Press CTRL+P (Windows) or ⌘+P (Mac) to print/export to a PDF file

2020

Real Estate

Scoring Document

Contents

Disclaimer: 2020 GRESB Real Estate Assessment Scoring Document

The 2020 GRESB Real Estate Assessment Scoring Document (“Scoring Document”) accompanies the 2020 GRESB Real Estate Assessment and is published as a standalone document. The Scoring Document reflects the opinions of GRESB and not of our members. The information in the Scoring Document has been provided in good faith and is provided on an “as is” basis. We take reasonable care to check the accuracy and completeness of the Scoring Document prior to its publication. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications to the Scoring Document. We will publicly announce any such modifications.

The Scoring Document is not provided as the basis for any professional advice or for transactional use. GRESB and its advisors, consultants and sub‑contractors shall not be responsible or liable for any advice given to third parties, any investment decisions or trading or any other actions taken by you or by third parties based on information contained in the Scoring Document.

Except where stated otherwise, GRESB is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights in all the information contained in the Scoring Document.

Introduction

The Scoring Document is shared for information purposes in an effort to increase transparency around the Assessment, Methodology and Scoring processes. GRESB reserves the right to make edits to this document during the scoring and analysis period preceding the 2020 Results Launch.

How to read this document?

The GRESB Real Estate Scoring Document provides a visual breakdown of each indicator score included in the 2020 GRESB Real Estate Assessment. It is recommended to read this document in conjunction with the Reference Guide which includes the reporting requirements for each indicator.

This document includes:

Additional clarifications:

Example: Indicator LE6

2 points , G

This indicator is split into three sections represented by two fractions and an "x" in the far-left column. The first section addresses the predetermined financial consequences of performance targets and the personnel group(s) to which they apply, and the second section covers the non-financial consequences.The final section allows for providing evidence. The far-left column tells us that the score of the indicator is calculated as follows; (where the section and evidence scores are all numbers between 0 and 1):

Indicator score = (2/3 * personnel groups with financial consequences + 1/3 * employee groups with non-financial consequences) * evidence score * 2 points

If the respondent achieved maximum scores for both of the first and second sections, with partially accepted evidence (resulting in a multiplier of 0.5), the score is:
(2/3 + 1/3) * 0.5 * 2 points = 1 point

Management: Leadership

ESG Commitments and Objectives

2019 Indicator

Not scored , G

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

1 point , G

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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

ESG Decision Making

2019 Indicator

2 points , G

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

1 point , G

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

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

2 points , G

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Management: Policies

ESG Policies

2019 Indicator

1.5 points , G

The 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 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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

1.5 points , G

The 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 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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

1.5 points , G

The 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 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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Management: Reporting

ESG Disclosure

2019 Indicator

3.5 points , G

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

ESG Incident Monitoring

2019 Indicator

Not scored , G

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

Not scored , G

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

Management: Risk Management

Risk Management

2019 Indicator

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 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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

0.5 points , G

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Risk Assessments

2019 Indicator

0.5 points , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

0.5 points , G

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

1.5 points , G

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Management: Stakeholder Engagement

Employees

2019 Indicator

1 point , S

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

1 point , S

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

1 point , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

0.75 points , S

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

1.25 points , S

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

0.5 points , S

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

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

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

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

0.5 points , S

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

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

Suppliers

2019 Indicator

1.5 points , S

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

1 point , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

1 point , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

0.5 points , S

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Performance: Reporting Characteristics

Reporting Characteristics

Performance: Risk Assessment

Risk Assessments

2019 Indicator

3 points , E

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

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

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

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

3 points , E

Each type of technical building assessment is assigned a maximum number of points as follows:

  1. Energy = 1.5 points;
  2. Water = 1 point;
  3. Waste = 0.5 points.

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

Efficiency Measures

2019 Indicator

1.5 points , E

Participants receive 0.25 points for each reported efficiency measure.

1 point , E

Participants receive 0.25 points for each reported efficiency measure.

0.5 points , E

Participants receive 0.25 points for each reported efficiency measure.

