The score of this indicator equals the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. the number of ESG objectives multiplied by the evidence score;
2. the integration of the objective(s) into the business strategy;
3. the public availability of the objectives multiplied by the evidence score.

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

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

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

The scoring of this indicator is the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. the existence of predetermined consequences of performance targets (financial or non-financial).
2. the group(s) of employees that the targets apply

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

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

Each form of ESG disclosure method is assigned with a maximum number of points respectively achieved by:

1. the third-party alignment of the report (if applicable)

   Alignment: the alignment standard and the corresponding evidence must be accepted during the validation process to receive a score.

2. the reporting level (three reporting levels - Entity, Investment manager, Group - are mutually exclusive).
3. the validation status of the corresponding evidence

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

In order to achieve points for any of the checkboxes above, the number of points received in the corresponding section in PD5.1 must be higher than 0. Each response is validated using the evidence uploaded in PD5.1.

The scoring of this indicator is the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. the level of the third-party data review
2. the verification/assurnace standard scheme (if applicable)

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Scheme name: Scheme name must be accepted during the validation process to receive its associated score.

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

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

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

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

This indicator is linked to PD3. In order to achieve points for this indicator, the number of points received in PD3 must be higher than 0.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

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

The question on third-party standard alignment of the risk assessments is not scored.

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

Each type of technical building assessment is assigned with a maximum number of points achieved by:

1. the nature of the assessment (in-house or external assessment)
2. the percentage of portfolio covered

   Percentage number: The score assigned to the coverage percentage number reported above is multiplied by the relative factor associated with the relevant quartile as per the table below:

   Quantile	Score
   0%	0/4
   < 0%, 25% >	1/4
   [ 25%, 50% >	2/4
   [ 50%, 75% >	3/4
   [ 75%, 100% ]	4/4

3. the validation status of the corresponding evidence

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Each measure is assigned a maximum of 1.5 points, multiplied by a factor associated with the percentage of portfolio covered during the last 4 years. Percentage is provided by selecting one of four drop down menu options. The score given for each coverage percentage drop down option is described in the table below:

The score of each mesure is finally aggregated to determine the score of this indicator.

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

Each measure is assigned a maximum of 1.25 points, multiplied by a factor associated with the percentage of portfolio covered during the last 4 years. Percentage is provided by selecting one of four drop down menu options. The score given for each coverage percentage drop down option is described in the table below:

The score of each mesure is finally aggregated to determine the score of this indicator.

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

Each measure is assigned a maximum of 0.5 points, multiplied by a factor associated with the percentage of portfolio covered during the last 4 years. Percentage is provided by selecting one of four drop down menu options. The score given for each coverage percentage drop down option is described in the table below:

The score of each mesure is finally aggregated to determine the score of this indicator.

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

This indicator consists of three mutually exclusive options:

1. An externally certified EMS has a maximum score of 3 points;
2. An EMS that is aligned with an accepted standard, but is not externally certified, has a maximum score of 2.5 points;
3. An EMS that is not aligned with a standard nor certified externally has a maximum score of 1.5 points

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

The scoring of this indicator is the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. the type of the system;
   • If the DMS is an external system, the name of the system must be provided in the text box.

     Text Box: The text box response is validated, and its score is determined by the validation status according to the table below:

     Validation status	Score
     Accepted	1
     Not accepted/not provided	0

2. the performance indicators included in the system.

   • Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

   • The percentage of portfolio covered by each checkbox option does not affect the score.

Scores of section 1 and 2 above are then aggregated and capped at 4 points

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Percentage number: The score assigned to the coverage percentage number reported above is multiplied by the relative factor associated with the relevant quartile as per the table below:

Percentage of whole portfolio covered by floor area is not used for scoring but for reporting purpose only.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Percentage number: The score assigned to the coverage percentage number reported above is multiplied by the relative factor associated with the relevant quartile as per the table below:

Percentage of whole portfolio covered by floor area is not used for scoring but for reporting purpose only.

