Reporting entity
Entity name: ____________
Fund Manager Organization Name (if applicable): ____________
The 2021 GRESB Real Estate Assessment Document accompanies the 2021 GRESB Real Estate Assessment and is published both as a standalone document and in the GRESB Portal alongside each Assessment indicator. The Assessment Document reflects the opinions of GRESB and not of our members. The information in the Assessment Document has been provided in good faith and on an “as is” basis. We take reasonable care to check the accuracy and completeness of the Assessment Document prior to its publication. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications to the Assessment Document. We will publicly announce any such modifications.
The Assessment Document is not provided as the basis for any professional advice or for transactional use. GRESB and its advisors, consultants and sub-contractors shall not be responsible or liable for any advice given to third parties, any investment decisions or trading or any other actions taken by you or by third parties based on information contained in the Assessment Document.
Except where stated otherwise, GRESB is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights in all the information contained in the Assessment Document.
Mission-driven and investor-led, GRESB is the environmental, social and governance (ESG) benchmark for real assets. We work in collaboration with the industry to provide standardized and validated ESG data to the capital markets. The 2020 real estate benchmark covers more than 1,200 property companies, real estate investment trusts (REITs), funds, and developers. Our coverage for infrastructure includes over 500 infrastructure funds and assets. Combined, GRESB represents USD 5.3 trillion in real asset value. More than 120 institutional investors, with over USD 28 trillion AUM, use GRESB data to monitor their investments, engage with their managers, and make decisions that lead to a more sustainable real asset industry.
For more information, visit gresb.com. Follow @GRESB on Twitter.
The GRESB Real Estate Assessment is the global standard for ESG benchmarking and reporting for listed property companies, private property funds, developers and investors that invest directly in real estate. The Assessment evaluates performance against three ESG Components - Management, Performance, and Development. The methodology is consistent across different regions, investment vehicles and property types and aligns with international reporting frameworks, such as TCFD, GRI and PRI.
The GRESB Real Estate Assessment provides investors with actionable information and tools to monitor and manage the ESG risks and opportunities of their investments, and to prepare for increasingly rigorous ESG obligations. Assessment participants receive comparative business intelligence on where they stand against their peers, a roadmap with the actions they can take to improve their ESG performance and a communication platform to engage with investors.
GRESB works in close collaboration with the National Association of Real Estate Investments Trusts (Nareit), a GRESB Industry Partner. NAREIT encourages its corporate members to complete the annual GRESB Real Estate Assessments, which, for the past seven years, has been the basis for their annual Leader in the Light Award competition. The Leader in the Light Awards are presented to REITs in eight property sectors: Diversified, Global (for non-U.S. companies), Health Care, Industrial, Lodging/Resorts, Office, Residential and Retail. If there are both large and small cap entries that meet the awards criteria in a given property sector, awards are presented to both the leading large and small cap companies. To participate in the Leader in the Light Award program, Nareit members must complete both the GRESB Real Estate Assessment and the Leader in the Light Supplement. Once all sections of the GRESB Real Estate Assessment are completed, including the Leader in the Light Supplement, participants are able to submit their entire submission which will automatically be included in the Leader in the Light Award competition.
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessments are ESG engagement and benchmarking tools for institutional investors, fund managers, infrastructure companies and asset operators working in the infrastructure space. There are two complimentary GRESB Infrastructure Assessments: a Fund Assessment and an Asset Assessment. Both address critical aspects of ESG performance through a globally applicable and standardized reporting and benchmarking framework. The Fund Assessment is intended for infrastructure funds and portfolios of assets, while the Asset Assessment is meant to be completed by the individual underlying assets (portfolio companies). Both Assessments cover the full breadth of infrastructure sectors, including:
The GRESB Infrastructure Assessment provides investors with actionable information and tools to monitor and manage the ESG risks and opportunities of their investments, and to prepare for increasingly rigorous ESG obligations. In turn, GRESB Infrastructure Assessment participants receive comparative business intelligence on where they stand against their peers, a roadmap with actions they can take to improve their ESG performance and a communication platform to engage with investors.
GRESB Public Disclosure evaluates the level of ESG disclosure by listed property companies and investment vehicles for an entire investable universe. The evaluation is based on a set of indicators aligned with the GRESB Real Estate and Infrastructure Assessments. It provides investors with a resource hub to access ESG disclosure documents across their full listed investment portfolio and make comparisons against an investable universe with full coverage.
GRESB Public Disclosure data is initially collected by the GRESB team for selected companies, including both 2020 GRESB Real Estate and Infrastructure Asset Assessment participants and non‑participants. All data collected must come from publicly available sources, private documents are not accepted.
All constituents have the opportunity to review and update the data collected prior to it becoming accessible to GRESB Listed Investor Members. GRESB Public Disclosure consists of four Aspects: Governance of Sustainability, Implementation, Operational Performance and Stakeholder Engagement. Together, these Aspects contribute towards a Public Disclosure Level, expressed through an A to E sliding scale.
The GRESB Real Estate Assessment is developed in close collaboration with our governance groups (four regional Benchmark Committees and one global Advisory Board), who thoroughly discussed the options of properly reflecting the impact of Covid-19 on the 2021 data collection, benchmarking and scoring process.
While GRESB’s governance groups recognize the significant impact Covid-19 has on the real estate industry, they also recognize that it will affect participants and their data differently (positively or negatively) based on a variety of conditions including their geography, occupancy, and asset classes included in their portfolios. As a global benchmark, these disparities make it challenging to account for Covid-19 in a way that is fair and applicable to all participants. For this reason, the input required by the GRESB Real Estate Assessment, as well as the scoring and benchmarking processes will remain stable in 2021.
We do recognize the need for clear communication and information about the portfolio’s operations to support the 2021 results launch from participants. To that end, we will introduce an open text box in the Benchmark Reports for participants to use in their communication of results to investors.
The intention to keep the Assessment stable in 2021 also applies to the interpretation of performance data. While Covid-19 has impacted the ability of participants to collect data as well as assets’ operational performance, the scoring approach of Data Coverage and LFL Change (%) in 2021 remains unchanged. In addition, the GRESB Outlier Model (see Appendix 2a of the Reference Guide) including the lower and upper soft thresholds for both LFL Change (%) and Intensities also remain unchanged in 2021. GRESB participants will be prompted to support outliers flagged at the asset-level if those exceed thresholds provided in Appendix 2a of the Reference Guide. Note that soft outliers are only flagged so that participants can check their input data and make corrections if necessary, and have consequently no direct impact on the GRESB scores. Finally, GRESB intends to conduct an analysis of those metrics for all property types post-submission and loosen soft outlier thresholds where necessary. The sole purpose of this analysis will be to ensure that the data points included in the benchmark are representative of the submitted data, and will consequently have no direct impact on participants' submissions.
Please refer to Appendix 1 for more information on Assessment changes in 2021.
The Real Estate Assessment generates two benchmarks: The GRESB Real Estate Benchmark and the GRESB Development Benchmark.
The Real Estate Benchmark consists of participants completing both the Management and Performance Components and the Development Benchmark consists of participants completing both the Management and Development Components.
GRESB does not require participation in any of the Assessment Components. However, if the entity does have both standing investments and development projects and considers itself both an operator of buildings and involved in development activities, it is highly recommended to participate in both benchmarks. As a result, participants will receive two GRESB Scores, two Benchmark Reports, two peer groups, etc. capturing how the entities approach their respective activities in both benchmarks.
GRESB’s global benchmark uses a consistent methodology to compare performance across different regions, investment vehicles, and property types. This consistency, combined with our broad market coverage, means our members and participants can apply a single, globally recognized ESG framework to all their real estate investments.
GRESB results provide a practical way to understand ESG performance and communicate it to investors and other stakeholders. GRESB provides overall scores of ESG performance - such as the GRESB Score and GRESB Ratings - as well as detailed aspect-level and individual indicator-level assessments of performance. The key to analyzing GRESB data is in peer group comparisons that take into account country, regional, sectoral and investment type variations. This richer analysis enables fund managers and companies to understand their results in the context of their investment strategies and communicate this to their investors.
GRESB is committed to facilitating the use of its ESG metrics in investment decision-making processes and encouraging an active dialogue between investors, fund managers and companies on ESG issues. GRESB updates its Investor Member Guidance on an annual basis to assist GRESB Investor Members in their engagement with managers.
The Assessment participation fee applies to all GRESB Assessments. Participants are able to complete only one component (Management, Performance, or Development), and the standard participation fee will be applied regardless of the number of submitted components.
Other products and services (e.g. Response Checks, Review Period, Customized Benchmark Reports, etc.) are not bundled with the Assessment participation fee. This allows participants to select only those products and services they require.
Additional information about the 2021 participation fee is available here.
The Assessment Portal opens on April 1, 2021. The submission deadline is July 1, 2021 (23:59:59 PST), providing participants with a three-month window to complete the Assessment. This is a fixed deadline, and GRESB will not accept submissions received after this date. GRESB validates and analyzes all participants’ Assessment submissions.
In 2020 GRESB introduced a new Review Period in the Assessment Cycle to further strengthen the reliability of the Assessments and benchmark results. The Review Period will start on September 1, when preliminary individual GRESB results will be made available to all participants and run for the month. During the Review Period, participants will be able to submit a review request to GRESB using a dedicated form (see Appendix 4b). The final results will be launched to both participants and Investor Members on October 1. Public Results events and other results outputs will be rescheduled to October and November in order to accommodate the September Review Period.
For more information on the Review Period see Appendix 4a.
For more information about the 2021 Assessment timeline, click here.
A Response Check is a high-level check of a participant’s submission. The Response Check is carried out by GRESB’s third party validation provider SRI and features a careful review of your Assessment response followed by a 1-hour discussion call. It can be particularly useful for first time participants.
The Response Check does not exclude the participant from any element of the validation process, nor does it guarantee a better GRESB score. It is intended to ensure that no important details have been overlooked in the submission and provides the opportunity to ask for additional guidance and clarification on the GRESB Assessment indicators. The Response Check helps reduce errors that may adversely impact Assessment results and identifies inconsistent responses and incorrect answer formats.
The Response Check is available for request from April 1 to June 1, 2021 (11:59:59 p.m., PST) subject to resources availability. We strongly encourage participants to place their request as early as possible. You can request a Response Check in the portal, at any time after you start an Assessment. At the time of request and after payment, you will be prompted to schedule a time for a 1 hour call with 1-2 staff from the Response Check team. Make sure your Assessment is complete at least 1 week before the call so that the Response Check team has sufficient time to review your Assessment before the call. If your Assessment is not complete at the time of review, the Response Check team will only review completed indicators.
The Assessment Portal includes indicator-specific guidance, available under the “Guidance” tab that explains:
In addition to the guidance in the Portal, each Assessment is accompanied by a Reference Guide. The Reference Guide provides introductory information on the Assessments and a report-format version of the indicator-by-indicator guidance that is available under the Guidance tab in the Portal.
GRESB works with a select group of Partners who can help participants with their Assessment submission. To learn more about the services offered by GRESB Partners, take a look at our Partner Directory.
Participants are able to contact the GRESB Helpdesk at any time for support and guidance.
