Realcomm CIO & Property Tech Forum returns to London on 26 November

An invitation-only afternoon for real estate technology leaders, with Remit Consulting as Educational Partner

Realcomm’s CIO & Property Tech Forum returns to London on 26 November 2026; a closed-door session for CIOs and senior technology leaders from across commercial real estate.

As Realcomm’s Educational Partner, we are proud that this forum brings together the right people, with new ideas, at the right time to make a real difference in how the property market integrates new technologies.

The forum will be hosted at M Moser Associates' offices, and guest speakers from across the real estate sector and other industries will lead each session, focusing on what is working in practice rather than a sales pitch.

Last year’s London forum covered implementing AI with measurable impact, building a converged data model, turning underused space into data centre revenue and digital transformation at major property owners. This year’s agenda will be published shortly.

Similar recent forums in New York, Toronto and Dallas centred on AI strategy, agentic governance, cyber risk and smart buildings.

The event will begin at 1:30 pm with networking, followed by welcome and introductions at 2:00 pm and presentations and discussions from 2:15 pm to 6:00 pm. The formalities will be followed by a reception and further networking until 7:30 pm.

The Realcomm CIO & Property Tech Forum is a chance to compare notes with peers facing the same decisions on data, AI, cybersecurity and building technology.

Seating is limited, and attendance is by invitation only.

To apply for an invitation, contact Remit Consulting, the event’s Educational Partner.

ESG has lost the mike, not the relevance.

Steph Yates

ESG Compliance trends: quiet now, not gone

A few weeks ago, we sat down with a property management client to talk through their service requirements for the year ahead. Compliance, contracts, cost control, tenant experience, the usual agenda. ESG didn't come up once.

That felt unusual. A year or two ago, ESG would have opened the meeting, not closed it as an afterthought. It says something about where ESG sits in real estate right now.

ESG hasn't disappeared, though. It's gone quiet. It's become a political target, picked apart as a pointless cost. Even the discussion of splitting E, S and G into separate conversations, separate workstreams, has faded, another quiet sign the microphone has gone. Meanwhile, AI has turned the industry's head, dominating conference agendas and marketing emails that used to lead with sustainability.

In short, the work carries on regardless; it just doesn't announce itself anymore. Step back from the agendas and slide packs and look at what's landing on desks: energy performance certificates, tighter reporting requirements, investor due diligence questionnaires, procurement standards that quietly bake in sustainability criteria. None of that has gone away; the regulation hasn't slowed, and investors haven't stopped asking the underlying questions, even if they might have stopped branding them "ESG." There's a contrast here; while organisations might be talking about ESG less, they are still doing ESG-shaped work. The language has retreated; the substance hasn't.

The real danger is that people start treating ESG as optional because it's gone quiet, filing it under "revisit once (if?) the politics settle down." That would be a mistake, and not just a reputational one. Done properly, ESG is about energy efficiency that cuts operating costs, assets that stay attractive to tenants and investors, and resilience against the next regulatory shock. Not to mention the ultimate goal of saving the planet. Treat it as PR, and you'll drop it the moment the pressure eases. Treat it as a commercial discipline, and it stops being optional.

The clients doing this well aren't necessarily the ones with the loudest statements. They've stopped treating ESG as a bolt-on. It's a core building block of how the organisation runs, built into procurement decisions, service specifications, and reporting workflows. That's what turns good intentions into something real, and it's the version of ESG that survives a change in political weather, because it doesn't need a spotlight to keep functioning.

ESG has only lost its microphone, not its relevance. Whether it's still fashionable to talk about matters less than whether it's still built into how your organisation works.

If you want to keep up with our latest thoughts on ESG, check out Adrian Allen’s recent article: AI won't retrofit your building: A practical sequencing guide.

The multi-country trap: why a single template doesn't work across European PM tenders

Steph Yates

The second article in our series uncovering the hidden truths of property management procurement.

Every few years, a client comes to us wanting to run "one consistent tender" across a portfolio spanning, say, London, Paris, Madrid and Warsaw. The instinct is understandable: same evaluation criteria, same scorecard, same timeline, clean and comparable. In our experience, it's one of the fastest ways to end up with a result nobody trusts.

We wrote in the first piece in this series about the risk of running a coronation dressed up as a tender, a process where the outcome is decided before the questions are asked. The multi-country template is a different route to a similar problem. Here the process is genuinely open; the client genuinely wants the best answer in each market. But the template itself quietly picks a winner, because it rewards whoever's proposal happens to fit the shape of the document rather than whoever would actually manage the building best.

The issue isn't really language, though that's part of it. It's that property management doesn't mean the same thing market to market. In Germany, the split between Kaufmännische and Technische management is built into how firms are structured and how they price, and a bidder who doesn't offer a clean split will look expensive against one who does, even where the total cost of appointment is identical. In France, how a provider navigates the syndic-adjacent relationships and co-ownership structures popular there can matter more than the headline fee. In the UK, the market has consolidated enough that the real differentiator is usually account team quality, because most credible bidders can point to broadly similar systems and platforms.

Run identical scoring criteria across all of the above, and you're not comparing property managers. You're comparing how well each local team second-guessed a template written somewhere else, which is a genuinely different skill, and not the one you're trying to procure.

What we do instead is keep the governance and evaluation philosophy consistent across markets, while letting the substance of each RFP flex to the market it's being run in. The same standard of rigour, the same insistence on evidenced answers over marketing language, the same honesty about what the client is actually trying to learn, but different weightings for technical versus commercial criteria by country, different reference-check questions, and sometimes different bidder longlists entirely, because the firms genuinely strong in Warsaw are not always the ones with the loudest London presence.

The clients who get the most value from pan-European procurement are the ones who resist the temptation to make it feel tidy. A slightly messier process that lands on the right provider in each market beats an elegant single spreadsheet that quietly rewards whoever templated their answers most efficiently. Consistency of principle, not consistency of paperwork: that's the version worth having.

If you would like to talk about procurement and tenders in property management, please contact me at: steph.yates@remitconsulting.com.

A postcard from Munich. News from Expo Real.

Last week, our team spent two days on the floor at Expo Real in Munich. The market looked in reasonable shape on the surface, with deals being discussed and confident conversations. What interested us more, though, was what sat underneath that mood.

Two themes kept coming up: who is buying the firms that manage and advise on property, and how loosely AI is being governed. Neither dominated the headlines or the panel discussions we attended, but both matter to anyone who runs buildings or invests in them, whatever the sector.