Performance: Targets

Targets

2019 Indicator

2 points , E

Participants receive 2/9 of the maximum score for each reported target and additional 1/9 if the target is externally communicated.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

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

E

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

Performance: Tenants & Community

Tenants/Occupiers

2019 Indicator

1 point , S

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:

Drop down option Multiplier
0% - 25% 0.25
25% - 50% 0.5
50% - 75% 0.75
75% - 100% 1.00

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

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

1 point , S

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

1 point , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

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

1.5 points , E

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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:

Drop down option Multiplier
0% - 25% 0.25
25% - 50% 0.5
50% - 75% 0.75
75% - 100% 1.00

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

1.5 points , E

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Percentage of lease contracts with an ESG clause is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only

0.75 points , S

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

1.25 points , S

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Community

2019 Indicator

2 points , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

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

1 point , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Performance: Energy

Energy Consumption

2019 Indicator

14 points , E

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

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

  1. Data coverage = 8.5 points;
  2. Like-for-Like data availability = 0.5 points;
  3. Like-for-Like performance improvement = 2 points;
  4. Renewable energy = 3 points. The renewable energy score is split as follows:
    • On-site renewable energy = 1 point;
    • Off-site renewable energy = 0.5 points;
    • Performance = 2 points.

Data coverage:

Data coverage percentages, based on both area and time for which data is availabe, are scored separately against different benchmarks for landlord and tenant controlled areas for each property sub-type, where "landlord controlled" and "tenant controlled" areas can include:

  • Landlord controlled areas: Landlord Controlled Whole Building, Base Building, and Landlord Controlled Tenant Spaces
  • Tenant controlled areas: Tenant Controlled Whole Building, and Tenant Controlled Tenant Spaces

Benchmarks are constructed for each separately scored value based on the property sub-type and location of the entity's assets. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from the same property sub-type from other entities operating in the same country. If there are not at least 12 values with that grouping, the specificity of the location classification and then the property type is gradually decreased. If needed, the location classification is dropped and only the property type is used. If it's still not possible to find 12 values for the benchmark, the scoring is done based on static values instead.

Note: Please see the Entity Categorization sub-section in the Scoring Methodology section of the Reference Guide for details on the location based classification.

Note: For the property types please see Appendix 3a of the Reference Guide.

A score is then calculated based on how the value reported by this entity compares to the benchmark values reported by other entities.

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 can be both landlord and tenant controlled, 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 plus tenant space and whole building, then base building pluss tenant space is given a weight based on their combined 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) always results 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.

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.

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.

Renewable energy:

The scoring of this section is split into two parts. The first part can result in a maximum of 1/3 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 1/6 of the maximum score is achieved instead.

The remaining 2/3 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. The improvement is scored by comparing it against a benchmark based on the improvements of other respondents. Note that only improvements are included in this benchmarking model, so values <= 0 are ignored. Besides this, the benchmark scoring methodology is identical to the one used for coverage, see details above.

Outlier checks:

GRESB identifies outliers in performance data reported at the asset level. There are two kinds of outliers flagged by the GRESB Portal: Intensities and Like-for-Like (LFL) change in consumption/emission. Outliers are validated automatically based on fixed thresholds. There are two levels of automatic outlier validation:

  1. If an outlier is detected above the upper threshold or below the lower threshold, then the data points associated with that outlier will be included in aggregation and scoring. However, they will not be included in the creation of the scoring benchmarks.
  2. If the outlier is substantially higher than the upper threshold (more than 1000 times greater), the data points associated with that outlier will not be included in aggregation or scoring.

Intensity outliers: The threshold for detecting an intensity outlier varies by data type and property type. Intensity outlier values are normalized by vacancy and by data availability.

Like-for-like outliers: The threshold for detecting a LFL outlier varies between 20 - 30%, based on the previous year’s consumption value. LFL outlier values are normalized by vacancy.

Open text box:

The content of the open text box at the end of the indicator is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report.

Performance: GHG

GHG Emissions

2019 Indicator

7 points , E

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

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

  1. Data coverage = 5 points;
  2. Like-for-Like performance improvement = 2 points.

Data coverage:

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

Benchmarks are constructed for each separately scored value based on the property sub-type and location of the entity's assets. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from the same property sub-type from other entities operating in the same country. If there are not at least 12 values with that grouping, the specificity of the location classification and then the property type is gradually decreased. If needed, the location classification is dropped and only the property type is used. If it's still not possible to find 12 values for the benchmark, the scoring is done based on static values instead.

Note: Please see the Entity Categorization sub-section in the Scoring Methodology section of the Reference Guide for details on the location based classification.

Note: For the property types please see Appendix 3a of the Reference Guide.

A score is then calculated based on how the value reported by this entity compares to the benchmark values reported by other entities.

