Download PDF

2018

Real Estate

Assessment

Contents

About GRESB

GRESB is an industry-driven organization transforming the way capital markets assess the environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance of real asset investments.

GRESB data and analytical tools are used by over 70 institutional and retail investors, including pension funds and insurance companies, collectively representing over USD 17 trillion in institutional capital, to engage with investment managers to enhance and protect shareholder value.

For more information, visit gresb.com. Follow @GRESB on Twitter.

About the GRESB Real Estate Assessment

The GRESB Real Estate Assessment is the global standard for ESG benchmarking and reporting for listed property companies, private property funds, developers and investors that invest directly in real estate. The Assessment evaluates performance against seven sustainability aspects, including information on performance indicators, such as energy, GHG emissions, water and waste. The methodology is consistent across different regions, investment vehicles and property types and aligns with international reporting frameworks, such as GRI and PRI.

The GRESB Real Estate Assessment provides investors with actionable information and tools to monitor and manage the ESG risks and opportunities of their investments, and to prepare for increasingly rigorous ESG obligations. Assessment participants receive comparative business intelligence on where they stand against their peers, a roadmap with the actions they can take to improve their ESG performance and a communication platform to engage with investors.

The role of the GRESB benchmark

GRESB’s global benchmark uses a consistent methodology to compare performance across different regions, investment vehicles and property types. This consistency, combined with our broad market coverage, means our members and participants can apply a single, globally recognized ESG framework to all their real estate investments.

The GRESB Real Estate Assessment is structured around seven Aspects and contains approximately 50 indicators. The indicators follow a plan-do-check-act logic and are designed to encompass the wide variety of property companies and funds included in the benchmark.

While GRESB provides an overall GRESB Score for each participant, it recognizes that this is only a single element within a range of results reported in the benchmark. The key to analyzing GRESB data is in peer group comparisons that take into account country, regional, sectoral and investment type variations.

GRESB is committed to facilitating the inclusion of its ESG metrics in investment decision-making processes and encouraging an active dialogue between investors, fund managers and companies on ESG issues. GRESB updates its Investor Engagement Guide on an annual basis to assist GRESB Investor Members in their engagement with managers.

Additional information about the 2018 participation fee is available here.

2018 Participation Fee

Participants can choose to submit the Assessment as a non-member and pay a nominal participation fee or submit the Assessment as a GRESB Member. Participation is free of charge for first time participants who report under the Grace Period, and for companies and funds headquartered in non-OECD countries. GRESB Members, in addition to the benefits received by participants, have access to more advanced analytical tools and services as well as preferential marketing, industry recognition, and networking opportunities.

Grace Period

GRESB offers participants reporting for the first time the option to not disclose their first year Assessment results to their investors. This "Grace Period" allows participants a year to familiarize themselves with the GRESB reporting and assessment process without externally disclosing their results to GRESB Investor Members.

While Grace Period participant names are disclosed to GRESB Investor Members, Investor Members are not able to request access to Grace Period participant results.

The participation fee is waived for Grace Period participants reporting to GRESB for the first time. Participants will receive a GRESB Scorecard and have the opportunity to purchase a Benchmark Report for a more in-depth analysis of sustainability performance and a detailed indicator-level comparison with peers.

First time participants wishing to opt for the Grace Period can select the option from the settings section in the Assessment Portal.

Who can see my data?

Data is submitted to GRESB through a secure online platform and can only be seen by current GRESB Staff or authorized personnel from GRESB’s parent company, i.e.,GBCI, Inc. (“GBCI”). GRESB benchmark scores are not made public. Data collected through the GRESB Real Estate Assessment is only disclosed to the participants themselves and:

No other third parties will see the data. GRESB Investor Members must request access to a participant’s benchmark results and scores, allowing the participant the control to either accept or deny this request.

Timeline and Process

The GRESB Real Estate Assessment opens in the Assessment Portal on April 1, 2018. The submission deadline is July 1, 2018, providing participants with a three-month window to complete the Assessment. This is a fixed deadline, and GRESB will not accept submissions received after this date.