Private equity is setting the price

Property services firms looking to grow in Europe are now frequently bidding against private equity, which can pay more for the same business. On day one, we heard this described as one of the reasons organic growth has become so difficult. On day two, there was talk of further deals and rumours of others.

Some firms are taking the longer view and choosing to remain independent. But they are doing so in a market where buyers are well funded and, on paper at least, the deals can look very sensible to sellers.

It would be easy to shrug at this. A well-priced acquisition rarely looks like a problem in isolation. Our concern is the pattern.

Mid-size firms hold much of the sector's expertise and local knowledge, and they train many of its future leaders. If private equity continues acquiring these businesses and selling them on, the long-term outlook for the mid-size tier becomes more difficult.

Collectively, we're old enough to have seen what can follow. Fewer firms mean less competition. Less competition puts pressure on fees, and squeezed fees have a habit of being followed by slipping standards.

For property managers, that means a changing field of peers and competitors, and a harder choice between selling, partnering and staying independent. For asset managers and investors, there is a practical question: what happens to the service quality and cost of the managers you rely on if the market narrows?

AI: plenty of talk, thin governance

We went looking for inventive uses of AI and didn't find many. A few firms are using it in a coordinated way across their business, but more often it lives in pockets, with individual users getting real value while the rest of the organisation watches.

In most of our conversations, it became apparent that few, if any, guardrails were in place.

Our sector runs on records: leases, service charge budgets, performance reporting and compliance documents. If an AI tool misreads or misstates that data, the error doesn't stay put. It gets copied into reports, benchmarks and valuations, and from there into decisions. Once flawed output has been baked into shared records, it can be hard to find and slow to correct.

The question we'd put to any manager using AI is simple: who is accountable for the quality of the data it touches?

Clean data is the asset. Handing it to a tool without clear rules for checking its output puts that asset at risk. Governance, by which we mean clear ownership, human review of outputs and agreed data-quality standards before anything is automated, is the part most firms have yet to build.

Two notes from the floor

1. Hotels. One for the hospitality investors among you: European hotel occupancy is running at roughly 60 to 70 per cent, with an average room rate of about €113. Occupancy at that level is healthy, but the rate looks low enough to question whether it can last, with implications for investors and asset managers in the sector.

2. The robots. Expo Real is not short of spectacle. We watched a dancing robot and a humanoid so lifelike that it was slightly unsettling. Memorable, certainly, although neither came with a business case.

What we'll be watching

• Over the next six to twelve months, these are the questions we'll be following:

• Do management and advisory fees hold as the number of independent firms falls?

• Do the firms that stay independent find ways to compete on service, or are they pushed to sell?

• Does anyone put real AI governance in place before a high-profile data error forces the issue?

• What will investors start to expect from their managers on data quality?

Most people we spoke to in Munich didn't seem worried about any of this. The ones who were had thought about it carefully.

If you were at Expo Real and saw things differently, or you're a property manager or asset manager weighing up what these changes mean for you, we'd like to hear from you. You can reach the team through our contact page.

AI won't retrofit your building: A practical sequencing guide

Adrian Allen

Part two of two

In part one of this two-part mini-series of articles (ESG has not gone away), I set out why AI enthusiasm and Net Zero delivery are increasingly competing for the same finite resources - capital, grid capacity, skilled labour and boardroom attention - rather than complementing each other, and why a June 2026 change to the MEES regulations means most owners are now working from an outdated timeline. This second part looks at where AI genuinely helps, where it's being oversold, and what a sensible sequencing of the two looks like.

Closing the expertise gap

None of this is straightforward to execute in-house, and that is worth saying plainly rather than glossing over. A defensible EPC B pathway, a genuinely useful ESG strategy, and a procurement process that lands at the price the feasibility study assumed are three quite different skill sets, and most owners and asset managers do not carry all three internally, nor should they need to.

This is the gap that advisers, such as Remit Consulting, are built to close. We bridge the gap between ESG experts and the real estate market, pairing genuine ESG expertise with the practical realities of running property, from strategy design and policy review at the front end, through to reporting, ongoing monitoring, and the procurement and tender process. That translation work is precisely what most owners are currently missing, and precisely where the current AI enthusiasm is least likely to substitute for genuine advisory expertise.

Where AI genuinely helps, and where it's being oversold

None of this is an argument against using AI in the built environment. Some of the sharpest emerging use cases in commercial real estate ESG delivery are directly relevant to Net Zero delivery, not adjacent to it.

AI-enhanced building management systems are already demonstrably reducing energy costs and carbon footprints by optimising HVAC and lighting against real-time and forecast weather data: a genuinely mature, low-risk application with clear payback.

ESG reporting automation, particularly for GRESB-style disclosure, is one of the least glamorous but highest-value applications, freeing asset managers from data-wrangling to focus on the retrofit decisions that actually move the needle.

Predictive maintenance shifts plant management from reactive expense to proactive strategy, extending asset life and reducing the embodied-carbon cost of premature replacement.

Peer-reviewed research on data centres themselves shows that usage-based building controls can cut energy consumption by 20 to 30% simply by aligning cooling output to actual demand rather than static schedules, a lesson equally applicable to commercial office plant.

The distinction worth drawing is this: AI is a powerful instrument for executing a Net Zero strategy more efficiently. It is not itself a strategy. A BMS that optimises a building's existing plant will not get a 1985-vintage secondary office from EPC E to EPC B; only capital investment in fabric, glazing, heating electrification and genuinely improved payback economics on-site generation will do that. Since 2016, solar installation costs have fallen roughly 75%, and panel costs around 90%, with efficiency up 67% and payback periods now frequently under four years at IRRs of 10 to 18%. That value-add case stands on its own economic merits, with or without an AI narrative attached.

The uncomfortable question for asset managers

There's a reason AI dominates the current conversation, and Net Zero retrofit doesn't: AI adoption is visible, fast and cheap to talk about- a pilot project, a co-pilot licence, a case study - while fabric-first retrofit is capital-intensive, slow (12 to 18 months from assessment to completion is standard for commercial retrofit), and politically unglamorous. It is far easier for a business plan to claim to be "AI-enabled" than to commit the capital a genuine EPC B pathway requires. AI adoption could become a form of ESG theatre: a way for owners to appear forward-looking while deferring the harder, more expensive decisions that actually reduce a building's carbon footprint and regulatory exposure.