The resulting scores for Scope 1+2 and 3 are aggregated to a single score using a weighted mean using the largest maximum data coverage for each group 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) always results 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.

Outlier checks:

GRESB identifies outliers in performance data reported at the asset level. There are two kinds of outliers flagged by the GRESB Portal: Intensities and Like-for-Like (LFL) change in consumption/emission. Outliers are validated automatically based on fixed thresholds. There are two levels of automatic outlier validation:

  1. If an outlier is detected above the upper threshold or below the lower threshold, then the data points associated with that outlier will be included in aggregation and scoring. However, they will not be included in the creation of the scoring benchmarks.
  2. If the outlier is substantially higher than the upper threshold (more than 1000 times greater), the data points associated with that outlier will not be included in aggregation or scoring.

Intensity outliers: The threshold for detecting an intensity outlier varies by data type and property type. Intensity outlier values are normalized by vacancy and by data availability.

Like-for-like outliers: The threshold for detecting a LFL outlier varies between 20 - 30%, based on the previous year’s consumption value. LFL outlier values are normalized by vacancy.

Open text box:

The content of the open text box at the end of the indicator is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report.

Performance: Water

Water Use

2019 Indicator

7 points , E

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

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

  1. Data coverage = 4 points;
  2. Like-for-Like performance improvement = 2 points;
  3. Water reuse and recycling = 1 point. The water reuse and recycling score is split as follows:
    • On-site water reuse and recycling = 0.25 points;
    • Performance = 0.75 points.

Data coverage:

Data coverage percentages, based on both area and time for which data is availabe, are scored separately against different benchmarks for landlord and tenant controlled areas for each property sub-type, where "landlord controlled" and "tenant controlled" areas can include:

  • Landlord controlled areas: Landlord Controlled Whole Building, Base Building, and Landlord Controlled Tenant Spaces
  • Tenant controlled areas: Tenant Controlled Whole Building, and Tenant Controlled Tenant Spaces

Benchmarks are constructed for each separately scored value based on the property sub-type and location of the entity's assets. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from the same property sub-type from other entities operating in the same country. If there are not at least 12 values with that grouping, the specificity of the location classification and then the property type is gradually decreased. If needed, the location classification is dropped and only the property type is used. If it's still not possible to find 12 values for the benchmark, the scoring is done based on static values instead.

Note: Please see the Entity Categorization sub-section in the Scoring Methodology section of the Reference Guide for details on the location based classification.

Note: For the property types please see Appendix 3a of the Reference Guide.

A score is then calculated based on how the value reported by this entity compares to the benchmark values reported by other entities.

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 can be both landlord and tenant controlled, 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 plus tenant space and whole building, then base building pluss tenant space is given a weight based on their combined 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) always results 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.

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.

Water reuse and recycling:

The scoring of this section is split into two parts. The first part can result in a maximum of 1/4 of the maximum score. This is achieved if any on-site water reuse and recycling data is entered for the current year.

The remaining 3/4 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. The improvement is scored by comparing it against a benchmark based on the improvements of other respondents. Note that only improvements are included in this benchmarking model, so values <= 0 are ignored. Besides this, the benchmark scoring methodology is identical to the one used for coverage, see details above.

Outlier checks:

GRESB identifies outliers in performance data reported at the asset level. There are two kinds of outliers flagged by the GRESB Portal: Intensities and Like-for-Like (LFL) change in consumption/emission. Outliers are validated automatically based on fixed thresholds. There are two levels of automatic outlier validation:

  1. If an outlier is detected above the upper threshold or below the lower threshold, then the data points associated with that outlier will be included in aggregation and scoring. However, they will not be included in the creation of the scoring benchmarks.
  2. If the outlier is substantially higher than the upper threshold (more than 1000 times greater), the data points associated with that outlier will not be included in aggregation or scoring.

Intensity outliers: The threshold for detecting an intensity outlier varies by data type and property type. Intensity outlier values are normalized by vacancy and by data availability.

Like-for-like outliers: The threshold for detecting a LFL outlier varies between 20 - 30%, based on the previous year’s consumption value. LFL outlier values are normalized by vacancy.

Open text box:

The content of the open text box at the end of the indicator is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report.

Performance: Waste

Waste Management

2019 Indicator

4 points , E

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

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

  1. Data coverage = 2 points;
  2. Proportion of waste diverted = 2 points.

Data coverage:

Data coverage percentages for the current year are scored separately against different benchmarks for landlord and tenant controlled areas for each property sub-type.

