GRESB Benchmark Report - 2015
description
Transcript of GRESB Benchmark Report - 2015
Benchmark Report Example
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015
DADATE: September 01 2015 23:34 UTCTE: September 01 2015 23:34 UTC✓
© 2015 GRESB BV
Table of Contents
Scorecard/Key HighlightsSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Entity & Peer Group Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Third Party Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Reporting Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Benchmark InformationGRESB Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
ManagementSustainability Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Sustainability Decision-Making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Policy & DisclosureSustainability Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Sustainability Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Risks & OpportunitiesBribery & Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Risk Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Water Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Environmental Fines & Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Monitoring & EMSEnvironmental Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Data Management Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Monitoring Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Performance IndicatorsSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Office - Energy Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Office - GHG Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Office - Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Office - Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Certifications & Energy RatingsOffice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Stakeholder EngagementEmployees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Tenants/Occupiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
New Construction & Major RenovationsSustainability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Community Enagagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Materials and Certifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Building Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Supply Chain Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Community Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Page 2 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Rankings
Benchmark Report Exampleno manager
Participation
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Peer Group & Entity CharacteristicsLegal StructurLegal Structure:e: Non-listedSectorSector:: OfficeRRegion:egion: United StatesPeers:Peers: 24
Peer Average 59GRESB Average 55
GRESB Score2015
GRESB Quadrant Model
Implementation & Measurement
Man
agem
ent &
Pol
icy
0 50 100
0
50
100
This Entity Peer Group Average Peer Group GRESB Average
GRESB Dimensions
Top quantile Bottom quantile
Peer Average 62GRESB Average 52
Implementation &Measurement
Peer Average 54GRESB Average 63
Management &Policy
Peer Average 40GRESB Average 56
Development
ESG Breakdown
Peer Average 62GRESB Average 48
Environment
Peer Average 52GRESB Average 58
Social
Peer Average 58GRESB Average 69
Governance
Historical Trend 11% Improved
Ove
rall
Sco
re
2013 2014 2015
0
50
100
This Entity Peer Group Range GRESB RangePeer Group Average GRESB Average
3rdout of 24
United States /Office Sector
87thout of 688
Global / AllParticipants
15thout of 155
North America / AllSectors
29thout of 145
Global / OfficeSector
9thout of 115
North America / Non-listed Participants 46th
out of 354
Non-listed / Core
77100
77100
77100
63100
76100
64100
88100
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 3 of 42
Aspects
AspectWWeight in GRESB Scoreight in GRESB Scoree This Entity Peer Group GRESB
Management8.7%8.7%
90 +2
PEER
AVERAGE
GLOBAL
AVERAGE
Policy & Disclosure10.1%10.1%
86 +25
PEER
AVERAGE
GLOBAL
AVERAGE
Risks & Opportunities11.6%11.6%
94 +5
PEER
AVERAGE
GLOBAL
AVERAGE
Monitoring & EMS9.4%9.4%
83 +20
PEER
AVERAGE
GLOBAL
AVERAGE
Performance Indicators24.2%24.2%
62 +19
PEER
AVERAGE
GLOBAL
AVERAGE
Building Certifications10.8%10.8%
76 +16
PEER
AVERAGE
GLOBAL
AVERAGE
Stakeholder Engagement25.3%25.3%
75 +1
PEER
AVERAGE
GLOBAL
AVERAGE
New Construction & MajorRenovations0%0%
39PEER
AVERAGE
GLOBAL
AVERAGE
25
50
75
100
90
86
94
83
62
76
7539
This Entity Peer Group Average
Management
Policy &Disclosure
Risks &Opportunities
Monitoring &EMS
PerformanceIndicators
BuildingCertifications
StakeholderEngagement
NewConstruction
& MajorRenovations
8
64 +1
Score
Freq
uenc
y
0 100
77 +8
55Score
Freq
uenc
y
0 100
66 +9
74 +3
Score
Freq
uenc
y
0 100
67 +7
65 +7
Score
Freq
uenc
y
0 100
59 +6
50 +14
Score
Freq
uenc
y
0 100
39 +8
69 +3
Score
Freq
uenc
y
0 100
34 +5
56 +7
Score
Freq
uenc
y
0 100
57 +10
30 -20
Score
Freq
uenc
y
0 100
44 +3
Page 4 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Entity & Peer GroupCharacteristics
This Entity
Country: United States
Sector: Office
Legal Status: Non-listed
Total GAV: $4.59 Billion
Activity: Standing Investments andDevelopment
Peer Group (24 entities)
Country: United States
Sector: Office
Legal Status: Non-listed
Average GAV: $1.77 Billion
CountriesCountries
[100%][100%] United States
Peer GrPeer Group Countriesoup Countries
[100%][100%] United States
SectorsSectors
[100%][100%] Office
Peer GrPeer Group Sectorsoup Sectors
[100%][100%] Office
Management ContrManagement Controlol
[95%][95%] Managed
[5%][5%] Indirect
Peer GrPeer Group Management Controup Management Controlol
[97%][97%] Managed
[3%][3%] Indirect
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 5 of 42
Third PartyValidation
QuestionQuestion Data RData Revieweview
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
ReportingBoundaries
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submittedin the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will notappear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
BenchmarkInformationGRESB Validation
All Participant Checks
‘Other’ answers‘Other’ answers
[60%][60%] Accepted
[40%][40%] Not Accepted
Open text box answersOpen text box answers
[50%][50%] Full Points
[40%][40%] Partial Points
[10%][10%] No Points
This information has been produced using a data set dated August 31, 2015.
