The GRESB Real Estate Assessment Scoring Document accompanies the GRESB Real Estate Standard and Reference Guide and is published as a standalone document. The Scoring Document reflects the opinions of GRESB and not of our members. The information in the Scoring Document has been provided in good faith and is provided on an “as is” basis. We take reasonable care to check the accuracy and completeness of the Scoring Document prior to its publication. While we do not anticipate major changes, we reserve the right to make modifications to the Scoring Document. We will publicly announce any such modifications. The Scoring Document is not provided as the basis for any professional advice or for transactional use. GRESB and its advisors, consultants and sub‑contractors shall not be responsible or liable for any advice given to third parties, any investment decisions or trading or any other actions taken by you or by third parties based on information contained in the Scoring Document. Except where stated otherwise, GRESB is the exclusive owner of all intellectual property rights in all the information contained in the Scoring Document.

Purpose of this Document

The 2025 GRESB Real Estate Scoring Document provides a comprehensive explanation of how individual indicators are scored within the Real Estate Assessment. It is designed to complement the Reference Guide, which outlines the specific reporting requirements for each indicator. Together, these documents help participants understand the assessment criteria, meet reporting requirements, and interpret their scores effectively.

This document is not to be used for score estimation, as it is not possible to calculate GRESB Scores in advance. For further details, refer to the guidance below.

For additional guidance on understanding the Benchmark Report insights, refer to the “How to Read Your Benchmark Report” document. Frequently asked scoring-related questions are also addressed in the FAQ document.

GRESB Scoring Model

Scoring within the GRESB Real Estate Assessment is fully automated and completed without manual intervention. The maximum score for the Real Estate Assessment is 100 points, distributed across components as follows:

Standing Investments Benchmark

Management Component: 30 points
Performance Component: 70 points

Development Benchmark

Management Component: 30 points
Development Component: 70 points

Each indicator is categorized under one of three ESG dimensions: Environmental (E), Social (S), or Governance (G). The table below shows the score breakdown for each component across these dimensions:

Component	E (Environmental)	S (Social)	G (Governance)
Management	0%	34%	66%
Performance	89%	11%	0%
Development	73%	21%	6%

In addition to the GRESB Score, the Real Estate Benchmark Report provides additional insights via the GRESB Rating. The GRESB Rating is a relative measure of an entity’s ESG performance, calculated based on the GRESB Score and its quintile position within the benchmark. Entities in the top 20% receive a 5-star rating, while those in the bottom 20% receive a 1-star rating.

Indicator Score Breakdown

Each indicator within the GRESB Real Estate Assessment is assigned a specific scoring weight. The maximum score an entity can achieve for each indicator depends on several factors, with the scoring process incorporating scoring weights and score multipliers. For details on asset-level scoring, please refer to section “Relative Scoring”.

Scoring Weights

For some indicators, scoring is based solely on the cumulative sum of the scoring weights assigned to the indicator's elements. These weights, displayed in red on the left side of each indicator, represent the allocation of total available points per indicator according to the priorities established by the GRESB Foundation, aligning with market trends and sustainability best practices.

Often times, not all elements within an indicator need to be selected to achieve full points. If the sum of weights exceeds the indicator's maximum score, the score will be capped at that maximum. The score for these indicators is determined as follows:

Indicator score = [ (Sum of scoring weights) ] × (Maximum score for the indicator)

Example: Indicator LE4 - ESG Taskforce/Committee (1 point). Each task force member type contributes a specific scoring weight; governing bodies and leadership roles hold a scoring weight of 3/8, and investment and ESG professional roles hold a scoring weight of 2/8.

If an entity chooses two governing bodies and one ESG professionals, the calculation will read as follows:

[(\frac{3}{8} + \frac{3}{8} + \frac{2}{8}) \times 1] \times 1 = 1

When indicators have options and sub-options, the scoring weight for each sub-option is first summed, and the resulting value is multiplied by the main fraction assigned to the main option. The final score is the cumulative sum of these weighted sub-options across all main options within the indicator, multiplied by the indicator's maximum points.

Indicator score = [ (Sum of the sub-option scoring weights for each main option) × (Main option weight for each option) ] × Maximum score for the indicator

Example: indicator SE6 - Supply chain engagement program (1.5 points). The indicator consists of three main options, each carrying an equal weight of 1/3. Within each main option, there are several sub-options, each with its own assigned weight. If an entity chooses four elements within the supply chain engagement program, four topics and two external parties to whom the requirements apply, the calculation would read as:

{[(\frac{1}{4} \times 4) \times \frac{1}{3}] + [(\frac{1}{4} \times 4) \times \frac{1}{3}] + [(\frac{1}{2} \times 2) \times \frac{1}{3}]} \times 1.5 = 1.5 points

Multipliers

The score of other indicators is further adjusted by applying multipliers that either increase or decrease the indicator’s score. Multipliers are classified into different categories:

Validation Status:

Evidence: If supporting evidence for indicators is fully accepted, it results in the application of the full multiplier (100%) to the indicator's score. If supporting evidence is partially accepted, it results in a reduced multiplier (50%). If the evidence is not accepted, the multiplier is set to 0, regardless of the original selection. Indicators and answers subject to manual validation are listed in Appendix 4 of the Reference Guide.
Building Certification Schemes: Each building certification is reviewed by GRESB and assigned a specific validation status: full points (100%), partial plus (60%) and partial minus (30%). Indicators subject to this multiplier are BC1.1, BC1.2, DBC1.1 and DBC1.2.

Coverage Percentages: The coverage percentage reported is used as a multiplier to determine the assigned score. This multiplier applies to the scoring of the following indicators:

Percentage of employees: SE1, SE2.1, SE3.2 and SE4
Percentage of tenants: TC2.1
Percentage of portfolio coverage: RA1, RA2 (aggregated to portfolio level), TC1 and TC3
Percentage of projects covered: DBC1.1, DEN2.1, DEN2.2 and DSE3.1

Single Multiplier Example

For indicators with a single multiplier, the final score is calculated using the following formula:

Indicator score = [ (Sum of scoring weights) × Multiplier ] × Maximum score for the indicator

Example: Indicator LE6 - Personnel ESG Performance Targets (2 points). Each selected personnel group contributes a specific scoring weight. It is mandatory to upload evidence that supports the entity’s selections. The evidence’s validation status (i.e., accepted, partially accepted or not accepted) is associated with a scoring weight that is used as a multiplier to determine the final score. Similarly to LE4, governing bodies and leadership roles hold a scoring weight of 3/8, and investment and ESG professional roles hold a scoring weight of 2/8.

If an entity chooses one governing body and two ESG professionals, but its evidence is given a partially accepted validation status (multiplier: 0.5), the calculation would be as follows:

[(\frac{3}{8} + \frac{3}{8} + \frac{2}{8}) \times 0.5] \times 2 = 1

Multiple multipliers example:

The score of other indicators may be adjusted by several multipliers. The scoring formula can include an additional percentage multiplier before applying the validation status.

Example: Indicator and TC2.1 – Tenant satisfaction survey (1 point) is scored based on two main options: the type of survey, which contributes 2/3 of the total weight, and the metrics included in the survey, which contributes the remaining 1/3. Each of these main options contains several sub-options, such as the survey method and specific metrics, each with its own weight. The percentage of tenants covered in the survey type acts as a multiplier applied to the weight of the selected sub-option, while the weights of the sub-options within the metrics are cumulatively summed. The weighted contributions of both main options (survey type and metrics) are then added together, as explained above. The resulting score is then adjusted based on the validation status of the evidence. The final score is then multiplied by the maximum score for the indicator. In this case, the formula would read:

Indicator score: { [ ( % Multiplier * sub-option weight * Main option weight) + [ ( Sum of the sub-option scoring weights) × (Main option weight) ] * Validation status } * Maximum score for the indicator

Note that indicators with several multipliers may differ in structure, and therefore the same exact formula would not apply. For this specific case, if an entity chooses an independent third-party survey with 100% of tenants covered, which includes the Net Promoter Score metric, and whose evidence has been partially accepted (0.5), the calculation would be:

{[(100% \times \frac{2}{3} \times \frac{2}{3}) + (\frac{3}{3} \times \frac{1}{3})] \times 0.5} \times 1 = 0.5 points

Static scoring

Some indicators are scored using static weights, meaning predefined values are used to assess a portfolio's performance. In these cases, the points assigned to an indicator are fixed based on the number of selections chosen and the corresponding multipliers, where applicable. The scoring outcome remains unaffected by the participant's relative performance compared to its benchmark group. Instead, these indicators are assessed based on whether the participant meets certain predefined criteria.

Static scoring applies to indicators that assess entity and/or group-level strategies and processes:

Management Component: all indicators
Performance Component: all indicators except EN1, GH1, WT1, WS1, BC1.1, BC1.2 and BC2, which may be scored using either a relative or linear approach, depending on the benchmark performance. For further details, refer to each individual indicator description.
Development Component: all indicators except DBC1.2

These indicators can be answered with ‘Yes, ‘No’ and, in some cases, ‘Not applicable.’ From a scoring perspective, ‘Not applicable’ is treated the same way as ‘No’ and will yield 0 points.

The points per indicator subject to static scoring vary across the Real Estate Components:

Management Component = 30 points
Performance Component = 27.5 points (dependent upon materiality)
Development Component = 61 points

Note that it is not possible to estimate the points obtained for indicators subject to manual validation.

Relative scoring

GRESB uses a relative scoring methodology that ensures that portfolios are evaluated fairly and encourages continual improvement. It applies to indicators reported at the asset-level either through the Asset Spreadsheet or Asset Portal: EN1 (Energy), GH1 (GHG Emissions), WT1 (Water), WS1 (Waste), BC1.1 (Building Certifications at the time of design/construction and for interior), BC1.2 (Operational Building Certifications), BC2 (Energy Ratings) and DBC1.2 (Development Building Certifications).

With this approach, scores are determined not just by the portfolio's standalone performance but by how it compares against benchmark groups of comparable properties. Benchmark groups are dynamic, and change based on the portfolio's characteristics, such as the type of property and geographical location. For example, if a portfolio has two property sub-types, e.g. Office, Corporate: Low-Rise in Germany and Residential Multi-Family: Low-Rise Multi-Family in the Netherlands, each property type will be benchmarked and scored separately against other properties with the same sectoral and geographical characteristics. Note that this is dependent upon benchmark availability: if there are not at least 20 assets from 5 distinct reporting entities, the Property Sub-Type classification and then the Country specificity will be gradually decreased.

GRESB aggregates self-reported asset-level data to a single score for each property sub-type and country in the participant’s portfolio. The final indicator score is calculated by weighing the property sub-type and country scores based on their % GAV within the portfolio. This ensures that the contribution of each property sub-type and country to the final score is proportional to its significance in the portfolio. For example, if a portfolio has two property sub-types, e.g. Office, Corporate: Low-Rise in Germany (60%) and Residential Multi-Family: Low-Rise Multi-Family in the Netherlands (40%), the performance of properties in Germany will have a greater impact on the entity’s score compared to those in the Netherlands as Germany holds a higher % GAV in the overall portfolio.

The points per indicator subject to relative scoring vary across the Real Estate Components:

Management Component = 0 points
Performance Component = 42.5 points
Development Component = 9 points

For indicator-specific scoring guidance, please refer to each individual indicator description.

Additional details on aggregation methodology and calculations can be found in the Aggregation Handbook.

Note that it is not possible to estimate the points obtained for indicators subject to relative scoring, as benchmark values are proprietary GRESB data.

Additional clarifications

Open text boxes are not used for scoring purposes but are intended for additional reporting or explanatory purposes.

It is not possible to estimate the GRESB Score due to the influence of validation decisions and dynamically benchmarked indicators.

Management: Leadership

ESG Commitments and Objectives

FAQ

LE1

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)

General ESG commitments

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

Other: ____________

Provide applicable hyperlink

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Net Zero commitments

BBP Climate Commitment

Net Zero Asset Managers initiative: Net Zero Asset Managers Commitment

PAII Net Zero Asset Owner Commitment

Science Based Targets initiative: Net Zero Standard commitment

The Climate Pledge

Transform to Net Zero

ULI Greenprint Net Zero Carbon Operations Goal

UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance

UNFCCC Climate Neutral Now Pledge

WorldGBC Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment

Other: ____________

Provide applicable hyperlink

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

LE1

Not scored , G

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

FAQ

LE2

ESG objectives

Does the entity have ESG objectives?

Yes

The objectives relate to (multiple answers possible)

²⁄₄

General objectives

⁴⁄₅

¹⁄₃

Environment

¹⁄₃

Social

¹⁄₃

Governance

Issue-specific objectives

¹⁄₅

¹⁄₂

Human capital

¹⁄₂

Health and well-being

The objectives are

²⁄₄

Publicly available

Provide applicable hyperlink

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

⁰⁄₄

Not publicly available

Communicate the objectives and explain how they are integrated into the overall business strategy (maximum 250 words)

________________________

LE2

1 point , G

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

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

ESG Decision Making

FAQ

LE3

Individual responsible for ESG, climate-related, and/or human capital objectives

Does the entity have one or more persons responsible for implementing ESG, climate-related, and/or human capital objectives?

