Introduction

About GRESB

Mission-driven and investor-led, GRESB is the environmental, social and governance (ESG) benchmark for real assets. We work in collaboration with the industry to provide standardized and validated ESG data to the capital markets. The 2019 real estate benchmark covers more than 1,000 property companies, real estate investment trusts (REITs), funds, and developers. Our coverage for infrastructure includes 500 infrastructure funds and assets. Combined, GRESB represents USD 4.5 trillion in real asset value. More than 100 institutional investors, with over USD 22 trillion AUM, use GRESB data to monitor their investments, engage with their managers, and make decisions that lead to a more sustainable real asset industry.

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

Overview of GRESB Assessments

GRESB Real Estate Assessment

The GRESB Real Estate Assessment is the global standard for ESG benchmarking and reporting for listed property companies, private property funds, developers and investors that invest directly in real estate. The Assessment evaluates performance against three ESG Components - Management, Performance, and Development. 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.

(Real Estate) Supplement: Nareit Leader in the Light

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 seven 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.

GRESB Infrastructure Assessment

The GRESB Infrastructure Assessments are an ESG engagement and benchmarking tool for institutional investors, fund managers, infrastructure companies and asset operators working in the infrastructure space. There are two complimentary GRESB Infrastructure Assessments: a Fund Assessment and an Asset Assessment. Both address critical aspects of ESG performance through a globally applicable and standardized reporting and benchmarking framework. The Fund Assessment is intended for infrastructure funds and portfolios of assets, while the Asset Assessment is meant to be completed by the individual underlying assets (portfolio companies). Both Assessments cover the full breadth of infrastructure sectors, including:

• Data infrastructure
• Energy and water resources
• Environmental services
• Network utilities
• Power generation x‑renewables
• Renewable power
• Social infrastructure
• Transport

The GRESB Infrastructure 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. In turn, GRESB Infrastructure Assessment participants receive comparative business intelligence on where they stand against their peers, a roadmap with actions they can take to improve their ESG performance and a communication platform to engage with investors.

GRESB (Real Estate and Infrastructure) Public Disclosure

GRESB Public Disclosure evaluates the level of ESG disclosure by listed property companies and investment vehicles for an entire investable universe. The evaluation is based on a set of indicators aligned with the GRESB Real Estate and Infrastructure Assessments. It provides investors with a resource hub to access ESG disclosure documents across their full listed investment portfolio and make comparisons against an investable universe with full coverage.

GRESB Public Disclosure data is initially collected by the GRESB team for selected companies, including both 2019 GRESB Real Estate and Infrastructure Asset Assessment participants and non‑participants. All data collected must come from publicly available sources, private documents are not accepted.

All constituents have the opportunity to review and update the data collected prior to it becoming accessible to GRESB Listed 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.

(Real Estate and Infrastructure) Supplement: Resilience

The GRESB Resilience Module is an optional supplement to the GRESB Real Estate and Infrastructure Assessments. The Resilience Module evaluates how real estate and infrastructure companies and funds are identifying and assessing long-term trends, preparing for potentially disruptive events and changing conditions, and ultimately becoming more resilient over time. The Module provides companies and funds with the opportunity to communicate their governance, risk assessment, business strategy, and performance measurement for climate-related risks and opportunities.

The Module has two primary goals:

1. Meet investor demand for information about the resilience of property and infrastructure companies and funds; and
2. Provide more information about the processes that property and infrastructure companies use to identify, assess, and manage climate-related risks.

The Resilience Module was designed to align with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). While it is not meant to, by itself, constitute a complete climate-related risk disclosure in accordance with the TCFD, it nonetheless provides a strong basis for one in the context of real estate and infrastructure fund management. Additionally, while the Resilience Module aligns with the TCFD, it takes a broader perspective than the TCFD by providing indicators related to social risks caused or exacerbated by transition or physical climate-related risk factors.

2020 Assessments Structure

An important outcome of the 2020 Assessment development process has been a reconfirmation that the Assessments address material ESG topics for the real estate and infrastructure industry. As a result, the 2020 development process was limited to making structural changes to the Assessments rather than introducing new indicators or making extensive content changes with an impact on scoring.

The structural changes arise from the introduction of the separate Management, Performance and Development Components. On the content side, the number of indicators in the Assessments has been reduced and several indicators have been simplified. This is particularly apparent in the Performance Component, where the introduction of asset level reporting has allowed the removal of several indicators measuring data availability and coverage.

With the introduction of the GRESB Development Benchmark, participants with development activities will have a better understanding of their ESG performance and how this compares to their peers. Previously, this benchmark only included developers, but now managers with both standing investments and development projects will be included in both the GRESB Development Benchmark and GRESB Real Estate Benchmark and will receive two Benchmark Reports to reflect their performance in each category.

Overall, the 2020 Assessments provide more consistency between real estate and infrastructure and an improved alignment with other responding standards and frameworks. The Assessments also lay the groundwork for us to provide new data and analytical tools in the portal and support a further evolution in data quality.

The starting point for the Assessment development process was the 2019 Assessments. The 2019 indicators have been allocated to the new Management, Performance and Development components, on the basis that:

• The Management Component measures the entity’s strategy and leadership management, policies and processes, risk management, and stakeholder engagement approach, composing of information collected at the entity level.
• The Performance Component measures the entity’s asset portfolio performance, composing of information collected at the asset portfolio level. It is suitable for any real estate company or fund with operational assets.
• The Development Component measures the entity’s efforts to address ESG-issues during the design, construction, and renovation of buildings. This component is suitable for entities involved in new construction (building design, site selection and/or construction) and/or major renovation projects, with on-going projects or completed projects during the reporting year.

For more information about the 2020 Assessments development process, click here.

The role of the GRESB benchmark

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

GRESB results provide a practical way to understand ESG performance and communicate it 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.

