Understanding “like-for-like” performance and its GRESB scoring impact
As ESG reporting continues to evolve, frameworks like GRESB are placing greater emphasis on transparency, comparability and measurable impact. Thanks to our GRESB Partners‘ exclusive Early Access to the essential 2026 GRESB reporting resources and updatd materials, January offers perfect timing to revisit one of the most important concepts shaping performance outcomes across the assessment: Like-for-Like (LFL) performance and its associated scoring.
What does “Like-for-Like” mean?
In the context of GRESB reporting, LFL refers to comparing the same assets over two consecutive reporting years, ensuring that any change in ESG performance including net zero is due to operational improvement, not portfolio changes such as acquisitions, sales or refurbishments.
This method filters out “noise” in the data and provides a true reflection of performance trends, helping managers identify where real efficiency gains are being made and improvement opportunities lie.
To be included in the LFL reporting, assets must meet several eligibility criteria in both current and previous reporting years;
- Data availability: covering the full year (> 355 days of performance data)
- Data coverage: the data must be positive i.e. not zero or null
- Data consistency: coverage between the two years must be consistent i.e. within a 1% error threshold
- Asset classification: the asset must be classified as a Standing Investment.
Conscious that the most virtuous buildings cannot just keep recording year-on-year energy improvement over time and shouldn’t be penalised for reaching an optimised performance, in 2025 GRESB introduced an alternative bonus to their operational scoring – ensuring that real estate assets are benchmarked against values aligned with technical feasibility but also financial viability.
Based on their climate zone and the property sub-type, assets that already demonstrate a high degree of efficiency in comparison with certain external thresholds provided by ASHRAE 100, can now achieve similar GRESB scores (i.e. 2.5 points for Indicator EN1) compared to less performing buildings that may indeed find easier to improve their energy performance during the last two consecutive reporting years.
It should be noted that this alternative bonus to LFL still does NOT apply to other material topics such as water, GHG emissions or waste.
The energy efficiency score is calculated for assets that:
- are classified as Standing Investments
- have a full year (at least 355 days) of data availability
- have vacancy rate lower than 20%
- have an Energy Data Coverage (area/time) of at least 75%
GRESB 2026 scoring model overview
GRESB scoring is fully automated and standardised, with a maximum score of 100 points for each Benchmark across all indicators. The structure is divided into Components, each reflecting a different aspect of ESG management.
The Development Benchmark is intended for assets under design, new constructions and major renovation projects. Its 100 points are broken down into:
- Management Component | 30 points
- Development Component | 70 points
The Standing Investments Benchmark is instead intended for operational assets. Its 100 points are broken down into:
- Management Component | 30 points
- Performance Component | 70 points
Only vacant land, dormant assets, cash, ground leases or other non–real estate assets owned by the entity may be excluded from GRESB reporting.
Each indicator falls under one of the three ESG dimensions:
| Component | Environmental (E) | Social (S) | Governance (G) |
| Management | 0% | 34.2% | 65.8% |
| Development | 75.7% | 18.6% | 5.7% |
| Performance | 88.6% | 11.4% | 0% |
These weightings show that GRESB’s current materiality assessment prioritises environmental performance for both operational buildings and development projects, while emphasising strong governance practices at the management level – as expected.
How LFL fits into the scoring structure
The figure above, proudly created using human intelligence, illustrates how LFL performance is embedded within the GRESB scoring framework, particularly across the Performance Component. It highlights where LFL applies within key environmental indicators alongside data coverage and absolute performance, reinforcing that LFL improvement is a core driver of performance outcomes rather than a standalone metric.
It should be noted that performance-related scores currently represent approximately 17% of the total Performance Component scoring, broken down as per the bullet points below:
ENERGY and GHG emissions| 6.5 points
- Energy performance (either energy efficiency or LFL): 2.5p
- Renewable energy performance: 2p
- GHG LFL performance improvement: 2p
WATER and WASTE | 4.75 points
- Water LFL performance improvement: 2
- Water reuse and recycling performance: 0.75
- Waste diversion proportion: 2
As detailed in our blog article here, GRESB is planning to progressively increase the weighting of performance-related scoring over the course of the next few years, with clear targets to:
- increase the points allocated to ESG performance to 50;
- go beyond energy, GHG emissions, water and waste and include all material topics in real estate.
Within the Performance Component, GRESB applies Relative Scoring to assess asset-level metrics, including:
- EN1 – Energy
- GH1 – GHG emissions
- WT1 – Water
- WS1 – Waste
- BC1.1 / BC1.2 – Operational building certifications
- BC2 – Energy ratings
- DBC1.2 – Green building certifications
Relative Scoring contributes a significant proportion of the Performance Component, with results determined not only by absolute performance, but by comparing an entity’s score to the GRESB universe of peers.
Assets are benchmarked dynamically based on property sub-type and country, with results weighted by Gross Asset Value (GAV) so that higher-value assets have proportionally greater influence on the final score.
To put things in perspective, “relative scoring” currently contributes to 42.5 points out of the 70 Performance points (that’s over 60%!) and 9 points out of the 70 Development points.
Why this matters
For investors, LFL scoring provides confidence that reported sustainability gains are credible, comparable and decision-useful. It also reassures the industry that a portfolio is moving towards the right direction in terms of ESG performances over time.
For managers, it creates a clear feedback loop to prioritise operational improvements and align asset strategies with decarbonisation and net zero goals.
For the broader stakeholders base, it raises expectations around data quality, accountability and performance-led ESG reporting.
Final thoughts
Like-for-Like analysis goes beyond compliance, it’s about showing progress that’s real, measurable and meaningful. As the GRESB 2026 updates begin to shape future assessments, LFL performance remains a cornerstone of how ESG outcomes are tracked, benchmarked and rewarded across the built environment.
Feel free to reach out to our team of certified GRESB APs and accredited BREEAM In-Use Assessors to find out more about your portfolio’s ESG performance and how we can help you with a bespoke solution for your assets in 2026!
