ESG Compliance in Greek Real Estate: Current Gaps and Future Directions

Abstract

This study analyzes the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) reporting practices of Greek Real Estate Investment Companies (REICs). Our findings reveal significant variation in compliance levels. This can be attributed to loose regulations, combined with a lack of self-commitment. Environmental performance is the least reported ESG pillar. We further explore the quality of Greek REICs’ ESG reporting. The results indicate that reporting per se does not necessarily ensure adherence to globally acknowledged reporting principles. Our work highlights that Greek REICs should be either motivated or enforced by law to align their ESG practices with broader market trends and regulatory developments. At the same time, our study is a call to policymakers for clear ESG guidelines. Despite the plethora of legislation and principles, the elephant in the room remains: many firms continue to do less than needed, or even the bare minimum, just because they can.

1. Introduction

The conventional corporate model, long focused on maximizing shareholder value, is increasingly being challenged by a more integrated perspective. Stakeholder theory, introduced by Freeman (1984), provides a compelling alternative, arguing that corporations should create value for all stakeholders, not just shareholders. This does not necessarily suggest strict opposition to shareholder volume, but rather advocates for a broader, more integrated view of value creation that can be mutually reinforcing in the long run. This conceptual shift has fueled the rise of the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework, which offers a way to measure a company’s societal impact and long-term viability, much as financial metrics evaluate shareholder performance (Martin et al., 2020).

The growing discourse on sustainability, particularly in Europe, has been followed by a wave of ESG reporting legislation. However, this raises a critical question: what is the reality on the ground? A significant gap often exists between corporate commitments and actual practice, a concern that is especially acute in the real estate sector due to its large environmental footprint. Understanding this gap is crucial for fostering genuine sustainable practices rather than superficial compliance.

This study focuses on Greek REICs because their unique regulatory position makes them an ideal case for examining this theory-practice gap. Most Greek REICs qualify as Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), which are typically exempt from mandatory ESG reporting. Yet, they are also required to list on the Athens Stock Exchange within a few years of establishment, a status that subjects them to mandatory disclosure rules. This dual identity provides a natural experiment to investigate whether being a listed company, versus an SME, significantly impacts the depth and quality of ESG reporting.

After deploying an appropriate theoretical framework, our research addresses two primary questions: first, to what extent do Greek REICs disclose ESG information, and second, what is the quality of that reporting? To answer these, we employ a scorecard methodology based on a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ assessment. The level of compliance is measured against the core metrics of the 2022 ATHEX ESG Guide, while the quality of the disclosures is evaluated against the 2023 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Principles (Global Reporting Initiative, 2021). Our findings reveal significant variability in compliance, with environmental reporting being consistently low and most GRI principles inadequately addressed, highlighting a disconnect between reporting and adherence to global standards.

While the term Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) does not exist in Greek legislation, a Real Estate Investment Company (REIC) could be considered as a similar entity. REICs are regulated by Law 2778/1999 (‘REIC law’), introduced in 1999. The latest amendment was by law 4646/2019. A Greek REIC must conform to all the formalities set out by Greek Corporate Law (4548/2018), as it follows the legal form of a Société Anonyme (SA). Its operations can only include management of a real estate portfolio in Greece or the European Economic Area, certain highly liquid and short-term investments in bonds or marketable securities, and interests in other SAs with similar purpose. The required minimum share capital amounts to EUR 25 million1.

Our research reveals significant variability in how Greek REICs comply with the 2022 ATHEX ESG Guide, with compliance ranging from 24% to 94%. This variability highlights diverse strategic approaches and shows that neither SME status nor listing status significantly predicts ESG reporting performance. Environmental reporting scores are consistently low, while governance scores are higher due to legal requirements. Social pillar results are mixed, often influenced by legal mandates. Regarding the second research question, we found that most GRI principles are inadequately addressed. REICs tend to high-light their achievements while downplaying challenges. In addition, in most cases, ESG data lacks external verification.

Although the REIC sector is relatively small in Greece, our findings have broad im-plications. They are applicable to most economic fields, given that SMEs constitute the majority of firms nationally, across Europe, and globally. This study underscores the urgent need for action on three fronts. First, implementing more robust legislation to ensure comprehensive ESG reporting, as current lax regulations permit minimal disclosure practices. Second, the quantification of ESG guidelines is essential, as theoretical criteria are too easily manipulated. Lastly, our results challenge the actual level of societal awareness and engagement with ESG issues. In essence, our research reveals a critical gap between ESG commitment and operational practice, providing empirical evidence of agency conflict where mandatory disclosures are prioritized over costly, voluntary ESG action.

To our knowledge, this is the first academic attempt to inspect the ESG reporting status of REITs/REICs from a clearly qualitative standpoint. Especially in the Greek environment, previous research on REICs has focused primarily on their legal or tax status, financial performance, and prospects, while ESG has been largely neglected. Nevertheless, the main contribution of the study lies in the introduction of a straightforward scorecard methodology to measure ESG compliance, as a tool for future academic use or application by practitioners. Our approach is generalizable to any other type of firm.

This work directly responds to the extensive literature review by Johnson and Schaltegger (2016), who discuss the implementation barriers of ESG management tools for SMEs. They conclude that most ESG models have been created for large companies, so their application to SMEs requires fulfilling certain facilitating criteria. These criteria mainly refer to user-friendliness, cost-effectiveness, and adaptability of the model to each firm’s profile. Verboven and Vanherck (2016) make similar suggestions about the ideal characteristics of an ESG model for SMEs.

The structure of the remainder of this chapter is as follows: Section 2 examines the evolving relationship between stakeholder and shareholder interests. Section 3 provides an overview of the regulatory requirements for ESG reporting in Greece and includes a literature review. Section 4 presents the research design of the case study analysis. Section 5 offers a discussion of the empirical findings, a short review of the international ESG reporting level by REITs, and a concise framework for Greek REITs to enhance their ESG compliance, focusing on simple, actionable steps and metrics. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the key conclusions, acknowledges the limitations of the study, and proposes directions for future research.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. The Stakeholder-Shareholder Nexus

The initial impression of a conflict between stakeholder and shareholder interests is a long-standing debate in corporate governance, largely stemming from the traditional view that managerial focus must be solely on maximizing shareholder wealth (Friedman, 1970). While short-term, zero-sum conflicts can certainly arise—such as allocating capital to social programs instead of immediate dividends payouts—a growing body of academic literature and empirical evidence supports a more and more complex and often complementary relationship. The central arguments that creating value for stakeholders can, over the long term, be a powerful driver of sustainable shareholder value.