2020 Participation Fee

The Assessment participation fee applies to all GRESB Assessments. Participants are able to complete only one component (Management, Performance, or Development), where the standard participation fee will be applied regardless of the number of submitted components.

Entities can participate in the GRESB Assessments for their first year for free. The entity will be benchmarked and receive a free Scorecard. They will have the option of purchasing a Benchmark Report.

Entities headquartered in non-OECD countries can participate in the GRESB Assessments for free. The entity will be benchmarked and receive a free Scorecard with their GRESB Score. They will have the option of purchasing a Benchmark Report.

Other products and services (e.g. Response Checks, Customized Benchmark Reports, training seats, etc.) are no longer bundled with the Assessment participation fee. This allows participants to select only those products and services they require.

Additional information about the 2020 participation fee is available here.

Timeline and Process

The Assessment Portal opens on April 1, 2020. The submission deadline is July 1, 2020 (23:59:59 PST), 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. GRESB validates and analyzes all participants’ Assessment submissions.

In 2020 GRESB introduces a new Review Period in the Assessment Cycle to further strengthen the reliability of the Assessments and benchmark results. The Review Period will start on September 1, when preliminary individual GRESB results will be made available to all participants and run for the month. During the Review Period, participants will be able to submit a review request to GRESB using a dedicated form (see Appendix 4b). The final results will be launched to both participants and Investor Members on October 1. Public Results events and other results outputs will be rescheduled to October and November in order to accommodate the September Review Period.

For more information on the Review Period see Appendix 4a.

For more information about the 2020 Assessment timeline, click here.

Response Check

A Response Check is a high-level check of a participant’s submission. The Response Check is carried out by the GBCI Validation team and features a careful review of your Assessment response followed by a 1-hour discussion call. It can be particularly useful for first time participants.

The Response Check does not exclude the participant from any element of the validation process, nor does it guarantee a better GRESB score. It is intended to ensure that no important details have been overlooked in the submission and provides the opportunity to ask for additional guidance and clarification on the GRESB Assessment indicators. The Response Check helps reduce errors that may adversely impact Assessment results and identifies inconsistent responses and incorrect answer formats.

The Response Check fee is 1,750 EUR (exclusive of VAT). The Response Check is available for request from April 1 to June 1, 2020 (11:59:59 p.m., PST) subject to resources availability. We strongly encourage participants to place their request as early as possible. The Response Check can be requested before the Assessment has been completed, but the scope of the review will be limited the information filled in at the time of the request.

Guidance & Support

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

• The intent of each indicator;
• The requirements for each response;
• The type of validation that applies;
• Basic scoring information and the number of points available;
• Explanation of any terminology used;
• References to any third-party documents.

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

• The document section provides an overview of documents submitted as evidence.
• The Portal allows participants to upload multiple documents as evidence per indicator, eliminating the need to merge different documentation into one file.
• Participants can manage access rights, adding users with different levels of access.
• The Portal has real-time error detection systems and warnings.
• Automated data uploads are available through API connections.
• The Template Tool enables participants to copy information across multiple submissions.

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 Assessment Training Program

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.

GRESB has launched a free online training platform in 2020. The training courses are modular and self-paced, walking participants through the various aspects of the Assessments, summarizing changes in 2020 compared to last year, and providing detailed examples and tips for a successful submission. .

Access to Data

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

Access to Assessment results:

Data collected through the GRESB Real Estate Assessment is only disclosed to the participants themselves and:

• In the case of non-listed property companies and funds, to GRESB Investor Members that are investors in the company or fund, using GRESB’s Data Access Request Tool in the online GRESB Portal. GRESB Investor Members must request access to a non-listed participant’s benchmark scores, allowing the participant the control to either accept or deny this request;
• In the case of listed real estate companies, to all GRESB Investor Members that invest in listed real estate securities.

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

Access to uploaded evidence:

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.

Access to peer group results:

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 different Components, to participants in the peer group that also opted to disclose their name and dimension scores.

Access to asset-level data:

The 2020 Assessment requires participants to report the Energy, GHG, Water, Waste, Building Certifications efficiency measures at the asset level. This asset-level data provided to GRESB is strictly confidential and will only be used to check and validate the aggregated portfolio performance data. It will not be passed on to any external party, be it investors or others, in any way that allows the data to be traced back to the asset, without the explicit consent of the participant.

Asset-level data will be used in an aggregated form, and non-traceable manner, in the following ways:

• to inform the aggregated statistics at a portfolio level used in the Benchmark Report of the participant
• to inform the aggregated comparison group analytics at the asset level to be shared with the participant and
• to inform the development of statistical models to evaluate building performance

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.

GDPR compliance:

GRESB is fully compliant with GDPR. 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:

GRESB’s data security measures and systems have been reviewed by an external expert and no issues were flagged. The GRESB website and the GRESB Portal are fully HTTPS/TLS encrypted. GRESB has strict and extensive policies on data security that cannot be shared externally for security reasons. GRESB’s public policies can be accessed here.

Grace Period

First year participants can submit the Assessment without providing GRESB Investor Members with the ability to request access to their results. This is referred to as a “Grace Period”.

First year participants wishing to report under the Grace Period can select the option on an entity-by-entity basis from the settings section in the Assessment Portal. Participants who select the “Grace Period” option can decide to unselect the option following receipt of their results. The Grace Period is not available in the second year of participation, regardless of whether it was used in the first year or not.

The “Grace Period” allows participants a year to familiarize themselves with the GRESB reporting and assessment process. The names of participating entities are still visible during the Grace Period, but GRESB Investor Members will not be able to request to see their results.

Grace Period participants receive a GRESB Scorecard and have the opportunity to purchase a Benchmark Report for a more in-depth analysis of their ESG performance.