Yes

ESG

³⁄₅

Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)

⁵⁄₅

Dedicated employee(s) for whom ESG is the core responsibility

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

Employee(s) for whom ESG is among their responsibilities

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

²⁄₅

External consultants/manager

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

Climate-related risks and opportunities

¹⁄₅

Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)

⁵⁄₅

Dedicated employee(s) for whom climate-related issues are core responsibilities

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

Employee(s) for whom climate-related issues are among their responsibilities

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

²⁄₅

External consultants/manager

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

Human capital

¹⁄₅

Select the persons responsible (multiple answers possible)

⁵⁄₅

Dedicated employee for whom human capital is the core responsibility

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

Employee for whom human capital is among their responsibilities

Provide the details for the most senior of these employees:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

²⁄₅

External consultant/manager

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

Investment partners (co-investors/JV partners)

Name of the main contact: ____________

Job title: ____________

LE3

2 points , G

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

FAQ

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)

³⁄₈

Board of Directors

³⁄₈

C-suite level staff/Senior management

³⁄₈

Investment Committee

³⁄₈

Fund/portfolio managers

²⁄₈

Asset managers

²⁄₈

ESG portfolio manager

²⁄₈

Investment analysts

²⁄₈

Dedicated staff on ESG issues

²⁄₈

External managers or service providers

²⁄₈

Investor relations

²⁄₈

Other: ____________

LE4

1 point , G

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

LE5

ESG, climate-related and/or human capital senior decision maker

Does the entity have a senior decision-maker accountable for ESG, climate-related, and/or human capital issues?

Yes

ESG

Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on ESG issues

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

³⁄₅

The individual’s most senior role is as part of

Board of Directors

C-suite level staff/Senior management

Investment Committee

Other: ____________

Climate-related risks and opportunities

Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on climate-related issues

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

¹⁄₅

The individual’s most senior role is as part of

Board of Directors

C-suite level staff/Senior management

Investment Committee

Other: ____________

Human capital

Provide the details for the most senior decision-maker on human capital:

Name: ____________

Job title: ____________

¹⁄₅

The individual's most senior role is as part of:

Board of directors

C-suite level staff/Senior management

Investment committee

Other: ____________

Describe the process of informing the most senior decision-maker on the ESG, climate-related, and human capital performance of the entity (maximum 250 words)

________________________

LE5

1 point , G

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

FAQ

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 financial consequences?

Yes

Select the personnel to whom these factors apply (multiple answers possible):

³⁄₈

Board of Directors

³⁄₈

C-suite level staff/Senior management

³⁄₈

Investment Committee

³⁄₈

Fund/portfolio managers

²⁄₈

Asset managers

²⁄₈

ESG portfolio manager

²⁄₈

Investment analysts

²⁄₈

Dedicated staff on ESG issues

²⁄₈

External managers or service providers

²⁄₈

Investor relations

²⁄₈

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

LE6

2 points , G

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

Management: Policies

ESG Policies

FAQ

PO1

Policy on environmental issues

Does the entity have a policy/policies on environmental issues?

Yes

Select all environmental issues included (multiple answers possible)

²⁄₃

¹⁄₆

Biodiversity and habitat

¹⁄₆

Climate/climate change adaptation

¹⁄₆

Energy consumption

¹⁄₆

Greenhouse gas emissions

¹⁄₆

Indoor environmental quality

¹⁄₆

Material sourcing

¹⁄₆

Pollution prevention

¹⁄₆

Renewable energy

¹⁄₆

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster

¹⁄₆

Sustainable procurement

¹⁄₆

Waste management

¹⁄₆

Water consumption

¹⁄₆

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Does the entity have a policy to address Net Zero?

¹⁄₃

Yes

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

PO1

1.5 points , G

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

PO2

Policy on social issues

Does the entity have a policy/policies on social issues?

Yes

Select all social issues included (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₆

Child labor

¹⁄₆

Community development

¹⁄₆

Customer satisfaction

¹⁄₆

Employee engagement

¹⁄₆

Employee health & well-being

¹⁄₆

Employee remuneration

¹⁄₆

Forced or compulsory labor

¹⁄₆

Freedom of association

¹⁄₆

Health and safety: community

¹⁄₆

Health and safety: contractors

¹⁄₆

Health and safety: employees

¹⁄₆

Health and safety: tenants/customers

¹⁄₆

Human rights

¹⁄₆

Human capital

¹⁄₆

Labor standards and working conditions

¹⁄₆

Social enterprise partnering

¹⁄₆

Stakeholder relations

¹⁄₆

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

PO2

1.5 points , G

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

PO3

Policy on governance issues

Does the entity have a policy/policies on governance issues?

Yes

Select all governance issues included (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₆

Bribery and corruption

¹⁄₆

Cybersecurity

¹⁄₆

Data protection and privacy

¹⁄₆

Executive compensation

¹⁄₆

Fiduciary duty

¹⁄₆

Fraud

¹⁄₆

Political contributions

¹⁄₆

Shareholder rights

¹⁄₆

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

PO3

1.5 points , G

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

Management: Reporting

ESG Disclosure

FAQ

RP1

ESG reporting

Does the entity disclose its ESG actions and/or performance?

Yes

Please select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)

³⁄₅

²⁄₆

Section in Annual Report

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Investment manager

¹⁄₂

Group

¹⁄₆

Disclosure is third-party reviewed:

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

³⁄₃

Externally verified

³⁄₃

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

⁴⁄₅

²⁄₆

Stand-alone sustainability report(s)

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Investment manager

¹⁄₂

Group

¹⁄₆

Disclosure is third-party reviewed:

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

³⁄₃

Externally verified

³⁄₃

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

⁵⁄₅

³⁄₆

Integrated Report

*Integrated Report must be aligned with IIRC framework

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Investment manager

¹⁄₂

Group

Disclosure is third-party reviewed:

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

³⁄₃

Externally verified

³⁄₃

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

¹⁄₅

²⁄₃

Dedicated section on corporate website

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₃

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Investment manager

¹⁄₂

Group

URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

²⁄₅

²⁄₆

Other: ____________

Select the applicable reporting level

¹⁄₆

²⁄₂

Entity

¹⁄₂

Investment manager

¹⁄₂

Group

¹⁄₆

Disclosure is third-party reviewed:

Yes

²⁄₆

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

³⁄₃

Externally verified

³⁄₃

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

RP1

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

3.5 points , G

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

ESG Incident Monitoring

FAQ

RP2.1

Incident monitoring

Does the entity have a process to monitor 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:

¹⁄₄

Clients/Customers

¹⁄₈

Community/Public

¹⁄₈

Contractors

¹⁄₄

Employees

¹⁄₄

Investors/Shareholders

¹⁄₈

Regulators/Government

¹⁄₈

Special interest groups (NGOs, Trade Unions, etc)

¹⁄₈

Suppliers

¹⁄₈

Other stakeholders: ____________

Describe the process (maximum 250 words): ____________

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

RP2.1

0.25 points , G

The scoring of this indicator is equal to the fraction assigned to the selected option, multiplied by the total score of the indicator. It is not necessary to select all options to achieve the maximum score.

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

FAQ

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)

________________________

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

RP2.2

Not scored , G

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

Management: Risk Management

Risk Management

FAQ

RM1

Environmental Management System (EMS)

Does the entity have an Environmental Management System (EMS)?

Yes

The EMS is aligned with a standard

¹⁄₂

ISO 14001

EMAS (EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme)

Other standard: ____________

The EMS is externally certified by an independent third party using

²⁄₂

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

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

RM1

1.25 points , G

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

RM2

Process to implement governance policies

Does the entity have processes to implement governance policy/policies?

Yes

Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₄

Compliance linked to employee remuneration

¹⁄₄

Dedicated help desks, focal points, ombudsman, hotlines

¹⁄₄

Disciplinary actions in case of breach, i.e. warning, dismissal, zero tolerance policy

¹⁄₄

Employee performance appraisal systems integrate compliance with codes of conduct

¹⁄₄

Investment due diligence process

¹⁄₄

Responsibilities, accountabilities and reporting lines are systematically defined in all divisions and group companies

Training related to governance risks for employees (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₄

¹⁄₂

Regular follow-ups

¹⁄₂

When an employee joins the organization

¹⁄₄

Whistle-blower mechanism

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Not applicable

RM2

0.25 points , G

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

Risk Assessments

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₆

Child labor

¹⁄₆

Community development

¹⁄₆

Controversies linked to social enterprise partnering

¹⁄₆

Customer satisfaction

¹⁄₆

Employee engagement

¹⁄₆

Employee health & well-being

¹⁄₆

Forced or compulsory labor

¹⁄₆

Freedom of association

¹⁄₆

Health and safety: community

¹⁄₆

Health and safety: contractors

¹⁄₆

Health and safety: employees

¹⁄₆

Health and safety: tenants/customers

¹⁄₆

Health and safety: supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors)

¹⁄₆

Human rights

¹⁄₆

Human capital

¹⁄₆

Labor standards and working conditions

¹⁄₆

Stakeholder relations

¹⁄₆

Other: ____________

RM3.1

0.25 points , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₆

Bribery and corruption

¹⁄₆

Cybersecurity

¹⁄₆

Data protection and privacy

¹⁄₆

Executive compensation

¹⁄₆

Fiduciary duty

¹⁄₆

Fraud

¹⁄₆

Political contributions

¹⁄₆

Shareholder rights

¹⁄₆

Other: ____________

RM3.2

0.25 points , G

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

RM4.1

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)

¹⁄₈

Biodiversity and habitat

¹⁄₈

Building safety

¹⁄₈

Climate/Climate change adaptation

¹⁄₈

Compliance with regulatory requirements

¹⁄₈

Contaminated land

¹⁄₈

Energy efficiency

¹⁄₈

Energy supply

¹⁄₈

Flooding

¹⁄₈

GHG emissions

¹⁄₈

Health and well-being

¹⁄₈

Indoor environmental quality

¹⁄₈

Natural hazards

¹⁄₈

Socio-economic

¹⁄₈

Transportation

¹⁄₈

Waste management

¹⁄₈

Water efficiency

¹⁄₈

Water supply

¹⁄₈

Other: ____________

Not applicable

RM4

0.25 points , G

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

RM4.2

Embodied carbon in acquisitions

Does the entity perform asset-level risk assessment of embodied carbon emissions for new acquisitions?

Yes

Select the type of assessment

Qualitative assessment of embodied carbon emissions

Quantitative assessment of embodied carbon emissions

Risk assessment covers (multiple answers apply):

New builts

Pre-existing buildings

Scope of the assessment

Actual embodied carbon from construction activities

Expected embodied carbon from retrofit activities

Other: ____________

Elaborate on the scope and purpose of the risk assessment process:

________________________

Not scored , G

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

Climate-related Risk Management

FAQ

RM5

Climate resilience

Does the entity’s climate strategy incorporate resilience?

Yes

Describe how the entity incorporates resilience into its climate strategy considering risks and opportunities

________________________

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

SSP1-1.9

SSP1-2.6

SSP4-3.4

SSP5-3.4OS

SSP2-4.5

SSP4-6.0

SSP3-7.0

SSP5-8.5

TPI

Other: ____________

Physical scenarios

RCP2.6

RCP4.5

RCP6.0

RCP8.5

SSP1-1.9

SSP1-2.6

SSP4-3.4

SSP5-3.4OS

SSP2-4.5

SSP4-6.0

SSP3-7.0

SSP5-8.5

Other: ____________

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM5

0.5 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the integration of resilience into the climate strategy.

FAQ

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: ____________

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: ____________

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: ____________

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: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe the entity’s processes for prioritizing transition risks

________________________

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM6.1

0.5 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying transition risks, the outcomes of that process, and whether those outcomes are at the entity level

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

FAQ

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: ____________

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: ____________

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: ____________

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: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload 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

________________________

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM6.2

0.5 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying transition risk impact, the outcomes of that process, and whether those outcomes are at the entity level

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

FAQ

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: ____________

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: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Describe the entity’s processes of prioritizing physical risks

________________________

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM6.3

0.5 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying physical risk, the outcomes of that process, and whether those outcomes are at the entity level

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

FAQ

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: ____________

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: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload 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

________________________

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

RM6.4

0.5 points , G

Scoring for this indicator is based on the existence of a systematic process for identifying physical risk impact, the outcomes of that process, and whether those outcomes are at the entity level

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

FAQ

RM7

Biodiversity and nature-related strategy

Does the entity have a strategy that addresses biodiversity and nature-related issues?

Yes

Describe how the entity's biodiversity and nature-related strategy considers dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities

________________________

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only).

________________________

Not scored , G

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

Management: Stakeholder Engagement

Employees

FAQ

SE1

Employee training

Does the entity provide training and development for employees?