ManagementPOINTS: 11/12WEIGHT: 8.7%
SustainabilityObjectives
Percentage of Peers
Sustainability objectives
The objectives are
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[46%][46%] link Online [ACCEPTED]
[46%][46%] (no answer provided)
[8%][8%] Offline - separate document
Communicated objectives
[PARTIAL POINTS]
Q1.1 POINTS: 0.8/1 Improvement
Yes 95%
Publicly available 54%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report isto demonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protectdata confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real
“
Page 6 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Sustainability objectives in business strategy
The objectives are incorporated as follows:
[PARTIAL POINTS]
Responsibility to implement sustainability
data submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may containinconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
Not publicly available 41%
No 4%
Q1.2 POINTS: 1/1
Yes 91%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real datasubmitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
No 4%
Not applicable 4%
Q2 POINTS: 3/3
Yes 95%
Dedicated employee(s) for whom sustainability is the coreresponsibilityName: James Smith [ACCEPTED]
Job title: Manager [ACCEPTED]
LinkedIn profile (optional):
54%
Employee(s) for whom sustainability is among theirresponsibilitiesName: John Beaton [ACCEPTED]
Job title: Employee [ACCEPTED]
LinkedIn profile (optional):
66%
External consultants/managerName of the organization: Example Consulting [ACCEPTED]
Website: www.example.com [ACCEPTED]
Name of key contact: Jim Johnson [ACCEPTED]
50%
OtherExample description [ACCEPTED]
16%
No 4%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 7 of 42
SustainabilityDecision-Making
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Sustainability taskforce or committee
Members are:
Sustainability decision-maker
The individual is part of
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[46%][46%] Senior Management Team
[21%][21%] Board of Directors
[17%][17%] Investment Committee
[12%][12%] (no answer provided)
[4%][4%] Fund/portfolio managers
Communication to sustainability decision-maker
Process
[NO POINTS]
Q3 POINTS: 2/2
Yes 83%
Board of Directors 33%
Senior Management Team 66%
Fund/portfolio managers 50%
Asset managers 54%
Property managers 66%
External consultantsName of the organization: Example Consulting [ACCEPTED]
37%
Other 33%
No 16%
Q4 POINTS: 1/1
Yes 87%
[ACCEPTED]Name: James Smith
[ACCEPTED]Job title: Manager
No 12%
Q5 POINTS: 0/1
Yes 91%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real datasubmitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
No 4%
Page 8 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Employee sustainability performance targets
These factors apply to:
Not applicable 4%
Q6 POINTS: 3/3
Yes 75%
Board of Directors 0%
Senior Management Team 29%
Acquisitions team 8%
Client services team 4%
Fund/portfolio managers 20%
Asset managers 41%
Property managers 66%
All employees 0%
OtherExample description [ACCEPTED]
37%
No 25%
Policy & DisclosurePOINTS: 12/14WEIGHT: 10.1%
SustainabilityDisclosure
Percentage of Peers
Disclosure of sustainability performance
Applicable reporting level
Aligned with
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[92%][92%] (no answer provided)
[8%][8%] INREV Sustainability Reporting Recommendations, 2012
Q7.1 POINTS: 5/5 Improvement
Yes (multiple answers possible) 83%
Section in Annual ReportEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
16%
Entity 12%
Investment manager 4%
Group 0%
Stand-alone sustainability report(s)Evidence provided [ACCEPTED]
79%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 9 of 42
Applicable reporting level
Aligned with
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[63%][63%] (no answer provided)
[21%][21%] GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, 2013
[8%][8%] PRI Reporting Framework, 2013
[4%][4%] Other
[4%][4%] INREV Sustainability Reporting Recommendations, 2012
Applicable reporting level
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[38%][38%] (no answer provided)
[25%][25%] Investment manager
[25%][25%] Entity
[13%][13%] Group
Aligned with
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[83%][83%] (no answer provided)
[13%][13%] Other
[4%][4%] INREV Sustainability Reporting Recommendations, 2012
Applicable reporting level
Entity 33%
Investment manager 29%
Group 16%
Integrated Report 0%
Dedicated section on the corporate websitelink Online [ACCEPTED]
62%
Section in entity reporting to investorsEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