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

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

The score of this indicator equals the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. Data coverage = 8 points;
2. Like-for-Like performance improvement = 2 points.
3. Like-for-Like data availability = 0.5 points;
4. Asset-level data reporting = 1.5 points;

Data coverage:

Data coverage percentages are calculated and scored separately against different benchmarks for landlord and tenant obtained data for each property type, where "landlord obtained" and "tenant obtained" are defined as:

• Landlord obtained data:
• Managed Assets: Base Building, Tenant Space purchased by Landlord, and Whole Building.
• Tenant obtained data:
• Managed Assets: Tenant space purchased by tenant;
• Indirectly Managed Assets: Whole building.

Benchmarks are constructed by following the steps below:

1. Check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater than 0% and less than 100% within the same region. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
2. If the step above failed, check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater 0% and less than 100% across regions. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
3. If the step above failed, use static cut-off points of 25%, 50% and 75% to make the benchmark.

Referring to the three benchmark numbers as b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3, these numbers are used to split the coverage percentages between 0% and 100% into four intervals. The score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their coverage percentage lands in, unless they had a coverage percentage of 0% or 100% in which case they will always receive a specfic score. The relationship between coverage percentages and scores is described in the table below:

The resulting scores are then aggregated to a single score using a weighted mean with weights determined by floor area, except for base building and tenant space for which base building has a static weight of 40% and tenant space has a static weight of 60%. As tenant space has both a landlord obtained and a tenant obtained section the 60% weight has to be shared between the two which is done based on relative floor area. If a respondent reports on both base building pluss tenant space and whole building, then base building pluss tenant space is given a weight based on floor area which is then split further based on the 40% - 60% weights.

Like-for-Like performance improvement:

Like-for-Like performance is scored based on the percentage change in consumption using a methodology identical to the scoring of data coverage, except for that having a lower value (for example a negative one) which ends up in a lower quartile will always result in a higher or equal score, and that scores are aggregated using Like-for-Like consumption in the previous year as weights instead of area. If the GRESB reporting universe does not contain a sufficient number of peers to construct a global benchmark (minimum of 12), the benchmark will use a static model with cut off points at: -5%, -2.5% and 0%.

We will refer to the three benchmark numbers b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3. These will be used to split the LFL percentage changes into four intervals. As for data coverage the score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their LFL percentage change lands in, but how many points are given for each interval depends on the relationship between the mean, median and 0 percentage change. Which percentage change results in which score depending on the different relationships between the mean, median and 0 percentage change are described in the tables below:

Like-for-Like data availability:

Points for Like-for-Like data availability are given if any Like-for-Like data is provided and not excluded in the GRESB outlier check.

Note: data reported for the outdoor area is included in the Like-for-Like scoring and outlier check but excluded from the data coverage scoring.

Asset-level data reporting:

Points relating to asset-level data reporting are granted if participants report their energy consumption values at asset-level.

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

Outlier checks:

GRESB performs two outlier checks for the data provided in this indicator, one based on the energy consumption intensity per square meter and one based on the percentage change in like-for-like consumption.

Intensity outliers:

For intensities, GRESB checks whether the reported values result in an intensity outside a range of expected values. If the value is outside that range, then the respondent is requested to provide an explanation for why their data is abnormal and this explanation is then checked in combination with statistics on the distribution of intensities for the same property type. If the explanation is not accepted, then the respondent will be scored as if they didn't provide the data associated with the explanation.

Like-for-like outliers:

For like-for-like changes, GRESB checks whether the provided values result in absolute percentage changes greater than a threshold between 10% and 20% depending on the like-for-like values reported for the previous year. Higher values result in a lower threshold for what is deemed abnormal. As for intensities, if an outlier is flagged the respondent is prompted to explain the abnormal value and the explanation is then checked in combination with statistics on like-for-like changes for the given property type. Data associated with explanations which are not accepted are treated as if they were not provided for all scoring purposes.

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

The scoring of this indicator is the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. Reporting intensity data for the current reporting year;
2. Number of selected intensity normalization factor.

   • Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

   • The checkbox "None of the above" is not scored.

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

The scoring of this indicator is split into two parts. The first part can result in a maximum of 2/3 of the maximum score. This is achieved if any on-site renewable energy was generated in the current year. If this is not the case, but some off-site renewable energy was generated in the current year, then 1/3 of the maximum score is achieved instead.