GRESB Real Estate Assessment Training is designed to help participants, potential participants and other GRESB stakeholders (managers, consultants, data partners) improve their ESG reporting through the GRESB Real Estate Assessment.
GRESB has provides a free online training platform in 2021. The training courses are modular and self-paced, walking participants through the various aspects of the Assessments, and providing detailed examples and tips for a successful submission.
Data is submitted to GRESB through a secure online platform and can only be seen by current GRESB Staff or authorized personnel from GRESB’s third-party validation provider SRI. GRESB benchmark scores are not made public. For listed entities, the entity name is disclosed on the GRESB website. For non-listed entities, the fund manager’s name is disclosed.
Access to Assessment results
Data collected through the GRESB Real Estate Assessment is only disclosed to the participants themselves and:
No other third parties will see the data. GRESB Investor Members must request access to a participant’s Benchmark results and scores, allowing the participant the control to either accept or deny this request.
Access to uploaded evidence
Documentation provided as evidence can be made available to GRESB Real Estate Investor Members on a document by document basis. Each uploaded document has a checkbox (with the default set to ‘not available’) which, when selected by the participant, makes this evidence available to all investors with access to that entity. It is not possible to choose a subset of investors which you would like to share the documents with.
Access to peer group results:
GRESB provides an opt-in option that will disclose the entity’s name (public) or fund manager’s name (private), as well as the scores for the different Components, to participants in the peer group that also opted to disclose their name and Component scores.
As a default, GRESB does not disclose a participant’s data to other participants. For listed entities, the entity name is disclosed in the Benchmark Report, as well as the entity names of listed peer group constituents. For non-listed entities, only the fund manager’s name is disclosed, as well as the fund manager’s name of private peer group constituents.
Access to asset-level data:
The 2021 Assessment requires participants to report the Energy, GHG, Water, Waste, Building Certifications efficiency measures at the asset level. This asset-level data provided to GRESB is strictly confidential and will only be used to check and validate the aggregated portfolio performance data. It will not be passed on to any external party, be it investors or others, in any way that allows the data to be traced back to the asset, without the explicit consent of the participant.
GRESB has developed a number of tools to assist participants with the collection and aggregation of asset-level data that is required to complete certain aspects of the Assessment. Property companies and funds are encouraged to use the asset level tools to streamline data flows, and to increase data quality. The asset-level data provided to GRESB is strictly confidential and will only be used for aggregation to portfolio level. No individual asset level information will be disclosed to participants’ investors.
Asset-level data will be used in an aggregated form, and non-traceable manner, in the following ways:
The main driver for asset level reporting is to improve investor confidence in data quality. In addition, it enables us to provide participants with additional insights into the impact of their ESG programs, the basis for and paves the way for more tailored assessments in the future.
GDPR compliance:
GRESB is fully compliant with GDPR. The GRESB Privacy Statement can be found here. We also have specific internal policies, such as our Data Breach Policy and our Data Protection Policy, related to GDPR that we cannot share externally for security reasons. Please note that asset level data does not fall under the incidence of GDPR because it does not contain any personal data.
Cybersecurity:
GRESB’s data security measures and systems have been reviewed by an external expert and no issues were flagged. The GRESB website and the GRESB Portal are fully HTTPS/TLS encrypted. GRESB has strict and extensive policies on data security that cannot be shared externally for security reasons. GRESB’s public policies can be accessed here.
First year participants can submit the Assessment without providing GRESB Investor Members with the ability to request access to their results. This is referred to as a “Grace Period”.
First year participants wishing to report under the Grace Period can select the option on an entity-by-entity basis from the settings section in the Assessment Portal. Participants who select the “Grace Period” option can decide to unselect the option following receipt of their results. The Grace Period is not available in the second year of participation, regardless of whether it was used in the first year or not.
The “Grace Period” allows participants a year to familiarize themselves with the GRESB reporting and assessment process. The names of participating entities are still visible during the Grace Period, but GRESB Investor Members will not be able to request to see their results.
The GRESB Assessment Portal has the following tools and functionality to help ensure an efficient and accurate submission:
The tools are designed to streamline data flows and increase data quality.
In 2021, participants can use the online GRESB Asset Portal or a data partner system to upload asset-level data for the following indicators:
Each indicator is allocated to one of the three ESG dimensions (E- environmental; S- social; G- governance):
The score breakdown by the E, S, G dimensions within each component is presented below.
| E | S | G | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Management | 0% | 35% | 65% |
| Performance | 89% | 11% | 0% |
| Development | 73% | 21% | 6% |
Every indicator in the 2021 Assessment can be answered with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ and in some cases with ‘Not applicable’. If ‘Yes’ is selected, the participant has the option to further classify the response by selecting one or more sub-options.
Participants should select all sub-options that accurately describe the entity and for which the entity can provide evidence. If ‘No’ or ‘Not applicable’ is selected, the participant may not select any additional sub-options. “A Not Applicable” answer is interpreted and scored in the same way as a “No” and will yield 0 points. Each indicator displays the corresponding 2020 indicator, or ‘NEW’ if the indicator has been added in 2021. This is also reflected in the guidance notes for every indicator.
Selected indicators in the Assessment require supporting evidence. Evidence is information that can be used to validate the overall answer to the indicator and support the additionally selected criteria.
GRESB does not have a prescriptive standard for evidence, rather the expectation is that a validator with reasonable domain expertise can review the evidence and find support for the overall indicator response and selected answer options. This means that the uploaded evidence must clearly reference the answer options selected by the participant. The evidence must not require extensive interpretation or inference, and participants are strongly encouraged to provide the simplest evidence that supports their claim.
If a hyperlink (or deep link) is provided, ensure that the relevant page can be accessed within two steps. Ideally, the landing page should contain all the information needed to validate the answer. In order to qualify as valid supporting evidence, the evidence provided must demonstrate the existence of the relevant topic relating to each of the criteria selected. The participant has the obligation to ensure that the hyperlink is functioning. Broken links are the responsibility of the participant and will be interpreted as the absence of evidence. Hyperlinks can only be provided if indicated. In all other instances, the actual document should be uploaded. Hyperlinks in uploaded documents will not be checked.
Your Assessment response must be submitted in English. Documents uploaded as supporting evidence do not need to be entirely translated. However, for evidence provided in languages other than English, a thorough summary sufficient to convey the requirements have been met is required for validation purposes. Participants may make use of the open text box to provide the document(s) summary. In addition, each selected issue must be identified in the evidence uploads by providing page number and exact location such as paragraph, clause, sentence, bullet number, etc.
GRESB intends to translate the 2021 GRESB Real Estate Assessment into Japanese. For other languages, the GRESB Assessment Portal can be translated by using “Google translate” via the Google Chrome web browser. This applies to the Assessment Portal, guidance notes, and online version of the Reference Guide.
How to use Google Translate:
Turn translation on
You can control whether Chrome will offer to translate web pages.
Disclaimer
Please note that not all text may be translated accurately or be translated at all. GRESB is not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translations. GRESB will not be held responsible for any damage or issues that may result from using Google Translate.
Over the years, the number of scored open text boxes has been reduced to zero in an effort to shift focus from management to performance. Open text boxes are now only used for reporting purposes and to provide additional context for a subset of indicators. Note that the contents of the open text boxes are included in the GRESB Benchmark Report.
Many indicators offer the opportunity to provide an alternative answer option (‘Other’). These other answers must be distinct from the options listed in the question. It is possible to add multiple other answers, however scores will not be aggregated. All Other answers are validated as part of the data validation process.
The indicator-specific guidance contains:
Answers must refer to the reporting year identified in EC4: Reporting year in the Real Estate Assessment, unless the indicator specifies otherwise.
A response to an indicator must be true at the close of the reporting year; however, the response does not need to have been true for the entire reporting year. For example, if a policy was put in place one month prior to the end of the reporting year, this is acceptable, it need not have been in place for the entire reporting year. GRESB does not favour the use of calendar year over fiscal year or vice versa, as long as the chosen reporting year is used consistently throughout the Assessment.
Answers must be applicable to the entity level. When a participating entity is part of a larger investment management organization or group of companies (the ‘Organization’), GRESB participants should use the open text box to explain how the answers apply to the entity.
In the GRESB Terms and Conditions, the term ‘Participating Portfolio’ refers to a ‘(Reporting) Entity’ as used in the in the GRESB Assessments, Guidance materials (e.g., Reference Guides and Scoring documents), GRESB Products (e.g., Benchmark Reports and PAT), the GRESB Portal, and in GRESB Training materials.
The 2021 Real Estate Assessment is structured in three components: Management, Performance and Development:
Each Component is divided into Aspects; aspects comprise of individually scored indicators. This Reference Guide provides detailed insight into the points available for each indicator, and the weighting of Assessment aspects. The information in this section provides additional context. Points per indicator are decided by GRESB in advance of the Assessment opening for responses. Indicator scoring goes through a three-stage review process based on GRESB’s rules, principles and guidelines.
Points Per Indicator
For indicators where you can select one or more answers, GRESB awards points cumulatively for each individual selected answer and then aggregates to calculate a final score for the indicator. For many indicators, this final score is capped at a maximum, which means that it is not necessary to select all answers in order to receive full points. This scoring mechanism allows the diversity among property companies and funds and the variety of their sustainability-oriented activities to be reflected. Supporting evidence and open fields for which participants select ‘other’ answers, are manually validated. Points are awarded based on the validity of the response.
Scoring Model
The scoring model is based on an automated system, which uses a technology platform designed for GRESB by a third party that specializes in data analysis software development. The scoring is completed without manual intervention after data validation has been completed.
The sum of the scores for each indicator adds up to a maximum of 100 points. The maximum score for each aspect is a weighted element of the overall GRESB Score. GRESB takes into account the unique characteristics of different property types, not only in benchmarking absolute scores, but also in the scoring of a selection of indicators. A selection of indicators is scored based on each portfolio’s main property types – this holds specifically for the Energy, GHG, Water, Waste and Building Certifications indicators.
The max Overall Score = 100, corresponding to 100 points, can be obtained as follows:
| Component | Aspect | # Points | % Component | % Overall Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management | Leadership | 7 | 23% | 7% |
| Policies | 4.5 | 15% | 5% | |
| Reporting | 3.5 | 12% | 4% | |
| Risk Management | 5 | 17% | 5% | |
| Stakeholder Engagement | 10 | 33% | 10% | |
| Total | 30 | 100% | 30% | |
| Performance | Risk Assessment | 9 | 13% | 9% |
| Targets | 2 | 3% | 2% | |
| Tenants & Community | 11 | 16% | 11% | |
| Energy | 14 | 20% | 14% | |
| GHG | 7 | 10% | 7% | |
| Water | 7 | 9.5% | 7% | |
| Waste | 4 | 5.5% | 4% | |
| Data Monitoring & Review | 5.5 | 8% | 6% | |
| Building Certifications | 10.5 | 15% | 11% | |
| Total | 70 | 100% | 70% | |
| Development | ESG Requirements | 12 | 17% | 12% |
| Materials | 6 | 9% | 6% | |
| Building Certifications | 13 | 19% | 13% | |
| Energy | 14 | 20% | 14% | |
| Water | 5 | 7% | 5% | |
| Waste | 5 | 7% | 5% | |
| Stakeholder Engagement | 15 | 21% | 15% | |
| Total | 70 | 100% | 70% |
The GRESB Real Estate Benchmark consists of participants completing both the Management and Performance Components. The GRESB Development Benchmark consists of participants completing both the Management and Development Components. While each Component determines an individual score (ie: Management Component Score, Performance Component Score, Development Component Score), the GRESB Scores and GRESB Ratings only apply to entities completing all relevant Components for their portfolios. The possible combinations are set out below and illustrated in the diagram that follows:
A: Portfolios with only standing investments submit:
B: Portfolios with only development projects submit:
C: Portfolios with both standing investments and development projects submit:
The detailed scoring methodology as applied to each indicator is available here and can be accessed by participants via the Assessment Portal on April 1, 2021. This is shared for information purposes in an effort to increase transparency around the Assessment, Methodology and Scoring processes. GRESB reserves the right to make edits to this document during the scoring and analysis period preceding the 2021 results launch.