The concept of shared value advanced by Porter and Kramer (2011) provides a foundational perspective for this dynamic. They argue that businesses can create economic value by addressing societal needs and challenges. This is not about corporate philanthropy, but about reconceptualizing the very purpose of the firm to align profit with social progress. For example, by investing in employee well-being (a stakeholder group), a company can boost productivity, reduce turnover and attract top talent, all of which can enhance long term financial performance. Similarly, engaging with local communities and addressing environmental concerns can mitigate the risks, improve browser visitation, and open up new market opportunities.

Unilever’s 2010 Sustainable Living Plan, reflecting the strategic imperatives outlined by Lubin and Esty (2010), demonstrates how embedding sustainability into core operations can yield superior long-term shareholder returns. Despite incurring significant short-term supply chain investments and sparking internal debates over non-financial performance metrics, Sustainable Living Brands outpaced the rest of the portfolio in the counted disproportionately for Unilever’s turnover and total shareholder return by 2018. This case underscores that prioritizing environmental and social objectives alongside financial goals, even when it catalyzes short-term conflicts, can enhance value over the long horizon.

Similarly, Nestlé’s Cocoa Plan, launched in 2009, invested in farmer training and an overall upgrade in their living conditions. This triggered short-term increases in procurement costs and led to more intensive supplier negotiations. Over subsequent years though, products under the Cocoa plan achieved retail price premiums of roughly 5–10% versus conventional lines (Nestlé, 2018). Oelberger and Wittneben (2017) attribute the financial results to enhanced bean quality, stronger brand differentiation and consumer willingness to pay for ethically sourced cocoa.

2.2. Institutional and Agency Theory

The complexity of ESG reporting practices in the real estate sector, particularly among Greek REICs, is best understood by synthesizing two distinct theoretical lenses: Institutional Theory and Agency Theory. These two frameworks offer a deeper explanation for why firms behave as they do. Institutional Theory explains the powerful external societal forces that drive organizational conformity and the pursuit of legitimacy. In parallel, Agency Theory illuminates the internal micro-dynamics and potential conflicts that can lead to a gap between the firm’s stated intentions and its actual practices. The combination of these frameworks provides a holistic view of the observed ESG reporting behaviors in our study.

Institutional Theory claims that organizations in a shared environment tend to become more similar over time. This conformity, or isomorphism, is not necessarily driven by a quest for efficiency but by the pursuit of social legitimacy. As outlined by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), this process occurs through three primary mechanisms: coercive, mimetic and normative.

Coercive isomorphism arises from formal pressures, such as laws, regulations or mandatory reporting standards. The paper’s finding that government-related disclosures are consistently high in Greek REICs can be explained by coercive pressure, as companies must legally comply with national and European legal frameworks. Conversely, the consistently low environmental reporting scores can be attributed to the lack of significant coercive pressure in this area for SMEs.

In addition, when faced with uncertainty, organizations often imitate the practices of other successful or legitimate firms to reduce risk. The observed variability in ESG compliance among Greek REICs suggests a mimetic process at play, where some firms are attempting to emulate a perceived industry standard, while others are not. The tendency for firms to use vague, qualitative language in their reports, as noted in this study, can be seen as a form of mimetic behavior to appear compliant and legitimate to stakeholders.

Finally, normative isomorphism might stem from shared norms and values promoted by industry associations or professional bodies. The voluntary adoption of guidelines like the ATHEX ESG Guide and the GRI principles illustrates normative pressure. This framework can also explain why some non-listed SMEs in the sample show high levels of reporting: they are conforming to professional norms to gain credibility in the market.

On the other hand, Agency Theory, rooted in the work of Jensen and Meckling (1976), addresses the relationship between a principal (e.g., a shareholder or investor) and an agent (e.g., a manager). This relationship is prone to a conflict of interest, where the agent may not always act in the best interest of the principal, particularly when there is information asymmetry. In the context of ESG, the agency problem arises when managers are incentivized by short-term financial performance. ESG initiatives, which often require significant long-term investments with uncertain returns, can conflict with this incentive. This can lead to a critical gap between theory and practice, where managers may engage in greenwashing, while avoiding costly operational changes (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). The study’s finding that firms often highlight their achievements while downplaying challenges is a clear symptom of this. Furthermore, some researchers argue that managers may overinvest in highly visible ESG projects with the sole purpose to enhance their own personal reputation, a form of agency cost where corporate resources are used for the agent’s private benefit (Barnea & Rubin, 2010). Agency Theory also explains why ESG data is often unverified and inconsistent. By controlling the flow of information, agents can obscure their true ESG performance from principals. This can result in practices like greenwashing or greenwishing. The lack of external verification in most reports serves to maintain this asymmetry.

3. Regulatory Environment and Literature Review

3.1. Regulatory Environment in Greece

The European Union (EU) is a global leader in the production of ESG-related legislation, especially concerning the environmental pillar. In 2014, the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) led the way for the disclosure of ESG information. It applies to listed firms with over 500 employees; thus, it does not include SMEs. The Taxonomy Regulation, which came into effect in July 2020, further strengthened the NFDR reporting requirements by standardizing measurement and classification definitions for environmentally sustainable economic activities. Compliance with the Regulation requires recognition and mitigation of all activities that exacerbate climate change. The regulation applies to financial market participants in the EU, and to companies already subject to the NFRD, so SMEs remain unaffected.

In addition to these regulations, the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), published in December 2019 and enacted in 2021, foresees a series of sustainability-related disclosures for all financial market participants in the EU, albeit without specified quantitative criteria. ‘Financial market participants’ refer to entities that manufacture financial products, such as investment firms, pension funds, asset managers, insurance companies, banks, venture capital funds, credit institutions offering portfolio management, etc. Most of the times, they are large companies.

