The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-578X.htm

The increasing importance Environmental

sustainability
of environmental sustainability in real estate
markets
in global real estate
investment markets 411
Graeme Newell and Muhammad Jufri Marzuki Received 16 January 2022
Revised 15 March 2022
School of Business, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia Accepted 15 March 2022

Abstract
Purpose – Within the context of ESG (Environment, Social and Governance), environmental sustainability
has taken on increased global importance in recent years. Similarly, real estate investment managers in
developing their global real estate investment portfolios need a fuller understanding of the ESG and
environmental sustainability dimensions of these global real estate markets for more informed real estate
investment decisions. Using the JLL GRETI sustainability sub-index, this paper examines the environmental
sustainability transparency status of 99 global real estate markets over 2016–2020 and explores various
strategic issues regarding ESG and environmental sustainability; particularly the critical issues relating to
climate risk mitigation, climate resilience and zero-carbon. The current status of environmental sustainability
in these 99 real estate markets is assessed, with areas for “best practice” improvement identified to the benefit of
real estate investment managers; particularly the improvements needed in ESG to support real estate
investment in the emerging real estate markets.
Design/methodology/approach – The JLL GRETI sustainability sub-index is analysed to examine strategic
issues relating to environmental sustainability transparency. 99 real estate markets are assessed globally for a
range of critical ESG issues over 2016–2020. Differences between the developed and emerging real estate
markets are highlighted.
Findings – Considerable variation was seen in the ESG and environmental sustainability practices,
procedures and frameworks across these 99 real estate markets. This was particularly evident amongst the
emerging real estate markets. Compared to the other five dimensions for real estate market transparency,
environmental sustainability was seen to be well behind these other dimensions in most markets. Progress has
been made in recent years, but it has been slow and steady rather than at a dynamic level. Clearly, more is
needed globally to enhance the stature of environmental sustainability in the context of an increasing focus on
ESG and specifically on climate risk mitigation, climate resilience and zero-carbon in real estate investment.
Practical implications – With ESG and environmental sustainability taking on increased importance across
the international real estate markets, it is important that real estate fund managers have a full understanding of
the ESG and environmental sustainability status of these real estate markets where they may be considering
real estate investment opportunities; this includes both the developed and emerging real estate markets. This is
essential to ensure future capital raising for new funds, as well as supporting the global ESG agenda by the real
estate investment community. Specific strategies are also identified for emerging real estate markets to
improve their environmental sustainability practices and ESG status.
Originality/value – This is the first paper to use the JLL GRETI sustainability sub-index to assess the
environmental sustainability status of 99 real estate markets globally; providing strategic insights for real
estate investment managers as they develop their global real estate portfolios and more fully embrace the
challenges of ESG and environmental sustainability in the real estate space going forward. Specific strategies
are clearly identified for all markets to improve their environmental sustainability ratings to the benefit of both
global real estate investment and the broader communities.
Keywords Environmental sustainability, ESG, Real estate market transparency, International real estate
investment, JLL GRETI sustainability Sub-index, Climate risk mitigation
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Property Investment &

Finance
Vol. 40 No. 4, 2022
pp. 411-429
The authors acknowledge the generous assistance of JLL/LaSalle in providing the necessary GRETI © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-578X
sustainability sub-index data. DOI 10.1108/JPIF-01-2022-0005
JPIF Introduction
40,4 Recent years have seen the increased importance of global real estate investment strategies
by the major real estate investment managers, as they seek to take advantage of the role and
benefits of international real estate in their portfolios. This includes diversification benefits,
potential excess market returns and access to a wider range of both developed and emerging
real estate markets. This has been particularly evident amongst the leading real estate
investment managers such as Brookfield, Blackstone, Hines, PGIM, Nuveen, CBRE Global
412 Investors, LaSalle, AXA and MetLife, with the top 150 real estate investment managers
having over V4.9 trillion in real estate assets under management globally in 2021 (IPE,
2021a). Similarly, this global real estate investment agenda has also been supported by the
major institutional investors (e.g. pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth
funds) using a range of real estate investment vehicles to capture this international real estate
exposure, including direct real estate, non-listed real estate funds, club deals, separate
accounts and REITs. These institutional investors include Allianz, APG, ADIA, CIC, CPPIB,
GIC, CalSTRS and CalPERS (IPE, 2021b).
For their more informed real estate investment decision-making, this international real
estate investment mandate has seen an increased importance on real estate investors’
understanding of international real estate market information, market players, capital
markets, legal systems and planning systems; capturing many aspects of real estate market
transparency. This need for an increased understanding of international real estate markets
has been facilitated by the role of the professional real estate associations (e.g. INREV,
ANREV, EPRA, APREA and IPF), as well as by the major real estate data providers and
advisory services (e.g. JLL, CBRE, Real Capital Analytics). All of these drivers have seen an
increased focus on improving the level of real estate market transparency. This broad context
of global real estate market transparency has been greatly supported by the development of
the JLL Global Real Estate Transparency Index (GRETI) (JLL, 2020a) to support global real
estate investment decision-making. This has been particularly important as many of the
world’s most dynamic cities are in the emerging real estate markets (e.g. China and India)
(JLL, 2020b). Hence, having access to this international information is a key element in more
informed real estate investment decision-making, particularly at a global level.
Another key aspect of international real estate investment decision-making that has taken
on critical importance for investors is ESG (Environment, Social, Governance), reflecting the
increased ESG and environmental sustainability agenda in the fuller investment space. This
has seen investors focused on the broader aspects of ESG and the specific strategic delivery
aspects needed in environmental sustainability within this ESG mandate. This change has
seen the language in recent years broaden from environmental sustainability to the fuller
agenda of ESG. This paper focuses on the E dimension of ESG that relates to environmental
sustainability.
Importantly, ESG is the strongly supported terminology today by major players in the real
estate industry, including professional groups (e.g. EPRA, INREV, APREA, ANREV, RICS,
IVS) and the major real estate investors (e.g. pension funds) (IPF, 2020). This has resulted
from global investor initiatives such as the UN Finance Initiative Principles for Responsible
Investment (PRI), Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), Net Zero Asset
Owners Alliance (NZAOA) and the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA),
supporting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and a strong global commitment to
reduce global warming and climate change.
This has seen a better alignment for investors and the broader objectives of society, acting
in the long-term interests of all stakeholders; consumers, community, industry, investors and
governments. A key driver is the high level of risk attached to environmental issues in the
fuller global risk perspective (WEF, 2021). Guidelines and procedures such as the Global
Reporting Initiative, Carbon Disclosure Project and the introduction of the Task Force for
Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) guidelines have also had considerable recent Environmental
impact in setting up this framework for reporting environmental sustainability for investors. sustainability
This has particularly been around the issues of climate risk mitigation, climate resilience and
zero-carbon strategies. As such, these drivers have been at a fuller general investment level,
in real estate
as well as at a real estate-specific investment level. markets
As the real estate sector is a key contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, waste,
and water and energy consumption, the real estate sector has actively embraced the
challenges of ESG and environmental sustainability in delivering a more environmentally 413
sustainable real estate investment sector going forward. Green building standards (e.g.
LEED, BREEAM, Energy Star, NABERS) have facilitated this process, as have the various
Green Building Councils and the International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment.
The development of the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) has also been
a key development for benchmarking ESG practices (particularly concerning environmental
sustainability by the real estate investment managers), with high GRESB fund ratings seen
as important for ongoing capital-raising activities and general investor support.
Importantly, these ESG factors are increasingly integrated into real estate investors’
decision-making processes, around key issues such as climate risk mitigation, climate
resilience, zero-carbon targets, and water, energy and waste management. This facilitates
effective comparisons across real estate investment opportunities, both locally and globally.
Many real estate investment managers are now seen as global leaders in the ESG space (e.g.
M&G, Nuveen, ProLogis, GPT, CapitaLand, CDL). Real estate investment managers clearly
see ESG and in particular environmental sustainability taking on increased importance going
forward in their real estate investment strategies; particularly at a global level (IPF, 2020).
Hence an in-depth knowledge of ESG practices in specific countries is now a key element in
the real estate investment decision-making processes by the leading real estate investment
managers.
While there is an extensive body of knowledge in the areas of international real estate
investment, transparency and ESG/environmental sustainability (see literature review
below), there is a clear research gap in understanding whether there have been improvements
in ESG/environmental sustainability practices across these international real estate markets.
This is a key issue for real estate investment managers and institutional investors in their real
estate investment strategic decision-making today. As such, given the importance of global
real estate investment strategies today, it is important to assess where the various
international real estate markets position in terms of their environmental sustainability
status and whether their environmental sustainability performance has improved in recent
years. Using the JLL Global Real Estate Transparency Index (GRETI), this paper drills into
the GRETI sustainability sub-index to assess the environmental sustainability status of 99
international real estate markets over 2016–2020. Particular attention is given to whether
environmental sustainability is improving globally, the countries which are global real estate
market leaders in environmental sustainability, as well as the major improvers over this time
period. Specific strategies are also identified for countries to improve their environmental
sustainability rating by embracing international best practice in this area of ESG. This will
improve their attractiveness to the global real estate investment managers and is applicable
across all real estate markets, and in particular for the emerging real estate markets globally.
The strategic international real estate investment implications are also highlighted.