The counterargument deserves airtime too. Capital is finite, and if AI genuinely delivers efficiency gains that free up management time and reduce operating costs, that saved capacity can, in principle, be redirected towards retrofit planning rather than away from it. Whether that redirection happens in a given portfolio is an execution question, not a technology question. It depends entirely on whether the asset manager treats AI tooling to fund and prioritise fabric investment, or as a substitute headline for it.

The practical takeaway

For owners, asset managers and occupiers navigating 2026, the sensible position is not "AI or Net Zero" but a clear-eyed sequencing.

• Commission, or refresh, an EPC B feasibility study now, regardless of the extended 2031 deadline. Supply chains for heat pumps, solar PV and skilled retrofit contractors are already constrained, and a late scramble in 2029 to 2030 will be more expensive and less certain than early planning.

• Treat the sub-1,000 sqm carve-out with caution, not comfort. It covers roughly 85% of UK commercial property, but the smaller capital outlay typically required to upgrade smaller assets makes voluntary early action more affordable, not less urgent. The market is already pricing sustainability ahead of the regulatory floor regardless of size.

• Deploy AI where the payback is genuinely proven: BMS optimisation, ESG reporting, predictive maintenance, and be honest that these are efficiency tools, not substitutes for capital-intensive fabric works.

• Revisit solar economics on every asset with roof or car park capacity. The payback case has fundamentally shifted since 2016 and stands independently of any AI narrative.

• Watch the regulatory detail, not just the headline. The gap between "EPC B by 2030," the assumption most of the market is still working to, and "EPC B by 2031, buildings over 1,000 sqm only," the actual June 2026 position, is exactly the kind of distinction that separates a defensible business plan from a stale one.

• Bring in specialist bridging expertise where it's missing internally. Advisers such as Remit Consulting, who work across strategy design, policy review, reporting, monitoring and procurement, exist precisely to connect ESG intent with commercial delivery, reducing the risk of a feasibility study or strategy document that never translates into contracted works.

The built environment's Net Zero challenge was never going to be solved by a single technology trend, however compelling. It will be solved by owners who keep doing the unglamorous work - fabric upgrades, on-site generation, EPC pathway planning - while using AI as a tool to do that work more efficiently, rather than as a reason to stop talking about it

Lorna's Logic: "Baby, you can drive my car. No, wait, it drives itself” (apologies to the Beatles)

Gear stick RIP.

According to reliable research, there is little to support my contention here, so let’s call it a little rant, or the musings of someone stuck in the past – either that or I am working toward being one of those splendid old bags with a misguided beef about something I can do nothing to alter.

My issue is with the fact that there is yet another skill on its way out of the human toolbox: driving. “Oh no!”, I hear all the boys shout, “But I am a splendid driver…as I sit in my automatic, electric car that thinks for me, stops me from weaving into the next lane, stops me from hitting the car in front, essentially drives itself”. Don’t get me wrong, I have no wish to be on the road with anyone who is weaving around, hitting pedestrians and inanimate objects, but is anyone really driving anymore?

Driving a manual car requires thought and a degree of motor-control, attention, and vigilance, especially when parking or tackling London streets. These skills are arguably diminished in an automatic EV. However, there is no hard evidence…yet.

A Dutch study (1) suggests that drivers of fully automated cars feel they are being more vigilant as they need to contribute less to the activity of driving, so can focus more on the road. I cannot logically contest this, but emotionally I can; studies into concentration levels amongst serving armed forces suggest that ennui and tiredness can create a perception of vigilance which is inversely proportional to the reality. As I say, I have nothing concrete to back this up, but taking all the effort out of something usually ends up with a creeping laziness and a wandering mind.

Anyone who has seen the film Wall-E will remember the lumpy humans, floating around on electric chair-thingies. We are all moving inexorably toward convenience at the expense of the essential spark that keeps our brains primed for action.

I know. I am a lone voice shouting in the wind, but I will be doing so in a car that feels like I am actually driving it and possibly going a bit too fast…

(1) Stapel et al 2019

Over twenty years on, why Remit Consulting still insists on process mapping,

Andrew Waller

There's a particular moment that tends to happen early in a software selection project. Someone puts a feature list on the table, usually supplied by a vendor, and the room starts working through it item by item. Does the system do this? Tick. Can it handle that? Tick. It feels productive. It rarely is.

Remit Consulting has spent more than two decades avoiding that room entirely. Since the business was founded, the firm's approach to helping asset managers and fund managers choose IT systems has started somewhere else: not with what a piece of software claims to do, but with what the client's business does, day to day, workflow by workflow.

Finding out what you do

Process mapping sounds like a dry, back-office exercise, and in the wrong hands it can be. But the question at the heart of it is anything but administrative: what is the work the business needs to undertake, and how should that work be done in future? Not what a brochure says a system offers, nor a painstaking record of every inherited habit, but a clear, agreed view of the outcomes, decisions, responsibilities, data and controls needed to run a property, portfolio or fund well.

Reaching that view still means working with the people closest to the activity. Their experience reveals where work stalls, what is duplicated, which judgements matter and where poor data or unclear ownership causes friction. But Remit does not simply ask teams to describe today and then preserve it. We use our process library, sector experience and structured workshops to test assumptions, introduce leading practice and build agreement around a practical future state.

Since 2003, this approach has generated a substantial library of processes and a methodology that keeps evolving as client businesses and the technology available to them change. That library acts as an accelerator and a source of challenge: workshops do not begin with a blank page or assume that current practice is right. They begin with a tested view of what good can look like, which is then adapted to the client’s objectives, terminology and constraints. Over two decades on, Remit is running more process workshops than at any point in our history and finding more opportunities within them to identify where savings and better outcomes can be achieved.

Relevance

It would be easy to assume that process mapping is a legacy discipline, useful in an era of clunky software but less relevant now that AI may sweep away whole sequences of work. That challenge is fair, but it points to the need for better process design, not less of it. AI will remove some tasks, combine others and change where human judgement is required. Before any organisation can automate or redesign work responsibly, it must still agree on the outcome required, the information the process depends on, who remains accountable and where exceptions or controls sit.

That is why Remit’s maps are not intended as monuments to the present. They are working designs for the future: clear enough to support a current implementation, but capable of evolving as AI, automation and operating models develop. AI tools are only as good as the workflows, data and governance around them. Feed them confusion, and they will automate confusion faster than any human ever could.

