Intent

Identify the participating entity. This information will be displayed in the GRESB Portal and in the entity’s Benchmark Report(s).

Requirements

Complete all applicable fields.

Terminology

Entity manager (organization) name: Legal name of the organization that manages the entity (typically applicable for non-listed entities only).

Entity name: Fund or company name of the investable entity for which the Assessment is submitted. In the case of listed companies, the entity name is the legal name of the organization, also used for identification on international stock exchanges. In the case of non-listed entities, the entity name identifies the investable portfolio for which the Assessment is submitted.

Intent

Describe the ownership status and characteristics of the participating entity.

Requirements

Select one of the options and select all applicable sub-options. Entities reporting to GRESB are expected to represent investable vehicles, and these entities are expected to represent all real estate assets held by the vehicle (i.e., the whole portfolio).

If two or more listed companies merge into one entity during the reporting year, report on the structure, policies and procedures of the newly formed entity as of the end of the reporting year.

Note: GRESB Real Estate Investor Members that invest in listed real estate securities have access to the results of all listed entities that participate in the GRESB Real Estate Assessment. Publicly traded closed-end funds should be considered as non-listed entities given their level of disclosure requirements.

Terminology

Closed end fund: An investment vehicle with a fixed amount of capital. Limited liquidity, with the redemption of units provided for at the end of the life of the vehicle.

Club Deal An investment vehicle or structure with generally a limited number of investors investing in a common strategy. Typically, investors have more discretion and control than in a typical fund, and have veto rights over major decisions.

Core: An entity that includes a preponderance of core attributes; the entity as a whole will have low leasing exposure and low leverage. A low percentage of non-core assets is acceptable. As a result, such portfolios should achieve relatively high-income returns and exhibit relatively low volatility. Low-risk entities that invest in stabilized, income producing property, which is typically held for 5 to 10 years and have limited acquisition/disposal activity after the fund has been invested. Assets in core funds are characterized by stable income returns with less capital growth.

A Core Plus fund invests in similar style assets but adopts a more aggressive management style. Core Plus entities are considered Core for the purposes of the GRESB Assessment.

Debt: A fund or similar entity that has been set up for the purposes of issuing or investing in loans or bonds.

Direct Investment: The purchase of a controlling interest or a minority interest of such size and influence that active control is a feasible objective.

Fund or vehicle: Terms used to describe a structure where at least three investors’ capital is pooled together and managed as a single entity with a common investment aim. For the purposes of these definitions, these terms can be used interchangeably.

Government entity: A real estate portfolio managed by a government agency (e.g. U.S. General Services Administration, GSA). Government portfolios are formed of publicly owned, publicly managed and publicly leased properties.

ISIN: International Securities Identification Number. ISINs are assigned to securities to facilitate unambiguous clearing and settlement procedures. They are composed of a 12-digit alphanumeric code and act to unify different ticker symbols, which can vary by exchange and currency for the same security. In the United States, ISINs are extended versions of 9-character CUSIP codes.

Joint Venture: A vehicle where at least two parties share a common investment objective. Control over significant risk management decisions is not transferred to an external manager, but is exercised by members in the venture.

LEI The Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) is a unique global identifier for legal entities participating in financial transactions. Also known as an LEI code or LEI number, its purpose is to help identify legal entities on a globally accessible database.

Open end fund: An investment vehicle with a variable and unlimited amount of capital. Investors may purchase or redeem units or shares from the vehicle as outlined in contractual agreements.

Opportunistic: An entity of preponderantly non-core investments that is expected to derive most of its return from appreciation/ depreciation and/ or which is expected to and may exhibit significant volatility in returns. This volatility may be due to a variety of characteristics, such as exposure to development, significant leasing risk, high leverage, or a combination of moderate risk factors. High-risk entities that invest in greater yielding assets; for example, developments without pre-leasing, properties involving significant repositioning or that are distressed, and large portfolio acquisitions, purchased to be re-packaged and sold in smaller lot sizes. Opportunity funds generally maintain higher leverage limits and have shorter holding periods for assets.

Private entity: A company or fund that is not a listed or traded on any stock exchange. Also known as non-listed entities or private portfolios.

Public entity: A company that is publicly listed and traded on a recognized stock exchange, such as Nasdaq or NYSE. Also known as "listed entities”.

REIT: A Real Estate Investment Trust is an investment vehicle for real estate that is comparable to a mutual fund. Listed REITs are traded on a stock exchange.

Separate Account: SMAs, also referred to as managed accounts, wrap accounts or individually managed accounts, are portfolios managed exclusively for the investor according to their investing and tax preferences and requirements. The investor owns the underlying assets directly, unlike a mutual fund.

Social/Affordable Housing An entity that generally focuses on the social/affordable housing sector for its investments. Affordable housing refers to housing units that are affordable to buy or rent by the low-income section of a society (for example, whose income is below median household income). Affordability is defined with a maximum percentage of gross income which may differ from country to country and depending on whether this is a percentage of net, gross, individual or household income.

Special Purpose Vehicle Subsidiary created by a parent company to isolate financial risk. Its legal status is of a separate company, with its own balance sheet.

Value-added: An entity that generally includes a mix of core investments and non-core investments that will have less stable income streams. The entity as a whole is likely to have moderate lease exposure and moderate leverage. As a result, such entities should achieve a significant portion of the return from appreciation/ depreciation and are expected to exhibit moderate volatility.

Moderately higher-risk entities that typically engage in “forms of active management, such as tenant lease-up, repositioning or redevelopment, to generate returns through adding value to the investment properties”.

References

INREV Global Definitions Database, 2018

Intent

Describe the activity commencement or establishment date of the entity.

Requirements

Provide the year of commencement/establishment.

Terminology

Year of commencement: The year in which the reporting entity began investing in the market. If a listed entity is delisted (i.e., taken private) but remains under the same management, the date of original commencement can be used for “date of first closing” for the new non-listed entity. If the entity is taken private by a new management company, the first day of closing should be the date of privatization. This information is not used for scoring and used for context only; portfolio vintage may affect the ability to implement ESG policies and strategies.

Year of establishment: A date specified by the manager on which the vehicle is launched, the initial capital subscription is completed, and the commitment period commences.

Intent

Set the entity’s annual reporting year.

Requirements

Select one of the options.

Participants are required to specify the starting month of their fiscal year. If participants select Fiscal year, starting months between February and June must correspond to calendar years 2021/2022. For example, an entity reporting from April to March will be considered covering the period of April 2021 - March 2022. On the other hand, starting months between July and December must correspond to calendar years 2020/2021. For example an entity reporting from October to September will be considered covering the period of October 2020 - September 2021.

The table below details the period for which information throughout the Assessment would be expected, should a given starting month be selected:

Terminology

Calendar year: January 1 – December 31.

Fiscal year: The period used to calculate annual financial statements. Depending on the jurisdiction the fiscal year can start on April 1, July 1, October 1, etc.

Reporting year: Responses provided in the Assessment must refer to the reporting year identified in this indicator and should correspond to the most recently closed calendar year / fiscal year, as applicable. 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. GRESB does not favour the use of calendar year over fiscal year or viceversa, as long as the chosen reporting year is used consistently throughout the Assessment.

Intent

Set the currency for which the entity’s real estate portfolio of assets is denominated.

Requirements

State the currency used by the entity for Assessment indicators that require a monetary value as a response.

Other: State the other currency form.

Intent

Gross Asset Value (“GAV”) is a metric used in GRESB data analysis to identify the size of the portfolio.

Requirements

Complete the GAV field in millions (e.g., a GAV of $75,000,000 must be reported as 75).

Do not include a currency, as this has been reported in indicator RC1 above, but make sure the currency applied for GAV reporting is consistent with indicator RC1.

The value provided should be the GAV of the real estate portfolio at the end of the reporting year, and should include Development projects (if any).

As an alternative to GAV, you may report using the market value, the fair value or Net Asset Value (NAV) of the portfolio, at the end of the reporting year.

Terminology

GAV: Gross Asset Value.

Intent

Metrics are needed to ensure comparability for benchmarking and reporting purposes. Set the reporting units used by the entity.

Requirements

Select one of the options, and use it consistently when reporting the floor area of the portfolio.

Intent

Provide information on the entity's portfolio location and property type composition. This indicator is used for reporting purposes only. For participants that submit the Performance Component, the portfolio composition reported in indicator R1.1 and R1.2 will be used to create country and regional rankings.

Requirements

Select the predominant location in which the entity’s investments are located and the predominant property type of the portfolio using the fraction of total GAV or net operating income (NOI).

For further details, refer to Appendix 3a - Property Types Classification as well as the Entity Categorization section of the Introduction.

Note: The predominant country drop-down menu includes less granular options, such as sub-regions, regions, and "Globally Diversified". The predominant property type list also includes property sectors. If an entity has a diversified portfolio, please select the "Other" option.

References

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 5.7, Analysis-Segmental-Analysis

Intent

The entity’s primary business activities during the reporting year is used to determine which GRESB Components are applicable and should be completed. Refer to section Introduction for an overview of the 2022 Assessments Structure.

Requirements

Select the option applicable to the reporting entity. Refer to section Introduction for an overview of the 2022 Assessments Structure.

Terminology

Major Renovations: Alterations that affect more than 50 percent of the total building floor area or cause relocation of more than 50 percent of regular building occupants. Major renovation projects refer to buildings that were under construction at any time during the reporting year.

New Construction: Includes all activities to obtain or change building or land use permissions and financing. Includes construction work for the project with the intention of enhancing the property’s value. Development of new buildings and additions to existing buildings that affect usable space can be treated as new constructions. New construction projects refer to buildings that were under construction at any time during the reporting year.

Standing Investments: Real estate properties where construction work has been completed and which are owned for the purpose of leasing and producing rental income. The level of occupancy is not relevant for this definition. Also known as operating buildings.

Intent

This indicator assesses the entity's commitment to ESG leadership standards or principles. By making a commitment to ESG leadership standards or principles, an entity publicly demonstrates its commitment to ESG, uses organizational standards and/or frameworks that are universally accepted and may have obligations to comply with the standards and/or frameworks.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

URL: Hyperlink is mandatory for this indicator, but is used for reporting purposes only. Ensure that the hyperlink is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. The URL should demonstrate the existence of publicly available commitments to ESG leadership relating to each of the standards and/or principles selected.

Other: State the other public commitment. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above. It is possible to report multiple other answers.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

Not scored, G

This indicator is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.

Terminology

Climate action 100+: An investor initiative to ensure the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change. The companies include 100 ‘systemically important emitters’, accounting for two-thirds of annual global industrial emissions, alongside more than 60 others with significant opportunity to drive the clean energy transition.

ESG leadership standards and/or principles: International governmental or organizational standards, principles, frameworks, and/or initiatives that are universally accepted and include a public commitment (i.e., via a public register). These standards are governed independently from commercial interests of one or multiple groups. They are defined in alignment with international frameworks of advancing ESG with accountability and obligations to comply with the standards.

Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change: A collaboration among four regional partner organisations around the world to increase investor education and engagement on climate change and climate-related policies. Launched in 2012, the coalition provides a global platform for dialogue between and among investors and world governments to accelerate low-carbon investment practices, corporate actions on climate risk and opportunities, and international policies that support the goals of the Paris Agreement.

International Labour Organization (ILO) Standards: International labour standards are legal instruments drawn up by the ILO's constituents (governments, employers and workers) and setting out basic principles and rights at work.

Montreal Pledge: Supported by the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI), the pledge is a commitment by investors to annually measure and publicly disclose their portfolios carbon footprint.

OECD - Guidelines for multinational enterprises: The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are recommendations addressed by governments to multinational enterprises operating in or from adhering countries. They provide non-binding principles and standards for responsible business conduct in a global context consistent with applicable laws and internationally recognised standards.

PRI: The PRI works with its international network of signatories to put the six Principles for Responsible Investment into practice. Its goals are to understand the investment implications of environmental, social and governance issues and to support signatories in integrating these issues into investment and ownership decisions.

RE 100: RE100 is a global initiative uniting businesses committed to 100% renewable electricity, working to massively increase demand for and delivery of renewable energy. RE100 is convened by The Climate Group in partnership with CDP.

Science Based Targets initiative: The initiative is a collaboration between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) which has a goal of enabling companies setting science based targets to reduce GHG emissions.

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD): The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures will develop voluntary, consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures for use by companies in providing information to investors, lenders, insurers, and other stakeholders.

UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative: The UNEP FI is a partnership between United Nations Environment and the global financial sector with a mission to promote sustainable finance.

UN Global Compact: The UN Global Compact is a voluntary initiative based on CEO commitments to implement universal sustainability principles and to take steps to support UN goals.

UN Sustainable Development Goals: The Sustainable Development Goals are a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and improve the lives and prospects of everyone, everywhere. The 17 Goals were adopted by all UN Member States in 2015, as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which set out a 15-year plan to achieve the Goals.

WorldGBC’s Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment: The Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment (the Commitment) challenges companies, cities, states and regions to reach Net Zero operating emissions in their portfolios by 2030, and to advocate for all buildings to be Net Zero in operation by 2050.

