GRESB Benchmark Report - 2015 by Nils Kok

Benchmark Report Example

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 DA DATE: TE: September 01 2015 23:34 UTC ✓

Table of Contents Scorecard/Key Highlights Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Entity & Peer Group Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Third Party Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reporting Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 4 5 6 6

Benchmark Information GRESB Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Management Sustainability Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Sustainability Decision-Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Policy & Disclosure Sustainability Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sustainability Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Risks & Opportunities Bribery & Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Risk Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Fines & Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 13 14 15 16

Monitoring & EMS Environmental Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Data Management Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Monitoring Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Performance Indicators Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Office - Energy Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Office - GHG Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Office - Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Office - Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 20 22 24 26

Certifications & Energy Ratings Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Stakeholder Engagement Employees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tenants/Occupiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28 29 30 34 35

New Construction & Major Renovations Sustainability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community Enagagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials and Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supply Chain Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 2 of 42

36 38 38 39 39 41 41

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example â&#x20AC;&#x201D; September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

2015

Benchmark Report Example no manager Participation 2011

2012

2013

2014

Peer Group & Entity Characteristics Legal Structur Structure: e: Non-listed Sector Sector:: Office Region: United States Peers: 24

2015

GRESB Quadrant Model

77 100

Management & Policy

Implementation & Measurement

100

GRESB Average 52

Management & Policy

100

GRESB Average 63

Development

100

0 50

Peer Group Average

Peer Group

ESG Breakdown Environment

100

GRESB Average 48

Social

100

GRESB Average 58

Governance GRESB Average 69

Peer Average 59

Peer Average 62

Peer Average 54

GRESB Average 56

Top quantile

Peer Average 40

Bottom quantile

GRESB Average

Historical Trend

11% Improved

100 Peer Average 62

Overall Score

100

Implementation & Measurement This Entity

GRESB Average 55

GRESB Dimensions

100

GRESB Score

Peer Average 52

Peer Average 58

0 2013

This Entity Peer Group Average

2014

2015

Peer Group Range GRESB Average

GRESB Range

Rankings

3rd 29th

United States / Office Sector out of 24

Global / Office Sector out of 145

87th 9th

Global / All Participants out of 688

North America / Nonlisted Participants out of 115

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example â&#x20AC;&#x201D; September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

15th 46th

North America / All Sectors out of 155

Non-listed / Core out of 354

Page 3 of 42

Aspects

New Construction & Major Renovations

Management

90 75

Stakeholder Engagement

86 25

76 Building Certifications

Policy & Disclosure

94 62

Risks & Opportunities

Performance Indicators

Monitoring & EMS

This Entity

+19

+16

25.3%

New Construction & Major Renovations

Monitoring & EMS 9.4%

Performance Indicators 24.2%

Building Certifications 10.8%

Stakeholder Engagement

Page 4 of 42

AVERAGE PEER

50 +14

AVERAGE PEER

AVERAGE

PEER

30 -20

AVERAGE

Frequency

+20

11.6%

PEER

Score

100

AVERAGE GLOBAL

Frequency

Risks & Opportunities

AVERAGE

Score

100

AVERAGE GLOBAL

Frequency

10.1%

GLOBAL

Score

100

AVERAGE GLOBAL

Frequency

Policy & Disclosure

PEER

Score

100

AVERAGE GLOBAL

Frequency

+25

8.7%

GRESB

Score

100

AVERAGE GLOBAL

Frequency

Management

Peer Group

Score

100

AVERAGE GLOBAL

Frequency

This Entity

57 +10

Score

100

AVERAGE

GLOBAL

Frequency

Aspect Weight in GRESB Scor Score e

Peer Group Average

Score

100

AVERAGE

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example â&#x20AC;&#x201D; September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Entity & Peer Group Characteristics

This Entity

Peer Group (24 entities)

Country:

United States

Country:

United States

Sector:

Office

Sector:

Office

Legal Status:

Non-listed

Legal Status:

Non-listed

Total GAV:

$4.59 Billion

Average GAV:

$1.77 Billion

Activity:

Standing Investments and Development

Countries [100%] United States

Sectors [100%] Office

Management Contr Control ol

Peer Gr Group oup Countries [100%] United States

Peer Gr Group oup Sectors [100%] Office

Peer Gr Group oup Management Contr Control ol

[95%] Managed

[97%] Managed

[5%] Indirect

[3%] Indirect

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example â&#x20AC;&#x201D; September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 5 of 42

Third Party Validation

Reporting Boundaries

Benchmark Information GRESB Validation

Question

Data R Review eview

24.4

Energy consumption data reported

No third party validation

25.3

GHG emissions data reported

No third party validation

26.3

Water consumption data reported

No third party validation

27.2

Waste management data reported

No third party validation

“ Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

All Participant Checks ‘Other’ answers

Open text box answers

[60%] Accepted

[50%] Full Points

[40%] Not Accepted

[40%] Partial Points [10%] No Points

This information has been produced using a data set dated August 31, 2015.

