Search results

A significant proportion of corporate real estate tends to be owned by corporate occupiers for historic reasons. This may be as a result of financial planning, the use of property as a hedge against inflation or the chance of capital gains from property redevelopment. Very often, however, property has accumulated through pure inertia or lack of management focus. Consequently, for many companies, real estate is not adding shareholder value and it is perceived to be ‘an operational pain’. This paper focuses on how corporate occupiers can manage the contribution their operational properties make to shareholder value.

Publishes some of the findings of a research project that examined whether valuers and valuations have a role in the provision of more strategic property advice to business occupiers. The research consisted of a postal questionnaire survey of over 250 businesses that examined the role of property and the use of valuations in strategic business decisions. The survey was supported by the findings from 18 structured interviews and an analysis of over 70 sets of company accounts. The results revealed that, despite valuers becoming increasingly involved in measuring corporate efficiency and valuations being used for this purpose, business occupiers do not recognise valuers in a strategic role. Instead, many firms see valuers as providing a single valuation service, the estimation of market value for purchase/sale decisions and corporate disclosure. The research suggests that valuations do have a role to play in the provision of more strategic business advice but the valuer will need to understand the client’s wider business needs and how property plays a part in the client’s business. Valuers need to convince clients that they are not overly technical in their outlook, have broad business skills that include strategic thinking and an awareness of business issues.

While broader property-type categories of real estate markets have been scrutinized at microeconomic level in some segments – namely, residential, retail, industrial and hospitality, there is limited evidence showing that local office markets can be viewed as monolithic and economically integrated entities. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how occupiers differ in their willingness to pay for principal office rent determinants in the corporate and non-corporate sectors.

A sample of properties located in the largest office market in Latin America is partitioned based on the average size of leasable units. This approach captures interactions between different groups of investors and occupiers, and is commonly adopted by local market practitioners due to lack of detailed information on market participants. The pricing schedules for these two groups of buildings are then empirically compared through hedonic regression analysis and parameter stability tests.

The regressions show that corporate and smaller occupier properties form distinct spatial and non-spatial submarkets, but that their temporal patterns are quite similar. Thus, these property-type segments can be classified as imperfect substitutes with distinct pricing schemes, but not as a unique market, as their pricing schedules are not generalizable.

The results imply that “office properties” are too complex and disparate to be reliably examined with a simple aggregate approach as practiced in developed office market research since the 1980s. The fragmented reality of office properties has important implications for investment decisions and real estate valuation.

This paper shows that the corporate office market exhibits distinct characteristics and key determinants of office price and rent valuation differ significantly between the corporate and non-corporate segments. The corollary of these findings is that market studies that require reliable estimates of price drivers may be enriched by modeling these two segmented markets separately. It is also important to note that this distinction cuts across the established A/B/C office space quality classification.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief for property occupiers who look to monitor trends in sustainability reporting. The paper offers a preliminary examination of the extent to which the UK’s leading commercial property companies are embracing the concept of materiality and commissioning independent external assurance as a part of their sustainability reporting processes and some wider reflections on materiality and external assurance in sustainability reporting.

The paper begins with a review of the characteristics of materiality and external assurance and an outline of the drivers for, and challenges to, sustainability for property companies. The information on which the paper is based is drawn from the leading UK property companies’ corporate websites.

The paper reveals that approximately half of the UK’s leading property companies had embraced materiality or commissioned some form of independent external assurance as an integral part of their sustainability reporting processes. In many ways, this reduces the reliability and credibility of the leading property companies’ sustainability reports. Looking to the future, growing stakeholder pressure may persuade more of the UK’s leading property companies to embrace materiality and commission external assurance as systematic and integral elements in the sustainability reporting process.

The paper provides an accessible review of the current status of materiality and external assurance among the UK’s leading commercial property companies’ sustainability reporting. As such, it will not only interest occupiers but also professionals, practitioners, academics and students interested in sustainability in the property industry.

This paper seeks to set out a series of criteria through which the sustainability of commercial property can be assessed. It is part of a wider research project that addresses sustainability as a set of investment risks and is seeking to specify these risks and incorporate them within commercial property investment appraisals.

The paper draws on existing literature to establish a series of sustainability criteria and then uses focus groups and interviews with industry operators to establish the relevance and potential significance of each criteria to property investment worth.

The research is focused on the investment performance of commercial property. The findings in the paper are thus driven by a strong economic imperative and the criteria focus on factors within the control of the investor‐owner. The research also reflects the views of a small group of industry operators. However, it sets out a practical set of sustainability criteria, reviewed by industry experts, against which the performance of any commercial property can be assessed.

The paper provides a set of sustainability criteria that are relevant to the performance of property as an operational asset and an investment asset. This will enable market operators to begin to address sustainability within the commercial property stock from a market‐based perspective reflecting the economic imperative that drives the industry. The focus on the investment sector differentiates the work from studies that look at sustainability more broadly as a qualitative issue.