Case study

Last year, Remit was approached to advise on the selection of a new software system, and the initial appetite for a full process mapping exercise was, to put it diplomatically, lukewarm. It was seen as an extra step, a delay before the real decision-making could start.

As the project progressed, that view shifted. The future-state process map that Remit developed with the client became the structure used to specify and shape the new system. The workshops did more than secure assent: they gave users a disciplined forum in which established habits could be questioned, alternatives tested and decisions made collectively. Rather than slowing the project down, the process work gave it something firm to build on, meaning fewer meetings circling the same undefined problem and a much clearer route from “we need new software” to a system designed around the business the client wanted to become.

Resist the urge!

For asset managers, property managers and fund managers weighing up a system or AI-enabled change, the lesson is not complicated, even if it runs against instinct. Resist the urge to start with vendors or tools. Start by agreeing the work, outcomes and controls the future business will need. That does not mean freezing today’s process, and it does not mean allowing the most change-resistant voice in the room to define tomorrow’s. It means using informed challenge and careful facilitation to create a future state that people understand, can scrutinise and are more likely to adopt. By the time a project reaches procurement or pilot, that shared design tends to be the thing that saves the most time and the most avoidable meetings.

The technology will keep changing, and some activities mapped today will disappear. The underlying question Remit keeps asking - “What is the work that actually needs doing?” - has not changed in twenty years. In an AI-enabled world, it is becoming more useful, not less.

If you're weighing up a system change and want to talk through where process mapping might fit into that, you can contact me directly.

ESG has not gone away

Adrian Allen

Part one of two

So, the picture so far: capital, attention and political energy are flowing towards AI at a scale with no real precedent; the built environment's own numbers haven't moved, and the regulatory floor just quietly changed in a way most of the market hasn't caught up with yet.

There is a particular kind of vertigo that comes from sitting in an asset management strategy meeting in 2026 and watching the agenda quietly reorder itself. Eighteen months ago, every board pack led with EPC trajectories, retrofit business cases and the green premium. Today, the opening slide is AI: co-pilots for underwriting, predictive maintenance, automated ESG reporting. These conversations are not wrong to have. The problem is that they are increasingly the only conversation being had, and the built environment's decarbonisation problem has not gone anywhere while everyone was looking at the shiny new thing.

This is a deliberately unfashionable argument: AI is not a substitute for Net Zero strategy in commercial real estate, and in some respects, it is making the underlying problem larger, not smaller. Owners and asset managers who let AI enthusiasm crowd out fabric-first retrofit planning are making a category error, treating a productivity tool as if it were a decarbonisation strategy.

The capital is moving, but not where the emissions are

The scale of capital reallocation towards AI infrastructure is genuinely without precedent. The International Energy Agency's 2026 analysis shows that capital expenditure by the largest technology companies exceeded USD 400 billion in 2025 and is expected to jump by a further 75% in 2026, a level of investment now larger than global spending on oil and natural gas production combined. Electricity consumption from AI-focused data centres surged 50% in 2025 alone, and "AI factories," data centres purpose-built for AI workloads, have more than tripled in capacity in eighteen months.

That is an extraordinary reallocation of capital, engineering talent and political attention, and it sits in direct tension with decarbonisation. The domestic picture matters most for a UK ESG and asset management audience. UK data centres now consume around 5.8% of national electricity generation, close to the 5% threshold that industry analysts identify as the point at which local political and community pushback typically intensifies. Grid connection demand has exploded alongside it: Ofgem's queue of contracted connection offers rose from roughly 41GW in November 2024 to around 125GW by June 2025, and the 140 proposed data centre schemes currently in the planning system are seeking around 50GW of electricity, 5GW more than Great Britain's entire peak demand of 45GW recorded in February 2026. A December 2025 London Assembly report warned that data centres could increase their energy needs in the capital by between 200% and 600% in the medium term, placing further strain on a grid already under pressure from electrification elsewhere. Slough, Europe's largest data centre cluster with 30 to 35 facilities, and Greater London, with over 1,000MW of capacity, sit at the sharp end of this. Six UK environmental NGOs, including Friends of the Earth, wrote to the technology secretary in March 2026 warning explicitly that AI data centre demand could drive up the UK's carbon emissions.

None of this makes AI inherently a climate villain. Hyperscalers (the largest scale providers – Microsoft, Amazon, Google & Meta) are signing genuine long-term renewable power purchase agreements, or PPA’s (long-term contracts to buy electricity directly from a renewable generator), and nuclear offtake agreements (advanced commitments to buy power from a nuclear plant, often signed before construction, to help finance the project). This suggests at least some of this demand growth will be met with low-carbon supply. But the honest summary, in the UK as much as globally, is that AI is not, on the current evidence, a straightforward decarbonisation dividend. It is a large new source of demand competing for the same constrained grid capacity, skilled labour and capital that the built environment retrofit challenge also needs. Every gigawatt of UK transmission capacity absorbed by a data centre campus is a gigawatt not available to electrify a building's heating system: the two are drawing on the same finite pipe.

Meanwhile, the built environment's numbers haven't improved

The built environment remains one of the largest single contributors to UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions, commonly estimated at somewhere between a quarter and over 40% of the total, depending on how embodied and operational carbon are scoped. Unlike AI's emissions trajectory, which is genuinely new and fast-moving, the built environment's problem is old, well understood, and stubbornly unresolved. That is arguably what makes it less exciting to talk about, and precisely why it deserves more airtime, not less.

Three data points illustrate the scale of what remains outstanding in UK offices specifically.

Savills estimates 58% of Central London office stock, by floor area, currently sits below an EPC B rating, and other industry analysis puts the proportion of English and Welsh office stock at risk from a future EPC C requirement as high as 73%.

Central London office rents are diverging sharply along sustainability lines. Savills' Q4 2024 data found BREEAM Excellent or Outstanding buildings achieving rents around 15% higher than lower-rated or unrated stock, consistent with JLL's global finding of a 7 to 12% green premium and a 42-study meta-analysis putting the average certified-building premium closer to 6%.

Q1 2026 Central London market data shows sustainability has moved "beyond preference and into leasing reality." Buildings without a credible improvement pathway now face longer voids and weaker investor appetite, regardless of location or specification otherwise.

This is not a hypothetical future risk. It is a present-tense repricing of the market, and it is happening at the same time as the industry's attention has visibly shifted towards AI tooling.