Benchmarks are constructed for each separately scored value based on the property sub-type and location of the entity's assets. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from the same property sub-type from other entities operating in the same country. If there are not at least 12 values with that grouping, the specificity of the location classification and then the property type is gradually decreased. If needed, the location classification is dropped and only the property type is used. If it's still not possible to find 12 values for the benchmark, the scoring is done based on static values instead.

Note: Please see the Entity Categorization sub-section in the Scoring Methodology section of the Reference Guide for details on the location based classification.

Note: For the property types please see Appendix 3a of the Reference Guide.

A score is then calculated based on how the value reported by this entity compares to the benchmark values reported by other entities.

The resulting scores are then aggregated to a single score using a weighted mean with weights determined by the percentage of landlord and tenant controlled areas.

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 no split for within property sub-type as this value is not reported separately for landlord and tenant controlled areas.

Outlier checks:

GRESB identifies outliers in performance data reported at the asset level. There are two kinds of outliers flagged by the GRESB Portal: Intensities and Like-for-Like (LFL) change in consumption/emission. Outliers are validated automatically based on fixed thresholds. There are two levels of automatic outlier validation:

  1. If an outlier is detected above the upper threshold or below the lower threshold, then the data points associated with that outlier will be included in aggregation and scoring. However, they will not be included in the creation of the scoring benchmarks.
  2. If the outlier is substantially higher than the upper threshold (more than 1000 times greater), the data points associated with that outlier will not be included in aggregation or scoring.

Intensity outliers: The threshold for detecting an intensity outlier varies by data type and property type. Intensity outlier values are normalized by vacancy and by data availability.

Like-for-like outliers: The threshold for detecting a LFL outlier varies between 20 - 30%, based on the previous year’s consumption value. LFL outlier values are normalized by vacancy.

Note: As like-for-like changes for waste are not calculated, there is also no like-for-like outlier validation.

Open text box:

The content of the open text box at the end of the indicator is not used for scoring, but will be included in the Benchmark Report.

Performance: Data Monitoring & Review

Review, verification and assurance of ESG data

2019 Indicator

1.75 points , E

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 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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted3/3
Partially Accepted1/3
Not Accepted0

1.25 points , E

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 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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted3/3
Partially Accepted1/3
Not Accepted0

1.25 points , E

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 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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted3/3
Partially Accepted1/3
Not Accepted0

1.25 points , E

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 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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted3/3
Partially Accepted1/3
Not Accepted0

Performance: Building Certifications

Building Certifications

2019 Indicator

7 points , E

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

Each certification is validated by GRESB according to a list of predifined criteria which results in one of the following validation decision outcomes to which a weight is associated:

Validation status Weight
Full points 1.0
Partial plus 0.6
Partial minus 0.3
No points 0.0

A single certification coverage percentage is calculated by taking the sum of the coverage percentages reported for each certification weighted by the validation decision outcome for that certification. Sums greater than 100% are considered to be 100%. This value is then benchmarked to determine the score of the indicator.

Benchmarks are constructed for each separately scored value based on the property sub-type and location of the entity's assets. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from the same property sub-type from other entities operating in the same country. If there are not at least 12 values with that grouping, the specificity of the location classification and then the property type is gradually decreased. If needed, the location classification is dropped and only the property type is used. If it's still not possible to find 12 values for the benchmark, the scoring is done based on static values instead.

Note: Please see the Entity Categorization sub-section in the Scoring Methodology section of the Reference Guide for details on the location based classification.

Note: For the property types please see Appendix 3a of the Reference Guide.

A score is then calculated based on how the value reported by this entity compares to the benchmark values reported by other entities.

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

The resulting score is then added with the score of BC1.2 to calculate a BC1 score which has a maximum of 8.5 points.

8.5 points , E

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

Each certification is validated by GRESB according to a list of predifined criteria which results in one of the following validation decision outcomes to which a weight is associated:

Validation status Weight
Full points 1.0
Partial plus 0.6
Partial minus 0.3
No points 0.0

A single certification coverage percentage is calculated by taking the sum of the coverage percentages reported for each certification weighted by the validation decision outcome for that certification. Sums greater than 100% are considered to be 100%. This value is then benchmarked to determine the score of the indicator.

