ESG, Taxonomy, SRI: what 2025 data shows

The 2025 data published by ASPIM and OID shows that ESG maturity is progressing in real estate, but that genuinely measurable sustainable performance remains limited: very weak taxonomy alignment, heterogeneous indicators, and disclosure that outpaces proof.

Introduction: a growing gap between narrative and data

The 2025 studies published by ASPIM and OID reveal a paradoxical situation. ESG integration has become a must for real estate funds, but the actual measurement of sustainability remains low, heterogeneous and sometimes hard to compare. Real estate thus finds itself in a landscape where communication advances faster than technical proof.

IRICE, as an independent third-party body accredited to ISO/IEC 17065, examines here what the figures reveal: where measurable reality lies, and which tools secure the credibility of stakeholders.

1. SFDR: a mass take-up of ESG display, stable classifications

90% of real estate assets are now classified as Article 8 or 9.

But this apparent move upmarket masks an essential point: the dynamic is stabilising.

22% of assets are Article 9 (sustainable investment objective).
35% are hybrid Article 8 (a sustainable-investment share within the portfolio).
33% are plain Article 8.
10% remain Article 6.

The rapid 2021–2023 growth gives way to a consolidation period, in which managers secure existing positions more than they create new ones.

2. Taxonomy: very weak alignment, despite the volume of funds involved

This is one of the most structuring findings of the two studies. Average actual alignment with the taxonomy (all funds combined):

Market value: 3.7%
CapEx: 8.8%
Revenue: 3.2%
OpEx: 2.1%

Pre-contractual commitments remain very low: 1% for hybrid Article 8, 6% for Article 9.

This gap between commitment and reality is not a failing: it reflects the operational complexity of taxonomy alignment — strict technical criteria, hard-to-collect data, heterogeneous scopes. For IRICE, it confirms that measurable sustainability cannot be limited to SFDR reporting, which is a transparency tool, not a performance tool.

3. Biodiversity: rising in ESG grids, but methodologically heterogeneous

Biodiversity is among the three most cited environmental themes in Article 8 funds (59%) and hybrid Article 8 funds (31%). But methods vary widely: greening rates, soil sealing, BAF, ecological studies, very different labels or certifications, and unharmonised internal indicators.

The studies show a key reality: biodiversity indicators are among the least comparable between funds. This is precisely where accredited third-party bodies play an essential role: providing a stable, verifiable and independent framework, while the market multiplies approaches.

4. Real estate SRI label: a transition towards a maturity cycle

Structuring 2025 data: 101 labelled funds, i.e. 55% of the retail market; 28 renewals in 2024 (the market moves from expansion to consolidation); 49 criteria on average in the grids, down from 2024 (54) — a sign of rationalisation; 86% of funds use the Best-In-Progress strategy.

The fall in the number of biodiversity, water, waste or certification indicators is not a regression: it reflects a clarification of the grids to ease measurement and align approaches with SFDR / taxonomy expectations.

5. Principal adverse impacts (PAI): widespread but weakly differentiating reporting

94% of funds report exposure to fossil fuels — almost always nil.
84% report EPC C or below, with an average of 74% of assets concerned.
GHG and consumption data are harder to aggregate, especially outside the EU.

The studies highlight the overall weak comparability of PAIs → a major issue for investors.

6. Impact finance: stronger requirements, very few genuinely eligible funds

The study identifies only 12 impact funds, 10 of which are Article 9, representing EUR 4.25 billion. The impact criteria are demanding: intentionality, additionality, measurability, do-no-harm, and independent monitoring.

The new IFD grid requires 32 questions, 13 mandatory qualifying questions, and a progressive minimum score (60/100 in 2025 → 70/100 in 2027). This framework reinforces a central finding: impact requires an independent, rigorous, evidence-based assessment, and cannot be reduced to SFDR classification.

7. What this data implies for market credibility

The two documents converge on three major points.

A. Rising maturity

The market better integrates transparency obligations, SRI grids and ESG data collection.

B. Technical proof remains insufficient

Taxonomy, biodiversity, adverse impacts: methodological variability makes comparison difficult.

C. Stakeholders seek stable, independent standards

The study underlines the importance of third-party bodies (auditors, certifiers, external assessors) to secure approaches and limit "regulatory noise". This is exactly the role IRICE holds in the ecosystem: an independent, accredited, evidence- and method-based assessment that distinguishes actual performance from communication.

Conclusion: towards a market where evidence makes the difference

Real estate is going through a period of normalisation: greater transparency requirements, consolidated SRI strategies, more structured indicators, the rise of Article 9 funds, and the emergence of impact funds.

But market credibility now depends on a single point: the ability of stakeholders to produce verifiable, comparable and auditable evidence. That is precisely IRICE's function: to guarantee the quality of methods, stabilise measurement, secure investor confidence, prevent the dilution of ESG indicators, and ensure that sustainability rests on facts, not intentions.