Management POINTS: 11/12 WEIGHT: 8.7%

Sustainability Objectives

Q1.1

POINTS: 0.8/1

Improvement

Sustainability objectives Percentage of Peers

 Yes

95%

The objectives are  Publicly available

54%

Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[46%] link Online [ACCEPTED]



[46%] (no answer provided)



[8%] Offline - separate document

Communicated objectives [PARTIAL POINTS]

Page 6 of 42

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

 Not publicly available

41%

 No

Q1.2

POINTS: 1/1

Sustainability objectives in business strategy Percentage of Peers

 Yes

91%

The objectives are incorporated as follows: [PARTIAL POINTS]

 No

 Not applicable

POINTS: 3/3

Responsibility to implement sustainability Percentage of Peers

 Yes

95%

 Dedicated employee(s) for whom sustainability is the core responsibility Name: James Smith

[ACCEPTED]

Job title: Manager

[ACCEPTED]

54%

LinkedIn profile (optional):

 Employee(s) for whom sustainability is among their responsibilities

66%

Name: John Beaton

[ACCEPTED]

Job title: Employee

[ACCEPTED]

LinkedIn profile (optional):

 External consultants/manager

50%

Name of the organization: Example Consulting

[ACCEPTED]

Website: www.example.com

[ACCEPTED]

Name of key contact: Jim Johnson

[ACCEPTED]

 Other Example description

 No

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

16% [ACCEPTED]

Page 7 of 42

Sustainability Decision-Making

POINTS: 2/2

Sustainability taskforce or committee Percentage of Peers

 Yes

83%

Members are:  Board of Directors

33%

 Senior Management Team

66%

 Fund/portfolio managers

50%

 Asset managers

54%

 Property managers

66%

 External consultants

37%

Name of the organization: Example Consulting

 Other

33%

 No

[ACCEPTED]

16%

POINTS: 1/1

Sustainability decision-maker Percentage of Peers

 Yes

87%

The individual is part of Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[46%] Senior Management Team Name: James Smith

[ACCEPTED]

Job title: Manager

[ACCEPTED]



[21%] Board of Directors



[17%] Investment Committee



[12%] (no answer provided)



[4%] Fund/portfolio managers

 No

12%

POINTS: 0/1

Communication to sustainability decision-maker Percentage of Peers

 Yes

91%

Process [NO POINTS]

 No

Page 8 of 42

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

 Not applicable

POINTS: 3/3

Employee sustainability performance targets Percentage of Peers

 Yes

75%

These factors apply to:  Board of Directors

 Senior Management Team

29%

 Acquisitions team

 Client services team

 Fund/portfolio managers

20%

 Asset managers

41%

 Property managers

66%

 All employees

 Other

37%

Example description

[ACCEPTED]

 No

Policy & Disclosure POINTS: 12/14 WEIGHT: 10.1%

Sustainability Disclosure

Q7.1

25%

POINTS: 5/5

Improvement

Disclosure of sustainability performance Percentage of Peers

 Yes (multiple answers possible)

83%

 Section in Annual Report

16%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Applicable reporting level  Entity

12%

 Investment manager

 Group

Aligned with Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[92%] (no answer provided)



[8%] INREV Sustainability Reporting Recommendations, 2012

 Stand-alone sustainability report(s) Evidence provided

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

79% [ACCEPTED]

Page 9 of 42

Applicable reporting level  Entity

33%

 Investment manager

29%

 Group

16%

Aligned with Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[63%] (no answer provided)



[21%] GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, 2013



[8%] PRI Reporting Framework, 2013



[4%] Other



[4%] INREV Sustainability Reporting Recommendations, 2012

 Integrated Report

 Dedicated section on the corporate website link Online

62% [ACCEPTED]

Applicable reporting level Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[38%] (no answer provided)



[25%] Investment manager



[25%] Entity



[13%] Group

 Section in entity reporting to investors Evidence provided

25% [ACCEPTED]

Aligned with Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[83%] (no answer provided)



[13%] Other



[4%] INREV Sustainability Reporting Recommendations, 2012

 Other Example description Evidence provided

8% [NOT ACCEPTED] [ACCEPTED]

Applicable reporting level

Page 10 of 42

 Entity

 Investment manager

 Group

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Aligned with Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[96%] (no answer provided)



[4%] INREV Sustainability Reporting Recommendations, 2012

 No

Q7.2

16%

POINTS: 0/2

Independent review of sustainability performance Percentage of Peers

Sustainability Policies

 Yes

25%

 No

66%

 Not applicable

POINTS: 3/3

Policy on environmental issues Percentage of Peers

 Yes

95%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Environmental issues included  Energy consumption/management

95%

 GHG emissions/management

79%

 Water consumption/management

95%

 Waste management

95%

 Climate/climate change

25%

 Resilience

12%

 Other

37%

Example description

 No

[ACCEPTED]

POINTS: 1/1

Bribery and corruption policy Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[88%] Yes Evidence provided



Q10

[ACCEPTED]

[13%] No

POINTS: 2/2

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 11 of 42

Stakeholder engagement policy Percentage of Peers

 Yes

66%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Stakeholders included  Employees

