Why a Gap Analysis is the Smartest First Step in Reporting and Disclosure

Reporting isn’t short on choice. PRI, GRESB, EPRA, INREV – the pick-’n-mix of benchmarks, frameworks and standards stretches wide, and that’s before mandatory regimes. Picking a framework because “everyone else is doing it” can waste budget and hurt results. A short, focused gap analysis gives you clarity before you commit money, time, and reputation.  

Here’s why it’s a good starting point for any type of reporting.  

1. Find the Right Fit

A gap analysis starts with a simple question: is this reporting scheme right for your organisation? 

Frameworks vary, and choosing the wrong one wastes budget and effort. Signing up for a framework can both be quite costly and require big commitments, so it’s worth stepping back and figuring our whether this reporting framework is actually suitable for the company before diving in.  

Take PRI for example. You don’t just file a report and walk away – you sign up to six principles and take part in a wider industry effort. That’s a real commitment. It suits many organisations, but it won’t suit all. 

GRESB can also be challenging. Some funds – especially real estate with lots of FRI units and long leases – have little operational control. Data is hard to access. Even with a strong sustainability strategy, the score can disappoint. Why? Not because the strategy is poor, but because the scheme rewards evidence you may not be able to gather. 

Before you choose, think about your portfolio type, investor expectations, and the data you can realistically produce. A gap analysis aligns those elements so you can select a scheme that fits. It’s the difference between buying the first pair of running shoes you see and getting ones that match your running style.

2. Set Expectations with Investors and Your Team

Hope is not a plan, and “We’ll get five stars” is a risky promise. A gap analysis lets you run a mock score based on what you can evidence now and where you are likely to land next cycle. 

That does two things. First, it gives you a realistic target to share internally and with investors so that you can say “we’re targeting X now, next year we’ll aim for Y”. Second, it protects you from unhelpful targets and risky conditions. 

 For example, we’re seeing more sustainability-linked loans across infrastructure portfolio companies. Terms often tie the interest rate to sustainability targets, like an energy-efficiency KPI, and sometimes lenders push for rating-based covenants like “five GRESB stars for the next five years” – that carries needless risk. 

You don’t control how the scheme changes, and first-time participants rarely land on top scores. If you’ve never reported to GRESB, you might light the fuse on your own deadline by promising a high star level. 

A gap analysis will help you set realistic expectations. Estimate the score you could achieve today, map the improvements, and share that range with stakeholders so that loan terms and investor messaging sits within a realistic range. 

3. Improve Your Results

Out of the reasons to do a gap analysis, this is an obvious one: to improve the result. A gap analysis walks through the criteria, highlights weak spots, and shows where the score is slipping. But timing decides how much you can actually change. Most schemes are retrospective; report in 2025 and you’re judged on 2024. Run the review early in 2024 and you have months to fix what counts, leave it to 2025 and only quick, retrospective fixes remain. 

If you start early, you can tackle the big movers: strengthen data coverage for like-for-like, put missing policies and risk processes in place, and evidence them during the year. Wait, and you will mostly chase stray data and tidy evidence. The same logic applies across PRI, GRESB, EPRA, and INREV. If you can find the gaps during the reporting year (and close them) you can lift the result next cycle. 

Preparation for how you answer matters as well. Plenty of teams have reported before and scored poorly – not because the strategy is weak, but because the questions were misread and the wrong proof was uploaded. In a gap analysis we clarify what the assessor is asking and match each claim to acceptable evidence. That exam technique alone can lift scores without changing the underlying programme; we have seen big point lifts and star jumps without changing the underlying programme. 

EVORA Helps You Close the Gaps

You want something you can act on. We assess your position against the selected framework – PRI, GRESB, EPRA, INREV, and others – review governance and measured outcomes line by line, flag gaps or misinterpretations, and turn this into clear next steps you can execute.  

You leave with a predicted score range based on today’s evidence, a practical action plan to reach your target, and confidence in how to answer templates so responses meet assessor requirements. 

If you need support to expand data coverage or deliver a broader strategy uplift, we can implement that as well. 

Get in touch for a straight, evidence-based view of where you stand and a route to raise both score and credibility.