The GRESB validation process starts on June 15 and continues until July 31, 2018. We may need to contact you during this time to clarify any issues with your response.

Results are published in September and are distributed as follows:

For an overview of key dates and activities for the 2018 Assessment cycle, please see the Assessment timeline.

Response Check

A Response Check is a high-level check of the Assessment response prior to final submission. It helps to reduce errors that may adversely impact the Assessment results and ensures the submission is as complete as possible.

The Response Check is available for request from April 1 to June 8, 2018 subject to available resources. We strongly encourage participants to place their request as early as possible.

Fund Manager and Company Members are able to request a complimentary Response Check for one entity as one of their membership benefits.

Guidance & Support

The Assessment Portal is accompanied by indicator-specific guidance, available under the “Guidance” tab that explains:

In addition to the guidance in the Portal, each Assessment is accompanied by a Reference Guide. The Reference Guide provides general introductory information to the Assessments and provides a report-format version of the indicator-by-indicator guidance that is available under the Guidance tab in the Portal. The Reference Guide will be available on March 1, 2018.

The GRESB Assessment Portal has the following tools and functionality to help ensure an efficient and accurate submission:

GRESB works with a select group of Partners who can help participants with their Assessment submission. To learn more about the services offered by GRESB Partners, please refer to our Partner Directory.

Participants are able to contact the GRESB Helpdesk at any time for support and guidance.

GRESB Assessment Training Program

GRESB Real Estate Assessment Training is designed to educate participants, potential participants and other GRESB stakeholders (managers, consultants, data partners) on ESG management and reporting through the GRESB Real Estate Assessment.

The training is divided into two sessions – Introductory and Advanced – to reflect the level of experience with GRESB:

Both programs are delivered via face-to-face group sessions, in select locations across all regions with GRESB participation, including Europe, North America and Asia Pacific. See dates and locations for GRESB Assessment Training.

Starting in October 2018, GRESB will run Data Insights Training sessions focussing on the interpretation of the Assessment results and the reporting and benchmarking tools available to Investor Members, Fund Manager and Company Members.

2018 GRESB Real Estate Assessment Changes

GRESB works closely with it’s members and broader industry stakeholders to ensure the Assessment addresses material issues in the sustainability performance of real estate investments. Following an extensive industry engagement through the GRESB Advisory Board, Benchmark Committees and Industry Working Groups, the 2018 GRESB Real Estate Assessment introduces an updated structure and developments to the indicators.

The table below has more information on the changes:

High-level comments

Assessment development process focused on creating alignment between the different GRESB business lines and recognizing topics that are directly aligned with investment rationale

Alignment in terminology, interpretation of indicators, document structure and process standardization is important, especially for managers with investments in multiple asset classes. One of the direct outcomes relates to the renaming of the Real Estate Assessment indicators to associate with each Aspect (e.g. Q1 of the Management Aspect becomes MA1, Q30.1 of the Building Certifications Aspect becomes BC1.1). In the long term, this provides more flexibility in adding or removing indicators without affecting the entire Assessment structure.

The desire for better alignment between GRESB Assessments also led to the amendment of indicators in the Management, Policy & Disclosure, Stakeholder Engagement sections which address the management and policy dimensions of a reporting entity.

Reduced number of scored open text boxes and new portal functionalities for a faster reporting process

The 2018 Assessment developments are designed with the purpose of scoring performance in a way that encourages improvement in ESG performance (measured, tested performance). Allowing participants the option to provide context to their answers is important and will continue to happen via non-scored open text boxes used for reporting purposes in the Benchmark Report.

Updated selection methodology for Validation Plus scope

The validation process continues to be structured in three layers: All Participant Check (APC), Validation Plus (VP) and Validation Interviews (VI). Starting 2018, the random selection of 25% participants for a more detailed check of all supporting evidence will be replaced by a selection of 100% participants being checked on the same subset of indicators. This will allow GRESB to apply a consistent level of scrutiny on all participating entities.