The latest developments depict the EU’s willingness to take ESG reporting to a higher level: in 2021, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) extended the scope of the pre-existing ESG reporting requirements to a much wider set of companies, including all large ones (with over 500 employees), publicly traded or not, as well as all firms listed on regulated markets regardless of size. The Directive will also require companies to have their sustainability information assured by an external auditor. The CSRD will be rolled out in three phases. Starting from 1 January 2024, it will apply to large companies that were already subject to mandatory reporting. In 2025, it will be implemented for large companies not presently subject to the non-financial directive. Finally, on 1 January 2026 the Directive’s application will be enacted for listed SMEs, small and non-complex institutions, and captive insurance undertakings. The SMEs included in the CSDR perimeter will be given a transitional period of two years until January 2028 for the application of the Directive. During this period, they must consider how to abide by the new regulatory requirements. Standards for SMEs have not been specified yet, as they will be tailored to their characteristics.

At a national level, in 2019, the National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) outlined ambitious targets and supporting measures to transition Greece towards a net-zero emissions trajectory. In May 2022, the National Climate Law (4936/2022) further reinforced this commitment, setting a clear path towards achieving a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030, an 80% reduction by 2040, and ultimately, net-zero emissions by 2050.2 Moreover, regarding governance, the Hellenic Corporate Governance Code (HCGC), created in 2012 and reviewed in 2021, establishes the CG framework for Greek companies with securities listed on a regulated market. It encompasses previous relevant legislation (laws 4706/2020 and 4548/2018), as well as best practices and recommendations for self-regulation with voluntary compliance.

A comprehensive examination of ESG reporting regulations reveals that SMEs, remain largely exempt from compulsory reporting obligations. The recent EU Regulation (CSDR) represents a positive step towards extending ESG reporting requirements, yet non-listed SMEs and micro-enterprises continue to escape the regulatory net. In Greece, 94.6% of businesses are classified as micro-enterprises employing fewer than 10 individuals, and only approximately 0.6% of all listed firms fall under the definition of SMEs. This disparity implies that the majority of SMEs, excluding the few listed ones, are expected to continue evading the ESG reporting burden. However, all firms, including those currently unaffected by the law, are poised to face mounting scrutiny regarding their ESG performance soon. This could arise from various sources, including financial institutions demanding ESG data as a prerequisite for granting new loans, larger businesses within their value chains refusing to engage with them due to their inadequate ESG performance, or the enactment of stricter ESG reporting regulations.

The CSRD is operationalized through a detailed set of rules known as the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), developed by the independent European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG). The ESRS move beyond the broad guidelines of previous laws by providing a granular framework for disclosure. They are divided into Disclosure Requirements and Data Points, demanding both qualitative and quantitative information about the company’s policies, objectives, action plans and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). This structured approach directly addresses the manuscript’s finding that Greek REICs often rely on vague, qualitative descriptions rather than verifiable data.

To mitigate the burden of ESRS on smaller companies, the EU has adopted a two-tiered approach for SMEs. For the listed ones, the ESRS for Listed SMEs is a simplified, mandatory standard, proportionate to the scale and complexity of their operations. For the vast majority of non-listed SMEs, the Voluntary Sustainability Reporting Standard for SMEs (VSME) has been developed, as an easily applicable framework. Its primary purpose is to help non-listed SMEs respond to sustainability data requests from their business partners and financial institutions that are subject to CSRD. The VSME simplifies the process by replacing the rigorous double materiality analysis3 with a more pragmatic ‘if applicable principle’, since SMEs are required to report only on sustainability issues that directly apply to their business. This principle is designed to function as a ‘de facto value chain cap’: SMEs to use a single, standardized VSME report instead of responding to numerous different data requests, effectively capping their reporting effort.

3.2. Literature Review

3.2.1. The State of ESG Research in Real Estate

It is noteworthy that academic literature directly addressing ESG reporting quality in the real estate field is scarce. We failed to trace a paper oriented exclusively in a deep qualitative assessment of ESG reporting for REITs/REICs. Ionașcu et al. (2020) reveal a significant gap between the expressed interest in sustainability and actual implementation among real estate companies of various types. Many lack the strategy, culture, and tools to translate commitments into action, so they prefer qualitative descriptions to quantitative key performance indicators (KPIs) in sustainability reporting. G. Newell et al. (2023) also conclude that the real estate sector faces challenges in ESG benchmarking, with a need for more granular data and focus on climate resilience.

3.2.2. ESG Adoption Challenges for SMEs

The reason why only a few SMEs choose to report their ESG performance on a voluntary basis can be attributed to various reasons. SMEs obviously lack the expertise to handle ESG issues, which often seem complicated (Lawrence et al., 2006; Aykol & Leonidou, 2014). The scarcity of human and financial resources adds to the problem (Barbagila et al., 2020). Meanwhile, an SME probably underestimates the importance of its very own contribution to the ESG field, or views ESG issues as irrelevant to its core business (Yip & Yu, 2023). In addition, SMEs usually do not draw the attention of the media (Alkatheeri et al., 2023), communities and governments (Blundel et al., 2013), and this translates into less pressure to comply. Additionally, there is evidence that smaller companies receive fewer benefits from taking environmental initiatives (Brammer et al., 2012).

3.2.3. The Contested Link Between ESG Disclosure and Financial Performance

As regulatory frameworks evolve globally, the likelihood of REITs including standardized ESG reporting into their annual reporting is on the rise. Until today, the main body of research has sought to establish a connection between the magnitude of ESG disclosure and financial performance, without reaching a clear consensus. While some studies, such as those by Whelan et al. (2020) and Z. F. Feng and Wu (2021), suggest a positive association between ESG disclosure and REIT value, others support that CSR practices in REITs do not seem to improve returns (e.g., Westermann et al., 2019). To provide a comprehensive overview, we present our insights categorized by the ESG pillars: environmental, social, and governance.

3.2.4. Environmental Pillar

Starting with the environment, the potential for significant improvements in the environmental performance of the global real estate industry has been repeatedly documented (e.g., Bauer et al., 2011; Ng & Cheng, 2016; Goh et al., 2018). Specifically, within the Greek building sector, the prospects for energy savings are highly promising (Karakosta & Papapostolou, 2023). When addressing environmental concerns, the real estate sector confronts various barriers, such as elevated transaction costs and lack of awareness and expertise (Bienert, 2016). Researchers have also focused on the financial downsides of climate change (Chazanas, 2022; Kuwabara & Cochran, 2023), which include even stranding risk (Hirsch et al., 2019).

