Why 68% of GRESB Submissions Fail on Data — Not Performance

Every year, thousands of real estate portfolios submit to GRESB expecting their sustainability investments to translate into strong scores. The reality is starkly different. 68% of submission failures trace back to data gaps — not building performance. The buildings are often performing well. The data behind them is not.

The numbers tell the story. Over 2,000 entities now report to GRESB, representing $8.8 trillion in assets under management. More than 150 institutional investors use these benchmarks to make allocation decisions. Yet most submitters don't know their coverage percentage before hitting the submit button. When coverage falls below 75%, scoring is blocked entirely. When completeness drops under 12 months, the submission is flagged as incomplete. These aren't performance problems — they're infrastructure problems.

The root cause is a disconnect between ESG strategy and data operations. Fund managers invest in energy-efficient systems, green building certifications, and sustainability consultants. But the metering infrastructure, billing data collection, and utility records that feed the actual submission remain fragmented. A building can have best-in-class HVAC and still fail GRESB because three of its eight meters aren't reporting data.

This is the problem EDRA was designed to solve. By scoring data readiness before submission — measuring coverage, completeness, continuity, structural integrity, and governance — portfolios can identify and close gaps weeks before the GRESB deadline. The question isn't whether your buildings are green. It's whether your data can prove it.

The cost of not knowing is always higher than finding out. A failed submission means 12 months lost, non-refundable fees, and damaged credibility with investors who expected a rating. EDRA turns that risk into a pre-flight check — one that takes 48 hours, not 12 months.