing ESG measures on asset/portfolio level.
99%
Benchmarking peers through GRESB (on portfolio level)
24%
14% and PRI (at an organisation level) provides useful insight
40%
73% in industry best practice and for identifying areas for
improvement. The INREV Guidelines provide a good basis
20% 36% 37% for developing detailed asset and investment portfolio
and asset related strategies and plans. Detailing these
0% plans strengthens accountability towards the investor and
PRI INREV SFDR GRESB* enables progress tracking.
*2022 GRESB
*2022 GRESB Real Real
Estate Estate Assessment
Assessment considered atishigh
considered at ascope
level (not within highoflevel
detailed
(not within
mapping scope of detailed mapping exercise)
exercise) Financial metrics are divided into understanding the
overall impact of sustainability risks on cashflows, assets,
liabilities and ultimately company value (e.g., IFRS S1
and S2), and providing transparency on the proportion

Figure 21: Environmental topic composition by real estate corporate standards

E - Climate mitigation
E - Climate adaptation
E - Pollution prevention
E - Circular economy
E - Water
E - Biodiversity
G - Climate and environmental criteria*

100%

80% 38%
44%
50%
55%
67%
60%
3%
28% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
16% 10%
40% 13%
3%

20% 21%
20% 40%
34% 32%

15% 13%
0%
GRI CDP TCFD CDSB SASB IFRS S1/S2 CSRD EPRA EU Taxonomy CBI

*Climate and environmental criteria within governance-based frameworks have been categorised within governance - please see Governance topic
composition per standard.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 39

Figure 22: Environmental topic composition by have an underlying climate theme, but are, as shown in the
standard/benchmark - portfolio/fund level standards landscape overview, 100 percent classified as governance
E - Climate mitigation metrics. This is because TCFD and CDSB are governance-
E - Climate adaptation based frameworks, while the EU Taxonomy requires
E - Pollution prevention
financial disclosures based on a taxonomy of sustainable
E - Circular economy
E - Water business activities (for climate mitigation purposes).
E - Biodiversity
G - Climate and environmental criteria*
As figure 20 shows, the GRI can be considered a very
100% comprehensive sustainability standard that includes
a variety of metrics across all three ESG topic areas.
In comparison, SASB is much more limited due to
80%
predetermined materiality. EPRA, TCFD and CDSB are to be
59%
classified as guidelines or frameworks, which is why they
73% 73%
60% have only very few actual disclosure requirements. CBI as
100% a label has a minor annual compliance report. PRI and CDP
40%
are scorings with a variety of questions. IFRS S1/S2 are
14% currently still a draft. After the development and adoption
of the ESRS, the CSRD is expected to cover all three ESG
20% 15% 12%
18% aspects.
11% 15%
0% 2%
9%
3.2.1 Environmental criteria
PRI INREV SFDR GRESB**

*Climate and environmental criteria within governance-based frameworks have been categorised
In general, given the urgency of combating climate change,
*Climate and environmental
within governance criteria
- please see Governance topicwithin governance-based
composition per standard
it is not surprising that climate mitigation is the most
frameworks have been categorised within governance - please see
Governance topic composition per standard. comprehensively covered environmental topic across all
**2022 GRESB Real Estate Assessment considered at high level (not standards. Water is considered a key second environmental
within scope of detailed mapping exercise)
topic, in particular by the real estate-specific EPRA
Standards and INREV Guidelines, followed by pollution.
CDP, scoring across climate, water, and deforestation, also
of investment (CapEx, OpEx) and turnover results from contains a significant water focus and some biodiversity
sustainable business activities to foster sustainable finance. metrics in general beyond the deforestation topic (both
The latter supports the ‘follow the money’ rule, showing classed as biodiversity within this study’s framework).
where money is coming in from sustainable business
activities and where money is going in terms of investing The mapping shows that GRI is the only standard that
internally into sustainable business activities. This links currently covers all six environmental topics as well as all
to how these investments might be financed externally, three social topics. The EU Taxonomy will develop technical
with credit institutions having to disclose their green- screening criteria for the non-climate environmental topics
asset-ratio and asset managers having to disclose their in due course.
proportion of investments into companies with sustainable
business activities. Some financial metrics or ‘economic GRI and SFDR are the only standards addressing circular
information’ mapped in this study pertain to penalties or economy.
fines for non-compliance with environmental, employment,
tax or product regulations and are an indicator of a lack TCFD, CDSB and the EU Taxonomy, as mentioned before,
of a proper governance system (see GRI and CDP). In have an underlying climate theme, but are classed as
addition, some financial metrics pertain to losses resulting governance metrics. PRI similarly is governance-focused
from things such as accidents with environmental impact, but has 58 environmental-related metrics.
stranded assets or recalled products.
3.2.2 Social criteria
Thematic focus
Looking at the ESG criteria indicates where the thematic As shown in figures 24 and 25, social metrics are
focus of a standard lies. However, TCFD, CDSB and the EU underdeveloped in comparison to environmental or
Taxonomy (technical screening criteria, not mapped here) governance metrics, since they are based on norms and

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 40

values that are less quantifiable. Legislation and regulations constitute a human rights topic. In addition, while there is
globally are increasingly being issued and achieving a strong emphasis on DEI across real estate organisations,
alignment, so a more robust social framework can be there are currently fewer requirements on DEI across the
expected in future. For real estate especially, aside from different social criteria within the mapped ESG standards.
affordable housing and community impacts, the materiality-
based focus has been on environmental impacts given the CDSB also has social considerations. The SFDR principal
large contribution real estate makes to GHG emissions. EU adverse indicators contain social metrics but are not
regulations are currently incorporating social standards as classified as relevant for real estate.
minimum safeguards, however general social metrics such
as those relating to employees and health and safety apply
to all industries. In addition, ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’
(DEI) is seeing very strong recognition and becoming a
social topic itself and for the purposes of this study would

Figure 23: Social topics composition by core Figure 24: Social topics composition by standard/
corporate standards benchmark - portfolio/fund level standards
S - health, safety and wellbeing S - health, safety and wellbeing
S - community impact S - community impact
S - employees S - employees

100% 100%

22%
33%
80% 80%
44% 47%
54%
17%

60% 60%

100% 33%

40% 13% 40%

61%
56% 53%
20% 20%
32% 33%

0% 0%
GRI SASB EPRA PRI INREV GRESB*

The bar charts illustrate some of the social areas covered across the different standards. However, climate and environmental criteria significantly outweigh
the social criteria across the standards.
*2022 GRESB Real Estate Assessment considered at high level (not within scope of detailed mapping exercise)

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 41

Figure 25: Governance topic composition by core corporate standards
G - Governance
G - Compliance
G - Strategy
G - Risk management
G - Economic information
G - Sustainability
G - Environmental
G - Social

100% 1%
8%
18% 14%
27%
33%
80%
45% 18%
59% 27% 64%
50%
19%
60%
25%
6% 34% 100%
18%
40% 16%
10% 17% 20%
10% 55% 13%
21%
20% 2% 5%
26% 36%
5%
22% 25%
19% 10% 14%
0% 3% 3%
GRI CDP TCFD CDSB SASB IFRS S1/S2 CSRD EPRA EU Taxonomy

3.2.3 Governance criteria

Figure 26: Governance topic composition by
Governance metrics have significant overlap across the standard/benchmark - portfolio/fund level standards
standards, with differences mainly in level of detail or on G - Governance
G - Compliance
sub-topic level. Within a framework, the requirements are
G - Strategy
general and supplemented by guidance, which may then G - Risk management
form more concrete metrics in standards or scorings. G - Economic information
G - Sustainability
Generally, the governance structure should always contain G - Environmental
the same elements, applied to the size and complexity of G - Social
the organisation and its business activities.
100% 4%
2%
17%
The strongest risk management focus is observable for 19%
21%
TCFD, to which many other standards are aligned. CDSB 80%
reflects dependencies on and co-dependencies between 55% 2%
27%
natural, human and social capital, thus truly trying to 17% 41%
60%
achieve transparency over the complexity of positive and
negative impacts and decision-making by the company. 17%
40% 3%

Importantly, despite not being separately categorised in the 29%

54%
mapping exercise, supply chain considerations are included 20% 36% 38%
by CDSB, CDP, GRI, and INREV and demonstrate how to 4%
7%
think about relationships and impact when preparing for
5%
0%
stricter future supply chain regulations. PRI INREV SFDR GRESB*

*2022 GRESB Real Estate Assessment considered at high level

(not within scope of detailed mapping exercise)

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 42

 CASE STUDY AZORA
Using GRESB to achieve The year 2020 was the first year of presentation of
sustainability objectives the hotel vehicle, Azora European Hotel & Lodging,
Fondo de Capital Riesgo, which is an investment
Azora is an independent capital manager in vehicle focused on hotel businesses in Europe,
Spain, focused on real estate investment also regulated by the CNMV. It has obtained very
and management. It has raised national and good scores in the two years that it has been
international institutional capital since its presenting, improving comparatively among them.
establishment in 2003. Azora’s team manages the
entire investment cycle, from the identification of Major change in the GRESB assessment
the opportunity, to structuring of the investment In 2019, GRESB changed its questionnaire to give
vehicles, the acquisition, restructuring, financing, more weight and importance to the performance
asset management, reform and repositioning and of companies, with an aim to motivate them
eventually, the divestment of the assets. Azora to improve their data collection systems and
specializes in several verticals, highlighting its monitoring of environmental KPIs.
investments in hospitality, multifamily, senior
living, offices and renewable energy. On the residential portfolios, while Azora has
control of the common areas in most rental assets,
GRESB has become the reference benchmark
the tenants have control of their private area.
for international investors in real estate and
This brings a great challenge for Azora to carry
participating in it has become one of the most
out active management of its asset portfolio and
important contractual requirements in ESG matters
monitor the energy and water consumption of its
that has been encountered in recent years in the
buildings. By using the GRESB assessment as a
launch of new investment vehicles as well as for
benchmark, Azora identified several action points
the existing investments. Investors’ interest in
to address these challenges and implement their
the results achieved and requests for periodic
sustainability objectives at asset level, including
reports on the vehicle’s specific actions to improve
but not limited to inclusion of the sustainability
the score makes GRESB an important tool to
clauses in tenant contracts, monitoring waste
communicate progress on sustainable investment
management, implementing measures to reduce
objectives, such as decarbonisation of assets and
environmental impact, installing and improving
climate change mitigation.
the efficiency of equipment and systems,
Azora has pioneered the contribution of portfolio and promoting the generation of energy from
data into GRESB for two asset classes where there renewable sources.
are still few contributors: rented-residential and
resort hotels. In the Hospitality and Senior Living operating
businesses, the level of operational control is
Since 2018, Azora has been reporting the defined by Azora’s relationship with the different
multifamily vehicle, Nestar Residencial, Sociedad operators. For some of the assets, it has the power
de Inversión Inmobiliaria, S.A. (formerly known to decide on possible reforms and renovations
as Lazora, Sociedad de Inversión Inmobiliaria, of the systems, for example, to minimize
S.A.), which is a residential rental investment environmental impacts or reduce consumption.
vehicle present in Spain and regulated by the For other assets, it is the operators who make
Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores these decisions directly and carry out these reform
(CNMV19). It has been improving its score in processes. In any case, Azora strives to maintain
GRESB since 2018, standing today in the first a close relationship with the operators, monitoring
place of its ‘peer group’. performance in terms of energy consumption,

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 43

 CASE STUDY AZORA

• create the respective forms to report the

quantitative data to GRESB;

• analyse different scenarios about climate

change depending on the location of the
assets.

All this has increased the GRESB ‘Performance’

score, significantly improving the water, waste and
emissions sections.

Managers like Azora have been affected by the

stakeholder pressure for sustainable growth:

• growing general interest of investors about

sustainability;

• banks, which are changing their financing

models to favour more sustainable credits;

• the new consumer and tenant profile;

• the appearance of new technological solutions;

water and waste management, and coordinating • the extensive regulatory development that is
with them to integrate efficiency measures into the expected in the coming years.
equipment and devices, and communicating the
relevance of sustainability to end user. This leads to the sector being transformed to
face the new challenges related to sustainability,
Lessons Learned such as the urgent reduction of the environmental
To improve its GRESB score and to answer the footprint that encourages the application of asset
performance questions in a more standardised and decarbonisation measures.
reliable way, Azora built its data collection tool with
the support of an external data advisor. The tool Azora believes that an integral part of its fiduciary
allows them to: responsibility lies in the responsible management
of capital. They aspire to manage their investments
• collect consumption data from its assets in a more sustainable manner and under the
through a semi-automatic data collection highest corporate governance standards to have a
interface (buildings, meters, consumption); positive impact on the environment and on people’s
lives. Using a sustainability benchmark like GRESB,
• compare and visualise data in an integrated is essential to achieve these objectives because it
and automated manner; allows managers to measure progress in absolute
terms and against comparable portfolios while
• export custom reports; at the same time providing a tool for reporting
those results to all stakeholders in a clear and
• calculate the carbon footprint; standardised way.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 44

 CASE STUDY CBRE IM
Putting Sustainability into Action • Acquisitions Tool: Enabling Investment
Committees to evaluate ESG risk in a
This case study explores how sustainability can consistent way across the global platform
be put into action and fully integrated within a using key asset data
company to meet the evolving and growing needs
and requirements. • ESG Asset Analytics – Bottom Performers:
Providing analytics to allow teams to focus
For CBRE Investment Management (CBRE and prioritize efforts on resource-intensive
IM) sustainability is fundamental to driving assets
long-term outperformance and is therefore
embedded throughout the investment process, • Portfolio ESG Scorecard: Showing the
from acquisitions through asset management. portfolio’s progress on ESG targets
Recognising the need for accelerated action, in
• Portfolio KPI Tool: Calculating and populating
the last two years, CBRE IM enhanced its ESG
the INREV-aligned KPI performance tables
integration by developing innovative tools and
processes, creating a broader accountability ESG Mailbox and Knowledge Center
structure, and increasing sustainability fluency CBRE IM established a centralised process and
across the global organization. dedicated team of writers with ESG expertise
to handle sustainability-related requests for
CBRE IM is a leading global real assets investment
information and firm-level reporting (i.e., PRI
management firm. Through its investor-operator
and TCFD). This streamlined process ensures
culture, the firm seeks to deliver sustainable
that all requests are addressed, there is no
investment solutions across real assets categories,
duplication of effort and responses are globally
geographies, risk profiles and execution formats
consistent and aligned with the firm’s reporting
so that its clients, people and communities thrive.
and signatory commitments. This process allows
CBRE IM is a signatory to the Principles for
the Sustainability Team to focus on the high value
Responsible Investment (PRI), the Net Zero Asset
work of supporting investment teams implement
Managers initiative (NZAMi) and the Task Force
initiatives, presenting to clients, creating pathways
on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
to net zero and continuing to innovate new
The firm participated in the original GRESB pilot
processes and tools.
in 2009 and for the last three years submitted the
largest number of real estate portfolios for the Sustainability-related requests are triaged based
GRESB assessment of any asset manager. on deadlines and whether the request is for a live
mandate or for routine reporting. The dedicated
Integrating Sustainability Tools
team responds to each request or forwards it to
Key performance indicators for measuring success
the appropriate person (e.g., a Sustainability Team
are based on globally recognised sustainability
member, an external fund ESG consultant, the
frameworks such as GRESB, PRI, INREV, CRREM,
Legal and Compliance Team or another subject
BREEAM and LEED. Beyond these industry
matter expert).
standards, CBRE IM developed proprietary tools to
help the organisation measure progress, identify The firm’s Knowledge Center database houses
improvement opportunities and provide asset level slides and RFP responses, which are updated on a
recommendations. regular basis. Those who are responding to RFPs
and DDQs or who need sustainability language
Some of the tools the team developed for the
have access to the Knowledge Center database and
firm’s direct real estate investment strategy
can quickly find responses to questions, graphics,
include:
tables, organisation charts, biographies, and

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 45

 CASE STUDY CBRE IM

presentation slides among other frequently used Having the right people in the right positions is key
information. The ESG Mailbox, the dedicated team to the successful design and implementation of
of ESG writers and Knowledge Center allowed the sustainability initiatives. CBRE IM’s Sustainability
firm to complete nearly 800 sustainability-related Team are engineers and sustainability experts
requests and reporting projects in 2022 (a 400%+ with the technical skills needed to address critical
increase from 2020). ESG challenges like climate change. Eleven fully
dedicated sustainability professionals support
Accountability for Sustainability
the firm and strategy investment teams as well
Accountability for sustainability begins at the top
as develop proprietary tools to help measure and
with responsibility and oversight sitting with CBRE
monitor ESG risk and progress.
IM’s Executive Committee (EXCO). The Head of
Sustainability and Innovation is an EXCO member To further integrate sustainability knowledge
and has the overall responsibility for the direction across functions, sectors and geographies, CBRE
and implementation of sustainability. A senior IM appointed and trained 80+ Sustainability
member of the Sustainability Team is also a voting Ambassadors (representing over 8% of firm
member on all Investment Committees. employees) throughout the organisation to drive
ESG integration within their respective function
CBRE IM’s Global Sustainability Council is
and educate their colleagues on how they can
responsible for providing strategic direction for
contribute to the firm’s achievement of meaningful
investment and operational sustainability, and five
targets that will move the needle in the real estate
Sustainability Committees—covering corporate
industry.
operations, direct private real estate, indirect
private real estate, private infrastructure and CBRE IM took efforts to increase sustainability
listed securities—provide guidance to leadership fluency further by creating a Sustainability
and investment teams with respect to ESG best Knowledge Hub on the intranet with tools,
practices. resources, trainings, short videos and webinar
recordings available to all employees.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 46

4. BUILDING CERTIFICATIONS

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 47

4. BUILDING CERTIFICATIONS

4.1 Status quo have performance-based criteria to measure defined

(theoretical or modeled) results for different project types.
The 2022 GRESB Real Estate Reference Guide20 lists 96 Some ‘in use’ certifications have outcome-based criteria,
design and/or construction schemes and 85 operational meaning that the actual performance, such as energy use is
green building certification schemes. Following the launch measured against the target energy use level.
of BREEAM in 1990 and LEED in 2000, the number of
building certifications has grown rapidly globally to Consequently, it is very important to differentiate between in
address national priorities and broader issues, with little use certifications to measure theoretical (modeled) or actual
consolidation to be expected. New certifications (e.g., ongoing performance and in build certifications to measure
ActiveScore) have developed to also cover impacts outside construction standards or future embodied carbon.21,22
the building (e.g., people travel to the building and the
associated environmental and health impact) which some 4.2 Certifications as an instrument for
current certification frameworks do not necessarily cover.
In this chapter, the report provides an overview of the
measuring a footprint
building certifications most widely used in the markets Buildings have significant direct and indirect impacts on the
within this study’s scope. environment. During their construction, use, renovation,
reuse, and deconstruction, buildings use energy, water,
Building certifications are useful market instruments for and raw materials, generate waste, and produce emissions.
measuring ESG factors in the construction or operation of They also have social impacts, for example, on the health
a building. Whether state-driven (e.g., in Japan, Australia, and wellbeing, and safety of their occupants and the
Singapore) or company-driven, certifications can be used community.
to measure a (theoretical or modeled) footprint and to track
progress of reaching an ESG goal over time, while others Building certifications can measure these environmental
primarily measure the energy and other sustainability and social impacts through a single attribute assessment
attributes of a building in operation. Their use is considered (e.g., NABERS, ENERGY STAR), or a multi-attribute
an important ESG implementation KPI by reporting assessment of an entire project (e.g., BREEAM, LEED). The
standards such as SASB, INREV, EPRA or the GRESB latter is mostly used, aiming to reduce the overall impact
assessment. on health and safety and/or the environment. Different
project types (e.g., sectors and life cycle phases) are
They can identify areas for improvement against the measured against different attributes.
benchmark of the underlying standard and largely represent
a form of third-party assessment. In some countries, Figure 27 shows the ESG factor coverage of each certificate
building certifications are incorporated in local building in different regions.
codes, while the certifications themselves are unregulated.
In the context of increasing national and supranational Further, with physical climate risks coming more into
regulations that define the building standards that must focus, ‘resilient by design’ approaches and resilience
be met, the standards underlying the certification must be principles for different phases of the asset lifecycle are
higher than the legal standard, to remain relevant and help being considered in the development of certifications such
advance the industry making the built environment more as LEED and RELI.23 However, measuring actual energy use
sustainable. is needed as a complementary measure to ensure the green
use of a building, for example to measure and minimise
Building certifications may contain prescriptive elements energy consumption. Smart meters can be helpful in
that have to be met, for example prerequisites for building this respect to identify the most cost-effective ways to
components. These often apply to ‘in build’ certifications reduce energy consumption. The importance of (smart)
for construction projects. ‘In use’ certifications relating metering is emphasised by the disclosure requirements on
to the operations and maintenance of the building can implementation used by SASB.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 48

Figure 27: Thematic spread of certifications

Environmental Social Governance Other/None

Global BOMA BEST BOMA 360 EDGE

ZEB
BREEAM
DGNB
FITWEL
HQE
LEED
WELL

EU & UK NABERS (UK)