The regulatory goalposts just moved, and most owners haven't noticed

Here is where currency matters, and where I'd push back on the framing in a number of recent ESG briefings circulating the market. This includes Hollen+'s January 2026 presentation, which anticipated the government's long-delayed MEES review confirming an EPC B minimum by 2030.

That review has subsequently landed, and it isn't quite what was expected. In June 2026, the Government published its interim response to the 2019 and 2021 MEES consultations. The headline change is that the EPC B deadline has moved to 2031, and it now only applies to commercial buildings above 1,000 square metres, approximately 10,760 sq ft. Buildings below that threshold face a materially lower bar, EPC E rather than B. The previously proposed interim EPC C milestone for 2027 has been dropped entirely.

There are two ways to read this. The generous reading is that the government has finally provided certainty after years of delay, and the timeline extension gives owners genuine breathing room to plan retrofit capital expenditure sensibly rather than reactively. The less generous reading, and the one I'd weight more heavily, starts with the scale of what the 1,000 sqm carve-out actually excludes: approximately 85% of UK commercial property sits below that threshold. On the face of it, this looks like a policy that has just softened compliance for the overwhelming majority of the stock, at exactly the moment the market, per the Savills and CBRE data above, is already pricing sustainability credentials into rents and liquidity regardless of what the regulatory minimum requires.

The more useful way to look at it, though, is not simply that most buildings got let off the hook. Smaller assets carry smaller retrofit bills in absolute terms: less roof area, fewer plant rooms, a shorter run of glazing to replace.

The capital outlay required to move a sub-1,000 sqm building from EPC E towards EPC B or better is typically far more modest than the equivalent works on a large multi-let building. That changes the economics of acting early. For owners of this smaller-format stock, the relaxed statutory deadline is not really a reason to defer, because the cost of getting ahead of the market voluntarily is proportionately lower, and the leasing and valuation benefits documented earlier in this article apply just as much to a 5,000 sq ft building as a 500,000 sq ft one.

Occupiers and capital markets are moving faster than the regulatory floor across the size spectrum. Owners who treat the softened MEES timeline as licence to defer capex, whether they sit above or below the 1,000 sqm line, are, in my view, mistaking regulatory minimums for market reality. The two have already decoupled.

This is precisely the kind of granular, fast-moving regulatory development that a generic AI dashboard summarising "ESG risk" will not reliably catch, and that requires an expert reading the primary source, and not just the headline.

The question that leads to is, “What should owners and asset managers actually do about it, and where does AI genuinely fit into that answer rather than distracting from it?”

That's the subject of part two.

Contact Adrian Allen

Industry wide Asset Management systems survey

In our last newsletter, we provided an update on the findings of our ACES Survey 2025, a study of Property Asset Management Systems within public authorities. The survey was conducted in partnership with the Association of Chief Estates Surveyors & Property Managers in the Public Sector, exactly a decade after our first benchmark study from 2015, and forty local authority estates teams participated.

The full report revealed that three-quarters of councils use vendor-owned systems, a real shift towards consolidation. However, underneath that headline, the variation is stark: systems range from nine years old to nearly fifty, with a median implementation year of 2015. Our findings reveal a sector carrying a wide spread of legacy alongside newer investment, all at once.

The most uncomfortable finding, though, is this: only 17% of councils formally measure the benefits their system delivers. Four out of five authorities are spending real money, in some cases well over £250,000 a year, without a structured way of knowing whether it's working. Higher spend doesn't correlate with higher satisfaction. We describe this pattern as "spiral replacement": systems bought, implemented, and eventually replaced, without anyone ever establishing whether the last one delivered what it promised.

Initially, the full report was available only to participants, but is now available to interested parties upon request. Contact Tereza Jelinkova to request your copy.

You can read all about the ACES Survey 2025 here.

AI in Real Estate: Why the hard part isn’t the technology

Henry Harrison

The opportunity AI presents is still real. McKinsey has put a number on it, somewhere between $430 billion and $550 billion of value across real estate, construction and development, though most of that is expected to come from redesigned workflows rather than one-off prompts.

There's a commercial angle too: 58% of the respondents to our 2026 AI in Real Estate survey see the time-based fee model as the part of the business most exposed to AI. It’s worth thinking about that one, because it points to a harder question about where value actually sits once a task stops taking as long as it used to.

There's a temptation to treat AI as a fix for anything. Slow reporting, messy data, inconsistent processes: the instinct is to point AI at the problem and expect it to sort itself out. It doesn't work that way.

Many of you will already have seen the AI in Real Estate survey we published earlier this year. It's been quoted a fair bit since, and I won't repeat the headline numbers in full; however, it was identified that access to AI is now widespread, but only 7% of respondents said it was fully integrated into how their organisation actually works. That gap, not the technology itself, is the real story.

Most current AI use in real estate is still what it was when we first ran the survey: drafting, summarising, research, document review. Useful work. Over half of respondents using AI said it saves them more than 10 hours a month, and almost a third put the figure above 20 hours. We shouldn’t dismiss that, but speeding up an existing task is not the same as changing how a business operates, and the two keep getting treated as if they were interchangeable.

AI is only as good as the process it sits inside. If nobody can say where information lives, which system is the source of truth, or who owns a decision, AI won't clean that up. It will just help someone reach the wrong answer more quickly.

The survey also highlighted the emergence of what we termed "Shadow AI", where people use their own personal tools instead of whatever their firm has approved, because they find them faster or simply better. That's not really a technology problem. It's a sign that the governance conversation hasn't kept pace with how people are already working, and it carries obvious risk once client data and confidentiality are involved.

There's also a clear trust gradient worth remembering. People are comfortable letting AI handle low-risk, verifiable work like transcription or a first draft. That trust drops away fast once judgement or commercial consequence is involved: only 16% said they'd trust AI to estimate rental value or yield. Real estate runs on context, negotiation and knowing when something doesn't feel quite right, and none of that gets replaced by a model, however good it is at drafting an email.

None of this is an argument for caution. It's an argument for sequencing. Firms that give people a tool and stop there will pick up some time savings and not much else. The ones that treat this as a question about process, data and governance first will be the ones actually able to use AI properly, rather than just having access to it.

If you would like to discuss this topic or need to talk about integrating AI into your business, contact Henry Harrison.

The Coronation Problem

Charlie Bolam

The first in a new series uncovering the hidden truths of property management procurement.

