Energy building analysis considering different ownership types

2 Challenges and Motivations for Energy Renovation among Different Ownership Types Today, institutional investors are responsible not only for financial returns but also for the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors that influence their investments (Thakkars et al., 2023).Several certificates and standards have therefore appeared on the market to measure and benchmark real estate properties in relation to ESG factors.Some of these reporting mechanisms have become mandatory for large companies (Archer-Svoboda, 2022), and according to Christensen et al., ( 2018), energy and sustainability tracking has therefore been adopted as a standard operating procedure by most institutional investors.According to the 2020 PACTA report, buildings directly owned by institutional investors in Switzerland have lower CO emissions than the rest of the building stock.Nevertheless, 70% of these buildings are still heated using oil.This indicates that even greater CO emission reductions could be achieved by transitioning to a renewable heating system and performing energy-efficient retrofitting (Spuler et al., 2020).Petkov et al., (2021) studied the decision-making process for retrofitting among institutional investors.They found that retrofitting decisions are often based on the idea of maximising building value.Schlpfer et al., (2020) show evidence that retrofitting buildings often leads to a considerable increase in property value.However, Petkov et al., (2021) also notes that within the building portfolios of institutional investors, some properties are not economically viable to retrofit.In addition, institutional investors often apply rent increases to partially recover retrofitting costs.This is a highly sensitive measure that can lead to social issues and rent increases may therefore be regulated by the state.