Participant Tools

The following tools help participants with the submission process:

• Template tool: Participants can use the template to store and share question responses that are identical across multiple participating entities. Members can access the sharing template via the GRESB Portal.
• GRESB Evidence Cover page: Participants are recommended to make use of the GRESB Cover Page in order to better structure evidence provided at an indicator level. For indicators that are subject to manual validation, it is highly recommended to identify where each selected issue from an indicator is located in the evidence uploads. For evidence provided in languages other than English, a thorough summary sufficient to convey the requirements have been met is required for validation purposes. Participants may make use of the open text box provided in the cover page to do provide the document summary. In addition, each selected issue must be identified in the evidence uploads by providing page number and exact location such as paragraph, clause, sentence, etc.
• Assessment access tool: A participating property company or fund manager can invite colleagues, advisors and consultants to register in the Portal to assist with the submission of data to GRESB.
• Asset-level data tools: GRESB has developed a number of tools to assist participants with the collection and aggregation of asset-level data that is required to complete indicators from the Performance Component.

The tools are designed to streamline data flows and increase data quality.

• Application Programming Interface (API): This tool is available through an increasing number of data providers. It allows participants to seamlessly feed information from a data provider’s data collection system to the GRESB Portal, automatically completing some of the indicators in the Performance Component. The full list of data partners can be found on our website: Real Estate Data Partners.
• GRESB Asset Spreadsheet: Participants who do not have access to the Automated Data Feed can upload asset data to the GRESB Asset Portal using the Asset Spreadsheet. Please check the Asset Portal Guide for more information.

In 2020, participants can use the online GRESB Asset Portal or a data partner system to upload asset-level data for the following indicators:

• Performance: Reporting characteristics: R1.1 and R1.2
• Performance: Energy (EN1), Performance: GHG Emissions (GH1), Performance: Water (WT1), and Performance: Waste (WS1)
• Performance: Building Certifications BC1.1 and BC1.2

GRESB Real Estate Assessment and Reference Guide Structure

Allocation to E, S, G

Each indicator is allocated to one of the three ESG dimensions (E- environmental; S- social; G- governance):

• E – indicators related to actions and efficiency measures undertaken in order to monitor and decrease the environmental footprint of the portfolio;
• S – indicators related to the entity’s relationship with and impact on its stakeholders and direct social impact of its activities;
• G – indicators related to the governance of ESG, policies and procedures, approach to ESG at entity level.

The score breakdown by the E, S, G dimensions within each component is presented below.

	E	S	G
Management	0%	35%	65%
Performance	89%	11%	0%
Development	73%	21%	6%

Assessment indicator structure

Every indicator in the 2020 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. Each indicator displays the corresponding 2019 indicator, or ‘NEW’ if the indicator has been added in 2020. This is also reflected in the guidance notes for every indicator.

Evidence

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 the 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 must clearly reference the answer options selected by the participant. The evidence must not require extensive interpretation or inference, and participants are strongly encouraged to provide the simplest evidence that supports their claim.

• Permitted number of uploads: GRESB allows the upload of multiple documents as evidence per indicator. This helps to ease the reporting burden by eliminating the need to merge different documentation into one file. If the information is part of a larger document that the participant does not wish to disclose in its entirety, they can extract the relevant parts. However, the documents must contain sufficient information to ensure the requirements of the indicator have been met.
• GRESB Evidence Cover page: This document may be used as a standalone document, or as a cover page for uploaded evidence. This template allows for easier identification of relevant information for each answer option selected within an indicator. For indicators that are subject to manual validation, it is highly recommended to use the cover page to identify where each selected issue from an indicator is located in the evidence uploads. 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.
• Redacted documents: Participants may redact documents. However, they must contain sufficient information to validate the indicator response. Rewritten summaries of documents must be on the entity’s letterhead and contain enough information to validate your question response.
• Optional evidence sharing with investors: GRESB uses uploaded documents for validation purposes. GRESB allows the functionality to make the documentation provided as supporting evidence available to investors on a document by document basis. Each uploaded document will have a checkbox (with the default set to ‘not available’) which, when selected, will make this evidence available to investors. Once this checkbox is selected, the document will be available to all investors. It is not possible to choose a subset of investors which you would like to share the documents with.
• Upload library: Uploaded documents are stored in a participant’s document library, which remains accessible after you submit your response. The library is entity-specific and includes documents that were already uploaded since 2014.
• Previously accepted evidence: Uploaded evidence that was accepted in previous Assessment submissions might not be accepted in following submissions. Enhanced validation checks and/or a change in the level of validation (see “GRESB Validation Process”) may result in different validation outcomes. In order to be accepted, the provided evidence must meet the requirements as stipulated in this Reference Guide.

Hyperlink

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. Hyperlinks in uploaded documents will not be checked.

Language

Your Assessment response must be submitted in English. Documents uploaded as supporting evidence do not need to be entirely translated. However, for evidence provided in languages other than English, a thorough summary sufficient to convey the requirements have been met is required for validation purposes. Participants may make use of the open text box to provide the document(s) summary. In addition, each selected issue must be identified in the evidence uploads by providing page number and exact location such as paragraph, clause, sentence, bullet number, etc.

GRESB intends to translate the 2020 GRESB Real Estate Assessment into 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:

1. On your computer, open Chrome.
2. Go to the web page you wish to translate in another language.
3. At the top, click the Translate icon.
4. Chrome will translate the web page this one time.

Turn translation on

You can control whether Chrome will offer to translate web pages.

1. On your computer, open Chrome.
2. At the top-right, click ⠇ >Settings.
3. At the bottom, click Advanced.
4. Under 'Languages', click Language.
5. Tick or untick 'Offer to translate pages that aren't in a language you read'.
6. If the page is not yet being translated to your language, click on the Translate icon again, select “options”, and make sure your “Translation language” is not set to something else. If it is, change it to the desired language for translation.

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.

Open text boxes

Over the years, the number of scored open text boxes has been reduced to zero in an effort to shift focus from management to performance. Open text boxes are now only used for reporting purposes and to provide additional context for a subset of indicators. Note that the contents of the open text boxes are included in the GRESB Benchmark Report.