Maijala (2020) demonstrated that carbon reduction strategies among European REITs exhibit considerable heterogeneity, ranging from a 34% emissions reduction target to a commitment to carbon neutrality by 2030. Additionally, dedicated reporting tools for real estate have emerged, such as the Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor (CRREM), which was developed with the support of EU to provide a robust foundation for assessing stranding risk. Spanner and Wein (2020) commend the CRREM as the first tool to offer location- and building-type-specific solutions. Other authors, including Leskinen et al. (2020), employ the number of green certificates as a proxy for greenness reporting in a property portfolio. Eichholtz et al. (2009) highlight the widespread use of the Green Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB4) rating as a popular greenness indicator. Concurrently with these developments, doubts persist regarding the financial benefits of adopting green practices for REITs (Mariani et al., 2018; Coën et al., 2020).

3.2.5. Social Pillar

The importance of social responsibility principles for real estate companies has been evidenced by various researchers, such as Roberts et al. (2007) and Chiang et al. (2019). Erol et al. (2023) suggest that socially conscious REITs (S-investing) may secure a positive premium for their shares and establish a competitive advantage. This contrasts with their findings on environmental investing, where elevated financial expenses might result in declining market returns. Similarly, Fan et al. (2024) demonstrate a positive relationship between social performance of REITs and their future returns, whereas environmental performance is negatively associated with expected returns.

Our research indicates that the role of women in REITs is the most comprehensively researched aspect of the S pillar of ESG. Jolin (2021) uncovers notable risk-reduction benefits associated with eliminating gender bias. Additionally, Noguera (2020) demonstrates a modest positive correlation between Board gender diversity and REIT performance. Schrand et al. (2018) also affirm that female representation in REIT Boards positively influences market performance after surpassing the 30% threshold.

3.2.6. Governance Pillar

Finally, the relationship between corporate governance and the financial performance of REITs remains a topic of debate among academia. Numerous studies have found a positive and significant correlation between governance and REIT performance (Ramachandran et al., 2018; Chong et al., 2017; Z. Feng et al., 2005). A. Newell and Lee (2012) highlight corporate governance as the most influential ESG factor affecting REIT performance. Anglin et al. (2012) argue that exceeding the already stringent regulatory requirements for REITs can further enhance investor confidence and, consequently, boost REIT valuations. On the contrary, other academics have argued that the mandatory dividend payout requirement for REITs reduces the importance of corporate governance (e.g., La Porta et al., 2000; Bauer et al., 2010). Further research is needed to identify the specific governance factors that most strongly impact REIT performance.

3.2.7. The ESG Landscape in 2025: Navigating Regulatory Complexity and Investor Demands

The year 2025 represents an inflection point, marking a decisive shift from a voluntary, narrative-based ESG reporting environment to one defined by mandatory, standardized, and auditable disclosure regimes. According to Kodiak Hub (2024), this transition compels firms to manage ESG data with the same rigor as financial information. Global standards, particularly the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards, are establishing a new global baseline (EBI Consulting, 2024). A central tenet of these new regulations is the concept of “double materiality,” which requires REITs to report not only on how ESG issues impact their financial performance (financial materiality) but also on how their operations affect society and the environment (impact materiality) (Deepki, 2024).

This regulatory evolution is mirrored by a shift in investor expectations. Position Green (2025) states that investors now demand “business intelligence,” not just sustainability narratives. Disclosures must be financially integrated, comparable across portfolios using standardized frameworks, and forward-looking. A key demand is for scenario-based analysis that models asset performance under various climate and regulatory futures, such as carbon pricing stress tests (Position Green, 2025). The industry is responding to this pressure; a report from Nareit (2024) indicates that 98% of the top 100 REITs now publish a sustainability report, establishing disclosure as a fundamental market expectation. However, this convergence towards global standards coexists with a fragmented and complex regulatory reality. A global REIT must navigate a “patchwork” of rules, potentially complying with the CSRD in Europe, state-level mandates like California’s SB 253 and SB 261, and municipal ordinances such as New York’s Local Law 97 simultaneously (Clark Hill, 2025). This creates a compliance paradox where adherence to a single global standard is insufficient, requiring a sophisticated, multi-jurisdictional strategy.

4. Research Design

A structured scorecard methodology was employed to answer both research questions. The first question investigates the extent to which Greek REICs disclose ESG information, while the second assesses the quality of that reporting. The methodology is designed to provide a comprehensive, albeit pragmatic, evaluation of a market that is still in the nascent stages of adopting formal ESG disclosures. For the quantitative assessment of disclosure extent, a binary “yes” or “no” classification was applied to measure each REIC’s compliance with the core metrics of the 2022 Athens Stock Exchange ESG Guide (hereafter referred to as the ATHEX Guide, (Athens Stock Exchange, 2022)). The decision to focus exclusively on core metrics, rather than more advanced or sector-specific ones, was a deliberate choice that reflects the resource constraints and scale of most Greek REICs, which are predominantly SMEs. This approach aligns with the extensive literature on the implementation barriers of ESG management tools for smaller companies, which often lack the specialized human capital, time, and financial resources to apply models originally designed for larger enterprises (Johnson & Schaltegger, 2016; Verboven & Vanherck, 2016).

The second research question, concerning the qualitative assessment of reporting, presented a more intricate challenge. To evaluate the quality of disclosures, a similar “yes” or “no” approach was used to measure adherence to the 2023 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Principles (Global Reporting Initiative, 2021). The GRI framework was selected due to its widespread international adoption and its clear, multi-stakeholder orientation, which fosters a broad consensus among market participants. This two-tiered methodology allows the study to move beyond a simple quantitative tally of disclosed metrics and delve into a deeper, more nuanced analysis of the underlying practices and motivations. A simple “yes” to a metric, such as Board Composition, does not necessarily capture the quality of the board’s diversity or expertise. By cross-referencing these quantitative results with the qualitative principles of the GRI, the analysis can identify whether firms are engaging in genuine, high-quality reporting or merely superficial compliance to appear legitimate.

The two tables below were foundational to the research design and served as the analytical framework for the entire study.

Table 1. 2022 ATHEX ESG Guide’s core metrics.