25%
OtherExample description [NOT ACCEPTED]
Evidence provided [ACCEPTED]
8%
Entity 8%
Investment manager 0%
Group 0%
Page 10 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Aligned with
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[96%][96%] (no answer provided)
[4%][4%] INREV Sustainability Reporting Recommendations, 2012
Independent review of sustainability performance
No 16%
Q7.2 POINTS: 0/2
Yes 25%
No 66%
Not applicable 8%
SustainabilityPolicies
Percentage of Peers
Policy on environmental issues
Environmental issues included
Bribery and corruption policy
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[88%][88%] Yes
[13%][13%] No
Q8 POINTS: 3/3
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
95%
Energy consumption/management 95%
GHG emissions/management 79%
Water consumption/management 95%
Waste management 95%
Climate/climate change 25%
Resilience 12%
OtherExample description [ACCEPTED]
37%
No 4%
Q9 POINTS: 1/1
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
Q10 POINTS: 2/2
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 11 of 42
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Stakeholder engagement policy
Stakeholders included
Employee policy
Issues included
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
66%
Employees 66%
Tenants/occupiers 66%
Supply chain 45%
Community 29%
Investors/shareholders 50%
Consumers 12%
Government/local authorities 8%
Investment partners 20%
Other 0%
No 33%
Q11 POINTS: 1/1
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
83%
Diversity 79%
Remuneration 83%
Performance and career development 75%
Health & safety 83%
Cyber security 70%
OtherExample description [NOT ACCEPTED]
20%
No 16%
Risks &OpportunitiesPOINTS: 15/16WEIGHT: 11.6%
Bribery &Corruption
Percentage of Peers
Risk assessment for bribery/corruption
Process
[PARTIAL POINTS]
Q12 POINTS: 0.5/1
Yes 79%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data
“
Page 12 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Implementation of bribery/corruption policies
Applicable options
Legal cases corrupt practices
submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
No 20%
Q13 POINTS: 1/1
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
75%
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 8%
Not applicable 16%
Q14 Not scored
Yes 0%
No 100%
Risk Assessments
Percentage of Peers
New acquisition risk assessment
Issues included
Q15.1 POINTS: 2/2
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
87%
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
Percentage of Peers
Risk mitigation for standing investments
Issues included
Use of sustainability risk assessment outcomes
[FULL POINTS]
Climate change 33%
Socio-economic 12%
Regulatory 70%
Health, safety and well-being 54%
OtherExample description [ACCEPTED]
16%
No 4%
Not applicable 8%
Q15.2 POINTS: 1.5/2 Improvement
Yes 83%
GHG emissions 33%
Building safety and materials 66%
Transportation 20%
Contamination 33%
Natural hazards 41%
Climate change 16%
Socio-economic 4%
Regulatory 75%
Health, safety and well-being 70%
OtherExample description [ACCEPTED]
8%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real datasubmitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
No 8%
Not applicable 8%
Energy Efficiency
Percentage of Peers
Technical building assessments
Q16 POINTS: 3/3
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
83%
Page 14 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Assessment type
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[50%][50%] ≥75%, ≤100% of the portfolio covered
[38%][38%] (no answer provided)
[8%][8%] >0%, <25% of the portfolio covered
[4%][4%] ≥25%, <50% of the portfolio covered
Energy efficiency measures
Describe the measures using the table below.
Measure % portfolio coveredEstimated
savingsMWh
EstimatedROI (%) Scope
Building automation system upgrades/replacements ≥50%, <75% Whole building
Installation of high-efficiencyequipment and appliances ≥50%, <75% Whole building
Respondent specified measure ≥75, ≤100% Whole building
In-house assessment 62%
External assessmentName of the organization: Example Consulting [ACCEPTED]
75%
>0%, <25% of the portfolio covered 8%
≥25%, <50% of the portfolio covered 20%
≥50%, <75% of the portfolio covered 29%
≥75%, ≤100% of the portfolio covered 16%
No 16%
Q17 POINTS: 4/4
Yes 95%
No 4%
Not applicable 0%
Water Efficiency
Percentage of Peers
Water efficiency measures
Q18 POINTS: 3/3
Yes 95%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 15 of 42
Describe the measures using the table below.