Yes

¹⁄₂

Percentage of employees who received professional training during the reporting year

________________________

¹⁄₂

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

SE1

1 point , S

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

FAQ

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)

²⁄₃

Internally

²⁄₃

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________

By an independent third party

³⁄₃

Percentage of employees covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________

The survey includes quantitative metrics

Yes

¹⁄₃

Metrics include

³⁄₃

Net Promoter Score

²⁄₃

Overall satisfaction score

²⁄₃

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

SE2.1

1 point , S

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

Percentage number: The coverage percentage reported is used as a multiplier to determine the assigned score. The survey response rate is not factored into the scoring and is only used for reporting purposes

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₂

Planning and preparation for engagement

¹⁄₂

Development of action plan

¹⁄₂

Implementation

¹⁄₂

Training

¹⁄₂

Program review and evaluation

¹⁄₂

Feedback sessions with c-suite level staff

¹⁄₂

Feedback sessions with separate teams/departments

¹⁄₂

Focus groups

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Not applicable

SE2.2

1 point , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

FAQ

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):

¹⁄₄

Needs assessment

¹⁄₄

Goal setting

¹⁄₄

Action

¹⁄₄

Monitoring

SE3.1

0.75 points , S

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

FAQ

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

²⁄₄

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

¹⁄₄

¹⁄₂

Mental health and well-being

¹⁄₂

Physical health and well-being

¹⁄₂

Social health and well-being

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Action to promote health through

¹⁄₄

¹⁄₆

Acoustic comfort

¹⁄₆

Biophilic design

¹⁄₆

Childcare facilities contributions

¹⁄₆

Flexible working hours

¹⁄₆

Healthy eating

¹⁄₆

Humidity

¹⁄₆

Illumination

¹⁄₆

Inclusive design

¹⁄₆

Indoor air quality

¹⁄₆

Lighting controls and/or daylight

¹⁄₆

Noise control

¹⁄₆

Paid maternity leave in excess of legally required minimum

¹⁄₆

Paid paternity leave in excess of legally required minimum

¹⁄₆

Physical activity

¹⁄₆

Physical and/or mental healthcare access

¹⁄₆

Social interaction and connection

¹⁄₆

Thermal comfort

¹⁄₆

Water quality

¹⁄₆

Working from home arrangements

¹⁄₆

Other: ____________

Monitor outcomes by tracking

¹⁄₄

Environmental quality

Population experience and opinions

Program performance

Other: ____________

Not applicable

SE3.2

1.25 points , S

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

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

This indicator is linked to SE3.1. In order to achieve points for this indicator, the number of points received in SE3.1 must be higher than 0.

FAQ

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

¹⁄₄

Percentage of employees: ____________%

¹⁄₄

Absentee rate: ____________

¹⁄₄

Injury rate: ____________

¹⁄₄

Lost day rate: ____________

¹⁄₄

Other metrics: ____________

Rate of other metric(s): ____________

Explain the employee occupational safety indicators calculation method (maximum 250 words)

________________________

SE4

0.5 points , S

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

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

FAQ

SE5

Human capital

Does the entity monitor human capital metrics?

Yes

Entity’s governance bodies

Select all human capital metrics (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₂

¹⁄₄

Age group distribution

¹⁄₄

Board tenure

²⁄₄

Gender pay gap

²⁄₄

Gender ratio

Percentage of personnel that identify as:

Women: ____________%

Men: ____________%

¹⁄₄

International background

¹⁄₄

Racial diversity

¹⁄₄

Socioeconomic background

Organization's employees

Select all human capital metrics (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₂

¹⁄₄

Age group distribution

Percentage of personnel that are:

Under 30 years old: ____________%

Between 30 and 50 years old: ____________%

Over 50 years old: ____________%

²⁄₄

Gender pay gap

²⁄₄

Gender ratio

Percentage of personnel that are:

Women: ____________%

Men: ____________%

¹⁄₄

International background

¹⁄₄

Racial diversity

¹⁄₄

Socioeconomic background

Provide additional context for the response (maximum 250 words)

________________________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

SE5

0.5 points , S

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Suppliers

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₄

Developing or applying ESG policies

¹⁄₄

Planning and preparation for engagement

¹⁄₄

Development of action plan

¹⁄₄

Implementation of engagement plan

¹⁄₄

Training

¹⁄₄

Program review and evaluation

¹⁄₄

Feedback sessions with stakeholders

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₄

Business ethics

¹⁄₄

Child labor

¹⁄₄

Environmental process standards

¹⁄₄

Environmental product standards

¹⁄₄

Health and safety: employees

¹⁄₄

Health and well-being

¹⁄₄

Human health-based product standards

¹⁄₄

Human rights

¹⁄₄

Labor standards and working conditions

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Select the external parties to whom the requirements apply (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₂

Contractors

¹⁄₂

Suppliers

¹⁄₂

Supply chain (beyond 1 tier suppliers and contractors)

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

SE6

1.5 points , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₂

Checks performed by independent third party

¹⁄₂

Property/asset manager ESG training

¹⁄₂

Property/asset manager self-assessments

¹⁄₂

Regular meetings and/or checks performed by the entity‘s employees

Require external property/asset managers‘ alignment with a professional standard

¹⁄₂

Standard: ____________

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Not applicable

SE7.1

1 point , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₂

Checks performed by an independent third party

¹⁄₂

Regular meetings and/or checks performed by external property/asset managers

¹⁄₂

Regular meetings and/or checks performed by the entity‘s employees

Require supplier/service providers‘ alignment with a professional standard

¹⁄₂

Standard: ____________

¹⁄₂

Supplier/service provider ESG training

¹⁄₂

Supplier/service provider self-assessments

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Not applicable

SE7.2

1 point , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

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)

²⁄₃

¹⁄₄

Accessible and easy to understand

¹⁄₄

Anonymous

¹⁄₄

Dialogue based

¹⁄₄

Equitable & rights compatible

¹⁄₄

Improvement based

¹⁄₄

Legitimate & safe

¹⁄₄

Predictable

¹⁄₄

Prohibitive against retaliation

¹⁄₄

Transparent

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Which stakeholders does the process apply to? (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₃

Contractors

¹⁄₃

Suppliers

¹⁄₃

Supply chain (beyond tier 1 suppliers and contractors)

¹⁄₃

Clients/Customers

¹⁄₃

Community/Public

¹⁄₃

Employees

¹⁄₃

Investors/Shareholders

¹⁄₃

Regulators/Government

¹⁄₃

Special interest groups (NGO’s, Trade Unions, etc)

¹⁄₃

Other: ____________

SE8

0.5 points , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

Performance: Reporting Characteristics

Reporting Characteristics

FAQ

The entity’s standing investments portfolio during the reporting year

The indicator below is automatically populated once participants have aggregated their asset level data with the information provided through the reporting entity’s GRESB Asset Portal. Participants can access the Asset Portal via the Assessment Portal menu, section Asset Portal.

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 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) and "country". Please note that % GAV and "country" are used for entity and peer group classification and should accurately reflect the composition of the portfolio.
The values displayed in the table above are weighted by % of ownership.

Upload 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 (maximum 1000 words).

________________________

Performance: Risk Assessment

Risk Assessments

FAQ

RA1

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

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Building safety and materials

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Climate/climate change adaptation

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Contaminated land

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Energy efficiency

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Energy supply

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Flooding

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

GHG emissions

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Health and well-being

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Indoor environmental quality

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Natural hazards

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Regulatory

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Resilience

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Socio-economic

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Transportation

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Waste management

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Water efficiency

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Water supply

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

Other: ____________

¹⁄₆

Percentage of portfolio covered: ____________%

The risk assessment is aligned with a third-party standard

Yes

ISO 31000

Other: ____________

Describe how the outcomes of the ESG risk assessments are used in order to mitigate the selected risks (maximum 250 words)

________________________

RA1

3 points , E

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

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

FAQ

RA2

Technical building assessments

Technical building assessments performed during the last three years

RA2

3 points , E

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

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

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

Efficiency Measures

FAQ

RA3

Energy efficiency measures

Energy efficiency measures implemented in the last three years

RA3

1.5 points , E

Participants receive 0.25 points for each reported efficiency measure.

FAQ

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 Asset Portal.

RA4

1 point , E

Participants receive 0.25 points for each reported efficiency measure.

FAQ

RA5

Waste management measures

Waste management measures implemented in the last three years

RA5

0.5 points , E

Participants receive 0.25 points for each reported efficiency measure.

Performance: Targets

Targets

FAQ

T1.1

Portfolio improvement targets

Has the entity set long-term performance improvement targets?

Yes

Explain the methodology used to establish the targets and communicate the anticipated pathways to achieve these targets (maximum 250 words)

________________________

T1.1

1 point , E

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

FAQ

T1.2

Net Zero Targets

Has the entity set GHG reduction targets aligned with Net Zero?

Yes

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Explain the methodology used to establish the target and communicate the entity’s plans/intentions to achieve it (e.g. energy efficiency, renewable energy generation and/or procurement, carbon offsets, anticipated budgets associated with decarbonizing assets, acquisition/disposition activities, etc.) (maximum 500 words)

________________________

Not applicable

T1.2

1 point , E

Scoring is based on the existence of a GHG reduction target aligned with Net Zero.

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

Performance: Tenants & Community

Tenants/Occupiers

FAQ

TC1

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

¹⁄₄

Feedback sessions with individual tenants

¹⁄₄

Provide tenants with feedback on energy/water consumption and waste

¹⁄₄

Social media/online platform

¹⁄₄

Tenant engagement meetings

¹⁄₄

Tenant ESG guide

¹⁄₄

Tenant ESG training

¹⁄₄

Tenant events focused on increasing ESG awareness

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

¹⁄₄

Describe the tenant engagement program and methods used to improve tenant satisfaction (maximum 250 words)

________________________

TC1

1 point , S

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

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

FAQ

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)

²⁄₃

Internally

²⁄₃

Percentage of tenants covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________

By an independent third party

³⁄₃

Percentage of tenants covered: ____________%

Survey response rate: ____________

The survey includes quantitative metrics

Yes

Metrics include

¹⁄₃

³⁄₃

Net Promoter Score

²⁄₃

Overall satisfaction score

²⁄₃

Satisfaction with communication

²⁄₃

Satisfaction with property management

²⁄₃

Satisfaction with responsiveness

²⁄₃

Understanding tenant needs

²⁄₃

Value for money

²⁄₃

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

TC2.1

1 point , S

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₂

Development of an asset-specific action plan

¹⁄₂

Feedback sessions with asset/property managers

¹⁄₂

Feedback sessions with individual tenants

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Describe the tenant satisfaction improvement program (maximum 250 words)

________________________

Not applicable

TC2.2

1 point , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

This indicator is linked to TC2.1. In order to achieve points for this indicator, the number of points received in TC2.1 must be higher than 0.

FAQ

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

Characteristics of the program include (multiple answers possible)

Fit-out and refurbishment assistance for meeting the minimum fit-out standards

¹⁄₃

Tenant fit-out guides

¹⁄₃

Minimum fit-out standards are prescribed

¹⁄₃

Procurement assistance for tenants

¹⁄₃

Other: ____________

¹⁄₃

Select ESG Topics covered in the program (multiple answers possible)

Upfront carbon emissions

Energy efficiency

Waste management

Water conservation

Indoor air quality

Biodiversity and green space

TC3

1.5 points , E

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

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

ESG topics covered in the program are not scored and are used for reporting purposes only.

FAQ

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

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₂

Environmental initiatives

¹⁄₂

Enabling upgrade works

¹⁄₂

ESG management collaboration

¹⁄₂

Premises design for performance

¹⁄₂

Managing waste from works

¹⁄₂

Social initiatives

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Management and consumption

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₂

Energy management

¹⁄₂

Water management

¹⁄₂

Waste management

¹⁄₂

Indoor environmental quality management

¹⁄₂

Sustainable procurement

¹⁄₂

Sustainable utilities

¹⁄₂

Sustainable transport

¹⁄₂

Sustainable cleaning

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Reporting and standards

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₂

Information sharing

¹⁄₂

Performance rating

¹⁄₂

Design/development rating

¹⁄₂

Performance standards

¹⁄₂

Metering

¹⁄₂

Comfort

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Data sharing & metering

Energy consumption

Water consumption

Waste management

Renewable energy

As built delivery documentation

Other: ____________

Percentage lease contracts with an ESG clause (by floor area)

Percentage of contracts with ESG clause: ____________%

TC4

1.5 points , E

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

Percentage of lease contracts with an ESG clause and ESG topics covered in the program are not scored and are used for reporting purposes only

FAQ

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):

¹⁄₄

Needs assessment

¹⁄₄

Goal setting

¹⁄₄

Action

¹⁄₄

Monitoring

TC5.1

0.75 points , S

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

FAQ

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):

²⁄₄

¹⁄₂

Tenant survey

¹⁄₂

Community engagement

¹⁄₂

Use of secondary data

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Creation of goals to address

¹⁄₄

¹⁄₂

Mental health and well-being

¹⁄₂

Physical health and well-being

¹⁄₂

Social health and well-being

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Action to promote health through

¹⁄₄

¹⁄₆

Acoustic comfort

¹⁄₆

Biophilic design

¹⁄₆

Community development

¹⁄₆

Physical activity

¹⁄₆

Healthy eating

¹⁄₆

Hosting health-related activities for surrounding community

¹⁄₆

Improving infrastructure in areas surrounding assets

¹⁄₆

Inclusive design

¹⁄₆

Indoor air quality

¹⁄₆

Lighting controls and/or daylight

¹⁄₆

Physical and/or mental healthcare access

¹⁄₆

Social interaction and connection

¹⁄₆

Thermal comfort

¹⁄₆

Urban regeneration

¹⁄₆

Water quality

¹⁄₆

Other activity in surrounding community: ____________

¹⁄₆

Other building design and construction strategy: ____________

¹⁄₆

Other building operations strategy: ____________

¹⁄₆

Other programmatic intervention: ____________

Monitor outcomes by tracking

¹⁄₄

Environmental quality

Program performance

Population experience and opinions

Other: ____________

Not applicable

TC5.2

1.25 points , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

This indicator is linked to TC5.1. In order to achieve points for this indicator, the number of points received in TC5.1 must be higher than 0.