References

Climate Action 100

UNPRI, PRI Reporting Framework, 2018

UN Global Compact Principles, 2000

UN Sustainable Development Goals

UNEP Finance Initiative Statement, 1992

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2015

International Labour Organization, International Labour Organization Standards, 2014

OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Intent

Clear Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) objectives help participants identify material issues and integrate them into the overall day-to-day management practices. Integrating ESG practices into the overall business strategy fosters alignment between management of ESG issues and the overall strategy of the entity. It also demonstrates commitment to monitoring ESG objectives and meeting targets.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

URL: Hyperlink is mandatory for this indicator when publicly available is selected, but is used for reporting purposes only. Ensure that the hyperlink is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. The URL should demonstrate the existence of publicly available ESG objectives for each of the objectives selected.

Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants should use this open text box to communicate on

1. The scope of the objectives. The text should identify key ESG priorities and issues relevant to the entity. If applicable, explain how these objectives relate to specific elements of the entity’s overall business strategy. Sustainability and/or ESG objectives can relate to quantifiable goals or to strategic developments;
2. Time bounds around the objectives. The text should include a description indicating whether the objectives are short-term (one to two years), medium-term (two to three years) or long-term (more than three years);
3. Explanation around the extent of integration of ESG objectives with business strategy and next steps to foster further alignment.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1 point, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Open text box: The open text box is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Environmental objectives: Overall environmental goal, arising from the environmental policy, that an entity sets itself to achieve. The objectives should be quantifiable and correlated with the entity’s ambitions. In turn, they determine targets, which are detailed performance requirements necessary to achieve the environmental objectives.

ESG objectives: Strategic priorities and key topics for the management and/or improvement of ESG issues.

Fully integrated: Complete alignment between the management of ESG issues and the overall strategy of the entity. A fully integrated strategy incorporates ESG to manage risk and create competitive advantages beyond utility cost savings.

General sustainability objectives: Cross-cutting objectives to improve overall ESG performance, such as relative position on sustainability indices or rankings.

Governance objectives: Objectives to improve entity governance. These can relate to governance structures and composition of the entity and how this relates to economic, environmental and social dimensions, or the entity’s approach to corporate governance issues such as transparency, board composition, or bribery and corruption.

Health and well-being: “Health is a complete state of physical, mental and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”(WHO). Health & well-being is impacted by genetics and individual behavior as well as environmental conditions. Particularly relevant to GRESB stakeholders are the social determinants of health, which are the “conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live and age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life.” These are the conditions that enable or discourage healthy living. This could include issues such as physical activity, healthy eating, equitable workplaces, maternity and paternity leave, access to healthcare, reduction in toxic exposures, etc.

Not integrated: ESG objectives were set independently from the overall strategy of the entity.

Overall business strategy: The entity’s long-term strategy for meeting its objectives.

Partially integrated: Refers to any level of alignment less than 'fully integrated'.

Social objectives: Objectives to improve absolute or relative on social issues, such as stakeholder engagement or health and well-being.

References

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 5.7, Analysis

SASB (March 2016)-Real Estate Owners, Developers & Investment Trusts: IF0402-05

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to identify how the entity has allocated responsibilities for the management of ESG issues and climate-related risk and opportunities. Having personnel dedicated to ESG issues and climate-related risks and opportunities increases the likelihood that the entity’s objectives and performance on these topics will be properly managed.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Details of persons responsible: Participants must provide the name and job title of the relevant person. This information will be used for reporting purposes only.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

2 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Dedicated employee(s) for whom climate-related issues are core responsibilities: The employee(s)’ main responsibility is defining, implementing and monitoring the climate-related objectives at entity level.

Dedicated employee(s) for whom ESG is the core responsibility: The employee(s)’ main responsibility is defining, implementing and monitoring the ESG objectives at entity level.

Employee(s) for whom climate-related issues are among their responsibilities: The implementation and monitoring of climate-related issues is part of the employee’s role, but is not necessarily their main responsibility.

Employee(s) for whom ESG is among their responsibilities: The implementation and monitoring of ESG is part of the employee’s role, but is not necessarily their main responsibility.

ESG objectives: Strategic priorities and key topics for the management and/or improvement of ESG issues.

Climate-related objectives: Strategic priorities and key topics for the management and/or improvement of climate-related issues.

External consultants/manager: Organizations or persons to which participants outsource some or all of their ESG strategy and/or implementation.

Investment partners (co-investor/JV partners): A General Partner that co-owns and operates (part of) the entity’s assets and is responsible for implementing ESG objectives at a property level.

Persons responsible: A person or group of people who work on the implementation and completion of the task, project, or strategy.

References

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016): 102-20

Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures June 2017: Governance A&B

Intent

This indicator identifies the existence of an internal taskforce focused on ESG components, which demonstrates a structured approach towards integrating ESG practices across the entity.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Other: State the other type of member included in the taskforce. Other answers can include individuals (e.g.,HR representative) or groups of individuals (e.g., Product innovation team). Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., sustainability team when ‘dedicated staff on ESG issues’ is selected). It is possible to report on multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1 point, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Asset manager: A person or group of people responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of real estate investments at asset level.

Board of Directors: A body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization as detailed in the corporate charter. Boards normally comprise both executive and non-executive directors.

C-suite level staff/Senior management: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. C-suite level staff are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as senior management, executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

Dedicated staff on ESG issues: Individuals whose core responsibility is to address ESG issues.

ESG portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages the ESG strategy and implementation of a portfolio of real estate investments.

ESG taskforce/committee: A group of individuals who meet, at least four times per year, to discuss and monitor the implementation of the entity’s ESG objectives.

External managers or service providers: Organizations, businesses or individuals that offer services to others in exchange for payment. These include, but are not limited to, consultants, agents and brokers.

Fund/portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages a portfolio of real estate investments, and the deployment of investor capital, by creating and implementing asset level strategies, across the entire portfolio.

Investment analysts: A person or group with expertise in evaluating financial and investment information, typically for the purpose of making buy, sell and hold recommendations for securities.

Investment committee: A group of selected people who establish a formal process to manage the plan’s investment strategy.

Investor relations: A person or a group that provides investors with an accurate account of company affairs so investors can make better informed decisions.

References

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016): 103-32

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 3.1.5, Responsibilities & Committees

Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures June 2017: Governance A&B

Intent

The presence of senior management dedicated to ESG issues and climate-related risks and opportunities increases the likelihood that objectives on these topics will be met. A structured process to keep the most senior decision-maker informed on the entity’s ESG performance increases accountability and encourages continuous improvement.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select the applicable sub-option.

Senior decision-maker: The entity’s most senior decision-maker on ESG is expected to be actively involved in the process of defining the ESG objectives and should approve associated strategic decisions regarding ESG. This person can be the same as the individual identified in LE3.

Details of employee: Participants must provide the name and job title of the relevant employee. This information will be used for reporting purposes only.

Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants should use this open text box to communicate on

1. Means of communication. Examples can include, but are not limited to: written memos, formal reports, presentations or meeting minutes;
2. Frequency of reporting. Examples can include, but are not limited to: monthly, quarterly or annually;
3. Contents of reporting. Examples can include, but are not limited to: (i) an overview of asset performance (quantitative), (ii) realized ESG performance against objectives, (iii) updates regarding long-term strategic objectives, (iv) updates/notifications regarding regulatory changes or (v) updates regarding proposed actions to improve the performance of the assets.

Validation

Other: State the other senior decision-maker on sustainability issues. The answer should only refer to the department or governance structure of which the senior decision maker is part of. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above. Report only one other answer.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1 point, G

Scoring of this indicator is equal to the fraction assigned to the selected option, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

Open text box: The open text box is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Asset manager: A person or group of people responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of real estate investments at asset level.

Board of Directors: A body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization as detailed in the corporate charter. Boards normally comprise both executive and non-executive directors.

C-suite level staff/Senior management: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. C-suite level staff are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as senior management, executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

Fund/portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages a portfolio of real estate investments, and the deployment of investor capital, by creating and implementing asset level strategies, across the entire portfolio.

Investment committee: A group of selected people who establish a formal process to manage the plan’s investment strategy.

Person accountable: A person with sign off (approval) authority over the deliverable task, project or strategy. The accountable person can delegate the work to other responsible people who will work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.

Senior decision-maker accountable for climate-related issues: A senior individual with sign off (approval) authority for approving strategic climate-related objectives and steps undertaken to achieve these objectives. The accountable person can delegate the work to other responsible people who will work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.

Senior decision-maker accountable for ESG: A senior individual with sign off (approval) authority for approving strategic ESG objectives and steps undertaken to achieve these objectives. The accountable person can delegate the work to other responsible people who will work on the implementation and completion of the task, project or strategy.

References

CDP, CC1.1

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016): 103-32

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 3.1.5, Responsibilities & Committees

Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures June 2017: Governance A&B

Intent

This indicator identifies whether, and how, ESG issues are addressed in personnel performance targets. It also identifies how the ESG-related objectives outlined in LE2 are reflected within the organizational structure. Including ESG factors in annual performance targets for employees can increase the entity’s capacity to improve ESG performance.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

If the targets and consequences apply to all employees of the entity, select all relevant personnel types in the indicator.

Validation

Evidence: Document upload or hyperlink. The evidence must sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

1. Existence of performance targets on ESG related issues specific to each of the selected personnel groups.
1. If the document explicitly demonstrates that ESG objectives apply to all employees, all personnel groups are supported except the Board of Directors.
2. If the document does not explicitly demonstrate that the ESG objectives apply to all employees, only the employee group mentioned in the document is considered valid.
2. Clearly demonstrated financial and/or non-financial consequences for each of the selected personnel groups.
1. Consequences can be either positive or negative. Examples of financial consequences include (but are not limited to) bonuses or pay raises/cuts. Examples of non-financial consequences include (but are not limited to) written or verbal recognition, awards, and career development opportunities.
3. Targets must relate to all members within the selected personnel groups. If the target relates to a single employee, that employee must be listed as an Other.

Examples of appropriate evidence include relevant policy or process documents, employee performance reviews relevant to the reporting year, employee contracts, etc.Other examples include official documents from the entity describing the financial/non-financial consequences (e.g., rewards, penalties, bonus schemes, web pages, etc.). Note that sensitive information may be redacted from the documents as long as the requirements outlined above are clearly met. If the consequences are not clearly defined and connected to the ESG targets within the provided evidence, then sufficient explanation must be provided within either the evidence open text box or a cover page.

Other: State the other employee type. Other answers should relate to groups of employees such as acquisition, development, or facilities teams, or specific personnel who have ESG targets assigned to them. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., sustainability team when ‘dedicated staff on ESG issues’ is selected). If the targets and consequences apply to all employees, make sure to select the relevant personnel groups from the indicator and use the “Other” answer only to provide personnel groups that are not listed above. It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards the score.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

2 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Annual performance targets: Targets set in annual performance reviews, which are assessments of employee performance.

Asset manager: A person or group of people responsible for developing and overseeing financial and strategic developments of real estate investments at asset level.

Board of Directors: A body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization as detailed in the corporate charter. Boards normally comprise both executive and non-executive directors.

C-suite level staff/Senior management: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. C-suite level staff are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as senior management, executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

Dedicated staff on ESG issues: Individuals whose core responsibility is to address ESG issues.

ESG portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages the ESG strategy and implementation of a portfolio of real estate investments.

ESG Factors: Criteria associated with the entity’s ESG objectives identified in LE2.

External managers or service providers: Organizations, businesses or individuals that offer services to others in exchange for payment. These include, but are not limited to, consultants, agents and brokers.

Financial consequences: Predetermined monetary benefits incorporated into the employee compensation structures. The financial consequences are contingent upon the achievement of the annual performance targets.

Fund/portfolio manager: A person or a group who manages a portfolio of real estate investments, and the deployment of investor capital, by creating and implementing asset level strategies, across the entire portfolio.

Investment analysts: A person or group with expertise in evaluating financial and investment information, typically for the purpose of making buy, sell and hold recommendations for securities.

Investment committee: A group of selected people who establish a formal process to manage the plan’s investment strategy.

Investor relations: A person or a group that provides investors with an accurate account of company affairs so investors can make better informed decisions.

Non-financial consequences: Non-financial benefits (or detriments). Examples include verbal or written recognition of performance, employee awards for performance, non-financial rewards, activities, outings, and opportunities. The non-financial consequences are contingent upon the achievement of the annual performance targets.

References

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 3.1.7, Executive Compensation-Success Metrics and Vesting

Intent

This indicator describes the existence and scope of policies that address environmental issues. Policies on environmental issues assist entities with incorporating ESG criteria into their business practices.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Evidence: Document upload or hyperlink. The evidence must sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected environmental issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.

Acceptable evidence may include, but is not limited to, an environmental policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's environmental policy(ies). References such as bullet points or passages within a policy, can be provided to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.

The evidence should support each of the selected issues with a relevant document such as energy consumption policy or a waste management policy. Note that overarching environmental policy documents covering multiple issues must have separate sections/clauses relevant to each of the selected issues.

Other: List applicable environmental issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Recycling” when “‘Waste” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1.5 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Biodiversity and habitat: Issues related to wildlife, endangered species, ecosystem services, habitat management, and relevant topics. Biodiversity refers to the variety of all plant and animal species. Habitat refers to the natural environment in which these plant and animal species live and function.