Along with splitting the Assessment into Components in 2020, the overall emphasis will move, over the next four years, from the current emphasis on management and transparency to greater emphasis on performance. This will occur through three main mechanisms:
It is important that the aspect weights accurately reflect investor preference as it is precedent setting and a baseline for future improvements in scoring.
The GRESB Rating is an overall measure of how well ESG issues are integrated into the management and practices of companies and funds. The rating is based on the GRESB Real Estate Score and its quintile position relative to the GRESB universe, with annual calibration of the model. It is calculated relative to the global performance of all reporting entities - property type and geography are not taken into account. In this way the GRESB Rating provides investors with insight into the differentiation of overall ESG performance within the global property sector. If certain regions systematically perform better, they will on average have higher-rated companies and funds. If the entity is placed in the top quintile, it will have a GRESB 5-star rating; if it is in the bottom quintile, it will have a GRESB 1-star rating, etc.
Entities with more than 15 points (or 50%) in Management and 35 points (or 50%) in Performance OR 15 points (or 50%) in Management and 35 (or 50%) points in Development will receive the Green Star designation, highlighted through a distinctive markup in the Scorecard and Benchmark Reports.
A pre-set threshold determines an entity’s geographic location and property type:
Each participant is assigned to a peer group, based on the entity’s legal structure (public/private), property type and geographical location. To ensure participant anonymity, GRESB will only create a peer group if there is a minimum of six peers in the group.
Peer group assignments do not affect a company/fund’s score, but determine how GRESB places an Assessment participant’s results into context.
The goal of the peer group creation process is to compare participants who share as many characteristics as possible, while:
Each participant can be part of multiple peer groups, but can only have one active peer group. The active peer group is displayed in the participant’s Benchmark Report. This means that participant A can be in the active peer group of participant B, without participant B being in the active peer group of participant A. The practical consequence of this is that A will be displayed in the Benchmark Report of B under “Peer Group Constituents”, while B will not be displayed in the Benchmark Report of A.
The peer group composition is determined by a simple set of quantitative rules and provides consistent treatment for all participants. If the peer group is too small or has too many participants with the same fund manager, we eliminate filters until we have a valid peer group. There are two ways in which the filter can be widened:
The system attempts to find the best peer group based on the criteria presented above. For more information about the peer group allocation methodology, see Appendix 3b - Peer Group Allocation Methodology.
For public companies, the entity name of the peer group constituents is disclosed in the Benchmark Report. For private entities, only the fund manager’s name of the peer group constituents is disclosed. GRESB provides an opt-in option that discloses the entity’s name (listed) or fund manager’s name (private), as well as the scores for the two components (Management + Performance or Management + Development). However, this is only disclosed to participants in the peer group who also opted to disclose their name and component scores.
Participants who would like to be compared against a different peer group than the one assigned by GRESB can request a Customized Benchmark Report (click here for details). The GRESB Customized Benchmark Report provides advanced analytics through alternative indicator-level performance comparisons and rankings based on a self-selected peer group. It builds on the detailed insights you can draw from the standard Benchmark Report and adds additional flexibility to understand your relative performance in the market.
Data validation is an important part of GRESB’s annual benchmarking process. The purpose of data validation is to encourage best practices in data collection and reporting. It provides the basis for GRESB’s continued efforts to provide investment grade data to its investor members.
GRESB validation is a check on the existence, accuracy, and logic of data submitted through the GRESB Assessments. The validation process includes both automatic and manual validation.
Automatic validation is integrated into the portal as participants fill out their Assessments, and consists of errors and warnings displayed in the portal to ensure that Assessment submissions are complete and accurate.
Manual validation takes place after submission, and consists of document and text review to check that the answers provided in Assessment are supported by sufficient evidence. The validation rules and process are set and overseen by GRESB but the validation is performed by our third-party validation provider, SRI.
SRI Quality System Registrar (SRI) provides third-party validation services for GRESB. SRI is an accredited, independent certification body, and its subject matter experts will conduct the independent assessments of self-reported ESG data in the GRESB manual validation process.
For more information about the 2021 Validation Process, see Appendix 2a - 2021 GRESB Validation Process.
Participants with questions on individual validation decisions can contact the GRESB Helpdesk.
In 2020, GRESB introduced a new Review Period (see Appendix 4a for more information) in the Assessment Cycle to further strengthen the reliability of our Assessments and benchmark results. The Review Period will start on September 1, when preliminary individual GRESB results will be made available to all participants and run for the month. During the Review Period, participants will be able to submit a review request to GRESB using a dedicated form. The final results will be launched to both participants and Investor Members on October 1. Public Results events and other results outputs will be rescheduled to October and November in order to accommodate the September Review Period.
Participants who want to communicate specific points on the results presented in the Benchmark Report can use the “Respondent score comments” field – this will be seen by investors
For a complete interpretation of the validation decisions in the Assessment, participants can request a Results Review. For more information about the Results Review, click here.
GRESB requires property companies and funds to report on their whole portfolio, including both Landlord Controlled and Tenant Controlled areas (see below).
The Annual GRESB Assessment includes all assets that are held during the reporting year, including those that have been sold or purchased. For these assets, ESG data is reported for the period of time that the assets were part of the portfolio. This enables us to deliver the standardized and comparable assessment of portfolio-level ESG performance that the market is seeking. However it is also worth noting that in addition to simple overall scores of ESG performance - such as the GRESB Real Estate Score and GRESB Ratings - we provide detailed aspect-level and individual indicator-level assessments of performance. This richer analysis, further complimented by peer group benchmarking, enables managers to understand their results in the context of their investment strategies and communicate this to their investors.
Joint ventures
GRESB requires property companies and funds to report on their whole portfolio, including both Landlord Controlled and Tenant Controlled areas (see below for specific guidance), but excluding vacant land, cash, ground leases or other non-real estate assets owned by the entity.
When an asset is owned as part of a joint venture (JV), joint operation, or is in joint ownership, participants are required to report on these assets (unless subject to exception below), even if the joint arrangement means that the participant does not have direct operational control over the asset(s).
If the equity share in a JV is equal to or more than 25%, participants may choose to either:
If the equity share in a JV is less than 25%, participants are allowed to exclude the asset(s) from the reporting boundaries. In either case, participants must explain their approach in the open text box in indicator R1.1.
Note: Participants may choose to express the GAV size of the assets using the rules above, but they must always represent the full asset by floor area and performance data.
If an asset is part of multiple portfolios managed by the same fund manager, the asset should be treated as a JV in each portfolio. The rules outlined If an asset is part of multiple portfolios managed by the same fund manager, the asset should be treated as a JV in each portfolio. The rules outlined above apply.
Landlord/Tenant Controlled Areas
In the past, GRESB used to classify assets as Managed or Indirectly Managed. Such classification was based on the notion of operational control and aligned with the GHG Protocol. In 2020, this concept was replaced by "Landlord Controlled" and "Tenant Controlled" areas, where the same notion of operational control applies to differentiate one from the other. However, while the rationale remains unchanged compared to previous years, the distinction now takes place at the space/area level. Consequently, one asset can include both landlord and tenant controlled areas. The definition of Landlord and Tenant Controlled areas in the Assessment is solely based on the landlord/tenant relationship.
Landlord controlled areas are those for which the landlord is determined to have “operational control” where operational control is defined as having the ability to introduce and implement operating policies, health and safety policies, and/or environmental policies. If both the landlord and tenant have the authority to introduce and implement any or all of the policies mentioned above, the area should be reported as landlord controlled. Where a single tenant has the greatest authority to introduce and implement operating policies and environmental policies, the tenant should be assumed to have operational control. For example, in the case of a full repairing and insuring (FRI) lease in England and Wales, the tenant has operational control meaning that the area is tenant controlled.
GRESB distinguishes between Landlord and Tenant Controlled areas in the Energy, GHG Emissions, Water, and Waste aspects of the Performance Component. GRESB has done so in recognition of the fact that landlords of tenant controlled areas may have little or no control over the use or purchase of utilities for the asset, or over waste management practices. The guidance for this aspect explains GRESB’s approach in more detail.
GRESB does not specifically distinguish between landlord-and tenant controlled areas outside of the Energy, GHG Emissions, Water, and Waste aspects.The Assessment measures ESG performance using a consistent methodology that applies both to listed companies and private funds and which applies across property sectors and regions. GRESB encourages the collection of data and qualitative information regarding ESG issues that give property companies and funds and their investors the tools to identify areas in which they can improve performance and as a toolkit for internal and external engagement.
Furthermore, while GRESB does measure absolute performance, it emphasizes the importance of peer group comparisons in scoring and the analysis of benchmark results. Where participant numbers allow this, GRESB creates separate peer groups for each property type, for listed and private entities and for Landlord and Tenant Controlled areas. Additionally, participants have the opportunity to explain the composition of their portfolio in the open text box in R1.1, including clarifying limits on asset control that arise from the landlord/tenant relationship.
With these factors in mind, while the landlord’s day-to-day involvement in tenant controlled areas may be limited, the topics covered by the Assessment are equally relevant to landlord controlled areas. Accordingly, the same questions and methodology apply.
GRESB works closely with its members and broader industry stakeholders to ensure the Assessment addresses material issues in the ESG performance of real estate investments. After the significant structural changes and introduction of mandatory asset level reporting in 2020, this year’s Assessment changes are strictly limited to the integration of the Resilience Module and minor Assessment improvements.
For a full list of the 2021 Real Estate Assessment Changes, see Appendix 1.
This section provides an overview of the 2021 Real Estate Assessment Changes.
As publicly announced in our Advance Communication in late 2020 (section Improvement for 2021 and Beyond), GRESB committed to limiting changes to the Real Estate Assessment as much as possible in 2021 in order to provide stability in year-on-year reporting.
This is consistent with the overall conclusions of GRESB’s engagement with its governance groups (four regional Benchmark Committees and one global Advisory Board) in late 2020 and early 2021. During those discussions, it was acknowledged that the market requires as much stability as possible in the 2021 reporting cycle, both on the Assessment input side (indicators scope and reporting format), as well as output (consistency in validation and scoring requirements).
As a result, the Real Estate Assessment has not been subject to any material development in 2021, with the exception of the integration of the Resilience Module into the main Assessment (see below). This integration was announced back in 2018 when the module was launched. Note that the newly introduced indicators are not scored in 2021 and will have no impact on the overall GRESB Scores.