“Other” answers

Many indicators offer the opportunity to provide an alternative answer option (‘Other’). These other answers must be distinct from the options listed in the question. It is possible to add multiple other answers, however scores will not be aggregated. All Other answers are validated as part of the data validation process.

Indicator-specific guidance

The indicator-specific guidance contains:

• Per aspect: An overview which summarizes (a) the intent of the aspect and (b) the content of the section;
• Per indicator: An overview which indicates (a) the intent of the indicator, (b) which of the three GRESB components it is allocated to, (c) the maximum number of points, (d) which of the E, S or G categories it is allocated, (e) applicable terminology (f) requirements for a well structured response, (g) validation requirements (h) scoring elements and (i) any applicable supporting materials, examples or references.

Reporting year

Answers must refer to the reporting year identified in EC4: Reporting year in the Real Estate Assessment, unless the indicator specifies otherwise.

A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting year; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting year. For example, if a policy was put in place one month prior to the end of the reporting year, this is acceptable, it need not have been in place for the entire reporting year. GRESB does not favour the use of calendar year over fiscal year or vice versa, as long as the chosen reporting year is used consistently throughout the Assessment.

Reporting entity

Answers must be applicable to the entity level. When a participating entity is part of a larger investment management organization or group of companies (the ‘Organization’), GRESB participants should use the open text box to explain how the answers apply to the entity.

Scoring Methodology

The 2020 Real Estate Assessment is structured in three components: Management, Performance and Development:

Each component is divided into aspects; aspects comprise of individually scored indicators. 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.

Points Per Indicator

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 mechanism allows the diversity among property companies and funds and the variety of their sustainability-oriented activities to be reflected. Supporting evidence and open fields for which participants select ‘other’ answers, are manually validated. Points are awarded based on the validity of the response.

Scoring Model

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 100 points. 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 Energy, GHG, Water, Waste and Building Certifications indicators.

The max Overall Score = 100, corresponding to 100 points, can be obtained as follows:

• Management Component = 30 points
• Performance Component = 70 points
• Development Component = 70 points

Component	Aspect	# Points	% Component	% Overall Score
Management	Leadership	7	23%	7%
	Policies	4.5	15%	5%
	Reporting	3.5	12%	4%
	Risk Management	5	17%	5%
	Stakeholder Engagement	10	33%	10%
	Total	30	100%	30%
Performance	Risk Assessment	9	13%	9%
	Targets	2	3%	2%
	Tenants & Community	11	16%	11%
	Energy	14	20%	14%
	GHG	7	10%	7%
	Water	7	9.5%	7%
	Waste	4	5.5%	4%
	Data Monitoring & Review	5.5	8%	6%
	Building Certifications	10.5	15%	11%
	Total	70	100%	70%
Development	ESG Requirements	12	17%	12%
	Materials	6	9%	6%
	Building Certifications	13	19%	13%
	Energy	14	20%	14%
	Water	5	7%	5%
	Waste	5	7%	5%
	Stakeholder Engagement	15	21%	15%
	Total	70	100%	70%

The GRESB Real Estate Benchmark will consist of participants completing both the Management and Performance Components. The GRESB Development Benchmark will consist of participants completing both the Management and Development Components. While each Component determines an individual score (ie: Management Component Score, Performance Component Score, Development Component Score), the GRESB Scores and GRESB Ratings will only apply to entities completing all relevant Components for their portfolios. The possible combinations are set out below and illustrated in the diagram that follows:

A: Portfolios with only standing investments submit:

• Management and Performance Components to receive a GRESB Standing Investments Benchmark Report including a GRESB Score and a GRESB Rating
• GRESB Score = Management Component Score + Performance Component Score

B: Portfolios with only development projects submit:

• Management and Development Components to receive a GRESB Development Benchmark Report including a GRESB Score and a GRESB Rating
• GRESB Score = Management Component Score + Development Component Score

C: Portfolios with both standing investments and development projects submit:

• Management, Performance and Development Components to receive two Benchmark Reports:
• Standing Investments Benchmark Report including a GRESB Score and a GRESB Rating; and
• Development Benchmark Report including a GRESB Score and a GRESB Rating
• GRESB Score = Management Component Score + Performance Component Score
• GRESB Score = Management Component Score + Development Component Score

The detailed scoring methodology as applied to each indicator is available here and can be accessed by participants via the Assessment Portal on April 1, 2020. This 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 2020 results launch.

Evolution of scores

The 2020 Real Estate Assessment required a review of the scoring mechanism as a direct consequence of the newly introduced structural changes. The results of this preliminary analysis against the 2019 baseline indicate that the impact on the GRESB Score is limited, but participants can expect an average decrease of a few points, in the Performance and Development Score, assuming a “do nothing” scenario. The scoring impact is consistent across sectors, regions and types of entities.

Along with splitting the Assessment into Management and Performance Components, the overall emphasis will move, over the next five years, from the current emphasis on management and transparency to greater emphasis on performance. This will occur through three main mechanisms:

1. Scoring of Performance Indicators will move from a focus on reporting and transparency to actual performance with asset-level reporting now mandatory, Note that at the moment, not all indicators in the Performance Component are actual performance metrics. For example, data coverage or data quality indicators are not metrics of performance, but they recognize data availability, crucial for measuring true performance.
2. At the same time, Performance Indicator metrics will be standardised to provide for better comparisons and higher quality data. These metrics will allow appropriate absolute and relative comparisons to be made and reward actual performance (utilising intensity metrics, performance against suitable targets and/or year on year improvements).
3. As the weighting emphasis moves, we will thin out some of the indicators in the Management Component, retaining those that add the most value (e.g. where they differentiate participants; investors have most interest; the metrics are easy to report, measure, and validate; and the score weighting remains significant).

It is important that the aspect weights accurately reflect investor preference as it is precedent setting and a baseline for future improvements in scoring.