Climate change adaptation: Preparation for long-term change in climatic conditions or climate related events. Example of climate change adaptation measures can include, but are not limited to: building flood defenses, xeriscaping and using tree species resistant to storms and fires, adapting building codes to extreme weather events.

Energy consumption: the use of energy by the entity.

Feedback sessions: Meetings with individual stakeholders to gather feedback about ESG-specific issues.

Greenhouse gas emissions: GHGs refers to the seven gases listed in the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard: carbon dioxide (CO₂); methane (CH₄); nitrous oxide (N₂O); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆). They are expressed in CO₂ equivalents (CO₂e).

Indoor environmental quality: Refers to the conditions inside the building. It includes air quality, access to daylight and views, pleasant acoustic conditions and occupant control over lighting and thermal comfort.

Material sourcing: Responsible sourcing of materials considers the environmental, social and economic impacts of the procurement and production of products and materials.

Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.

Pollution prevention: Any practice that reduces, eliminates, or prevents pollution at its source, also known as "source reduction”.

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster: Preparedness of the built environment towards existing and future threats of natural disaster (e.g., the ability to absorb disturbances such as increased precipitation or flooding while maintaining its structure). This can be achieved by management policies, informational technologies, educating tenants, community, suppliers and physical measures at the asset level.

Sustainable procurement: Encourage, facilitate or require the reduction of consumption of goods within the building or premises and/or the sourcing of sustainable or ethical goods. Clauses can relate to reduction of paper consumption, supply of biodegradable materials, use of recycled paper, building materials, etc.

Waste management: Issues associated with hazardous and non-hazardous waste generation, reuse, recycling, composting, recovery, incineration, landfill and on-site storage.

Water consumption: The use of water resources by the entity.

References

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1994 Global Reporting Initiative

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 7.9, Narrative on performance

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016): GRI, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307; GRI, 416

Intent

This indicator describes the existence and scope of policies that address social issues. Policies on social issues assist entities with incorporating ESG criteria into their business practices.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Evidence: Document upload or hyperlink. The evidence must sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected social issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.

Acceptable evidence may include, but is not limited to, a social policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's social policy(ies). References such as bullet points or passages within a policy, can be provided to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.

The evidence should support each of the selected issues with a relevant document such as an employee health & wellbeing policy, human rights policy, code of conduct, or community investment statement. Note that overarching social policy documents covering multiple issues must have separate sections/clauses relevant to each of the selected issues

Other: List applicable social issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Collective bargaining agreements” when “‘Freedom of association” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are acceptable, only one will be counted in scoring.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1.5 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Child labor: Work that children should not be doing because they are too young, or, if they have reached the minimum age, because it is dangerous or otherwise unsuitable for them.

Community development: A process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems.

Customer satisfaction: Customer satisfaction is one measure of an entity's sensitivity to its customers’ needs and preferences and, from an organizational perspective, is essential for long-term success. In the context of ESG, customer satisfaction provides insight into how the entity approaches its relationship with one stakeholder group (customers).

Employee engagement: An employee's involvement with, commitment to, and satisfaction with the entity.

Employee health & well-being: The health & well-being of employees responsible for the entity.

Employee remuneration: Remuneration is payment or compensation received for services or employment. This includes a basic salary plus additional amounts such as those based on years of service, bonuses including cash and equity such as stocks and shares, benefit payments, overtime, time owed, and any additional allowances (such as transportation, living and childcare allowances).

Forced or compulsory labor: All work or service which is expected from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.

Freedom of association: Right of employers and workers to form, to join and to run their own organizations without prior authorization or interference by the state or any other entity.

Health & safety: community The health & safety of the community surrounding the entity.

Health and safety: contractors The health and safety of the entity's contractors.

Health and safety: employees The health and safety of employees responsible for the entity.

Health & safety: tenant/customer The health & safety of tenants and customers of the entity.

Human rights: Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever their nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or any other status.

Inclusion and Diversity: Similarities and differences among employees in terms of age, cultural background, physical abilities and disabilities, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.

Labor standards and working conditions: Labor standards and working conditions are at the core of paid work and employment relationships. Working conditions cover a broad range of topics and issues, from working time (hours of work, rest periods, and work schedules) to remuneration, as well as the physical conditions and mental demands that exist in the workplace.

Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.

Social enterprise partnering: Entity’s partnerships with organizations that have social objectives which serve as the primary purpose of the organization.

Stakeholder relations: Stakeholder relations is the practice of forging mutually beneficial connections with third-party groups and individuals that have a stake in common interest.

References

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 7.9, Narrative on performance

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016): GRI, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307; GRI, 416

ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work

Intent

This indicator describes the existence and scope of policies that address governance issues. Policies on governance issues assist entities with incorporating ESG criteria into their business practices.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Evidence: Document upload or hyperlink. The evidence must sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

The provided evidence must demonstrate the existence of formal policy document(s) that address(es) each of the selected governance issues and not simply a list of general goals and/or commitments.

Acceptable evidence may include, but is not limited to, a governance policy document, official documents or links to online resources describing the entity's governance policy(ies). References such as bullet points or passages within a policy, can be provided to describe the goals or ambition for each issue.

The evidence should support each of the selected issues with a relevant document such as a cybersecurity policy, board charter, code of conduct or shareholder rights policy/agreement. Note that overarching governance policy documents covering multiple issues must have separate sections/clauses relevant to each of the selected issues.

Other: List applicable governance issues that apply to the entity but are not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option (e.g. “Solicitation” when “‘Bribery” is selected). It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are acceptable, only one will be counted in scoring.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1.5 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving or soliciting an item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal fiduciary duty.

Corruption: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

Cybersecurity: The protection of internet-connected systems, including hardware, software and data, from any unauthorised use or access. Malicious attacks, in particular, can pose a significant threat to real assets.

Data protection and privacy: Customer privacy includes matters such as the protection of data; the use of information or data for their original intended purpose only, unless specifically agreed otherwise; the obligation to observe confidentiality; and the protection of information or data from misuse or theft.

Executive compensation: The financial payments and non-monetary benefits provided to high-level management in exchange for their work on behalf of an entity.

Fiduciary duty: Refers to the obligations of loyalty and care in regard to the responsibility of managing someone else’s assets. A fiduciary duty is a position of trust and examples include a duty of confidentiality, a duty of no conflict, and a duty not to profit from his position.

Fraud: Wrongful deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Governance issues: Governance structure and composition of the entity. This includes how the highest governance body is established and structured in support of the entity’s purpose, and how this purpose relates to economic, environmental and social dimensions.

Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.

Political contributions: Disclosure for political contributions, such as the amounts and recipients of all monetary and non-monetary contributions made by the entity, including political contributions made through third parties.

Shareholder rights: Can include the right to share in the company's profitability, income, and assets; a proxy statement; a degree of control and influence over company management selection; preemptive rights to newly issued shares; and general meeting voting rights.

References

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 7.9, Narrative on performance

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016): 102-35; 102-37; GRI 205

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 3.1.7

Intent

This indicator assesses the level of ESG disclosure undertaken by the entity. It also evaluates the entity’s use of third-party ESG reporting review to ensure the reliability, integrity, and accuracy of ESG disclosure. Disclosure of ESG information and performance demonstrates an entity’s transparency in explaining how ESG policies and management practices are implemented by the entity, and how these practices impact the business. In addition, third-party ESG disclosure review increases investors’ confidence in the information disclosed.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

In all cases:

1. Select the applicable reporting level. If the entity reports at multiple levels, the most detailed reporting level should be selected.
1. Entity: Related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable portfolio for which you are submitting an Assessment response. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes actions/performance disclosure that is in direct reference to and/or matches the entity subject to the GRESB submission. For example, an Annual Report that is solely applicable to the entity or includes specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity in addition to other entities within the group of companies.
2. Investment Manager: Related to the investment management entity or company of which the participating entity forms a part. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g. Annual Report) includes the entity subject to the GRESB submission. For example, an Annual report that does not include specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity itself, but rather for the investment manager at an aggregated level.
3. Group: Related to the group of companies of which the participating entity forms a part. This option should be selected if the scope of the reporting (e.g., Annual Report) includes the entity subject to the GRESB submission. For example, an Annual report that does not include specific and detailed actions/performance of the entity itself, but rather for the larger group of companies as an aggregate.
2. If applicable, select alignment from the dropdown lists to confirm that your method of reporting is aligned with an external standard or guideline. The list is based on leading international best practice guides for sustainability reporting. If reporting is aligned with more than one standard, select the standard with which there is most alignment.
3. State whether the methods of reporting are checked, verified or assured (select one option; the most detailed level of scrutiny to which the disclosure was subject to).
   1. Externally checked: should be selected when a third party has reviewed the reporting in a structured and consistent process.
   2. Externally verified: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the reporting against an existing methodology or guideline. When this checkbox is ticked, participants must select the scheme name from the dropdown.
   3. Externally assured: applies to instances where a third party has reviewed the reporting against an existing methodology or guideline. When this checkbox is ticked, participants must select the scheme name from the dropdown.
4. Select the assurance/verification standard (if applicable) from the dropdown menu (see Accepted schemes in the Appendices); The assurance/verification statement and selected scheme must be included within the evidence uploaded for the selected disclosure method. If reporting is aligned to more than one standard, select the standard with which there is most alignment. Provide document upload or URL.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Other: Add a disclosure method that applies to the entity but is not already listed. Ensure that the ‘Other’ answer provided is not a duplicate or subset of another option selected. It is possible to report multiple ‘Other’ answers. If multiple ‘Other’ answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found. A piece of supporting evidence document or URL cannot be uploaded for more than one disclosure method selected, i.e., identical documents will not be accepted for more than one disclosure type.

General evidence requirements:

1. All evidence must explicitly address ESG and include actions and/or performance undertaken by the entity; a list of general goals and/or commitments is not sufficient. In order for evidence to be accepted, it should cover at least two of the three pillars of ESG (i.e., environmental, social and/or governance). If it meets all other requirements but only one pillar is referenced, the evidence will be ‘partially accepted’.
1. An exception to this requirement is given for ‘Dedicated Section on Corporate Website.’ If the website covers actions and/or performance for at least one of the three pillars and details about the ESG program, strategy, and/or objectives, it will be fully accepted.
2. Answers must clearly reference the applicable reporting level. If entity-level is chosen, then the ESG actions and/or performance must be directly associated with the entity by name. For example, a fund manager or corporate group can only select entity-level reporting if there is a specific section of the disclosure dedicated to the entity that fully meets validation requirements. Group-level disclosures that do not have ESG actions and/or performance specific to the reporting entity are not entity-level reports.
3. The evidence provided must support the alignment chosen (if applicable). If listing an alignment that is not predefined, the external standard or guideline must be specific and entered in full, (i.e. avoid using acronyms). The evidence should clearly mention the standard that the disclosure is aligned with.
4. The evidence provided must support the selected level of third party review (if applicable). The assurance and/or verification of ESG disclosure is separate from the assurance and/or verification of performance data reported in the Performance Component. Supplementary evidence such as a letter can be provided if the disclosure itself does not include confirmation of review. The evidence relating to the check, verification, and/or assurance must be in reference to the uploaded disclosure method provided (i.e., Annual Report). If submitting an assurance and/or verification letter externally to the report, it must be made clear that the letter applies to the respective evidence.
5. Disclosure of GRESB results alone (i.e. without any additional analysis or ESG performance disclosure) is not sufficient for any disclosure type.

Evidence requirements IR report: The document upload or URL provided must contain clear evidence of alignment with the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework (December 2013) within the report itself. Integrated reports can reference 2021, 2020, or 2019 performance and/or actions.

Evidence requirements Annual Report: Annual Reports should cover the reporting year as described in EC4. Annual Reports from the prior reporting year detailing actions and/or performance are acceptable if it is explicitly stated that the Annual Report for the current reporting year has not yet been published. If an entity reports on a semi-annual basis, both semi-annual reports must be uploaded to cover the 12 months of reporting identified in EC4. Similarly, if an entity reports quarterly, all 4 quarterly reports must be uploaded to cover the 12 months of reporting identified in EC4.

Evidence requirements Standalone sustainability report: Sustainability reports referencing the current or previous reporting year as described in EC4 are accepted.

Evidence requirements Dedicated section on corporate website: The webpage(s) must include ESG actions and/or performance undertaken by the entity during the reporting year as given in EC4, explicitly addressing at least one pillar of ESG (but can address all three ESG pillars). A hyperlink to the Annual Report or Sustainability Report, or any other documents are not valid. In addition, a list of general goals and/or commitments on the website is not sufficient.

Evidence requirements Entity reporting to investors: A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach to ESG or sustainability that does not contain any analysis of performance is insufficient. Updates to investors provided after the reporting year may be valid, as long as the actions described apply to the reporting year (as indicated in EC4). Quarterly updates, Board reports, investor presentations, newsletters, or press releases disclosing ESG actions and/or performance are considered valid. Similar to entity-level reporting for other disclosure types, evidence provided for entity reporting to investors must specifically reference actions and/or performance of the entity itself, not solely its investment manager or group.