In 2019, GRESB announced its intention to implement updated Building Certification validation criteria in the 2021 Assessment. Although the overall feedback from the governance groups was positive, it was indicated to further refine and tighten the list of eligible themes and criteria, and to consider incorporating the certification levels in the scoring methodology. This implementation has therefore been postponed, and a dedicated Working Group will therefore be set up to further develop this approach for the future iterations of the Real Estate Assessment.
The intention to keep the Assessment stable in 2021 also applies to the performance indicators aspects, namely Energy, GHG, Water and Waste. While GRESB’s governance groups recognize that the impact Covid-19 had on various property types and countries in 2020 was vastly disparate, it should not be the reason to revise the scoring approach of Data Coverage and LFL Change (%) in 2021. In addition, the GRESB Outlier Model (see Appendix 2a of the Reference Guide) including the soft lower and upper thresholds for both LFL Change (%) and Intensities also remain unchanged in 2021. GRESB Participants will be prompted to support outliers flagged at the asset-level if those exceed thresholds provided in Appendix 2a of the Reference Guide. Note that soft outliers are only flagged so that Participants can check their input data and make corrections if necessary, and have consequently no direct impact on the GRESB Scores. Finally, GRESB intends to conduct an analysis of those metrics for all property types post-submission and loosen outlier thresholds where necessary. The sole purpose of this analysis will be to ensure that the data points included in the Benchmark are representative of the submitted data, and will consequently have no direct impact on Participants' submissions.
This much needed year of predictable outcomes (as far as GRESB methodology is concerned) will provide time to prepare for bigger step changes to implement for 2022. The governance groups, as well as GRESB, firmly recognize the urgent need to move to a more performance-based Assessment. This will be the main focus for internal Assessment developments and engagement with the industry through the GRESB Foundation in 2021, in preparation of the 2022 Assessment.
Integration of Resilience ModuleThe Resilience Module, which was previously optional, has been integrated into the Management Component. Five new indicators have been added to the Risk Management Aspect (see below New indicator) and changes have been made to two indicators in the Leadership Aspect (see below Resilience integrated). None of this additional content is scored in 2021. |
| LE3 |
Individual responsible for ESG and/or climate-related objectives - Resilience integratedDescription: The indicator has been restructured. It is now split between ESG and climate-related issues so that entities can provide different contact details for each topic. Rationale for change: This indicator change is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures. Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| LE5 |
ESG and/or climate-related senior decision-maker - Resilience integratedDescription: The indicator has been restructured. It is now split between ESG and climate-related issues so that entities can provide different contact details for each topic. Rationale for change: This indicator change is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures. Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| LE6 |
Personnel ESG performance targets - Selection option removedDescription: The “All employees” option has been removed. Rationale for change: This option was overlapping with other selection options, which led to confusion by participants and validators. Impact of change: Participants will have to select all individual employee groups with financial and non-financial consequences. This indicator will not be pre-filled in 2021. |
| RM5 |
Resilience of strategy to climate-related risks - New indicatorDescription: Added new indicator on resilience of strategy to climate-related risks. This new indicator is not scored in 2021. Rationale for change: This indicator is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with the TCFD recommended disclosures. Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| RM6.1 |
Transition risk identification - New indicatorDescription: Added new indicator on identification of climate-related transition risks. This new indicator is not scored in 2021. Rationale for change: This indicator is part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations. Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| RM6.2 |
Transition risk impact assessment - New indicatorDescription: Added new indicator on assessment of climate-related transition risks. This new indicator is not scored in 2021. Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations. Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| RM6.3 |
Physical risk identification - New indicatorDescription: Added new indicator on identification of climate-related physical risks. This new indicator is not scored in 2021. Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations. Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| RM6.4 |
Physical risk impact assessment - New indicatorDescription: Added new indicator on assessment of climate-related physical risks. This new indicator is not scored in 2021. Rationale for change: This indicator has been added as part of the integration of the Resilience Module and is aligned with TCFD reporting recommendations. Impact of change: An increase in reporting burden that allows entities to report according to TCFD reporting recommendations. |
| SE1 |
Employee training - Improved structureDescription: Allow no E, S or G option to be selected when “ESG-specific training” is not completed. Rationale for change: If a participating entity provides professional training for employees which is not ESG specific, one of the Environmental, Social, and Governance selection options still had to be selected. This is longer the case. Impact of change: Improved indicator structure. |
Review of Appendix 7 - Estimation methodologyBased on feedback received by the industry and in consultation with several of GRESB’s Data Partners, the Estimation methodology Appendix has been reviewed. The guidance is now divided into three clear conditions under which data estimates are allowed and it no longer refers to a data gap as the sole reason for data estimation. |
| T1.1 |
Portfolio improvement targets - Improved automatic validationDescription: An automatic validation rule that requires a difference of at least three years between the baseline and end year has been implemented. Rationale for change: Automated validation that is in line with the GRESB reporting requirements for long-term targets. Impact of change: Improved data quality. |
Asset SpreadsheetDescription: Introduction of an optional field for capturing % of Ownership at the asset level. Rationale for change: This field will be used to refine the aggregation logic for portfolios with joint ventures resulting in higher data accuracy in portfolio-level metrics (e.g. carbon footprint). In 2021, it will be used for reporting purposes only, with the intention to make it mandatory afterwards. Impact of change: Small increase in reporting burden for participants who choose to complete the field. |
GRESB Asset PortalDescription:
Rationale for change: Improvements based on participants’ feedback. Impact of change: Improved user experience. |
Automatic ValidationDescription: New Validation rules on renewable energy (EN1) capping Renewable Energy (%) to 100% of Energy Consumed (except Exported). Rationale for change: This check was already included in the data cleanup process conducted by GRESB after submission deadline. Participants will no longer be able to exceed 100% at the time of reporting. Impact of change: Improved data quality. |
| DEN2.1 |
On-site renewable energyDescription: Rephrase the selection option “Geothermal” to “Geothermal steam”. Rationale for change: The geothermal definition previously included geothermal ground source heat pumps. Both ground source and air source heat pumps can only be considered a low carbon technology as they require some form of electricity to operate. As electricity is required to operate the pump, it cannot be considered renewable energy generation. Impact of change: Participants who previously selected Geothermal must review the selection given the new guidance and definition. This indicator will not be pre-filled in 2021. |
| DBC1.1 |
Green Building Standard requirementsDescription: The percentage of portfolio covered drop-down quartile options have been replaced with absolute percentage values. In addition, a validation cap of 100% has been introduced to avoid reporting of overlapping percentages. Rationale for change: More precise reporting of portfolio coverage, which will ensure better manual validation. Impact of change: Improved data quality. |
EC1
Reporting entity
Entity name: ____________
Fund Manager Organization Name (if applicable): ____________
EC2
Nature of ownership
Public (listed on a Stock Exchange) entity
Specify ISIN: ____________
Legal status:
Property company
Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)
Private (non-listed) entity
Investment style:
Core
Value-added
Opportunistic
Debt
Open or closed end:
Open end
Closed end
Type of investment vehicle:
Club Deal
Direct Investment
Fund
Joint Venture (JV)
Separate Account
Special Purpose Vehicle
Government entity
EC3
Entity commencement date
Year of commencement (listed) or Year of establishment (non-listed)
________________________
EC4
Reporting year
Calendar year
Fiscal year
Specify the starting month Month
RC1
Reporting currency
Values are reported in: Currency
RC2
Economic size
What was the gross asset value (GAV) of the portfolio at the end of the reporting year in millions?
________________________
RC3
Floor area metrics
Metrics are reported in:
m2
sq. ft.
RC4
Property type and Geography
Portfolio predominant location (*): Location
Portfolio predominant property type (**): Property type
RC5
Nature of entity's business
The entity's core business:
Management of standing investments only (continue with Management and Performance Components)
Management of standing investments and development of new construction and major renovation projects (continue with Management, Performance, and Development Components)
Development of new construction and major renovation projects (continue with Management and Development Components)
Management: LeadershipLE1
ESG leadership commitments
Has the entity made a public commitment to ESG leadership standards and/or principles?
Yes
Select all commitments included (multiple answers possible)
Climate Action 100+
Global Investor Coalition on Climate Change (including AIGCC, Ceres, IGCC, IIGCC)
International Labour Organization (ILO) Standards
Montreal Pledge
OECD - Guidelines for multinational enterprises
PRI signatory
RE 100
Science Based Targets initiative
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative
UN Global Compact
UN Sustainable Development Goals
WorldGBC’s Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment
Other: ____________
Provide applicable hyperlink
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
LE1
Not scored , G
LE2
ESG objectives
Does the entity have specific ESG objectives?
Yes
The objectives relate to (multiple answers possible)
General sustainability
Environment
Social
Governance
Health and well-being
The objectives are
Fully integrated into the overall business strategy
Partially integrated into the overall business strategy
Not integrated into the overall business strategy
The objectives are
Publicly available
Provide applicable hyperlink
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Not publicly available
Communicate the objectives and explain how they are integrated into the overall business strategy (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
LE2
1 point , G
LE3
Individual responsible for ESG and/or climate-related objectives
Does the entity have one or more persons responsible for implementing ESG and/or climate-related objectives?
Yes
ESG
Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)
Dedicated employee(s) for whom ESG is the core responsibility
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
Employee(s) for whom ESG is among their responsibilities
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
External consultants/manager
Name of the main contact: ____________
Job title: ____________
Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)
Name of the main contact: ____________
Job title: ____________
Climate-related risks and opportunities
Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)
Dedicated employee(s) for whom climate-related issues are core responsibilities
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
Employee(s) for whom climate-related issues are among their responsibilities
Provide the details for the most senior of these employees
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
External consultants/manager
Name of the main contact: ____________
Job title: ____________
Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)
Name of the main contact: ____________
Job title: ____________
No
LE3
2 points , G
LE4
ESG taskforce/committee
Does the entity have an ESG taskforce or committee?
Yes
Select the members of this taskforce or committee (multiple answers possible)
Board of Directors
C-suite level staff
Investment Committee
Fund/portfolio managers
Asset managers
ESG portfolio manager
Investment analysts
Dedicated staff on ESG issues
External managers or service providers
Investor relations
Other: ____________
No
LE4
1 point , G
LE5
ESG and/or climate-related senior decision-maker
Does the entity have a senior decision-maker accountable for ESG issues and/or climate-related issues?
Yes
ESG
Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on ESG issues
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
The individual’s most senior role is as part of
Board of Directors
C-suite level staff
Investment Committee
Fund/portfolio managers
Other: ____________
Climate-related risks and opportunities
Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on climate-related issues
Name: ____________
Job title: ____________
The individual’s most senior role is as part of
Board of Directors
C-suite level staff
Investment Committee
Fund/portfolio managers
Other: ____________
Describe the process of informing the most senior decision-maker on the ESG performance of the entity (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
LE5
1 point , G
LE6
Personnel ESG performance targets
Does the entity include ESG factors in the annual performance targets of personnel?
Yes
Does performance on these targets have predetermined consequences?