ESG Classification	ID	Metric title	Description
Environmental	C-E1	Scope 1 emissions	Direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from sources the company owns or controls (e.g., fuel burned in company vehicles).
	C-E2	Scope 2 emissions	Indirect GHG emissions from the purchased electricity, heat, or steam the company consumes.
	C-E3	Energy consumption and production	Total energy the company uses from all sources, and any energy it generates itself.
Social	C-S1	Stakeholder engagement	The company’s process for identifying and communicating with key groups like employees, customers, and the community.
	C-S2	Female employees	The total number and percentage of women in the company’s workforce.
	C-S3	Female employees in management positions	The number and percentage of women holding leadership and management roles.
	C-S4	Employee turnover	The rate at which employees leave the company, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
	C-S5	Employee training	Details on the professional development and training opportunities provided to employees.
	C-S6	Human right policy	A formal statement of the company’s commitment to respecting and upholding human rights in its operations.
	C-S7	Collective bargaining agreements	The percentage of the workforce covered by agreements negotiated with labor unions.
	C-S8	Supplier assessment	The process for evaluating suppliers based on their own social and environmental performance.
Governance	C-G1	Board composition	Information on the structure of the Board of Directors, including diversity, independence, and expertise.
	C-G2	Sustainability oversight	How the Board and senior management are responsible for and manage ESG-related issues.
	C-G3	Materiality	The process the company uses to identify which ESG topics are most important to its business and stakeholders.
	C-G4	Sustainability policy	The company’s official, high-level policy outlining its commitment and approach to sustainability.
	C-G5	Business ethics policy	A formal policy, often a Code of Conduct, addressing issues like anti-corruption, bribery, and conflicts of interest.
	C-G6	Data security policy	Policies and procedures in place to protect sensitive company, customer, and employee data from cyber threats.

Source: 2022 ATHEX ESG Reporting Guide.

provides a granular overview of the specific metrics evaluated across the three ESG pillars, while

Table 2. Research design regarding compliance with GRI Principles.

GRI Principles *	Definition of Principle *	Criteria for Indication ‘Yes’ in the Sampled Reports
i. Accuracy	The organization shall report information that is correct and sufficiently detailed to allow an assessment of the organization’s impacts.	‘Yes’ if the released information has been externally verified (combined examination with Verifiability)
ii. Balance	The organization shall report information in an unbiased way and provide a fair representation of the organization’s negative and positive impacts.	‘Yes’ if the company explicitly states its problem areas concerning ESG
iii. Clarity	The organization shall present information in a way that is accessible and understandable.	‘Yes’ if the information is available online and expressed without excessive terminology
iv. Comparability	The organization shall select, compile, and report information consistently to enable an analysis of changes in the organization’s impacts over time and an analysis of these impacts relative to those of other organizations.	‘Yes’ if the firm has been releasing a Sustainability Report at least since 2020 with reference to 2019 **
v. Completeness	The organization shall provide sufficient information to enable an assessment of the organization’s impacts during the reporting period.	‘Yes’ if at least 60% of core metrics are sufficiently reported (i.e., indication ‘YES’ in Section 5, Table 3)
vi. Sustainability context	The organization shall report information about its impacts in the wider context of sustainable development.	‘Yes’ if the firm has released a distinct Sustainability Report and not pieces of ESG information scattered inside the financial statements
vii. Timeliness	The organization shall report information on a regular schedule and make it available in time for information users to make decisions.	‘Yes’ if the time lag between the end of the reporting period and the release of ESG information is less than 12 months
viii. Verifiability	The organization shall gather, record, compile, and analyze information in such a way that the information can be examined to establish its quality.	‘Yes’ if the released ESG information has been externally verified (combined examination with Accuracy)

* Source: GRI 2 General Disclosures 2021 (effective date 1 January 2023). ** 2019 was selected as a threshold for meaningful comparisons with the present, as the period 2020–2022 may be related to abnormal ESG performance due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

details the eight GRI principles used to assess the qualitative aspects of the disclosures, establishing the criteria for a high-quality report.

5. Empirical Findings and Discussion

5.1. General Remarks

The main issue arising from our study is that most Greek REICs tend to avoid rigorous reporting practices. This is primarily due to the laxity of existing legal frameworks. These frameworks allow companies to adopt minimal approaches to ESG disclosures at their discretion. As a result, overall transparency and accountability are undermined. This finding underscores the need for more robust legislation to ensure comprehensive and consistent ESG reporting among Greek REICs. Our findings are particularly concerning given that the EU has been introducing ESG-related legislation for almost two decades, yet progress appears alarmingly slow. Similar issues are likely to be present in the ESG reporting status of other sectors currently unaffected by law.

While the EU has made significant strides towards establishing a more robust and comprehensive ESG reporting framework, this push exists alongside conflicting policy priorities. The landmark report on European competitiveness, authored by former European Central Bank President, Mario Draghi (2024), identifies a ‘heavy and growing regulatory burden’ as a key factor hindering investment and growth across the EU. This report highlights that a substantial portion of EU companies, particularly SMEs, consider ‘regulatory obstacles and the administrative burden as their greatest challenge’. To address this, the EU has committed to a bold initiative to reduce overall reporting requirements by 25% in general and by 35% for SMEs.

This situation reveals a fundamental policy paradox. One the one hand, the EU keeps deepening its sustainability requirements. At the same time, though, it is working to simplify regulations and thus restore its global competitiveness. This tension suggests that the current ESG reporting status of the Greek REIC sector might be reflecting an ongoing struggle to balance sustainability with pragmatism. The Greek context, where a significant portion of the economy is composed of SMEs, serves as a poignant example of this broader, high-level policy conflict.

In addition to the loose regulations, we found that the ambiguous definitions of certain ESG metrics (research question 1) and principles (research question 2) can enable firms to ostensibly demonstrate compliance. Even when reporting is well-intentioned, the vagueness of the guidance can lead firms to report unreliable data. The anticipated worldwide standardization of reporting standards aims to provide investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information. G. Newell et al. (2023) highlight that, especially regarding ESG benchmarking in real estate, granularity is needed around climate resilience and climate risk performance, outcomes, and impacts.