If you're facing growing workloads, increasing performance expectations and an outsourced property management portfolio that seems impenetrable, you're not alone. This is the first in a series of articles aimed at helping you regain control of property management procurement, beginning with a closer look at the power and influence of the incumbent manager.

Most Property Management tenders are decided before an RFP (Request for Proposal) is even sent. It's rarely malicious. It's more likely an asset manager with a good working relationship with the incumbent's regional director, or an owner who was impressed by one bidder's presentation three years ago and never quite let go of it. The risk here is that tender documentation gets built around that instinct without anyone admitting, or even realising, it's there.

This changes what "good procurement" actually means. A tender should not be a test of who can write the best proposal. It's a mechanism for surfacing information the client doesn't already have about cost structure, about how a provider handles a difficult mixed-use scheme, about what happens when a fire safety issue lands on a Friday afternoon. If the outcome is fixed before the questions are asked, you haven't run a tender, you've run a coronation with paperwork.

The fix isn't to be cynical about incumbents - often they win for good reason, and re-appointing a strong performer is a perfectly legitimate outcome. The fix is separating the scoping conversation from the evaluation conversation. Before drafting evaluation criterion, spend the time upfront understanding what's actually driving the review: is it cost, is it service failure, is it a portfolio restructuring, is it simply governance requiring market testing every three years? Each of those points to a different weighting, a different set of reference calls, sometimes a different pool of bidders entirely.

If you find yourself running a procurement exercise to satisfy a board requirement for "market testing" while the operational team has no real appetite for change, bidders sense it. Good property management firms are not naive and can tell within the first site walk whether they're genuinely in contention or filling out a headcount for governance purposes. That's an expensive, reputationally awkward way to find out you weren't serious about the process.

Running procurement well means being honest, internally, about what you're actually trying to learn before you ask the market to tell you. Everything else is just structure around that honesty.

To discuss the best way to approach your next procurement project, speak to Charlie Bolam.

Lorna's Logic: "I was going to do something productive, but then I … “

Most of us can be quite easily distracted. “Squirrel!” springs to mind for any lovers of the film UP.

We shouldn’t beat ourselves up over it; we are just naturally responding to something, anything, that is more exciting than what we are doing at this precise moment. What, however, if what we are doing just now is vital, regardless of being tedious?

I do not believe I am alone with the feeling that all the techy nerdy guys have ‘left the building’, just a couple of empty cans of Red Bull and Wotsit packets inert beside sleeping laptops, while they are enthralled and absorbed with AI and all its exponential potential (have I just invented a useless meme there?).

Yes, we, the common folk, are excited and a bit scared of AI. Yes, we are mainly using it in our daily lives, but hang on, why is my email behaving oddly, why won’t this page load, why are there bugs in my software and WHY WON’T THIS DAMN THING PRINT??

I would be amazed if you guys out there have not also felt that cracks are beginning to appear in the foundations of our base technology. AI is being prioritised over all else, and so God help you if you have such a mundane problem as Outlook not syncing properly. What the tech giants are trying to do is amazing (if somewhat cavalier), but the existing platforms are not getting nearly enough love. What use is a monumentally intelligent LLM if you cannot apply it with a standard Office suite application?

I get it that focus and love for AI is not the sole problem here, we are putting way more strain on the data centres and even the software engineers, but come on Microsoft et al, hive off a group to actually concentrate on those areas that are interrupting our workflow, our contribution to GDP, and ultimately your customers who you want to fall in love with the sparkly disco-ball you are building (aka The Death Star).

Another year, another UKREiiF.

Remit Consulting’s Steph Yates and Charlie Bolam spent three days at UKREiiF, in Leeds, attending panels, meeting clients and partners, and taking the pulse of the UK real estate market.

Here's what stood out.

The macro mood: cautiously optimistic

The market is optimistic but slow. Volatile is the new normal. The UK remains a haven for global capital; our relatively stable government and strong legislative framework continue to be genuine differentiators. But our weaknesses are equally well known: successive governments meddling with budgets, a lack of joined-up thinking across departments (land, planning, utilities, and transport all operating in silos), and a persistent reluctance to welcome private infrastructure investment.

Net zero: the gap between ambition and delivery

One of the most striking statistics of the week: the amount of energy curtailed in the UK in 2025 was enough to power London for an entire year. Investment in renewable generation has raced ahead of investment in transmission, and that gap needs to close. Placing data centres adjacent to renewable energy plants was floated as one practical solution.

Net zero cannot be achieved without private finance, and local authorities are saying that they need to be genuine partners in that story, not just recipients of policy. Enabling communities to financially benefit from local renewable schemes could also be a powerful antidote to political backlash. Meanwhile, there's a real skills and language gap between local authority teams and the financial institutions they need to work with. Closing that gap is as important as any policy lever.

Planning: still broken, still getting worse

A consistent theme across conversations, from lawyers to developers to architects, was deep frustration with the planning system. The consensus: skilled planners are leaving for consultancy and private sector roles, and the pipeline isn't being replenished. This isn't a new problem, but it's an accelerating one.

AI and data: foundations first

Several panels this week circled the same truth: technology is an enabler, not a solution. The biggest risk in real estate right now isn't underinvesting in AI; it's overinvesting without the right people, processes, and data foundations in place. Asset managers may understand the value of tech integration, but ground-floor teams often don't, and if they don't, adoption fails - with expensive mistakes following.

The data centre conversation brought this into sharp focus: three-quarters of a data centre's lifetime cost is energy. Location decisions are fundamentally energy decisions. Getting the underlying data right matters enormously.

Housing and social value

Average build times have ballooned from 11 to 40 weeks. The UK is now importing bricks rather than making them. And on Thursday, Homes England, Oxford City Council and the Crown Estate were among those calling for a shared database to capture social value and wellbeing data across schemes; building the evidence base that developers and councils both need.

There was also a notable push from the One Built Environment campaign to have the real estate sector recognised as a single economic entity, with aligned policy, unlocked investment, new homes, and a stronger talent pipeline. A collective voice for an industry that has too often spoken in fragments.

And finally, the conversations that matter most

As ever, the real value of UKREiiF is in the meetings, the drinks receptions, and the chance encounters in between. Thank you to everyone who made time for us this week. The conversations were, as always, the highlight.

What were your standout moments from Leeds this year?

Remit Consulting brings the data to BBC Radio 4.

What does our research tell us about the return to work, productivity and attitudes to the workplace?