The remaining 1/3 of the maximum score is given based on the percentage renewable energy in the current year and the improvement compared to the previous year. These two elements are combined using the following formula, where p is the percentage renewable energy and i is the improvement score:

Score = (100 + p) / 200 * p / 100 + (100 - p) / 200 * i

The improvement score is calculated based on the improvement in the percentage renewable energy compared to the previous year, if there was one. The improvement is compared against a benchmark based on the improvements of other respondents which is constructed by following the steps below:

1. Check if there are at least 12 respondents with improvements (changes greater than 0%) within the same property type and region. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
2. If the step above failed, check if there are at least 12 respondents with improvements within the property type across all regions. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
3. If the step above failed, check if there are at least 12 respondents with improvements across all property types within the same region. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
4. If the step above failed, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of the percentage improvements across all regions and property types.

Referring to the three benchmark numbers as b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3, these numbers are used to split the improvement percentages into four intervals. The score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their improvement percentage lands in. The relationship between improvement percentages and scores is described in the table below:

The scoring of this indicator is the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. the level of the third-party data review
2. the verification/assurnace standard scheme (if applicable)

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Scheme name: Scheme name must be accepted during the validation process to receive its associated score.

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

The score of this indicator equals the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. Data coverage = 2 points;
2. Like-for-Like performance improvement = 1 points.
3. Asset-level data reporting = 0.5 points;

Data coverage:

Data coverage percentages are calculated and scored separately against different benchmarks for scope 1, 2 and 3.

Benchmarks are constructed by following the steps below:

1. Check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater than 0% and less than 100% within the same region. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
2. If the step above failed, check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater 0% and less than 100% across regions. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
3. If the step above failed, use static cut-off points of 25%, 50% and 75% to make the benchmark.

Referring to the three benchmark numbers as b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3, these numbers are used to split the coverage percentages between 0% and 100% into four intervals. The score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their coverage percentage lands in, unless they had a coverage percentage of 0% or 100% in which case they will always receive a specfic score. The relationship between coverage percentages and scores is described in the table below:

The resulting scores for each scope are aggregated to a single score using a weighted mean using the maximum data coverages as weights.

Like-for-Like performance improvement:

Like-for-Like performance is scored based on the percentage change in consumption using a methodology identical to the scoring of data coverage, except for that having a lower value (for example a negative one) which ends up in a lower quartile will always result in a higher or equal score, and that scores are aggregated using Like-for-Like consumption in the previous year as weights instead of area. If the GRESB reporting universe does not contain a sufficient number of peers to construct a global benchmark (minimum of 12), the benchmark will use a static model with cut off points at: -5%, -2.5% and 0%.

We will refer to the three benchmark numbers b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3. These will be used to split the LFL percentage changes into four intervals. As for data coverage the score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their LFL percentage change lands in, but how many points are given for each interval depends on the relationship between the mean, median and 0 percentage change. Which percentage change results in which score depending on the different relationships between the mean, median and 0 percentage change are described in the tables below:

Asset-level data reporting:

Points relating to the asset-level data reporting are granted if participants report their GHG emissions at asset-level.

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

Outlier checks:

GRESB performs two outlier checks for the data provided in this indicator, one based on the GHG emissions intensity per square meter and one based on the percentage change in like-for-like consumption.

Intensity outliers:

For intensities, GRESB checks whether the reported values result in an intensity outside a range of expected values. If the value is outside that range, then the respondent is requested to provide an explanation for why their data is abnormal and this explanation is then checked in combination with statistics on the distribution of intensities for the same property type. If the explanation is not accepted, then the respondent will be scored as if they didn't provide the data associated with the explanation.

Like-for-like outliers:

For like-for-like changes, GRESB checks whether the provided values result in absolute percentage changes greater than a threshold between 10% and 20% depending on the like-for-like values reported for the previous year. Higher values result in a lower threshold for what is deemed abnormal. As for intensities, if an outlier is flagged the respondent is prompted to explain the abnormal value and the explanation is then checked in combination with statistics on like-for-like changes for the given property type. Data associated with explanations which are not accepted are treated as if they were not provided for all scoring purposes.

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

The scoring of this indicator is the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. Reporting intensity data for the current reporting year;
2. Number of selected intensity normalization factor.

   • Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

   • The checkbox "None of the above" is not scored.

The scoring of this indicator is the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. the level of the third-party data review
2. the verification/assurnace standard scheme (if applicable)

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Scheme name: Scheme name must be accepted during the validation process to receive its associated score.