66%

 Tenants/occupiers

66%

 Supply chain

45%

 Community

29%

 Investors/shareholders

50%

 Consumers

12%

 Government/local authorities

 Investment partners

20%

 Other

 No

Q11

33%

POINTS: 1/1

Employee policy Percentage of Peers

 Yes

83%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Issues included  Diversity

79%

 Remuneration

83%

 Performance and career development

75%

 Health & safety

83%

 Cyber security

70%

 Other Example description

 No

Risks & Opportunities POINTS: 15/16 WEIGHT: 11.6%

Bribery & Corruption

Q12

20% [NOT ACCEPTED]

16%

POINTS: 0.5/1

Risk assessment for bribery/corruption Percentage of Peers

 Yes

79%

Process [PARTIAL POINTS]

Page 12 of 42

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

 No

Q13

20%

POINTS: 1/1

Implementation of bribery/corruption policies Percentage of Peers

 Yes

75%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Applicable options  Whistle-blower mechanism

70%

 Investment due diligence process

58%

 Bribery and corruption risks training

66%

 When an employee joins the organization

66%

 Regular follow-ups

58%

 Other

16%

 No

 Not applicable

16%

Q14

Not scored

Legal cases corrupt practices Percentage of Peers

Risk Assessments

 Yes

 No

100%

Q15.1

POINTS: 2/2

New acquisition risk assessment Percentage of Peers

 Yes Evidence provided

87% [ACCEPTED]

Issues included  Energy efficiency

87%

 Water efficiency

79%

 GHG emissions

20%

 Building safety and materials

87%

 Transportation

25%

 Contamination

75%

 Natural hazards

70%



GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 13 of 42

Climate change

33%

 Socio-economic

12%

 Regulatory

70%

 Health, safety and well-being

54%

 Other

16%

Example description

[ACCEPTED]

 No

 Not applicable

Q15.2

POINTS: 1.5/2

Improvement

Risk mitigation for standing investments Percentage of Peers

 Yes

83%

Issues included  GHG emissions

33%

 Building safety and materials

66%

 Transportation

20%

 Contamination

33%

 Natural hazards

41%

 Climate change

16%

 Socio-economic

 Regulatory

75%

 Health, safety and well-being

70%

 Other

Example description

[ACCEPTED]

Use of sustainability risk assessment outcomes [FULL POINTS]

Energy Efficiency

 No

 Not applicable

Q16

POINTS: 3/3

Technical building assessments Percentage of Peers

 Yes Evidence provided

Page 14 of 42

83% [ACCEPTED]

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Assessment type  In-house assessment

62%

Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[50%] ≥75%, ≤100% of the portfolio covered



[38%] (no answer provided)



[8%] >0%, <25% of the portfolio covered



[4%] ≥25%, <50% of the portfolio covered

 External assessment

75%

Name of the organization: Example Consulting

[ACCEPTED]

 >0%, <25% of the portfolio covered

 ≥25%, <50% of the portfolio covered

20%

 ≥50%, <75% of the portfolio covered

29%

 ≥75%, ≤100% of the portfolio covered

16%

 No

Q17

16%

POINTS: 4/4

Energy efficiency measures Percentage of Peers

 Yes

95%

Describe the measures using the table below.

Water Efficiency

Estimated savings MWh

Estimated ROI (%)

Measure

% portfolio covered

Scope

Building automation system upgrades/ replacements

≥50%, <75%

Whole building

Installation of high-efficiency equipment and appliances

≥50%, <75%

Whole building

Respondent specified measure

≥75, ≤100%

Whole building

 No

 Not applicable

Q18

POINTS: 3/3

Water efficiency measures Percentage of Peers

 Yes

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

95%

Page 15 of 42

Describe the measures using the table below.

Environmental Fines & Penalties

Estimated savings m³

Estimated ROI (%)

Measure

% portfolio covered

Scope

High-efficiency/dry fixtures

≥75, ≤100%

Whole building

Cooling tower water management

≥75, ≤100%

Whole building

Drip/smart irrigation

≥75, ≤100%

Whole building

 No

 Not applicable

Q19

Not scored

Environmental fines Percentage of Peers

Monitoring & EMS POINTS: 11/13 WEIGHT: 9.4%

 Yes

 No

100%

Q20.1

POINTS: 1.5/1.5

Improvement

Environmental Management System

Environmental Management Systems

Per Percentage centage of Peers [54%] Yes



Evidence provided

[46%] No



Q20.2

POINTS: 1/1.5

[ACCEPTED]

Improvement

Independent review of the EMS Percentage of Peers

 Yes

41%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

 Aligned with Example alignment

Page 16 of 42

37% [ACCEPTED]

 Externally verified by

 Externally certified by

 No

12%

 Not applicable

45%

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Data Management Systems

Q21.1

POINTS: 4/4

Data Management System Percentage of Peers

 Yes

87%

Percentage of whole portfolio covered by floor area: 100% Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Type Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[75%] External system Name of the system: Example system

[ACCEPTED]



[13%] (no answer provided)