Measure % portfolio coveredEstimated
savingsm³
EstimatedROI (%) 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 4%
Not applicable 0%
Environmental Fines& Penalties
Percentage of Peers
Environmental fines
Q19 Not scored
Yes 0%
No 100%
Monitoring & EMSPOINTS: 11/13WEIGHT: 9.4%
EnvironmentalManagementSystems
Percentage of Peers
Environmental Management System
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[54%][54%] Yes
[46%][46%] No
Independent review of the EMS
Q20.1 POINTS: 1.5/1.5 Improvement
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
Q20.2 POINTS: 1/1.5 Improvement
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
41%
Aligned withExample alignment [ACCEPTED]
37%
Externally verified by 0%
Externally certified by 4%
No 12%
Not applicable 45%
Page 16 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Data ManagementSystems
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Data Management System
Type
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[75%][75%] External system
[13%][13%] (no answer provided)
[8%][8%] Developed internally
[4%][4%] Bespoke internal system developed by a third party
Aspects included
Independent review of the DMS
Q21.1 POINTS: 4/4
YesPercentage of whole portfolio covered by floor area: 100%
Evidence provided [ACCEPTED]
87%
[ACCEPTED]Name of the system: Example system
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%
OtherExample aspect [ACCEPTED]
12%
No 12%
Q21.2 POINTS: 0.3/1
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
66%
Aligned withExample alignment [ACCEPTED]
58%
Externally verified by 8%
Externally certified by 0%
No 20%
Not applicable 12%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 17 of 42
MonitoringConsumption
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Monitoring energy consumption
Type
Monitoring water consumption
Type
22 POINTS: 3/3
YesWhole portfolio covered: 100
95%
Automatic meter readingsPercentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area:90%
58%
Based on invoicesPercentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area:85%
91%
Manual–visual readingsPercentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area:10%
37%
Provided by the tenantPercentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area:15%
16%
Other 0%
No 4%
Not applicable 0%
23 POINTS: 1/2
YesWhole portfolio covered: 100
95%
Automatic meter readings 4%
Based on invoicesPercentage of the whole portfolio covered by floor area:100%
95%
Manual–visual readings 33%
Provided by the tenant 0%
Other 0%
No 4%
Not applicable 0%
Page 18 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
PerformanceIndicatorsPOINTS: 21/34WEIGHT: 24.2%
Summary
Performance Highlights
TargetsPOINTS: 3/3
Area Target type Long-termtarget
Baselineyear End year 2014 target 2014 Peer
avg target
Are these targetscommunicated
externally?
Energy consumption Intensity-based 50% 2012 2015 60% 1.73% Yes
GHG emissions Intensity-based 9% 2012 2015 9% 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
Energy ConsumptionPOINTS: 9.7/16.5 Improvement
GHG EmissionsPOINTS: 2.3/4.5 Improvement
Water ConsumptionPOINTS: 2.4/4.5 Improvement
Waste ManagementPOINTS: 3.3/5
2013 2014
Office
0 MwH
200 000 MwH
400 000 MwH
600 000 MwH
2013 2014
Office
0 T
50000 T
100000 T
150000 T
200000 T
250000 T
300000 T
2013 2014
Office
0 m3
500 000 m3
1 000000 m3
1 500000 m3
2 000000 m3
2 500000 m3
3 000000 m3
2013 2014
Office
0 T
10000 T
20000 T
30000 T
40000 T
50000 T
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 19 of 42
PerformanceIndicatorsPOINTS: 21/34WEIGHT: 24.2%
OfficeEnergy Consumption
POINTS: 0/3Change in Like-for-like Energy Consumption between 2013-2014
0.1 % overall increaseOverall
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0.1 %
This
Entity-1.8 %
Group
Average
-3.6 %
Global
Average
Managed
0.1 %
This
Entity-1.6 %
Group
Average
-3.3 %
Global
Average
Indirect
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
N/A
This
Entity
0.9 %
Group
Average -4.1 %
Global
Average
Comparison Group: Office / United StatesLike-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
POINTS: 6.5/8Data Coverage
† Comparison Group: Office / United StatesDirectly 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.
Overall
This Entity 91%
Group Average † 84%
Global Average 79%
Managed
This Entity 96%
Group Average † 85%
Global Average 87%
Indirect
This Entity 0%
Group Average † 74%
Global Average 68%
Energy Consumption INCREASEINCREASE
640 MWh
Equivalent of:
57 Homes
Page 20 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Notes on energy data
POINTS: 1.3/2Energy Consumption Intensities
Elements for which intensities are normalized in the calculations
Energy intensity calculation method
POINTS: 2/2Renewable Energy
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submittedin the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will notappear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
20132013 20142014
% of% ofportfolioportfoliocovercovereded
75% 80%
Peers with intensity data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[79%][79%] Yes
[21%][21%] No
Comparison Group: Office / United States
Occupancy rate 33%
Footfall 0%
Operational hours 8%
Weather conditions 12%
Degree days 4%
Air conditioning and/or natural ventilation 4%
Building age 0%
OtherOther selected. Please describe:: Example description [ACCEPTED]
20%
None of the above 16%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submittedin the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will notappear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
On-site (generated and consumed)
Off-site (generated or purchased)
On-site (generated and exported)
20132013 20142014
%%RRenewableenewable
EnerEnergygy10% 10%
Peers with renewable energy data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[76%][76%] No
[24%][24%] Yes
Comparison Group: Office / United States
Intensity
0
25
50
75
MWh
0
50
100
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 21 of 42
PerformanceIndicatorsPOINTS: 21/34WEIGHT: 24.2%
OfficeGHG Emissions
Scope Ⅰ Scope Ⅱ Scope Ⅲ
6 433 T 232 709 T N/ADirect greenhouse gas emissions by weightin metric tonnes CO2
Indirect greenhouse gas emissions byweight in metric tonnes CO2
Emissions by tenants inmetric tonnes CO2
POINTS: 0.1/0.5Change in Like-for-like GHG Emissions between 2013-2014
0.3 % overall decrease
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
-0.3 %
This
Entity
-2.1 %
Group
Average
-3.4 %
Global
Average
Comparison Group: Office / United StatesLike-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
POINTS: 1.7/2Data Coverage
* Data coverage calculated based on lettable floor area only† Comparison Group: Office / United StatesAverage 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.
