可持续性报告：您在执行谁的规则？

As pressure for firms to contribute to social and environmental goals increases, measurement of that contribution has become more pressing to ensure that everyone is ‘playing by the same rules’. Sustainability reporting standards, conventions and benchmarks are becoming a growth industry.

但是，如图1所示，可用标准的范围不同的范围和细节可能会令人困惑和互连，因此房地产决策者难以确定他们应该将哪种标准用于自己的决策和品牌定位。

Figure 1: Influences between global, European and UK sustainability reporting

Source: CBRE Research

Standards may be voluntary or mandatory to follow; they may focus on reporting ‘enterprise value’ (to the firm doing the reporting) or reporting the firm’s contribution to society, or both. They may focus only on climate change; or only on environmental sustainability; or encompass all environmental, social and governance issues.

There is clear evidence, however, of convergence and collaboration in the existing patchwork of global and European standards. The longstanding non-profit bodies who have developed many of the existing voluntary sustainability reporting standards haverecognisedthe need to work together – we suspect increasingly under the influence ofIFRS, the major global accounting standards body.

Meanwhile, political groupings like the G20 and EU have been developing their own approaches to reporting and definitions through initiatives like the G20’s工作组与气候相关的财务披露s（TCFD）和EU Taxonomyrespectively. Because of their political origins, these initiatives are likely to lead the debate on mandatory reporting requirements. The EU Taxonomy, for example, actively aims to provide a way of discriminating between economic activities which contribute to sustainability and those which do not. This provides a clear dividing line for investors and consumers to use in deciding where to allocate money.

Mandatory reporting is not new. However, the scope and depth of mandatory reporting is very likely to increase, to reflect recommendations like those of the TCFD. Certain G20 nations –最值得注意的是英国- 已经说过，他们将强制执行TCFD要求（最初是自愿的）。许多其他现有的全球自愿标准中的许多（但不是全部）似乎可能构成了适当时候的强制性标准的基础。

By 2030, CBRE expects that TCFD will be the leading framework for reporting climate change impacts. However, we suggest that TCFD-style reporting will increasingly rely on IFRS standards rather than the existing voluntary global standards, of which we think there will be fewer – or at least, they will be much better coordinated. In Europe, we expect that the EU Taxonomy will act as a leading vehicle for describing (albeit in rather crude binary terms) what counts as a ‘green’ economic activity.

世邦魏理仕（CBRE）认为，英国将在这些问题上充当领先的监管者和影响者。英国决定支持TCFD的建议；英国决定介绍其own Green Taxonomy（至少从技术上讲，基于欧盟分类法）；英国在全球金融服务方面的突出；IFRS总部位于伦敦的事实，所有这些事实都表明，有关英国可持续性标准的辩论可能会预示全球辩论。