[8%] Developed internally



[4%] Bespoke internal system developed by a third party

Aspects included  Energy consumption/management

87%

 GHG emissions/management

87%

 Water consumption/management

83%

 Waste streams/management

54%

 Refrigerants

37%

 Employee travel and transportation

25%

 Indoor environmental quality

41%

 Occupant comfort and satisfaction

16%

 Other Example aspect

12% [ACCEPTED]

 No

Q21.2

12%

POINTS: 0.3/1

Independent review of the DMS Percentage of Peers

 Yes

66%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

 Aligned with Example alignment

58% [ACCEPTED]

 Externally verified by

 Externally certified by

 No

20%

 Not applicable

12%

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 17 of 42

Monitoring Consumption

POINTS: 3/3

Monitoring energy consumption Percentage of Peers

 Yes

95%

Whole portfolio covered: 100

Type  Automatic meter readings

58%

Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: 90%

 Based on invoices

91%

Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: 85%

 Manual–visual readings

37%

Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: 10%

 Provided by the tenant

16%

Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: 15%

 Other

 No

 Not applicable

POINTS: 1/2

Monitoring water consumption Percentage of Peers

 Yes

95%

Whole portfolio covered: 100

Type  Automatic meter readings

 Based on invoices

95%

Percentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area: 100%

Page 18 of 42

 Manual–visual readings

33%

 Provided by the tenant

 Other

 No

 Not applicable

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Performance Indicators POINTS: 21/34 WEIGHT: 24.2%

Summary

Performance Highlights Energy Consumption POINTS: 9.7/16.5

GHG Emissions

Improvement

POINTS: 2.3/4.5

Improvement

600 000 MwH

300 000 T

250 000 T

400 000 MwH

200 000 T

150 000 T

200 000 MwH

100 000 T

50 000 T

0 MwH 2013

2014

2013

Office

2014

Office

Water Consumption POINTS: 2.4/4.5

2014

POINTS: 3.3/5

3 000 000 m

2 500 000 m

2 000 000 m

1 500 000 m

1 000 000 m

500 000 m

2013

Waste Management

Improvement

50 000 T

40 000 T

30 000 T

20 000 T

10 000 T

0T 2013

Office

2014

Office

Targets POINTS: 3/3

Area

Target type

Long-term target

Baseline year

End year

2014 target

2014 Peer avg target

Are these targets communicated externally?

Energy consumption

Intensity-based

50%

2012

2015

60%

1.73%

Yes

GHG emissions

Intensity-based

2012

2015

1.75%

Yes

Water consumption

Intensity-based

15%

2012

2015

15%

2.06%

Yes

Waste diverted from landfill

Like-for-like

25%

2012

2015

12%

1.67%

Yes

Respondent specified target

Intensity-based

15%

2012

2015

10%

1.09%

Yes

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example â&#x20AC;&#x201D; September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 19 of 42

Performance Indicators

POINTS: 6.5/8

Data Coverage

POINTS: 21/34 WEIGHT: 24.2%

91%

This Entity

Office Energy Consumption

Overall

Group Average

†

84% 79%

Global Average

96%

This Entity

Managed

Group Average

†

85% 87%

Global Average This Entity

Indirect

Group Average

†

74% 68%

Global Average

† Comparison Group: Office / United States

Directly managed assets make up 95.3% of total assets for Benchmark Report Example. Indirectly managed assets make up 4.7% of total assets for Benchmark Report Example. Average data coverage is calculated based on the fraction of companies/funds that report data. Data availability for the categories above is: Overall: 89% group, 55% global. Managed assets: 88% group, 54% global. Indirectly managed assets: 23% group, 11% global.

POINTS: 0/3

Change in Like-for-like Energy Consumption between 2013-2014 0.1 % overall increase Overall

Managed

35%

Indirect

35%

25%

15%

15% Group

Global Average

0.1 %

Average

-5%

This

-1.8 %

-15%

Entity

-3.6 %

Group

Global

0.1 %

Average Average

This

-1.6 %

Entity

-3.3 %

N/A

0.9 %

This

Group

Entity

Average

Global Average

-4.1 %

5% -5% -15%

-25%

-35%

Comparison Group: Office / United States Like-for-like changes beyond 25% are excluded from scoring and displayed averages. Directly managed assets make up 95.3% of total assets for Benchmark Report Example. Indirectly managed assets make up 4.7% of total assets for Benchmark Report Example.

Impact of Change

Page 20 of 42

Energy Consumption INCREASE

Equivalent of:

640 MWh

57 Homes

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Notes on energy data “ Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

POINTS: 1.3/2

Energy Consumption Intensities Intensity 75

Peers with intensity data Per Percentage centage of Peers

[79%] Yes 25

% of portfolio cover covered ed

2013

2014

75%

80%

[21%] No

Comparison Group: Office / United States

Elements for which intensities are normalized in the calculations Percentage of Peers

 Occupancy rate

33%

 Footfall

 Operational hours

 Weather conditions

12%

 Degree days

 Air conditioning and/or natural ventilation

 Building age

 Other

20%

Other selected. Please describe:: Example description

[ACCEPTED]

 None of the above

16%

Energy intensity calculation method “ Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