Australia & NABERS (AU) GREEN STAR (AU)

New Zealand

Japan & BCA Green Mark (SG) BELS (J)

Singapore
CASBEE

US & Canada ENERGY STAR

GREEN GLOBES

4.3 Certifications as third-party decarbonise buildings in Europe by 2050,24 emission

assessments targets were set for 2030:

Generally, building certifications have long been used to ‘The Commission proposes that as of 2030, all new
provide marketable evidence of having a ‘green building’. buildings must be zero-emission. […] When it comes to
Given the rapidly growing focus on net zero, measuring renovations, new EU-level minimum energy performance
actual ESG performance as opposed to theoretical standards are proposed, requiring the worst-performing
(modeled) performance becomes more important. 15% of the building stock of each Member State to be
upgraded from the Energy Performance Certificate’s Grade
Whilst a common definition of a green building does not G to at least Grade F by 2027 for non-residential buildings
yet exist, clear governmental commitments have been and 2030 for residential buildings.’
made in the Paris Agreement, thus placing the built world
as a significant (outcome-based) contributor towards The responsibility rests on governments to introduce
achieving those climate goals. legislation and regulations for green construction and
renovation. Energy performance certificates as also
Following the announcement of the EU Green Deal to referenced by the EU Taxonomy (see 2.2.3) are the

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 49

regulator’s choice in the EU for measuring the output for 4.4 Certifications in the context of
the single attribute energy and defining sustainability. They reporting
are regulated by law25 and controlled by the metering chain,
making any misrepresentation less likely over the long- The coverage of buildings with building certifications is
term. a recurring implementation metric for real estate-specific
reporting standards, as defined by SASB, INREV and EPRA,
Some building certifications measure multiple attributes to enable progress tracking. The disclosure is also required
and generally require the disclosure of data and by GRESB as a benchmark for topics not covered by the
documentation for assessment to third-party auditors or GRESB assessment (see case study Azora - GRESB) to
assessors and thereby provide a more reliable instrument avoid duplication.
for verifying building standards than an in-house
assessment. However, as noted in the introduction to this Building certifications ‘in use’ that look at actual ongoing
chapter, building certifications are generally not regulated performance data and are subject to regular recertification,
and are only as reliable as the third party is independent in such as BREEAM in use, US ENERGY STAR, or NABERS
performing the assessment. Potential conflicts of interest Australia, can be an important instrument for defining a
must be excluded. sustainability strategy or sustainable investment definition
in alignment with regulations such as the SFDR or national
In summary, building certifications can have a role to play and sub-national regulations in other countries.
in the decarbonisation process of buildings, although the
interpretation of a certified building as a ‘green building’ In practice, data used for building certifications is not
is no longer valid. Building certifications, especially those extracted for reporting purposes, as building certifications
focused on actual operational performance, can contribute represent a secondary source of data. They should
to achieving a company’s decarbonisation and wider consequently be viewed as market instruments next to, but
building sustainability targets. not linked to, reporting.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 50

 CASE STUDY MANULIFE IM
Developing in-house sustainable residential, retail, and industrial. As a result,
building standard Manulife IM took it on itself to develop its own in-
house set of standards.
As global sustainability initiatives have
evolved rapidly, so too have the sustainability Developing proprietary standards to address
commitments at Manulife Investment Management unique sustainability requirements
(Manulife IM). Across Manulife IM’s real estate Manulife IM’s Sustainable Building Standards
capabilities, a real estate sustainability framework (SBS) were initially developed in 2017 and act as a
has been developed that helps drive sustainability guide to advance sustainability within all buildings
across its businesses. globally. The standards define requirements
and best practices for Manulife IM’s third-party
To assess sustainability performance across its property managers and encourage improvement
global real estate platform, Manulife IM needed while addressing the need for advancement,
a single set of metrics. While there were several guidance, tools, and consistency. Manulife IM’s
green building certification programs to choose standards allow them to:
from, it couldn’t find one that benchmarked their
assets globally—from Japan to Australia to the • Meet industry and stakeholder expectations
United States to Canada—nor was there a single such as supporting requirements for
platform to collectively advance Manulife IM’s certifications, GRESB, and PRI
expectations across all of the sectors—office,

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 51

 CASE STUDY MANULIFE IM

• Drive leadership across their five sustainable the standards to benchmark the performance of
real estate commitments third-party property managers.

• Enable benchmarking of sustainability Incorporating sustainability into the management

performance and understanding of business process
outcomes As part of Manulife IM’s Sustainable Building
Standards, property teams are required to report
• Provide tools and resources for third-party on their progress against minimum requirements
property managers and advancement initiatives on an annual basis.
This information is then consolidated and shared
Ensuring sustainability practices are upheld by with asset managers so that all teams involved
third-party property managers are aware of and in alignment with the greatest
Recently, Manulife IM migrated its North American sustainability risks and opportunities that are
real estate platform to third-party property present.
management to oversee the operation of its
buildings. To ensure its sustainability practices To further integrate the standards into the
are upheld, Manulife IM includes Sustainable management process, Manulife IM aligned the
Building Standards in its property management annual reporting process to occur before the
agreements. It provides guidance documents, annual budget cycle for properties. This allows
tools, and training to property managers, it time for asset managers to include opportunities
requires annual reporting on progress, and it uses for sustainability improvements in their annual
planning.

Programme outcomes to date

Since launching the SBS in 2017, Manulife IM
has seen considerable success in advancing
sustainability across its global real estate portfolio.
The standards have provided quantifiable
performance tracking: across the portfolio,
properties complete an annual report card against
the standards which Manulife IM uses to track SBS
performance year over year.

The standards have allowed for greater alignment

with external industry best practices, enabling
teams to achieve building certifications and
reporting requirements. The standards have
also provided teams with tools and resources to
effectively track and manage their environmental
performance, which has supported Manulife IM in
meeting its real estate portfolio-level targets.

Having an annual reporting process and aligning

it with budget processes has also allowed for
continuous improvement. Since its initial launch,

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 52

 CASE STUDY MANULIFE IM

there has been a 45% average increase in SBS operationalise an advancement of these targets in
scores across Manulife IM’s global real estate a new standard called GHG management.
portfolio.
Manulife IM also plans to share its SBS on its
Incorporating a strategic review process ensures website in the coming year to support broader
standards are agile industry engagement and collaboration.
Manulife IM’s SBS need to reflect changing
industry requirements and market evolution; Developing the climate change resilience SBS
as such, a regular review of the alignment with Climate change is one of the greatest challenges
Manulife IM’s sustainability strategy and goals we face today. For Manulife IM’s buildings and
takes place. This includes creating additional their communities, climate change poses both
requirements, consolidating and creating tools and physical and transitional risks. To help guard
resources, and delivering stakeholder training. As against these risks, over the last year Manulife IM
part of the review process, some standards get developed its climate change resilience standard,
upgraded to expected best practices. also in response to the inclusion of climate risk
and resilience questions by GRESB.
For example, to support its ambitious sustainability
targets, Manulife IM recently increased its waste In 2020, Manulife IM began to assess its climate
diversion standard minimum from 50% to 65% for risk resilience. It used forward-looking, third-
properties where waste management is controlled party climate risk data to evaluate its global real
by the property manager. It also removed utility estate portfolio’s exposure to physical climate and
tracking as a requirement, as this is now broadly extreme weather risks. These risks include floods,
implemented and standard practice across its sea-level rise, extreme windstorms, wildfire, heat
portfolio. stress, water stress, and earthquakes. Manulife
IM also inventoried its entire real estate portfolio
Recognising the importance of alignment with for property resilience—the presence of features
third-party certifications and practices such as risk awareness, resilience
Using third-party certifications such as LEED, management, emergency management, business
NABERS, CASBEE, BOMA BEST, Fitwel, WELL, and continuity, and building attributes—that helps
ENERGY STAR is an important part of advancing mitigate climate risks.
asset stewardship. To meet the sustainability
targets and market expectations, Manulife IM has The results of this assessment led to the
recognised the importance of aligning its SBSs development of the climate change resilience
to industry-leading certification programs and SBS, which incorporates risk and resilience
requirements. This alignment has helped Manulife practices into property operations. The standard
IM achieve high certification rates across its aims to enhance property resilience through
portfolio; for example, as of 2021, 82% of Manulife a range of initiatives, including education,
IM’s global real estate portfolio holds a third-party emergency planning, and resilience assessments
green building certification. and improvements. To support property teams
with education and implementation of this new
Staying ahead on sustainability standard, Manulife IM provided training and a
Manulife IM uses its standards to stay ahead of property resilience tool kit. The tool kit helps teams
emerging sustainability topics. For example, when screen and prioritise resilience improvements
setting greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets based on their climate risk exposure and existing
for its real estate portfolio, Manulife IM was able to resilience measures and practices.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 53

5. RATINGS AND SCORES

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 54

5. RATINGS AND SCORES

ESG ratings or scores are available on (listed) corporate Ratings for listed instruments
and (non-listed) investment or investment-management With increasing ESG regulations and reporting
level. Public ratings for listed instruments, for example requirements, data availability is improving. Ratings for
equity and debt instruments, are generally in the spotlight listed instruments are thus currently more relevant in
for global securities fund managers, whilst non-public markets with lower levels of ESG regulations, such as the
scores on investment and investment-management level Asian-Pacific market.
have become industry-driven instruments in the real estate
sector for inhouse benchmarking purposes. Given this development towards transparency, ESG
rating agencies such as Sustainalytics, MSCI, Dow
The general purpose of a rating or score is to provide Jones, Moody’s or S&P Global have begun acting as data
an opinion based on the rating provider’s methodology (estimate) providers for data that is not yet available to fulfil
and scoring model to help inform investment decisions obligations such as SFDR reporting. However, the rating
or provide an in-industry benchmark. From an investor agencies are coming under scrutiny by regulators such as
perspective, ratings and scores present an instrument that the EU Commission26 and ESMA27 as well as watchdogs
can be used in absence of available primary ESG data from such as IOSCO28 and SEC29 given their historic influence
the investment object or ability to process that data. From and the need to define a common legal baseline of what
a governance perspective, they can inform an ESG strategy sustainability means to prevent greenwashing.
and help set internal targets for improvement.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 55

One has to bear in mind that ESG ratings for listed Consequently, a comparison of several ESG ratings
instruments are derived with different methodologies should be used as a starting point32 for evaluating ESG
and are generally ‘in industry’, meaning that the best- performance, but with the improvement of ESG data
performing company in a renewable energy sector may availability through reporting, deeper due diligence is
receive a similar score as the best performing company recommended. Similarly, as a listed company seeking
in the oil sector. Further, they focus more on policies than to communicate an ESG ambition, the application of
practices and actual data. Concerns have also been raised the most relevant materiality-based reporting metrics
over conflicts of interest, methodology, data quality, and is recommended to strengthen the credibility of the
poor revision processes, thus calling into question the company’s commitment and provide transparency to
reliability of the rating results.30 various stakeholders.

Many rating agencies also focus on ESG controversies,

such as events or practices of companies that have
negative effects on the environment, people, or their
governance. ESG controversies are used by many portfolio
managers as part of their exclusion criteria, hence the
whistleblowing function of the rating agencies as well as
non-profit or non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
such as the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
contributes to ‘greener’ investing. However, on a stand-
alone basis, ESG controversies should be interpreted as
evidence of poor ESG governance and risk management. In
the reverse, a lack of controversies does not prove that a
company has good ESG governance and risk management.
More research into the available data is required to assess
a company’s exposure to and impact on sustainability risks.

Commercial ESG rating agencies will not necessarily assess

the effect the company has on the environment or people,
but more strongly reflect how industry-specific ESG risks
affect the company, how the company responds to ESG
risks, and ultimately, how this impacts the company’s
financial performance.31 In this light, ESG ratings may
be more relevant for debt instruments, as the long-term
financial performance and therewith creditworthiness of the
debt issuer is affected by ESG risks. As discussed in the
section on double materiality (page 22), it is not possible
to cleanly separate the inside and outside impact view of
materiality given their long-term dependencies. But the
ESG materiality is determined by the rating agency, which
may or may not align with the investor’s ESG strategy and
materiality assessment and which can differ significantly
between rating agencies.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 56

6. KEY FINDINGS

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 57

6. KEY FINDINGS

Following an extensive mapping exercise along with 4. The materiality approach defines the main
numerous interviews with industry experts, this report characteristics of the ESG standards. While some
provides a snapshot of the ESG reporting standards most standards have a focus on ‘financial materiality’,
relevant to the sector. This study examines the purpose of others on ‘impact materiality’. There are also
the different ESG requirements and the different intended standards having both a financial and an impact
users of the information. It explores how the requirements materiality purpose, a so-called ‘double materiality’
overlap and where there may be an opportunity to approach.
condense the ESG reporting burden. The study also offers
suggestions for best practice in ESG reporting across the 5. Credible data (especially environmental and scope
various case studies. 1 to 3 GHG emissions data) is fundamental to
‘science-based metrics and targets’ across multiple
While the detailed study is set out in the rest of the report, disclosure requirements (‘you can’t manage what
10 key findings are summarised below at a high level: you can’t measure’). In the absence of primary ESG
data, third- party ESG ratings can be helpful, but it
1. The evolving ESG regulatory and reporting is important to understand the limitations of third-
landscape is complex and can be overwhelming. party ESG ratings.
The sector must work together to successfully
navigate the road ahead. Collaboration and a 6. Building certifications can also complement a
balance between ‘quality’ and ‘quantity’ should be successful ESG strategy, however as the regulatory
the focus. landscape evolves, building certifications are
feeling the pressure of staying ahead of regulation
2. It is important to understand the purpose of the to retain their relevance. Following the Paris
different ESG frameworks and standards and the Agreement targets set and subsequent introduction
intended user of the information, there is no one- of regulation across different regions, countries
size-fits-all standard. Although different standards and cities, focus is shifting quickly to actual
will continue to exist in the future due to their sustainability performance of a building. Some
different purpose and stakeholder needs, it is building certifications focus on actual operational
anticipated that there will be further consolidation performance, while others continue to focus on
and alignment of standards which have an theoretical or modeled performance, along with
overlapping purpose. other attributes of sustainable building construction,
health and wellness, and other sustainability goals.
3. We have identified five main categories of ESG Whilst a common definition of a green building is
frameworks and standards which are fundamental still missing, regulation plays a key role in assessing
to the integration of ESG across the sector: alignment with climate targets.

a. Core corporate standards 7. Certain social targets are more difficult to measure
as they are based on norms and values, but
b. Thematic reporting standards legislation and regulation are increasing worldwide
to harmonise social standards for organisations and
c. Sustainability regulation related requirements their supply chains.

d. Real estate industry-specific reporting 8. Good governance is fundamental to effective

standards and benchmarking implementation and there is a high level of global
alignment based on existing corporate governance
e. Principle-based commitments requirements.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 58

 9. It is important to determine what is within an standards, but do not aim to represent full compliance with
organisation’s control. For areas outside an other standards and regulations.
organisation’s control, best practice for engagement
with the wider real estate ‘ecosystem’ should be Within the international community and the European
followed (e.g., collaboration between landlord and Union, and also with a view to the individual nation-states,
tenant where possible). there are clear efforts to advance the implementation
of ESG criteria in all economic sectors and branches
10. For the sustainability strategy to be successful, in the short term. The regulatory innovations affect all
the leadership must focus resources on the ESG sub-sectors of the real estate industry and its entire life
frameworks and standards most relevant to and investment cycle. Many of the regulations are not
stakeholders and engage the entire organisation to harmonised and coordinated. This lack of harmonisation
minimise risk and maximise impact. and partly still undefined legal terms pose a major
challenge for many.
Of the 14 standards considered in this study, ten have
real estate-specific metrics. Those standards that There is no one-size-fits-all reporting standard, either from
contain real estate-specific metrics provide tailored a thematic perspective, or from a purpose perspective.
metrics that are easier to understand in an industry This will not change in the short to medium term, as the
context. Often the materiality of topics was determined field of ESG is so broad and complex that it will continue
beforehand, and the assessment thereof should remain to evolve as scientific knowledge grows and social norms
relevant and applicable, but the understanding of ESG and become more widely accepted. As a result, despite all
best practice is moving forward rapidly, so it is important consolidation efforts, reporting standards and frameworks
for real estate companies to continue to monitor its will evolve, and new requirements will emerge. Accordingly,
material ESG factors, e.g., the current state of sustainable an organisation will need to choose the right standards and
finance regulations. metrics that appropriately reflect the requirements of their
ESG strategy and their overall environmental impact and
The mapping study includes questions categorised as to comply with minimum social standards throughout the
governance, thematic references (e.g., environmental, entire real estate lifecycle in value and supply chains.
sustainability, social etc.) when the question’s purpose
relates to strategy, governance, compliance or risk To help navigate the selection of different regulations
management. Users of the mapping should be aware of and standards, based on regulatory requirements and
the ‘governance topics composition per standard’ when a company’s corporate and ESG strategy, we’ve created
observing a large proportion of indicators mapped as G the below set of questions. Before considering the study
e.g., TCFD and PRI. results, a real estate organisation should ask itself these
self-assessment questions and become aware of the
The EU Taxonomy technical screening criteria provide the core issues and areas that are anchored in the company’s
most ambitious benchmark, whereas the SASB (which ESG strategy. Comparing the answers with the results
informs Appendix B of the IFRS S2 exposure draft) should as presented in Figure 16 (and Appendices A & B) with
be treated as a minimum standard, while ambitions to the mapping results, can help to select the required and
meet the UN SDGs and the Paris Agreement increases. The appropriate standards and regulations.
impact of the EU Taxonomy remains to be seen, but it is
expected to challenge current best practices. In contrast,
the SFDR principal adverse impact indicators relevant for
real estate are limited and raise the question whether the
SFDR is fit-for-purpose for real estate investors or too
focused on securities funds.

The EPRA and INREV Guidelines, on corporate and fund

level respectively, interpret general ESG considerations
and best practices in the context of the real estate industry
and present useful frameworks. They align with other

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 59

Figure 28: Self-assessment questions for real estate managers and other real estate organisations

Self-assessment questions for asset and investment managers and other real estate organisations

In which jurisdiction do you operate? Where are your assets and where are your (target) investors?

Which regulation applies in those countries/regions? How is this relevant for your fund/company?

At which levels and in which areas do national and international regulations have an impact on your real estate
organisation?

What stakeholders (type, geographic domicile, etc) do you have and what are their ESG-specific requirements?

What is your level of ambition?

• Do you want to implement only the minimum market requirements (e.g., ‘traditional’ investment not aiming to
meet any requirements beyond minimum compliance or be marketed as sustainable in any way - will this be
acceptable to your stakeholders/investors)?

• Do you want to set priorities that go beyond the minimum requirements (and be ready for future requirements in
advance of their introduction where possible)?

• Do you want to become a strategic leader in ESG in the real estate sector? (Sustainability focused asset manager/
developer/investor? ‘Future-proof’ the organisation/fund/assets where possible?)

What is the purpose of your ESG reporting? (define, describe, measure, manage, or a combination of these aspects)

Do you have a holistic ESG approach or a specific climate change/environmental focus?

Does your company have a predefined reporting timeframe? (e.g., annual, interim)

Do you have specific building level targets (e.g., theoretical (modeled)/actual sustainability performance user wellbeing,
connectivity etc)?