Expanded scope on building certifications, with deeper insights on certifications and an updated building certifications database which will improve the search function

We recognize that the property market benefits from a wide availability of certification schemes and energy ratings. Many of them are generally comparable in complexity and robustness. As a next step in evaluating portfolio performance, GRESB is now asking for the applicable building certification level. This is often included in performance targets and engagement objectives and will allow GRESB to provide more informative output and data analysis. In 2018, the levels are not used for scoring, but the information is relevant for reporting purposes

Better integration of future trends including carbon taxonomy

Reporting on Scope 3 emissions becomes mandatory. The 2017 indicator format only prescribes mandatory reporting of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. As institutional investors using GRESB data are increasingly required to calculate and report their own carbon footprint and reduction targets, they need accurate information on all types of emissions.

Increased focus on data quality through the recognition of asset-level reporting

GRESB believes that a more granular way of reporting on the quantitative elements of the Assessment is necessary for facilitating more robust data checks and output analytics. As such, in 2018 we will incentivize asset-level reporting for a minimum set of data (i.e.,energy consumption, GHG emissions, water consumption, waste generation) through scoring. Note that asset-level reporting will not become mandatory.

Increased transparency on scoring and Assessment methodology

In response to multiple requests for additional information on scoring and methodology, GRESB publishes the 2017 Real Estate Scoring document on the Assessment Portal. This document is shared with participants in good faith and can be used by participants as an additional source of information on the Assessment. Please note that the 2018 scoring methodology can differ partially or completely for certain indicators.

Health & Well-being Module enters its final year

The GRESB Health & Well-being module is entering its third and final year alongside the Real Estate Assessment. After two years of successful voluntary participation in the module coupled with encouraging results, human health is among the top trends expected to shape the real estate industry in the near future. The final year of the GRESB Health & Well-being Module will build on information accumulated over the past years to further develop material indicators for potential integration in the 2019 Real Estate Assessment.

New! Resilience Module

Resilience has emerged as an important topic for real estate and infrastructure investors and the companies, funds and assets they invest in. With the frequency and cost of natural disasters increasing around the world, the topic will remain on the agenda for years to come.

In order to provide our Investor Members with more transparency about the resilience of real estate and infrastructure companies, funds and assets, GRESB is introducing a new Resilience Module for the 2018 Assessment cycle. The new Resilience Module will be available as an optional supplement for 2018 GRESB Assessments, including Real Estate and Infrastructure, and is informed by the Industry Working Groups hosted in January, 2018.

Entity and reporting characteristics

RC2

Add "Millions" in the question text to emphasise the number input should be in millions and implement answer check (i.e.,warning, signal, flag)

Rationale for change: A frequent mistake made in 2017, which required individual follow-up with many participants during the summer.

Impact of change: Additional portal check.

RC5.1

Reporting in “Units” is no longer possible

Rationale for change: Using “Units” as a measure for asset size offers limited possibilities for analysis and little comparability (i.e.,a “unit” can mean anything from a parking space, to a hotel room, to a bed in student accommodation). As we are incorporating additional data checks and creating a more sophisticated outlier analysis for Performance Indicators, we need to apply the same level of scrutiny to all participants.

Impact of change: In 2017, only 26 participants expressed the size of their portfolio (or parts of their portfolio) in units. This option was predominantly used for Parking (indoors), Residential - family homes and Residential - multifamily. We reached out to everyone affected by this change in early January and assessed the impact. With the exception of a few cases of Parking (indoors) portfolios, participants confirmed they would be able to convert the units in sq.ft / m2.

RC5.2, RC-NC1.2, RC-NC2.2

Additional question on portfolio characteristics to ensure complete reporting

Rationale for change: Ensure participants report on their entire real estate portfolio and do not report on a selected subset.

Impact of change: A simple Yes/No question, followed by additional context to provide assurance for participants that portfolios are fairly benchmarked.

RC6/RC-NC3

Replace "United States" in the dropdown list of countries by the full list of US states

Rationale for change: The climate on the West Coast is very different from the one on the East Coast. Knowing the location of the assets by state would allow GRESB to break down the peer groups into more specific parts, similar to the sub-regions in Europe (e.g. Benelux).

Impact of change: Expand the dropdown. Participants need to calculate their regional allocation of assets in more detail.