Yes
Financial consequences
Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible):
Board of Directors
C-suite level staff
Investment Committee
Fund/portfolio managers
Asset managers
ESG portfolio manager
Investment analysts
Dedicated staff on ESG issues
External managers or service providers
Investor relations
Other: ____________
Non-financial consequences
Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible):
Board of Directors
C-suite level staff
Investment Committee
Fund/portfolio managers
Asset managers
ESG portfolio manager
Investment analysts
Dedicated staff on ESG issues
External managers or service providers
Investor relations
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
LE6
2 points , G
Management: PoliciesPO1
Policy on environmental issues
Does the entity have a policy/policies on environmental issues?
Yes
Select all environmental issues included (multiple answers possible)
Biodiversity and habitat
Climate/climate change adaptation
Energy consumption
Greenhouse gas emissions
Indoor environmental quality
Material sourcing
Pollution prevention
Renewable energy
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
Sustainable procurement
Waste management
Water consumption
Other: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
PO1
1.5 points , G
PO2
Policy on social issues
Does the entity have a policy/policies on social issues?
Yes
Select all social issues included (multiple answers possible)
Child labor
Community development
Customer satisfaction
Employee engagement
Employee health & well-being
Employee remuneration
Forced or compulsory labor
Freedom of association
Health and safety: community
Health and safety: contractors
Health and safety: employees
Health and safety: tenants/customers
Human rights
Inclusion and diversity
Labor standards and working conditions
Social enterprise partnering
Stakeholder relations
Other: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
PO2
1.5 points , G
PO3
Policy on governance issues
Does the entity have a policy/policies on governance issues?
Yes
Select all governance issues included (multiple answers possible)
Bribery and corruption
Cybersecurity
Data protection and privacy
Executive compensation
Fiduciary duty
Fraud
Political contributions
Shareholder rights
Other: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
PO3
1.5 points , G
Management: ReportingRP1
ESG reporting
Does the entity disclose its ESG actions and/or performance?
Yes
Please select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Section in Annual Report
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Investment manager
Group
Aligned with Guideline name
Disclosure is third-party reviewed:
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Stand-alone sustainability report(s)
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Investment manager
Group
Aligned with Guideline name
Disclosure is third-party reviewed:
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Integrated Report
*Integrated Report must be aligned with IIRC framework
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Investment manager
Group
Disclosure is third-party reviewed:
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Dedicated section on corporate website
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Investment manager
Group
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Section in entity reporting to investors
Aligned with Guideline name
Disclosure is third-party reviewed:
Yes
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Other: ____________
Select the applicable reporting level
Entity
Investment manager
Group
Aligned with Guideline name
Disclosure is third-party reviewed:
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
using Scheme name
Externally assured
using Scheme name
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
RP1
3.5 points , G
RP2.1
ESG incident monitoring
Does the entity have a process to monitor ESG-related controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents, accidents, or breaches against the codes of conduct/ethics?
Yes
The process includes external communication of controversies, misconduct, penalties, incidents or accidents to:
Clients/Customers
Community/Public
Contractors
Employees
Investors/Shareholders
Regulators/Government
Special interest groups (NGOs, Trade Unions, etc)
Suppliers
Other stakeholders: ____________
Describe the process (maximum 250 words): ____________
No
* The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2021 Sector Leaders.
RP2.1
Not scored , G
RP2.2
ESG incident occurrences
Has the entity been involved in any ESG-related breaches that resulted in fines or penalties during the reporting year?
Yes
Specify the total number of cases which occurred: ____________
Specify the total value of fines and/or penalties incurred: ____________
Specify the total number of currently pending investigations: ____________
Provide additional context for the response (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
* The information in RP2.1 and RP2.2 may be used as criteria for the recognition of 2021 Sector Leaders.
RP2.2
Not scored , G
Management: Risk ManagementRM1
Environmental Management System (EMS)
Does the entity have an Environmental Management System (EMS)?
Yes
The EMS is aligned with a standard
ISO 14001
EMAS (EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme)
Other standard: ____________
The EMS is externally certified by an independent third party using
ISO 14001
EMAS (EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme)
Other standard: ____________
The EMS is not aligned with a standard nor certified externally
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
RM1
2 points , G
RM2
Process to implement governance policies
Does the entity have processes to implement governance policy/policies?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Compliance linked to employee remuneration
Dedicated help desks, focal points, ombudsman, hotlines
Disciplinary actions in case of breach, i.e. warning, dismissal, zero tolerance policy
Employee performance appraisal systems integrate compliance with codes of conduct
Investment due diligence process
Responsibilities, accountabilities and reporting lines are systematically defined in all divisions and group companies
Training related to governance risks for employees (multiple answers possible)
Regular follow-ups
When an employee joins the organization
Whistle-blower mechanism
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
RM2
0.5 points , G
RM3.1
Social risk assessments
Has the entity performed social risk assessments within the last three years?
Yes
Select all issues included (multiple answers possible)
Child labor
Community development
Controversies linked to social enterprise partnering
Customer satisfaction
Employee engagement
Employee health & well-being
Forced or compulsory labor
Freedom of association
Health and safety: community
Health and safety: contractors
Health and safety: employees
Health and safety: tenants/customers
Health and safety: supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors)
Human rights
Inclusion and diversity
Labor standards and working conditions
Stakeholder relations
Other: ____________
No
RM3.1
0.5 points , S
RM3.2
Governance risk assessments
Has the entity performed governance risk assessments within the last three years?
Yes
Select all issues included (multiple answers possible)
Bribery and corruption
Cybersecurity
Data protection and privacy
Executive compensation
Fiduciary duty
Fraud
Political contributions
Shareholder rights
Other: ____________
No
RM3.2
0.5 points , G
RM4
ESG due diligence for new acquisitions
Does the entity perform asset-level environmental and/or social risk assessments as a standard part of its due diligence process for new acquisitions?
Yes
Select all issues included (multiple answers possible)
Biodiversity and habitat
Building safety
Climate/Climate change adaptation
Compliance with regulatory requirements
Contaminated land
Energy efficiency
Energy supply
Flooding
GHG emissions
Health and well-being
Indoor environmental quality
Natural hazards
Socio-economic
Transportation
Waste management
Water efficiency
Water supply
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
RM4
1.5 points , G
RM5
Resilience of strategy to climate-related risks
Does the entity’s strategy incorporate resilience to climate-related risks?
Yes
Describe the resilience of the organization’s strategy: ____________
Does the process of evaluating the resilience of the entity’s strategy involve the use of scenario analysis?
Yes
Select the scenarios that are used (multiple answers possible)
Transition scenarios
CRREM 2C
CRREM 1.5C
IEA SDS
IEA B2DS
IEA NZE2050
IPR FPS
NGFS Current Policies
NGFS Nationally determined contributions
NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with CDR
NGFS Immediate 2C scenario with limited CDR
NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with CDR
NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with limited CDR
NGFS Delayed 2C scenario with CDR
NGFS Immediate 1.5C scenario with limited CDR
SBTi
TPI
Other: ____________
Physical scenarios
RCP2.6
RCP4.5
RCP6.0
RCP8.5
Other: ____________
No
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
NEW
Not scored , G
RM6.1
Transition risk identification
Does the entity have a systematic process for identifying transition risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the risk identification process (multiple answers possible)
Policy and legal
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Increasing price of GHG emissions
Enhancing emissions-reporting obligations
Mandates on and regulation of existing products and services
Exposure to litigation
Other: ____________
No
Technology
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Substitution of existing products and services with lower emissions options
Unsuccessful investment in new technologies
Costs to transition to lower emissions technology
Other: ____________
No
Market
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Changing customer behavior
Uncertainty in market signals
Increased cost of raw materials
Other: ____________
No
Reputation
Has the process identified any risks in this area?
Yes
Select the risk(s) to which the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Shifts in consumer preferences
Stigmatization of sector
Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence (optional)
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe the entity’s processes for prioritizing transition risks
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
NEW
Not scored , G
RM6.2
Transition risk impact assessment
Does the entity have a systematic process to assess the material financial impact of transition risks on the business and/or financial planning of the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the impact assessment process (multiple answers possible)
Policy and legal
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased operating costs
Write-offs, asset impairment and early retirement of existing assets due to policy changes
Increased costs and/or reduced demand for products and services resulting from fines and judgments
Other: ____________
No
Technology
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Write-offs and early retirement of existing assets
Reduced demand for products and services
Research and development (R&D) expenditures in new and alternative technologies
Capital investments in technology development
Costs to adopt/deploy new practices and processes
Other: ____________
No
Market
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Reduced demand for goods and services due to shift in consumer preferences
Increased production costs due to changing input prices and output requirements
Abrupt and unexpected shifts in energy costs
Change in revenue mix and sources, resulting in decreased revenues
Re-pricing of assets
Other: ____________
No
Reputation
Has the process concluded that there were any material impacts to the entity in this area?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Reduced revenue from decreased demand for goods/services
Reduced revenue from decreased production capacity
Reduced revenue from negative impacts on workforce management and planning
Reduction in capital availability
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence (optional)
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing transition risks are integrated into its overall risk management
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
NEW
Not scored , G
RM6.3
Physical risk identification
Does the entity have a systematic process for identifying physical risks that could have a material financial impact on the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the risk identification process (multiple answers possible)
Acute hazards
Has the process identified any acute hazards to which the entity is exposed?
Yes
Indicate to what factor(s) the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Extratropical storm
Flash flood
Hail
River flood
Storm surge
Tropical cyclone
Other: ____________
No
Chronic stressors
Has the process identified any chronic stressors to which the entity is exposed?
Yes
Indicate to what factor(s) the entity is exposed (multiple answers possible)
Drought stress
Fire weather stress
Heat stress
Precipitation stress
Rising mean temperatures
Rising sea levels
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence (optional)
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe the entity’s processes of prioritizing physical risks
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
NEW
Not scored , G
RM6.4
Physical risk impact assessment
Does the entity have a systematic process for the assessment of material financial impact from physical climate risks on the business and/or financial planning of the entity?
Yes
Select the elements covered in the impact assessment process (multiple answers possible)
Direct impacts
Has the process concluded that there are material impacts to the entity?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased capital costs
Other: ____________
No
Indirect impacts
Has the process concluded that there are material impacts to the entity?
Yes
Indicate which impacts are deemed material to the entity (multiple answers possible)
Increased insurance premiums and potential for reduced availability of insurance on assets in “high-risk” locations
Increased operating costs
Reduced revenue and higher costs from negative impacts on workforce
Reduced revenue from decreased production capacity
Reduced revenues from lower sales/output
Write-offs and early retirement of existing assets
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence (optional)
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Describe how the entity’s processes for identifying, assessing, and managing physical risks are integrated into its overall risk management
________________________
No
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
NEW
Not scored , G
Management: Stakeholder EngagementSE1
Employee training
Does the entity provide training and development for employees?
Yes
Percentage of employees who received professional training during the reporting year
________________________
Percentage of employees who received ESG-specific training during the reporting year
________________________
ESG-specific training focuses on (multiple answers possible):
Environmental issues
Social issues
Governance issues
No
SE1
1 point , S
SE2.1
Employee satisfaction survey
Has the entity undertaken an employee satisfaction survey within the last three years?