Community

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₃

Community health and well-being

¹⁄₃

Effective communication and process to address community concerns

¹⁄₃

Enhancement programs for public spaces

¹⁄₃

Employment creation in local communities

¹⁄₃

Research and network activities

¹⁄₃

Resilience, including assistance or support in case of disaster

¹⁄₃

Supporting charities and community groups

¹⁄₃

ESG education program

¹⁄₃

Other: ____________

Describe the community engagement program and the monitoring process (maximum 250 words)

________________________

TC6.1

2 points , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

FAQ

TC6.2

Monitoring impact on community

Does the entity monitor its impact on the community?

Yes

Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₂

Housing affordability

¹⁄₂

Impact on crime levels

¹⁄₂

Livability score

¹⁄₂

Local income generated

¹⁄₂

Local residents’ well-being

¹⁄₂

Walkability score

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

TC6.2

1 point , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

Performance: Energy

Energy Consumption

FAQ

EN1

Energy consumption

The table above is automatically populated once participants have aggregated their asset level data with the 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. Those metrics are weighted by % of Ownership. For more information regarding the definition of each floor area, please view the Asset Spreadsheet Data Dictionary.

Total energy consumption of the portfolio

The table above is automatically populated once participants have aggregated their asset level data with the 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 & country, along with their related Floor Area Covered, Maximum Floor Areas and Like-for-like consumption changes (%). Those metrics are weighted by % of Ownership.

Total data coverage of the portfolio

¹¹⁄₁₄

The table above is automatically populated once participants have aggregated their asset level data with the 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. Those metrics are weighted by % of Ownership. 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

³⁄₁₄

The table above is automatically populated once participants have aggregated their asset level data with the 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 & country, either on-site or off-site, as well as the Percentage of total Consumption by category. Those metrics are weighted by % of Ownership.

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

Renewable energy characteristics (Off-site generated and landlord procured)

The table above is automatically populated once participants have aggregated their asset level data through the GRESB Asset Portal. It displays the aggregated consumption for the characteristics of procurement and claims for off-site generated and landlord procured renewable energy per property type & country, as well as the percentage of consumption per characteristic. Those metrics are weighted by % of Ownership.

Bundled, unbundled and mixed renewable energy claims

The table above is automatically populated once participants have aggregated their asset level data through the GRESB Asset Portal. It displays the aggregated consumption per attribute of Renewable energy generated off-site and procured by landlord per property type & country where the Market-based Claim is bundled, unbundled or mixed, as well as the percentage of consumption per attribute. Those metrics are weighted by % of Ownership.

EN1

14 points , E

This indicator is answered and first scored at the asset level. Asset scores are then aggregated for each property sub-type and country combination using floor area and % of ownership as a weighting factor. Finally, scores are aggregated to the portfolio level (across all applicable property sub-types and countries) using percentage of GAV (in R1) reported per property sub-type and country.

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

Data coverage = 8.5 points;
Energy performance
- Energy efficiency (2.5 points)
- Like-for-like (2.5 points)
Renewable energy = 3 points. The renewable energy score is split as follows:
- On-site renewable energy = 1 point;
- Off-site renewable energy = 0.5 points;
- Performance = 2 points.

Data coverage

Data coverage percentages are calculated based on both the area and the time for which energy data is available. The calculation is performed at the asset-level separately for two categories of spaces:

Landlord-controlled areas include whole building: landlord-controlled, base building spaces (shared services and common areas), and tenant spaces-landlord controlled.
Tenant-controlled areas include whole building: tenant-controlled and tenant spaces: landlord-controlled.

For more details on data coverage calculations, refer to the Aggregation Handbook.

Data coverage is scored through the following steps:

Asset-level scoring: Data coverage is initially calculated and scored at the asset level for each control-type area. All asset-level data coverages are compared against a relevant benchmark distribution based on the same property sub-type and country and specific to landlord-controlled and tenant-controlled areas, resulting in separate scores for each category. For assets classified as base building and tenant spaces, a static weight of 40% is applied to base building areas (e.g., shared services and common areas), while tenant spaces hold a static weight of 60%. Since tenant spaces can include both landlord-controlled and tenant-controlled areas, the 60% weight is further distributed proportionally based on the floor area for each. Specifically:
- Landlord-controlled spaces scores are calculated as:
  - 40% + 60%*Tenant Spaces landlord-controlled area proportion (%)
- Tenant-controlled spaces scores are calculated as:
  - 60%*Tenant Spaces tenant-controlled area proportion (%)
Property sub-type and country-level scoring: Once asset-level scores have been calculated, they are aggregated into a single score per property sub-type and country using a weighted mean calculated by multiplying floor area by the percentage of ownership.
Portfolio-level scoring: The scores for each property sub-type and country are aggregated into a single portfolio score, weighted by the gross asset value (GAV) for each property sub-type and country.

Benchmarks are constructed based on the Property Sub-Type and Country of the asset. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from assets with the same Property Sub-Type and located in the same Country. If there are not at least 20 values from 5 distinct reporting entities, the Property Sub-Type classification and then the Country specificity is gradually decreased. For example, the Property Sub-Type becomes Property Type and then Property Sector. Then the specificity of the Country is decreased to Sub-Region, Region, Super-Region and Global.

See a Data Coverage scoring example in Appendix 3.

Energy performance

Energy performance is a scored metric that rewards an asset for either already being very efficient (Energy Efficiency) or for year-on-year performance improvement (Like-for-like). This ensures that low-performing assets remain incentivized to improve while high-efficiency assets are rewarded for their superior energy performance. Each asset is first assessed for eligibility for an Energy Efficiency score. If deemed eligible, it receives 2.5 points. If not, its eligibility for Like-for-like scoring is then evaluated. Scores received by each eligible asset are then aggregated to the Property Sub-Type / Country level using the asset’s floor area and ownership as a weighting factor.

Energy efficiency

The energy efficiency score is awarded to assets that meet the following criteria:

Are classified as Standing Investments
Have a full year (>= 355 days) of data availability
Have vacancy rate lower than 20%
Have an Energy Data Coverage (area x time) of 75% or more*
Have an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) value that is lower than the corresponding threshold established by the ASHRAE Standard 100:2024**

For a practical scoring example, refer to Appendix 3.

Assets that meet the criteria above receive a score of 2.5 points. Assets that do not meet the energy efficiency eligibility criteria do not receive an energy efficiency score and do not negatively impact the entity’s score.

*For data coverage lower than 100% (and higher than 75%), the consumption value in the numerator will be linearly extrapolated to 100% to ensure completeness of the energy intensity value.

**Energy Use Intensity (EUI) performance thresholds used in the GRESB scoring methodology are established by ASHRAE Standard 100:2024. These performance thresholds are meant to indicate high operational efficiency for buildings of each Property Sub-Type (used in GRESB) in each climate zone (defined in ASHRAE Standard 169:2021). GRESB aims to make ASHRAE EUI values accessible to Participants through the GRESB Portal. Progress updates will be available here.

Like-for-like

Like-for-like data availability:

The scoring method awards 0.5 points to an asset for which a like-for-like change value can be calculated. Like-for-like data availability is assessed based on whether an asset adheres to the like-for-like eligibility criteria.

Only assets that meet all the following criteria, for both current and previous reporting years, are eligible for inclusion in the like-for-like calculations:

Data Availability covers the full year (> 355 days);
Data Coverage is positive;
Data Coverage is the same (within 1% error threshold);
The asset is classified as Standing Investment.

Assets that do not meet the like-for-like data availability criteria are excluded from the aggregation and do not negatively impact the entity’s score.

Note: if no asset within a property sub-type and country group meets the like-for-like data availability criteria, all assets in the group receive a score of zero for Like-for-like.

For a practical scoring example, refer to Appendix 3.

Like-for-like performance:

Like-for-like performance improvement is scored at the asset level separately for landlord and tenant-controlled areas.

For each asset, like-for-like percentage changes are compared against a relevant benchmark distribution (separately for landlord-controlled and tenant-controlled areas) to generate a maximum score of 2 points (separately for landlord-controlled and tenant-controlled areas). Those scores are then aggregated for each asset, similarly to the process used for data coverage, where Base building areas (i.e. Shared Services and Common Areas) hold a static weight of 40% and Tenant Spaces hold a static weight of 60% for assets classified as Base building and Tenant Spaces.

A negative value (i.e. a decrease in consumption compared to the previous year) always results in a positive score. Assets whose consumption increased or remained the same compared to the previous year receive a score of 0.

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

For a practical scoring example, refer to Appendix 3.

Renewable energy

The scoring of this section is split into two parts, both calculated at the asset level and subsequently aggregated at the property sub-type or country level using the floor area and ownership per asset as weighting factors.

The first part assesses whether any renewable energy was generated by every asset within the same property sub-type and country in the portfolio during the reporting year and can result in up to 1/3 of the maximum score (i.e. 1 point). Full points (1/3) are achieved if on-site renewable energy was generated by each asset. If an asset did not generate any on-site renewable energy but did generate off-site renewable energy, it will instead earn 1/6 of the maximum score (i.e.0.5 points).

The second part assesses the percentage improvement in renewable energy generation compared to the previous year, contributing up to 2/3 of the maximum score (2 points). The performance score for each asset is determined based on two elements:

First, the percentage of renewable energy p for the current reporting year is calculated for each asset. Assets with no renewable energy are assigned a % renewable energy of 0, resulting in a score of 0.
Second, the improvement score is determined by comparing the asset's year-on-year improvement (i) in % renewable energy to a benchmark group based on the improvement of other assets within the same property sub-type and country. Only positive improvements are considered; values ≤ 0 are ignored.

These two elements are combined using the following formula, where p is the percentage of renewable energy and i is the improvement score:

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

Finally, the scores at the asset level are aggregated to property sub-type and country, using a weighted mean calculated by multiplying floor area by the percentage of ownership.

For a practical scoring example, refer to Appendix 3.

Non-operational renewable energy:

Any reported non-operational energy is excluded from the measurement of operational energy profiles of assets and will not count towards the scoring of data coverage or like-for-like metrics.

Outlier checks:

GRESB identifies outliers in performance data reported at the asset level. There are two kinds of outliers flagged by the GRESB Portal: Intensities and Like-for-Like (LFL) change in consumption/emission. Outliers are validated automatically based on fixed thresholds. Outliers do not negatively impact the scoring; however:

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

For more information about outlier thresholds, refer to Appendix 4 of the Reference Guide.

For more details on outlier calculations, refer to the Aggregation Handbook.

Open text box:

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

Performance: GHG

GHG Emissions

FAQ

GH1

GHG emissions

Total GHG emissions of the portfolio

The table above is automatically populated once participants have aggregated their asset level data with the 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 & country, along with their related Floor Area Covered, Maximum Floor Areas and Like-for-like changes (%) in emissions. Those metrics are weighted by % of Ownership.

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

The table above is automatically populated once participants have aggregated their asset level data with the 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 & country, split by emission Scopes. Those metrics are weighted by % of Ownership. 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

Data coverage = 5 points
Like-for-Like performance improvement = 2 points

Data coverage:

Data coverage percentages are calculated based on both the area and the time for which GHG data is available. The calculation is performed at the asset-level separately for two categories of scopes: Scope 1 + 2, and Scope 3.

Data coverage percentages are first calculated and scored at the asset level separately for Scope 1+2 and Scope 3 by comparing them to a relative benchmark group.

Benchmarks are constructed based on the property sub-type and country of the asset. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from assets with the same Property Sub-Type and located in the same Country. If there are not at least 20 values from 5 distinct reporting entities, the Property Sub-Type classification and then the Country specificity is gradually decreased. For example, the Property Sub-Type becomes Property Type and then Property Sector. Then the specificity of the Country is decreased to Sub-Region, Region, Super-Region and Global.