Overall
This Entity * 92%
Group Average † 84%
Global Average 85%
GHG Emissions RReductioneduction
-491 tonnes
Equivalent of:
102 Automobiles
Page 22 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Notes on GHG data
POINTS: 0.5/1GHG Emission Intensities
Elements for which intensities are normalized in the calculations
GHG intensity calculation method
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submittedin the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will notappear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
20132013 20142014
% of% ofportfolioportfoliocovercovereded
70% 75%
Peers with intensity data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[73%][73%] Yes
[27%][27%] No
Comparison Group: Office / United States
Occupancy rate 33%
Footfall 0%
Operational hours 8%
Weather conditions 12%
Degree days 4%
Air conditioning and/or natural ventilation 4%
Building age 0%
OtherOther selected. Please describe:: Example description [ACCEPTED]
20%
None of the above 16%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submittedin the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will notappear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
Intensity
0
5
10
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 23 of 42
PerformanceIndicatorsPOINTS: 21/34WEIGHT: 24.2%
OfficeWater Use
POINTS: 0.2/0.5Change in Like-for-like Water Use between 2013-2014
2.0 % overall decreaseOverall
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
-2 %
This
Entity
-3 %
Group
Average
-1.6 %
Global
Average
Managed
-2 %
This
Entity
-3.3 %
Group
Average
-1.5 %
Global
Average
Indirect
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
N/A
This
Entity -5.1 %
Group
Average
-3.5 %
Global
Average
Comparison Group: Office / United StatesLike-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
POINTS: 1.6/2Data Coverage
† Comparison Group: Office / United StatesDirectly 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.
Overall
This Entity 91%
Group Average † 82%
Global Average 79%
Managed
This Entity 95%
Group Average † 84%
Global Average 85%
Indirect
This Entity 0%
Group Average † 69%
Global Average 66%
Water Use RReductioneduction
-23859 m³
Equivalent of:
10 Olympic Swimming Pools
Page 24 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Notes on water data
POINTS: 0.5/1Water Use Intensities
Elements for which intensities are normalized in the calculations
Water intensity calculation method
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submittedin the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will notappear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
20132013 20142014
% of% ofportfolioportfoliocovercovereded
80% 85%
Peers with intensity data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[75%][75%] Yes
[25%][25%] No
Comparison Group: Office / United States
Occupancy rate 33%
Footfall 0%
Operational hours 8%
Weather conditions 12%
Degree days 4%
Air conditioning and/or natural ventilation 4%
Building age 0%
OtherOther selected. Please describe:: Example description [ACCEPTED]
20%
None of the above 16%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submittedin the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will notappear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
Intensity
0
10
20
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 25 of 42
PerformanceIndicatorsPOINTS: 21/34WEIGHT: 24.2%
OfficeWaste Management
Waste Management
POINTS: 1.4/2
Total weight hazardous waste in metric tonnes
Total weight non-hazardous waste in metric tonnes
ManagedManaged IndirIndirectect ManagedManaged IndirIndirectect
100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%CoverageCoverage2013 2014
Peers with data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[64%][64%] Yes
[36%][36%] No
Comparison Group: Office / United States
POINTS: 1.9/2Data Coverage
† Comparison Group: Office / United StatesDirectly 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.