In hindsight, perhaps the most disappointing realization is that despite the theoretical rise in societal education levels and easier access to information, ESG awareness remains low. We would expect corporate leaders to act as advocates of sustainable transformation rather than hiding behind opaque guidelines. Climate change is irreversible unless we proactively control it. Especially actors in the real estate market encounter high expectations for transparency and reporting on ESG matters.

Regarding the first question, the findings of our research are presented in

Table 3. 2022 ESG ATHEX Guide’s core metrics disclosure per REIC.

REIC	SME	Listed	Environment **			Society								Governance						% ‘Y’
			C-E1	C-E2	C-E3	C-S1	C-S2	C-S3	C-S4	C-S5	C-S6	C-S7	C-S8	C-G1	C-G2	C-G3	C-G4	C-G5	C-G6
A	Yes	Yes	N	N	N	Ν	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	53
B	Yes	Yes	N	N	N	Ν	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	24
C	Yes	Yes	Ν	Ν	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	88
D	Yes	Yes	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	94
E	Yes	No	Y	Y	Y	Ν	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	82
F	Yes	No *	Ν	Ν	Ν	Ν	Ν	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	35
G	Yes	Yes	Ν	Ν	Ν	Ν	Ν	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	41
H	Yes	No *	Ν	Ν	Ν	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	76
I	No	Yes	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	88
% ‘Y’			33	33	44	44	67	100	56	44	78	100	44	100	67	56	89	89	55	65
% per pillar E-S-G			37			67								76

* For REICs F and H, the latest ESG information (on which our research is based) was released while they were not yet listed. ** In the environmental metrics we have assigned a value of ‘Yes’ if the reported data represent at least 50% of the total portfolio value or total gross building area. Y: Sufficient disclosure (‘Yes’). N: Partial or no disclosure (‘No’).

. They reveal a significant variability in the coverage percentages of the ATHEX Guide’s core metrics across all sampled REICs. Compliance ranges from 24% to 94% with an average of 64.50%. This wide range underscores the diverse strategic approaches adopted by different firms and highlights that SME status does not necessarily indicate a certain level of ESG reporting performance. The distinction between listed and non-listed REICs is not a significant predictor of ESG reporting coverage either: the average coverage percentage for listed REICs (61.67%) is only marginally higher than that of non-listed REICs (56%). This suggests that the legal and market pressures for REICs to upgrade their ESG reporting standards are not particularly strong, even for those listed on the stock exchange. Instead, each REIC appears to formulate its own approach in determining the extent to which it leverages the flexibility provided by the loose legal framework. The remarkable performance of the non-listed SME E corroborates the ATHEX Guide’s assertion that its applicability extends beyond publicly traded companies, serving as a valuable resource for businesses of all sizes.

A noteworthy observation is the consistently low scores assigned to the environmental pillar. The results are potentially attributable to the technical complexities involved in accurately quantifying greenhouse gas emissions: While tools like the Green Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) and the Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor (CRREM) exist internationally to quantify greenness and stranding risk, the high cost and specialized data requirements associated with such tools further compound the technical challenge and resource constraints faced by Greek SMEs, reinforcing their avoidance behavior. In contrast, REICs exhibit high performance in governance reporting, directly attributable to the coercive isomorphism imposed by specific legal requirements (Laws 4548/2018 and 4706/2020)5 which mandate disclosure regarding the size and composition of their Boards of Directors, irrespective of the REIC’s size. In the social pillar, we encounter mixed results. However, they are inflated upwards by metric C-S3 (Female employees in management positions), where disclosure is mandated by law,6 and C-S7 (Collective bargaining agreements), which are absent by default due to REICs’ small staff size. The remarkably low percentage for metric C-S5 (employee training), where reporting is easy and straightforward, signals the widespread reluctance among companies to engage in ESG reporting. Regarding other low-scoring metrics, we believe that REICs might avoid reporting because they encounter difficulties in dealing with entirely qualitative measurement guidelines (e.g., C-S1 Stakeholder engagement) or lack the resources to comply with the requirement (e.g., C-S8 Supplier assessment, as SMEs are typically price takers without bargaining power).

We move on with the second research question: is the sampled ESG reporting in agreement with the GRI reporting principles?

Table 4. Compliance with the GRI reporting principles.

REIC	Accuracy—Verifiability	Balance	Clarity	Comparability	Completeness	Sustainability Context	Timeliness	% Y
A	N	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	29
B	N	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	29
C	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	71
D	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	57
E	Ν	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	57
F	N	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	29
G	N	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	29
H	N *	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	43
I	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	57
% Y	11	0	100	0	56	44	100	44

* REIC H is a special case, since the published Report refers to the group where the company belongs, and has only partially been assured.

presents our results. Accuracy and verifiability are jointly examined, with a value of ‘Yes’ if the released information has been externally verified. Except for REIC C, all REICs’ ESG data remains externally unverified, raising concerns about the validity of the statements. Results are also disappointing regarding balance. REICs primarily focus on highlighting their ESG-related achievements, such as awards and building certifications. At the same time, they conceal mistakes, omissions or delayed response to ESG challenges, by using generic phrases such as ‘the opportunities, risks and uncertainties in the business environment are challenges that organizations must face during their daily operation’. The limited awareness of their crucial role in environmental protection is reflected in one REIC’s statement that its environmental footprint is not particularly high, as it does not create significant waste. It should be mentioned that the real estate sector is responsible for consuming over 40% of global energy annually, while buildings contribute to 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions and use around 40% of raw materials. The responsibility of the REIT industry is magnified by the fact that the world is currently off track to meet the so-called ‘Paris goal’ to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.

In contrast to the observed shortcomings in accuracy/verifiability and balance, all REICs demonstrate a loose adherence to clarity by providing ESG information in a readily accessible online format and using language that is comprehensible to even non-experts. Still, a more stringent evaluation would reveal room for improvement. Some REICs present most ESG data only in Greek, excluding all foreign-speakers. Additionally, the use of diverse reporting channels, such as separate Sustainability Reports and piecemeal ESG-related information scattered across financial statements and corporate websites, could obscure the overall ESG message and hinder stakeholders’ ability to fully comprehend the firm’s ESG commitment. Accessibility to information is also questioned when it comes to policies, since some of them are only mentioned, without access to the content, while others are available online.