Literature review
ESG and environmental sustainability
Much of the academic real estate research around ESG and environmental sustainability
have concerned critical real estate investment issues for institutional investors. This includes
JPIF the financial performance of green office buildings (e.g. Eichholtz et al., 2010, 2011; Newell
40,4 et al., 2014), the effectiveness of environmental certification (Fuerst et al., 2011a, b, c),
decarbonising frameworks (Hirsch et al., 2019), institutional investor requirements (Op’t Veld
and Vlasveld, 2014), sustainable real estate as a separate asset class (Greiger et al., 2016) and
the impact of sustainability on real estate investment (DeFrancesco and Levy, 2008). Overall,
this has seen a very positive body of evidence regarding the added-value of ESG in real estate
investment.
414 Specifically, at an individual property level, several important studies have also shown the
link between green office buildings and their financial performance across a range of real
estate performance metrics; further supporting the importance of ESG in real estate financial
performance. This includes Eichholtz et al. (2010, 2012), Gabe and Rehm (2014) and Newell
et al. (2014) in assessing the performance of green office buildings in the US and Australia.
While the earlier academic research into environmental sustainability and real estate has
been important in terms of validating environmental sustainability and real estate
performance, it has been at a very broad level and has not assessed critical real estate
issues in depth. More recent environmental sustainability and real estate research has added
significantly to the depth of this research around critical issues such as climate change risk
issues in real estate/valuation (e.g. Craddock et al., 2020; Warren-Myers and Craddock, 2022;
Warren-Myers et al., 2020 a, b), energy efficiency and the effectiveness of Energy
Performance Certificates (e.g. Fuerst et al., 2011a, b, c), decarbonisation frameworks/
strategies (e.g. Hirsch et al., 2019), separate asset class considerations (Geiger et al., 2016) and
environmental sustainability strategies by large real estate players (e.g. Op’t Veld and
Vlasveld, 2014). This academic research has been supplemented by high-quality industry
reports by leading real estate players into the practical delivery of best practice in ESG and
environmental sustainability in real estate (e.g. BNP Paribas Real Estate, 2019; GPIF, 2020;
GRESB, 2019; ULI and Heitman, 2019); often including incisive case studies in the real estate
space to highlight the importance of climate change risk management. More recently, IPF
(2020) has clearly demonstrated the importance of ESG in real estate investment decision-
making for real estate investors globally going forward.
The clear results from this body of knowledge regarding environmental sustainability are
the financial performance of sustainable commercial real estate, the increasing importance of
ESG and environmental sustainability and the importance of ESG issues in real estate
investment decision-making by real estate investors. This is particularly around the issues of
climate risk mitigation, climate resilience and zero-carbon strategies, as real estate investors
develop their domestic and global real estate portfolios to more fully embrace ESG issues.

Real estate market transparency

Real estate market transparency research has been limited. Only Lieser and Groh (2011,
2014), Newell (2008, 2016), Farzanegan and Fereidouni (2014), Fereidouni and Masron (2013)
and Sadayuki et al. (2019) have assessed this key issue, with Newell (2008, 2016), Farzanegan
and Fereidouni (2014) and Sadayuki et al. (2019) using the JLL global real estate transparency
index. Other related research has been in the broader area of real estate market maturity (e.g.
Chin et al., 2006; Ke and Sieracki, 2013; Keogh and D’Arcy, 1994, 1999); often focused on the
emerging real estate markets. Equivalent transparency research in the listed real estate
markets has largely focused on corporate governance and disclosure issues for REITs (e.g.
An et al., 2011; Eichholtz et al., 2011).
This real estate market transparency research has assessed issues around linkages
between economic competitiveness and real estate transparency (Newell, 2008), linkages
between foreign real estate investment and real estate transparency (Farzanegan and
Fereidouni, 2014; Fereidouni and Masron, 2013; Sadayuki et al., 2019), country attractiveness
to real estate investors (Lieser and Groh, 2011, 2014) and the transparency of specific markets Environmental
(e.g. Europe) (Newell, 2016). This research clearly highlighted the importance of real estate sustainability
market transparency for global real estate investors in making more-informed real estate
investment decisions.
in real estate
Importantly, there is a clear research gap regarding a critical analysis of the assessment of markets
real estate market transparency and ESG. This is an important issue for real estate
investment managers going forward, as they expand their global real estate portfolios and
embrace the increasing priority given to ESG by investors. This issue of real estate market 415
transparency and the environmental sustainability dimension of ESG is the focus of
subsequent sections of this paper.