Evidence requirements ‘Other’: An additional disclosure method such as third-party forms of disclosure like 2020 CDP Questionnaires or 2020 UN PRI Transparency Reports is considered valid. Disclosure methods with a different reporting level can also be provided (i.e. if an entity-level ESG report is provided for Stand-alone sustainability report, a group-level ESG report can be provided for ‘Other’. Ensure applicability to the reporting year as provided in EC4 based on the actions and/or performance disclosed.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

3.5 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Alignment: To agree and match with a recognized sustainability standard (either voluntary or mandatory).

Annual report: A yearly record of an entity’s financial performance that is distributed to investors under applicable financial reporting regulations.

Assured/Verified: The process of checking data, as well as its collection methods and management systems, through a systematic, independent and documented process against predefined criteria or standards. Assurance/Verification services should be in line with a standard and can only be provided by accredited professionals.

Externally checked: Any third-party review of the data that does not comply with the definition of Assurance/Verification. This review can include, but is not limited to, review of the reported data, its collection methods, or management systems that was conducted by an independent third party. The process of reviewing the data does not need to be conducted against an accepted Assurance/Verification scheme.

Dedicated section on corporate website: A section of the entity’s website that explicitly addresses ESG performance.

Disclosure: The act of making information or data readily accessible and available to all interested individuals and institutions. Disclosure must be external and cannot be an internal and/or ad hoc communication within the participating entity.

Entity reporting to investors: A report prepared by the participant for the purpose of informing investors on the ESGperformance of the entity. A summary outlining an entity’s overall approach to ESG that does not contain any analysis of performance (as defined below) is insufficient.

ESG actions: Specific activities performed to improve management of environmental, social and governance issues within the entity.

ESG performance: Reporting of material indicators that reflect implementation of environmental, social, or governance (ESG) management.

Integrated Report: A report that is aligned with the requirements of the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) Integrated Reporting Framework (December 2013).

Standalone sustainability report: A report dedicated to the entity’s sustainability or ESG performance.

Reporting Level:

1. Entity: related specifically to the named entity, where entity is defined as the investable portfolio for which you are submitting an Assessment response.
2. Investment Manager: related to the investment management entity or company of which the participating entity forms a part.
3. Group: related to the group of companies of which the participating entity forms a part.

Standalone sustainability report: A report dedicated to the entity’s sustainability or ESG performance.

References

ANREV Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, 2016

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017

GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, 2016: 202-1; 205-3; 308-2

308-2 IIRC Integrated Reporting Framework, 2013

INREV Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, 2016

Intent

This indicator intends to identify whether the reporting entity has a defined process in place to communicate any ESG-related misconducts to its stakeholders if the entity has incurred any environment, social or governance fines and/or penalties at its investment properties or elsewhere.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants should use this open text box to communicate on the process the reporting entity intends to follow in order to communicate any ESG-related misconducts to its stakeholders.

Other: State the other stakeholder groups. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above. It is possible to add multiple other answers.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

Not scored, G

This indicator is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.

*The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2022 Sector Leaders.

Terminology

Accident: An unplanned, undesired event that results in damage or injury.

Community/public: Persons or groups of people living and/or working in any areas that are economically, socially or environmentally impacted (positively or negatively) by the entity’s operations.

Contractors: Organizations or persons working on-site or off-site on behalf of an entity with a relationship determined by a contract, including property managers. A contractor may hire their own staff directly or hire sub-contractors or independent contractors.

Controversy: A prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.

Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.

ESG fines and/or penalties: Sanctions resulting from an illegal act or non-compliant behavior, which directly harms the environment and/or stakeholders of the entity.

Incident: An unplanned, undesired event with actual or potential adverse impacts.

Investors/shareholders: The entity’s current investors and/or equity stake owners in the entity.

Misconduct: Unethical behavior, and more specifically, poor stewardship of environmental, social or governance issues, which may or may not result in legal action.

Penalty: A punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.

Suppliers: Organizations or persons that provide a product or service used in the supply chain.

References

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, 2016: 102-17, Mechanisms for advice and concerns about ethics

CDP Reporting Guidelines, Compliance

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment, 2017: 3.3.6, Report on breaches

Intent

This indicator intends to ensure the communication of any ESG fines and/or penalties to the reporting entity’s investor. Recurring misconducts and penalties can increase the risk profile of the portfolio as they impose financial, management and regulatory burdens on the entity.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants may use this open text box to communicate on how the entity has resolved or intends to resolve the above issue(s).

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

Not scored, G

This indicator is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.

*The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2022 Sector Leaders.

Terminology

ESG fines and/or penalties: Sanctions resulting from an illegal act or non-compliant behavior, which directly harms the environment and/or stakeholders of the entity.

References

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, 2016: 205-3; 419-1

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 5.8, H&S

Intent

This indicator assesses the entity’s use of a systematic process to manage environmental impacts, risks and opportunities.

An Environmental Management System (EMS) is an internal framework that structures all procedures, projects and tactics into a cohesive program which aligns the sustainability efforts at entity level. An EMS can assist entities in managing and improving their environmental performance, complying with environmental laws and regulations, identifying financial savings through more efficient operating practices, and improving the standing of the business with staff, client companies, partner organizations and other stakeholders.

Use of an aligned or certified EMS framework provides assurance to both the business and external stakeholders that environmental impacts are measured and acted upon using a recognized and proven methodology. Periodic reviews of the EMS ensure its continuing suitability and effectiveness for the entity.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

The evidence and ‘other’ answer provided will be subject to manual validation.

Note that aligning or certifying individual sections of the EMS does not comply with the requirements of this indicator and does not constitute a valid answer.

Evidence: Document upload or hyperlink. The evidence must sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

1. A clear framework for managing an entity’s environmental impact.
2. A high level outline or diagram of the implemented EMS.
3. The stages, elements, and/or processes currently covered by the EMS.

Aligned with a standard: If the EMS is aligned with a standard, the evidence must include the name the standard used for alignment and define the degree of alignment with the standard. Elements of the EMS that align with the standard can be summarized, called out, highlighted, or shown in a diagram.

Externally certified: If the entity’s EMS is externally certified by an independent third party to a selected standard, the evidence must include signed proof of the certification, which must state the name of the standard, as well as contact information of the independent third party, and the date of the most recent accreditation (certification). Certification must be valid at some time within the reporting year.

GRESB requires certification to be undertaken by a third party and not by the participant. EMS certification may only be obtained for one (or more) of the main standards/schemes, for example ISO14001.

Note that aligning or certifying individual sections of the EMS does not comply with the requirements of this indicator and does not constitute a valid answer.

Other: Provide the name of the 'Other' recognized standard that the entity’s EMS has been certified to or aligned with that is not already listed. Standards that are not recognised will be subject to validation. It is possible to report multiple ‘other’ answers. If multiple ‘other’ answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring.

Not certified or aligned: If the entity’s management system is not accredited to or aligned with a selected standard, the evidence must include a high level summary, outline or diagram of the implemented management system and/or evidence of implementation into the entity’s operations.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

2 points, G

Scoring of this indicator is equal to the fraction assigned to the selected option, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Alignment: To agree and match with a recognized sustainability standard (either voluntary or mandatory).

Certified: Third-party recognition of meeting the requirements of a recognized standard.

Environmental Management System (EMS): A framework for managing an entity’s environmental impact based on its sustainability and related objectives. An EMS provides a practical framework for the assessment of environmental impacts, establishment of impact reduction targets, and the development of plans to achieve targeted reductions. An EMS enables an entity to take a structured approach to planning and implementing environmental protection measures.

An effective EMS is analogous to a financial management system that monitors expenditure and income to support analysis of financial performance. An EMS can cover a wide range of environmental topics, including, but not limited to: energy, GHG emissions, water, waste, transportation, climate change, resilience, risks, and materials. It can also refer to a wide variety of internal procedures, targets, persons responsible for implementing these procedures and working towards achieving the entity’s objectives. In summary, an EMS is used to formalize the strategic approach of the entity towards ESG. It outlines the structure used to monitor and manage environmental topics.

ISO 14001 Alignment: ISO 14001 defines a complete EMS to include four stages:

1. Plan
   • Define the scope of the entity’s environmental policy (the most important areas of impact and relationship with primary stakeholders)
   • Define and maintain environmental objectives and targets (short-term and long-term)
   • Define the materiality matrix, based on priority sustainability issues
   • Identify relevant legal requirements and environmental legislation
   • Define emergency procedures
2. Do
   • Ensure the implementation of the action plan established in stage one and the maintenance of the systems in place
   • Assign responsibility for the overall development and maintenance of the system
   • Offer training and/or support to the people in charge to ensure conformity with the policy
3. Check
   • Establish appropriate communication channels with the people in charge
   • Monitor and document progress
   • Ensure compliance with applicable legal requirements
   • Identify and correct non-conformity
4. Act
   • Schedule periodic management reviews on results and next steps
   • Evaluate performance against targets
   • Determine corrective and preventative actions
   • Provide feedback and suggestions for improvement
   • Prepare and/or update procedures and supporting documentation

The process above provides an example of an EMS outline with the stages and elements included. The EMS, and therefore the supporting evidence, does not necessarily have to be structured according to the ISO recommendations. While adherence to ISO 14001 is not required, the reported EMS should support the purpose identified in ISO 14001 and provide comparable functionality.

References

LEED BD+C: Core and Shell, v4, Sustainable Sites; Water Efficiency; Energy & Atmosphere; Material & Resources; and Indoor Environmental Quality

BREEAM In-Use International, Asset Performance; and Building Management

ISO 14001:2015 Environmental management systems – Requirements with guidance for use

ISO 14004:2015 Environmental management systems – general guidelines on principles, systems and support techniques

Intent

This indicator examines specific actions taken to limit exposure to governance-related risks. It is linked to PO3 in the Policy Aspect, and refers to the implementation of the policy that addresses risks from exposure to governance issues (as defined in PO3).

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Other: State the other system or procedure in place. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., Anti-bribery training when 'Training related to governance risks for employees' is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

0.5 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Governance risks for employees: Examples can include, but are not limited to: bribery and corruption risks, insider trading, sharing of confidential information.

Investment due diligence process: A systematic process to collect and interpret information about a prospective investment.

Regular follow-ups: Training offered at least once a year to employees, starting from their second year of employment.

Training related to governance risks for employees: Employee training ensures that employees understand and adhere to the laws, regulations and internal corporate policies that apply to their daily roles is essential to ensuring that compliance regulations are met in the workplace.

Whistle-blower mechanism: A process that offers protection for individuals that want to reveal illegal, unethical or dangerous practices. An efficient whistle-blower mechanism prescribes clear procedures and channels to facilitate the reporting of wrongdoing and corruption, defines the protected disclosures, outlines the remedies and sanctions for retaliation.

References

OECD Cleangovbiz, “Whistleblower protection: encouraging reporting”, 2012

Intent

This indicator identifies the variables included in the entity’s social risk assessments. Risk assessments refer to the identification and quantification of processes, systems and/or scenarios that could potentially cause harm to the entity and its underlying investors. It is important that entities monitor their exposure to social-related risks, as these can negatively impact reputation and expose the entity to civil and criminal penalties.

RM3.1 asks whether certain social issues are assessed in a risk assessment by the entity, which is different from the existence of social policies (PO2).

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Other: State the other social issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., modern slavery when ‘forced or compulsory labor’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

0.5 points, S

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Child labor: Work that children should not be doing because they are too young, or, if they have reached the minimum age, because it is dangerous or otherwise unsuitable for them.

Community development: A process where community members come together to take collective action and generate solutions to common problems.

Controversy: A prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.

Customer satisfaction: Customer satisfaction is one measure of an entity's sensitivity to its customers’ needs and preferences and, from an organizational perspective, is essential for long-term success. In the context of ESG, customer satisfaction provides insight into how the entity approaches its relationship with one stakeholder group (customers).

Employee engagement: An employee's involvement with, commitment to, and satisfaction with the entity.

Employee health & well-being: The health & well-being of employees responsible for the entity.

Forced or compulsory labor: All work or service which is expected from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.

Freedom of association: Right of employers and workers to form, to join and to run their own organizations without prior authorization or interference by the state or any other entity.

Health & safety: community The health & safety of the community surrounding the entity.

Health and safety: contractors The health and safety of the entity's contractors.

Health and safety: employees The health and safety of employees responsible for the entity.

Health & safety: tenant/customer The health & safety of tenants and customers of the entity.

Human rights: Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever their nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or any other status.

Inclusion and Diversity: Similarities and differences among employees in terms of age, cultural background, physical abilities and disabilities, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.

Labor standards and working conditions: Labor standards and working conditions are at the core of paid work and employment relationships. Working conditions cover a broad range of topics and issues, from working time (hours of work, rest periods, and work schedules) to remuneration, as well as the physical conditions and mental demands that exist in the workplace.

Policy: Defines a commitment, direction or intention as formally adopted by the entity.

Social enterprise partnering: Entity’s partnerships with organizations that have social objectives which serve as the primary purpose of the organization.

Stakeholder relations: Stakeholder relations is the practice of forging mutually beneficial connections with third-party groups and individuals that have a stake in common interest.