Managed
This Entity 100%
Group Average † 65%
Global Average 72%
Indirect
This Entity 0%
Group Average † 40%
Global Average 46%
Waste StreamsPeers with data
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[65%][65%] Yes
[35%][35%] No
Comparison Group: Office / United States
Tonnes
0
20 000
40 000
60 000
2013 20140%
25%
50%
75%
100%
RecyclingIncinerationLandfill
Page 26 of 42 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 todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real data submittedin the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencies which will notappear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
Certifications &Energy RatingsPOINTS: 11/15WEIGHT: 10.8%
OfficePercentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Building certifications - design/construction
Specify the certification scheme(s) used and the percentage of the portfolio certified (multipleanswers possible)
Certification Scheme % portfolio covered byfloor area Number of certified assets
LEED Interior Design and Construction 6.61% 5
Green building certificates:time of construction
Comparison: Office / United States
Green building certificates:operational performance
Comparison: Office / United States
Energy ratings
Q29 POINTS: 8/10 Improvement
Yes 41%
No 45%
Not applicable 12%
Coverage by Certification
Full Points Partial + Partial - No Points
LEED Interior Design andConstruction 6.6%
Average Coverage by Certification Brand
LEED 8.2%
GBCA Green Star 0%Austin Energy Green
Building 0%
IGBC 0%
BREEAM 0%
Coverage by Certification
Full Points Partial + Partial - No Points
LEED Building Operationsand Maintenance 8.5%
BOMA 360 3.3%
Average Coverage by Certification Brand
LEED 31.5%
BOMA 3.7%
Other 1.1%
Q30 POINTS: 3.4/5 Improvement
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 27 of 42
Applied rating scheme(s)
Yes 87%
EU EPC (Energy Performance Certificate)
This EntityThis Entity Peer GrPeer GroupoupAverageAverage
Percentage of portfolio covered by floorarea: 0.0% 2.08%
4%
NABERS Energy 0%
ENERGY STAR
This EntityThis Entity Peer GrPeer GroupoupAverageAverage
Percentage of portfolio covered by floorarea: 76.25% 79.02%
Floor area weighted score: 81.0 79.01
87%
Government energy efficiency benchmarking
This EntityThis Entity Peer GrPeer GroupoupAverageAverage
Percentage of portfolio covered by floorarea: 0.0% 47.3%
8%
OtherThis EntityThis Entity Peer GrPeer Group Averageoup Average
Percentage of portfolio covered by floor area: 0% 100.0%
4%
No 12%
Not applicable 0%
StakeholderEngagementPOINTS: 26/35WEIGHT: 25.3%
EmployeesPercentage of Peers
Employee remuneration policy
Scope of policy
Monitoring implementation of remuneration plan
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[67%][67%] Yes
[21%][21%] No
[13%][13%] Not applicable
Q31.1 POINTS: 1.5/1.5
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
79%
Policy includes performance-related long-term incentives 58%
Policy includes performance-related incentives, but not long-term
50%
Other 0%
No 20%
Q31.2 POINTS: 0.5/0.5
Q32 POINTS: 1/1
Page 28 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Employee career development review
Percentage of employees covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[88%][88%] ≥75, ≤100%
[13%][13%] (no answer provided)
Employee training
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[96%][96%] Yes
[4%][4%] No
Employee satisfaction survey
Employee satisfaction survey results
Yes 87%
No 12%
Q33 POINTS: 1.5/2
General training: 100%
Sustainability-specific training: 40%
Q34.1 POINTS: 0/1.5
Yes 20%
No 79%
Q34.2 POINTS: 0/1
Yes 20%
No 8%
Not applicable 70%
Health and Safety
Percentage of Peers
Health and safety checks
Q35.1 POINTS: 0/1
Yes 62%
No 37%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 29 of 42
Percentage of Peers
Employee health and safety indicators
Not applicable 0%
Q35.2 POINTS: 0/0.5
Yes 41%
No 58%
Tenants/Occupiers
Percentage of Peers
Tenant engagement program
Issues included
Percentage of portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[58%][58%] (no answer provided)
[25%][25%] ≥75, ≤100%
[8%][8%] ≥25%, <50%
[8%][8%] 0%, <25%
Percentage of portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[46%][46%] ≥75, ≤100%
[29%][29%] (no answer provided)
[13%][13%] ≥50%, <75%
[8%][8%] 0%, <25%
[4%][4%] ≥25%, <50%
Q36 POINTS: 4/4
Yes 83%
Tenant sustainability guide 41%
Tenant engagement meetings 70%
Tenant sustainability training 33%
Page 30 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[67%][67%] (no answer provided)
[25%][25%] ≥75, ≤100%
[8%][8%] ≥25%, <50%
Percentage of portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[54%][54%] ≥75, ≤100%
[25%][25%] (no answer provided)
[8%][8%] ≥25%, <50%
[8%][8%] ≥50%, <75%
[4%][4%] 0%, <25%
Percentage of portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[42%][42%] (no answer provided)
[42%][42%] ≥75, ≤100%
[8%][8%] ≥25%, <50%
[4%][4%] ≥50%, <75%
[4%][4%] 0%, <25%
Percentage of portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[58%][58%] (no answer provided)
[33%][33%] ≥75, ≤100%
[4%][4%] ≥25%, <50%
[4%][4%] ≥50%, <75%
Tenant events focused on increasing sustainability awareness 75%
Provide tenants with feedback on energy/water consumptionand waste
58%
Building/asset communication 41%
Social media / online platform 20%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 31 of 42
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[79%][79%] (no answer provided)
[21%][21%] ≥75, ≤100%
Tenant satisfaction survey
Surveys undertaken
Tenant satisfaction survey results