POINTS: 2/2

Renewable Energy MWh 100

Peers with renewable energy data Per Percentage centage of Peers [76%] No

[24%] Yes

% Renewable Ener Energy gy

2013

2014

10%

Comparison Group: Office / United States

On-site (generated and consumed) Off-site (generated or purchased) On-site (generated and exported)

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 21 of 42

Performance Indicators

Scope Ⅰ

Scope Ⅱ

Scope Ⅲ

6 433 T

232 709 T

N/A

Office GHG Emissions

Direct greenhouse gas emissions by weight Indirect greenhouse gas emissions by in metric tonnes CO2 weight in metric tonnes CO2

POINTS: 21/34 WEIGHT: 24.2%

Emissions by tenants in metric tonnes CO2 POINTS: 1.7/2

Data Coverage

This Entity

Overall

92%

†

84%

Global Average

85%

Group Average

* Data coverage calculated based on lettable floor area only † Comparison Group: Office / United States

Average data coverage is calculated based on the fraction of companies/funds that report data. Data availability for the categories above is: Overall: 83% group, 48% global.

POINTS: 0.1/0.5

Change in Like-for-like GHG Emissions between 2013-2014 0.3 % overall decrease

35% 25% 15%

This

Group

Global

Entity

Average

-2.1 %

-3.4 %

-0.3 %

5% -5% -15% -25% -35%

Impact of Change

Page 22 of 42

GHG Emissions Reduction

Equivalent of:

-491 tonnes

102 Automobiles

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Notes on GHG data “ Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

POINTS: 0.5/1

GHG Emission Intensities Intensity 10

Peers with intensity data Per Percentage centage of Peers [73%] Yes

[27%] No

% of portfolio cover covered ed

2013

2014

70%

75%

Comparison Group: Office / United States

Elements for which intensities are normalized in the calculations Percentage of Peers

 Occupancy rate

33%

 Footfall

 Operational hours

 Weather conditions

12%

 Degree days

 Air conditioning and/or natural ventilation

 Building age

 Other Other selected. Please describe:: Example description

 None of the above

20% [ACCEPTED]

16%

GHG intensity calculation method “ Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 23 of 42

Performance Indicators

POINTS: 1.6/2

Data Coverage

POINTS: 21/34 WEIGHT: 24.2%

91%

This Entity

Office Water Use

Overall

Group Average

†

82% 79%

Global Average

95%

This Entity

Managed

Group Average

†

84% 85%

Global Average This Entity

Indirect

Group Average

†

69% 66%

Global Average

† Comparison Group: Office / United States

Directly managed assets make up 95.3% of total assets for Benchmark Report Example. Indirectly managed assets make up 4.7% of total assets for Benchmark Report Example. Average data coverage is calculated based on the fraction of companies/funds that report data. Data availability for the categories above is: Overall: 87% group, 52% global. Managed assets: 86% group, 51% global. Indirectly managed assets: 21% group, 9% global.

POINTS: 0.2/0.5

Change in Like-for-like Water Use between 2013-2014 2.0 % overall decrease Overall

Managed

35%

Indirect

35%

25%

15% 5% -5%

15% This

Group

Global

This

Group

Entity

Average

Entity

Average Average

-2 %

-3 %

-1.6 %

-2 %

-3.3 %

-15%

Global

-1.5 %

N/A This Entity

Group

Global

Average

-5.1 %

-3.5 %

5% -5% -15%

-25%

-35%

Impact of Change

Page 24 of 42

Water Use Reduction

Equivalent of:

-23 859 m³

10 Olympic Swimming Pools

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Notes on water data “ Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

POINTS: 0.5/1

Water Use Intensities Intensity 20

Peers with intensity data Per Percentage centage of Peers [75%] Yes

[25%] No

% of portfolio cover covered ed

2013

2014

80%

85%

Comparison Group: Office / United States

Elements for which intensities are normalized in the calculations Percentage of Peers

 Occupancy rate

33%

 Footfall

 Operational hours

 Weather conditions

12%

 Degree days

 Air conditioning and/or natural ventilation

 Building age

 Other Other selected. Please describe:: Example description

 None of the above

20% [ACCEPTED]

16%

Water intensity calculation method “ Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 25 of 42

Performance Indicators

Waste Management

Tonnes

Peers with data

60 000

POINTS: 21/34 WEIGHT: 24.2%

Office Waste Management

Per Percentage centage of Peers

40 000

[64%] Yes 20 000

Managed

Coverage

Indir Indirect ect

100.0% 0.0% 2013

Managed

[36%] No

Indir Indirect ect

100.0% 0.0% 2014 Comparison Group: Office / United States

Total weight hazardous waste in metric tonnes Total weight non-hazardous waste in metric tonnes

POINTS: 1.9/2

Data Coverage

100%

This Entity

Managed

Group Average

Indirect

Group Average

†

65% 72%

Global Average This Entity

†

Global Average

40% 46%

† Comparison Group: Office / United States

Directly managed assets make up 95.3% of total assets for Benchmark Report Example. Indirectly managed assets make up 4.7% of total assets for Benchmark Report Example. Average data coverage is calculated based on the fraction of companies/funds that report data. Data availability for the categories above is: Managed assets: 100% group, 100% global. Indirectly managed assets: 96% group, 98% global.