References

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 5.2.3, Human rights-assessment

Intent

This indicator identifies the variables included in the entity’s governance risk assessments. Risk assessments refer to the identification and quantification of processes, systems and/or scenarios that could potentially cause harm to the entity and its underlying investors. It is important that entities monitor their exposure to governance-related risks, as these can negatively impact reputation and expose the entity to civil and criminal penalties. RM3.2 asks whether certain governance issues are assessed in a risk assessment by the entity, which is different from the existence of governance policies (PO3).

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Other: State the other governance issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., data confidentiality when ‘data protection and privacy is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

0.5 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Bribery: The offering, giving, receiving or soliciting an item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal fiduciary duty.

Corruption: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

Cyber security: Protection from an assault by a third party via a computer against another computer or computer system, which is intended to compromise the integrity, availability or confidentiality of that computer or computer system.

Data protection and privacy: Customer privacy includes matters such as the protection of data; the use of information or data for their original intended purpose only, unless specifically agreed otherwise; the obligation to observe confidentiality; and the protection of information or data from misuse or theft.

Executive compensation: The financial payments and non-monetary benefits provided to high-level management in exchange for their work on behalf of an entity.

Fiduciary duty: Refers to the obligations of loyalty and care in regard to the responsibility of managing someone else’s assets. A fiduciary duty is a position of trust and examples include a duty of confidentiality, a duty of no conflict, and a duty not to profit from his position.

Forced or compulsory labor: All work or service which is expected from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.

Fraud: Wrongful deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Governance issues: Governance structure and composition of the entity. This includes how the highest governance body is established and structured in support of the entity’s purpose, and how this purpose relates to economic, environmental and social dimensions.

Political contributions: Disclosure for political contributions, such as the amounts and recipients of all monetary and non-monetary contributions made by the entity, including political contributions made through third parties.

Shareholder rights: Can include the right to share in the company's profitability, income, and assets; a proxy statement; a degree of control and influence over company management selection; preemptive rights to newly issued shares; and general meeting voting rights.

References

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 5.2.3, Human rights-assessment

Intent

This indicator identifies if the entity performs asset-level environmental and/or social assessments as a standard part of the due diligence process for new acquisitions.

Risk assessments help to reduce exposure to long-term sustainability risks. Integration of sustainability risk assessments into the acquisition process demonstrate a commitment to ESG management, a focus on mitigating risks that might impact returns, and a forward-looking approach to the development of the portfolio.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Other: State the other risk factor assessed. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., seismic assessments when ‘Natural hazards’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1.5 points, G

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Biodiversity and habitat: Issues related to wildlife, endangered species, ecosystem services, habitat management, and relevant topics. Biodiversity refers to the variety of all plant and animal species. Habitat refers to the natural environment in which these plant and animal species live and function.

Building safety: Environmental issues with the potential to create or exacerbate risks to human safety, such as structural failure.

Climate change adaptation: Preparation for long-term change in climatic conditions or climate related events. Example of climate change adaptation measures can include, but are not limited to: building flood defenses, xeriscaping and using tree species resistant to storms and fires, adapting building codes to extreme weather events.

Compliance with regulatory requirements: Examples include, but are not limited to: mandatory energy/carbon disclosure schemes, changes in taxes e.g. carbon tax, extreme volatility in energy prices due to regulation, zoning.

Contaminated land: Land pollution which may require action to reduce risk to people or the environment. As an example, contamination can be assessed through a Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment.

Due diligence process: The process through which a potential acquirer evaluates a target asset for an acquisition, contributing to well-informed investment decision-making.

Energy efficiency: Refers to products or systems using less energy to provide the same consumer benefit.

Energy supply: Availability of conventional power (generated by the combustion of fuels: coal, natural gas, oil) or renewable energy (e.g. sun, wind, water, organic plant and waste material).

Environmental risks: Impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to biodiversity, transport and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures.

Greenhouse gas emissions: GHGs refers to the seven gases listed in the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard: carbon dioxide (CO₂); methane (CH₄); nitrous oxide (N₂O); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆). They are expressed in CO₂ equivalents (CO₂e).

Employee health & well-being: The health & well-being of employees responsible for the entity.

Indoor environmental quality: Refers to the conditions inside the building. It includes air quality, access to daylight and views, pleasant acoustic conditions and occupant control over lighting and thermal comfort.

Natural hazards: Naturally occurring hazards, including but not limited to flooding, drought, hail storms, earthquakes and fire (including wildfire).

Risk assessment: Careful examination of the factors that could potentially adversely impact the value or longevity of a real estate asset. The results of the assessment assist in identifying measures that have to be implemented in order to prevent and mitigate the risks.

Socio-economic risks: Impact on social well-being, livelihoods and prosperity of local communities and individuals. Examples include: economic/political instability, social housing, vulnerability to pandemics and epidemics, crime and vandalism, and the displacement of people.

Transportation risks: Risks associated with transportation around the location of a building in relation to pedestrian, bicycle and mass-transit networks, in context of the existing infrastructure and amenities in the surrounding area.

Waste management: Issues associated with hazardous and non-hazardous waste generation, reuse, recycling, composting, recovery, incineration, landfill and on-site storage.

Water efficiency: Refers to the conservative use of water resources through water-saving technologies to reduce consumption.

Water supply: Provision of surface water, groundwater, rainwater collected directly or stored by the entity, waste water from another organization, municipal water supplies or other water utilities, usually via a system of pumps and pipes.

References

World Economic Forum, Global Risks, 2014 Environment Agency, Groundwater protection: Principles and practice, 2013

World Health Organization

SASB-Real Estate Owners, Developers & Investment Trusts (March 2016): IF0402-05; IF0402-09; IF0402-14

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 3.2.2 Risk Correlation

Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures June 2017: Strategy A&B; Risk Management A&B

Intent

The clear articulation of a strategy helps fund managers navigate risks and opportunities as they arise. Integrating an understanding of resilience to climate-related risks and opportunities into business strategy fosters alignment between the management of climate-related issues and the overall strategy of the entity. It is also important to communicate how the strategy would be able to handle scenarios in which the global economy transitions to become “lower-carbon”.

Additionally, an entity’s disclosure of how its strategies might change to address potential climate-related risks and opportunities is a key step to better understanding the potential implications of climate change on the entity.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants should use this open text box to communicate on:

1. Description of how resilient the entity’s strategy is to climate-related risks and opportunities. The text should define “resilience” in the context of the entity. If applicable, explain how the entity’s strategy is operationalized into policies and management actions; where the entity’s strategy may be affected by climate-related risks and opportunities; and how its strategy might change to address such potential risks and opportunities;
2. The consideration of the transition to a lower-carbon economy consistent with a 2°C or lower scenario and, where relevant to the organization, scenarios consistent with increased physical climate-related risks;
3. Associated time horizon(s) considered.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

Not scored, G

This indicator is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Climate-related opportunities: The opportunities produced by efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, such as through resource efficiency and cost savings, the adoption and utilization of low-emission energy sources, the development of new products and services, and building resilience along the supply chain. Climate-related opportunities will vary depending on the region, market, and industry in which an organization operates

Climate-related risks: The risks associated with the potential negative impacts of climate change on an organization. These are generally categorized as either transition risks or physical risks. See Transition risks and Physical climate-related risks below.

Overall business strategy: The entity’s long-term strategy for meeting its objectives.

Physical climate-related risks: The risks associated with the potential negative direct and/or indirect impacts of event-driven (acute) or driven by longer-term shifts in climatic patterns (chronic). Physical risks emanating from climate change can be event-driven (acute) such as increased severity of extreme weather events (e.g., cyclones, droughts, floods, and fires). They can also relate to longer-term shifts (chronic) in climatic patterns such as precipitation and temperature that affect entities. Participants who possess long-lived or fixed assets, operate in climate-sensitive regions, rely on water availability, or have value chains exposed to the aforementioned hazards, are likely to be exposed to physical climate-related risk.

Physical (climate) scenarios: Scenarios used in the exploration and assessment of physical climate risks. These scenarios can include projections of a host of climatic variables, including the frequency and severity of particular extreme weather events. Generally, these scenarios are linked to one of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The RCPs, adopted by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], have been used for analysis by ensembles of climate models and have become associated with particular climate targets. RCP2.6, which represents an atmospheric concentration profile ending at a radiative forcing of 2.6 watts per square meter at the year 2100, is associated with an atmospheric limit of 450 parts per million CO2‑equivalent, and is taken as satisfying a 2°C goal.

Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.

Transition scenarios: Scenarios that describe the evolution of the global economy to a lower-carbon state. These scenarios often describe the interactions between various sectors of the economy and link such interactions to wider narratives around the relative aggression of the transition to lower carbon economics. Commonly used transition risk scenarios include those produced by the IEA [International Energy Agency] including its Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS), Beyond 2 Degrees Scenario (B2DS), and Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario (NZE2050), the NGFS [Network for Greening the Financial System], and the Inevitable Policy Response’s Forecast Policy Scenario (FPS). Real Estate Participants might also use the CRREM decarbonization pathways. Infrastructure Participants might also use pathways from TPI [Transition Pathway Initiative] or those in line with the SBTi [Science Based Targets initiative].

2°C or lower scenario: A 2°C scenario is one in which the world is able to hold the increase in global average temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Such a scenario often entails a moderate to aggressive shift in the economy to a lower-carbon state and includes the associated severity of transition risks. A “lower” scenario in this context is one in which the global economy changes in such a way that the temperature rise is held to lower than a 2°C global average temperature rise above pre-industrial levels. A 1.5°C scenario is an example of a lower scenario.

Scenario analysis: Scenario analysis refers to the systematic use of scenarios in order to better understand the relevant impacts on an organization, and facilitate the creation of robust strategies under probable and potential future developments. It can help the participant to inform their financial planning process and provide insights into their strategies’ resilience to different climate-related scenarios.

References

Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor

International Energy Agency. Achieving Net Zero Emissions by 2050.

International Energy Agency. Energy Technology Perspectives 2017

International Energy Agency. Sustainable Development Scenario

Inevitable Policy Response

Network for Greening the Financial System. NGFS Climate Scenarios for central banks and supervisors

Science Based Targets initiative

TCFD. (2017) “Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.”

Transition Pathway Initiative

Van Vuuren, D.P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., et al. (2011) “The Representative Concentration Pathways: An Overview.” Climatic Change 109: 5. doi.org/10.1007/s10584‑011‑0148‑z

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for identifying transition risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity.

A comprehensive system for managing transition risks begins with a systematic process for identifying risks that could have a material financial impact on the organization or entity. Such a process ensures that subsequent risk assessments and analyses are focused on the most relevant risks to which an entity is exposed.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

1. Demonstrates there is a systematic risk identification process for transition risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment;
2. Specifically addresses each selected transition risk issue (e.g., policy and legal, technology, market, reputation).

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

• A document describing the entity’s transition risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• An extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk framework or risk management plan addressing transition risks.

Evidence completeness: Evidence is optional for this indicator and not subject to validation. However, if evidence is provided it needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk identification process for each issue.

Other: State the other transition risk issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘establishment of a carbon tax’ when ‘increasing price of GHG emissions’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.

Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring in the GRESB Assessment, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate all of the following requirements:

1. A description of the entity’s process for prioritizing transition risks;
2. A description of how materiality determinations are made for such risks; and
3. Where applicable, reference the risks identified in the checkboxes of this indicator.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

Not scored, G

This indicator is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Material financial impact: In the context of this indicator, material financial impact is used in accordance with its use by the TCFD to express information about impacts on an entity and its financial manifestations insofar as such information is deemed to be material. As per the TCFD, “in determining whether information is material ... organizations should determine materiality for climate-related issues consistent with how they determine the materiality of other information included in their financial filings.” Furthermore, “asset managers and asset owners should consider materiality in the context of their respective mandates and investment performance for clients and beneficiaries.”

Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).

Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.

Policy and legal risk: Policy risk derives from policy action that either tries to constrain actions which contribute to climate change, or to promote adaptation to climate change. Legal risk arises from an increase in climate-related litigation, for instance due to failure of an organisation to properly communicate and account for its interactions with the climate.

Increasing price of GHG emissions: Examples include, but are not limited to: the implementation of a carbon tax, or cap and trade systems (e.g. EU ETS)

Enhancing emissions-reporting obligations: Examples include, but are not limited to: TCFD reporting, the Regulation on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (SFDR), EU Taxonomy, Streamlined Energy & Carbon Reporting (SECR).

Mandates on and regulation of existing products and services: The “existing products and services” as used here refers to the main function of the entity. Examples include, but are not limited to: Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard (MEES), Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD).

Exposure to litigation: Examples include, but are not limited to: claims of breach of entity board members' duty to act in the best interests of the entity; claims by shareholders of failure to properly disclose in annual reports the risk of climate change resulting from possible investments.

Technology risk: New technologies may displace old systems and disrupt existing parts of the economic system. Therefore, technological improvements and innovations can affect competitiveness, production and distribution costs, and potentially the demand for certain products and services, thus resulting in considerable uncertainty.

Substitution of existing products and services with lower emissions options: The “existing products and services” as used here refers to the main function of the entity. The risk of substitution for lower emissions options refers to a shift in the use of technologies that results in the reduction of the demand of such a function. For real estate, this refers to the provision of a building for its intended use.

This does not refer to the substitution of lower emissions technologies in the provision of the same core function (see Costs to transition to lower emissions technologies).Examples include, but are not limited to: the risk that specific technological advancements make specific buildings or property types less desirable; remote working technologies leading to the substitution of office space for more distributed, lower-emitting remote or shared office alternatives.

Unsuccessful investment in new technologies: Examples include, but are not limited to: investment into new technology unsuccessful due to difficulty of adoption or more efficient substitutes; unanticipated costs of operation, installation, or permitting; incompatibility with existing building systems or local electric grid operations; underperformance of new technologies compared to expected performance, etc.

Costs to transition to lower emissions technology: Examples include, but are not limited to: costs of the electrification of buildings (e.g., removing gas fired equipment), retrofits, installation of heat exchangers, substitution of facility services for alternatives with lower levels of embodied carbon, etc.

Market risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.

Changing customer behavior: Examples include, but are not limited to: accelerated demand for climate-resilient properties.

Uncertainty in market signals: Examples include, but are not limited to: energy price volatility; insufficient “pricing-in” of climate-related premiums; misguided assessment of industry and competition trends.

Increased cost of raw materials: Examples include, but are not limited to: increased energy prices, increase cost of facility services and retrofit materials.

Reputation risk: The risk around changing customer or community perceptions of an entity’s contribution or detraction from the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Shifts in consumer preferences: This option describes the shift of consumer preferences specifically around the provider of the good or service as a result of that provider’s treatment of climate-related issues. It does not describe an overall or provider-agnostic shift, which would be categorized as Changing customer behavior as described above

Stigmatization of sector: Loss in financial loans or increase in cost of capital due to hesitation about the sector’s general handling of climate-related issues

Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback: Such increased stakeholder concern or negative feedback might not be immediately financially material to an entity, but it signals that it could become so -- in the form of loss in financial loans or increase in cost of capital -- if action is not taken with regard to an entity’s identification, assessment, and management of climate-related issues. Examples include, but are not limited to: Stricter requirements to incorporate climate risk in investment decisions.

References

TCFD. (2017) “Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.”

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of transition risks on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.

Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific risks manifest themselves on business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

1. Demonstrates there is a systematic risk impact assessment process for transition risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
2. Specifically addresses each selected transition risk issue (e.g., policy and legal, technology, market, reputation).

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

• A document describing the entity’s transition risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• An extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk framework or risk management plan addressing transition risks.

Evidence completeness: Evidence is optional for this indicator and not subject to validation. However, if evidence is provided it needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk impact assessment for each issue.

Other: State the other material financial impact resulting from transition risk. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘increased cost of complying with disclosure requirements’ when ‘increased operating costs’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.

Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring in the GRESB Assessment, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate on all of the following requirements:

1. A brief description of the entity’s overall risk management system; and
2. An explanation of how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing transition risks are integrated into this system.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

Not scored, G

This indicator is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Material financial impact: In the context of this indicator, material financial impact is used in accordance with its use by the TCFD to express information about impacts on an entity and its financial manifestations insofar as such information is deemed to be material. As per the TCFD, “in determining whether information is material ... organizations should determine materiality for climate-related issues consistent with how they determine the materiality of other information included in their financial filings.” Furthermore, “asset managers and asset owners should consider materiality in the context of their respective mandates and investment performance for clients and beneficiaries.”

Systematic impact assessment process: A process for assessing the impacts on the business, strategy, financial performance, and/or financial planning of an entity in a way that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can delineate between the magnitude of various impacts. The results of such a process assist in understanding the mechanisms and severity of the potential impacts on the entity, as well as serve as a critical input to the identification and implementation of measures meant to manage risks. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).

Transition risks: The risks associated with the transition to a lower-carbon global economy. These risks most commonly relate to policy and legal developments, technological changes, market responses, and reputational concerns. These risks are particularly relevant for actors with high GHG emissions within their value chain and are thus sensitive to policy and regulatory actions aimed at emissions reductions, energy efficiency, etc.

Policy and legal risk: Policy risk derives from policy action that either tries to constrain actions which contribute to climate change, or to promote adaptation to climate change. Legal risk arises from an increase in climate-related litigation, for instance due to failure of an organisation to properly communicate and account for its interactions with the climate.

Technology risk: New technologies may displace old systems and disrupt existing parts of the economic system. Therefore, technological improvements and innovations can affect competitiveness, production and distribution costs, and potentially the demand for certain products and services, thus resulting in considerable uncertainty.

Market risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.

Reputation risk: Market risk refers to shifts in supply and demand for certain commodities, products, and services due to the broader transition towards a lower-carbon economy.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for identifying physical risks that could be financially material.

A comprehensive system for managing physical risks begins with a systematic process for identifying risks that could be financially material to an entity. Such a process ensures that subsequent risk assessments and analyses are focused on the most relevant risks to which an entity is exposed.

While many traditional physical risk assessments utilize re-analysis methods, it is becoming increasingly important to make use of forward-looking climate-driven models.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

1. Demonstrates there is a systematic risk identification process for physical risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
2. Specifically addresses each selected acute hazards and/or chronic stressor.

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

• A document describing the entity’s physical risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• An extract of a procedure undertaken such as a risk register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk framework or risk management plan addressing physical risks.

Evidence completeness: Evidence is optional for this indicator and not subject to validation. However, if evidence is provided it needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk identification process for each issue.

Other: State the other physical risk issue. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘coastal flooding’ when ‘storm surge’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.

Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring in the GRESB Assessment, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate on all of the following requirements:

1. A description of the entity’s process for prioritizing physical risks;
2. A description of how materiality determinations are made for such risks; and,
3. Where applicable, reference the risks identified in the checkboxes of this indicator.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

Not scored, G

This indicator is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Material financial impact: In the context of this indicator, material financial impact is used in accordance with its use by the TCFD to express information about impacts on an entity and its financial manifestations insofar as such information is deemed to be material. As per the TCFD, “in determining whether information is material ... organizations should determine materiality for climate-related issues consistent with how they determine the materiality of other information included in their financial filings.” Furthermore, “asset managers and asset owners should consider materiality in the context of their respective mandates and investment performance for clients and beneficiaries.”

Systematic risk identification process: A process for identifying risks that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can capture the potential risks that could prove financial material to the entity. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).

Acute hazards: Acute hazards are physical events, such as extreme weather events, that could damage a real asset. They include cyclones, hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. Non-climate-related acute hazards include tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic activity.

Chronic stressors: Chronic stressors are longer-term physical shifts, such as sea level rise or changes in precipitation patterns, that can affect the operations and costs associated therein of an entity and its assets. While such stressors may not have as noticeable impacts as acute hazards within any given year, such longer-term shifts in climate patterns (e.g., sustained higher temperatures) can impact the cost of operations, availability of resources, accessibility of assets, availability of upstream or downstream suppliers, etc.

References

Intent

The intent of this indicator is to assess whether and how the entity uses a systematic approach for assessing the impact of physical risks on the business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity.

Impact assessments are critical to understanding how specific risks manifest themselves on business, operations, and/or financial planning of an entity. The most sophisticated of these assessments address elements of probability and uncertainty, and translate them into financial outcomes that may then be used to inform strategic and tactical decision making.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Evidence (optional): Evidence will not be subject to manual validation for this indicator. Select yes or no. If 'Yes', select all applicable sub-options.

Document upload or hyperlink: The evidence should sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is active and that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. It is possible to upload multiple documents, as long as it’s clear where information can be found.

The provided evidence must cover the following elements:

1. Demonstrates there is a systematic risk impact assessment process for physical risks in place and not simply a generic “climate-related risk” assessment.
2. Specifically addresses each selected material financial impact resulting from physical risk.

Examples of appropriate evidence include, but are not limited to:

• A document describing the entity’s physical risk assessments or other tangible proof of the entity's risk assessment activity.
• Acceptable evidence may include an extract of a procedure undertaken such as register or matrix, checklists, scenario analysis or a section of a risk framework or risk management plan addressing physical risks.

Evidence completeness: Evidence is optional for this indicator and not subject to validation. However, if evidence is provided it needs to be sufficient to verify the existence and scope of the claimed risk impact assessment for each issue.

Other: State the other material financial impact resulting from physical risk. Ensure that the other answer provided is not a duplicate of a selected option above (e.g., ‘increased maintenance’ when ‘increased capital costs’ is selected). It is possible to report multiple other answers.

Open text box requirements: The content of this open text box is manually validated. Note that it is not used for scoring in the GRESB Assessment, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants must use this open text box to communicate on all of the following requirements:

1. A brief description of the entity’s overall risk management system, and
2. An explanation of how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing physical risks are integrated into this system.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

Not scored, G

This indicator is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Material financial impact: In the context of this indicator, material financial impact is used in accordance with its use by the TCFD to express information about impacts on an entity and its financial manifestations insofar as such information is deemed to be material. As per the TCFD, “in determining whether information is material ... organizations should determine materiality for climate-related issues consistent with how they determine the materiality of other information included in their financial filings.” Furthermore, “asset managers and asset owners should consider materiality in the context of their respective mandates and investment performance for clients and beneficiaries.”/p>

Systematic impact assessment process: A process for assessing the impacts on the business, strategy, financial performance, and/or financial planning of an entity in a way that is structured, repeatable, undergone at regular intervals, and designed in such a way that it can delineate between the magnitude of various impacts. The results of such a process assist in understanding the mechanisms and severity of the potential impacts on the entity, as well as serve as a critical input to the identification and implementation of measures meant to manage risks. It may be a standalone process, or it may be a step within another larger risk assessment process. Furthermore, it may leverage quantitative methods (e.g., use of modeling, data analysis, quantitative thresholds) and/or qualitative methods (e.g., expert consultation, working groups).

Direct impacts: Direct damages to assets.

Indirect impacts: Impacts from supply chain disruption, or impacts on the entity’s financial performance based on changes in availability, sourcing and quality of water; food security; and extreme temperature affecting premises, operations, supply chain, transport needs and employee safety.

References

Intent

This indicator examines the types and content of training received by employees responsible for this entity. A more skilled and aware workforce enhances the entity's human capital and may help to improve employee satisfaction. Employee training and development contribute to improved business performance.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Percentage of employees covered: The percentage of employees covered based on headcount for employees responsible for the entity . If the number of employees responsible for the entity changed during the reporting year, calculate the percentage based on the average number.

Both percentages should be calculated based on the following formulas:

Number of employees receiving professional training / Total number of employees x 100%

Number of employees receiving ESG-specific training / Total number of employees x 100%

Training topics: Select the applicable training topics included in the training series during the reporting year.

Validation

This indicator is not subject to automatic or manual validation.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1 point, S

Percentage number: The coverage percentage reported is used as a multiplier to determine the assigned score.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.

Environmental issues: The impact on living and non-living natural systems, including land, air, water and ecosystems. This includes, but is not limited to biodiversity, transport, contamination, GHG emissions, energy, water, waste, natural hazards, supply chain environmental standards, and product and service-related impacts, as well as environmental compliance and expenditures.

ESG-specific training: Training related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.

Governance issues: Governance structure and composition of the entity. This includes how the highest governance body is established and structured in support of the entity’s purpose, and how this purpose relates to economic, environmental and social dimensions.

Professional training: Training related to day-to-day operations, health and safety, specialization career development courses, or related/similar topics. Training can be delivered in person, online or in other formats.

Social issues: Concerns the impacts the entity has on the social systems within which it operates. This includes, but is not limited to community social and economic impacts, safety, health & well-being.

References

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 5.3, Employee Training and development

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 3.3.2, Coverage

Intent

This indicator examines whether and to what extent the entity engages with employees regarding their satisfaction. Employee satisfaction surveys help entities understand critical issues within the business, engage with their staff and increase employee satisfaction, which may contribute to improving retention rates and overall productivity.

Using widely applied employee satisfaction surveys should be translated into easily interpretable metrics that can help analyze and compare outcomes, despite the many variations between departments and teams.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Percentage of employees covered:The percentage of employees covered based on headcount for employees responsible for the entity. If the number of employees responsible for the entity changed during the reporting year, calculate the percentage based on the average number.

Percentage of employees covered = Number of employees receiving the satisfaction survey / Total number of employees x 100%

Survey response rate: Report the proportion of employees that received and completed the survey, compared to the total number of employees that have received the survey expressed as a percentage (see example).

Survey response rate = Number of individual survey responses / Number of employees receiving the satisfaction survey x 100%

Validation

Evidence: Document upload or hyperlink. The evidence must sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

Other: State the other quantitative metric included in the employee satisfaction survey. The other answer must be a measure or parameter in employee satisfaction that can be represented numerically. This can include, but is not limited to, the overall satisfaction with the working conditions. A metric about the survey itself (i.e. user friendliness) is not appropriate. It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1 point, S

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Percentage number: The coverage percentage reported is used as a multiplier to determine the assigned score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.

Employee satisfaction survey: Survey measuring overall and work-specific employee satisfaction at the individual and entity levels. The survey should directly address employee concerns and include the opportunity to provide recommendations for improvement.

Net promoter score: The Net Promoter Score ® (NPS) is a customer loyalty metric developed by Bain & Company, Fred Reichheld, and Satmetrix. It divides customers, tenants or employees into three segments: passives, detractors and promoters, using the following question “On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely would you be to recommend this company (or this product) to friends and colleagues?” The Net Promoter Score ® (NPS) ratings of 9 or 10 indicate promoters; 7 and 8, passives; and 0 through 6, detractors. The NPS is the percentage of promoters minus the percentage detractors.

Overall employee satisfaction score: An overarching metric in a satisfaction survey, with no prescribed scale, that measures how happy an employee is with the entity. The industry best practice is a 1-5 scale - very poor, poor, average, good, and excellent, respectively. Overall engagement score is a separate metric from overall satisfaction score and can be reported as an other answer. While satisfied employees are happy with their current situation, engaged employees proactively help to improve the company and their working environment.

Quantitative metric: Any measure or parameter in employee or tenant satisfaction that can be represented numerically.

Survey response rate: The proportion of substantially complete survey responses received as a percentage of the total number of surveys administered.

References

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, 2016: 102-43, Approach to stakeholder engagement

Bain & Company, Introducing: The Net Promoter System®

Intent

This indicator evaluates an entity’s response to the outcomes of an employee satisfaction survey. Proactive responses demonstrate commitment to the employee engagement process and to developing, maintaining and enhancing employee satisfaction.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Other: State measures/activities that were part of the program. It is possible to report multiple other answers.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1 point, S

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Action Plan: A detailed plan outlining actions needed to enhance tenant satisfaction. An action plan has three major elements (1) Specific tasks: what will be done and by whom; (2) Time horizon: when will it be done; (3) Resource allocation: what specific funds are available for specific activities, and (4) Measurable outcomes.

C-suite level staff/Senior management: A team of individuals who have the day-to-day responsibility of managing the entity. C-suite level staff are sometimes referred to, within corporations, as senior management, executive management, executive leadership team, top management, upper management, higher management, or simply seniors.

Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.

Focus groups: Working groups established to, in this context, focus on improving employee satisfaction.

Implementation: The process of putting the engagement strategy and action plan into effect, i.e. execution.

Planning and preparation for engagement: Formal process where the entity reviews the results of the survey and prepares a document which outlines the engagement plan and strategy based on the outcomes from the survey.

Separate teams/departments: Representatives from different departments and disciplines within the entity.

Intent

This indicator evaluates the presence and extent of an entity’s program for promoting employee health and well-being. A complete process to promote employee health and well-being contains needs assessment, goal setting, action and monitoring. Such a process helps entities take systematic action to create value and manage risks.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Other: State the type of health and well-being check. It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

0.75 points, S

Scoring is based on the number of selected options.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.

Employee surveys on health and well-being: Written documents containing questions covering health and well being indicators or physical inspections on health and well-being issues. Topics covered can include, but are not limited to: personal health and well being, medical assistance at the workplace and housekeeping.

Health and well-being action: Action to promote the health and well-being of a specific population and meet the established health and well-being goals. Actions can be taken through the design, construction and operation of buildings as well as through health programs.

Health and well-being goal setting: The establishment of goals to promote the health and well-being of a specific population. Goals should be informed by the health and well-being needs assessment. Health and well-being goals might be focused on improving specific health determinants (environmental, social) and/or on improving population health outcomes.

Health and well-being monitoring: Mechanism to observe progress made towards achieving the established health and well-being goals for a specific population. This involves monitoring the operational outcomes of an entity’s actions to promote health & well- being of a specific population. Monitoring performance and outcomes provides feedback to understand, implement, and improve the effectiveness of interventions in order to progress towards health and well-being goals.

Health and well-being needs assessment: Process to identify and understand the health and well-being needs of a specific population. The purpose of a needs assessment is to assess the health & well-being status of the relevant population, including both risks and opportunities for improvement, and use this information to prioritize interventions to promote employee health & well-being. The absence of this information increases the likelihood of inefficient or non-targeted actions.

Physical and/or mental health checks: Physical and/or mental assessments of employees by a medical professional. Examples can include, but are not limited to: eye checks, cholesterol and blood pressure monitoring.

Intent

This indicator evaluates the scope and quality of the entity’s employee health and well-being program.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Percentage of employees: The percentage of employees offered to do a check or participate in a survey, etc.

Validation

Other:

1. Other: State the type of needs assessment.
2. Other: State the health and wellbeing topic.
3. Other: State the action to promote health.
4. Other: State the outcome tracking method.

It is possible to report multiple other answers.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1.25 points, S

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Percentage number: The coverage percentage reported is used as a multiplier to determine the assigned score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Access to medical care: Access to health services, including preventive services such as disease screenings and vaccinations. This could include the provision of such services in or around the workplace and/or access to such services through employer-provided or government-provided healthcare programs; as well as, preferentially selecting tenants based on the needs of the surrounding community and/or allowing the entity’s assets to be used for health fairs or expos open to the surrounding community.

Note: offering health insurance to employees can be considered as a form of providing access to physical/mental health care.

Access to mental health care: Access to mental health services, including services such as depression screenings and counseling services. This could include the provision of such services in or around the workplace and/or access to such services through employer-provided or government-provided healthcare programs; as well as, preferentially selecting tenants based on the needs of the surrounding community and/or allowing the entity’s assets to be used for health fairs or expos open to the surrounding community.

Note: offering health insurance to employees can be considered as a form of providing access to physical/mental health care.

Acoustic comfort: Minimizing sound to promote mental well-being and in some instances, physical ear health. This could include building design and materials selection to promote acoustic comfort for users and efforts to protect the ear health of construction and industrial workers as well as mechanisms to limit noise disturbances in communities surrounding the entity’s assets during both construction and operations.

Biophilic design: Design that draws upon the innate connection between humans and nature. This includes direct connections with nature, access to views, place-based design and interior design that includes plants, water and/or symbolic connections to nature through images, colors, and shapes.

Inclusive design: Design that accommodates individuals of different religions, genders and gender identities, ages, ethnicities and ability levels. This could include the provision of multi-faith space, lactation room, age-friendly design and/or accessible design.

Indoor air quality: The physical or biological characteristics of air within buildings. Indoor air quality (IAQ) is typically the product of outdoor quality mediated by the design and operation of building systems.

Indoor environmental quality metrics: Measures of indoor environmental quality including measures of air quality, thermal comfort, acoustics, and lighting.

Mental health and well-being: Mental health is defined as a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community.

Operational performance: Elements of health & well-being observed during the day-to-day operations of a company, fund or asset (e.g., productivity, absenteeism, etc.).

Social and economic determinants of health: Social and economic determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. Relevant examples of social determinants of health include access to healthy foods and opportunities for physical activity. Relevant examples of economic determinants of health include opportunities for employment and education status.

Social health and well being: Social health and well-being relates to feelings of belonging and social inclusion. Determinants of social health and well-being within the built environment include design features meant to promote social cohesion such as common spaces.

Social interaction: The provision of common spaces to promote social cohesion such as a café area, courtyard, garden, and/or activities that promote social interaction such as employee appreciation days, lunchtime policies, community events etc.

Thermal comfort: The thermal environment including air temperature, speed and humidity can impact employee thermal comfort. Research suggests that thermal comfort contributes to employee productivity and well-being.

Intent

This indicator is intended to describe metrics collected by the entity to understand health, safety and productivity of employees. Monitoring and reporting on occupational health and safety is an indicator of good management and allows for a continuous understanding of entity health and safety issues. Maintaining records of the number of incidents among employees over time helps to analyze incidents and to identify areas where improvements are necessary.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Open text box: It is mandatory to use the open text box to explain the applied calculation method/formula and monitoring scope of each of the selected metrics. The calculations should cover events arising from on-site operations, building maintenance and employees commuting to and from their workplace.

Construction works related metrics: Injuries and fatalities (including third-party workers, visitors, members of the public) that occur during construction or major renovation projects should be reported in the Development Component DSE2.2, if applicable.

Validation

Other metrics: State the other indicator monitored. It is possible to report multiple other answers. Other indicators can include the occupational disease rate (ODR), near miss rate, presenteeism rate, and fatalities. It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

0.5 points, S

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Percentage number: The coverage percentage reported is used as a multiplier to determine the assigned score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

Open text box: The open text box is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Absentee rate: A measure of absenteeism expressed as a percentage of total days scheduled to be worked by the workforce during the reporting year.

Employee(s): The entity’s employees whose primary responsibilities include the operation or support of the entity.

Injury rate: A measure of the total number of instances of being injured, (including occupational diseases and occupational disabilities, and fatalities) arising from operations expressed as a percentage of total number of employees.

Lost day rate: A measure of the impact of occupational accidents and diseases as reflected in time off work by the affected workers. It is expressed by comparing the total workdays lost due to occupational injury to the total number of hours scheduled to be worked by the workforce during the reporting year.

Workstation checks: Assessment of employee workstations (immediate working environment including desks, IT and other office equipment) performed to monitor compliance with health and safety requirements. The checks can either be performed internally or by independent third parties.

References

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment, 2017: 3.5.2, Risk Culture

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, 2016: 403-2

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 5.6 H&S-Employee Health and Safety

Intent

This indicator identifies the metrics used by the entity to monitor diversity at governance and workforce level. Diversity of boards of directors has become a clear priority for investors and is considered to positively impact investment decisions and increases the entity's competitiveness.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Open text box: The content of this open text box is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report. Participants should use this open text box to communicate on the following:

• Supporting narrative to add context to the information provided;
• Challenges the entity faces in addressing diversity gaps;
• Policies and targets to strengthen diversity in the long-term;
• Any other relevant information, monitoring processes, and/or calculation methods.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Validation

Evidence: Document upload or hyperlink. The evidence must sufficiently support all the items selected for this question. If a hyperlink is provided, ensure that it is not outdated and the relevant page can be accessed within two steps.

The provided evidence must indicate that the inclusion and diversity metrics were monitored for the selected parties. This can be through visual representations of data, excerpts from ESG reports, internal tracking mechanisms, internal data reports, etc. In addition to the metrics and data relevant to the selected parties,. a formal narrative on corporate letterhead describing the monitoring processes of the selected metrics can be provided to meet the requirements. Note that sensitive information may be redacted from the documents as long as the requirements outlined above are clearly met.

Scoring

0.5 points, S

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

Open text box: The open text box is not scored and is for reporting purposes only.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Age group distribution: Percentage of a population, at each age.

Board tenure: Refers to the period or term of an entity’s board of directors.

Gender pay gap:Calculated measure of difference of average hourly earnings between men and women. Disclosing gender breakdown and pay together without a calculation of the gap is not equivalent.

Gender ratio: Proportion of one gender to another in a given population.

Governance body: Committee or board responsible for the strategic guidance of the entity, the effective monitoring of management, and the accountability of management to the broader organization and its stakeholders. Examples of governance bodies may include Board of Directors and Non-Executive Directors.

International background: Workforce that comes from a foreign country, meaning it is different than the entity's headquarters.

Socioeconomic background: Combined measure of sociological and economic background of a person. Examples of relevant metrics include, but are not limited to, employees’ governance body members’ educational background.

References

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 5.1, Diversity-Employee gender diversity

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (2016): 102-22

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017: 3.1.3, Diversity Policy

Intent

This indicator describes the management practices and requirements the entity uses to manage supply chain risks. The procurement process is an effective way to integrate the entity’s sustainability-specific requirements into their supply chain. This indicator applies to existing and new contracts.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Other: .

1. Other: State the other element of the supply chain engagement program;
2. Other: State the other topic included in requirements, and/or;
3. Other: State the other party to whom the requirements apply to. Tenants will not be considered a valid other answer.

It is possible to report multiple other answers for the above sub-options. If multiple answers are acceptable, only one per sub-option will be counted towards scoring.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1.5 points, S

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Action Plan: A detailed plan outlining actions needed to enhance tenant satisfaction. An action plan has three major elements (1) Specific tasks: what will be done and by whom; (2) Time horizon: when will it be done; (3) Resource allocation: what specific funds are available for specific activities, and (4) Measurable outcomes.

Business Ethics: Basic moral and legal principles used to address issues such as corporate governance, insider trading, bribery, discrimination, corporate social responsibility and fiduciary responsibilities.

Child labor: Work that children should not be doing because they are too young, or, if they have reached the minimum age, because it is dangerous or otherwise unsuitable for them.

Contractors: Organizations or persons working on-site or off-site on behalf of an entity with a relationship determined by a contract, including property managers. A contractor may hire their own staff directly or hire sub-contractors or independent contractors.

Environmental process standards: Minimum standards required during the procurement process in relation to environmental processes, such as requirements for disposal of waste generated by contractors.

Environmental product standards: Minimum standards required during the procurement process in relation to environmental products, such as requiring a certain percentage of products to be locally sourced or contain recycled content.

ESG-specific requirements: Includes specification and use of sustainable and energy efficient materials, systems, equipment and onsite operating practices, e.g. regarding access to the site, environmental impact, community impact, health and safety, etc..

Health and safety: employees The health and safety of employees responsible for the entity.

Health and well-being: “Health is a complete state of physical, mental and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”(WHO). Health & well-being is impacted by genetics and individual behavior as well as environmental conditions. Particularly relevant to GRESB stakeholders are the social determinants of health, which are the “conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live and age, and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life.” These are the conditions that enable or discourage healthy living. This could include issues such as physical activity, healthy eating, equitable workplaces, maternity and paternity leave, access to healthcare, reduction in toxic exposures, etc.

Human health-based product standards: Minimum standards for the health-related attributes of products, such as lists of prohibited chemicals.

Human rights: Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever their nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language or any other status.

Suppliers: Organizations or persons that provide a product or service used in the supply chain.

References

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, 2016: 204-1; 308, Supplier environmental assessment; GRI 414, Supplier social Assessment

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment, 2017: 3.5.2 Risk Exposure

Intent

This indicator examines the methods used by a participant to monitor property/asset managers’ compliance with the participant’s ESG-specific requirements. Monitoring compliance ensures that property/asset managers are held accountable for implementing ESG requirements as set out by the entity.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Other: State the other method used for monitoring. It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring.

Professional standard: If ‘require alignment with a professional standard’ is selected, state the professional standard. It is possible to report multiple standards.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1 point, S

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

External property/asset managers: Organizations or persons to which participants outsource some or all of their property and asset management functions.

Internal property/asset managers: The part of the entity or persons that is/are responsible for the entity’s property and asset management functions.

Monitoring of property managers: Performance evaluation and incentives put in place for property managers to employ sustainable processes in their day-to-day work.

Property/asset manager ESG training: A formal and structured training program addressing ESG-related issues and opportunities for action.

Regular meetings with property/asset managers: Meetings with property/asset managers that take place at least four times per year, addressing ESG-specific requirements in place.

References

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, 2016: GRI 308; GRI 414; 414-1; 412-1

Intent

This indicator examines the methods used by a participant to monitor external suppliers’ and/or service providers’ compliance with the participants ESG-specific requirements. This indicator refers to suppliers other than the property / asset managers covered in SE7.1.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Other: State the other method used for monitoring. It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring.

Professional standard: If ‘require alignment with a professional standard’ is selected, state the professional standard. It is possible to report multiple standards.

See Appendix 2a for additional information about GRESB Validation.

Scoring

1 point, S

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Checks by the entity’s employees or by external property/asset managers: Formal, structured checks that assess the compliance with sustainability-specific requirements in place for that supplier.

ESG-specific requirements: Includes specification and use of sustainable and energy efficient materials, systems, equipment and onsite operating practices, e.g. regarding access to the site, environmental impact, community impact, health and safety, etc..

Monitoring of external suppliers and/or service providers: Performance evaluation and incentives in place for direct external suppliers and/or service providers to employ ESG related processes in their day-to-day work.

Regular meetings with suppliers: Meetings with suppliers that take place at least four times per year, addressing sustainability-specific requirements in place for that supplier.

Update reports: Written reports received from suppliers that address compliance with the sustainability-specific requirements in place for that supplier.

References

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, 2016: GRI 308; GRI 414; 414-1; 412-1

RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment, 2017: 3.5.2, Risk Exposure

Intent

This indicator identifies the existence of a grievance mechanism at the reporting entity. An entity’s procurement decisions and activities can lead to significant negative sustainability impacts in the supply chain, including human rights violations, even when entities operate optimally. Grievance mechanisms play an important role to provide access to remedy and reflect an entity’s commitment to ESG management. An entity should establish a mechanism for stakeholders in the supply chain to bring this to the attention of the entity and seek redress.

Requirements

Select yes or no. If yes, select all applicable sub-options.

Validation

Other:

1. Other: State the other method used for the grievance process. It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring.
2. Other: State the other stakeholder group that the grievance process applies to. It is possible to report multiple other answers. If multiple other answers are acceptable, only one will be counted towards scoring.

Scoring

0.5 points, S

Scoring is based on the number of selected options. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and points are contingent on the validation decision.

See the Scoring Document for additional information on scoring.

Terminology

Accessible and easy to understand: Known to all stakeholder groups and providing adequate assistance for those who may face particular barriers to access (e.g. 24/7 availability, simple language).

Anonymous: Made or done by someone whose name is not known or not made public.

Contractors: Organizations or persons working on-site or off-site on behalf of an entity with a relationship determined by a contract, including property managers. A contractor may hire their own staff directly or hire sub-contractors or independent contractors.

Dialogue based: Looks for mutually agreed solutions through engagement between parties.

Equitable & rights compatible: Ensure that parties have reasonable access to sources of information, advice and expertise necessary to engage in a grievance process on fair, informed and respectful terms (e.g. independent review). In addition, ensure that outcomes accord with international norms of behavior.

Grievance mechanism: Formal, legal or non-legal (or ‘judicial/non-judicial’) complaint process that can be used by individuals, communities and/or civil society entities that are being negatively affected by certain business activities and operations. The process enables the complaining party to flag an issue, seek redress and remedy.

Improvement based: Drawing on relevant measures to identify lessons for improving the mechanism and preventing future harms.

Legitimate & safe: Enable trust from stakeholder groups and protect stakeholders from potential threats and retaliations through a secure, anonymous, independent and two-way communication system.

Predictable: Provide a clear procedure with an indicative time frame for each stage, and clarity on the types of process and outcome available.

Special interest groups: Organization with a shared interest or characteristic (e.g. trade unions, non-governmental organizations).

Stakeholder group(s) involved: State all the stakeholder group(s) addressed by this action. Examples of applicable stakeholder groups include: Employees, Contractors, Clients/Customers, Community/Public, Suppliers, Investors, Regulators/Government, Representative and Special Interest groups (e.g. NGOs, Trade Unions, etc), Industry and professional associations, etc.

Suppliers: Organizations or persons that provide a product or service used in the supply chain.

Transparent: Keep parties informed about the progress.

References

ISO 20400, 2017: Sustainable Procurement

UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Human Rights and Grievance Mechanism

GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, 2016: 103-2, The management approach and its components

Intent

Portfolio composition determines the scope of the Performance Component, and forms the basis for entity classification and GRESB peer group allocation. In this context, GRESB aims to benchmark participants within similar property types. If that is not possible, property types are aggregated into groups of property types with similar characteristics (property sectors). It is therefore essential that the portfolio boundaries reported by the entity are accurate and complete to ensure relevant outcomes and comparisons.

Refer to Appendix 3b Peer Group Allocation Methodology for more information on the GRESB Peer Group Allocation.

Requirements

Participants are required to define their portfolio composition at the asset level using the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. See tab “Instructions” for detailed guidance on how to interpret and complete each field and tab “Data dictionary” for specific terminology. Extended guidance on how to upload the Asset Spreadsheet into the Asset Portal is available here.

The table in R1.1 is automatically populated once the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet is completed and uploaded to the Asset Portal, with the exception of the “% GAV” column, which will need to be manually completed for each property sub-type.

It is recommended to:

• Prepare and upload your Asset-level Spreadsheet into your Assessment;
• Solve all warnings and errors;
• Complete the potential missing fields in R1.1 (i.e. “% GAV”);
• Review all fields in R1.1 to ensure the table is accurate and complete;
• Provide evidence to confirm the portfolio composition, including any acquisitions and dispositions during the reporting year.

Entities reporting to GRESB are expected to represent the full investable vehicle and thereby must include all direct real estate assets held by the vehicle (i.e., the whole portfolio) at any time during the reporting year. Note that this also includes assets that are not under the direct control of the entity, assets that are owned under a joint venture, and/or assets that may not be recorded as physical assets on the entity’s balance-sheet (e.g., structured as financial lease).

Refer to section Reporting Scope and Boundaries of this document for guidance on joint ventures.

Participants are required to corroborate information in the table through the upload of supporting evidence in an explicit way, to avoid confusion and room for interpretation. It should be clear from the uploaded document how the table is reconciled with the supporting evidence. Use the open text box to describe the nature and/or purpose of the document uploaded and communicate all relevant information necessary to understand the reconciliation. To support their reconciliation, participants are encouraged to upload an additional excel file to clearly demonstrate how the uploaded evidence corroborates the values in table R1.1.

Situations where the supporting evidence could be inconsistent with the aggregation table include, but are not limited to:

• The supporting evidence provides the size of the portfolio in LFA (lettable floor area), while the R1.1 table displays the aggregate GFA (gross floor area) - e.g. the reported floor area (GFA) of asset A in GRESB is 10,000 m2, and the supporting evidence only displays its LFA of 8,000 m2. Participants should use the open text box to justify the difference between the floor area sizes.
• The portfolio includes mixed use assets broken down by property type in the asset reporting - e.g. an asset has ten office floors on top of a retail floor and the spaces are submetered. The participant can list the same asset (address) twice in the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet; once for retail and once for office. Once aggregated, the R1.1 table will display one retail asset and one office asset, but the supporting evidence only confirms the existence of a mixed asset. Participants should use the open text box to justify the difference in the number of assets and property types.
• The entity uses a different property type classification than GRESB. The GRESB property type structure follows a three-level hierarchy where a Property Sector contains multiple Property Types, further refined into multiple Property Sub-Types (see Appendix 3a). If this classification differs from the supporting evidence used to corroborate table R1.1, this may lead to inconsistencies in terms of classification granularity and/or terminology. For example, an entity owning 5 Industrial; Distribution Warehouses and 8 Industrial; Manufacturing assets could have all its 13 assets classified as Industrial. Participants should use the open text box to justify the difference in the number of assets and property types.

Validation

Evidence: Document upload is mandatory for this indicator. The evidence must sufficiently support each of the values except “% GAV” reported in R1.1, namely:

• Property Sub-Types represented in the portfolio;
• Numbers of assets per Property Sub-Type;
• Floor Area per Property Sub-Type

The supporting evidence must be a document that was not prepared solely for the purpose of reporting to GRESB (except the signed statement - see below). Evidence examples can include, but are not limited to:

• Full audited financial statements with reference to balance-sheet and relevant notes breaking down the entity’s portfolio characteristics;
• Section in entity reporting to investors. Extracts that do not demonstrate the overall size of the portfolio will not be accepted;
• Audit statements confirming the composition of the portfolio during the reporting year, including acquisitions and dispositions;
• Signed statement from CEO or Senior Management confirming that the portfolio composition reported above is truthful, accurate and complete and it represents the entire portfolio during the reporting year. Statements signed by Assistant Fund Managers or Deputy Fund Managers are not sufficient. The statement should specifically list all property sub-types, total number of assets and floor area size by property sub-type. To support participants with the validation process, GRESB provides a template statement that can be completed and uploaded. See Appendix 2c;
• 10K filings.

Multiple documents can be uploaded. For each evidence uploaded, make sure to clearly indicate where (page number, paragraph) the relevant information can be found.

GRESB reserves the right to use alternative sources of information to corroborate the composition of the portfolio, such as publicly available reports and uploaded documentation in other sections of the GRESB Assessment. Non-compliance with the GRESB reporting requirements may lead to a formal request from the Validation Team to adjust the entity’s portfolio boundaries, or the rejection of the Performance Component submission if necessary (see below).

GRESB is amending the scope of the Validation Interview process to be limited to a manual check of the reporting boundaries. This is performed by SRI for a subset of participants that submit a Real Estate Performance Component response.

Timeline:

June 15: The selected participants are notified by GRESB that they have been selected for a reporting boundaries review which will occur beginning of July (or earlier if the participant submits prior to July 1). There is no action needed from the participant at that time. The selection is based on parameters set by GRESB such as listed vs. non-listed entity, increase/decrease in GAV, asset count and/or floor area year over year. A subset of participants who did not supply sufficient documentation in the previous year may be selected for another review.

July 1: The Reporting Boundaries review commences.

July 10: All selected participants are emailed by SRI.

• Participants showing discrepancy will be asked for additional clarifications and / or to make corrections to their reporting scope. They have 5 working days to respond and resolve the request. Non-compliance will lead to the rejection of the Performance Component submission and will result in not being provided with a GRESB Score and GRESB Rating.
• Participants with sufficient documentation will be contacted with a confirmation email.

July 31: The Reporting Boundaries review is concluded.

Terminology

Percentage (%) GAV: Report the portfolio’s property sub-type diversification by fraction of total GAV or net operating income (NOI). The GAV value for this indicator should be calculated as the GAV of standing investments at the end of the reporting year. If an asset was sold during the reporting year, its GAV should represent the value on the disposition date.

References

EPRA Best Practices Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting, 3rd version, September 2017: 5.1, Organisational Boundaries; 5.2, Coverage; 5.7,Analysis-Segmental Analysis

INREV Reporting Guidelines

INREV Standard Data Delivery Sheet (SDDS)

Intent

The reporting of the entity’s assets by country along with their percentage of GAV are used by GRESB to create country and regional peer groups.

Requirements

Participants are required to define their portfolio composition at the asset-level through the completion of the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. See tab Instructions for detailed guidance on how to interpret and complete each field.

Note that all fields in R1.1 will be automatically populated once the GRESB Asset Spreadsheetis completed and uploaded to the Asset Portal, with the exception of the “% GAV” column, which will need to be manually completed for each property type.

It is recommended to:

• Prepare and upload your Asset-level Spreadsheet into your online Assessment;
• Solve any warnings and errors;
• Complete any potential missing fields in R1.2 (i.e. “% GAV”);
• Review all fields in R1.2 to ensure the table is accurate and complete.