Scope of program
Tenant satisfaction improvement program
Other 8%
No 16%
Q37.1 POINTS: 2/3 Improvement
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
70%
InternallyPercentage of tenants covered: 100%
Survey response rate: 70%
8%
By an independent third party 62%
No 25%
Not applicable 4%
Q37.2 POINTS: 1/1 Improvement
Yes 70%
Feedback sessions with asset/property managers 66%
Feedback sessions with individual tenants 62%
Development of an asset-specific action plan 54%
Other 0%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real datasubmitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
No 8%
Not applicable 20%
Page 32 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Fit-out and refurbishment program
Topics included
Percentage of portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[54%][54%] ≥75, ≤100%
[25%][25%] (no answer provided)
[13%][13%] ≥25%, <50%
[8%][8%] 0%, <25%
Percentage of portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[50%][50%] ≥75, ≤100%
[42%][42%] (no answer provided)
[4%][4%] ≥25%, <50%
[4%][4%] 0%, <25%
Percentage of portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[54%][54%] (no answer provided)
[33%][33%] ≥75, ≤100%
[13%][13%] 0%, <25%
Percentage of portfolio covered
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[79%][79%] (no answer provided)
[13%][13%] ≥75, ≤100%
[4%][4%] ≥25%, <50%
[4%][4%] 0%, <25%
Q38 POINTS: 3/3
Yes 79%
Tenant fit-out guides for 75%
Minimum fit-out standards are prescribed for 58%
Fit-out and refurbishment assistance for meeting the minimumfit-out standards for
45%
Procurement assistance for tenants for 20%
Other 4%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 33 of 42
Percentage of Peers
Sustainability lease clauses
Topics included
No 16%
Not applicable 4%
Q39 POINTS: 3/3
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
79%
Obligations to do nothing to adversely affect the environmentalperformance of the building
29%
Sharing of utility data 66%
Cost-recovery clause for energy-efficiency-related capitalimprovements
62%
Shared consumption targets/goals in place 8%
Energy-efficient and/or environmentally responsiblespecifications for tenant works
41%
Operational performance standards for the building 20%
Information sharing relevant to green building certificates 25%
Prioritization of sustainability requirements over costminimization
8%
Legal obligations for landlord/tenant information formandatory energy rating schemes
12%
OtherExample description [NOT ACCEPTED]
8%
No 16%
Not applicable 4%
Supply chain
Percentage of Peers
Sustainability-specific requirements in procurement
Requirements apply to
Q40 POINTS: 3/3
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
75%
External property/asset managers 50%
External contractors 66%
External service providers 62%
External suppliers 70%
OtherExample description [ACCEPTED]
4%
No 25%
Page 34 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Monitoring external property/asset managers
Monitor direct external suppliers and/or service providers
Topics included
Not applicable 0%
Q41.1 POINTS: 0/2
Yes 33%
No 20%
No, all property/asset management is undertaken internally 45%
Q41.2 POINTS: 2/2 Improvement
Yes 75%
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' alignmentwith applicable professional standards
20%
Supplier survey 0%
Other 20%
No 12%
Not applicable 12%
Community
Percentage of Peers
Community engagement program
Topics included
Q42.1 POINTS: 2.5/2.5
Yes 79%
Sustainability education program 41%
Health and well-being program 33%
Sustainability enhancement programs for public spaces 20%
Employment creation in local communities 8%
Research and network activities 25%
Supporting charities and community groups 54%
Effective communication and process to address communityconcerns
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
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Monitoring impact on community
Areas of impact that are monitored
Community engagement program description
Describe the community engagement program and the monitoring process (maximum 250 words)
[FULL POINTS]
Other 8%
No 20%
Q42.2 POINTS: 0.8/1.5
Yes 41%
Impact on crime levels 12%
Local income generated 20%
Local residents’ well-being 20%
OtherExample description [ACCEPTED]
25%
No 54%
Not applicable 4%
Q42.3 POINTS: 0.5/1
Yes 62%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report is todemonstrate the appearance and format of GRESB’s Benchmark Report. To protect dataconfidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any real datasubmitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may contain inconsistencieswhich will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
“
No 20%
Not applicable 16%
New Construction &Major RenovationsPOINTS: 14/36WEIGHT: 0%
SustainabilityRequirements
Percentage of Peers
Communication of sustainability objectives
The Strategy is
Communicated objectives
[FULL POINTS]
NC1 POINTS: 0.5/1 Improvement
Yes 29%
Publicly available 12%
Not publicly available 16%
Text provided by respondent will be displayed here. The purpose of this sample report isto 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
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Sustainable site assessments
Topics included
Sustainable site requirements
Extent of requirements
data confidentiality, the sample contains randomised data and does not include any realdata submitted in the 2015 GRESB Survey. As a result, displayed data may containinconsistencies which will not appear in a company or fund’s actual Report.