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 60

LIST OF MAPPING ESG ABBREVIATIONS

API – Application Programming Interface GRESB – Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark
AU – Australia GRI – Global Reporting Initiative
BaFin – Federal Financial Supervisory Authority HECF – Hines European Core Fund
(Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht) HQE – High Quality Environmental Standard (Haute Qualité
(Germany) Environnementale)
BELS – Building-Housing Energy-efficiency Labelling IASB – International Accounting Standards Board
System (Japan)
IFRS – International Financial Reporting Standards
BOMA – Building Owners and Managers Association
IFRS S1 – IFRS General Requirements for Disclosure of
BOMA BEST – BOMA BEST Sustainable Buildings 3.0 Sustainability-related Financial Information
BREEAM – Building Research Establishment Environmental IFRS S2 – IFRS Climate-related Disclosures
Assessment Method
INREV – European Association for Investors in Non-Listed
CapEx – Capital Expenditure Real Estate Vehicles
CASBEE – Comprehensive Assessment System for Built IOSCO – International Organisation of Securities
Environment Efficiency Commissions
CBI – Climate Bonds Initiative IoT – Internet of Things
CBRE IM – CBRE Investment Management ISSB – International Sustainability Standards Board
CDP – Carbon Disclosure Project KPIs – Key Performance Indicators
CDSB – Climate Disclosure Standards Board LEED – Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
CERDS – China Enterprise Reform & Development Society Manulife IM – Manulife Investment Management
CNMV – National Securities Market Commission (Comisión NABERS – National Australian Built Environmental Rating
Nacional del Mercado de Valores) System
CRREM – Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor NFRD – Non-Financial Reporting Directive
CSRD – Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive NGO – Non-Governmental Organisation
DDQs – Due Diligence Questionnaire NZAMi – Net Zero Asset Managers initiative
DEI – Diversity, Equity and Inclusion OpEx – Operating Expenditure
DGNB – German Sustainable Building Council (Deutsche PRI – Principles for Responsible Investment
Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen)
PV – Photovoltaics
DNSH – Do No Significant Harm
PwC - PricewaterhouseCoopers
E – Environmental
RFPs – Request for Proposals
EFRAG – European Financial Reporting Advisory Group
S – Social
EPRA – European Real Estate Association
SASB – Sustainability Accounting Standards Board
ESG – Environmental Social Governance
SBTi – Science-Based Targets initiative
ESMA – European Securities and Markets Authority
SDGs – Sustainable Development Goals
ESRS – European Sustainability Reporting Standards
SEC – Securities and Exchange Commission (United
EU – European Union States)
EXCO – Executive Committee SFDR – Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation
G – Governance TCFD – Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
GAAPs – Generally Accepted Accounting Principles UK – United Kingdom
GDPR – General Data Protection Regulation ULI – Urban Land Institute
GHG – Greenhouse Gasses UN – United Nations

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 61

UNGC – United Nations Global Compact FSB – Financial Stability Board
USA – United States of America GHG-Int – Greenhouse Gases Intensity
WELL – WELL Building Standard ISP – Investment and Stewardship Policy
ZED – Zero Defect Zero Effect NACE – Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in
the European Community (Nomenclature Statistique des
Activités économiques dans la Communauté Européenne)
Listed in Appendix:
NCREIF PREA – National Council of Real Estate Investment
ASEAN – Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Fiduciaries and Pension Real Estate Association
BCA – Building and Construction Authority (Singapore)
NZEB – Nearly Zero-Energy Building
CASBEE – Comprehensive Assessment System for Built
OECD – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Environment Efficiency (Japan)
Development
CBM – Confidence-Building Measures
OO – Organisational Overview
Cert-Tot – EPRA measure for total number of sustainably
PED – Primary Energy Demands
certified assets
RE – Real Estate
Comp – Compensation
RTS – Regulatory Technical Standards
Emp – Employment
SAM – Manager Selection Appointment and Monitoring
Eng – Engagement
SME – Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
EPC – Energy Performance Certificate
SO – Sustainability Outcomes
EPRA BPR – European Public Real Estate Association Best
Practices Recommendations WACI – Weighted Average Carbon Intensity
EVG&D – Economic Value Generated and Distributed

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 62

Appendix A: Thematic spread of certifications
Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Ecological Social Social Social
ESG factor Social aspects Governance
Aspects Aspects Aspects Aspects Aspects Aspects Aspects Aspects Aspects Aspects Aspects Aspects Aspects Aspects aspects aspects aspects

Indoor Indoor Indoor Indoor

Certification Energy Energy Energy Energy Water Water Materials Materials Materials Materials 0 0 0 0 0
Environment Environment Environment Environment
Low Energy Renewable Electrical "Re-use Water Materials Waste Toxic Social
Name Air quality Acoustics Thermal Daylighting Robustness Safety Health Architecture Governance
Emissions efficiency Energy Demand /recycling" consumption reuse Management Materials responsibility
BCA Green
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes n/a n/a
Mark (SG)

BELS (J) n/a n/a n/a n/a no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

BOMA 360 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

BOMA BEST yes yes yes yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

BREEAM n/a yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes n/a n/a

CASBEE n/a n/a n/a n/a yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no yes no no

DGNB yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes n/a n.a

EDGE no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

ENERGYSTAR no yes no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

FITWEL no no no no no yes yes no yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes

GREEN STAR
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes n/a yes n/a yes yes yes n/a n/a n/a yes n/a n/a
(AU)

HQE yes yes yes yes n/a yes yes n/a yes n/a n/a n/a yes n/a yes yes n/a n/a n/a

LEED yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes n/a n/a

NABERS (AU) yes yes yes yes yes yes yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

NABERS (UK) yes yes yes yes no n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

WELL yes n/a yes n/a n/a yes yes n/a yes yes no n/a yes yes yes yes yes yes no

ZEB yes yes yes yes n/a yes yes no n/a n/a yes yes yes yes n/a yes no yes n/a

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 63

Appendix B: Overview of building certifications
Name Link Organisation Country of Year of first Country/ies or region of Certified Projects
origin publication application ~ number (status quo 2022)

BCA Green https://www1.bca.gov.sg/buildsg/ Building and Construction Singapore 2005 Singapore n/a
Mark (SG) sustainability/green-mark-certification- Authority (Singapore
scheme Government Agency)
BELS (J) https://www.hyoukakyoukai.or.jp/bels/ Building Energy-Efficiency Japan 2016 Japan 160,801
bels.html Labeling System (documented until FY 2021)
BOMA 360 BOMA 360 Performance Program Building Owners and USA 2010 global n/a
Managers Association (USA, Australia, Brazil,
International (BOMA Canada, China, Costa Rica,
International) Finland, Greece, Indonesia,
Japan, Korea, Mexico, New
Zealand, Panama, Philippines,
Russia, South Africa & UK)
BOMA BEST BOMA Canada Building Owners and Canada 2016 global >7000
Managers Association of
Canada (BOMA Canada)
BREEAM www.breeam.org Building Research United 1990 global 602,400
Establishment (BRE) Kingdom
CASBEE www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/ Japan Sustainable Japan 2002 Japan 30,325
Building Consortium (mostly, 99% in Japan, (documented until March
very few cases in oversea 2021)
countries)
DGNB www.dgnb.de German Sustainable Germany 2007 global 2,100
Building Council
EDGE https://edge-cert.org/ EDGE Certified Foundation Switzerland 2009 global 200 organisations
(actually in 50 countries and 212 certificates
over 30 industries)
ENERGYSTAR https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/ US Environmental United 1995 United States, Canada Over 39,000 buildings as of
building_recognition/building_certification Protection Agency States the end of 2021

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 64

 Name Link Organisation Country of Year of first Country/ies or region of Certified Projects
origin publication application ~ number (status quo 2022)

FITWEL https://www.fitwel.org/ U.S. Centers for Disease USA 2012 global 1175 (certified or pending)
Control (CDC) (in 50 countries used)
Center for Active Design
as the licensed operator
GREEN STAR https://new.gbca.org.au/ Green Building Council Australia 2003 Australia >3,255 in Australia
(AU) Australia (founded by the Australian (documented until 2020)
Green Building Council)
New Zealand
(hosted by and licensed
to the New Zealand Green
Building Council)
HQE http://www.hqegbc.org/batiments/ Association pour la Haute France 2002 global 1,095
certifications/ Qualité Environnementale (North America, South (documented until 2021)
America, Europe, Asia,
Oceania; used in 24
countries)
LEED www.usgbc.org United States Green USA 1998 global 143,770
Building Council (USGBC)
NABERS (AU) www.nabers.gov.au National Australian Built Australia 2001 Australia 4,314 (documented until
Environment Rating 2021)
System (Governmental)
NABERS (UK) https://bregroup.com/products/nabers-uk/ BRE Group Australia 2020/2021 England, Wales, Scotland, n/a
Northern Ireland
WELL https://www.wellcertified.com/ International WELL USA 2014 global >4,000
certification/v2/ Building Institute (in more than 60 countries
used)
ZEB http://www.env.go.jp/earth/zeb/index.html International Living Future Japan 2016 global n/a
Institute

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 65

 Name Auditing: Process, Accredited auditors /Professionals - required? ~ number Number of criteria/Prerequisites / Certificates / Level - Degree of
and Y/N Credits Compliance [%]

BCA Green Mark (SG) Assessment: No criteria: 6 Green Mark Gold Plus / Platinum
- carried out by BCA’s appointed assessors Prerequisites: yes (Mandatory + SLE (super low energy)
- review and verify of relevant reports and documentary evidence Sustainability Requirements) Green Mark Gold Plus / Platinum
- conduction site verification upon project completion and issue of Green Mark Green Mark SLE
certification Mandatory Sustainability
Requirements
Green Mark Accredited Professional
Green Mark Advanced Accredited Professional
Green Mark Accredited Professional (Facilities Management)
Green Mark Advanced Accredited Professional
(Facilities Management)
BELS (J) - third party certification system for energy performance It’s mostly asking applicants to fill 5 stars: BEI ≦ 0.80
- provides energy consumption data energy consumption and reward 4 stars: 0.80 < BEI ≦ 0.85
- evaluate building’s energy saving efficiency star base on calculated performance 3 stars: 0.85 < BEI ≦ 0.90
- rewards the performance based on stars rather than meeting specific ESG 2 stars: 0.90 < BEI ≦ 1.00
indicators. 1 star: 1.00 < BEI
No accredited bodies: 123 BEI = Design Primary Energy
/ Standard Primary Energy
Consumption
BOMA 360 - holistic approach by evaluating all major areas of operations and management No criteria: 6 BOMA 360 designation when
No sub criteria: 40 minimum requirements are
BOMA 360 Ambassador: 39 Companies Prerequisites: yes achieved
No of achievable points: 129
BOMA BEST - questionnaire or survey-based assessment No criteria: 10 Platinum: ≥90%
- on-site verification conducted by a third-party Gold: 80-89%
- verification and subsequent certification are coordinated by a regionally Silver: 50-79%
designated Local BOMA Association. Bronze: 20-49%
Certified: ≤19%

Degree of Compliance: >70%

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 66

 Name Auditing: Process, Accredited auditors /Professionals - required? ~ number Number of criteria/Prerequisites / Certificates / Level - Degree of
and Y/N Credits Compliance [%]

BREEAM - third party assurance No criteria: 57 Outstanding: ≥85%

Assessor: Y Prerequisites: 15 Excellent: ≥70%
No: 23,360 No credits: 148 Very Good: ≥55%
Professional: Y/N (additional credits for involving) Good: ≥45
No AP´s: 15,440 Pass: ≥30%
Certified (In-Use)
CASBEE - CASBEE is a system in which a third party examines and certifies assessment No criteria: 34 5 stars & grades:
results prepared and accompanied by an Accredited Professional via online No sub criteria: 54 S: excellent
tools. A: very good
- provided online simulation tool for participants evaluates their building B+: good
performance prior to submitting their official application B-: fairly poor
- accredited bodies evaluate whether participant fulfills the CASBEE C: poor
requirements
- depending on the region the assets are located, there may be additional
mandatory/voluntary requirements from the local government

Third party evaluation bodies (companies/ association/ organisation): 13

(October 2021)
No Accredited Professionals:10,108 (April 2022)
DGNB - DGNB certification system available for whole life cycle (from planning, No criteria: 38 Platin: ≥80%
conversion, operation, renovation until dismantling) Prerequisites: 2 Gold: 65-80%
- evaluation of location, technical and procedural quality with a holistic approach Credits: ca. 500 with different Silver: 50-65%
- independent auditors weightings Bronze (In-Use): <50%
depending on the scheme Diamond
Auditor: Y
No: 750
Professional: Y/N (additional credits for involving AP´s)
No Professionals: 1,310
EDGE third-party verification 4 3 Level based on certified or not
via licensed, independent certification bodies
online tool based self-assessment professional

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 67

 Name Auditing: Process, Accredited auditors /Professionals - required? ~ number Number of criteria/Prerequisites / Certificates / Level - Degree of
and Y/N Credits Compliance [%]

ENERGYSTAR Certification is given on an annual basis, so a building must maintain its high No criteria: 1 https://www.energystar.gov/
performance to be certified year to year. The information submitted in the - Meet the definition of one of the buildings/building_recognition
certification application must be verified by a licensed Professional Engineer eligible property types. - ENERGY STAR Certification for
(PE) or Registered Architect (RA) to be eligible for approval. - Receive an ENERGY STAR score Buildings
of 75 or higher, accounting for all - Designed to Earn the ENERGY
energy use on the entire property. STAR
- Be located in the United States, - ENERGY STAR Tenant Space
U.S. territories, or owned by the
U.S. government; or be located in
Canada.
FITWEL -Process: Register, Evaluate, Benchmark, Submit, Review, Certification No criteria: 12 3 stars: 125-144 points
- assessment of the project through two independent reviewers No sub criteria: 73 2 stars: 105-124 points
- confirmation of a numerical score No credits: 144 1 star: 90-104 points

No of global users 7,200

GREEN STAR (AU) - third-party verification No criteria: 30 6 stars: world excellence
- ISO 9001 accreditation +sub criteria 5 stars: Australian excellence
- independent assessor within certification body 4 stars: best practice
- accredited professional 3 stars: good practice
2 stars: average practice
1 star: minimum practice
HQE - third-party verification 4 themes 9-11 stars: excellent
-on-site verifications No criteria: 14 5-8 stars: very good
- independent accredited auditors +sub criteria 1-4 stars: good
No stars + all of the
prerequisites: pass

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 68

 Name Auditing: Process, Accredited auditors /Professionals - required? ~ number Number of criteria/Prerequisites / Certificates / Level - Degree of
and Y/N Credits Compliance [%]

LEED - on-site visits for verification No criteria: 41 (+5 Reginal Priority) 80+ points: platinum
- LEED Green Associate Prerequisites: 12 60-79 points: gold
- LEED Accredited Professional (AP) Credits: 110 50-59 points: silver
29-40 points: certified
No APs worldwide: 169,776
NABERS (AU) - NABERS Accredited Assessors are accredited by NABERS through the No criteria: 4 6 stars: market leading
NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment (DPIE), but operate 5 stars: excellent
independently 4 stars: good
- on-site verifications through the accredited assessors to verify the data and 3 stars: average
calculate the rating 2 stars: below average
- submission of the data to the NABERS Technical Team to carry out an audit of 1 star: making a start
the information before to certify the building with the final rating

Assessor: Y
No 563
NABERS (UK) - NABERS UK Licensed Assessors are licensed after completing the NABERS UK Minimum Requirements: yes 6 stars: market leading
Assessor Training 5 stars: excellent
- on-site verifications through the licensed assessors to verify the data 4 stars: Good
- NABERS Technical Team will carry out an audit of the information before 3 stars: market average
certifying the building with the final rating 2 stars: below average
1 star: poor
Assessor: Y
WELL - verification through documentation and site visits No criteria: 108 80 points: WELL platinum
- an accredited WELL Assessor (AWA) completes the visual assessment (108 features within 10 concepts) 60 points: WELL gold
- third-party verified by GBCI 50 points: WELL silver
40 points: WELL bronze
No of WELL APs: 11,426
ZEB - third party certification system for energy performance n/a 10 points achievement list to be
certified

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 69

 Name Building type Type of use (e.g., office, residential, logistics etc.) Weight of ecological Consideration
Project phases for the assessment aspects of prechains

BCA Green Mark (SG) New buildings Residential ca. > 80% (Climatic yes
New non-residential buildings Commercial: office, retail, hotel responsive design,
New private and public residential Others (Industrial buildings, Institutional buildings, Schools, Hawker Building energy
developments centres, Healthcare facilities, Laboratory buildings, new rail or light performance,
Existing buildings in operation rail stations such as MRT Stations) Resources
stewardship, Smart
pre-assessment (optional) and healthy building,
assessment stage (design and completion) Advance green
verification stage efforts)
BELS (J) New building - Design Stage All typologies n/a n/a
New building - Constructed Stage
Existing building - Performance Evaluation

pre-certificate possible in/after planning

phase
BOMA 360 Existing buildings Commercial ca. 22% (29 points) yes
Office
Others (corporate facilities, government buildings, medical office
buildings, mixed-use buildings, industrial buildings)
BOMA BEST Existing buildings Commercial n/a n/a
Office
Others (Shopping Centre, Universal buildings, Light Industrial, Open
Air Retail buildings, Health Care)
BREEAM New construction Residential ca. 30% yes
Refurbishment & fit out Offices
In-use for existing buildings in operation Retail
Communities Industrial
Others (Education, Transportation hub, Hospitality, Community,
pre-certificate possible in/after planning Sport and leisure facilities, Government services)
phase
final evaluation after completion

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 70

 Name Building type Type of use (e.g., office, residential, logistics etc.) Weight of ecological Consideration
Project phases for the assessment aspects of prechains

CASBEE Pre-Design, New Construction, Existing all typologies high n/a

Buildings, Renovation Residential
Office
DGNB Building Design + Construction Office 22.50% yes
Operations + Maintenance Residential
Neighborhood Development Hotel buildings
Interior Design + Construction Logistic buildings
Homes Others (Shopping centers, Education buildings, Department stores,
Healthcare building, Laboratory buildings, Mixed use, Multistorey
pre-certificate possible after planning car parks, Production buildings, Sport halls, Consumer market
phase (interim certificate) buildings, Buildings used for meetings / assemblies / gatherings,
final evaluation after completion (final Districts, Interious)
certificate)
EDGE New buildings, existing buildings, Office No (as the scheme is No (as the
renovations Residential a pure assessment scheme
Retail methodology for is a pure
Others (Hospitality, Hospitals, Warehouses, Light Industry, Governance) assessment
Education) methodology
for
Governance)
ENERGYSTAR New Construction (Designed to Earn the Bank Branch (U.S.), Convenience Stores (U.S.), Courthouse (U.S.), 100% no
ENERGY STAR) Data Center (U.S.), Distribution Center (U.S., Canada.), Financial
Existing Buildings (ENERGY STAR Office (U.S., Canada), Hospital (General Medical & Surgical) (U.S.,
Certification) Canada), Hotel (U.S., Canada), Ice/Curling Rink (Canada), K-12
Existing Tenant Space (ENERGY STAR School (U.S., Canada), Medical Office Buildings (U.S., Canada),
Tenant Space) Multifamily Housing (U.S., Canada), Non-Refrigerated Warehouse
(U.S., Canada), Office (U.S., Canada), Refrigerated Warehouse
(U.S., Canada), Residential Care Facility (Canada), Retail Store (U.S.,
Canada), Self-Storage (Canada), Senior Living Community (U.S.,
Canada), Supermarket/Grocery Store (U.S., Canada), Wholesale
Club/Supercenter (U.S., Canada), Worship Facility (U.S.)

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 71

 Name Building type Type of use (e.g., office, residential, logistics etc.) Weight of ecological Consideration
Project phases for the assessment aspects of prechains

FITWEL New Construction & Existing buildings Retail ca. 5% no

Multifamily Residential
Design Certification (prior to occupancy) Others (Workplace, Senior Housing, Community Site, Commercial
Built Certification (post occupancy) Site, Industrial Site)
GREEN STAR (AU) Green Star Buildings Retail high n/a
Green Star - Design & As Built Residential
Green Star Communities Offices
Green Star Interior Others (school, universities, industrial facilities, public buildings,
Green Star Performance hospitals)
Green Star homes
HQE Buildings under Construction All typologies (residential, commercial, administrative, service high yes
Existing Buildings in operation or buildings)
Refurbishments
Urban planning and development
LEED New construction Office ca. 57% yes
Interiors Retail
Renovations Schools
Existing commercial buildings Urban areas Others (Data Centers, Warehouses and Distribution Centers,
Hospitality, Healthcare)
pre-certificate possible after planning
phase
final evaluation after completion
NABERS (AU) New construction Residential 100% n/a
Renewing Office
Hotels
Others (Shopping center, Data center, Hospitals, Warehouses, Cold
Stores)
NABERS (UK) New Construction (Design for Office buildings 100% no
Performance)
Existing buildings (NABERS Energy)

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 72

 Name Building type Type of use (e.g., office, residential, logistics etc.) Weight of ecological Consideration
Project phases for the assessment aspects of prechains

WELL New/Existing Buildings Optimized for: Commercial and institutional office buildings medium-low (focus yes
New/Existing Interiors Pilot programs for: lies on social aspects,
and Core + Shell Retail mostly on well-being)
Multifamily residential
Education
Restaurants
Commercial Kitchen
ZEB New construction and existing buildings n/a high n/a
Interior projects
Core green building certification
Zero Energy
Zero Carbon

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 73

Appendix C: Individual analysis reporting standards
1. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

Key data Description

Full name of standard GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards
Category of standard Core corporate standard
Type of standard Corporate
Application Voluntary; all private or public enterprises
Stakeholder Multi-stakeholder
Reporting mechanism Issue own sustainability report and inform GRI
Geographical application Global - more than 10,000 GRI reporters in over 100 countries
Structure GRI Universal Standards, GRI Sector Standards, and GRI Topic Standards

Purpose The GRI Standards help organisations understand their outward impacts on the economy,
environment, and society, including those on human rights. This increases accountability
and enhances transparency on their contribution to sustainable development.​​

Real estate specific New sector standard planned; GRI G4 Construction and Real Estate Sector Disclosures
(2014) have been transitioned to GRI Standards.
Source of data Organisation, supply chain

Types of disclosure operational, science-based, qualitative, financial

Version Individual standards range from 2016-2022
Issuing body Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an independent, international organisation based in
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Scope of mapping General and topic standards (GRI 200-418)
Additional information GRI is advising EFRAG on CSRD and IFRS S1/S2 on S-Standards
Link https://www.globalreporting.org/

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 74

Overview of metric mapping

Define Describe Manage Measure Grand total

E - Climate mitigation 37 1 39 77
E - Climate adaption 1 4 5
E - Pollution prevention 3 4 21 28
E - Circular economy 1 4 5
E - Water 3 8 24 35
E - Biodiversity 1 6 13 6 26
S - Health & Safety 17 7 24 25 73
S - Community impact 3 2 13 18
S - Employees 6 7 9 21 43
G - Governance 1 1
G - Compliance 8 19 25 52
G - Strategy
G - Risk management 4 5 9
G - Economic information 2 3 18 23
G - Sustainability
G - Environmental 2 1 3
G - Social
Grand total 75 28 90 205 398

Standard description The GRI standards require detailed transparency on

The GRI Standards have a comprehensive set of any definitions, calculations, scopes, sources of data,
sustainability topics and a management approach, requiring methodologies, or standards used.
the enterprise to disclose its impacts and practices for
managing those impacts in detail (GRI 103). With nearly The management approach also requires transparency
400 KPIs, they offer a broad coverage of the E, S and G on any ‘controversies’, such as legal disputes on e.g.,
categories defined by this study and use a balanced mix corruption (GRI 205), anti-competitive behaviour (GRI
of governance (manage) and quantitative (measures) 206) or marketing of products (GRI 417). It considers
KPIs, enhanced by clarity of definitions and descriptive tax governance as part of good governance (GRI 207),
disclosures. including the processes for collecting and considering
the views and concerns of stakeholders, including the
An enterprise must report fully on the General Standards approach to public policy advocacy on tax, beyond core
and the Topic Standards it has identified as material. A tax compliance and assurance measures or avoidance of
core or comprehensive approach can be used (GRI 101). aggressive tax.
The GRI standards have a comply-or-explain rule and an
enterprise can only publish a report with a claim to full The management approach also considers public
compliance if all disclosures can be made, otherwise the engagement, e.g., ‘an explanation of the process for setting
report can only claim to be compiled with reference to the any water-related goals and targets that are part of the
GRI standards. If any such claim is made, the GRI must be organisation’s approach to managing water and effluents,
informed of the report. and how they relate to public policy and the local context of
each area with water stress’ (GRI 303-1).