These scores are then aggregated to a single score at the asset level by using a weighted mean with weights being the maximum floor areas:

The largest floor area from Scope 1+2 contributes to the weight for Scope 1+2
The floor area from Scope 3 contributes to the weight for Scope 3

Finally, the scores at the asset level are aggregated to property sub-type and country, using a weighted mean calculated by multiplying floor area by the percentage of ownership

For a practical scoring example, refer to Appendix 3.

Like-for-Like performance improvement:

Like-for-like performance improvement is first scored at the asset level separately for Scope 1+2 and 3 and then aggregated to a single asset score.

For each asset, like-for-like percentage changes are compared against a relevant benchmark distribution (separately for Scope 1+2 and Scope 3) to generate a score (separately for Scope 1+2 and Scope 3). Those scores are then aggregated for each asset, similarly to the process used for data coverage by using a weighted mean with weights being the maximum floor areas:

The largest floor area from Scope 1+2 contributes to the weight for Scope 1+2
The floor area from Scope 3 contributes to the weight for Scope 3

Asset-level scores are subsequently aggregated to the property sub-type and country level (using the floor area and ownership per asset as weighting factor). The score for each group of property sub-type is then aggregated at portfolio level (using the GAV per property sub-type / country as a weighting factor).

Assets that do not meet the eligibility criteria for like-for-like calculations are automatically excluded from the scoring scope and treated as ‘Not Applicable’. The eligibility criteria for like-for-like calculations are provided in the Reference Guide.

If no asset within a property sub-type and country group meets the like-for-like calculation eligibility criteria, the score received by the group is zero.

Note that having a lower value (i.e. a decrease in consumption compared to the previous year) always results in a higher or equal score. Assets whose consumption increased or remained the same compared to the previous year will automatically receive a score of 0.

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

For a practical scoring example, refer to Appendix 3.

Outlier checks:

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

For more information about outlier thresholds, refer to Appendix 4 of the Reference Guide.

For more details on outlier calculations, refer to the Aggregation Handbook.

Offsets:

Carbon offsets do not impact the scoring of any GHG metric in the Assessment (i.e. Like-for-Like or Data Coverage). GRESB recognizes offsets but includes them solely for reporting purposes in the Benchmark Report.

Open text box:

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

Performance: Water

Water Use

FAQ

WT1

Water use

Total water consumption of the portfolio

The table above is automatically populated once participants have aggregated their asset level data with the 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 & country, along with their related Floor Area Covered, Maximum Floor Areas and Like-for-like consumption changes (%). Those metrics are weighted by % of Ownership.

Total data coverage of the portfolio

⁶⁄₇

The table above is automatically populated once participants have aggregated their asset level data with the 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 & country, split by Landlord Controlled and Tenant Controlled areas. Those metrics are weighted by % of Ownership. 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

¹⁄₇

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

WT1

7 points , E

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

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

Data coverage:

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

Landlord-controlled areas include whole building: landlord-controlled, base building spaces (shared services and common areas), and tenant spaces-landlord controlled.
Tenant controlled areas include whole building: tenant-controlled and tenant spaces: landlord-controlled.

For more details on data coverage calculations, refer to the Aggregation Handbook.

Data coverage is scored through the following steps:

Asset-level scoring: Data coverage is initially calculated and scored at the asset level for each control-type area. All asset-level data coverages are compared against a relevant benchmark distribution based on the same property sub-type and country and specific to landlord-controlled and tenant-controlled areas, resulting in separate scores for each category. For assets classified as Base building and Tenant Spaces, a static weight of 40% is applied to Base building areas (e.g., Shared Services and Common Areas), while Tenant Spaces hold a static weight of 60%. Since Tenant Spaces can include both landlord-controlled and tenant-controlled areas, the 60% weight is further distributed proportionally based on the floor area for each.
Specifically:
- Landlord-controlled spaces scores are calculated as:
  - 40% + 60%*Tenant Spaces landlord-controlled area proportion (%)
- Tenant-controlled spaces scores are calculated as:
  - 60%*Tenant Spaces tenant-controlled area proportion (%)
Property sub-type and country-level scoring: Once asset-level scores have been calculated, they are aggregated into a single score per property sub-type, country, and control (landlord- or tenant-controlled) using a weighted mean calculated by multiplying floor area by the percentage of ownership.
Portfolio-level scoring: The scores for each property sub-type and country are aggregated into a single portfolio score, weighted by the gross asset value (GAV) for each property sub-type and country.

For a practical scoring example, refer to Appendix 3.

Like-for-Like performance improvement:

Like-for-like performance improvement is first scored at the asset level separately for landlord and tenant-controlled areas and then aggregated to a single asset score.

For each asset, like-for-like percentage changes are compared against a relevant benchmark distribution (separately for landlord-controlled and tenant-controlled areas) to generate a score (separately for landlord-controlled and tenant-controlled areas). Those scores are then aggregated for each asset, similarly to the process used for data coverage, where for assets classified as Base building and Tenant Spaces, Base building areas (i.e. Shared Services and Common Areas) hold a static weight of 40%, while Tenant Spaces hold a static weight of 60%.

If no asset within a property sub-type and country group meets the like-for-like calculation eligibility criteria, the score received by the group is zero.

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

For a practical scoring example, refer to Appendix 3.

Water reuse and recycling

The scoring of this section is split into two parts.

The first part assesses whether any on-site water reuse and recycling was generated per asset during the reporting year can result in a maximum of 1/4 of the maximum score (0.25 points).

The second part assesses the percentage improvement in water reuse and recycling compared to the previous year, contributing up to 3/4 of the maximum score (0.75 points). The performance score for each asset is determined based on two elements:

First, the percentage of water reuse and recycling (p) for the current reporting year is calculated for each asset. Assets with no water reuse or recycling are assigned a % of 0, resulting in a score of 0.

Second, the improvement score (i) is determined by comparing the asset's year-on-year improvement in % water reuse and recycling to a benchmark group based on the improvements of other assets within the same property sub-type and country. Only positive improvements are considered; values ≤ 0 are ignored. These two elements are combined using the following formula, where p is the percentage of reused or recycled water and i is the improvement score:

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

Finally, the scores at the asset level are aggregated to property sub-type and country, using a weighted mean calculated by multiplying floor area by the percentage of ownership.

For a practical scoring example, refer to Appendix 3.

Outlier checks:

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

For more information about outlier thresholds, refer to Appendix 4 of the Reference Guide.

Open text box:

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

Performance: Waste

Waste Management

FAQ

WS1

Waste management

Total waste generation of the portfolio

¹⁄₂

¹⁄₂

Provide additional context for the answer provided (not validated, for reporting purposes only)

________________________

WS1

4 points , E

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

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

Data coverage:

Data coverage percentages are calculated based only on the area dimension for which waste data is available. The calculation is performed at the asset-level separately for two categories of spaces:

Landlord-controlled areas: assets classified as Base building + Tenant Spaces or Whole Building is Landlord Controlled
Tenant-controlled areas: assets classified as Whole Building is Tenant Controlled.

Data coverage is scored through the following steps:

Asset level scoring: Data coverage is first calculated and scored at the asset level separately for landlord and tenant-controlled spaces. All asset-level data coverages are compared against a relevant benchmark distribution based on the same property sub-type and country and specific to landlord-controlled and tenant-controlled assets.
Property sub-type and country-level scoring: Once asset-level scores have been calculated, they are aggregated into a single score per property sub-type and country using a weighted mean calculated by multiplying floor area by the percentage of ownership.
Portfolio-level scoring: The scores for each property sub-type and country are aggregated into a single portfolio score, weighted by the gross asset value (GAV) for each property sub-type and country.

For a practical scoring example, refer to Appendix 3.

Proportion of waste diverted:

Unlike data coverage, the scoring of waste diversion is not split between landlord and tenant-controlled areas. Only waste reported as recycled, reused or converted to energy will be included in the scoring calculations. Waste sent to landfill, incineration or categorized as other/unknown will not contribute to the score.

Assets with no waste data coverage will not achieve points for waste diversion.

Outlier checks:

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

For more information about outlier thresholds, refer to Appendix 4 of the Reference Guide.

Open text box:

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

Performance: Data Monitoring & Review

Review, verification and assurance of ESG data

FAQ

MR1

External review of energy data

Has the entity's energy consumption data reported in EN1 been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

³⁄₃

Externally verified

³⁄₃

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Not applicable

MR1

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

1.75 points , E

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	3/3
Partially Accepted	1/3
Not Accepted	0

FAQ

MR2

External review of GHG data

Has the entity's GHG data reported in GH1 been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

³⁄₃

Externally verified

³⁄₃

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Not applicable

MR2

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

1.25 points , E

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	3/3
Partially Accepted	1/3
Not Accepted	0

FAQ

MR3

External review of water data

Has the entity's water data reported in WT1 been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

³⁄₃

Externally verified

³⁄₃

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Not applicable

MR3

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

1.25 points , E

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	3/3
Partially Accepted	1/3
Not Accepted	0

FAQ

MR4

External review of waste data

Has the entity's waste data reported in WS1 been reviewed by an independent third party?

Yes

¹⁄₃

Externally checked

³⁄₃

Externally verified

³⁄₃

Externally assured

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Not applicable

MR4

Scheme name

AA1000AS
Advanced technologies promotion Subsidy Scheme with Emission reduction Target (ASSET)
Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) des Airports Council International Europe
Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
ASAE3000
Attestation Standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants/AICPA (AT-C 105, AT-C 205, AT-C 206, AT-C 210)
Australia National Greenhouse and Energy Regulations (NGER Act)
California Mandatory GHG Reporting Regulations (also known as California Air Resources Board regulations)
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook: Assurance Section 5025
Carbon Trust Standard
Chicago Climate Exchange verification standard
Climate Registry General Verification Protocol (also known as California Climate Action Registry (CCAR))
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
Corporate GHG Verification Guidelines from ERT
DNV Verisustain Protocol/ Verification Protocol for Sustainability Reporting
Dutch Standard for Assurance assignments 3000A
Earthcheck Certified
Toitu carbonreduce (formerly CEMARS)
ERM GHG Performance Data Assurance Methodology
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
IDW PS 821: IDW Prüfungsstandard: Grundsätze ordnungsmäßiger Prüfung oder prüferischer Durchsicht von Berichten im Bereich der Nachhaltigkeit
ISAE 3000
ISAE 3410, Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements
ISO14064-3
ISO 19011 standard
ISO 50002 standard
JVETS (Japanese Voluntary Emissions Trading Scheme) Guideline for verification
Korean GHG and energy target management system
MOHURD Guidelines for Public Building Energy Audit
NMX-SAA-14064-3-IMNC: Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación A.C
RevR 6 Bestyrkande av hållbarhetsredovisning (RevR 6 Assurance of Sustainability)
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report from Far, the Swedish auditors professional body
Saitama Prefecture Target-Setting Emissions Trading Program
SGS Sustainability Report Assurance
Spanish Institute of Registered Auditors (ICJCE)
Standard 3810N Assurance engagements relating to sustainability reports of the Royal Netherlands Institute of Registered Accountants
State of Israel Ministry of Environmental Protection, VERIFICATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN ISRAEL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR CONDUCTING VERIFICATIONS, Process A.
Swiss Climate CO2 label
Thai Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation (TGO) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Verification Protocol
Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme
Verification under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Directive and EU ETS related national implementation laws
SSAE 3000
OfWat Regulatory Accounting Guidelines
ISO 14064-1
ISO 14064-2
ISO 14067
Get It Fair – ESG Rating and Reporting Assurance

1.25 points , E

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	3/3
Partially Accepted	1/3
Not Accepted	0

Performance: Building Certifications

Building Certifications

FAQ

BC1.1

Building Certifications at the time of design/construction and for interior

Standing investments that obtained a green building certificate at the time of design, construction, and/or renovation

BC1.1

7 points , E

This indicator is answered at the asset level and scored at the aggregated property sub-type and country level.

First, for certification, a certified floor area is calculated. This is the product of (1) the floor area certified weighted, (2) % of ownership of the asset, (3) validation status of the certification, and (4) the time factor corresponding to the certification age. Subsequently, the certified floor areas are summed to arrive at the aggregated % floor area certified at the property sub-type & country level. Note that multiple certification schemes per asset count towards the aggregated value, but this is capped at 100% at the property sub-type & country level.

The validation status of the certification is determined by GRESB according to a list of predefined criteria, which results in one of the following weightings:

Validation status	Weight
Full points	1.0
Partial plus	0.6
Partial minus	0.3

Additionally, each certification is weighted by a time factor determined by the certification year and type as illustrated in the following table:

Certification age (year)	Time factor Design/Construction	Time factor Interior
0	100%	100%
1	100%	100%
2	100%	100%
3	100%	67%
4	90%	33%
5	80%	0%
6	74%	0%
7	67%	0%
8	61%	0%
9	54%	0%
10	48%	0%
11	40%	0%
12	32%	0%
13	24%	0%
14	16%	0%
15	8%	0%
...	8%	0%

Aggregated % floor area certified per property sub-type & country is then compared against a relevant benchmark average to achieve a score. This score is a result of how the % floor area certified of the property sub-type and country performs against the benchmark average.