No 8%
NC2 POINTS: 3/3 Improvement
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
16%
Limit development on farmland 8%
Protect floodplain functions 12%
Conserve aquatic ecosystems 8%
Conserve habitats for threatened and endangered species 12%
Redevelop brownfield 8%
Locate projects within existing developed areas 16%
Connect to multi-modal transit networks 12%
Other 4%
No 12%
Not applicable 8%
NC3 POINTS: 1.5/1.5 Improvement
Yes 20%
Control and retain construction pollutants 20%
Restore soils disturbed during construction and/or duringprevious 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 0%
No 16%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 37 of 42
CommunityEnagagement
Percentage of Peers
Policy for community engagement
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[63%][63%] (no answer provided)
[25%][25%] No
[13%][13%] Yes
Monitoring project impact on community
NC4.1 POINTS: 0.5/0.5 Improvement
NC4.2 POINTS: 0/1
Yes 4%
No 33%
Materials andCertifications
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Policy on construction materials
Issues included
Building certificates for construction/renovation
NC5 POINTS: 2.5/2.5 Improvement
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
29%
Specification and purchasing of building materials or productsthat have been locally extracted or recovered
20%
Red list of specific materials or ingredients that should not beused on the basis of their human and/or environmental impacts
4%
Specification and purchasing of rapidly renewable materials,low embodied carbon materials, and recycled content materials
20%
Specification and purchasing materials that can easily berecycled
12%
Specification and purchasing of third-party certified wood-based materials and products
25%
Specification and purchasing of low-emitting materials 25%
Preferential specification and purchasing of materials thatdisclose potential health hazards
4%
Preferential specification and purchasing of materials thatdisclose environmental impacts
4%
Other 0%
No 4%
Not applicable 4%
NC6 POINTS: 0/6
Yes 16%
Page 38 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
No 16%
Not applicable 4%
Energy Efficiency
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Energy efficiency requirements
Renewable energy generated on-site
Design for net-zero energy standards
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[63%][63%] (no answer provided)
[33%][33%] No
[4%][4%] Not applicable
NC7 POINTS: 0/3
Yes 25%
No 8%
Not applicable 4%
NC8.1 POINTS: 0/3
Yes 0%
No 37%
NC8.2 POINTS: 0/1
BuildingRequirements
Percentage of Peers
Occupant well-being
Measures implemented
NC9 POINTS: 0.5/0.5 Improvement
Yes 20%
Daylight 12%
Natural ventilation 8%
Occupant controls 8%
Indoor air quality monitoring 16%
Provision of green spaces, non-built areas and social spaces 8%
Other 8%
No 12%
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 39 of 42
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Water efficiency requirements
Extent of requirements
Waste policy
Topics included
Not applicable 4%
NC10 POINTS: 2/2 Improvement
Yes 29%
High-efficiency/dry fixtures 25%
Occupant sensors 20%
Re-use of storm water and grey water for non-potableapplications
0%
On-site waste water treatment 0%
Leak detection system 0%
Drip/smart irrigation 16%
Drought tolerant/low-water landscaping 16%
OtherExample description [NOT ACCEPTED]
4%
No 4%
Not applicable 4%
NC11 POINTS: 1.5/2 Improvement
YesEvidence provided [ACCEPTED]
29%
Waste management plans 25%
Waste reduction, re-use or recycling targets 25%
Contractors' recovering and recycling building materialsincentives
8%
Education waste management techniques 12%
Other 4%
No 8%
Page 40 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC
Supply ChainRequirements
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Percentage of Peers
Sustainability-specific requirements for contractors
PerPercentage of Peerscentage of Peers
[63%][63%] (no answer provided)
[21%][21%] No
[17%][17%] Yes
Monitoring contractors' compliance
Extent of requirements
Occupational health and safety management system
Occupational health and safety indicators
NC12.1 POINTS: 1/1 Improvement
Percentage of portfolio covered: 100%
[ACCEPTED]Evidence provided
NC12.2 POINTS: 1.2/3 Improvement
Yes 20%
Compliance with international standard 4%
On site sustainability resource/staff 0%
Contractor update reports environmental and social aspects 12%
Internal audits 4%
External audits by third party 8%
Weekly/monthly (on-site) meetings and/or ad hoc site visitsProjects visited: 100%
12%
Contractor enforcement of sustainability requirements in sub-contracts
20%
Other 0%
No 8%
Not applicable 8%
NC13.1 POINTS: 0/2.5
Yes 4%
No 33%
NC13.2 POINTS: 0/1
Yes 0%
No 37%
Community Impact NC14 POINTS: 0/1.5
GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC Page 41 of 42
Percentage of Peers
Socio-economic impact on community
Yes 4%
No 33%
Page 42 of 42 GRESB Benchmark Report 2015 for Benchmark Report Example — September 01 2015 23:34 UTC