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 75

Beyond statistics, it requires transparency on
whistleblowing mechanisms or raising awareness for
e.g., workers’ health and safety. GRI 403-2 requires
‘a description of the processes for workers to report
work-related hazards and hazardous situations, and an
explanation of how workers are protected against reprisals’.

In terms of understanding the business, disclosures

regarding the direct economic value generated and
distributed (EVG&D) on an accruals basis are required,
including the basic components for the enterprise’s
global operations. Where significant, EVG&D has to be
reported separately at country, regional, or market levels,
and the criteria used for defining significance (GRI 201-
1). Further financial information on revenues, taxes,
employees, operations and third-party relationships (GRI
207) is required to provide a context for understanding the
enterprise’s value chain. The value chain or supply chain is
covered in a separate standard (GRI 414), but also in topic
standards such as waste (GRI 306-1, 306-2).

The environmental objective of biodiversity (GRI 304)

has been an established focus for what are emerging
disclosures under other reporting standardseg, and
planned updates to the standard have been open for public
comment in Q1 2023.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 76

2. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)

Key data Description

Full name of standard Sustainability Accounting Standards Board
Category of standard Core corporate standard
Type of standard Corporate
Application Voluntary (globally); informed industry-based requirements within IFRS S2 and referenced
as a resource prepares can consider in IFRS S1; all enterprises
Stakeholder Investor
Reporting mechanism Can be used in separate report or integrated into other reports, e.g., annual report
Geographical application Global, over 1,400 reporting and referencing companies (2021)
Structure Available for 77 industries, the Standards identify the subset of environmental, social, and
governance issues most relevant to financial performance in each industry via the SASB
materiality matrix.
Purpose SASB standards disclose sustainability information that is financially material – e.g.,
reasonably likely to affect the financial performance of an enterprise.

Real estate specific Yes (Real estate, real estate services, home builders)
Source of data Organisation, assets, tenants
Types of disclosure Mainly operational, limited qualitative, science-based and financial metrics
Version 2018
Issuing body SASB is a not-for-profit, independent standards-setting organisation based in San
Francisco, USA. Issued by the Value Reporting Foundation (in connection with the
Integrated Reporting Framework).
Scope of mapping Real Estate, Real Estate Services, Home Builders standards. Mapping of the high-level
accounting metrics and activity metrics within these standards, and does not map the more
detailed disclosure requirements within each of these metrics.
Additional information Integrated into the IFRS S1/S2 (under IFRS Foundation) in 2022
Link https://www.sasb.org/

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 77

Overview of metric mapping

Define Describe Manage Measure Grand total

E - Climate mitigation 2 15 17
E - Climate adaption 4 4
E - Pollution prevention
E - Circular economy
E - Water 1 9 10
E - Biodiversity
S - Health & Safety 4 4
S - Community impact 1 4 5
S - Employees
G - Governance
G - Compliance
G - Strategy
G - Risk management
G - Economic information 5 5
G - Sustainability 2 2
G - Environmental 4 4
G - Social
Grand total 8 43 51

Standard description Generally, the KPIs relate to implementation metrics (IF-

The SASB materiality matrix identifies 26 issue categories RE-450a.1.), such as area of properties located in 100-year
mapped to 77 industries. Three different real estate-specific flood zones or water withdrawal coverage (IF-RE-140a.1.),
industries have been defined by SASB: real estate (mainly complemented by energy or water usage metrics (IF-RE-
investment and asset managers), real estate services 130a.2., IF-RE-140a.2.).
(e.g., property management or brokerage) and home
builders (residential development). Of the issue categories, The implementation of certifications is one focus point of
only a limited range are considered material for the real the SASB standards, e.g., the number of homes delivered
estate industries, with a focus on climate- and water-related certified to a third-party multi-attribute green building
KPIs. standard (IF-HB-410a.3) or the percentage of eligible
portfolio that (1) has an energy rating and (2) is certified to
• Real estate issues: 1) energy management, 2) waste ENERGY STAR (IF-RE-130a.4).
and wastewater management, 3) product design
and lifecycle management, 4) physical impacts of Social topics are considered for the residential construction
climate change industry only, limited to construction metrics for e.g., infill,
redevelopment sites or compact developments (IF-HB-
• Real estate services issues: 1) product design and 410b.3.) as well as health and safety metrics, e.g.,ident and
lifecycle management, 2) business ethics fatality rates for employees (IF-HB-320a.1).

• Home builders’ issues: 1) ecological impacts, 2) Governance topics cover mainly environmental
employee health and safety, 3) product design and considerations in the lifecycle as well as economic
lifecycle management, 4) business model resilience information relating to revenues and monetary losses

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 78

as a result of legal proceedings for lack of professional
integrity (IF-RS-510a.3) or environmental regulations
(IF-HB-160a.3). Also, the real estate standard addresses
the approach to measuring, incentivizing, and improving
sustainability impacts of tenants (IF-RE-410a.3).

The SASB standards have been integrated into the IFRS S1/
S2 as industry-specific standards with minimal adjustment
for internationalization of the metrics. By applying the pre-
defined industry materiality assessment and sustainability
definition of SASB, whose methodology is not publicly
disclosed, the governance of a company cannot be reliably
assessed as it does not disclose its own materiality
assessment and corresponding risk management. Thus,
the SASB metrics should be complemented by general ESG
metrics in the context of an overall individual materiality
assessment.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 79

3. European Association for Investors in Non-Listed Real Estate Vehicles (INREV)

Key data Description

Full name of standard INREV Guidelines
Category of standard Real estate industry specific reporting standard
Type of standard Fund/Portfolio level
Application Voluntary; non-listed real estate vehicles
Stakeholder Investors
Reporting mechanism Annual and interim reports of vehicle and assets
Geographical application EU and Asia Pacific
Structure The sustainability reporting guidelines are part of the INREV Reporting module which is one
of five Compliance modules, next to five Best Practice modules.

Purpose The INREV sustainability reporting guidelines form a disclosure framework that delivers
visibility and insight into a vehicle’s ESG efforts. They aim to provide a coherent framework
for ESG reporting in line with annual financial reporting and present a clear picture from the
vehicle’s strategy through reporting guidelines and environmental and social KPIs.

Real estate specific Yes

Source of data Organisation, vehicle, portfolio of assets, supply chain
Types of disclosure Governance-based, implementation targets, science-based and financial metrics
Version 2023
Issuing body European Association for Investors in Non-Listed Real Estate Vehicles, a member-driven
organisation based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Scope of mapping INREV Reporting module – Sustainability reporting guidelines

Additional information Aligned with elements of GRESB, EPRA, GRI, PRI, TCFD, CRREM, NCREIF PREA and SFDR
Link https://www.inrev.org/

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 80

Overview of metric mapping

Define Describe Manage Measure Grand total

E - Climate mitigation 39 39
E - Climate adaption 9 9
E - Pollution prevention 10 10
E - Circular economy
E - Water 7 7
E - Biodiversity 1 1
S - Health & Safety 9 9
S - Community impact 10 10
S - Employees 4 4
G - Governance 2 2
G - Compliance 1 1
G - Strategy 10 10
G - Risk management 1 1
G - Economic information
G - Sustainability 8 8
G - Environmental 1 7 8
G - Social 13 13
Grand total 23 109 132

Standard description The Sustainability reporting guidelines, as part of report,

The INREV Guidelines framework is designed for non-listed links the long-term ESG strategy of the vehicle to annual
real estate vehicles for institutional investors and investment objectives and annual portfolio information – e.g., requires
managers. Giventhe variety of non-listed vehicles, the INREV a defined action plan including quantifiable annual targets,
Guidelines provide a modular approach with best practice which are then reported against. The 2023 version
and compliance modules. The best practice modules introduces a more comprehensive scope of KPIs, 109
consist of governance, liquidity, property valuation, code in total (73 environmental, 36 social KPIs), of which 28
of tax conduct and sustainability modules. The compliance environmental KPIs are required for compliance. The scope
modules relate to reporting (including sustainability has been enriched with the prominent ESG topics, such
reporting guidelines), performance measurement, INREV as climate change and social aspects. The two categories
NAV, fee and expense metrics, and data delivery. of KPIs cover 1) Required KPIs; data and disclosures of
essential KPIs covering key attributes such as energy
The Sustainability module, which is a standalone best consumption, GHG, and other environmental measures,
practice module, provides guidance on how to consider 2) Recommended KPIs; offering investment managers the
sustainability in strategy and target definition as well as ability to disclose different levels of detail based on their
investment and risk management processes for a real own capabilities and investor needs.
estate investment manager. The ESG strategy development
is supported by a list of ESG factors and parameters. The The guidelines and KPIs are referenced to GRI, TCFD,
governance and oversight framework required to achieve CRREM GRESB, EPRA, NCREIF PREA and SFDR to reduce
ESG goals is outlined, as are ESG risks and opportunities the reporting burden. The most suitable KPIs from the
on real estate investment vehicle level and ESG integration perspective of a real estate investor within an annual
into asset management activities. reporting context were chosen, with a much deeper

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 81

coverage of the environmental KPIs and the introduction of
a range of social topics.

This approach is both governance-focused and target-

focused. An additional perspective provided by the new
Sustainability Reporting module is the financial impact
of climate change on the portfolio, thus interpreting the
TCFD in a real estate context. This approach offers both
a financial materiality as well as an impact materiality
perspective for the reader of the annual report. Another
example of how existing data was translated to the investor
perspective is a KPI relating to the scenario pathway targets
(ENV47, 48, 49), requiring the disclosure of the results and
strategy of using a methodology, such as CRREM.

The comprehensive long-term ESG strategy requirements

also specifically address the identified environmental
objectives and the supply chain management strategy.

Implementation targets relate to green building certificates

and energy ratings, including the current state, the
certification scheme(s) and ambitions (RG72). Another
example of an implementation target relates to green lease
clauses (SOC21).

Disclosures include compliance with ESG legislation and its

exposure to possible future regulatory developments.

Social aspects were introduced in a much more

comprehensive approach in the 2023 module. Although the
social KPIs are not part of the required core set of KPIs, they
do represent best practice and include general social topics
such as diversity, equity and inclusion, training, stakeholder
engagement, health, safety and wellbeing, but also real
estate-specific social topics such as tenant satisfaction,
affordable housing and amenities. The latter contains
elements of impact investing perspectives in order to foster
the definition of social impact for the real estate industry.

The module does not prescribe a specific methodology but

does require transparency around the reporting entity’s
methodologies for certain disclosures.

In summary, the INREV sustainability reporting guidelines

offer a framework for defining an ESG strategy and targets
with topical requirements and recommendations on
portfolio level. The 2023 version includes a comprehensive
set of real estate specific KPIs for environmental and social
factors.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 82

4. European Public Real Estate Association (EPRA)

Key data Description

Full name of standard EPRA Sustainability Best Practices Recommendations (EPRA sBPR)
Category of standard Real estate industry specific reporting standard
Type of standard Corporate
Application Voluntary; listed real estate companies
Stakeholder Investors
Reporting mechanism Integrated reporting recommended, but annual report, sustainability report or public
location (e.g., company website if referenced in such reports) possible

Geographical application Europe

Structure EPRA sBPR published independently of EPRA BPR Guidelines for financial reporting
Purpose To achieve greater consistency and clarity to companies’ disclosure around their
environmental performance, to enhance further stakeholders’ access to quality
environmental, social and corporate governance performance data that clearly states the
positive direction of travel within the real estate sector.

Real estate specific Yes

Source of data Organisation, asset
Types of disclosure Science-based metrics, governance-based
Version September 2017
Issuing body European Public Real Estate Association, is a non-profit association representing Europe’s
publicly listed property companies, based in Brussels, Belgium.

Scope of mapping EPRA Best Practices Recommendations for Sustainability Reporting (EPRA sBPR)
Additional information Aligned with selected GRI metrics and definitions and CRESD (Construction and Real Estate
Sector Disclosures in accordance with the former G4 Guidelines) and TCFD, NFRD and
CRREM

Link https://www.epra.com/

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 83

Overview of metric mapping

Define Describe Manage Measure Grand total

E - Climate mitigation 16 16
E - Climate adaption
E - Pollution prevention 5 5
E - Circular economy
E - Water 3 3
E - Biodiversity
S - Health & Safety 4 4
S - Community impact 3 3
S - Employees 11 11
G - Governance 5 4 9
G - Compliance 3 3
G - Strategy
G - Risk management
G - Economic information
G - Sustainability
G - Environmental 1 1 2
G - Social
Grand total 1 5 50 56

Standard description Examples of social measures include health and safety

The EPRA Sustainability Performance Measures contained (H&S Emp), diversity (Diversity-Emp) and pay gap, as well
in the EPRA BPR are divided into core measures and as community engagement (Comty-Eng). For example,
additional recommendations based on EPRA best practices. ‘companies must report the ratio of the basic salary and/
Most disclosures require measurable metrics to enable or remuneration of female employees in the organisation’s
comparison with other enterprises. governance bodies and other significant employee
categories’ (Diversity-Pay).
Whilst having a strong environmental focus, the scope of
measures was broadened in the face of the NFRD to include In terms of governance, several disclosures surrounding
social and governance topics. In terms of lifecycle, the board composition, selection, independence, conflicts
measures address the holding and operational usage of the of interest and ESG competence are required: ‘the
buildings, not the development or construction. composition of the highest governance body by number
of independent/non-executive board members with
Recommendations include detailed real-estate specific competencies relating to environmental and social topics’
factors to consider when calculating measures, e.g., ‘for (Gov-Board).
industrial properties and retail parks where the landlord
only buys electricity for the purposes of external/street Compliance measures relate to breaches of health and
lighting, companies should not use internal building area safety regulations, e.g., ‘any incidents of non-compliance
for the purposes of GHG emission intensity performance with voluntary codes concerning the health and safety
measures. Rather, they should normalize the consumption impacts of assets assessed during the reporting period’
by either number of car park spaces or m2 area covering (H&S Comp).
external areas (if available)’ (GHG-Int).

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 84

On building level, the ‘number of sustainability certification,
rating or labelling schemes’ (Cert-Tot) is to be disclosed in
line with the type of such schemes.

In summary, the EPRA BPR contribute real-estate specific

interpretations in particular of environmental metrics and
more transparency surrounding board composition, which
is an important factor for understanding an enterprise’s
capability of responding to sustainability risks.

Absolute and like-for-like performance measures include

only landlord-obtained energy and water data, thus
acknowledging the limited control of the landlord over
tenant behaviour (see section 7.5 of the EPRA sBPR).
However, for purposes of measuring the total impact of the
building, whole building data is required by other reporting
standards.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 85

5. Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR)

Key data Description

Full name of standard Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November
2019 on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (SFDR)

Category of standard Sustainability reporting regulation

Type of standard Corporate and fund level (ie, entity and product)
Application Mandatory; fund managers*
Stakeholder Investors
Reporting mechanism Periodic report, pre-contractual disclosures, website
Geographical application EU
Structure Regulation (level I), regulatory technical standards (RTS, level II)† and annexes thereto
(reporting templates)

Purpose Disclosures in the financial services sector (both at entity and product level) to require
transparency in the investment decision-making process and advisory processes of: the
integration of sustainability risks, on the consideration of adverse sustainability impacts,
on sustainable investment objectives, and on the promotion of environmental or social
characteristics.

Real estate specific Yes

Source of data Organisation, assets
Types of disclosure Governance-based, science-based metrics
Version Regulation of 2019, draft regulatory technical standards of April 2022
Issuing body European Parliament and European Council
Scope of mapping SFDR and Annex 1 of the draft RTS (principal adverse indicators applicable to real estate
assets); no inclusion of requirements for financial advisers, RTS or other adverse indicators

Additional information Sustainability definition partially linked to EU Taxonomy

Link https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32019R2088

* For purposes of this study, only the requirements for fund or portfolio managers (i.e. ‘financial market participants’) are included. Requirements for
financial advisers are not considered.

† Commission Delegated Regulation (EU 2020/852) supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard
to regulatory technical standards specifying the details of the content and presentation of the information in relation to the principle of ‘do no significant
harm’, specifying the content, methodologies and presentation of information in relation to sustainability indicators and adverse sustainability impacts,
and the content and presentation of the information in relation to the promotion of environmental or social characteristics and sustainable investment
objectives in pre-contractual documents, on websites and in periodic reports.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 86

Overview of metric mapping

G - Economic information
E - Pollution prevention

S - Community impact
E - Climate mitigation

G - Risk management
E - Circular economy
E - Climate adaption

S - Health & Safety

G - Environmental
G - Sustainability
G - Compliance
G - Governance
E - Biodiversity

S - Employees

G - Strategy

Grand total
G - Social
E - Water
Define
Describe 2 2
Corporate
Manage 5 3 8
Measure 1 1
Define
Construction
(transport, Describe
development, Manage
installation)
Measure 1 1
Define
Operational/Usage
(AM, PM, FM, Describe

Portfolio / Fund leasing, repair and Manage

maintenance)
Measure 6 1 1 8
Define
Describe 8 2 10

Others Manage 1 1 2
Measure 1 4 3 8
Grand total 8 2 1 5 12 1 11 40

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 87

Standard description Given the complexity of the type of disclosures, the draft
The first disclosures of the SFDR were required on regulatory technical standards (‘RTS’ or ‘level II’ detailing
entity level as of March 2021 to give transparency as to the SFDR requirements for pre-contractual, website, and
whether fund managers consider sustainability risks in periodic disclosures) cannot be clearly mapped to the
their investment processes. On fund level, the regulation categories defined as many include more than one aspect,
is in effect within the EU for the financial year 2022, e.g., governance, compliance and risk management, and
meaning that the first annual fund reports containing SFDR general sustainability as a thematic factor. Of the over 200
disclosures will be published by mid 2023. RTS requirements for fund managers, a significant number
are in place to provide investors with comprehensive and
The SFDR attaches the level of disclosures to the level of non-misleading information, standardized metrics, full
sustainability of the fund (e.g., a so-called Article 8 fund transparency on calculation methodologies, data sources
claiming to have environmental or social characteristics and underlying benchmarks. The Annexes II-V to the RTS
and to be investing into companies with good governance, provide disclosure templates for Art.8 and Art. 9 funds.
or a so-called Article 9 fund having sustainable investments
as its objective). Disclosure under Article 6 applies to all Annex I of the RTS lists the principal adverse indicators that
funds (on a comply-or-explain basis) and requires products have to be reported on consolidated fund manager level. 10
to report how sustainability risks are integrated. It is are directly applicable to real estate investments, thereof 2
important to note that the SFDR is not a labelling scheme, are mandatory (relating to fossil fuels and energy efficiency),
but a disclosure regime. the rest are additional opt-in climate and environment-
related indicators (GHG emissions, energy consumption,
Central to the logic of the SFDR is the concept of double waste, resource consumption and biodiversity).
materiality. On the one hand side, every fund manager has
to disclose the likely negative impacts of sustainability risks The principal adverse indicators in Annex I for social and
– environmental, social or governance events or conditions employee, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and
– on the returns of their funds (Art. 6 SFDR). anti-bribery matters are not directly applicable to real
estate investments, but additional indicators may always
On the other hand side, disclosures on the defined be identified by the reporting fund manager with reference
(principal) adverse indicators, e.g., a fund manager’s to internal policies, engagement (and actions taken),
consolidated negative impacts on sustainability factors international standards and historical comparisons. Further,
across assets under management, are required. for any investments qualifying as sustainable investments,
Additionally, those funds with a sustainability claim have the ‘do not significantly harm’ principle under the draft RTS
to provide substantial information on how the claims also includes alignment with the minimum safeguards33 of
(characteristics or objectives) are met. the EU taxonomy, thus requiring disclosure on ‘whether the
sustainable investment is aligned with the OECD Guidelines
Thus, the fund manager can consider negative financial for Multinational Enterprises and the UN Guiding Principles
risks and sustainability risks as they affect the returns of on Business and Human Rights, including the principles
their funds as well as principal adverse indicators as they and rights set out in the eight fundamental conventions
impact the environment, people and the economy. Where identified in the Declaration of the International Labour
there is a commitment tomake sustainable investments, Organisation on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
investors will also have to provide information to and the International Bill of Human Rights’.
demonstrate how positive sustainability characteristics
or sustainable investment objectives are met by the The indicators for investee companies are the most
investment strategy. comprehensive and apply for indirect real estate
investments, whether public or private. Data availability,
This holistic approach of the SFDR harmonizes the as with other reporting standards, is a challenge especially
disclosures to give transparency as to how sustainability for privately held companies and real estate assets and
risks are managed by the fund manager to protect may lead to a fund manager’s inability to consider certain
investors, works to tackle greenwashing by demanding factors in their investment decisions.
evidence of positive alignment or impacts, and
gathers standardized data per fund manager to enable Thus, while the SFDR provides a framework for defining
comparability between fund managers. disclosures on the sustainability of the investments and

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 88

contains a legal definition for what a sustainable investment
is, there is great unclarity regarding the interpretation of
those definitions. Further, the principal adverse indicators
determined to be applicable for real estate have a narrow
focus. It can be assumed that these were based on a
materiality assessment within the context of the European
Green Deal and it must be remembered that the purpose is
to measure the consolidated impact of fund managers on
global sustainability risks, yet these would not necessarily
cover all the ESG topics identified as material in an e.g.,
GRI or SASB based materiality matrix on corporate level.