POINTS: 1.4/2

Waste Streams

Peers with data

100% 75%

Per Percentage centage of Peers

50%

[65%] Yes

25% 0%

[35%] No 2013

Recycling Incineration Landfill

Page 26 of 42

2014

Comparison Group: Office / United States

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Notes on waste data “ Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

Certifications & Energy Ratings POINTS: 11/15 WEIGHT: 10.8%

Office

Q29

POINTS: 8/10

Improvement

Building certifications - design/construction Percentage of Peers

 Yes

41%

Specify the certification scheme(s) used and the percentage of the portfolio certified (multiple answers possible) Certification Scheme

% portfolio covered by floor area

Number of certified assets

6.61%

LEED Interior Design and Construction

 No

45%

 Not applicable

12%

Green building certificates: time of construction Coverage by Certification

Average Coverage by Certification Brand

LEED Interior Design and Construction Full Points

Partial +

6.6%

Partial -

No Points

LEED

8.2%

GBCA Green Star

Austin Energy Green Building

IGBC

BREEAM

Comparison: Office / United States

Green building certificates: operational performance Coverage by Certification

Average Coverage by Certification Brand

LEED Building Operations and Maintenance BOMA 360

8.5% 3.3%

LEED BOMA Other

Full Points

Partial +

Partial -

31.5% 3.7% 1.1%

No Points

Comparison: Office / United States

Q30

POINTS: 3.4/5

Improvement

Energy ratings Percentage of Peers

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 27 of 42

 Yes

87%

Applied rating scheme(s)  EU EPC (Energy Performance Certificate)

This Entity Percentage of portfolio covered by floor area:

Peer Gr Group oup Average

0.0%

2.08%

 NABERS Energy

 ENERGY STAR

87% This Entity

Peer Gr Group oup Average

Percentage of portfolio covered by floor area:

76.25%

79.02%

Floor area weighted score:

81.0

79.01

 Government energy efficiency benchmarking This Entity Percentage of portfolio covered by floor area:

8% Peer Gr Group oup Average

0.0%

47.3%

 Other

4% This Entity

Percentage of portfolio covered by floor area:

Stakeholder Engagement POINTS: 26/35 WEIGHT: 25.3%

Employees

Peer Gr Group oup Average 100.0%

 No

12%

 Not applicable

Q31.1

POINTS: 1.5/1.5

Employee remuneration policy Percentage of Peers

 Yes

79%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Scope of policy  Policy includes performance-related long-term incentives

58%

 Policy includes performance-related incentives, but not longterm

50%

 Other

 No

Q31.2

20%

POINTS: 0.5/0.5

Monitoring implementation of remuneration plan Per Percentage centage of Peers

Q32 Page 28 of 42



[67%] Yes



[21%] No



[13%] Not applicable

POINTS: 1/1 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Employee career development review Percentage of Peers

 Yes

87%

Percentage of employees covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[88%] ≥75, ≤100%



[13%] (no answer provided)

 No

Q33

12%

POINTS: 1.5/2

Employee training Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[96%] Yes General training: 100% Sustainability-specific training: 40%



Q34.1

[4%] No

POINTS: 0/1.5

Employee satisfaction survey Percentage of Peers

 Yes

20%

 No

79%

Q34.2

POINTS: 0/1

Employee satisfaction survey results Percentage of Peers

Health and Safety

 Yes

20%

 No

 Not applicable

70%

Q35.1

POINTS: 0/1

Health and safety checks Percentage of Peers

 Yes

62%

 No

37%

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 29 of 42

 Not applicable

Q35.2

POINTS: 0/0.5

Employee health and safety indicators Percentage of Peers

Tenants/Occupiers

 Yes

41%

 No

58%

Q36

POINTS: 4/4

Tenant engagement program Percentage of Peers

 Yes

83%

Issues included  Tenant sustainability guide

41%

Percentage of portfolio covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[58%] (no answer provided)



[25%] ≥75, ≤100%



[8%] ≥25%, <50%



[8%] 0%, <25%

 Tenant engagement meetings

70%

Percentage of portfolio covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[46%] ≥75, ≤100%



[29%] (no answer provided)



[13%] ≥50%, <75%



[8%] 0%, <25%



[4%] ≥25%, <50%

 Tenant sustainability training

Page 30 of 42

33%

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Percentage of portfolio covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[67%] (no answer provided)



[25%] ≥75, ≤100%



[8%] ≥25%, <50%

 Tenant events focused on increasing sustainability awareness

75%

Percentage of portfolio covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[54%] ≥75, ≤100%



[25%] (no answer provided)



[8%] ≥25%, <50%



[8%] ≥50%, <75%



[4%] 0%, <25%

 Provide tenants with feedback on energy/water consumption and waste

58%

Percentage of portfolio covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[42%] (no answer provided)