Global real estate transparency index: GRETI

A key development in understanding real estate market transparency at a global level has
been the JLL Global Real Estate Transparency Index (GRETI) (JLL, 2020a). This has been a
key ingredient for real estate investment managers understanding the transparency of
specific real estate markets as they expand their global real estate investment mandates.
The JLL Global Real Estate Transparency Index (GRETI) is produced every two years,
with the 2020 index being the 11th edition (JLL, 2020a). The 2020 JLL GRETI index assessed
the real estate transparency for 99 real estate markets at a country level. The market coverage
has increased significantly in subsequent years since its introduction (e.g. 2004: # 5 51
markets; 2008: # 5 81; 2012: # 5 97) to fully cover the global real estate investment markets.
These GRETI scores are based on the practices in the specified city real estate market in these
countries; in some cases, more than one city is used; largely for the developed markets.
Real estate markets are classified into five levels of transparency; high transparency,
transparent, semi-transparent, low transparency and opaque. This is based on each market’s
real estate transparency index, scored as 1.0 (high transparency) to 5.0 (low transparency),
with lower scores indicating higher transparency. Six transparency sub-indices contribute to
the overall index, comprising performance measurement (25% weighting; 26 questions),
market fundamentals (16.5%; 114 questions), governance of listed vehicles (10%; 10
questions), regulatory and legal (23.5%; 33 questions), the transaction process (15%; 16
questions) and sustainability (10% weighting; 11 questions). 14 transparency topics
including direct real estate indices (9 questions), listed real estate securities indices
(7 questions), private real estate fund indices (5 questions), valuations (5 questions),
fundamentals data (114 questions), financial disclosure (6 questions), corporate governance (4
questions), regulation (13 questions), land and real estate registration (9 questions), eminent
domain (3 questions), real estate debt (8 questions), sales transactions (7 questions), occupier
services (9 questions) and sustainability (11 questions) are assessed. The overall GRETI score
per country is the average of these six sub-indices, based on their overall GRETI index
weighting. Full details of specific questions are available in JLL (2020a). The dynamics of the
GRETI sustainability sub-index is the primary focus of this paper with fuller details of this
sustainability sub-index given in the next section.
This sees these 14 transparency topics assessed using 210 transparency measures per
country; see Table 1 (JLL, 2020a), comprising both quantitative measures (# 5 52 measures;
29%) and qualitative measures (# 5 158 measures; 71%). This real estate information is
based on available real estate market data and survey information from JLL/LaSalle staff in
the respective countries/regions in their extensive global real estate network. This sees
detailed data on the available market fundamentals for each of the real estate types (i.e. office,
retail, industrial, hotels, residential). This includes all available data series, not just those
produced by JLL. For national surveys, the market fundamentals data is based on the
conditions in the main city in each country. These scores are reviewed and moderated by
JPIF Performance measurement: direct property indices, listed real estate securities indices, private real estate fund
40,4 indices, valuations
Market fundamentals: market fundamentals data for office, retail, industrial, hotels and residential
Governance of listed vehicles: financial disclosure, corporate governance
Regulatory and legal: real estate tax/land-use planning controls/enforceability of contracts; property
registration; compulsory purchase; debt regulation
Transaction process: presale information/bidding processes/professional standards of agents/anti-money
416 laundering regulations; occupier services
Sustainability: green building regulations/energy benchmarking/energy efficiency standards/carbon
Table 1. reporting/green leases/financial performance of green buildings/net zero carbon frameworks/health and
GRETI transparency wellness certification/resilient building standards/water efficiency standards
topics Source(s): JLL (2020a)

regional and global coordinators at JLL to ensure objectivity and rigor in this screening
process. Based on these 210 questions, the six GRETI sub-indices are produced, as well as the
GRETI overall index. Cut-off points are used to define the boundaries for each transparency
category. The number of transparency measures has increased over the years, increasing
from 83 in 2012 to 139 in 2016 and to 186 in 2018; further seeing a more rigorous and relevant
framework to assessing real estate market transparency.
These transparency measures have improved considerably over time; both in terms of the
number of questions and the depth of questions. The breadth and depth of the information
used to assess this measure of real estate transparency sees the necessary critical ingredients
of real estate transparency incorporated into this benchmark measure of real estate market
transparency. This includes real estate market information, regulatory and legal information,
capital markets information, transaction information, institutional information and
sustainability information. This addresses a wide range of specific real estate risk issues
including those associated with agency and brokers, deducing title, taxation, lease disputes,
landlord and tenant law, and sustainability, which can be critical factors in less transparent
real estate markets. The JLL global real estate transparency index also covers both the
investor and occupier dimensions of transparency.
Importantly, real estate markets can improve their transparency level over time; e.g.
opaque to low transparency, semi-transparent to transparent, transparent to high
transparency. This is particularly relevant to the emerging markets as they improve their
level of real estate transparency and real estate market sophistication over time. The JLL
global real estate transparency index is used extensively by institutional investors (pension
funds, sovereign wealth funds, insurance companies), real estate funds (non-listed and listed)
and real estate advisory researchers to facilitate more informed strategic real estate
investment decision-making at a local, regional and global level, as well as in high-quality
advisory research to support clients.
The 2020 profile of the JLL global real estate transparency index is given in Table 2. Of the
99 markets, there is extensive coverage of developed markets (21) and emerging markets (78).
Regional splits are also provided for Asia–Pacific (17 markets), Europe (32 markets),
Americas (18 markets), Middle East/North Africa (MENA) (17 markets) and Sub-Saharan
Africa (15 markets). Some countries are not assessed; this includes parts of Africa and the
Middle East. Overall, the high transparency/transparent markets account for 33% of real
estate markets, with the semi-transparent/low transparency/opaque markets accounting for
67% of real estate markets. Many of the emerging real estate markets fit into these less
transparent real estate categories, and see major opportunities for these countries to improve
their real estate market processes and practices which will result in improving their GRETI
score in subsequent iterations of GRETI. This is discussed in a subsequent section of this
paper in terms of specific strategies for improving their GRETI sustainability score.
Total number of markets: 99
Environmental
Market maturity: Developed (21); emerging (78) sustainability
Regions: Americas (18); Europe (32); Asia–Pacific (17); Middle East/North Africa (17); Sub-Sahara Africa (15) in real estate
markets
Transparency levels
Levels # %

High transparency 10 10.1 417

Transparent 23 23.2
Semi-transparent 26 26.3
Low transparency 21 21.2
Opaque 19 19.2
Total 99 100.0

Transparency category cut-off points

• High transparency: 1.00–1.96
• Transparent: 1.97–2.65
• Semi-transparent: 2.66–3.50
• Low transparency: 3.51–4.16
• Opaque: 4.17–5.00
Transparency sub-indices and topics
• Performance measurement (25% weight): Direct real estate performance indices; listed real estate
securities indices; unlisted real estate fund indices; valuations
• Market fundamentals (16.5% weight): market fundamentals data for office, retail, industrial, hotel and
residential sectors
• Governance of listed vehicles (10% weight): financial disclosure; corporate governance
• Regulatory and legal (23.5% weight): real estate tax; land use planning; building controls, enforceability of
contracts; property registration; compulsory purchase; debt regulation
• Transaction process (15% weight): pre-sale information; bidding processes; professional standards of
agents; occupier services Table 2.
• Sustainability (10% weight): green building regulations; energy benchmarking; energy efficiency Profile of JLL global
standards; carbon reporting; green leases; financial performance; net zero carbon frameworks; health and real estate
wellness certifications; resilient building standards; water efficiency standards transparency
Source(s): Authors’ compilation from JLL (2020a) index: 2020