It is important to note that the SFDR’s standards for

sustainability is defined by the EU Taxonomy. In summary,
the SFDR presents a complex disclosure regulation that
requires a thought-out ESG investment strategy and
investment processes as a foundation. Involvement of
legal and compliance expertise is necessary given the
cross-references to investor protection regulations and
other financial services regulations34 as well as expected
national supervisory authority rules and interpretations35.
It’s definition of sustainability and material indicators is
driven by EU regulators and the purpose of which is to
prevent greenwashing and channel capital into investments
that contribute to global sustainability goals. From an
industry perspective, the defined indicators present a
minimum standard for investors and do not fulfil best
practices (such as GRESB) in the real estate sector, thus
further disclosures are required to satisfy transparency
demands from experienced ESG real estate investors and
stakeholders.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 89

6. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)

Key data Description

Full name of standard Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
Category of standard Thematic reporting standard
Type of standard Corporate and fund/portfolio level
Application Voluntary*
Stakeholder Investors
Reporting mechanism Can be used in separate report or integrated into other reports, e.g., annual report
Geographical application Global
Structure Recommendations supported by guidance for all sectors: supplemental guidance for
financial sector, supplemental guidance for non-financial groups, and appendices (in
particular Appendix 1: Climate-Related Risks, Opportunities, and Financial Impacts and
Appendix 2: Cross-Industry, Climate-Related Metric Categories); guidance for the scenario
analysis, risk management integration and metrics and targets

Purpose To develop climate-related disclosures that could promote more informed investment, credit
(or lending), and insurance underwriting decisions and, in turn, would enable stakeholders
to understand better the concentrations of carbon-related assets in the financial sector and
the financial system’s exposures to climate-related risks.

Real estate specific Yes (Materials and Buildings Group)

Source of data Organisation, tenants, building
Types of disclosure Governance-based, science-based metrics
Version October 2021
Issuing body The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, established by the Financial
Stability Board (FSB) and industry-led

Scope of mapping Annex Implementing the Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial
Disclosures, Core recommendations only

Additional information CRREM tool (see excursus on the tool below) can be used to perform scenario analysis for
transition risk

Link https://www.tcfdhub.org/

* TCFD may be mandatory in some jurisdictions for certain organisations.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 90

Overview of metric mapping

Define Describe Manage Measure Grand total

E - Climate mitigation
E - Climate adaption
E - Pollution prevention
E - Circular economy
E - Water
E - Biodiversity
S - Health & Safety
S - Community impact
S - Employees
G - Governance 2 2
G - Compliance
G - Strategy 3 3
G - Risk management 3 3 6
G - Economic information
G - Sustainability
G - Environmental
G - Social
Grand total 8 3 11

Standard description allow investors and others to understand how conclusions

The TCFD recommendations represent the key underlying were drawn from scenario analysis:
framework for climate-related disclosures of many other
reporting standards included in this study, which seek • Critical input parameters, assumptions, and
alignment on its principles and metrics. Their focus is analytical choices for the climate-related scenarios
on providing transparency on the financial implications used, particularly as they relate to key areas
of climate change and to provide ‘information to support such as policy assumptions, energy deployment
informed investment, lending, and insurance underwriting pathways, technology pathways, and related timing
decisions and improve understanding and analysis of assumptions.
climate-related risks and opportunities’36. • Potential qualitative or quantitative financial
implications of the climate-related scenarios, if any.’
The TCFD recommendations are structured into four
thematic areas (‘pillars’) that represent key ‘manage’ and The supplemental guidance for asset managers provides
‘measure’ disclosure components described in chapter examples for metrics & targets to be disclosed by the asset
4.3 — governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics manager for each product or investment strategy. These
and targets. The four areas are complemented by key include descriptions of metrics used to assess climate-
climate-related financial disclosures. related risks and opportunities, how these metrics may
have changed, and how they are used in investment and
Strategy disclosures for all sectors include: ‘For the risk management processes. Specifically, asset managers
climate-related scenarios used, organisations should should disclose the measure of alignment of their
consider providing information on the following factors to strategies with a well below 2°C scenario.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 91

Further metrics for asset managers include GHG emissions
and the weighted average carbon intensity (WACI) for
each product or investment strategy and other carbon
footprinting and exposure metrics considered useful.
Guidance for such metrics is provided.

Real estate specific guidance is included in the

supplemental guidance for the Materials and Buildings
Group – i.e. Construction Materials and Real Estate
Management and Development industries.

These industries are determined to be typically capital

intensive investments in fixed locations and dependent
on sources of raw and refined materials. They have
(financial) exposures to GHG emissions and high energy
consumption, which is in line with the built world’s
emission contribution statistics. Further, water availability
and resilience to physical risks may be relevant.

Therefore, additional industry-specific metrics such as

building energy intensity by area, building water intensity
(by occupants or square area), percent of fresh water
withdrawn in regions with high or extremely high baseline
water stress, and area of buildings, plants, or properties
located in designated flood hazard areas are suggested.

In practice, other reporting frameworks and standards such

as ISSB, CDP, SASB and GRESB have aligned with this
guidance, hence it is recommended future research reviews
these disclosure requirements to identify industry best
practice when implementing the TCFD.

A proposal for real estate specific metrics and alignment

across the European regulations and other key regulations
has been submitted by various industry associations
including INREV to the UK supervisory authority FCA37.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 92

7. Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI)

Key data Description

Full name of standard Climate Bonds Standard
Category of standard Thematic reporting standard
Type of standard Corporate (bond / debt instrument issuers)
Application Voluntary
Stakeholder Investors
Reporting mechanism Certification (label); Update report
Geographical application Global
Structure Climate Bonds Standard, the Climate Bonds Taxonomy, Sector Eligibility Criteria, guidance
material and certification documents

Purpose The Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme is a labelling scheme for bonds,
loans & other debt instruments. Rigorous scientific criteria ensure that it is consistent with
the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. The Scheme
is used globally by bond issuers, governments, investors and the financial markets to
prioritise investments which genuinely contribute to addressing climate change.

Real estate specific Yes (Buildings)

Source of data Organisation, building
Types of disclosure Science-based
Version Version 3.0 (December 2019)
Issuing body Climate Bond Initiative Board
Scope of mapping The Buildings Criteria for the Climate Bonds Standard & Certification Scheme (July 2020)
Additional information Aligned with the Green Bond Principles and the Green Loan Principles. Advised on EU
Taxonomy.

Link https://www.climatebonds.net/

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 93

Overview of metric mapping

Define Describe Manage Measure Grand total

E - Climate mitigation 5 3 5 13
E - Climate adaption
E - Pollution prevention
E - Circular economy
E - Water
E - Biodiversity
S - Health & Safety
S - Community impact
S - Employees
G - Governance
G - Compliance
G - Strategy
G - Risk management
G - Economic information
G - Sustainability
G - Environmental
G - Social
Grand total 5 3 5 13

Standard description The use of proceeds options include financing (origination

The Climate Bonds Initiative works globally to mobilize or refinancing), capital costs for performance upgrades
capital for climate action – as green bonds, green loan (e.g., smart metering, equipment or retrofits) and operating
or green debt instruments. Sector eligibility criteria are expenses for maintenance (to increase energy efficiency
defined to determine which projects and assets qualify for and decrease carbon emissions).
certification. The criteria are science-based and designed
to achieve the targets of the Paris Climate Agreement. In order to achieve net zero by 2050, the initial baseline for
Currently, only climate mitigation components are eligible. the certification is the emissions intensity benchmarked
The CBI has issued Climate Resilience Principles to address against the top 15 percent of the buildings in the defined
climate adaptation and resilience as a framework. These location, with performance targets38 declining to zero over
principles will be further developed into sector-specific time. The two pathways (absolute performance and relative
criteria. performance improvement) can be achieved via three
conditions – the trajectory method (quantitative), proxy
For the Building sector, eligible assets include residential method (qualitative) and upgrade method (retrofits).
(single and multi-family, rentals), commercial (offices,
schools and campuses, shopping centers and retail) and After certification, post-issuance reporting39 is required
industrial (manufacturing, agriculture/livestock, energy on an annual basis to maintain the certification. The
generation facilities) assets. These assets are eligible on disclosures are linked to the conditions and seek to
the condition of fulfilling the screening criteria, whereby demonstrate how the scientific targets are achieved.
the use of proceeds for infrastructure not eligible for
certification. The allocation reporting mainly confirms that the bond
proceeds have been allocated to eligible projects and

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 94

assets, i.e. that they are aligned with the Climate Bonds
Standard. This may include statements of alignment with
other applicable standards, such as the proposed EU Green
Bond Standard, the ASEAN Green Bond Standard, Chinese
domestic regulations, Japanese Green Bond Guidelines,
etc. Further information on the allocation and climate-
related board objectives are to be provided.

The eligibility reporting demonstrates that the

characteristics and performance of the projects or assets
fulfil the sector eligibility criteria.

The impact reporting, which is not mandatory, should

provide the expected or actual outcomes with respect to
the climate-related objectives of the bond, using qualitative
and quantitative performance measures as well as
disclosing the methodology.

Given that the Carbon Bonds Standard is aligned with the

Paris Agreement, alignment with European regulations
(EU Taxonomy, SFDR) is to be expected. Impact reporting
should be treated as mandatory to enable data collection
by investors subject to regulations or with own reporting
requirements.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 95

8. Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI)

Key data Description

Full name of standard Principles for Responsible Investment
Category of standard Principle-based
Type of standard Investment Management - Organisational and asset class level
Application Voluntary (Commitment)
Stakeholder Investors
Reporting mechanism Public Transparency Report; private Transparency report; private Assessment Report
Geographical application Global
Structure Modular (Organisational Overview; Policy, Governance & Strategy (formerly Investment
and Stewardship Policy); Manager Selection, Appointment and Monitoring; Sustainability
Outcomes; Real Estate; other asset classes)
Purpose The six Principles for Responsible Investment offer a set of actions for incorporating ESG
issues into investment practice. The Principles were developed by investors, for investors.
In implementing them, signatories contribute to developing a more sustainable global
financial system.
The main goal of the Reporting Framework is to be another tool for the PRI to drive positive
change in the finance industry, in line with our mission of creating a more sustainable
financial system that benefits society and the environment as a whole.
Real estate specific Yes. A specific real estate module is one part of a broader disclosure framework.
Source of data Organisation
Types of disclosure Governance-based, other metrics optional for Sustainability Outcomes
Version January 2021 (metric mapping); January 2023 (standard description)
Issuing body PRI Association
Scope of mapping Organisational Overview; Policy, Governance & Strategy (formerly Investment and
Stewardship Policy); Selection, Appointment and Monitoring; Sustainability Outcomes; Real
Estate (January 2021 version)
Additional information The PRI is an investor initiative in partnership with UNEP Finance Initiative and UN Global
Compact.

Link https://www.unpri.org/

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 96

Overview of metric mapping

G - Economic information
E - Pollution prevention

S - Community impact
E - Climate mitigation

G - Risk management
E - Circular economy
E - Climate adaption

S - Health & Safety

G - Environmental
G - Sustainability
G - Compliance
G - Governance
E - Biodiversity

S - Employees

G - Strategy

Grand total
G - Social
E - Water
Define
Describe 34 4 3 41
ISP
Manage 14 51 3 2 70
Measure 6 18 68 41 133
Define
Construction
(transport, Describe 139 1 3 143
OO
development, Manage
installation)
Measure
Define
Describe 10 10
Acqusition
Manage 11 11
Measure 1 1
Define
Construction
(transport, Describe
development, Manage
installation)
Measure 1 8 9
Define
Describe
RE Exit - Sale
Manage 7 7
Measure

Operational/ Define
Usage (AM, Describe
PM, FM, leas-
ing, repair and Manage 28 7 35
maintenance) Measure 6 6
Define
Describe
Others
Manage 4 1 1 4 10
Measure 1 1
Define
Describe 1 43 44
SAM
Manage 234 261 495
Measure 55 55
Define
Describe 1 1

SO Manage 17 8 1 26
Measure 5 5
Grand total 14 599 317 39 75 1 1 57 1103

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 97

Standard description These modules underwent major changes for the 2023
The purpose of the PRI is to contribute to developing a Reporting Framework, in particular the former ISP (now
more sustainable global financial system by fostering the Policy, Governance and Strategy) and SAM modules. The
fiduciary responsibility of asset and fund managers as well changes, however, were mainly structural rather than
as asset owners (e.g., pension funds, sovereign wealth content-related, to improve consistency and reduce some
funds, foundations, endowments, and insurers) to manage of the reporting effort. Some references to the net zero
ESG impacts on the performance of investment portfolios. initiatives were included. A mapping resource document
It aims to understand the investment implications of ‘Indicator changes guide’ is available the PRI website.
environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors and
to support its international network of investor signatories The PRI disclosures generally do not require provision
in incorporating these factors into their investment and of the results of any metrics or targets, neither do they
ownership decisions. demonstrate a direct link to financial information. Rather,
the disclosures require in-depth information into the
The Principles for Responsible Investment consist of ‘what’ and ‘how’ ESG is integrated into fund and asset
6 principles – phrased as commitments by the PRI management practices, thereby collecting extensive
signatories. They are accompanied by possible actions on standardized data on ESG governance (‘manage’). The
incorporating ESG issues into investment and governance Sustainability Outcomes module, however, which is
processes, stewardship and engagement, transparency, voluntary, does focus on measuring targets and outcomes.
compliance with and advocacy of the Principles. These are not prescribed by the PRI but defined by the
signatory’s individual ESG strategy.
The PRI signatories have to report annually on their
responsible investment activities to the PRI. The reporting Given the extensive scope of metrics, some further
is linked to the 6 Principles and feeds into the PRI guidance* on the mapping approach is included in a
Assessment. Signatory groups receive private Assessment footnote. This scope is necessary as it sheds light on
Reports, which are designed to provide feedback on peer different ESG approaches for different asset classes –
level across asset classes, to educate and to encourage hence the metrics require, where suitable, a response per
development on investors’ responsible investment asset class to reflect the complexity of ESG incorporation.
practices. The Assessment Reports also allow asset owners
to engage with investment managers and improve their Transparency on the level of ESG incorporation per asset
practices. Further, public and private Transparency Reports class, per management and holding type for internally
are issued. managed real estate and infrastructure is included in the
OO module. In OO 24, strategies for direct physical real
The modules underlying the reporting cover both estate assets are divided into standing investments, new
organisational and asset-class specific responsible construction and major renovation. This information is
investment practices. Reference is made to further followed by level of ownership (OO 25) to assess possible
underlying alternative asset classes in the organisational scope of influence and types of asset management (OO 26)
statistics. The modules included in the mapping are to assess direct operational control.
Organisational Overview (OO), Manager Selection,
Appointment and Monitoring (SAM), Investment and The responsible investment policy, governance,
Stewardship Policy (ISP), Sustainability Outcomes (SO) stewardship, and other ESG issues such as climate change
and Real Estate (RE). are the core focus of the PGS (formerly ISP) module.

* The OO module responses are not assessed and contain comprehensive data requests on assets under management (in percent) per asset class, per
strategy, per type of management (internally/externally), and further criteria. Data of this type is classed as ‘statistics’ in the mapping overview and is in
place to inform about the exact business operations and to enable peer comparisons. The scope of the required data across so many combinations of
criteria and multiple-choice responses results in the very high number of metrics counted in this mapping.
Further, ‘measure’ was used to class metrics that require information on what types of KPIs are used to measure – this is a slight deviation from the
methodology in this study where ‘measure’ is used to demonstrate where actual results of measurement have to be disclosed. Further, questions requiring
general information, having multiple choice options or requiring a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ are generally classed as ‘describe’ as their purpose it to inform. Depending
on the context, questions with drop-downs/multiple choice may have been mapped to other purposes if the information value had a strong link to e.g.,
‘measure’ or ‘manage’.
The statistical and multiple-choice questions are largely classed as ‘Governance’ KPIs if they are not classed as ‘Strategy’ KPIs. Stewardship and
engagement topics are also largely classed as Governance. The KPI ‘Compliance’ is used where metrics require information on how adherence with
internal standards or contracts, rather than external requirements, is ensured. It also includes metrics relating to the marketing and labelling of products
and/or funds as ESG and/or sustainable.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 98

This includes disclosures of the elements covered in the Sustainability requirements and minimum construction
responsible investment policy (e.g., PGS 1, PGS 2) and requirements for developments and renovations are
which internal roles have formal oversight over and are disclosed under RE 9 and 10, the latter listing building
accountable for them (PGS 11.1) as well as indicating certifications as one option – with a follow-up disclosure
whether the responsible investment KPIs used to evaluate on the proportion of assets covered by building
these roles are linked to compensation (PGS 14). Equally, certifications (RE 17). The process for the definition,
investors can disclose the primary stewardship objectives implementation and monitoring of ESG actions plans can
per asset class (PGS 22), prioritisation of the investees or be described voluntarily as a narrative opportunity (RE 16),
other entities on which to focus stewardship efforts(PGS thus providing the governance framework surrounding
23) and ranking of methods to achieve the stewardship the actual action plans to be disclosed under the INREV
objectives (PGS 25). The PGS module further includes Guidelines. During the operational usage phase, ESG
specialized sections on two priority issues: climate change metrics for monitoring must be specified under RE 12. This
(PGS 41 – PGS 46)), and human rights (PGS 49 – PGS is linked to methods for tenant engagement (RE 18).
50). The former is aligned with TCFD recommendations
and aims to understand strategies, scenarios and metrics The voluntary Sustainability Outcomes module builds
on climate change, including an Inevitable Policy Response upon up to 10 specific sustainability outcomes defined by
(PGS 43). In the latter signatories can disclose how each signatory. After examining how targets and metrics
investment-related negative outcomes for people are for measuring those outcomes are defined and tracked,
identified and managed (PGS 49), including access to the methods for taking action on sustainability outcomes,
remedy (PGS 50). General sustainability outcomes (‘The including the disclosure of the overall budget (SO 6 & SO
positive and negative effects of investment activities on 4) allocated to asset allocation, investee engagement and
people and/or the planet. They are understood in the systemic stewardship, including policy engagement. This
context of global sustainability goals and thresholds’, as includes collaboration with various stakeholders, investees
part of the collective impact of the financial system towards and investment managers.
the UN Sustainable Development Goals†), are covered in
PGS 47 – PGS 48.1. In summary, the PRI disclosures provide a deeper
understanding of how ESG is governed and managed at
Lastly, the CBM (Confidence-Building Measures) module both organisational and asset-class level. The RE module
includes transparency and confidence-building topics such reflects the key considerations through real estate specific
as scope, content and regularity reporting and level of third governance metrics, which can be complemented by more
party assurance therefore. detailed science-based and implementation-based metrics
from other standards. The real estate lifecycle is also
The SAM module contains comprehensive disclosures considered.
on manager selection, appointment and monitoring, thus
creating transparency on the internal criteria for and level The mandatory reporting modules do not measure impact,
of external management. It is mandatory for signatories to but measure progress on how ESG is embedded into
report in SAM on every asset class that makes up 10%+ internal processes. These modules are complemented by
or over US$10bn of their total AUM, managed by external the Sustainability Outcomes module, which is designed
investment managers. For clarity, external management in to provide transparency on strategy and targets and how
the SAM module is in reference to investment managers those are achieved.
and not property managers.

