GRESB SCORE UP 20 POINTS. REPORTING TIME DOWN 93%.
Posted on: September 24, 2025
Reporting
GRESB
GRESB Score Up 20 Points.
Reporting Time Down 93%.
Better data did not just improve the submission. It changed what the team could see all year round.
Gary leads ESG reporting for a UK property fund with 25 assets across the UK and Europe. Every year, GRESB season meant the same thing: weeks of chasing utility data from site teams, reconciling mismatched formats, and submitting figures he could not fully stand behind.
Coverage gaps across the Energy, GHG, and Data Monitoring indicators were costing points. Not because the assets were underperforming, but because the evidence base was incomplete.
Once connected to Monitor Hut, live consumption data flowed continuously across all 25 sites. Electricity, gas, and water were tracked at half hourly intervals with automated validation.
By the time the GRESB submission window opened, eleven months of clean, auditable data already existed. Key platform metrics at submission:
With a verified data foundation in place, Gary’s team moved from data collection to data review. Anomalies flagged during the year had already been investigated and resolved before submission opened. They did not surface as last minute problems.
Reporting preparation time dropped from three weeks to two days.
Up to 49 points on the GRESB scorecard are directly influenced by the quality and completeness of energy consumption data. Underperforming GRESB scores are often a data problem rather than an asset performance problem. When consumption data is continuous, validated, and audit ready all year round, the submission becomes a formality rather than a fire drill.