A critical eye and a clear impetus: How the Sounding Board strengthens the RE ESG Plus Rating
Published: October 7, 2025Last updated: October 7, 2025
Topics
An ESG rating is only as strong as its foundation. That’s why the RE ESG Plus Rating is based on an independent Sounding Board — a committee of internal and external ESG experts. Through a series of interviews, members provide insight into their motivation, the development of the rating, and its significance for the real estate market.
Martin Eberhardt, FRICS, has worked in the real estate industry for over 30 years. He began his career in corporate real estate management at the former Daimler-Benz Group. For the past 20 years, he has served as a managing director in the investment management sector, with positions at Union Investment Institutional Property, the Dutch Bouwfonds IM, and Swiss Life KVG. Martin Eberhardt also holds honorary positions in the real estate industry, including many years as chairman of the board at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) in Germany and as a member of its Governing Council in London.
What specific contribution does the Sounding Board make to the quality and objectivity of the RE ESG Plus Rating?
The Sounding Board is an independent quality safeguard for the RE ESG Plus Rating. It ensures that the methodology is not only applied consistently but also critically scrutinized and further developed. By combining data and expert assessment, RE ESG Plus offers the highest level of detail within the system. This is where the Sounding Board can make full use of its role as a sparring partner: securing, monitoring, and providing new impetus — always with a focus on practical relevance.
What can investors expect from the RE ESG Plus Rating?
Investors demand transparency, comparability, and consistency. The RE ESG Plus Rating delivers on these expectations by undergoing external validation from the Sounding Board, aligning with international standards such as GRESB. For investors, it is crucial that the methodology has not only been defined internally but also withstands an independent review process. This makes the results comprehensible and creates trust.
What makes the RE ESG Plus Rating methodology particularly robust and practical at the same time?
Its greatest strength lies in its depth and modularity: up to 120 indicators are analyzed at location and building level. The RE ESG Plus Rating goes one step further by integrating additional information on governance and combining automated data with expert insights. This creates a highly detailed picture of a property or portfolio’s ESG performance. The clear added value is that the results translate directly into actionable recommendations for investors and portfolio holders to incorporate into their sustainability strategies.
How does the exchange between the Steering Committee and the Sounding Board work in practice?
It is a continuous dialogue. The Steering Committee is responsible for methodological development, while the Sounding Board contributes an external perspective — for example, my experience with international real estate markets, large portfolio holders, institutional investors, or RICS. This interaction creates dynamism. External critical reflection ensures that the RE ESG Plus Rating remains not only internally consistent but also internationally compatible.
What would you like to see for the future development of ESG assessment in the real estate sector — and how can the Sounding Board provide impetus?
In the future, I would like to see ESG ratings become an even stronger management tool for entire portfolios. The RE ESG Plus Rating has the right basis for this: 120 indicators, the combination of data and expert assessment, and the ability to cover the relevant GRESB points.
At the same time, we must remain realistic. ESG is not a static topic but one strongly influenced by politics. If, for example, key programs such as the EU Green Deal are scaled back, this has a direct impact on investment decisions. The task of the rating — and therefore also of the Sounding Board — is to interpret gradual developments and trend shifts in equal measure, and integrate them into the assessment framework. This is the only way to ensure that the system remains robust, applicable, and sustainable.