MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400991844 · doi:10.69554/nsxs9979

The state of ESG investing in Canada’s commercial real estate market : Opportunities and risks

2023· article· en· W4400991844 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Hoss, Luigi Luppi

Bibliographic record

VenueCorporate real estate journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessReal estateState (computer science)FinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, sustainability and resilience have become a priority for commercial real estate investors. The brown discount for unsustainable buildings has gradually become larger than ‘green premiums’ we see today for buildings leading on sustainability and resiliency. Financial market participants are increasingly under pressure from stakeholders to emphasise environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in the investment decision criteria. The development of resilient assets, regulatory pressure and customer preference are compelling many investors to integrate ESG into the way they conduct business; however, putting strategy and action behind the work and finding a suitable market for ESG investments is no easy task. Across all real estate sectors, people are looking for truly sustainable assets and products. Real estate owners must consider what that means for tenants, investors and other stakeholders. Canada is emerging as a leader in a marketplace where investors are increasingly focused on ESG and are increasingly willing to divest from companies for not taking significant ESG action. In this paper, we discuss reasons presenting a compelling investment thesis for commercial real estate investors in Canada, including ESG-friendly regulations, population growth, market opportunities, demographic diversity, access to clean electricity and market stability. Moreover, it is discussed that investors require to overcome the data and technology selection barriers to measure, monitor and manage progress toward net-zero operation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.102 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorporate real estate journalSame topicInsurance and Financial Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207