[42%] ≥75, ≤100%



[8%] ≥25%, <50%



[4%] ≥50%, <75%



[4%] 0%, <25%

 Building/asset communication

41%

Percentage of portfolio covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[58%] (no answer provided)



[33%] ≥75, ≤100%



[4%] ≥25%, <50%



[4%] ≥50%, <75%

 Social media / online platform

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

20%

Page 31 of 42

Percentage of portfolio covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[79%] (no answer provided)



[21%] ≥75, ≤100%

 Other

 No

Q37.1

16%

POINTS: 2/3

Improvement

Tenant satisfaction survey Percentage of Peers

 Yes

70%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Surveys undertaken  Internally

Percentage of tenants covered: 100% Survey response rate: 70%

 By an independent third party

62%

 No

25%

 Not applicable

Q37.2

POINTS: 1/1

Improvement

Tenant satisfaction survey results Percentage of Peers

 Yes

70%

Scope of program  Feedback sessions with asset/property managers

66%

 Feedback sessions with individual tenants

62%

 Development of an asset-specific action plan

54%

 Other

Tenant satisfaction improvement program “ Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

Page 32 of 42

 No

 Not applicable

20%

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Q38

POINTS: 3/3

Fit-out and refurbishment program Percentage of Peers

 Yes

79%

Topics included  Tenant fit-out guides for

75%

Percentage of portfolio covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[54%] ≥75, ≤100%



[25%] (no answer provided)



[13%] ≥25%, <50%



[8%] 0%, <25%

 Minimum fit-out standards are prescribed for

58%

Percentage of portfolio covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[50%] ≥75, ≤100%



[42%] (no answer provided)



[4%] ≥25%, <50%



[4%] 0%, <25%

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

45%

Percentage of portfolio covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[54%] (no answer provided)



[33%] ≥75, ≤100%



[13%] 0%, <25%

 Procurement assistance for tenants for

20%

Percentage of portfolio covered Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[79%] (no answer provided)



[13%] ≥75, ≤100%



[4%] ≥25%, <50%



[4%] 0%, <25%

 Other

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 33 of 42

 No

16%

 Not applicable

Q39

POINTS: 3/3

Sustainability lease clauses Percentage of Peers

 Yes

79%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Topics included  Obligations to do nothing to adversely affect the environmental performance of the building

29%

 Sharing of utility data

66%

 Cost-recovery clause for energy-efficiency-related capital improvements

62%

 Shared consumption targets/goals in place

 Energy-efficient and/or environmentally responsible specifications for tenant works

41%

 Operational performance standards for the building

20%

 Information sharing relevant to green building certificates

25%

 Prioritization of sustainability requirements over cost minimization

 Legal obligations for landlord/tenant information for mandatory energy rating schemes

12%

 Other

Example description

Supply chain

[NOT ACCEPTED]

 No

16%

 Not applicable

Q40

POINTS: 3/3

Sustainability-specific requirements in procurement Percentage of Peers

 Yes

75%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Requirements apply to  External property/asset managers

50%

 External contractors

66%

 External service providers

62%

 External suppliers

70%

 Other Example description

 No

Page 34 of 42

4% [ACCEPTED]

25%

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

 Not applicable

Q41.1

POINTS: 0/2

Monitoring external property/asset managers Percentage of Peers

 Yes

33%

 No

20%

 No, all property/asset management is undertaken internally

45%

Q41.2

POINTS: 2/2

Improvement

Monitor direct external suppliers and/or service providers Percentage of Peers

 Yes

75%

Topics included

Community

 Receive update reports from suppliers

62%

 Regular meetings with suppliers

45%

 Checks performed by organization employees

41%

 Checks performed by external consultant

29%

 Checks performed by property/asset manager

29%

 Check external suppliers' and/or service providers' alignment with applicable professional standards

20%

 Supplier survey

 Other

20%

 No

12%

 Not applicable

12%

Q42.1

POINTS: 2.5/2.5

Community engagement program Percentage of Peers

 Yes

79%

Topics included  Sustainability education program

41%

 Health and well-being program

33%

 Sustainability enhancement programs for public spaces

20%

 Employment creation in local communities

 Research and network activities

25%

 Supporting charities and community groups

54%

 Effective communication and process to address community concerns

50%

 Resilience, including assistance or support in case of disaster

16%

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 35 of 42

 Other

 No

Q42.2

20%

POINTS: 0.8/1.5

Monitoring impact on community Percentage of Peers

 Yes

41%

Areas of impact that are monitored  Impact on crime levels

12%

 Local income generated

20%

 Local residents’ well-being

20%

 Other

25%

Example description

[ACCEPTED]

 No

54%

 Not applicable

Q42.3

POINTS: 0.5/1

Community engagement program description Percentage of Peers

 Yes

62%

Describe the community engagement program and the monitoring process (maximum 250 words) [FULL POINTS]

New Construction & Major Renovations POINTS: 14/36 WEIGHT: 0%

Sustainability Requirements

 No

20%

 Not applicable

16%

NC1

POINTS: 0.5/1

Improvement

Communication of sustainability objectives Percentage of Peers

 Yes

29%

The Strategy is  Publicly available

12%

 Not publicly available

16%

Communicated objectives [FULL POINTS]

“ Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is to demonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect

Page 36 of 42

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.