Benchmarks are constructed based on the property sub-type and country of the asset. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from assets with the same property sub-type and located in the same country. If there are less than 20 values from 5 distinct reporting entities, the property sub-type classification and then the country specificity is gradually decreased. For example, the property sub-type becomes property type and then property sector. Then the specificity of the country is decreased to sub-region, region, super-region and global.

The score for each group of property sub-type and country is then aggregated at portfolio level (using the GAV per property sub-type / country as a weighting factor).

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

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

For scoring examples per indicator, refer to Appendix 3.

FAQ

BC1.2

Operational building certifications

Standing investments that hold a valid operational green building certificate

BC1.2

8.5 points , E

This indicator is answered at the asset level and scored at the aggregated property sub-type and country level.

First, for each certification, a certified floor area is calculated. This is the product of the floor area certified weighted by the (1) % of ownership of the asset, (2) validation status of the certification, and (3) the time factor corresponding to the certification age. Subsequently, these certified floor areas are summed to arrive at the aggregated % floor area certified at the property sub-type & country level. Note that multiple certification schemes per asset count towards the aggregated value, but this is capped at 100% at the property sub-type & country level.

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

Validation status	Weight
Full points	1.0
Partial plus	0.6
Partial minus	0.3

Additionally, each certification is weighted by a time factor determined by the certification year and type as illustrated in the following table:

Certification age (year)	Time factor Operational
0	100%
1	100%
2	100%
3	100%
4	50%
5	0%
...	0%

Benchmarks are constructed based on the property sub-type and country of the asset. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from assets with the same property sub-type and located in the same country. If there are less than 20 values from 5 distinct reporting entities, the property sub-type classification and then the country specificity is gradually decreased. For example, the property sub-type becomes property type and then property sector. Then the specificity of the country is decreased to sub-region, region, super-region and global.

The score for each group of property sub-type and country is then aggregated at portfolio level (using the GAV per property sub-type / country as a weighting factor).

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

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

For scoring examples per indicator, refer to Appendix 3.

FAQ

BC2

Energy Ratings

Standing investments that hold a valid energy rating

* in some cases for Residential assets, the number of assets may refer to an aggregation of multiple Residential units

BC2

2 points , E

This indicator is answered and scored at the asset level. Scores are then calculated for each property sub-type & country combination through aggregation, using floor area as a weighting factor. Subsequently, scores are calculated at the portfolio level (across all applicable property sub-types & countries) through further aggregation, using percentage of GAV per each property sub-type and country as weighting factor.

A single asset’s rating coverage percentage is calculated by taking the sum of the coverage percentages reported for each rating within the asset. This value is then benchmarked against other assets’ rating coverage of the same property sub-type and country, to determine the score of the asset.

A score is then calculated based on how the value reported for an asset compares to its relevant benchmark group.

Benchmarks are constructed based on the property sub-type and country of the asset. First, an attempt is made to construct a benchmark by grouping together values from assets with the same property sub-type and located in the same country. If there are less than 20 values from 5 distinct reporting entities, the property sub-type classification and then the country specificity is gradually decreased. For example, the property sub-type becomes property type and then property sector. Then the specificity of the country is decreased to sub-region, region, super-region and global.

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

Development: Reporting Characteristics

Reporting Characteristics

FAQ

DR1

Composition of the entity’s development projects portfolio during the reporting year

Note: The table above defines the scope of your GRESB submission on development projects. It should include new construction and major renovations projects that are in progress at the end of the 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.
The values displayed in the table above are weighted by % of ownership.

*% GAV represented as the share of the development projects within the entire development portfolio (including both new construction and major renovations)

Upload 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)

________________________

Development: ESG Requirements

ESG Requirements

FAQ

DRE1

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)

³⁄₄

¹⁄₆

Biodiversity and habitat

¹⁄₆

Building safety

¹⁄₆

Climate/climate change adaptation

¹⁄₆

Energy consumption

¹⁄₆

Green building certifications

¹⁄₆

Greenhouse gas emissions

¹⁄₆

Health and well-being

¹⁄₆

Indoor environmental quality

¹⁄₆

Life-cycle assessments/embodied carbon

¹⁄₆

Location and transportation

¹⁄₆

Material sourcing

¹⁄₆

Net-zero/carbon neutral design

¹⁄₆

Pollution prevention

¹⁄₆

Renewable energy

¹⁄₆

Resilience to catastrophe/disaster

¹⁄₆

Site selection and land use

¹⁄₆

Sustainable procurement

¹⁄₆

Waste management

¹⁄₆

Water consumption

¹⁄₆

Other: ____________

The strategy is

¹⁄₄

Publicly available

⁰⁄₄

Not publicly available

Provide applicable evidence

Upload 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)

________________________

DRE1

4 points , G

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₃

Connect to multi-modal transit networks

¹⁄₃

Locate projects within existing developed areas

¹⁄₃

Protect, restore, and conserve aquatic ecosystems

¹⁄₃

Protect, restore, and conserve farmland

¹⁄₃

Protect, restore, and conserve floodplain functions

¹⁄₃

Protect, restore, and conserve habitats for native, threatened and endangered species

¹⁄₃

Protect, restore, and conserve historical and heritage sites

¹⁄₃

Redevelop brownfield sites

¹⁄₃

Other: ____________

DRE2

4 points , E

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₄

Manage waste by diverting construction and demolition materials from disposal

¹⁄₄

Manage waste by diverting reusable vegetation, rocks, and soil from disposal

¹⁄₄

Minimize light pollution to the surrounding community

¹⁄₄

Minimize noise pollution to the surrounding community

¹⁄₄

Perform environmental site assessment

¹⁄₄

Protect air quality during construction

¹⁄₄

Protect and restore habitat and soils disturbed during construction and/or during previous development

¹⁄₄

Protect surface water and aquatic ecosystems by controlling and retaining construction pollutants

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

DRE3

4 points , E

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

Development: Building Certifications

Building Certifications

FAQ

DBC1.1

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

²⁄₄

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

³⁄₄

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

⁴⁄₄

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):

________________________

DBC1.1

4 points , E

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

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

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

Projects that obtained a green building certificate or official pre-certification

Not applicable

DBC1.2

9 points , E

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Development: Materials

Materials

FAQ

DMA1

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)

¹⁄₃

¹⁄₂

Environmental Product Declarations

¹⁄₂

Health Product Declarations

Other types of required health and environmental disclosure

¹⁄₂

____________

Material characteristics specification preferences, including (multiple answers possible)

²⁄₃

¹⁄₄

Locally extracted or recovered materials

¹⁄₄

Low embodied carbon materials

¹⁄₄

Low-emitting VOC materials

¹⁄₄

Materials and packaging that can easily be recycled

¹⁄₄

Materials that disclose environmental impacts

¹⁄₄

Materials that disclose potential health hazards

¹⁄₄

Rapidly renewable materials and recycled content materials

¹⁄₄

“Red list” of prohibited materials or ingredients that should not be used on the basis of their human and/or environmental impacts

¹⁄₄

Third-party certified wood-based materials and products

Types of third-party certification used: ____________

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

DMA1

6 points , E

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

DMA2

Embodied carbon measurement & disclosure

Does the entity measure the embodied carbon emissions of its development projects?

Yes

Select the life cycle stages included in scope:

Select the building layers included in the scope:

Substructure

Superstructure

Envelope

Finishes

Building services (MEP)

Other

____________

Percentage of projects for which embodied carbon was measured during the year:

________________________

Does the entity measure the embodied carbon of its new construction projects completed during the year?

Yes

Average embodied carbon intensity (kgCO2e/m²): ____________

Total embodied carbon emissions (kgCO2e): ____________

Percentage of new construction projects included: ____________%

Not applicable

Does the entity measure the embodied carbon of its major renovation projects completed during the year?

Yes

Average embodied carbon intensity (kgCO2e/m²): ____________

Total embodied carbon emissions (kgCO2e): ____________

Percentage of major renovation projects included: ____________%

Not applicable

Has the entity disclosed the embodied carbon emissions of its development projects?

Yes

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

Explain the embodied carbon calculation method applied and the results of the assessment (maximum 250 words)

________________________

DMA2.2

Not scored , E

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

Development: Energy

Energy

FAQ

DEN1

Energy efficiency requirements

Does the entity have minimum energy efficiency requirements for development projects?

Yes

Requirements for planning and design include (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₆

¹⁄₂

Development and implementation of a commissioning plan

¹⁄₂

Integrative design process

¹⁄₂

To exceed relevant energy codes or standards

¹⁄₂

Maximum energy use intensity post-occupancy

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Common energy efficiency measures include (multiple answers possible)

⁴⁄₆

¹⁄₄

Air conditioning

¹⁄₄

Commissioning

¹⁄₄

Energy modeling

¹⁄₄

High-efficiency equipment and appliances

¹⁄₄

Lighting

¹⁄₄

Occupant controls

¹⁄₄

Passive design

¹⁄₄

Space heating

¹⁄₄

Ventilation

¹⁄₄

Water heating

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Operational energy efficiency monitoring (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₆

¹⁄₂

Building energy management systems

¹⁄₂

Energy use analytics

¹⁄₂

Post-construction energy monitoring

For on average years: ____________

¹⁄₂

Sub-meter

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

DEN1

6 points , E

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

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

DEN2.1

On-site renewable energy and low carbon technologies

Does the entity incorporate on-site renewable energy and/or low carbon technologies in the design of development projects?

Yes

Projects designed to generate on-site renewable energy and/or low carbon technology (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 and/or low carbon technology

________________________

Not applicable

DEN2.1

6 points , E

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

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

DEN2.2

Net zero carbon design and standards

Does the entity’s portfolio include any buildings designed to meet net zero carbon?

Yes

The entity’s definition of “net zero carbon” includes:

³⁄₄

Net zero carbon - construction

Net zero carbon - operational energy

Other: ____________

The entity uses net zero carbon code/standard:

¹⁄₄

National/local green building council standard, specify: ____________

National/local government standard, specify: ____________

International standard, specify: ____________

Other: ____________

Percentage of projects covered: ____________%

________________________

DEN2.2

2 points , E

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

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

Development: Water

Water Conservation

FAQ

DWT1

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)

¹⁄₄

¹⁄₂

Development and implementation of a commissioning plan

¹⁄₂

Integrative design for water conservation

¹⁄₂

Requirements for indoor water efficiency

¹⁄₂

Requirements for outdoor water efficiency

¹⁄₂

Requirements for process water efficiency

¹⁄₂

Requirements for water supply

¹⁄₂

Requirements for minimum water use intensity post-occupancy

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Common water efficiency measures include (multiple answers possible)

²⁄₄

¹⁄₄

Commissioning of water systems

¹⁄₄

Drip/smart irrigation

¹⁄₄

Drought tolerant/low-water landscaping

¹⁄₄

High-efficiency/dry fixtures

¹⁄₄

Leak detection system

¹⁄₄

Occupant sensors

¹⁄₄

On-site wastewater treatment

¹⁄₄

Reuse of stormwater and greywater for non-potable applications

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Operational water efficiency monitoring (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₄

¹⁄₂

Post-construction water monitoring

For on average years: ____________

¹⁄₂

Sub-meter

¹⁄₂

Water use analytics

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

DWT1

5 points , E

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

Development: Waste

Waste Management

FAQ

DWS1

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)

³⁄₄

¹⁄₃

Construction waste signage

¹⁄₃

Diversion rate requirements

¹⁄₃

Education of employees/contractors on waste management

¹⁄₃

Incentives for contractors for recovering, reusing and recycling building materials

¹⁄₃

Targets for waste stream recovery, reuse and recycling

¹⁄₃

Waste management plans

¹⁄₃

Waste separation facilities

¹⁄₃

Other: ____________

On-site waste monitoring (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₄

¹⁄₂

Hazardous waste monitoring/audit

¹⁄₂

Non-hazardous waste monitoring/audit

DWS1

5 points , E

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

Development: Stakeholder Engagement

Health, Safety & Well-being

FAQ

DSE1

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)

¹⁄₄

¹⁄₂

Health Impact Assessment

¹⁄₂

Integrated planning process

¹⁄₂

Other planning process: ____________

Common occupant health and well-being measures, including (multiple answers possible)

²⁄₄

¹⁄₄

Acoustic comfort

¹⁄₄

Active design features

¹⁄₄

Biophilic design

¹⁄₄

Commissioning

¹⁄₄

Daylight

¹⁄₄

Ergonomic workplace

¹⁄₄

Humidity

¹⁄₄

Illumination

¹⁄₄

Inclusive design

¹⁄₄

Indoor air quality

¹⁄₄

Natural ventilation

¹⁄₄

Occupant controls

¹⁄₄

Physical activity

¹⁄₄

Thermal comfort

¹⁄₄

Water quality

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Provisions to verify health and well-being performance include (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₄

¹⁄₂

Occupant education

¹⁄₂

Post-construction health and well-being monitoring (e.g., occupant comfort and satisfaction)

For on average years: ____________

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

DSE1

2 points , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₄

Availability of medical personnel

¹⁄₄

Communicating safety information

¹⁄₄

Continuously improving safety performance

¹⁄₄

Demonstrating safety leadership

¹⁄₄

Entrenching safety practices

¹⁄₄

Managing safety risks

¹⁄₄

On-site health and safety professional (coordinator)

¹⁄₄

Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment

¹⁄₄

Promoting design for safety

¹⁄₄

Training curriculum

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

DSE2.1

1.5 points , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

DSE2.2

Safety metrics

Does the entity monitor safety indicators at construction sites?