GRESB Rating

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 Real Estate 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 Management and Performance Components receive the Green Star designation, highlighted through a distinctive markup in the Scorecard and Benchmark Reports.

Entity categorization

A pre-set threshold determines an entity’s geographic location and property type:

• The threshold for property type categorization is set at 75 percent of the Gross Asset Value (GAV). This means that based on GAV, 75 percent or more of the Portfolio must be comprised of a single property type. If a participant does not reach the threshold for categorization in a specific sector, it is assigned to the “diversified” category. A participant will be assigned to one of these diversified property type subcategories, where the combination of the two property types is at least 75 percent of GAV.
• GRESB assigns participants to a geographic category using a four-tier system: country, sub-region, region and global. The threshold for assigning a geographic category is set at 60 percent of GAV. The country, subregion, region are defined using the UN country classification guidelines available here. The four-tier systems works as follows:
• Country: Based on GAV, 60 percent or more of the portfolio must be allocated to a single country;
• Sub-region: If a participant does not reach the threshold for assignment to a specific country, where possible, it is instead assigned to a sub-region, meaning that 60 percent or more of the portfolio must be allocated to that sub-region. The sub-regional categories are: Nordics, Benelux, West Asia, East Asia, or Southeast Asia;
• Region: If a participant does not reach the threshold for assignment to a sub-region, where possible, it is instead assigned to a region, meaning that 60 percent or more of the portfolio must be allocated to that specific region. The regional categories are Asia, Australia/NZ, Asia Pacific, Europe, or North America;
• Super-region: The only super-region used is Asia Pacific, grouped from Asia (code 142 in the UN classification) and Oceania (code 009 in the UN classification)
• Global: If a participant does not reach the threshold for assignment to a region, it is assigned to “globally diversified”.

Peer group allocation

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:

• Maintaining a minimum threshold of 6 and
• Having less than 50% of the participants in the group from the same fund manager.

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. 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:

• Dropping a characteristic entirely (e.g. ignoring a participant’s nature of ownership: listed / non-listed / government)
• Using a more general version of the characteristic (e.g. filtering on the portfolio’s region, not country)

The system attempts to find the best peer group based on the criteria presented above. For more information about the peer group allocation methodology, see Appendix 3b - Peer Group Allocation Methodology.

Peer group disclosure

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 components (Management + Performance or Management + Development). However, this is only disclosed to participants in the peer group who also opted to disclose their name and component scores.

Customized Benchmark Reports

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.

GRESB Data Validation Process

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.

GRESB validation is a check on the existence, accuracy, and logic of data submitted through the GRESB Assessments. The validation process includes both automatic and manual validation.

Automatic validation is integrated into the portal as participants fill out their Assessments, and consists of errors and warnings displayed in the portal to ensure that Assessment submissions are complete and accurate.

Manual validation takes place after submission, and consists of document and text review to check that the answers provided in Assessment are supported by sufficient evidence. The validation rules and process are set and overseen by GRESB but the validation is performed by a third party, GBCI.

For more information about the 2020 Validation Process, see Appendix 2a - 2020 GRESB Validation Process.

Validation issues: queries and disputes

Participants with questions on individual validation decisions can contact the GRESB Helpdesk.

New in 2020, GRESB will introduce a new Review Period (see Appendix 4a for more information) in the Assessment Cycle to further strengthen the reliability of our Assessments and benchmark results. The Review Period will start on September 1, when preliminary individual GRESB results will be made available to all participants and run for the month. During the Review Period, participants will be able to submit a review request to GRESB using a dedicated form. The final results will be launched to both participants and Investor Members on October 1. Public Results events and other results outputs will be rescheduled to October and November in order to accommodate the September Review Period.

Participants who want to communicate specific points on the results presented in the Benchmark Report can use the “Respondent score comments” field – this will be seen by investors

For a complete interpretation of the validation decisions in the Assessment, participants can request a Results Review. For more information about the Results Review, click here.

Reporting Scope and Boundaries

GRESB requires property companies and funds to report on their whole portfolio, including both Landlord Controlled and Tenant Controlled areas (see below).

The Annual GRESB Assessment includes all assets that are held during the reporting year, 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 Real Estate 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.

Joint ventures

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 ESG 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 R1.1.

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.

Landlord/Tenant Controlled Areas

In the past, GRESB used to classify assets as Managed or Indirectly Managed. Such classification was based on the notion of operational control and aligned with the GHG Protocol. In 2020, this concept is replaced by "Landlord Controlled" and "Tenant Controlled" areas, where the same notion of operational control applies to differentiate one from the other. However, while the rationale remains unchanged compared to previous years, the distinction now takes place at the space/area level. Consequently, one asset can include both landlord and tenant controlled areas. The definition of Landlord and Tenant Controlled areas in the Assessment is solely based on the landlord/tenant relationship.

Landlord controlled areas 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 area should be reported as landlord controlled. 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 area is tenant controlled.

GRESB distinguishes between Landlord and Tenant Controlled areas in the Energy, GHG Emissions, Water, and Waste aspects of the Performance Component. GRESB has done so in recognition of the fact that landlords of tenant controlled areas 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 landlord-and tenant controlled areas outside of the Energy, GHG Emissions, Water, and Waste aspects.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 Landlord and Tenant Controlled areas. Additionally, participants have the opportunity to explain the composition of their portfolio in the open text box in R1.1, 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 tenant controlled areas may be limited, the topics covered by the Assessment are equally relevant to landlord controlled areas. Accordingly, the same questions and methodology apply.

2020 GRESB Real Estate Assessment Changes

GRESB works closely with its members and broader industry stakeholders to ensure the Assessment addresses material issues in the ESG performance of real estate investments. The main focus of the 2020 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.

For a full list of the 2020 Real Estate Assessment Changes, see Appendix 1.