Table 3 presents the real estate markets classified as high transparency (10) and transparent
(23) in the 2020 JLL GRETI; largely reflecting the developed real estate markets in Europe,
Americas and Asia–Pacific. The UK is the most transparent real estate market, with the US
(#2), Australia (#3) and France (#4). Marginal differences are evident in these top end
markets, with the USA and Australia having previously been classified as the most
transparent markets in 2012 and 2004–2010 respectively. At an overall level, Europe is seen

High transparency: UK (1), US (2), Australia (3), France (4), Canada (5), New Zealand (6), Netherlands (7), Ireland
(8), Sweden (9), Germany (10)
Transparent: Switzerland (11), Finland (12), Belgium (13), Singapore (14), Hong Kong (15), Japan (16), Italy (17),
Denmark (18), Spain (19), Poland (20), Austria (21), Norway (22), Taiwan (23), South Africa (24), Czech Republic Table 3.
(25), Portugal (26), Hungary (27), Slovakia (28), Malaysia (29), South Korea (30), Luxembourg (31), China (32), Global real estate
Thailand (33) market transparency:
Source(s): Authors’ compilation from JLL (2020a); *: Countries are given in rank order for overall real estate selected
market transparency countries: 2020*
JPIF as the most transparent region, followed by Asia–Pacific, the Americas, Sub-Saharan Africa
40,4 and the Middle East/North Africa.
As such, the JLL global real estate transparency index is the global benchmark for real
estate transparency across these 99 real estate markets, including both developed and
emerging markets. Importantly, in this JLL GRETI, there is a sustainability sub-index metric
for all of these international real estate markets (99). In this research, the JLL GRETI
environmental sustainability sub-index is assessed for these 99 real estate markets over
418 2016–2020 to examine the issue of improving environmental sustainability across these
international real estate markets. Full details of this GRETI sustainability sub-index are
given in the following section. The strategic real estate investment decision-making
implications are also highlighted for these increasingly important global real estate
investment mandates.
Importantly, the JLL GREIT has undergone refinements with each two-yearly iteration;
this includes coverage of more countries, more questions and different weightings of the six
GRETI sub-factor indices. This sees a fuller global representation, greater scrutiny, as well as
more breadth and depth in the base questions that comprise the six GRETI sub-indices and
overall GRETI index. These changes reflect evolving market dynamics and changing
investment priorities; with the key changes over 2016–2020 given in Table 4. Whilst these
changes have occurred in the GRETI index construction over 2016–2020, GRETI still
provides a robust and consistent measure of real estate market transparency which is
reflective of the evolving real estate investment market priorities at a global level,
Sustainability is a good example, where the weighting for sustainability in the overall GRETI
index has increased in each iteration; from 0% in 2016 to 5% in 2018 to 10% in 2020; as well as
the number of sustainability questions having increased with each iteration. This reflects the
increased importance given to ESG in the real estate investment decision-making process in
more recent years. This increased weight given to sustainability was off-set by reduced
weights for the performance measurement, market fundamentals and regulatory and legal
sub-indices. The reduction in the number of countries is largely attributable to the removal of
market tiers (Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3) within certain emerging markets (e.g. China, India, Brazil,
Russia) as these markets have improved.

GRETI sustainability sub-index

Of the six transparency sub-indices that comprise GRETI, the sustainability sub-index
provides an important dimension to the status of environmental sustainability in these 99
global real estate markets.

GRETI feature 2016 2018 2020

Number of countries 109 100 99

Number of questions (including split between quantitative and 139 186 210
qualitative questions) (64/75) (61/125) (52/158)
Weighting given to each sub-index
Performance measurement 25% 28.5% 25%
Market fundamentals 20% 16.5% 16.5%
Governance of listed vehicles 10% 10% 10%
Regulatory and legal 30% 25% 23.5%
Table 4. Transaction process 15% 15% 15%
Changes in GRETI Sustainability 0% 5% 10%
index: 2016–2020 Source(s): Authors’ compilation from JLL (2020a)
 Whilst environmental sustainability information has been collected as part of the GRETI Environmental
process since 2012, it has only been formally included in the GRETI ratings since 2018. The sustainability
importance of environmental sustainability in GRETI has also been reflected in its weighting
in the index increasing from 5% in 2018 to 10% in 2020, as well as the development of a
in real estate
separate sustainability sub-index since 2018. markets
Only 27 real estate markets were assessed in 2012; these largely being the established
developed markets (e.g. US, UK, Australia, Canada, France, Japan, Singapore, Germany,
Netherlands). However, this was expanded to cover all 99 real estate markets in 2016; 419
covering all GRETI markets to ensure consistency with the other transparency sub-indices
in GRETI.
Of the 210 items assessed in GRETI, 11 items relate to sustainability and are used in
developing the sustainability sub-index; this having increased from only 7 items in 2018.
These items cover the areas of green buildings, energy benchmarking, energy efficiency
standards, carbon reporting, green leases, financial performance of green buildings, net zero
carbon frameworks, health and wellness certifications, resilient building standards and water
efficiency standards. Table 5 provides specific details of these 11 items assessed regarding
sustainability in this GRETI sustainability sub-index. In 2020, the leading countries for
sustainability transparency were France (#1), Australia (#2), UK (#3), US (#4) and
Canada (#5).
The following section analyses the JLL GRETI sustainability sub-index to assess a range
of critical sustainability issues across these 99 real estate markets. For consistency over
2016–2020, only those items assessed each period were used; this ensures consistency of
changes over time rather than changes possibly being due to changes in questions.
While the overall JLL GRETI has been used in a number of previous studies (see literature
review above), this is the first paper to use the JLL GRETI sustainability sub-index to assess
the scope and significance of environmental sustainability across these 99 real estate
investment markets over 2016–2020.

Methodology
For each of 2016, 2018 and 2020, each of the 99 countries to be assessed had a GRETI
sustainability sub-index score, based on market information and expert opinion using these
quantitative and qualitative questions; see GRETI sustainability sub-index section
previously. These country sustainability scores were over the range of 1.0–5.0, with lower
scores indicating superior sustainability practices and procedures. This enabled the
identification for the leading countries regarding environmental sustainability. Countries
were classified into the specific sustainability categories (e.g. high transparency, transparent

Existence of green building financial performance index

Existence and usage of green building certification systems
Existence and usage of health and wellness certification systems
Existence of resilient building standards
Existence of net zero carbon building frameworks
Existence of carbon reporting frameworks
Existence and use of energy benchmarking system
Existence and coverage of minimum energy efficiency standards for new buildings
Existence and coverage of minimum energy efficiency standards for existing buildings Table 5.
Existence of water efficiency standards for new or existing buildings Items assessed in the
Existence and use of green lease framework GRETI sustainability
Source(s): JLL (2020a) sub-index: 2020
JPIF through to opaque), based on the specified cut-off points from the overall GRETI categories
40,4 (see Table 2). Countries were classified as developed vs emerging and by region, as well as an
overall global sustainability score obtained. Based on these GRETI sustainability scores, real
estate markets can be ranked to get a relative sense of their positioning. This data was
provided by JLL.
For the analysis in this paper, changes in scores were assessed for each country for
2016–2020 and 2018–2020 to assess short-term and medium-term changes in environmental
420 sustainability. This change in the GRETI sub-index enabled the identification of the major
transparency improvers in sustainability practices, as well as those who lagged behind in
their sustainability practices. Regional averages and developed market/emerging market
averages were also obtained to assess the sustainability dynamics of these different growth
phases of these markets. An overall GRETI sustainability change across all 99 countries was
also calculated.
Equivalent scores per country were used for each of the other five GRETI sub-index
categories. This enabled a comparison of the changes over time for sustainability vs the other
five GRETI sub-index categories; to assess the extent of improvement in sustainability vs the
extent of improvement in the other GRETI sub-index categories. Correlations between the six
GRETI sub-indices are also assessed, based on their 2016, 2018 and 2020 scores.