Management

MA1(Q1)

Open text box no longer scored, but used for reporting purposes

Rationale for change: In 2017, 95% responses received Full points or Partial Points. Most participants are able to explain their sustainability objectives, following the standard validation requirements for the answer. This change is in line with our effort to shift more weight from the management to the quality and implementation of sustainability objectives.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. The total points assigned to this indicator remains 2p.

New option added: Health & Well-being

Rationale for change: Health & Well-being is a cross-cutting issue borrowing elements from the entire spectrum of environmental, social and governance indicators. Human health is among the top trends expected to shape the real estate industry in the near future and an increasing number of real estate companies define their strategy around it. We do not expect all GRESB participants to define their development strategy around health & well-being, but we would like to identify the ones who do.

Impact of change: This section is not used for scoring, but is relevant for the validation of the supporting evidence.

MA2(Q2)

“Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)” is added to the options list. The “Other” answer option has been removed

Rationale for change: Investment partners/JV partners is a frequently provided “Other” option. All the other answers provided by participants were duplicated of the already listed elements or a duplicate of the sustainability taskforce addressed in MA4.

Impact of change: It is not possible to pre-fill the indicator in 2018. No impact on score.

MA4 (Q4&Q5)

The open text in Q5 is integrated into Q4 and is used for reporting purposes only

Rationale for change: In 2017, 96% participants answered “Yes” in Q5, confirming they have a formal process to inform the most senior decision-maker on the sustainability performance. 98% of these answers received “Full points”, demonstrating that when applicable, internal communication on sustainability is done in a structured way. This indicators presents little opportunity for differentiation from a scoring perspective, but is an important piece for defining the context of the submission.

Impact of change: The open textbox is incorporated into MA4 but will not be scored.

MA5 (Q6)

Restructured indicator coupled with the request for supporting evidence

Rationale for change: Specific provisions for rewards, penalties, or support reflect the entity’s strategic priorities and provide the foundation for accountability of senior management and responsibility for employees. In 2017, 90% of participants confirmed that their organizations include sustainability factors in the annual performance targets of the employees. The updated indicator unpacks that claim to determine how incentives are created for the achievement of ESG targets and who benefits from them.

Impact of change: A more structural approach to ESG targets. No changes on scoring.

Policy and Disclosure

Adjusted the order of indicators within section

Rationale for change: The order was counterintuitive; starting with the indicators on disclosure and followed by the ones on policy. Restructured the section into fewer indicators that follow a simple flow: policies on E, S, G, and disclosure methods.

Impact of change: Better flow of indicators.

PD1 (Q8)

Option “Building safety” is removed

Rationale for change: In the context of this indicator, the answer is often interpreted in the same way as “Environmental attributes of building materials”. The provision of policy clauses on asset-level structural characteristics that can harm tenant safety is captured in the option “asset-level safety (for tenants)” in PD3.

Impact of change: Indicator is still pre-filled, no impact on scoring.

PD2

Elements of Q9, Q10, Q11 are combined into an indicator addressing policies on social issues

Rationale for change: Overlapping elements across indicators.

Impact of change: Better Assessment structure through individual indicators on each of the E/S/G pillars. PD2 receives 2p.

PD3 (Q9)

Update issues for policy/policies on governance (this change is related to the previous one)

Rationale for change: The list of items classified as E/S/G issues was not consistent with the definitions of other reporting guidelines.

Impact of change: List of governance issues has been updated to reflect the most material governance issues for an efficient operation of the entity. The maximum points available for this indicator is increased from 1p to 2p.

PD4

Indicator on board diversity

Rationale for change: Research shows that companies with higher board diversity are more likely to have strong financial performance and fewer instances of bribery, corruption, conflicts of interest and fraud. The aim of this newly created indicator is to zoom into the diversity topic and improve alignment with the GRI, EPRA (GRI102-24 / 103 / 405-1 / 405-2) and PRI standards (IFD20, SG10, LEI10).

Impact of change: The indicator is not scored and only used for reporting purposes in 2018.

Q10

Remove the indicator

Rationale for change: Q10 is overlapping with the updated PD2.