Yes
The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible)
Internally
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
By an independent third party
Percentage of employees covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
The survey includes quantitative metrics
Yes
Metrics include
Net Promoter Score
Overall satisfaction score
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
SE2.1
1 point , S
SE2.2
Employee engagement program
Does the entity have a program in place to improve its employee satisfaction based on the outcomes of the survey referred to in SE2.1?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Planning and preparation for engagement
Development of action plan
Implementation
Training
Program review and evaluation
Feedback sessions with c-suite level staff
Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments
Focus groups
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
SE2.2
1 point , S
SE3.1
Employee health & well-being program
Does the entity have a program in place for promoting health & well-being of employees?
Yes
The program includes (multiple answers possible):
Needs assessment
Goal setting
Action
Monitoring
No
SE3.1
0.75 points , S
SE3.2
Employee health & well-being measures
Does the entity take measures to incorporate the health & well-being program for employees described in SE3.1?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Needs assessment
The entity monitors employee health and well-being needs through (multiple answers possible):
Employee surveys on health and well-being
Percentage of employees: ____________%
Physical and/or mental health checks
Percentage of employees: ____________%
Other: ____________
Percentage of employees: ____________%
Creation of goals to address
Mental health and well-being
Physical health and well-being
Social health and well-being
Other: ____________
Action to promote health through
Acoustic comfort
Biophilic design
Childcare facilities contributions
Flexible working hours
Healthy eating
Humidity
Illumination
Inclusive design
Indoor air quality
Lighting controls and/or daylight
Noise control
Paid maternity leave in excess of legally required minimum
Paid paternity leave in excess of legally required minimum
Physical activity
Physical and/or mental healthcare access
Social interaction and connection
Thermal comfort
Water quality
Working from home arrangements
Other: ____________
Monitor outcomes by tracking
Environmental quality
Population experience and opinions
Program performance
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
SE3.2
1.25 points , S
SE4
Employee safety indicators
Has the entity monitored conditions for and / or tracked indicators of employee safety during the last three years?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Work station and/or workplace checks
Percentage of employees: ____________%
Absentee rate: ____________
Injury rate: ____________
Lost day rate: ____________
Other metrics: ____________
Rate of other metric(s): ____________
Explain the employee occupational safety indicators calculation method (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
SE4
0.5 points , S
SE5
Inclusion and diversity
Does the entity monitor inclusion and diversity?
Yes
Diversity of the entity’s governance bodies
Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)
Age group distribution
Board tenure
Gender pay gap
Gender ratio
Percentage of personnel that identify as:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
Diversity of the organization's employees
Select all diversity metrics (multiple answers possible)
Age group distribution
Percentage of personnel that are:
Under 30 years old: ____________%
Between 30 and 50 years old: ____________%
Over 50 years old: ____________%
Gender pay gap
Gender ratio
Percentage of personnel that are:
Women: ____________%
Men: ____________%
International background
Racial diversity
Socioeconomic background
Provide additional context for the response (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
SE5
0.5 points , S
SE6
Supply chain engagement program
Does the entity include ESG-specific requirements in its procurement processes?
Yes
Select elements of the supply chain engagement program (multiple answers possible)
Developing or applying ESG policies
Planning and preparation for engagement
Development of action plan
Implementation of engagement plan
Training
Program review and evaluation
Feedback sessions with stakeholders
Other: ____________
Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)
Business ethics
Child labor
Environmental process standards
Environmental product standards
Health and safety: employees
Health and well-being
Human health-based product standards
Human rights
Labor standards and working conditions
Other: ____________
Select the external parties to whom the requirements apply (multiple answers possible)
Contractors
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond 1 tier suppliers and contractors)
Other: ____________
No
SE6
1.5 points , S
SE7.1
Monitoring property/asset managers
Does the entity monitor property/asset managers’ compliance with the ESG-specific requirements in place for this entity?
Yes
The entity monitors compliance of:
Internal property/asset managers
External property/asset managers
Both internal and external property/asset managers
Select all methods used (multiple answers possible)
Checks performed by independent third party
Property/asset manager ESG training
Property/asset manager self-assessments
Regular meetings and/or checks performed by the entity‘s employees
Require external property/asset managers‘ alignment with a professional standard
Standard: ____________
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
SE7.1
1 point , S
SE7.2
Monitoring external suppliers/service providers
Does the entity monitor other direct external suppliers’ and/or service providers’ compliance with the ESG-specific requirements in place for this entity?
Yes
Select all methods used (multiple answers possible)
Checks performed by an independent third party
Regular meetings and/or checks performed by external property/asset managers
Regular meetings and/or checks performed by the entity‘s employees
Require supplier/service providers‘ alignment with a professional standard
Standard: ____________
Supplier/service provider ESG training
Supplier/service provider self-assessments
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
SE7.2
1 point , S
SE8
Stakeholder grievance process
Is there a formal process for stakeholders to communicate grievances?
Yes
Select all characteristics applicable to the process (multiple answers possible)
Accessible and easy to understand
Anonymous
Dialogue based
Equitable & rights compatible
Improvement based
Legitimate & safe
Predictable
Prohibitive against retaliation
Transparent
Other: ____________
Which stakeholders does the process apply to? (multiple answers possible)
Contractors
Suppliers
Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors)
Clients/Customers
Community/Public
Employees
Investors/Shareholders
Regulators/Government
Special interest groups (NGO’s, Trade Unions, etc)
Other: ____________
No
SE8
0.5 points , S
R1.1
The entity’s standing investments portfolio during the reporting year
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[PortfolioCompTable]](/images/tables/portfolio_comp_table/y2020-3c458a62.svg)
Note: This table is generated by GRESB and represents an aggregation of the data provided at the asset level. It is provided for review purposes and defines the scope of your 2021 GRESB Performance Component submission. It should reflect the total standing investments portfolio and exclude any development and/or major renovation projects, exclude vacant land, cash or other non real estate assets owned by the entity.
You are not able to amend information in this table, with the exception of “% GAV” (this is because GAV is an optional field at asset level and cannot be used for aggregation). Please note that % GAV is used for entity and peer group classification and should accurately reflect the composition of the portfolio.
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Provide additional context on how the uploaded evidence supports the entity’s reporting boundaries and portfolio composition in R1.1 (maximum 1000 words).
________________________
R1.2
Countries/states included in the entity’s standing investments portfolio
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[CountryGavTable]](/images/tables/country_gav_table/y2020-a4dafdbe.svg)
Performance: Risk AssessmentRA1
Risk assessments performed on standing investments portfolio
Has the entity performed asset-level environmental and/or social risk assessments of its standing investments during the last three years?
Yes
Select all issues included (multiple answers possible)
Biodiversity and habitat
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Building safety and materials
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Climate/climate change adaptation
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Contaminated land
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Energy efficiency
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Energy supply
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Flooding
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
GHG emissions
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Health and well-being
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Indoor environmental quality
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Natural hazards
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Regulatory
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Resilience
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Socio-economic
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Transportation
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Waste management
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Water efficiency
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Water supply
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Other: ____________
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
The risk assessment is aligned with a third-party standard
Yes
ISO 31000
Other: ____________
No
Describe how the outcomes of the ESG risk assessments are used in order to mitigate the selected risks (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
RA1
3 points , E
RA2
Technical building assessments
Technical building assessments performed during the last three years
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[TechnicalAssessments]](/images/tables/technical_assessments/y2020-5edb66a5.svg)
RA2
3 points , E
RA3
Energy efficiency measures
Energy efficiency measures implemented in the last three years
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[EnergyMeasures]](/images/tables/energy_measures/y2020-586f48b2.svg)
RA3
1.5 points , E
RA4
Water efficiency measures
Water efficiency measures implemented in the last three years
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[WaterMeasures]](/images/tables/water_measures/y2020-be8f36db.svg)
RA4
1 point , E
RA5
Waste management measures
Waste management measures implemented in the last three years
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[WasteMeasures]](/images/tables/waste_measures/y2020-86b6dd69.svg)
RA5
0.5 points , E
Performance: TargetsT1.1
Portfolio improvement targets
Has the entity set long-term performance improvement targets?
Yes
![[TargetsTable]](/images/tables/targets_table/y2020-8c992e9c.svg)
Explain the methodology used to establish the targets and communicate the anticipated pathways to achieve these targets (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
T1.1
2 points , E
T1.2
Science-based targets
Is the entity’s GHG emissions target science-based?
Yes
Has the target been approved by the Science-Based Targets initiative?
Yes
No
Select the scope of the science-based target:
Scope 1
Scope 2 (location-based)
Scope 2 (market-based)
Scope 1+2 (location-based)
Scope 1+2 (market-based)
Scope 1+2 (location-based) + Scope 3
Scope 1+2 (market-based) + Scope 3
Scope 3
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
T1.2
E
Performance: Tenants & CommunityTC1
Tenant engagement program
Does the entity have a tenant engagement program in place that includes ESG-specific issues?
Yes
Select all approaches to engage tenants (multiple answers possible)
Building/asset communication
Percentage portfolio covered
Feedback sessions with individual tenants
Percentage portfolio covered
Provide tenants with feedback on energy/water consumption and waste
Percentage portfolio covered
Social media/online platform
Percentage portfolio covered
Tenant engagement meetings
Percentage portfolio covered
Tenant ESG guide
Percentage portfolio covered
Tenant ESG training
Percentage portfolio covered
Tenant events focused on increasing ESG awareness
Percentage portfolio covered
Other: ____________
Percentage portfolio covered
Describe the tenant engagement program and methods used to improve tenant satisfaction (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
TC1
1 point , S
TC2.1
Tenant satisfaction survey
Has the entity undertaken tenant satisfaction surveys within the last three years?
Yes
The survey is undertaken (multiple answers possible)
Internally
Percentage of tenants covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
By an independent third party
Percentage of tenants covered: ____________%
Survey response rate: ____________%
The survey includes quantitative metrics
Yes
Metrics include
Net Promoter Score
Overall satisfaction score
Satisfaction with communication
Satisfaction with property management
Satisfaction with responsiveness
Understanding tenant needs
Value for money
Other: ____________
No
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
TC2.1
1 point , S
TC2.2
Program to improve tenant satisfaction
Does the entity have a program in place to improve tenant satisfaction based on the outcomes of the survey referred to in TC2.1?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Development of an asset-specific action plan
Feedback sessions with asset/property managers
Feedback sessions with individual tenants
Other: ____________
Describe the tenant satisfaction improvement program (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
Not applicable
TC2.2
1 point , S
TC3
Fit-out & refurbishment program for tenants on ESG
Does the entity have a fit-out and refurbishment program in place for tenants that includes ESG-specific issues?
Yes
Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)
Fit-out and refurbishment assistance for meeting the minimum fit-out standards
Percentage portfolio covered
Tenant fit-out guides
Percentage portfolio covered
Minimum fit-out standards are prescribed
Percentage portfolio covered
Procurement assistance for tenants
Percentage portfolio covered
Other: ____________
Percentage portfolio covered
No
TC3
1.5 points , E
TC4
ESG-specific requirements in lease contracts (green leases)
Does the entity include ESG-specific requirements in its standard lease contracts?