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

The score of this indicator equals the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. Data coverage = 2 points;
2. Like-for-Like performance improvement = 1 points.
3. Asset-level data reporting = 0.5 points;

Data coverage:

Data coverage percentages are calculated and scored separately against different benchmarks for landlord and tenant obtained data for each property type, where "landlord obtained" and "tenant obtained" are defined as:

• Landlord obtained data:
• Managed Assets: Base Building, Tenant Space purchased by Landlord, and Whole Building.
• Tenant obtained data:
• Managed Assets: Tenant space purchased by tenant;
• Indirectly Managed Assets: Whole building.

Benchmarks are constructed by following the steps below:

1. Check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater than 0% and less than 100% within the same region. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
2. If the step above failed, check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater 0% and less than 100% across regions. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
3. If the step above failed, use static cut-off points of 25%, 50% and 75% to make the benchmark.

Referring to the three benchmark numbers as b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3, these numbers are used to split the coverage percentages between 0% and 100% into four intervals. The score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their coverage percentage lands in, unless they had a coverage percentage of 0% or 100% in which case they will always receive a specfic score. The relationship between coverage percentages and scores is described in the table below:

The resulting scores are then aggregated to a single score using a weighted mean with weights determined by floor area, except for base building and tenant space for which base building has a static weight of 40% and tenant space has a static weight of 60%. As tenant space has both a landlord obtained and a tenant obtained section the 60% weight has to be shared between the two which is done based on relative floor area. If a respondent reports on both base building pluss tenant space and whole building, then base building pluss tenant space is given a weight based on floor area which is then split further based on the 40% - 60% weights.

Like-for-Like performance improvement:

Like-for-Like performance is scored based on the percentage change in consumption using a methodology identical to the scoring of data coverage, except for that having a lower value (for example a negative one) which ends up in a lower quartile will always result in a higher or equal score, and that scores are aggregated using Like-for-Like consumption in the previous year as weights instead of area. If the GRESB reporting universe does not contain a sufficient number of peers to construct a global benchmark (minimum of 12), the benchmark will use a static model with cut off points at: -5%, -2.5% and 0%.

We will refer to the three benchmark numbers b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3. These will be used to split the LFL percentage changes into four intervals. As for data coverage the score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their LFL percentage change lands in, but how many points are given for each interval depends on the relationship between the mean, median and 0 percentage change. Which percentage change results in which score depending on the different relationships between the mean, median and 0 percentage change are described in the tables below:

Asset-level data reporting:

Points relating to the asset-level data reporting are granted if participants report their water consumption values at asset-level.

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

Outlier checks:

GRESB performs two outlier checks for the data provided in this indicator, one based on the water consumption intensity per square meter and one based on the percentage change in like-for-like consumption.

Intensity outliers:

For intensities, GRESB checks whether the reported values result in an intensity outside a range of expected values. If the value is outside that range, then the respondent is requested to provide an explanation for why their data is abnormal and this explanation is then checked in combination with statistics on the distribution of intensities for the same property type. If the explanation is not accepted, then the respondent will be scored as if they didn't provide the data associated with the explanation.

Like-for-like outliers:

For like-for-like changes, GRESB checks whether the provided values result in absolute percentage changes greater than a threshold between 10% and 20% depending on the like-for-like values reported for the previous year. Higher values result in a lower threshold for what is deemed abnormal. As for intensities, if an outlier is flagged the respondent is prompted to explain the abnormal value and the explanation is then checked in combination with statistics on like-for-like changes for the given property type. Data associated with explanations which are not accepted are treated as if they were not provided for all scoring purposes.

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

The scoring of this indicator is the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. Reporting intensity data for the current reporting year;
2. Number of selected intensity normalization factor.

   • Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

   • The checkbox "None of the above" is not scored.

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

The scoring of this indicator is split into two parts. The first part can result in a maximum of 2/3 of the maximum score. This is achieved if any on-site water reuse and recycling data is enerated for the current year.