Benchmarks are constructed for each separately scored value based on the property sub-type and location of the entity's assets. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from the same property sub-type from other entities operating in the same country. If there are not at least 12 values with that grouping, the specificity of the location classification and then the property type is gradually decreased. If needed, the location classification is dropped and only the property type is used. If it's still not possible to find 12 values for the benchmark, the scoring is done based on static values instead.

Note: Please see the Entity Categorization sub-section in the Scoring Methodology section of the Reference Guide for details on the location based classification.

Note: For the property types please see Appendix 3a of the Reference Guide.

A score is then calculated based on how the value reported by this entity compares to the benchmark values reported by other entities.

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

The resulting score is then added with the score of BC1.1 to calculate a BC1 score which has a maximum of 8.5 points.

2 points , E

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

A single property sub-type energy rating coverage percentage is calculated by taking the sum of the coverage percentages reported for each energy rating. Sums greater than 100% are considered to be 100%. This value is then benchmarked to determine the score of the indicator.

Benchmarks are constructed for each separately scored value based on the property sub-type and location of the entity's assets. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from the same property sub-type from other entities operating in the same country. If there are not at least 12 values with that grouping, the specificity of the location classification and then the property type is gradually decreased. If needed, the location classification is dropped and only the property type is used. If it's still not possible to find 12 values for the benchmark, the scoring is done based on static values instead.

Note: Please see the Entity Categorization sub-section in the Scoring Methodology section of the Reference Guide for details on the location based classification.

Note: For the property types please see Appendix 3a of the Reference Guide.

A score is then calculated based on how the value reported by this entity compares to the benchmark values reported by other entities.

Development: Reporting Characteristics

Reporting Characteristics

Development: ESG Requirements

ESG Requirements

2019 Indicator

4 points , G

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

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

4 points , E

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

4 points , E

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Development: Materials

Materials

2019 Indicator

6 points , E

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Not scored , E

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

Not scored , G

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

Development: Building Certifications

Building Certifications

2019 Indicator

4 points , E

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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:

Drop down option Multiplier
0% - 25% 0.25
25% - 50% 0.5
50% - 75% 0.75
75% - 100% 1.00

Green Building Rating System: The name of the green building rating system and the level of certification (if applicable) is validated, and its validation status is determined based on the requirements of the indicators. Various validation statuses lead to different scores according to the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

9 points , E

Each certification is validated by GRESB according to a list of predifined criteria which results in one of the following validation decision outcomes to which a weight is associated:

Validation status Weight
Full points 1.0
Partial plus 0.6
Partial minus 0.3
No points 0.0

A single certification coverage percentage is calculated by taking the sum of the coverage percentages reported for each certification weighted by the validation decision outcome for that certification. Sums greater than 100% are considered to be 100%. This value is then benchmarked to determine the score of the indicator.

Benchmarks are constructed for each separately scored value based on the property sub-type and location of the entity's assets. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from the same property sub-type from other entities operating in the same country. If there are not at least 12 values with that grouping, the specificity of the location classification and then the property type is gradually decreased. If needed, the location classification is dropped and only the property type is used. If it's still not possible to find 12 values for the benchmark, the scoring is done based on static values instead.

Note: Please see the Entity Categorization sub-section in the Scoring Methodology section of the Reference Guide for details on the location based classification.

Note: For the property types please see Appendix 3a of the Reference Guide.

A score is then calculated based on how the value reported by this entity compares to the benchmark values reported by other entities.

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

Note: The benchmark is constructed using data from the Development Benchmark respondents.

Development: Energy

Energy

2019 Indicator

6 points , E

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

6 points , E

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

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

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

2 points , E

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Development: Water

Water Conservation

2019 Indicator

5 points , E

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Development: Waste

Waste Management

2019 Indicator

5 points , E

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Development: Stakeholder Engagement

Health, Safety & Well-being

2019 Indicator

2 points , S

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options and respective sub-options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator.

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

1.5 points , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

1.5 points , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Injury rate calculation method is not scored and is used for reporting purposes only

Supply Chain

2019 Indicator

2 points , S

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

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

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

2 points , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

Community Impact and Engagement

2019 Indicator

2 points , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

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

2 points , S

The 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 assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

2 points , S

The 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 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.

Validation statusMultiplier
Accepted2/2
Partially Accepted1/2
Not Accepted0

Other: The 'Other' answer is manually validated and assigned a score which is used as a multiplying factor, as per the table below:

Validation statusScore
Accepted1/1
Not Accepted0
Duplicate0

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