Yes

Select all applicable options (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₄

Injury rate: ____________

Explain the injury rate calculation method (maximum 250 words)

________________________

¹⁄₄

Fatalities: ____________

¹⁄₄

Near misses: ____________

¹⁄₄

Lost day rate: ____________

¹⁄₄

Severity rate: ____________

¹⁄₄

Other metrics: ____________

Rate of other metric(s): ____________

DSE2.2

1.5 points , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

Supply Chain

FAQ

DSE3.1

Contractor ESG requirements

Does the entity have ESG requirements in place for its contractors?

Yes

Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)

¹⁄₄

Business ethics

¹⁄₄

Child labor

¹⁄₄

Community engagement

¹⁄₄

Environmental process standards

¹⁄₄

Environmental product standards

¹⁄₄

Health and well-being

¹⁄₄

Human rights

¹⁄₄

Human health-based product standards

¹⁄₄

Occupational safety

¹⁄₄

Labor standards and working conditions

¹⁄₄

Other: ____________

Percentage of projects covered: ____________%

DSE3.1

2 points , S

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

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₂

Contractor ESG training

¹⁄₂

Contractors provide update reports on environmental and social aspects during construction

¹⁄₂

External audits by third party

Percentage of projects audited during the reporting year: ____________%

¹⁄₂

Internal audits

Percentage of projects audited during the reporting year: ____________%

¹⁄₂

Weekly/monthly (on-site) meetings and/or ad hoc site visits

Percentage of projects visited during the reporting year: ____________%

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Not applicable

DSE3.2

2 points , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

Community Impact and Engagement

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₃

Community health and well-being

¹⁄₃

Effective communication and process to address community concerns

¹⁄₃

Employment creation in local communities

¹⁄₃

Enhancement programs for public spaces

¹⁄₃

ESG education program

¹⁄₃

Research and network activities

¹⁄₃

Resilience, including assistance or support in case of disaster

¹⁄₃

Supporting charities and community groups

¹⁄₃

Other: ____________

Describe the community engagement program (maximum 250 words)

________________________

DSE4

2 points , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₂

Housing affordability

¹⁄₂

Impact on crime levels

¹⁄₂

Livability score

¹⁄₂

Local income generated

¹⁄₂

Local job creation

¹⁄₂

Local residents‘ well-being

¹⁄₂

Walkability score

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

DSE5.1

2 points , S

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

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

FAQ

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)

¹⁄₃

Analysis and interpretation of monitoring data

¹⁄₃

Development and implementation of a communication plan

¹⁄₃

Development and implementation of a community monitoring plan

¹⁄₃

Development and implementation of a risk mitigation plan

¹⁄₃

Identification of nuisance and/or disruption risks

¹⁄₃

Identification of stakeholders and impacted groups

¹⁄₃

Management practices to ensure accountability for performance goals and issues identified during community monitoring

¹⁄₃

Other: ____________

Describe the monitoring process (maximum 250 words): ____________

Provide applicable evidence

Upload or URL____________

Indicate where in the evidence the relevant information can be found____

DSE5.2

2 points , S

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

Evidence: The evidence is manually validated and assigned a multiplier, according to the table below. The evidence must support the validation requirements.

If any requirements are not met, the evidence may be partially accepted or not accepted depending on the level of alignment with the requirements.

Validation status	Multiplier
Accepted	2/2
Partially Accepted	1/2
Not Accepted	0

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

Validation status	Score
Accepted	1/1
Not Accepted	0
Duplicate	0

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

Development: Targets

Targets

FAQ

DT1

Embodied carbon targets

Has the entity set a target for the upfront embodied carbon emissions of its development projects?

Yes

Is the target aligned with an external target-setting framework?

Yes

WorldGBC: Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment

Carbon Leadership Forum (US)

American Insitute of Architects 2030

BR18 (Denmark)

GreenMark

Green Star

Other: ____________

Not scored , E

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

Residential

With the Residential Assessment, GRESB introduces sector-specific scoring and benchmarking, providing the industry with a standard that caters for differences between residential and commercial sectors.

Entities participating in the Residential Assessment will receive a standalone report providing assessment results incorporating updated scoring for existing indicators, along with insights into newly introduced topics. Taking part in the Residential Assessment has no impact on the Real Estate Benchmark Report and score.

As part of the Residential Assessment, updates to the following indicators are incorporated in the standalone Residential Report:

Scoring Removal

The following indicators are no longer scored in the Residential Assessment.

Indicator	Main Assessment Score	Residential Assessment Score
Fit-Out & Refurbishment Program for Tenants on ESG (TC3)	1.5p	0p
ESG-Specific Requirements in Lease Contracts (Green Leases) (TC4)	1.5p	0p

Scoring Weight Increase

The following indicators receive an increase in total score. The scoring logic of each of these indicators remains unchanged, where the scoring is equal to the sum of the fractions assigned to the selected options, multiplied by the total score of the indicator. To view the fractions assigned to the options within each indicator, please refer to the Tenants & Community section of this scoring document.

Indicator	Main Assessment Scoring weight	Residential Assessment Scoring weight
Tenant Health & Well-Being Program (TC5.1)	0.75p	1.75p
Tenant Health & Well-Being Measures (TC5.2)	1.25p	3.25p
Community Engagement Program (TC6.1)	2p	4p
Monitoring Impact on Community (TC6.2)	1p	1.5p

Scoring Weight Decrease

The scoring weight for the following indicators is reduced. In the Residential Assessment Report, participants can earn up to 4.5 points for Building Certifications. These include up to 3 points available for Design & Construction Certifications (BC1.1) and up to 4.5 points for Operational Building Certifications (BC1.2). These two scores are capped at 4.5 points when summed. The scoring logic of each of these indicators remains unchanged. Please refer to the Building Certification section of this scoring document for further details.

Indicator	Main Assessment Score	Residential Assessment Score
Building Certifications at the Time of Design/Construction and for Interior (BC1.1)	7p	3p
Operational Building Certifications (BC1.2)	8.5p	4.5p

New and restructured indicators

Five new indicators are introduced to address topics considered material for residential participants which are currently missing from the main assessment. One indicator has been restructured and adapted to the Residential sector.

Residential

FAQ

RES1

Fair attribution of housing

Does the entity have a program on fair attribution of housing for tenants

Yes

Indicate the main elements included in the program

Training and education for employees on fair housing practices

Guidelines for non-discriminatory tenant selection

Transparent criteria for tenant screening

Guidelines on non-discriminatory adverstising

Integration and enforcement of fair housing practices among real estate agents

Reporting mechanism stakeholders to report potential fair housing concerns

Other: ____________

Not scored , S

This indicator is not scored in 2025 and is used for reporting purposes only.

FAQ

RES2

Local Infrastructure

Does the entity monitor performance metrics of its portfolio's local infrastructure?

Yes

Liveability score

Portfolio liveability score: ____________

Percentage of Residential portfolio covered: ____________%

Please describe the methodology used: ____________

Walkability score

Portfolio walkability score: ____________

Percentage of Residential portfolio covered: ____________%

Please describe the methodology used: ____________

Not scored , S

This indicator is not scored in 2025 and is used for reporting purposes only.

FAQ

RES3

Community safety

Does the entity have a process to monitor the crime levels in the vicinity of its assets?

Yes

Describe the process used to monitor and measure crime levels

________________________

Percentage of portfolio for which crime levels are monitored: ____________%

Has the process identified any measures required to reduce crime levels?

Yes

Select all applicable measures:

Improved lighting

Secure entry systems

Surveillance cameras

Physical barriers

Security presence

Secured storage facilities

Other: ____________

Not scored , S

This indicator is not scored in 2025 and is used for reporting purposes only.

FAQ

RES4

Affordability

Does the entity have an Affordability policy for its standing investments porfolio?

Yes

Describe what the policy includes: ____________

List the metrics used to assess the affordability of housing within the portfolio

________________________

Not scored , S

This indicator is not scored in 2025 and is used for reporting purposes only.

FAQ

RES5

Affordable housing

Does the entity own affordable housing properties in its standing investments portfolio?

Yes

Describe the adopted definition of affordable housing: ____________

Percentage of affordable properties within the portfolio: ____________%

Does the entity have an affordable housing target?

Yes

Describe the characteristics of the target and how progress towards it is ensured:

________________________

Not scored , S

This indicator is not scored in 2025 and is used for reporting purposes only.

FAQ

RES6

ESG-specific elements in lease contracts

Does the entity include ESG-specific elements in its standard lease contracts and related appendices?

Yes

Select all topics included (multiple answers possible)

Agreement to

¹⁄₂

Data sharing

²⁄₃

¹⁄₃

Energy consumption

¹⁄₃

Water consumption

¹⁄₃

Waste management

¹⁄₃

Renewable energy

¹⁄₃

Enabling upgrade works

Incentives for

¹⁄₈

¹⁄₃

Energy conservation

¹⁄₃

Water conservation

¹⁄₃

Renewable energy

¹⁄₃

Recycling and waste management

¹⁄₃

Other: ____________

Recommendations on

¹⁄₄

¹⁄₃

Energy conservation

¹⁄₃

Water conservation

¹⁄₃

Renewable energy

¹⁄₃

Recycling and waste management

¹⁄₃

Indoor environmental quality

¹⁄₃

Sustainable living practices

¹⁄₃

Other: ____________

Information provision on

¹⁄₈

¹⁄₂

Social initiatives

¹⁄₂

Sustainable transport

¹⁄₂

Other: ____________

Percentage lease contracts with an ESG element (by floor area)

Percentage of contracts with ESG elements: ____________%

1.5 points , E

This indicator is worth 1.5 points in the 2025 standalone Residential Benchmark Report and replaces indicator ESG-Specific Requirements in Lease Contracts (TC4 - Green Leases).

Appendix 1 - GRESB vs. ASHRAE Property Types Classification

This table shows how properties classified under the GRESB property sub-type methodology are categorized in accordance with ASHRAE’s methodology.

Note that this table can be subject to future modifications.

GRESB Property sub-type	ASHRAE Type
Office: Office, Corporate: Low-Rise Office	Admin/professional office
Office: Office, Corporate: Mid-Rise Office	Admin/professional office
Office: Office, Corporate: High-Rise Office	Admin/professional office
Office: Office, Business Park: Office, Business Park	Admin/professional office
Mixed use: Mixed use: Mixed Use, Office/Retail	Mixed-use office
Mixed use: Mixed use: Mixed Use, Office/Residential	Mixed-use office
Mixed use: Mixed use: Mixed Use, Office/Industrial	Mixed-use office
Mixed use: Mixed use: Mixed Use, Office/Other	Mixed-use office
Office: Office, Other: Office, Other	Other office
Technology/Science: Technology/Science: Laboratory/Life sciences	Laboratory
Industrial: Industrial: Industrial Park	Distribution/shipping center
Industrial: Distribution Warehouse: Industrial, Non-refrigerated Warehouse	Nonrefrigerated warehouse
Retail: Retail Centers: Retail, Warehouse	Grocery store/food market
Healthcare: Healthcare, Medical Office: Healthcare, Medical Office	Medical office (diagnostic)
Healthcare: Healthcare, Medical Office: Healthcare, Other	Clinic/other outpatient health
Industrial: Distribution Warehouse: Industrial, Refrigerated Warehouse	Refrigerated warehouse
Lodging, Leisure & Recreation: Lodging, Leisure & Recreation: Performing Arts	Entertainment/culture
Education: Education: Library	Library
Lodging, Leisure & Recreation: Lodging, Leisure & Recreation: Fitness Center	Recreation
Lodging, Leisure & Recreation: Lodging, Leisure & Recreation: Indoor Arena	Other public assembly
Education: Education: University	College/university
Education: Education: School	High school
Education: Education: Education, Other	Other classroom education
Retail: Retail, Restaurants/Bars: Retail, Restaurants/Bars	Restaurant/cafeteria
Healthcare: Healthcare: Healthcare Center	Hospital/inpatient health
Healthcare: Senior Homes: Senior Homes	Nursing home/assisted living
Residential: Student Housing: Student Housing	Dormitory/fraternity/sorority
Hotel: Hotel: Hotel	Hotel
Lodging, Leisure & Recreation: Lodging, Leisure & Recreation: Lodging, Leisure & Recreation, Other	Other lodging
Retail: Retail, High Street: Retail, High Street	Retail store
Retail: Retail, Other: Retail, Other	Other retail
Retail: Retail Centers: Retail, Strip Mall	Strip shopping mall
Retail: Retail Centers: Retail, Lifestyle Center	Strip shopping mall
Retail: Retail Centers: Retail, Shopping Center	Enclosed mall
Residential: Retirement Living: Retirement Living	Single-family detached
Residential: Family Homes: Family Homes	Single-family attached
Residential: Residential Multi-Family: Low-Rise Multi-Family	Apartment (in 2-to-4-unit building)
Residential: Residential Multi-Family: Mid-Rise Multi-Family	Apartment (in 5+ unit building)
Residential: Residential Multi-Family: High-Rise Multi-Family	Apartment (in 5+ unit building)

GRESB property sub-types not listed in the table above are currently not supported under ASHRAE’s methodology. As such, assets in these sub-types may only be considered for like-for-like energy efficiency scoring, provided they meet the relevant inclusion criteria.