Codifying compliance with the principle of comparability proved challenging. For REICs that do not publish a separate Sustainability Report, the available ESG data in the financial statements are normally few, and year-to-year comparisons are cumbersome. Conversely, REICs with Sustainability Reports facilitate comparisons, as all data are presented compared to the previous year. Still, up to now they have published only one or two Sustainability Reports, and this time frame cannot facilitate meaningful comparisons: firms may have exhibited abnormal ESG performance during the COVID-19 pandemic which should not be attributed to a designated strategy (e.g., low emissions resulting from mandatory lockdowns). In addition, comparisons among REICs’ emissions are also impeded by the varying degree of control that each REIC has over its tenants.

To assess compliance with the principle of completeness, we established a threshold of at least 60% of all core metrics being covered (indicated as ‘Yes’ in Table 3). Only 56% of the REICs met this criterion, highlighting the need for further progress in integrating ESG considerations into their strategic planning and daily operations. This relatively low score serves as justification for our decision to refrain from evaluating advanced or sector-specific metrics during the design process.

REICs that publish Sustainability Reports received a positive assessment with respect to the principle of sustainability context; we noticed that the impacts of a firm’s activities within the broader framework of sustainable development can be effectively analyzed only in dedicated Sustainability Reports, given the limited space typically allocated for ESG topics within financial reports. Finally, about timeliness, all REICs received a ‘Yes’ value because their ESG-related information was released within the timeframe of 12 months of the reporting period, which is a generally accepted standard for financial reporting, too.

By combining the right columns in Table 3 and Table 4, we find that the correlation coefficient between compliance with the ATHEX Guide and the GRI principles is 0.65. In other words, REICs that follow the ATHEX Guide also tend to apply the GRI reporting principles. Nevertheless, this positive relationship could be stronger: in some cases, the information is typically reported but fails the quality control tests of our research. This suggests that while adherence to the ATHEX Guide is a step in the right direction, it does not guarantee high-quality ESG reporting. The variability in compliance with the ATHEX Guide’s core metrics highlights the need for more stringent and clear guidelines to ensure that ESG reporting is not only comprehensive but also reliable and meaningful. This connection underscores the importance of addressing both the breadth and depth of ESG reporting standards to achieve true transparency and accountability.

Incomplete ESG disclosure poses unique risks for REITs due to their significant environmental impact and reliance on investor trust. Poor ESG reporting can lead to higher costs of capital and insurance, and reduced access to financing. Incomplete disclosures can attract regulatory scrutiny and potential penalties. In addition, poor ESG disclosure can damage a REIT’s reputation, making it less attractive to socially conscious investors and tenants. These factors underscore the critical importance of comprehensive ESG disclosures for REITs to maintain financial stability and investor confidence.

From our research, it is revealed that Greek REICs are prone to greenhushing, the practice of deliberatively under-communicating about their environmental progress (Ginder et al., 2021). We also find strong evidence of greenwishing, i.e., making false or exaggerated environmental claims that do not align with a company’s actions (Austin, 2019). As stated in the literature review, ESG disclosure and REIT value are proven to be positively associated. Thus, another serious consequence for REITs that fail to fully and properly disclose their ESG practices could be a fall in value. Also, REITs face the significant risk of their real estate assets becoming stranded assets as a consequence of subpar ESG performance. Moreover, empirical evidence indicates that properties with superior energy efficiency exhibit elevated occupancy rates and extended lease terms, both of which are critical determinants of stable income streams. In addition, sustainable buildings are associated with healthier indoor environments, a factor increasingly valued by contemporary tenants. From an investor’s perspective, the potential for both robust financial returns and positive social impact presents a compelling investment proposition.

5.2. Comparison with International ESG Reporting Levels

ESG compliance among REITs varies significantly across regions, with European REITs consistently outperforming their U.S. and Asian counterparts. European REITs, particularly in the UK, report higher overall ESG scores and stronger performance in environmental and social dimensions (Morri et al., 2020). This superior compliance is attributed to more stringent regulatory frameworks and investor expectations. Studies also show that ESG integration in European REITs correlates positively with financial performance and valuation metrics (Brounen & Marcato, 2019; Erol et al., 2023).

In contrast, U.S. REITs demonstrate moderate ESG scores but benefit from relatively high disclosure ratings, which are linked to improved operational efficiency (Aroul et al., 2022; Lee & Chow, 2025). Japanese REITs lag behind, with notably lower ESG scores across all dimensions, reflecting limited regulatory pressure and market incentives (Neo & Sing, 2024). Asset type also influences ESG performance: office and residential portfolios tend to score higher, while hospitality and healthcare assets show weaker compliance (Liang et al., 2021). Despite differences in rating methodologies—such as GRESB, S&P Global, and Thomson Reuters Asset4—recent studies consistently affirm Europe’s leadership in ESG adoption among listed real estate vehicles (Z. F. Feng & Wu, 2021; Brounen et al., 2021).

The observed global shift towards mandatory, standardized ESG reporting described above is particularly relevant for Greek REICs, which currently demonstrate significant variability in compliance levels ranging from 24% to 94% with basic ESG metrics. The transition from voluntary to mandatory frameworks will likely address the study’s key finding that loose regulations combined with a lack of self-commitment have enabled Greek REICs to adopt minimal disclosure practices, with environmental performance being the least reported ESG pillar. As regulatory frameworks evolve globally and investors demand more rigorous ESG data, Greek REICs will need to move beyond their current tendency toward greenwashing and vague qualitative descriptions to meet the standardized, auditable disclosure requirements that are becoming the global norm.

5.3. A Roadmap for Progress

In this subsection, we endeavor to provide a concise framework to guide Greek REITs in enhancing their ESG compliance, both quantitatively and qualitatively. To stay aligned with the first research question, we are based again on the ATHEX Guide. To ensure applicability, we focus on the steps/metrics which are the easiest to follow.

To measure absolute reductions in Scope 1 and 2 emissions, the total amount of CO₂ equivalent (tCO₂e) can be calculated. To measure intensity reduction, these emissions can be normalized by dividing them by a relevant financial indicator. For REITs, a suitable normalization factor is the total covered area of all buildings. This approach allows for comparisons across different-sized portfolios and assesses energy efficiency improvements. Greenhouse emissions are probably one of the easiest ESG goals to monitor and document. Energy is usually bought (e.g., natural gas or electricity), so total consumption can be tracked directly from the bill sent by the utility company. Most probably it will be counted in kilowatts and not megawatts. The conversion to CO2 can be based on acknowledged conversion tools, such as the GHG Emissions Calculator offered by the UN, if the same conversion factor is used overtime, to ensure comparability. Similar conversion protocols can be used if a firm burns oil.