Management Component

High-level comments

Structure The Management Component is comprised of 30 indicators structured in five aspects Leadership Policies Reporting Risk management Stakeholder engagement

Terminology: "ESG" instead of "sustainability" Rationale for change: We replaced all instances where we refer to “sustainability” with “ESG” in order to get closer to the terminology used by the investor community, financial institutions and other initiatives.

Indicator Titles Each indicator has been assigned a title, which will facilitate easy referencing across documents and data download tools.

Entity-level reporting All indicators reference the reporting entity ("Does the entity...>"). If the entity is part of a larger organization, the responses may relate to the organization level activities as long as they also apply to the entity.

Updated data validation process See Appendix 2a for detaied information on the 2020 Data Validation Process.

Indicator-level comments

EC2	Removed classification by "Finite or infinite structure" Rationale for change: Not relevant for analysis and not used by investors. Added classification for "Type of investment vehicle" Rationale for change: Can be used for peer grouping classification in the future.
EC3	Separated "Commencement of entity" into a new indicator. This used to be part of EC2.
RC4	New indicator on Property type and Geography of operations Rationale for change: This information will be used for entity classification.The Management Component assesses corporate strategy and manager performance and is independent from portfolio structure (regional and sector allocation of assets).
	Leadership
LE1	(Former PD6) Expanded the list of predefined options and moved to the new Leadership aspect Rationale for change: The list has been increased based on an analysis of the "Other" options previously reported as well as alignment with the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment.
LE6	(Former MA5) Scope of the indicator is expanded to capture the types of incentivized KPIs Rationale for change: The updated indicator ensures full compliance and reporting alignment with RobecoSAM 2.6.2. Management Incentives. Impact of change: Restructured indicator to allow the selection of different groups of employees and the recognition of both financial and non-financial consequences.
	Policies
PO1	(Former PD1) Amended the list of options to align with Infrastructure Asset PD1
PO2	(Former PD2) Amended the list of options to align with Infrastructure Asset PD2
PO3	(Former PD3) Amended the list of options to include cybersecurity
	Reporting
RP1	(Former PD5.1 and PD5.2) The two indicators have been merged together, forming a combined indicator on ESG disclosure and third-party reporting review Rationale for change: Combining these two indicators together will simplify the validation process and will provide participants with clear overview of their ESG disclosure and third-party reporting review. The name of the service provider will no longer be reported. "Other" answers provided to the Scheme name dropdown menu are subject to validation. The list of available options will be reviewed. Impact of change: Scoring mechanism will change to better reflect the contents and specificity of reporting, as well as the alignment standard.
RP2.1	(Former PD7.1) Expanded the list of stakeholders to align with Infrastructure Fund 13
RP2.2	(Former PD7.2) Small terminology edits to align with GRESB Infrastructure. Included "number of pending investigations" in the scope of the indicator
	Risks and Opportunities
RM1	(Former ME1) Indicator moved from the Monitoring & EMS section to the newly defined Risk Management section Rationale for change: All other indicators from the Monitoring & EMS aspect were either removed or transferred to the Performance Component, since they refer to the performance of the real estate assets.
RM2	(Former RO1) Expand list of answer options Rationale for change: The updated indicator provides partial compliance with RobecoSAM 1.4.4 Systems & Procedures. It provides all answer options for the identification of a system or a procedure implemented to ensure compliance with PD3, but it does not require external audit or assurance of these systems.
RM3.1 and RM3.2	(Former RO2) The indicators have been split into two individual indicators - one referring to social risk assessments and another one for governance ones.
RM4	(Former RO3.1) Removed request for supporting evidence
	Stakeholder engagement
SE1	(Former SE1) Removed the list of training-specific issues in the Environmental and Social categories Rationale for change: Simplified indicator by removing the list of training-specific issues in the Environmental and Social categories. The new list simply asks participants to identify whether training is structured on E/S/G issues. The training-specific issues were not used for scoring and they will be included as examples in the Reference Guide.
SE2.2	(Former SE2.2) List of predefined options expanded to align with the GRESB Infrastructure Assessment
-	(Former SE12.1) Removed indicator Rationale for change: Integrated content into the new SE3.1.
-	(Former SE4.1) Removed indicator Rationale for change: The intent was already covered in SE5.2 (the new SE10.2). This indicator was not scored in 2019.
SE5	(Former PD4) Reclassified the indicator as Social instead of Governance and added evidence request Rationale for change: The reclassification provides alignment with EPRA and GRESB Infrastructure Assessment. Added mandatory evidence upload to support the manual validation of the indicator.
SE6	(Former SE7) Adapted indicator for the Management component Rationale for change: This becomes a strategy indicator that relates to the corporate strategy for tenant engagement. The indicator should be applicable to entities that do not have any assets and no tenants.
-	(Former SE8.2) Removed indicator Rationale for change: Integrated content into the new SE5.
SE3.2	(Former SE12.2) Expanded the list of predefined options to include the ones specified by RobecoSAM. These answers would have been accepted as Other answers, in all cases
SE6	(Former SE4.1) Added "Child labor" and "Working conditions" to the list of pre-defined answer options. Removed request for supporting evidence Rationale for change: The update is to fully align with RobecoSAM 1.7.1 Supplier Code of Conduct.
SE8	(Former SE6) List of predefined options aligned with Infrastructure Assessment Rationale for change: Removed options "External property/asset managers and "Service provides", both of which are covered by the option "Contractors". Impact of change: Indicator will be scored as of 2020.