The property development process lies at the heart of the production of the built environment, thus having the greatest impact on the natural environment. With the increased individual and governmental concern about the environment, much pressure is being exerted on the real estate industry to take more account of environmental considerations. In recent years there has been a plethora of national and European environmental legislation having a direct impact on different actors involved in the real estate industry. Examines the impact of such legislation on investors, developers, agents, and occupiers of property. Draws from results of recent research concerning the implications of environmental issues and the real estate industry. Concludes that in order to achieve the goals of sustainable development, there is a need to redefine the ambiguous roles of the professionals, clients, government and regulatory bodies.

This paper investigates how large UK corporate occupiers perceive the potential role of flexible office space in their office portfolios in a post-pandemic context.

The research methodology is qualitative and applied. For a longitudinal survey, convenience sampling was used to obtain co-operation from 11 corporate real estate managers with responsibility for managing large corporate real estate portfolios spread across a range of business sectors and countries. Semi-structured interviews were selected as the core research method to seek and to optimise the balance between discovery and generalisability.

Although the pandemic has led corporate occupiers to fundamentally re-appraise where and when different work tasks are performed, it is not yet clear whether this has major implications for the flex space sector. The flex space model, with its blending of various occupiers and activities, is perceived to be poorly aligned with an increasing emphasis on the office as a core corporate hub facilitating connection, collaboration, enculturation, learning and creativity. Since most flex space is concentrated in central locations, it is also not well positioned to benefit from any decentralisation of office functions. However, as the flex space sector evolves in response to structural shifts in employment and working practices and business change, its various products are likely to be a continuing requirement from corporate occupiers for short-term solutions to demand shocks, the need for rapid market entry, accommodation for short-term projects and access to desk space in multiple locations.

Understanding occupiers' drivers in their decision-making on selecting the method of occupation will assist investors in how they might adjust what they offer in the marketplace.

Whilst there has been a substantive number of surveys of corporate occupiers' perceptions and intentions regarding their office portfolio, this paper focusses on a specifically on the flex space sector. Whilst previous research has mainly been extensive, this research study is intensive.

Corporate occupiers require offices and services which meet their business needs, while landlords must attract and retain occupiers to maximise occupancy and rental income. The purpose of this paper is to help landlords and property managers understand what aspects of property management matter most to corporate occupiers, so that they can achieve a mutually beneficial relationship.

This paper analyses interviews with 1,334 office tenants in the UK, conducted over an 11-year period, to investigate determinants of occupier satisfaction, loyalty and advocacy. Structural equation modelling and regressions are performed using respondents’ ratings of satisfaction with many aspects of occupancy as explanatory variables. The dependent variables include satisfaction with property management, value for money, overall occupier satisfaction, lease renewal intentions and occupiers’ willingness to recommend their landlord.

The aspects with most impact on occupiers’ satisfaction are the office building itself, its location and amenities, and also communication with their property manager, a belief that their business needs are understood and the property manager’s responsiveness to occupiers’ requests. Occupiers’ loyalty depends mainly upon feeling that their rent and service charges provide value for money, an amicable leasing process, the professionalism of their property manager and the corporate social responsibility of the landlord. “Empathy” is crucial to occupiers’ willingness to recommend their landlord, and clear documentation and efficient legal process improve occupiers’ perception of receiving “Value for Money”.

The sample is skewed towards occupiers of prime office buildings in the UK, owned by landlords who care sufficiently about their tenants to commission studies into occupier satisfaction.

This research should help to improve the landlord – tenant relationship, benefitting the businesses that rent property and helping building managers understand where to focus their efforts to achieve maximum effect on occupier satisfaction, loyalty and advocacy.

There has been little academic research into the determinants of satisfaction of occupiers of UK commercial property. This large-scale study enables the most influential factors to be identified and prioritised.

Property ownership can tie up large amounts of capital and management energy that business could employ more productively elsewhere. Competitive pressures, accounting changes and increasingly sophisticated occupier requirements are building demand for new and innovative ways to satisfy corporate occupation needs. The investment climate is also changing. Falling interest rates and falling inflation can be expected to undermine returns from the traditional FRI lease. In future, investment returns will be more dependent on active and innovative management geared to the needs of occupiers on whom income depends. Occupier and investor interests, therefore, look set to coincide, but unlocking the potential for both parties will depend on developing new finance and investment vehicles that align their respective needs. In the UK, examples include PFI in the public sector and off‐balance sheet financing in the private sector. In the USA, “synthetic lease” structures have also become popular. Growing investment market experience in assessing risks and returns suggests scope for further innovative arrangements in the corporate sector. But how can such arrangements be structured? What are the risks, drivers and barriers?