Impact of change: Easier reporting.

Q11

Remove the indicator

Rationale for change: Q11 is overlapping with the updated PD2.

Impact of change: Easier reporting.

PD6

Indicator on company’s commitment to ESG leadership standards or group

Rationale for change: The public commitment to sustainability through affiliation to internationally recognised initiatives contributes to the organization’s credibility and strengthens investor confidence.

Impact of change: The indicator is not scored and only used for reporting purposes in 2018.

PD7

Consolidate two reporting indicators (Q14 and Q20) on ESG misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents

Rationale for change: Easier reporting and a better flow of indicators.

Impact of change: This indicator is not scored and only used for reporting purposes. However, this information may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2018 GRESB Sector Leaders.

Risk and Opportunities

RO3.2 (Q15.2)

(1) Open text box is no longer scored, (2) % portfolio covered required for each type of risk assessment, (3) required to report on the alignment standard for the risk assessment methodology

Rationale for change: Environmental and/or social risk assessments are performed at asset-level. Asking participants to list the assessments performed is important in testing whether multiple risk assessments are considered, but it is not sufficient for mapping the extent of the analysis compared to the exposure. The extra layer of information on coverage reduces the utility of the open text box, which is why the narrative is now only used for reporting purposes.

Impact of change: The indicator is aligned with ISO 31000. The alignment standard used is not scored and only used for reporting purposes. The open text box is no longer scored, and the number of points is assigned to the percentages of portfolio covered.

RO5, RO6, RO7 (Q17, Q18, Q19)

Removed the Innovation Case Study column from the tables

Rationale for change: Participants are given the possibility of submitting innovation case studies throughout the year, in a format that is less restrictive than the old template.

Impact of change: More flexible reporting.

RO7(Q19)

The indicator is scored similarly to RO5 and RO6

Rationale for change: To recognize participants' effort on the implementation of waste management measures in their portfolio.

Impact of change: The indicator receives 1p, which increases the total number of points assigned to this aspect by 1p.

Monitoring and EMS

ME1

Q21.1 and Q21.2 merged into one indicator ME1

Rationale for change: Consolidation of the Assessment and validation process.

Impact of change: Easier reporting, no impact on scoring.

Stakeholder engagement

The subsection Suppliers is moved before the subsection Tenants/Occupiers

Rationale for change: Consistency in Assessment structure.

Impact of change: None.

Q32

Remove the indicator

Rationale for change: The baseline information for this indicator changed.

Impact of change: In 2017, 97% participants indicated they monitored the implementation of their employee policies.

SE1

Restructured answer options

Rationale for change: Requirement for better analytics capabilities.

Impact of change: Better analytics, no impact on scores or data collection process.

SE2.1, SE 8.1 (Q34.1, Q37.1)

Expand scope of indicator to include survey quantitative metrics

Rationale for change: Surveys are the most frequently used methods for receiving feedback from tenants and employees. They can be an effective means of engagement and if designed properly, an important source of information to be used for increasing the satisfaction levels of the tested groups. In view of this, the outcomes of the surveys need to be translated into unambiguous and easily interpretable customer satisfaction score that can be compared over time or between different sectors.

Impact of change: The new section is not scored and only used for reporting purposes in 2018.

SE10.2(Q39.2)

Score open text box

Rationale for change: The indicator builds on the 2017 intent of examining management practices and controls used to monitor tenant compliance. As an added component, we think it is important to address the actions taken as a consequence of the monitoring phase. This is aligned with BBP’s Leasing Standard tool, which structures green leases in three layers: presence, actions, commitment.

Impact of change: SE10.2 will be validated and can receive maximum 1p.

SE11.1(Q42.1)

Open text box no longer scored in 2018, but used for reporting purposes

Rationale for change: In 2017, 92.6% received Full points of Partial Points. Most participants are able to describe their community engagement programs, following the standard validation requirements for the answer. However, the word limit of 250 proved difficult for being able to cover multiple initiatives in large portfolios, leading to incomplete answers. This change is in line with our effort to shift more weight from the management to the quality and implementation of sustainability objectives.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. The points assigned to the open text box are reallocated to the other elements of the indicator.