The question of where and how we work has rarely been far from the headlines since the pandemic, and this week it reached one of the UK's biggest stages, with Remit Consulting's Lorna Landells appearing on BBC Radio 4's ‘You and Yours’ to discuss what the data tells us about the return-to-work debate, productivity and what office workers think about the workplace.

Lorna was the expert guest on a national phone-in, which drew on our growing body of research into workplace behaviour, giving a national audience a chance to hear what the numbers say, rather than just the opinions.

The conversation touched on the tensions many organisations and individuals are still navigating: productivity, flexibility, office attendance, and what employees actually want. It's a debate that shows no sign of settling, and one that Remit Consulting has been tracking closely for over five years.

If you missed the broadcast, you can catch up on BBC Sounds, and if the discussion sparked your interest, the research goes much deeper.

Explore Remit Consulting's data behind the debate:

• The Return Report

• Office Workers Survey

• Productivity Report

The data is better. The workload isn't.

By Andrew Waller, Remit Consulting

Local authority estates teams have made real progress on data quality in recent years. Modern asset management systems have replaced the lever-arch files and spreadsheet patchworks that defined the sector not so long ago. Our latest research, conducted with ACES, found that ratings of "good" or "excellent" data quality doubled after teams implemented new platforms. That is a genuine achievement.

But the picture behind that headline is harder to sit with.

Three-quarters of estates professionals describe their workload as "heavy" or "extremely heavy." Only one in four feels it is manageable. These are not abstract statistics; they represent colleagues trying to deliver compliance, strategy, and day-to-day property management simultaneously, with budgets and staffing that have not kept pace with what is being asked of them.

Part of what I find striking in the data is the gap between owning a system and actually using it. When tools are not embedded in daily workflows, the efficiency gains stay on paper. The data improves; the pressure does not.

It is against that backdrop that I read the AI figures. Over 70% of respondents are either exploring or planning to adopt AI tools within the next 12 months, despite only 8% currently using them. From a sector not known for rapid technology adoption, that level of appetite tells its own story. I have described it elsewhere as a cry for help from an overstretched sector, and I stand by that.

My concern is sequencing. AI has real potential here, but automation built on inconsistent data or weak governance will not fix the workload problem; it will push it further downstream. For most teams, the immediate priority should be extracting more value from systems they already own, before adding another layer of complexity.

What the research shows me is a sector with no shortage of ambition. What it needs is the space, support, and investment to act on it.

The full findings from the 2025 ACES survey are available on request.

AI at MIPIM: from chat to consequence

by Andrew Barber

At MIPIM 2024 and 2025, artificial intelligence was hovering around the edges of the event. A session here, a fringe panel there. This year was different. AI emerged as the defining theme of the four days in Cannes, in the way ESG once was, but with a critical distinction: it is no longer being discussed as an ambition. It is something the industry is actively, if unevenly, having to deal with.

The timing of our own research felt apt. The 2026 AI in Real Estate Survey, produced by Remit Consulting with Antony Slumbers and supported by the UK PropTech Association, launched at the event. Its findings landed with an audience that was already primed for the conversation. Access to AI is now near universal: 93% of respondents said their organisation provides it. But the survey's more telling finding is the gap between access and maturity. Only 7% of firms describe themselves as fully integrated. The majority are using AI for transcription, drafting and summarisation, while deeper capabilities such as governed workflows, knowledge management and agentic automation remain largely untapped. The technology is in the room. Most firms are still deciding what to do with it.

At MIPIM, the physical consequences of AI were hard to ignore. Data centres dominated the investment conversation, with demand for capacity accelerating decisions at a pace the market hasn't seen before. Energy infrastructure and power availability have moved from secondary considerations to primary ones. The footprint of AI is growing faster than the sector's ability to plan for it.

The overall mood was cautious rather than frozen, with some investors still actively acquiring. But the message coming through both the conference and the survey was consistent: the firms best placed for the next cycle will be those moving beyond access and toward governance, data quality and embedded capability. Adoption is high. Maturity is not. That gap is where competitive advantage will be won or lost. And as Lorna Landells argues in her blog, as those decisions get made, it is worth looking closely at who is in the room making them.

Download a full copy of the AI in Real Estate Survey 2026.

Breaking the "query loop": Major firms back new charter for service charge scrutiny

• A new industry framework, backed by Colliers, Knight Frank, Cushman & Wakefield and BNP Paribas Real Estate, aims to end the cycle of repetitive correspondence and streamline communication between property managers and tenant consultants.

In the world of property management, a familiar and frustrating cycle often plays out. A property manager receives a list of service charge queries from a tenant’s consultant. They reply, providing documents and clarifications. Two weeks later, a second list arrives containing the same questions, slightly reworded, alongside requests for information already provided in the original reconciliation pack.

Individually, the requests are rarely unreasonable. Collectively, however, they create a "query loop" that consumes hundreds of administrative hours, delays resolutions, and leaves tenants waiting months for clear answers.

To break this cycle, Remit Consulting’s Property Managers Forum has launched the Property Managers’ Charter for Engagement with Service Charge Consultants.

A unified front

The Charter represents a significant shift in how the industry handles scrutiny. It has already secured the backing of four of the industry’s biggest players: Colliers, Knight Frank, Cushman & Wakefield, and BNP Paribas Real Estate.

The goal is not to limit a tenant's right to scrutinise costs. Instead, it aims to professionalise the interaction.

"Service charge queries are a normal and necessary part of the job," says Lorna Landells of Remit Consulting. "But when questions arrive in fragmented stages or repeat requests for information already provided, it slows the entire process down. This Charter creates a structure so enquiries can be dealt with efficiently, ensuring tenants get the answers they need much faster."

The "One-and-Done" approach

At the heart of the Charter is a push for transparency and preparation before a single question is even asked. Under the new framework, consultants are expected to provide:

• Clear credentials: A statement of professional qualifications and confirmation of their appointment by the tenant.Defined methodology:

• An outline of the review's purpose and the fee basis.

• Audit trail: A list of documents already in their possession to avoid duplicate requests.

Crucially, the Charter encourages consultants to submit a single, comprehensive set of queries at the start of the process rather than "drip-feeding" questions over several months.

Accountability for managers

The Charter is not a one-way street; it places strict expectations on property managers to be more responsive.

Once a completed query template is received, managing agents commit to acknowledging it and providing a clear timeframe for a full response within 15 working days. Both sides are also encouraged to appoint a single point of contact to prevent communication from becoming fragmented across multiple departments.