Yes
Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)
Cooperation and works
Environmental initiatives
Enabling upgrade works
ESG management collaboration
Premises design for performance
Managing waste from works
Social initiatives
Other: ____________
Management and consumption
Energy management
Water management
Waste management
Indoor environmental quality management
Sustainable procurement
Sustainable utilities
Sustainable transport
Sustainable cleaning
Other: ____________
Reporting and standards
Information sharing
Performance rating
Design/development rating
Performance standards
Metering
Comfort
Other: ____________
Percentage lease contracts with an ESG clause (by floor area)
Percentage of contracts with ESG clause: ____________%
No
TC4
1.5 points , E
TC5.1
Tenant health & well-being program
Does the entity have a program for promoting health & wellbeing of tenants, customers, and local surrounding communities?
Yes
The program includes (multiple answers possible):
Needs assessment
Goal setting
Action
Monitoring
No
TC5.1
0.75 points , S
TC5.2
Tenant health & well-being measures
Does the entity take measures to incorporate the health & well-being program for tenants and local communities described in TC5.1?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Needs assessment
The entity monitors tenant health and well-being needs through (multiple answers possible):
Tenant survey
Community engagement
Use of secondary data
Other: ____________
Creation of goals to address
Mental health and well-being
Physical health and well-being
Social health and well-being
Other: ____________
Action to promote health through
Acoustic comfort
Biophilic design
Community development
Physical activity
Healthy eating
Hosting health-related activities for surrounding community
Improving infrastructure in areas surrounding assets
Inclusive design
Indoor air quality
Lighting controls and/or daylight
Physical and/or mental healthcare access
Social interaction and connection
Thermal comfort
Urban regeneration
Water quality
Other activity in surrounding community: ____________
Other building design and construction strategy: ____________
Other building operations strategy: ____________
Other programmatic intervention: ____________
Monitor outcomes by tracking
Environmental quality
Program performance
Population experience and opinions
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
TC5.2
1.25 points , S
TC6.1
Community engagement program
Does the entity have a community engagement program in place that includes ESG-specific issues?
Yes
Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)
Community health and well-being
Effective communication and process to address community concerns
Enhancement programs for public spaces
Employment creation in local communities
Research and network activities
Resilience, including assistance or support in case of disaster
Supporting charities and community groups
ESG education program
Other: ____________
Describe the community engagement program and the monitoring process (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
TC6.1
2 points , S
TC6.2
Monitoring impact on community
Does the entity monitor its impact on the community?
Yes
Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)
Housing affordability
Impact on crime levels
Livability score
Local income generated
Local residents’ well-being
Walkability score
Other: ____________
No
TC6.2
1 point , S
Performance: EnergyEN1
Energy consumption
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[PreTable]](/images/tables/pre_table/y2020-1c2702d9.svg)
The table above is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided at the asset level by the GRESB participants through the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. It displays the total area size reported in the Energy tab, split by floor area types.
Total energy consumption of the portfolio
![[EnergyConsumption]](/images/tables/energy_consumption/y2021-35f7dbfe.svg)
The table above is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided at the asset level by the GRESB participants through the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. It displays the aggregated Energy consumption values per property type, along with their related Floor Area Covered, Maximum Floor Areas and Like-for-like consumption changes (%)
Total data coverage of the portfolio
![[EnergyCoverage]](/images/tables/energy_coverage/y2021-e1ac6e35.svg)
The table above is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided at the asset level by the GRESB participants through the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. It displays a summary of aggregated Data Coverages and Like-for-Like consumption changes per property type, split by Landlord Controlled and Tenant Controlled areas. While “Area - Aggregated Data coverage” only accounts for the floor area size of assets when aggregating values, “Time - Aggregated Data coverage” accounts for the period of ownership. Consequently, “Area/Time - Aggregated Data coverage” aggregates both dimensions and is used for benchmarking purposes.
Renewable energy generated
![[EnergyRenewable]](/images/tables/energy_renewable/y2021-28ac57b5.svg)
The table above is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided at the asset level by the GRESB participants through the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. It displays the aggregated Renewable Energy consumed/generated per property type, either on-site or off-site, as well as the Percentage of total Consumption by category.
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
EN1
14 points , E
Performance: GHGGH1
GHG emissions
Total GHG emissions of the portfolio
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[GHGTables]](/images/tables/ghgtables/y2021-948dd638.svg)
The table above is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided at the asset level by the GRESB participants through the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. It displays the aggregated GHG emissions values per property type, along with their related Floor Area Covered, Maximum Floor Areas and Like-for-like changes (%) in emissions.
Note: Scope 3 emissions in the GRESB Assessment are calculated as the emissions associated with tenant areas, unless they are already reported as Scope 1 or Scope 2 emissions (if they cannot be disassociated from emissions from other areas). Scope 3 emissions do not include emissions generated through the entity’s operations or by its employees, transmission losses or upstream supply chain emissions.
Total data coverage of the portfolio
![[GHGCoverage]](/images/tables/ghgcoverage/y2021-46688b26.svg)
The table above is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided at the asset level by the GRESB participants through the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. It displays a summary of aggregated Data Coverages and Like-for-Like consumption changes per property type, split by emission Scopes. While “Area - Aggregated Data coverage” only accounts for the floor area size of assets when aggregating values, “Time - Aggregated Data coverage” accounts for the period of ownership. Consequently, “Area/Time - Aggregated Data coverage” aggregates both dimensions and is used for benchmarking purposes.
Explain (a) the GHG emissions calculation standard/methodology/protocol, (b) used emission factors, (c) level of uncertainty in data accuracy, (d) source and characteristics of GHG emissions offsets (maximum 250 words).
________________________
GH1
7 points , E
Performance: WaterWT1
Water use
Total water consumption of the portfolio
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[WaterTables]](/images/tables/water_tables/y2021-fffbf5f3.svg)
The table above is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided at the asset level by the GRESB participants through the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. It displays the aggregated Water consumption values per property type, along with their related Floor Area Covered, Maximum Floor Areas and Like-for-like consumption changes (%).
Total data coverage of the portfolio
![[WaterCoverage]](/images/tables/water_coverage/y2021-c0e7eaf2.svg)
The table above is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided at the asset level by the GRESB participants through the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. It displays a summary of aggregated Data Coverages and Like-for-Like consumption changes per property type, split by Landlord Controlled and Tenant Controlled areas. While “Area - Aggregated Data coverage” only accounts for the floor area size of assets when aggregating values, “Time - Aggregated Data coverage” accounts for the period of ownership. Consequently, “Area/Time - Aggregated Data coverage” aggregates both dimensions and is used for benchmarking purposes.
Reused and recycled water
![[WaterRecycling]](/images/tables/water_recycling/y2021-d0094ec1.svg)
The table above is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided at the asset level by the GRESB participants through the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. It displays the aggregated Reused and Recycled water captured/purchased per property type, on-site and off-site, as well as the Percentage of total Consumption by category.
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
WT1
7 points , E
Performance: WasteWS1
Waste management
Total waste generation of the portfolio
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[WasteTable]](/images/tables/waste_table/y2021-f8ef8ff6.svg)
The table above is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided at the asset level by the GRESB participants through the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. It displays the aggregated Hazardous and Non-hazardous waste quantities generated per property type, along with their related Data Coverage.
![[WasteDisposal]](/images/tables/waste_disposal/y2021-174b67d5.svg)
The table above is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided at the asset level by the GRESB participants through the GRESB Asset Spreadsheet. It displays the proportion of waste by disposal route.
Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)
________________________
WS1
4 points , E
Performance: Data Monitoring & ReviewMR1
External review of energy data
Has the entity's energy consumption data reported in EN1 been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using scheme Scheme name
Externally assured
Using scheme Scheme name
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
MR1
1.75 points , E
MR2
External review of GHG data
Has the entity's GHG data reported in GH1 been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using scheme Scheme name
Externally assured
Using scheme Scheme name
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
MR2
1.25 points , E
MR3
External review of water data
Has the entity's water data reported in WT1 been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using scheme Scheme name
Externally assured
Using scheme Scheme name
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
MR3
1.25 points , E
MR4
External review of waste data
Has the entity's waste data reported in WS1 been reviewed by an independent third party?
Yes
Externally checked
Externally verified
Using scheme Scheme name
Externally assured
Using scheme Scheme name
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
Not applicable
MR4
1.25 points , E
Performance: Building CertificationsBC1.1
Building certifications at the time of design/construction
Standing investments that obtained a green building certificate at the time of design, construction, and/or renovation
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[CertificationTable]](/images/tables/certification_table/y2021-81ac727e.svg)
BC1.1
A list of provisionally validated certification schemes is provided in Appendix of the Reference Guide.
7 points , E
BC1.2
Operational building certifications
Standing investments that hold a valid operational green building certificate
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
BC1.2
A list of provisionally validated certification schemes is provided in Appendix of the Reference Guide.
8.5 points , E
BC2
Energy Ratings
Standing investments that hold a valid energy rating
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[EnergyRatingTable]](/images/tables/energy_rating_table/y2021-a03cfcdd.svg)
BC2
2 points , E
DR1.1
Composition of the entity’s development projects portfolio during the reporting year
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
![[PropertyConstructionTable]](/images/tables/property_construction_table/y2020-85afcce1.svg)
Note: The table above defines the scope of your 2021 GRESB submission on development projects. It should include new construction and major renovations projects that are in progress at the end of reporting year, as well as projects that are completed during the reporting year. The reporting scope reported above should exclude vacant land, cash or other non real estate assets owned by the entity.
*% GAV represented as the share of the development projects within the entire development portfolio (including both new construction and major renovations)
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Provide additional context on how the uploaded evidence supports the entity’s reporting boundaries and portfolio composition (maximum 250 words)
________________________
DR1.2
Countries/states included in the entity’s development projects portfolio
The indicator below is automatically populated by GRESB based on information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section ASSETS.
Development: ESG RequirementsDRE1
ESG strategy during development
Does the entity have an ESG strategy in place for development projects?
Yes
Elements addressed in the strategy (multiple answers possible)
Biodiversity and habitat
Building safety
Climate/climate change adaptation
Energy consumption
Green building certifications
Greenhouse gas emissions
Health and well-being
Indoor environmental quality
Life-cycle assessments/embodied carbon
Location and transportation
Material sourcing
Net-zero/carbon neutral design
Pollution prevention
Renewable energy
Resilience to catastrophe/disaster
Site selection and land use
Sustainable procurement
Waste management
Water consumption
Other: ____________
The strategy is
Publicly available
Not publicly available
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Communicate the objectives and explain how they are integrated into the overall business strategy (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
DRE1
4 points , G
DRE2
Site selection requirements
Does the entity require sustainable site selection criteria to be considered for development projects?
Yes
Select all criteria included (multiple answers possible)
Connect to multi-modal transit networks
Locate projects within existing developed areas
Protect, restore, and conserve aquatic ecosystems
Protect, restore, and conserve farmland
Protect, restore, and conserve floodplain functions
Protect, restore, and conserve habitats for native, threatened and endangered species
Protect, restore, and conserve historical and heritage sites
Redevelop brownfield sites
Other: ____________
No
DRE2
4 points , E
DRE3
Site design and construction requirements
Does the entity have sustainable site design/construction requirements for development projects?