The RE module is structured along the lifecycle of real

estate investment and includes the selection, appointment
and monitoring process of third-party property managers.
In the acquisition phase, the basis for the ESG materiality
analysis is required to be disclosed – with GRI, SASB,
TCFD as some of the key options. The influence of ESG
factors on asset selection criteria are covered in RE 4.

† PRI Association (2020) and PRI Association (2017).

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 99

9. Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB)

Key data Description

Full name of standard CDSB Framework for reporting environmental and social information
Category of standard Thematic reporting standard
Type of standard Corporate
Application Voluntary
Stakeholder Investors
Reporting mechanism Can be used in separate report or integrated into other reports, e.g., annual report
Geographical application Global
Structure The framework consists of 7 guiding principles and 12 reporting requirements including
guidance.

Purpose Advancing and aligning disclosure of environmental and social information in mainstream
reports for reporting environmental & social information

Real estate specific No

Source of data Organisation
Types of disclosure Governance-based
Version January 2022
Issuing body CDSB Secretariat
Scope of mapping CDSB Framework for reporting environmental and social information
Additional information On 31st January 2022, the CDSB was consolidated into the IFRS Foundation to support the
work of the newly established International Sustainability Standards Board.
CDSB technical guidance will form part of the evidence base as the IFRS S1/S2 develops
its IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards. CDSB’s Framework and technical guidance on
Water, Biodiversity, and Social disclosures will remain useful as a resource for prepares to
consider when they identify disclosures not covered by the ISSB standards (under IFRS S1
exposure draft).

Link https://www.cdsb.net/

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 100
Overview of metric mapping40

Define Describe Manage Measure Grand total

E - Climate mitigation
E - Climate adaption
E - Pollution prevention
E - Circular economy
E - Water
E - Biodiversity
S - Health & Safety
S - Community impact
S - Employees
G - Governance 1 1
G - Compliance 4 2 6
G - Strategy 2 2
G - Risk management 2 1 3
G - Economic information
G - Sustainability
G - Environmental
G - Social
Grand total 4 7 1 12

Standard description The environmental and social information addresses

The Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) was (natural, human, and social) capital dependencies, results,
hosted by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and risks and opportunities, policies, strategies and targets as
consists of an international consortium of business and well as performance against those targets.
environmental NGOs. It has now been consolidated with
the ISSB. Environmental impacts ‘are changes in the condition
of the environment. Impacts may include (but are not
Despite its title, the CDSB framework also has a strong limited to) climate change, deforestation and ecosystem
social and human rights focus and supply chain conversion, pollution, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem
considerations. As a framework, the CDSB uses extensive services, changes to water availability and land use’.
references to other thematic standards and initiatives for Social impacts are ‘limits on or changes to the ability
identifying appropriate measures, indicators and further of people to realize their human rights, as defined by
disclosures (REQ-4) and is designed to be complementary international standards, where these limits or changes
to annual financial reports containing supporting are connected to an organisation’s operations, products,
information on the business model, supply chain, key and/or services’. Social impacts can be relevant for the
roles and functions, staffing, locations of operation, etc. organisation’s workforce or the workforce of upstream/
Prerequisite is a materiality assessment performed by downstream entities, community members and consumers.
the reporting organisation (Principle 1), whereby GHG Examples include disclosing appropriate quantitative and
emissions shall be treated as material and reported in all qualitative information that demonstrates the organisation’s
cases. contribution to social inequalities or the impacts of its
products on different social groups.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 101
The 12 reporting requirements are accompanied by perspective, the vulnerability of individuals impacted by the
a purpose statement and in-depth guidance on what organisation or economic and political developments).
disclosures are expected.
In summary, the CDSB provides a very useful framework
Of these, 6 reporting requirements are content-related and and source of references for global thematic standards
6 establish formal requirements (REQ-07 organisational and initiatives whilst prescribing some definite and
boundary, REQ-08 reporting policies, REQ-09 reporting important governance requirements. Especially social and
period, REQ-10 restatements, REQ-11 conformance, and human rights as well as supply chain considerations are
REQ-12 assurance). more deeply reflected than in other reporting standards,
as are the complexities of co-dependencies between
The content-related reporting requirements focus on the environmental and social issues. The CDSB also goes into
governance set-up (REQ-01), strategies, policies and more detail regarding the resources and types of capital
targets (REQ-02), the business risks and opportunities – beyond financial capital – utilised to achieve the ESG
identified (REQ-03), accompanied by the sources of targets.
impact (REQ-04) and a comparative analysis of change
drivers and year-on-year performance (REQ-05). As a final Whilst not prescribing the exact metrics to be measured
requirement, an outlook based on the previous disclosures – the CDSB leaves this to the discretion of the reporting
is required from management. organisation based on its materiality assessment and other
standards – it does demand an analysis per business and
One of the requirements of REQ-02 focusses on the geographical segment. For the real estate sector, the wide-
resourcing of the set strategies, i.e. with what resources ranging implications of some environmental and social
the targets will be managed delivered, including investment implications may not be fully applicable, however, for
and capital expenditure. Further, transparency as to what global portfolios, the general approach is recommended.
degree these resources are integrated into the organisation The framework is referenced as a resource for prepares
and business processes is required. Beyond offering under IFRS S1 exposure draft.
guidelines on indicators, timelines and targets, REQ-02
also examines dependencies on and between the natural,
social and human capital, i.e. the individuals, relationships
and networks the organisation depends on for the provision
of goods and services to fulfil the business strategy, as
well as positive and negative co-dependencies between
environmental and social issues (e.g., improving health and
safety of the workforce by using less polluting materials,
or damaging the livelihood and culture of indigenous
communities by destroying forests and biodiversity).

REQ-3 provides guidance on identifying direct or indirect

environmental and social risks and opportunities. Table
1 breaks down potential risks and opportunities resulting
from regulatory requirements, physical, operational, and
business continuity considerations as well as reputational
or social license considerations. The organisation must
also explain how and to which extent the organisation
can maximize opportunities and mitigate risks, directly
or indirectly e.g., through customers, supply chain and
markets.

Beyond the year-on-year performance comparison,

REQ-05 requires an analysis to significant changes in
performance, impacts or results based on either internal
factors (governance-based, changes in operations and
business activities) or external factors (e.g., from a social

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 102
10. EU Taxonomy

Key data Description

Full name of standard REGULATION (EU) 2020/852 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of
18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and
amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088

Category of standard Sustainability regulation

Type of standard Corporate and fund/portfolio level
Application Mandatory
Stakeholder Investors
Reporting mechanism Financial statements and filings
Geographical application EU
Structure EU Taxonomy regulation currently including:
• Commission delegated regulation (‘Level II’) on the reporting requirements under
Article 8 (see Scope of Mapping),
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 of 4 June 2021 supplementing
Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by
establishing the technical screening criteria for determining the conditions under
which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change
mitigation or climate change adaptation and for determining whether that economic
activity causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives
• Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 of 9 March 2022 amending
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards economic activities in certain
energy sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public
disclosures for those economic activities (‘Complementary Climate Delegated Act’)
• Draft Report on Minimum Safeguards JULY 2022 (Platform on Sustainable Finance)
Purpose To channel capital flows towards sustainable investments by creating common definitions
(classification system), increasing transparency and preventing greenwashing.

Real estate specific Yes (technical screening criteria)

Source of data Organisation
Types of disclosure Financial
Version June 2020
Issuing body European Parliament and European Council
Scope of mapping Annex I and II (KPIs of non-financial undertakings and asset managers) of COMMISSION
DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2021/2178 of 6 July 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU)
2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council by
specifying the content and presentation of information to be disclosed by undertakings
subject to Articles 19a or 29a of Directive 2013/34/EU concerning environmentally
sustainable economic activities, and specifying the methodology to comply with that
disclosure obligation
Additional information The SFDR references the EU Taxonomy for sustainability definitions.
Link https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32020R0852

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 103
Overview of metric mapping

Define Describe Manage Measure Grand total

E - Climate mitigation
E - Climate adaption
E - Pollution prevention
E - Circular economy
E - Water
E - Biodiversity
S - Health & Safety
S - Community impact
S - Employees
G - Governance
G - Compliance
G - Strategy
G - Risk management
G - Economic information
Asset managers 17 17
Non-financial undertakings 12 12
G - Sustainability
G - Environmental
G - Social
Grand total 29 29

Standard description screening criteria are defined (currently only for climate
The EU Taxonomy regulation, as part of the implementation change mitigation and adaptation) per economic activity to
measures of the European Green Deal, represents a determine what qualifies as a substantial contribution to an
classification system within the EU that defines which objective.
economic activities substantially contibute to environmental
objectives, using science-based criteria (i.e. in order to Only taxonomy-aligned economic activities, which
qualify as sustainable). As with the SFDR, the purpose is to substantially contribute to an environmental objective, do
channel capital flows towards sustainable investments by not significantly harm other objectives, fulfil minimum
creating common definitions, increasing transparency and social safeguards and the technical screening criteria
tackling greenwashing. First qualitative disclosures have qualify as sustainable. Further transitional economic
to be made for 2022, with the remaining provisions mainly activities are recognised as making a substantial
entering into force in 2023 and 2024. contribution to the climate mitigation objective, as
are directly enabling activities for economic activities
The EU Taxonomy covers six environmental objectives: substantially contributing to any environmental objective.
climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, Taxonomy-eligible economic activities may contribute to
the sustainable use and protection of water and marine the environmental objectives, but do not fulfil the technical
resources, the transition to a circular economy, pollution screening criteria. Taxonomy-non-eligible economic
prevention and control, and the protection and restoration activities are all other economic activities.
of biodiversity and ecosystems. Science-based technical

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 104
The definitions contained in the EU Taxonomy are included institutions, the key performance indicator is the green
in the scope of the ‘sustainable investment’ definition of the asset ratio, which discloses the proportion of exposure to
SFDR). taxonomy-aligned activities in comparison to the total loan
assets of the institution.
The disclosure obligations in Article 8 of the EU Taxonomy
are also aligned with the SFDR to provide, inter alia, The technical screening criteria (for climate change
supplementary information to the sustainability-related mitigation and climate change adaptation41) are based on
disclosures of the SFDR. The delegated regulation industry NACE42 codes. The sectors included in the EU
(‘level II’) for Article 8 includes definitions and reporting Taxonomy are the ones identified as critical for achieving
templates. For this study, annex 1 (for non-financial the EU’s 2030 and 2050 climate goals and thus represent
undertakings) and 3 (for asset managers) were included in the majority of emissions43.
the mapping.
The technical screening criteria for the construction and
Non-financial undertakings have to disclose how real estate industry are allocated to the following economic
and to what extent their activities are associated with activities:
environmentally sustainable economic activities. For this,
three key performance indicators are defined: • Construction of new buildings
• Renovation of existing buildings
• the proportion of their turnover derived from • Installation, maintenance and repair of energy
products or services associated with economic efficiency equipment
activities that qualify as environmentally sustainable, • Installation, maintenance and repair of charging
• the proportion of their capital expenditure (‘capex’), stations for electric vehicles in buildings (and
and parking spaces attached to buildings)
• the proportion of their operating expenditure (opex’) • Installation, maintenance and repair of instruments
related to assets or processes associated with and devices for measuring, regulation and
economic activities that qualify as environmentally controlling energy performance of buildings
sustainable • Installation, maintenance and repair of renewable
energy technologies
The three KPIs are accompanied by further disclosures • Acquisition and ownership of buildings
on the accounting policies, qualitative information on
compliance with the EU Taxonomy and screening criteria, The technical screening criteria and requirements of
methodology as well as contextual information to explain delegated regulations are consolidated in the EU Taxonomy
the financial figures disclosed. Further, the KPIs have Compass44. Each activity has detailed substantial
to be allocated to the six environmental objectives, also contribution criteria, e.g., the criteria that must be met in
differentiating between taxonomy-aligned, taxonomy- order to classify the activity as sustainable. These criteria
eligible and taxonomy-non-eligible. are complex, comprehensive, reference numerous EU
standards and are partially open to interpretation45, so
For financial undertakings, these KPIs are not suitable some legal unclarity and national differences still exist. As
for assessing the environmental sustainability of e.g., a minor excerpt of the EU Taxonomy Compass, criteria for
lending, investment and insurance activities. Therefore, the construction of new buildings include requirements on
the level II requirements define relevant KPIs for financial the Primary Energy Demand (PED):
undertakings. For asset managers, the proportion of
investments in environmentally sustainable economic • The calculated amount of energy needed to meet the
activities – from both collective and individual portfolio energy demand associated with the typical uses of
management activities – is to be disclosed. The numerator a building expressed by a numeric indicator of total
has to be broken down into absolute and relative primary energy use in kWh/m2 per year and based
amounts, turnover-based or capex-based amounts, and on the relevant national calculation methodology
per environmental objective, including a proportional and as displayed on the Energy Performance
breakdown into transitional and enabling activities. The Certificate (EPC). Defining the energy performance
assets under management included in the calculations of the building resulting from the construction, is
also require a breakdown (e.g., financial and non- at least 10% lower than the threshold set for the
financial investee undertakings). As a side note, for credit nearly zero-energy building (NZEB) requirements in

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 105
 national measures implementing Directive 2010/31/ Whether or not the real estate screening criteria are an
EU of the European Parliament and of the Council incentive or deterrent for adapting the built world to
Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament reduce emissions, e.g., as some refurbishments may not
and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy meet the screening criteria and may not be invested into
performance of buildings. The energy performance or financed as they do not qualify as sustainable, will be
is certified using an as built Energy Performance seen over time. Potentially the disclosure of taxonomy-
Certificate (EPC). eligible activities, which demonstrate investment into
decarbonization even if they do not meet the strict criteria,
• For buildings larger than 5000 m2: For residential can be a sufficient basis for investors and lenders when
buildings, the testing is made for a representative supplemented by distinct decarbonization strategies
set of dwelling/apartment types. Upon completion, supported by the CRREM tool.
the building resulting from the construction
undergoes testing for air-tightness and thermal
integrity. The testing is carried out in accordance
with EN13187 (Thermal Performance of Buildings
- Qualitative Detection of Thermal Irregularities
in Building Envelopes - Infrared Method) and
EN 13829 (Thermal performance of buildings.
Determination of air permeability of buildings. Fan
pressurisation method) or equivalent standards
accepted by the respective building control body
where the building is located. Any deviation in the
levels of performance set at the design stage or
defects in the building envelope are disclosed to
investors and clients.

The EU Taxonomy Compass will be regularly updated

to include future delegated acts specifying technical
screening criteria for additional economic activities
substantially contributing to the climate objectives and the
other environmental objectives. The screening criteria are
accompanied by the do not significantly harm (‘DNSH’)
criteria for the other environmental objectives.

The EU Taxonomy is a ‘regulation in progress’, as the

remaining four environmental objectives will be addressed
after the most urgent climate change objectives and
technical screening criteria may evolve to (even) higher
standards over time to meet the EU goals. At a first glance,
the financial disclosures or assets under management
disclosures may appear simple but putting processes
in place to implement and measure whether activities
meet the technical screening criteria and then technically
flagging financial information (turnover, capex, opex)
associated with those aligned or eligible activities in
accounting systems may have an operational impact
similar to implementing a new IFRS standard, in particular
for consolidation purposes. It may be expected that
management practices will change to align with the new
presentation of financial information in financial reporting,
i.e. changing business, investing and financing strategies.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 106
11. IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards Exposure Draft (IFRS S1/S2 ED)

Key data Description

Full name of standard IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards
Category of standard Core corporate standard
Type of standard Corporate
Application Mandatory (depending on jurisdiction)
Stakeholder Investors
Reporting mechanism To be included in company’s management commentary
Geographical application Global
Structure IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information,
IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures, which includesAppendix B on Industry-based
disclosure requirements; Illustrative Guidance and Basis for Conclusions
Purpose The objective is to disclose information about the significant sustainability-related risks
and opportunities of an enterprise that is useful to the primary users of general purpose
financial reporting when they assess enterprise value and decide whether to provide
resources to the entity.
Real estate specific Yes
Source of data Organisation
Types of disclosure Governance-based
Version Exposure Drafts, March 2022
Issuing body International Sustainability Standards Board (part of IFRS Foundation)
Scope of mapping Exposure draft of IFRS S1 and S2, Appendix B Volume B35—Home Builders, Volume
B36—Real Estate, Volume B37—Real Estate Services. Note the number of metrics mapped
are largely driven by the industry-based metrics.

This does not account for any changes that have been announced by the ISSB ahead of
finalising the standard at the end of Q2 2023.
Additional information Alignment with 2018 GRESB® Real Estate Assessment
Reference Guide for some definitions. The exposure drafts refer to additional resources that
companies can refer to identify disclosure not covered by the ISSB standards (including the
SASB and CDSB standards);
Link https://www.ifrs.org/projects/work-plan/general-sustainability-related-disclosures/

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 107
Overview of metric mapping

Define Describe Manage Measure Grand total

E - Climate mitigation 16 4 34 54
E - Climate adaption 2 1 8 11
E - Pollution prevention
E - Circular economy
E - Water 18 3 23 44
E - Biodiversity
S - Health & Safety
S - Community impact
S - Employees
G - Governance 20 20
G - Compliance
G - Strategy 16 10 26
G - Risk management 22 27 49
G - Economic information 4 15 19
G - Sustainability 3 3
G - Environmental 25 2 27
G - Social
Grand total 65 68 120 253

Note: It is important to highlight that there are ‘E - Water’ and financial impacts (see Connected information, IFRS
metrics even though there is no ISSB standards on water. S1 ED 42 et seqq.). While the TCFD framework is also
This is based on water metrics number under Appendix designed to provide (climate-related) information to
B of IFRS S2 ED, based on the SASB industry-based investors for financial decision-making purposes, the
requirements. IFRS Sustainability Standards builds on these disclosure
requirements with a broader frame of sustainability issues
Standard description and additional requirements for climate.
Both the IFRS S1 and S2 Exposure Drafts (‘ED’) follow
the structure of the TCFD framework – using governance, In the following some examples from the IFRS S1 ED
strategy, risk management and metrics/targets are provided to demonstrate the connectivity of the
requirements. The exposure drafts include industry-specific sustainability disclosures, beginning with a required
metrics, provided by the SASB standards, which have ‘description of significant sustainability-related risks and
only been amended to reflect more international standards opportunities and the time horizon over which each could
where necessary and have not fully been amended to reflec reasonably be expected to affect its business model,
the specific sustainability issue (i.e. climate). strategy and cash flows, its access to finance and its cost
of capital, over the short, medium or long term’ (S1 ED 16).
The role of the expected disclosures are to connect
sustainability-related financial information and financial With a nod to double materiality, an entity has to consider
information, to assess the connection between adverse impacts, e.g., ‘when an entity’s activities result
sustainability risks and opportunities, and to provide in adverse, external impacts—on, for example, local
comprehensive analysis for the user of the reporting to communities—it could be subjected to stricter government
understand the link between these risks and opportunities regulation and consequences of reputational effects—

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 108
for example, negative effects on the entity’s brand Industry-specific metrics are based on the SASB
and higher recruitment costs. Furthermore, when an standards, though they currently are only selected for the
entity’s business partners face significant sustainability- climate-related disclosures under IFRS S2 ED. They are
related risks and opportunities, the entity could be accompanied by ‘activity metrics’, which are designed to
exposed to related consequences of its own. When such ‘quantify the scale of specific activities or operations by an
impacts, dependencies and relationships create risks or entity and are intended for use in conjunction with metrics
opportunities for an entity, they can affect the entity’s to normalise data and facilitate comparison’ (IFRS S2 ED
performance or prospects, create or erode the value of the B4e), although they are currently only referenced in the
enterprise and the financial returns to providers of financial metric overviews and not provided with guidance.
capital, and the assessment of enterprise value by the
primary user’ (IFRS S1 ED 17). In terms of outlook, the ISSB met in October 202246 as
part of their due process to decide on various topics for
In line with these requirements to disclose about redeliberation, including the definition of ‘enterprise value’
dependencies and relationships, value chain considerations and how it should be incorporated into the objective of the
are included in IFRS S1 ED 20a and 40. One topic requiring sustainability disclosures, how it may restrict the scope of
more explicit exposure than other standards is that of information provided and how it stands in conflict with the
trade-offs in decision-making, e.g., ‘what trade-offs objective of ‘providing resources to the entity’ stipulated
between sustainability-related risks and opportunities by the financial reporting standards. The application of
were considered by the entity (for example, in a decision materiality, the use of the word ‘significant’ in relation to
on the location of new operations, a trade-off between sustainability risks and the meaning of ‘global baseline’ to
the environmental impacts of those operations and be disclosed are also to be redeliberated. The ISSB board
the employment opportunities they would create in a continues to meet and working to finalise the standard,
community, and the related effects on enterprise value’ with the intention to publish the final IFRS S1 and S2 by
(IFRS S1 ED 21c). Although the exposure draft does not the end of Q2 2023. Once the final standards are published,
go as far as to explain how companies can (or should) they must then be adopted by each jurisdiction before they
undertake this type of assessment. become mandatory for corporate reporting.