Martin Lovejoy of Colliers believes the initiative dissolves a friction point that has plagued the sector for years. "In most cases, everyone is trying to reach the same outcome, which is a clear understanding of the service charge," he explains.

"A more structured approach ensures that questions are addressed properly the first time, making the process work for everyone involved."

Aligning with professional standards

The framework is designed to sit alongside the RICS Service Charge Code, reinforcing existing professional standards while providing the practical steps for daily interactions.

As commercial buildings become more operationally complex and service charge costs face tighter scrutiny, the Property Managers Forum views this Charter as a vital step toward professional discipline.

By stripping away unnecessary friction, the real winners will be the tenants, who will finally see an end to the administrative delays that have historically clouded service charge resolution and drawn property managers away from more beneficial activities.

If you would like to learn more about the Charter, please contact Charlie via charlie.bolam@remitconsulting.com.

2026 Office worker survey: Key shifts in Gen Z engagement and workspace requirements

The 2026 findings of our annual Office Worker Survey were published recently, and the data highlights three specific trends that have significant implications for developers, investors, and occupiers evaluating their long-term leasing strategies.

Gen Z: The primary driver of voluntary attendance

Our youngest cohort (ages 18–34) now accounts for over 40% of responses. Notably, this group is the most likely to have increased their office attendance voluntarily, with 80% of regular office-goers in this bracket stating the choice is theirs.

This trend is likely a response to the loss of informal mentorship during remote-working years, coupled with the limitations of urban residential spaces. While office mandates often face resistance from older demographics with established home offices, the younger workforce is increasingly viewing the office as a primary site for professional development and social capital.

The resurgence of the allocated desk

The demand for a fixed, allocated desk has risen from 28% to 43% since 2023. This shift suggests that after years of optimising home setups, workers increasingly value the "familiarity" and productivity of a dedicated space.

For investors and occupiers who have prioritised aggressive desk-sharing ratios, this data suggests a need for recalibration. The rise in reported noise and distraction complaints suggests that "flexibility" should not come at the expense of a stable, quiet work environment.

Prioritising infrastructure over amenities

In a notable shift for the investment community, "wellness amenities", such as gym facilities and free catering, were rated as essential by only 13% of respondents. This contrasts with the prevailing market narrative that has positioned high-end lifestyle perks as a primary leasing differentiator.

Instead, the data points to a "flight to quality" regarding fundamental environmental factors: air quality, natural light, and acoustic management. While less photogenic than a wellness floor, these core elements appear to have a higher impact on long-term tenant satisfaction and retention.

Strategic implications for the 2026 market

The overarching message of this year's survey is a return to fundamentals. While the "hotelisation" of the office brought necessary improvements to the user experience, the data suggests that long-term value now lies in supporting the practical requirements of a younger, office-reliant workforce. Success for landlords and occupiers will likely depend on balancing flexible terms with the physical stability and environmental quality that workers can no longer find at home.

Download a full 2026 copy of the Office Worker Survey.

If you would like to discuss these findings or explore how they apply to your portfolio, please get in touch at return@remitconsulting.com.

Lorna’s Logic: "I feel like I'm invisible / You treat me like I'm not really there" Alison Moyet

By Lorna Landells

I’m not really big on women being the ‘best at everything’ or ‘you go girl’, but I do believe in parity at work. I enjoy the differences between men and women, how we think and act make for a far more interesting world than if we were all the same. However, despite my advanced years, I remain gob-smacked that the world of property has not really changed in its stance on women; to a large extent, we remain invisible or, occasionally, merely eye-candy.

I travelled to MIPIM in a group that included one other female. This was her first time at the event, and on the last day, she made the unbidden comment, “I am looking forward to seeing jeans again, oh and women!”

The numbers at MIPIM were definitely down this year, but the proportion of women seemed to be too.

Three years ago, I wrote a blog about hybrid working and its specific impact on women, quoting the Economist’s “Glass Ceiling Index” from that year. We, as in Britain, sat at 17th place out of 29 then, and, lo and behold, we are still at number 17, way below the OECD* average. What is going on?

We have upped the number of women in government, now over 40%, but are still lagging at 32% in the House of Lords (clues in the name?). However, when we come back to the world of property, it drops yet further: 20-30% of senior leadership roles are held by women (1). Furthermore, as a personal observation only, I believe some of those are actually being double-counted since female NEDs are definitely in demand, and certain names just keep on cropping up.

So, come on, guys, we’re over here, we’re over here! Diversity in the workforce can only be a good thing, surely. We’ve already lost the ESG audience to AI frenzy, let’s at least try to keep one eye on the inclusion ball.

(1) Real Estate Balance 2026

Don’t overlook the 'G'

By Steph Yates

The real estate industry has made significant strides in embedding ESG principles into investment decision-making (perhaps pretend you didn’t read that line if you are in the US). Environmental credentials are scrutinised at acquisition, social impact is measured and reported, and governance frameworks are increasingly demanded by institutional investors and regulators alike. Yet within that governance conversation, one area remains absent: cyber security.

15 years of consulting means that I now gap analyse everything, and this one has sirens and red flashing lights blaring.

For fund and asset managers, governance obligations are not optional: they include how data is protected, operational risk mitigation, and how businesses demonstrate to investors that their controls meet the expected standard. Cyber risk sits squarely within that remit, and its importance is growing.

Real estate businesses hold some of the most sensitive data in the financial ecosystem: ownership structures, fund performance, acquisition pipelines, tenant information etc. A cyber incident during a fundraise or transaction is not just an IT inconvenience, it is a governance failure, and investors are starting to treat it as one.

New and improved regulation reinforces this. DORA (the Digital Operational Resilience Act), the FCA, and the ICO are all placing greater emphasis on operational resilience and cyber security. Businesses subject to this regulation cannot afford to treat cyber security as someone else's problem.

Practical steps exist. The UK Government's Cyber Essentials framework provides a structured, independently verified approach to establishing and demonstrating baseline cyber controls. At its higher tier, Cyber Essentials Plus, businesses undergo rigorous external testing of their systems and processes, providing a credible and recognised signal of operational maturity.

We are proud to have achieved Cyber Essentials Plus certification, and we see it as a natural extension of the governance standards we hold ourselves to on behalf of our clients.

If cyber security isn't yet part of your ESG governance conversation, it may be time to put it on the agenda.

For more information on this, please contact Steph Yates.