Performance Component

High-level comments

Structure The Performance component is comprised of 10 aspects: Reporting Characteristics Risk Assessment (Asset + Entity level) Targets Tenants and Community Energy (Asset level) GHG (Asset level) Water (Asset level) Waste (Asset level) Data Monitoring and Review Building Certifications (Asset level)

Entity & Reporting Characteristics

Portfolio composition confirmation (indicator R1.1 former RC5.2) is now included in the validation scope Rationale for change: It is essential that the portfolio boundaries reported by the entity are accurate and complete to ensure relevant outcomes and comparisons. The request for supporting evidence is an important step for reporting accuracy and consistency. Impact of change: GRESB validation of the completeness and accuracy of the reporting entity’s portfolio is now integrated into the Validation process, whereby a percentage of all reporting entities will be selected for a check of supporting evidence. If a material discrepancy between the portfolio reported and supporting evidence is identified, GRESB may reach out to the participants and request the submitted data to be amended. Should there remain a material discrepancy after the outreach process, GRESB reserves the right to reject the submission.

Risk Assessment Energy, Water and Waste efficiency measures (former RO5, RO6 and RO7) as well as technical building assessments (former RO4) have now a timeframe reduced from four to three years and the information is collected at asset level on a TRUE/FALSE basis Rationale for change:The indicators examine the measures undertaken by the entity to improve performance data of the entity’s assets. The timeframe has been reduced from four to three years to provide a better view of recent activity in the portfolio and allow market analysis of trends. This change is consistent with the introduction of mandatory asset-level reporting for Energy, GHG, Water and Waste in 2020. As all performance indicators are now to be reported at the asset-level, it is necessary to also capture recently implemented measures at the asset level to provide context to the reported performance.

Targets T1.2: New indicator on science based targets for GHG emissions Rationale for change: Indicator T1.2 is linked to T1.1. Setting up science-based targets for GHG emissions is considered leading practice in the industry as it allows entities to specify how their emissions must reduce to align with the Paris Agreement requirements.

High-level Asset Level Spreadsheet Changes

The latest version of the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet is available here.

Each row represents an asset and a year. This means that an asset can have multiple rows, for multiple years. Rationale for change: Alignment with tidy data best practices The new format makes it easier to adjust data from internal Data Management Systems. It is no longer needed to calculate and provide the data coverage changes columns in the asset characteristics tab because the floor areas corresponding to consumption values reported will be collected for both current year (CY) and last year (LY). Provides the ability to expand the like-for-like portfolio in some cases. Reduces the size of the spreadsheet, making it easier to review data.

Eliminate the concept of Managed and Indirectly managed assets GRESB introduced this terminology a few years ago, without it being generally used in the industry. This concept is replaced by "Landlord Controlled" and "Tenant Controlled" areas, where the same notion of operational control as before is used to differentiate one from the other. As a reminder, the notion of operational control is aligned with the GHG Protocol. Moreover, while the notion of Managed/Indirectly Managed was applied on an asset, the distinction between Landlord and Tenant Controlled is applied at the space level, allowing an asset to include both Landlord and Tenant Controlled areas.

Replace columns for indirectly/directly managed assets with columns that make the separation between landlord and tenant controlled areas Rationale for change: The direct consequence of eliminating the concept of indirectly managed assets. Data previously reported under Indirectly Managed Assets should now be reported under Tenant Controlled consumption columns.

Split the former Building Characteristics tab into Asset Characteristics and Reporting Characteristics Rationale for change: Given that the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet covers at least two reporting years (Current Year and Last Year), the purpose is to separate asset-level metrics that vary over time (e.g. vacancy rate) from the constant characteristics of an asset (e.g. Property type, Location, etc.). Splitting these into two separate tabs clarify the reporting under the new approach where one asset is represented in two rows (see point above).

Introduce columns that identify the period of Data Availability for each asset Rationale for change: GRESB used to only capture Period of Ownership of an asset. Since there may be a difference between the Period of Ownership of an asset and the Period during which consumption data is known (Data Availability), only the latter can be used for analytical/normalization purposes. As such, while the Period of Ownership is used to define an entity’s reporting boundaries, Data Availability fields are introduced for analytical purposes.

Vacancy Rate becomes a mandatory field for all assets Rationale for change: Along with property type and weather conditions, the vacancy rate of an asset represents one of the most important criteria to consider when it comes to understanding its consumption profile. Given that GRESB’s purpose is to provide comparable (normalized) intensities to the industry, it is necessary to start collecting this datapoint consistently for all reported assets.

Expanded list of property types classification Rationale for change: As a direct consequence of mandatory asset-level reporting, more specific property types can be assigned to assets. The new classification aims at expanding the current list of property types for the purpose of increasing benchmarking accuracy as well as better evaluating assets' performance. See Appendix 3a for further information

Energy

Renewable energy now collected at the asset level Rationale for change: Improved data quality and ability to benchmark renewable energy at a more granular level.

GHG emissions

Report on both Market and Location-based Scope 2 Emissions separately Rationale for change: Requirement for alignment with the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard 2015 Scope 2 Guidance Amendment. Including this variable in the Assessment is important for complete and accurate investor carbon footprinting. Without either one, investors will have insufficient understanding of why and how GHG emissions declined or increased. Additionally, comparing both variables provides insights into the efforts undertaken to reduce emissions through selecting an entity’s electricity provider. Reporting of market-based emissions remains optional in 2020.

Water

Water reused and recycled now collected at the asset level Rationale for change: Improved data quality and ability to benchmark water reused and recycled at a more granular level.

Recognition of water reused/recycled purchased off-site Rationale for change: A minority of real estate assets have the capacity to have on-site water reuse facilities. In addition to making more sense from a business perspective, purchasing recycled water off-site does positively contribute to the overall ESG performance of an asset

Waste

Waste management indicators now collected at the asset level Rationale for change: Improved data quality and ability to benchmark waste data at a more granular level.

Building certifications

Building certifications and Energy ratings are reported at the asset level Rationale for change: Mapping building certifications and energy ratings to the asset-level is the logical next step for reporting purposes. Certifications can be reported in both the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet or directly in the Asset Portal. This will allow for an enhanced understanding of which assets have certain certifications and can be used for further analysis.