Significant from a real estate perspective, the valuation of In summary, although the IFRS Sustainability Standards
assets and risk of stranded assets is noted as an area that closely follow the TCFD framework, their integration into
requires reporting in IFRS S1 ED 22b. the famously complex and demanding IFRS financial
reporting framework will require appliers and primary
The S1 ED makes broad use of references to other users to broaden their understanding of the connectivity
standards (IFRS S1 ED 53) for identifying appropriate between financial and sustainability-related information and
complementary industry-specific and thematic metrics. to deepen the level of financial analysis to be disclosed (in
The IFRS S2 ED is closely aligned with the structure and sustainability reporting).
content of S1 ED, but with a climate-related focus and
examples. Examples from S2 ED 21 include information
on greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., ‘absolute gross
greenhouse gas emissions generated during the reporting
period, measured in accordance with the Greenhouse
Gas Protocol Corporate Standard, expressed as metric
tonnes of CO2 equivalent, classified as Scope 1, 2, and
3, and including greenhouse gas emissions intensity for
each scope. The IFRS S2 ED introduces the disclosure of
internal carbon prices, i.e. ‘the price for each metric tonne
of greenhouse gas emissions that the entity uses to assess
the costs of its emissions; and an explanation of how the
entity is applying the carbon price in decision-making
(for example, investment decisions, transfer pricing and
scenario analysis)’ (IFRS S2 ED 21f).

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 109
12. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)
Key data Description
Full name of standard Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive
Category of standard Sustainability regulation
Type of standard Corporate
Application Mandatory
Stakeholder Investors, civil society and other stakeholders
Reporting mechanism Can be used in separate report or integrated into other reports (e.g., annual reports)
Geographical application EU
Structure Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014
amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity
information by certain large undertakings and groups Text with EEA relevance
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending Directive 2013/34/EU, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and
Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, as regards corporate sustainability reporting
Purpose Introduces more detailed reporting requirements and ensures that large companies are
required to report on sustainability issues such as environmental rights, social rights,
human rights and governance factors.

The CSRD also introduces a certification requirement for sustainability reporting as well as
improved accessibility of information, by requiring its publication in a dedicated section of
company management reports
Real estate specific No
Source of data Organisation
Types of disclosure Financial metrics, Governance indicators, Science-based ESG metrics
Version (Draft) April 2021
Issuing body European Parliament and European Council
Scope of mapping Mapping is only of the draft regulations. Article 1
Amendments to Directive 2013/34/EU& Article 2
Amendments to Directive 2004/109/EC AND Article 3
Amendments to Directive 2006/43/EC
The mapping does not include the draft ESRS disclosure requirements.
Additional information The CSRD has now been finalised and published within the official EU Journal, as below:
Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December
2022, amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/
EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting
In addition, the European Sustainable Reporting Standards (ESRS) will further specify
reporting requirements under the CSRD; the most recent draft Set 1 standards were
published in November 2022 and the European Commission will adopt these as delegated
acts in June 2023
Link https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0189

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 110
Overview of metric mapping

Define Describe Manage Measure Grand total

E - Climate mitigation
E - Climate adaption
E - Pollution prevention
E - Circular economy
E - Water
E - Biodiversity
S - Health & Safety
S - Community impact
S - Employees
G - Governance 1 12 13
G - Compliance 8 2 10
G - Strategy 8 8
G - Risk management 2 2
G - Economic information
G - Sustainability 2 2
G - Environmental 4 4
G - Social 1 1
Grand total 1 37 2 40

Standard description Sustainability reporting requirements will be further

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) elaborated within European Sustainability Reporting
will impact many more companies than current EU Standards – developed by the European Financial Reporting
non-financial reporting requirements (Non-Financial Advisory Group (EFRAG) and provided to the European
Reporting Directive, NFRD) and require more extensive Commission for adoption through Delegated Acts.
disclosures on a broader range of environmental, social
and governance issues. It is intrinsically linked to investor ESRS will be developed in several sets. Set 1 will define
reporting regulations such as the SFDR, since the CSRD reporting requirements for companies in all sectors under
is meant to provide investors with the information needed the CSRD. Future sets will consist of standards for specific
for compliance. By requiring more companies to make sectors, SMEs and non-EU companies covered by the
mandatory sustainability disclosures, the CSRD is expected CSRD. The CSRD adopts a double materiality approach,
to bring sustainability reporting on par with financial considering both the impact a company has on the
reporting over time. environment and society (impact materiality) and the extent
to which sustainability factors affect the development,
The CSRD significantly expands on the requirements of the performance and position of the company (financial
NFRD and aims to close the gaps in the current information materiality). Under the CSRD companies must consider
on the disclosure of non-financial information. each materiality perspective when identifying information
to be disclosed.
The scope of application is extended to all large companies
and all companies listed on regulated markets, excluding Key information required by the CSRD can be divided into
listed micro-entities as defined by the Accounting Directive. the following topics:

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 111
 • Companies must disclose their sustainability which the fundamental functioning of the company’s
targets and the associated implementation business model depends, such as intellectual
strategy, including the associated financial and capital, human capital and relational capital. In
investment plans. This must show the extent to addition, it must be explained why the respective
which the company’s strategy contributes to the aspect is of value to the company.
overarching European goals of transforming the EU
into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive According to the CSRD, sustainability reporting must
economy by 2050, with zero net greenhouse gas also be externally audited by third parties on the basis of
emissions and limiting global warming to 1.5 forthcoming assurance standards.
°C. The company must also disclose the overall
resilience of its business model to sustainability As shown in the chart below, 13 cross-sector ESRS are
issues and opportunities related to sustainability. In currently being developed. The standards are divided
addition, the overall resilience of the business model thematically into the general category of cross-cutting
to sustainability issues, as well as opportunities that standards – applicable to reporting on all sustainability
arise in connection with sustainability issues, must issues – and t reporting on environment, social and
be outlined. governance issues. Sector-specific standards and SME-
proportionate standards are being planned.
• In addition, a description must be prepared
regarding the implemented due diligence process The 2 cross-cutting standards will contain fundamental
against the background of sustainability aspects. concepts and principles for the preparation and
presentation of sustainability statements. These include,
• Significant actual or potential impacts, risks and for example, the concept of double materiality and
opportunities in connection with the company’s requirements for including the entire value chain in
value chain must be reported. All products, services, reporting. In addition, ESRS 1 and ESRS 2 contain
business relationships and the complete supply overarching disclosure requirements for embedding
chain must be considered. sustainability aspects in the strategy, business model, and
corporate governance, and for identifying and managing
• Companies must report on their key intangible material sustainability-related impacts, risks, and
resources. These include all intangible resources on opportunities.

Figure 29: Overview of draft ESRS, as at April 2022

SECTOR-AGNOSTIC STANDARDS SECTOR-SPECIFIC

STANDARDS
Cross-cutting standards Environment Social Governance (coming later)

ESRS 1 ESRS E1 ESRS S1 ESRS G1 SME-PROPORTIONATE

General principles Climate change Own workforce Governance, risk STANDARDS
management and (coming later)
internal control
ESRS 2 ESRS E2 ESRS S2
General, strategy, Pollution Workers in the
governance and value chain ESRS G2
materiality assessment Business conduct
ESRS E3
disclosure ESRS S3
Water & marine
requirements Affected communities
resources

ESRS E4 ESRS S4
Biodiversity & Consumers
ecosystems and end-users

ESRS E5
Resource use and
circular economy

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 112
The other 11 reporting standards shown in the graphic The following metrics provide an example of each social
above define the disclosure requirements in relation to standard – note that only ESRS S1 contains metrics:
specific sustainability issues. Note the environmental
issues covered mirror those within the EU Taxonomy. • ESRS S1 paragraph 51: The disclosure shall include
a report by head count or full time equivalent (FTE)
The following metrics provide an example of each of permanent employees, and breakdowns by
environmental standard: gender and by region.

• ESRS E1 paragraph 37: The undertaking shall • ESRS S2 paragraph 5: The disclosure shall
provide information on the energy intensity (total include to what extent the disclosure covers the
energy consumption per net revenue) associated undertaking’s upstream and downstream value
with activities in high climate impact sectors. chain.

• ESRS E2 paragraph 13: The objective of • ESRS S3 paragraph 21: The undertaking shall
this Disclosure Requirement is to provide disclose whether and how the perspectives of
an understanding of the extent to which the affected communities inform its decisions or
undertaking has policies that address the activities aimed at managing actual and potential
identification, assessment, management and/or material impacts on communities.
remediation of material pollution-related impacts,
risks and opportunities. • ESRS S4 paragraph 25: The undertaking shall
describe its general approach to and processes
• ESRS E3 paragraph 29: The disclosure required by for providing or contributing to remedy where it
paragraph 27 relates to own operations and shall has identified that it has caused or contributed to a
include total water consumption in m3 in areas at material adverse impact on consumers and/or end-
material water risk, including areas of high-water users, including whether and how the undertaking
stress. assesses that remediation is effective.

• ESRS E4 paragraph 33: The undertaking shall The governance standard addresses the company’s
describe the biodiversity and ecosystem-related strategy and approach, processes and procedures as well
targets it has adopted. as its performance relating to business conduct.

• ESRS E5 paragraph 36: The undertaking shall The following metrics provide an example of each
provide a description of the key products and governance standard:
materials that come out of the undertaking’s
production process and that are designed along • ESRS G1 paragraph 15: The disclosure shall include
circular principles, including durability, reusability, an overview of the procedures in place to prevent,
repairability, disassembly, remanufacturing, detect, and address allegations or incidents of
refurbishment, recycling or other optimization of the corruption/bribery.
use of the resource.
• ESRS G2 paragraph 20: The disclosure shall cover
Social standards focus on risks, opportunities and impacts a description of the mechanism for reporting
related to various stakeholder groups, including the concerns about unethical or unlawful behavior.
company’s own employees, workers in the value chain,
affected communities and consumers and end-users. The ESRS tend to be more comprehensive and granular
than other standards considered in this study.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 113
13. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)

Key data Description

Full name of standard Carbon Disclosure Project
Category of standard Thematic reporting standard
Type of standard Corporate
Application Voluntary
Stakeholder CDP ‘requesting authorities’ (investor signatories, supply chain members, bank members,
initiatives such as RE100 or NZAMi)
Reporting mechanism Online Response System
Geographical application Global
Structure DP has three corporate questionnaires; climate change, forests and water security. The
questionnaires provide a framework for companies to provide environmental information
to their stakeholders covering governance and policy, risks and opportunity management,
environmental targets and strategy, and scenario analysis. Companies in high-impact
sectors (sectors that are deemed by CDP to have a significant environmental impact), in
addition to the general questions, will be presented with questions specific to that sector.
Purpose CDP is a not-for-profit charity that runs the global disclosure system for investors,
companies, cities, states and regions to manage their environmental impacts.

Real estate specific Yes

Source of data Organisation, supply chain, assets
Types of disclosure Governance, implementation, science-based, financial
Version 2022
Issuing body CDP
Scope of mapping FS+RE+Construction sector scope:
CDP Climate Change 2022 Questionnaire (FS) V1.4
CDP Climate Change 2022 Questionnaire (RE+Construction) V1.4
CDP Water Security 2022 Questionnaire (FS) V1.1
CDP Water Security 2022 Questionnaire (RE+Construction) V1.1
CDP Forests 2022 Questionnaire (FS) V1.3
CDP Forests 2022 Questionnaire (RE+Construction) V1.3

Full versions*
Additional information Aligned with TCFD
Link https://www.cdp.net/en

* The questionnaires can be generated for the three different topics, different sectors and also different stakeholders. The ‘full version’ used for the
mapping in this study is for all three topics (climate change, water security and deforestation), for the real estate and construction industry as well as for
the supply chain, bank, RE100 initiative and NZAMi stakeholders.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 114
Overview of metric mapping

G - Economic information
E - Pollution prevention

S - Community impact
E - Climate mitigation

G - Risk management
E - Circular economy
E - Climate adaption

S - Health & Safety

G - Environmental
G - Sustainability
G - Compliance
G - Governance
E - Biodiversity

S - Employees

G - Strategy

Grand total
G - Social
E - Water
Define 3 1 4

Asset/ Describe 13 16 22 51
Investment Manage 20 48 59 10 15 4 12 3 11 182
Measure 59 12 8 2 81

Define 4 1 5

Portfolio/ Describe 15 13 22 4 54
Fund Manage 23 47 59 36 13 5 16 2 26 227
Measure 64 11 8 1 11 95

Define
Describe
Corporate
Manage 3 3
Measure
Grand total 201 151 178 46 33 10 28 18 37 702

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 115
Standard description The following metrics provide some examples of these:
CDP provides a comprehensive questionnaire for
environmental reporting with a scoring option for eligible • C3.5a Quantify the percentage share of your
companies. The approach of the questionnaire is sector- spending/revenue that is aligned with your
focused and covers the three key areas of climate change, organisation’s transition to a 1.5°C world.
water security and deforestation. It can be used by
companies, but also cities and governments as well as • C12.3c Provide details of the funding you provided
supply chain members. to other organisations in the reporting year whose
activities could influence policy, law, or regulation
CDP uses the scoring methodologies to incentivize that may impact the climate.
companies to measure and manage environmental
impacts through participation in CDP’s climate change, • C12.4 Have you published information about your
forests, and water security questionnaires. Each of CDP’s organisation’s response to climate change and
questionnaires has an individual scoring methodology. The GHG emissions performance for this reporting year
responding companies are assessed on four consecutive in places other than in your CDP response? If so,
levels which represent the steps a company moves through please attach the publication(s).
as it progresses towards environmental stewardship. The
levels from lowest to highest level are: 1) Disclosure; 2) • SC1.1 Allocate your emissions to your customers
Awareness; 3) Management; 4) Leadership. If a company listed below according to the goods or services you
has earned Leadership status, it implements best practice have sold them in this reporting period.
as formulated by organisations working with CDP to
advance environmental stewardship (e.g., CEO water • C10 Indicate the verification/assurance status that
mandate, CERES, WWF)47. applies to your reported emissions.

As CDP caters to different stakeholders for different • C4.3a Identify the total number of initiatives at
purposes, e.g., has strong underlying governance and risk each stage of development, and for those in the
management themes, but also a financial dimension and implementation stages, the estimated CO2e savings.
outcome-related metrics, its materiality can be seen as
both financial and impact-related. In this light, some of the • C4.5a Provide details of your products and/or
metrics resemble sustainable finance metrics (e.g.,venue/ services that you classify as low-carbon products.
capex/opex disclosures as required by the EU Taxonomy)
and some are closer to science-based metrics (e.g., caeg, • C6.7a Provide the emissions from biogenic carbon
emissions per customer, emissions of biogenic carbon). relevant to your organisation in metric tons CO2.

The construction and real estate-specific metrics are • C8.2m Provide details of the country-specific
generally focused on climate-related metrics based on the challenges to sourcing renewable electricity faced
underlying materiality allocation of CDP. In the following, by your organisation in the reporting year.
an introduction to the questionnaires is provided to
demonstrate some of the depth and thinking behind the • C8.1 What percentage of your total operational
scoring model. spend in the reporting year was on energy?

Climate • C11.1 Are any of your operations or activities

The CDP’s general climate changes questionnaire includes regulated by a carbon pricing system (e.g., ETS, Cap
the following topics: governance, risks and opportunities, & Trade or Carbon Tax)?
business strategy, targets and performance, emissions
methodology, emissions data, energy, additional metrics, • C11.1d What is your strategy for complying with
verification, carbon pricing, engagement and biodiversity. the systems you are regulated by or anticipate being
regulated by?

• C11.3 Does your organisation use an internal price

on carbon?

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 116
Water of forests-related issues (do not include the names
The CDP’s general water security questionnaire includes of individuals)?
the following topics: corporate water accounting metrics,
value chain engagement activities, business impacts, • F4.6 Has your organisation made a public
risk assessment procedures, risks, opportunities and commitment to reduce or remove deforestation and/
responses to them, facility water accounting metrics, water or forest degradation from its direct operations and/
governance and business strategy, targets and verification. or supply chain?

The following metrics provide some examples of these: • F5.1 Are forests-related issues integrated into any
aspects of your long-term strategic business plan,
• W2.2 In the reporting year, was your organisation and if so how?
subject to any fines, enforcement orders, and/
or other penalties for water-related regulatory • F6.9 Are you working beyond your first-tier
violations? supplier(s) to manage and mitigate deforestation
risks?
• W4.1c By river basin, what is the number and
proportion of facilities exposed to water risks that • F6.10a Indicate the criteria you consider when
could have a substantive financial or strategic prioritizing landscapes and jurisdictions for
impact on your business, and what is the potential engagement in collaborative approaches to
business impact associated with those facilities? sustainable land use and provide an explanation.

• W7.2 What is the trend in your organisation’s water- Construction and real estate
related capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating The CDP’s construction and real estate sector questions
expenditure (OPEX) for the reporting year, and the focus on the following topics: assessment of buildings’
anticipated trend for the next reporting year? life cycle emissions and embodied carbon emissions data,
net zero carbon buildings; and investments in low-carbon
• W7.4 Does your company use an internal price on R&D.
water?
The following metrics provide some examples of these:
Deforestation (mapped to biodiversity ) 48

CDP has a focus on deforestation as both deforestation • C-CN6.6/C-RE6.6 Does your organisation assess the
and forest degradation account for approximately 15% of life cycle emissions of new construction or major
the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. This is primarily renovation projects?
driven by the global demand for agricultural commodities
and therefore land for agricultural production. The risks • C-CN6.6a/C-RE6.6a Provide details of how your
represented by this is spread across worldwide supply organisation assesses the life cycle emissions of
chains as millions of products depend on agricultural new construction or major renovation projects.
commodities. The questionnaire focuses on four key forest
risk commodities: timber, cattle products, soy, and palm • C-CN6.6b/C-RE6.6b Can you provide embodied
oil. The questionnaire additionally allows disclosure by carbon emissions data for any of your organisation’s
companies producing, sourcing or using cocoa, coffee, and new construction or major renovation projects
rubber. completed in the last three years?

Examples of metrics include: • C-CN6.6c/C-RE6.6c Provide details of the embodied

carbon emissions of new construction or major
• F3 For your disclosed forest risk commodity(ies), renovation projects completed in the last three
provide details of risks identified with the potential years.
to have a substantive financial or strategic impact
on your business, and your response to those risks. • C-CN9.6a/C-RE9.6a Provide details of your
organisation’s investments in low-carbon R&D for
• F4.3a What incentives are provided to C-Suite real estate and construction activities over the last
employees or board members for the management three years.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 117
 • C-RE9.9a Provide details of the net zero carbon
buildings under your organisation’s management in
the reporting year.

• C-CN9.10/C-RE9.10 Did your organisation complete

new construction or major renovations projects
designed as net zero carbon in the last three years?

Financial Services
The CDP’s reflection of Financial Services is most
prominent in the climate change questionnaire.

Examples of metrics include:

• C-FS1.4 Does your organisation offer its employees

an employment-based retirement scheme that
incorporates ESG criteria, including climate change?

• C-FS2. 2e Indicate the climate-related information

your organisation considers about clients/investees
as part of your due diligence and/or risk assessment
process, and how this influences decision-making.

• C-FS14.1b Provide details of the other carbon foot

printing and/or exposure metrics used to track the
impact of your portfolio on the climate.

• C-FS14.2a Break down your organisation’s portfolio

impact by asset class.

• C-FS14.0 For each portfolio activity, state the value

of your financing and insurance of carbon-related
assets in the reporting year.

• C-FS3.8a Provide details of the covenants included

in your organisation’s financing agreements to
reflect and enforce your climate-related policies.

• FW-FS3.3 Do any of your existing products and

services enable clients to mitigate deforestation
and/or water insecurity?