Have sustainability practices improved globally?

Overall
Table 6 details the leading countries for sustainability transparency in 2020, with France
(#1), Australia (#2) and the UK (#3) being the top 3 real estate markets. The developed
markets dominate the leaders in this space. The leading emerging markets are also given in
Table 6.
In 97% of cases, the GRETI sustainability sub-index score was less than the overall
GRETI score. This was the case for both the developed and emerging markets; e.g. France
(2.36 vs 1.31), US (2.45 vs 1.35), Australia (2.00 vs 1.39), France (1.91 vs 1.44) and Canada
(2.55 vs 1.51). This reinforces the need to improve environmental sustainability practices
globally relative to the other five aspects of real estate market transparency, which typically
have longer track records in developing their maturity and transparency. The only
exceptions were Abu Dhabi, Costa Rica and Panama, where improved government
regulations in sustainability were implemented.
This lesser stature of sustainability across the global real estate markets is also evident in
an overall comparison of the five transparency categories. Using the same cut-off points
between the real estate transparency categories, this was:
(1) High Transparency: GRETI: 10.1% vs Sustainability sub-index: 1.0%
(2) Transparent: GRETI: 23.2% vs Sustainability sub-index: 5.1%
(3) Semi Transparent: GRETI: 26.3% vs Sustainability sub-index: 25.3%

Developed markets
France (1), Australia (2), UK (3), US (4), Singapore (5), Canada (6), Sweden (7), Netherlands (8), Spain (9), Japan
(10), Denmark (11), Belgium (12), Ireland (13), Hong Kong (14), Germany (17)

Table 6. Emerging markets

Leading real estate Abu Dhabi (15), Italy (16), Slovakia (19), India (21), Dubai (22), Portugal (24), Philippines (25), Romania (26),
markets in Mexico (27), Greece (28)
sustainability: 2020 Source(s): Authors’ compilation
 (4) Low Transparency: GRETI: 21.2% vs Sustainability sub-index: 18.2% Environmental
(5) Opaque: GRETI: 19.2% vs Sustainability sub-index: 50.5%. sustainability
This saw over 68% of real estate markets being classified as low transparency or opaque in
in real estate
the sustainability transparency dimension, well above the 40% of real estate markets at the markets
overall GRETI level. This further reinforces the need to improve global ESG practices relative
to the other five aspects of real estate market transparency.
Overall, the sustainability average score was 4.16 (in 2016), 4.08 (in 2018) and 4.03 (in 2020). 421
The resulting improvements in sustainability overall were 1.2% over 2018–2020 and 3.1%
over 2016–2020; seeing slow, but steady improvements overall. This saw 47.5% of markets
improve their sustainability rating over 2016–2020, 41.4% of markets show no change and
11.1% of markets decline in their sustainability scores. Analyses are not presented here for
prior to 2016 due to the much lesser number of real estate markets with this information
available.
It is important to note that many real estate markets saw much larger increases in
sustainability than is evident in these average scores (e.g. 3.1% over 2016–2020); particularly
in the emerging markets. Over 2016–2020, amongst the emerging markets, this includes
Costa Rica (19%), Mexico (14%), South Africa (14%), South Korea (14%), Malaysia (13%),
Panama (13%) and Dubai (10%). Amongst the developed markets, the major improvers were
Canada (13%), Ireland (13%) and Sweden (12%). In most cases, these improvements were
directly attributable to key government initiatives in these specific countries targeted at
sustainability standards and certifications. This provides clear insights into how countries
can improve their GRETI sustainability scores; specific strategies to improve a country’s
sustainability score are given in the next section.
Aspects of environmental sustainability that tended to be more widely used across these
99 global real estate markets related to minimum energy efficiency standards in new
buildings, green building certifications, energy benchmarking and minimum energy
efficiency standards for existing buildings. Lesser aspects reported included the financial
performance of green buildings, building resilience standards, water efficiency standard,
health and wellness certifications, green leases, net zero carbon building frameworks and
carbon reporting.

Developed real estate markets vs emerging real estate markets

While the previous section presented the overall results regarding the GRETI sustainability
results over 2016–2020, it is important to do a “deeper dive” to differentiate between the
sustainability status of the developed and the emerging real estate markets. Major differences
in sustainability transparency were seen for the developed real estate markets compared to
the emerging real estate markets.
This saw the 2020 overall sustainability score of 4.03 being decomposed for the developed
real estate markets (2.85) and emerging real estate markets (4.34), clearly highlighting the
significant gap in sustainability practices in the developed vs the emerging real estate
markets; this confirms the results from IPF (2020). Over 2016–2020, this saw an overall 3.1%
increase in sustainability ratings, with this being more prominent in the developed real estate
markets (5.9% increase) compared to the emerging real estate markets (2.7% increase).
Equivalent increases for 2018–2020 were 2.7% for the developed real estate markets vs 1.1%
for the emerging real estate markets. This clearly highlights the level of improvement in
sustainability practices needed in the emerging real estate markets.
There are excellent examples of stronger performance in the sustainability space by some
emerging markets. This includes Abu Dhabi (15), Italy (16), Slovakia (19), India (21),
Dubai (22), Portugal (24), Philippines (25), Romania (26), Mexico (27) and Greece (28). However,
JPIF at the other end of the scale, the emerging real estate markets accounted for 67 of the 68 real
40,4 estate markets classified as low transparency or opaque in their sustainability transparency
levels. This includes many of the African, Middle East, Asian and Eastern Europe countries
that are yet to effectively develop their ESG standards and frameworks.
Clearly, there is a substantial amount of work needed to bring many of these emerging real
estate markets up to the levels expected by the real estate investment managers for ESG
standards, practices and frameworks. Specific strategies to facilitate this process are given in
422 the next section.

