Direct and indirect energy consumption of buildings is responsible for about 24% of global emissions. The scenarios of the IEA (International Energy Agency) estimate that the building sector will have to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 to align with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

Massive decarbonization efforts are therefore essential, particularly concerning the existing building stock. A significant part of these efforts will have to come from businesses – they own most commercial properties in the world and a portion of residential buildings. This article demonstrates that European companies tend to perform better than their American and Asian counterparts.

To evaluate the performance of real estate companies, two criteria were chosen: the first being the Carbon Impact Analytics score, which evaluates the overall performance of the company, and the second being the carbon intensity of the buildings leased by the company. 130 property companies were analysed according to these two criteria; the results are presented in this study.

EXPLANATION OF THE METHODOLOGY

The Carbon Impact Analysis (CIA) score – X Axis

The Carbon Impact Analysis (CIA) score is developed by Carbon4 Finance and aims to evaluate a company's level of contribution and exposure to climate change. It sits on a scale ranging from 1 to 15.

Figure 1: The Carbon Impact Analysis ranking

Source: Carbon4 Finance, 2026

A company obtaining a score of 1 would have a business model that contributes to the transition toward a low-carbon economy, while having a very low contribution to global warming. Conversely, a company obtaining a score of 15 would mean that it is highly exposed to climate change and that its business model is not adapted to the climate transition.

For the real estate sector, a specific cap and floor have been implemented to integrate the climate specificities of the sector in comparison with other economic sectors. In this regard, a real estate company cannot obtain less than 3 out of 15, because the actions of a real estate company to contribute to climate change mitigation are limited: the best actors can drastically reduce their exposure but can only have a limited contribution to solving climate problems. The worst actor can obtain a score of 11 out of 15, because the worst company will have a limited contribution to climate change.

More information on the Carbon Impact Analytics (CIA) methodology here.

The intensity of leased assets – Y Axis

To evaluate the performance of a given real estate company, we first calculated the emissions linked to the assets leased by the company. These emissions correspond to the company's Scopes 1 and 2, meaning the emissions linked to energy use in common areas, and to Scope 3 of leased assets, which corresponds to the emissions linked to energy use by tenants. We divide the obtained emissions by the total leased surface area (in square meters) to obtain an intensity in kgCO2 per square meter (kgCO2/m²).

An intensity measure can easily be compared to the IEA projections which also use such ratios. It is a powerful tool to compare companies with one another.

Our methodology integrates more than 100 different types of leased buildings around the world, depending on the location and type of leased assets, thus offering a precise calculation of the company's emissions.

The results

By combining the intensities and the Carbon Impact Analysis score of more than 130 companies, we obtain the following graph:

Figure 2 - European companies tend to perform better, whether for their Carbon Impact Analysis score or their current performance, compared to other regions.

Source: Company reports, Carbon4 Finance, 2025 data

Clear regional disparities appear

Distinct groups of companies (represented by the bubbles) appear according to their region. Thus, most of the companies that obtain the best Carbon Impact Analysis scores (x-axis) are European. This can be explained by the low intensity of the properties they lease (represented on the x-axis), which accounts for 40% of the CIA score, but also by other factors such as strategy or past decarbonization[1].

In comparison, American companies obtain worse Carbon Impact Analysis scores, and the intensities of the leased properties are higher. It is more difficult to identify a clear trend for companies in Asia and the Pacific, which display more volatile results than their European and North American counterparts.

Most American companies show an intensity greater than 30 kgCO2e/m², which is higher than the global average building intensity. American buildings are generally less energy-efficient than European ones and have a higher energy consumption per square meter (more energy-intensive equipment, massive use of air conditioning...). However, the results are clustered around the average: there are no actors with extremely good or bad performances.

Regarding companies in Asia and the Pacific, it is not possible to identify a clear pattern. This is not surprising insofar as these regions cover very diverse realities. For example, the "Asia" region includes Singapore, China, India, or Japan, which have very different regulations, energy mixes, or types of real estate assets.

Why Europe stands out

A lower carbon intensity

This lower intensity of European companies results from several factors. First, the electricity grid is much more decarbonized in Europe, which means that the consumption of 1 kWh of electricity (about one washing machine cycle) will generate less CO2 in Europe than in China. Regarding the energy mix, the final consumption mix of European buildings integrates more decarbonized or ready-to-be-decarbonized sources (such as biofuels or heat). In Europe, district heating networks meet more than 8% of the heating demand, and this comes predominantly from renewable energies (up to 70% of district heating comes from renewables in Sweden, for example).

Other factors can explain these intensity differences, but they are more difficult to demonstrate and do not rely on precise data. For example, it may depend on the type of building and its average size per region. The larger a house or apartment is, the more the energy consumption per square meter increases. Indeed, heating a larger room requires more energy per square meter. There are also more appliances and equipment per square meter as a space gets larger.

Legislation also makes a big difference. In Europe, the first legally binding building laws were launched decades ago, and energy performance standards require companies to finance buildings with lower energy consumption. There is also a more philosophical point of view: in Europe, energy is mainly imported, so the region is more dependent on global prices and their fluctuations. This forces Europeans to limit their consumption and build more energy-efficient housing.

Better Carbon Impact Analysis scores

European companies also perform better regarding their overall climate performance (as shown by the results of the Carbon Impact Analysis scores). A comprehensive presentation of the reasons why they tend to stand out can be found in this study. We can nevertheless mention a few key elements.

Climate ambition, combined with strict regulations, has pushed European companies to greater transparency regarding their climate strategy. This transparency has helped our analysts to better evaluate the companies' strategy, which also marked a difference compared to other regions, because the lack of information on a company's strategy is interpreted as a low-ambition strategy.

Overall, the strategies of European companies are more ambitious than those of their peers, with better governance on climate-related issues and better reduction targets. Here again, climate change mitigation legislation is generally perceived as more ambitious in Europe, and there is also a greater awareness within companies regarding the need to decarbonize. Many European companies set an energy efficiency threshold for their newly acquired buildings. Furthermore, they benefit from public subsidies to engage in energy renovation works that might otherwise risk being unprofitable.

Want to know more?

The Carbon Impact Analysis score allows for a fair comparison between companies in the same sector. It includes additional data, such as the analysis of the climate transition plan, which evaluates the company's understanding of and contribution to climate change mitigation. If you wish to access the complete dataset, do not hesitate to send an email to sales@carbon4finance.com !