There can be mobile sources of emissions, too, such as vehicles owned by the firm (Scope 1). Fuel usage can be measured from gas station receipts, and mileage can be determined from vehicle records. One challenge here is that the firm owner often uses its car for both personal transitions and business. In this case, the solution might be to estimate the average distance covered for business reasons and then calculate total consumption based on the official technical specifications provided by the vehicle manufacturer.

There is also much room for optimizing energy efficiency in Greek REICs. Shifting from petroleum to natural gas or electricity is recommended, with a strategic move towards renewable energy being the best option. Government subsidies can support REICs in installing photovoltaic parks and purchasing electric vehicles. Other initiatives include simple energy-saving measures like using LED bulbs and adjusting air-conditioning/heating settings.

Following our roadmap, we now turn our attention to the social dimension of ESG. Stakeholder engagement is fundamental, with a focus on employees and clients. Effective engagement involves regular communication, feedback mechanisms, and addressing concerns. Initially, qualitative measures suffice, but quantitative metrics should be integrated over time to assess impact.

Gender diversity is crucial for social responsibility. Despite progress in female employment rates in Greece, addressing the motherhood pay gap and promoting women in leadership positions remain vital. Policies such as flexible work arrangements, parental leave, and mentorship programs can significantly enhance gender equality.

Employee turnover, a key indicator of organizational health, is influenced by factors like compensation, work–life balance, and career development opportunities. Effective human resource management practices, including performance management, training and development programs, and recognition systems, can reduce turnover rates and increase employee satisfaction.

Employee training is essential for maintaining a skilled workforce. REICs can leverage public training programs and online courses as cost-effective strategies. Prioritizing training initiatives that address skill gaps and future industry trends can enhance competitiveness.

Human rights considerations are integral to responsible business practices. Developing and implementing a human rights policy aligned with international standards is essential. Regular monitoring and evaluation, coupled with mechanisms for addressing human rights concerns, ensure compliance and mitigate risks.

Finally, regarding governance, REICs can gain fresh perspectives and improve their decision-making processes, even if they have formal BoDs, by establishing an advisory board. This advisory board can provide expert advice on various aspects of the business, including legal, financial, and marketing matters. As for sustainability REICs can implement simple approaches, such as regular team meetings to discuss sustainability issues, thanks to their relatively small size Engaging with stakeholders can also help identify material sustainability issues and develop appropriate strategies to address them.

Developing a sustainability policy is also a key step in formalizing the REIC’s commitment to ESG. This policy should outline the company’s ESG goals, strategies, and performance targets. As they probably lack specialized human resources in the field due to their size, Greek REICs can seek external support from consultants or industry associations to develop a comprehensive sustainability policy.

Data security is a growing concern for businesses of all sizes, including Greek REICs. As a relatively new industry, REICs are heavily reliant on digital systems, making them particularly vulnerable to cyber threats. Implementing robust security measures, such as strong passwords, regular software updates, and employee training, is crucial to protecting sensitive information.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Conclusion and Policy Implications

In this article, we conduct an in-depth empirical analysis of the ESG reporting practices of all Greek REICs (Real Estate Investment Companies). Our investigation focuses on two key aspects: the level of compliance with the 2022 Athens Stock Exchange ESG Reporting Guide and the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) reporting principles. With respect to the first question, the average REIC adheres to approximately 65% of all core ESG metrics. However, compliance rates vary considerably across the three ESG pillars: the environment (37%), society (67%), and governance (76%). Environmental disclosures prove to be the most challenging ones to track, particularly given the REICs’ limited or lack of control over their tenants’ environmental practices. In contrast, the high compliance rate for governance metrics can be attributed to the existence of relevant legislation.

As for the second research question, our case study uncovered a series of reporting discrepancies from the GRI principles. Specifically, concerning accuracy, verifiability, and balance, the sampled firms demonstrate an unwillingness to enhance reporting quality. Completeness is also relatively low and could be easily improved through easily trackable disclosures such as the number of training hours. A deeper examination of the collected data leaves us with an impression of greenwashing: REICs tend to overstate their future initiatives without typically making concrete and time-bound commitments. The publication of a distinct Sustainability Report is generally associated with higher levels of performance in both research questions.

The findings from our research on Greek REITs can be extrapolated to other European countries with a similarly limited number of active REITs, such as Hungary (2), Ireland (1), Germany (6), the Netherlands (4), and Portugal (2). Given that all EU countries adhere to the same regulatory framework, it is pertinent to investigate whether these nations exhibit higher compliance levels compared to Greece. This comparative analysis could provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of the EU’s regulatory environment across different member states.

6.2. Limitations

Despite our meticulous efforts, the study presents several limitations that warrant acknowledgment. The most prominent one is the limited sample size, despite encompassing the entire population of REICs operating in Greece. A case study on a broader range of companies would yield more robust insights into their ESG-related attitudes. Another limitation lies in the difficulty of assigning a categorical value of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ in certain instances, particularly for specific qualitative metrics outlined in the ATHEX Guide. We suggest that the ATHEX Guide should establish more precise measurement criteria for metrics presented in an overly theoretical manner. The quantification of all metrics could even enable the assessment of compliance based on a scoring system, providing more refined results. Furthermore, the absence of external verification in almost all REICs partially affects the creditworthiness of our findings.

6.3. Future Research Directions

Our study paves the way for several avenues for future research. For instance, a subsequent study could delve into advanced or even sector-specific ATHEX Guide’s metrics for those REICs already demonstrating high levels of reporting performance in core metrics. Another research idea would be an extensive robustness check of our findings in the second research question, by altering the threshold of 60% to assess compliance with the principle of completeness. Future researchers could also explore innovative approaches to assist REICs with ESG reporting through the utilization of artificial intelligence. Finally, conducting similar research on other types of Greek companies would be intriguing to determine whether REICs follow a general trend or exhibit idiosyncratic characteristics.