 No

NC2

POINTS: 3/3

Improvement

Sustainable site assessments Percentage of Peers

 Yes

16%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Topics included  Limit development on farmland

 Protect floodplain functions

12%

 Conserve aquatic ecosystems

 Conserve habitats for threatened and endangered species

12%

 Redevelop brownfield

 Locate projects within existing developed areas

16%

 Connect to multi-modal transit networks

12%

 Other

 No

12%

 Not applicable

NC3

POINTS: 1.5/1.5

Improvement

Sustainable site requirements Percentage of Peers

 Yes

20%

Extent of requirements  Control and retain construction pollutants

20%

 Restore soils disturbed during construction and/or during previous development

16%

 Divert construction and demolition materials from disposal

20%

 Divert reusable vegetation, rocks, and soil from disposal

12%

 Protect air quality during construction

20%

 Communicate and verify sustainable construction practices

12%

 Other

 No

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

16%

Page 37 of 42

Community Enagagement

NC4.1

POINTS: 0.5/0.5

Improvement

Policy for community engagement Per Percentage centage of Peers

NC4.2



[63%] (no answer provided)



[25%] No



[13%] Yes

POINTS: 0/1

Monitoring project impact on community Percentage of Peers

Materials and Certifications

 Yes

 No

33%

NC5

POINTS: 2.5/2.5

Improvement

Policy on construction materials Percentage of Peers

 Yes

29%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Issues included  Specification and purchasing of building materials or products that have been locally extracted or recovered

20%

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

 Specification and purchasing of rapidly renewable materials, low embodied carbon materials, and recycled content materials

20%

 Specification and purchasing materials that can easily be recycled

12%

 Specification and purchasing of third-party certified woodbased materials and products

25%

 Specification and purchasing of low-emitting materials

25%

 Preferential specification and purchasing of materials that disclose potential health hazards

 Preferential specification and purchasing of materials that disclose environmental impacts

 Other

 No

 Not applicable

NC6

POINTS: 0/6

Building certificates for construction/renovation Percentage of Peers

 Yes

Page 38 of 42

16%

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Energy Efficiency

 No

16%

 Not applicable

NC7

POINTS: 0/3

Energy efficiency requirements Percentage of Peers

 Yes

25%

 No

 Not applicable

NC8.1

POINTS: 0/3

Renewable energy generated on-site Percentage of Peers

 Yes

 No

37%

NC8.2

POINTS: 0/1

Design for net-zero energy standards Per Percentage centage of Peers

Building Requirements

NC9



[63%] (no answer provided)



[33%] No



[4%] Not applicable

POINTS: 0.5/0.5

Improvement

Occupant well-being Percentage of Peers

 Yes

20%

Measures implemented  Daylight

12%

 Natural ventilation

 Occupant controls

 Indoor air quality monitoring

16%

 Provision of green spaces, non-built areas and social spaces

 Other

 No

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

12%

Page 39 of 42

 Not applicable

NC10

POINTS: 2/2

Improvement

Water efficiency requirements Percentage of Peers

 Yes

29%

Extent of requirements  High-efficiency/dry fixtures

25%

 Occupant sensors

20%

 Re-use of storm water and grey water for non-potable applications

 On-site waste water treatment

 Leak detection system

 Drip/smart irrigation

16%

 Drought tolerant/low-water landscaping

16%

 Other

Example description

[NOT ACCEPTED]

 No

 Not applicable

NC11

POINTS: 1.5/2

Improvement

Waste policy Percentage of Peers

 Yes

29%

Evidence provided

[ACCEPTED]

Topics included  Waste management plans

25%

 Waste reduction, re-use or recycling targets

25%

 Contractors' recovering and recycling building materials incentives

 Education waste management techniques

12%

 Other

 No

Page 40 of 42

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Supply Chain Requirements

NC12.1

POINTS: 1/1

Improvement

Sustainability-specific requirements for contractors Per Percentage centage of Peers 

[63%] (no answer provided)



[21%] No



[17%] Yes Percentage of portfolio covered: 100% Evidence provided

NC12.2

POINTS: 1.2/3

[ACCEPTED]

Improvement

Monitoring contractors' compliance Percentage of Peers

 Yes

20%

Extent of requirements  Compliance with international standard

 On site sustainability resource/staff

 Contractor update reports environmental and social aspects

12%

 Internal audits

 External audits by third party

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

12%

Projects visited: 100%

 Contractor enforcement of sustainability requirements in subcontracts

20%

 Other

 No

 Not applicable

NC13.1

POINTS: 0/2.5

Occupational health and safety management system Percentage of Peers

 Yes

 No

33%

NC13.2

POINTS: 0/1

Occupational health and safety indicators Percentage of Peers

Community Impact

 Yes

 No

37%

NC14

POINTS: 0/1.5

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC

Page 41 of 42

Socio-economic impact on community Percentage of Peers

Page 42 of 42

 Yes

 No

33%

GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC