Developing an ESG-Based Smart Building Performance Index for Sustainable Facilities and Estate Management in Ghana

<p>Environmental, social and governance (ESG) expectations are increasingly shaping the management of real-estate portfolios, while smart-building systems are producing new streams of operational data. In Ghana, however, facilities and estate managers lack a locally grounded index that connects ESG outcomes, occupant wellbeing, governance controls and digital-building capability. This systematic review synthesised peer-reviewed evidence published from January 2018 to 5 August 2026 on ESG, smart buildings, sustainable facilities management and building-performance assessment. A structured search of academic publisher platforms and Google Scholar, supplemented by backward and forward citation searching, followed PRISMA 2020 reporting guidance. Twenty-four studies met the eligibility criteria. The evidence was coded according to four objectives: performance dimensions and indicators; data sources and measurement methods; Ghanaian and emerging-economy barriers and enablers; and index design. Environmental metrics, especially energy use and operational carbon, dominated the literature. Indoor environmental quality, safety, accessibility, stakeholder accountability, cybersecurity, data quality and life-cycle maintenance were less consistently measured despite their materiality. Smart meters, environmental sensors, building-management systems, computer-aided facilities management, building information modelling, digital twins, geographic information systems and occupant feedback supported performance measurement, but their value depended on interoperability, governance and verified data. Ghana-specific evidence highlighted fragmented asset information, reactive maintenance, capital constraints, skills gaps, legacy systems, unreliable connectivity, weak disclosure routines and limited local benchmarks. The review proposes a provisional Ghana ESG-Based Smart Building Performance Index (G-ESG-SBPI) comprising environmental (40%), social (25%), governance (20%) and smart-enablement (15%) domains. Twenty indicators are scored on a six-level maturity scale and adjusted by data-assurance grades. The framework provides a transparent basis for portfolio benchmarking, maintenance prioritisation and investment planning. It requires Delphi or analytic hierarchy process weighting, multi-site field testing and psychometric validation before certification or regulatory use.</p>