Yes
Select all criteria included (multiple answers possible)
Manage waste by diverting construction and demolition materials from disposal
Manage waste by diverting reusable vegetation, rocks, and soil from disposal
Minimize light pollution to the surrounding community
Minimize noise pollution to the surrounding community
Perform environmental site assessment
Protect air quality during construction
Protect and restore habitat and soils disturbed during construction and/or during previous development
Protect surface water and aquatic ecosystems by controlling and retaining construction pollutants
Other: ____________
No
DRE3
4 points , E
Development: MaterialsDMA1
Materials selection requirements
Does the entity have a policy requiring that the environmental and health attributes of building materials be considered for development projects?
Yes
Select all issues addressed (multiple answers possible)
Requirement for disclosure about the environmental and/or health attributes of building materials (multiple answers possible)
Environmental Product Declarations
Health Product Declarations
Other types of required health and environmental disclosure
____________
Material characteristics specification preferences, including (multiple answers possible)
Locally extracted or recovered materials
Low embodied carbon materials
Low-emitting VOC materials
Materials and packaging that can easily be recycled
Materials that disclose environmental impacts
Materials that disclose potential health hazards
Rapidly renewable materials and recycled content materials
“Red list” of prohibited materials or ingredients that should not be used on the basis of their human and/or environmental impacts
Third-party certified wood-based materials and products
Types of third-party certification used: ____________
Other: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
DMA1
6 points , E
DMA2.1
Life cycle assessments
Does the entity assess the life cycle emissions of its development projects?
Yes
Select the type of assessment:
Quantitative assessment
Qualitative assessment
Select the boundaries of the calculation applied:
Cradle-to-gate
Cradle-to-practical completion/handover
Use stage
End-of-life stage
Cradle-to-grave
Whole life
Other: ____________
Select the standards/methodologies/tools applied:
BBCA Label (Bâtiment Bas Carbone)
E+C- Label (Énergie Positive & Réduction Carbone)
Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator (EC3) Tool
EN 15978
EN 15804
GHG Protocol - Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard
ISO 14040/44
ISO 14025
One Click LCA
The Carbon Smart Materials Palette®
Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment, RICS
Other: ____________
Percentage of development projects completed during the last three years using any calculation method
________________________
Percentage of development projects completed during the last three years using the whole life LCA
________________________
Explain the embodied carbon calculation method applied and the results of the assessment (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
DMA2.1
Not scored , E
DMA2.2
Embodied carbon disclosure
Has the entity disclosed the embodied carbon emissions of its development projects completed within the last three years?
Yes
The disclosure is
Publicly available
URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Not publicly available
No
Not applicable
DMA2.2
Not scored , G
Development: Building CertificationsDBC1.1
Green building standard requirements
Does the entity’s development portfolio include projects that are aligned with green building rating standards?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
The entity requires projects to align with requirements of a third-party green building rating system but does not require certification
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Green building rating systems (include all that apply): ____________
The entity requires projects to achieve certification with a green building rating system but does not require a specific level of certification
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Green building rating systems (include all that apply): ____________
The entity requires projects to achieve a specific (above the minimum) level of certification
Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%
Green building rating systems (include all that apply): ____________
Level of certification (above the minimum) adopted as a standard by the entity (include all applicable rating systems):
________________________
No
DBC1.1
4 points , E
DBC1.2
Green building certifications
Does the entity’s development portfolio include projects that obtained or are registered to obtain a green building certificate?
Yes
Specify the certification scheme(s) used and the percentage of the portfolio registered and/or certified (multiple answers possible):
Projects registered to obtain a green building certificate at the end of reporting year
![[DevCertificationsRegisteredTable]](/images/tables/dev_certifications_registered_table/y2021-90960418.svg)
Projects that obtained a green building certificate or official pre-certification during the reporting year
![[DevCertificationsObtainedTable]](/images/tables/dev_certifications_obtained_table/y2021-9bcbb3f9.svg)
No
Not applicable
DBC1.2
9 points , E
Development: EnergyDEN1
Energy efficiency requirements
Does the entity have minimum energy efficiency requirements for development projects?
Yes
Requirements for planning and design include (multiple answers possible)
Development and implementation of a commissioning plan
Integrative design process
To exceed relevant energy codes or standards
Requirements for minimum energy use intensity post-occupancy
Other: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Common energy efficiency measures include (multiple answers possible)
Air conditioning
Commissioning
Energy modeling
High-efficiency equipment and appliances
Lighting
Occupant controls
Passive design
Space heating
Ventilation
Water heating
Other: ____________
Operational energy efficiency monitoring (multiple answers possible)
Building energy management systems
Energy use analytics
Post-construction energy monitoring
For on average years: ____________
Sub-meter
Other: ____________
No
DEN1
6 points , E
DEN2.1
On-site renewable energy
Does the entity incorporate on-site renewable energy in the design of development projects?
Yes
Projects designed to generate on-site renewable energy (multiple answers possible)
Biofuels
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Geothermal Steam
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Hydro
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Solar/photovoltaic
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Wind
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Other: ____________
Percentage of all projects: ____________%
Average design target for the fraction of total energy demand met with on-site renewable energy
________________________
No
Not applicable
DEN2.1
6 points , E
DEN2.2
Net zero carbon design and standards
Does the entity’s portfolio include any buildings designed to meet net zero carbon completed within the last three years?
Yes
The entity’s definition of “net zero carbon” includes:
Net zero carbon - construction
Net zero carbon - operational energy
Other: ____________
The entity uses net zero carbon code/standard:
National/local green building council standard, specify: ____________
National/local government standard, specify: ____________
International standard, specify: ____________
Other: ____________
Percentage of projects covered: ____________%
________________________
No
DEN2.2
2 points , E
Development: WaterDWT1
Water conservation strategy
Does the entity promote water conservation in its development projects?
Yes
The entity promotes water conservation through (multiple answers possible)
Requirements for planning and design include (multiple answers possible)
Development and implementation of a commissioning plan
Integrative design for water conservation
Requirements for indoor water efficiency
Requirements for outdoor water efficiency
Requirements for process water efficiency
Requirements for water supply
Requirements for minimum water use intensity post-occupancy
Other: ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
Common water efficiency measures include (multiple answers possible)
Commissioning of water systems
Drip/smart irrigation
Drought tolerant/low-water landscaping
High-efficiency/dry fixtures
Leak detection system
Occupant sensors
On-site wastewater treatment
Reuse of stormwater and greywater for non-potable applications
Other: ____________
Operational water efficiency monitoring (multiple answers possible)
Post-construction water monitoring
For on average years: ____________
Sub-meter
Water use analytics
Other: ____________
No
DWT1
5 points , E
Development: WasteDWS1
Waste management strategy
Does the entity promote efficient on-site solid waste management during the construction phase of its development projects?
Yes
The entity promotes efficient solid waste management through (multiple answers possible)
Management and construction practices (multiple answers possible)
Construction waste signage
Diversion rate requirements
Education of employees/contractors on waste management
Incentives for contractors for recovering, reusing and recycling building materials
Targets for waste stream recovery, reuse and recycling
Waste management plans
Waste separation facilities
Other: ____________
On-site waste monitoring (multiple answers possible)
Hazardous waste monitoring/audit
Non-hazardous waste monitoring/audit
Other: ____________
No
DWS1
5 points , E
Development: Stakeholder EngagementDSE1
Health & Well-being
Does the entity take measures to incorporate occupant health & well-being in its development projects?
Yes
The entity addresses health and well-being in the design of its project/building through (multiple answers possible)
Requirements for planning and design, including (multiple answers possible)
Health Impact Assessment
Integrated planning process
Other planning process: ____________
Common occupant health and well-being measures, including (multiple answers possible)
Acoustic comfort
Active design features
Biophilic design
Commissioning
Daylight
Ergonomic workplace
Humidity
Illumination
Inclusive design
Indoor air quality
Natural ventilation
Occupant controls
Physical activity
Thermal comfort
Water quality
Other: ____________
Provisions to verify health and well-being performance include (multiple answers possible)
Occupant education
Post-construction health and well-being monitoring (e.g., occupant comfort and satisfaction)
For on average years: ____________
Other: ____________
No
DSE1
2 points , S
DSE2.1
On-site safety
Does the entity promote on-site safety during the construction phase of its development projects?
Yes
The entity promotes on-site safety through (multiple answers possible)
Availability of medical personnel
Communicating safety information
Continuously improving safety performance
Demonstrating safety leadership
Entrenching safety practices
Managing safety risks
On-site health and safety professional (coordinator)
Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment
Promoting design for safety
Training curriculum
Other: ____________
No
DSE2.1
1.5 points , S
DSE2.2
Safety metrics
Does the entity monitor safety indicators at construction sites?
Yes
Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)
Injury rate: ____________
Explain the injury rate calculation method (maximum 250 words)
________________________
Fatalities: ____________
Near misses: ____________
Lost day rate: ____________
Severity rate: ____________
Other metrics: ____________
Rate of other metric(s): ____________
No
DSE2.2
1.5 points , S
DSE3.1
Contractor ESG requirements
Does the entity have ESG requirements in place for its contractors?
Yes
Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)
Business ethics
Child labor
Community engagement
Environmental process standards
Environmental product standards
Health and well-being
Human rights
Human health-based product standards
Occupational safety
Labor standards and working conditions
Other: ____________
Percentage of projects covered: ____________%
No
DSE3.1
2 points , S
DSE3.2
Contractor monitoring methods
Does the entity monitor its contractors' compliance with its ESG-specific requirements in place for this entity?
Yes
Select all methods used (multiple answers possible)
Contractor ESG training
Contractors provide update reports on environmental and social aspects during construction
External audits by third party
Percentage of projects audited during the reporting year: ____________%
Internal audits
Percentage of projects audited during the reporting year: ____________%
Weekly/monthly (on-site) meetings and/or ad hoc site visits
Percentage of projects visited during the reporting year: ____________%
Other: ____________
No
Not applicable
DSE3.2
2 points , S
DSE4
Community engagement program
Does the entity have a community engagement program through its development projects in place that includes ESG-specific issues?
Yes
Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)
Community health and well-being
Effective communication and process to address community concerns
Employment creation in local communities
Enhancement programs for public spaces
ESG education program
Research and network activities
Resilience, including assistance or support in case of disaster
Supporting charities and community groups
Other: ____________
Describe the community engagement program (maximum 250 words)
________________________
No
DSE4
2 points , S
DSE5.1
Community impact assessment
Does the entity assess the potential long-term socio-economic impact of its development projects on the community as part of planning and pre-construction?
Yes
Select the areas of impact that are assessed (multiple answers possible)
Housing affordability
Impact on crime levels
Livability score
Local income generated
Local job creation
Local residents‘ well-being
Walkability score
Other: ____________
No
DSE5.1
2 points , S
DSE5.2
Community impact monitoring
Does the entity have a systematic process to monitor the impact of development projects on the local community during different stages of the project?
Yes
The entity’s process includes (multiple answers possible)
Analysis and interpretation of monitoring data
Development and implementation of a communication plan
Development and implementation of a community monitoring plan
Development and implementation of a risk mitigation plan
Identification of nuisance and/or disruption risks
Identification of stakeholders and impacted groups
Management practices to ensure accountability for performance goals and issues identified during community monitoring
Other: ____________
Describe the monitoring process (maximum 250 words): ____________
Provide applicable evidence
or URL____________
Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____
No
DSE5.2
2 points , S