SE4.2 (NEW)

Indicator on supply chain engagement

Rationale for change: The intent of this question is to identify if the reporting entity effectively engages with its suppliers in order to deliver sustainable goals communicated in the previous question. The indicator addressed the Check component in the Plan - Do - Check - Act structure defined by ISO.

Impact of change: Indicator not scored in 2018, used for reporting purposes only.

SE6 (NEW)

Indicator on stakeholders grievance mechanisms

Rationale for change: Even where organizations operate optimally, significant negative sustainability impacts in the supply chain, including human rights violations, may be caused by an organisation's decisions and activities. Grievance mechanisms play an important role to provide an access to remedy and reflects an entity’s commitment to ESG management. An organization should establish a mechanism for stakeholders in the supply chain to bring this to the attention of the organization and seek redress.

Impact of change: Indicator not scored in 2018, used for reporting purposes only.

Performance Indicators

asset-level data

Enable the download of asset-level data

Rationale for change: Improve the portal infrastructure in support of asset-level reporting.

Impact of change: This can be done once outliers are solved and missing data is completed, enabling the participant to use a curated dataset online (through the portal) and offline. In combination with other functionalities, this contributes to a more flexible asset-level reporting process controlled by the participant.

Tables structure

Remove “Floor Area Type” column

Rationale for change: The information is already reported in RC5.1.

Impact of change: Simplified tables.

Data coverage scoring

Scoring: Recognize the differences in data collection capabilities between landlord and tenant-controlled areas

Rationale for change: GRESB continues to encourage data collection efforts for the entire real estate portfolio. This includes tenant-controlled spaces, responsible for important fractions of the portfolio’s carbon emissions. However, GRESB recognizes that access to data from tenant-controlled areas may be limited. As such, starting 2018 we would like to make a distinction between the data coverage in landlord-controlled areas and tenant-controlled areas.

Impact of change: Score (and benchmark) data coverage for landlord-controlled areas separately from tenant-controlled areas. The scoring distinction can only be made for participants that choose to report using the option “Base Building + Tenant Spaces”. The data reported in Whole Building will be treated as “Landlord obtained” and will be benchmarked as such. Additional details will be available in the Reference Guide.

L-f-L data

Report on Like-for-Like floor area

Rationale for change: When analyzing the Assessment results, institutional investors would like to be able to put the LFL data into the context of their investment portfolio. The existing indicator structure does not allow this option, as it does not require the size of the LFL portfolio.

Impact of change: The change does not have any implications on the data collection process. These values should be known as a starting point for being able to report the LFL consumption values. Requesting the floor area associated with the reported consumption can also be perceived as an additional data check.

L-f-L scoring

Scoring: Reallocate the 3 points assigned to LFL data

Rationale for change: While data collection is encouraged for the entire real estate portfolio, GRESB recognizes that the landlord’s degree of influence over the way tenants operate spaces is limited. Participants may be at a disadvantage when dealing with tenants that are not motivated to reduce their resource consumption or that operate at long business hours.

Impact of change: Recognize LFL data availability, regardless of performance (1p) and LFL performance (2p) – as opposed to 3p for LFL performance.

PI1.3 (Q25.3)

Scoring: Reallocate the 3 points to also reward off-site generation of renewable energy

Rationale for change: Recognize the fact that not all properties can generate renewable energy on-site.

Impact of change: While on-site renewable energy is preferred, the new scoring structure recognizes that this is not an option for all assets. Additional details will be available in the Reference Guide.

PI2.0 (Q26.0)

Request additional information on the GHG emissions inventory. The reporting boundary in PI2.1 can be established using an equity share, operational control, or financial control approach and Scope II emissions can be calculated using market- or location-based emission factors

Rationale for change: These data points are necessary to increase the comparability of GHG emissions data between participants and enable more accurate carbon footprinting for investors.

Impact of change: Improved alignment with the 2015 amendment to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard.

PI2.1 (Q26.1)

Scoring: Includes Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3. Scope 3 emissions should at a minimum include emissions associated with tenant areas and/or indirectly managed assets if these areas have not been reported on already in Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions

Rationale for change: The inclusion of Scope 3 in benchmarking enables the scoring of complete real estate portfolios, regardless of operational control. It also recognizes efforts made by participants to collect tenant emissions data.

Impact of change: Scoring implications: 2p for Data Coverage of Scope 1, Scope 2, and (new) Scope 3, 1p for LFL change of Scope 1, Scope 2 (no change), and (new) Scope 3.

PI5(Q29)

Enter year dropdown for long term targets

Rationale for change: Participants should be able to report on long term targets that go beyond 2028. The change would allow everyone to type the year, under the restriction of the interval 2017 and 2050.

Impact of change: Removed limitation in reporting.

Building Certification

Expand the list of provisionally validated certification schemes, and disable the “create a new scheme” function for participants

Rationale for change: GRESB maintains control over the quality of the database and front loads the validation for this section. Participants get immediate feedback on the answers they intend to provide. This will help avoid situations when participants confuse reporting standards with energy ratings, energy ratings with building certifications, etc and the database is updated on a regular basis.

Impact of change: Participants can still add new schemes to the building certifications database, which will be published alongside the Assessment. However, they would only be able to do that by sending an email to info@gresb.com.

BC1.1&BC1.2 (Q30.1&Q30.2)

Expand the scope of the indicator to include building certification level (e.g. “Gold” for LEED, “Very good” for BREEAM), via a predefined drop-down list of certification levels or an open text box for certifications not included in the database

Rationale for change: We recognize that the property market benefits from a wide availability of certification schemes and energy ratings. Many of them are overall comparable in complexity and robustness. As a next step in evaluating portfolio performance, GRESB would like to start asking for the applicable building certification level. This is often included in performance targets and engagement objectives.

Impact of change: Provide more informative output and data analysis, with deeper insights on the building certification and energy rating levels within a portfolio compared to the comparison groups/peers. In 2018, the levels are not used for scoring, but the information is very important for reporting purposes.

BC1.1, BC1.2, and BC2

Change in score allocation

Rationale for change: As an green building certification can include energy rating and/or cover the energy performance of a property, more weight should be allocated to building certifcation-related indicators. In addition, this will disincentivize participants from submitting duplicate entries.

Impact of change: 2 points are transferred from Energy Rating indicator (BC2) to Green Building Certification indicators (BC1.1 & BC1.2). The total number of points for Building Certification Aspect remains unchanged.

asset-level data

Introduce BRE-API Integration

Rationale for change: Build on the existing infrastructure to allow easier access to external sources of information.

Impact of change: Allows participants to easily match assets with their certifications.

New construction and major renovation

NC1

Open text box no longer scored, but used for reporting purposes

Rationale for change: (Alignment with MA1/Q1) In 2017, 96% responses received Full points or Partial points. Most participants are able to explain their sustainability strategy, following the standard validation requirements for the answer. This change is in line with our effort to shift more weight from the management to the quality and implementation of sustainability strategy.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. The total points assigned to this indicator remains 1p.

New option added: Green building certification

Rationale for change: The added option was a frequently reported Other answer in 2017.

Impact of change: No impact on score.

NC5.1

Update on wording so that the indicator is clear and answer options are mutually exclusive

Rationale for change: Wording was updated to improve terminology, and to ensure the answer options are mutually exclusive.

Impact of change: No more double scoring for participants that require certification at a specific level. No impact on score.

NC5.2

Participants can also report on projects that are registered to obtain a green building certification

Rationale for change: Green building certifications are often only awarded after NCMR projects are completed, and pre-certifications are not available for all building certificates. This change enable participants to report on projects that have registered at an official directory of green building certification scheme but not yet obtained the final certificate.

Impact of change: Adapted approach to the use of green building certifications in new construction and/or major renovation projects during the reporting period. No impact on score.

NC7.1

The percentage of projects with renewable energy is used for scoring

Rationale for change: This enable participant to get recognition on their effort in promoting renewable energy in new construction and/or major renovation projects. And it provides a better differentiation between sustainability best practices.

Impact of change: The percentages of all reported renewable projects are added up and capped at 100%, and the total percentage is taken into account in the scoring. It is calculated linearly.

NC7.2

Evidence is removed

Rationale for change: The mandatory open text box provides sufficient information for validation. Removing the mandatory upload can reduce the reporting burden.

Impact of change: No impact on scoring.

NC8, NC11

Participants no longer need to provide evidence for “common water efficiency measures” and “common occupant health and well-being measures”

Rationale for change: Both indicators cover a lot of information, which makes it difficult to provide evidence for each checkbox. To shift the validation focus to the subcategory of "Requirement for planning and design" will concentrate the validation effort and reduce the reporting burden from the participants.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. No impact on scoring.

NC12.1

Shifted the focus of this indicator from health and safety to safety. New options added

Rationale for change: Emphasize the difference between safety and health.

Impact of change: It is not possible to pre-fill the indicator in 2018. No impact on scoring.

NC14

Open text box no longer scored, but used for reporting purposes

Rationale for change: To shift the validation focus on the uploaded document, to emphasize the quality and implementation of community impact monitoring.

Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. No impact on scoring.

Entity & Reporting Characteristics

Entity Characteristics

Reporting Characteristics

New Construction & Major Renovations

Management

Sustainability Objectives

2017 Indicator

2 points , MP, G

3 points , MP, G

Sustainability Decision Making

2017 Indicator

2 points , MP, G

1 point , MP, G

3 points , MP, G

Policy & Disclosure

ESG Policies

2017 Indicator

3 points , MP, G

2 points , MP, G

2 points , MP, G

Not scored , MP, G

Sustainability Disclosure

2017 Indicator

4 points , MP, G

2 points , MP, G

Not scored , MP, G

Not scored , MP, G

Not scored , MP, G

Risks & Opportunities

Governance

2017 Indicator

1 point , IM, G

2 points , IM, G

Environmental & Social

2017 Indicator

2 points , IM, E

2 points , IM, E

4.5 points , IM, E

3 points , IM, E

2.5 points , IM, E

1 point , IM, E

Monitoring & EMS

Environmental Management Systems

2017 Indicator

3 points , MP, G

Data Management Systems

2017 Indicator

4 points , IM, E

Monitoring Consumption

2017 Indicator

3 points , IM, E

2 points , IM, E

Not scored , IM, E

Performance Indicators

Energy Consumption Data

2017 Indicator

Not scored

12 points , IM, E

1.5 points , IM, E

3 points , IM, E

1 point , MP, E

Not scored

3.5 points , IM, E

0.75 points , IM, E

0.75 points , MP, E

Not scored

3.5 points , IM, E

0.75 points , IM, E

0.5 points , IM, E

0.75 points , MP, E

Not scored

3.25 points , IM, E

0.75 points , MP, E

3 points , MP, E

Building Certifications

Green Building Certificates

2017 Indicator

10 points , IM, E

12 points , IM, E

Energy Ratings

2017 Indicator

3 points , IM, E

Stakeholder Engagement

Employees

2017 Indicator

2 points , IM, S

1.5 points , IM, S

1 point , IM, S

1 point , IM, S

0.5 points , IM, S

Suppliers

2017 Indicator

3 points , MP, G

Not scored , MP, G

2 points , IM, S

2 points , IM, S

Not scored , MP, S

Tenants/Occupiers

2017 Indicator

4 points , IM, S

3 points , IM, S

1 point , IM, S

3 points , IM, E

3 points , IM, E

1 point , IM, E

Community

2017 Indicator

3 points , IM, S

1.5 points , IM, S

New Construction & Major Renovations

Sustainability Requirements

2017 Indicator

1 point

3 points

1.5 points

Materials and Certifications

2017 Indicator

2.5 points

2 points

5 points

Energy Efficiency

2017 Indicator

3 points

3 points

1 point

Water Conservation and Waste Management

2017 Indicator

2 points

2 points

Supply Chain

2017 Indicator

2 points

2 points

Health, Safety and Well-being

2017 Indicator

2 points

1 point

1 point

Community Impact and Engagement

2017 Indicator

1.5 points

1.5 points