The remaining 1/3 of the maximum score is given based on the percentage reused and recycled water in the current year and the improvement compared to the previous year. These two elements are combined using the following formula, where p is the percentage reused and recycled water and i is the improvement score:

Score = (100 + p) / 200 * p / 100 + (100 - p) / 200 * i

The improvement score is calculated based on the improvement in the percentage reused and recycled water compared to the previous year, if there was one. The improvement is compared against a benchmark based on the improvements of other respondents which is constructed by following the steps below:

1. Check if there are at least 12 respondents with improvements (changes greater than 0%) within the same property type and region. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
2. If the step above failed, check if there are at least 12 respondents with improvements within the property type across all regions. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
3. If the step above failed, check if there are at least 12 respondents with improvements across all property types within the same region. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
4. If the step above failed, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of the percentage improvements across all regions and property types.

Referring to the three benchmark numbers as b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3, these numbers are used to split the improvement percentages into four intervals. The score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their improvement percentage lands in. The relationship between improvement percentages and scores is described in the table below:

The scoring of this indicator is the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. the level of the third-party data review
2. the verification/assurnace standard scheme (if applicable)

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Scheme name: Scheme name must be accepted during the validation process to receive its associated score.

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

The score of this indicator equals the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. Data coverage = 1.5 points;
2. Proportion of waste diverted = 1.5 points.
3. Asset-level data reporting = 0.25 points;

Data coverage:

Data coverage percentages for the current year are scored sepataly against different benchmarks for directly and indirectly managed assets for each property type.

Benchmarks are constructed by following the steps below:

1. Check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater than 0% and less than 100% within the same region. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
2. If the step above failed, check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater 0% and less than 100% across regions. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
3. If the step above failed, use static cut-off points of 25%, 50% and 75% to make the benchmark.

Referring to the three benchmark numbers as b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3, these numbers are used to split the coverage percentages between 0% and 100% into four intervals. The score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their coverage percentage lands in, unless they had a coverage percentage of 0% or 100% in which case they will always receive a specfic score. The relationship between coverage percentages and scores is described in the table below:

The resulting scores are then aggregated to a single score using a weighted mean with weights determined by the reported percentage of indirectly managed area from RC5.1.

Proportion of waste diverted:

The percetange of waste diverted (total) for the current reporting year is scored the same way as data coverage, except that there is only one benchmark and one score for each property type as this number is not reported separately for directly and indirectly managed assets.

Asset-level data reporting:

Points relating to the asset-level data reporting are granted if participants report their waste consumption values at asset-level.

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

Outlier checks:

For this indicator we only do an outlier check based on the waste generation intensity per square meter.

For intensities, GRESB checks whether the reported values result in an intensity outside a range of expected values. If the value is outside that range, then the respondent is requested to provide an explanation for why their data is abnormal and this explanation is then checked in combination with statistics on the distribution of intensities for the same property type. If the explanation is not accepted, then the respondent will be scored as if they didn't provide the data associated with the explanation.

The scoring of this indicator is the sum of the scores achieved by:

1. the level of the third-party data review
2. the verification/assurnace standard scheme (if applicable)

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Scheme name: Scheme name must be accepted during the validation process to receive its associated score.

Participants receive 0.75 points for each reported target and additional 0.25 point if the target is externally communicated.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

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

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

Each certification is validated by GRESB according to a list of predifined criteria which can result in several possible validation decision outcomes to which a weight is associated:

The overall portfolio coverage of building certification of this indicator is the sum of weighted coverage percentages of each reported certification scheme. The overall portfolio coverage number is benchmarked to determine the overall score of the indicator.

Benchmarks are constructed by following the steps below:

1. Check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater than 0% and less than 100% within the same region. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
2. If the step above failed, check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater 0% and less than 100% across regions. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
3. If the step above failed, use static cut-off points of 25%, 50% and 75% to make the benchmark.

Referring to the three benchmark numbers as b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3, these numbers are used to split the coverage percentages between 0% and 100% into four intervals. The score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their coverage percentage lands in, unless they had a coverage percentage of 0% or 100% in which case they will always receive a specfic score. The relationship between coverage percentages and scores is described in the table below:

Level of certification is for reporting purposes only and not used for scoring.

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

Each certification is validated by GRESB according to a list of predifined criteria which can result in several possible validation decision outcomes to which a weight is associated:

The overall portfolio coverage of building certification of this indicator is the sum of weighted coverage percentages of each reported certification scheme. The overall portfolio coverage number is benchmarked to determine the overall score of the indicator.