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 118
14. Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB)

Key data Description

Full name of standard Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB)
Category of standard Industry specific sustainability benchmark
Type of standard Investment management
Application Voluntary
Stakeholder Investors
Reporting mechanism Benchmarking Assessment
Geographical application Global
Structure The Real Estate Assessment generates two benchmarks: The GRESB Real Estate Benchmark
and the GRESB Development Benchmark.
The Real Estate Benchmark consists of participants completing both the Management
and Performance Components and the Development Benchmark consists of participants
completing both the Management and Development Components.
Purpose The GRESB Real Estate Assessment is a global standard for ESG benchmarking and
reporting for listed property companies, private property funds, developers and investors
that invest directly in real estate.
The GRESB Real Estate Assessment aims to provide investors with actionable information
and tools to monitor and manage the ESG risks and opportunities of their investments,
and to prepare for increasingly rigorous ESG obligations. Assessment participants receive
comparative business intelligence on where they stand against their peers, a roadmap with
the actions they can take to improve their ESG performance and a communication platform
to engage with investors.
Real estate specific Yes
Source of data Organisation, tenants, building
Types of disclosure Governance-based, science-based metrics
Version 2022 GRESB Real Estate Assessment
Issuing body GRESB BV
Scope of mapping 2022 GRESB Real Estate Assessment mapped at a high level and not included in the
detailed mapping exercise (please see ‘Overview of metric mapping’ below for further detail)
Additional information The GRESB Standards Committees under the governance of the GRESB Foundation
oversees the development and maintenance of GRESB Standards. The methodology aims to
align with international reporting frameworks, such as TCFD, GRI and PRI.
Link https://documents.gresb.com/generated_files/real_estate/2022/real_estate/reference_guide/
complete.html

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 119
Overview of metric mapping

Define Describe Manage Measure Grand total

E - Climate mitigation 16 14 30
E - Climate adaption 0
E - Water 6 6
E - Circular economy 5 5
E - Pollution prevention 0
E - Biodiversity 0
S - Health & safety 8 8
S - Community impact 8 8
S - Employees 8 8
G - Environmental 0
G - Social 0
G - Sustainability 8 12 20
G - Compliance 0
G - Governance 0
G - Risk Management 5 5 10
G - Strategy 7 7
Grand total 20* 60* 20* 100*

* 2022 GRESB Real Estate Assessment considered at a high The Development Component - measures the entity’s
level and not included within the scope of the detailed mapping efforts to address ESG-issues during the design,
exercise the assessment was considered to be a benchmarking construction, and renovation of buildings. This component
assessment and therefore potentially not as comparable to some is suitable for entities involved in new construction
of the sustainability related reporting and financial reporting (building design, site selection and/or construction) and/
standards considered in the detailed mapping exercise. The high or major renovation projects, with on-going projects or
level mapping was therefore based on a high level mapping of completed projects during the reporting year.
the scoring methodology (with the high level mapping of the
‘points’ set out in the scoring methodology including rounding GRESB does not require participation in any of the
to the nearest integer): https://documents.gresb.com/generated_ Assessment Components. However, if the entity does have
files/real_estate/2023/real_estate/reference_guide/complete. both standing investments and development projects and
html#scoring_methodology considers itself both an operator of buildings and involved
in development activities, it is highly recommended to
Standard description participate in both benchmarks. As a result, participants
Real Estate Assessment Components will receive two GRESB Scores, two Benchmark Reports,
The Management Component - measures the entity’s strat- two peer groups, etc. capturing how the entities approach
egy and leadership management, policies and processes, their respective activities in both benchmarks.
risk management, and stakeholder engagement approach,
composing of information collected at the entity level. The role of the GRESB benchmark
GRESB’s global benchmark uses a consistent methodology
The Performance Component - measures the entity’s asset to compare performance across different regions,
portfolio performance, composing of information collected investment vehicles, and property types. This consistency,
at the asset portfolio level. It is suitable for any real estate combined with broad market coverage, aims to allow
company or fund with operational assets. members and participants to apply a single, globally

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 120
recognised ESG framework to all their real estate
investments.

GRESB results provide a practical way to understand

ESG performance and communicate it to investors and
other stakeholders. GRESB provides overall scores of
ESG performance - such as the GRESB Score and GRESB
Ratings - as well as detailed aspect-level and individual
indicator-level assessments of performance. GRESB data
should be analysed in peer group comparisons that take
into account country, regional, sectoral and investment
type variations. This analysis enables fund managers and
companies to understand their results in the context of
their investment strategies and communicate this to their
investors.

GRESB facilitates the use of its ESG metrics in investment

decision-making processes and encourages an active
dialogue between investors, fund managers and companies
on ESG issues. GRESB updates its Investor Member
Guidance on an annual basis to assist GRESB Investor
Members in their engagement with managers.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 121
 Figure 30: ESG in an international context

Financial Materiality (Outside in)

Information needed to understand how

sustainability and sustainability risks affect
the company financially

Double
Materiality

Company Society & Environment

Impact Materiality (Inside out)

Information needed to
understand the impact of the Depends on
company itself on society stakeholder
and the environment

Appendix D: Further information on Most financial disclosure standards have an investor focus
double materiality and thus aim to give transparency to sustainability risks
that impact the enterprise value. This includes the IFRS
Information is considered ‘material’ if it could influence S1/S2, which complements the IASB financial reporting
the decision-making of stakeholders. The term ‘double standards (IFRS). In contrast, the EU’s CSRD does take
materiality’ reflects the understanding of how certain double materiality into account, thus increasing pressure
risks and opportunities can affect not only the value of an on the IFRS S1/S249,50 to also address the impact of
enterprise, but also the people, the environment and the sustainability risks on society and environment.
economy. This means that on the one hand, sustainability
risks, such as climate change, can have a negative impact Generally, consensus is growing that a separation between
on business models, operations and financial results, inside and outside impacts is no longer possible. Especially
but also may represent a development opportunity. On EU regulations are strongly focused on outside impacts
the other hand the business model and operations can in order to achieve overarching sustainability goals, but
have positive or negative impacts on the environment and also recognize – and even drive - the financial impacts by
society, such as improving community infrastructure. combining impact disclosures with financial disclosures.

Sustainability reporting, which considers double materiality Besides recognizing the inseparability of inside and outside
and has a broader multi-stakeholder (e.g., businesses, impacts, another reason favouring of a comprehensive
investors, policymakers, and civil society) focus, is international baseline for corporate or investment reporting
represented in the GRI reporting standards as well as – beyond standardization – is to protect investors from
jurisdictional initiatives such as European sustainable the risk of greenwashing. Claims of positive societal and
finance regulations (e.g., disclosure of certain information environmental impacts have to be aligned with actual data
to assess a financial product’s footprint regarding the SFDR on the impact of the enterprise.
principal adverse impact indicators against achieving the
EU’s goals within the context of the UN’s 2030 agenda and
the Paris Agreement).

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 122
ENDNOTES
1 UN environment programme (2020).
2 Catella Group (2020).
3 PRI Association (2022c).
4 Financial Times (2022).
5 The Australian Financial Review (2022).
6 The Guardian (2022).
7 European Central Bank (2021).
8 Network for Greening the Financial System (2022).
9 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2022).
10 For further information on the challenges induced to the real estate industry by the regulatory changes see ‘Falling through the
cracks: SFDR’s impact on real estate investment’, INREV (2023).
11 As an example for the efforts to standardisation of data, see INREV Sustainability Reporting Guidelines - https://www.inrev.org/
guidelines/module/reporting#inrev-guidelines
12 European Union (2014b).
13 https://knowledge.uli.org/-/media/files/research-reports/2021/uli-zooming-in-on-the-s-in-esg-report.
pdf?rev=4ff2b4625ca64a7093c87be771b369c3&hash=9C10332C4CFFE4D6E8C0FFB0FC580CF4.
14 See the 2022 consultation for the FCA’s Sustainable Disclosure Requirements: https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/
consultation-papers/cp22-20-sustainability-disclosure-requirements-sdr-investment-labels .
15 European Commission (2022b).
16 CRREM (2020).
17 UNEP FI et al. (2022).
18 European Commission (2021c).
19 National Stock Market Commission in Spain
20 GRESB (2022).
21 UK Green Building Council (2017).
22 A. Amiri et al. (2021).
23 U.S. Green Building Council (2022).
24 European Commission (2021b).
25 European Commission (2022a).
26 European Commission (2022c).
27 ESMA (2021).
28 International Organization of Securities Commissions (2021).
29 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2022).
30 Larcker, D. et al. (2022).
31 Sustainalytics (2022) and MSCI (2022).
32 Financial Times (2020).
33 Platform on Sustainable Finance (2022).
34 European Union (2014a) and European Union (2011).
35 As an example, the German supervisory authority BaFin’s consultation (13/2021) on sustainable investment funds, currently on
hold until further legal clarity is achieved, available at BaFin (2021) , or SFDR Q&A, available at BaFin (2022).
36 Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (2022)
37 Submission to the FCA: ESG Metrics for Real Estate (2023)
38 CBI has developed and made available on its website an CO2 Target Calculator that enables issuers to ascertain the
performance targets that must be satisfied in order to gain certification in their cities, available at Climate Bonds Initiative
(2022a) and Climate Bonds Initiative (2022b).
39 Climate Bonds Initiative (2019).
40 Given the depth of the guidance, the scope for individual interpretation and number of references to other standards and
initiatives, the disclosures contained in the guidance could not be captured reliably in the mapping overview.
41 European Commission (2021a).
42 European Commission (2010).
43 EU Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (2020).
44 European Commission (2022a).
45 E.g., one criteria for acquisition and ownership of buildings requires that ‘For buildings built before 31 December 2020, the
building has at least an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) class A. As an alternative, the building is within the top 15% of
the national or regional building stock expressed as operational Primary Energy Demand (PED) and demonstrated by adequate
evidence, which at least compares the performance of the relevant asset to the performance of the national or regional stock
built before 31 December 2020 and at least distinguishes between residential and non-residential buildings.’
46 IFRS (2022).
47 CDP Scoring Introduction 2022, available at CDP (2022).
48 Deforestation is mapped to biodiversity, but the KPI biodiversity also includes overall questions on biodiversity from other
questionnaires.
49 Global Reporting Initiative (2022).
50 ESMA (2022).

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 123
REFERENCES
Amiri Ali, Emami Nargessadat, Ottelin Juudit, Sorvari Jaana, Marteinsson Björn, Heinonen Jukka, Junnila Seppo (2021):
Embodied emissions of buildings - A forgotten factor in green building certificates, Energy and Buildings, Volume 241, Nr.
110962.
BaFin (2021): Consultation 13/2021 - Draft BaFin guideline for sustainable investment funds, URL: https://www.bafin.de/
SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Konsultation/2021/kon_13_21_WA4_Leitlinien_nachhaltige_Investmentvermoegen.
html, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
BaFin (2022): EU Disclosure Regulation: BaFin publishes questions and answers, URL: https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/
Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Meldung/2022/meldung_2022_09_05_FAQ_OffenlegungsVO.html, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
BMUV (2022): Innenraumluft – Was ist das Problem?, URL: https://www.bmuv.de/themen/gesundheit-chemikalien/
gesundheit/innenraumluft#:~:text=Verunreinigungen%20der%20Innenraumluft%20sind%20einerseits,wie%20
Tabakrauchen%2C%20Kochen%20oder%20Heizen., retrieved: 27.12.2022.
Catella Group (2020): Market Tracker ESG Investment, URL: https://www.catella.com/globalassets/global/mix-germany-
corporate-finance/catella_market_tracker_esg_q1_2020.pdf, retrieved: 27.12.2022.
CDP (2022): Scoring Introduction 2022, URL: https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/guidance_docs/pdfs/000/000/233/
original/Scoring-Introduction.pdf, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
Climate Bonds Initiative (2019): Climate Bonds Standard Version 3.0, URL: https://www.climatebonds.net/files/files/climate-
bonds-standard-v3-20191210.pdf, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
Climate Bonds Initiative (2022): Location Specific Criteria for Commercial Buildings & Calculator, URL: https://www.
climatebonds.net/standard/buildings/commercial/calculator#calculator, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
Climate Bonds Initiative (2022b): Location Specific Criteria for Residential Buildings & Calculator, URL: https://www.
climatebonds.net/standard/buildings/residential/calculator, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
CRREM, 2020: Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor, URL: https://www.crrem.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CRREM-Risk-
Assessment-Reference-Guide-2020-09-21.pdf, retrieved: 09.02.2023.
DGNB (2022): Sustainable finance: How EU taxonomy relates to DGNB building certification, URL: https://www.dgnb.de/en/
news/statements/backround-information-taxonomy/index.php, retrieved: 02.10.2022.
Dodge Construction Network (2021): World Green Building Trends 2021, Smart Market Report.
EU Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (2020): Taxonomy Report: Technical Annex, URL: https://ec.europa.eu/
info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/200309-sustainable-finance-teg-final-
report-taxonomy-annexes_en.pdf, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
European Central Bank (2021): ECB economy-wide climate stress test, Occasional Paper Series No 281, September 2021.
European Commission (2010): List of NACE codes, URL: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/index/nace_all.
html, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
European Commission (2021a): Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 of 4 June 2021 supplementing
Regulation (EU) 2020/852, URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32021R2139, retrieved:
02.12.2022.
European Commission (2021b): European Green Deal: Commission proposes to boost renovation and decarbonisation of
buildings, URL: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_6683, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
European Commission (2021c): Sustainable Finance and EU Taxonomy: Commission takes further steps to channel
money towards sustainable activities, URL: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1804, retrieved:
14.01.2023.
European Commission (2022a): About the EU Taxonomy Compass, URL: https://ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance-
taxonomy/home, retrieved: 02.12.2022.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 124
European Commission (2022b): Energy performance of buildings directive, URL: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-
efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive_en, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
European Commission (2022c): International Platform on Sustainable Finance, URL: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/
sustainable-finance/international-platform-sustainable-finance_en, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
European Commission (2022d): Targeted consultation on the functioning of the ESG ratings market in the European Union
and on the consideration of ESG factors in credit ratings, URL: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/regulation-and-supervision/
consultations/finance-2022-esg-ratings_en, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
European Union (2011): AIFMD (Directive 2011/61/EU), URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=OJ:L:2011:174:0001:0073:EN:PDF, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
European Union (2014a): MiFID II (Directive 2014/65/EU), URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0065, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
European Union (2014b): Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), (Directive 2014/95/EU), URL: https://eur-lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
European Union (2019): SFDR, URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32019R2088, retrieved:
02.12.2022.
ESMA (2021): ESMA Report on Trends, Risks and Vulnerabilities, Nr. 1/ 2021, ESMA50-165-1524, 17.03.2021.
ESMA (2022): Ref: ISSB’s Exposure Drafts ‘IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial
Information’ and ‘IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures’, ESMA32-334-541, 13.07.2022.
FCA (2022): Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) and investment labels, URL: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/
consultation/cp22-20.pdf, retrieved: 28.12.2022.
Feierman, Andrew (2015): What’s in a Green Lease? Measuring the Potential Impact of Green Leases in the U.S. Office
Sector, Institute for Market Transformation, 05/2015.
Financial Times (2020): SEC chair warns of risks tied to ESG ratings, URL: https://www.ft.com/content/2c662135-4fd3-
4c1b-9597-2c6f8f17faed, retrieved: 01.10.2022.
Financial Times (2022): German police raid DWS and Deutsche Bank over greenwashing allegations, URL: https://www.
ft.com/content/ff27167d-5339-47b8-a261-6f25e1534942, retrieved: 15.08.2022.
Global Reporting Initiative (2022): The stakeholder capitalism revolution is well underway, URL: https://www.
globalreporting.org/news/news-center/the-stakeholder-capitalism-revolution-is-well-underway/, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
GOV.UK (2021): Greening Finance: A Roadmap to Sustainable Investing, URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
greening-finance-a-roadmap-to-sustainable-investing, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
GRESB (2022): Real Estate Reference Guide, URL: https://documents.gresb.com/generated_files/real_estate/2022/real_
estate/reference_guide/complete.html, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
Hines (2022a): About the Firm, URL: https://www.hines.com/about, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
Hines (2022b): A plan for our planet, Net zero operational carbon by 2040, URL: https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/
hines-assets/documents/Tomorrow_Hines_Carbon-Target-piece_R3_070522.-FINAL.pdf, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
IFRS (2022): ISSB Update October 2022, URL: https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/updates/issb/2022/issb-update-
october-2022/#1, retrieved: 28.10.2022.
International Organisation of Securities Commissions (2021): Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Ratings and
Data Products Providers, Final Report, FR09/21.
Ivanhoé Cambridge (2022): 2021 Activity Report, Investing with Conviction, URL: https://s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/
assets.production.ivanhoecambridge.com/2022/08/IVA-238-Activity-report-en-FINAL-v3.pdf, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
JLL (2022): The value of sustainability - Evidence for a green premium in Asia, URL: https://www.jll.com.sg/en/trends-and-
insights/research/the-value-of-sustainability-asia-pacifics-green-premium-opportunity, retrieved: 28.12.2022.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 125
Larcker, David F. and Pomorski, Lukasz and Tayan, Brian and Watts, Edward (2022): ESG Ratings: A Compass without
Direction, Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University Working Paper Forthcoming, 2 August 2022.
MSCI (2022): What MSCI’s ESG Ratings are and are not, URL: https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/esg-investing/esg-
ratings/what-esg-ratings-are-and-are-not, retrieved: 30.09.2022.
Network for Greening the Financial System (2022): Final report on bridging data gaps, URL: https://www.ngfs.net/sites/
default/files/medias/documents/final_report_on_bridging_data_gaps.pdf, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
Platform on Sustainable Finance (2022): Draft Report on Minimum Safeguards, URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/
default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/draft-report-minimum-safeguards-july2022_en.pdf,
retrieved: 02.12.2022.
PRI Association (2017): The SDG Investment Case, Executive summary, URL: https://www.unpri.org/sustainable-
development-goals/the-sdg-investment-case/303.article, retrieved: 15.10.2022.
PRI Association (2020): Investing with SDG Outcomes: A Five-Part Framework, URL: https://www.unpri.org/
download?ac=10795, retrieved: 15.10.2022.
PRI Association (2022a): About the PRI, URL: https://www.unpri.org/about-us/about-the-pri, retrieved: 22.11.2022.
PRI Association (2022b): PRI Annual Report 2022, URL: https://dwtyzx6upklss.cloudfront.net/Uploads/b/f/m/pri_annual_
report_2022_689047.pdf, retrieved: 22.11.2022.
PRI Association (2022c): Real Estate – Introductory guides to responsible investment, URL: https://www.unpri.org/
introductory-guides-to-responsible-investment/an-introduction-to-responsible-investment-real-estate/5628.article,
retrieved: 12.01.2023.
Siera (2022): Innovative ESG reporting software for the real estate industry, URL: https://www.siera.global/solutions/esg-
reporting-software-siera/, retrieved: 13.01.2023.
Sustainalytics (2022): ESG Risk Ratings, URL: https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-data, retrieved: 29.09.2022.
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (2017): Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-
related Financial Disclosures, URL: https://assets.bbhub.io/company/sites/60/2021/10/FINAL-2017-TCFD-Report.pdf,
retrieved: 02.12.2022.
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (2022): Proposals – ESG Metrics for Real Estate, URL: at https://www.
inrev.org/system/files/2023-01/AREF_BPF_CREFCE_INREV_IPF_PFP_TGE%20Working%20Group%20Submission%20
to%20FCA_TCFD_ISSB%20Proposals%20ESG%20Metrics%20for%20Real%20Estate_12%20January%202023.pdf
retrieved: 02.12.2022.
The Australian Financial Review (2022): ASIC investigates super funds for greenwashing, URL: https://www.afr.com/policy/
tax-and-super/asic-investigating-super-funds-and-listed-firms-for-greenwashing-20221011-p5boy5, retrieved: 28.10.2022.
The Guardian (2022): Australia’s corporate regulator issues first fine for greenwashing, URL: https://www.theguardian.com/
environment/2022/oct/27/australias-corporate-regulator-issues-first-fine-for-greenwashing, retrieved: 28.10.2022.
Thomson Reuters (2022): China moves to standardize fragmented ESG reporting landscape, URL: https://www.
thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/news-and-media/china-esg-reporting/, retrieved: 28.12.2022.
UK Green Building Council (2017): Embodied Carbon: Developing a Client Brief, URL: https://www.ukgbc.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/09/UK-GBC-EC-Developing-Client-Brief.pdf, retrieved: 02.11.2022.
UN environment programme (2020): Building sector emissions hit record high, but low-carbon pandemic recovery can help
transform sector – UN report, URL: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/building-sector-emissions-hit-
record-high-low-carbon-pandemic, retrieved: 22.11.2022.
UNEP FI et al. (2022): Managing Transition Risk in Real Estate: Aligning to the Paris Climate Accord, URL: (https://www.
unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Managing-transition-risk-in-real-estate.pdf, retrieved: 09.02.2023.
United Nations (2022): The Paris Agreement, What is the Paris Agreement?, URL: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/
the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement, retrieved: 22.11.2022.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 126
U.S. Green Building Council (2022): Resilience, URL: https://www.usgbc.org/about/priorities/resilience, retrieved:
02.12.2022.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2022): Staff Report on Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organisations,
URL: https://www.sec.gov/files/2022-ocr-staff-report.pdf, retrieved: 02.12.2022.
WEF (2022): A Leapfrog Moment for China in ESG Reporting, URL: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_China_ESG_
Champions_2021.pdf, retrieved: 28.12.2022.
White House (2022): President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law, URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/bipartisan-
infrastructure-law/#electricvehicle, retrieved: 28.12.2022.
World Biodiversity Summit (2022): The Global Biodiversity Framework is Here. Did We Get Our ‘Paris Moment for Nature’?,
URL: https://www.worldbiodiversitysummit.org/post/a-historic-moment-the-global-biodiversity-framework-is-agreed,
retrieved: 27.12.2022.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987): The Brundtland report: Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Ziggytec (2022): Implement IoT technology to improve resource efficiency, URL: https://ziggytec.com/solutions-smart-
buildings/, retrieved: 14.12.2022.

Mapping ESG: A Landscape Review of Certifications, Reporting Frameworks and Practices 127