Reporting entity
Entity name: ____________
Fund Manager Organization Name (if applicable): ____________
The 2019 GRESB Real Estate Assessment Document accompanies the 2019 GRESB Real Estate Assessment and is published both as a standalone document and in the GRESB Portal alongside each Assessment indicator. The Assessment Document reflects the opinions of GRESB and not of our members. The information in the Assessment Document has been provided in good faith and is provided on an “as is” basis. We take reasonable care to check the accuracy and completeness of the Assessment Document prior to its publication. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications to the Assessment Document. We will publicly announce any such modifications. The Assessment Document is not provided as the basis for any professional advice or for transactional use. GRESB and its advisors, consultants and sub-contractors shall not be responsible or liable for any advice given to third parties, any investment decisions or trading or any other actions taken by you or by third parties based on information contained in the Assessment Document. Except where stated otherwise, GRESB is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights in all the information contained in the Assessment Document.
GRESB is the environmental, social and governance (ESG) benchmark for real assets. Working in collaboration with the industry, GRESB defines the global standard for sustainability performance in real assets providing standardized and validated ESG data to more than 75 institutional investors, representing over USD 18 trillion in institutional capital.
For more information, visit gresb.com. Follow @GRESB on Twitter.
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 7 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.
In addition to the GRESB Real Estate Assessment for property companies and fund managers that focus on themanagement of standing investments, GRESB provides a stand-alone GRESB Developer Assessment to evaluate the ESG performance of organizations that focus on development activities. The Developer Assessment focuses on policies, strategies, and measurable actions related to new construction and major renovation projects. It contains a subset of indicators from the GRESB Real Estate Assessment, plus the 14 indicators in the New Construction & Major Renovations (NC&MR) Aspect.
The GRESB Developer Assessment is designed for:
GRESB Public Disclosure evaluates the level of ESG disclosure by listed property companies and REITs. The evaluation is based on a set of indicators aligned with the GRESB Real Estate Assessment, allowing for a comparison of ESG disclosure performance between GRESB participants and non-participants. It also provides investors with a resource hub to access ESG disclosure documents across their full investment portfolio.
GRESB Public Disclosure data is initially collected by the GRESB team for selected companies, including both 2018 GRESB Real Estate Assessment participants and non-participants. All constituents have the opportunity to review and update this data before it becomes accessible to GRESB Investor Members. GRESB Public Disclosure consists of four Aspects: Governance of Sustainability, Implementation, Operational Performance and Stakeholder Engagement. Together, these Aspects contribute towards a Public Disclosure Level, expressed through an A to E sliding scale.
The GRESB Resilience Module is an optional supplement to the GRESB Real Estate and Infrastructure Assessments. It evaluates how real estate and infrastructure companies and funds are preparing for potentially disruptive events and changing conditions, assessing long-term trends, and becoming more resilient over time.
The Module is motivated by two key factors:
GRESB works in close collaboration with the National Association of Real Estate Investments Trusts (Nareit), a GRESB Industry Partner. Nareit encourages its corporate members to complete the annual GRESB Real Estate Assessments, which, for the past six years, has been the basis for their annual Leader in the Light Award competition. The Leader in the Light Awards are presented to REITs in eight property sectors: Diversified, Global (for non-U.S. companies), Health Care, Industrial, Lodging/Resorts, Office, Residential and Retail. If there are both large and small cap entries that meet the awards criteria in a given property sector, awards are presented to both the leading large and small cap companies. To participate in the Leader in the Light Award program, Nareit members must complete both the GRESB Real Estate Assessment and the Leader in the Light Supplement. Once all sections of the GRESB Real Estate Assessment are completed, including the Leader in the Light Supplement, participants are able to submit their entire submission which will automatically be included in the Leader in the Light Award competition.
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment provides the basis for the systematic assessment, objective scoring, and peer benchmarking of the ESG performance of infrastructure investments. The Assessment provides infrastructure investors with actionable information and the tools they need to accurately monitor and manage the sustainability risks of their assets, and to prepare for increasingly rigorous ESG obligations
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment has an initial focus on operating investments, infrastructure assets, companies and funds and covers a variety of infrastructure sectors, including:
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.
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 55 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.
GRESB results provide a practical way to understand ESG performance and communicate that performance to investors and other stakeholders. GRESB provides overall scores of ESG performance - such as the GRESB Score and GRESB Ratings - as well as detailed aspect-level and individual indicator-level assessments of performance. The key to analyzing GRESB data is in peer group comparisons that take into account country, regional, sectoral and investment type variations. This richer analysis enables fund managers and companies to understand their results in the context of their investment strategies and communicate this to their investors.
GRESB is committed to facilitating the use 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 Member Guidance on an annual basis to assist GRESB Investor Members in their engagement with managers.
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 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.
Additional information about the 2019 participation fee is available here.
The GRESB Real Estate Assessment opens in the Assessment Portal on April 1, 2019. The submission deadline is July 1, 2019, 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, 2019. 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 2019 Assessment cycle, please see the Assessment timeline.
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 1, 2019 (midnight, Pacific time) 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 a membership benefits.
The Assessment Portal includes 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 introductory information on the Assessments and 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, 2019.
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, take a look at our Partner Directory.
Participants are able to contact the GRESB Helpdesk at any time for support and guidance.
GRESB Real Estate Assessment Training is designed to help participants, potential participants and other GRESB stakeholders (managers, consultants, data partners) improve their ESG 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 2019 GRESB Assessment Training.
This Guide accompanies the 2019 GRESB Real Estate Assessment (referred to as “the Assessment”). Guidance is included for all Assessment indicators that comprise GRESB Real Estate’s seven aspects, plus the Assessment indicators addressing New Construction & Major Renovations. This Guide provides:
This Guide should provide all the basic information needed to complete the 2019 Assessment. If you need additional help, please contact the GRESB Helpdesk at any time for support and guidance.
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 participants' Benchmark results and scores, allowing the participant the control to either accept or deny this request.
Documentation provided as evidence can be made available to GRESB Real Estate Investor Members on a document by document basis. Each uploaded document has a checkbox (with the default set to ‘not available’) which, when selected by the participant, makes this evidence available to all investors with access to that entity. It is not possible to choose a subset of investors which you would like to share the documents for.
GRESB has developed a number of tools to assist participants with the collection and aggregation of asset level data that is required to complete certain aspects of the Assessment. Property companies and funds are encouraged to use the asset level tools to streamline data flows, and to increase data quality. The asset level data provided to GRESB is strictly confidential and will only be used for aggregation to portfolio level. No individual asset level information will be disclosed to participants’ investors.
As a default, GRESB does not disclose a participant’s data to other participants. For listed entities, the entity name is disclosed in the Benchmark Report, as well as the entity names of listed peer group constituents. For non-listed entities, only the fund manager’s name is disclosed, as well as the fund manager’s name of private peer group constituents.
GRESB provides an opt-in option that will disclose the entity’s name (public) or fund manager’s name (private), as well as the scores for the two dimensions (Management & Policy and Implementation & Measurement), to participants in the peer group that also opted to disclose their name and dimension scores.
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 companies and funds 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.
The following tools help participants with the submission process:
The tools are designed to streamline data flows and increase data quality.
In 2019, you can use the online GRESB Asset Portal or a data partner system to upload asset level data for the following indicators:
The asset level data provided to GRESB is strictly confidential and will only be used for aggregation to portfolio level. No individual asset level information will be disclosed to participants’ investors.
Why does GRESB ask for asset level data?The main driver for asset level reporting is to improve investor confidence in data quality. In addition, it enables us to provide participants with additional insights into the impact of their ESG programs, the basis for and paves the way for more tailored assessments in the future. GRESB data quality page
Does GRESB fully comply with GDPR?We do. You can check the GRESB Privacy Statement here. We also have specific internal policies, such as our Data Breach Policy and our Data Protection Policy, related to GDPR that we cannot share externally for security reasons. Please note that asset level data does not fall under the incidence of GDPR because it does not contain any personal data.
Cybersecurity. What steps have GRESB taken to prevent unauthorized access to asset level data?We hired an expert to review all of our data security measures and systems. No issues were flagged. Our website, as well as the GRESB Portal are fully HTTPS/TLS encrypted. We have strict and extensive policies on data security that we cannot share externally for security reasons. Our public policies can be accessed here.
Each indicator is allocated to one of the three sustainability dimensions (E- environmental; S- social; G- governance):
Every indicator in the 2019 Assessment can be answered with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and in some cases with ‘Not applicable’. If ‘Yes’ is selected, the participant has the option to further classify the response by selecting one or more sub-options.
Participants should select all sub-options that accurately describe the entity and for which the entity can provide evidence. If ‘No’ or ‘Not applicable’ is selected, the participant may not select any additional sub-options. A 'Not Applicable' answer is interpreted and scored in the same way as a “No” and will yield 0 points. GRESB has marked each indicator to reflect whether it has been amended or is new, by providing the indicator number in orange.
Selected indicators in the Assessment require supporting evidence. Evidence is information that can be used to validate the overall answer to the indicator and support any additionally selected criteria. GRESB does not have a prescriptive standard for evidence, rather the expectation is that a validator with reasonable domain expertise can review the evidence and find support for the overall indicator response and selected answer options. This means that the uploaded evidence should clearly reference the answer options selected by the participant. The evidence should not require extensive interpretation or inference, and participants are strongly encouraged to provide the simplest evidence that supports their claim.
It is the responsibility of the reporting entity to provide clear and concise information that can be easily found and understood by the validator. The validator will reject claimed answers or selected answer options not supported by clear evidence.
If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. Ideally, the landing page should contain all the information needed to validate the answer. In order to qualify as valid supporting evidence, the evidence provided must demonstrate the existence of the relevant topic relating to each of the criteria selected. The participant has the obligation to ensure that the hyperlink is functioning. Broken links are the responsibility of the participant and will be interpreted as the absence of evidence. Hyperlinks can only be provided if indicated. In all other instances, the actual document should be uploaded, or the document name and publication date should be provided. Hyperlinks in uploaded documents will not be checked.
Your Assessment response must be submitted in English. Documents uploaded as supporting evidence do not need to be entirely translated. However, a thorough summary of the content, sufficient to convey that each requirement has been met, should be provided in English.
GRESB intends to translate the 2019 GRESB Real Estate Assessment in to Japanese.
For other languages, the GRESB assessment portal can be translated by using “Google translate” via the Google Chrome web browser. This applies to the assessment portal , guidance notes and online version of the reference guide.
How to use Google Translate
Turn translation on
You can control whether Chrome will offer to translate web pages.
Disclaimer
Please note that not all text may be translated accurately or be translated at all. GRESB is not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translations. GRESB will not be held responsible for any damage or issues that may result from using Google Translate.
Over the years, the number of scored open text boxes has been reduced in an effort to shift focus from management to implementation. GRESB distinguishes between open text boxes:
Each type of text box is clearly marked in the Assessment.
Some indicators offer the opportunity to provide an alternative answer option (‘Other’). These other answers must stand outside of the options listed in the question. It is possible to add multiple other answers, however scores will not be aggregated. All answers are validated as part of the data validation process.
The indicator-specific guidance contains:
Answers must refer to the reporting period identified in EC3 in the Real Estate Assessment. A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting period; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting period. GRESB does not favour the use of calendar year over fiscal year or viceversa, as long as the chosen reporting period is used consistently throughout the Assessment.
Assessment questions are asked at three levels. When a participating entity is part of a larger investment management organization or group of companies (the ‘Organization’), GRESB directs some indicators to be answered either:
Organization Level: These indicators do not need to relate specifically to the entity for which you are submitting an Assessment response. Instead, if the entity is part of an investment management organization or group of companies, your response may relate to the Organization.
Organization Level applicable to Entity Level: These indicators require you to respond at entity level but, if the entity is part of a larger organization (as defined above), your response may relate to organization level activities. However, in these circumstances, the organization level activities must apply to the entity.
Entity Level: These indicators ask for the highest level of detail in your response. Your response should relate specifically to the named entity for which you are submitting an Assessment response.
Each indicator specifies at which level you should respond. As part of the validation process, GRESB may seek confirmation that a question has been answered at the correct reporting level. Where a participating entity is not part of a larger organization, all Assessment responses should be answered at the entity level.
This information is used in the data validation process. State the full name of the organization(s). As part of our annual validation of service providers, we may ask you to provide additional information via the GRESB Portal.
The GRESB Real Estate Assessment is structured into seven sustainability aspects, with a separate aspect for New Construction & Major Renovations. The weighted combination of scores for each aspect generates the overall GRESB Score. This Reference Guide provides detailed insight into the points available for each indicator, and the weighting of Assessment aspects. The information in this section provides additional context. Points per indicator are decided by GRESB in advance of the Assessment opening for responses. Indicator scoring goes through a three-stage review process based on GRESB’s rules, principles and guidelines.
For indicators where you can select one or more answers, GRESB awards points cumulatively for each individual selected answer and then aggregates to calculate a final score for the indicator. For many indicators, this final score is capped at a maximum, which means that it is not necessary to select all answers in order to receive full points. This scoring mechanisms allows the diversity among property companies and funds and the variety of their sustainability-oriented activities to be reflected. Open text boxes (where participants answer through a descriptive text), and indicators for which participants select ‘other’ answers, are manually validated. Points are awarded based on the validity of the response.
The scoring model is based on an automated system, which uses a technology platform designed for GRESB by a third party that specializes in data analysis software development. The scoring is completed without manual intervention after data validation has been completed.
The sum of the scores for each indicator adds up to a maximum of 139 points, and the overall GRESB Score is then expressed as a percentage – from 0 to 100. The maximum score for each aspect is a weighted element of the overall GRESB Score. GRESB takes into account the unique characteristics of different property types, not only in benchmarking absolute scores, but also in the scoring of a selection of indicators. A selection of indicators is scored based on each portfolio’s main property types – this holds specifically for the Performance Indicators and Building Certifications indicators.
The overall GRESB Score is divided into two dimensions: Management & Policy (MP) and Implementation & Measurement (IM).
| Sustainability Aspect | Weight (% Overall Score) |
|---|---|
| Management | 7.9% |
| Policy & Disclosure | 9.4% |
| Risks & Opportunities | 12.9% |
| Monitoring & EMS | 8.6% |
| Performance Indicators | 25.2% |
| Building Certifications | 10.8% |
| Stakeholder Engagement | 25.2% |
| New Construction & Major Renovations | Scored individually |
| Resilience Module | Scored individually |
Management & Policy is defined as “the means by which a company or fund deals with or controls its portfolio and its stakeholders and/or a course or principle of action adopted by the company or fund.” The maximum score for Management & Policy is 36.25 points – this is 26.1 percent of the overall GRESB Score and is expressed as a percentage.
Implementation & Measurement is defined as “the process of executing a decision or plan or of putting a decision or plan into effect and/or the action of measuring something related to the portfolio.” The maximum score for Implementation & Measurement is 102.75 points – this is 73.9 percent of the overall GRESB Score and is expressed as a percentage.
Participants reporting on new construction and major renovation projects complete the additional New Construction & Major Renovations (NC&MR) aspect, which receives a separate aspect score that is not included in the overall GRESB Score. Companies and funds that focus on development activities rather than the management of standing investments must complete the separate GRESB Developer Assessment and will receive a separate Developer Score.
Other informationIn response to industry feedback, GRESB has compiled a Scoring Document outlining the scoring methodology in detail as applied to each indicator in the 2019 Real Estate Assessment. The 2019 Scoring Document is available to participants via the Assessment Portal on April 1, 2019 and is shared for information purposes in an effort to increase transparency around the Assessment, Methodology and Scoring processes. GRESB reserves the right to make edits to this document during the scoring and analysis period preceding the 2019 results launch.
The GRESB Rating is an overall measure of how well ESG issues are integrated into the management and practices of companies and funds. The rating is based on the GRESB Score and its quintile position relative to the GRESB universe, with annual calibration of the model. It is calculated relative to the global performance of all reporting entities - property type and geography are not taken into account. In this way the GRESB Rating provides investors with insight into the differentiation of overall ESG performance within the global property sector. If certain regions systematically perform better, they will on average have higher-rated companies and funds. If the entity is placed in the top quintile, it will have a GRESB 5-star rating; if it is in the bottom quintile, it will have a GRESB 1-star rating, etc.
Entities with a score higher than 50 for both the Implementation & Measurement and Management & Policy dimensions receive the Green Star designation, highlighted through a distinctive markup in the Scorecard and Benchmark Reports.
A pre-set threshold determines an entity’s geographic location and property type:
The four-tier systems works as follows:
Each participant is assigned to a peer group, based on the entity’s legal structure (public/private), property type and geographical location. To ensure participant anonymity, GRESB will only create a peer group if there is a minimum of six peers in the group.
Peer group assignments do not affect a company/fund’s score, but determine how GRESB places an Assessment participant’s results into context.
The goal of the peer group creation process is to compare participants who share as many characteristics as possible, while:
Each participant can be part of multiple peer groups, but can only have one active peer group. The active peer group is the one which is used for benchmarking and is displayed in the participant’s Benchmark Report. This means that participant A can be in the active peer group of participant B, without participant B being in the active peer group of participant A. The practical consequence of this is that A will be displayed in the Benchmark Report of B under “Peer Group Constituents”, while B will not be displayed in the Benchmark Report of A.
The peer group composition is determined by a simple set of quantitative rules and provides consistent treatment for all participants.
GRESB creates peer groups by filtering participants on all relevant characteristics. If the peer group is too small or has too many participants with the same fund manager, we eliminate filters until we have a valid peer group. There are two ways in which the filter can be widened:
The system attempts to find the best peer group based on the criteria presented above. This process repeats in a loop following the logic described in the table available in
The system attempts to find the best peer group based on the criteria presented above. This process repeats in a loop following the logic described in the table available in Appendix: 9 Peer Group Allocation Methodology
Participants who would like to be compared against a different peer group than the one assigned by GRESB can request a Customized Benchmark Report (click here for details). The GRESB Customized Benchmark Report provides advanced analytics through alternative indicator-level performance comparisons and rankings based on a self-selected peer group. It builds on the detailed insights you can draw from the standard Benchmark Report and adds additional flexibility to understand your relative performance in the market.
For public companies, the entity name of the peer group constituents is disclosed in the Benchmark Report. For private entities, only the fund manager’s name of the peer group constituents is disclosed. GRESB provides an opt-in option that discloses the entity’s name (listed) or fund manager’s name (private), as well as the scores for the two dimensions (Management & Policy and Implementation & Measurement). However, this is only disclosed to participants in the peer group who also opted to disclose their name and dimension scores.
Participants who would like to be compared against a different peer group than the one assigned by GRESB can request a Customized Benchmark Report (click here for details). The GRESB Customized Benchmark Report provides advanced analytics through alternative indicator-level performance comparisons and rankings based on a self-selected peer group. It builds on the detailed insights you can draw from the standard Benchmark Report and adds additional flexibility to understand your relative performance in the market.
Data validation is an important part of GRESB’s annual benchmarking process. The purpose of data validation is to encourage best practices in data collection and reporting. It provides the basis for GRESB’s continued efforts to provide investment grade data to its investor members. Following receipt of Assessment submissions, prior to analyzing the data, GRESB validates the input data. This process continues from June 15 until July 31, 2019.
GRESB operates a three-tier validation process (All Participant Check, Validation Plus, Validation Interview). Over the past years, the topics covered by the validation process and the scope of work for Validation Plus and Validation Interviews have increased significantly.The validation process is completely outsourced to GRESB’s parent company GBCI.
GRESB validation is a check on (a) the factual accuracy and (b) the logic (e.g. clear, sound reasoning) of GRESB Assessment submissions including:
GRESB checks:
Document uploads are validated based on the validity of the document relative to the requirements stated in the guidance for the indicator, including the actual reference to selected answer options (see “Evidence”). Uploaded evidence that was accepted in previous Assessment submissions might not be accepted in subsequent submissions. Enhanced validation checks and/or a change in the level of validation may result in different validation outcomes. In order to be accepted, the provided evidence should meet the requirements as stipulated in this Reference Guide.
The 2019 list of indicators selected for Validation Plus is:
| MA5 | ESG factors included in performance targets |
| PD1 | Policy on environmental issues |
| PD5.1 | Disclosure of ESG performance |
| RO3.1 | Due diligence on new acquisitions |
| SE4.1 | ESG specific requirements in the procurement process |
| NC1 | Sustainability strategy for new construction & major renovations |
| NC8 | Promotion of water conservation |
| NC14 | Monitoring impact on local community |
The GRESB/GBCI validation team reviews the uploaded documents, they are not disclosed by GRESB to any third parties, unless the option to make the evidence available to investors was selected. You may redact the documents, provided that enough information to validate your Assessment responses is available. All supporting evidence for indicators selected for Validation Plus must be submitted alongside the Real Estate Assessments. Documents, clarifications and information provided after submission will not be taken into consideration.
Validation Interviews participants are automatically selected using a system that analyzes criteria based on the previous year’s Assessment data. Participants selected will be notified by email after the Assessment submission. In 2019, GRESB anticipates that approximately five percent of participants will be selected for a Validation Interview.
Based on statistical modelling, GRESB identifies outliers in all reported quantitative data. This analysis is performed to ensure that all participating entities included in the benchmarking and scoring process are compared based on a fair, quality-controlled dataset.
GRESB identifies reported consumption values as outliers, if the corresponding consumption intensity (consumption/area) and/or its change over time is abnormal relative to all reported data for the particular property type. Through an in-house developed statistical program, GRESB groups and benchmarks values within their property type, which allows for the identification of consumption values that fall outside normally observed ranges. Beyond reviewing the intensity of consumption, the like-for-like development of consumption over a two-year period is also used to identify abnormal data points.
Once the overall portfolio consumption and/or its consumption change over time are identified as abnormal, all underlying data points are reviewed by a member of the validation team. All GRESB participants undergo the same data review and all decisions are automatically protocolled by the system so that they can always be reviewed.
GRESB acknowledges that some identified abnormal data points are not the result of incorrect data, but rather the result of unusual business development. To account for this explanation, outliers are not removed if a reasonable explanation by the respondent exists. Once participants enter unusual data points, the GRESB Portal requires a written explanation for those reported values. GRESB reviews all explanations for outliers and considers those before making a final decision on removing the outlier from the dataset. If a data point is identified as outlier and no reasonable explanation is provided, the data point is removed from the participant’s assessment response, both for scoring and reporting purposes. The outcomes of the outlier validation process are presented in the Benchmark Report and are not communicated to participants during the validation process. Please check Appendix 7c: Outlier validation for more information
Participants with questions on individual validation decisions can contact the GRESB Helpdesk. For a complete interpretation of the validation decisions in the Assessment, participants can request a Results Review. For more information about the Results Review, please click here.
Each validation inquiry sent via the GRESB Helpdesk is evaluated internally and can be the result of:
GRESB requires property companies and funds to report on their whole portfolio, including both managed and indirectly managed assets.
The Annual GRESB Assessment includes all assets that are held during the reporting period, including those that have been sold or purchased. For these assets, ESG data is reported for the period of time that the assets were part of the portfolio. This enables us to deliver the standardized and comparable assessment of portfolio-level ESG performance that the market is seeking. However it is also worth noting that in addition to simple overall scores of ESG performance - such as the GRESB Score and GRESB Ratings - we provide detailed aspect-level and individual indicator-level assessments of performance. This richer analysis, further complimented by peer group benchmarking, enables managers to understand their results in the context of their investment strategies and communicate this to their investors.
When an asset or assets are part of a joint venture, joint operation or are in joint ownership, participants are required to report on these assets, even if the joint arrangement means that the participant does not have direct operational control over the asset(s). Joint venture partners with a stake of 25 percent or higher are considered to have significant influence over operational initiatives and can therefore drive implementation of sustainability initiatives and performance improvements, even in the case the operational control resides with another partner. If the equity share in a joint venture, joint operation or joint ownership is more than, or equal to 25 percent, participants can choose to either (a) report on their share or (b) report on the full asset. This must be done consistently throughout the portfolio and is regardless of operational or management control. This may result in an asset being included in two separate submissions. However, this does not impact GRESB’s analysis or the benchmark results. If the equity share in a joint venture, joint operation or joint ownership is less than 25 percent, participants can exclude the asset(s) from the reporting boundaries. In either case, participants must explain their approach in the open text box in RC5.1.
If an asset is part of multiple portfolios managed by the same fund manager, the asset should be treated as a joint venture in each portfolio. The rules outlined above apply.
The definition of Indirectly Managed assets in the Assessment is solely based on the landlord/tenant relationship.
Managed assets or buildings are those for which the landlord is determined to have “operational control” where operational control is defined as having the ability to introduce and implement operating policies, health and safety policies, and/or environmental policies. If both the landlord and tenant have the authority to introduce and implement any or all of the policies mentioned above, the asset or building should be reported as a Managed asset. Where a single tenant has the greatest authority to introduce and implement operating policies and environmental policies, the tenant should be assumed to have operational control. For example, in the case of a full repairing and insuring (FRI) lease in England and Wales, the tenant has operational control meaning that the asset is Indirectly Managed.
GRESB distinguishes between Managed assets and Indirectly Managed assets in the Performance Indicators aspect. GRESB has done so in recognition of the fact that landlords of Indirectly Managed assets may have little or no control over the use or purchase of utilities for the asset, or over waste management practices. The guidance for this aspect explains GRESB’s approach in more detail.
GRESB does not specifically distinguish between Managed and Indirectly Managed assets outside the Performance Indicator aspect. The Assessment measures ESG performance using a consistent methodology that applies both to listed companies and private funds and which applies across property sectors and regions. GRESB encourages the collection of data and qualitative information regarding ESG issues that give property companies and funds and their investors the tools to identify areas in which they can improve performance and as a toolkit for internal and external engagement.
Furthermore, while GRESB does measure absolute performance, it emphasizes the importance of peer group comparisons in scoring and the analysis of benchmark results. Where participant numbers allow this, GRESB creates separate peer groups for each property type, for listed and private entities and for Managed and Indirectly Managed assets. Additionally, participants have the opportunity to explain the composition of their portfolio in the open text box in RC5.1, including clarifying limits on asset control that arise from the landlord/tenant relationship.
With these factors in mind, while the landlord’s day-to-day involvement in Indirectly Managed assets may be limited, the topics covered by the Assessment are equally relevant to Indirectly Managed assets. Accordingly, the same questions and methodology apply.
GRESB works closely with its members and broader industry stakeholders to ensure the Assessment addresses material issues in the sustainability performance of real estate investments. The main focus of the 2019 Assessment development process were enhancements to asset-level reporting functionality and the integration of selected Health & Well-being Module elements. The changes serve the longer term development of the Assessment, support our efforts for good quality data and reflect the evolution of the real estate industry as measured by the benchmark over the last years.
The table below lists all changes, as well as their implications for your reporting process.
Continuous, all year use of the GRESB Asset Portal and APIWith the year round availability of the Asset Portal and API, assets can be added and edited throughout the year. Added data can then be used during the reporting period for aggregation to portfolio level indicators. |
Updated checks in the asset portal and improved guidance for asset level reportingThe updates to data integrity rules and live validation are designed to simplify reporting and improve data quality. |
Updated APIAPI endpoints are updated and migrated to https://api.gresb.com/api/entities. For more information visit our updated API documentation. |
The access to the Template Tool is no longer restricted to members.The template tool enables participants to copy information across multiple submissions, reducing the amount of time spent replicating information across entities held by the same fund manager. |
The Validation Interview process changes structure and will be mainly based on a desktop review.While the scope of the Validation Interview will remain the same (the validators will do an in-depth analysis of all supporting evidences, mandatory and non-mandatory, performance indicators and outliers), the Validation Interview report, the call with the participant, and the participant’s ability to change their responses following the call will be removed from the process. Participants will continue to be automatically notified if they are selected for a Validation Interview and there may still be instances where we need to contact the participant for missing supporting evidence, additional information, clarifications or corrections to the data submitted. |
A selection of Health & Well-being indicators are incorporated into the Real Estate AssessmentWith the release of the 2018 results and after a successful 3-year cycle, the Health & Well-being Module has served its purpose as an exploratory vehicle and incubator for new indicators. In 2019, a selection of health & well-being indicators are incorporated into the GRESB Real Estate Assessment, effectively making these indicators a reporting requirement for all GRESB participants. The newly introduced Health & Well-being indicators are grouped as a separate section in the Stakeholder Engagement aspect. |
Validation Plus indicatorsThe Validation Plus indicator selection is performed by GRESB and is subject to change on an annual basis in order to rotate the validation scope every year. This allows GRESB to apply a consistent level of scrutiny on all participating entities. In 2019, the following changes are introduced:
|
Entity & Reporting Characteristics |
|
| RC5.2 |
New evidence requirement for reporting boundaries provided in RC5.1Rationale for change: RC5.1 determines the entity’s peer group composition and enables data checks on benchmarked indicators. To facilitate a fair and accurate benchmark, it is essential that the portfolio boundaries identified in RC5.1 are complete. Impact of change: Increased participant and investor confidence in the accuracy of the GRESB Real Estate Benchmark. An improved ability to confirm accurate portfolio reporting in both Response Checks and Validation. |
| RC-NC1.1 |
Vacant land is excluded from the reporting scope.Rationale for change: Vacant land does not share the same ESG issues as standing investments or development projects, and it does not directly associate to any performance indicator. |
Policy and Disclosure |
|
| PD2 |
Two new options are added “Employee Health & Well-being” and “Tenant/customer and community health & well-being”.Rationale for change: This is part of the Health & Well-being integration. Impact of change: The scope of the indicator is expanded to assess the presence of policies to address employee, tenant/customer and community health and well-being. The indicator will still be pre-filled for 2018 participants. |
| PD4 |
Non-scored indicator is further developed to introduce a set of quantitative diversity metrics and the ability to report on governance bodies and employees separately.Rationale for change: This indicator was introduced as a non-scored indicator in 2018. Building on last year’s answers, we have further developed it into a more analytical indicator on diversity. Impact of change: The changes bring a better alignment with the GRI Standards and EPRA’s sBPRs. |
| PD5.2 |
Third-party verification and third-party assurance of sustainability disclosure receive equal points.Rationale for change: Over the past years, the non-financial information third-party review industry has witnessed the development of several new verification and assurance standards. The level of scrutiny underpinning such third-party reviews tends to be dictated by the standard used, rather than the terminology used to describe the review process. Impact of change: The scoring is adjusted to recognize external verification in the same way as external assurance. “Other” answers provided to the Scheme name dropdown menu are subject to validation. |
Risk and Opportunities |
|
| RO5/6/7 |
Indicators are simplified to reflect whether such measures exist across the portfolio. The column for individual measure descriptions is replaced by an open textbox below the table.Rationale for change: Participants no longer need to report on the measures that were implemented over four years ago. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. |
Monitoring and EMS |
|
| ME2 |
Evidence removed.Rationale for change: The supporting evidence for this indicator was validated for a few consecutive years. More than 99% evidence uploaded in 2018 was Accepted. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. |
Performance Indicators |
|
| Asset level data |
Enable the download of asset-level dataRationale for change: Provide a more flexible asset level reporting process controlled by the participant. 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. |
| PI1.2/ PI2.2/ PI3.2 |
Open text box for description of intensity calculation methodology is removed, and the scoring of these three indicators is updated.Rationale for change: The information provided via the text boxes was repetitive and lacked specificity. This is a simplification step towards the 2020 Assessment framework, which will simplify these indicators even further. Impact of change: Scoring for these indicators remains the same, but the points previously assigned to the open text boxes are re-distributed to the intensity data tables and selection of normalisation factors. |
| PI2.1 |
Table is extended to capture emissions from outdoor / exterior spacesRationale for change: Participants with outdoor / exterior spaces energy data reported in PI1.1 (and particularly those with only outdoor / exterior spaces data available) were not able to correctly represent the emissions corresponding to this consumption, leading to outlier messages in some cases. Impact of change: A more accurate representation of GHG emissions data. No impact on scoring. |
| PI1.4/ PI2.3/ PI3.4/ PI4.2 |
Third-party verification and third-party assurance of data receive equal pointsRationale for change: Over the past years, the non-financial information third-party review industry has witnessed the development of several new verification and assurance standards. The level of scrutiny underpinning such third-party reviews tends to be dictated by the standard used, rather than the terminology used to describe the review process. Impact of change: The scoring is adjusted to recognize external verification in the same way as external assurance. “Other” answers provided to the Scheme name dropdown menu are subject to validation. |
Stakeholder Engagement |
|
| SE3.1 |
Indicator is incorporated into SE12.1Rationale for change: Consolidation of health & well-being indicators into an individual section Impact of change: Indicator maintains its score within SE12.1 and is pre-filled with the 2018 information (if applicable) |
| SE8.1 |
Evidence removed.Rationale for change: The supporting evidence for this indicator was validated for all participants in 2018 and had a 90% Accepted rate. The remainder of 10% answers were Partially Accepted, with only a few exceptions. Impact of change: Reduced reporting burden. |
| SE12.1/ SE12.2/ SE13.1/ SE13.2 |
New indicators on employees and tenants health and well-being.Rationale for change: Integration of select indicators from the old Health & Well-being Module into the Real Estate Assessment. Impact of change: The weight of the Stakeholder Engagement aspect increases as a result of:
|
New Construction and Major Renovation |
|
| NC7.2 |
The open textboxes for describing the entity’s definition of “net-zero energy” and referenced code/standards are replaced by checkboxes.Rationale for change: Responses in open textboxes are difficult to compare and provide little analytical value. Impact of change: An easier to report, better-structured indicator. |
EC1
Reporting entity
Entity name: ____________
Fund Manager Organization Name (if applicable): ____________
EC2
Nature of ownership:
Listed entity
Please specify ISIN: ____________
Year of commencement: ____________
Legal status:
Property company
Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)
Non-listed entity
Year of first closing: ____________
Entity style classification:
Core
Value Added
Opportunistic
Open or closed end:
Open end
Closed end
Finite or infinite structure:
Finite structure
Specify termination date: ____________
Infinite structure
Government entity
EC3
The reporting period is:
Calendar year
Fiscal year
Specify the starting month Month
EC4
Is the organization a member of an industry association?
Yes (multiple answers possible)
Asian Association for Investors in Non-listed Real Estate Vehicles (ANREV)
Asia Pacific Real Estate Association (APREA)
British Property Federation (BPF)
European Association for Investors in Non-Listed Real Estate Vehicles (INREV)
European Public Real Estate Association (EPRA)
National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT)
Pension Real Estate Association (PREA)
Real Property Association of Canada (REALpac)
Other: ____________
No
RC1
Values are reported in: Currency
RC2
What was the gross asset value (GAV) of the entity at the end of the reporting period in millions?
________________________
RC3
Metrics are reported in:
m2
sq. ft.
RC4
What is the entity's core business?
Management of standing investments only (continue with RC5.1, RC5.2, RC6)
Management of standing investments and development of new construction and major renovation projects (continue with RC5.1, RC5.2, RC6, RC-NC1, RC-NC2, RC-NC3)
Development of new construction and major renovation projects (continue with Developer Assessment)
RC5.1
Describe the composition of the entity’s standing investments portfolio during the reporting period
![[PortfolioCompTable]](/images/tables/portfolio_comp_table/y2019-1fd516da.svg)
Note: The table above defines the scope of your 2019 GRESB submission and should include the total standing investments portfolio of the investible entity. Any development and/or major renovation projects should only be included in the reporting scope defined in RC-NC1 and/or RC-NC2. The reporting scope reported above should exclude vacant land, cash or other non real estate assets owned by the entity.
RC5.2
Does the table above list the entity’s entire standing investment portfolio as per the reporting requirements described above?
Yes
No
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Provide additional context on how the uploaded evidence supports the entity’s reporting boundaries and portfolio composition in RC5.1 (maximum 250 words)
________________________
RC6
Which countries/states are included in the entity’s standing investment portfolio?
![[CountryGavTable]](/images/tables/country_gav_table/y2019-001d02db.svg)
RC-NC1.1
Describe the composition of the entity’s new construction projects during the reporting period
![[PropertyConstructionTable]](/images/tables/property_construction_table/y2019-d6a0ec29.svg)
Note: The table above defines the scope of your 2019 GRESB submission on development projects and should include new construction projects that are in progress at the end of reporting period, as well as projects that are completed during the reporting period. The reporting scope reported above should exclude vacant land, cash or other non real estate assets owned by the entity.
*GAV either according to fair value or based on construction costs
RC-NC1.2
Does the table above list all the entity’s new construction projects as per the reporting requirements described above?
Yes
Provide additional context for the reporting boundaries on new construction projects (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the reporting boundaries on new construction projects (maximum 250 words)
________________________
RC-NC2.1
Describe the composition of the entity’s major renovation projects during the reporting period
Note: The table above defines the scope of your 2019 GRESB submission on development projects and should include major renovation projects that are in progress at the end of reporting period, as well as projects that are completed during the reporting period. The reporting scope reported above should exclude vacant land, cash or other non real estate assets owned by the entity.
*GAV either according to fair value or based on construction costs
RC-NC2.2
Does the table above list all the entity’s major renovation projects as per the reporting requirements described above?
Yes
Provide additional context for the reporting boundaries on major renovation projects (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the reporting boundaries on major renovation projects (maximum 250 words)
________________________
RC-NC3
Which countries/states are included in the entity’s new construction and/or major renovation projects portfolio?
ManagementMA1
Does the entity have specific ESG objectives?
Yes
The objectives relate to (multiple answers possible)
General sustainability
Environment
Social
Governance
Health and well-being
The objectives are
Fully integrated into the overall business strategy
Partially integrated into the overall business strategy
Not integrated into the overall business strategy
The objectives are
Publicly available
Please provide a hyperlink or a separate publicly available document
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Not publicly available
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Communicate the objectives and explain how the objectives are integrated into the overall business strategy (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
MA1
2 points , MP, G
MA2
Does the organization have one or more persons responsible for implementing the ESG objectives referenced in MA1?
Yes
Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)
Dedicated employee(s) for whom sustainability is the core responsibility
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
E-mail: ____________
LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________
Employee(s) for whom sustainability is among their responsibilities
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
E-mail: ____________
LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________
External consultants/manager
Name of the organization Service provider
Name of the main contact: ____________
Job title: ____________
E-mail: ____________
LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________
Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)
Name of the main contact: ____________
Job title: ____________
E-mail: ____________
LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________
No
Not applicable
MA2
3 points , MP, G
MA3
Does the organization have a sustainability taskforce or committee that is applicable to the entity?
Yes
Select the members of this taskforce or committee (multiple answers possible)
Asset managers
Board of Directors
External consultants
Name of the organization Service provider
Fund/portfolio managers
Property managers
Senior Management Team
Other: ____________
No
MA3
2 points , MP, G
MA4
Does the organization have a senior decision-maker accountable for the entity's sustainability strategy?
Yes
Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on sustainability issues
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
E-mail: ____________
LinkedIn profile (optional): ____________
The individual is part of
Board of Directors
Senior Management Team
Fund/portfolio managers
Investment Committee
Other: ____________
Please describe the process of informing the most senior decision-maker on the sustainability performance of the entity (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
MA4
1 point , MP, G
MA5
Does the organization include ESG factors in the annual performance targets of the employees responsible for this entity?
Yes
Does performance on these targets have predetermined consequences?
Yes
Financial consequences
Non-financial consequences
No
Select the employees to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible):
All employees
Board of Directors
Senior Management Team
Other: ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
MA5
3 points , MP, G
Policy & DisclosurePD1
Does the organization have a policy/policies in place, applicable to the entity level, that address(es) environmental issues?
Yes
Select all environmental issues included (multiple answers possible)
Biodiversity and habitat
Climate/climate change adaptation
Energy consumption/management
Environmental attributes of building materials
GHG emissions/management
Resilience
Waste management
Water consumption/management
Other: ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
PD1
3 points , MP, G
PD2
Does the organization have a policy/policies in place, applicable to the entity level, that address(es) social issues?
Yes
Select all social issues included (multiple answers possible)
Child labor
Diversity and equal opportunity
Forced or compulsory labor
Occupational safety (for employees)
Asset level safety (for tenants)
Employee health & well-being
Tenant/customer and community health & well-being
Labor-management relationships
Employee performance and career development
Stakeholder engagement
Worker rights
Other: ____________
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
PD2
2 points , MP, G
PD3
Does the organization have a policy/policies in place, applicable to the entity level, that address(es) governance issues?
Yes
Select all governance issues included (multiple answers possible)
Bribery and corruption
Data protection and privacy
Employee remuneration
Executive compensation
Fiduciary duty
Fraud
Political contributions
Shareholder rights
Whistleblower protection
Other: ____________
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
PD3
2 points , MP, G
PD4
Does the organization monitor the diversity of the entity’s governance bodies and/or the organization’s employees?
Yes
Diversity of the entity’s governance bodies
Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)
Age group distribution
Board tenure
Gender pay gap
Gender ratio
Percentage of employees that are:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
Diversity of the organization’s employees
Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)
Age group distribution
Percentage of employees that are:
Under 30 years old: ____________%
Between 30 and 50 years old: ____________%
Over 50 years old: ____________%
Gender pay gap
Gender ratio
Percentage of employees that are:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
Provide additional context for the response (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
PD4
Not scored , MP, G
PD5.1
Does the organization disclose its ESG actions and/or performance?
Yes (multiple answers possible)
Section in Annual Report
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Investment manager
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with Guideline name
Stand-alone sustainability report(s)
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Investment manager
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with Guideline name
Integrated Report
*Integrated Report must be aligned with IIRC framework
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Investment manager
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with Guideline name
Dedicated section on corporate website
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Investment manager
Group
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Section in entity reporting to investors
Aligned with Guideline name
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Other: ____________
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Investment manager
Group
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Aligned with Guideline name
No
PD5.1
4 points , MP, G
PD5.2
Does the organization have an independent third party review of its ESG disclosure?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible, selections must match answers in PD5.1)
Section in Annual Report
Externally checked by Service provider
Externally verified by Service provider
using Scheme name
Externally assured by Service provider
using Scheme name
Stand-alone sustainability report
Externally checked by Service provider
Externally verified by Service provider
using Scheme name
Externally assured by Service provider
using Scheme name
Integrated Report
Externally checked by Service provider
Externally verified by Service provider
using Scheme name
Externally assured by Service provider
using Scheme name
Section in entity reporting to investors
Externally checked by Service provider
Externally verified by Service provider
using Scheme name
Externally assured by Service provider
using Scheme name
Other: ____________
Externally checked by Service provider
Externally verified by Service provider
using Scheme name
Externally assured by Service provider
using Scheme name
No
Not applicable
PD5.2
2 points , MP, G
PD6
Has the organization made a public commitment to ESG leadership standards or groups that applies to investments in this entity?
Yes
Select all issues included (multiple answers possible)
Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)
Montreal Pledge
PRI signatory
RE 100
Science Based Targets initiative
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative
UN Global Compact
Other: ____________
Please provide applicable hyperlink
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
PD6
Not scored , MP, G
PD7.1
Does the entity have a process to communicate about ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents?
Yes
The entity would communicate misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents to:
Investors
Public
Other stakeholders: ____________
Describe the process (maximum 250 words): ____________
No
PD7.1
Not scored , MP, G
PD7.2
Has the entity been involved in any ESG-related misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents in the reporting year?
Yes
Specify the total number of cases imposed: ____________
Specify the total value of fines and/or penalties resulting from these cases
________________________
Provide additional context for the response (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
* The information in PD7.1 and PD7.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2019 Sector Leaders
PD7.2
Not scored , MP, G
Risks & OpportunitiesRO1
Does the organization have systems and procedures in place to facilitate effective implementation of the governance policy/policies in PD3?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Investment due diligence process
Training related to governance risks for employees (multiple answers possible)
Regular follow-ups
When an employee joins the organization
Whistle-blower mechanism
Other: ____________
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
RO1
1 point , IM, G
RO2
Did the entity perform entity-level governance and/or social risk assessments within the last three years?
Yes
Select all issues included (multiple answers possible)
Bribery and corruption
Child labor
Diversity and equal opportunity
Executive compensation
Forced or compulsory labor
Labor-management relationships
Shareholder rights
Worker rights
Other: ____________
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
RO2
2 points , IM, G
RO3.1
Does the entity perform asset-level environmental and/or social risk assessments as a standard part of its due diligence process for new acquisitions?
Yes
Select all issues included (multiple answers possible)
Building safety and materials
Climate change adaptation
Contamination
Energy efficiency
Energy supply
Flooding
GHG emissions
Health and well-being
Indoor environmental quality
Natural hazards
Regulatory
Resilience
Socio-economic
Transportation
Water efficiency
Waste management
Water supply
Other: ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
RO3.1
2 points , IM, E
RO3.2
Has the entity performed asset-level environmental and/or social risk assessments of its standing investments during the last three years?
Yes
Select all issues included (multiple answers possible)
Building safety and materials
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Biodiversity
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Climate change adaptation
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Contamination
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Energy efficiency
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Energy supply
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Flooding
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
GHG emissions
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Health and well-being
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Indoor environmental quality
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Natural hazards
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Regulatory
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Resilience
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Socio-economic
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Transportation
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Water efficiency
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Waste management
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Water supply
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Other: ____________
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
The risk assessment is aligned with a third party standard
Yes
ISO 31000
Other: ____________
No
Describe how the outcomes of the sustainability risk assessments are used in order to mitigate the selected risks (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
RO3.2
2 points , IM, E
RO4
Has the entity performed technical building assessments during the last four years to identify improvement opportunities within the portfolio?
Yes
Select applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Energy Efficiency
In-house assessment
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
External assessment
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Name of the organization Service provider
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Water Efficiency
In-house assessment
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
External assessment
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Name of the organization Service provider
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Waste Management
In-house assessment
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
External assessment
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Name of the organization Service provider
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Health & Well-being
In-house assessment
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
External assessment
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Name of the organization Service provider
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
RO4
4.5 points , IM, E
RO5
Has the entity implemented measures during the last four years to improve the energy efficiency of the portfolio?
Yes
List the measures using the table below.
![[EnergyMeasures]](/images/tables/energy_measures/y2019-1fd58fe9.svg)
Describe the entity’s strategy for implementing efficiency measures (payback period, property type, scope, etc.) and the link to the entity’s ESG objectives and/or targets. (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
RO5
3 points , IM, E
RO6
Has the entity implemented measures during the last four years to improve the water efficiency of the portfolio?
Yes
List the measures using the table below.
![[WaterMeasures]](/images/tables/water_measures/y2019-1fd58fe9.svg)
Describe the entity’s strategy for implementing efficiency measures (payback period, property type, scope, etc.) and the link to the entity’s ESG objectives and/or targets. (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
RO6
2.5 points , IM, E
RO7
Has the entity implemented measures during the last four years to improve the waste management of the portfolio?
Yes
List the measures using the table below.
![[WasteMeasures]](/images/tables/waste_measures/y2019-1fd58fe9.svg)
Describe the entity’s strategy for implementing efficiency measures (payback period, property type, scope, etc.) and the link to the entity’s ESG objectives and/or targets. (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
RO7
1 point , IM, E
Monitoring & EMSME1
Does the organization have an Environmental Management System (EMS) that applies to the entity level?
Yes
The EMS is aligned with a standard
ISO 14001
EMAS (EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme)
Other: ____________
The EMS is externally certified by an independent third party
Name of the organization Service provider
ISO 14001
EMAS (EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme)
Other: ____________
The EMS is not aligned with a standard nor certified externally
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
ME1
3 points , MP, G
ME2
Does the organization have a data management system in place that applies to the entity level?
Yes
Select one of the following
Developed internally
Bespoke (custom) internal system developed by a third party
Name of the organization Service provider
External system
Name of the system: ____________
Name of the organization Service provider
Select the performance indicators included (multiple answers possible)
Energy consumption
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
GHG emissions/management
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Building safety
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Indoor environmental quality
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Resilience
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Waste streams/management
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Water
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Other: ____________
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
No
ME2
4 points , IM, E
ME3
Does the entity monitor the energy consumption of the portfolio?
Yes
Percentage of whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Type of monitoring (multiple answers possible)
Automatic meter readings
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Based on invoices
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Manual–visual readings
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Provided by the tenant
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Other: ____________
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
No
Not applicable
ME3
3 points , IM, E
ME4
Does the entity monitor the water consumption of the portfolio?
Yes
Percentage of whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Type of monitoring (multiple answers possible)
Automatic meter readings
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Based on invoices
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Manual–visual readings
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Provided by the tenant
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Other: ____________
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
No
Not applicable
ME4
2 points , IM, E
ME5
Does the entity monitor the waste production of the portfolio?
Yes
Percentage of whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Type of monitoring (multiple answers possible)
Internal tracking
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Provided by haulers
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Provided by the tenant
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Other: ____________
Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: ____________%
Explain (a) the calculation methodology for percentage of whole portfolio covered, and (b) limitations and assumptions made in the calculation (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
ME5
Not scored , IM, E
Performance IndicatorsPI1.0
Does the entity collect energy consumption data for this property type?
Yes
Please provide the TOTAL floor area of your portfolio for this property type, regardless of energy supply and energy data availability and complete PI1.1 - PI1.3 for this property type.
![[PreTable]](/images/tables/pre_table/y2018-74529f03.svg)
Will the energy consumption data of this property type be reported at the asset level?
Yes
No
No
PI1.0
Not scored
PI1.1
Energy consumption for this property type
Report absolute values and like-for-like consumption for 2017 and 2018. All assets in the whole portfolio for this property type should be included.
To make sure you insert data in the correct section of the table, check the definition of “Managed Assets” and “Indirectly Managed Assets”.
Only use Whole Building if no breakdown of data is possible between Base Building and Tenant Space. Additionally, if consumption cannot be separated between Common Areas and Shared Services/Central Plant, provide both in Shared Services/Central Plant.
![[EnergyTables1]](/images/tables/energy_tables1/y2019-6379e54d.svg)
![[EnergyTables2]](/images/tables/energy_tables2/y2019-31408eec.svg)
Explain (a) assumptions made in reporting, (b) limitations in the ability to collect data, and (c) exclusions from like-for-like portfolio (maximum 250 words)
________________________
PI1.1
12 points , IM, E
PI1.2
Energy use intensity rates for this property type
Does the entity report energy use intensities in the whole portfolio for this property type?
Yes
If optional base-line year data is provided, specify year of the data Year
![[EnergyIntensities]](/images/tables/energy_intensities/y2019-49760227.svg)
Select the elements for which intensities are normalized in your calculations
Air conditioning and/or natural ventilation
Building age
Degree days
Footfall
Occupancy rate
Operational hours
Other: ____________
None of the above
No
PI1.2
1.5 points , IM, E
PI1.3
Renewable energy generated for this property type
Does the entity collect absolute renewable energy consumption and generation data in the whole portfolio for this property type?
Yes
Report absolute renewable energy generation and consumption. All assets in the portfolio for this property type should be included
![[RenewableTable]](/images/tables/renewable_table/y2019-2b659dd7.svg)
No
PI1.3
3 points , IM, E
PI1.4
Review, verification and assurance of energy consumption data
Has the entity's energy consumption data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Checked by Service provider
Externally verified
Verified by Service provider
Using scheme Scheme name
Externally assured
Assured by Service provider
Using scheme Scheme name
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
PI1.4
1 point , MP, E
PI2.0
Does the entity collect GHG emissions data for this property type?
Yes
The GHG emissions reported below are calculated using:
Location-based method
Market-based method
The inventory reporting boundary of the GHG emissions reported below is determined using:
Equity share approach
Financial control approach
Operational control approach
Will the GHG emission data of this property type be reported at the asset level?
Yes
No
No
PI2.0
Not scored
PI2.1
GHG emissions for this property type
Report absolute values and like-for-like consumption for 2017 and 2018. All assets in the whole portfolio for this property type should be included.
![[GHGTables]](/images/tables/ghgtables/y2019-e0eddd86.svg)
*Row 4 -8 will not be scored in 2019
Note: Scope 3 emissions in 2018 GRESB Assessment should be calculated as the emissions associated with tenant controlled areas/electricity purchased by the tenant and indirectly managed assets if these have not been reported upon already in Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Note that if tenant emissions data is not available, data coverage for these areas should be 0, while the maximum data coverage should correspond to the tenant areas generating the emissions. Scope 3 emissions should not include emissions generated through the entity’s operations or by its employees, transmission losses or upstream supply chain emissions. ”
Explain (a) the GHG emissions calculation standard/methodology/protocol, (b) used emission factors, (c) level of uncertainty in data accuracy, (d) exclusions from like-for-like portfolio, and (e) Scope 3 emissions, (f) source and characteristics of GHG emissions offsets (maximum 250 words)
________________________
PI2.1
3.5 points , IM, E
PI2.2
GHG emissions intensity rates for this property type
Does the entity report GHG emissions intensities?
Yes
If optional base-line year data is provided, specify year of the data Year
![[GHGIntensities]](/images/tables/ghgintensities/y2019-e49ea198.svg)
Select the elements for which intensities are normalized in your calculations
Air conditioning and/or natural ventilation
Building age
Degree days
Footfall
Occupancy rate
Operational hours
Other: ____________
None of the above
No
PI2.2
0.75 points , IM, E
PI2.3
Review, verification and assurance GHG emissions data
Has the entity‘s GHG emissions data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Checked by Service provider
Externally verified
Verified by Service provider
Using scheme Scheme name
Externally assured
Assured by Service provider
Using scheme Scheme name
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
PI2.3
0.75 points , MP, E
PI3.0
Does the entity collect water use data for this property type?
Yes
Will the water consumption data of this property type be reported at the asset level?
Yes
No
No
PI3.0
Not scored
PI3.1
Water use for this property type
Report absolute values and like-for-like consumption for 2017 and 2018. All assets in the whole portfolio for this property type should be included.
To make sure you insert data in the correct section of the table, check the definition of “Managed Assets” and “Indirectly Managed Assets”.
Only use Whole Building if no breakdown of data is possible between Base Building and Tenant Space. Additionally, if consumption cannot be separated between Common Areas and Shared Services/ Central Plant, provide both in Shared Services/Central Plant.
![[WaterTables]](/images/tables/water_tables/y2019-068459b8.svg)
Explain (a) assumptions made in reporting, (b) limitations in the ability to collect data and (c) exclusions from like-for-like portfolio (maximum 250 words)
________________________
PI3.1
3.5 points , IM, E
PI3.2
Water intensity rates for this property type
Does the entity report water use intensities?
Yes
If optional base-line year data is provided, specify year of the data Year
![[WaterIntensities]](/images/tables/water_intensities/y2019-65057770.svg)
Select the elements for which intensities are normalized in your calculations
Air conditioning and/or natural ventilation
Building age
Degree days
Footfall
Occupancy rate
Operational hours
Other: ____________
None of the above
No
PI3.2
0.75 points , IM, E
PI3.3
Water reuse and recycling for this property type
Yes
Report absolute water reuse, recycling, and on-site capture data. All assets in the whole portfolio for this property type should be included.
![[WaterRecycling]](/images/tables/water_recycling/y2019-d55f5088.svg)
No
PI3.3
0.5 points , IM, E
PI3.4
Review, verification and assurance water consumption data
Has the entity‘s water use data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Checked by Service provider
Externally verified
Verified by Service provider
Using scheme Scheme name
Externally assured
Assured by Service provider
Using scheme Scheme name
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
PI3.4
0.75 points , MP, E
PI4.0
Does the entity collect waste data for this property type?
Yes
Will the waste data of this property type be reported at the asset level?
Yes
No
No
PI4.0
Not scored
PI4.1
Waste management for this property type
Report absolute values for 2017 and 2018. All assets in the whole portfolio for this property type should be included.
![[WasteTable]](/images/tables/waste_table/y2019-1697cb22.svg)
Explain (a) assumptions made in reporting, (b) limitations in the ability to collect data, and (c) exclusions from portfolio (maximum 250 words)
________________________
PI4.1
3.25 points , IM, E
PI4.2
Review, verification and assurance of waste management data
Has the entity‘s waste management data reported above been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Checked by Service provider
Externally verified
Verified by Service provider
Using scheme Scheme name
Externally assured
Assured by Service provider
Using scheme Scheme name
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
PI4.2
0.75 points , MP, E
PI5
Has the entity set long-term reduction targets?
Yes
![[TargetsTable]](/images/tables/targets_table/y2019-2307826e.svg)
Clarify if and how these targets relate to the objectives reported in MA1 (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
PI5
3 points , MP, E
Building CertificationsBC1.1
Does the entity’s portfolio include standing investments that obtained a green building certificate at the time of design, construction, and/or renovation?
Yes
Specify the certification scheme(s) used and the percentage of the portfolio certified for this property type (multiple answers possible)
![[CertificationTable]](/images/tables/certification_table/y2018-8de1ada9.svg)
No
Not applicable
BC1.1
A list of provisionally validated certification schemes is provided in Appendix of the Reference Guide.
10 points , IM, E
BC1.2
Does the entity’s portfolio include standing investments that hold a valid operational green building certificate?
Yes
Specify the certification scheme(s) used and the percentage of the portfolio certified for this property type (multiple answers possible)
![[OperationalCertificationTable]](/images/tables/operational_certification_table/y2019-7b3a1a8c.svg)
No
Not applicable
BC1.2
A list of provisionally validated certification schemes is provided in Appendix of the Reference Guide.
12 points , IM, E
BC2
Does the entity's portfolio include standing investments that obtained an energy rating?
Yes
Specify the energy efficiency rating scheme used and the percentage of the portfolio rated for this property type (multiple answers possible)
EU EPC (Energy Performance Certificate)
Percentage of the portfolio based on floor area: ____________%
![[Certcountrytable:eu]](/images/tables/certcountrytable_eu/y2019-2631512e.svg)
*full flexibility to describe performance – e.g. levels A-G; colors; numbers
NABERS Energy
Percentage of the portfolio based on floor area: ____________%
Floor area weighted score: ____________
![[CertNabersTable]](/images/tables/cert_nabers_table/y2018-d3a9d655.svg)
ENERGY STAR
![[CertEnergyStarTable]](/images/tables/cert_energy_star_table/y2019-4fb669ae.svg)
Government energy efficiency benchmarking
Percentage of the portfolio based on floor area: ____________%
Floor area weighted score: ____________
![[Certcountrytable:en_eff]](/images/tables/certcountrytable_en_eff/y2019-2631512e.svg)
Other
Specify name: ____________
Percentage of the portfolio based on floor area: ____________%
![[Certcountrytable:31_other]](/images/tables/certcountrytable_31_other/y2019-2631512e.svg)
*full flexibility to describe performance
No
Not applicable
BC2
3 points , IM, E
Stakeholder EngagementSE1
Does the organization provide regular trainings for the employees responsible for the entity?
Yes
Percentage of employees who received professional training in 2018
________________________
Percentage of employees who received sustainability-specific training in 2018
________________________
Sustainability-specific training focuses on the following elements (multiple answers possible)
Training topics on environmental issues
Contamination
Greenhouse gas emissions
Energy
Natural hazards
Regulatory standards
Supply chain environmental impacts
Waste
Water
Other: ____________
Training topics on social issues
Community social and economic impacts
Safety
Community safety
Customer / tenant safety
Employee safety
Supply chain safety
Health and well-being
Community health and well-being
Customer / tenant health and well-being
Employee health and well-being
Supply chain health and well-being
Other: ____________
No
SE1
2 points , IM, S
SE2.1
Has the organization undertaken an employee satisfaction survey during the last three years?
Yes
The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible)
Internally
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
By an independent third party
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Name of the organization Service provider
Survey response rate: ____________%
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
The survey includes quantitative metrics
Yes
Metrics include
Net Promoter Score
Overall satisfaction score
Other: ____________
No
No
SE2.1
1.5 points , IM, S
SE2.2
Does the organization have a program in place to improve its employee satisfaction based on the outcomes of the survey referred to in SE2.1?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Development of action plan
Feedback sessions with Senior Management Team
Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments
Focus groups
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
SE2.2
1 point , IM, S
SE3
Has the organization monitored conditions for and/or tracked indicators of employee safety during the last three years?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Work station and/or workplace checks
Percentage of employees: ____________%
Absentee rate: ____________
Injury rate: ____________
Lost day rate: ____________
Other metrics: ____________
Rate of other metric(s): ____________
Explain the employee occupational safety indicators calculation method (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
SE3.2
0.5 points , IM, S
SE4.1
Does the entity include ESG-specific requirements in procurement processes to drive sustainable procurement?
Yes
Select all issues covered by procurement processes (multiple answers possible)
Business ethics
Environmental process standards
Environmental product standards
Human rights
Human health-based product standards
Occupational safety
Health and well-being
ESG-specific requirements for sub-contractors
Other: ____________
Select the external parties to whom the requirements apply (multiple answers possible)
Contractors
Property/asset managers
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond 1 tier suppliers and contractors)
Other: ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
SE4.1
3 points , MP, G
SE4.2
Does the entity engage with its supply chains to ensure the specific ESG requirements in SE4.1 are met?
Yes
Describe the process (maximum 500 words): ____________
No
Not applicable
SE4.2
Not scored , MP, G
SE5.1
Does the organization monitor property/asset managers’ compliance with the ESG-specific requirements in place for this entity?
Yes
The organization monitors compliance of:
Internal property/asset managers
External property/asset managers
Both internal and external property/asset managers
Select all methods used (multiple answers possible)
Checks performed by independent third party
Name of the organization Service provider
Property/asset manager sustainability training
Property/asset manager self-assessments
Regular meetings and/or checks performed by the organization‘s employees
Require external property/asset managers‘ alignment with a professional standard
Standard: ____________
Other: ____________
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
SE5.1
2 points , IM, S
SE5.2
Does the organization monitor external suppliers’ and/or service providers’ compliance with the ESG-specific requirements in place for this entity?
Yes
Select all methods used (multiple answers possible)
Checks performed by an independent third party
Name of the organization Service provider
Regular meetings and/or checks performed by the organization‘s employees
Regular meetings and/or checks performed by external property/asset managers
Require supplier/service providers‘ alignment with a professional standard
Standard: ____________
Supplier/service provider sustainability training
Supplier/service provider self-assessments
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
SE5.2
2 points , IM, S
SE6
Is there a formal process for stakeholders to communicate grievances that applies to this entity?
Yes
Select all characteristics applicable to the process (multiple answers possible)
Dialogue based
Legitimate
Accessible
Improvement based
Predictable
Equitable
Rights compatible
Transparent
Safe
Other: ____________
Select the stakeholders to whom the process apply (multiple answers possible)
Community
Contractors
Employees
External property/asset managers
Service providers
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors)
Tenants
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
SE6
Not scored , MP, S
SE7
Does the entity have a tenant engagement program in place that includes sustainability-specific issues?
Yes
Select all approaches to engage tenants (multiple answers possible)
Building/asset communication
Percentage portfolio covered
Provide tenants with feedback on energy/water consumption and waste
Percentage portfolio covered
Social media/online platform
Percentage portfolio covered
Tenant engagement meetings
Percentage portfolio covered
Tenant events focused on increasing sustainability awareness
Percentage portfolio covered
Tenant sustainability guide
Percentage portfolio covered
Tenant sustainability training
Percentage portfolio covered
Other: ____________
Percentage portfolio covered
No
SE7
4 points , IM, S
SE8.1
Has the entity undertaken tenant satisfaction surveys during the last three years?
Yes
The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible)
Internally
Percentage of tenants covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
By an independent third party
Percentage of tenants covered: ____________%
Name of the organization Service provider
Survey response rate: ____________%
The survey includes quantitative metrics
Yes
Metrics include
Net Promoter Score
Overall satisfaction score
Satisfaction with communication
Satisfaction with responsiveness
Satisfaction with property management
Understanding tenant needs
Value for money
Other: ____________
No
No
Not applicable
SE8.1
3 points , IM, S
SE8.2
Does the entity have a program in place to improve tenant satisfaction based on the outcomes of the survey referred to in SE8.1?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Development of an asset-specific action plan
Feedback sessions with asset/property managers
Feedback sessions with individual tenants
Other: ____________
Describe the tenant satisfaction improvement program (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
SE8.2
1 point , IM, S
SE9
Does the entity have a fit-out and refurbishment program in place for tenants that includes sustainability-specific issues?
Yes
Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)
Fit-out and refurbishment assistance for meeting the minimum fit-out standards
Percentage portfolio covered
Tenant fit-out guides
Percentage portfolio covered
Minimum fit-out standards are prescribed
Percentage portfolio covered
Procurement assistance for tenants
Percentage portfolio covered
Other: ____________
Percentage portfolio covered
No
SE9
3 points , IM, E
SE10.1
Does the entity include sustainability-specific requirements in its standard lease contracts?
Yes
Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)
Cooperation and works
Environmental initiatives
Enabling upgrade works
Sustainability management collaboration
Premises design for performance
Managing waste from works
Social initiatives
Other: ____________
Management and consumption
Energy management
Water management
Waste management
Indoor environmental quality management
Sustainable procurement
Sustainable utilities
Sustainable transport
Sustainable cleaning
Other: ____________
Reporting and standards
Information sharing
Performance rating
Design/development rating
Performance standards
Metering
Comfort
Other: ____________
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
SE10.1
3 points , IM, E
SE10.2
Does the entity monitor compliance with the sustainability-specific requirements in its lease contracts?
Yes
Describe the process to monitor the compliance and the consequences in case of non-compliance (maximum 500 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
SE10.2
1 point , IM, E
SE11.1
Does the entity have a community engagement program in place that includes sustainability-specific issues?
Yes
Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)
Effective communication and process to address community concerns
Enhancement programs for public spaces
Employment creation in local communities
Community health and well-being
Research and network activities
Resilience, including assistance or support in case of disaster
Supporting charities and community groups
Sustainability education program
Other: ____________
Describe the community engagement program and the monitoring process (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
SE11.1
3 points , IM, S
SE11.2
Does the entity monitor its impact on the community?
Yes
Select the areas of impact that are monitored (multiple answers possible)
Housing affordability
Impact on crime levels
Livability score
Local income generated
Local residents’ well-being
Walkability score
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
SE11.2
1.5 points , IM, S
SE12.1
Does the organization have a program in place for promoting health & well-being of employees?
Yes
The program includes (multiple answers possible):
Needs assessment
The organization monitors employee health and well-being needs through (multiple answers possible):
Employee surveys on health and well-being
Percentage of employees: ____________%
Physical and/or mental health checks
Percentage of employees: ____________%
Other: ____________
Percentage of employees: ____________%
Goal setting
Action
Monitoring
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
NEW
2 points , IM, S
SE12.2
Does the organization take measures to incorporate the health & well-being program for employees described in SE12.1?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Creation of goals to address
Mental health and well-being
Physical health and well-being
Social health and well-being
Other: ____________
Action to promote health through
Acoustic comfort
Biophilic design
Physical activity
Healthy eating
Inclusive design
Indoor air quality
Lighting controls and/or daylight
Physical and/or mental healthcare access
Social interaction and connection
Thermal comfort
Water quality
Other building design and construction strategy: ____________
Other building operations strategy: ____________
Other programmatic intervention: ____________
Monitor outcomes by tracking
Environmental quality
Program performance
Population experience and opinions
Other: ____________
No
NEW
Not scored , IM, S
SE13.1
Does the entity have a program in place for promoting health & well-being through its real estate assets and services?
Yes
The program includes (multiple answers possible):
Needs assessment
Goal setting
Action
Monitoring
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
NEW
1.5 points , IM, S
SE13.2
Does the entity take measures to incorporate the health & well-being program through its real estate assets and services described in SE13.1?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Creation of goals to address
Mental health and well-being
Physical health and well-being
Social health and well-being
Other: ____________
Action to promote health through
Acoustic comfort
Biophilic design
Physical activity
Healthy eating
Inclusive design
Indoor air quality
Lighting controls and/or daylight
Physical and/or mental healthcare access
Social interaction and connection
Thermal comfort
Water quality
Other building design and construction strategy: ____________
Other building operations strategy: ____________
Other programmatic intervention: ____________
Monitor outcomes by tracking
Environmental quality
Program performance
Population experience and opinions
Other: ____________
No
NEW
Not scored , IM, S
NC1
Does the entity have a sustainability strategy in place for new construction and major renovation projects?