Benchmarks are constructed by following the steps below:

1. Check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater than 0% and less than 100% within the same region. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
2. If the step above failed, check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater 0% and less than 100% across regions. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
3. If the step above failed, use static cut-off points of 25%, 50% and 75% to make the benchmark.

Referring to the three benchmark numbers as b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3, these numbers are used to split the coverage percentages between 0% and 100% into four intervals. The score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their coverage percentage lands in, unless they had a coverage percentage of 0% or 100% in which case they will always receive a specfic score. The relationship between coverage percentages and scores is described in the table below:

Level of certification is for reporting purposes only and not used for scoring.

This indicator is answered separately for each property type. These answers are also scored per property type, resulting in multiple scores for the same indicator. Scores are aggregated across property types by taking a weighted mean of the property type scores, weighted by the percentage of GAV reported for each property type in R1.1.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

The coverage percentage used for scoring is equal to the sum of the 5 coverage percentages. If the sum is greater than 100% it is treated as if it is 100%. These coverage percentages are then scored against a property type specific benchmark consisting of three cut-off numbers.

Benchmarks are constructed by following the steps below:

1. Check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater than 0% and less than 100% within the same region. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
2. If the step above failed, check if there are at least 12 respondents with coverage percentages greater 0% and less than 100% across regions. If so, make the benchmark the quartiles of the distribution of these percentages.
3. If the step above failed, use static cut-off points of 25%, 50% and 75% to make the benchmark.

Referring to the three benchmark numbers as b1, b2 and b3 where b1 < b2 < b3, these numbers are used to split the coverage percentages between 0% and 100% into four intervals. The score achieved by a respondent depends on which interval their coverage percentage lands in, unless they had a coverage percentage of 0% or 100% in which case they will always receive a specfic score. The relationship between coverage percentages and scores is described in the table below:

Levels of certification is for reporting purposes only and not used for scoring.

Percentage number: The score assigned to the coverage percentage number reported above is multiplied by the relative factor associated with the relevant quartile as per the table below:

The training topics are not used for scoring but for reporting purpose only.

Points are awarded based on the percentage of employees covered of the selected survey type(s).

Percentage number: The score assigned to the coverage percentage number reported above is multiplied by the relative factor associated with the relevant quartile as per the table below:

The survey response rate and the quantitative metrics sub-indicator are not used for scoring but for reporting purpose only.

Evidence: The evidence is validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, according to the table below:

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

This indicator is linked to SE2.1. In order to achieve points for this indicator, the number of points received in SE2.1 must be higher than 0.

The score awarded to the option Work station and/or workplace checks is based on the percentage of employees covered.

Percentage number: The score assigned to the coverage percentage number reported above is multiplied by the relative factor associated with the relevant quartile as per the table below:

The rate of the metrics reported is not scored.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

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.

Text Box: The text box is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation status lead to different scores according to the table below:

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

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

The scoring of this indicator is based on the number of selected monitor methods.

If the entity requires external property/asset managers‘ alignment with a professional standard, the name of the standard must be provided in the text box.

Text Box: The text box response is validated, and its score is determined by the validation status according to the table below:

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements. If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

If the entity requires supplier/service providers‘ to align with a professional standard, the name of the standard must be provided in the text box.

Text Box: The text box response is validated, and its score is determined by the validation status according to the table below:

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

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

Percentage portfolio covered: The coverage percentage number is provided by selecting one of four drop-down menu options. The selected option then acts as a multiplier to determine the score according to the table below:

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

Points are awarded based on the percentage of tenants covered of the selected survey type(s).

Percentage number: The score assigned to the coverage percentage number reported above is multiplied by the relative factor associated with the relevant quartile as per the table below:

The survey response rate and the quantitative metrics sub-indicator are not used for scoring but for reporting purpose only.

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.

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

This indicator is linked to SE8.1. In order to achieve points for this indicator, the number of points received in SE8.1 must be higher than 0.

Percentage portfolio covered: The coverage percentage number is provided by selecting one of four drop down menu options, and the number is used as a mulitiplier to mutipliy the score assigned according to the table below:

Other: 'Other' answer must be accepted during validation to achieve a score.