Sustainability sub-index vs other GRETI transparency sub-indices

Given that there are six transparency dimensions to GRETI, it is important to position the
status of the sustainability sub-index compared to the other five GRETI sub-indices of
performance measurement, market fundamentals, governance of listed vehicles, regulatory
and legal, and the transaction process. This is important to identify areas of improvement
needed across all sub-indices; particularly for sustainability.
Table 7 presents the top 10 countries for each of these transparency sub-indices. Whilst
there is some degree of commonality across the six GRETI sub-indices, there are clear
differences which reflect the capital markets and regulatory status of these markets, as many
have a long history of sophisticated real estate investment products such as REITs and
non-listed real estate funds that require strong legal environments, as well as a high level of
information concerning real estate market fundamentals. Clearly, the developed real estate
markets dominate the leaders in all of these GRETI sub-indices.
Table 8 presents the average scores for the 6 GRETI transparency sub-indices in 2020. In
priority order, they are: #1: transaction process (2.51), #2: regulatory and legal (2.62),
#3: governance of listed vehicles (3.00), #4: market fundamentals (3.42), #5: performance
measurement (3.64) and #6: sustainability (4.02). This clearly sees sustainability as the lowest
rated transparency feature (#6); well below the other five sub-indices for transparency.
When decomposed into the developed and emerging real estate markets (see Table 6),
there is some re-ordering of these priorities, but in both cases, sustainability is still last (6th) in
these transparency rankings. This clearly shows the need for improvement across both the
developed real estate markets and emerging real estate markets in overall ESG practices,
procedures and standards. This is particularly the case in the emerging real estate markets.
While the sustainability sub-index has shown the most improvement over 2018–2020, it is
still well behind the other transparency sub-indices.

Performance measurement
UK, US, Australia, France, Canada, Netherlands, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, Sweden
Market fundamentals
US, Netherlands, Australia, France, Canada, New Zealand, UK, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland
Governance of listed vehicles
US, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Ireland, Finland, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Germany
Regulatory and legal
UK, Canada, US, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, France, Australia, New Zealand, Japan
Transaction process
UK, France, New Zealand, Ireland, Belgium, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Spain, Czech Republic
Table 7. Sustainability
Comparison of top 10 France, Australia, UK, US, Singapore, Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Japan, Denmark
countries in the six GRETI overall
GRETI transparency UK, US, Australia, France, Canada, New Zealand, Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden, Germany
sub-indices Source(s): Authors’ compilation from JLL (2020a)
 The correlations between the sustainability sub-index and the other five sub-indices Environmental
varied over r 5 0.73 (governance of listed vehicles) to r 5 0.87 (performance measurement). sustainability
Further differences were highlighted for the developed real estate market correlations for
sustainability: ranging from r 5 0.39 (governance of listed vehicles) to r 5 0.70 (performance
in real estate
measurement). For the emerging real estate markets, these correlations with sustainability markets
ranged from r 5 0.57 (governance of listed vehicles) to r 5 0.72 (performance measurement).
The larger correlations for sustainability with the other sub-indices in the emerging real
estate markets reflect the growth that has been needed in all the transparency dimensions in 423
GRETI in recent years; particularly given the developed real estate markets often have a long
history of improved transparency with their sophisticated real estate investment vehicles,
whilst sustainability is a more recent priority.
Overall, these results for the JLL GRETI sustainability sub-index clearly indicate the
considerable room for improvement that is needed in sustainability practices, procedures and
frameworks across both the developed and emerging real estate markets to ensure that the
major real estate investment managers can make confident and informed decisions regarding
ESG practices as they develop their international real estate portfolios. This is in addition to
the broader community, government and business concerns over environmental
sustainability, where issues such as climate risk mitigation, climate resilience and zero-
carbon will take on critical importance in the near future.

Specific ESG strategies to improve GRETI sustainability ratings

Based on this analysis, there are clear differences across specific country GRETI
sustainability scores; this confirms the regional analyses for differences in ESG practices
from IPF (2020). This was particularly evident for the emerging markets (when compared to
the developed markets), as many of the emerging markets are only now starting their ESG
journey. Based on international best practice sustainability procedures and practices,
evidenced in the country leaders in ESG, many countries (e.g. emerging markets) could learn
from these examples to implement elements of ESG to improve their GRETI sustainability
scores in future iterations. This can be done, while still accounting for unique local practices
in their real estate markets. This is particularly relevant to emerging markets such as China
and India which are attracting significant international real estate investor capital.
At an overall GRETI level, the reasons the developed markets have such high GRETI
scores is due to the long history of these real estate markets, and the sophisticated financial
markets and regulatory structures in place. Many of these developed markets have had
REITs and non-listed real estate funds for many years, which bring a high level of financial
control and regulation to the real estate markets. Many of the emerging markets have only
recently established REIT markets (e.g. Nigeria, China, India) or are yet to have a REIT

Sub-index Overall Developed Emerging

Performance measurement 3.64 (5) 2.05 (4) 4.07 (5)