Appendix 2 - Scoring Document Improvements Summary

Driven largely by Member feedback, GRESB conducted a thorough review and update of the existing Scoring Document in 2025 to streamline and clarify key information. This Appendix summarizes these improvements.

Notes: Standards-related updates, driven by the GRESB Foundation, are highlighted and summarized in Appendix 1. Appendix 2 focuses on summarizing substantive updates made by GRESB to existing content. It does not include minor editorial changes.

Structure

Introduction

The new introduction offers a more detailed explanation of the GRESB scoring process compared to the previous version. It now provides a comprehensive overview of the scoring methodology, including the impact of various components such as multipliers and validation statuses on final scores. Additionally, the introduction breaks down the differences between GRESB's relative and static scoring methods, using practical examples to illustrate how asset-level indicators are benchmarked and scored.

Appendixes

Appendix 1

Following the approval by the GRESB Foundation on Energy Efficiency scoring, the purpose of this appendix is to show users a comparison of how properties are classified under the GRESB property sub-type methodology with their corresponding categories in the ASHRAE methodology, used for the new scoring methodology.

Appendix 3

The goal of this appendix is to clarify the scoring process of indicators benchmarked at the property sub-type and country level through detailed examples of how scores are calculated through the different stages (asset, property sub-type and country, and portfolio level).

Guidance

Asset-level indicators

Driven by major revisions to key indicators and the interpretation of performance metrics in 2024, GRESB has increased the level of detail, clarity and transparency in the descriptions of scoring methodologies for asset-level indicators, i.e. EN1 (energy), GH1 (GHG), WT1 (water), WS1 (waste), BC1.1 (building certifications at the time of design/construction and for interior), BC1.2 (operational building certifications) and BC2 (energy ratings).

Appendix 3 - Supplemental Scoring Examples

The examples provided in this appendix are intended for educational purposes only and have been simplified in certain instances. They are designed to illustrate key concepts and should not be regarded as definitive or exhaustive.

The scenario-based examples demonstrate the process from asset-level scoring to property sub-type scoring. Note that an additional step is required to aggregate the scores across various property sub-types and countries into a single portfolio score but has been omitted for the purpose of simplicity. This final aggregation step uses the Gross Asset Value (GAV) of each property sub-type and country within the portfolio as a weighting factor to assign a final score per indicator.

Data Coverage Scoring

Consider 10 Residential: Multi-family Mid-rise USA assets with identical square footage (GFA) and all tenant-controlled with 100% ownership. 1 asset has full data coverage (100%), 9 assets have no data coverage (0%). Here below is a recalculation of the Energy Data Coverage Score of this portfolio.

Each asset included in the property sub-type have their data coverage benchmarked and scored separately. Out of 10 assets, 1 obtains a full score considering its data coverage of 100%, and 9 assets obtain a score of 0% considering their data coverage of 0. These asset-level scores are then aggregated at property sub-type / country level using assets’ floor area and ownership as a weighting factor. This results in score achieved by the property sub-type / country of (100%*(1/10)) + (0%*(9/10)) * 8.5 = 0.85/8.5 points.

This same logic applies to the points relevant to water re-use and recycling performance.

Energy Performance

Energy efficiency

Determining eligibility for energy efficiency

The energy efficiency score is awarded to assets that meet the following criteria:

Are classified as Standing Investments
Have a full year (>= 355 days) of data availability
Have vacancy rate lower than 20%
Have an Energy Data Coverage (area x time) of 75% or more*
Have an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) value that is lower than the corresponding threshold established by the ASHRAE Standard 100:2024**

For assets with Data Coverage (area x time) of 75% or more, the Energy Use Intensity (EUI) is calculated as:

Taking as an example an office building in Amsterdam:

#	Country	Property sub-type	Floor area (m2)	Vacancy rate	Data Coverage (area/time)	Energy Consumption (kWh)	Energy Intensity (kWh/m2)
GRESB office	Netherlands	Office: Corporate: High-Rise	1,000	17%	100%	118,500	118.5

The asset’s EUI is then compared to the corresponding threshold from ASHRAE Standard 100:2024. If the energy use intensity is lower than the threshold, the asset receives a score of 2.5 points.

#	Country	Property sub-type	Energy Intensity (kWh/m2)	ASHRAE 100:2024 threshold (kWh.m2)	Asset energy efficiency score
GRESB office	Netherlands	Office: Corporate: High-Rise	118.5	123.33	2.5 pts

Assets that are not eligible for an Energy efficiency score are assessed based on their Like-for-like performance.

Like-For-Like

Like-for-Like data Availability

Consider an office building in the Netherlands classified as a standing investment, with 100% data coverage for two consecutive reporting years, identical gross floor area (GFA) and 100% ownership.

Since this asset meets the eligibility criteria to demonstrate the existence of a like-for-like change (refer to the Reference Guide for details on like-for-like eligibility criteria), the asset will be awarded its corresponding fraction of available points, calculated as 1 × 0.5 = 0.5 points.

Like-for-Like Performance Improvement

Step 1: Calculate the year-on-year improvement for each asset

For each sub-space (e.g., common areas, tenant spaces landlord-controlled) within an asset, the like-for-like performance improvement score is calculated if it meets the following criteria for both current and previous reporting years:

Data Availability covers the full year (>= 355 days)
Data Coverage is positive
Data Coverage is the same (within 1% error threshold)
The asset is classified as Standing Investment

Increases in energy consumption compared to last year automatically receive a score of 0 points.

Here we show an example of an office building in Amsterdam, where we assume 100% ownership, full tenant-control, and that the entire floor area is eligible for inclusion in the calculation. The LFL performance improvement for this asset is:

#	Country	Property sub-type	Floor area (m2)	LY Consumption (kWh)	CY Consumption (kWh)	LFL performance improvement
GRESB office	Netherlands	Office: Corporate: High-Rise	1,000	120,920	118,500	-2%

Step 2: Calculate the Like-for-like Performance Improvement score at the asset level

The Like-for-like performance improvement score is calculated in comparison to the benchmark average corresponding to this asset.

#	Country	Property sub-type	Floor area (m2)	LY Consumption (kWh)	CY Consumption (kWh)	LFL performance improvement
GRESB office	Netherlands	Office: Corporate: High-Rise	1,000	-2%	-3%	1.2 points

Energy performance

Step 1: Calculate the Energy Performance score for each asset

Based on their eligibility, assets receive either an Energy efficiency or a Like-for-like score, which represents their Energy Performance score.

Step 2: Calculate the Energy Performance score at the Property Sub-type and Country level

At this step, the individual energy performance scores for each asset are combined to get an overall score for each property type and country group, weighted by the ownership and total area of each asset.

Property sub−type & country = \frac{\sum Energy Performance score \times %Ownership \times Floor area}{\sum %Ownership \times Floor area}

Step 3: Calculate the Energy Performance score at the Portfolio level

The calculation uses the GAV of each property type and country group to weigh the final scores. Larger property sub-type and country groups will have a greater impact on the overall score.

Portfolio level = \sum Property Sub-type & Country score \times % of GAV

Renewable Performance Scoring

Consider 10 Residential: Multi-family Mid-rise USA assets that with identical square footage (GFA) and 100% ownership. All assets have an identical energy consumption.

In the prior year, 2 assets were entirely powered by renewable energy and 8 assets did not have any renewable energy.
In the current year, one additional asset is half powered by renewable energy and 7 assets do not have any renewable energy.

Step 1: the % renewable energy is calculated for all assets for both the current year and the last year, resulting in the following values:

Last year: 100%, 100%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%.

Current year: 100%, 100%, 50%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%.

Step 2: the year-on-year improvement is calculated for all assets, resulting in the following values:

0%, 0%, 50%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%,

Step 3: asset-level year-on-year improvement values are then compared against a relevant benchmark distribution of assets within the same property sub-type and country to achieve an improvement score.

Out of the 10 assets, 1 achieves an improvement score of ~90%; 9 achieve an improvement score of 0. The performance score for each asset is then calculated by applying the above formula. For the one asset subject to a positive improvement score, the performance score is calculated as:

[((100 + p) / 200 ) * (p / 100) ] + [(100 - p) / 200] * i = [((100 + 50) / 200) * 50% ] + [(100 – 50) / 200] *90% = 0.375 + 0.225 = 0.6

As a result, the total number of points achieved by that asset in this section is 0.6 * 2 = 1.2 points. Other assets fully powered by renewable energy in the current year achieve a performance score of 2 points, and assets with no renewable energy achieve a performance score of 0.

Step 4: all asset-level performance scores are aggregated at the property sub-type / country (using assets’ floor area as a weighting factor) of (1.2p*(1/10)) + (2p*(2/10)) + (0p*(7/10)) = 0.52 points.

This same logic applies to the points relevant to water re-use and recycling performance.

Building Certification Scoring

Consider 10 Residential: Multi-family Mid-rise USA assets with identical square footage (GFA) and all with 100% ownership. 1 asset has a 4-year-old (Time Factor of 50%) operational certification scheme (indicator BC1.2) covering 100% floor area and the scheme has a Validation Status Factor of 0.6 (Partial+).

Step 1: the aggregated certified % floor area per property sub-type /country is calculated:

1 certified asset floor area / 10 total asset floor area = 10% certified floor area aggregated at Property Sub-Type and Country level .

Step 2: Validation Status and Time Factor weights are incorporated:

When incorporating the Validation Status and Time Factor, this value becomes 10%*0.6*0.5=3%

Step 3: the adjusted % floor area certified is compared to a relevant benchmark group:

This aggregated % floor area certified (incorporating Validation Status and Time Factor) is then compared against a relevant benchmark, which results in a score achieved by the scheme for the property sub-type and country of ~15% (assuming the relevant benchmark average is 20%). Considering that no other scheme was reported in this property sub-type / country, the final score received is ~15%*8.5 = 1.28 points.

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

The above applies separately per indicator (BC1.1 and BC1.2), where the key metric used for scoring is the percentage of floor area certified (% floor area certified).

2025

Real Estate

Scoring Document

Contents

Disclaimer: GRESB Real Estate Assessment Scoring Document

Purpose of this Document

GRESB Scoring Model

Indicator Score Breakdown

Scoring Weights

Multipliers

Static scoring

Relative scoring

Additional clarifications

Management: Leadership

ESG Commitments and Objectives

ESG Decision Making

Management: Policies

ESG Policies

Management: Reporting

ESG Disclosure

Guideline name

Scheme name

ESG Incident Monitoring

Management: Risk Management

Risk Management

Risk Assessments

Climate-related Risk Management

Management: Stakeholder Engagement

Employees

Suppliers

Performance: Reporting Characteristics

Reporting Characteristics

Performance: Risk Assessment

Risk Assessments

Efficiency Measures

Performance: Targets

Targets

Select target type:

Performance: Tenants & Community

Tenants/Occupiers

Percentage portfolio covered

Percentage portfolio covered

Community

Performance: Energy

Energy Consumption

Data coverage

Energy performance

Energy efficiency

Like-for-like

Like-for-like data availability:

Like-for-like performance:

Renewable energy

Performance: GHG

GHG Emissions

Performance: Water

Water Use

Performance: Waste

Waste Management

Performance: Data Monitoring & Review

Review, verification and assurance of ESG data

Scheme name

Scheme name

Scheme name

Scheme name

Performance: Building Certifications

Building Certifications

Scheme Name/Sub-scheme Name

Scheme Name/Sub-scheme Name

Development: Reporting Characteristics

Reporting Characteristics

Development: ESG Requirements

ESG Requirements

Development: Building Certifications

Building Certifications

Development: Materials

Materials

Development: Energy

Energy

Development: Water

Water Conservation