Indicator Changes Overview

Aspect	2019 Code	2020 Indicator	Changes
Risks and Opportunities	RO3.2	RA1 Risk assessments performed on the standing investments portfolio
	RO4	RA2 Technical building assessment	Tracked at asset level through TRUE/FALSE dropdown
	RO5	RA3 Energy efficiency/conservation measures	Tracked at asset level through TRUE/FALSE dropdown
	RO6	RA4 Water efficiency/conservation measures	Tracked at asset level through TRUE/FALSE dropdown
	RO7	RA5 Waste efficiency/management measures	Tracked at asset level through TRUE/FALSE dropdown
Data Monitoring and Review	ME2		Deleted
	ME3		Deleted (except AMR at asset level)
	ME4		Deleted (except AMR at asset level)
	ME5		Deleted
	PI1.4	MR1 Third-party review of Energy data
	PI2.3	MR2 Third-party review of GHG data
	PI3.4	MR3 Third-party review of Water data
	PI1.4	MR4 Third-party review of Waste data
Energy	PI1.0	Composition of floor area types & reporting at asset-level for energy	Deleted (no longer required)
	PI1.1	Energy consumption data	Asset level
	PI1.2	Energy intensity rates	Deleted (calculated automatically)
	PI1.3	Renewable energy generated	Asset level
GHG emissions	PI2.0	GHG emissions collection method, reporting boundaries approach & reporting at asset-level for GHG	Deleted (no longer required)
	PI2.1	GHG emission data	Asset level
	PI2.2	GHG intensity rates	Deleted (calculated automatically)
Water	PI3.0	Reporting at asset-level for water	Deleted
	PI3.1	Water consumption data	Asset level
	PI3.2	Water intensity rates	Deleted (calculated automatically)
	PI3.3	Water reuse and recycling	Asset level
Waste	PI4.0	Reporting at asset-level for waste	Deleted
	PI4.1	Waste generation data	Asset level
Building Certifications	BC1.1	Design/construction/renovation building certifications	Asset level
	BC1.2	Operational building certifications	Asset level
	BC2	Energy Ratings	Asset level
Tenants & Community	SE7	TC1 Tenant engagement program on ESG issues
	SE8.1	TC2.1 Tenant satisfaction survey
	SE8.2	TC2.2 Program to improve tenant satisfaction
	SE9	TC3 Fit-out & refurbishment program for tenants on ESG
	SE10.1	TC4 Sustainability-specific requirements in lease contracts (green leases)
	SE10.2	Monitoring of sustainability-specific requirements	Deleted
	SE13.1	TC5.1 Tenant health & well-being program
	SE13.2	TC5.2 Tenant health & well-being measures
	SE11.1	TC6.1 Community engagement program
	SE11.2	TC6.2 Monitoring impact on community

Development Component

High-level comments

Structure The Development component is comprised of 7 aspects: ESG Requirements Materials Building Certifications Energy Water Waste Stakeholder Engagement

Terminology: "ESG" instead of "sustainability" Rationale for change: All instances of reference to “sustainability” were replaced with “ESG” in order to get closer to the terminology used by the investor community, financial institutions and other initiatives.

Indicator titles Each indicator was assigned a title, which will facilitate referencing in different documents and data download tools.

Entity-level reporting All indicators reference the reporting entity ("Does the entity..."). If the entity is part of a larger organization, the responses may relate to the organization level activities as long as they also apply to the entity.

Indicator-level comments

	ESG requirements
DRE1	(Former NC1) Expanded the list of answer options Rationale for change: Additional options added to be more material to NCMR, based on frequently provided other answers in 2019, and to align with PO1.
DRE2	(Former NC2) Expanded the list of answer options Rationale for change: Additional options added based on frequently provided other answers in 2019.
DRE3	(Former NC3) Expanded the list of answer options and removed the “alignment section”, which was not scored Rationale for change: Additional options added based on building certification requirements and frequently provided other answers in 2019.
	Materials
DMA1	(Former NC4) Expanded the list of answer options Rationale for change: Additional options added for granularity.
DMA2.1	New indicator on life-cycle assessments and methodology Rationale for change: The new indicator provides full alignment with CDP 2020 Questionnaire.
DMA2.2	New indicator on disclosure of embodied carbon Rationale for change: The new indicator provides full alignment with CDP 2020 Questionnaire.
	Building Certifications
DBC1	(Former NC5.1) Improved wording to clarify between the provided options Rationale for change: Improved clarity of answer options to ensure accurate reporting.
	Energy
DEN1	(Former NC6) Expanded list of answer options and added evidence request Rationale for change: Additional options added based on based on frequently provided other answers in 2019. Added mandatory evidence upload for Requirements for planning and design to align with indicator DWT1 and to support the manual validation of the indicator.
DEN2.2	(Former NC7.2) Net-zero carbon as opposed to net-zero energy Rationale for change: Amended indicator to net-zero carbon to align with CDP 2020 and other industry frameworks.
	Waste
DWS1	(Former NC9) Expanded list of answer options Rationale for change: Additional option added based on frequently provided other answers in 2019.
	Stakeholder Engagement
DSE1	(Former NC11) Amended indicator to align with TC5.2 Rationale for change: Options cleaned up and amended to further align with TC5.2.
DSE2.1	(Former NC12.1) Expanded list of answer options Rationale for change: Additional option added based on frequently provided other answers in 2019.
DSE2.2	(Former NC12.2) Expanded list of answer options Rationale for change: Additional options added based on frequently provided other answers in 2019 and OSHA methodologies.
DSE3.1	(Former NC10.1) Expanded list of answer options Rationale for change: Updated indicator is fully aligned with RobecoSAM 1.7.1 Supplier Code of Conduct.
DSE3.2	(Former NC10.2) Expanded list of answer options Rationale for change: Additional option added based on frequently provided other answers in 2019.
DSE4	New indicator on community engagement program Rationale for change: Alignment with TC6.1.
DSE5.1	(Former NC13) Expanded list of answer options Rationale for change: Additional option added based on frequently provided other answers in 2019.