Market fundamentals 3.42 (4) 2.14 (5) 3.76 (4)
Governance of listed vehicles 3.00 (3) 1.45 (2) 3.42 (3)
Regulatory and legal 2.62 (2) 1.61 (3) 2.89 (2)
Table 8.
Transaction process 2.51 (1) 1.38 (1) 2.82 (1) Performance across the
Sustainability 4.02 (6) 2.85 (6) 4.34 (6) six GRETI sub-indices
Overall 3.16 1.88 3.51 for developed and
Source(s): Authors’ compilation emerging
*Rank of transparency sub-index is given in brackets markets: 2020*
JPIF market; being focused on REOCs in providing largely real estate development activities
40,4 rather than real estate investment activities. Similarly, the level of real estate market
information in many emerging markets needs to improve considerably. This will be assisted
by the development of real estate performance indices in the emerging real estate markets by
MSCI and the more active role of the international real estate advisory groups such as JLL and
CBRE in these emerging markets. This will bring a higher level of international best practice
in their overall real estate market operations.
424 This section now does a deeper review into the specific strategies that can be employed by
these emerging markets, based on the experiences of these developed markets with high
levels of ESG and sustainability practices. These ESG improvements largely relate to the
ESG frameworks and regulations concerning issues of energy and water benchmarks and
minimum standards for new and existing buildings, green certification schemes, green
building performance metrics, carbon reporting frameworks and zero carbon reporting
frameworks. In considering these procedures, these emerging markets can build up their
reputation in the area of ESG to be more attractive to international real estate investors who
require a higher level of ESG practices across their international real estate platforms, as well
as consistent best practice across countries in their real estate portfolios. Whilst all of these
initiatives can not be achieved immediately, they provide a clear framework for building the
necessary scaffolding needed to build up an effective ESG structure in a specific country to
see an improvement in that country’s GRETI rating for environmental sustainability, as well
as seeing that country move forward in their ESG agenda for the real estate industry and the
broader local community. This is likely to see several emerging market countries improve
their GRETI sustainability sub-index category in future iterations.
Importantly, this is not limited to the emerging markets. There are still developed
markets that do not have all of the necessary sustainability framework in place. By setting
up these missing pieces, they will develop a fuller ESG operational framework required by
international real estate investors and the community today. Similarly, even for the
leading countries in ESG practices, there is always room for improvement as ESG
priorities evolve; e.g. zero carbon strategies, more micro property-level analysis of climate
risk scenarios. This is in the context of shorter timeframes for requiring zero carbon status
for buildings in many countries, as well as recent developments in fintech platforms/
frameworks to facilitate climate risk scenario analysis (e.g. Geophy developing climate
risk ratings at the individual property level for REIT portfolios globally for a range of
climate change risks).
Firstly, why are certain countries seen as international leaders in sustainability? This
includes the UK, US, Australia, France, Singapore and Netherlands; they are clearly the
benchmarks for best practice in ESG in real estate. This sees regional differences, with
Europe (e.g. France, UK, Netherlands) and Australia as the ESG leaders, with the US making
major recent improvements beyond just meeting ESG reporting requirements. However, Asia
and the Middle East lag well behind (IPF, 2020); although some players in Asia are amongst
the world leaders in ESG; this includes CapitaLand, Mitsubishi Estate and CDL, who are
clearly informed by ESG drivers well beyond the real estate industry in the fuller investment
space. The main reason is that these leading countries in ESG have already implemented
most of the ESG infrastructure and frameworks mentioned above that are needed to support
environmental sustainability, as well as currently addressing evolving ESG priorities such as
zero carbon frameworks. This has been achieved both by government regulations (e.g.
minimum ESG leasing requirements to government tenants) and real estate industry
initiatives; often driven by the real estate industry having a strong commitment to ESG (IPF,
2020). Many of their procedures should be seen as international best practice in ESG that
emerging markets can learn from for more effective ESG credentials as they continue on their
ESG journey.
 Amongst some of the emerging markets, there were some elements of ESG being Environmental
established as the early stage ESG frameworks (JLL, 2020a). This includes energy and water sustainability
usage benchmarking, energy efficiency standards for new buildings and green building
certification; these should be seen as the first elements in the ESG building blocks in emerging
in real estate
markets. But more needs to be done in ESG in the emerging markets in the areas of: markets
(1) green building financial performance; based on rigorous performance metrics
(e.g. MSCI green office building performance metrics) 425
(2) green lease frameworks
(3) water efficiency standards
(4) building resilience standard
(5) carbon reporting frameworks
(6) zero carbon frameworks
(7) health and wellness certification of buildings
(8) use of ESG real estate benchmarks; e.g. GRESB
(9) use of ESG reporting frameworks; e.g. PRI, CDP, GRI, TCFD
(10) ESG reporting in annual reports (e.g. materiality assessment, best practice case
studies)
(11) establishing ESG teams, with functional roles across the various real estate teams
(12) informative ESG reporting to stakeholders via various channels
(13) increased focus on ESG performance, not just ESG processes
(14) going beyond just reporting ESG metrics to developing a fuller ESG narrative
(15) ensuring ESG is supported strongly across the local real estate industry, not just by
the leading real estate players,
with many of these ESG strategies also able to be implemented by developed markets seeking
to enhance their ESG reputation and GRET sustainability ratings. In many cases, it goes
beyond setting up frameworks, to see specific strategies that will deliver ESG at an individual
company level. Many of these aspects also need to be driven by the strong ESG commitment
in the real estate industry and by government in the emerging markets; with the clear
identification of industry “ESG leaders” to serve as exemplars of best practice in ESG. This
would be supported by the establishment of Green Building Councils in emerging markets,
adoption of best practice standards in ESG in real estate (e.g. EPRA best practice guidelines)
and the adoption of international building rating schemes (e.g. LEED, BREEAM, Energy
Star, etc.). It should be noted that the biggest improvers in the emerging markets in ESG in
recent years are those countries where changes were driven by government initiatives; e.g.
Costa Rica, Panama, Abu Dhabi. An increased awareness of what is happening globally in the
ESG space is also important; this can be facilitated by membership of professional
associations (e.g. EPRA, APREA) and access to their up-to-date ESG best practice materials
on their websites.
There is also room for further improvement in ESG practices in the developed markets.
These include:
(1) a higher level of granularity in reporting ESG for climate change risk management at
an individual property level
JPIF (2) a higher level of integration of real estate information and environmental information
40,4 into ESG decision-making; particularly in the areas of climate change risk and
scenario analysis
(3) use of both external and internal ESG benchmarks
(4) in-depth modelling of climate change scenarios
426 (5) developing “big data” capabilities for deeper climate change scenario analysis
(6) commitment to use of TCFD as an ESG reporting framework; where use of TCFD is
now mandatory in several developed markets.
Whilst all of these aspects of ESG cannot be achieved immediately, it is important for
emerging real estate markets to begin this ESG journey with a clear view on the essential
ingredients for effective ESG frameworks to support international real estate investors,
support their local communities and enhance their GRETI sustainability scores. Similarly,
developed real estate markets also need to complete their ESG framework and procedures
matrix, by ensuring they are up-to-date with priority ESG issues such as zero carbon
strategies and deeper ESG climate risk scenario analysis.
The challenge for many emerging markets in delivering a strong ESG mandate is the lack
of local resources (both physical and financial) to set-up the necessary ESG infrastructure.
But this will be essential going forward, as ESG will increasingly become a key component of
international real estate investor decision-making and the allocation of capital to these
emerging markets, as well as from local communities seeking more action concerning ESG
delivery.

Conclusion
ESG and in particular environmental sustainability have taken on increased importance at all
levels in recent years. This is particularly evident with real estate investment managers as
they establish global real estate portfolios and they seek detailed ESG knowledge concerning
specific real estate markets. Using the JLL GRETI sustainability sub-index, this paper has
assessed the environmental sustainability transparency for 99 international real estate
markets over 2016–2020. While considerable progress has been made in recent years, there
are clear regional differences in ESG practices, and environmental sustainability is lagging
behind the other five dimensions of real estate market transparency that are captured in the
JLL GRETI. This is particularly the case in the emerging real estate markets, which have been
an increasing focus of investment opportunities for real estate investment managers, as many
emerging markets are only now beginning their ESG journey. This has seen GRETI play a
major role for insights into this area of ESG and environmental sustainability at a global level,
with the GRETI sustainability sub-index playing a continuing role regarding changes in ESG
and environmental sustainability practices across these international real estate markets.
While international best practice in environmental sustainability is adopted by many real
estate investment managers throughout their global real estate portfolios, more needs to be
done in many real estate markets regarding ESG standards, frameworks, benchmarks and
procedures. This is particularly in the emerging markets. The flow-on effects from these
international real estate players into these local markets will be significant as a catalyst to
local market changes in ESG.
Going forward, increased focus will be given to climate risk mitigation, climate resilience
and zero-carbon issues in both the developed and emerging real estate markets. This is in
addition to the broader social dimensions of health and wellness within ESG for the
occupants of these real estate assets. Fortunately, many of the major real estate investment
managers are global leaders in delivering ESG and environmental sustainability across their
real estate portfolios and are already responding to these critical issues in ESG. This is Environmental
important to ensure ongoing support from real estate investors and for future capital raisings sustainability
for new real estate funds. With most investors now having a strong ESG agenda (e.g. pension
funds), this is an aspect that real estate investment managers cannot ignore or they run the
in real estate
risk of lack of institutional investor support in future capital raisings. markets
A key element of this increased importance of ESG is the further development of suitable
metrics that assess the fuller effective delivery of environmental sustainability across the real
estate portfolio; rather than just whether specific ESG procedures are used. This will see the 427
focus move from “doing ESG” to “doing ESG well” (IPF, 2020). The end result will be an
increased ongoing focus on the delivery of ESG and environmental sustainability in real
estate portfolios, as investors assess the real estate investment opportunities available
globally and the consistency of these markets with their ESG agendas.
With the real estate industry increasingly embracing ESG, this is highly likely to see major
progress in the future to the benefit of international real estate investors and local
communities, in both developed markets and emerging markets. This will also generate
future real estate research opportunities for researchers to assess the effectiveness of these
investment strategies, as well as in developing more suitable benchmarks and metrics for
assessing ESG; particularly in the S dimension regarding the social dimension of ESG.
Importantly, this paper has developed an environmental sustainability roadmap for many
countries to further develop their ESG frameworks, by identifying the necessary specific
strategies for leveraging off the lessons learnt in other developed real estate markets for more
effective ESG platforms and improved GRETI sustainability ratings; whilst still retained the
unique local market features. Whilst this ESG journey takes time, it is an essential agenda for
the real estate industry and communities in these real estate markets.
The release of the 2022 JLL GRETI and sustainability sub-index later in 2022 will be an
important update on the state of play of ESG and environmental sustainability at a global
level. This is particularly in the context of the high priority issues of climate risk mitigation,
climate resilience and zero-carbon strategies.