Yes
Elements addressed in the strategy (multiple answers possible)
Biodiversity and habitat
Climate/climate change adaptation
Energy consumption/management
Environmental attributes of building materials
GHG emissions/management
Green building certifications
Building safety
Health and well-being
Location and transportation
Resilience
Supply chain
Water consumption/management
Waste management
Other: ____________
The strategy is
Publicly available
Please provide a hyperlink or a separate publicly available document
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Not publicly available
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Communicate the objectives and explain how the objectives are integrated into the overall business strategy (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
NC1
1 point
NC2
Does the entity require sustainable site selection criteria to be considered for new construction and major renovation projects?
Yes
Select all criteria included (multiple answers possible)
Connect to multi-modal transit networks
Locate projects within existing developed areas
Protect, restore, and conserve aquatic ecosystems
Protect, restore, and conserve farmland
Protect, restore, and conserve floodplain functions
Protect, restore, and conserve habitats for threatened and endangered species
Redevelop brownfield sites
Other: ____________
The entity’s sustainable site selection criteria are aligned with
Third-party guidelines
Specify: ____________
Third-party rating system(s)
Specify scheme(s)/sub-scheme(s): ____________
Other: ____________
Not aligned
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
NC2
3 points
NC3
Does the entity have sustainable site design/development requirements for new construction and major renovation projects?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Manage waste by diverting construction and demolition materials from disposal
Manage waste by diverting reusable vegetation, rocks, and soil from disposal
Protect air quality during construction
Protect surface water and aquatic ecosystems by controlling and retaining construction pollutants
Protect and restore habitat and soils disturbed during construction and/or during previous development
Other: ____________
The entity’s sustainable site design/development criteria are aligned with
Third-party guidelines
Specify: ____________
Third-party rating system(s)
Specify scheme(s)/sub-scheme(s): ____________
Other: ____________
Not aligned
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
NC3
1.5 points
NC4
Does the entity require that the environmental and health attributes of building materials be considered for new construction and major renovation projects?
Yes
Select all issues addressed (multiple answers possible)
Formal adoption of a policy on health attributes of building materials
Formal adoption of a policy on the environmental attributes and performance of building materials
Requirement for information (disclosure) about the environmental and/or health attributes of building materials (multiple answers possible)
Health and environmental information
Environmental Product Declarations
Health Product Declarations
Other types of health and environmental information: ____________
Material characteristics specification, including (multiple answers possible)
Preference for materials that disclose environmental impacts
Preference for materials that disclose potential health hazards
“Red list” of prohibited materials or ingredients that should not be used on the basis of their human and/or environmental impacts
Locally extracted or recovered materials
Rapidly renewable materials, low embodied carbon materials, and recycled content materials
Materials that can easily be recycled
Third-party certified wood-based materials and products
Types of third-party certification used: ____________
Low-emitting materials
Other: ____________
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
NC4
2.5 points
NC5.1
Does the entity’s new construction and major renovation portfolio include projects that are aligned with green building rating standards
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
The entity requires projects to align with requirements of a third-party green building rating system but does not require certification
Percentage portfolio covered
Green building rating systems (include all that apply): ____________
The entity requires projects to achieve certification with a green building rating system but does not require a specific level of certification
Percentage portfolio covered
Green building rating systems (include all that apply): ____________
The entity requires projects to achieve a specific level of certification
Percentage portfolio covered
Green building rating systems (include all that apply): ____________
Level of certification adopted as a standard by the entity (include all applicable rating systems):
________________________
No
Not applicable
NC5.1
2 points
NC5.2
Does the entity’s new construction and major renovation portfolio include projects that obtained or are registered to obtain a green building certificate?
Yes
Specify the certification scheme(s) used and the percentage of the portfolio registered and/or certified (multiple answers possible)
![[CertificationLevelTable]](/images/tables/certification_level_table/y2018-f1f91967.svg)
No
Not applicable
NC5.2
A list of provisionally validated certification schemes is provided in Appendix of the Reference Guide.
5 points
NC6
Does the entity have minimum energy efficiency requirements for new construction and major renovation projects?
Yes
Requirements for planning and design include (multiple answers possible)
Integrative design process
To exceed relevant energy codes or standards
Other: ____________
Common energy efficiency measures include (multiple answers possible)
Air conditioning
Commissioning
Energy modeling
Lighting
Occupant controls
Space heating
Ventilation
Water heating
Other: ____________
Operational energy efficiency monitoring (multiple answers possible)
Energy use analytics
Post-construction energy monitoring for on
Average years: ____________
Sub-meter
Other: ____________
No
NC6
3 points
NC7.1
Does the entity incorporate on-site renewable energy in the design of new construction and major renovation projects?
Yes
Projects designed to generate on-site renewable energy (multiple answers possible)
Biofuels
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Geothermal
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Hydro
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Solar/photovoltaic
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Wind
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Other: ____________
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Average design target for the fraction of total energy demand met with on-site renewable energy
________________________
No
Not applicable
NC7.1
3 points
NC7.2
Are the entity’s new construction and major renovation projects designed to meet net-zero energy codes and/or standards?
Yes
The entity’s definition of “net-zero energy” includes:
Net Zero Site Energy
Net Zero Source Energy
Net Zero Energy Costs
Net Zero Energy Emissions
Other: ____________
The entity uses net-zero energy code/standard:
National/local green building council standard, specify: ____________
National/local government standard, specify: ____________
International standard, specify: ____________
Other: ____________
Percentage of projects covered: ____________%
No
NC7.2
1 point
NC8
Does the entity promote water conservation in its new construction and major renovation projects?
Yes
The entity promotes water conservation through (multiple answers possible)
Requirements for planning and design include (multiple answers possible)
Development and implementation of a commissioning plan
Integrative design for water conservation
Requirements for indoor water efficiency
Requirements for outdoor water efficiency
Requirements for process water efficiency
Requirements for water supply
Other: ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Common water efficiency measures include (multiple answers possible)
Commissioning of water systems
Drip/smart irrigation
Drought tolerant/low-water landscaping
High-efficiency/dry fixtures
Leak detection system
Occupant sensors
On-site wastewater treatment
Re-use of stormwater and greywater for non-potable applications
Other: ____________
Operational water efficiency monitoring (multiple answers possible)
Post-construction water monitoring for on
Average years: ____________
Sub-meter
Water use analytics
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
NC8
2 points
NC9
Does the entity promote efficient on-site solid waste management during the construction phase of its new construction and major renovation projects?
Yes
The entity promotes efficient solid waste management through (multiple answers possible)
Management and construction practices (multiple answers possible)
Construction waste signage
Education of employees/contractors on waste management
Incentives for contractors for recovering, reusing and recycling building materials
Targets for waste stream recovery, reuse and recycling
Waste management plans
Waste separation facilities
Other: ____________
On-site waste monitoring (multiple answers possible)
Hazardous waste monitoring
Non-hazardous waste monitoring
Other: ____________
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
NC9
2 points
NC10.1
Does the entity have ESG requirements in place for its contractors?
Yes
Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)
Business ethics
Community engagement
Environmental process standards
Environmental product standards
Fundamental human rights
Human health-based product standards
On-site occupational safety
ESG-specific requirements for sub-contractors
Other: ____________
Percentage of projects covered: ____________%
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
NC10.1
2 points
NC10.2
Does the organization monitor its contractors' compliance with its ESG-specific requirements in place for this entity?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Contractors provide update reports on environmental and social aspects during construction
External audits by third party
Percentage of projects audited during the reporting period: ____________%
Name of the organization Service provider
Internal audits
Percentage of projects audited during the reporting period: ____________%
Weekly/monthly (on-site) meetings and/or ad hoc site visits
Percentage of projects visited during the reporting period: ____________%
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
NC10.2
2 points
NC11
Does the entity promote occupant health and well-being in its new construction and major renovation projects?
Yes
The entity addresses health and well-being in the design of its product through (multiple answers possible)
Requirements for planning and design, including (multiple answers possible)
Health Impact Assessment
Integrated planning process
Other planning process: ____________
or document name____________ and publication date____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Common occupant health and well-being measures, including (multiple answers possible)
Access to spaces for active and passive recreation
Active design features
Commissioning
Daylight
Indoor air quality monitoring
Indoor air quality source control
Natural ventilation
Occupant controls
Provisions for active transport
Other: ____________
Provisions to verify health and well-being performance include (multiple answers possible)
Occupant education
Post-construction health and well-being monitoring (e.g., occupant comfort and satisfaction) for on
Average years: ____________
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
NC11
2 points
NC12.1
Does the entity promote on-site safety during the construction phase of its new construction and major renovation projects?
Yes
The entity promotes on-site safety through (multiple answers possible)
Availability of medical personnel
Communicating safety information
Continuously improving safety performance
Demonstrating safety leadership
Entrenching safety practices
Managing safety risks
Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment
Promoting design for safety
Training curriculum
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
NC12.1
1 point
NC12.2
Does the organization monitor safety indicators at construction sites?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Injury rate: ____________
Explain the injury rate calculation method (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Fatalities: ____________
Near misses: ____________
Other metrics: ____________
Rate of other metric(s): ____________
No
NC12.2
1 point
NC13
Does the entity assess the potential socio-economic impact of its new construction and major renovation projects on the community as part of planning and pre-construction?
Yes
Select the areas of impact that are assessed (multiple answers possible)
Housing affordability
Impact on crime levels
Livability score
Local income generated
Local residents‘ well-being
Walkability score
Other: ____________
No
NC13
1.5 points
NC14
Does the entity have a systematic process to monitor the impact of new construction and major renovation projects on the local community during different stages of the project?
Yes
The entity’s process includes (multiple answers possible)
Analysis and interpretation of monitoring data
Development and implementation of a communication plan
Development and implementation of a community monitoring plan
Development and implementation of a risk mitigation plan
Identification of nuisance and/or disruption risks
Identification of stakeholders and impacted groups
Management practices to ensure accountability for performance goals and issues identified during community monitoring
Other: ____________
Describe the monitoring process (maximum 250 words): ____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
NC14
1.5 points