References
An, H., Cook, D. and Zumpano, L. (2011), “Corporate transparency and firm growth: evidence from real
estate investment trusts”, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 429-454.
BNP Paribas Real Estate (2019), How Sustainable Investment Improves Real Estate Performance, BNP
Paribas Real Estate, Paris.
Chin, W., Dent, P. and Roberts, C. (2006), “An exploratory analysis of barriers to investment and
market maturity in Southeast Asian cities”, Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Craddock, L., Warren-Myers, G. and Stringer, B. (2020), “Courts’ views on climate change inundation
risks for developments: Australian perspectives and considerations”, Journal of European Real
Estate Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 435-453.
De Francesco, A. and Levy, D. (2008), “The impact of sustainability on the investment environment”,
Journal of European Real Estate Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 72-87.
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N. and Quigley, J. (2010), “Doing well by doing good? Green office buildings”,
American Economic Review, Vol. 100 No. 5, pp. 2492-2509.
Eichholtz, P., Gugler, N. and Kok, N. (2011), “Transparency, integration and the cost of international
real estate investments”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 152-173.
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N. and Yonder, E. (2012), “Portfolio greenness and the financial performance of
REITs”, Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1911-1929.
JPIF Farzanegan, M. and Fereidouni, H. (2014), “Does real estate transparency matter for foreign real estate
investments?”, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 317-331.
40,4
Fereidouni, H. and Masron, T. (2013), “Real estate market factors and foreign real estate investment”,
Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 448-468.
Fuerst, F. and McAllister, P. (2011a), “Eco-labelling in commercial office markets: do LEED and Energy
Star offices obtain multiple premiums?”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 70 No. 6, pp. 1220-1230.
428 Fuerst, F. and McAllister, P. (2011b), “Green noise or green value? Measuring the effects of
environmental certification on office values”, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 45-69.
Fuerst, F. and McAllister, P. (2011c), “The impact of Energy Performance Certificates on the rental
and capital values of commercial property assets”, Energy Policy, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 6608-6614.
Gabe, J. and Rehm, M. (2014), “Do tenants pay energy efficiency rent premiums?”, Journal of Property
Investment and Finance, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 333-351.
Gieger, P., Cajias, M. and Fuerst, F. (2016), “A class of its own: the role of sustainable real estate in a
multi-asset portfolio”, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 190-218.
GPIF (2020), 2020 GPIF Portfolio Climate Change Risk and Opportunity Analysis, GPIF, Tokyo.
GRESB (2019), Resilience and Real Estate, GRESB, Amsterdam.
Hirsch, J., Spanner, M. and Bienert, S. (2019), “The Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor- developing a
framework for science-based decarbonising and reducing stranding risks within the
commercial real estate sector”, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 174-190.
Investment Property Forum (2020), Benchmarking Real Estate Investment Performance: the Role of
ESG Factors, IPF, London.
IPE (2021a), Top 150 Real Estate Investment Managers, IPE, London.
IPE (2021b), Top 100 Real Estate Investors, IPE, London.
JLL (2020a), Global Real Estate Transparency Index 2020, JLL, Chicago, (and previous copies:
2012-2018).
JLL (2020b), City Momentum Index 2020, JLL, Chicago.
Ke, Q. and Sieracki, K. (2013), “Market maturity: China commercial real estate market”, Journal of
Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 4-18.
Keogh, G. and D’Arcy, E. (1994), “Market maturity and property market behaviour: a European
comparison of mature and emergent markets”, Journal of Property Research, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 215-235.
Keogh, G. and D’Arcy, E. (1999), “Property market efficiency: an institutional economics perspective”,
Urban Studies, Vol. 36 No. 13, pp. 2401-2414.
Lieser, K. and Groh, A. (2011), “The attractiveness of 66 countries for institutional real estate
investments”, Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 191-212.
Lieser, K. and Groh, A. (2014), “The determinants of international commercial real estate investment”,
Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 611-659.
Newell, G. (2008), “Assessing the linkages between economic competitiveness and property market
transparency”, Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 322-333.
Newell, G. (2016), “The changing real estate market transparency in the European real estate
markets”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 407-420.
Newell, G., MacFarlane, J. and Walker, R. (2014), “Assessing energy rating premiums in the
performance of green office buildings in Australia”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 352-370.
Op’t Veld, H. and Vlasveld, M. (2014), “The effect of sustainability on retail values, rents and
investment performance: European evidence”, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 163-185.
Sadayuki, T., Harano, K. and Yamazaki, F. (2019), “Market transparency and international real estate Environmental
investment”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 503-518.
sustainability
Urban Land Institute and Heitman (2019), Climate Risk and Real Estate Investment Decision-Making,
ULI and Heitman, Washington.
in real estate
Warren-Myers, G. and Craddock, L. (2022), “Physical and climate change-related risk identification in
markets
valuation practice: an Australian perspective”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
429
Warren-Myers, G., Hurliman, A. and Bush, J. (2020a), “Barriers to climate change adaption in the
Australian property industry”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 38 No. 5,
pp. 449-462.
Warren-Myers, G., Hurliman, A. and Bush, J. (2020b), “Advancing capacity to adapt to climate change:
addressing information needs in the Australian property market”, Journal of European Real
Estate Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 321-335.
World Economic Forum (2021), The Global Risks Report 2021, WEF, Geneva.

Further reading
Brounen, D., Op’t Veld, H. and Raitio, V. (2007), “Transparency in the European non-listed real estate
funds market”, Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 107-118.
Warren-Myers, G. (2013), “Is the valuer the barrier to identifying the value of sustainability”, Journal
of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 345-359.

Corresponding author
Graeme Newell can be contacted at: g.newell@westernsydney.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com